Any country should be judged fairly according to the way it reacts to events. The sign of a mature, and civilised country, is also the way it reacts to threats. Like any person, a person's level of maturity can be seen by how well they react to events; if they react rationally, and with a careful, measured response, this is the measure of maturity.
Applying the same thing to nation-states, we can compare how countries react to events, in particular, terrorism.
This is all provoked by the very recent news of the shooting (killing a number, and wounding many more) of unarmed charity workers on board a boat by Israeli commandos.
First of all, the Israeli foreign minister said that the "Freedom Flotilla" was a provocation to Israeli sovereignty. Regardless of my views of the Mr Liebermann, the foreign minister, this statement is wrong on two points: a group of ships of charity workers sending food and medical supplies cannot be called a provocation; and Gaza is not Israeli territory, so cannot be considered part of Israeli sovereignty.
Whoever gave permission for commandos to attack unarmed civilians (Mr Liebermann?) shows a complete lack of humanity, as well as a disregard for international law, and no right to membership to belonging to civilisation in general.
But let's review the right that Israel has to defend itself against threats to its sovereignty, and terrorism. Let's compare it to other countries with terrorism problems, and let the facts speak for themselves.
In 2006, after the terrorist attack by Hezbollah killed two Israeli soldiers, Israel straightaway bombed Beirut airport, and launched an all-out war against the Lebanese government, destroying much of its infrastructure over a month-long attack ("war" would be a misleading term here, as the Lebanese government had already told its military not to defend itself against Israeli attacks).
The IRA often attacked and killed British soldiers in Northern Ireland and elsewhere during its terrorist campaign; yet the British government never thought to bomb Dublin airport or destroy the Republic of Ireland's infrastructure as a "measured retaliation".
The same could be said of the Spanish government's response to ETA's unending terror campaign.
A blockade has been in place against the Hamas-controlled territory of Gaza for some years now. Israel says this is a fair response against the terror attack by Hamas.
Again, the UK had never considered a blockade a reasonable response to the IRA's terror campaign. And it has never considered attacking civilians who dared to try and "break" the "blockade".
So what's so special about Israel?
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
English Is A Funny Language
Being an English teacher gives you a unique perspective on the language. So, with consideration to many confused foreigners in mind, I've made a list of English phrases and so on, which could be easily misinterpreted by foreigners, with possible misinterpretations:
Spinach doesn't agree with me ("I had an argument with a spinach leaf, and now we're not talking to each other")
I couldn't agree with you more ("If I agree with you once again, I'll explode")
I feel like a cup of coffee ("I'm having an existential crisis at the moment")
Well I never! ("I'm always ill")
You're kidding! ("You're acting like a child")
Help yourself to whatever you like ("I'm not going to help you")
Suit yourself ("You need to buy a new suit")
It takes one to know one ("I can't add up even simple sums")
I'm all fingers and thumbs ("I've had an unfortunate episode at the plastic surgeon")
Take your time ("Don't forget your watch")
I'm always changing my mind ("I have frequent visits to the brain surgeon")
Feel free to speak your mind ("I don't mind if you start talking to yourself")
Pull yourself together ("Your arms and legs are falling off")
I'm struggling to make ends meet ("I have trouble finishing sentences")
I take after my father ("Like my father, I'm a thief")
Spinach doesn't agree with me ("I had an argument with a spinach leaf, and now we're not talking to each other")
I couldn't agree with you more ("If I agree with you once again, I'll explode")
I feel like a cup of coffee ("I'm having an existential crisis at the moment")
Well I never! ("I'm always ill")
You're kidding! ("You're acting like a child")
Help yourself to whatever you like ("I'm not going to help you")
Suit yourself ("You need to buy a new suit")
It takes one to know one ("I can't add up even simple sums")
I'm all fingers and thumbs ("I've had an unfortunate episode at the plastic surgeon")
Take your time ("Don't forget your watch")
I'm always changing my mind ("I have frequent visits to the brain surgeon")
Feel free to speak your mind ("I don't mind if you start talking to yourself")
Pull yourself together ("Your arms and legs are falling off")
I'm struggling to make ends meet ("I have trouble finishing sentences")
I take after my father ("Like my father, I'm a thief")
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Nick Clegg: A "British Obama"?
A lot of things have been said and written about Nick Clegg over the last month. Some have made a mention of the way that he had styled himself on the campaign trail using the same rhetoric as Obama: the "yes we can" style of politics, and all that.
Well, for my part, here are a few reasons that I can think of to support the view that Clegg does represent something a bit different, like Obama did two years ago. And I don't subscribe to the view that Obama has been a disappointment, or even a betrayer of the ideals he supported before coming to office, by the way: he's a realist, like any smart person should be. And so is Clegg.
First, the background: Obama is an African-American (in the real sense of the word), which makes him, as only "partially" American, an outsider. Clegg is, technically, only one quarter British: his mother was Dutch , his father half-Russian (Nick Clegg's paternal grandfather was English, and married an Russian emigre aristocrat). That makes Clegg, in a British sense, as far from being pure British as is possible.
Second, both Obama and Clegg's life history and viewpoint is of the "liberal cosmopolitan", at odds with a large section of their society. Obama spent his youth in Indonesia and Hawaii, later becoming a lawyer for the underpriveleged in Chicago. In other words, he spent his formative years abroad and out of the loop. The same can be said of Clegg: he spent time in Germany as a student, later in the USA, and spent his early career working in some capacity for the EU, only later getting involved in British politics.
And third, these experiences have helped shaped their viewpoint and involvement in politics: in some way, this makes them slightly "geeky" compared to some other politicians. Clegg may have been inspired by Obama's strategy and political style to some extent: during the election campaign, that seemed the case. Both, since being in office (although under very different circumstances) have tried to use a collaborative approach to politics, that engages the public (Obama with his weekly public internet updates, Clegg with his internet connections to supporters) - the internet, being just one example. And both are trying, in their own ways, to make significant reforms to their countries.
I'm not trying to idealise either Obama or Clegg, of course. They have made mistakes; but it's clear that the sincerity of what they are doing is there. In some ways, they both aspire to be transformative figures in their countries. Obama was given his chance two years ago; Clegg given his chance just recently.
The USA and UK are politically very different places, so the type of politics, and the types of politicians that exist, will be different. But I can see that both these men have a clear idea what they are doing, what they want to do, and how they are going to try and achieve it.
Well, for my part, here are a few reasons that I can think of to support the view that Clegg does represent something a bit different, like Obama did two years ago. And I don't subscribe to the view that Obama has been a disappointment, or even a betrayer of the ideals he supported before coming to office, by the way: he's a realist, like any smart person should be. And so is Clegg.
First, the background: Obama is an African-American (in the real sense of the word), which makes him, as only "partially" American, an outsider. Clegg is, technically, only one quarter British: his mother was Dutch , his father half-Russian (Nick Clegg's paternal grandfather was English, and married an Russian emigre aristocrat). That makes Clegg, in a British sense, as far from being pure British as is possible.
Second, both Obama and Clegg's life history and viewpoint is of the "liberal cosmopolitan", at odds with a large section of their society. Obama spent his youth in Indonesia and Hawaii, later becoming a lawyer for the underpriveleged in Chicago. In other words, he spent his formative years abroad and out of the loop. The same can be said of Clegg: he spent time in Germany as a student, later in the USA, and spent his early career working in some capacity for the EU, only later getting involved in British politics.
And third, these experiences have helped shaped their viewpoint and involvement in politics: in some way, this makes them slightly "geeky" compared to some other politicians. Clegg may have been inspired by Obama's strategy and political style to some extent: during the election campaign, that seemed the case. Both, since being in office (although under very different circumstances) have tried to use a collaborative approach to politics, that engages the public (Obama with his weekly public internet updates, Clegg with his internet connections to supporters) - the internet, being just one example. And both are trying, in their own ways, to make significant reforms to their countries.
I'm not trying to idealise either Obama or Clegg, of course. They have made mistakes; but it's clear that the sincerity of what they are doing is there. In some ways, they both aspire to be transformative figures in their countries. Obama was given his chance two years ago; Clegg given his chance just recently.
The USA and UK are politically very different places, so the type of politics, and the types of politicians that exist, will be different. But I can see that both these men have a clear idea what they are doing, what they want to do, and how they are going to try and achieve it.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
PR, AV, and what's TBA by the Lib-Con Cleggmerons
It's all about voting systems.
Electoral reform was the key to the LibDems coming to agreement with the Conservatives, and now they've agreed to have a referendum on the Alternative Vote voting system.
Well, PR was the LibDem's dream (and there are plenty of people still campaigning, with LibDem support, for such a change). But, being realistic for the moment, the two main parties were never likely to support it: like turkeys voting for Christmas. In the end the LibDem coalition choice boiled down to a deal with the Conservatives, where they sacrifice a few of their policies for the sake of stability and a historic chance of power. Or do a deal with Labour that offered what they wanted, but at the price of stability (how long would such a ragged collection of parties lasted? weeks? months?), as well as having questionable legitimacy.
PR is, it goes without saying, the fairest of them all. But, I find it hard to believe that most British people would be able to stomach a PR voting system that would almost certainly result in coalition governments most of the time (perhaps as much as 90% of the time, barring huge landslide victories). Let's not forget that political reform was a gradual process over many decades in the 19th century.
AV is the closest to the present system, that offers a kind tweaking of the system. By counting up second preferences in constituencies, it allows more of a chance for other parties (the British like the idea of fair play) to win seats. I saw a breakdown of this on the internet, using the 2010 election results: under AV, the Conservatives and Labour would have had more-or-less equal seats, although less than now, and the LibDems a few more than they had before the election. The benefits of this system over PR is that, while it certainly makes hung parliaments more likely than now, it still offers the "stability" which a lot of British people seem to prefer.
Of course, this attitude might change very quickly. In which case, the UK will join the rest of Europe in having a PR system that everyone seems to think works fine for them. It depends on the country. One thing's for certain: coalitions force politicians to stop acting like children and behave like real adults.
To negotiate and compromise is a sign of maturity, not weakness.
Electoral reform was the key to the LibDems coming to agreement with the Conservatives, and now they've agreed to have a referendum on the Alternative Vote voting system.
Well, PR was the LibDem's dream (and there are plenty of people still campaigning, with LibDem support, for such a change). But, being realistic for the moment, the two main parties were never likely to support it: like turkeys voting for Christmas. In the end the LibDem coalition choice boiled down to a deal with the Conservatives, where they sacrifice a few of their policies for the sake of stability and a historic chance of power. Or do a deal with Labour that offered what they wanted, but at the price of stability (how long would such a ragged collection of parties lasted? weeks? months?), as well as having questionable legitimacy.
PR is, it goes without saying, the fairest of them all. But, I find it hard to believe that most British people would be able to stomach a PR voting system that would almost certainly result in coalition governments most of the time (perhaps as much as 90% of the time, barring huge landslide victories). Let's not forget that political reform was a gradual process over many decades in the 19th century.
AV is the closest to the present system, that offers a kind tweaking of the system. By counting up second preferences in constituencies, it allows more of a chance for other parties (the British like the idea of fair play) to win seats. I saw a breakdown of this on the internet, using the 2010 election results: under AV, the Conservatives and Labour would have had more-or-less equal seats, although less than now, and the LibDems a few more than they had before the election. The benefits of this system over PR is that, while it certainly makes hung parliaments more likely than now, it still offers the "stability" which a lot of British people seem to prefer.
Of course, this attitude might change very quickly. In which case, the UK will join the rest of Europe in having a PR system that everyone seems to think works fine for them. It depends on the country. One thing's for certain: coalitions force politicians to stop acting like children and behave like real adults.
To negotiate and compromise is a sign of maturity, not weakness.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
From Knave to Kingmaker: The Fable Of Nick Clegg
The past month has been a whirlwind in British politics; most of all, is the extraordinary rise of Nick Clegg (also known as Nicholas Van Den Wall Bake-Clegg).
Here's a man who, as leader of the Liberal Democrats, was a comparative nobody until the election debates: the guy that no-one (least of all, the media) took seriously, until he actually was given equal respect as the others. And then he blew them away.
That said, in the elections themselves, the momentum all came to nought: except that, lucky for him, the two main parties remained in electoral deadlock, with neither in power. And then did Nick seize the opportunity.
As the Conservatives were the biggest party, he realised that it would make political sense to first make overtures to the Conservatives, regardless of his true feelings for them. Secretly, him and other Lib Dems knew that too much divided them from the Conservatives than united them.
So official discussions got under way.
Nick's dream was electoral reform, which he knew the Conservatives opposed. So, secret meetings started with the defeated Labour party. Then a group of pro-reform supporters massed outside his HQ, and he dealt with them by taking them like a horse under his reins, urging them to continue their (and his) campaign, adding pressure on the stubborn Conservatives.
It seemed the "discussions" were going well, at least to the Conservatives eyes. As the largest party, surely power was theirs alone? But, no: Nick Clegg and his disciples, though being the smallest group, were the strongest. The power was in the weak; the strength was sapping from the strong.
Then, the Labour PM resigned, and at once the Conservatives knew they were being tricked. For the PM's demise was Nick Clegg's condition to alliance with Labour. Labour were aiding the Lib Dems in a pincer movement to squeeze the stronger Conservatives; and it worked. The Conservatives howled in disbelief; how could this happen? How could a man who was but a knave a month ago, and humbled in elections less than a week before, through his careful planning, bring down the PM and humiliate the other heirs apparent?
For Nick Clegg was no knave: he was not, even, a typical "Englishman" at all: with a Spanish wife, a Dutch mother, half-Russian father, with a Russian aristocrat for a grandmother, no, he was not normal at all. Nick Clegg, the man with the name that some wouldn't even take seriously, could hide behind this weird persona. If he was a geek, then he was just waiting for the right opportunity to flourish. And it had come.
This was the time for the dispossessed from politics to make their mark and bring about their quiet revolution. And the best part was, the other main rivals, Labour and the Conservatives, had convinced themselves that this was the only option for survival. So, through supporting reform, they would freely hand their own political demise to the Lib Dems on a plate.
Here's a man who, as leader of the Liberal Democrats, was a comparative nobody until the election debates: the guy that no-one (least of all, the media) took seriously, until he actually was given equal respect as the others. And then he blew them away.
That said, in the elections themselves, the momentum all came to nought: except that, lucky for him, the two main parties remained in electoral deadlock, with neither in power. And then did Nick seize the opportunity.
As the Conservatives were the biggest party, he realised that it would make political sense to first make overtures to the Conservatives, regardless of his true feelings for them. Secretly, him and other Lib Dems knew that too much divided them from the Conservatives than united them.
So official discussions got under way.
Nick's dream was electoral reform, which he knew the Conservatives opposed. So, secret meetings started with the defeated Labour party. Then a group of pro-reform supporters massed outside his HQ, and he dealt with them by taking them like a horse under his reins, urging them to continue their (and his) campaign, adding pressure on the stubborn Conservatives.
It seemed the "discussions" were going well, at least to the Conservatives eyes. As the largest party, surely power was theirs alone? But, no: Nick Clegg and his disciples, though being the smallest group, were the strongest. The power was in the weak; the strength was sapping from the strong.
Then, the Labour PM resigned, and at once the Conservatives knew they were being tricked. For the PM's demise was Nick Clegg's condition to alliance with Labour. Labour were aiding the Lib Dems in a pincer movement to squeeze the stronger Conservatives; and it worked. The Conservatives howled in disbelief; how could this happen? How could a man who was but a knave a month ago, and humbled in elections less than a week before, through his careful planning, bring down the PM and humiliate the other heirs apparent?
For Nick Clegg was no knave: he was not, even, a typical "Englishman" at all: with a Spanish wife, a Dutch mother, half-Russian father, with a Russian aristocrat for a grandmother, no, he was not normal at all. Nick Clegg, the man with the name that some wouldn't even take seriously, could hide behind this weird persona. If he was a geek, then he was just waiting for the right opportunity to flourish. And it had come.
This was the time for the dispossessed from politics to make their mark and bring about their quiet revolution. And the best part was, the other main rivals, Labour and the Conservatives, had convinced themselves that this was the only option for survival. So, through supporting reform, they would freely hand their own political demise to the Lib Dems on a plate.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
If it ain't broken, don't fix it (but it is)...
Election Day is finally here.
I've read a lot of columns over the past few weeks about the possible outcomes tomorrow morning, and what they might mean. One thing, though, is for certain. People are confused right now!
But, there's one thing that should be clear, regardless of the outcome: the electoral, first-past-the-post system, is broken.
Regardless of what you think of the Lib Dems, the facts are these: in the 2005 election, Labour became the government with around 30-35% of the vote. As things stand, the Conservatives are hovering with around 35% of the vote, and stand the most likely to win the most seats in government. So, here's the thing: regardless of the party, how can ANY party with only around a third of the vote claim to be a legitimate government by itself? The two-party system, which the current system favours, no longer exists. This has been the case for at least the last twenty five years.
Of course, up to now, the two "main" parties have never seen it in their interest to support electoral reform. But now, the case is not only morally indisputable, it is also, at least for Labour, their only likely option in order to cement a governing agreement with the Lib Dems. Some people argue that this is unfair, as it keeps in power two parties that are likely to come second and third place, locking out the "most popular" party.
This is an trivial point. To begin with, a Lab-Lib government would at least reflect the views of the majority of the electorate, rather than any minority Conservative government. Furthermore, if you look at the parties in purely ideological terms, the only "truly" right-wing party are the Conservatives (regardless of what you think of Labour's record over the War On Terror). The majority of the British public, according to opinion polls, are centre-left. Therefore the government should reflect that fact. It's as simple as that.
One last thing. People in the newspapers have been chewing over the constitutional options, saying that if the Conservatives obtain a number of seats just short of a majority, they morally have the right to govern as a minority government. Well, in the event of a hung parliament, the Prime Minister has the duty/right to try to form a government with others. Any talk of the Conservatives joining with the Ulster Unionists (whoever heard of a Tory-Irish Protestant government?) seems pure speculation until Gordon Brown actually resigns, giving the Queen the obligation to offer his job to Cameron. So, unless the Conservatives get a majority, the ball is in Brown's court, as I see it. This then gives the Lib Dems the chance to offer their terms (electoral reform, a different leader as PM, etc. etc.).
So this could well work out to be a heaven-sent opportunity to bring about a well-needed plumbing job to the electoral system. And also, potentially, usher in a new age of Progressive Left consensus.
I've read a lot of columns over the past few weeks about the possible outcomes tomorrow morning, and what they might mean. One thing, though, is for certain. People are confused right now!
But, there's one thing that should be clear, regardless of the outcome: the electoral, first-past-the-post system, is broken.
Regardless of what you think of the Lib Dems, the facts are these: in the 2005 election, Labour became the government with around 30-35% of the vote. As things stand, the Conservatives are hovering with around 35% of the vote, and stand the most likely to win the most seats in government. So, here's the thing: regardless of the party, how can ANY party with only around a third of the vote claim to be a legitimate government by itself? The two-party system, which the current system favours, no longer exists. This has been the case for at least the last twenty five years.
Of course, up to now, the two "main" parties have never seen it in their interest to support electoral reform. But now, the case is not only morally indisputable, it is also, at least for Labour, their only likely option in order to cement a governing agreement with the Lib Dems. Some people argue that this is unfair, as it keeps in power two parties that are likely to come second and third place, locking out the "most popular" party.
This is an trivial point. To begin with, a Lab-Lib government would at least reflect the views of the majority of the electorate, rather than any minority Conservative government. Furthermore, if you look at the parties in purely ideological terms, the only "truly" right-wing party are the Conservatives (regardless of what you think of Labour's record over the War On Terror). The majority of the British public, according to opinion polls, are centre-left. Therefore the government should reflect that fact. It's as simple as that.
One last thing. People in the newspapers have been chewing over the constitutional options, saying that if the Conservatives obtain a number of seats just short of a majority, they morally have the right to govern as a minority government. Well, in the event of a hung parliament, the Prime Minister has the duty/right to try to form a government with others. Any talk of the Conservatives joining with the Ulster Unionists (whoever heard of a Tory-Irish Protestant government?) seems pure speculation until Gordon Brown actually resigns, giving the Queen the obligation to offer his job to Cameron. So, unless the Conservatives get a majority, the ball is in Brown's court, as I see it. This then gives the Lib Dems the chance to offer their terms (electoral reform, a different leader as PM, etc. etc.).
So this could well work out to be a heaven-sent opportunity to bring about a well-needed plumbing job to the electoral system. And also, potentially, usher in a new age of Progressive Left consensus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)