Like lambs to the slaughter

Editorial note: If you have not yet read our mission statement above, please do so in order that you can put our blogs in context. 

 

21 November 2012

 

SLAIN AS THEY SLEPT

 

Mohammed al-Khoudry was staring at the rubble of a house where two young children and their father died on Tuesday.

“I’ve really tried to understand the Israelis. I used to work on a farm in Israel. I speak Hebrew. I watch their news. All the time they talk about fear. How they have to run to their bunkers to hide from the rockets. How their children can’t sleep because of the sirens. This is not a good way for them to live,” said Khoudry, who now scrapes a living growing his own produce.

“We Palestinians don’t talk about fear, we talk about death. Our rockets scare them; their rockets kill us. We have no bomb shelters, we have no sirens, we have nowhere we can take our children and keep them safe. They are scared. We are dying.”

The dying continued on Tuesday even as a ceasefire was being negotiated. The victims included Suhaib and Mohammed Hejazi, aged three and four, and their father Fuad, killed when an Israeli missile hit their house in Beit Lahiya as they were sleeping. The boys’ mother, Amna, was badly wounded.

 

The passage above is the start of an article by Chris McGreal published today 21 November 2012 in the London Guardian. It illustrates graphically the imbalance in the impact on Gaza and on Israel of the week-long hostilities between Hamas guerrillas and the Israeli army and navy, during which five Israelis and more than 150 Palestinians have died. Israel launched its attack with the targeted assassination on 14 November 2012 of Hamas military leader Ahmed Jabari. A truce has been announced for 19.00 Greenwich Mean Time today.

 

Antigone1984:

 

Reading the Guardian extract, we ask ourselves: which is worse, the fear of death or death itself?

 

——–

 You might perhaps care to view some of our earlier posts.  For instance:

1. Why? or How? That is the question (3 Jan 2012)

2. Partitocracy v. Democracy (20 July 2012)

3. The shoddiest possible goods at the highest possible prices (2 Feb 2012)

4. Capitalism in practice  (4 July 2012) 

5.Ladder  (21 June 2012)

 6. A tale of two cities (1)  (6 June 2012)

 7. A tale of two cities (2)  (7 June 2012)

 8. Where’s the beef? Ontology and tinned meat (31 Jan 2012)

Every so often we shall change this sample of previously published posts.

——-

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Israel, Military, Palestine | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Homage to Catalonia

Editorial note: If you have not yet read our mission statement above, please do so in order that you can put our blogs in context. 

20 November 2012

ODA A LA PÀTRIA

Adéu-siau turons, adéu-siau per sempre,

Oh serres desiguals, que allí, a la meva pàtria,

Vos distingia de lluny els núvols del cel,

Per al repòs etern, pel color més blau.

Adéu tu, vell Montseny, que des del teu alt palau,

Com un guàrdia vigilant, cobert de boira i neu,

Guaites per un forat la tomba del Jueu,

I la nau mallorquina al mig de l’immens mar.

 

Com pogués conèixer la font dels meus parents,

També coneixia el so de tots els torrents,

Com la veu de la meva mare o el plor dels meus fills.

I després arrencat per perseguidors fats

ja no conec ni sento com en millors vegades;

així d’arbre migrat i a terres apartades

els fruits perden el gust i les flors són perfum.

 

Que val que m’hagi tret una sort enganyosa

a veure de més a prop les torres de Castella,

si la meva orella no sent el cant del trobador,

ni despertar en el meu pit un record generós?

Jo em transporto en ales a un país dolç

I vaig del Llobregat a platja serpentina

Que de cantar fóra en llengua llemosina,

No em queda més plaer, no tinc altre conhort.

 

Em plau encara parlar la llengua d’aquells savis,

Que ompliren l’Univers de llurs costums i lleis,

la llengua d’aquells forts que acataren els reis,

defengueren llurs drets, venjaren llurs agravis.

Mira, mira l’ingrat que, en sonar ens els seus llavis,

per estranya regió l’accent natiu, no plora,

Que en pensar en els seus llars, no és consum ni s’enyora,

Ni cul del mur sagrat la lira dels seus avis!

 

En llemosí sonà el meu primer vagit,

quan del mugró matern bevia la llet dolça;

en llemosí pregava cada dia al Senyor,

i somiava cada nit càntics llemosins.

Si quan em trobo sol, parlo amb el meu esperit,

En llemosí li parla, que no sent una altra llengua,

I ni la meva boca ni la ment saben mentir,

Perquè surten més raons del centre del meu pit.

 

Perquè, per expressar l’efecte més sagrat

Que l’home pugui gravar la mà del cel en el seu cor,

Oh llengua més dolça que la mel dels meus sentits,

Que em tornes les virtuts de la meva edat innocenta.

I, crida pel món que mai el meu cor ingrat

Cesarà  de cantar la glòria del meu patró

I passa per la per la teva veu el seu nom i la seva memòria  

Als propis, als estranys, a la posteritat.

 

This coming Sunday 25 November 2012 the Spanish region of Catalonia will hold elections to the regional parliament, the Generalitat. The elections have been called by the current President of the Generalitat, Artur Mas, to gauge Catalan support for his proposal that, unless the relatively wealthy region of Catalonia gets a better economic deal from the central government in Madrid, paying lower contributions than at present to the central government, Catalonia should secede from Spain. It seemed fitting then, in advance of this historic vote, to publish here in full the most well-known poem in the Catalan language, Oda a la Pàtria (Ode to the Fatherland), the poem that kick-started the Catalan cultural renaissance (Renaixença) when it was published in the daily newspaper, El Vapor, in 1833. The poem was written by Bonaventura Carles Aribau i Farriols (1798-1862), who was also an economist and politician. It was intended to sing the praises of Catalonia but also to offer homage to the poet’s patron, the Catalan banker Gaspar de Remisa (1784-1847). The poem is composed of six octets of alexandrine (iambic hexameter) verse. It incarnates a nostalgia for Catalonia – Aribau, like Remisa, spent a lot of his life in Madrid – and an absolute commitment to the Catalan language. As a result, it represents the poetic epitome of Catalan nationalism.

Unfortunately, at this juncture, we can only supply an English translation of the first, fourth and fifth octets (taken, with modification, from “Barcelona” (1992) by Robert Hughes). Translations of the whole poem that are available on the net, clearly “machine-translated”, are worse than useless.

 ODE TO THE FATHERLAND

“Farewell hills, forever farewell,

O jagged ranges, there in my native land,

ranges that stand out from clouds and distant sky

in their eternal peace, by their deeper shade of blue.

Farewell, ancient Montseny, like a sentinel

on a high rampart, wreathed in fog and hail,

watching, through a crevice, the tomb of the Jew

and the Majorcan fishing-smack in the immense sea.

 

“Let me speak again the tongue of those wise men

who filled the world with their customs and laws,

the tongue of the strong men who served the kings,

defended their rights and avenged their insults.

Beware, beware the ungrateful man who does not weep when his  lips utter his native accent in a far-off country,

who thinks of his origins without pangs of yearning

and who does not take his forefather’s lyre from the holy wall!

 

“My first infant wail was in Catalan

when I sucked the sweet milk from my mother’s nipple;

I prayed to God in Catalan each day

and dreamed Catalan songs every night.

When I find myself alone, I talk with my soul,

it speaks Catalan, it knows no other tongue,

and then my mouth does not lie, or know how to lie,

and my words well up from the centre of my breast.”

——–

 You might perhaps care to view some of our earlier posts.  For instance:

1. Why? or How? That is the question (3 Jan 2012)

2. Partitocracy v. Democracy (20 July 2012)

3. The shoddiest possible goods at the highest possible prices (2 Feb 2012)

4. Capitalism in practice  (4 July 2012) 

5.Ladder  (21 June 2012)

 6. A tale of two cities (1)  (6 June 2012)

 7. A tale of two cities (2)  (7 June 2012)

 8. Where’s the beef? Ontology and tinned meat (31 Jan 2012)

Every so often we shall change this sample of previously published posts.

——-

Posted in Politics, Spain | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Pointless protest

Editorial note: If you have not yet read our mission statement above, please do so in order that you can put our blogs in context. 

19 November 2012

Last Wednesday 14 November 2012, in protest at the deepening recession being imposed throughout Europe by the Eurocrat elites in government, continental trade unions held co-ordinated general strikes in Spain, Italy, Portugal and Greece alongside smaller protests in Germany, France and Belgium and a token demonstration outside the offices of the European Union in London.

The result: sweet fanny adams.

Did the Europe-wide protests have the slightest impact on the determination of European politicians to forge ahead with policies predicated on ever-deepening austerity?

You must be joking!

We’ve been here before.

Western capitalism hit the buffers with the implosion of Lehman Brothers in September 2008. Over four years later, thanks to a batch of reflationary measures that were too limited, the US economy is still limping along. The 17-nation Eurozone,  which, instead of reflating, opted to cure economic meltdown by taking a knife to public spending, is now mired in a double-dip recession.

Since 2008 there have been countless protests against Europe’s austerity programmes – the Occupy Movement, the Indignados, etc – but to no avail. The demos have become a futile ritual. Those taking part have a chance to let off steam but that is as far as it goes. The little dogs bark but the steamroller forges ahead regardless.

One major reason for the protests’ lack of impact is the partitocracy, the alternation in power of two political parties, one on the right and the other supposedly on the left. The problem is that, throughout Europe, the party supposedly on the left has invariably abandoned any of the leftwing characteristics that it may have had at its origin. Europe’s so-called leftwing parties are now simply clones of the rightwing parties. Consequently, since both parties have the same rightwing agenda, then when power changes hands policies remain the same and those policies are the policies of the right, which has always supported austerity for the public sector.

Hence, those protesting against the austerity programmes that partitocratic governments are imposing on their peoples have no representation in their countries’ parliaments. Their views, therefore, are not taken into account.

What should be done in order to make protest effective?

We have two proposals:

1. Those on the left should abandon the traditional leftwing parties that have sold out and should form new political movements to secure parliamentary representation. Trade unions in particular, which are often umbilically linked to the traditional leftwing parties and provide much of their funding, should sever all links with them, supporting instead the new leftwing political movements.

2. Instead of demonstrating pointlessly, the left across Europe should get together to devise more focused, more subtle asymmetrical actions – coordinated and planned but not necessarily publicized in advance and implemented at international as well as national and local levels – in order to put effective pressure on those governments which, turning a blind eye to protest, are forcing austerity down the throats of their helpless populations.

Antigone1984:

Those new to the concept of partitocracy might care to check out our seminal essay on this topic  – “Partitocracy v. Democracy” – a link to which appears in item 2 below this post. The essay demonstrates that western democracy is a façade erected to mislead the gullible. Existing governments, accordingly, lack democratic legitimacy.

——–

 You might perhaps care to view some of our earlier posts.  For instance:

1. Why? or How? That is the question (3 Jan 2012)

2. Partitocracy v. Democracy (20 July 2012)

3. The shoddiest possible goods at the highest possible prices (2 Feb 2012)

4. Capitalism in practice  (4 July 2012) 

5.Ladder  (21 June 2012)

 6. A tale of two cities (1)  (6 June 2012)

 7. A tale of two cities (2)  (7 June 2012)

 8. Where’s the beef? Ontology and tinned meat (31 Jan 2012)

Every so often we shall change this sample of previously published posts.

——-

Posted in Europe, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Salaam = Shalom

Editorial note: If you have not yet read our mission statement above, please do so in order that you can put our blogs in context. 

18 November 2012

 DAVID AND GOLIATH

Below we publish the text of a letter sent to the White House today by Dave Bradney, a retired journalist and former Green Party activist, who lives in west Wales (a subordinate part of the United Kingdom).

“Dear President Obama

 The people who run the State of Israel, and the people who vote them into office, are cruel, heartless bullies.

 

They take away people’s land, cram them into a sh**hole, make sure the rest of the world can’t help effectively, and when some of their victims raise a puny hand in angry protest – as is inevitable and wholly predictable – they joyfully label them as aggressors and stomp all over them. And you give them $3bn-$5bn each year to assist with this.

 

Every few years the Israeli “Defence” Force lays waste to another neighbouring country, and I am sick to the heart with witnessing this again and again. I ask you: for god’s sake (or for God’s sake if you like), when are you going to put a stop to this? It is in your power to do so, and you no longer have anything to lose electorally.

 

That could be the first step in a process of rehabilitating the reputation of the United States in the eyes of the world. Or would you prefer it that everyone continues to hate you?

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Dave Bradney”

Mr Bradney has asked us to point out that his letter “was written as an angry outburst, not as a standard text”.

Readers are free to adapt it, he says, to suit their own points of view. He adds:

“Something snapped in me during the 2006 Lebanon War, at the sight of the IDF systematically pounding and trashing the south of Lebanon for week after week while the rest of the world just sat and watched. I had always prided myself on taking an even-handed view of situations, but I simply fell off the fence on the Palestinian side and I intend never to climb back on. No amount of suffering justifies this type of massively disproportionate behaviour. NB: I am not religious, and I am not a pacifist.”

  

Antigone1984:

 

Mr Bradney is clearly referring to Israel’s ongoing bombardment of the Gaza Strip by land and sea. The Israeli attack on the Palestinian enclave has now lasted for five days. Israel is responding to rockets fired at Israeli towns and settlements by Palestinian militants from Gaza.

According to a BBC report this evening, since Israel launched its “Operation Pillar of Defence” on Wednesday 14 November 2012, the death toll in Gaza has reached 69, including women and children. Palestinian officials say that a number of people are still missing under rubble and that the total of those injured since Wednesday is now 560.

Three Israelis were killed in a rocket attack from Gaza on 15 November 2012. Other Israelis have been injured by  Palestinian missiles, although, given the imbalance between the combatants, the casualty toll in Israel has been far lower than in Gaza.

Despite the massive bombardment, Palestinian militants are fighting back with the continued launch of rockets into Israel.

US President Barack Obama said today that Washington was “fully supportive of Israel’s right to defend itself”.

Echoing his master’s voice, British Foreign Minister William Hague said the Hamas movement which governs Gaza bears “principal responsibility” for the current conflict.

However, the most chilling remark of the day is attributed to Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai. Israel’s Haaretz newspaper quotes him as saying that the goal of the operation is “to send Gaza back to the Middle Ages. Only then will Israel be calm for 40 years”.

Israel has called up 75 000 reservists and its troops have massed at the Gaza border. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told a cabinet meeting today that the Israeli Defence Force was “prepared for a significant expansion of the operation”. This is taken to be the threat of an invasion of Gaza by land.

Antigone1984 fully endorses Mr Bradney’s comments.

We would also like to make the following points:

1. There are a number of free-wheeling jihadi groups, beyond the control of Hamas, that have been attacking Israel from Gaza for some time. At this point in time, it is not clear to outside observers which of these groups are responsible for launching the current barrage of rockets into Israel. Hence,  the attempt by Washington’s poodle, UK Foreign Secretary William Hague, to place the main blame for the current escalation of hostilities on Hamas cannot be substantiated. Reports from Gaza have suggested – correctly or otherwise – that, in the past few years, Hamas has been at the forefront of attempts to rein in the less disciplined elements in the other jihadi groups. What is not in doubt, in any case, is that the attacks on Israeli from Gaza have escalated exponentially, as might have been expected, in retaliation for the Israeli bombardment.

2. What we are witnessing now is an attack by the Goliath of Israel – a nuclear-armed power back to the hilt by the United States and its biddable satellites – on the David of Gaza – a dirt-poor virtually defenceless Third World bantustan. Israeli’s reaction to the provocation from largely makeshift rockets launched from Gaza is wholly disproportionate.  This does not mean that we think the Palestinians have a right to launch rockets willy-nilly into Israel. We do not.

3.  Hardly surprisingly, given their form, the United States and its acolytes have responded to the flare-up with a knee-jerk apologia for the Israeli action. Many liberals throughout the world still cling, against all the evidence, to the naïve belief that somehow Obama is a good guy doing his best to sort out intractable problems in the interests of what is right and what is fair. Harvard dissident Noam Chomsky got the measure of Obama early on in his first presidency. “He’s worse than [George W.] Bush,” he told a TV interviewer. Peace in the Middle East is dependent on a resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Yet until the United States and its pawns adopt a more evenly balanced position between the two sides, hostilities will continue indefinitely. Israel has repeatedly used overwhelming force against its enemies in the region and where has this got it? It is no safer today than it was in 1948. “Give peace a chance” is a suggestion that the Israeli cabinet would do well to ponder instead of threatening to stoke the fires further with a land invasion of Gaza.

4. With the emergence of the Arab Spring and the destooling of a number of dictatorial Arab governments in hock to Israel, the political die is now loaded marginally more favourably than in the past in the direction of the Palestinians. The big question is how the Muslim Brotherhood President of Egypt, Mohamed Morsi, will react to the Israeli bombardment of his fellow co-religionists in Hamas, who are also members of the Brotherhood. Will he walk the walk as well as talk the talk or will he turn out to be all sizzle and no beef, like most of his predecessors?

5. We have another thought. There is no love lost between Hamas, whose writ rules in Gaza, and Mahmoud Abbas, chairman of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, whose Fatah movement controls the West Bank. In the past, Abbas has shown himself to be much more willing to accommodate Israeli and American interests than his counterparts in Gaza. Could the current Israeli action be intended to take out the Hamas leadership, thus paving the way for a takeover of Gaza by Fatah?

6. The facts on the ground are changing as we write. Let us hope against hope that better counsels will prevail and that we shall soon see the day when “salaam” and “shalom” mean the same thing.

 ——–

 You might perhaps care to view some of our earlier posts.  For instance:

1. Why? or How? That is the question (3 Jan 2012)

2. Partitocracy v. Democracy (20 July 2012)

3. The shoddiest possible goods at the highest possible prices (2 Feb 2012)

4. Capitalism in practice  (4 July 2012) 

5.Ladder  (21 June 2012)

 6. A tale of two cities (1)  (6 June 2012)

 7. A tale of two cities (2)  (7 June 2012)

 8. Where’s the beef? Ontology and tinned meat (31 Jan 2012)

Every so often we shall change this sample of previously published posts.

——-

Posted in Egypt, Israel, Lebanon, Politics, UK, USA | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

De senectute

Editorial note: If you have not yet read our mission statement above, please do so in order that you can put our blogs in context. 

17 November 2012

THE OLD WOMAN

As a white candle

In a holy place,

So is the beauty

Of an agèd face.

 

As the spent radiance

Of the winter sun,

So is a woman

With her travail done,

 

Her brood gone from her,

And her thoughts as still

As the waters under

A ruined mill.

Joseph Campbell (1879-1944), Belfast-born Irish poet, man of letters and Irish nationalist, who also wrote under the Irish version of his name, Seosamh  MacCathmhaoil.

——–

 You might perhaps care to view some of our earlier posts.  For instance:

1. Why? or How? That is the question (3 Jan 2012)

2. Partitocracy v. Democracy (20 July 2012)

3. The shoddiest possible goods at the highest possible prices (2 Feb 2012)

4. Capitalism in practice  (4 July 2012) 

5.Ladder  (21 June 2012)

 6. A tale of two cities (1)  (6 June 2012)

 7. A tale of two cities (2)  (7 June 2012)

 8. Where’s the beef? Ontology and tinned meat (31 Jan 2012)

Every so often we shall change this sample of previously published posts.

——-

Posted in Ireland, Literature | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

De amicitia

Editorial note: If you have not yet read our mission statement above, please do so in order that you can put our blogs in context. 

16 November 2012

TWO FRIENDS

“Quand je connus Mme de Montmorency, elle aima à me dire des choses désagréables, mais si j’avais besoin d’un service, elle jetait pour l’obtenir avec efficacité tout ce qu’elle possédait de credit, sans rien ménager. Tandis que telle autre, comme Mme de Guermantes, n’eût jamais voulu me faire de peine, ne disait de moi que ce qui pouvait me faire plaisir, me comblait de toutes les amabilités qui formaient le riche train de vie moral des Guermantes, mais si je lui avais demandé un rien en dehors de cela n’eût pas fait un pas pour me le procurer…Laquelle était pour moi la véritable amie, de Mme de Montmorency, si heureuse de me froisser et toujours prête à me servir, ou de Mme de Guermantes, souffrant du moindre déplaisir qu’on m’eût causé et incapable du moindre effort pour m’être utile?”

Extract from the roman fleuve “À la recherché du temps perdu” (published from 1913 to 1927) by Marcel Proust (1971-1922). The passage is taken from page 1182 of the single-volume quarto edition published by Gallimard in 1999.  The English translation below is by C. K. Scott Moncrieff.

“When I knew Mme de Montmorency, she loved to say unpleasant things to me, but if I was in need of a service she would squander, in the hope of obtaining it for me effectively, all the credit at her disposal, without counting the cost. Whereas some other woman, Mme de Guermantes for example, would never have wished to hurt my feelings, never said anything about me except what might give me pleasure, showered on me all those tokens of friendship which formed the rich manner of living, morally, of the Guermantes, but, had I asked her for the least thing above and beyond that, would not have moved an inch to procure it for me….Which was for me the true friend, Mme de Montmorency, so glad always to annoy me and always so ready to oblige, or Mme de Guermantes, distressed by the slightest offence that might have been given me and incapable of the slightest effort to be of use to me?”

Antigone1984:

Editorial note: (1) We have slightly expanded the conclusion of our final comment in last night’s post “Coining it” and (2) as promised, we have now appended an English translation to the stanzas by Jorge Manrique cited in our post “Et alors?” dated 6 November 2012 but published the next day.

 ——–

 You might perhaps care to view some of our earlier posts.  For instance:

1. Why? or How? That is the question (3 Jan 2012)

2. Partitocracy v. Democracy (20 July 2012)

3. The shoddiest possible goods at the highest possible prices (2 Feb 2012)

4. Capitalism in practice  (4 July 2012) 

5.Ladder  (21 June 2012)

 6. A tale of two cities (1)  (6 June 2012)

 7. A tale of two cities (2)  (7 June 2012)

 8. Where’s the beef? Ontology and tinned meat (31 Jan 2012)

Every so often we shall change this sample of previously published posts.

——-

Posted in France, Literature | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Coining it

Editorial note: If you have not yet read our mission statement above, please do so in order that you can put our blogs in context. 

15 November 2012

There’s a bit of a stink in Britain at the moment over giant multinationals that do extensive business in the country but pay peanuts by way of tax.

Responding to public outrage fanned by extensive media coverage, the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons invited three of the principal culprits  – Amazon, Starbucks and Google – to appear before it and explain themselves.

Executives from the three companies were accordingly grilled by the committee last Monday 12 November 2012.

They paraded a variety of excuses.

When UK customers of Amazon place their orders on a UK website, the goods are generally shipped to them from Amazon warehouses in the UK, but the company pays tax in Luxembourg – at a more favourable rate than it would have incurred in the UK.

Starbucks, which is reported to have 800 outlets in the UK and a staff of 7 000, had a different story to tell: it rarely makes a profit in Britain, which is why it pays very little UK tax.

The committee was puzzled, however, as to how the company could afford to keep trading while rarely turning in a profit.  Such a state of affairs seems to run somewhat counter to the normal business model.

The committee did not appear to receive an answer to that question. But parliamentary sketch writer Simon Hoggart of the London Guardian had a theory: Starbucks is actually a charity!

“With one exception they [Starbucks] had made a loss for 15 years,” wrote Hoggart in his sketch on 13 November. “Year after year, the business failed. Yet somehow it survived, and the UK boss was even promoted!”

Google played a straight bat: the company sought out legal avenues to reduce its tax bill. According a report of the committee meeting in the Guardian, the company avoids UK tax by channelling non-US sales via Ireland, which has a less punitive tax regime than Britain. The company also apparently diverts some of its profits through the tax haven of Bermuda.

Commenting on Google’s defence, committee chair Margaret Hodge said: “We’re not accusing you of being illegal. We are accusing you of being immoral.”

The committee will produce a report in due course. It will then be up to the government to decide what, if anything, to do.

Antigone1984:

The committee was evidently not happy that all three companies did considerable business in Britain but paid relatively little UK tax. The excuse offered by Starbucks in particular – that they rarely made a profit in Britain – was greeted with some scepticism.

Google, however, made a good point, in our view. No business  – or individual taxpayer, for that matter – is obliged to pay more tax than is required by the law of the land.

Hodge’s claim that Google was behaving immorally is irrelevant, in our view. Companies are in business to make the maximum profit possible within the constraints of the law. Morality does not come into it. Companies are not churches. Morality may fittingly be preached from a pulpit. It has no place, as things are, in the boardroom. Governments may, rightly, take the view that certain business activities are immoral. But then they must legislate to outlaw those activities. Until that time, businesses will understandably  continue do the one thing that they were set up to do, namely to exploit all the opportunities legally available to them to make as much money as possible. Like it or not, that currently includes having recourse to creative accounting and aggressive tax avoidance. Long-time readers of this blog will know that Antigone1984 favours an economic model at the opposite extreme to the free market. In such a model the concept of morality would certainly bulk large. However, any move in that direction would have to be introduced politically. It is totally unrealistic to imagine that an alternative model involving such radical change could emerge naturally out of market-based economic systems or organisations. Turkeys do not vote for Christmas. Hence, it is meaningless for Hodge condemn legal tax avoidance as “immoral”. It should also be borne in mind that Hodge is a senior figure in the British Labour Party, which functions these days as a clone of the ruling Tory Party and which is no less committed than that party to the jungle of the market economy. Thus, Hodge’s own party has cast its lot firmly in favour of an economic model in which moral behaviour has no place.

——–

 You might perhaps care to view some of our earlier posts.  For instance:

1. Why? or How? That is the question (3 Jan 2012)

2. Partitocracy v. Democracy (20 July 2012)

3. The shoddiest possible goods at the highest possible prices (2 Feb 2012)

4. Capitalism in practice  (4 July 2012) 

5.Ladder  (21 June 2012)

 6. A tale of two cities (1)  (6 June 2012)

 7. A tale of two cities (2)  (7 June 2012)

 8. Where’s the beef? Ontology and tinned meat (31 Jan 2012)

Every so often we shall change this sample of previously published posts.

——-

Posted in Economics, UK, USA | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Travelling Toms

Editorial note: If you have not yet read our mission statement above, please do so in order that you can put our blogs in context. 

14 November 2012

This is the time of year, in the west at least, when the travel supplements in the weekend newspapers pullulate with advertisements for skiing holidays.  Come the New Year and the end of the Christmas festivities, they will be hard at it again, this time with what they imagine are enticing invitations to book up for spring and summer vacations in exotic locations you would be hard put to locate on a map.

What about this idea for size then?

Tourism is simply cultural voyeurism, travel writing  the soft porn that kindles it.

The following passage is from an article [author unknown] on the modernization of infrastructure promoted in West Africa by F.D. Lugard, when he was Britain’s Governor-General in Nigeria from 1914 to 1919:

“The life of a villager there [in Nigeria], centred on a group of huts in a small round clearing, was physically shut in to a degree unknown in Europe. Moreover, the constriction was permanent, varying not at all with the seasons. There was the forest, impenetrable to the eye, fifty or a hundred feet tall, on every side of him. His only means of movement were the tracks, two or three feet wide, that led to the next villages. The building of a European road transformed his life. It opened up a vision of hills to the north, hitherto quite unknown to him though only a few miles away.”

You will notice that only men lived in these villages, but let that pass. The road may have transformed his life, but was it for the better?

The ancient Chinese philosophers also had a go at this topic. Here, in the translation by Arthur Waley, is chapter 80 of the 道德經 Dao De Jing (also transliterated as Tao Te Ching) “The Classic of the Way and its Power”, which was written around 250BC:

“Given a small country with few inhabitants, he [the Daoist Sage] could bring it about that though there should be among the people contrivances requiring ten times, a hundred times less labour, they would not use them. He could bring it about that the people would be ready to lay down their lives and lay them down again in defence of their homes, rather than emigrate. There might still be boats and carriages, but no one would go in them; there might still be weapons of war but no one would drill with them. He could bring it about that ‘the people should have no use for any form of writing save knotted ropes, should be contented with their food, pleased with their clothing, satisfied with their homes, should take pleasure in their rustic tasks. The next place might be so near at hand that one could hear the cocks crowing in it, the dogs barking; but the people would grow old without ever having been there’.”

Alienation from one’s work, the lack of job satisfaction, the daily grind at mind-numbing tasks just to keep the wolf from the door – it is as a result of this that, during two or three weeks of annual liberation from the monotony of factory or office, people today desperately hanker after faraway destinations, theme parks, Disney Lands, the Club Med, Las Vegas, the Costas, all of them unreal fantasy worlds remote from the dreary routine of everyday life.

According to another passage, from Chapter 47 of the Dao De Jing, “the further one travels, the less one knows”.

——–

 You might perhaps care to view some of our earlier posts.  For instance:

1. Why? or How? That is the question (3 Jan 2012)

2. Partitocracy v. Democracy (20 July 2012)

3. The shoddiest possible goods at the highest possible prices (2 Feb 2012)

4. Capitalism in practice  (4 July 2012) 

5.Ladder  (21 June 2012)

 6. A tale of two cities (1)  (6 June 2012)

 7. A tale of two cities (2)  (7 June 2012)

 8. Where’s the beef? Ontology and tinned meat (31 Jan 2012)

Every so often we shall change this sample of previously published posts.

——-

Posted in China, UK | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

UK repudiates Magna Carta

Editorial note: If you have not yet read our mission statement above, please do so in order that you can put our blogs in context. 

13 November 2012

Britain’s most high-profile political prisoner, Muslim cleric Abu Qatada, has been released on bail from prison on court orders after a UK judge blocked a long-standing UK Government bid to deport him to Jordan to face terrorism charges.

The judge, Mr Justice Mitting, chairman of the UK’s Special Immigration Appeals Commission, doubted whether Abu Qatada would get a fair trial in Jordan. Specifically, the commission ruled that evidence obtained from witnesses under torture might be used against him if he were tried in Jordan.

Mr Qatada has spent most of the last ten years in custody in the UK without being charged with any offence.

This is a violation of the founding charter of English liberties, the Magna Carta of 1215, which provides that no one suspected of an offence can be deprived of their liberty sine die without being charged in court and tried before a judge.

In a report today in  the London Guardian’s website, Abu Qatada’s solicitor, Gareth Peirce, welcomed the ruling, saying: “It is important to reaffirm this country’s position that we abhor the use of torture and a case that was predicated upon evidence from witnesses who have been tortured is rejected – rejected by the courts of this country as by the European Court of Human Rights,” she said.

On the question of why Abu Qatada had never been prosecuted in the UK, Liberal Democrat barrister Lord Kenneth Macdonald, who was director of public prosecutions from 2003 to 2008, is quoted by the BBC today as saying that he had never been shown any evidence to support a criminal prosecution.

Abu Qatada faces a retrial in Jordan for allegedly conspiring to cause explosions on Western and Israeli targets in 1998 and 1999. He was found guilty of terrorism offences in his absence in Jordan in 1999. However, doubts have been expressed as to the fairness of that trial and the quality and nature of the evidence presented.

The court’s decision to block Mr Qatada’s deportation and release him on bail has united the UK’s political elite in a frenzy of condemnation.

The government has reportedly decided to appeal the decision in the Court of Appeal but the ensuing litigation could last years before a final court ruling is delivered.

According to the BBC, UK Tory Prime Minister David Cameron said: ““I am completely fed up with the fact that this man is still at large in our country.”

A spokesman for Cameron said that the Jordan Government had given assurances that Mr Qatada would receive a fair trial. It had even changed its constitution to that end.

Speaking in the House of Commons after Abu Qatada’s release, Tory Justice Secretary Chris Grayling reportedly said: “I do not believe it was ever the intention of those who created the human rights framework that we are currently subject to, that people who have an avowed intent to damage this country should be able to use human rights laws to prevent their deportation back to their country of origin.”

The UK Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, a Liberal Democrat, is quoted as saying on an ITV television programme: “He should not be in this country, he is a dangerous person. He wanted to inflict harm on our country.” According to the London Guardian, Clegg said the government remained “absolutely determined” to secure Abu Qatada’s deportation.

According to the BBC, the opposition Labour Party’s interior ministry spokesperson Yvette Cooper commented that people would be “horrified that Abu Qatada is now out on Britain’s streets rather than on a plane”.

The bail conditions imposed by Mr Justice Mitting on Abu Qatada include: being allowed out of his London home only between 8am and 4pm; having to wear an electronic tag; and being subject to restrictions in respect of the people he meets.

Antigone1984:

There are a number of points to make here:

1. Mr Qatada has not been charged with any offence in Britain.

2. No evidence has been produced to substantiate the claim that Abu Qatada is “a dangerous person”.

3. In democratic countries governed by the rule of law, people are by definition free go about their daily lives without fear of arbitrary arrest or imprisonment. Criminal charges must be tested at a public trial in a court of law. If Abu Qatada is suspected of having broken UK law, then he should be put on trial. However, it appears that there is no evidence upon which to base a charge against him. In which case, it seems to us, he should cease to be harassed by the UK authorities.

4. Antigone1984 forbears from making any comment as to whether Abu Qatada has committed a criminal offence or not. We do not know. However, we do know that he has not been charged with a criminal offence in the United Kingdom. Why then has he languished in a UK prison for most of the past ten years?

5.  Senior politicians from all of Britain’s political parties have been working flat out to feed unsubstantiated allegations about Abu Qatada to the UK gutter press, which is only too keen to to whip up a lynch-mob mentality against him among the general public.

6. It seems that Abu Qatada does not normally wear a tie or a double-breasted suit. He is usually pictured with a dishevelled beard. He does not look like a company director or an investment banker. Unfortunately for him, he is a Muslim cleric who, in appearance, more than conforms to the stereotype of what many westerners think a Muslim fanatic must look like.  Thus, at a time when Britain understandably fears a backlash as a result of its military occupation of Muslim countries in the Middle East and Central Asia, Abu Qatada is the perfect scapegoat for anti-Muslim prejudice, particularly prejudice against Muslims who have the cheek to take umbrage at the western invasion of lands inhabited by their co-religionists.

7. Jordan is not a country world-famous for democratic freedoms, the independence of its legal system or its respect for human rights.

Readers interested in checking out this story in greater detail should consult our earlier posts on the subject:

A. “From Magna Carta to Abu Qatada”  (8 February 2012)

B. “Lynch mob” (9 February 2012)

C. “Fair Play Flouted” (14 February 2012)

D. “UK seeks torture ‘assurances’ from Jordan” (5 March 2012)

 

——–

 You might perhaps care to view some of our earlier posts.  For instance:

1. Why? or How? That is the question (3 Jan 2012)

2. Partitocracy v. Democracy (20 July 2012)

3. The shoddiest possible goods at the highest possible prices (2 Feb 2012)

4. Capitalism in practice  (4 July 2012) 

5.Ladder  (21 June 2012)

 6. A tale of two cities (1)  (6 June 2012)

 7. A tale of two cities (2)  (7 June 2012)

 8. Where’s the beef? Ontology and tinned meat (31 Jan 2012)

Every so often we shall change this sample of previously published posts.

——-

Posted in Jordan, Justice, UK | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Kiboshed for the wrong reason

Editorial note: If you have not yet read our mission statement above, please do so in order that you can put our blogs in context. 

Paris, 12 November 2012

BYE, BYE, MISS AMERICAN PIE

US Central Intelligence Agency director David Petraeus has just fallen on his sword – courtesy of an affair with his biographer Paula Broadwell.

In most countries – take France, for instance – a private liaison of this kind bereft, it would appear, of any national security implications – would not even merit a one-sentence paragraph on the inside pages of a national newspaper.

In the US, however, it is big news.

That is because, while the rest of us have moved on, the United States remains bogged down in the Puritanism imported by the Pilgrim Fathers in 1620.

Petraeus – known as “Betray Us” to his critics – just had to go. Married for 38 years, Petraeus and his wife Holly had been a model military couple up to now, demonstrating, it appeared, that a happy family life was not incompatible with the strains of long separations as a result of military deployment.

It was with a heavy heart, therefore, that the US media covered the defenestration of this all-American hero.

Born 1952 in Cornwall-on-Hudson in New York State,  Petraeus, spent a total of 37 years in the US Army. A four-star general, he was in charge of the western occupation force in Iraq from 2007 to 2008. As supreme commander from 2010 to 2011 of the western troops occupying Afghanistan, he persuaded President Obama to authorize the deployment of an extra 30 000 US troops to that theatre. This was the famous “surge” in troop numbers. Petraeus then headed the CIA from September 2011 until he resigned last Friday 9 November 2012.

Petraeus graduated from the US Military Academy at West Point, New York State, in 1974. He was top graduate in the class of 1983 at the US Army Command and General Staff College. In 1987 he gained a doctorate in international relations at Princeton University, New Jersey, subsequently becoming assistant professor of international relations at West Point and also completing a fellowship at Georgetown University, a Catholic institution, in Washington D.C.

As a result of his academic prowess, Petraeus was often held up by defence apologists as a living refutation of the dictum that “military intelligence is a contradiction in terms”.

However, another adage came into play last Friday: “The bigger they are, the harder they fall.”

A report in the International Herald Tribune today 12 November 2012 comments: “Few imagined that such a dazzling career would have so tawdry and so sudden a collapse.”

The paper quotes Bruce Riedel, a CIA veteran and presidential adviser, as saying: “It’s a personal tragedy, of course, but it’s also a tragedy for the country.”

Jack Keane, a former vice chief of staff of the army, called the resignation “an absolute tragedy for somebody who has accomplished so much for this country and made such an enormous sacrifice”.

However, the prize for the most cringe-makingly obsequious elegy on the downfall of this military demi-god must surely go to BBC journalist John Simpson.

Writing on the BBC’s website on 10 November 2012 under the heading “General David Petraeus: a huge loss for US”, Simpson  comments:

The US has lost one of its most admired public servants – the man who came up with the plan which successfully got his country out of one unpopular war, and will get it out of another by 2014.

 

General David Petraeus took a remarkable amount of experience with him when he went to be the new head of the CIA just over a year ago.

 

He had commanded the international forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and was probably the cleverest and the most highly-praised soldier of his time.

 

General Petraeus certainly had more experience of combating terrorism in its different guises than any other military or civilian figure in the Western world.

 

He rebuilt the entire counterinsurgency strategy of the United States, which had been almost a forgotten subject since the Vietnam war, and created a highly effective blueprint for fighting insurgencies.

 

For this amount of brain-power and strategic and tactical thinking to be lost to the United States because of an affair with his biographer will no doubt seem to many in Europe and the rest of the world to be completely disproportionate.

 

But this is not simply another example of the kind of Puritanism which bemuses non-Americans. As the boss of the CIA David Petraeus was expected to set an example to the people under his command;

and extra-marital affairs have often led to blackmail and other difficulties for intelligence workers in the past…..

 

As I found over the years, both in Iraq and Afghanistan, General Petraeus is a very pleasant and witty man, as well as a highly intelligent one.

 

His toughness, perhaps even cynicism, served him well in Baghdad and Kabul as well as Washington.

 

When the American forces were becoming badly bogged down in Iraq, with faulty tactics, nothing much in the way of strategy, and visibly declining morale, Petraeus stepped in and changed everything.

 

“Of course it’s possible to win this war,” he told me crisply in 2007, “and I intend to do it.”

 

Whether the United States and its partners did win the war in Iraq is debatable; but it is certain that General Petraeus gave American public opinion the feeling that they had.

 

In politics, and to some extent in military matters, what counts is the way things are perceived, rather than how they actually are.

 

General Petraeus introduced the concept of the “surge” – a big rise in the number of US troops in Iraq.

 

This, combined with the increasing war-weariness among Iraqis, a growing dislike of Islamic extremism and a natural down-turn in the insurgency, made Iraq a quieter place for a time.

 

He knew very well that once American forces were withdrawn from Iraq, the US news media would no longer be interested in what was going on there.

 

There was of course no end to the bombings and targeted killings after the Western troops pulled out, but scarcely anyone in the United States seemed to notice.

As far as they were concerned, Iraq had been solved….

 

Soon, under a new president, he was reversioning the plan to fit Afghanistan instead of Iraq….

 

When American, British and other Western troops are withdrawn from Afghanistan next year, it will be according to the basic plan drawn up by General Petraeus.

 

And once more the world’s news media will no doubt forget about the country that has been left behind.

 

He was the best American general for a generation; now he is the worst loss to his country for longer than that.

 

Antigone1984:

 

We have quoted at length from John Simpson’s panegyric because his comments are the most egregious example we have come across in recent times of the distortion and lack of discrimination that mars judgement when journalists become too intimate with the persons about whom they are writing. We do not feel any need to refute his remarks in detail as they refute themselves.

 

Our own view of the undoing of Petraeus is rather different from that of Simpson. But then we do not labour under the disadvantage of close acquaintance with the fallen CIA director.

 

The Iraq War lasted from the invasion by US and UK forces without UN authority on 20 March 2003 until 18 December 2011, when the last soldiers in the US army of occupation retreated to Kuwait, America having been refused permission to retain military bases in Iraq. Following the retreat of western forces, the bombings and slaughter in Iraq have continued unabated. What is more, the Iraqi Government, created by the Americans themselves during the occupation, has fallen under the influence of Shiite Iran, the current number one enemy of the United States. An estimated 600 000 people, mostly Iraqis, died during the war.

 

The Afghan War started when the US invaded the country on 7 October 2001. Despite the “surge” in troop numbers advocated by Petraeus, the war has achieved nothing. The designated enemy, the Taliban, are stronger than ever. The puppet government of Afghanistan is chafing under the boot of a western occupation which it constantly criticizes. Corruption is rife. Opium production is the country’s main industry. Suicide bombings and gunfights rock the capital daily. No road outside Kabul is safe from attack. Meanwhile, troops from the allied invading forces are being picked off, one by one, day after day, in a non-stop conflict that was doomed from the start. To cap it all, although the fighting is still going on with no sign of a let-up, the date for the final western retreat has already been announced – the end of 2014. By that time the western occupation forces hope to have trained a native Afghan army that will be able to defend its own country. Dream on! The training programme itself has undergone a severe setback as a result of the suspension of joint exercises involving western and Afghan soldiers. The reason is a significant spike in the number of western troops being murdered by Taliban who have infiltrated the Afghan army in considerable numbers. It is scarcely credible that such an army will be in a position to take over from the west in 2014. The date for the retreat has been fixed because, after eleven years, the penny has finally dropped and the US president now recognizes that the original aim of turning Afghanistan into a fully functioning western democracy will never be attained. Nor has America the resources to continue funding an open-ended war in Afghanistan.

 

Hardly anyone now thinks that the Iraq and Afghan expeditions are anything other than a total failure.

 

David Petraeus was intimately identified with those campaigns.

 

It is for this reason – not because of his extra-marital affair – that we are glad to see the back of him.

Good riddance!

——–

 You might perhaps care to view some of our earlier posts.  For instance:

1. Why? or How? That is the question (3 Jan 2012)

2. Partitocracy v. Democracy (20 July 2012)

3. The shoddiest possible goods at the highest possible prices (2 Feb 2012)

4. Capitalism in practice  (4 July 2012) 

5.Ladder  (21 June 2012)

 6. A tale of two cities (1)  (6 June 2012)

 7. A tale of two cities (2)  (7 June 2012)

 8. Where’s the beef? Ontology and tinned meat (31 Jan 2012)

Every so often we shall change this sample of previously published posts.

——-

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Afghanistan, France, Iraq, Military, USA | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment