normblog

Look into their eyes

Not a dating tip, but an approach to airport and flying security that Israel works with and other countries... don't. See also the comment here.

Legitimacy corner 2

With the demise of parliamentary legitimacy lately declared in certain quarters over Parliament's decision in 2003 to go to war in Iraq, must we now look forward to a Gradunian leader insisting on the legitimacy of using 'waterboarding and other aggressive interrogation techniques' on terrorist suspects in the US?

The one-state dissolution

Every now and again you'll come across an opinion piece arguing that the two-state solution for Israel-Palestine - which the writer once favoured - is no longer a practical proposition. This state of affairs may be noted by him or her with some regret but nonetheless we must, we are told, buckle down to realities on the ground as they are now said to be, and accept a single democratic, secular state; it is the only realistic game in town. Such a piece is this one at Comment is Free.

Argument for the inevitable one-state fate of Israel-Palestine has a peculiar logical structure, however, which I shall attempt to bring out in what follows. If there is to be a single democratic and secular state, this must be either (C) with the consent of both populations, Israeli and Palestinian, or (N) without it - which means without the consent of at least one of the two.

(C) If it is with the verified consent of a majority of Israelis and a majority of Palestinians, then there can be no fundamental objection to it, since the one-state solution would then go ahead on the basis that the rights to national self-determination of both peoples had been respected. But if this is the thinking behind the one-state 'realism' of its proponents, one should register what an improbable combination it assumes. For it assumes a majority Israeli opinion unwilling to reverse the inroads made on Palestinian land through Jewish settlement activity since 1967, intransigent therefore in attitudes of territorial dispossession, and yet simultaneously willing to agree to a bi-national state, to living side by side with the Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank in the same democratic polity as co-equal partners. Why would an Israeli electorate sensitive enough to Palestinian interests to be open to the latter possibility be closed to the former? This is not a persuasive reading of comparative political prospects.

(N) One is bound to wonder, consequently, whether the regretful converts to the one- from the two-state solution are in fact committed to its being based on the consent of both populations, Israeli and Palestinian. If they are not, if more particularly they envisage this solution being imposed upon the Jews of Israel, different questions arise. First, how could it be imposed if a reversal of the policy of the settlements could not be? Second, are the Jews to be denied their right of national self-determination while the Palestinians (assuming them to fall in with the proposed one-state solution) are granted theirs? Third, are the democratic one-state solution converts merely sponsoring in a more hand-wringing way what others put less tactfully in their rhetoric - namely, the forcible destruction of Israel?

Welcome to twenty-ten

That's the way to say it. (Via - thanks: L.)

The normblog profile 328: Helena Pielichaty

Helena Pielichaty was born in Stockholm to an English mother and half-Polish, half-Russian father. Her family moved to England when she was five. She trained as a teacher but began writing full time when her children were small. The author of over 30 books for ages 8-16, she is known for her gritty realism coupled with a wry sense of humour. Helena is currently working on a series of books about girls' football. She blogs at Diary of a Children's Writer.

Why do you blog? > Blatant self-promotion. Wise people tell me it's the way to go if I want readers to stay interested in my books.

What has been your best blogging experience? > Complimentary feedback on various pieces.

What has been your worst blogging experience? > Picky comments from people I've favourably reviewed. Stuff like: 'you missed a comma out'. Also, using my blog as a displacement activity instead of working.

What would be your main blogging advice to a novice blogger? > Vary the length of your posts. A short snappy one can make just as much of an impression as a mega-long ramble. Be wary of making them too personal. Intimate revelations can come back and bite you in the ass.

What are your favourite blogs? > Bookwitch for variety and clarity, and Philip Ardagh for wit.

What are you reading at the moment? > Get Her Off The Pitch by Lynn Truss, and Malcolm Cook's 101 Youth Soccer Drills.

Who are your cultural heroes? > Oscar Wilde, Leonardo de Vinci, Rodin, Elvis, Katharine Hepburn, Alan Bennett.

What is the best novel you've ever read? > Too many to choose, but those that left a lasting impression include The Accidental Tourist by Anne Tyler, A Star Called Henry by Roddy Doyle, I Am David by Ann Holm, Night by Elie Wiesel, The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood, Saturday Night and Sunday Morning by Alan Sillitoe.

What is your favourite poem? > 'Futility' by Wilfred Owen.

What is your favourite movie? > Home Alone (it's a family thing).

What is your favourite song? > 'Heroes' by David Bowie.

Can you name a major moral, political or intellectual issue on which you've ever changed your mind? > That all Tories are evil and that all Labour Members are sound.

Can you name a work of non-fiction which has had a major and lasting influence on how you think about the world? > Fat is a Feminist Issue by Suzie Orbach. Orbach was the first person to raise the subject of body issues and their significance in women and girls. Way ahead of her time.

Who are your political heroes? > The Pankhursts, Martin Luther King, Peter Tatchell, Lubna Ahmed al-Hussein (Sudanese woman who faced 40 lashes for wearing trousers in public).

What is your favourite piece of political wisdom? > 'In politics, stupidity is not a handicap.' (Napoleon)

If you could effect one major policy change in the governing of your country, what would it be? > Reverse the right to buy council/social housing. Housing stock has diminished drastically for those who need it and RTB has created more problems than it's solved.

If you could choose anyone, from any walk of life, to be Prime Minister, who would you choose? > Eddie Izzard or Philip Pullman. Either would be interesting.

What do you consider to be the main threat to the future peace and security of the world? > Fundamentalism.

Do you think the world (human civilization) has already passed its best point, or is that yet to come? > I'm hoping the best is yet to come but 1977, 1985 and 1987 were pretty good.

What would be your most important piece of advice about life? > Don't sweat the small stuff.

Do you think you could ever be married to, or in a long-term relationship with, someone with radically different political views from your own? > Maybe in the short term, not in the long.

What do you consider the most important personal quality? > Stiff upper lip in times of adversity. I might only be half-English but it's the way to go.

What personal fault do you most dislike? > Smugness.

In what circumstances would you be willing to lie? > Almost any. I'm a born stretcher of truth. Catastrophizing is my hobby.

Do you have any prejudices you're willing to acknowledge? > Seeing over-75s driving. Women wearing the burqa - hideous, regressive and an affront to Emily Davison.

What is your favourite proverb? > 'Time is a great healer.'

What commonly enjoyed activities do you regard as a waste of time? > Still don't get the whole Twitter thing.

What, if anything, do you worry about? > My children being hurt.

If you were to relive your life to this point, is there anything you'd do differently? > Loads of things; but I guess if we made no mistakes we'd never learn.

Where would you most like to live (other than where you do)? > This changes daily, depending on where I've just visited. Today's answer is in one of those amazing white five-storey Georgian houses off Old Brompton Road, London.

What talent would you most like to have? > To be able to sing in tune.

Who is your favourite comedian or humorist? > Wilde, Dorothy Parker, Spike Milligan, Caroline Aherne, Jack Dee, Lee Mack.

Who are your sporting heroes? > Muhammad Ali, Lily Parr, Nikolai Trusevich (the goalkeeper for Dynamo Kiev shot during WW2), David Beckham, Daley Thompson.

Which English Premiership football team do you support? > Huddersfield Town (Premiership pending).

If you could have one (more or less realistic) wish come true, what would you wish for? > Every secondary school would have a library containing real books and real, qualified librarians (not parents/volunteers).

How, if at all, would you change your life were you suddenly to win or inherit an enormously large sum of money? > Are we talking Euromillions? If so, see to family first. Then the dream house, i.e. Victorian detached villa with library, huge private gardens and orchard. Altruistic changes: funding Care Homes properly so that elderly residents get the best all-round care possible. Supporting forward thinking mental health projects.

[The normblog profile is a weekly Friday morning feature - posted, on this occasion, a day late because of Christmas. A list of all the profiles to date, and the links to them, can be found here.]

From evil to eve-al

Still, mustn't grumble, hey? Clocking out here until... ooh, tomorrow, I wish you all the very best for the coming year. Remember, Louis says it best.

Evil thoughts 7

Oh no, I can't take much more of this. (You don't have to - Ed.) Johnbo's closing appearance:

Outside the context of a particular argument, calling a nation or regime evil doesn't entail any particular action in relationship to it. It's not like saying someone has pneumonia or swine flu. A variety of people in the United States and Europe could agree that a regime (say, that of Uzbek dictator Islam Karimov) is evil without agreeing on any action that should be take in relation to it. But the term's iconic status means... that if someone does try to justify a course of action by invoking evil, it becomes more difficult than usual to reject that course of action.

As to the first part of this passage, it's not only calling a regime evil that doesn't entail any particular action; calling it bad or tyrannical, unjust or oppressive, incompetent or wasteful, comical, murderous, tottering, doomed, also doesn't. So once again the term 'evil' finds itself in plenty of company, wordwise. As to the second part - nonsense. When, ever, did use of a single word block off the possibility of rejecting the view of which it is a part? Did you notice how little criticism George Bush got for his talk of an 'axis of evil'? Yes, I did too. He got a little nearly every day.

John B. Judis, editor and scholar, and utterly out of his depth.

Evil thoughts 6

The further wisdom of John Judis:

Evil is... often associated with the notion that a particular individual or regime is unredeemable - not subject to change by persuasion or conventional inducement. But none of these attributes is defining. One can always find counter-examples. For instance, some people might believe that the financier Bernie Madoff is evil without thinking that he is beyond rehabilitation. Or one can think Stalin was evil without thinking that he wasn't amenable to negotiation.

He's right: use of the term 'evil' can be intended to deny the possibility of the evil agent's reforming or the usefulness of negotiating with him. But then, as Judis goes on to note himself - with examples - one doesn't have to use 'evil' with this implication in mind. One may think the evildoer redeemable and/or amenable to negotiation. Judis thereby lets the notion of evil off the hook of his putative criticism. It only may, but doesn't have to, be deployed to close off the prospect of either change or dialogue.

Evil thoughts 5

Judis has some eccentric notions about meaning. He says at one point: 'The proper question to ask about this term ['evil'] is not what it means - as if there were a distinct substance that it referred to - but the kind of activities or individuals that it is used to condemn.' Does he think that to have a meaning a word has to refer to a 'distinct substance'? Then the word 'chocolate' would have a meaning, as would the words 'oxygen', 'snow' and 'velvety material'; but many other words and expressions, lacking any referential substance, would have no meaning - like 'gadzooks', 'beware', 'hello', 'being older than', 'afterwards', 'four', 'get the hell out of here' and 'be my love'. Poor JBJ. People use words that don't refer to a distinct substance every day of the week, every minute of the day, and they understand each other, they know the meanings of the words.

Evil thoughts 4

Within a community, or nation, there can be agreement at the very extremes about the term's use - for instance, most Americans believe Hitler was evil - but little agreement on most examples. For instance, a considerable number of liberals, but very few, if any, conservatives, would describe Dick Cheney as evil. Some wacky conservatives think Obama himself is "the epitome of evil in every sense of the word."

And so? Are we to take it that disagreement about who is and who is not evil is itself a problematic symptom? In which case, say a fond farewell to some other expressions in the language: like 'good movie', 'right', 'wrong', 'illegal under international law', 'wise counsel', 'tasty morsel' and 'the holiday of a lifetime'. People disagree in the way they apply terms of approval and opprobrium. 'Evil' is such a term. That I think Judis's observations about the term 'evil' are egregiously poor may not harmonize with the judgements of others, but 'egregiously poor' is a perfectly serviceable expression, for all that.

Evil thoughts 3

John Judis strikes again:

[T]here is no fixed meaning for the term "evil." Like the term "beautiful" - which expresses high praise for how someone looks but doesn't imply whether they are a blond or a brunette - the term "evil" expresses condemnation of an individual or institution without implying clearly what they have done wrong.

Ouch! I've got news for you, Johnbo. If this is supposed to be a shortcoming of the word 'evil', it's one it shares with a zillion other words. Not only 'beautiful', as you note, but also 'wrong' itself. And then 'impolite', 'inconvenient', 'inconsiderate', 'unkind', 'courageous', 'cute' and 'dull'. And yet, these words all have determinate meanings, and so does 'evil'.

Judis confuses the meaning of the word with its range of (normal) reference. We don't generally use 'evil' to mean a little offputting, or mildly amusing, or helpful in winning at chess, or baffled or badly dressed. We use it (generally) of things we consider to be exorbitantly bad, and that this use might apply, variously, to genocide or torture or gang rape or some other egregious act of cruelty, is a simple reflection of the fact that there is a range and variety of exorbitantly bad things, as there is a range and variety of games, human habitations and family holidays. It is not a problem with the word 'evil'.

Evil thoughts 2

'[T]he term "evil"', John Judis writes, 'has a religious connotation suggesting that people are possessed by it. Moreover, when one says there is "evil in the world," one seems to be referring to a something and not merely a passing quality or affliction - such as, say, unhappiness.'

Yes, the term 'evil' can have a religious connotation, but it doesn't have to. And unless we think we can do without the concept of evil, those of us who aren't religious had better be prepared to defend a secular notion of what evil is; because otherwise we're going to have to describe as merely 'wrong' the very worst cruelties and horrors that people perpetrate against one another, and which I was going to exemplify by quotation here, but on consideration will spare you from having to read about, and just leave to your imagination and your knowledge of the world. Anyone who has some knowledge of the world knows how rich the human record is in actions and events that scald the mind and rip the soul; and not to have a word for and a concept of these, other than 'wrong', is to be landed with an impoverished moral vocabulary.

Must one, as Judis implies, believe in a metaphysical 'something' possessing people, in order to think that they are capable of evil? No, of course not. But neither are we obliged by his suggested alternative - 'a passing quality or affliction'. Evil, unfortunately, has not proved itself to be all that passing, historically. An evil impulse in you or me, in Alan or Anita, may certainly pass before it comes to anything. But evil as the product of a diversity of bad human impulses that are liberally scattered across human populations is alive and kicking. One may think of it like that: neither as a metaphysical substance nor as a merely 'passing quality', but as a bundle of human impulses and dispositions that, when not restrained, can cause terrible suffering.

Evil thoughts 1

At the beginning of December, Barack Obama gave a speech at West Point in which he explained why the US was at war in Afghanistan. His explanation, in summary, was this: he said that America had had to respond to the attacks of September 11, 2001; and he said that the country's security was still at stake in Afghanistan. Some 10 days later, accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in Norway, Obama delivered another speech. In it he alluded to the explanation he had given in the earlier address, speaking of...

... a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 43 other countries... in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.

He then went on to say why he thought war is sometimes necessary and justified, the 'deep ambivalence about military action' in many countries notwithstanding. In doing this, Obama made reference to the concept of evil:

[A]s a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation... I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaida's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism - it is a recognition of history, the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

John B. Judis is a senior editor of The New Republic and a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. In an article published in the The New Republic a week after Obama's Peace Prize speech, Judis wrote that he didn't 'care for' these lines of Obama's, and he set out his reasons why. They are not very impressive. In fact, you'd have to search energetically to come up with so poor a collection of arguments gathered together in one place. In virtually every paragraph Judis offers something uncompelling or irrelevant - something misrepresenting Obama's purpose, or philosophically obtuse, or otherwise inconsequential. John Judis's thoughts about evil may be treated, accordingly, as a compendium of 'do-nots' for thinking intelligently about this subject. I shall use them so, seeing out the old year with a short series on how not to think about evil (don't follow Judis's example). Consider this post a first instalment.

Judis gets off on the wrong foot by allowing himself a nice ambiguity in his opening criticism of Obama's speech in Norway: the president, he says, 'ventured onto dangerous terrain by invoking the existence of evil as a justification for war'. Does Judis mean justification for war as sometimes being necessary (and as was Obama's meaning)? Or does he mean justification, specifically, for the war in Afghanistan (as wasn't)? You have to read on to find out, and what you find out when you do is that Judis thinks Obama was indeed wanting to justify the US presence in Afghanistan by reference to the existence of evil. Twice he writes as if for Obama the existence of evil suffices to justify America's war there. Many Europeans, Judis says, 'believe Al Qaeda is evil, but they don't believe that sending 40,000 more troops to Kabul will get rid of the group' - as if the president, for his part, was relying on the evil of al-Qaida independently of any strategic or other calculation. And he says - Judis - that those passions that lead to evil actions 'don't necessarily justify going to war against an adversary'.

Well, to be sure, no, they don't. But it is idiotic to imagine, without some credible evidence, that Obama thinks the existence of evil just as such might justify a specific war. Here's an analogy. Ogilvie thinks that imprisonment is sometimes necessary and justified. He thinks so because of the persistence of crime, which he doesn't believe will disappear in any foreseeable future. But Ogilvie doesn't, on that account, suppose that the imprisonment of Alan or Anita, in particular, can be justified by reference to the existence of crime. No, he thinks it matters what Alan and Anita have done. He points out, therefore, that Alan has committed murder and Anita has stolen funds from the children's home. His appealing to the persistence of crime is designed only to meet the scepticism of those who would prefer there to be no prisons; it is not a justification for imprisoning Alan and Anita.

Mutatis mutandis Obama. He has offered specific justifications for America's being in Afghanistan. One may or may not agree with these. But to present him as a man who would say, 'There is evil, therefore we can go to war in [name country of choice]' is a nonsense.

Victor Punter

With his 42nd Test victory as captain of Australia, Ricky Ponting overtakes Steve Waugh's record of 41. He has also played in 93 Tests on the winning side, more than any other cricketer.

Helping it fall apart

Gene Sharp and Iran - some connection? No, me neither. But two pieces from the US press have looked into the question, this one and this one. From the second of them: 'These regimes always present themselves as all-powerful - absolutely omnipotent, so that resistance becomes futile... But if you learn this regime has these five... or 20 weaknesses - and you can deliberately aggravate those weaknesses - it weakens the regime. It helps it fall apart.'

More pictures from the decade

Fifty-one this time, from Spiegel Online.

Endless war?

Christopher Hitchens on the latest terrorist attempt, on Northwest Flight 253:

What nobody in authority thinks us grown-up enough to be told is this: We had better get used to being the civilians who are under a relentless and planned assault from the pledged supporters of a wicked theocratic ideology. These people will kill themselves to attack hotels, weddings, buses, subways, cinemas, and trains. They consider Jews, Christians, Hindus, women, homosexuals, and dissident Muslims (to give only the main instances) to be divinely mandated slaughter victims. Our civil aviation is only the most psychologically frightening symbol of a plethora of potential targets... The battle will go on for the rest of our lives. Those who plan our destruction know what they want, and they are prepared to kill and die for it. Those who don't get the point prefer to whine about "endless war," accidentally speaking the truth about something of which the attempted Christmas bombing over Michigan was only a foretaste.

Bearing in mind that some of his readers may be a fair bit younger than he is, I think 'the rest of our lives' and 'endless war' are too pessimistic. It's a war that will one day be won. But for the rest, it's Hitch on good form. (Via Mick.)

Boxing Day quiz reminder

The entries have been rolling in for that fabulous literary quiz. And you have till Monday (4 January) to do yours. One clarification: I fear I may have given the impression that only a full set of correct answers - with all 50 writers - would qualify for the two prizes. Not so. If no one gets 100 per cent, the best two scores win.

Road trip days 4

Ooh, Las Vegas. It's the obvious place to go after the Grand Canyon. This is where we stayed.

And here, at the Bellagio, is a talking tree.

But the real business in Las Vegas is this: me at the poker table.

After which, it's gotta be Death Valley.

As you can see, a place you'd want to get out of.

A terminological rumination

Barack Obama, as reported by the Guardian:

Those who would slaughter innocent men, women and children must know that the United States will do more than simply strengthen our defences... We will continue to use every element of our national power to disrupt, to dismantle and to defeat the violent extremists who threaten us, whether they are from Afghanistan or Pakistan, Yemen or Somalia; or anywhere where they are plotting attacks against the US homeland.

Now here's the terminological rumination. These violent extremists, are they known by another name? I think they are. I think you know they are. I think he knows it too. The clue is in 'slaughter innocent men, women and children'. You see? Yes, even the Guardian gets it. It headlines its column 'Barack Obama pledges to take fight to terrorists...' (People sipping lemon tea in the Guardian offices fall off their chairs at the use of such war-on-terror-type language.)

So, what is it that the Pres dislikes about talk of 'terror' and 'terrorists', while he is untroubled by 'violent extremists'? Hey, got it. It must be that he thinks of 'terror' as Islam-specific, whereas 'violent extremists'... Hold on. Hmmm... I think I'd better start again.