Who laughs best?
Chinese humour versus American humour, a discussion.
Chinese humour versus American humour, a discussion.
RIP The Godfather of Soul, James Brown (I saw him twice, once in Sicily and once in Sydney, and both times he lived up to his reputation as a hard-living, crazy dancing legend):
Merry Christmas to any and all readers who celebrate Jesus Day.
For some, of course, today will not be as celebratory as it should be.
Omid Memarian is an Iranian journalist living in California. He talks about Iranian blogging, internet censorship and living under a cloud.
Some much needed perspective.
Having coffee with Richard Perle (prince of darkness):
Robert Fisk, The Independent, December 23:
Typical of the dirt thrown at [Jimmy] Carter was the comment by Michael Kinsley in The New York Times (of course) that Carter “is comparing Israel to the former white racist government of South Africa”. This was followed by a vicious statement from Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, who said that the reason Carter gave for writing this book “is this shameless, shameful canard that the Jews control the debate in this country, especially when it comes to the media. What makes this serious is that he’s not just another pundit, and he’s not just another analyst. He is a former president of the United States”.
But well, yes, that’s the point, isn’t it? This is no tract by a Harvard professor on the power of the lobby. It’s an honourable, honest account by a friend of Israel as well as the Arabs who just happens to be a fine American ex-statesman. Which is why Carter’s book is now a best-seller – and applause here, by the way, for the great American public that bought the book instead of believing Mr Foxman.
But in this context, why, I wonder, didn’t The New York Times and the other gutless mainstream newspapers in the United States mention Israel’s cosy relationship with that very racist apartheid regime in South Africa which Carter is not supposed to mention in his book? Didn’t Israel have a wealthy diamond trade with sanctioned, racist South Africa? Didn’t Israel have a fruitful and deep military relationship with that racist regime? Am I dreaming, looking-glass-like, when I recall that in April of 1976, Prime Minister John Vorster of South Africa – one of the architects of this vile Nazi-like system of apartheid – paid a state visit to Israel and was honoured with an official reception from Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin, war hero Moshe Dayan and future Nobel prize-winner Yitzhak Rabin? This of course, certainly did not become part of the great American debate on Carter’s book.
Speaking of shameful Jewish acts…
The Podfather by Ricky Gervais.
A Christmas special.
The Western media characterises Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez as a dictator (principally because he doesn’t subscribe to a Washington-centric worldview.) It seems his people are pretty happy:
Venezuelans view their democracy more favorably than the citizens of all other Latin American countries view their own democracies, except Uruguay, according to a new survey released by the Chilean NGO Latinbarometro last Saturday. Also, Venezuela is in first place in several measures of political participation, compared to all other Latin American countries.
According to the Latinobarometro survey, Venezuelans rank their democracy as being more fully realized than the citizens of all other surveyed countries do except Uruguay. On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means a country that is not democratic and 10 is a country that is completely democratic, Venezuelans, on average, gave their own democracy a score of 7.0. The Latin American average was 5.8, with Uruguay having the highest score, of 7.2, and Paraguay the lowest, at 3.9.
Similarly, Venezuelans say more often than the citizens all other countries except Uruguayans that they are satisfied with their democracy. 57% of Venezuelans are happy with Venezuelan democracy, which is the second highest percentage, with 66% of Uruguayans expressing satisfaction. The average for all countries surveyed was 38%, with citizens of Peru, Ecuador, and Paraguay, expressing the least satisfaction, of 23%, 22%, and 12% respectively.
For Venezuela, the percentage of citizens surveyed who indicated satisfaction increased more since 1998, the year Chavez was elected, than any other country. The percentage expressing satisfaction increased from 32% to 57% in those eight years.
In terms of political participation, Venezuelans indicate that they are more politically active than the citizens of any other surveyed country. Venezuelans have the highest percentage of citizens that say they discuss politics regularly (47%, average is 26%), who say that they try to convince others on political matters (32%, average is 16%), who participate in demonstrations (26%, average is 12%), and who say they are active in a political party (25%, average is 9%).
With regard to whether they believe that elections in their country are “clean,” Venezuelans answer in the affirmative 56% of the time, which puts them in third place, after Uruguay (83%) and Chile (69%). These were the only three where over half said they believed elections were clean. On average, only 41% of Latin Americans expressed confidence in elections in their country. Paraguayans (20%) and Ecuadorians (21%) expressed the least confidence in their elections.
According to Latinobarometro, Venezuelans and Uruguayans expressed the highest percentage of confidence that elections were the most effective means to promote change in their country (both 71%), compared to 57% for all of Latin America.
If you asked the average Australian or American about their views on democracy, the results would be uniformly negative. Many people feel disenfranchaised from the system. Money buys access. Participation is low. War is sanctioned despite a majority of the population being against it.
Jon Stewart on killing the mentally disabled:
Dror Etkes, Haaretz, December 22:
The curtain has dropped on the Theater of the Absurd directed by the Iranian regime last week – an event that convened figures from the margins of the Holocaust-denial scene and its “alternative” researchers. In Israel the conference was covered with an emphasis on the statements by the participants and the reactions of Israeli politicians. True, this was an international conference behind which was a country that declares its desire to bring about the fall of the “Zionist regime” – but beyond that hides a deeper factor, which is indicative of the connection between contemporary Israeli identity and the Holocaust.
“If the occurrence of the event (the Holocaust) is cast into doubt, the identity of the Zionist regime will also be cast into doubt.” From these words, spoken at the opening session by Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, it emerges that the Iranian regime has correctly identified the connections that exist in Israel between the Holocaust and local politics. One of the formative historical events of the West today, whose significance is relevant to all of humanity, the Holocaust is continuing more than 60 years later to provide Israel with an alibi for the deviancy of its political choices.
An Israel with no real distinction between the establishment political left and the right with all its offshoots, continues to make use of the Holocaust in a way that combines cynicism and boorishness. Even though there is indeed a considerable and complex connection between the Holocaust and Israeli political culture, there isn’t – nor has there ever been – any justification for harnessing its memory for the sake of preserving the continuing occupation project that Israel has been conducting for 40 years now in the territories.
Despite promises from Iraqi and U.S. leaders that 2006 would bring improvement, Iraqis have suffered through the worst year in living memory, facing violence, fragmentation and a disintegrated economy.
A year back Iraqis were promised that 2006 would be the fresh beginning of a, prosperous, democratic and unified Iraq. Through an elected parliament and a unity government, they would find peace, and start rebuilding a country torn apart by the U.S.-backed UN sanctions and then the U.S.-led invasion and occupation.
But everyone agrees that the situation now is worse than ever. Leaders in Iraq disagree only to the extent they blame one another for the collapse in security that has led to worsened services and living conditions.
Iraq, the fantasy (courtesy of Australia’s comical Foreign Minister):
I have spent this past fortnight in Washington and London, maintaining our constant dialogue with the US and Britain about the gruelling challenges involved in securing the future of Iraq. We are all utterly convinced of one fundamental assessment: a premature withdrawal of coalition forces would be the worst possible outcome not only for the people of Iraq, but also for global security and stability. It would risk far greater bloodshed in Iraq, create the ingredients for wider regional conflict, and deliver a huge propaganda spur to jihadists worldwide…
Good progress has been made, with the training of about 300,000 Iraqi security forces, and Iraq’s own troops increasingly assuming responsibility, especially in southern Iraq.
Alexander Downer clearly hasn’t yet received the latest memo from the White House. “Cut and run” isn’t being used anymore, Alex. Besides, the Iraqi security forces, of which you speak so highly, are actually part of the problem, infected with insurgents and corruption. In Downer’s world, the Iraq war may be difficult, but by golly, victory is just around the corner.
Bush’s speechwriter is revealed (an oldie, but this is gold):