On the anniversary of the founding of Israel, (not to mention the Naqba), Tony Karon exemines how zionism created Israel but failed in its dream of a homeland for the Jewish people:

Israel at 60 is an intractable historical fact. It has one of the world’s strongest armies, without peer in the Middle East, and its 200 or so nuclear warheads give it the last word in any military showdown with any of its neighbors. Palestinian militants may be able to make life in certain parts of Israel exceedingly unpleasant at times, but they are unable to reverse the Nakbah of 1948 through military means. (Hamas knows this as well as Fatah does, which is why it is ready to talk about a long-term hudna and coexistence – although it won’t roll over and accept Israel’s terms as relayed by Washington in the way that the current Fatah leadership might.)

[…]

The curious irony of history, though, is that while the Zionist movement managed to successfully create a nation state in the Middle East against considerable odds, that movement is dead — the majority of Jews quite simply don’t want to be part of a Jewish nation-state in the Middle East. And so the very purpose of Israel has come into question. Jewish immigration to Israel is at an all-time low, and that’s unlikely to change. In a world where persecution of Jews is increasingly marginal, the majority of Jews prefer to live scattered among the peoples, rather than in an ethnic enclave of our own. That’s what we’ve chosen. So where does this leave Israel?

For Hillary (and Gordon) and the rest of their entire stinking, hypocritical political generation:

My only comfort is that just like so many others are as a result of their policies, they’ll be dead soon too. Brown Clinton Blair Bush and all their fellow travellers and conspiracists betrayed the postwar ideals of their parents and in the name of ‘neoliberalism’ led us into a world where tyranny’s on the rise not in retreat. Yet still they cling on grimly to power despite almost universal calls for their exit.

The music is about all that they and their fellow greedy boomers with their boundless sense of entitlement and equally boundlessly shallow morals will leave behind them that’s worth cherishing.

For once the Guardian has a comment piece, by Madeleine Bunting, that tells it like it actually is for the thousands upon thousands of low paid and badly-treated people condemned to live their daily lives in quiet and increasingly panicky desperation as a result of New Labour’s complete capitulation to the corpocracy and their wilful destruction of access to free or low cost legal services:

The months of sitting on the commission listening to people’s accounts of their working lives and to those who tried to offer advice when things went wrong provided a glimpse of what an obstacle course it is when you’re poor. It’s not always the lack of material resources that cuts deepest, but the lack of power and the absence of options. When you’re sacked or when you don’t get the sick pay or holiday pay you are owed, how do you fight back? How do you find the employment adviser to help or the courage to stand up to an employer and the sheer guts to take a case to an employment tribunal with no legal aid or a lawyer to help you? The answer is that more often you don’t, you can’t - and that’s how you get trapped in bad jobs.

Poor pay is inextricably bound up with a culture of institutional negligence: no one ensures workers know their rights or how to find out about them; a myriad of enforcement agencies with tiny budgets confuse everyone, and the legal system to arbitrate on abuse is slow and inaccessible. While the government has consulted and dithered, low-paid, insecure work has flourished like some rapacious mould. The face-to-face legal advisers (which the most vulnerable are known to find easier to deal with) have been axed and replaced with cheap websites and telephone helplines (but how do you know about them?). English language lessons have been cut. While millions of pounds are devoted to advertising for benefit fraud, the amount allocated to advertise the national minimum wage was, until a recent increase, a sixth of that spent on a government campaign urging people to use tissues when they sneeze.

I was one of those face to face advisors for a long time and immediately post Labour’s landslide in ‘97 a government packed with provincial solicitors and honourable members of the Bar began to deliberately dismantle the already precarious network of community legal services and advice agencies with the imposition of the cost cutting, bureaucratising and horribly complicated legal services contract scheme.

It was dressed up to look like a bonanza in funding for the voluntary sector and a boon for the regularisation of patchy legal services - but it soon became clear that the aim was to control, divide and demolish opposition to corporate law firms while eliminating several campaigning thorns in the side of government as a happy side-effect.

Put broadly, advice services mostly staffed by volunteers were now to compete with high street practitioners and big professional law practices - and each other - for legal aid funding, despite the imbalance in staffing and resources. Advice agencies staffed by volunteers with already shaky finances could not even begin to put a legal aid bid together, but other funding streams from other national and local schemes were gradually turned off; after all, there was a proper scheme now, apply to that.

But even if you could jump through the hoops required under the contract scheme legal aid cash itself was strictly cut back, with, in some instances, an 80% chance of success being required by the Board before allowing more than a standard hour’s funding. (When I left it was about 42 pounds an hour on a case, out of which had to come all and any overheads including admin and support staff and all the on-cost that employing paid staff implies.) Any lawyer or advice worker knows it can take an hour just to get someone to open up to you, let alone assess the evidence or take a statement and especially not to estimate the chances of success; how many potentially winnable cases, with say a 50 or 60% chance of succeeding on the first hour’s investigation, have failed at that very first hurdle?

I was one of the first law graduates to leave university with a student loan and it’s still a millstone round my neck. I had a place to go the Bar but couldn’t take it. A Tory government and the banks between them made sure working class women with children had as many obstacles as possible put in their way. A loans or grant for necessary professional training? How dare you, silly woman.

I had to watch and grit my teeth as my dozy friend with the well off parents in the home counties funded her long party through bar school and arrange a cushy pupillage for her in a relative’s chambers, despite her emotional instability and worrying drug use. No millstones round the neck for her.

I also watched as another friend, academically talented and with better results lose out on a Phd scholarship because the head of department and the other candidate had both been in the navy and knew the same people. I somehow suspect that she was black, working class and female had something to do with it too… which is why we worked for a Labour victory in ‘97, despite clause IV and Tony Blair. We thought they’d be different. Listen to my hollow laughing.

But now it’s even worse for anyone who is at all interested either in becoming a lawyer and working in public interest law. You can either work fulltime in another job while studying fulltime, and almost kill yourself, or you can burden yourself with an amount of debt that will cripple you forever unless you can snag a place in a corporate law firm and again, half-kill yourself writing boilerplate contracts and doing some spotty senior partner’s nephew’s bidding for twenty-five years to pay it off.

Legal education is about much more than just educating lawyers, though - it’s about making information about the law available to the widest number of people so as to aid democracy. Rights and responsibilities, innit? An informed populace is an empowered and involved populace, yeah?

Isn’t that just one of Labour’s multifarious core values? Well no, not exactly:

A 62-year-old man from Merthyr Tydfil, south Wales, on income support and facing eviction from his home of 50 years, was forced repeatedly to travel by public transport to west London to find a lawyer to advise him on legal aid.

His story came to light as a coalition of groups that provide legal and social welfare advice prepared to highlight the legal aid ‘desertification’ of England and Wales in the run-up to the introduction of the biggest reforms of public funding in more than 50 years.

A survey of law centres throughout the country by the Law Centre Federation, undertaken for Independent Lawyer magazine, has revealed the extent of the problem. It found that:

· Nine out of 10 centres regularly turned away clients eligible for legal aid;

· Seven reported that their ability to offer access to legal advice was deteriorating;

· One noted an alarming trend of violence towards staff;

· Seven identified specific gaps in provision where, for example, there was no publicly funded employment, housing or immigration advice in their area; and

· Three law centres reported problems finding help for victims of domestic violence.

‘The survey is a snapshot of what’s happening in the areas law centres serve,’ says Steve Hynes, director of the Law Centres Federation. ‘While we acknowledge that demand has always outstripped supply for civil legal services, there is a strong perception that things are getting worse. If the reforms are implemented as proposed, we will quickly see further fraying at the edges.’.

The negligence is deliberate. Should citizens, empowered by knowing what their rights are and how to enforce them, start to challenge the boss, who knows where it might lead? Why, such an informed populace migjht start enforcing their rights on other things too. They might even start to challenge the everyday petty tyrannies of Labour’s incompetent and authoritarian government, like, say, the deaths of children in custody or the illegal invasions of other sovereign nations or the selective imposition of swingeing terrorist legislation on people of a certain ethnicity and/or religion. Hence the policy of dismantling community legal services and access to civil justice, and don’t get me started on the deliberate destruction of criminal legal aid.

Sweeping changes to the legal aid system are going to mean that thousands who find themselves dragged into the legal system are going to find themselves without proper legal advice. Despite the fact that this government has created 6,000 new criminal offences in the last ten years, and is hauling record numbers before the courts and off to chokey, they’re now keen to restrict access to legal advice. All in the name of cost-cutting and reducing ‘inefficiency’ of course. What is actually happening is a massive erosion of hard won rights and the end of the legal aid system, which helped achieve some degree of parity in court cases. (OK, so SchNEWS is obviously against ‘the system’, man, but meantime still not keen to see what few civil liberties we have taken away!)

The changes came in on January 14th. Prior to this, on arrival at the police station you would be offered contact with a solicitor of your choice. From now on you will be directed to the Criminal Defence Call Centre (CDCC). This is staffed, not by solicitors but by ‘accredited’ representatives who’ve done a training course – many of them actually ex-coppers. You will only be allowed to contact your ‘own’ solicitor if you pay privately. Needless to say the call centre advice is probably going to be different to that of a specialist defence solicitor.

One Brighton-based solicitor told SchNEWS, “Previously we could intervene in the process earlier - warn people to make no comment, not to sign police notebooks and not to answer any questions off the PNC1 form*. We could act as an outside guarantee of people’s rights while they were inside”. Now, “the system is in meltdown.” If the call centre is too incompetent to get hold of your brief then you may end up using a duty solicitor or remaining unrepresented. If you’re not going to be interviewed then you can be fingerprinted, DNAed and booted out of the door without once receiving any independent advice.

Keep ‘em ignorant, keep ‘em quiet.

Now a new set of legal aid reforms has been published by Justice Minister Jack Straw and on first glance it looks like bad news for those still doggedly fighting away trying to protect the rights of ordinary people. Injustice - it’s not a bug, it’s a feature.

It’s springy springy spring trala, the time when all the old pan-European emnities, ethnic tensions, tribal and religious rivalries burst into full horrendous flower on the television screens of a whole continent.

Yes, it’s Eurovision again!

This year it’s being held in Belgrade and the semi finals are about to get underway:

Tue, May. 20th - 1st Eurovision Semi Final - Eurovision 2008
Thu, May. 22nd - 2nd Eurovision Semi Final - Eurovision 2008
Sat, May. 24th - Eurovision Final - Eurovision 2008

Britain’s entry last time was truly horrible both in concept and execution. I mean really, to enter a contest - whilst still in the throes of a massively unpopular, illegal war - with a bunch of uniformed bimbos singing “We’re Flying The Flag”? Could we have been any more arrogant? and then to sing it totally flat in an atmosphere of strained and embarassed silence? It was dire. In that instance the political voting and aesthetic voting happily coincided and the UK got a deserved bugger-all votes.

This is our entry this year, from Andy Abrahams: a nice, jolly, slightly funky seventies pastiche. Ncely innocuous, unlikely to win but itw on’t actively offend, which is always a plus. But bloody hell, he needs to sort out his offkey backing vocalist.

Is it just me, or does that sound like a rewritten version of ‘H.A.P.P.Y. Radio’ by Edwin Starr?

I make no accusations and I’ll leave that judgement to my fellow northern soul fans…

You’ve got 2 weeks to organise your Eurovision party: as per usual I myself willl be doing the Eurovision marathon fortified with massive amounts of beverages, herbs and snacks and accompanied by a lot of snark on IRC. Eurovision is the next best thing we’ve got to an entertaining war, a war with no actual blood shed except when one performer gets a hangnail snagged on another’s sequins, and I wouldn’t miss it for the world. Lordi might be hideous, but not as hideous as stormtroopers marching down the street.

I already mentioned the voting, which is a whole research topic in itself. As a guide to how it actually works as opposed to how it’s supposed to work (and for an explanation of the whole Turkey/Greece/Cyprus thing) here’s a handy graphic :

Click for bigger version

This year my money is on Ireland to win with their entry from that ineffable and reclusive superstar, Dustin The Turkey.

How could any nation beat that? Irelande Douze Pointe!

This may well have the potential to be Central Europe’s McDonalds scalding coffee case…

From Ananova;

Man complains after beer makes him drunk

A Romanian man has lodged an official complaint with the local trading standards agency after he got drunk on a single can of beer.

Iancu Boroi, 35, said he had bought the beer at a local supermarket in Arges in southern Romania but was so drunk after drinking just one can that he nearly passed out.

He said: “I am more than capable of holding my drink and it is ridiculous to think one can of beer can get me so drunk.

“There must have been something wrong with it and I am demanding compensation.”

He has written to Romania’s Consumer Protection Office demanding they investigate the case.

Tacitus on The Emperor Galba: “Omnium consensu capax imperii nisi imperasset.” “All pronounced him worthy of the empire, until he became emperor”.

I’d like to be erudite enough to be able to claim that as an original observation, but it was actually suggested in an otherwise dull comment to Phillip Hensher’s exceedingly suckyuppy Independent column praising the newly-powerful Boris for his use of classical allusions.

Yet again a home-brewed explosives case doesn’t get the full-on terrorist treatment:

Man hurt by home-made explosive

A building in north Devon has been sealed off after a home-made explosive went off, injuring a man.

The Royal Navy’s bomb disposal team also carried out a controlled explosion on a second device found at the flat in Barnstaple on Sunday afternoon.

Police said a 47-year-old man was being treated for hand injuries, apparently caused by the first explosive.

Neighbouring flats at the property in St George’s Road were evacuated. Police have ruled out any terrorist links.

Have they? So soon? Really, I thought the police needed at least 42 days to decide that?

It being Barnstaple, I realise the accused is probably white and probably not Moslem and therefore considered innocent of any terrorist intent - as per usual - but that does seem rather hasty to me.

This salutory lecture by Elizabeth Warren (via Unfogged) is definitely worth a watch if you’ve a break this morning, but it’s unlikely to cheer you up:

Distinguished law scholar teaches contract law, bankruptcy, and commercial law at Harvard Law School. She is an outspoken critic of America’s credit economy, which she has linked to the continuing rise in bankruptcy among the middle-class. Series: “UC Berkeley Graduate Council Lectures” [6/2007] [Public Affairs] [Business] [Show ID: 12620]

Or if that’s just too bloody depressing you could just go out and sit in the sun and contemplate the wonder that is spring.

We Brits can take any amount of radioactive fallout - just as long as we’ve still got the cup that cheers but does not inebriate:

Nuclear threat sparked tea worry

The threat of a nuclear attack on the UK in the 1950s caused concern over the supply of tea, top-secret documents which have now been released reveal.

Government officials planning food supplies said the tea situation would be “very serious” after a nuclear war.

Indeed it would be serious. All that heat’d sour the milk.

Craig Brown in the Telegraph on what horrors might emerge from a conference of pedants :

… A cry of horror erupted in the hall. “I must ask the gentleman in the beige cardigan to leave the hall,” said the Chairman. “We cannot sanction a split infinitive.”

“I refute your suggestion that this is a cardigan,” retorted the offending gentleman. “A cardigan buttons, or, if you will, unbuttons, to the waist. This garment buttons only a quarter of the way down, to just above the chest. So it is not a cardigan in the strict sense of the word, but a jersey, even though that aforementioned island is not, strictly speaking, its country of origin.”

There followed a heated discussion over the speaker’s use of the word refute: some thought he meant deny, while others believed he would have been better off employing - or at least using - confute.

“On a point of information, Chairman.” The speaker was a woman with a bun in her hair, by which I mean not a woman with a small, sweetened bread roll or cake (often with dried fruit) in her hair, but a woman whose hair was drawn into a tight coil at the back of her head. “On a point of information, I must point out that, in the original novel, Frankenstein was not, as is commonly supposed, the monster, but rather the inventor of that monster.”

A murmur of approval swept - metaphorically - around the room. We pedants always appreciate being reminded of the F-point, even if it hasn’t been raised. “May I also add,” continued the woman with the bun, “that, contrary to popular misconception, King Canute was only too well aware that he could not hold back the tide.”

“Your statement did not require that superfluous ‘also’,” interjected the Chairman, “for it means ‘in addition’: if you say ‘May I also add’ you are, in effect, saying ‘May I add add’. I’m not sure that this was what you meant to infer.”

“Imply! Imply! Imply!” The entire hall - or, at least, all those contained within it - chanted at the Chairman. He left in tears, knowing as well as anyone that the incorrect use of the word “infer” has always been a resigning matter.

More…

PedantCon sounds like something SF fandom would turn out in force for, if they could ever agree on whether it were a con, a symposium or an AGM.