Bloody Liberals

I don’t know how Americans have come to restrict their vocabulary so much, but the dichotomy Liberals (which in the US is taken to mean left, from centre-left to loony-left) and Conservatives (meaning right-wing) seriously distorts any meaningful understanding of political science. Such acception empties the term ‘liberal’ of its authentic meaning. Liberal does not mean lefty!!!
When such flawed terminology is applied to morality is epistemologically wrong and just bonkers. It leads to the endorsement of an old-fashioned political duality left/right (what about the true liberals?), which in ethics becomes Manichean. In short: it’s nonsense.
The culprit this time are a group of ‘moral psychologists’, including Professor Jonathan Haidt, who has caused me great irritation by entering the world of political theory, philosophy and theology with the instruments of biology. It's a bit like analysing a poem with a ruler.
I’m not against moral psychology per se. It seems obvious to me that human beings, as part of the natural world, would have biological traits that would support the development of ideas and morality. You can’t play music without an instrument (I include the voice as instrument). I have no problem even accepting that some people might have a certain predisposition to behaving in a ‘moral’ way, such as giving to charity, having compassion of others etc. This is why, at least in Judaism, charity is charity when it involves a ‘sacrifice’, when it ‘pains’ you in some way. But this stuff is seriously flawed.

The ‘fun’ part are the tests. Haidt has researched the phenomenon of disgust, but his interpretation of the term is a bit off the wall and its application in the tests simply puzzling. I mean, one might not find eating paper disgusting, but if the question asks you to choose between a piece of fruit and paper, isn’t the one who chooses paper just an eejit?
It turns out my ‘disgust’ scale is higher than average. For Haidt this should mean that I have a strong sense of purity/sanctity, which is linked to mortality, the body, blood etc. I take it to mean that I have good manners!
They are clearly (badly) designed for Americans and many questions just don’t make sense. For example:

- Say something bad about your nation (which you don't believe to be true) while calling in, anonymously, to a talk-radio show in a foreign nation.

Err, just read my blog! I do mean what I say though when I write about Italy and the UK. I do not, however, ascribe the problems I encounter with both countries to inherent characteristics of the (ever changing) populations. I'd like to think my whinges are analyses of the socio-political situation at the present moment.

- Curse the founders or early heroes of your country (in private, nobody hears you).

If it’s in private and if they are dead, what’s the point of cursing them? Seriously, in Europe this doesn't make any sense. Besides, what is a 'curse'? A complaint? An insult? A shout for help? An attempt to break free from authority and affirm one's personhood?

- Renounce your citizenship and take one of another country.

I am a EU citizen, which means there’s no point in changing it to another European national citizenship. I wouldn’t give up my EU citizenship because it gives me more rights than probably any other. Besides, giving it up would require moving or applying for permanent leave and so on. I'm, of course, culturally European but citizenship is a legal category.


The problem with Haidt’s theory. These tests seem to aim to identify a 'instinctive' morality, however morality is contextual. There are always
conditions one is in and consequences for one's action. That's why biology can't measure it.
Haidt has developed the psychological understanding of morality from matters of harm, rights and justice to include other categories such as loyalty and authority, thus going beyond the individual. He claims that there are five psychological foundations for the world’s many moralities: harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity.
He also claims “Cultures vary on the degree to which they build virtues on these five foundations. As a first approximation, political liberals value virtues based on the first two foundations, while political conservatives value virtues based on all five. A consequence of this thesis is that justice and related virtues (based on the fairness foundation) make up half of the moral world for liberals, while justice-related concerns make up only one fifth of the moral world for conservatives.”

Haidt misses the point. He wants people to get on so if liberals and conservatives could understand each other a bit more, the world would be a better place. The point of Liberalism (European acception) is that you do not impose your morals on others. I might be part of a religious/political/cultural community, but I have the right to criticise it, act according to what I think is right, not just what the group or authority decides. So Haidt’s harm and fairness should be replaced with freedom of choice.

1. Language: Haidt makes assumptions about the meaning of the words he employs. This is evident in the tests, where one needs to apply their intended meaning and restrict one’s answers. For example, he mentions chastity in relation to purity/sanctity, what does it mean? To me, chastity can refer to many things, not just sexuality. When referred to sexuality, I interpret it as sex in a respectful and meaningful relationship, since I believe that there is something sacred about (respectful) relationships, love and sexuality (this interpretation of chastity is also part of the Vatican thinking). I would not interpret it, however, as ‘no sex before marriage’. However, I fear that Haidt attaches that narrow meaning to the world. Not to mention ‘purity’ which in Judaism is a rather difficult concept best explained as immanence. It follows that it gets interpreted and re-interpreted according to the context. Haidt’s rigidity of interpretation makes the whole exercise pointless.

2. Liberalism vs. Communitarianism: Haidt could have referred to the dichotomy of liberalism/communitarianism (which might require some political science). Of course, in this context, liberals are NOT Haidt’s lefties. In fact, arguably, many concerns of social justice come from the communitarian tradition rather than the liberal one. Haidt mentions policies of positive discrimination which are clearly not policies descending from liberal philosophy (although they might be adopted by liberal parties). As a liberal, I have some problems with communitarianism, however I believe that my liberalism comes from my morality and that our rights and freedoms are dependent on us living in a society. If I were on a desert island, I wouldn’t have any rights or duties, although I could play lots of records without bothering colleagues ;) (sorry, a Radio 4 moment).

3. Liberalism: real liberalism, unlike Haidt’s broad coalition of lefties, rests upon the idea of individual autonomy above community. It does not however mean that the individual is not in the community. Therefore, individual claims need to be adjusted to the ‘claims’ of the community. The idea of authority also presents difficulties. In traditional societies, the male ‘elders’ might have been the authority dictating the rules of behaviour, but we no longer live in a traditional society. The democratic ideal has sunk deeply into our conscience and ‘traditional authority’ has waned. However, if by ‘authority’ we mean legitimate ‘power’ such as the legal system, we are bound by it.

4. Utilitarianism: Haidt’s lack of political analysis seems to justify a utilitarian position with a streak of relativism. He argues that for those of conservative views, their attachment to order and perceived lack of change serves a human need. Morality goes beyond usefulness. You cannot justify harm or injustice on the basis of usefulness. Human beings are not pawns of society. This is fundamental to religion and to liberalism and this is why I think liberalism has moral foundations.

5. Modernity: personal autonomy is a modern philosophical category (and reality!). This means that I might consider the Talmud or the Bible authoritative, however I would interpret its teaching in the light of the ethical principles I derive from my tradition. This means that I don’t read the Bible literally, which is a relatively recent (200yrs) trend anyway!

6. Morality is contextual: in order to understand a situation in its ethical perspective, one needs to consider the conditions in which of the moral agent acts, the likely consequences, what brings the moral agent to act in a certain way. E.g. we can say that adultery is wrong, but if the adulterer has suffered domestic violence for years and fears leaving the spouse, is most definitely not the same. As I argued before, a moral dilemma is NOT about right and wrong, but wrong and wrong (with a bit of right on both sides probably).

Shiny happy people … humbug!

It might be because it’s a rather rough period for me, but I thought of scribbling something about 'positive people', all those Pollyanna thinkers who repeat the nonsensical mantras of ‘looking on the bright side’ and ‘having a positive attitude’. (I suppose it ties in with my post on being nice). I believe there’s a fundamental misconception at the core of this pseudo-philosophy. They seem to believe that if one has a positive attitude, life will be easier and better; and they even explain ‘bad luck’ or lack of success as a result of one’s attitude. Humbug!
Let’s be clear about this: if one is a castaway at sea, it’s bad luck, karma, destiny, (whatever you want to call it), it is not dependent on one’s attitude. One’s attitude can, indeed, improve one’s chances of survival, but that’s more to do with ‘keeping cool’ in a difficult situation, mastering one’s knowledge and abilities to be able to survive. It is not about being optimistic, which is a feature of one’s character.
Where’s God in all of this?
I believe that events are less important than what one does with them. It is our perception of what happens that gives meaning to it and to our life. Optimism and pessimism are equally pernicious in obfuscating one’s sight. Things happen in our reality plane (the world of action, objective reality etc.), but there are also parallel events happening in other planes, including our mind. It is our job to analyse the situation objectively but also to see it in all its aspects.
I strive to see God behind everything that happens to me (which is difficult enough, never mind what happens to others!) and to transform the bad into the good. Most of the time, it comes as a fleeting realisation, not more than a passing feeling, but it’s there. I find that only by ‘appropriating’ what happens, giving it meaning and ‘putting God in it’, I can make some sense. I don’t believe in the off the shelf philosophy ‘life is good’ or ‘life is bad’. The point is that we’re alive. We might as well live and be partners in creation by giving meaning and acting accordingly. It is our insight that gets us closer to God, not our attitude.
I have this image of God smiling at all those combative stubborn people who don’t go around with slogans, are not shiny happy people, but criticise. That’s how you change things. Besides, shiny happy people don’t get irony!

Feminism & the family

Feminism is much more pro-family than 'traditional society'. The problem is that nobody has bothered to listened.
Oliver James on the Times this morning rightly identifies the benefits of flexible working practices. However, he fails to understand feminism entirely. Feminists have been campaigning for flexible working and ‘fatherhood’ for over twenty years. Whilst James would like to see “men becoming much more involved in caring for their small children”, he assigns the main responsibility of childrearing to the mother. There is no rational basis for this except a prescriptive differentiation of roles that has excluded women from society for millennia. It is not based on biology. Breastfeeding (as recommended by the latest medical research)should last up to 6 months, childrearing lasts for many years. This division of labour has discriminated women and put many in a situation where they must decide between a family and work.
Recent research has shown that women returning to work after starting a family are around 40% less likely than the average white, able-bodied man to be offered a post. As I argued on this blog and in my letter to the FT The industry’s reluctance to embrace the work/life balance agenda is myopic and ultimately counterproductive. Flexible working arrangements have been shown in several studies to reduce dramatically sickness absences (26%), increase savings (£5-6m for BT) and innovative thinking. If both parents worked flexibly,they would spend more time with their children and thus give them better care. However, as long as men and society at large see flexible working as a woman’s issue that comes with her ‘role’ as a mother, it will remain the second-class form of working that traps women into poverty and jobs for which they are overqualified. It is feminism that is promoting a family where children have finally both parents and the nation is not deprived of talented workers. The rest is nonsense! (and has forced me to create a new label!)

Breastfeeding magic, File under Bollocks!

Here we go again with another surreal claim according to which breast-fed babies are more socially mobile than bottle-fed babies.
For how long are we to endure this pseudo-science?

1. If you take a big enough sample of the population and 1 factor (breastfeeding or bottle-feeding) you can make all the connections you want. What about all the other factors to the equation?

2. The sample population in this case were people born in the 1920s and 1930s. Presumably these people have also experience the war and its impact on social mobility.

3. err, actually it's not significant at all, says researcher!

Richard Martin, reader in clinical epidemiology at the University of Bristol, who led the new research, admitted that the findings should be treated with caution as there was only a small difference between the chances of moving up a social class - with 58% of those who were breast-fed moving up a social class compared with 50% of those who were bottle-fed.

4. What's intelligence?

"One of the most consistent findings in the published literature on the long-term impact of infant-feeding is that breastfeeding is associated with improved neurocognitive development, which could influence future educational and occupational success and hence social mobility" the researchers write.

err, no actually! This is today's ideology and nostalgia. There are associated benefits with breastfeeding, although for up to 6 months not over, but intelligence is a far more complex quality. This fantasy comes from the study published on Lancet (not a very serious journal, I'm afraid) claiming that breast-feeding increased IQ by five points in preterm babies. However,

'research published last year by the Medical Research Council indicated that the reason breastfed babies were more intelligent was because of other factors such as a more stimulating home environment.'

The problem is that IQ does not tell you whether a person is intelligent. I'm afraid intelligence (which means linking together) is not quantifiable and has many different aspects. The attempt to measure one's intelligence is clearly an indication of idiocy.

Masculinity in crisis, yawn!

Seventies Man is back, we are told. The new drama series Life On Mars will take us back to the 1970's where men were 'men', meaning boorish sexist, racist, alcoholic and chain smokers. How delightful. The article suggests that the makers of the show did not have a problem with the sexism because "we've overcome that". Maybe on Mars, certainly not here. If we've overcome that, why has the consumption of pornography increased drastically? Why have 'lads' mags' made their appearance relatively recently? Why are women still being paid far less than men (18% for full-time work and 40% in part time work)? And why are men attracted by 1970's masculinity? Rather than the 'heroic rebel', the seventies man is affected by the Peter Pan complex, he's a child who is afraid to grow up and take responsibility. Nostalgia signals insecurity and lack of vision. Masculinity is in crisis, but looking back will not help.

Bible Test

You know the Bible 98%!

 

Wow! You are awesome! You are a true Biblical scholar, not just a hearer but a personal reader! The books, the characters, the events, the verses - you know it all! You are fantastic!

Ultimate Bible Quiz
Create MySpace Quizzes

Testing Britishness

The government have come up with yet another initiative to promote Britishness or citizenship or both: discussion groups on "modern British cultural and social history", "social and moral responsibility", "community involvement" and "political literacy", whatever they mean. I thought the British Test was bad enough from all points of view. It is expensive, patronising and ideological. Instead of promoting the importance of partipating and integrating in the community at large, the test seems designed to alienate. There are impossible and irrelevant questions, such as: "Do many children live in single parent families or step-families? When do children leave home?"; "How many people say they have a religion and how many attend religious services? What are the largest religious groups?"; "How do elections for the House of Commons work? How are candidates selected? What do the Speaker and Whips do?"; "How are local services managed, governed and paid for?"
The last one is quite interesting given the intricacies of local government finance.
I have no idea who thought these questions, but it must have been someone who has no idea of where democracy comes from, how it works and, above all, its importance.
The Times was right in dismissing the government’s latest attempt at citizenship as "mush". Britishness and British democracy, its ideas of equality, liberty, tolerance and rule of law originate from Graeco-Roman culture. Liberal democracies are the product of the often dramatic events and ideas that have dominated European history. Yet, these ‘common values’ are not static; rather they have adapted and developed as a result of the meeting and sometimes clash with other cultures. Multiculturalism has so far relied on the recognition of group rights thus essentialising difference. If we want to ensure that liberal democracy is a concrete reality enjoyed by each one of us, rather than a philosophical concept, we need to create the opportunity for groups and individuals to meet and interact, to discuss citizenship and rights. Democracy happens when there is integration and when individuals’ diversity and rights are respected just as much as groups’ diversity and rights. This is who we (Europeans) are.

Gendered brains & the accountant gene

Now that feminism and critical theory are gone, biological determinism with its gender bias makes its return. What is fascinating is that, notwithstanding the lack of systematic hard data, notwithstanding the significance of all the other aspects of life that have an impact on human behaviour (culture, upbringing, society, and also one’s own experiences), there’s always a bunch of eejits who make the illogical jump between one’s biological make-up and professions. Interestingly, they do not touch on genetics, I was hoping for the discovery of the ‘accountant gene’. But let’s start from the research. A rather comprehensive article appeared on the Economist last August.

1. The article starts by noticing that

which of the differences between the sexes are “biological”, in the sense that they have been honed by evolution, and which are “cultural” or “environmental” and might more easily be altered by changed circumstances, is still fiercely debated.

Please note the link between biology and evolution. Without going into Lamarckian theory, it is important to consider that biology has also adapted throughout history. This means that we are not the same we once were and that present and future challenges will determine biological differences.

2. The article then surveys relevant studies.

Simon Baron-Cohen and Svetlana Lutchmaya, two researchers at Cambridge University, found that boys exposed to relatively high levels of testosterone in the womb looked less often at their mothers' faces, made eye contact less frequently and had smaller vocabularies than those exposed to lower levels—though this study has yet to be replicated successfully by other researchers.

Please note the lack of further evidence and also the following:
a) “the results of hundreds of tests of vocabulary and reading comprehension show there is almost no gap between the sexes.”
b) Simon Baron-Cohen focussed on autism, which is an extreme example and is by no means relevant to the rest of the population.
c) “the problem with trying to argue that the male tendency to systemise suggested by Dr Baron-Cohen might lead to greater mathematical ability is that, in fact, girls and boys are equally good at maths prior to puberty.”

3. Differences between male and female brains (such as percentage of grey matter, white matter, synapses and so on) have been explored, however, “these examples show how tricky it is to find correlations between behaviour and differences in brain structure and brain activity. And even if a connection to brain structure is found, that does not mean it is innate. Most of these studies are done on adults, so it is not clear when differences start to arise. The brain is by no means immutable, even in adulthood. In the hippocampus, an area thought to be involved in spatial learning, new nerve cells can be born in an adult and hormones influence their birth and survival. Dr Shors says that her work has shown that the female brain, at least, is very plastic, changing dramatically during life in response to pregnancy and menopause as well as puberty.”

Please note that
a) no correlation between the brain structure and behaviour has been found;
b) the studies were done on adults therefore ‘environmental’ factors and their life experiences will have had an influence behaviour (and I would say the most significant influence);
c) the brain is not immutable. Shame that neuro-endocrinological research is still in its infancy, hormones clearly have an impact on us. But how much? And what kind of impact?
d) how much do environmental and personal experience change the brain?

4. However,

there are a number of problems with these studies. One, according to Dr Hines, is science's bias towards reporting positive results, so that research which shows no differences is likely to get lost. Another is that because differences between the sexes are so often popularised and played up in the popular media, people tend to pay them disproportionate attention.

Please note scientists are not free from cultural influence. I would also add that science has rarely been free from ideology, and that today there are numerous problems with the lack of transparency of the conduct and results of experiments (remember the BMJ protest?).

5. Going back to the ‘evidence’,

researchers use a statistical measure called d. … For behavioural and psychological phenomena, a value of d greater than 0.8 is considered large, of 0.5, moderate, and of 0.2, small. Any d less than 0.2 is a negligible difference. … Janet Hyde of the University of Wisconsin-Madison decided to investigate just how different men and women are. She collected all the important meta-analyses that have been conducted on differences between the sexes. … Of the 124 effect-sizes she calculated, 30% had a value of d close to zero and in a further 48% of cases, d was small. In other words, only 22% of reported behavioural differences between the sexes are worth raising an eyebrow over. … The largest gaps were, not surprisingly, in physical attributes such as throwing velocity (d=2.14) and throwing distance (d=1.98). These closely reflect the difference in height between men and women.

Please note the finding of negligible difference in attitudes. Another consideration to be made is about statistics. Statistics is not an exact science (not all disciplines that use numbers are exact science), it’s based on the law of average. It follows that there cannot be any biological determinism: not all men and women have respectively ‘male’ and ‘female’ characteristics. Which explains why most of the women I know who took Simon Baron-Cohen’s test found they had a male brain.

6. There is little evidence to substantiate (statistical) difference in spatial ability, however "in this case the limited evidence available suggests the difference is related to the post-birth testosterone surge in boys.” Also, men do not excel in all spatial tasks”. Furthermore, abilities can be trained and this has been shown to work. “Spatial ability is amenable to training in both sexes.”

Conclusion

I do think this research is a waste of time and I was very reluctant to even mention this topic. The main difference between male and female are hormones. There are variances between hormonal levels between individuals, individuals are also affected differently. We are different. People might have different innate (inherited or not) abilities, but where do these abilities come from? Clearly not from gender. What impact socio-environmental factors have on abilities? Finally, abilities can be trained (genius included and it has been shown).

However the most stupid and surreal aspect of the ‘diatribe’ (or monologue), is the correlation between a biological ability, for which we have very little evidence, for which nobody has taken into account society and personal experience (which includes training), with someone’s ability to do a particular job. This pathetic non-evidence is supposed to account, at least in part, for fewer women in science or engineering and so on. How about plumbers then? Alleged biological differences have always been used to justify the social construction of femininity and women’s roles in society. Sadly, it appears that this is still the case. For both biological determinists and sociological determinists (where everything is determined by society), individual liberty is a delusion. If you’re such a miserable git, why should you make everybody miserable as well?
Fortunately, there have always been people who have gone against this dogmatic determinism and have fought to own their lives. The world is not divided between men and women, but sheep and dogs. Dogs might be loud and rebellious but they lead. The sheep only follow.

A trip on the wild side?

On today's Observer, Britain's 'edgiest travellers' choose their wild destinations where Hunter Stockton Thompson would have had fun. The 'bad' places on earth, those from a Bukowski novel so to speak.

"The kind of place you feel drunk even thinking about it....those places which still exude a heady mix of beauty and filth, companionship and trepidation: all the places which make you feel, on having got out of them alive, more alive."

Mhm,I'm not very beat, I don't like Bukowski, he's too pleased with his 'vices', which I really don't find intriguing, and some of the places chosen are frankly obvious ;) Baghdad, Bangkok, Nablus, Peshawar and .... Cardiff. ???
According to Howard Marks, author and ex-drug smuggler,

"If Hunter S Thompson was around in 2005, he'd choose Cardiff. There are better-tasting chips, more drugs - the green, green grass of home and magic mushrooms - more alcohol consumption. The women are prettier (you wouldn't even notice Catherine Zeta-Jones), there's better music (Stereophonics, Super Furry Animals, and Goldie Looking Chain), less neon and fewer Americans. Life continues all night (in the streets rather than air-conditioned casinos). And you can watch the world's best sports events."

I've never thought of Cardiff that way and is really not the Cardiff I know! Since the Guardian's misleading hype of Cardiff as capital of drug-rape, I feel that they have chosen Cardiff as the 'damned capital' of the UK.
Edinburgh is too sophisticated, Belfast untouchable, London is London, it had to be us! :)
Good to know that we are alive & kicking!

Fraescus!

This is really cool!

Me transmitte sursum, caledoni
as the translation of 'Beam me up, Scotty'. It just sounds more profound, doesn't it :)
Indeed, quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

Try this!

Beam me up Scotty!

Forget designer babies, this is the thing we were all waiting for: teletransportation!

"The multinational group from Canberra's Australian National University (ANU) have become the first on this particular planet to demonstrate the sharing of secrets via teleportation using quantum physics....What the team's find boils down to is that, using a laser, they can teleport to a network of recipients a signal which can only be reassembled by a majority of the recipients. Any less and the signal cannot be reconstituted."

Not quite what I need but it'll make computers faster, it seems.

God's existence as a matter of statistics

Dr Stephen Unwin has calculated that there is a 67% chance that God exists.
Read the article.

How European are you?

My results:

You are descended from Napoleon. You see no national boundaries and sweep freely across the continent. You are so European, if you had a pond, you would give your neighbours generous quotas to fish in it. You are probably whistling the Ode to Joy right now.

Take the test

Controversial or Ignorant?

Jenny Tonge has provoked outrage and sympathy with her remarks on Palestinian terrorism:

"This particular brand of terrorism, the suicide bomber, is truly born out of desperation...Many, many people criticise, many, many people say it is just another form of terrorism, but I can understand and I am a fairly emotional person and I am a mother and a grandmother. I think if I had to live in that situation, and I say this advisedly, I might just consider becoming one myself."

The meaning of understanding: on one hand, understanding refers to comprehending the dynamics behind a problem; on the other hand, it implies sympathising with what you are talking about and therefore feel pity or find some justification for it.
While at University, I've researched sexual violence and later on terrorism. I therefore have some knowledge of the dynamics behind these problems, but I would never dream to say that I understand why somebody who has been using pornography for years can go on and rape somebody else. The point of research is to find out what the problem is about, how it happens, why and what you can do about it. In Tonge's sentence, understanding means sympathising, because, she says, terrorism comes from desperation, which brings me to her LACK of understanding.

Lack of understanding: Apart from the fact that the 2nd Intifada is significantly different from the first one in terms of strategy, rationale and weapons, terrorism does not stem from "bitterness, desperation and poverty". Terrorism throughout the world has always been very well organised and funded. It is a rather complex phenomenon and there's a wealth of literature on the subject for those who are interested.

From the Jaffe Center for Strategic Studies

Every suicide attack has three components: 1) a person with at least one motive and a willingness to carry out the attack 2) a system with a technical infrastructure to facilitate the planning and execution of the suicide attack 3) a decision to launch the attack by those who control the system.
They identify 4 main types of Palestinian terrorists: the Religious fanatic, the Nationalist fanatic, the Avenger and the Exploited (for more click here).

Second time for Jenny: This is the second time Tonge strikes with such a comment. Back in June, she compared the situation in Gaza with apartheid while her 'friend' Jewish Labour MP Oona King compared it to the Warsaw Ghetto. In Social Sciences comparisons are made to highlight differences and the complexities surrounding each particular case. They are also a way to make the PhD sexier. In this instance it just shows ignorance of the present and the past. There is an occupation and a conflict in Israel/Palestine, not a systematic destruction of an ethnic/religious/national group based on hatred.

Third time lucky?: later Tonge wrote on The Guardian that "the methods being used by the Israelis on reflection are not really 'Warsaw Ghetto' or apartheid". You would think that maybe writing prompted some reflection but in her article she still says that "Oona is of Jewish origin but is not a religious Jew". Does that mean that all religious Jews are in favour of Israeli policies or hate Palestinians?

Get a grip Jenny! True. Sensible comments don't make the headlines, but cheap and ignorant comments don't make good headlines. I don't think you stirred up the debate at all, you just abdicated the use of your brain and followed your emotions. Shall I suggest a visit to an endocrinologist?
Sorry for being harsh, but, you know, it's that time of the month! :)

THUMBS-UP!

Moved by requests for more entries from my ardent reader (Peter) I could not ignore what is the hot topic among LibDem bloggers: Lembit's Thumbs-up!
Let me just say that I wouldn't go for it :)

A Word On Realism

Those who call themselves Realists generally refer to the 'common sense' realism and not Morgenthau, Waltz etc. They hold the view that people and States act out of fear and greed and will use force to secure their interests. I have no problem agreeing with this view, the problems are:

Contradiction N1: Realists state that morality has no place in politics because States and people act out of interest BUT they often make moral justifications for it.

E.g. France and Russia had an economic interest not to invade Iraq while invading was morally right because it would have freed Iraqis from a tyrannical regime.

Contradiction N2: Realists label statements referring to US interests as Conspiracy Theories. Interestingly, this does not apply to any other country.

E.g. France and Russia wanted to preserve their oil contracts with Iraq while the US did not go invade for oil, or for lucrative reconstruction contracts.

Contradiction N3: Although they tend to resort to history to prove the point that the only option is the use of force, they 'forget' precedents when arguing and fail to argue on the basis of interest only.

E.g. If you say that invading Iraq would be a bad idea because it would increase terrorism around the world, plunge Iraq into chaos (precedent: Afghanistan) and we cannot afford it (precedent: Yugoslavia), they reply that invasion will control terrorism (although they don't say how), Iraq would be a democracy (can't help laughing at this!) and weapons… never mind that!

Contradiction N4: The Cold War! It gave us two notions:

the US is a land of freedom, wealth and democracy while the USSR and any form of socialism is part of the Empire of Evil.
the notion of balance of power according to which, to preserve our beloved freedoms and democracy, we need to rely on maintaining power around the globe and exercise it through force if necessary to avoid the spreading of communism (e.g. Vietnam).
I have no problem subscribing to the view that the USSR was corrupt, authoritarian, plunged the country into poverty (well, most citizens, not oligarchs), and violated human and civil rights at home and abroad. Similarly though, the US violated human and civil rights abroad, maintained a discriminatory system at home and applied the craziest economic policies that plunged the mass into poverty and the very few into superwealth. Nevertheless, The US were a democracy and a country were rights were generally respected (that's pre-Bush America).

Realists don't see the contradiction of seeing the US as the saviour of our civilisation, guarantor of freedom, democracy and rights but still refusing to sign treaties to end discrimination against women, for the rights of the child etc and trying to end or obstruct those to control the proliferation of nuclear weapons, to establish the international criminal court, prevent environmental disasters etc.

They also justify the use of force, allegedly in defence of those splendid values of our western civilisation, even when force and money were used to support dictators (Saddam, the Talibans!), crush the opposition and thwart any development (e.g. Latin America).

In conclusion, Realists are simply wimps with a very facile understanding of world affairs, who are stuck in the past and flaunt their hypocrisy (or stupidity) by labelling the opposition as ingenious pacifists and conspiracy theorists. I am no pacifist, I simply believe that although our fear and greed lead us to evil, there is something within us that leads us to the Truth, be it in the form of human rights or peace or whatever the issue of the day.

With regards to Conspiracy Theories, believing that the Pope, the Queen & Microsoft are behind whatever happens that is bad, now that's a conspiracy theory. Looking at what economical interests the US had in invading Iraq is….ehm, realism!

This and other articles are on my website!