trilby hats and coffee

Hello Hello

2010-09-13T17:52:00.002+01:00

Well, it's been a very long time since I last posted - a lot has happened (both with me and with the world). But the good news is that I recovered my password, so now I can post for once.

And, now, for a headline that could be taken massively out of context:

I AGREE WITH DAVID IRVING (kind of)

But only about this.

And only partly.

This past February, as part of my gap year in Israel (Habonim Dror's Shnat Hachsharah - I guess I'll say more about this some other time), I travelled to Poland on a journey to explore the Holocaust and, particularly, the role of the Youth Movements and Jewish youth generally in taking responsibility over Jewish Polish society during such difficult times (perhaps I'll say more about this later - although I think most of what I'd like to say has already been said by my friends here). Part of this journey involved visiting Concentration Camps, such as Auschwitz I, Auschwitz II (Birkenau), Majdanek, the Treblinka site, the Plaszow site; visiting former ghettos and sites of uprising in Warsaw and Krakow; and other places of interest, such as a former shtetl (the name of which I have forgotten, it had a recently restored Synagogue), the Nazi sites of Lublin, the centre of Krakow and the former Jewish district of Krakow (Kazimierz).

In visiting Auschwitz I, the most famous (and therefore most visited) concentration camp, I was struck by something similar to what Irving talks about. Auschwitz feels like a Holcoaust theme park. There is something extremely unsettling about the way the museum has been put together - it does not feel real.

I would contrast this with Majdanek. Majdanek is in Lublin, in the East of Poland. It's harder to get to than Auschwitz. There's no real reason to go to Lublin, other than Majdanek. Krakow (near to Auschwitz), however, has a beautiful old city, full of history and culture. I would not come to Lublin as a tourist, only to see Majdanek. I would, however, go to Krakow as a tourist - even if I wasn't going to see Auschwitz. Lublin is a 6-hour coach drive from Krakow (it's a long way to travel by coach, trust me). Majdanek is much smaller than Auschwitz. Yet, partly because of this, it is preserved in a much more arresting and, frankly, 'real' way. When leaving most concentration camps and death camps, the Nazis destroyed everything they could (such as in Treblinka, where no original artifacts are left). At Majdanek, however, they were not afforded this luxury. They left in such a hurry, with the Soviet army approaching, that they did not destroy anything. Therefore, Majdanek still has original barracks. The crematorium stills stands, as does the bathtub next to the ovens, where the Camp Kommandant used the heat from the gassed corpses to warm his bath. Those parts of the camp that have either been curated (such as the barrack that has been filled with cages of shoes) feel altogether more real, less showy than those at Auschwitz I. Here it is immediate, close, you can touch it, smell it. The pile of human ash, housed by a huge mausoleum, is perhaps the most emotionally painful, arresting thing I have ever seen.

During my journey in Poland I recorded my thoughts mainly in the form of poems. Here is what I wrote after Auschwitz I:

Auschwitz I, a Tour

“Arbeit Macht Frei” reads the famous
Sign over the gate, but to even
Reach the entrance you have to
Walk through a building welcoming
You to “The Auschwitz Museum”.
And “Arbeit Macht Frei” points also
To the toilets, and you walk
Between solid brick barracks in
A respectful, mournful silence. Then
You enter a building where
People lived and died to see a
Display on The Final Solution, and
An inhuman pile of human hair,
In a room that held bodies –
Living corpses. But where did they
Keep the hair? The shoes? The
Suitcases? Why were they moved here,
Where they kept men – if you
Can even call them that? You exit
And stroll through the camp, passing
Poles on a day out to Oswiecim,
And you walk through a pre-
Prepared gap in the barbed
Wire, and wonder whether this
Really is Auschwitz, and not some
Holocaust-themed Amusement Park,
In some nondescript province of
Some nondescripts country, some
Fantasy, a stunt, a trick.
And then you enter the Crematorium.
You stand on the exact spot
Where someone stood at their
Death, and your heart jumps
And falls and shatters as
You stand in front of the
Ovens, where men were returned
To dust, and your soul
Sings a tuneful Kaddish as
You go back outside. Do you
Feel absolved?

Whereas here is what I wrote after Majdanek:

Majdanek

The house is square and quaint,
White and rural, and, as I
Stare up, the ghost of a child
Stares out, out towards the maze
Of barbed wire, Barracks and spilt
Blood.
The camp. Majdanek. It breathes
Across the frozen air and cuts
Silence and flesh. Lublin City Buses
Drive, mundane and apathetic, past
The Crematorium and the Gas
Chamber and commuters shuttle
To any other work in any other
Town.
But this is not any other place.
I close my eyes and see barbed
Wire, I open them and I see
Shoes and ovens and the bath
They heated, and I want to be
Immersed, again, in a Mikveh of
Ignorance, free from this weight,
This pain.
And then a mountain of ash
Rises above it all, the twisted
Forgotten remnants of the blended
Thousands, the dust of man, a
Tragedy, an evil.
Evil it is, and men, women and
Children were killed as Cain killed
Abel, pliant, supple specimens of victimhood.
And amid all this horror and pain
And wire that cuts my eyes. I
Say a silent prayer to humanity
And its God, for goodness and light
And an answer to the question of
Evil.
And the sun sets.

I think Irving is right to say that too much attention is paid to Auschwitz, and it has become a major source of income for the local area. This is where visiting sites of historical and emotional interest, in order to seek understanding, can slide into the sort of generic "Holocaust tourism" that so angers the likes of Avrum Burg, for instance. I don't think, however, that Irving really gets it. He's now going to run tours to other "Nazi sites", taking part in the generic consumption of the Holocaust and World War 2 that he's always been involved in. Rather than focus on "hey, look, this is where Hitler lived" and "hey, look, this is where Operation Reinhard (which, of course, as Irving's younger self would pop out and tell you, is all American-Jewish-Zionist-Communist propoganda) was conducted from", you should try and get to the bottom of what the Holocaust really was, how it happened, how it was allowed to happen, and how the Jews lived (in some cases passively, in some cases through active resistance) under it.

Coming up next time on Trilby Hats and Coffee: a new series, Shit That Really Pissed Me Off (Ground Zero edition).

On guns and whatnot

2009-07-22T13:47:00.003+01:00

UPDATE: The Senate voted down the amendment by only 2 votes, with some pretty interesting organisation on the part of the Democratic leadership, allowing Democrats from more conservative states to break ranks without allowing the amendment to pass

Senator John Thune (R-like he could be anything else-South Dakota) has introduced an amendment to allow concealed firearms to be carried across state lines - in the NYT's words, it "would nullify the laws of almost every state". Now, let us assume, for argument's sake, that the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution: ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - capitalisation and punctuation varies) actually allows for individuals to keep guns and not just the collective "people" vis a vis the military. It still does not make sense to reduce the amount of regulation involved in a deadly weapon. Let's take an analogy that most conservatives probably will hate - abortion. Abortion is protected under the constitution - that's the position of the Supreme Court. However, it still needs to be regulated to ensure that all abortions performed are safe. It's the same with guns - if they're allowed, they should be regulated to help keep them off the streets.

Sarah Palin, or wtf? Alaska Edition

2009-07-05T16:39:00.002+01:00

I haven't really written much about American politics recently - mostly due to the absence of an upcoming election and the feeling that there are plenty of people out there writing pieces supporting the President and what he's doing, so we really don't need another one (although I admit that I'm writing this wearing my "I heart Barack Obama" t-shirt). However, recent goings on in Alaska are almost impossible to avoid, so, some thoughts about Sarah Palin's resignation:

- A bit eerie that she resigns just after Vanity Fair publishes this piece by Todd Purdum, essentially ripping her apart.

- What really struck me about her speech was just how odd her logic is. She states that she's "not wired to operate under the same old 'politics as usual'", which in the context she defines as how "some governors ... accept ... lame duck status, hit the road, draw the paycheck, and 'milk it'", yet surely the best way of proving you're not a 'typical politician' is to continue doing the job the voters of Alaska voted you in for and govern. Is she saying that if she was a "lame duck" she wouldn't be able to resist all the "typical" travelling and trade missions (not that there seems to be anything wrong with trade missions from where I'm sitting)? That's not a great message as far as her character is concerned. Is she saying that she wouldn't want to run for President for two years and therefore leave Alaskans without their permanent Governor (as early as it is vis a vis 2012)? Then why was she ok with running for VP while keeping her Governorship?

- You stand for governor because you think you're the best suited to govern your state, what does it say if you walk away from it because you know you're not running for re-election? Also, if she ran for and won the presidency, would she then resign from office when she became a lame duck? Leave it all to the VP maybe, like she's done with her Lieutenant Governor.

- There's been lots of talk of reasons for this move, including suggestions that she's getting out of politics altogether. My feeling is that, if the Vanity Fair piece is an accurate reflection of the Palin camp and its approach, this would seem to fit in well with her warped political posturing. I'm almost slightly worried that, somewhere in the bizarro world that is Palin-ville, they think that resigning from office is just the right approach to starting a campaign for president 3 1/2 years before the election.

- Remember that this is a woman who kept a pregnancy secret until she hit her 3rd trimester, and then flew across the country while in labour ie crazy seems to come with the territory.

- This piece on Slate.com makes a lot of sense - it just doesn't seem a good idea to run for the presidency without a firm and current base of authority.

- There might be another scandal brewing, but I'd prefer to think that she was sick of the pressure of being the USA's main line of defense against Vladimir Putin.

- If this is the best the GOP have got, they are even more screwed than previously imagined.

Melanie Phillips' Bandwagon of Hate

2009-07-04T10:36:00.002+01:00

Last week, I opened my Jewish Chronicle to discover Melanie Phillips in true form, spouting what seemed at best to be misrepresentations of the truth, and, at worst, complete falsehoods. Here is my response in the form of a letter to the editor that the JC did not publish (note: I found virtually every point in Phillips' piece disagreeable, but here I have concentrated on the factually incorrect, rather than engaging with her 'analysis' - if you can call it that):

In her recent JC piece, Obama’s deadly hand revealed, Melanie Phillips is guilty of making unsubstantiated, factually incorrect and, at times, borderline-racist comments and assertions. She states that “Among American Jews, a degree of buyer’s remorse has been detected recently”, yet she provides no evidence to support this claim – perhaps because it has little basis in reality.

Phillips states that Obama has “torn up the Road Map which requires the Palestinians to dismantle their infrastructure of terror”, which calls into question whether she has actually read the President’s “Cairo shocker of a speech”. If she had, she would have noted his assertion that “the obligations that the parties have agreed to under the Road Map are clear … Palestinians must abandon violence … it is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on the bus” – it is difficult to imagine a more vocal or powerful call for an end to Palestinian terror.

Obama stated that “the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied” – hardly a crowd pleaser in Cairo, and he went on to strongly condemn anti-Israel and anti-Semitic sentiment (“threatening Israel with destruction – or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews – is deeply wrong”, hardly “fight[ing] against any condemnation of the theologically based Jew-hatred pouring out of the Islamic world” as Phillips maintains). There is nothing factually incorrect in the above statement about the Jewish people’s “tragic history” – surely the enforced exile and loss of independence would come under this, alongside the Inquisition, Pogroms and the Shoah.

Phillips states that Obama was “sanitising Islam through false claims about its historic achievements and selective and misleading quotation from the Koran”. This implies that Islam is not ‘sanitary’, or even is evil – a rather odd mirroring of the “Jew-hatred” to which Phillips refers, but with “Muslim” replacing “Jew”. She seems to be denying “civilisation’s debt to Islam”, forgetting that while Europe was in the ‘Dark Ages’ the works of Plato and Aristotle were being taught in Muslim universities, and that Maimonides himself lived all his life in the Muslim world. Phillips seems to let her paranoia get ahead of her in saying that Obama’s use of the word “revealed” is an “acknowledgement of divine revelation … the language of the believer”, apparently implying, though not proving that “Obama is really a Muslim”, rather than being a simple example of cultural awareness.

Phillips states that Obama is “pro-Islamist”, yet there is a distinction between showing respect for Islam (the religion of over a billion people) and supporting a particular, violent political philosophy. In fact, Obama stated that America will “relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security” – hardly encouraging for the likes of al Qaeda.

That Phillips has written such an ill-informed piece, using talking points cribbed from the fringes of the right-wing blogosphere, is not surprising. That the JC has published this is, however, disappointing – it is the extremist opinions of the likes of Phillips that are the greatest impediment to peace and the safeguarding of a secure State of Israel.

Weezer

2009-06-13T20:18:00.001+01:00

This came on the radio today, and I was reminded of how good the video is:

The Problem With PR

2009-05-27T10:27:00.002+01:00

What with the current uproar over MPs expenses and Parliament's apparent loss of trust, many are now using the opportunity to call for wholesale change of the electoral system, replacing the first-past-the-post constituency based system with proportional representation. Frankly, a change to full PR would seem to be a backward step. Without the link to the constituencies, there will be no individual group of voters to whom MPs are accountable. Therefore, in the case of the expenses scandal, MPs would be held accountable only to their parties, which may or may not remove them from the party list - taking the decision out of the public's hands. Take a look at countries which have a PR system, and they are clearly far less stable, politically, than the UK. Israel is the case in point, where coalition governments are rarely stable (a problem only exacerbated by the Israeli-Palestinian and broader Israeli-Arab conflicts), and political patronage and corruption are rife. This is not to say that the first-past-the-post system is perfect or even the best possible system, far from it, but it would seem counter-intuitive to reduce accountability when it is exactly that lack of accountability that is at issue here. Additionally, in a full party-list PR system, the BNP would most probably enter parliament. It would seem that a multi-member constituency system, perhaps using a Single Transferable Vote method like that used in the London Mayoral elections would be more appropriate - it would increase representation within parliament (surely a problem when a party can gain a large, workable majority in parliament with between 30 and 40 percent of the popular vote), whilst maintaining accountability and, in fact, providing a much more interesting electoral system (certainly more exciting than the current voting process).

Who's F-ing who? (caution: explicit language and content)

2009-04-05T20:03:00.002+01:00

A bit of light relief from the world's events:
It started out with this:

n.b. Sarah Silverman & Jimmy Kimmel are/were going out

Then came this:

(Notice the dedication at the end)

Now (featuring Elizabeth Banks from Scrubs and Seth Rogen from about a dozen recent films) there's this:

On the Shoah and the Afterlife

2009-02-22T11:53:00.002+01:00

A couple of days ago, I was in the midst of an argument with three friends - an Atheist (J) a Muslim (H) and a Christian (E) - about G-d, religion and whatnot (for most of the argument I was more of an observer than a participator - holding neither the position of my Theist friends nor my Athiest friend - and was, if anything, arguing against everyone). There came a stage in the argument when it turned to the Afterlife. H was arguing that there would be a stage where J would realise that he was wrong, when he is presented in front of angels/jesus christ, and that he would not be judged badly for having been an atheist. J naturally argued that that was bullshit. H then called J's position pessimistic - saying that those who died in the Holocaust deserved an afterlife (the fact that both J and I are, at least technically speaking, Jewish probably informed the choice of example). This was a point that even J had to concede - he wished there was an afterlife, in order that the victims of the Shoah did not die in vain (although he went on to say that there just wasn't one). I disagreed with both of them, however, it took me a few hours to realize exactly what it is that I found not only wrong, but offensive about the suggestion.
I think that there not being an afterlife (at least not in the Heaven, everyone's in paradise lying naked with virgins feeding them grapes, sense) is extremely important for illustrating and recognizing what an extreme crime the Shoah - and, indeed, all murder - was. If there is a heaven, then the deaths of the victims of the Shoah will not only be meaningful, they will actually have been a 'good thing' (they will be in a better place). This excuses Hitler and the Germans of any real guilt - if anything, they will have been doing a public service by killing so many. The fact - as I see it - that the deaths of the Shoah were wasted life shows the monstrous nature of the crime; without that waste, no killing can be seen as an inherently bad thing. It demonstrates the extent of humanity's barbarism, or at least potential barbarism, and shows exactly what it is that we should be working against. If those who die innocent go to heaven, there is no point in preventing current or future genocides - such as Darfur. If anything, by preventing the genocide, you would actually be doing a bad thing - preventing people from reaching Paradise.
I think there is another problem with the view that, this life being temporary, the next life will be more permanent. This essentially views life as we know it as a sort of playground - it is devalued. Whatever we do in this life, there will be something else afterwards. We can bomb and rape and pillage each other to a pulp, and it will not really matter, because there's something else - something better - coming later.
I'm not saying that there definitely is no afterlife - how can anyone possibly know that?. What I am saying is that I would rather people did not try to find positive 'meaning' in horrible crimes, for which the only real 'meaning' is that they demonstrate the sort of evils we should be working against. If you consider this to be pessimistic, fine. I don't care whether you call it pessimistic, optimistic, apathetic or anything, it does not change the substance of the argument - it does not make what I have said any less relevant.

Freedom of Speech for Whom?

2009-02-14T00:04:00.002+01:00

Recent events have prompted discussion about freedom of speech and its limits and, whilst I'd rather not weigh in on the case of Geert Wilders specifically, I would like to raise the more general and philosophical issue of freedom of speech - an issue that obviously affects the specific case in hand.
As far as those people whose views I find objectionable - such as Holocaust Deniers, Fascists, Theocrats et al - I'm generally of the opinion expressed by Evelyn Beatrice Hall (and mis-attributed to Voltaire) - "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." However, if I may play Devil's Advocate, I would like to put forward a counter argument that is specific to our time.
I will phrase this argument in the form of a question (one which, given the present climate, I cannot fully and satisfactorily answer myself):

Is it logical to grant freedom of speech to someone whose views - if accepted by a large part of the population - would put an end to freedom of speech?

This question is hinting at a clause within the principle of freedom of speech, almost a self-continuing clause, if you will, that freedom of speech should not be granted in those few times where it is possible that the result of that freedom would be the end of that freedom.
Now, generally I would disagree with this argument whole-heartedly, and I will bring up some counter arguments shortly. However, I think that it is important, when considering this question, to look at the state of the world's economy. In times of economic crisis, when the vast majority of people are doing very badly financially, extremism tends to do very well. William Cobbett's old saying, "I defy you to agitate a man on a full stomach", rings well in reverse too. Thus, it might be argued, that in the short term, we are at greater risk from political extremism. Therefore, would it not be sensible to limit the freedoms of only those few extremists whose freedom might result in the curtailment of the freedom of others, and create a very serious threat to public order. Should we not curtail a few freedoms in the short term, in order to maintain the principle of freedom in the long term? You might take Geert Wilders to be one of those people - although I probably would not, given the very small number of people for which Wilders' own brand of Islamophobia and prejudice is attractive (some might say that the electoral success of the BNP in some areas shows Wilders' threat, although I would say that the great mobiliser for the BNP is not Islam, but immigration, and alienation - although Nick Griffin may well come within the bounds of someone whose freedoms should be curtailed). You might also take Yusuf al-Qaradawi to be such an individual, and he probably has a larger audience than Geert Wilders.
There are multiple possible counter arguments (or counter counter arguments - if you will):
- Who will decide who constitutes such a great threat to our freedom? Judges? Politicians? Civil Servants? The system would be open to misuse for political reasons.
- If freedom of speech is an absolute then there can be no situation in which it should be curtailed. If you accept freedom of speech for a particular individual in most cases, why not in this case? It seems illogical that an individual who would be free to say what he pleased twelve months ago should now be prevented from doing so. The counter argument to this is the example of Adolf Hitler and the NAZI party, who gained support during the Great Depression quite rapidly, moving from being a fringe party of lunatics to a major player in the Reichstag.
- The suggestion is not applicable to modern life, as there is no extremist group that truly threatens to gain power and thus destroy our basic freedoms. I will stress that the argument is hypothetical, it is a 'what if?' not a specific point about a specific individual. However, I will once again raise the specter of Hitler and fascism to demonstrate how easy it can be in a time of crisis for people to turn to the extremes. Another example from (arguably) the other end of the spectrum, would be the Bolsheviks in 1917. In February, after the Tsar was deposed, a liberal(ish) Provisional Government was set up that was forced to work in tandem with the socialist(ish) Petrograd Soviet. The Bolsheviks, who were always a fringe organisation - even within the RSDLP - were not involved in either. They were only able to take over the Soviet - through elections, mind - due to the ongoing war and the coalescence of the more moderate Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries behind the PG's war effort. Once again, in October, they were only able to take full power due to popular unrest, greatly influenced by the PG's weakness (and by the war and the economy etc).
- One should be confident that, through argument and dialogue, one can argue succesfully for the liberal point of view. The problem with this is that it might be sound in normal prosperity, but times of crisis result in a paradigm shift that may not allow for it.
I think that I can see the case that I have put forward here - I can see that it has some validity. In my head, it sounds sensible. However, in my heart, I cannot accept it. I can also see the pervading authoritarianism of it, and the problems that entails. All-in-all, I cannot see a resolution to this problem that will overcome all the issues - it seems to be an ultimate catch-22.
In case you're wondering why this is so important:
For an example of what happens in a country where freedom of speech is curtailed to the point of non-existence, one need look no further than here.

The Land of Milk and Honey and Political Instability

2009-02-10T22:57:00.004+01:00

Exit poll results are out in Israel's latest election and, if they prove accurate - which is not at all certain, Kadima, headed by Tzipi Livni, will have won a plurality, with roughly two more seats than the Likud. However, the 'centre-left bloc' that Kadima is said to be part of will likely be in the minority with about 57 seats, with the 'right-wing bloc', of which Bibi Netanyahu's Likud is the major player (along with Avigdor Lieberman and his quasi-fascist Yisrael Beiteinu) on about 63 (give or take a seat). This leads to the question: what chances are there of forming a stable coalition? The answer: virtually none.
By rights, Livni should be given the first crack at it. The problem for her is that there have been signals coming from the Labor Party (her natural coalition partner - and the current no.2 in Ehud Olmert's Kadima government) that they are considering a spell in the opposition in order to revitalise the party. This is what happened to the Likud at the last election - where they polled similar to how Labor seems to be polling now, and were bumped down to the fourth largest party. Ehud Barak and co must be looking at Netanyahu and thinking - two or three years, that could be us. Even if Labor agreed to be part of Livni's government, she would still have difficulty finding other partners. Meretz would never sit in a government with Yisrael Beiteinu, but Yisrael Beiteinu seem to be the third largest party, and conventional wisdom dictates that it would be difficult for Livni to form a coalition without them. However, a Livni coalition with Lieberman could hardly be seen as one that will advance the peace process - Livni's election promise. On top of that, it was disagreement between Shas (who normally can be bought off by anyone and everyone - my dad joked that they may as well rename themselves the Corruption Party) and Livni that resulted in this election, and there seems to be a genuine personal (and ideological) conflict here. Without Shas, or Meretz, Livni would not have a stable coalition. The only other option here would be some form of 'Grand Coalition' a la Germany, in which Kadima, Likud, and Labor join forces in the name of stability. Livni would be Prime Minister, and she would have to offer Netanyahu the Foreign Ministry (or, G-d forbid, the Finance Ministry) and Barak the Defense Ministry (or, again, Finance). It seems unlikely that Netanyahu would go for this, as he would be bringing his party into government with what is - essentially - an off-shoot of his party, but as a secondary partner, and I doubt whether the Likud faithful would agree to it. Another option might be some sort of rotation agreement - like in the 80s - but it would not be stable. Any 'Grand Coalition' would be plagued by ideological difficulties, and might find it difficult to get anything done as far as peace is concerned (given how important the centre-right Likud would be in the government).
So what about Bibi? The idea that he would be better placed to form a coalition, due to the 'right-wing bloc' having more MKs, is a false one. Avigdor Lieberman's campaign has not just hurled abuse at Israeli Arabs, but at the Ultra-Orthodox too. A key plank of Yisrael Beiteinu's program (and perhaps the only fundamental issue on which I agree with them) is the instigation of civil marriage. It is possible, perhaps even likely, that Lieberman would make this a condition of his joining government. No Orthodox party - particularly Shas and United Torah Judaism, the two Charedi parties - could agree to this. A government made up of the 63-64 right wing MKs would be no more stable than a Kadima-led government, as the defection of any one small party on any one issue - such as a religious issue - would bring the government into disrepute. Lieberman might choose power over promises, but that does not mean that his whole party will follow him. Yisrael Beiteinu's fundamental base is within the Russian immigrant community, many of whom are not considered Halakhically Jewish, and thus require the instigation of civil marriage. If Lieberman is indicted, as seems highly possible, his party might even split up. The fact is, Yisrael Beiteinu is an unknown commodity, it's quite new, and it has been built on one man (and his ability to attract Russian support), and it remains to be seen how it might cope without Lieberman, or as part of a government that did not further its policy. The three planks of Yisrael Beiteinu policy were Government Reform (in a bad way - increasing the power of the President and overriding the Supreme Court with an elected Judiciary, leaning towards a sort of Populist fascism similar to Mother Russia), civil marriage, and demanding loyalty from all its citizens (particularly the Arabs, but also the ultra-Orthodox, who do not serve in the army, and who are mainly non-Zionist). Lieberman seems to be in a catch 22 - with Bibi he might get government reform, but anything else would anger the orthodox sector, with Tzipi he might get civil marriage, but anything else will anger the centrists and centre-left on which her support is based.
All-in-all, I fail to see any viable coalition coming from these exit poll results, and I doubt that whatever is formed will last very long. It might be negotiations with the Palestinians (like with Shas in the last government) that tears the next government apart, or it might be moves towards secularisation (with civil marriage), or some other issue as yet unforseen. Whatever happens, I expect that Israel will be repeating the process in the next 1-3 years.

Faith and healing

2009-01-22T18:02:00.002+01:00

Was scrolling through slate today, and found this blog post by William Saletan that brings up some interesting issues. It reminds me of a story of a flood. A guy is sitting in his house, and an SUV turns up to rescue him but he refuses - saying to the rescuers that "God will provide". The water rises, and he has to go up to the top floor of his house, and he's looking out of the window when a lifeboat floats towards him. The people in the boat ask him to get in, so that they can paddle to safety, but he refuses - "God will provide". The water keeps rising, and he has to go up on to the roof to stay above the water line. A helicopter comes and they announce through the loudspeaker that they've come to save him, and they drop a rescue ladder, but he refuses - "God will provide". He drowns, and when he gets to heaven, he asks God why he didn't save him. God's response is - "What are you talking about? I sent an SUV, a boat and a helicopter!"
I'm not 100% sure of the origins of that story, I'm sure I was told it in some sort of Jewish context, but it could just as easily come from anywhere, and I think it illustrates nicely the point Saletan is trying to make.

Some thoughts

2009-01-19T20:34:00.003+01:00

Tomorrow, in front of baying crowds, Barack Obama will be sworn in as the 44th President of the United States of America. Almost simultaneously, millions - if not billions - around the world (including the majority of American citizens) will breath a sigh of relief. A couple of years ago, I bought a badge that read '1-20-2009 Bush's Last Day' (it came from America, so the date is written the American way). At the time it seemed so far away, but now, as it appears so very imminent, I find it difficult to describe my feelings. Much has been said about the historical nature of the next presidency, about the hopes and ideals that it will (or, at least, it is hoped it will) embody. I do not particularly wish to add to this - I do not think that there is anything that I could say that has not already been said on the subject. I think it is important not to build up expectations that cannot reasonably be met - some great things will be accomplished, and some dreams and promises will remain unfulfilled. Not every fight can be won. Instead of looking at what this upcoming inauguration means for the United States, I think that I will use my position as an expatriot (to some extent) to look at the effect that this inauguration will have around the world.

Throughout the election campaign, both during the primaries and the general election, whenever I discussed the campaign - and my preferred candidate, Barack Obama - with British people I was universally met with a repetition of a few statements that I felt were not only wholly untrue, but a misrepresentation of the American people. I received these responses from people that I know well and respect, and people that I do not know well at all, and do not respect in the least. The attitude of most people that I came across in the United Kingdom could be summed up as: "Yes Obama is great - better than Hillary Clinton or John McCain - but there's no way that a black guy could get elected in America." This sentiment, drummed up by questionable journalism on the part of the BBC's American bureau, including its editor Justin Webb (who I dislike intensely, but cannot entirely pinpoint why - it might just be something in his manner), is - I feel - a result of the anti-American sentiment that has pervaded European society, and a lack of understanding of the American political system. Europeans, and particularly the British, have a view of Americans as uneducated hicks - like the creepy uncle who is, for reasons that no-one is entirely sure of, extremely wealthy and powerful. Part of this feeling is down to George W Bush - particularly in light of the perceived bullying foreign policy of this administration (a form of gunpoint diplomacy that was most effectively used by the 19th century British leader Lord Palmerston) and the outward display of bombastic right-wing religion that causes many (including myself - it must be said) to shudder. However, it would be wrong to give the 43rd President all the blame for this anti-American feeling, I think that it runs much deeper than an opposition to Bush's foreign policy. Part of it, I think, is down to a feeling of disgust at the power America has in the world - both in terms of economy and politics. There is also a public sentiment that deep in the American backwaters lives a powerful majority of uneducated religious maniacs - this view is spread partly by TV, by stereotyping, and by the broad visibility of Evangelical Christianity - such as that practiced and preached by the late Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson - and its connection to political issues, such as campaigning on abortion. This image of the general American populace was powerfully shattered by Barack Obama's monumental victory. It left many Europeans - who had dismissed the Americans as racist idiots - wondering where their Barack Obama was, how can they really justify seeing themselves as being more enlightened than the Americans, when it would be much more difficult for a mixed-race politician in his forties to get elected in Britain (where, until Gordon Brown, every post-WW2 prime minister who had gone to university had gone to Oxford - Brown having gone to Edinburh - and every single Prime Minister to get elected was a WASP, in American terms)? There is still a racist sentiment in some areas of the United States - just as there is in Britain (there are only two Black farmers in the entire country), but most Europeans fail to understand that, not only are those views the views of a minority, but those few states that might be swayed by people who hold those views are irrelevant in the American system, with the Electoral College.

There is a view of the Americans as generally conservative, in a brash way, that is extremely common. This is, in fact, utter nonsense. Just after the election, many conservative American pundits opined that Obama would have to compromise on the more liberal areas of his manifesto, because America was "a centre-right nation". This view has been criticised and refuted on multiple occasions - scroll through the archives of liberal blogs such as Daily Kos and MyDD to find hard evidence against this idea. The idea that America is more right-wing than Europe is common, but false. Across the western world, there has been a gravitation towards a more right-wing politic, as Social Democrats accept some tenets of market-driven political philosophy (and they are now seeing just why this is a problem), and American politics are no more right-wing than British politics or French politics or German politics. Many have pointed out that you cannot get elected in American if you call yourself a socialist or social-democrat (tell that to Bernie Sanders). This is somewhat true, however, the fact that you call yourself a 'liberal' or 'progressive' does not make your policies - the policies that the majority of the American people support - any less left wing than if you call yourself a 'social-democrat'.

Barack Obama has the potential to change the way America is viewed in the world, to allow - even force - people to confront and bury their latent anti-Americanism. I'll leave with a little anecdote, a retelling of a conversation I had at that temple of Britishness (and the Anglophile world), Lords Cricket Ground. I was watching what might have been the fourth day of a Test Match (or maybe a One dayer or Twenty20, I go so often its hard to say with some accuracy). It was relatively breezy, particularly on the uncovered upper deck of the stand below the media centre (the Edrich stand), so I was wearing a thick South African rugby jersey to keep me warm. A man sitting across the aisle from me asks me if I'm South African. I reply that no, I'm not South African, but I'm half Zimbabwean, and it's difficult to support the Zimbabwean rugby team. He starts talking about the Zimbabwean rugby team, and I smile and nod along. I had mentioned that I'm also half American, and his response was "so you're supporting your better half, eh?". I smiled and nodded along. He mentioned that he had never been to America, that its politics didn't chime with his. He mentioned that he disliked the focus on terrorism (so do I - to an extent) and that even Nelson Mandela had been called a terrorist. I nodded and we parted ways after a reasonably pleasant conversation. However, I cannot say that I felt entirely comfortable. I wonder what he thinks of American politics now.

A Jewish Prayer for the Children of Gaza

2009-01-07T19:58:00.003+01:00

Over at Haaretz, Bradley Burston - a rare figure of moderation as extremists from both sides beat their drums (especially in the Israeli press, although Haaretz is Haaretz) - has posted this prayer for the children of Gaza. Although I would not necessarily think that prayer helps, some people do, and if those who wanted to pray for the end of the crisis need look no further. It really is a beautiful prayer, and even if one doesn't believe in all the bits about G-d, its language and sentiment can still be appreciated.

Gaza Blues

2008-12-29T00:33:00.003+01:00

Israel's latest strikes on Gaza are an audacious move. The general consensus - fueled by a well-run PR campaign - is that the aim is to "change conditions on the ground", provide for a paradigm shift - if you will - that will allow Israel to renegotiate a truce with Hamas from a position of strength. If Israel does obliterate Hamas' infrastructure - through air strikes initially, though there do seem to be signs that they are moving towards a ground invasion - then it might force Hamas to the table. The problem is not only that they are walking into a situation which will likely result in massive international pressure against their actions, fueled by media reports of civilian deaths that Israel will find difficult to argue with, but also that they are, in a sense, re-opening Pandora's box (for the umpteenth time). If Israel does invade Gaza, it will find it difficult to leave. Logistically speaking, they will have to plan another troop withdrawal from a very difficult and dangerous part of the world. They also will not be able to leave unless they get what they want from Hamas - which is never certain. They will then have to be seen handing power in Gaza towards their worst enemy, as opposed to the 'legitimate' Fatah-led government of the PA. Another dimension, from Israel's point of view is the question of Gilad Shalit - if they do invade Gaza, they will be under enormous pressure to physically rescue him from his captors, even if they don't invade, they are running the risk of provoking his captors - although i don't think that the wellbeing of one soldier in captivity should override a strong case for action, i'm just not sure how strong a case there is for action. There is a chance that Israel gets everything it wants out of this operation - and that Ehud Barak can use its success to improve his and Labor's standings in the polls - but this is measured against the similar chance that it all goes horribly wrong, and ends up handing victory in the upcoming elections to Netanyahu on a silver platter. It seems really to be a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't, from Israel's point of view, and i'm not sure what other options they have. From Hamas' point of view, this could be used for PR purposes - although i'm not sure how much they'll feel they need it, but if it does decimate the organisation, they will have little option but to agree to a new truce. Still, Hamas' ideology is not one of surrender, and it seems likely that Ismail Haniyeh would rather fight to the bitter end than agree to dialogue and a cease-fire. One really ought to remind oneself that the real losers in all this are the innocent civilians from both sides who lose loved ones, and the hope is that something constructive can come from it, at least so that those deaths were not in vain.

P.S. My title refers to the brilliant collection of short stories by Etgar Keret and Samir el-Youssef.

Back from Hibernation - Looking Back to 2000: Why Florida Didn't Matter, But Ralph Nader Did

2008-11-03T16:50:00.005+01:00

Trilby Hats and Coffee is back from hibernation in this election season to take a look at perhaps the defining election of recent times - before 2008 of course. The 2000 contest between Gore and Bush sowed the seeds for the ideological divisions that would foment during the Bush presidency. The election set up a public distrust in George Dubya that has become the norm in intellectual (and less-than-intellectual) discourse on the Bush presidency. I myself remember, at the age of 9 going on 10, being distraught at the outcome - though I'm not 100% certain that I knew what I was distraught over.

George W Bush stole the election. That has become a statement of fact. It does, of course, have much merit. The Bush campaign's legal actions in Florida, in challenging the recount at the US Supreme Court, and then - apparently - using their leverage with supreme court members in order to manoeuvre the court into supporting the Gore campaign's basic legal premise whilst denying the recount on a technicality caused by the court, definitely did swing the outcome of the election, at that stage, with Florida still undecided. However, the reality is that Florida was, frankly, irrelevant. Florida was not the swing state in 2000, Al Gore could have won without the touch and go state of Florida, if only he had won a more generally reliable Democratic state in the Northeast, one that is known for its political pull beyond its small size. That's right, the 2000 election really swung on New Hampshire.

Bush won New Hampshire, with its 4 electoral points. If Gore had won those 4 points, he would have won the election by the slimmest of margins, taking his tally to the requisite 270, and dropping Bush's down to 267. Take a look at the internal New Hampshire figures (it's a bit of a scroll down). Bush won 48% compared to Gore's 47%. Ralph Nader, running slightly to Al's left, won a frankly exorbitant 4%. Assuming that (only) half of Nader's support came from slightly turned off Democrats who would have voted for Gore had Nader not run, Nader really was the spoiler here, as a 2 percent swing from Nader to Gore would have given Gore the race by a tight margin - though considering the number of tight margins in that race, this would have been a relatively safe victory. Compare this to 1996, when Clinton won New Hampshire by almost 10% (Clinton's results are, rather confusingly, in red), or to 2004 when Kerry won New Hampshire, though less convincingly. 2000 starts to look a lot like an anomaly, and will do even more when this year's results come through. Thus, it is New Hampshire and Ralph Nader that cost Gore the election, not, and it pains me to say it, George Bush (and his Father and Brother) and the Supreme Court (and Ralph Nader's Florida 2%). So whilst the vilification of Bush is only somewhat justified in the context of the 2000 election - remember Florida did happen, it just shouldn't have mattered - the vilification of Nader by Democrats is not only wholly justified, but, if anything, too lenient.

Obama's JFK moment and Palin's Dukakis moment

2008-10-02T16:54:00.002+01:00

I think that Barack Obama won last week's debate hands-down. This is not because he performed considerably better than John McCain, although I do think he was more eloquent, but because he looked presidential, he allowed voters to picture him as their president. This, I feel, was highly reminiscent of the first televised Presidential Debate between JFK and Nixon in 1960. The 1960 debate was broadcast simultaneously on TV and radio, and whereas radio listeners thought that Nixon had won, a vast majority of TV viewers saw a cool, confident Kennedy, oozing the sort of gravitas that presidents are made of - showing that, despite his lesser experience, he could be their president - defeating a rather ghost-like apparition in the form of Nixon.

In Sarah Palin's recent interview with Katie Couric, there is a moment that reminds me of Michael Dukakis' emotionless response to the question about his wife being raped and murdered in the 1988 debate. Skip about sixish minutes in to the clip, Couric asks why Palin believes that it should be illegal for a 15 year old girl who had been raped by her father to have an abortion.

The Presidential Race and sexism

2008-09-10T19:19:00.002+01:00

This isn't going to be a long post, i just thought that - given the Republican spin and fallout from the 'lipstick on a pig' comment - this video (from Keith Olbermann's Countdown on MSNBC) was in order:

Tel Aviv University Film Evening, Everyman Hampstead

2008-06-05T11:42:00.010+01:00

Last night (the 4th) I had the pleasure of going to the Tel Aviv University Trust's annual film evening at the Everyman Cinema in Hampstead (North London). Four short films were screened, each of them made by a student at the TAU Film School. I thought I would post a short review of the films (probably for the benefit of no-one but my parents who could not make it).

The first film was called 'Questions of a Dead Worker', directed by Aya Somech. An unsettling piece, its main character (if you could call him that) was a Mizrachi construction worker who kidnaps his Ashkenazi boss in order to make a stand for social justice (and socialism) for the poorer sections of Israeli society. At the same time, a film-making couple are being shown an apartment overlooking the construction site and are discussing having to make a film of it, and a group of Arab workers are discussing a story for a film with a mizrachi worker who kidnaps his boss and - to spoil the ending - gets shot by the police. One is never quite sure what is 'real' - in the sense of reality within the film - and what is not. The fact that it is a film is never truly disguised and - although one does not actually see the crew - the Brechtian influence is clear. The film opens with a symbolic character - or rather non-character - reading 'questions of a literate worker', and the scene with the arab workers is silent to represent - in a slightly heavy-handed way - the disenfranchisement of the arab population. The scenes that are most touching, however, are those between the worker and his sick - possibly dying - father. Here, the mistreatment of the elderly in Israeli society, and the misery of poverty are starkly portrayed. These characters - and this time they are characters - break free of the political symbolism, to form 'real' people. Although there is a hint of tragedy in the worker's demise - offset slightly by the potential of it being a story within a story (within another story) - there is some hope at the end as the worker is - though doomed from the start - taking some action for himself and his father.

This idea of a generally dark story with a slightly hopeful ending - though that is possibly misplaced hope - is common through each of the four films. The second of which - perhaps the most visually arresting - is called 'Roads', directed by Lior Geller. It tells the story of a young arab boy - maybe ten years old, a drugrunner in drug-infested Lod. The neighbourhood is run by the drug gangs, and Ismayil - the boy - works for the most powerful dealer in Lod. However, when he is told to take his younger brother to a pick-up in the Jewish neighbourhood on the 'other side of the tracks' runs off with the money for the pick up (and with his brother and his brother's goat). He ropes in Daniel, a Jewish ex-soldier and addict who buys from Ismayil, to help them escape, and they find themselves hiding out in a house by the train tracks. One of the great things about the film is that you are never sure whether or not Ismayil and his brother will survive, and the ending - the last time they see the neighbourhood - has the hope of a better future for the boys, though how exactly their future will improve is not known. Daniel - who is shot and killed in helping the boys escape - has, one feels, finally managed to escape his own reality of the Lebanon war, and it seems that, in helping Ismayil, he absolves himself for the killing of a 'terrorist' who was 'about [Ismayil's] age'. The film is political in a more subtle way than 'Questions of a Dead Worker', and - considering that it is a low budget student piece - the action is quite impressive.

The third film was 'Dessert', directed by Amit Sakomski. A charming though slightly quaint film, about a bickering old couple - a man who collects stamps and a woman who bakes cakes - it perhaps suffered from having to follow 'Roads' and, as it did not have quite the emotional power, felt somewhat like light relief. This is not to say that it was a bad film - far from it, and one cannot help but feel empathy towards this couple in their twilight years, whose only sources of joy are systematically abusing each other and delivery visits from the man who lives downstairs. The ending, with a seeming resolution over cake, gave the film a more overtly upbeat tone than the others. It was also less political than the first two, and more personal.

The fourth and final film was 'Pinhas', directed by Pini Tavner. It tells the story of a young Russian immigrant boy whose mother works night-shifts in a convenience store. The film blended comedy with personal tragedy, as the boy - feeling neglected by his mother who has to sleep during the day (and sleep with her boyfriend) - briefly fonds comfort in the religion of the Orthodox family upstairs. There are cultural misunderstandings that shape the comic element - particularly when he goes to the butcher dressed 'religious' to get bacon - and the threatening image of the 9-year old child brandishing a kitchen knife towards his mother and her lover in bed (an idea he got from the story of Pinhas, told by the older brother of the religious family) is striking and unsettling. The eventual conflict between the mother and the religious family, and Pinhas' disappointment at no longer being able to be 'religious', could - under less-able direction - have seemed comic. There is something of a hopeful resolution, with Pinhas and his mother taking a walk on Shabbat, and the film managed to blend in many different elements skillfully (including the political question of the position of these russian immigrants in society).

To give marks out of ten:
'Questions of a dead worker' - 6/10, good, though a touch heavy-handed on the political symbolism.
'Roads' - 9/10, very impressive.
'Dessert'- 7/10, charming yet a touch quaint when considering the company.
'Pinhas' - 9/10, very nice, both funny and depressing.

Special mention has to go to the very able child actors in 'Roads' and 'Pinhas', particularly the lead characters. Both delivered mature, believable performances.
Special mention must also go to the fantastic seats at the gallery at the Everyman (large, comfortable, leather seats that would seem at home in a country estate, with tables for glasses and bottle holders), and to the copious amounts of free wine.

Spinal Tap and the druid builder

2008-05-29T22:09:00.001+01:00

watch this

South Africa

2008-05-23T21:35:00.003+01:00

As the recent violence has spread to Cape Town, I think a number of lessons can be learnt.
1) The army should have been sent in on the first day of the violence in Gauteng, both to protect the innocent Zimbabweans, Mozambicans, Nigerians, Somalians and other immigrants and to crush the attackers. In all likelihood, the mobs would have dispersed at the first sight of a serious military presence on the streets.
2) The South Africans are no more racist than anybody else - and this isn't really about race. It's about a 'government of the people' failing to provide what it promised to, and allowing rampant xenophobia to spread across the poor sections of society to suit their own political needs.
3) One crisis in the region (i.e. Zimbabwe) has huge ramifications across the regions, and if Africa's leaders are to solve the continent's problems they have to take serious actions to tackle the likes of Mugabe and Omar Hasan al-Bashir, rather than hide under the false spectre of opposition to a colonialism that is no longer relevant to African society.
4) Thabo Mbeki has lost all credibility, whilst the alternative talks the talk but walks a decidedly different walk.
5) This kind of think doesn't generally just spring up on its own, someone had to be organising and planning this. As far as I can see, the whole thing has echoes of Rwanda. A proper investigation is needed to determine who is responsible.

Here Here

2008-05-19T18:05:00.003+01:00

As if Big Mac didn't seem bad enough:

Burn out or f...f...f...fade away?

2008-04-03T19:26:00.003+01:00

Recently, I've been falling asleep relatively late. Now, this might be because it's the school holidays and I've been revising well into the night for my upcoming A-Level exams (Only a month and a half to go!), it might be because I'm worried about the election result, or it might be the beginning of a relapse of the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome I had last [school] year (although I doubt it). At any rate, it's given me plenty of time to think (and to write weird stories about the night and floods and stuff). You're often told that sleeping longer (or at least the right length of time) lengthens your life - or maybe it's the reverse, sleeping too little shortens your life - but I've been wondering just how true that is. You see, it might take years off your lifespan, but do you spend less time 'living'. For the purposes of this thought experiment, we'll take 'living' to mean 'consciously experiencing life'. In order to 'consciously experience life' you have to be awake - for the purposes of this I'm discounting vivid dreams as an example of 'consciously experiencing life', although that is debatable.

Some simple arithmetic shows that if you are awake 18 hours a day (6 hours sleep), but only live to be 70 (which in the context of the 21st century is not all that old), you will be awake for 459900 (18x365x70) hours (I'm ignoring childhood and leap years- too messy, and anyway, a bit irrelevent for these purposes). To equal that on 9 hours sleep a night (15 waking hours a day), you would have to live to be 84. That's 14 extra years, but no extra 'living'.

Now suppose you're awake for 20 hours a day (only 4 hours sleep) but only live to be 60, you will have lived for 438000 waking hours. To equal that on 15 waking (9 sleeping) hours a day, you would have to live to be 80. That's 20 years, without any extra living.

The next question is, what kind of quality of life can you have on 4 hours of sleep a night? I'm no health expert, but I have staffed a camp where we only got 4 hours sleep a night and it wasn't pretty, but I'd imagine your body would adjust. Also consider that you are likely to experience more pain in the twenty extra years (through illnesses, the death of loved ones etc). Maybe I'm just clutching at straws, but I find it somewhat comforting at 1am.

PS Thanks to everyone who listened to my Pause for Thought - well, I'm sure someone listened. Maybe I'll post a recording, if I can work out how to do it.

Pause for Thought

2008-03-25T19:06:00.002+01:00

This thursday (27th of March), I will be giving a 'Pause for Thought' on BBC Radio 2 (during the breakfast show at roughly 6:15 am GMT). I was asked to do it as part of a 'Young Believers' series (I know it's not a great name but, what can you do?)and the only limit was that it is related to Judaism and being Jewish. Now, if I was to post the finished script, somehow I think it might dent by already small listening base, so I'm going to post my initial script - its a bit more formal and essay-esque than the finished recording, and the language is stronger, but the fundamental argument remains (DISCLAIMER - this text is unedited, to hear the final Pause for Thought, make sure you tune in to Radio 2 on Thursday morning):

It was the middle of January, and, on the fourth anniversary of my Bar Mitzvah, I was in my local Synagogue reading publicly from the Torah as I have done every year since. The experience was enjoyable and yet somehow, quaint. During the Kiddush after the service, I was complimented on my reading by all who I spoke to, including our new Rabbi – who was impressed by my reading ability. All of the praise, and the wording with which it was delivered, demonstrated vividly to me the important position that acts of observance hold in the minds of the religious. What, to me, seemed as much a performance as anything else was somehow a sign that I was a ‘good’ Jew. I certainly got the impression that people’s opinions of me were somehow strengthened because I could read and sing well. Yes the Torah is important to Jewish people, and the sacred act of its regular reading on the holiest day of the week demonstrates its constant relevance; however, perhaps in placing too much importance on acts of worship, followers of all religions are forgetting the essential message of morality that is the basis of their faith. Does my having a clear singing voice, “inheriting the musical ability of the biblical Levites [from whom I am descended]” as the Rabbi put it, make me any better a Jew than someone who is not able to recite his portion as well? Similarly, are my apparently more pious friends better Jews because they pay more attention to following individual traditions such as wearing the yarmulke, the skullcap, than me?
The most important part of a religion, for it to remain relevant in a changing world, must surely be the underlying ethical principles of that religion, not the ultimately meaningless customs and ‘acts of faith’ that often seem more and more outdated and irrelevant as time goes on. Certainly these customs and acts strengthen an individual’s religious identity, but that doesn’t make them necessary – they are not the only way to strengthen a religious and cultural identity, the two often going hand in hand, nor must one judge another person’s religious identity based on the traditions they choose to follow, the acts they choose to perform. Surely I am no less of a Jew for not keeping glatt Kosher – the strictest form of Kosher, or for choosing to shave my face. Judaism, like most religions, has many different variants, with the relationships between the different denominations (as well as those with no denomination) as uneasy as ever. When one group rejects another group within the umbrella of a religion because they do or do not perform specific acts, or because they believe things that are an alteration or a progression from the traditional viewpoint, there must surely be a problem. I am not saying that all Jewish denominations should come together, that surely would be impossible – as the old joke goes, for every two Jews there are three opinions. However, what I do believe is that it is wrong to deny someone else’s identity because it does not conform to your own rigorous standards. All Jews essentially follow the same basic set of morals, even if they interpret the way in which they should be followed differently. In the words of the 1st century Rabbi, Simeon ben Gamaliel, “The world rests on three things: justice, truth and peace”, perhaps certain sections within the Jewish community (as well as other religious communities) have forgotten this.

On Suicide Bombings

2008-02-10T11:36:00.000+01:00

Since the Dimona Bombing, all the language out of the Israeli Government - with reference to this and to the Qassam attacks that plague Sderot - has been harsh, much harsher than we have seen recently. This is understandable, although it remains to be seen whether Olmert et al are being genuine or political (or both). However, it seems to me that this harsh language is exactly what the people who send out suicide bombers want. Virtually every Palestinian terrorist organisation has claimed responsibility, and some, such as Hamas, have promised further attacks. Bombings such as this are evidently designed to change the political agenda - where before Dimona there had been cautious talk of peace being achievable in the near future (in reality Peace could happen in a day, but the protracted process allows for populations to get ready and feel comfortable with it), there is now talk of war. I would urge Ehud Olmert and his coalition to forge on with the peace, including Gaza, as only this can put an end to attacks such as this one and the firing of Qassams at Sderot and the nearby Kibbutzim. It's been a relatively long time since the last bombing, but that was - at best - a comma, only a return to the peace agenda that the likes of Hamas oppose so viciously can bring about a full stop. Hamas and the others want the government to end negotiations, they want to take peace off the agenda - that's why they send people to die in shopping malls and night clubs - I hope that Olmert, Barak, Livni and continue with the peace agenda as opposed to capitulating to the demands of terrorists.

South Carolina

2008-01-26T14:02:00.000+01:00

It's been a while since my last post on the Presidential elections, and, I haven't really gotten anything right since the Democrats in Iowa. However, here are my South Carolina predictions:
1) Obama 39%
2) Clinton 30%
3) Edwards 30%
then 1% to 'others'. Clinton will get more votes than Edwards - just - but statistically and in delegate terms they will tie.
HOWEVER
If I am wrong and Clinton wins (maybe 35% to 34%), what will it mean for Obama? Conventional wisdom says that it will hurt him, maybe to the point of knocking him out altogether, but I'm not so sure. Clinton cannot win SC on the white vote alone, she will need a very sizeable portion of the Black vote. With race suddenly being an issue, Obama has recently been erroneously perceived in some circles as the 'black candidate' a la Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton, when in reality the base of his support across the country has always been educated whites. If Clinton wins, or comes close to winning, the black vote in SC, then it might help shake the perception of Obama as the 'black candidate' and allow him to once again be the candidate who happens to be black, but is not running to represent the African-American people alone.

Hip Hop Violin

2008-01-24T13:01:00.000+01:00

I wish I was as good as this guy:

I didn't know the BBC website was SO broad

2008-01-23T15:31:00.000+01:00

Ok then

Going ... Going ... Gone!

2008-01-17T19:15:00.000+01:00

Good news out of Jerusalem (for once), Avigdor Lieberman has taken his Yisrael Beiteinu party out of the governing coalition. I wrote a post lamenting the Labor Party (particularly Amir Peretz)'s complicity in bringing the hard-line nationalist and racist into the government, and his having left the coalition - predictably over negotiations with the Palestinians - can only be cause for celebration. Will it weaken the government, not significantly. Even if Shas leaves too, bringing Meretz into the fold would bring a coalition of sixty, and perhaps some sort of working arrangement could be made with some of the Arab parties to support the government - particularly over negotiations. Of course, if Olmert decides to go the other route, and appease the right - where his political roots lie - by bringing in another rightist party like UTJ (a possibility according to some - although highly unlikely in my opinion: why would UTJ tread where Shas refuses to) he will be weakened, as a divided government will hurt negotiations and increase the likelihood of Labor pulling out over Winograd. If Olmert is sincere over his desire for peace, he must press ahead with negotiations, and work on bringing Meretz, and maybe some of the Arab parties, into the fold. Without such a divisive, destructive force as Lieberman and his party in the cabinet, progress can surely be made, if Olmert and his Kadima colleagues are willing to take risks for it.

Ron Paul

2008-01-08T21:28:00.000+01:00

An interesting piece from the New Republic on the enigma that is Ron Paul.

Iowa and beyond

2008-01-03T00:03:00.000+01:00

It's been a while since my last post, and a lot of stuff has happened which I might get into at a later date, but it seems like time to give trilby hats and coffee's official Iowa caucus predictions:

Democrats:
Barack Obama first by 2 percentage points over John Edwards. Hillary Clinton a disappointing third, a further two points down. Jo Biden will come best of the rest, then Richardson, Dodd, Kucinich and finally Gravel will come dead bottom.

Republicans:
Mitt Romney then Mike Huckabee, about three points between them. Romney will be relieved, and Huckabee a little disappointed. Ron Paul will come a shock third, followed by John McCain (who will survive to New Hampshire but will fall apart after losing to the vampire again) and then Thompson, Rudy (who will scrape through to Feb 5th), Alan Keyes (some people like crazy) and finally Duncan Hunter.

I predict the following people will drop out after the caucus:
*Chris Dodd (who's earnest campaign never really picked up any steam - maybe it's just too late for him? He will have wanted to stay on to New Hampshire, but he will be advised not to waste the money. He will endorse Obama, and return to Senate life, maybe making a run against Harry Reid for Majority Leader.)
*Mike Gravel - not much to say, who was he kidding?
*Very possibly Kucinich (but that's not really his style) - he will endorse Obama (he's already de facto endorsed Obama by calling on his supporters to make him their second choice in Iowa).
*Fred Thompson, stopped as soon as he started, a return to Law and Order, maybe he'll play the President in another film.
*Duncan Hunter - see Gravel, Mike.

Longer term predictions:

Ron Paul and Jo Biden will both get boosts from their 'best of the rest' finishes. Hillary will see a drop in New Hampshire as Obama and Edwards both rise. Bill Richardson will drop out after February 5th (more on that closer to the time), as will whoever is in the worst position of Obama, Edwards and Hillary. Alan Keyes will stick at it, and will be roundly ignored (thankfully - too many crazy people these days). On February 5th the following will be left in the race:

Dems:
Obama, Edwards, Clinton, Biden, Richardson, Kucinich (of which all but the leading 2 and maybe Kucinich will be left on Feb 6th).

GOP:
Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani (if he's lucky), Paul and Keyes (of which Huckabee and either Paul or Giuliani will drop out afterwards - depending on who does best: if all goes well for Giuliani he could be winning by Feb 6th).

Final Nominees (from what can be discerned at this stage):
Dems - Whoever is winning out of Obama, Edwards and Clinton on February 6th: my current bet is Obama.

Republic*nts - Romney, unless things go particularly well for Giuliani in February.

Eels

2007-11-17T23:56:00.000+01:00

My take on London mayor

2007-11-10T20:23:00.000+01:00

This is an article I wrote for my school magazine, which has had a delay in publishing (creative differences amongst the editors) so I figured I'd post it here:

Not all cops are pigs. That was hard, but it had to be said. One cop who is particularly un-piggish (I don’t care if that’s a word or not) is Brian Paddick, a former Deputy Assistant Commissioner at the Metropolitan Police and – this is the important bit – frontrunner for the Liberal Democrat nomination for Mayor of London. Thank God the Lib Dems have managed to find a decent, relatively independent high-profile (ish) candidate. Who better for Mayor than the bogeyman of the reactionaries at the Daily Express and News of the World (as if that isn’t the most misleading name in journalism – if you can call their drivel journalism)? Without him in the race, I might have had to choose between Boris “No Brains” Johnson and Ken “Fewer Brains” Livingstone – not that I get the choice (this country deems me old enough to pay taxes, join the army, get married and even kill myself in a moped accident yet somehow I’m not old enough to have a say in how we are run). To be fair, Ken Livingstone has done some good things, the congestion charge – though poorly implemented – is a basically sound idea, and at least the extra money it provides Transport for London can pay for free bus travel for schoolchildren – a measure I am particularly in favour of (then I am biased, being a schoolchild who takes the bus). However, Ken Livingstone is also the man who compared a journalist to a Concentration Camp guard, after the journalist identified himself as Jewish (having already been called a Nazi war criminal by our esteemed mayor). He also said that the Reuben brothers, Jewish property developers originally from India and of Iraqi descent, should “go back to Iran”. Somehow he has failed to shake off the accusations of anti-Semitism, I wonder why? Now, as for Boris, well, where to begin? He would be the only mayor in the history of London (that said we haven’t had a mayor for very long) to be unwelcome in another major city of this country (who can forget the Liverpool incident). He is also persona non grata in Papua New Guinea, the home of “orgies of cannibalism and chief-killing”. But perhaps the worst Borisisms are his references to black people as “piccaninnies”, his saying that Africans have “watermelon smiles” (yes you read that right) and his calling post-Apartheid South Africa a “majority tyranny of black rule”. According to the 2001 census 10.91% of London’s population is black, I find it hard to believe that any black Londoner could feel that the man who made those comments would ever truly represent him or her. It doesn’t help Boris that his only campaign policy suggestion is thoroughly unworkable (as awful as bendy buses are, Routemasters were removed for a reason and they’re not coming back, get over it! As a matter of fact, they break European Law over access for disabled people). So, what does Brian (this is a first-name contest, and it has more of a ring than Deputy Assistant Commissioner Paddick) want to do? Make our communities safer (which is something he knows a little bit about and according to a rather unscientific poll on Boris’ campaign website - of all places - the number one concern of Londoners), make our transport system “intelligent” (sounds good, but what does it mean?), and power the tube on renewable energy (very nice, eco-cred). All decent policies it would seem, but then its hard not to think so compared with the competition.

Mark "the knife" Faje

2007-11-10T20:21:00.000+01:00

This is fucking amazing:

Blues for peace

2007-11-07T10:25:00.000+01:00

website needs a redesign, but otherwise

Irving comeback 2007

2007-10-02T19:14:00.000+01:00

What people seem to be missing about David Irving is that he is not and never has been an historian. In fact, at University he studied physics before dropping out and working in a German factory.

Voldemort's rain of terror is over

2007-08-13T23:08:00.000+01:00

It's official. Hallelujuah.http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif

Quote of the day

2007-07-02T18:19:00.000+01:00

"It's like a bomb hitting the place ... at least a bomb's dry."
Resident of the flooded village of Toll Bar

Oh dear Ming

2007-06-28T23:17:00.000+01:00

Watching Question Time just now, Menzies Campbell used the term "pro-Israeli lobby" in talking about American politics and implying that they had a "grip" on American politics. I am now officially announcing that I will not vote for the Liberal Democrats at the next election (if the election is held in two years, when I will be legally allowed to vote) or any time led by Menzies Campbell.

Also, who really cares what Piers Morgan thinks, he'll do anything for a buck.

Store

2007-06-27T12:36:00.000+01:00

Check out the brand new Trilby Hats and Coffee© Store for all your israel-palestine peace, anti-boycott and Trilby Hats and Coffee© needs.

Courtesy of Cafepress

BONG HITS 4 JESUS

2007-06-25T21:17:00.000+01:00

there I said it, so sue me.

Labour Deputy

2007-06-24T15:02:00.000+01:00

It's Harriet Harman. She beat off Alan Johnson into second place, my preferred candidate (not that I get a say at all) Jon Cruddas came a valiant third, Hillary Benn was fourth, Peter Hain fifth and Hazel Blears sixth. I am really glad that is not Johnson (or Blears - the female Johnson), and Harman has been a strong candidate. In the leadership election, Trilby Hats and Coffee® endorsed Gordon Brown resoundly defeated his opponent Gordon Brown without even needing an election.

Gay bomb?

2007-06-21T21:14:00.000+01:00

Eh?

Say no to racist boycotts

2007-06-21T13:51:00.000+01:00

Stick this up wherever you can.

Presidential Pong

2007-06-03T13:29:00.001+01:00

This kind of sucks - like the special powers though.

Rav Shmuel

2007-05-31T17:01:00.000+01:00

He's the Hasidic anti-folk singer with a voice that sounds like a cross between Lou Reed and Adam Green. Take that Matisyahu.

Boycott

2007-05-31T16:39:00.001+01:00

I think he's hit the nail on the head.

*P.S. so much for worker's unity and solidarity.

Labour Leadership

2007-05-20T23:27:00.000+01:00

Trilby Hats and Coffee officially endorses Gordon Brown, I think he's a much stronger candidate than his opponent, Gordon Brown. As for deputy well, the jury's still out and I doubt any of the candidates will be making a particularly strong case for themselves.

Blair

2007-05-11T14:05:00.000+01:00

I've been very careful to avoid blogging about anything over the last couple of weeks, although there was plenty to talk about. I guess I felt that there was too much to talk about. But now, the news is finally out, and I guess I may as well follow the herd.

Now, I am not exactly Tony Blair's biggest fan, but I do feel he has been treated with an undue harshness. By most measures of quality of life, Britain has improved greatly in the last ten years (Check out this feature on the BBC website, allowing you to compare statistic graphs). The Health Service has had a lot of money poured into it and produced higher standards (although I have spent the majority of my life with Blair in charge and have little personal experience of the pre-1997 NHS - though not no experience). Education standards have also improved - in that results have improved - but whether quality of education has improved is open to debate. In a recent physics lesson, my teacher bemoaned Blair for creating "a generation who are experts in trivia". It is certainly true that a lot of the later school years (age 14+) consist of "dotting the I's and crossing the T's", but I think that education has gotten fairer, and more people from a lower income background are attending further education. Whether this has provided "equality of opportunity" is again debatable. Tony Blair is also the first Prime Minister to secure a meaningful peace deal in Northern Ireland - likely to be a key factor in how his time in office is viewed in 30-40 years time.

There are also great failures that cannot be avoided. The gap between rich and poor seems to be growing. The wide range of privatisation under New Labour is also not to my taste. The two biggest scars on Blair's record are most likely the war in Iraq, and "cash-for-honours". I never supported the war - although I know many who did - but I also think that Tony Blair thought he was doing the right thing. I would blame the Bush administration (in particular Rumsfeld, and Lord Voldemort - sorry, Dick "world's best case for gun control" Cheney) more than Blair. I do not defend Blair over Iraq, but I do not blame him either. As for cash-for honours, if anything illegal did take place, then that is obviously wrong, and the smell of corruption will taint Blair's time as Prime Minister. I am not, yet, 100% convinced that they have evidence of wrongdoing (though that does not mean that there was no wrongdoing), and I do feel that the story has been blown slightly out of proportion. I doubt that Labour are the only party guilty of loans-for-peerages (if they are guilty). Note that the two biggest political lenders in the Sunday Times Rich List this year are both Tory peers (Lords Ashcroft and Laidlaw).

Blair is probably at his most unpopular ever, but is that really deserved? He has done plenty of good to go with the bad, and he has been the victim of a relentless media assault over a variety of issues (some deserved, some not). State-provided services have certainly improved, and I would pick him over John Major/William Hague/Michael Howard and their laissez-faire attitude towards public services any day. As for David Cameron and his "new" Conservatives, well, does he really believe in anything at all? Although I suppose many would say the same about Blair.

Petition

2007-05-11T14:03:00.000+01:00

Sign this petition for "real" middle-east peace talks. Over 80,000 have signed so far.

The OC

2007-04-13T14:21:00.000+01:00

I have allowed my blog to lay dormant for awhile. In between school work and sleeping I just haven't found the time to comment on anything - though there have been things worth commenting on. I have spent the last ten or so days in Southern California (Orange County to be precise) visiting relatives and have learnt a number of things:

George W Bush is even more stupid than you think.
Most of Orange County was owned by one family, who cannot spell Avondale.
Ladera Ranch is a bit like Disneyland.
They don't grow all that many oranges in orange county.
Congressman Dana Rohrabacher took money from a Porn mogul.
Don Imus is a dickhead
The San Diego Zoo does have Proboscis monkeys, but I can't find them.
Fry's may be better than Best Buy for computer equipment, but they don't stock Nikon cameras.
I have a relative who was one of Keith Olbermann's Worst People in the World
Cetaphil lotion cures headlice (see above)
They put a nuclear power plant on the beach.
I really don't want Chronic Tacos.
There's some nice art available in Laguna Beach (if you look hard enough).
You can buy an "Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governator" t-shirt at LAX, but why would you want to?
Everyone has an SUV (unless they are Liberals and have a hybrid).
Some of the beaches look straight out of the Flinstones.
Surfer dudes actually exist.
Laguna Beach had a majority for Kerry (one of only three OC areas).
Some people still like Bush (but the smart ones never did).
Too many people watch Fox news.
The Marriotts are Mormon.
The book of Mormon is a load of crap but at least they're not Scientologists.
Eight lanes is far too many for a highway.
A root beer float made with coffee ice cream instead of vanilla is just as good.
Koby is not and never will be short for Kobias (no matter how much you want it to be).
Ahi is a tuna.
Yehuda Matzahs were voted number one, but I still like Streits.

No-one in the entire US administration knows what they are doing (but that was a given, see first point).
An Anaheim Angels t-shirt costs $4 more than an LA Dodgers t-shirt at LAX.

It took almost two hours to get through bag drop off (pre-checked in the night before) and security at Heathrow, at LAX it took 5 minutes - and I felt safer.

To conclude:
Southern California (OC and San Diego) is a nice place, shame about all the Republicans.

Kurt Vonnegut 1922-2007

2007-04-13T14:20:00.000+01:00

RIP

UN, Sudan and Israel

2007-03-12T11:26:00.000+01:00

Here, Bradley Burston makes some good points. Just a note, the composition of the UN Human Rights council (successor to the Commission on Human Rights) is as follows:

African States: Algeria, Cameroon, Djibouti, Gabon, Ghana, Mali, Mauritius, Morocco, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Tunisia and Zambia.
Asian States: Bahrain, Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Jordan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, South Korea and Sri Lanka.
Eastern European States: Azerbaijan, Czech Republic, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation and Ukraine.
Latin American & Caribbean States: Argentina, Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru and Uruguay.
Western European & Other States: Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland and the United Kingdom

Note that countries such as Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Cuba - with their terrible Human Rights records sit on the COUNCIL for HUMAN RIGHTS.
Here are the independent experts who sit on the committee for the elimination of racial discrimination (a worthwhile cause - in theory)

If you're wondering about my view on all this (Israel/Palestine, right of return etc.), I'll post some rants later.

Achievement, What Achievement?

2007-02-28T20:35:00.000+01:00

It has recently been reported that the UK has seen a 9% drop in asylum applications. The Labour minister for immigration has called this "a substantial achievement", giddy like a xenophobic old Tory being told that all the French, Germans, Spaniards, Italians, Arabs, Poles, Russians, Jews and Gypsies have died of leprosy. I, however, fail to see the achievement in a drop in asylum applications. That's probably because I was under the impression that asylum was a basically good thing, not a pimple-esque nuisance. I thought that it was a good thing that people who had no where else to go could find a place where they could finally live in peace, but then I guess I'm just a hippy. I guess you'd have to be a hippy to believe that every person is equal, and that no person can be illegal. I guess government policy, which is supposed to be governed by what is right - not what is right, is now governed by the reactionary tabloids. Hell, why don't we just cut out the middle-man and appoint Kelvin Mackenzie prime minister. I guess why I'm so pissed off about is that it's Labour that is now celebrating this, that they are so governed by News of the World opinion polls that they are celebrating a drop in asylum cases. Maybe John Reid genuinely believed that immigrants and asylum seekers are a disgusting curse that needs to be gotten rid of. Maybe all the anti-immigrant sentiment coming out of this country has made those escaping persecution realise that maybe torture, repression, civil war and genocide leaves them in a better position than they would be in the UK. Maybe indeed.

DRC

2007-02-06T12:51:00.001+01:00

I wonder how long this will last.

Why Blair Shouldn't Go

2007-02-05T18:40:00.000+01:00

Now, I'm not Tony Blair's biggest fan, but the talk about a perhaps imminent departure over the "cash for honours" affair is in my view hasty. In fact, I think that the entire police investigation is looking more and more like a political move. Charging Lord Levy with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice is like saying "You're guilty of something ... I know you are ... I am absolutely 100% certain ... well ... 99% ... OK ... I'm 20% certain a crime was committed ... I just wish I knew what." There may well have been some sort of underhand deal, Lord Levy may well be guilty of something, but it seems that the police have no real evidence to back this up, and I thought it was innocent until proven guilty - not the other way round. One of the main reasons why I don't want Blair to go yet is that it would be capitulating to David Cameron, which in my book is a crime worse than any underhand deal they could have done.

Bush Rap

2007-01-20T23:47:00.000+01:00

This is too easy

p.s. You can find others like this at the Huffington Post's Contagious Festival.

Well, who could have predicted that?

2007-01-18T20:48:00.000+01:00

You Are 4% Capitalist, 96% Socialist

You see a lot of injustice in the world, and you'd like to see it fixed.

As far as you're concerned, all the wrong people have the power.

You're strongly in favor of the redistribution of wealth - and more protection for the average person.

Are You a Socialist or Capitalist?

I knew it!

2007-01-18T19:56:00.000+01:00

You Are Midnight

You are more than a little eccentric, and you're apt to keep very unusual habits.

Whether you're a nightowl, living in a commune, or taking a vow of silence - you like to experiment with your lifestyle.

Expressing your individuality is important to you, and you often lie awake in bed thinking about the world and your place in it.

You enjoy staying home, but that doesn't mean you're a hermit. You also appreciate quality time with family and close friends.

What Time Of Day Are You?

Outlaw Idiocy

2007-01-16T16:29:00.000+01:00

I think the proposed European ban on Shoah denial is a great idea, but it does not go far enough. I want a ban on all lies, truth distortion and just plain stupidity. Anyone found guilty of Lying/Distortion/Being a stupid idiot will, under my system, spend between 10 and 15 years in a maximum security prison. After getting out, all Liers/Distorters/Idiots will have to wear chicken hats any time they are in public to alert the general population. That ought to teach them.

Another reason for Amir Peretz to stay

2007-01-12T01:09:00.000+01:00

This is another reason for Amir Peretz to stay on as Israeli defence minister.

Ruth Kelly

2007-01-10T00:35:00.000+01:00

I am annoyed at the idiotic reaction of many towards Ruth Kelly's decision to send her son with special needs to an independent school. Tower Hamlets (the inner London borough of which Kelly is a resident) has one of the most overstreched education systems in the country, particularly when it comes to special needs schooling, which is more expensive than regular schooling. By going private, Kelly can ensure that her son gets the level of care needed and that the council's money goes to those who need it most. It is worthy to note that all of her other children go to state schools. Since 1997, there has been a great improvement in the level and provision of schooling, but it is not enough. Considerably more is needed, particularly with regards to special needs pupils, to ensure that everyone gets the level of education they deserve.

Why Amir Peretz should not be fired as Defence minister

2007-01-05T21:07:00.000+01:00

A while ago, I wrote a post condemning Amir Peretz and his actions since entering government. Recently, there have been stories suggesting that Ehud Olmert is on the verge of asking his Defence Minister to resign. Whilst I feel that he should never have taken the position, he's there now and I wouldn't want to see him fired - at least not until after the Labor Party primaries. If Peretz were forced out, he would take the Labor Party and its 19 MKs with it. This would undoubtedly result in the complete collapse of the government. Now if there was a chance that Labor, Meretz and Kadima might be able to form a government (with maybe the Pensioner's Party), led by Labor, then I would support the end of Ehud Olmert's prime-ministership. However, all polls indicate that the majority of Israeli voters would not vote fo Kadima nor an Amir Peretz-led Labor, but Netanyahu's Likud. This would probably result in a Likud-Yisrael Beitenu right-wing government, the expansion of settlements and the resumption of military attacks on anyone that gives them as much as a dirty look. So for the moment, an Israeli government that at least talks about peace is better than nothing.

Saddam Hanged (Mobile Phone footage)

2007-01-04T01:36:00.000+01:00

Here is the full mobile phone video of Saddam's execution, courtesy of Slate. WARNING, it's pretty gruesome. (Christopher Hitchens described it as a lynching. Which is a description I would pretty much agree with.)

We know this is what old Mel is really thinkning ...

2007-01-02T01:17:00.001+01:00

Hanged

2006-12-31T15:03:00.000+01:00

Somehow, I fail to see how one more death will do anything to help the Iraqi people - especially not the death of such an important man in Iraq. This will do nothing but escalate the violence. This means that not only will the Kurdish people not be given justice for the brutal anfal campaign, but he will also never be tried by the International Criminal Court for War Crimes and genocide.

BNP Fresh Nazi Tacticts

2006-12-24T04:35:00.000+01:00

A news article on the Stop the BNP website (from the Daily Mail of all places), drew attention to a shift in BNP tactics from trying to appeal solely to the working class to trying to appeal to the middle classes. This resembles perfectly a conscious move made by the Hitler in the mid 1920s to gain support from the middle class, and it was the middle classes that in the end propelled him to power. Lets hope everyone else sees through such a cynical ploy.

Billy Bragg on Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson

2006-12-21T01:27:00.001+01:00

Went to see him at Hackney Empire on Sunday. He was very good.

Evan Bayh Out of '08

2006-12-17T01:28:00.000+01:00

Senator Evan Bayh (D-Ill.) has dropped out of the 2008 Presidential race. The Senator (and former governor) is a "centrist" politically, aligned with the DLC (democratic leadership council - a centrist organisation within the Democratic Party including the likes of Bill Clinton). Although Bayh was always considered a long-shot, him dropping out does free up some important potential endorsements for the remaining candidates. Bayh is the second "centrist" to drop out, after the perhaps better placed former Virginia governor Mark Warner. This leaves only Iowa governor Tom Vilsack (current DLC chairman and general no-hoper for the presidancy) in the way of the DLC endorsing Hillary in the primaries (if it chooses to formally endorse anyone). Bayh was quietly courting organised labour, as was John Edwards, the 2004 VP nominee and a serious candidate for the nomination. Edwards has stayed outside the political world since '04, choosing to work to combat poverty (which included succesfully campaigning to raise the minimum wage 6 states at the recent mid-terms) whilst laying the groundwork for an '08 bid - including many visits to early caucus/primary states like Iowa (where they just love him). The labour unions would most likely endorse him, potentially putting him in a better position than other "anti-Hillary" candidates like Barack Obama.

I stress that all "campaign" websites are unofficial sites set up by supporters of each potential candidate.

Iran

2006-12-12T16:02:00.000+01:00

Ok Ahmedinejad, you are a jackass, but you already know this don't you. You are also a racist, but you also know that. What you also are, is a two-faced liar - but that's the same old story.

What really bugs me about Ahmedinejad and his Holocaust "conference", is the grounds he uses to justify it. He paints himself to be the sole champion of free speach standing up to western hypocrisy ... hah! It is a measure of his own hypocrisy when he bars entry to people intending to address the conference so that they might show that the Holocaust did in fact happen and is not just a "Jewish myth". Khaled Mahameed, an Israeli Arab lawyer who runs the worlds first Holocaust museum catered to the Arab population (including photographs from Yad Vashem), was invited to the conference and then refused a visa by the Iranian foreign ministry because he is an ISRAELI arab. Germany attempted to gain entry for a group of Israeli survivors, but this was also denied. What a shining example of free speach on the part of Iran and its backward, theocratic, undemocratic regime.

Veggie Chilli

2006-12-11T21:22:00.000+01:00

2 tins (800g) of chopped tomatoes
2 tins (800g) of kidney beans
1 jar (300g) of tomato puree
300g of meat-substitute (quorn, tofu, veggie mince, chopped peppers)
6 cloves of garlic
2 red chillies
1/2 a glass of port
2 teaspoonfuls of tabasco sauce
1/2 a teasponnful of salt.

Watch out Bruce ...

2006-12-11T21:17:00.000+01:00

... Mayor Bloomberg has stars in his eyes.

Kazakhstan

2006-12-11T20:16:00.000+01:00

Where will the urine cultivation fields go, Borat?

Pinochet

2006-12-11T20:09:00.000+01:00

I can think of no better day for The Bastard of Chile© (I know it's a bit crass but I think it's extremely accurate) to finally leave this world than Human Rights Day. My thoughts are with his victims and their families (although Maggie Thatcher's aren't)

Old Scars Never Heal

2006-12-01T14:50:00.000+01:00

A german department store has been forced to remove a collection of wooden santas from their shelves because some felt uncomfortable with the way in which their arms were pointing to the sky and thought that it resembled a Hitler salute. The department store expressed their shock at the reaction as well they should, but I think the main thing that one gets from this is that the German people are still so touchy about something that happened sixty years ago, and have never really come to terms with what they and the Nazis did. This is not constructive in any way. How is it possible to move on when you still can't bear to see a wooden figurine whose arm may or may not be in a position resembling a Nazi salute? One of the main problems is the older generations' seeming unwillingness to talk about the past. "The past is history, it doesn't matter any more" they say, but it does matter. If you can't talk about the past, then the truth gets distorted, and the historical revisionists and holocaust deniers are allowed to further spread their lies because they're the only ones talking about the past. How is one supposed to accept the truth of what happened when those who were there won't talk about? The Nazis cunningly distorted history to get the people to believe that their government had betrayed them, and it is the neo-Nazis who are distorting history now, and the apparent increase in support for neo-Nazis across Europe is testamant to the fact that their tactics are working and will work as long as everyone in Germany remains silent about what happened.

The Fix

2006-11-29T20:42:00.000+01:00

Check out Chris Cillizza's US politics blog at the Washington Post (look under links). It provides the most up-to-date information and analysis, including weekly ratings of the most likely candidates to be elected President in 2008 and regular looks at important polls and all the issues of the day.

Bush's Reich

2006-11-29T17:02:00.000+01:00

Here is an article by Diane McWhorter on Slate bringing up the comparisons between Bush's America and the Third Reich. Whilst I feel that some of her comments are a little over the top, she makes some very good points.

Sectarianism in Lebanon

2006-11-27T23:38:00.000+01:00

Here is an article by Samir El Youssef, a Palestinean writer who grew up in a refugee camp in Lebanon and now lives in London. He grew up near the coastal town of Tyre and laments its passing from a beautiful, cosmopolitan city to a run-down dump, all in the name of sectarianism and rivalry.

Kramer a racist?

2006-11-25T01:41:00.000+01:00

Here is Michael Richards (aka Kramer from Seinfeld)'s now famous "racist tirade". I warn you, it's pretty grim. Don't watch if you're easily offended or a huge Seinfeld fan (it'll break your heart).

Aussies

2006-11-19T01:53:00.000+01:00

"I don't think there's too much racist about that."
James Sutherland, Cricket Australia's chief executive, when asked if a spectator allegedly calling Monty Panesar a "stupid Indian" was unacceptable.
Well that's Australians for you.

Amir Peretz and the Israeli Labour Party

2006-11-15T03:18:00.000+01:00

The Israeli left has been sold out by Labour. Amir Peretz fought the election campaign on social issues, but when he entered government as Ehud Olmert's Kadima Party's main coalition partner he didn't take a socio-economic ministry, instead opting for the defence ministry - a position for which he is hopelessly unqualified. During the election campaign, he also pledged never to sit in government with Avigdor Lieberman and his Yisrael Beitenu - a party of extremists and racists, essentually Israeli fascists. The Labour Party as an entity was markedly silent whilst Olmert tried to get Lieberman into government. Only one Labour minister, Ophir Pines-Paz, resigned over the matter, when if Amir Peretz was truely commited to the ideology he and labour had set out for themselves he would have threatened to pull his party out of government. This would have been disastrous for Olmert, as he would have been left with a choice of either running back to Likud and grovelling (which would give him the absolute minimum needed for a majority, provided Netanyahu agreed which is unlikely), or calling an election in which both Kadima and Labour would suffer heavy losses and gains would be made by Likud and Yisrael Beitenu. Olmert would have no choice but giving up on Lieberman. Instead, Peretz has become Olmert's yes man, a nodding dog. I certainly hope Labour elect a new leader in next year's primary - maybe Pines-Paz himself - and go back to concentrating on what needs to be done to address Israel's growing social problems. Then maybe they can go into an election with enough credibility to tackle Likud and build a government commited to socio-economic issues and the peace process.

On poppy fascism

2006-11-11T15:04:00.000+01:00

Channel 4 newsreader Jon Snow has managed to spark up controversy over his refusal to wear a poppy on air. His argument is that, as a newsreader, he should not make any kind of statement (that could be a poppy, an aids ribbon, a wristband, or anything else for that matter). I agree with him. Newsreaders are supposed to be unbiased, but displaying something like a poppy shows a personal opinion that has no place in news - which is supposed to be about information only. I also don't think that one person should be forced to do something he doesn't want to do, just because everyone else on television is. I also don't think people should just wear poppies because its the convention, because then they're not being sincere about their opinions. Then they're not really supporting the poppy appeal. For the record, despite being decidely pacifistic and anti-military, I support the poppy appeal. Just because I don't necessarily support the war they're fighting in, it doesn't mean that I don't support them.

On monkeys and police

2006-11-10T18:20:00.000+01:00

Some fantastic pieces of news from Northern India. First, there is to be a judicial decision on the fate of Delhi's monkeys. The monkeys have been terrorising the city, and even managed to steal secret military documents from the Indian military's HQ. Also, hundreds of prospective police officers in Uttar Pradesh have rioted after they deemed a written exam too hard. The hopeful police officers ran out onto the streets, forcing drivers from their cars and sexually assaulting females. I think both these incedents call to question the standard of India's security forces.

Midterm Mania - follow up

2006-11-05T01:43:00.000+01:00

As a follow up to my last post, see this CNN.com piece on the dynamics of a potential democratic senate.

Midterm Mania

2006-11-02T21:31:00.000+01:00

There's been a lot of talk (even on this side of the pond) about the upcoming US midterm-elections. It seems that the Democrats are likely to take at least one house of congress - most likely the house of representatives. What we should ask ourselves is, "What does this mean?". On foreign policy, not as much as one might think. They will, however, have the power to set up public hearings on the president's policy in Iraq. On social issues, they will likely have less effect. A lot of conservatives are claiming that if the Democrats win both houses, they will try and force "liberalism" whatever that may be down America's throat. This is complete nonsense (unfortunately). Many of the Democrats that seem to be confident of victory in "red" states and districts are, socially at least, quite conservative. Otherwise they'd have no appeal to the right-wing reactionaries that populate these districts. See Sherrif Brad Ellsworth in Indiana's 8th and former NFL quaterback Heath Shuler in North Carolina's 11th for proof. It seems that a Democratic congress might not be as progressive as one might hope.

Zimbabwe Cricket Store

2006-10-24T15:08:00.000+01:00

For all of you cricket fans bumming around Harare with not a thing to do, head to the newly opened Zimbabwe Cricshop at Eastgate Shopping Mall on the corner of S.Nujoma and R.Mugabe street. It seemes strange to me that they should choose to open a store, and set up a new website at perhaps the most dismal time in the history of Zimbabwean Cricket, with the team the joke of the world, the organisation in tatters and support at a new low. Oh Well.

Weird Al

2006-10-24T13:28:00.000+01:00

I haven't been posting much recently, but hopefuly this will make up for it. Notice it's all in palindromes. Also try this and this.

Message from a sickbed.

2006-10-17T17:42:00.000+01:00

I feel, quite frankly, like crap. My head hurts, my stomach hurts - even my arms hurt! I'm bored and lethargic as ever. This is the seventh day of this and I'm going crazy. Today, I even resorted to taping up my fingers for personal amusement. At least it beats watching the drivel that is day-time TV. The highlight of my day will be the bath I intend to take later this evening. God I hate this.

Veils and things

2006-10-14T23:12:00.000+01:00

I live in England. Over here, there's been a lot of debate over the veils muslim women wear to cover the face. This is because a government minister (Jack Straw) said that he asks women if they wouldn't mind uncovering their faces at advice surgeries he holds for the residents of his constituency (the district he represents in parliament). It must be noted that he said that virtually every woman does uncover her face. Many people have been offended by his comments, and claim that he's preventing people from practicing their religion - which is fine, except that Muslim women are not commanded to cover their faces. It says in the Qur'an that all muslims should "dress modestly", and the headscarf is part of that, but the veil covering the face in addition to the headscarf is optional and not compulsory. It is wrong to say that Jack Straw was attempting to prevent people from practicing their religion. That said, I do not support banning the veil. I can definitely understand that it's hard to talk to someone who's mouth is covered, but I'm not sure if you can ban people from wearing a particular garment. Britain is a country without separation of church and state which allows things like state funded faith schools. This is different to France, for instance, where they take separation of church and state so seriously that one cannot wear religious clothing/artifacts in a government building. They also only have two recognised religions in France - Christianity and Judaism - despite the rather large Muslim minority. Because the British system is so different from the French system, I can't see how one can justify banning a particular piece of religious parafanalia from a state-owned building/state sponsored event - you certainly can't ban people from wearing it in the street, as long is it doesn't affect other people in a physical way. All this talk of "the dangers of the veil" is playing towards the right-wing nationalist yobs and thugs out there who go about pulling veils off women's faces and assaulting people for "not acting British". Well, thats as long as I can keep on speaking in one go, so I once again bid you Adieu.

Welcome, I guess

2006-10-14T13:48:00.000+01:00

Hello! By some automated fluke you have landed yourself at my new blog. Congratulations. Now, lets just hope I have something interesting to say, nope - not at the moment. So with that great pearl of wisdom, I bid you adieu.