Archives for category: Europe

(Title nicked from a 70s-era compilation of Beatles covers.)

Last year the band Einsturzende Neubauten released Lament, an album commemorating the 100th anniversary of World War I. In interviews, frontman Blixa Bargeld advanced the argument that the first world war never actually ended – the parties that marched across Belgium and France in 1914 continued to battle in other forms in other locations. All the results of the Sykes-Picot Agreement could be said to be further battles in that war. (My favourite track on that album is The Willy-Nicky Telegrams, in which Bargeld and Alexander Hacke recite the texts of communiques between Kaiser Wilhelm and Tsar Nicholas that led up to the war. The two were cousins.)

Side note: This week marks the 100th anniversary of the first recorded chemical weapon attack on soldiers in Ypres and seems a good place to share the Green Fields of France.

Disclosure: I am neither a political scientist nor an historian.

That said, I have recently stated to whomever will listen; and possibly here, that I’ll be quite surprised if we get out of this decade without a world war. I think now that it’s too late for that if. I’m pretty certain it’s already begun; we just haven’t declared it yet. Peace has been on life support since we took down the World Trade Centre and I think it’s time, as they say on the hospital dramas, to call it.

KMFDM: World War III

On Rachel Maddow’s 20 April 2015 show, she discussed a variety of the conflicts in the middle east including Yemen and Libya. Iran is currently supporting Yemen against the Saudi forces there. (Note: The BBC now reportbattleships that the Saudis have concluded their air campaign in Yemen.) On that front, the US supported Saudi. In the fight against ISIL, a Sunni force, the US supports Shiite Iran.

ETA: NYT now reports that Saudi air strikes in Yemen have resumed.

Moving east, we have the smoldering war in Ukraine. Between that (admittedly large) country and the very hot war in Syria, there’s only Turkey, another front in ISIL’s advance.

In addition, recent reports of Russian ships cruising near Britain add credence to arguments that Putin’s hostility isn’t limited to former Soviet republics.

And trade wars – the sanctions against Russia over its recent hostile actions may be yet be enough to push us all into a much hotter war.

I’m not without hope in these matters, but the decisions lie with very wealthy corporations that don’t look kindly on efforts to slow the continued accumulation of wealth. This is why we defend oil fields to the death, but care little for those who try to live their lives farther from those natural resources or who fight the conglomerates whose extraction efforts also make such places unliveable.

I don’t have numbers but the worldwide refugee crisis is only getting worse. Syria is one hotspot. (Israel could have taken the moral high ground at the start of the civil war, but unsurprisingly, Bibi didn’t.) Libya currently has the headlines because of the horrific tragedies occurring almost daily in the waters between Libya and Italy. These aren’t new, but Berlusconi had an agreement with the Gaddafi regime to keep a lid on those trying to escape. With Gaddafi dead (and Libya on the verge of being a failed state) and Berlusconi no longer Italy’s autocrat, it’s no longer in force.

In a New Yorker book review (16 Feb, 2015), Nathan Heller describes the places of several nordic countries on various happiness indices. He offers some reasons why these peoples measure their own happiness so positively (good schools, free tuition, effectively free health care, an unfrayed safety net, before offering the opinion of Michael Booth, author of The Almost Nearly Perfect People, that the services one receives in exchange for an upper tax rate of over 70% are ‘patchy’.

Heller delves deeper into Booth’s arguments, pointing to alcohol consumption, employment rates, bureaucracy, and cuisine, and ultimately shreds both Booth’s approach (let an expert speak at length, then quote without fact-checking and present everything in a quasi-Innocents Abroad ‘aren’t these foreigners quaint’ fashion) and his conclusions. Finally he moves from discussing Booth’s take on Scandinavia to an assessment of the current changes to the social order in many of these countries as a result of immigration and rising inequality.

While it’s a shame that the welfare state aspect of many such countries is being undercut by US-style “free-market” “improvements” (see the privatisation of the rail system and tuition requirements at formerly free higher education facilities in the UK, for example, not to mention the pillage of the NHS that not even Maggie Thatcher would have dreamed of), these things are not trivial. I’m not the first to suggest that I don’t mind my taxes paying for education even though I don’t have children: I don’t want to live in a society surrounded by the uninformed. The review describes a Swedish couple, the wife of which didn’t pay any tuition to become a neurosurgeon. Fantastic. I’d rather any doctor I see to have gone through medical school on merit and without the worry of how to pay back hundreds of thousands of dollars/euros/etc. in student loans.

The introduction of tuition to previously taxpayer-funded universities is a tradition pioneered by Ronald Reagan when he was governor of California and, as noted, now followed by Cameron and his cronies in the UK. Like the privatisation of the rails and the NHS, it is nothing but a transfer of wealth from the lower and working classes to the bankers and other members of the 1%. Calling it anything but a handover to the City of London is to miss the point.

Rachel Maddow this week told of how Wisconsin’s Governor Walker is on a quest to slash funding for his state’s renowned public university system by hundreds of millions of dollars. Same thing. Please the bankers, and your next campaign is funded.

At the same time, Germany is offering free tuition to its universities to anyone who can pass the entrance exams. My sister told me of a couple she knows with two kids, eight and ten, if I recall rightly, who are moving there, though this new plan does not require German residency or citizenship. Language, yes, but if you can get in, Berlin will pay your tuition.

This is the choice we’re after – we can educate and take care of the next generations or we can continue to mess it up. In the US, the war on education has taken a number of forms – one the age-old battle against teachers’ unions and the despicable salaries we pay to those who spend the vast majority of their waking hours either looking after our children or finding ways to make sure they know enough to get to the next level. Another is the fight against teaching science in all its forms, but primarily the teaching of evolution. I share the belief that no questions for which science provides an answer have been better answered by religion. (I’m sure there’s a better quote from someone like Sagan or Tyson, but that’s the gist.) In some regions, I’m distinctly in the minority and 90 years after the Scopes trial, we’re still fighting the same battle.

Yes, I’ve gone from discussing free education to useful education, but surely these things go hand in hand. We had a short period during which we as a culture recognised not only a right to an education, but a responsibility to educate the next generation. It’s possible that period ran only from the GI Bill to (in California) Proposition 13, but with the slashing of tax revenues from a variety of places (Governor Brownback’s Kansas fiasco being a major one), public education takes a big hit.

The upshot of this is that people in states with very high tax rates are still happier and better off by a number of measures than those in the low-tax United States. My guess is that a secure education and worry-free medical care play a very large role in that.

On a recent episode of KCRW’s Press Play, there was a discussion of Jewish emigration from France. The interviewee, Greg Viscusi of Bloomberg,  divided French Jewry between those who have lived in France for generations who tend to be well educated, middle class and integrated. (Dominic Strauss-Kahn, who might now be PM if not for this big mess, is one of these), and poorer more recent arrivals whose communities overlap those of more recent, and also poor, Muslim immigrants. Makes for some tension.

Note: The Strauss-Kahn episode is food for another entry.

nicked from Stella MarrsThe discussion moved on to cover an antisemitic comedian named Dieudonné (Gift of god? Really?).  Dieudonné, whose first comedic partner was Jewish, has more recently included a great deal of anti-Zionist material in his acts and worked with  Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson. He’s also had his productions banned.

Why mention all this? The question remains: If one believes truly in a right to free speech, (how) does one limit it?

My feeling is that no god and no religion is above ridicule, but when does ridicule become fodder for violence? In the last couple weeks, a Jewish school in Amsterdam closed briefly for fear of terrorism, and threats against Jewish homes and institutions is increasing according to an article that appeared on 16 January in the Dagblad papers (“Weer meer acties tegen Joden” by Silvan Schoonhoven appeared in the Ijmuider Courant and the Leidse Dagblad which are at least tangentially related papers.) The motives identified in the article include the response to the Hebdo (and associated) massacres and last summer’s incursions into Gaza.

Many Jews speak out that the actions of Israel are not those of even the Israeli public, much less of world Jewry, much as Bibi Netanyahu would have us believe otherwise.

My friend Vanessa lived in Europe for many years, primarily in Prague and Brussels and has recently moved back to Los Angeles, her hometown (and mine for that matter). When we met in Prague twelve years ago, she argued that it was the duty of Jews in the diaspora to bring Judaism back to Europe – essentially to reverse the Holocaust. As a very very secular Jew, I didn’t share her enthusiasm, though I hope I appreciated it, at the very least. On the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, she posted that the antisemitism she experienced in Brussels forced her return “to the only place [she’s] lived where Jews don’t feel like a minority.” Her boss at a large NGO stated that the Holocaust was a long time ago and that Jews should get over it and that “Israel had no right to exist”. This was not an isolated incident in her life in Belgium, and she was advised “to pick a battle you can win” – that Belgium is not the US.

My questions are reinforced: How can we maintain the traditions of liberal democracy including freedom of speech and religion? How can we defend everyone’s right to speak and pray as they choose? How can we tolerate intolerance? Can we truly educate the ignorant on these matters? (Historically no, to the last one – didactic liberals are less popular than most, and possibly for good reason. Food for yet another post.)

I wish I knew, because these things don’t seem compatible anymore, if they ever did.

Some friends are having a pretty vehement discussion over on Facebook about Charlie Hebdo, the Je Suis Charlie movement (if one can call it that), and the nature of privilege when it comes to old straight white males viciously lampooning minority populations.

Je suis CharlieNone in these discussions felt that violence was justified, but a couple have pointed to what might be called the bullying of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons. It’s more nuanced than taht, to be sure, but they acknowledge the power differential between, for example, the French muslim population and the white majority. The host of this discussion included this in her analysis of the situation:

Imagine you have a neighbour, living next door. Imagine that every morning, you leave for work at the same time. Your neighbour greets you, compliments you on your outfit, says something nice about the weather and wishes you a good day. Assuming that these sentiments are genuine, and that your neighbour is not simultaneously inflicting wild all-night parties or boundary disputes on you, then I would assume that you are living at peace with your neighbour.

But what if, every morning, you and your neighbour leave for work, and instead of compliments, your neighbour always finds something about you to laugh at. Maybe you choose not to wear makeup, or your job requires you to wear jeans rather than a suit, or your uniform is specified by your employer. Every morning, your neighbour points and laughs, because he or she fundamentally does not understand your situation, finds it threatening, and tries to rid you of your perceived power and difference by poking fun.

Are you living at peace with this neighbour?

So in light of this discussion, I asked my French muslim colleague, a young woman from northwestern France, “What do you make of the Charlie Hebdo situation?” to which she asked me to be more specific. “What do you think of the Je Suis Charlie response to the massacre of the Charlie Hebdo journalists?” Her reply was essentially one of support for Charlie Hebdo – “Listen, they attack everyone. No group escapes them – Catholics, Jews, liberals, conservatives.”
It may make a difference that she’s university educated, middle class, and liberal. I’m not sure.

Mehdi Hasan, a journalist for the Al Jazeera and the Huffington Post, on the other hand, shares
As a Muslim, I’m Fed Up With the Hypocrisy of the Free Speech Fundamentalists, in which he takes on the politicians, journalists, and celebrities embracing Je Suis Charlie. Money quote:

Lampooning racism by reproducing brazenly racist imagery is a pretty dubious satirical tactic. Also, as the former Charlie Hebdo journalist Olivier Cyran argued in 2013, an “Islamophobic neurosis gradually took over” the magazine after 9/11, which then effectively endorsed attacks on “members of a minority religion with no influence in the corridors of power”.

Good point, that. This discussion will continue, but I had a few points to add.

How is that supposedly respectable journalistic organs like the BBC and the Telegraph still can’t get it right? A couple of weeks ago, there was a great satire about a recent celebrity wedding involving an accomplished lawyer and an actor. Alas, it was satire, because the press still can’t help saying that George expletivedeleted Clooney’s wife is doing something interesting and important. Not that Amal Alamuddin is leading a new battle to return the parthenon marbles to Greece, but that The new wife of Hollywood star George Clooney, lawyer Amal Clooney, has had talks with Greek PM Antonis Samaras as part of a campaign to return the Parthenon sculptures from Britain.

Yes, that is the opening paragraph.

Nothing about her extensive accomplishments as a barrister, an activist, and human being in her own right. No, first she’s someone’s wife and then she’s off doing something as if her husband is the key to her accomplishing anything.

Much as I enjoyed Clooney in Ocean’s 11 and South Park, his CV doesn’t hold a candle to hers.

And the Telegraph is racing the BBC to scrape the bottom of the Daily Mail’s barrel: ‘Hollywood actor George Clooney’s new wife, human rights lawyer Amal Alamuddin Clooney, made an impassioned plea on Wednesday for the return of the Parthenon Marbles to Athens…’ To the Telegraph’s credit, they manage discuss the topic at hand for four paragraphs before injecting: ‘Clooney, who married last month in a glitzy, star-studded wedding in Venice,’ as if that had anything to do with anything.

It’s damning with faint praise to indicate that neither the Telegraph nor the BBC mentioned her clothing. They left that to the Daily Mail which headed its story on the matter, ‘Hard at work! Amal Clooney looks elegant during Acropolis museum visit in Greece… ‘

I don’t consider that progress, however.