116437787837939476

Comment of The Day II – Tsk, Tsk, Tsk.

Racist, sexist, lookist, all these things and more, but still funny as hell. The News Blog‘s commenters on the news that Condi would be eating Thanksgiving dinner with the Bushes:

Y’all are just being silly.
There’s an obvious answer and I’m shocked – shocked – none of you have gone there.

It’s Thanksgiving. And while some people like stuffing, obviously Bush eats rice. (And Rice eats… well, never mind.)

[..]

Jesse Wendel

Seattle

………………………..

Jesse Wendel–
So that would be white on Rice, then?

comsympinko 11.24.06 – 5:09 am #

Aaargh. Bad, bad commenters, no biscuit.

.

Read more: Sick Condoleeza Rice jokes,Comment of the day

116437363194875940

Which Do You Trust More, IKEA or Religion? The Flat-Pack Beats God in Sweden

It doesn’t say a lot for Christianity when a cheap flatpack wardrobe is more popular than the peace of lutefisk that surpasseth all understanding:

Swedes trust Ikea more than the church

Swedes have more faith in their local Ikea store than in the church.

According to a survey by Dagens Industri, eighty per cent of Swedes said they trusted the furniture chain.

And though four-fifths of all Swedes claim to be members of the protestant Swedish Church only 46 per cent of those polled said they trusted the religious group.

People also trust Volvo (69 percent), Ericsson (59), Saab (57) and even pharmaceutical giant Astra Zeneca (47) more than the Church.

According to Der Spiegel,

There was, however, some positive news for the church: It got better marks than the conservative party of Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt (30 percent). And it fared better than foreign companies like Coca-Cola, which only 22 percent of Swedes said they trusted.

I’d love to see what a similar nationwide poll in the US, or any other nominally religious nation, would say, especially in light of the whole Pastor Ted Haggard affair and other religious scandals. Which do you trust more, Walmart or religion?

Read more: Weird news, IKEA, Sweden, Religion, Polls, Trust, Churches

116437127563489599

If You Can’t Get Rid Of The Family Skeleton, You May As Well Make It Dance.*

Most bloggers on the US left know of Christopher Hitchens and his drunken neoconnery (or if they didn’t George Galloway’s deft skewering of him certainly brought him to public attention), but fewer know of his brother Peter, the Daily Express’ pet rabid rightwing reactionary.

I had meant to link to this interview with them both at Hay-on-Wye when it first came out, but it got lost in the rush of Iraq-related atrocities and political corruption. But ’tis the season for family rows.

However you feel about the Hitchens brothers and their toxic contributions to the public debate on both sides of the Atlantic, this extended interview really does give some insight into how two people can have exactly the same upbringing but reach dramatically different political conclusions, something which I expect will resonate with those who’ve just spent Thanksgiving with their own families.

My own elder sister I can’t stand because of her raving small-minded, bigoted, petty-bourgeois Toryism – we haven’t spoken since my mothers funeral and to be honest I don’t miss the grief. There’s nowt quite so horribly vicious as a political argument fuelled by festive booze, family history and simmering sibling rivalry.

This political argument’s a classic example, though the Hitchens’re necessarily constrained by the circumstances. It started out unpleasantly, with Christopher Hitchens telling a woman to kiss his ass, and went on from there:

[…]

Female audience member: Excuse me. I’m not usually awkward at all but I’m sitting here and we’re asked not to smoke. And I don’t like being in a room where smoking is going on.

CH (smoking heavily): Well you don’t have to stay darling, do you? I’m working here and I’m your guest, OK? And this is what I’m like; nobody has to like it.

IK Would you just stub that one out?

CH No. I cleared it with the festival a long time ago. They let me do it.

FAM We should all be allowed to smoke then.

CH Fair enough. I wouldn’t object. It might get pretty nasty though. I have a privileged position here, I’m not just one of the audience, so it would be horrible if everyone was like me. This is my last of five gigs, I’ve worked very hard for the festival. I’m going from here to Heathrow airport. If anyone doesn’t like it they can kiss my ass.

IK Would anyone like to take up that challenge?

(Laughter. Woman walks out)

IK Christopher. You’ve talked slightly with your tongue in your cheek about regretting the competition for your mother’s attention and you said in one interview with the Times: “Mothers aren’t supposed to have favourites, are they? But boys know. And to know that your mother loves you most, more than anyone, more than your father, more than your brother, which I always did know …” Did you have a firm conviction that you were favourite?

CH No, what I was expressing there and badly, too, [was] an ambition, I hoped it was true but I am sure it was not. I don’t usually use this term as a compliment but she was very even handed. Impartial. What I’m really saying there I think would be obvious to anyone who has even scanned the more accessible works of Sigmund Freud, is that had I been an only child, I could probably have handled it, to have mummy to myself and then of course to kill daddy and marry mummy. I thought I had all my ducks in a row, and suddenly to have to go to some nursing home and bring home a bundle was a shock and I may never have got over it. Took up smoking at around that time.

PH I don’t know about the parenting but there was a story, although I can’t remember anything about this, of Christopher having been discovered gleefully releasing the brake of the pram in which I was lying …

CH That’s when I took up drinking …

[…]

Whole story

I still have the physical reminders of my elder sister’s anger at my own arrival, in the shape of a big scar on the corner of my eye where she hit me with a housebrick. (Was that before or after she tried to smother me in my pram? I forget.) Then there was the time she pushed me off a high wall and I broke my leg… I don’t recall her ever being punished for any of this either.

Early family experience informs our political choices much more than we think; we like to think we’ve reached our considered political positions by rational independent thinking but it’s not so simple as that; the Hitchens are a prime example. I know that it’s my own early experience of unfairness at home that made want to champion the underdog and which coloured my political views for life and I expect it’s the same for many others.

We like to think that the people we elect to take charge of our political future are acting rationally. Wouldn’t it be dreadful if it turned out that what passes for intelligent political decision-making is actually based, not on reasoning and empirical evidence, but on unresolved oedipal issues and lousy family dynamics?

* George Bernard Shaw

Read more: Politics, Family dynamics, Hitchens

116436354665403889

Comment of The Day

Sometimes the comments at Comment Is Free should be a post in themselves. This commenter on ousted Labour MP Lorna Fitzsimmons’ hiring by a pro-Zionist lobby group has managed to sum up the entire Israel/Palestine struggle in a few paras:

Israel is attempting to do to the Palistinians what Europeans did to native Americans, and what the British did to Australian Aboriginals. It has established a system of religious apartheid as it deliberately and consciously seeks to make life as difficult as possible for Palistinians.

But it is not 1700, and such behaviour is no longer acceptable in the world. Israel’s actions and the injustice it inflicts are brutal and sickening.

And Israel will not succeed. The Palistinian people have shown the ability to endure whatever hardship and humiliation Israel inflicts on them. Short of the ethnic cleansing that some members of the Israeli government advocate, they will not go away. And all the time the barbarity and brutality that Israelis inflict on palistinians corrupts Israel itself, making it a more brutal and more violent society, and sinking it further into darkness. You cannot do these terrible, terrible things and not be changed yourself.

The excellent book ‘Country of My Skull’, by Antjie Krog is the story of an Africaans reporter covering the Truth & Reconcilliation Commission following the end of apartheid in South Africa, and of her coming to terms with the horror that had been done on behalf of her people. While reading the often harrowing book I kept thinking that Israelis will someday have to go through a similar process if they are to face what they’ve done and rejoin the civilised nations of the world.

Lorna Fitzsimons justifies Israeli atrocities by pointing to the fear caused by the home-made missiles that have killed nine people and asks what Britian if British citizens would accept a single rocket on a British town.

Let me go further and ask if British citizens would accept the confiscation of much of their land? Would they accept regular bombardment from high-tech weaponery? Would they accept daily humiliation and disruption of their lives at roadblocks? Would they accept the division of their land into isolated blocks? Would they accept the absolute and total control over every aspect of their lives by another power? Would they accept roads and areas reserved for the use of the occupiers only?

Well? Would they?

Of course they wouldn’t. They would resist. They would fight for the freedom of their country and of their people, as every occupied, subjugated people have the right – and the duty – to do.

Shame on what Israel has become and on those who support its brutal and horrific acts. Shame on you! Shame on you! Shame on you!

Quite.

I once had to give a seminar for a socialist student group on Israel/Palestine and I struggled to find useful metaphors to explain what had happened, until I hit on the idea of using the Danish as an example.

If the Danes decided to reclaim all of the British land that was once governed by the Danelaw and were backed up militarily by all the other Scandinavian countries to invade and set up a Danish homeland in, say, Nottinghamshire – do you really think the inhabitants wouldn’t complain?

To bring it a little closer to home for American Zionists – if New York was reclaimed by the Mohawk tribe, and all the inhabitants were penned up in camps in Queens, or Staten Island or exiled to Montreal; if they were subjected to checkpoints, internal passports and regular military bombardments, snipers and collective punishment – do you really think they wouldn’t fight back with all the weapons available to them?

Shit, there’d be daily guerilla raids up the Hudson. It all depends on your perspective. Turn the kaleidoscope 90 degrees and the ‘terrorist’ is a freedom fighter.

Read more: Comment of The Day, Israel, Palestine

116431102491475196

Turn the Big Apple back into the Big Orange

So says the aptly named pressure group Give Us Back New York on whose website you can find several simple but effective measures that would help make New York a so much nicer, more
relaxed city to live in, one of which would be renaming the Yankees:

new Jan en Kees logo

That’s where the word “yankees” comes from after all…

So come on! What do you have to lose?

Read more about:
,
,