Alison O'Riordan in the Independent

Alison O'Riordan is an Irish journalist. She works for the Sunday Independent.



Alison has recently been caught, by an eagle-eyed politics.ie reader, plagiarizing and fabricating narratives for her articles (the second link shows that the article has in fact been pulled by the Irish Independent). The whistleblower writes:

this bit is interesting:

Quote:

The third unforgettable candidate was a German teacher dressed in lederhosen and with such high hygiene standards that he regularly sanitised his hands with gel after touching any surface or piece of furniture. He told me in his perfect English how he loathed inefficiency, loved the Fatherland, had never been late for anything in his life and would like a brown wooden desk in his room for working on his corrections.

A Google search for "inefficiency, love the Fatherland" turns up a number of hits such as:

One world cup and two world wars, duda, duda... | Facebook

Quote:

We all know what Germans are like, don't we? The men are fat, and love beer, leather trousers, sauerkraut or bratwurst and beer, and have dodgy facial hair. The women are icy Teutonic beauties with blonde hair and blue eyes. Both sexes loathe inefficiency, love the Fatherland, have never been late for anything in their lives

German Stereotypes :: Soccerphile

Quote:

We all know what Germans are like, don't we? The men are fat, and love beer, leather trousers, sauerkraut or bratwurst and beer, and have dodgy facial hair. The women are icy Teutonic beauties with blonde hair and blue eyes. Both sexes loathe inefficiency, love the Fatherland, have never been late for anything in their lives, and would secretly quite like to invade Europe, even if they have to do it via the EU.

It's amazing that there's a real-life German going around Dublin wearing lederhosen and repeating almost verbatim German comedy stereotypes that he read on the internet.

This article in the Irish Times attracted some criticism too, not least for its butchering of the English language ("aesthetically beautiful") but also for its whingeing about a negative equity scenario that is all too common these days. Alison admits she ignored good advice in buying a vastly overpriced apartment - plus a parking space for €45,000 - and somehow hopes to illicit sympathy.

Her 'out-of-touch'ness is just as evident in this piece about her attempt to live on unemployment benefit for a week, during which she was forced to endure a diet of

"chorizo, salami, cheese, mushroom pate and Tuscan-style ham"

Poor mite.

It's not her naivete in trying to elicit unlikely sympathy, nor her use of language or style than I find most offensive. I have nothing personal against Alison whatsoever, in fact. But in the professional writing industry there is massive competition. There are a lot of talented writers out there who, given half the chance, would painstakingly research and thoroughly proofread their work before submitting it. She has proven she doesn't appreciate the opportunity she has been given, and in the current economic climate - indeed, in any climate - that is unforgiveable.

***UPDATE***

And now she's on TV, still talking about her mortgage... (from 22 mins)

Help the Blazing Kitty!

my good friend BlazingCatFur is being sued and needs help. I have personally put my money where my mouth is on this one and have also promised to publish this need on my wee section of the blogosphere.

See here.

Thomas Sowell on Multiculturalism, part II

Brilliant.

"The multicultural dogma is that we are to "celebrate" all cultures, not change them. In other words, people who lag educationally or economically are to keep on doing what they have been doing -- but somehow have better results in the future than in the past. And, if they don't have better results in the future, it is society's fault."

Syncrude Punished for Dead Ducks

Over $3million bucks.

And only the half-wits at Greenpeace could possibly think $2000 per duck was not enough, but sure enough....

Mark Steyn on Government

and how much it sucks.

"Even if one accepts the government’s ludicrous concept of “creating or saving” jobs, by its own figures four out of every five jobs “created or saved” were government jobs. “Stimulus” stimulates government, not the economy. It’s part of the remorseless governmentalization of American life. "

UK Gov't Begins Axe of Pointless Quangos - Ireland to Follow?

Well it's about bloody time.

The jobs-for-busybodies welfare programme is at an end, with governing parties dishing out lucrative do-nothing directorships to their mates hopefully a thing of the past.

Ireland needs to follow suit, and hopefully the pointless and moronic Equality Authority will be the first with its head on the block.

here's an educational video on the subject.

Lauren Booth Converts to Islam!!!!!!! [UPDATED]

h/t Closet Conservative who says:

Massive antisemitic, British, lefty, Jew-hating "activist" bitch reverts.

What took her so long to reveal her true colours?

And she covers her face now, too. It doesn't get much better than this.

***UPDATE***

More here.

Ireland's Greatest

h/t CLR

It was announced today that John Hume has come first in RTE's search to find the "Greatest Person in Ireland's History". Really?

A look at the Top 40 reveals a few surprises, although less surprising considering that only 1000 people were polled in the initial survey and they aged from 15 up.

History goes back further than 1970, and so here is my (provisional) list of top 10 greatest Irish people of all time:

1. The Duke of Wellington
2. Edmund Burke
3. Oscar Wilde
4. Robert Boyle
5. Daniel O'Connell
6. Charles Stewart Parnell
7. Ernest Walton
8. Henry Joy McCracken
9. Thomas Francis Meagher
10. Edward Carson

*UPDATE*

Mark Humphrys' Top 20

Richard Boyd Barrett Gets a Well Deserved Smackdown

From Tundra Tabloids.

Socialist Workers Party support for Hamas exposed.

Holy Housemates!

hat tip BCF

Mental!

Michigan Woman Faces Civil Rights Complaint for Seeking a Christian Roommate

The Headline says it all....

Juan Williams Was Wrong

Juan Williams was fired from NPR for the following statement:

I'm not a bigot, you know the kind of books I've written on the civil rights movement in this country, but when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.

I couldn't have disagreed more.

I get nervous about them long before I've got on the plane.

Canadian Blogger's Ill Mother Harassed

This pretty sickening.

h/t BCF

Dhimmis Deliver Tribute to Islamist State

So, Viva Palestina made the crossing at Rafah and delivered "essential" aid to the Gaza Strip. In a further example of Anon's Paradox, left wing activists and Islamists unite in common cause to bring £5m worth of tribute to Hamas warlords in Gaza. (The Irish contingent were mentioned here.)

One of the more interesting reports comes from Viva Palestina's own site, which states:

Kevin Ovenden, the convoy director, expressed his joy at being in Gaza once again. "We have driven more than 3,000 miles to bring this essential aid and to break this illegal siege of Gaza. We have been joined by supporters from Morocco and Algeria and from the Gulf States and Jordan, to make this the biggest convoy ever to break the siege of Gaza. We are absolutely overjoyed to be here and to bring with us the soil from the graves of those who were massacred on the Mavi Marmara which will be used to plant trees as a memorial to their sacrifice."

Now, Kevin Ovenden is an avowed Marxist, a longtime (but now former) member of the extremist Socialist Workers Party and good buddy of the Mullah of Kintyre, George Galloway himself. What has led Mr.Ovenden to perform such a religious, symbolic act as bringing soil from the Mavi Marmara shaheeds' graves? Such an act is overtly Islamist, and in any case, a so-called "peace activist" should hardly be encouraging the notion of martyrdom, should he?


The story from Al-Jazeera (link above):

Hundreds of peace activists have arrived in Gaza carrying humanitarian supplies [Reuters]

Pro-Palestinian activists in more than 100 cars and lorries have crossed into the Israeli-blockaded Gaza Strip through Egypt's Rafah crossing with aid worth nearly $5m.

The multinational "Viva Palestina" ship arrived at Egypt's port city of al-Arish from Lattakia, Syria, earlier on Thursday. About 300 activists then flew into al-Arish airport and converged with the ship's passengers before entering Gaza.

The activists had initially joined up in Syria from Turkey, Algeria, Morocco, Jordan, and more than two dozen other countries.

The convoy was organised by George Galloway a British politician. However, Galloway was not with the convoy after being banned from Egypt following clashes between activists from a previous aid mission and police in January in El-Arish, 45km from Gaza.

Ireland's own Freda Hughes (IPSC) has this to say:

“These activists are to be commended and congratulated for their bravery and determination to breach this illegal blockade and deliver their humanitarian aid to the besieged Gaza Strip. This was despite threats in recent days by the Israeli military that they were preparing to intercept the convoy and various obstacles placed in their way by Egyptian authorities. The people of Gaza must also be praised for their steadfastness in the face of the brutality and inhumanity of Israel's apartheid policies.”

Just had to get the "apartheid" bit in one more time! She really is a broken record...

Who's Afraid of The Market? Part II

Continued from Part I

Why do some people think that severing the link between business and the state will place the former above the law?

That is the only reason I can think of for fear no.4, that deregulation will lead to corporate despotism and plutocracy. Capitalists are very clear on one thing. The Rule of Law is paramount. Treating companies like people (i.e. the corp in corporation) means, partly, subjecting them to the same law as everyone else. What is not to 'get' about this?

And yet fear of what companies might do with their supposed power is the driving force behind most, if not all, cries for 'more regulation'. Imagine if their were calls for more regulation of people? The "we want more laws"movement would be the new front organisation for the Socialist Workers Party.

The theory goes that if companies aren't regulated, they'll get away with all sorts of things like environmental destruction and child labour. Do companies get away with such things now? In Western countries, such things are closely monitored, and not by regulators but by everybody. Do-gooding busybodies are an essential part of Capitalism - although they might not see themselves as such.

Which brings me to a final point of criticism. It dismays me that such busybodies - from environmentalists to concerned citizens - don't realise that they're as much a part of that thing we call 'market forces' as anybody else. Forcing corporations to be more environmentally aware, caring towards their employees, or respectful of local communities is not anti-Capitalistic. It is simply another factor in determining the price of a given product. It feeds directly into the demand curve.

Here's why. Costa Coffee charged its customers an extra ten pence for something called Fair Trade coffee. The fact that this 10p did not go to the coffee producer is, for the purpose of this discussion, irrelevant. 10p was the price consumers were willing to pay for the feelgood factor (which is a service rather than a commodity maybe...) of buying 'fairer' coffee, whatever that means.

Companies have long known that they are selling more than a product, they are selling a brand, a lifestyle accoutrement, even patriotism; something intangible that goes along with the product. It has a value. So, companies behave responsibly because the market forces them too. If only so-called antiCapitalists could grasp that simple concept. If people don't care, then companies don't either - but is that a failure of the company?

Another example is buying local. Now, I don't believe in protectionism, whereby the state forces the consumer to buy local products through tariffs and subsidies, but I do support the idea of buying from local sources at times, even if it costs more. I tend to think most people would, given the choice. Even when the market acts in a 'protectionist' manner, as long as the state doesn't do it, then it's fine. Why? because it's a choice, and choice is what capitalism is all about.

Capitalism does not mean always buying the cheapest. It is not a race to the bottom. If that were the case we would all be wearing no-name brand clothing (made in China of course) and driving Geelys (ugh). But we aren't. Consumer choice is a series of value judgments, only one of which is price. The producers' motto goes, if the duck quacks, feed it. If the duck quacks for more environmentally-friendly, ethically-sourced, socially responsible products, that's what it'll be fed. And if it doesn't, ......

The alternative is, of course, for the government to decide what kind of products consumers should want. Then we get the Trabant. Or the Chevy Volt. Why should centrally-planned "green energy" initiatives (initiatives? I mean subsidies) lead to more environmental awareness than consumer demand does?

The other reason for the Big Fear of corporate despotism is movies like The Constant Gardener, where corporations are portrayed as vampirical entities willing to kill for profit. Which sounds more like the behaviour of governments to me. Shell made an oil spill. They cleaned it up. So did Exxon. Can we expect such responsible behaviour from PetroChina? Saudi ArAmCo? How would we even know?

So it bothers me that certain anti-capitalist types think they aren't a part of Capitalism. They are, and I'd like to write a book on the subject telling them so.

So are big corporations dangerous? that's the crux of the matter. A recent response at Indymedia to my question about who has the right to tell another they have too much money went as follows:

WE are part of a community of people for whom society was structured presumably for the greater good of everyone, and as a community, we don't think it is healthy for 5% of the people to have 40% of the wealth. I think it's perfectly reasonable to keep greed in check a little. It's a pretty ugly part of us. We keep other ugly destructive parts of ourselves in check so why not that?

The response oozes collectivist arrogance, and the assumption that the common will easily, and without moral scruple, overrides individuals' rights. The association of wealth with "greed" is a common theme, as though greed somehow magically makes you rich (if only!). Does my greed add one cent to my annual wage?

And what of it if 5% owns 40% of the wealth if they created that wealth? Statistics prove nothing about how that state of affairs came about. Are we living in a premodern society where there is a certain fixed amount of wealth, and I have less because you have more?

And since when are "we" a "community" that somehow takes it upon itself to prevent, through sheer force of legislation, someone from doing well for themselves? Nothing says greed and selfishness more than the desire to hold others back, and to demand entitlements from anyone who has worked for something more!

It is an ugly part of us for sure. That is why "thou shalt not covet" is one of the Ten Commandments. Get thine own ass. The desire to "redistribute" thy neighbour's stuff is what greed is all about. The buzzword for some is inequality, which is deemed to be some sort of social ill. Let me make it clear: inequality is good. It means that freedom is working. It may also mean that some people are getting rich through "corporate welfare", but that is an entirely different issue, which Capitalists rightly condemn.

Take a look at Forbes Billionaire list. The top three are worth around $50bn each. That's what Ireland is spending bailing out one bank. This year, for the first time, a citizen of a developing country topped the list, Carlos Slim from Mexico. India's presence on the list is also increasing. The presence of people from developing countries can be viewed in two ways; while it is encouraging to see that the wealthiest do not come from a tiny pool of rich countries, those countries are even less likely to enforce the rules of capitalism and more likely to allow endemic corruption. Mexico, India and Brazil are not known for honesty in business, nor the discouragement of monopolies.

All fifteen on the Forbes list are wealthier than those on the list of richest royals. It is safe to say that earned wealth is more of a feature of the modern world than unearned. This is progress. And how much does Bill Gates make in a year? Microsoft pays him a million dollars a year but he has other investments. Let's say he makes $500 million. That's overinflated, but it's just a figure. Ireland makes that in revenue in 2.4 days. The United States makes that in two hours. And we're afraid of Bill Gates??

Who's Afraid of The Market? part I

A whole political movement has grown up around fear of The Market and we call it liberalism. But where does this fear come from and what exactly is it a fear of?

What I've deduced from reading various left wing websites over the last few years is that there are several distinct areas of fear concerning The Market, or Capitalism generally. The phrase "People Before Profit" sums up this fear, which expresses itself as follows:

1. The Market will place control in the hands of the few, i.e. oligarchy/plutarchy.
2. Increased "individualisation" will lead to social disharmony and alienation.
3. Wages will be driven down leading to virtual slavery.
4. "deregulation" will lead first to anarchy and then to corporated despotism, environmental destruction, etc. etc.

For someone who associates the free market with individual freedom in general, this fear seems irrational, but when observing Western nations over the past several centuries it can look like these fears are well-grounded at times. After all, are there not huge corporations with vast lobbying operations making shady deals with politicians behind closed doors?

The best way to begin a critique is by asking what caused the current financial crisis, originating in the subprime collapse in the United States. The author of this article wants more regulation. This author wants a different kind of regulation, and observes that all regulation is not the same. Most conservative commentators seem to agree that government interference played a decisive role in the collapse, particularly the insertion of politics into decisions which should have been made through economic considerations.

To summarise, the government thought that certain people (ethnic minorities in this case) was not getting enough loans to buy homes, so tried to force/incentivise banks to lend to subprime borrowers. The loan grading agencies conspired with the banks to repackage these dodgy loans as safe bets and the rest is, as they say, history. So it was the regulators and lawmakers that let down the money people, not the other way round. Banks will only conspire when it comes to removing risk from their investments, and the best way to remove risk is to ensure that the taxpayer is poised to bail them out. Enter the government.

True freemarketers and libertarian capitalists know that it's regulation that creates monopolies, not free trade. Why? because company directors love regulation. It keeps them from having to compete with each other. Anything that gives one company an unfair advantage over another protects it from having to compete legitimately, through reducing costs or increasing productivity. When politicians take an interest in business, business starts taking an interest in politics.

With all this in mind, let's look at those four fears.

1. Fear of oligarchy.

The free market should, if operating correctly, eliminate big players in a given market. Why? because large profits create the incentive for competition. If selling Widgets is big money, everyone will want to get in on the act, reducing the profit margin and destroying monopolies. This is the case with cars, cellphones and chocolate bars. What creates monopolies is the ability to set prices, i.e. short circuiting the free market processes that determine prices. The free market, if set free, does not result in oligarchies. Only government "help" does that.

2. Alienation.

A common fear, often attributed to "capitalism", but Capitalism is used as the scapegoat for all kinds of societal ills including homelessness, mental illness and even "alienation", sometimes called the "atomisation" of society. If human history has seen a progressive trend from tyranny and autocracy to increasing levels of individual autonomy, then alienation becomes merely a byword for the perceived negative consequences of that autonomy. The free market is simply a part of this process, not its cause, and individual freedom/autonomy should be seen as the antithesis of servitude to the collective. So, Capitalists celebrate this, and collectivists lament it.

3. Low Wages

As Henry Ford asked in the 1930s, if I pay my workers less, who will buy my cars? The race to the bottom has never happened. In fact, the living conditions of working people have increased steadily since the industrial revolution. And if wages sometimes seem low, there is another side - Capitalism is still the reason the shirt you're wearing cost $50 and not $100. Pushing down costs is, unfortunately, not as tangible a benefit as raising wages, but the effects are the same.
Similarly, impoverishing large sectors of the populace is not in the interests of Capitalists. The reasons for this are, one would have thought, obvious.

4. Deregulation Anarchy.

This is the most interesting fear by far, because there is much more to say on this subject than any other.

Which is why I'll leave it to Part II.

I Think I've Died....

Did I pass on in the night? The Norwegian government has done something remarkable, they've refused permission for a mosque to be built in Tromsø. Now I've been to Tromsø, it's a beautiful town and I don't remember there being a lot of Muslims there. There is also not a lot of space to build stuff. A mosque? no thanks.

GoV has the full story.

Earlier this morning I got a horrible fright; I agreed with someone who was encouraging support for the Irish Socialist Workers Party (SWP). He out forward some demands

"drop the bank bail outs, tax the rich, stop the cuts, invest in jobs"

and I was shocked to find I agreed with three out of four (not big in taxing folk), which got me wondering if I was a Socialist. fortunately, my confusion was shortlived, as I remembered I'm not.

But as far as being a radical Capitalist goes, I can really get behind policies that let the banks fold, keep the safety net for the needy (given that it's not going away any time soon) and allow job-creators to create jobs (not what the SWP has in mind, however).

We live in interesting times.

Irish Palestine Solidarity launches new branch

Shame they've cut out the huge rock in the kid's other hand. And what is a "local peace activist"? Does he only want peace in his own neighbourhood? And two "survivors" of the Gaza flotilla? I guess having been on a different boat to the Islamists helps...

Fire Fighters and Libertarians

I'm a few days late with this one, but the debate about the Tennessee firefighters' refusal to put out a fire at the home of a non-subscriber has continued at the National Review online, with contributions from Daniel Foster, Kevin D. Williamson, Jonah Goldberg and John Derbyshire.

I wrote a full commentary on these but Windows - that pile of sh*t excuse for an operating system - decided to crash again, fully justifying our recent purchase of a Mac (which I don't happen to be using at this precise moment).

But, maybe it's better to let the NRO articles speak for themselves and ask what readers think?

To summarise my opinion, I think the Libertarian position is that the firefighters should have put out the fire and set the homeowner the bill for the full cost of their time and effort. My mother was sent a bill by the local fire brigade for their having cut her, unconscious, from the wreckage of her Honda Civic. This was entirely fair, as they have a reasonable expectation to be compensated for their work.

Seen in that light, the $75 fee charged by the South Fulton fire brigade represented a kind of insurance, a premium spread equally amongst the residents of an area they had agreed to provide services to. Having failed to pay the fee - or premium - the homeowner had a reasonable expectation that the firefighters would still perform the service in exchange for a higher, 'noninsured' fee.

He should have paid the $75. But the price he ought to have paid for not having done so is simply a (much) higher cost for the same service, not the complete loss of his home and all its contents. There is simply no justification for the course of action taken by the fire brigade.

The good news is, I doubt this will ever happen again.

Harry's Place: Islam Apologist Gets Owned

Someone writing at Harry's Place decides to argue that Islamist terms like jizya and jihad have been "misinterpreted". The commentors are quick to nip it in the bud.

The words of Inigo Montoya spring to mind:

More Indymadness: The Road to Gaza

Indymedia reports on the Irish aid convoy to Gaza.

On passing through Latakia in Syria the members of the convoy actually stay at a "Palestinian Refugee Camp", the irony of such a camp's existence totally lost on them - no "apartheid" here, then. The author drily notes,

In general the Syrian people and Palestinians seem to get on well. There’s not any resentment, although you can see that the area of the refugee camp really lags behind the city...

... We met some of the original refugees, part of the 700,000 Palestinians who in 1948 were driven from their homes to make way for the new state of Israel.
While the spirit of the people is strong, poverty is rampant, unemployment rate is over 50 %. Even though most people have been born in Syria, anybody we spoke to wants to go home to Palestine,

That would be because Syria makes them live in a camp.

In typical gombeenspeak he continues:

I admit I would have had preconceptions about some of the Muslims, when you see fellas with large beards and dress-like gown!! But then you get talking to them, and you see another angle. In a way, you can see the attraction of religion, there are Muslims there from so many countries, yet they all fit in because of their common. A real surprise for me is that in that it’s not a dour thing, like I thought it would be.

Cultural sensitivity, Tipperary style.

We thought we came with an open mind, but we didn’t have an open mind

You can say that again.

"Istanbul is a massive city of over 12 million people. The traffic was unbelievably chaotic. The reception was provided by IHH, a Turkish charitable organisation"

Indeed. Ah, Istanbul, still "occupied" after 557 years.

But while we have all this aid to deliver to Gaza, we’re still playing footsie with the Egyptian authorities, for no logical reason other than that Egypt is appeasing Israel and the United States.

Sure. Nothing to do with Egypt's legitimate fears about Hamas, then.

The "aid" will probably get through, and they'll all end up feeling very foolish when they're served breakfast at one of the 5-star hotels in the "open prison" that is Gaza.

The Legion of Errors: Blyth on Austerity

I hate to disagree with professors at times, because they are surrounded in the cloak of academic with lots of letters after their names and this can be intimidating. So, sometimes when it looks as though they are wrong, it's worth checking whether they actually are, and that can require a somewhat cautious form of criticism, which is not a bad thing but much less fun than normal criticism.

The Watson Institute presents Mark Blyth on Austerity from The Global Conversation on Vimeo.

Exhibit A is this short video from the Watson Institute's Mark Blyth. I have had to watch it a few times to figure out why I disagree with him, but have summarised the problems as follows.

The financial crisis has caused massive debt that countries now have to pay off. They are trying to save money (Blyth says they are trying to pay off the debt, which is not the same thing) through a thing called "austerity", which means cutting public services. Rather than seeing these services as a form of redistribution, which is what they are, Blyth sees cutting them as a way of extracting money from the recipients of the services, which is an odd way to look at it.

He also very closely associates bank bailouts with service cuts. Why? They have nothing to do with one another except that bailing out banks means there is less money for other things. A fair criticism, but you can cut services without bailing out banks and vice versa.

Blyth claims that both individuals and banks borrowed money, but that the latter did so to "make money", as though there were something wrong with this. Borrowing to make money makes more sense than borrowing to consume, which is what Blyth seems to suggest the lower-income 40% of the U.S. population did. (Thereafter follows a Blackjack analogy which only illustrates that the speaker does not know what Blackjack is.)

"The banks created mountains of debt" through "leverage". Yes, they did. Fractional reserve banking has much to answer for. Deposits to loans ratios reached ridiculous lows. So, when banks take money in, they need it to pay depositors and they won't lend it. When individuals are in debt, they'll use their income to "pay down the debt" and won't spend.

Wait a second, what? No they don't. Mortgage payments don't increase just because the property is worth less, in fact the crisis has reduced them by lowering interest rates. People don't pay more of their income into their debts when there's a recession, they stop spending because they start saving, which is just another type of spending.

"And that's where the government comes in".

Again, what? Only if it's run by Keynesians. When private spending decreases, government spending takes up the slack ("automatically leverages up to compensate"). This is far from universal truth.

"Tax revenue falls, so the deficit increases"

yes, hence the need for cutting back on the things those taxes (used to) pay for.

"Unemployment benefits kick in"

What does that mean? The following part about cleaning public and private sector balance sheets at the same time makes no sense to me either. I think he is talking about the Paradox of Thrift, the Keynesian concept whereby if everyone saves money it destroys the economy because no-one is spending. So, I think Blyth is saying that if individuals don't spend, and neither does the government, then nobody is left to spend the money the economy needs. It's Keynes 101 for sure.

Keynesians argue for an increase in public spending - so instead of cutting services there needs to be way more services, irrespective of what they are - so supposedly keep the economy in full swing. That argument can be used for almost anything, and nearly always is.

Blyth continues. There's debt and the banks don't want to pay it, so the taxpayer has to. This is not a good thing. He'll get no disagreement from me on that one. Bailouts provide what economists refer to as a moral hazard, in the same way that your 1981 Ford Cortina does if it's insured for 15 grand and your garage is made of dry wood and anthracite. Bailouts are not a part of Capitalism - unless you're a Keynesian!

So, Blyth is offering a Keynesian solution (government spending) to a problem caused by Keynesianism (bank bailouts). At least he knows how to keep himself in work.

Blyth says that paying for bailouts is the reason for "austerity". But it isn't. The reason for austerity (something I dislike intensely, by the way, for reasons I'll explain below) is lack of a tax base to fund redistribution, something that predated the bank bailouts. The credit-induced bubble burst in 2008. However, devalued property is not a problem in itself as long as people keep paying their mortgages, in spite of desperate-looking balance sheets. Problems only come when a) people stop paying, like in the U.S., or b) people can't get loans because banks have nothing to lend.

The fact that a) hasn't really occurred yet means that b) is the larger issue. If the economy depended on endless credit, it wasn't doing well in the first place and so it points to a structural cause, namely too-low interest rates.

Anyway, Blyth continues. It's easier, he says to slash services than raise taxes (is it?). But this is bad because the poorest suffer, because they avail of those services. So his point is that raising taxes is ok because that pushes the problem onto richer people, which is not really a solution at all. Particularly given that, in an ideal (=Austrian!) world, the problem would be pushed onto the banks themselves and their shareholders. Taxing one group of innocents rather than another is only a "solution" if you don't like the allegedly rich anyway. Which Blyth doesn't. You can tell by the tone of voice he uses when discussing the G20.

He says the bottom 40% of the population didn't benefit from the boom.

"All they got was debt and the illusion of prosperity".

What utter bullshit. If someone - at any income level- borrowed money it's because they wanted to buy something, whether it be a new car, a second home or a nice holiday. In short, they got something they wanted on the plus side of their personal balance sheet. It may have been a poor purchase -borrowing to consume usually is - but that's hardly anyone else's fault. And I'm sorry but having almost full employment in Ireland for a decade is something I would call 'benefitting from the boom'. And if you're from a demographic that is dependent on "using government services", then you probably couldn't accumulate any debt in the first place.

Blyth goes on to say that "austerity" - by which he means the pairing of service slashing with bank bailouts, a definition I'm unhappy with - means that the poorest are paying money to the richest, which is also absolute bullshit. If you're a net receiver of government services, you aren't paying much of anything to anyone. You could maybe argue - maybe - that the middle classes are having their wealth thrown up the income ladder instead of down it. But you can't argue that the poorest are paying for it.

He says that the poorest have lost some of their purchasing power, and that this represents "class politics".

"Those who paid for this mess through the bailouts will pay again through austerity"

Eh?

Overall, I think Blyth has made his case poorly. Sadly, the talk of the poor bailing out the rich will strike chords in all the wrong places.

"Fake" Capitalism and the Escape from Serfdom

A very important article appeared in the Tundra Tabloids today on the subject of serfdom in Europe and the "fake Capitalism" that has replaced the idealism of Adam Smith et al back in the 18th century.

The TT rightly points out that Capitalism largely rescued most Europeans from serfdom and feudalism, and that the bulk of modern Europeans are descendents of those serfs who had little opportunity in life nor anything like a decent life expectancy. The blog article the TT refers to is called The Legacy of Serfdom and is well worth a read.

The point is this; crony capitalism favours the few. Says the TT:

While Marxist socialism has been thoroughly debunked over the last 6 decades, fake capitalism, or "crony capitalism" has been welcomed with open arms, though in the end, it will result in the same concentration of political and economic power in fewer hands that has been the historical norm

This point cannot be made strongly enough. The noises from the left are almost entirely correct in their complaints, although I hasten to add that what they are criticising is not capitalism per se but the warped version of it that many Western countries are practicing.

Of course, true free market capitalism has never been practised, but it has existed in varying degrees and locations over the last two centuries. The version we have largely experienced has been enough to create wealth, lifting the vast masses out of poverty (as it continues to do in many parts of the world) but not enough to prevent the formation of oligarchies that present such a danger to Western democracy.

This is because, largely, the ruling classes have allowed privileges to trickle down slowly over the years, and have shown recently their true faces in exercising their capacity to use taxpayer money to bail themselves out.

Crony capitalism is not capitalism, but it is being criticised as though it were. This is exceedingly dangerous, because people must believe in the system if it is to operate correctly. The left is, however, not merely being opportunistic in their criticism. They are quite correct. In Ireland at least, the working people are being forced to pay for the mistakes of others, while those who gambled on the system and lost (which group, to be fair, includes many "working people" as well.) face no consequences for their actions.

I for one have never let the Marxist glorification of the 'working man' make me lose my respect for that man. When conservatives hear the words Working Class we tend to smell a Marxist and this is unfair, because we can easily recognise that many wage-earners are getting a bum deal without having to go out and buy Che t-shirts.

While I don't happen to believe in class politics, the size of a person's paycheck is of huge significance, and if I truly believe that Capitalism benefits everyone, then I must be willing to argue the case for it in terms of real world solutions.

I don't happen to think that we once had "real" Capitalism and now it has been overtaken by the phony variant; I believe that we have never had it, but that the effects of crony capitalism are usually bearable by society at large and only become an issue during financial crises, like the one we are having right now.

We are now, in most Western countries, faced with a thing called "austerity". A Victorian-sounding concept which is being sold to us as a cure for our ills. This video by Mark Blyth of the Watson Institute attempts to tackle the issue, labelling "austerity" as class war. Now, he is confusing austerity measures with bank bailouts (and displaying a bizarre ignorance of Blackjack) and that's fine, because they are occurring at the same time. I would say this latter point is a crucial one, because austerity plus bailouts has one effect alone and that is to undermine any confidence the public have had in the system as it stands.

Sure, it's a rotten system, but because we have not enough Capitalism, rather than too much.

If the oligarchs are not forced to pay for their own mistakes, the consequences will be nasty. Similarly, arguments need to be made for capitalism that are not currently being made. Many of them are coming from sources that are simply out of touch with public opinion. Irish economist David McWilliams does a sterling job in this regard.

One could argue that Marxists hate the system anyway, so will exploit the crisis for their own gains. And that may be true. But we are not talking about middle-class pseudo-intellectuals here, for whom the "working class" are an idealised army of footsoldiers for the liberal egalitarian fantasy. We are talking about normal working people struggling to make ends meet and facing some serious consequences for problems they did not create.

We may have to take down the oligarchs in the name of Capitalism, before that name is irrevocably damaged.

**UPDATE**
Having viewed the Mark Blyth video again, I've realised it contains not only a legion of errors, but the whole cavalry too and the guys who make the sandwiches. More to come on this....

How Multiculturalism Fails Immigrants

An interesting piece by Mike Phillips at Prospect magazine on multiculturalism in Britain, courtesy of Pizza Trays and Beer Bottles.

The point must continuously be hammered home that multiculturalism is not the presence of different coloured people - that would be multiethnic, not multicultural - but the belief that the presence of various cultures in close proximity is not only desireable but essential in a modern society, but only if they remain distinct.

This article attempts to burst that myth.

Grouping people according to their "historical" cultural identity is both divisive and dangerous. Migration is about change, not ossification

Encountering younger black people who regard themselves as activists of one kind or the other, I’ve become accustomed to hearing the mantra: “Nothing’s changed.” How would you know? is my instinctive, irritated response. But I tend to keep that thought to myself, because while a great deal has changed, we are still living with a confused and potentially damaging welter of ideas about race, ethnicity and identity.

Today, any person’s identity is, of course, determined by the people they know, the circumstances they encounter and the different kinds of knowledge they acquire. With the ongoing revolution in global communications, and the unprecedented levels of migration and travel, no one can be a simple and irreducible unity. Inevitably, then, national identity and national self-image are constantly changing, and British citizenship is now a political formula that has outstripped ethnicity and racial origins.

Read more.

Indymedia on Northern Ireland

Having an interesting conversation over at Irish site indymedia.ie on the subject of Northern Ireland, my country of birth. Indymedia is populated by various left-leaning individuals as well as anarchists and Irish Republicans (that curious mix of nationalism and socialism). I often enjoy talking to those on the other side of the fence, as it were, because I think if we only dialogue with those we agree with, we not only become isolated but can lose our ability to defend our beliefs. You only build muscle by swimming against the tide, as they say!

While the subject of Northern Ireland has always been a controversial one, my many years of living in the Republic has subjected me to only very mild instances of hostility because of my ethnicity, and I am well aware that the vast majority of Irish people do not support terrorism at all and many are even wary of incorporating the North into the Southern state.

The conflict and the constitutional status of Northern Ireland doesn't bother me nearly as much as it used to. I figure that one day the majority will vote themselves into the Republic, and my small nation will just disappear. With that in mind, I've been thinking lately what the 32-county Republic will look like, and if Northern Protestant culture will survive at all. I've always assumed it would, and it might help to decentralise the current state and make it more tolerant and pluralistic.

A million or so people in Ireland want to retain their close links with Britain. But why? That's a question not a lot of Nationalists seem to ask themselves. The lack of self-reflection on the part of nationalists/republicans is evident in the aforementioned thread, some of whom seem keen to blame a variety of causes including "British Imperialism" and plain good old nastiness on behalf of Unionists, who apparently just want to worship their queen like mediaeval serfs.

Is there nothing about the history of the Southern state that makes Unionists think twice about joining it? Is there anything about Irish Nationalism that makes Unionists seek -and cling to- an alternative Irish identity?

Many Northern Protestants revolted in the Republican revolt of 1798 - including my ancestors - and there is a strong streak of antimonarchism in the North, particularly amongst Presbyterians. That streak has not gone away, in my opinion, but the people have made a conscious choice to take the United Kingdom above membership in the Southern Republic. I myself am a Republican at heart, but I can see good reason to remain part of the UK.

The sad thing is, many Northern Protestants have become very inward-looking and parochial, and the quality of political dialogue is less sophisticated than in the South. They are increasingly intransigent, and hold largely reactionary views. This is a sad descent for an ethnic group that has produced many of America's presidents, including Andrew Jackson, whose parents were from Carrickfergus.

Ulster Scots Protestants contributed greatly to the American nation, both practically and intellectually. Our renowned sense of independence and Calvinist values made us excellent Americans, and to this day the Scots-Irish are some of the proudest of all Americans.

So what a shame it is to see our culture ridiculed and denied by some extremist Irish nationalists, who hint at 'ethnic cleansing' as a solution to the problem of "partition" (i.e. the border between North and South). There is little interest in Northern Protestants except as impediments to the all-important United Ireland, and no interest in seeing us as fellow Irishmen. However, I know that most Irish people don't think like that, but it is sobering to be reminded that ideas of ethnic and ideological purity are alive and well in Irish nationalism.

Rabble.ca Two Minutes Hate

Today's solid gold hate from Canadian regressive site Rabble.ca :

It isn't like every single pro Palestinian activist hates Israel, but there are those who do, not because of anti Semitism, but because Israel is easy to hate. Israel's army is vicious, it's people arrogant, it's governing ideology undeniably racist. Many activists within Israel's left are so frightened of being osterasized that they dance to the music of a Zionist ideology, instead of attacking it. This is why it's doubly important we look for good people who fight against the Israeli establishment. Because in the end there are so few of them, and Israel has so little to recommend itself as a country.

And this is from a commentator who claims he/she doesn't hate all Israelis!

Ireland Needs More Sharia Financing, says Imam

Irish Muslim businessmen forced to use icky non-Sharia kufar money, complains whiney Imam. Sponsored by the U.S. Embassy!

H/T The Daily Rasp

Book Review: Lost to the West by Lars Brownworth

This book comes highly recommended by me, and would be a great read for anyone interested in a forgotten corner of European history. The fascinating and tragic story of the end of one of the world's great repositories of ancient knowledge, the Byzantine empire bridged Europe and Asia as well as the old world and the new, before finally succumbing to one of Islam's more successful civilisations in 1453.

Brownworth's style is informal, and as such it loses something in terms of language and analysis; the author is quick to dismiss the earliest European cultures as "barbarian", and describes them as "illiterate" as though that were some kind of lifestyle choice.

I found it hard to forgive this, and it coloured my opinion of the book overall, but having said that, he is far more scathing of the Islamic presence that sprung up to the East than he is of Western developments. So I forgave him :) The book filled a large gap in my historical knowledge, not least in terms of how brutal was the Turkish conquest and occupation of Europe, which last 500 years in parts, and still really does today.

Byzantium was the main bulwark against Islamic invasion of Europe, and set back their imperialism significantly, saving most of Europe from the virtual slavery imposed on what is now the Middle East. Nowadays it's hard to imagine any continuity between that region and Europe, such was the new and barbaric culture that was superimposed on it by the armies of Islam. Islam's conquest of it's Western Asian territories was far more brutal and complete than anything engaged in by European powers subsequently, and makes those look mild in comparison.

So many interesting facts, such a well-written narrative. The story of the Byzantine empire shows the duplicity of Western Europe at a time when internecine fighting seemed more important than guarding against the real enemy. I'm also less upset about Venice sinking into the sea, now knowing how the Venetians allowed their greed to contribute to the collapse of a large part of historical Europe.

Irish Economy Roundup

A few recent articles on Ireland's economic worries.

The first is from Michael Taft

All domestic indicators sluggish at best for next year - what is sometimes called a ‘fragile recovery). In truth, for the domestic economy it may be no recovery at all. And what does the Government proposing doing? Stomping on the economy more; more spending cuts, more tax increases on low-average income earners, more deflation.

Taft's overall theory is the need for fiscal stimulus to avoid deflation.

David McWilliams argues for dumping the banks and making deals with the bondholders. After all, the Government is telling workers that there's no money to pay them, so why not tell bank shareholders the same thing?

"The financial markets would reward us for burning the creditors of Anglo [-Irish Bank]"

"The taxpayer didn’t cause this and has no business paying for any of it."

The taxpayer is paying for it, by bailing out the very institutions that have failed. He continues:

"The argument given by the establishment (...) is that to allow capitalism to take its course is wrong. So we have now arrived at the perverse situation in Ireland where we must reward failure because to penalise failure would undermine the credibility of the state."

What is most telling is that Iceland - a country that told the international creditors to get stuffed - is now back in the market with better credit than Ireland. Markets are forward-thinking, and very, very forgiving. This is something Ireland has not learned.

And what solution? Kevin Myers writes,

The debt mountain facing us is daunting -- but it is nothing compared to the tasks China faced after Mao, or Japan and Germany after 1945. Consider what those societies subsequently achieved.

Need money? work hard, invest, make stuff, export it. It has always worked and Ireland must do it.

What should the government do? Absolutely nothing, which is seen as some sort of crime in an age where government is expected to "do something". The government needs to do what it always does, provide the same services to its citizens, enforce contracts and protect the peace. Let the markets find their own solutions.

Liberal Fascism Lives - Updated

From here

Having revisited the articles on Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism, I remain impressed by how well Goldberg replied to his critics. Roger Griffin's main line of attack is to suggest that there is now a universally accepted and scholarly definition of what Fascism is, which Goldberg, he claims, seeks to deny by claiming the term is mired in controversy and lack of agreement. According to Griffin, Goldberg

cites my assertion about the ‘welter of divergent opinion’ concerning the definition of fascism without mentioning (there is no endnote) the awkward point that this was written in 1990 (published in 1991) and that it is a statement now radically superseded by the growth of a general acceptance of fascism’s futural thrust towards a reborn national or ethnic order beyond conservative communism, and above all liberalism (in the economic, political and ethical sense).

Fascism,

was and remains a revolutionary form of racism/nationalism, one whose sworn enemies include Soviet communism, pluralist liberal democracy and the multi-cultural, multi-faith society celebrated by ‘progressive liberals’.

Goldberg, in contrast (or maybe not) defines Fascism as a "religion of the state". Griffin counters thus:

1. There is now wide scholarly agreement that fascism exists a) as an ideology of total national rebirth and renewal in anew order, b) as a revolutionary movement bent on overthrowing liberal democratic, communist, absolutist, or conservative authoritarian regimes, or c) as a regime which attempts to inaugurate a new order based on a utopia vision of the reborn national or racial community;

2. The ‘organic unity’ Goldberg alludes to is thus completely at variance with the pluralistic, non-homogenous society which social liberals conceive of as constituting the nation, the ‘unum’ never being welded ‘ex pluribus’ through mass coercion or imposed on it through the abolition of representative institutions or the separation of powers or the state monopoly of the organs and institutions of commercial activity culture, or thought;

3. The ‘national leader’ of fascism is a charismatic one whose authority and legitimacy resides in his person as the spontaneous embodiment of organically conceived nation, national will, and national destiny and is thus utterly incompatible with the U.S. presidential system even at its most corrupt and dynastic: the election of such a leader to power (which only happened in the case of Hitler) is the prelude for the wholesale destruction of the democratic state not just in ethos but in a series of systemic constitutional and institutional changes;

4. Such fascist ‘totalitarianism’ is rooted in a bid to create a social and anthropological revolution anathema to social or progressive liberalism since it means the suppression or destruction of autonomous liberal political and social institutions and the eradication of effective liberal humanist values and the civil society on which their survival and health depends. These are then replaced by a highly centralized state with no countervailing forces, a process promoted and theorized by all fascist ideologues and movements and extensively actualized in very different ways by Fascism, Nazism and the Ustasha State, the last two with genocidal consequences for the enemy.

5. The possibility of ‘imposition’ and ‘alignment’ brought about by any administration which retains democratic institutions and the demonization of ‘enemy’ opposition parties or policies possible in a liberal democratic society, no matter how corrupt, can never be as radical in the measures taken to crush freedom or silence remove perceived enemies as in a fascist regime. To take the three historical examples of such a regime, forced ‘alignment’ involved in the case of Fascism internal exile, prison, internment, assassination and the suppression of opposition parties and freedom of speech. In the case of Nazism and the Ustasha state it involved beyond this not just mass internment, forced labor, and torture in concentration camps, but mass murder and genocide in extermination camps.

6. The ‘political religion’ of fascism alluded to by Goldberg in the first sentence is thus integral to the destruction of liberalism and the inauguration of a national, political, social, and temporal revolution which is incomparably more radical and permanent than in any democratic system with its imposed limited terms of administration and presidency and guaranteed separation of powers and party-political pluralism.

Goldberg responds by saying that his critics

fail to deal with most of the major arguments of my book. Their silences are more significant that their sound and fury.

He reserves his right to

define Leftism in a way that places the National Socialists of Germany on the Left. Why? Well, one reason is they were socialists. Another is that they were cultural radicals who wanted to overthrow, among other things, traditional religion and custom. (...)

the Nazis – and, to a lesser extent, the Italian Fascists – rejected both of these worldviews [social conservatism and laissez faire] while embracing statism. In my book (...) that puts you on the left. To date no one has successfully rebutted this argument.

The "liberalism" that the fascists opposed was not modern liberalism:

The classical liberalism Mussolini (and the American Progressives, the Fabian Socialists et al) sought to bury is now called “libertarianism” in America. And in America, this kind of libertarianism is a right-wing phenomenon.

He continues,

Now, Professors Paxton and Griffin might respond—with some merit—that they don’t consider fascism “right-wing.” It’s “neither right nor left” as the famous saying goes. That is a fine and respectable argument for them to make. But not only do I disagree with them (I think fascism – a “heresy of socialism” in Richard Pipes’ words – is left-wing), so do the vast majority of liberals who insist – and have insisted for generations – that fascism is right-wing.

Griffin's response (to Goldberg's response to Griffin's article) reiterates his objection to Goldberg's lack of academic credentials, an attempt to 'play the man and not the ball'. After a long whine about how 1) stupid, and 2) mean Goldberg is, Griffin gets down to business (or not):

Here is a revealing sample of the support garnered by Jonah's book, from fellow neoconservative Mark Noonan:

Really? Goldberg is wrong because of what another reviewer says about his book?

Since most definitions of fascism refer to it as "right wing", how many of these have received criticism from scholars who consider it “neither right nor left”?

Griffin is right to define fascism, at least in part, as an ideology based on some notion of "national rebirth", but palingenesis is not the whole of fascism, and I'm not sure whether this was an element of Spanish or Portuguese "fascism" (Franco seemed to have been more interested in fighting Communism than anything else). I'm also not sure how this is different from the concept of revolution generally, whereby all things are made new.

Goldberg's point is that Fascist ideologues tended to come from the left. Freemarket ideologues did not tend to become fascists. Fascism and Statism are not synonymous, but both are inherently left-wing. The fundamental difference between left and right is not Marxism, or religion, but the view of the State's role and the role of the individual in society.

Whether one views government as the personification of 'society', or as a vehicle for the common good, or as an expression of the common 'will', one is still opposed to someone who considers government as, at best, a necessary evil.

European Taxpayers Funding Hamas Propaganda

Philosemitism reposts an article from the WSJ,

Funding Palestinian Incitement, European taxpayers are made to pay for the propaganda that fuels the Mideast conflict

"Now, as new peace talks proceed, such contraventions and contradictions go on, with PBC broadcasts from March and July this year praising, for instance, 18-year-old female suicide bomber Ayyat al-Akhras, who in 2002 detonated explosives strapped to her body, killing a security guard and a 17-year-old girl in Jerusalem." Rachel Levy (photo) victim of human bomb Ayyat al-Akhras.


Article by Matthew Sinclair et Raheem Kassam in the WSJ

It is easy to understand why many Westerners are bewildered by the conflict in Israel-Palestine. Confrontations like the springtime flotilla crisis make it easy for people to see the situation as too complex, ugly, and hopeless, and they switch off. But we can't ignore what goes on in Israel and the Palestinian territories, if for no reason other than we're affecting it: Our money is supporting indoctrination in the territories that is sowing the seeds of future conflict for decades to come. We have a responsibility to take that incredibly seriously.

In 2007, the European Union provided €420 million to the Palestinian territories, while member states also provided extensive bilateral aid: Germany provided €55 million, France €67 million, and the United Kingdom put in £63.6 million (about €76 million). Many countries have increased their donations since then, with the EU and U.S. pledging the lion's share of $7.7 billion for the period of 2008-2010, with a focus on reconstruction after last year's Gaza conflict.

Some donor countries have recently taken steps to try to prevent their funds being used to terrorize Israelis. Germany, for instance, has worked to outlaw the Turkish-German NGO, Internationale Humanitaere Hilfs organisation, which has delivered more than $8.3 million in funding to groups linked to Hamas.

But such moves only address part of the larger responsibility that donations create. Millions in Western taxpayers' pounds, euros, and dollars, now fund all the actions of the Palestinian Authority. Much of that money comes through direct budget support, which means unconditional checks to the Authority, or paying off its debts. In that way our governments support everything, good and bad, that the Palestinian Authority does.


Even when donations are carefully earmarked, they still can't be separated. It is well accepted in other areas of aid policy that donations don't just finance what the donor wants them to. Organizations like the Palestinian Authority have a budget just like a family does and even payments for specifics, like the salaries of government workers, free up room for other expenditures.

This is particularly troubling as one thing the Palestinian Authority does with its budget is run official media and print schoolbooks that radicalize Palestinians and crucially, Palestinian children. There are endless examples.

Ahmed Dughmush, a Fatah leader, promised the official Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation (PBC) that to "Jerusalem march millions of martyrs" in January 2008. Najat Abu-Bakr, a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, told the PBC's audience in August 2008 that the Palestinians "were created on this land in order to liberate it, to live on it, to continue as people of Ribat [religious war]."

More recently, the European Union funded a television quiz show from Nov. 2009 through Jan. 2010 entitled "The Stars," which told its viewers that the size of "Palestine" is 27,000 kilometers—an area that includes all of Israel. The show also described Nazareth as a "Palestinian city." The European Union funded the entire first season of "The Stars"—the flag of the European Union was proudly displayed behind the host throughout the broadcasts.

Now consider such propaganda in the context of Israeli and Palestinian leaders's first direct talks in three years. Recall Annapolis, 2007: During those peace talks, the PBC was running graphics showing all of Israel-Palestine draped in the Palestinian flag. While the Palestinian leadership was sitting at the negotiating table supposedly working for a two-state solution, their TV channel continued to encourage the ideas that peaceful compromise and two states weren't the way forward; that the proper objective was to conquer all of Israel-Palestine. Which helped bring us to the ongoing need for peace talks today.

Now, as new peace talks proceed, such contraventions and contradictions go on, with PBC broadcasts from March and July this year praising, for instance, 18-year-old female suicide bomber Ayyat al-Akhras, who in 2002 detonated explosives strapped to her body, killing a security guard and a 17-year-old girl in Jerusalem.

Meanwhile, a school textbook issued by the Palestinian Authority, "History of the Arabs and the World in the 20th Century," calls the insurgency in Iraq a "brave resistance." Another schoolbook, "Reading and Texts," tells students that "your enemies seek life while you seek death."

All this is particularly worrying given the demographics of the Palestinian population—some 42% are under 15 years old. The choices that young population makes will determine the future of the region. Western governments may not be able to stop Hamas or the regime in Tehran from calling on Palestinians to keep fighting. Nor can our countries eliminate the history and reasons for animosity between Israelis and Palestinians. But there is no reason we have to subsidize actions intended to deepen these wounds.

Peace depends on Palestinians rejecting the idea that only an impossible, violent victory and the destruction of Israel is an acceptable outcome. That repudiation of war will get harder and harder if the official media—supported by Western donations—continues to promote hatred and undermine any possible spirit of compromise.

John F. Kennedy said that "peace does not rest in the charters and covenants alone. It lies in the hearts and minds of all people.

" Donor countries can put pressure on the Palestinian Authority, but right now they are focused on the behavior of the Authority at the negotiating table. More attention needs to be paid to their actions at home, foremost the radicalization of the Palestinian people."

Messrs Kassam and Sinclair lead the international "Coalition Against Hate Education" through the TaxPayers' Alliance in the United Kingdom.

No One is Illegal. But Some are Stupid.

Here's a neat podcast thingy on behalf of the pro-immigration group "No One Is Illegal" from 2008 (it's just been posted at Rabble.ca). It's long and dull but the highlight is surely the speaker herself, Fariah Chowdhury, a Pakistani-Canadian who's light on the Canadian and heavy on the Pakistani. Despite being educated in Canada she has an accent, as you can hear. When I say "educated" of course, I should qualify that she is a third level postgraduate student who describes her political stance on Facebook as "Super Duper Left"

Exhibit A:

She seems to be advocating a novel approach to immigration, which is to let everybody who wants to come to Canada, come to Canada. Will she subsidise this? hell, no. But "somebody" should. She believes that people from war-torn countries come here to escape those war-torn countries, but offers no suggestion of how to separate the victims of a war from its perpetrators.

She says the "most immigrants" are from war-torn countries (is that true??), including Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti and Palestine. Now, I'm fairly sure Haiti isn't war-torn - although her reason for including this country is then revealed: these are all countries under "occupation" by Western forces. Is the UN a "Western force" occupying Haiti in 2008? Hmm. Then she reveals that she's actually talking about refugees. Her coup de grâce? It's all the West's fault anyway.

Canada wants migrants to come to Canada, but then "treats them as second class citizens". Wrong - they're not any class of citizens. She discusses the caregiver programme, which allows families to bring live-in caregivers from other countries on temporary contracts, but then complains that if they are fired, they have to find another job within three months or else leave. With the best will in the world, I can't see what's wrong with that. Some highly qualified immigrants don't have the luxury of being allowed to look for another job. Some caregivers on such programmes have been abused, which is horrible - but an entirely different matter to their status in Canada, a country which gives them time to find another job so they aren't treated like slave labourers.

Fariah wants to "challenge the notion of what it means to be illegal", which is fine but you're really talking about citizenship there, and what it means to be in a foreign country where you are not a citizen. Canada affords a surprising amount of rights to such people. She of course mentions "Capitalism, Patriarchy and Imperialism" which, again, having nothing to do with peoples' rights as such in Canada.

She touches on gender issues too, stating that within immigrant communities, women bear most of the brunt of poverty. Which is true - but is that poverty/oppression inflicted by Canadian policy, or by the womens' own husbands, brothers and fathers? I strongly suspect the latter is the case. She quickly skips on to another topic, so we don't get to find out which she chooses (although I think we can guess).

See, we (the West) "force migrants to have to migrate". Do we? By occupying their nations, says Chowdhury. But are refugees from those countries coming to Canada to flee Canadian occupation?!?! That makes no sense. Don't the migrants know that Canada is under Canadian occupation too? But talking sense is not Chowdhury's strong point.

She also decries the way Canadian immigration policy 'uses' temporary immigrants for their labour and sends them home, as though they were somehow shanghai'd and not paid fairly for their work. Citing individual cases where migrants have been sick or injured and subsequently deported certainly invite sympathy, but also questions about why their countries of origin do not have adequate care facilities. Canada cannot be the world's hospital, and activists like Chowdhury are certainly not going to step up to give financially to such needy people. One could argue that Canadian foreign policy supports increased prosperity abroad so that those countries are in the position to provide care and services to their own citizens.

According to Chowdhury, the NOII movement grew up as a result of maltreatment of non-status persons (i.e. illegals) when crimes were committed against them. Which is certainly a worthy cause, but, as with most agitation groups, it decided that it couldn't be a proper left wing organisation without growing far beyond its original purpose.

For some reason, NOII has decided that all Canadians (except natives) live on "stolen land" and so stands in solidarity with native people. Which really shows, I think, that the movement is entirely unable to campaign for certain rights without introducing a whole 'progressive' ideology into its programme. It also, in my view, blunts its message. They should also change their name to "no one is legal".

NOII tries to stop non-status children from being taken out of schools, which is worthy, but also tries to stop adult students from being taken out of university, which is certainly less worthy.

She discussed at length the supposed "racialisation" of immigrants who come to do menial work in Canada, i.e. those jobs "Canadians don't want to do" -which is a complete misnomer anyway, but one doesn't expect much in the way of economic knowledge from such activists - even though it's obvious to anyone that most immigrants to Canada are non-white. So it's hard to tell what her problem is.

She seems to accept that there's a "labour shortage", which there isn't with so many unemployed, but then wonders why there are so many immigrants either without skills or whose skills aren't recognised - is she entirely ignorant of family reunification policy?

Anon's Paradox redux

Anon's Paradox:

the process through which leftists support decidedly non-leftist, intolerant political and religious groups under the banner of 'multiculturalism'

related: progressives infuriated by the replacement of a privileged white male with a gay Muslim woman-of-color

Two events have conspired to create a picture of intolerance towards minorities. The first is the abuse heaped upon columnist Irshad Manji, who has just replaced Rick Salutin at the Globe and Mail. Irshad is a progressive's wet dream. Gay, Muslim and female, and, technically, African. She is also considered a liberal, which is why the story is disturbing.

Secondly, with no sense of irony whatsoever, a group of burqa-clad women (we assume) protested outside Seattle Town Hall, where author and critic of Islam Ayaan Hirsi Ali was giving a speech on the oppression of women in Islam.

Both Manji and Hirsi Ali have received death threats and live under constant threat of attack for their views.

What both have in common, aside from their "minority" status, is that both are more or less assimiliated with the West in which they live. This is a huge no-no for progressives, for whom the need for "vibrant" diversity and multiculturalism overrule any choices those diverse elements might make.

Briefly stated: once diverse, always diverse.

Multiculturalism cannot survive once immigrant elements cease to exhibit their fascinating cultural uniqueness, which progressives find charming. If that were to happen, multicultural societies might just become "multi-ethnic" and that's a bit too much like a Conservative's paradise for their liking.

So, exotic elements who refuse to remain in their little preordained box attract the ire of progressives like no other. Black man in a suit: bad. Black man in 'vibrant' traditional Nigerian dress: good. When Ms.Hirsi Ali makes friends with nasties like Geert Wilders instead of extolling the virtues of Islam and Somali culture, she is breaking the cardinal rule of multiculturalism, which is that diverse persons must under no circumstances cease to be diverse.

Progressives value minorities for their supposedly unique black/gay/Indian/whatever "perspective", whatever that may be, and without acknowledging the race-essentialism inherent in this view. If your perspective is identical to that of your nondiverse white coworker, you are of no value to the progressive.

Canadian “progressives” infuriated by the replacement of a privileged white male with a gay Muslim woman-of-color

h/t BlazingCatFur

priceless!

Let Freedom Rain's Jymm Parrett originally titled his post "Globe and Mail replaces Rick Salutin with piece of shit" but after being taken to task by one of his own readers, calmed down slightly and changed the title to the more straightforward, if grammatically incomplete, " Globe and Mail replaces Rick Salutin Irshad Manji"

However the prose lost none of its demented color with:

Irshad Manji is a clueless bore of an ideologue who is the leading edge of the new Globe & Mail campaign to out fox Fox News. Forget Kory and his TV dreams. This is much worse. The Mop & Pail has flown the coop.

(it goes on, getting better ..or worse, here .. and here )

Read on.

***UPDATE***

Here's what loony Canadian site Babble says about Manji :

"Irshad Manji is one of the worst but totally believable as a replacement. She gives a lesbian, non-white cover to the War Against Islam"

"Manji is making a mint selling copy to non-Muslims who want to hear the "inside" soty on how bad Islam is."

Chief Moderator Maysie adds:

"Manji's been playing this song for close to 10 years now. Aren't her 15 minutes over?"

"The issue isn't Manji. The issue is a lot of white folks getting together in their board room and deciding that they have the right to promote an anti-Muslim huckster (whose sole qualification for being an authority is a 6 month stint she did at an Islamic school) that fits into their ideological assumptions about what Islam is .... Why? Because Islam is the enemy, not backward religious conservatism in general. Indeed, I bet if Manji actually spent any time doing a comparison of religions and human rights that also indicted any of the other major religions in Canada, you would never have heard of her. What makes Manji saleable is the fact that she has license to launch an attack upon our Muslim minority and not be condemned as a bigot, because she can claim to be part of the Muslim community. A line that many will buy because she is not-white, basically. The fact that she exploits this for her own financial gain, goes against her credibility, as a real human rights campaigner."

"But, back to Irshad Manji...wherever she came from."

"In propaganda terms, the value (and marketability) of an "apostate", whether formerly from the left (eg. Christopher Hitchens) or nominally from a targeted religion (eg. Hirsi Ali) is an extremely valuable asset in normalizing imperial policy."

"It's good money I am sure."

"Yeah Irshad, you make killing Arabs and Muslims give me that warm fuzzy feeling. Luckily I don't subscribe to the Grope and Flail, or else I'd have to let my subscription for it end, as I did with Harper's after they ran an ad for a bookstore that highlighted one of Mangi's hatemongering tomes."

Wow. Just, wow.

related: Anon's Paradox redux

IndyWatch Fun

Fun time is over once the Indymedia mods start with the delete button..

Original story here.

The scariest part is what is left undeleted. This exchange has, sadly, just been moderated:

GAZA

by northernlight Thu Sep 30, 2010 20:38

at least the northerners know how to show their concern for a persecuted people,while we are busy with the jews in contracts,of buying WEAPONS WE DO NOT NEED,OR DO WE??
HOW ABOUT BUILDING A SELLAFIELD HERE..
Do you see what the do to people of the middle east??they keep BOMBING THEM BACK TO THE STONE AGE,NO WONDER THEY ARE SO CRAZY.!

denounce israel as a legitimate state they are terrorists nevermind corruption..

by theholocaustofgaza Thu Sep 30, 2010 20:46

That is no way to treat the likes of mairead maguire,a very peace loving person,who couldn't hurt a fly,maybe they are still angry about the fact we got rid of the israeli ambassador,with bad diplomacy like this,and the fact they are endangering diplomacy around the world with the middle east issue.Ben the nit,had publicly announced,some time back and quite arrogantly that the arabs should go on a diet..These people who say the holocaust was the worse thing to happen,what about the holcaust they are imposing on them..

denounce lunacy

by Tim Johnston Thu Sep 30, 2010 22:52

No! please let them keep her!

Ms.Maguire is one of those kind of "peace activists" who finds it disturbingly easy to take one side of a conflict (rather like Freda Hughes who loudly declared Palestinians her "brothers and sisters"; Israelis, not so much).

Being allowed to "travel freely" is a granted privilege, not a right, as crybaby Fintan Lane must surely know.

Mr.holocaust, we noncrazies are quite tired of the reverse-holocaust metaphor, and while nazi/fascist/Hitler analogies for Israel remain deliciously "ironic" to many on the loony fringe, they're a bit too Holocaust-denial-y for comfort.

israel is committing the worst crime since the nazis

by your the lunatic Thu Sep 30, 2010 22:59

Israel is committing the worst crime since the nazis,they might as well be making soap out of the palestinians,in fact im wondering if that day will come,the U.S.A and israel are still testing their new toys out on people of the middle east and we are all so compliant it is truly disgusting.!

There is no reverse here,if you have seen how the 'birth' of the 'state' of israel occured..on the backs of the dead..

What about all those drones,and cutter bombs..?

blockades and impossible demands

by gaza Thu Sep 30, 2010 23:07

The irish government has betrayed us,they bought weapons off these terrorists,in the years of the recession,which makes it worse!
This is a serious issue!

read some books

by Tim Johnston Thu Sep 30, 2010 23:08

"Israel is committing the worst crime since the nazis"

Now just sit back and think about that. You can't think of any worse crimes against humanity in the last 65 years?

Mao killed 20-50 million depending on who you count, or whom you believe. Stalin killed millions of people too, and Pol Pot. A million in Rwanda. 300,000 in Sudan just recently, plus millions displaced. a Million dead in the Iran-Iraq war.

Are we talking purely body counts here? because Apartheid was considered quote evil yet its casualties were quite low. Crimes of repression are commonplace, from Burma to Tibet, to Iran to Libya.

Just use your imagination.

my head hurts

by the wall Thu Sep 30, 2010 23:15

Do you know that they are still building settlements where previously agreed the shouldnt,misplacing people out of their land,and that there are fisherman who are entitled to fish miles beyond where they are blocked by the israeli army..Inbetween all these freezes and peacetalks israel are still re aligning the borders and building where they shouldnt..

israels and the U.S war - machine

by money talks Thu Sep 30, 2010 23:20

we all know gaza is the tip of the iceberg..wonder if abbas will get the golden handshake..

Free the activiist & recognise basic human rights

by Used2bSnowWhite Thu Sep 30, 2010 23:21

Crimes of repression should never be accepted no matter what the numbers are. When one nation is starving another to skin and bone, denying them basic human rights, giving them pittance for wages on the land that belongs to the slave and not to the conquerors, then you know what? Anyone in their right mind is going to support Maura Maguire, demand her release and support the activists helping to highlight the unequal conditions and the denial of human rights. Think of the way the Israelis treat prisoners who they capture in international waters for e.g. the Flotilla survivors of June 2010, captured in international waters, who weren’t murdered but viciously beaten and were dragged to Israeli prisons even though they were in waters that didn’t belong to Israel.
Wake up Tim, you’re on your little petty island on this accusation except no one wants to visit this tropical nightmare of yours.

timtheasshole

by gaza Thu Sep 30, 2010 23:30

can you imagine people kicking you out of your home and buiding on top of it,and enforcing your way of life on them?
and not only that ben the nit said publicly in a political speech that gaza needs to go on a diet.?

i would compare that to the holcaust

1 denial of basic human rights

2 food

3 the right to speak

4 the right to have their own free state

they are not even allowed to fish their own waters..

israeli imposing terror via blockades and 'peacetalks'

by ''government'' payroll killers Thu Sep 30, 2010 23:33

if those fisherman protest they get shot and killed..

not so tropical.

by Tim Johnston Thu Sep 30, 2010 23:37

What nightmare island is that then?

You've just made my point for me, there's lots of nastier things going on in the world, and the activists know it too. Except there won't be a flotilla to Iran, or Libya, because the activists know they'll be thrown in jail - if they're lucky - and they'll never see the light of day again. With Israel, they know they're not in any real danger, unless they start attacking soldiers with iron bars, that is. If you want to sail into a blackaded warzone, don't cry if you get detained.

I see Lane is being touted as a "Flotilla Survivor" too. According to my maths the 2010 Flotilla had a 98.75% "survival" rate. Not bad odds, that. That was a close one, Fintan!

on another note.

by Tim Johnston Thu Sep 30, 2010 23:40

dear snow white.

I see your support for Ms.Maguire does not extend to getting her name right.

Gaza,
you would compare that to the Holocaust, yeh?

Sure there's no elements you've left out of that analysis?

oppression

by untaxed wages Thu Sep 30, 2010 23:47

oppression should never be appraised..complacency is the biggest crime of all

you're right

by Tim Johnston Thu Sep 30, 2010 23:57

It shouldn't .. and it can be, yes.