Anas’s Blog

I usually have enough self-restraint not to laugh out loud at something I’m reading if I’m outside walking on the street. But this quote from a New Statesman review of a new and highly *controversial* book by professors Mearsheimer &  Walt  about the utterly inordinate influence of the Israel lobby on US politics just so perfectly sums things up re: the special relationship thing us Brits –well some of us – pretend we have going with the Yanks that I had to let go a good hearty chuckle even if it made me look like a loon on the street (actually to be honest there was no one around, but still…):

The thesis put forward by Mearsheimer and Walt, briefly, is that Israel has become a “strategic liability” for the US and that ending the special relationship - the one the British delude themselves they, rather than Israel, have with Washington - would benefit not only the US, but the rest of the world, including Israel itself.

Paida huaa vakeel, to Iblees nay kahaa:

‘Allah nay mujhey Sahib-e-awlaad kar diya.’

(The day a lawyer was born, Satan exulted:

‘Allah has blessed me with progeny of my own.’)

– Akbar Ilahabadi

(Apologies to the nice lawyers out there, and there are one or two, I think.)

Surely some mistake?

UK Muslims ‘more loyal than most’

Eight in 10 Muslims said they respected other religions
Muslims in the UK are more likely to identify strongly with Britain and have confidence in its institutions than the population as a whole, a poll suggests.

Definitely not on message.

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.