Archive for the 'Books' Category

Michael Hanlon’s Eternity a red herring

I received a link from Amazon today touting a new book by Michael Hanlon:

Humankind is not doomed, we may be around for millions of years yet. We have already survived one of the most extraordinary planet-wide catastrophes - the Ice Ages. … The subject of the book is very much in the news at the moment - will we be wiped out by climate change, war or pestilence? Hanlon is saying something different, that the species will survive as the planet changes around us. This different point of view is refreshing, and some sections of the book are very controversial, which should get the attention of the media. Not only is humankind not doomed, but that we may be around for millions, if not hundreds of millions of years. We have already survived one of the most extraordinary planet-wide catastrophes - the great Ice Ages. Equipped with the simplest technology, Homo sapiens sailed through the great glaciations, and profited from them.

Except that the “news at the moment” isn’t simply “will we be wiped out by climate change, war or pestilence.” It is do we want to survive in such a world and what can we do to avoid these things?

The premise of the book is a red herring.

Israeli best seller challenges Zionism

Jonathan Cook on Dr. Shlomo Sand’s new book:

Dr. Shlomo Sand argues that the idea of a Jewish nation—whose need for a safe haven was originally used to justify the founding of the state of Israel—is a myth invented little more than a century ago.

In addition, he argues that the Jews were never exiled from the Holy Land, that most of today’s Jews have no historical connection to the land called Israel and that the only political solution to the country’s conflict with the Palestinians is to abolish the Jewish state.

… he predicted a rough ride from the pro-Israel lobby when the book is launched … in the United States next year.

In contrast, he said Israelis had been, if not exactly supportive, at least curious about his argument.

It’s all just a big misunderstanding

Kirk MacGibbon, a New Zealander living in New York, says that Kiwi’s are prejudice against Americans and that this comes from, amongst other things, “their limited understanding of American foreign policy.”

But we’re not the only ones to lack understanding. Much of the world misunderstands U.S. foreign policy, especially those who have to deal with it at the end of a gun barrel. Ordinary people just don’t seem to get that the U.S. meddles in and destroys their lives for their own good.

While the self-appointed World Ideology Police “fight terrorism,” or “rid the world of weapons of mass destruction” or, my personal favourite, “spread democracy and freedom,” the world stands by and simply misunderstands, or even fights back.

Worse still, it actually presumes to discuss such small inconveniences as:

  • The genocide of the indigenous people of North America
  • Murderous and cowardly bombing campaigns, including the hundreds of thousands bombed in Vietnam and Cambodia, and the hundreds of thousands fire bombed and nuclear bombed in Japan
  • The long record of sponsoring crimes against humanity including regime changes that are against democracy (Iran, Chile, Guatemala, Haiti, the list goes on) and the support of dictators who protect U.S. private investment at the expense of the public interest in their own countries (aka predatory capitalism)
  • Hostility towards and repression of alternative models of development that might challenge the “Washington Consensus” (again, a long list, see books below)
  • The reserving for itself alone the right to wage permanent war on the world and justify it under a doctrine of “anticipatory self-defense” or preventive war.
  • The reassertion of imperial power and the vitiation of international law.
  • The encouragement given to other countries to develop nuclear weapons and terrorist networks as a deterent to U.S. aggression
  • The use of Depleted Uranium tipped munitions, cluster bombs, fire bombs (aka Napalm) and now the prospect of new nuclear weapons
  • Torture
  • And oil (presumably we’re meant to believe the U.S. would have invaded Iraq had their economy been based on cabbage and potatoes)

And then the U.S. produces Presidents with attitudes like this:

I will never apologise for the United States of America, ever. I don’t care what it has done. I don’t care what the facts are.
—George WH Bush, Newsweek, 15 August, 1988

This was in regard to the shooting down of an Iranian civilian airliner on 3 July, 1988 by the USS Vincennes. All 290 civilian people in the aircraft were killed. The plane was on a routine flight in a commercial corridor in Iranian airspace.

But you see, it’s all because:

The United States is good.
We try to do our best everywhere.
—Madeleine Albright, The Washington Post, 23 October, 1999

Problem is the facts speak for themselves, or sometimes even those in power do:

In 1996, Madeleine Albright, then the U.S. Secretary of State (i.e. head of foreign affairs), was asked by Leslie Stahl on Sixty Minutes what she felt about the fact that half a million Iraqi children had died as a result of U.S.-led economic sanctions. Albright replied, “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price—we think the price is worth it.”

The following quote from a U.S. strategic planner in 1948 sums things up pretty well (paraphrased ruthlessly):

We have about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3 of its population … In this situation … our real task in the coming period … is to maintain this position of disparity.
George F. Kennan, 28 February, 1948

Perhaps if Mr MacGibbon spent less time hanging out in New York eateries watching Faux News and listening to those who hold the gun or stuff their faces while others do and instead travelled the world to talk to those at the end of the gun barrel he might come to a better misunderstanding of U.S. foreign policy like the rest of us.

Recommended reading:

Revoking Baptism and Confirmation

I spent my early teenage years attending a catholic high school where debate about the more dubious aspects of organised religion was relatively open, so I’ve generally had an attitude of live and let live; as long as people don’t attempt to impose their fairy tales on me I won’t get on their backs about how silly they’re being.

Well, during a recent stay in New Zealand with my family I came under a lot of pressure to attend a Sunday church service. All stops were pulled. “Do it for Mum.” “Do it for me.” Even my three year old niece was drafted in, adorned with requisite adorably innocent face, to push the guilt nail home and drag me from my warm hangover haven of a bed.

I think it was at this point that I decided a passive position on religion was an outmoded strategy. I explained to my confused niece that I disagreed with going to church but that it was okay for her to go without me. So, her first hint that there’s something fishy about going to church. Not bad for a three year old.

Book cover of The Tree of Life: The Wonder of Evolution, by Ellen JacksonShe had a birthday recently so I did the only right thing, I gave her a children’s book on evolution: The Tree of Life: The Wonders of Evolution. Not the easiest kind of book to find. It’s the only one I managed to unearth that conveys the wonder and excitement of evolution. I can recommend it, I just wish it was illustrated in colour.

As an agnostic my basic philosophical view with regard to theology is that I do not know how many gods there are, whether there be thousands, one or zero, and I don’t regard it as a particularly important question. My mother and I had agreed not to discuss the subject of religion at one point but, judging from my recent visit home, my heresy appears to be back on the table. So the gloves are off.

I’ve decided that the only reconcilable thing to do in order to convey my seriousness and help break the cycle is revoke my Baptism and Confirmation and encourage my friends and whanau to do the same.

What it means for my godfather status with regard to my niece I’m unsure. Traditionally godparents have been considered informally responsible for ensuring the child’s religious education is carried out and for caring for the child should he or she be orphaned. Although my sister, her husband and I are far more interested in the later the Roman Catholic Church, according to Wikipedia, requires that godparents are Confirmed, so let’s just say there could be technical difficulties.

Now, if I could just work out how to do it. Naturally I’ll keep you posted.

Note: Whanau and friends are encouraged to comment below or forever hold their peace. Let’s have this one out in the open where opinions can be recorded for posterity.

Update, 28th April, 2006: It turns out you can’t actually revoke Baptism or Confirmation. According to Wikipedia such sacraments are said to leave indelible spiritual marks on one’s being. The outcome of this is the subject of my next post. Stay tuned!