Why greater censure; because Israel has higher relative wealth than Russia and in other contexts acts in an intelligent and rational way. How can we explain away Israel’s bad behaviour as though it doesn’t have other options? Melanie Phillips in The Spectator writes today of the west’s ‘pathological obsession’ with Israel, ‘Selective Moral Outrage‘. The thing is, when we discussing a state that is financially propped up by the US, one should hold them to a higher standard. It’s delusional and insulting to claim that all opposition to the actions Israel takes militarily is anti-semitic, as Bret Stephens implies: ‘As for the Chechens, too bad for their cause that no Jew will ever likely become president of Russia’.  Russia is no Israel and visa versa. This but what about argument just doesn’t hold water. As Johann Hari recently wrote in his article in The Independent – ‘How to spot a lame, lame argument‘: There is one particular type of bad argument that has always existed, but it has now spread like tar over the world-wide web, and is seeping into the pubs, coffee shops and opinion columns everywhere. It is known as ‘what-aboutery’ – and there was a particularly ripe example of it in response to one of my articles last week.

As a rhetorical trick, it is simple. Anyone can do it, and we are all tempted sometimes. When you have lost an argument – when you can’t justify your case, and it is crumbling in your hands – you snap back: “But what about x?” You then raise a totally different subject, and try to get everybody to focus on it – hoping it will distract attention from your own deflated case.

Can we back away from the distraction of comparing Israel/Palestine to everywhere else in the world and concentrate on fixing what is clearly going wrong with that conflict itself. Middle-Eastern peace won’t come because one day everyone realises what Russia does in Chechnya is worse, but rather when all sides are honest about they can, could and should do to end conflict and bring about a harmonious life for all. I still think this is possible, though the mindset and honesty from all parties required is some ways off.

Plus, basing an article on numbers of hits from a Google search is elementary-school level journalism.

Bret Stephens in The Wall Street Journal – Our Selective Moral Outrage – Why does Israel face more opprobrium than Russia?

Absolute comedy pisstake joy at the NUS conference. Ross Stanley is someone to watch out for, he made a number of coherent contributions during the course of the three days and came across well in all of them. Then he came out with this at the end of day two, showing one CAN do politics with a sense of humour.

We have too many friends who are silent about the discrimination we face daily, and we have too many friends for whom ‘gay’ is a term for ‘weird’. We must campaign for our rights and ensure that our visibility on campuses across the country is a force for improvement. We must continually compel Student Union Officers to represent STUDENT ISSUES BEFORE ALL ELSE, not political concerns thousands of miles away.

It is easy to be distracted by irrelevant agendas. We weaken our cause by directionless rants about issues not within our mandate. The NUS system takes some work to understand but can be made to work in our favour. I will aid our delegates in casting INFORMED votes and help them understand how to make the system support our positions.

* I strongly oppose and am continually offended by the ban on gay male blood donors.
* I prefer ‘marriage’ to ‘civil partnership’. How can it be acceptable that LGBT citizens are denied the same institutional unions as everybody else?
* FIGHT to encourage the acknowledgement of LGBT issues by the student body. We can and must be more ambitious than we are. When LGBT allies and non-activist friends show their support we CAN BE A FORCE OF STRENGTH AND PROGRESS.

VOTE Patrick for LGBT Conference!

Jonathan Miller, who’s now kind of the new chairman of the International Secular Society or the British Humanist Association, one of the two, in England. He said to me the other day, he doesn’t like the word atheist because he doesn’t think there should be a special word for it, if you don’t have a word for saying you don’t believe in the Tooth Fairy.

A Different Argument: Interview with Christopher Hitchens in The Seattle Weekly

Subtitled: Gravel’s Got Rocks!

Mike Gravel at Las Vegas Presidential Forum, taken by Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Senator Mike Gravel sounds a bit like a sage Al Gore who’s been around the block a couple times and is sick and tired of the hypocrisy and weakness of potential leaders. He’s bold and old and comes across as a granddad with an opinion. Perhaps, at times, a little long-winded, he’s quickly becoming my one-to-watch of all the US Presidential candidates. I hope he’s paid due attention and supported by the people as much as he’s trying to empower them.

Three videos of his thoughts; the first is a short clip from an interview on MSNBC, the second from a speech he gave in New Hampshire: “We should be guided by Eisenhower’s warning that an inordinate emphasis on military power breeds a culture of militarism that threatens all vital areas of our society.” and the third from the debate amongst Democratic candidates for the presidency on April 26th in South Carolina.

More at www.gravel2008.us
and http://www.nationalinitiative.us

Brian Haw, taken by Tommy Forbes.

The UK’s Turner Prize for modern art has a history or rather controvertial pieces and outspoken critics. This year one of the shortlisted artists combines these two aspects of the prize to produce a piece of installation art that refers to aspects of the UK’s current political climate as well as our conceptions of protest. Mark Wallinger has recreated many of the placards, posters and signs of the peace protestor Brian Haw who has maintained a daily protest opposite the Houses of Parliament since June 2001. The government, long embarassed by the protests tried, in 2005, to pass a law (widely seen as) specifically aimed at Mr Haw.

On a side note, Mr Haw can clearly be a prickly character. Here’s an exchange that accompanies the photo below, which I found on Flickr:

I went to Tate Britain yesterday to see Mark Wallinger’s recreation of Brian Haw’s Parliament Square protest. It’s incredible. Afterwards I thought I’d walk down to the square and see Brian for myself. He was making a cup of tea and when I asked him if I could please take a photo he didn’t seem to mind. . . . until that is I decided it might be a good time to make polite chit chat . . . here’s how it went . . . .

Tommy: “How are you today?”

Brian Haw: “Don’t ask me such fucking stupid questions!”

I apologised and then left. I didn’t think it was that much of a shit question.

What’s interesting about Wallinger’s piece is that his nomination opens the Tate up to criticisms of again producing art that isn’t really art. He may be making a social commentary about the works of Haw, but does a subject become ‘art’ by simply moving from its usual environment? This is especially relevant when it is being moved only a couple of hundred metres from outside the Houses of Parliament to within the confines of the Tate Gallery. It’s hardly original work. Haw’s work is original, while Wallinger’s comes across as simply a pale representation others’s passion. The photo right displays this perfectly for me. While Haw’s face has elements of peace, hope, cheekiness, and determination, Wallinger’s look is that of utter boredom. You can’t be bored at a protest. While Haw has to daily live with the threat of police harassment and trouble-makers from the general public Wallinger can sit in safety and paint a line along the floor of his exhibition space demarkating the scope of the law barring ‘unauthorised protests’ within one mile of Parliament. [see 'Make Peace Not War' on Flickr]

Christoph Grunenberg, the director of Tate Liverpool, where the prize will be presented, added that the jury, of which he is chair, said: “It was not our intention to set out a political message. It was just interesting that we discovered this pattern which seemed to emerge. Only after the jury had met and discussed the works did we realise there was a strong concentration of political work and work about religious beliefs and spirituality.

“It’s an obvious truth, but works of art are actually political acts and artists act as mediators. If you look at the artists this year, there is a spectrum of overtly political works such as Wallinger’s and pieces that are about the individual’s relationship to the world they live in.”
The Independent

The debate about the value of ‘conceptual art’ is openly acknowledged by the Tate, addressed on their Turner Prize website by [in part]:

‘Conceptual art’ is also used to label work which makes us think or challenges our assumptions about what art is or should be. So is the real problem that contemporary art does not fit neatly into people’s ideas of what art should look like (something based on craft and skill, that can be hung neatly in their living room perhaps?) and so is dismissed as conceptual, and by association not worth the effort? Rather than reacting against the conceptual and the contemporary with a knee-jerk reaction of ‘But is it art?’, we should celebrate the possibilities that have been opened up so that artists – and viewers – can tackle ideas and issues and engage in debate. Is it not better, and more exciting, to leave preconceptions behind and look with a fresh eye and an open mind? Turner Prize: Conceptual Art – ‘cold, mechanical, conceptual bullshit’

My preferred artist from the shortlist would be Zarina Bhimji whose work, for me, is evocative of political upheaval and strife and difficulty by maintains an interpretative element that seems to be lacking in Wallinger’s work.

further reading
Guardian Turner Prize 2007 Photo Gallery
Independent: Art takes back seat as politics and religion dominate Turner shortlist
Brian Haw online: parliament-square.org.uk
Indymedia – Parliament Sq. Protest Trashed by Police 8-23/05-06

[Indiana teacher] Amy Sorrell was put on paid leave in March following the publication of a pro-gay tolerance essay by sophomore Megan Chase in the Woodlan Junior-Senior High School Tomahawk (which Sorrell supervises). Following a warning for “insubordination” by the school’s principal Edwin Yoder, Sorrell was suspended from teaching and put under “investigation” Yoder also said all future issues of the school newspaper would require his approval before going to press.

The results of the school’s “investigation,” according to the Indianapolis Star? Sorrell will be “transferred to another school and barred from teaching journalism for three years.”
Towleroad.com: Indiana Teacher Transferred, Barred from Teaching Journalism for Allowing Pro-Gay Tolerance Essay

“Top notch care and support of Army Families demonstrate our sincere appreciation and gratitude for their many contributions, and allow our Soldiers to fully concentrate on the fight and focus on their duties.

“Effective immediately, the word ‘Families’ will be capitalized in all Army correspondence. Please ensure wide dissemination of this change. Thanks for your continued efforts to do all you can to provide steadfast support to our Army Families.”

Also, Extended Tours, Multiple Deployments, Shortened Home Leave and Other Words Will Be Capitalized From Time To Time, As Deemed Necessary. via A Kamen in Washington Post

Le Figaro’s April 18th Poll

The Democratic Presidential candidate from Connecticut was asked about his position on gay ‘marriage’ during a talk with New Hampshire High School students. His response refers obliquely to John Rawls‘ Veil of Ignorance:

With ones own children: “They may grow up as a different sexual orientation than their parents. How would I want my child to be treated if they were of a different sexual orientation?”

Rawls’ book ‘A Theory of Justice’, one of my favorite works of political philosophy, refers to the decision making process through which a society ought to go about defining its own rules:

“no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like. I shall even assume that the parties do not know their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities. The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance.”

What makes Dodd’s pronouncement interesting is the fact that he is a father of two girls and, though (perhaps oddly) an opponent of gay marriage, a supporter of civil unions and their recognition on a federal level.

via Rod 2.0: Democratic Prez Hopeful Dodd: “What if Your Child Were Gay?”
and AP News: Dodd asks: What if your child were gay?