A review of “The Remains Of The Day”
May 15th, 2012 by Roger Darlington
As I explained in this posting, for World Book Night 2012 I was chosen as a ‘giver’ and I selected as the book to donate to 24 others the Man Booker Prize-winning “The Remains Of The Day” by Kazuo Ishiguro. I have now read the novel myself and reviewed it here.
Posted in Cultural issues | Comments (0)
Free speech – American-style vs European-style
May 14th, 2012 by Roger Darlington
I’ve been discussing with friends the issue of free speech as it is understood in Britain and the United States. I’m sure that I’ll have some similar conversations when I visit the USA shortly.
There is a cultural difference between the United States and Europe on freedom of speech which I believe has its roots in the different histories of the two parts of the world.
Most Americans believe that words and actions are quite distinct and that words should not be criminalised but actions can be. This is the essence of the First Amendment. In this scenario, it is usually argued that the answer to bad speech is good speech and in time the latter will prevail.
This approach comes from the history of the USA which was largely founded by religious immigrants fleeing Europe where they were persecuted for expressing and practicising their particular religious views. Modern America has no experience of religious wars or ethnic cleansing or extermination camps. The elimination of the American indian does not influence current American thinking. The incarceration of Japanese-Americans during the Second World War was not the result of bad actions or even of bad speech – but the paranoia of wartime.
n contrast, most Europeans believe that words and actions are related, that the first can lead to the second and that, in cases of particularly bad speech one should not wait until it actually results in bad actions. Therefore it is argued that certain forms of bad speech should be criminalised before it leads to bad actions. This is the essence of our incitement laws and, in some European countries, the criminalisation of Holocaust denial. In this scenario, the answer to the worst of bad speech is to prosecute it – although usually such prosecutions have to be brought by a public prosectors who makes a judgement as to whether on balance it is in the public interest and such prosecutions have to be heard by a jury who are expected to ensure that such trials are not used to constrain free speech.
This approach comes from the history of Europe which was torn apart by centuries of religious wars and most especially from the experience of the Second World War when the Holocaust could be seen as the end result of centuries of verbal and other denigration of Jewish people.
Ultimately all freedoms have to be qualified because one’s man’s freedom is frequently another man’s lack of freedom. So one man’s freedom to have slaves is at the expense of another man’s right to be free. One man’s right to bear arms may be at the cost of an innocent bystander being shot dead. A rich man’s freedom to donate any amount of money to political campaigns can be effectively to crush the right of a poor man to be heard politically. One man’s right to insult Jews, homosexuals, Muslims, or women undermines the rights of such groups to live free of fear and humiliation.
Perhaps because of the country of my upbringing and residence, I prefer the more nuanced European approach.
Posted in Miscellaneous, My life & thoughts | Comments (1)
Well done, Manchester City!
May 13th, 2012 by Roger Darlington
In an earlier posting, I explained how I grew up in Manchester and notionally supported the Manchester City football team (I am not really interested in sport) because it was our local team and my younger brother was supporting Manchester United.
So, even with my lack of interest in football, I cannot fail to be excited by today’s achievement of Manchester City in winning the Premier League for the first time in 44 years, merely on goal difference.
As explained here, it was a nail biting match, the sort of thing you see in a sports movie.
Posted in Cultural issues | Comments (0)
Is America’s decline inevitable?
May 13th, 2012 by Roger Darlington
All civilisations rise and fall; all great powers ascend and descend. This is the lesson of world history. After all, Britain was once the greatest power on earth ruling one-fifth of the global population and covering a quarter of the planet’s area.
Yet many American politicians and policymakers assume that the current American hegemony is permanent and are in denial about the growing signs of political quagmire, economic weakness and military limitations.
I am more than usually interested in the prospects for the United States because I am about to make my seventh visit to the country. I think that I will take with me to read a new book by Edward Luce entitled “Time To Start Thinking: America And The Spectre Of Decline”. In a review of the work, John Gray concludes:
“America’s difficulties are not fundamentally different from those all developed countries face in responding to the global shift of economic power. But by the same token, what may prove to be America’s greatest weakness is the adamant insistence that it can defy the normal course of history. Pundits who insist that American decline is not a fact but a choice are closing their minds to the only real issue, which is how the US will adjust to a descent from primacy that cannot be stopped. At present the auguries are not good.”
Posted in US current affairs | Comments (0)
250 years of the sandwich
May 12th, 2012 by Roger Darlington
Other countries may have invented the bagel and the baguette but the British can proudly lay claim to the innovation of the sandwich some 250 years ago. It seems that it was in 1762 that John Montagu, the fourth Earl of Sandwich, first ordered beef served between slices of bread, so introducing civilisation to a convenient form of light refreshment.
The event is being celebrated in the English town of Sandwich this weekend as explained here.
Posted in Miscellaneous | Comments (0)
Any ideas for saving $4 billion?
May 12th, 2012 by Roger Darlington
What about not upgrading the United States’ 180 tactical nuclear weapons in western Europe.
You can check out the case here.
Posted in US current affairs | Comments (0)
How many American Presidents have been assassinated?
May 11th, 2012 by Roger Darlington
Four sitting United States Presidents have been assassinated: Abraham Lincoln in 1865, James A. Garfield in 1881, William McKinley in 1901 and John F. Kennedy in 1963.
Two other Presidents were injured in attempted assassinations: former President Theodore Roosevelt and then sitting President Ronald Reagan. In all, there have been over 20 known attempts to kill sitting and former Presidents.
You’ll find the details here.
Posted in History | Comments (0)
How many British Prime Ministers have been assassinated?
May 11th, 2012 by Roger Darlington
Most people would guess none – but sadly the answer is one. The unfortunate Spencer Perceval was shot dead in the House of Commons itself by a man with a grudge against the government.
This occurred exactly two hundred years ago today and, of course, the “Guardian” has marked the date with an article.
Posted in History | Comments (0)
What will the home of the future look like?
May 10th, 2012 by Roger Darlington
You’ll find plenty of fascinating ideas here.
Posted in Science & technology | Comments (0)
The most complicated politics in the democratic world
May 9th, 2012 by Roger Darlington
Israel may be a small country of just 8 million, but its politics matter, both because it is the only genuine democracy in the Middle East and it is the strongest military power in the region. I have tried to explain Israel’s political system here.
In the conclusion of my essay, I state: “Israeli’s strange electoral system and fractious political parties virtually guarantee that the government will be a coalition of very different political parties with a strong likelihood that at least one will be a nationalist or ultra-religious one with disproportionate influence in the government. This makes ruling and legislating – even more negotiating with the Palestinians – very difficult, so that on average Israeli governments last only half their permitted term (two years instead of four).”
Therefore I was not overly surprised when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is head of the Likud Party, announced that he would be calling an early general election in the autumn. That was the position on Monday night. However, on Tuesday morning, there was no early election but instead a new government coalition bringing into office the Likud Party which is actually the largest in the current Knesset. That gives the government 94 seats out of 120 – the sort of majority that most dictatorships enjoy.
In Israel, the question asked about political developments outside the country is usually: “What does it mean for the Jews?” Outside Israel, political developments in that country usual provoke the question: “What does this mean for peace or war in the Middle East?”
In this case, the answer is not obvious. On the one hand, Shaul Mofaz, head of the Kadima party, should be expected to bring a more moderating influence to discussions about an attack on Iran to block its supposed plan to develop a military nuclear capability. On the other hand, the formation of a national unity government may be the political cover for just such an attack.
But what do I know? A more sophisticated view of the new situation can be found in this article in today’s “Guardian” newspaper. Another very well-informed view comes from my friend David Eden who is currently resident in the USA and an Israeli ex-pat who was formerly the bureau chief for the Head of MAPAM (the United Workers Party – currently a part of Meretz) in the mid and late 1980s. He writes:
“Of course, the setting up a National Unity Government (NUG) essentially means setting up a Government of National Immobility. As in previous NUGs, the internal contradictions lead to doing nothing of real political risk-taking. Unless Bibi pushes nationalist Yisrael Beitenu and Foreign Minister Avigdor ‘Yvette’ Lieberman out of the coalition (and it’s a possibility, given that Lieberman now becomes somewhat of a junior partner, and also will probably be indicted for corruption/bribery), along with some of the other extreme Right partners (less of a possibility – they are no real threat and their presence helps Bibi cover his rear with the Far Right of the Likud), there will be nothing pushing movement in the comatose peace process with the Palestinians. Plus, a huge coalition will help Bibi withstand pressure from the US, assuming Obama is reelected.
As they say in Hebrew, in any deal someone “has to swallow a frog”. In this case it’s Mofaz, who only 2 months ago said he would not join a coalition with Bibi. I doubt if Mofaz will be stalwart in opposing the duo of Bibi and Barak in their efforts to bomb, bomb, bomb Iran, even though in the past he made some comments on the need to coordinate with our allies, and that a nuclear Iran is not just a problem for Israel. My assumption is that Mofaz is well aware of the polls. Kadima was going down, to maybe 12-13 seats (from 30). This is a way to keep the party alive. And if he could previously say he was going to champion the socio-economic issues, it’s one thing to do it as leader of the opposition when you’re looking for votes, and quite another as Bibi’s partner.
Bibi is obviously the biggest winner in the deal, shoring up his standing both in Israel and on the international scene. He avoids early elections (and even though he was well ahead, it is always a risk, as he well knows from his own election in 1996)
But the biggest loser title in the deal is up for grabs:
- Will it be Yair Lapid, whose brand new Yesh Atid (There is a Future) party will now be stillborn or aborted? Bibi remembers the success that his father Tommy Lapid had when he led Shinui on an anti-religious platform, and caused some serious disruption to ‘business as usual’. He is afraid of Lapid 2.0 tapping into the large sections of the population who are not happy with ‘the situation’ and doing something similar.
- Could it be Ehud Barak? With no real party behind him, it is only Bibi’s support that keeps him afloat. If Mofaz decides that he deserves to take over as Defense Minister (instead of being Deputy PM and Minister without portfolio), will Bibi cut Barak loose?
- The Haredi parties? Both Bibi and Mofaz are making noises about changes to the Tal Law which allows for exemption from military service for the ultra-orthodox. In February 2012 the High Court of Justice ruled that the Tal Law in its current form was unconstitutional and could not be extended beyond August. If they can’t keep the yeshiva boys out of the army, will the ultra-orthodox parties be able to stay in the coalition? But if they abandon the coalition, what happens with the millions they get for their social programs and religious education? I’m sure Mofaz will insist on redistribution of funds to benefit other sectors.
- The Labor party and its new head, Shelly Yechimovich? Although it’s likely that Shelly will be titular ‘Head of the Opposition’ (unless Lieberman leaves the coalition and gets that title), it will be very difficult for her to gain any real successes in fighting any legislation Bibi and Mofaz will want to push through. She may be tempted to join the NUG as a very minor partner, especially if Lieberman and the haredim are forced out. The only bright (itsy-bitsy) spot for her is that by being forced to the Left (just a few days ago she said that she could join a coalition with Bibi if she felt that he is making an effort on improving socio-economic conditions for ALL Israel), she might be able to hold on to the growing support that Labor was getting in polls. It would also push the rival Meretz party back into some sort of alignment with Labor, resulting in Meretz’ probable demise. But this will also force her out of her comfort zone of socio-economic activism, and force her to be more forceful on he Palestinian issue. Not a good scenario for the Left. Unless Labor joins the NUG, then Meretz becomes THE address for the secular-zionist opposition. When there was the last NUG, Meretz shot up to 10 seats in the Knesset – it could happen again.
- The Peace Camp? Shalom Achshav, Ir Amim, New Israel Fund, etc. will all be negatively impacted. Most Israelis will respond by saying ‘we need to pull together and give the NUG a chance’.”
Posted in World current affairs | Comments (0)