Pathetic

Since when did hoons become the new 'P'?

I'm not going to waste my time wittering about the stupidity of a hasty response to the unspeakable evil of boy racers (1). No Right Turn has pretty much said it all, not once but twice (2).

Yup, petrol heads can be thuggish. Groups of young people can be intimidating, and act recklessly. They can be loud. They can make life unpleasant for those around them. That also describes pubs. And even schools. I've been to barbeques like that. Are these activities also to be outlawed?

So whats to add? Only it is unedifying and disappointing to see the prime minister and his long lost twin the leader of the opposition scrambling to jump on this issue and appear to be Doing Something. Which, as usual, means pandering to exaggerated public fears and blanket assaults on the liberties of people who aren't likely to vote for them. Obviously, they learned a lot from Winston 'The darkies are coming' Peters.

Pathetic. Grow up, New Zealanders, and re-discover your spines. It will stop your knees jerking.

1 -"Police to get powers to crush boyracer activities," unattributed NZPA article, reproduced on stuff.co.nz, dated 2nd of February, 2009. (http://www.stuff.co.nz/4835509a11.html)
2 - 'Smells like ASBOs' and "Herald supports ASBO authoritarianism,' posted by Idiot/Savant on No Right Turn, 2nd of February and 3rd of February. (http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2009/02/smells-like-asbos.html and http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2009/02/herald-supports-asbo-authoritarianism.html)

Hamas: stronger and more savage than before

Hamas has survived the IDF's assault is continuing its terrorist activities. Its target, of course, is not the Israelis, but rival Palestinain factions and their supporters:

There are also fears that Hamas will tighten repressive measures against dissidents, after a wave of shootings and arrests. A Fatah activist, Eyad Obeid, says he was in a shop near his home last week when a 4x4 vehicle pulled up. Four masked men carrying AK-47s seized him, took him away and subjected him to an ordeal which ended with him being shot in his left leg below the knee. Fatah says there were dozens of similar incidents during and after the war. And this is beside the killings – admitted by Hamas – of those suspected of informing Israel of Hamas targets.

Mr Obeid, who was not accused of informing, says he was repeatedly questioned about his Fatah connections and his previous job in Ramallah-run Preventative Security before being pulled out of the car and shot.

And if the Israeli bombing all around them was not enough to worry about, the most horrifying moment of the war for the Najar family started at around 7.30pm on 4 January, when 10 masked, armed Palestinians in black tunics descended on the alley where the menfolk were gathered outside their house in northern Gaza City round a pot of tea over a wood fire, necessitated by the lack of electricity or cooking gas.

The men all obeyed the gunmen's orders to lie on the ground except Hisham, 51, who asked the men what they wanted. Women and children came out from the house to see what was happening. One of the men slapped Hisham, others rose to intervene, and the gunmen opened fire. Hisham was killed, and 11 others were wounded, including his 70-year-old mother and her 12-year-old granddaughter. "For me a rocket from the Israelis would be better than this," said Mohammed Najar, 41, the dead man's brother. "The children are still terrified at what happened. They wet themselves at night."

The family admits to supporting Fatah but says there was no reason to attack them; they are careful not to accuse Hamas but Mohammed complains that the faction, as the ruling authority in Gaza, has done nothing to investigate the crime. (1)

At the risk of violating Fisk's injunction not to draw spurious comparisons with Nazi Germany (2), Hamas is behaving in a very similar manner to the Nazi party in the twenties and, particularly, the thirties - having attained power, Hitler and his bandits - who never enjoyed a majority of support in Germany before they were "jobbed into office by a backstairs intrigue" (3) set about terrorising, proscribing and destroying all opposition. This included internal foci of dissent, as Rohm and Gregor Strasser found out, to their cost.

The same thing is happening in Gaza. Just as the Nazis used the - justifiable - resentment over the treaty of Versailles and the misery of the Great Depression to build support, Hamas are profiting from the sufferring Israel is inflicting on the Palestinians. Now the second face, consolidating the gains, has started in earnest. As long as Hamas can survive, it can look forward to a future as the strongest - possibly even sole - voice of the Palestinians. This even though it will probably not enjoy majority support. Opposition will be eradicated or cowed into silence. Hamas will ensure it propsers, and Israel will reap the consequences of the seeds being sown now, for years to come.

1 - "Gaza counts the cost – and assigns blame," by Donald MacIntyre, published in The Independent, 1st of February, 2009. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/gaza-counts-the-cost-ndash-and-assigns-blame-1522547.html)
2 - "When it comes to Gaza, leave the Second World War out of it," by Robert Fisk, published in The Independent, 17th of January, 2009. (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fiskrsquos-world-when-it-comes-to-gaza-leave-the-second-world-war-out-of-it-1418270.html)
3 - Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, by Alan Bullock, revised edition, published by Pelican, 1962, page 253.

US president reverts to type

It didn't take long for the gloss to wear off. Obama might be a nice guy, and he might be infinitely better in so many ways than George W. Bush, but, at the end of the day, he's the President of the United States of America, put into power by a remorseless party machine and beholden to the interests and power blocs that permitted us the privilege of xchoosing between him and another guy. Or, in the memorable words of Julian Cope, "he had enough money to run for president and that makes him a cunt. Albeit a far higher quality of cunt" (1).

After a hectic start where good stuff was actually done (2), Obama is letting the CIA continue to abduct people, or, as we prefer to call it, continue the practice of rendition. Lets call it kidnapping, and when it is done by a state, it counts as a form of terrorism.

Rendition, Obama style, is Smart Rendition, the same mealy-mouthed phrasing Hilary Clinton deployed during her senate confirmation hearing to distingush her otherwise indistingushable ideas from the failed policies of Bush et al (3). She advocated the use of 'smart force,' implying the outgoing administration used 'dumb force.' So not a whit of actual policy difference, just the done with more panache.

The 'smart' part of rendition, Obama style is that it will only be short term:

Section 2 (g) of the order, appears to allow the US authorities to continue detaining and interrogating terror suspects as long as it does not hold them for long periods. It reads: "The terms "detention facilities" and "detention facility" in section 4(a) of this order do not refer to facilities used only to hold people on a short-term, transitory basis."(4)

Which is so much better. In the bad old days, the CIA could seize you off the street, bundle ytou into a plane, fly you round the globe and then hold you in some unofficial complex for as long as they pleased and then pass you on to some medieval minded third world thugs to carry out the brutal treatment we civilised westerners can't countenance. Now they can do exactly the same, only the bit in the middle - the bit where they might realise that they've accidentally kidnapped the wrong bloke and picked up some innocent kebab merchant by mistake - can only be "short-term."

A leader of real courage and conviction would have outlawed rendition, accepting that maintaining (or in this case, reinstating) civilised standards outweighs the dubious benefits of being able to snatch people at will. There are international treatys that allow for the detention and transfer of persons of interest. The USA is continuing to show no interest in them, prefering to do things its own way - the attitude of a playground bully, with a huge military and a nuclear arsenal.

Business as usual, then.

1 - "Julian Cope: 'It's time for war'," by Eddi Fiegel, published in The Independent, 11th of January, 2009. (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/features/julian-cope-its-time-for-war-1231539.html)
2 - As described previously on lefthandpalm: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2009/01/good-start-keep-it-up.html
3 - As described previously on lefthandpalm: (http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2009/01/its-over-i-am-officially-disillusioned.html)
4 - "Barack Obama to allow anti-terror rendition to continue," by Alex Spillius, published n The Telegraph, 2nd of February, 2009. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4425135/Barack-Obama-to-allow-anti-terror-rendition-to-continue.html)

Interesting

David Irving, well known Holocaust revisionist, failed libel plaintiff, law breaker and convict's publishing imprint is called Focal Point Publications (1). It's a short and memorable name for a brand.

it's also a phrase used by Hitler in a speech he gave in Berlin in 1943, speaking to the leadership of the Nazi party. In his diary entry for the 8th of May, 1943, Goebbels recorded that

The Fuehrer argued that the anti-Semitism which formerly animated the Party and was advocated by it must again become the focal point of our spiritual struggle (2).

Which might just be a coincidence, but I can't help but think there are few coincidences when Irving is concerned. Particularly as Irving himself declared in 1988, at the trail of fellow denier revisionist Ernst Zundel, that he is "very familiar with the Goebbels diaries" (3).

If this hunch is correct, what does it mean?

Is it possible that his obssessive interest in the career of Hitler and his queer belief (4) that a strange bond exists between them, and his possible mental illness (5), have combined. Perhaps, he imagines himself and his work as the new 'focal point' for a 'spiritual struggle' for modern day Hitlerites and efforts to deny revise the Holocaust and the reputation of the man who has fascinated Irving since he was a schoolboy (6).

1 - The website of Irvings publishing imprint, Focal Point Publications: http://www.fpp.co.uk/homepage.html
2 - My original source for this quotation was Alan Bullock's 1962 biography of Hilter, Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, where the Goebbel's diary is quoted on page 703. The quotation, and the precise wording, is confirmed on the Nizkor Project website: http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/g/goebbels-joseph/goebbels-1948-excerpts-02.html. Bullock's version is drawn from the translation of the diaries by Bernd Gisevius, published in 1949, and the Nizkor version from Lochner's 1948 translation. Given both confirm the precise wording, this suggests the original German was a specifi term directly translated as 'focal point,' and in turn, in my mind, reduces the chances of it being a coincidence, somewhat.
3 - Transcript of Mr Irving's testimony at the trial of Ernst Zundel, April 1988, kindly provided by Mr Irving on (oh, the irony!) the website of Focal Point Publications: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/ZundelTrial.html
4 - As described previously on lefthandpalm: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2009/01/david-irving-absolutely-stark-staring.html
5 - ibid.
6 - "David Irving: 'I'm Hitler's biographer,'" by Johann Hari, published in The Independent, 15th of January, 2008. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/david-irving-im-hitlers-biographer-1366464.html)

Good start, keep it up

As someone who is officially disillusioned with Obama, I'm willing to satate I'm impressed with the start he's made. A lot of it has simply been deft image stuff - announcing the closure of Guantanamo on Day 2, even though it will be operating for up to a year. But when the image of a regime, and by association the country that it governs, is as tarnished as that of the US government's, even restoring that image is a worthy task.

So good the good stuff, with caveats:

• Ordering the closure of Guantanamo Bay. Great, but we were expecting more following the buzz about it being done in the first hundred days, or shortly thereafter. Instead, the camp remains operation for almost four times as long - but so low had the US government sunk, even this feels like a courageous act of humanity (1).
• Banning torture. Again, good. Only it shouldn't have been done in the first place. So once again, restoring the norm in a civilised country has the whiff of dangerous radicalism about it (2).
• Closing the CIA secret prisons. See above (3).
• Reversing Bush's ban on overseas abortion funding. THis is probably the best thing he's done, something that will have a huge impact on the lives of millions in the third world. And unlike closing Gitmo or stopping enhanced interrogation torture, it took real courage, as it will hand the Religious/Conservative fringe a big stick to beat him with: "Obama ... KILLS BABIES" (4).

With regards the final point, it should be remembered that anything that annoys the Religious/Conservative fringe is generally a Good Thing. In the USA, however, it takes rare courage to do something that is going to make them hate you forever.

So, a good start. But he needs to carry on. For there is an awful lot of debris from the Bush years to be cleared up, just to get the USA back to where it was at the end of the CLinton years. And even that won't be enough in the face of climate change, terrorism, peak oil and whatever else may be.

Final thought - selecting tags for this post, I was suddenly struck that this might be the first time I've applied the 'Human Rights' tag to mark an IMPROVEMENT - however slight - in how we're treating each other.

So once more, with feeling - KEEP IT UP.

1 - "Obama Orders Guantanamo Closure, Interrogation Changes," by Greg Miller and Julian E. Barnes, published in the Business Mirror, 23rd of January, 2009. (http://businessmirror.com.ph/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5043:obama-orders-guantanamo-closure-interrogation-changes-&catid=23:topnews&Itemid=58)
2 - Op. Cit.
3 - Op. Cit.
4 - "Obama reverses Bush's ban on abortion funding abroad," unattributed CBC News article, published 23rd of January, 2009. (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/01/23/obama-abortion.html?ref=rss)

Irvingism I: "There is no Hitler order"

The much sought 'Hitler Order' is the direct arder, from Hitler, commanding the eradication of the Jews of Europe. Without it, Holocaust deniers say (1), there exist doubt as to whether the Holocaust, as organised policy, happened, and that Hitler knew anything about it.

I'm convinced the Holocaust happened and I'm convinced Hitler had knowledge of it. Why? Because he was a raving anti-Semite, who stated that he wanted to purge Europe of Jews. And, bluntly, he was the Furher. Claiming Himmler and Heydrich could have conducted the Holocaust without Hitler knowing anything is absurd.

Which brings us to the non-existance of the Hitler Order. But does it have to exist? It is reasonable to assume Hitler had knowledge of the Holocaust and it could not have happened without his authorisation, regardless of whether a physical copy of the order is ever located - unless good evidence to the contrary can be produced. If deniers going to argue that Hitler didn't know about it, they need to provide that evidence - and not just vague waffle and photographs of Hitler with Jewish Children (2). Something along the lines of an entry in Himmler's diary, reading, "Ordered the liquidation of Europe's Jews. Must remember to not tell Adolf, the damn Jew-lover is such a softy" would suffice. But that has also proved elusive.

This is where the Holocaust denier's 'logic' turns against them. They maintain that the lack of a Furhrer order shows that the Holocaust happened (assuming they grant that much) without Hitler's knowledge or approval - but they have no evidence to support this contention. The Holocaust undoubtedly did happen - there is a wealth of evidence that testifies to that. Claiming it occurred without Hitler's approval is a remarkable claim, and - to quote the 'hard core disbeliever' (3), David Irving, if they are going to make that claim, "The ball is in their court" (4).

From this double standard we can learn a lot about the psychology and the aims of the Holocaust deniers. This is something that happens over and again in the dark world of denierist nonsense - something as strongly evidenced as tha organised and deliberate slaughter of six million people is questioned, but an absurd and unsubstantiated claim that it might have happened without Hitler's knowledge and approval is immediately accepted as valid, even if there is nothing to support it.

So we canb say, safely, that anyone who puts forward the argument that there is no Hitler Order is attempting to confuse the issue. It doesn't matter that there is no Hitler Order. There doesn't need to be one. The onus is on them to provide positive evidence that Hitler didn't know about the Holocaust.

1 - "The Plum Cake," by John Weir, published on the website of the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust, no date given. (http://www.codoh.com/revisionist/comment/tr08plumcake.html)
2 - Entry in David Irving's online journal, dated 29th of December, 2007. (http://www.fpp.co.uk/docs/Irving/RadDi/2007/301207.html).
3 - As described previously on lefthandpalm: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2009/01/david-irving-absolutely-stark-staring.html
4 - From "Introduction to The Leuchter Report," by David Irving, 1989. Reproduced on Irving's website (http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Leuchter/ReportIntro.html).

Irvingisms

I'm starting a new exemplary category, similar to Lurgee's Paradigm (1). The purpose of this is to provide useful examples of the phoney arguments deployed by Holocaust deniers. I'm naming these 'Irvingisms,' in honour of David Irving, the prominent 'hardcore disbeliever' (2), failed libel plaintiff (3), convict (4), and possible madman (5).

Most of the examples will have been dealt with more lucidly and in more detail than I will manage to do so here. But the purpose of the Irvingisms is not to provide detailed, painstaking rebuttal, but t show in broad stokes how flimsy and illogical many of the arguments used by deniers are. So when one of these examples is found in practice, the person making us of it can quickly be dismissed as a denier with nothing worthwhile to say.

1 - Lurgee's Paradigm provided examples of shoddy or disingenuous arguments concerning climate change. Anyone using such tosh to back up their argument could safely be ignored as either an imbecile or a liar. The principle and several examples of Lurgee's Paradigm a described on lefthandpalm: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/search/label/Lurgee%27s%20Paradigm
2 - Commenting on The Leuchter report, Irving stated, "... there is no significantresidue of cyanidein the brickwork. That's what converted me. When I read that in the reportin the courtroom in Toronto, I became a hard-core disbeliever." This can be found in the Transcript of the documentary, Dr Death, directed by Errol Morris (http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/m/mr-death-fred-leuchter-script.html). Given Mr Irving's propensity for launching ill-advised libel actions, I will use his own words to describe his position. Thge coining of the term 'Irvingisms' to describe this category of specious nonsense is merely a tribute to the man who has done so much to discredit the Holocaust denial movement and in no way reflects negatively on the wit, wisdom, or probity of the man himself. I'll let him do that, as he does it far better than I ever could. I seek, in my own way, to emulate his achievements in making the so-called revisionists look like imbeciles.
3 - "Irving loses Holocaust libel case," by Steve Busfield, published in The Guardian, 11th of April, 2000. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2000/apr/11/irving.uk)
4 - "Holocaust denier Irving is jailed," unattributed BBC article, published by the BBC, 20th of February, 2006. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4733820.stm)
5 - As described previously on lefthandpalm: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2009/01/david-irving-absolutely-stark-staring.html