Dec 2007
Review of Terry Eagleton: Terry Eagleton Presents Jesus Christ - The Gospels [Verso, 2007]
http://abmcg.blogspot.com/2007/12/matthew-mark-luke-johnand-terry.html
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John...and Terry.
By Andrew McGowan
In the book trade, it has been a better year or two for Jesus than for God. God has suffered the indignities of forays into pulp non-fiction by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and others. Jesus has had wildly different treatments at the hands of everyone from Pope Benedict XVI to Jack Spong, or more locally from Peter Jensen to John Carroll, but Jesus’ reviews are uniformly glowing.
It might seem God needed Terry Eagleton’s attention more; in fact his review of Dawkins The God Delusion in the London Review of Books has become the stuff of legend – I can’t resist quoting the opening line:
“Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology”.
Read on...
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John...and Terry.
By Andrew McGowan
In the book trade, it has been a better year or two for Jesus than for God. God has suffered the indignities of forays into pulp non-fiction by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and others. Jesus has had wildly different treatments at the hands of everyone from Pope Benedict XVI to Jack Spong, or more locally from Peter Jensen to John Carroll, but Jesus’ reviews are uniformly glowing.
It might seem God needed Terry Eagleton’s attention more; in fact his review of Dawkins The God Delusion in the London Review of Books has become the stuff of legend – I can’t resist quoting the opening line:
“Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology”.
Read on...
|
Phelim McAleer is a very odd anti-imperialist...
04/12/07 23:02 Filed in: Politics
Matt Cooper's show Dec. 4, 2007, on
Today FM's The Last Word featured yet another extraordinary
commentary from Phelim McAleer. Why do they keep inviting this guy
on? Because he is so reactionary that he makes listeners like me
threaten to not listen to the show anymore? Or maybe because he
creates a commotion and that is always good news for a radio
station driven by advertising revenue.
Phelim has a pretty sound critique of NGOs and charities. They do in a sense salve the ills created by the status quo. However, he doesn't seem to be able to link this to capitalism. Instead, he takes a sort of Ayn Rand posture, suggesting that these NGOs breed dependency and neutering any desire for economic success. He's quite right to say that paternalism is a form of power and, indeed, can be imperialistic. But then he throws in these casual remarks about how the solution is to build more sweatshops ... and at that point you really have to wonder what the hell this guy is on!! I mean, aren't sweatshops in fact the accouterments of today's imperialism?
Here is the text of a letter I wrote to Today FM earlier this year, after an earlier 'McAleer' moment:
-------------
TO: Matt Cooper, TODAY FM.
Dear Matt,
I am writing to complain about a perceivable bias on your part in the course of interview this Friday, (Oct. 12) with Oisin Colan (Friends of the Earth, not sure if i have spelled his name correctly), and Phelim McAleer (again, I may not have the speling right), concerning Al Gore's recent Nobel Peace Prize.
Matt, I think you are a great journalist. I listen to your show via podcast (I live in the USA) and I always try to make time in my day to listen in.
I believe you bring intelligent and capable guests on the air. Almost always, I feel you leave your own personal bias out of the interviews. But I cannot for the life of me understand why you invited Phelim on your show. In his time as your guest, he systematically avoided supporting any of his arguments with any facts or figures, insisting instead on crass mischaracterizations of the nature of global warming and those who advocate any solutions for it.
First of all, I want to say that here in the US even the most right wing analysts are now starting to concede the risks of global warming. As such, people like Phelim are increasingly in the minority and, in fairness, come over as ill-informed and dogmatic.
I was surprised that you would have a guest on your show whose best response to Al Gore's award was the assertion that we all needed reminding of the fact that 20 years ago we were talking about global 'cooling'. It seems Phelim is one of those sorts of people who thinks that the things we knew in the past are always and everywhere equivalent to the things we know now. No chance then, for someone like Phelim, to think that science and technology might actually be telling us exponentially more about the earth today that they did 20 years ago.
Second, quite aside from this incredibly simplistic argument, Phelim then proceeded to inform us that Mr Gore was advocating a developmental status quo for the poverty-stricken on this planet. This is not true by any means, as Oisin was quick to point out. But Phelim then went on to advocate that the answer to all our problems was consumption, and more consumption still.
Matt, I was surprised that you let him get away with this. As a journalist you are obliged to accommodate as much of a spectrum of viewpoints as your can. However, surely there must be limits to this?
Phelim's argument in favor of unrestricted consumption represents the worst sort of Libertarianism. That he would be let make the ridiculous claim, as he did, that "consumption is the engine that has driven 200 million people out of poverty in the last 20 years" without any rebuke from yourself is, frankly, shocking.
The reality is that the gap between the world's rich and poor is growing, not diminishing. It hasn't seen any real reductions since the 1960s: "In 1960, the 20% of the world’s people in the richest countries had 30 times the income of the poorest 20% — in 1997, 74 times as much."
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Facts.asp
So where is Phelim coming from?
With respect, the constellation of economic powers that have been aggressively pushing what we call the "Washington Consensus" over the past 30 years or so has done more to hinder the cause of economic development than any other approach. As Naomi Klein argues in her new book 'The Shock Doctrine,' a direct line of progression can be drawn from the pro-consumption ideology of people like Milton Friedman to the destructive Asian Financial Crisis of 1997 and the Argentinian financial collapse of a couple of years ago.
Where are the poor thriving today? In various places: Malawi, for example, has recently contravened the dictates of the Washington Consensus and enjoyed bumper harvest yields because of the reintroduction of fertilizer subsidies. See:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20071012.FOOD12/TPStory/?pageRequested=all
Similarly, all across South America, the return of left-wing governments has boosted education and health by an order of magnitude. Gone are the days in these countries where the 'consumption' mantra led to the privatization of water and the deprivation of the multitudes in the barrios.
The idea that Friends of the Earth is the "enemy of the poor" is just dumb, and a view so unserious that it hardly merits mention on a show like yours. The reality is that the sort of social planning techniques we will need in order to turn the tide on global warming are precisely the same sorts of techniques that are already being used in many countries in South America. Just look at Brazil's emissions policies! In many respects, they're way ahead of ours.
And this is by no means to advocate a return to the state-centered planning of old-time socialism, either. Much of what is going on the South America is driven by an ethos of putting local democracy first.
Your show does not need people like Phelim. Sure, maybe they say the right sorts of reactionary things to get average Joe sending in his text messages, and the punters tuned in, keeping your ratings nice and high. But this is hardly the approach of serious journalism, right?
One good thing I take from your interview: That you need to descend to such depths to find a guest like Phelim to represent the side of the debate that still denies global warming can only mean that there aren't many of them left out there.
Sincerely,
Nicholas Kiersey
Phelim has a pretty sound critique of NGOs and charities. They do in a sense salve the ills created by the status quo. However, he doesn't seem to be able to link this to capitalism. Instead, he takes a sort of Ayn Rand posture, suggesting that these NGOs breed dependency and neutering any desire for economic success. He's quite right to say that paternalism is a form of power and, indeed, can be imperialistic. But then he throws in these casual remarks about how the solution is to build more sweatshops ... and at that point you really have to wonder what the hell this guy is on!! I mean, aren't sweatshops in fact the accouterments of today's imperialism?
Here is the text of a letter I wrote to Today FM earlier this year, after an earlier 'McAleer' moment:
-------------
TO: Matt Cooper, TODAY FM.
Dear Matt,
I am writing to complain about a perceivable bias on your part in the course of interview this Friday, (Oct. 12) with Oisin Colan (Friends of the Earth, not sure if i have spelled his name correctly), and Phelim McAleer (again, I may not have the speling right), concerning Al Gore's recent Nobel Peace Prize.
Matt, I think you are a great journalist. I listen to your show via podcast (I live in the USA) and I always try to make time in my day to listen in.
I believe you bring intelligent and capable guests on the air. Almost always, I feel you leave your own personal bias out of the interviews. But I cannot for the life of me understand why you invited Phelim on your show. In his time as your guest, he systematically avoided supporting any of his arguments with any facts or figures, insisting instead on crass mischaracterizations of the nature of global warming and those who advocate any solutions for it.
First of all, I want to say that here in the US even the most right wing analysts are now starting to concede the risks of global warming. As such, people like Phelim are increasingly in the minority and, in fairness, come over as ill-informed and dogmatic.
I was surprised that you would have a guest on your show whose best response to Al Gore's award was the assertion that we all needed reminding of the fact that 20 years ago we were talking about global 'cooling'. It seems Phelim is one of those sorts of people who thinks that the things we knew in the past are always and everywhere equivalent to the things we know now. No chance then, for someone like Phelim, to think that science and technology might actually be telling us exponentially more about the earth today that they did 20 years ago.
Second, quite aside from this incredibly simplistic argument, Phelim then proceeded to inform us that Mr Gore was advocating a developmental status quo for the poverty-stricken on this planet. This is not true by any means, as Oisin was quick to point out. But Phelim then went on to advocate that the answer to all our problems was consumption, and more consumption still.
Matt, I was surprised that you let him get away with this. As a journalist you are obliged to accommodate as much of a spectrum of viewpoints as your can. However, surely there must be limits to this?
Phelim's argument in favor of unrestricted consumption represents the worst sort of Libertarianism. That he would be let make the ridiculous claim, as he did, that "consumption is the engine that has driven 200 million people out of poverty in the last 20 years" without any rebuke from yourself is, frankly, shocking.
The reality is that the gap between the world's rich and poor is growing, not diminishing. It hasn't seen any real reductions since the 1960s: "In 1960, the 20% of the world’s people in the richest countries had 30 times the income of the poorest 20% — in 1997, 74 times as much."
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Facts.asp
So where is Phelim coming from?
With respect, the constellation of economic powers that have been aggressively pushing what we call the "Washington Consensus" over the past 30 years or so has done more to hinder the cause of economic development than any other approach. As Naomi Klein argues in her new book 'The Shock Doctrine,' a direct line of progression can be drawn from the pro-consumption ideology of people like Milton Friedman to the destructive Asian Financial Crisis of 1997 and the Argentinian financial collapse of a couple of years ago.
Where are the poor thriving today? In various places: Malawi, for example, has recently contravened the dictates of the Washington Consensus and enjoyed bumper harvest yields because of the reintroduction of fertilizer subsidies. See:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20071012.FOOD12/TPStory/?pageRequested=all
Similarly, all across South America, the return of left-wing governments has boosted education and health by an order of magnitude. Gone are the days in these countries where the 'consumption' mantra led to the privatization of water and the deprivation of the multitudes in the barrios.
The idea that Friends of the Earth is the "enemy of the poor" is just dumb, and a view so unserious that it hardly merits mention on a show like yours. The reality is that the sort of social planning techniques we will need in order to turn the tide on global warming are precisely the same sorts of techniques that are already being used in many countries in South America. Just look at Brazil's emissions policies! In many respects, they're way ahead of ours.
And this is by no means to advocate a return to the state-centered planning of old-time socialism, either. Much of what is going on the South America is driven by an ethos of putting local democracy first.
Your show does not need people like Phelim. Sure, maybe they say the right sorts of reactionary things to get average Joe sending in his text messages, and the punters tuned in, keeping your ratings nice and high. But this is hardly the approach of serious journalism, right?
One good thing I take from your interview: That you need to descend to such depths to find a guest like Phelim to represent the side of the debate that still denies global warming can only mean that there aren't many of them left out there.
Sincerely,
Nicholas Kiersey