A Wake up Call

I’ve just recently finished reading US economist Charles Wheelan’s Naked Economics. The book is intended as an introduction to mainstream economics, and does indeed provide a clear and understandable entry into the so called ‘dismal science’, explaining the supposed purpose of various American, and World financial institutions along the way. Wheelan, himself, is very obviously heavily biased in favour of free market economics. Fair enough, as far as I can tell, he doesn’t try to hide his sympathies to try to pretend to be objective, and personally, it’s been interesting to see things from a different perspective (I’ve been getting most of my info on global economics from left leaning sources up till now).

But, a few days after I’d finished NE, the story broke that the UK had just come bottom in a UNICEF poll that charted the well-being of children in the top 21 industrialised countries. Number 21 was the UK, and 20 was the USA. The top three countries, incidently, were the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark. Now this was interesting because of what I’d just read. To quote Wheelan:

‘The market economies of the developed world lie along a continuum, with America at one end and the relavtively paternalistic European economies such as France and Sweden, at the other. Europe offers the kinder, gentler version of a market economy — at some cost. In general the European nations are more protective of workers and have a more substantial safety net. Generous benefits are mandated by law; healthcare is a birthright. This leads to a more compassionate society in many ways. European poverty rates, particularly for children, are far lower than those in the United States. Income inequality is lower, too.

‘It also leads to higher unemployment and a slower rate of innovation and job creation…Meanwhile, generous unemployment and welfare benefits make workers slower to take jobs that might be offered.’

I don’t know, but I question having the benefits of having higher growth and lower unemployment when our children exist in such a miserable state. I mean, it’s not like children have much of a free choice in whether they stay in poverty or not, or whether they have stable family circumstances or not. Indeed, I’ll be even more forthright, I think that how a society treats its children makes for a pretty good measure of how civilised that society has a right to call itself. So the thought of sacrificing our children’s wellbeing at the altar of the free-market sort of disturbs me.

Of course the response from conservative commentators to the UNICEF statistics has been to decry the influence of liberalism and falling moral standards. Basically, they claim that society’s been rapidly deteriorating ever since the 60s gave everyone permission to sleep around, take drugs, and to openly show disrespect towards authority. Now that argument would be a lot more plausible if the Netherlands HADN’T TOPPED THE POLL.

It’s all very easy to blame the liberals, and socialism for the breakdown of society — but only if you carefully ignore the disastrous effects of Thatcherism (wonder if you can tell me, who it was who said that there was no such thing as society?), and the selfish individualism that widespread adherence to free market economics and the elevation of consumerism breeds. It’s that extremely selective reading of the effects that giving big business a free reign (something supported by practically all of those on the right) has on society — in favour of an analysis grounded on the assumption that curbing the individual’s freedoms is the way forward — that nauseates me about those moaning ninnies who’re all too quick to chastise and blame “liberals” or “progressives” but then acclaim Thatcher as the greatest post-War Prime Minister.

I mean, the commodification of sexuality, the highly sophisticated targeting of children by advertisers and program makers that exploits peer pressure as well as practically encouraging insolence amongst the young, the obsession with brands and logos, the overwhelming work culture that leaves parents little time with their children and pitifully little in the way of work life balance, the encouragement of greed and one-upmanship — all of these trends result from the corporatisation of society and all of these are contributing towards damaging society.

I’m going to watch Loose Change…

…I may be some time (well, about 1 hr 20 minutes)…

Howard Jacobson and the IJV

Reading Howard Jacobson’s piece on theIndependent Jewish Voices in Saturday’s Indy, I was struck by the thought that the IJV weren’t just asserting themselves against the consensus amongst the mainstream Jewish community on I/P, but, in fact, also against the prevailing view within mainstream Media and commentary. For example, check out the following excerpt from Jacobson’s piece:

The idea of a national home is intrinsic to Judaism and dear to many traditional Jews, so it would be surprising if there were no expressions of alarm when that home appears to be in jeopardy. Hence the rally convened last summer when the war with Hizbollah was raging. Hence the Chief Rabbi’s affirmation of solidarity and pride.

Though they believe in a broad spectrum of opinion, the IJV does not believe in pro-Israel rallies. I let the question linger whether they would approve a rally calling for the destruction of the Zionist Entity and chanting “We are all Hizbollah”. As for expressing “pride” in Israel, you might as soon drop a nuclear bomb on a schoolyard. Professor Susie Orbach fesses up, the rather – for there is something of the confessional about all this – to being “ashamed” of Israel, and fellow signatory Sir Geoffrey Bindman to being “disgusted and appalled”. I see why the IJV might find the Chief Rabbi’s “pride” too uncritically familial, but they must see that their “shame” is nothing but its obverse. Too close, too psychologically on the line, too much about shedding embarrassing allegiances – too much about them – to be trusted.

Myself I don’t recall being proud or ashamed last summer. As the pictures of the carnage and confusion were relayed to us, and charges of provocation were pitted against charges of disproportion, I took my guidance from the Israeli writers Amos Oz and David Grossman*, neither of whom is uncritical of Israel and its military, but both of whom, whatever they thought of the conduct of the war as it unfolded – tragically for Grossman – understood its necessity, arguing persuasively from the first day that Israel had a right to defend its northern borders.

The example of Chief Rabbi Sacks’ “affirmation” of pride and solidarity with Israel at a time when it was committing foul acts of terrorism against Lebanese civilians was central to Brian Klug’s piece in the Guardian in which he gave his arguments for the necessity of an organisation like the IJV.

Yet Jacobson recycles the same old trite garbage about Israel’s being in jeopardy from Hezbollah, setting aside accusations of disproportionality to emphasise the importance of Israel acting to protect itself from the villainous attacks emanating from South Lebanon — of course, at the same time, blithely ignoring that Israel was actively targeting civilians and the civilian infrastructure of Lebanon, as part of a program of terrorism intended to force the native population to reject Hezbollah — all in complete and flagrant violation of international law, as is Israel’s prerogative.

The deaths of hundreds of Lebanese civilians, the probable future deaths of many more thanks to the laying of thousands of cluster bombs (including disgustingly just before the cessation of hostilities was due to take place), as well as the maiming of many others, let alone the whole-scale destruction of much of Lebanon — all in order to bludgeon the civilian population into submission — none of these provoked any kind of strong reaction in Mr Jacobson. Of course Israel had a right to defend its Northern borders, but it had no right to take the barbaric and bloody measures it actually went on to inflict. A “subtle” point that Jacobson fails to grasp.

Those defending Rabbi Sacks actions urge the rest of us to take into consideration the fact that many British Jews have family in Israel who were under bombardment and at risk of their lives. But surely, those taking this tack, and beseeching compassion from the rest of us, clearly feel next to no compassion, no empathy with the thousands of Lebanese who were suffering the merciless wrath of the Israeli army (with weapons supplied by the Americans through the British intermediary)?

I mean, it is patently self-evident is it not, that the BoD organising a Pride and Solidarity event with Israel during the peak of its terrorism sent out an implicit message of support of, and association with, Israel’s particular terrorist actions — and this is extremely important to emphasise — its targeting of Lebanese civilians and not just with the state of Israel itself. But to return to the point I was making above, the assumptions that underlie Jacobson’s article are common currency in the mainstream media’s coverage of Lebanon, and echo the views of the political establishment, both Labour and Tory. So if the ijv are to make any kind of headway, and if they want to challenge the accusations that Jacobson and others are levelling against the ijv, of being naive, pathological Israel hating lefties, blind to the subtleties of realpolitik, they have to confront the views held not only by the Jewish community, but also the wider community.

Now, that should be easy given the wealth of data from human rights organisations attesting to the need for a re-examination of Western involvement in the politics of that region, especially our support for Israel, but realistically speaking it won’t be. Therefore it is especially important for prominent Jews, religious or secular — since it is in the name of the Jewish people that much of Israel’s actions are being justified — to play their part in tackling the flood of misinformation.

Robert Fisk, in the same edition of the Indy, made an interesting and imho extremely incisive point about the Arab, and indeed Muslim, willingness –especially apparent among Muslim religious leaders — to downplay or even ignore instances of Arab/Muslim atrocities against other Arabs/Muslims. Of course it’s easier to blame Israel or the Great Satan for everything, much harder to confront the failings amongst those who you consider your own (yes, I concede I may be partially guilty of that myself).

It’s all too simple to retort that, well, most of the repressive regimes owe their continued existence to the munificence of their colonial benefactor, the United States, or point out that the factionalism between Fatas/Hamas, Shia and Sunni in Iraq and elsewhere, has been promoted and covertly abetted by the US and Israel. But still, it’s not enough, it conveniently neglects the part that Muslims themselves have played in their own troubles.

*The great Norman Finkelstein has an interesting take on Oz and Grossman:

[Uri] Avnery’s explanation for why Oz-Grossman-Yehoshua turned against the war just before it ended omits a central point. This trio loves to play the “beautiful Israelis” on the international stage: tough but ever-anguished. When international opinion began turning against Israel’s depredations, it was the moment to reverse roles: hold a press conference, display angst, so the whole world – or the gullible among them – can admire their beautiful souls. Unfortunately for Grossman, this revival of the old production didn’t go as planned. Before the curtain was drawn on the last act, his son was killed: or, more precisely, he murdered his son. It was no Greek tragedy, however. He lost no sleep over the killing of a thousand Lebanese, and the destruction of Lebanon. This was all in the script he agreed to perform. As it happened, however, the last line in this revival wasn’t written by Israel.

Music from the Move

I’m sooooooooooooo coooooooooold!!!!!

You’d have thought after 25 years of living in Scotland with its cold and its rain and its generally piss poor weather I would be able to bear the freezing temperatures during this February cold-snap. But I can’t. I really, really, hate it, I want to live in Barbados.

The fact is that the cold slows you down, makes you lethargic and leaves you with no other desire or inclination but to stay sedentary, preferably beside a heater and make copious cups of tea. And it’s pretty obvious that most people would prefer to live where it was too hot than where it was too cold (except if you’ve got high blood pressure that is).

So, I have to say I’m with the great Princess Nikki on this one.

Norman Finkelstein on the Iranian Holocaust Conference

Check out this footage from an Iranian TV debate of Norman Finkelstein discussing the Iranian Holocaust Conference. He totally kicks ass. I hope it changes some people’s minds about NF, and counters the smears about him being a Holocaust denier.

Part 2 of the discussion here (NF comes in at about 2 minutes)
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6

News

The amazing Jew Sans Frontieres blog mention my Lenni Brenner piece. I’ve also been linked to by Pickled Politics reg, ZinZin, so I thought I should repay the compliment. As well as that I’ve decided to add a link to PP itself as I spend so much time there nowadays, as well as to a few others blogs.

Lenni Brenner talk

On Saturday I attended a talk by the American Marxist and anti-Zionist historian and author Lenni Brenner, organised by the Scottish Palestinian Solidarity Campaign as part of a series of events marking World Holocaust Week.

The talk was held in a moderately sized room within the St-Stephens Church complex in Bath Street, very near the Glasgow city centre. I managed to arrive at the Church almost square on 2pm, the time at which the talk was due to start, and had been anxious on the way there about being late. My anxiety was in fact misplaced, however, as Brenner’s arrival was delayed by about 40 minutes (Brenner was stuck in traffic on the way from Edinburgh). Time which the event organizer, Mick Napier, filled by giving some background on the rationale behind the series of events which the SPSC had planned for Holocaust Week, and then on Brenner himself. The attendance at the meeting was relatively modest, maybe about 20-30 people.