A couple of weeks before Seattle, the local community TV station asked me on a program that would debate the WTO. Now, I know what talk shows, talking heads, and soundbites, et al. mean, in my head. But I never experienced this live, in person, hence didn't really know. I experienced two others on the panel, one pro, the other anti-WTO. I was supposed to be anti-WTO. Both of the above spoke as talking heads everywhere speak on the tube (in otras palabras while the content of the weekly show is supposed to be radical, the form isn't). Little 8 minute speeches, well-prepared, well-spoken, and entirely analytical in nature. To go to the point, I disagreed with everything both of the birds said. They missed all the ambiguity of life, the acceptance of which is a sign of maturity (Montaigne). Never came close to discussing a contradiction or anomaly. As I said, I have no experience with these things, so started to argue with both, went from the required medium cool 'tude to temper hot, and kind of made fool of myself.
In the next week's Nation, as if God was looking over me, there was Hitchen's column, describing his experiences on panel talk shows, and saying they weren't very good because there was no dialectic going, or allowed. Statements of positions, restatements in defense of one's position, yes. Knowledge, no. I knew this but wasn't aware that I knew it, if you know what I mean.
I feel (California) and think (my Boston/NYC home axis) the same is true for us LBOers. Very rarely do two or more people get a good dialectic going, so good that at the end each person congratulates or thanks the other for their contribution. Yet we're supposed to be in the business of dialectical thinking, not "radical analysis." End of lecture.