A discussion started by the expose of corruption ...
Perhaps the lucky 1 millionth rorter of our bloated disability support system. http://t.co/nlHLWNU65I
Beside the pretty obvious rorter above (whose cultural compatriots seem to have a very high incidence of "disability"), there are the cold hard facts that the rate of real disability have not changed while the ease of access to a disability pension has attracted a ever growing number of people. E.g http://www.pc.gov.au/.../35-disability-support-appendixk.doc
Showing posts with label international politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label international politics. Show all posts
War from the ground up (Emile Simpson)
Should the military help politicians instead of just obeying them ?
"You don't have the ability of soldiers and their civilian counterparts on the ground to give political feedback and tailor the policy because that is not their job in that paradigm. So civil-military relations are going to have to evolve quite fundamentally to accommodate that, and that's going to require making a distinction between politics, the constitutional aspect, and policy and the military should stay out of the former for sure, but should definitely be involved in the latter." (Emile Simpson - Radio Interview)
Using Emile's approach, politicians should work with the military to develop policy that achieves the governments desired political end result, and to give continual feedback as the policy is implemented about improved tactical and strategic options. This is what is referred to as politicization of the military - involvement in policy development to support political ends.
For instance in relation to the relatively minor military problem of securing our borders against illegal immigration, politicians have tended to give the military a set of instructions about both strategy and tactics.
Controlling the strategic narrative, both within and outside Australia, is crucial to the success of this policy. Therefore, the military has a key roll in helping to develop policy, strategy and tactics that create, influence and control information flow to achieve the desired political outcome.
For example, as in south west asia, we might have provided cash and equipment to various "players" to get them to "act" in certain ways. The Australian military may involve itself in tactics such as: direct incentives to Indonesian military and political connections to catch "smugglers" before they leave; being more "efficient" in catching immigrants at sea before they reach international waters; agreeing to receive immigrants back into Indonesian custody if they are picked up in Indonesian waters by the Australian navy etc.
When a new government is elected, it may also become necessary, as in the rest of the public service, to remove some current heads both as a "communication" to the military about who is the new boss, and as a method of ensuring more sympathetic minds for the new policy development.
In short, Emile's thesis seems to welcome a military that is inherently more politicized than Huntington's in recognition of a new world which, although no more complex on the ground, is immensely more fragmented and accelerated in cyberspace.
See also:
In Defence of Freedom of Speech (Chris Berg)
The two examples of the title receive no great emphasis in the text, but serve merely to bookend the millennia in which this debate has surged back and forth. The selection of milestone examples is excellent both in terms of their illumination of key differences in underpinning philosophies and their resemblance to aspects of the current debates.
Philosophy is revealed more as an endlessly repeating conversation than a developing argument. Participants in these conversations (including oneself) are often revealed as woefully ignorant of the precedents and historical background of their views – and the opposing arguments.
I very much doubt that proponents of laws based on the United Nations Human Rights documents are aware that the speech restrictions written so broadly within them were included at the request of totalitarian regimes.
The book primary focus is to illuminate the historical sequence of ideas and political developments that echo today in the new international onslaught on freedom of speech. The arguments, even those openly supported by Berg, are put very briefly. For instance, Berg only allocates a few sentences to assert that freedom of speech should be considered a right because this is the current majority view. Those arguing for limits more commonly omit mention of this "right" and argue limitations based on the harm principle.
Contrary to Berg, I continue to agree with Bentham, that all human rights are philosophical “nonsense upon stilts” and with Mill, that all rights must have utility.
Extreme tolerance (not approval) of diverse viewpoints in a society is both an index as well as a mechanism for cultural health and robustness.
There is a natural accretion of power to any organization that grows in size. All power affects the balances between opposing interests, so a growth or creation of any power source (social or technological) affects individual power - most commonly to diminish it. The fastest growing powers in the world are no longer the much maligned multi-nationals, but governments. Governments have a natural tendency to govern rather than serve their people.
Limiting government power is the main strategy in defence of freedom.
Language is a key battleground in governing the way the people think about their freedom. Freedom of speech therefore, becomes a key underpinning of all other freedoms. Philosophers, such as Milton and Mill, as well as writers, such as Orwell, Bradbury, all knew this.
The fight for the use of the term “chairperson” over "chairman" was primarily conducted through persuasion and was one small political step in realigning our thinking about the role of women. The use of the term “asylum seeker” instead of “illegal immigrant” is also one of many small political steps seeking to realign our thinking. The difference is that it is the government that is effectively making the term illegal in the Australian public debate.
Limiting government power to control speech is the main strategy in defence of freedom of speech.
We have lurched a long way into a world where many people define freedom as merely the right to do what the government says is legal. Many people are frankly surprised that anyone should argue for a limit to government - as long as it is making more and more laws that they agree with.
Berg’s book is a timely reminder of how long it has taken for freedom of speech to gain even partial acceptance, and how quickly it can be lost.
Parallelogram: Norway to Boston - There's no such thing as news, there's only opinion....
| In "mainstream media", you'll see a lot of this .....  (original story link here) |
...but not much of this.....
|
|
Why didn't I support Obama ?
Some of the issues that a friend rattled off in support for Obama are less critical but just as important to Australia....
"Safety Nets"
- I prefer the term "charity" to safety net. Charity is always best dispersed by non-government authorities.
- Unfortunately, charities and governments have formed unhealthy relationship where they both receive funds to implement government policy at the same time as agitating for increases in their funds and greater scope for their activities.
- The level of support provided by charities should only by limited by funds freely given to them. Unfortunately, these funds are increasingly extracted by taxation rather than given freely.
- The level of support provided by government should be the minimum needed to maintain the peace where charity fails i.e. prevent significant groups from rejecting the "social contract" and disrupting or threatening society.
- A very slippery term. Remember that in our youth, many considered that all employment was by definition exploitation.
- Exploitation is a a good. We exploit opportunities. We exploit resources. etc
- Exploiting people is shameful not illegal except where another factor is involved. What is lumped under "exploitation" is often fraud, or other more serious crime and should be dealt with as such.
- As individuals, we are likely to counsel people who are being exploited (e.g. by fake "green" fads, horoscopes, Scientology, political partys etc etc etc). We are also likely to publicly warn and advise against such involvements.
- As a society, we have no business is preventing people from exercising choices to support any sort of foolishness. That way lies an ever increasing spiral of state control of anything that state considers foolish. Witness the current attempt in Australia and elsewhere to paint Scientology as less exploitative that Roman Catholicism !!
- Another slippery term. When can the state rest in the knowledge that all people have equal opportunity ? Answer: Whenever it perceives it to be so. Witness the current US Supreme Court consideration of "Affirmative Action".
- There is no such thing as equality of opportunity if you consider all aspects of the individual - genotype, phenotype to which, for humans we need to add the new ingredient of culture. the person can be "disadvantaged" in an infinity of ways in any of these areas and thus have unequal opportunity in life.
- Many states, including Australia, pay little more than lip service to the principle of "equal under the law" because it has been so whittled away by the principle of "equal opportunity". Indeed, Australia is considering a special clause in the constitution to entrench a permanent race based inequality, with the rational that it redresses a past inequality.
- There is no such thing as "equal under the law" for the same reasons that there is no such thing as "equality of opportunity" - in the case of the law there is even more emphasis on the importance of the cultural factor called "money".
- The role of the state should be limited to making laws that impose duties on parents with the rationale that they have responsibility for the production of citizens and thus the state has a crucial interest in ensuring that they exist in adequate number and are nurtured in ways that maximize that chance of them being productive. This is the central guarantee of equal opportunity and includes such state requirements as education. The mechanism of provision (i.e. state vs private) is primarily a technical issue except in extreme situations (i.e. indoctrination of religious belief, failure of state schools to teach etc).
- Where parents fail in some drastic way, then the state should intervene.
- Illness is a fascinatingly extreme example of the fact that "need" is a perception rather than a fact. The level of need for medical services is ever increasing in variety and expense as fast as new services are invented by the relevant industries. As soon as a new scanner or new drug is invented, it is desperately needed by some group and the agitation begins for it to be paid for by the community.
- The term "insurance" has little meaning here as it implies a voluntary client service relationship that does not exist in the world where insurance is collected through taxation, and even private funds obtain the overwhelming proportion of their funds from government.
- Illness is just the most costly example of he charity principle outlined above.
- Drove through Tecoma where community groups are attempting to prevent a MacDonalds store from opening. This is a classic example of the dilemma. Even though the community acknowledge that this business will be well patronised by community members, be commercially viable, will employ people, will provide food no worse that the other fast food stores adjacent, they want to impose their aesthetic and probably cultural predjudice to prevent it opening. Would these same people accept campaigning against a madrassa on the same basis fo competition and cultural incompatability ?
- Similarly, many of us like the aesthetic of the corner store, but make the overwhelming bulk of our purchases through one of the members of the food oligopoly.
- The question is fundamentally: To what level of detail do you want culture enforced rather than freely chosen ? Oligopolies and Monopolies form through actions of choice by individuals. In general, they are just another expression of the strength of a culture to choose small buisness models, farmers markets etc as a way of buying food. I do not want the choice regulated.
- There are existing laws regarding constraint of trade and threatening commercial behaviour that should prevent the worst excesses of power.
- The fundamental control should be through persuading the citizens that purchasing from a variety of sources protects their choice for the future.
All the above are issues that are far more crucial to the US that they are to us for a number of reasons such as:
- our economic situation is not as dire as the US - yet.
- they have a far higher levels of entrenched dependency in their urban subcultures that we do - so far.
- etc etc
I would have voted with the million that went for Johnson. (Note: voting for someone is a choice not an endorsement of everything they have ever said or done - as I am sure Gillard supporters must feel).
Atlas Shrugged (Ayn Rand)
A story for our times.....
A prescient parable for 2012 as the "free" world becomes ever more regulated in the name of collective obligation, and the "unfree" world grows primarily through religious dictatorships overthrowing godless dictatorships.
Rand's central thesis - that there are only a small number of prime movers in a creatively productive society - seems increasingly true as the machinery of anti-business regulation in "free" economies crushes the entrepreneurial spirit.
One startling damning point against Christianity, which I am astonished that had overlooked, is the casting of knowledge as the fruit of the devil. The parable of Adam and Eve is directed not against sin, but against knowledge! Such an evil intent !
There are many minor quibbles that I have with the reasoning - especially her attempt to argue that all contracts are freely entered, except when coerced by the "gun". Only against such contracts, is it morally excusable to retaliate with violence. To me this attempt at simple binary categorisation of coercion denies the smooth continuum of coercive techniques and the consequent continuum of reduction in their moral force.
Criticism of the wooden style and "two dimensional characterisation" is misplaced in that the book is not an exploration of the character of individuals, but the characteristics of human society. It has more in common with `Thus Spoke Zarathustra' than with `War and Peace'. It is a polemic (or even a bible) as much as a novel.
The John Galt radio speech is the longest "voice over" I have ever experienced. It's purpose is explicitly philosophical rather than dramatic.
All books alter the minds that read them. Some books give me the sense that I will see everything a little different for the rest of my life, even if the detail of the text fades. Atlas Shrugged has "shaken and stirred" my attitudes - an experience reported by huge numbers of people over decades. The fact that it has been so 'actively' ignored by the "intelligentsia" while remaining so influential, feeds directly into the novels narrative.
Rand's central thesis - that there are only a small number of prime movers in a creatively productive society - seems increasingly true as the machinery of anti-business regulation in "free" economies crushes the entrepreneurial spirit.
One startling damning point against Christianity, which I am astonished that had overlooked, is the casting of knowledge as the fruit of the devil. The parable of Adam and Eve is directed not against sin, but against knowledge! Such an evil intent !
There are many minor quibbles that I have with the reasoning - especially her attempt to argue that all contracts are freely entered, except when coerced by the "gun". Only against such contracts, is it morally excusable to retaliate with violence. To me this attempt at simple binary categorisation of coercion denies the smooth continuum of coercive techniques and the consequent continuum of reduction in their moral force.
Criticism of the wooden style and "two dimensional characterisation" is misplaced in that the book is not an exploration of the character of individuals, but the characteristics of human society. It has more in common with `Thus Spoke Zarathustra' than with `War and Peace'. It is a polemic (or even a bible) as much as a novel.
The John Galt radio speech is the longest "voice over" I have ever experienced. It's purpose is explicitly philosophical rather than dramatic.
All books alter the minds that read them. Some books give me the sense that I will see everything a little different for the rest of my life, even if the detail of the text fades. Atlas Shrugged has "shaken and stirred" my attitudes - an experience reported by huge numbers of people over decades. The fact that it has been so 'actively' ignored by the "intelligentsia" while remaining so influential, feeds directly into the novels narrative.
China Watching
Within a behemoth like China, a myriad of cultures still struggle to survive the forging of a fascist culture as the last step in the successful rise of the Han of the last few thousand years. The Han culture is far older, more varied and probably more tolerant than it’s latest embodiment in one of the few successful mutations of communism.
The sense of rightness and invincibility that so many feel in regard to China, flows inherently from any phenomena with huge scale and longevity.
Scale: If it is that big, then it must be doing something right, and is too big to resist anyway.
Longevity: The Chinese government’s partial absorption of Confucius is part of a strategy to absorb power from seeming to be continuous with the immensely long timeline of Chinese history.
I consider China to be immensely dangerous because it is immense and dangerous.
It is a nation that is at the beginning of its imperial adventures (only having been partially thwarted in its previous attempts in south east by another imperial power that is highly likely to economically self destruct in the very near future). The beginnings of this adventurism in Africa and to a lesser extent South America are being systematically ignored by most commentators as they recognise the dangers, both political and personal, that can flow from unwelcome facts about China.
When resource scarcities occur in the future, China will have the same justification for military action as all imperial states in the past – maintaining access to markets and commodities.
China will have a few other factors encouraging such options – an oversupply of males with little chance for mates in China, and lower economic prospects than the “rags to riches” success stories so prominent in the boom years. What better direction to point these men in than the military? What better reason for them to fight than to defend access to African oil fields of food sources?
None of the above detracts from my admiration for so many attributes of chinese culture:
They have family structures that are highly coherent and self supporting, and remain so when relocated within almost any other culture. Those who identify as Hindu and Muslim have similar family stability, but Muslims are far less likely to be economically successful.
Chinese succeed economically in areas of the world where other cultures fail (e.g. Chinese and Indians are vastly more successful that blacks in the same economic position within US urban environments).
Chinese academically outperform most other ethnic groups in most populations.
Chinese ethnic groups have higher reproductive rates than most western indigenous cultures (who hasn’t !!!).
To top it off, Chinese have a growing cultural self-confidence stemming not only from the mother country’s immense size and long history, but also from the scale and spread of the Chinese diaspora.
Objectively, the chinese deserve to inherit the earth.
I just doubt that the quaint belief in freedom, already being actively undermined in current democracies, is likely to have much of a future in such a world.
The sense of rightness and invincibility that so many feel in regard to China, flows inherently from any phenomena with huge scale and longevity.
Scale: If it is that big, then it must be doing something right, and is too big to resist anyway.
Longevity: The Chinese government’s partial absorption of Confucius is part of a strategy to absorb power from seeming to be continuous with the immensely long timeline of Chinese history.
I consider China to be immensely dangerous because it is immense and dangerous.
It is a nation that is at the beginning of its imperial adventures (only having been partially thwarted in its previous attempts in south east by another imperial power that is highly likely to economically self destruct in the very near future). The beginnings of this adventurism in Africa and to a lesser extent South America are being systematically ignored by most commentators as they recognise the dangers, both political and personal, that can flow from unwelcome facts about China.
When resource scarcities occur in the future, China will have the same justification for military action as all imperial states in the past – maintaining access to markets and commodities.
China will have a few other factors encouraging such options – an oversupply of males with little chance for mates in China, and lower economic prospects than the “rags to riches” success stories so prominent in the boom years. What better direction to point these men in than the military? What better reason for them to fight than to defend access to African oil fields of food sources?
None of the above detracts from my admiration for so many attributes of chinese culture:
They have family structures that are highly coherent and self supporting, and remain so when relocated within almost any other culture. Those who identify as Hindu and Muslim have similar family stability, but Muslims are far less likely to be economically successful.
Chinese succeed economically in areas of the world where other cultures fail (e.g. Chinese and Indians are vastly more successful that blacks in the same economic position within US urban environments).
Chinese academically outperform most other ethnic groups in most populations.
Chinese ethnic groups have higher reproductive rates than most western indigenous cultures (who hasn’t !!!).
To top it off, Chinese have a growing cultural self-confidence stemming not only from the mother country’s immense size and long history, but also from the scale and spread of the Chinese diaspora.
Objectively, the chinese deserve to inherit the earth.
I just doubt that the quaint belief in freedom, already being actively undermined in current democracies, is likely to have much of a future in such a world.
Cow economics...
An oldie capable of endless rejuvenation......
SOCIALISM
You have 2 cows.
You give one to your neighbour.
SURREALISM
You have two giraffes.
The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.
COMMUNISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and gives you some milk.
FASCISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and sells you some milk.
BUREAUCRATISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then throws the milk away.
A SMALL COMPANY
You have two cows.
You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd multiplies. You hire your neighbour to work them for you and retire.
A LARGE COMPANY
You have two cows.
You follow the advice of a consultant and buy 98 more on credit and extract 4 times the normal mil output to service the debt. Later, you hire another consultant to analyse why the cows died. The state gives you a grant to maintain employment levels.
AN INTERNATIONAL COMPANY
You have two cows.
You sell 300 of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt-equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for 500 cows. The milk rights of 600 cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to 700 cows back to your listed company. The annual report says the company owns 800 cows, with an option on more. The state then buys your bull.
A GREEK COMPANY
You have two cows.
You borrow from the EuroBank to build barns, milking sheds, hay stores, feed sheds, dairies, cold stores, abattoir, cheese unit and packing sheds. You retire on the Eurobank subsidies. You still only have two cows.
AN ITALIAN COMPANY
You have two cows.
You don't know where they are. You decide to have lunch.
A CHINESE COMPANY
You have two cows.
You have 300 people milking them. A reporter asks if this is really the measure of zero unemployment, and high productivity. You arrest the reporter.
A FRENCH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You go on strike, organise a riot, and block the roads, because you want three cows.
A JAPANESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk.
A SWISS CORPORATION
You have 5000 cows.
None of them belong to you. You charge the owners for storing them.
AN IRAQI CORPORATION
Everyone thinks you have lots of cows.
You tell them that you have none. No-one believes you, so they bomb the ** out of you and invade your country. You still have no cows, but at least you are now a Democracy.
AN INDIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You worship them.
A BRITISH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Both are mad.
AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Business seems pretty good. You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.
A NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION
You have two cows.
The one on the left looks very attractive...
SOCIALISM
You have 2 cows.
You give one to your neighbour.
SURREALISM
You have two giraffes.
The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.
COMMUNISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and gives you some milk.
FASCISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and sells you some milk.
BUREAUCRATISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then throws the milk away.
A SMALL COMPANY
You have two cows.
You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd multiplies. You hire your neighbour to work them for you and retire.
A LARGE COMPANY
You have two cows.
You follow the advice of a consultant and buy 98 more on credit and extract 4 times the normal mil output to service the debt. Later, you hire another consultant to analyse why the cows died. The state gives you a grant to maintain employment levels.
AN INTERNATIONAL COMPANY
You have two cows.
You sell 300 of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt-equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for 500 cows. The milk rights of 600 cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to 700 cows back to your listed company. The annual report says the company owns 800 cows, with an option on more. The state then buys your bull.
A GREEK COMPANY
You have two cows.
You borrow from the EuroBank to build barns, milking sheds, hay stores, feed sheds, dairies, cold stores, abattoir, cheese unit and packing sheds. You retire on the Eurobank subsidies. You still only have two cows.
AN ITALIAN COMPANY
You have two cows.
You don't know where they are. You decide to have lunch.
A CHINESE COMPANY
You have two cows.
You have 300 people milking them. A reporter asks if this is really the measure of zero unemployment, and high productivity. You arrest the reporter.
A FRENCH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You go on strike, organise a riot, and block the roads, because you want three cows.
A JAPANESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk.
A SWISS CORPORATION
You have 5000 cows.
None of them belong to you. You charge the owners for storing them.
AN IRAQI CORPORATION
Everyone thinks you have lots of cows.
You tell them that you have none. No-one believes you, so they bomb the ** out of you and invade your country. You still have no cows, but at least you are now a Democracy.
AN INDIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You worship them.
A BRITISH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Both are mad.
AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Business seems pretty good. You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.
A NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION
You have two cows.
The one on the left looks very attractive...
The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World (Niall Ferguson)
Financial systems: memes out of control...
The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World (Niall Ferguson)A very readable introduction to the "dismal science" of economics. The book is full of fascinating anecdotes explaining how innovations in the use of money influenced social or political history.
It ends with an explicit and extended analogy between the "ascent of money" and evolutionary processes which leaves open the question of whether money is a meme out of control or a deadly virus....
The Great Global Warming Swindle
A document with the title: A Review Of 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' By S. Fred Singer, (Atmospheric Physicist) March 19, 2007 is making the rounds at the moment with an inference that it is written by Fred Singer himself.
It appears at http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/swindle.htm as written by Phillip Atkinson whose site contains an interesting but somewhat bitter and overconfident summary of the world’s knowledge.
The Great Global Warming Swindle is a very interesting movie (See it on Youtube).
Unfortunately, there have been a number of well documented rebuttals of key elements of the program (the best one I know is at http://www.climateofdenial.net/?q=node/7 ).
The program was nevertheless useful in pointing out by example the danger of half truth’s as used in quasi-religious fervour by climate change believers.
At least some climate change believers have since tried to temper their predictions and proposals with more supporting arguments and facts.
I am a climate change believer in the sense that I believe that climate has always been changing but that the variations are accelerating and that this is highly likely to be caused by human activity.
The interesting blind spot demonstrated by most climate change believers is that among all proposal for stopping planetary damage damaging, the most obvious proposal is rejected out of hand – i.e. a reduction in the growth of the number of humans, or even a reduction in absolute numbers.
In my view, this should be THE fundamental quid pro quo in negotiations re. carbon emission reduction by so called “developed” countries.
Stephen Digby
It appears at http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/swindle.htm as written by Phillip Atkinson whose site contains an interesting but somewhat bitter and overconfident summary of the world’s knowledge.
The Great Global Warming Swindle is a very interesting movie (See it on Youtube).
Unfortunately, there have been a number of well documented rebuttals of key elements of the program (the best one I know is at http://www.climateofdenial.net/?q=node/7 ).
The program was nevertheless useful in pointing out by example the danger of half truth’s as used in quasi-religious fervour by climate change believers.
At least some climate change believers have since tried to temper their predictions and proposals with more supporting arguments and facts.
I am a climate change believer in the sense that I believe that climate has always been changing but that the variations are accelerating and that this is highly likely to be caused by human activity.
The interesting blind spot demonstrated by most climate change believers is that among all proposal for stopping planetary damage damaging, the most obvious proposal is rejected out of hand – i.e. a reduction in the growth of the number of humans, or even a reduction in absolute numbers.
In my view, this should be THE fundamental quid pro quo in negotiations re. carbon emission reduction by so called “developed” countries.
Stephen Digby
The Dispossessed (Ursula K. Le Guin)
One man's initiative combined with his abstract intellectual brilliance disturbs the political stasis in two planets and may be a seed of change even beyond. The book sensitively explores the social organisation and personal experience of the anarcho-communist world in which Shevek lives.
He gradually realises that the price of freedom is eternal "initiative" - opposing the 'vigilance' of those who protect the status quo. His power to influence events comes from the value of his work in theoretical science.
All worlds share a quasi-religious belief that theory is the first step to technology and thus to power.
The strength of the book is the complex and convincing shades of grey in which both characters and social systems are portrayed. There are no easy solutions and even the motivation of villains is complex.
A enthralling and satisfying philosophy text presented through fiction.
Little girl. Big symbol
THE revelation that the singer in the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics was hidden from view because a politician considered her face was not in the "national interest" is a powerful metaphor for this Olympics. China is undergoing huge change, substantially for the better — in economic freedoms, political freedoms, and even some tiny recognitions of limits to growth. What cultural practice do they continue to fear most? Honesty.Stephen Digby
Peace at last.. but will it last ?
After the war, Israeli soldiers will now be attacked from civilian positions at close range as well as long range. Firing back will continue to be categorised as a war crime.
After the war, the self styled "Arab Countries", and self styled "Muslim World" will have renewed vigor in their claim that all the troubles in their oil rich dictatorships are the result of a Zionist conspiracy.
After the war, the "Arab street" will continue to be single minded on most issues where to speak an opposing view may result in immediate death from the mob. After the war, an unrepresentative but unopposed group of mosques within the "Free World" will continue to build the modern "culture of complaint" into a full blown psychosis within selected young Muslims.
If peace is merely the absence of war, then it will be short indeed.
Nuclear Power needed to feed the growth addiction
The re-invention of the nuclear industry is being sold as the great hope for powering the third world into the same consumption patterns that we enjoy. They are hoping that we will feel that denying the third world this power (look at the religious nut, Ahmadinejad peddling this line, so he can get a bomb to hasten the return of Mohammed).
The best strategy to oppose the insanity of growth is to continue to oppose the nuclear power industry.
The Middle-East Buttons - Reverse, Endless Loop or Forward
- The Palestinian Government (lead by the Hamas organization) began the escalation after the economic isolation lead by Israel caused them to abandon the ceasefire and mount a tunnel attack on Israeli forced.
- The Israelis responded with their own escalation to pressure for the return of the captured Israeli serviceman.
- Hamas attempted responses but was literally outgunned in any open confrontation.
- Hamas then enlisted Hezbollah which began attacks on Israeli military and civilian positions from Lebanon. The Lebanese government, only recently freed from Syrian control, was unable to spark confrontation with the Hezbollah forces along the Israeli border, and refused to accept responsibility for the acts of war mounted from their territory.
- Israel was faced with acts of war on two fronts from forces that deliberately embedded themselves within the civilian population, thus ensuring civilian casualties would accompany any attacks on guerilla forces.
- The attitude of the global press and most political leaders was motivated by a desire for the conflict to stop for humanitarian and economic reasons (e.g. oil price escalation).
- As both Hezbollah and Hamas are recognized extremist organizations which encourage and celebrate suicidal missions, the only "rationale" power to plead with is Israel. Thus, the pressure is heavily weighted against Israel.
- The rational and historical precendents for Israel's actions are innumerable - nations have always visited "collective" punishment on the populace of other hostile nations.
- The complexity here is that the nations are waging war by proxy (in the case of the Palestinians through a variety of guerilla and terrorist subgroups) and by default (in the case of Lebanon through an inability to control the multiple guerilla armies within their borders).
What to do....
- The criticism of Israel is often framed as "disproportionate" response. From my reading of the "tit-for-tat", Israel has made far more effort to target installation and people with military value than have the attacks from Palestinian or Lebanese land.
Israel needs to continue a "measured" destructive pressure until there is a change in attitudes of the opposing leaders or the Palestinian and Lebanese populace demand the guerrillas are brought under national control. - The UN should seek a unilateral ceasefire and then negotiate the release of Israeli and Palestinian prisoners. The key sticking point here is the difference between a guerilla and a terrorist.
In my view, a terrorist does not act on the instruction of a state, and targets civilians rather than military or infrastructure.
A guerilla acts on the instruction of a state OR political organization but DOES target military or infrastructure.
I believe that the term "state terrorism" is rhetoric in that it attempts to equate modern terrorism with actions taken by virtually all nations over the past millennia (e.g. acts of total war designed to sap the morale of an enemy nation by deliberately targeting the civilian population through the sword, disease, ground and air bombardment etc etc). - Israel should attempt to make this distinction when negotiating the release of its soldiers so as to prevent the distinction being lost.
- History is showing us (in particular in the last decades of the 20 century up to the present) that attempts to mix significant percentages of radically different cultures within one society is doomed to failure UNLESS the society experiences change so rapid that the individual cultures are disrupted and mixed.
I would describe the endpoint as a mono-culture with different ethnic flavors.
The best option for the curing of the Middle-East epidemic is:
- the physical isolation of the patients from each other for a half century or more (the Israeli wall may drawn unfairly, but it is the best strategy)
- the reduction and cessation of cross border labor movement in & out of Israel, causing pain for both Palestinian and Israeli economy's but essential to the reduction of opportunities for terrorism, and the encouragement to refocusing and possible relocation towards neighboring states.
- the economic development of each remaining territory using the resources of neighboring Arab states (e.g. citizenship and economic help should be given by Egypt to all Gaza residents; by Jordan to all West Bank residents)
- the reduction in population density in high density poverty-stricken areas (birth rate reduction strategies, encouragement for within neighboring states.
We can only hope....
The View from the West
Many periods of history could be characterised by the sort of conflict, lack of clear vision and pessimism that dominates the "West" at the moment. If I had to characterise this period in history, I would hope that it will be remembered positively as the "death of growth" rather than the "end of nature".
We all oscillate between various priorities.
The preservation of desirable cultural relationships (some are using distasteful terms such as "social capital") is a similar priority to preservation of diversity and counterbalances in ecology.
I see the need to assist Africa is a more function of the need to pre-empt a "trouble spot" that may destabilise our world rather than a moral imperative. Individuals and states behaviour as if they believe this even if their cultures demand that they speak differently. Contributions to these countries are minuscule and tokenistic compared to the resources that would be available if we really felt that people in a far lands were actually our brothers, sisters or children.
Biological "Circles of concern" insulate us from feeling, in any real sense, the literally unimaginable tragedies that unfold there every day. We oscillate in our concern depending on the latest news story, fundraising angle, or "natural" catastrophe.
The capacity of humans to be motivated "high in the head" is evident in a small minority of people a small minority of the time. Most people, if threats begin to penetrate their "circles of concern", quickly become "energised" by the "furnaces".
The challenge of civilisation lies in pleasing and appeasing all (easier the more monoculture the civilisation or the more powerful the hegemony) to avoid the furnace igniting.
This is "the way the world is". The history of this "crooked timber" is evidence of this throughout the ages. The Catholics have it right - we are all sinners. Optimism comes not from a belief in a future utopia run by "straight timber" - but from personal transcendental experiences such as faith (political, religious, etc), love (of children, music) and charity (gifts without expectation of thanks OR transformational effect).
To see the world in term of enlightenment" and "reaction" is to believe in the possibility of a "true" direction. This is the "root of all evil" - in fact money (= development) is often proposed as the new "true direction" for the planet as though this will solve more problems that it will create.
Even though this has been the truth in the past, I believe it to be false for the future .
Israel Lobby - So What ?
My comments on extracts from the article: The Israel Lobby - London Review of Books - 2006/3/23
Jews in Israel are a legacy of an historical injustice - just like Muslims in Europe [Muslim Emperial, Africans in France [French Colonialism] and England, Indians in Fiji [English Colonialism in Pacific], protestants in Northern Ireland [English Colonialism], whites in South Africa [English Colonialism], etc etc
The present has a responsibility to ensure that individuals that find themselves marginalised culturally due to race are integrated into the melting pot of their dominant culture through active intervention (both supportive and demanding).
We also have the responsibility to prevent more such problems developing in the future through growth of immigrant subcultures within existing nations
The Israeli state is legitimate morally, politically because a majority of people living within it's borders support it's continuation. This gives it more legitimacy than most others in the region who continue to oppress groups within their territory where there is a local geographic majority which deserves the right to determine it's own destiny (e.g. Kurds and Armenians in Turkey and Iraq, Some Sunni's in Egypt etc etc.)
The limits to this self determination can only be decided case by case - Singapore seperate from Malaysia ? Timor seperate from Indonesia ? West Papua ? Tasmania ?
As a state, Israel must seek the most support and negotiate the best deals that it can in relation to any issue, just as we all do...
The US has strategic interests in maintaining at least a kernel of western democracy in a region that may take a century to develop widespread support for this social concept.
The US feels a responsibility as the "leader of the free world" to continue the defence of a nation established by the west in an atmosphere of horror, shame and hope at the end of WWII.
The US has a large and powerful ethnic group that exerts influence on the US government through legitimate social influence.
The main points of the article The Israel Lobby are:
For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centrepiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread ‘democracy’ throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardised not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world."
[Embedded unstated implication:
Support for an ally and democracy is a dangerous policy - perhaps irresponsible - perhaps immoral ?
How would you react to "Unwavering support for Great Britain and democracy has inflamed Nazi Germany and jeopardised not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world"]
"This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries was based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, but neither explanation can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the US provides.".
[Embedded unstated implication:
There are few shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, and these are the only considerations.
What about the following:
Jews in Israel are a legacy of an historical injustice - just like Muslims in Europe [Muslim Emperial, Africans in France [French Colonialism] and England, Indians in Fiji [English Colonialism in Pacific], protestants in Northern Ireland [English Colonialism], whites in South Africa [English Colonialism], etc etc
The present has a responsibility to ensure that individuals that find themselves marginalised culturally due to race are integrated into the melting pot of their dominant culture through active intervention (both supportive and demanding).
We also have the responsibility to prevent more such problems developing in the future through growth of immigrant subcultures within existing nations
The Israeli state is legitimate morally, politically because a majority of people living within it's borders support it's continuation. This gives it more legitimacy than most others in the region who continue to oppress groups within their territory where there is a local geographic majority which deserves the right to determine it's own destiny (e.g. Kurds and Armenians in Turkey and Iraq, Some Sunni's in Egypt etc etc.)
The limits to this self determination can only be decided case by case - Singapore seperate from Malaysia ? Timor seperate from Indonesia ? West Papua ? Tasmania ?
As a state, Israel must seek the most support and negotiate the best deals that it can in relation to any issue, just as we all do...
The US has strategic interests in maintaining at least a kernel of western democracy in a region that may take a century to develop widespread support for this social concept.
The US feels a responsibility as the "leader of the free world" to continue the defence of a nation established by the west in an atmosphere of horror, shame and hope at the end of WWII.
The US has a large and powerful ethnic group that exerts influence on the US government through legitimate social influence.
The main points of the article The Israel Lobby are:
- the strategic value of Israel is overstated (so we have less self interest in supporting it);
- that the history and current behaviour of the Israeli state reduces or eliminates the moral justification for support;
- that the exertion of social, political and economic influence within the US in favour of Israel is somehow sinister (I wonder how it compares to the suppression of free speech by Muslim intolerance in virtually every country in which Muslims form a significant proportion - witness the recent "cartoon riots".)
- Everyone would be better off of the Israelis gave more concessions to the Palestinians
- the US national interest should continue to be based on its own definition of balance in strategic, economic, moral AND social considerations
- Israel should be pressured to allow a separate Palestinian nation state
- Israel should not rely on or allow large scale daily movement of non-citizens across its borders - until such time (50 years ?) as this movement can occur without extreme security risk on one hand, or oppressive surveillance on the other.
- The development of the wall, the removal of outlying settlements and the restriction of cross border family contact could all reduce the danger and tension over the next decade.
- Palestine should be encouraged to develop with strategic, economic, and social relations with states other than Israel (especially Egypt !). Otherwise, it will continue to define itself as a victim of "apartheid" rather than a nation responsible for its own fate.
- Hostile acts between states are easier to identify and respond to than acts that purport to be carried out by unauthorised individuals or renegade groups.
For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centrepiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread ‘democracy’ throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardised not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world."
[Embedded unstated implication:
Support for an ally and democracy is a dangerous policy - perhaps irresponsible - perhaps immoral ?
How would you react to "Unwavering support for Great Britain and democracy has inflamed Nazi Germany and jeopardised not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world"]
"This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries was based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, but neither explanation can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the US provides.".
[Embedded unstated implication:
There are few shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, and these are the only considerations.
What about the following:
- growth of western style democracy will not be served by the extinguishing of the only state in the region with a well developed western democracy;
- the defence of a state against those that wish to eliminate it from the face of the earth is a direct moral imperatives esp considering the fact that that the west created it out of guilt for the previous attempt at genocide;
- perhaps the most powerful reason is nneither strategic or moral but social/ religious i.e. the US has a prominent and powerful jewish sub-culture which will support governments that protect "its own"]
"Instead, the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby’. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew [loaded term] foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest [which is what ?], while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country – in this case, Israel – are essentially identical.
Since the October War in 1973, Washington has provided Israel with a level of support dwarfing that given to any other state. It has been the largest annual recipient of direct economic and military assistance since 1976, and is the largest recipient in total since World War Two, to the tune of well over $140 billion (in 2004 dollars). Israel receives about $3 billion in direct assistance each year, roughly one-fifth of the foreign aid budget, and worth about $500 a year for every Israeli. This largesse is especially striking since Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income roughly equal to that of South Korea or Spain.
Other recipients get their money in quarterly installments, but Israel receives its entire appropriation at the beginning of each fiscal year and can thus earn interest on it. Most recipients of aid given for military purposes are required to spend all of it in the US, but Israel is allowed to use roughly 25 per cent of its allocation to subsidise its own defence industry. It is the only recipient that does not have to account for how the aid is spent, which makes it virtually impossible to prevent the money from being used for purposes the US opposes, such as building settlements on the West Bank. Moreover, the US has provided Israel with nearly $3 billion to develop weapons systems, and given it access to such top-drawer weaponry as Blackhawk helicopters and F-16 jets. Finally, the US gives Israel access to intelligence it denies to its Nato allies [Mossad, one of the best intelligence services in the world also shares intelligence back USA. i.e. not just one way support], and has turned a blind eye to Israel’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.
[As Jews including some Israelis were involved in US bomb development, it is hard to stop them. Also, possible sense that a "responsible western style government" should have the right to decide for itself re. atomic weapons cf. fundamentalist Iran]
[As Jews including some Israelis were involved in US bomb development, it is hard to stop them. Also, possible sense that a "responsible western style government" should have the right to decide for itself re. atomic weapons cf. fundamentalist Iran]
Washington also provides Israel with consistent diplomatic support. Since 1982, the US has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, more than the total number of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members. It blocks the efforts of Arab states to put Israel’s nuclear arsenal on the IAEA’s agenda. The US comes to the rescue in wartime and takes Israel’s side when negotiating peace. The Nixon administration protected it from the threat of Soviet intervention and resupplied it during the October War. Washington was deeply involved in the negotiations that ended that war, as well as in the lengthy ‘step-by-step’ process that followed, just as it played a key role in the negotiations that preceded and followed the 1993 Oslo Accords. In each case there was occasional friction between US and Israeli officials, but the US consistently supported the Israeli position. One American participant at Camp David in 2000 later said: ‘Far too often, we functioned . . . as Israel’s lawyer.’ Finally, the Bush administration’s ambition to transform the Middle East is at least partly aimed at improving Israel’s strategic situation.
This extraordinary generosity might be understandable if Israel were a vital strategic asset or if there were a compelling moral case for US backing. But neither explanation is convincing
[Does the following argument support this assertion ? Also ignores the most powerful and common reason for support - e.g. social/ religious / racial relationship]
One might argue that Israel was an asset during the Cold War. By serving as America’s proxy after 1967, it helped contain Soviet expansion in the region and inflicted humiliating defeats on Soviet clients like Egypt and Syria. It occasionally helped protect other US allies (like King Hussein of Jordan) and its military prowess forced Moscow to spend more on backing its own client states. It also provided useful intelligence about Soviet capabilities.
[Does the following argument support this assertion ? Also ignores the most powerful and common reason for support - e.g. social/ religious / racial relationship]
One might argue that Israel was an asset during the Cold War. By serving as America’s proxy after 1967, it helped contain Soviet expansion in the region and inflicted humiliating defeats on Soviet clients like Egypt and Syria. It occasionally helped protect other US allies (like King Hussein of Jordan) and its military prowess forced Moscow to spend more on backing its own client states. It also provided useful intelligence about Soviet capabilities.
Backing Israel was not cheap, however, and it complicated America’s relations with the Arab world. For example, the decision to give $2.2 billion in emergency military aid during the October War triggered an Opec oil embargo that inflicted considerable damage on Western economies. For all that, Israel’s armed forces were not in a position to protect US interests in the region. The US could not, for example, rely on Israel when the Iranian Revolution in 1979 raised concerns about the security of oil supplies, and had to create its own Rapid Deployment Force instead.
The first Gulf War revealed the extent to which Israel was becoming a strategic burden. The US could not use Israeli bases without rupturing the anti-Iraq coalition, and had to divert resources (e.g. Patriot missile batteries) to prevent Tel Aviv doing anything that might harm the alliance against Saddam Hussein. History repeated itself in 2003: although Israel was eager for the US to attack Iraq, Bush could not ask it to help without triggering Arab opposition. So Israel stayed on the sidelines once again.
Beginning in the 1990s, and even more after 9/11, US support has been justified by the claim that both states are threatened by terrorist groups originating in the Arab and Muslim world, and by ‘rogue states’ that back these groups and seek weapons of mass destruction. This is taken to mean not only that Washington should give Israel a free hand in dealing with the Palestinians and not press it to make concessions until all Palestinian terrorists are imprisoned or dead, but that the US should go after countries like Iran and Syria. Israel is thus seen as a crucial ally in the war on terror, because its enemies are America’s enemies. In fact, Israel is a liability in the war on terror and the broader effort to deal with rogue states.
‘Terrorism’ is not a single adversary, but a tactic employed by a wide array of political groups
[True and interesting statement. Esp give the interesting and successful invention of the suicide bombing tactic by Sri Lankans.]
The terrorist organisations that threaten Israel do not threaten the United States, except when it intervenes against them (as in Lebanon in 1982). Moreover, Palestinian terrorism is not random violence directed against Israel or ‘the West’; it is largely a response to Israel’s prolonged campaign to colonise the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
[True and interesting statement. Esp give the interesting and successful invention of the suicide bombing tactic by Sri Lankans.]
The terrorist organisations that threaten Israel do not threaten the United States, except when it intervenes against them (as in Lebanon in 1982). Moreover, Palestinian terrorism is not random violence directed against Israel or ‘the West’; it is largely a response to Israel’s prolonged campaign to colonise the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
More important, saying that Israel and the US are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards: the US has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around. Support for Israel is not the only source of anti-American terrorism, but it is an important one, and it makes winning the war on terror more difficult
[Easier if we ditch any ally or group that is a terrorist target ? Is this a legitimate strategy for making ourselves safe ? Look at the case re Nigerian Miss World or Rushdie or slaughter of Christians in Indonesia or North Africa etc etc]
There is no question that many al-Qaida leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are motivated by Israel’s presence in Jerusalem and the plight of the Palestinians. Unconditional support for Israel makes it easier for extremists to rally popular support and to attract recruits.
[Easier if we ditch any ally or group that is a terrorist target ? Is this a legitimate strategy for making ourselves safe ? Look at the case re Nigerian Miss World or Rushdie or slaughter of Christians in Indonesia or North Africa etc etc]
There is no question that many al-Qaida leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are motivated by Israel’s presence in Jerusalem and the plight of the Palestinians. Unconditional support for Israel makes it easier for extremists to rally popular support and to attract recruits.
As for so-called rogue states in the Middle East, they are not a dire threat to vital US interests, except inasmuch as they are a threat to Israel. Even if these states acquire nuclear weapons – which is obviously undesirable – neither America nor Israel could be blackmailed, because the blackmailer could not carry out the threat without suffering overwhelming retaliation
[Now we ARE talking rubbish.
The KEY aspect of terrorism is to wage war outside of a responsible political structure THUS gaining the political benefit of terror while denying culpability BUT reminding those that are being terrorised that THEY are contributing to the "conditions" that create terrorism by their failure to capitulate.
See Sinn Fein, Palestinians, Tamils, Kashmiri's, Jemaah Islamiyah etc etc]
The danger of a nuclear handover to terrorists is equally remote, because a rogue state could not be sure the transfer would go undetected or that it would not be blamed and punished afterwards. The relationship with Israel actually makes it harder for the US to deal with these states. Israel’s nuclear arsenal is one reason some of its neighbours want nuclear weapons, and threatening them with regime change merely increases that desire.
[Now we ARE talking rubbish.
The KEY aspect of terrorism is to wage war outside of a responsible political structure THUS gaining the political benefit of terror while denying culpability BUT reminding those that are being terrorised that THEY are contributing to the "conditions" that create terrorism by their failure to capitulate.
See Sinn Fein, Palestinians, Tamils, Kashmiri's, Jemaah Islamiyah etc etc]
The danger of a nuclear handover to terrorists is equally remote, because a rogue state could not be sure the transfer would go undetected or that it would not be blamed and punished afterwards. The relationship with Israel actually makes it harder for the US to deal with these states. Israel’s nuclear arsenal is one reason some of its neighbours want nuclear weapons, and threatening them with regime change merely increases that desire.
A final reason to question Israel’s strategic value is that it does not behave like a loyal ally. Israeli officials frequently ignore US requests and renege on promises (including pledges to stop building settlements and to refrain from ‘targeted assassinations’ of Palestinian leaders)
[So what.. so does any independent state. "Ally" does not mean "subject"]
Israel has provided sensitive military technology to potential rivals like China, in what the State Department inspector-general called ‘a systematic and growing pattern of unauthorised transfers’. According to the General Accounting Office, Israel also ‘conducts the most aggressive espionage operations against the US of any ally’. In addition to the case of Jonathan Pollard, who gave Israel large quantities of classified material in the early 1980s (which it reportedly passed on to the Soviet Union in return for more exit visas for Soviet Jews), a new controversy erupted in 2004 when it was revealed that a key Pentagon official called Larry Franklin had passed classified information to an Israeli diplomat. Israel is hardly the only country that spies on the US, but its willingness to spy on its principal patron casts further doubt on its strategic value.
[So what.. so does any independent state. "Ally" does not mean "subject"]
Israel has provided sensitive military technology to potential rivals like China, in what the State Department inspector-general called ‘a systematic and growing pattern of unauthorised transfers’. According to the General Accounting Office, Israel also ‘conducts the most aggressive espionage operations against the US of any ally’. In addition to the case of Jonathan Pollard, who gave Israel large quantities of classified material in the early 1980s (which it reportedly passed on to the Soviet Union in return for more exit visas for Soviet Jews), a new controversy erupted in 2004 when it was revealed that a key Pentagon official called Larry Franklin had passed classified information to an Israeli diplomat. Israel is hardly the only country that spies on the US, but its willingness to spy on its principal patron casts further doubt on its strategic value.
Israel’s strategic value isn’t the only issue. Its backers also argue that it deserves unqualified support because it is weak and surrounded by enemies; it is a democracy; the Jewish people have suffered from past crimes and therefore deserve special treatment; and Israel’s conduct has been morally superior to that of its adversaries. On close inspection, none of these arguments is persuasive. There is a strong moral case for supporting Israel’s existence, but that is not in jeopardy [Rubbish - 1948, 1967, 1973... Future nuclear Iran, etc] . Viewed objectively, its past and present conduct offers no moral basis for privileging it over the Palestinians.
Israel is often portrayed as David confronted by Goliath, but the converse is closer to the truth. Contrary to popular belief, the Zionists [Perjorative term, not inclusive of the national aspiration] had larger, better equipped and better led forces during the 1947-49 War of Independence, and the Israel Defence Forces won quick and easy victories against Egypt in 1956 and against Egypt, Jordan and Syria in 1967 – all of this before large-scale US aid began flowing. Today, Israel is the strongest military power in the Middle East. Its conventional forces are far superior to those of its neighbours and it is the only state in the region with nuclear weapons. Egypt and Jordan have signed peace treaties with it, and Saudi Arabia has offered to do so. Syria has lost its Soviet patron, Iraq has been devastated by three disastrous wars and Iran is hundreds of miles away
[Trying to develop long range delivery systems with nuclear weapons as fast as possible to fulfil the apocalyptic vision of its current president and who knows how many citizens.]
The Palestinians barely have an effective police force, let alone an army that could pose a threat to Israel
[Do you mean take over or terror ? Plenty of resources for terror].
According to a 2005 assessment by Tel Aviv University’s Jaffee Centre for Strategic Studies, ‘the strategic balance decidedly favours Israel, which has continued to widen the qualitative gap between its own military capability and deterrence powers and those of its neighbours.’ If backing the underdog were a compelling motive, the United States would be supporting Israel’s opponents.
[Trying to develop long range delivery systems with nuclear weapons as fast as possible to fulfil the apocalyptic vision of its current president and who knows how many citizens.]
The Palestinians barely have an effective police force, let alone an army that could pose a threat to Israel
[Do you mean take over or terror ? Plenty of resources for terror].
According to a 2005 assessment by Tel Aviv University’s Jaffee Centre for Strategic Studies, ‘the strategic balance decidedly favours Israel, which has continued to widen the qualitative gap between its own military capability and deterrence powers and those of its neighbours.’ If backing the underdog were a compelling motive, the United States would be supporting Israel’s opponents.
That Israel is a fellow democracy surrounded by hostile dictatorships cannot account for the current level of aid: there are many democracies around the world, but none receives the same lavish support. The US has overthrown democratic governments in the past and supported dictators when this was thought to advance its interests – it has good relations with a number of dictatorships today.
Some aspects of Israeli democracy are at odds with core American values. Unlike the US, where people are supposed to enjoy equal rights irrespective of race, religion or ethnicity, Israel was explicitly founded as a Jewish state and citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship. Given this, it is not surprising that its 1.3 million Arabs are treated as second-class citizens, or that a recent Israeli government commission found that Israel behaves in a ‘neglectful and discriminatory’ manner towards them. Its democratic status is also undermined by its refusal to grant the Palestinians a viable state of their own or full political rights.
[US shares this divisive issue with many many countries. e.g. democratic status of the US is undermined by the failure to allow Utah to continue as a separate state; or the Spanish to allow the Basques; etc.
I am usually in favour of partition as a strategy fro reducing long term conflict. I would suggest this policy for Israel (Palestine & Israel), Iraq (Sunni, Kurd, Shia), Yugoslavia (Muslim, Christian), Northern Ireland (Catholic, Protestant), Spain (Basque, Spanish) etc ...]
[US shares this divisive issue with many many countries. e.g. democratic status of the US is undermined by the failure to allow Utah to continue as a separate state; or the Spanish to allow the Basques; etc.
I am usually in favour of partition as a strategy fro reducing long term conflict. I would suggest this policy for Israel (Palestine & Israel), Iraq (Sunni, Kurd, Shia), Yugoslavia (Muslim, Christian), Northern Ireland (Catholic, Protestant), Spain (Basque, Spanish) etc ...]
Conservation & Conservatism
Both conservationists and conservatives have a problem in defining what they wish to conserve and what change, if any, they can support. Extreme conservatives act as if they believe that any cultural, social, political or economic traits that existed at some point in the past should be retained or reinstated. The historical point taken for reference is usually in the lifetime of the conservative of his/ her parents. The priorities are also wildly variable .... family structure, racial composition, social service levels, dress, speech, etc. Conservationism is a subgroup of conservatism that focuses on ecology. It is historically separate Extremist conservationists act as if they believe that any ecological systems that were in existence before the great expansion of influence of the west in modern times e.g. from about the 1500's should be protected against further change or even restored. More moderate conservationists believe that we should strive at any time to maintain remaining enclaves and restrict as much as possible further degradation. The priorities that are applied to various issue vary wildly depending on what group is speaking... global warming, overpopulation, deforestation, pollution, extinction etc. My brand of conservatism includes elements of both the above. I would ask therefore, what type and most importantly what speed of "development" can the farmers in developing nations undergo before they find that: a.. they are no longer farmers (e.g. they are workers for an international agribusiness.) b.. their community relationships are disrupted (e.g. inefficient "enclaves" of "traditional" family or village farms hold back "development") c.. their life choices are greater but do not include many of the social relationships by which they used to define themselves. (e.g. better to offer more "life choices" by aggregating the population into larger towns. No more villages - or just the geriatrics left.) d.. their lifespan is increased but they are less content, less fulfilled and less responsible (e.g. disparity of income without cultural explanation leads to increased discontent regardless of absolute level of comfort - witness the increasing dissatisfaction and irresponsibility in Aust despite the poor being extremely comfortable in international terms). What is the purpose of human life ? What do humans want ? Even the simplest interventions can produce as much harm as good. Take health (and the related outcome that you mention - increased lifespan) I do accept that change should usually be accepted where it produces a gradual improvement in health standards. But look at how many countries have had great improvements in reduction in child mortality over the last century only to have huge consequential problems in population growth, poverty, environmental degradation and political instability. If we look at the "globe" as a collection of "suburbs", then the most important planetary goal should be zero population growth in those suburbs where humans are breeding like rabbits. The secondary goal would be to rid the world of the addiction to growth as a good in its own right. It is THIS addiction that makes economics the dismal lens that through which all development and conservation must be viewed. I do consider myself a global citizen - but only after I consider my family, local community, and nation. After these have been considered, I support equally the conservation of the rice farmers in Japan, and the improvement in health of the Thais. In Australia, I want to conserve remaining elements of the "social fabric" that I believe existed in the 1950-1980's in Australia. But "fabrics" are unchanging after manufacture. Straitjackets are made from fabric. I better analogy would be to conserve the social ecology because ecologies are not static. They are defined by relationships between different living creatures and by relationships between living creatures and the physical environment. An ecology can accommodate change and still be the same ecology. The key attribute is the rate of change. There are some rates of change that alter the ecology to the extent that most observers would agree that it is not the same ecology. Some extreme "development" proponents would argue that rabbits (and cane toads for that matter) don't destroy the ecology - they just change it. I think they are disingenuous. Unfortunately, it seems that many people (particularly those of the "left") argue that change in Australia will just change our culture - not damage it. I think that they are naive at best (e.g. Natasha the Democrat and Bob the Greenie), and liars at worst (e.g. Latham the sycophant). I think that that, in general, the French government has got its priorities right ............ for the French. And isn't that what a government should do ?
Economic rationalism and the world's "best practice"
Jobs need to be kept in continual short supply so that desperate workers will embrace them. They will embody the "world's best practice" in productivity which can only be sustained by the worlds worst practices in pay and conditions.
A company makes cheaper running shoes than we do by the innovative use of child labour. The initiative is plainly good because it creates jobs and leads to the best product at the best price. This is economic rationalism unfettered by culture. Anyone opposed to this must put forward a powerful case for putting these poor children back on the street - poverty stricken, and for making us accept higher priced shoes !
If a company wants to remain open every hour of the week. The initiative is plainly good because it creates jobs and leads to the best service. Furthermore, because the company's market share increases (at the expense of other businesses who are open shorter hours) they can offer the best prices. Anyone opposed to this initiative must put forward a powerful case for the quality of service provided by small businesses open shorter hours.
Without a strong commitment to cultural rather than economic values, both these cases will be lost. Economic rationalism is fundamentally anti-culture. Culture places irrational constraints on the market. The intellectual commitment to culture is worn down with naive praise for a vague notion of "internationalism". It can also be directly attacked by renaming it as "nationalism" (nationalism is just cultural commitment that is linked to the place where the people live).
The practical commitment to culture is worn down simply by marketing any products globally. Fashion is the surface of culture. If you continually grind off any local allegiances with products from all over the globe you will weaken culture - thus weakening another constraint on free enterprise.
A company makes cheaper running shoes than we do by the innovative use of child labour. The initiative is plainly good because it creates jobs and leads to the best product at the best price. This is economic rationalism unfettered by culture. Anyone opposed to this must put forward a powerful case for putting these poor children back on the street - poverty stricken, and for making us accept higher priced shoes !
If a company wants to remain open every hour of the week. The initiative is plainly good because it creates jobs and leads to the best service. Furthermore, because the company's market share increases (at the expense of other businesses who are open shorter hours) they can offer the best prices. Anyone opposed to this initiative must put forward a powerful case for the quality of service provided by small businesses open shorter hours.
Without a strong commitment to cultural rather than economic values, both these cases will be lost. Economic rationalism is fundamentally anti-culture. Culture places irrational constraints on the market. The intellectual commitment to culture is worn down with naive praise for a vague notion of "internationalism". It can also be directly attacked by renaming it as "nationalism" (nationalism is just cultural commitment that is linked to the place where the people live).
The practical commitment to culture is worn down simply by marketing any products globally. Fashion is the surface of culture. If you continually grind off any local allegiances with products from all over the globe you will weaken culture - thus weakening another constraint on free enterprise.
Vive La France
If we look into the way in which the French maintain such a sense of shared culture and coherence in their lifestyle, we see a wide range of decisions resisting the pressures to fall into line with such inanities as a.. "worlds best practice"; b.. freedom of expressions i.e. French attempt to limit the degree of internationalisation (or Americanisation) of their language; c.. freedom of trade i.e. allowing foreign product to threaten not just the sale of products but a way of life that is based on them i.e. economics as subservient to cultural imperatives d.. international standards e.g. filthy cheese manufacturing processes may actually be part of the charm of that gruesome gruyere e.. property rights i.e. owners building in whatever style they wish etc etc. When we try some of these ideas locally, they are decried as xenophobic, parochial and the proud old chauvinist. Lets have more of it !!
Vive La France ! Due to our short history which involves rapid change, we are too quick to decide that this or that has not been done long enough to be protected as culturally important. Each time we knock down that building, or change that short tradition, we send our own culture back a little to infancy. It is for this reason that many feel so powerless. Getting concessions from Australia (whether you are US, Indonesian, Timorese...whether you demand capital capitulation or cultural cringe) is like taking candy from a baby. People admire what the French have achieved, but vehemently criticize the very attitudes and policies that create and maintain this culture.
"Leftie" and "rightie" have always been about as useful as "Collingwood" supporter in clearly describing what people actually believe in. I think that the terms are getting less and less useful the further historically we move from the French Revolution. People with lazy minds (i.e. can't be bothered thinking out my own position) and weak characters (if i disagree, I will not feel part of the group) tend to have their beleifs shaped so that they fit into the Left "camp". This is why there is such a close correlation between those who protest for the rights of afghan lesbian whales and those who support a range of other issues. What does the camp think ? Yeah, so do I !!! Nevertheless, some labels are important. Labels being only one aspect of the process of generalisation. Generalisation being essential to the understanding of all complex phenomena in any field of knowledge. Labels should be chosen carefully and defined clearly. I think of my self as a radical socialist conservative.
Vive La France ! Due to our short history which involves rapid change, we are too quick to decide that this or that has not been done long enough to be protected as culturally important. Each time we knock down that building, or change that short tradition, we send our own culture back a little to infancy. It is for this reason that many feel so powerless. Getting concessions from Australia (whether you are US, Indonesian, Timorese...whether you demand capital capitulation or cultural cringe) is like taking candy from a baby. People admire what the French have achieved, but vehemently criticize the very attitudes and policies that create and maintain this culture.
"Leftie" and "rightie" have always been about as useful as "Collingwood" supporter in clearly describing what people actually believe in. I think that the terms are getting less and less useful the further historically we move from the French Revolution. People with lazy minds (i.e. can't be bothered thinking out my own position) and weak characters (if i disagree, I will not feel part of the group) tend to have their beleifs shaped so that they fit into the Left "camp". This is why there is such a close correlation between those who protest for the rights of afghan lesbian whales and those who support a range of other issues. What does the camp think ? Yeah, so do I !!! Nevertheless, some labels are important. Labels being only one aspect of the process of generalisation. Generalisation being essential to the understanding of all complex phenomena in any field of knowledge. Labels should be chosen carefully and defined clearly. I think of my self as a radical socialist conservative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)