March 31, 2006
The politics of terror
At commentisfree: Palestinian prime minister Ismail Haniyeh sets out Hamas' position on Israel: "A just peace or no peace".
For those who think the Palestinians can be deflected from this course by Western pressure and further negotiations:-
Some choice, huh!
No plan will ever work without a guarantee, in exchange for an end to hostilities by both sides, of a total Israeli withdrawal from all the land occupied in 1967, including East Jerusalem; the release of all our prisoners; the removal of all settlers from all settlements; and recognition of the right of all refugees to returnIf Israel refuses to accept these terms then, Haniyeh warns, Hamas will continue its struggle using "all available means" - unless Israel capitulates, there will be no end to terror.
For those who think the Palestinians can be deflected from this course by Western pressure and further negotiations:-
The message from Hamas and the Palestinian Authority to the world powers is this: talk to us no more about recognising Israel's "right to exist" or ending resistance until you obtain a commitment from the Israelis to withdraw from our land and recognise our rights.Haniyeh notes that Hamas was freely elected and now legitimately represents the Palestinian people:-
If we are boycotted in spite of this democratic choice - as we have been by the US and some of its allies - we will persist, and our friends have pledged to fill the gap. We have confidence in the peoples of the world, record numbers of whom identify with our struggle. This is a good time for peace-making - if the world wants peace.So, if the world wants peace from Hamas and their allies around the world, the Israelis must be made to surrender their state. The only alternative the terrorists have to offer is endless war.
Some choice, huh!
The dating game
PooterGeek returns today to the subject of British dating rituals - or rather, non-dating rituals, since he’s talking about women who agree to dates and then don’t turn up. He also points out (for those who may not have realized) that his original post on the subject wasn’t a heartfelt plea: “It was cynical, ironic, chippy, mocking, self-mocking. Almost everything I write here is. I wasn’t looking for a date”.
It seems some people thought he was. I wonder if I might have inadvertently encouraged that impression by my attempt at humour in this post. (Yes, I know, it’s not half as funny as the stuff PooterGeek writes. What can I say? I’m doing my best with a bad brain.)
In any case, Damian is making a serious point, and one that (regardless of any misunderstanding) has obviously touched a nerve with a lot of people.
It seems some people thought he was. I wonder if I might have inadvertently encouraged that impression by my attempt at humour in this post. (Yes, I know, it’s not half as funny as the stuff PooterGeek writes. What can I say? I’m doing my best with a bad brain.)
In any case, Damian is making a serious point, and one that (regardless of any misunderstanding) has obviously touched a nerve with a lot of people.
March 30, 2006
That yoga thing
For a few years in my twenties, I devoted myself to the practice of zazen and yoga - I recently mentioned it in my Normblog profile. But I've only just realized that someone reading that might get the idea that being "devoted to yoga" involved me spending a lot of time contorted in bizarre postures.
No. When I said "the practice of yoga", I wasn't talking about physical exercise. I know some people dedicate themselves to practicing physical yoga: they teach yoga classes, write books about it and talk up the benefits. But that's not at all the same thing as being "devoted to the practice of yoga".
When people in the West think of yoga, they mostly think of hatha yoga, specifically the asanas (postures). Diligently practicing the asanas might promote good health and emotional well-being, but that's not really the point.
In the West, hatha yoga has been taken out of context and commodified. Isolated from the body of knowledge that gives it sense and purpose, it becomes nothing more than ritual exercise.
And that's not something I've ever been devoted to.
No. When I said "the practice of yoga", I wasn't talking about physical exercise. I know some people dedicate themselves to practicing physical yoga: they teach yoga classes, write books about it and talk up the benefits. But that's not at all the same thing as being "devoted to the practice of yoga".
When people in the West think of yoga, they mostly think of hatha yoga, specifically the asanas (postures). Diligently practicing the asanas might promote good health and emotional well-being, but that's not really the point.
In the West, hatha yoga has been taken out of context and commodified. Isolated from the body of knowledge that gives it sense and purpose, it becomes nothing more than ritual exercise.
And that's not something I've ever been devoted to.
March 28, 2006
On human rights
"You cannot defend humanity without defending its right to speak and express itself." Maryam Namazie
Religious refugee
From the Independent:
Italy is considering granting asylum to Abdul Rahman, the Afghan man who was released from jail yesterday in Kabul, where he had faced the death penalty for converting to Christianity.No sign of Global Civility there, then.
He was staying in a safe house last night after prosecutors dropped the case against him under intense international pressure. But Mr Rahman will have to flee the country for his own safety, after several leading Muslim clerics called on Afghans to kill him.
Acting time
One of the set books on my acting course is John Barton's "Playing Shakespeare" - originally a series of televised workshops he did with the Royal Shakespeare Company.
In one chapter, where he's talking about the dangers of being too earnest with the text (Shakespeare's words are to be "searched and savoured" not solemnified) he perfectly illustrates his point by having two actors play out the following scene taken from the Cambridge Footlights of 1981. (In the original Footlights skit, Stepehn Fry played the Director, Hugh Laurie the Actor.)
DIRECTOR: All right let’s start at the beginning shall we?
ACTOR: Right, yeh.
DIRECTOR: What’s the word, what’s the word, I wonder, that Shakespeare decides to begin his sentence with here?
ACTOR: Er, ‘Time’ is the first word.
DIRECTOR: Time, Time.
ACTOR: Yep.
DIRECTOR: And how does Shakespeare decide to spell it, Hugh?
ACTOR: T-I-M-E.
DIRECTOR: T-I?
ACTOR: M.
DIRECTOR: M-E.
ACTOR: Yep.
DIRECTOR: And what sort of spelling of the word is that?
ACTOR: Well, it’s the ordinary spelling.
DIRECTOR: It’s the ordinary spelling, isn’t it? It’s the conventional spelling. So why, out of all the spellings he could have chosen, did Shakespeare choose that one, do you think?
ACTOR: Well, um, because it gives us time in an ordinary sense.
DIRECTOR: Exactly, well done, good boy. Because it gives us time in an ordinary, conventional sense.
ACTOR: Oh, right.
DIRECTOR: So, Shakespeare has given us time in a conventional sense. But he’s given us something else, Hugh. Have a look at the typography. What do you spy?
ACTOR: Oh, it’s got a capital T.
DIRECTOR: Shakespeare’s T is very much upper case there, Hugh, isn’t it? Why?
ACTOR: Cos it’s the first word in the sentence?
DIRECTOR: Well I think that’s partly it. But I think there’s another reason too. Shakespeare has given us time in a conventional sense – and time in an abstract sense.
ACTOR: Right, yes.
DIRECTOR: All right? Think your voice can convey that, Hugh?
ACTOR: I hope so.
DIRECTOR: I hope so too. All right. Give it a go.
ACTOR: Just the one word?
DIRECTOR: Just the one word for the moment.
ACTOR: Yep.
(He howls the word)
DIRECTOR: Hugh, Hugh, Hugh, Hugh. Where do we gather from?
ACTOR: Oh, the buttocks.
DIRECTOR: Always the buttocks. Gather from the buttocks. Thank you.
ACTOR: Time!
DIRECTOR: What went wrong there, Hugh?
ACTOR: Um, I don’t know. I got a bit lost in the middle actually.
In one chapter, where he's talking about the dangers of being too earnest with the text (Shakespeare's words are to be "searched and savoured" not solemnified) he perfectly illustrates his point by having two actors play out the following scene taken from the Cambridge Footlights of 1981. (In the original Footlights skit, Stepehn Fry played the Director, Hugh Laurie the Actor.)
DIRECTOR: All right let’s start at the beginning shall we?
ACTOR: Right, yeh.
DIRECTOR: What’s the word, what’s the word, I wonder, that Shakespeare decides to begin his sentence with here?
ACTOR: Er, ‘Time’ is the first word.
DIRECTOR: Time, Time.
ACTOR: Yep.
DIRECTOR: And how does Shakespeare decide to spell it, Hugh?
ACTOR: T-I-M-E.
DIRECTOR: T-I?
ACTOR: M.
DIRECTOR: M-E.
ACTOR: Yep.
DIRECTOR: And what sort of spelling of the word is that?
ACTOR: Well, it’s the ordinary spelling.
DIRECTOR: It’s the ordinary spelling, isn’t it? It’s the conventional spelling. So why, out of all the spellings he could have chosen, did Shakespeare choose that one, do you think?
ACTOR: Well, um, because it gives us time in an ordinary sense.
DIRECTOR: Exactly, well done, good boy. Because it gives us time in an ordinary, conventional sense.
ACTOR: Oh, right.
DIRECTOR: So, Shakespeare has given us time in a conventional sense. But he’s given us something else, Hugh. Have a look at the typography. What do you spy?
ACTOR: Oh, it’s got a capital T.
DIRECTOR: Shakespeare’s T is very much upper case there, Hugh, isn’t it? Why?
ACTOR: Cos it’s the first word in the sentence?
DIRECTOR: Well I think that’s partly it. But I think there’s another reason too. Shakespeare has given us time in a conventional sense – and time in an abstract sense.
ACTOR: Right, yes.
DIRECTOR: All right? Think your voice can convey that, Hugh?
ACTOR: I hope so.
DIRECTOR: I hope so too. All right. Give it a go.
ACTOR: Just the one word?
DIRECTOR: Just the one word for the moment.
ACTOR: Yep.
(He howls the word)
DIRECTOR: Hugh, Hugh, Hugh, Hugh. Where do we gather from?
ACTOR: Oh, the buttocks.
DIRECTOR: Always the buttocks. Gather from the buttocks. Thank you.
ACTOR: Time!
DIRECTOR: What went wrong there, Hugh?
ACTOR: Um, I don’t know. I got a bit lost in the middle actually.
Academic freedom
Following the suspension of Frank Ellis from his job as a lecturer at Leeds University for allegedly propagating racist views, I can't help wondering whether those friends of education who sought his removal might now move on to expose and condemn the divergent views expressed by other members of the faculty.
In any case, the message to academics is clear: Be careful what you say - it might cost you your job.
In any case, the message to academics is clear: Be careful what you say - it might cost you your job.
Spiked on speech
Brendan O'Neill at Spiked (yes, I know, it's Living Marxism in drag) has some thoughts on last Saturday's March for Free Expression.
An extract:
What do I think of free speech in Europe? It would be a nice idea.
An extract:
Saturday's rally reminded me of the dangers of defining free speech legalistically. Some seemed to see freedom of speech as something that the authorities must protect and promote, when to my mind freedom of speech means the authorities butting out of our conversations and correspondence, and all of us having the right to say, write, think and hear what we want without state intervention. At one stage Tatchell called on Metropolitan Police commissioner Sir Ian Blair to protect people from the 'intimidation' of religious fundamentalists. Five minutes later the organisers announced, to loud boos, that a protester's placard had been confiscated by the cops because it reproduced one of those silly Danish cartoons. But perhaps the police were simply protecting Muslims from the 'intimidation' of their secular critics? If you give the police an inch of moral authority on the free speech issue, they will take a mile of liberties. That's the cops for you.Indeed it is and, true to form, the police have now summonsed the lone protester who displayed the cartoons.
What do I think of free speech in Europe? It would be a nice idea.
Smoking in public
In today's Times, David Aaronovitch has some difficulty asesssing the nature of smokers' rights.
Indeed it is.
There was a ten-second period when I thought about resenting this ban on behalf of the smokers who currently exist, and in memory of the smoker in me who was overcome (after a decade of titanic struggle) 13 years ago. What I couldn’t do, however, was to construct an objection on the basis of political philosophy. In other words, I couldn’t proceed from a generalised concept of the relationship between the individual and society in order to solve the question: “Should people be allowed to smoke in public places?”Normblog offers a helping hand: "preventing people from smoking anywhere in public, even if they could do so harmlessly vis-à-vis others, is paternalistic and illiberal."
Indeed it is.
A date for Damian
This blog wholeheartedly endorses the efforts made by Kerron Cross to find a date for PooterGeek's Damian Counsell. (The background to Damian's plight can be found here.)
There are, at present, no plans for either a petition or a demonstration in support of Damian. Nevertheless, those of you wishing to "do your bit" for the campaign (women in particular) might like to consider writing a letter of support using the following form of words (or some variation thereof).
There are, at present, no plans for either a petition or a demonstration in support of Damian. Nevertheless, those of you wishing to "do your bit" for the campaign (women in particular) might like to consider writing a letter of support using the following form of words (or some variation thereof).
Dear (name of single female friend),Thank you in anticipation of your support.
Did you know Damian Counsell is single? No, I couldn't believe it either, but he is! And he's not only single - he's very, very eligible: intelligent, well-educated, highly amusing and solvent.
You said you were looking for Mr Right, well I've found him for you! Seriously, you really should contact him: e-mail him, leave a comment on his blog, anything - just get in touch. But you better be quick - he's gone public with this and you don't want to get left behind (again). Let's face it, none of us is getting any younger.
I tell you, if I wasn't in a relationship right now, I'd be straight in there.
Yours etc
Nonmutual respect
In discussing aspects of Anthony Appiah's "Ethics of Identity", Ophelia Benson quotes Martha Nussbaum's views on mutual respect in a pluralistic society:
She's right, of course. Attempting to accommodate myriad superstitions in the public space involves abandoning rational concepts like truth and objectivity in favor of the wilful acceptance of ignorance and religious bigotry.
"Global Civility"? No, thank you.
I agree with Rawls such respect requires (in the public sphere at least) not showing up the claims of religion as damaging, and not adopting a public conception of truth and objectivity according to which such claims are false.Ophelia Benson doesn't agree, such a position necessarily involves "surrender to the theocrats, who have no truck with 'delicate regard' for other people's religious much less non-religious doctrines".
She's right, of course. Attempting to accommodate myriad superstitions in the public space involves abandoning rational concepts like truth and objectivity in favor of the wilful acceptance of ignorance and religious bigotry.
"Global Civility"? No, thank you.
March 27, 2006
Indigenous rights
The Manchester Anthropology Working Papers series was established in 2004 with the aim of bringing current perspectives in Social Anthropology to the attention of a wider audience. The series is intended to promote discussion and debate, and features a mix of seminar papers, lectures by visiting scholars and the informal presentation of current research.
Of particular note is John Gledhill's - "Beyond Speaking Truth to Power: Anthropological entanglements with multicultural and indigenous politics" (pdf) which looks at the problematic role of anthropologists in representing the claims of indigenous movements.
Of particular note is John Gledhill's - "Beyond Speaking Truth to Power: Anthropological entanglements with multicultural and indigenous politics" (pdf) which looks at the problematic role of anthropologists in representing the claims of indigenous movements.
[T]hese problems have been exacerbated by the fact that specific types of “pluralism” have now become integral to the redefined state projects of the neo-liberal era, and are, in a closely integrated way, also frequently integral to the strategies of political and economic forces that have far from “progressive” social agendas. We need to ask how far greater “pluralism" relates to both conscious tactics of “fragmentation” of popular movements and how far “fragmentation” is a bottom up response to changing socio-economic conditions that need to remain at the centre of our analyses.The paper is part of an ongoing discussion on minority rights and the use of the term "indigenous", and includes a brief summary of Adam Kuper's critique of the indigenous rights movement.
March 26, 2006
Sunday roundabout
Marie Phillips is the subject of this week's Normblog profile.
The Religious Policeman gives his views on yesterday's March for Free Expression.
Tim Worstall posts Britblog Roundup #58.
Shuggy looks at blog-stalkers: if you have the word 'watch' at the end of your blog's title, you really "should consider the possibility that you've lost your goddam mind."
James Lileks gets one up on the video store guy and it's payback time for Captain Kirk in this week's podcast from the Diner.
And finally,
At Language Log, a budding linguist offers an innovative solution to the person/people problem.
The Religious Policeman gives his views on yesterday's March for Free Expression.
Tim Worstall posts Britblog Roundup #58.
Shuggy looks at blog-stalkers: if you have the word 'watch' at the end of your blog's title, you really "should consider the possibility that you've lost your goddam mind."
James Lileks gets one up on the video store guy and it's payback time for Captain Kirk in this week's podcast from the Diner.
And finally,
At Language Log, a budding linguist offers an innovative solution to the person/people problem.
Whatshisname
(This is the second in an occasional series. The first post can be found here.)
Is it juggling week or something? I've recently seen a lot of links to Chris Bliss' juggling finale and PooterGeek pointed out this parody by champion juggler Jason Garfield. All of which got me wondering: whatever happened to Wack and Zane?
Who? Ok, they weren't nationally famous or anything, just a couple of guys I used to know from way back when - jugglers from the Bristol comedy scene in the '80s, from Viv Stanshall's time at the Old Profanity Showboat.
They used to put on variety reviews there - an eclectic mix of comedy, performance and outright insanity. They even roped me in for one show: I refused point blank to be the compaire but I did agree to do a short set. I was billed as "Tall Slim American Poet" - I kind of liked that.
So, whatever happened to Wack and Zane? I knew that one of them had gone off to become a teacher (not sure if that was Zane or Wack). Yesterday evening, I found the other one - the American one - online.
Last time I saw Gary Parker, he was playing Piers in the first series of Chef!
That was over ten years ago. And it looks like he's still doing ok: he has his own IMDB page and recent writing credits include As if and Totally Frank. He's a talented guy.
Me? I'm still trying to make the transition from performance poet to dramatic actor. Given another twenty years, who knows what might happen!?
Is it juggling week or something? I've recently seen a lot of links to Chris Bliss' juggling finale and PooterGeek pointed out this parody by champion juggler Jason Garfield. All of which got me wondering: whatever happened to Wack and Zane?
Who? Ok, they weren't nationally famous or anything, just a couple of guys I used to know from way back when - jugglers from the Bristol comedy scene in the '80s, from Viv Stanshall's time at the Old Profanity Showboat.
They used to put on variety reviews there - an eclectic mix of comedy, performance and outright insanity. They even roped me in for one show: I refused point blank to be the compaire but I did agree to do a short set. I was billed as "Tall Slim American Poet" - I kind of liked that.
So, whatever happened to Wack and Zane? I knew that one of them had gone off to become a teacher (not sure if that was Zane or Wack). Yesterday evening, I found the other one - the American one - online.
Last time I saw Gary Parker, he was playing Piers in the first series of Chef!
That was over ten years ago. And it looks like he's still doing ok: he has his own IMDB page and recent writing credits include As if and Totally Frank. He's a talented guy.
Me? I'm still trying to make the transition from performance poet to dramatic actor. Given another twenty years, who knows what might happen!?
The wild rover
Oxblog's Patrick Belton is in Karachi, and doing rather well.
My new hosts, taken by my fetching shalwar kameez and resulting instant Pakistani credibility, have quite kindly opened their rolodex to me, with result I will now scurry off and talk with a large number of military men and journalists. I now somehow know people in Pakistan. I love my life.Indeed. As Sergeant Esterhaus used to say: Hey, let's be careful out there.
Given that, one hopes my entire spotty journalistic career doesn't take the form of an extended suicide note.
March 25, 2006
Today in London
The BBC reports that the March for Free Expression passed off without a hitch, despite concerns from some quarters that the demonstration would be hijacked by racist extremists.
That never seemed a likely scenario, but the hysterical clamour against the march (the Islamic Human Rights Commission called it "a provocation to 1.6 billion Muslims") led to organizer Peter Risdon asking people not to display posters of the Mohammed cartoons.
This was too much for some, particularly those who had joined the campaign to show solidarity not only with Denmark but also perhaps with Jyllands-Posten. Whatever other motives may have been in play, I suspect a number of people who initially supported the march did so because they were disappointed that none of the British press had republished the cartoons. For them, the whole point of the demonstration was to display the contentious images - they weren't bothered if people were going to be offended by it.
I'm strongly in favor of freedom of expression and I would have liked to have been in London today. I supported the campaign as a mark of solidarity with Denmark and because I believe the rise of political Islam is a threat to freedom. But (as I've said before) I'm not interested in waving posters featuring drawings of Mohammed. At best, the cartoons are a distraction; at worst, they are a dangerously divisive issue.
Peter Risdon's eleventh-hour conversion to this point of view is to be welcomed. But, given the context of the campaign, it's hardly surprising that some of his erstwhile supporters regard it as a betrayal of principle.
UPDATE
Perry de Havilland at Samizdata has photos of the rally.
That never seemed a likely scenario, but the hysterical clamour against the march (the Islamic Human Rights Commission called it "a provocation to 1.6 billion Muslims") led to organizer Peter Risdon asking people not to display posters of the Mohammed cartoons.
This was too much for some, particularly those who had joined the campaign to show solidarity not only with Denmark but also perhaps with Jyllands-Posten. Whatever other motives may have been in play, I suspect a number of people who initially supported the march did so because they were disappointed that none of the British press had republished the cartoons. For them, the whole point of the demonstration was to display the contentious images - they weren't bothered if people were going to be offended by it.
I'm strongly in favor of freedom of expression and I would have liked to have been in London today. I supported the campaign as a mark of solidarity with Denmark and because I believe the rise of political Islam is a threat to freedom. But (as I've said before) I'm not interested in waving posters featuring drawings of Mohammed. At best, the cartoons are a distraction; at worst, they are a dangerously divisive issue.
Peter Risdon's eleventh-hour conversion to this point of view is to be welcomed. But, given the context of the campaign, it's hardly surprising that some of his erstwhile supporters regard it as a betrayal of principle.
UPDATE
Perry de Havilland at Samizdata has photos of the rally.
March 24, 2006
Against totalitarianism
From Alan Johnson's Camus' Catch: How democracies can defeat Totalitarian Political Islam featured in the March issue of Democratiya.
The fact is we are not engaged in a 'war on terror', any more than World War Two was a 'war on blitzkrieg'. We are engaged in a conflict with Totalitarian Political Islam and our enemy uses not only terror but also 'popular' riot, electoral politics, and ideological warfare. The rhetoric of a 'war on terror' gets us thinking about security solutions. Good, security is important. But we need, above all, a political analysis of a political movement in order to develop a political response.Read the whole thing.
Australian graffiti
Banksy has a comment piece in today's Guardian on the removal of Melbourne's street art as the city cleaned itself up to host the Commonwealth Games.
Who says everything has to be gray?
Melbourne is the proud capital of street painting with stencils. Its large, colonial-era walls and labyrinth of back alleys drip with graffiti that is more diverse and original than any other city in the world. Well, that was until a few weeks ago, when preparations for the Commonwealth games brought a tidal wave of grey paint, obliterating years of unique and vibrant culture overnight.If you live in Melbourne, you can check out the street art in your neighborhood here.
This may seem like no great tragedy to readers of the Daily Mail, but Melbourne's graffiti scene is a key factor in its status as the continent's hothouse of creativity and wilful individualism.
Who says everything has to be gray?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
