It's not the for first time, in this blog, that I will have mentioned Benazir Bhutto. My discussion of the Iraq War's 4th birthday all too briefly refers to her contributions on Question Time, insights which that day marked her out to me as one of these beacons of common sense and tolerance amidst the chaos. Since then I vaguely followed her tumultuous trajectory back into the heart of Pakistani politics. With admiration and not as much understanding as might have been warranted.
But now I'm becoming self-conscious. The media's description of her as a "westernised" politician makes me feel that maybe she appealed to me because she was essentially "one of us" and shared in "our" values. But responding to the argument that human rights and democracy are in some way specific to the West, in origin or application, will have to be saved for another day. For now, suffice to say the there is as much fundamentalism in the West as in the East, it is just as threatening to human rights and civil liberties, and just as condemnable.
What I failed to understand, essentially, is why she would have put herself at such grave risk, didn't she realise that the life of an academic, a commentator - would be far more cushy and lucrative, and far more likely to extend her life? But of course, she is one of these who could have been no other way. Put in context, her own, which is not the docile panel of disgruntled, ageing writers and armchair politicians & salon socialists alongside whom she sat last spring, it all makes much more sense.
That we are conditioned by our surroundings and our families should not undermine her courage nor her acheivements. Whatever can be said about being born into a certain life, part of a certain dynasty that shapes one's destiny, Bhutto clearly went a step further. That she now joins her father and brothers, who also suffered brutal deaths, was by no means a fait accompli. Though the convictions that cement our education, and the struggles of those close to us no doubt condition to some extent our conception of the world and of what constitutes reasonable sacrifice and risk for a worthy cause, no-one is born with the capacity nor the courage to defy the fear and the very prospect of death itself. Such defiance & resistance, in the face of extreme and inescapable danger cannot be simply attribted to an inevitable personal trajectory along pre-traced lines. Rather, it testifies to a kind of abandoned devotion and disregard for personal safety & interest, spurred by belief in a greater purpose so commanding and so intense that it simply cannot be ignored.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Ten today
I've already remarked on 2007's lack of an inspiring overarching theme, in comparison to say - worker mobility in 2006 which inspired a project on the topic, and inter-cultural dialogue in 2008 which may or may not inspire a young greens campaign.
The most significant thing about 2007, and definitely worthy of note and celebration if not political activism - is that it marks the 10th anniversary of 1997. No particular event that occured in 1997, just the year itself.
Anybody who's read Pete Burns autobiography (which I won't go so far as to recommend but rather will sympathise with anybody whose intrigue and curiosity wouldn't let them avoid it) will no doubt have endured his scattery account of "the formative years" in terms of popular culture, and because it's the holidays, I thought I'd go in for some similiar self-indulgence.
1997 was the year, for me. The one where you suddenly become exposed, to the stuff that comes to symbolise the pop culture of your generation. Also the one where you become turned onto politics, and current affairs. Admittedly, '97 was no '89, nor indeed was it any '01, but because of its particular timing and significance for me, everything seemed historical & momentous. It was a sudden & overwhelming rush of information, and it seems now, at least to me, that there never was nor will be a time quite like it, quite so colourful, so unprecedented, so revolutionary. As if nothing will ever be so incredibly important ever again.
To avoid an agonising Pete Burns-esque stream of consciousness, I'll take ten items from popular culture, in no particular order, in the name of memory-refreshment...
Other items of perhaps more far-reaching significance include, of course, the advent of new labour, Tony Blair leading the labour party to victory with a landslide result, putting an end to the Tory era.
What else?Diana died, Elton John sang about it, Dolly the sheep was cloned, the BSE crisis foreshadowed the many food-scares to come, Louisde Woodward shook a baby to death, and the IRA declared a ceasefire.
You couldn't make it up, in fairness.
The most significant thing about 2007, and definitely worthy of note and celebration if not political activism - is that it marks the 10th anniversary of 1997. No particular event that occured in 1997, just the year itself.
Anybody who's read Pete Burns autobiography (which I won't go so far as to recommend but rather will sympathise with anybody whose intrigue and curiosity wouldn't let them avoid it) will no doubt have endured his scattery account of "the formative years" in terms of popular culture, and because it's the holidays, I thought I'd go in for some similiar self-indulgence.
1997 was the year, for me. The one where you suddenly become exposed, to the stuff that comes to symbolise the pop culture of your generation. Also the one where you become turned onto politics, and current affairs. Admittedly, '97 was no '89, nor indeed was it any '01, but because of its particular timing and significance for me, everything seemed historical & momentous. It was a sudden & overwhelming rush of information, and it seems now, at least to me, that there never was nor will be a time quite like it, quite so colourful, so unprecedented, so revolutionary. As if nothing will ever be so incredibly important ever again.
To avoid an agonising Pete Burns-esque stream of consciousness, I'll take ten items from popular culture, in no particular order, in the name of memory-refreshment...
American Beauty (MAJOR. The kind of thing that makes such a huge impact you spend the next 3 days constantly thinking about it, and mentally replaying it, to the point where it interferes with social interaction and keeps you awake at night. Very rarely, if ever, do films affect me so much anymore)- The Spice Girls (my debut in the reception of popular music basically consisted of a head-on collision with the Spice Girls, and is the reason why I can't be cynical about their reunion like those sneering 30-40 somethings)
- Teletubbies (generally I either watch children's television with delight or horror, the the combination of the two stirred by the teletubbies was something I've really yet to come to terms with)
- LA confidential cleaned up at the oscars, and I of course was not allowed to see it. Nor indeed was I allowed to watch Jurassic Park, which also caused a sensation that year, being as it was, on the cutting edge of computer-animated dinosaur technology.
- Hanson (the novelty of androgenous children singing incomprehensible things blew my mind at the time, and all the therapy since hasn't helped to lessen the mental impact)
- Blood on the dancefloor & Stranger in Moscow (two of the greatest and most-underrated songs in Michael Jackson's repertoire, & the latter, admittedly perhaps from late '96, featuring on the seminal HIStory album, I still go around proclaiming to be my favourite song of all time)7. Indie genius (Oasis - dyou know what I mean, Verve - Bittersweet symphony)
- Gala (my initiation in skanky dance music began with the finest in euro-trash)
- Boybands (BSB's first comeback, Gary Barlow - I may have missed the Take That generation, but at least i still caught the barlow bandwagon, brief as it was)
- Titanic (when a generation of pre-teen girls fell hopelessly in love with leonardo dicaprio. in my case, it bordered on obsession, and one which it pains me to say im still battling today)
Other items of perhaps more far-reaching significance include, of course, the advent of new labour, Tony Blair leading the labour party to victory with a landslide result, putting an end to the Tory era.
What else?Diana died, Elton John sang about it, Dolly the sheep was cloned, the BSE crisis foreshadowed the many food-scares to come, Louisde Woodward shook a baby to death, and the IRA declared a ceasefire.
You couldn't make it up, in fairness.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Reclaiming Christmas
Is an atheist christmas a contradiction in terms? It's a view many Christians appear to hold, rolling their eyes as they do, at the annual church-goers, the dilletantes who go through the motions, all the style but none of the substance. They must wonder what it's all about for them, perhaps assuming they venerate and worship in the temple of the God of consumerism. How very vacuous for them. Perhaps, they've got a point.
The idea that atheists do, in fact, have souls too, might be tough to swallow for some believers and indeed non-believers alike, but it's a question that becomes of particular salience at this time of year.
The non-believers who partake in all the cultural ritual and hold no moral objections to the religious symbolism but simultaneously reject it with a certain measure of distate and unease, are not immune to criticism on the basis of paradox and hypocrisy.
In an atheist or agnostic christmas, it is the one day a year we pretend to beleive or do so in solemn remembrance of a time when we ourselves once beleived, or in honour of devout ancestors and relatives. It as if we can beleive through our past selves, or through those others, in admiration and respect for the strength of their convictions. Beleiving in the name of others - as a strange somewhat disembodied demonstration of faith by proxy.
Upon reflection, it seems to me this second-hand belief is not sufficient. I would rather celebrate in the name of my own personal convictions.
In his review of some "bright ideas" that have emerged this year, Will Hutton argues:
"If 2006 was the year of the rampant secularists, Richard Dawkins assailing religion as the source of much evil, 2007 has seen the case for faith begin to make a comeback. A life well lived for many is helped by a sense of higher moral purpose. Human beings still require a sense of the sacred.
Even if there is no God, the act of faith, the sense of purpose and the belief in the sacred have illuminating spillovers on the rest of us."
Although the stark polarisation between the believer and militant atheist seems to me unlikely to correspond to the reality (and the substitution of religion for faith in the opening sentence worthy of note), overall I think Hutton might be onto something.
But rather than keeping their heretic heads down whilst engaging in passive participation in the usual ceremonies, perhaps atheists need to depart from the traditional religious model and ideology of christmas, and fashion a new kind of sacred.
So when it's no longer about believing in Santa Claus, nor in Jesus Christ, what to fill the ostensible void with if not materialism?
Perhaps we can look to the traditional substitutes for religion championed by those with faith in a more tangible realm - socialism, humanism, historical inevitabilty... Or in terms of a focus which shifts from Humans to nature. Admittedly environmentalism doesn't sound very spiritual, and paganism, with its overtones of occultism & witchcraft, might likewise be a tough sell.
Hutton supports those making a case for "non-fundamentalist faith as a source of spiritual good, [which] must be tolerated" while "Dawkins-style militant atheism only widens hostility."
Tolerance is of course as essential for atheists as for any other kind of believers (Because as Hutton rightly points out, belief is not limited to belief in God). For some even, tolerance is not enough. But for those non-Christians among us who will be celebrating Christmas this year along religious lines, singing from the same hymn sheets as our more devout counterparts, where should we look for spiritual nourishment? The litany of secular greeting card concepts: peace, love, goodwill & so on, are surely key components of a secular faith.
But beyond this, perhaps we should endeavour to re-claim and re-brand the so-called "arrogance" of humanism, with its inherent capacity for irrational and boundless optimism - something just as basic and just as vital as belief in a higher being. Hope that is not embodied in the form of such a being, but rather in existence itself. Faith in our environment, in ourselves and in each other.
The idea that atheists do, in fact, have souls too, might be tough to swallow for some believers and indeed non-believers alike, but it's a question that becomes of particular salience at this time of year.
The non-believers who partake in all the cultural ritual and hold no moral objections to the religious symbolism but simultaneously reject it with a certain measure of distate and unease, are not immune to criticism on the basis of paradox and hypocrisy.
In an atheist or agnostic christmas, it is the one day a year we pretend to beleive or do so in solemn remembrance of a time when we ourselves once beleived, or in honour of devout ancestors and relatives. It as if we can beleive through our past selves, or through those others, in admiration and respect for the strength of their convictions. Beleiving in the name of others - as a strange somewhat disembodied demonstration of faith by proxy.
Upon reflection, it seems to me this second-hand belief is not sufficient. I would rather celebrate in the name of my own personal convictions.
In his review of some "bright ideas" that have emerged this year, Will Hutton argues:
"If 2006 was the year of the rampant secularists, Richard Dawkins assailing religion as the source of much evil, 2007 has seen the case for faith begin to make a comeback. A life well lived for many is helped by a sense of higher moral purpose. Human beings still require a sense of the sacred.
Even if there is no God, the act of faith, the sense of purpose and the belief in the sacred have illuminating spillovers on the rest of us."
Although the stark polarisation between the believer and militant atheist seems to me unlikely to correspond to the reality (and the substitution of religion for faith in the opening sentence worthy of note), overall I think Hutton might be onto something.
But rather than keeping their heretic heads down whilst engaging in passive participation in the usual ceremonies, perhaps atheists need to depart from the traditional religious model and ideology of christmas, and fashion a new kind of sacred.
So when it's no longer about believing in Santa Claus, nor in Jesus Christ, what to fill the ostensible void with if not materialism?
Perhaps we can look to the traditional substitutes for religion championed by those with faith in a more tangible realm - socialism, humanism, historical inevitabilty... Or in terms of a focus which shifts from Humans to nature. Admittedly environmentalism doesn't sound very spiritual, and paganism, with its overtones of occultism & witchcraft, might likewise be a tough sell.
Hutton supports those making a case for "non-fundamentalist faith as a source of spiritual good, [which] must be tolerated" while "Dawkins-style militant atheism only widens hostility."
Tolerance is of course as essential for atheists as for any other kind of believers (Because as Hutton rightly points out, belief is not limited to belief in God). For some even, tolerance is not enough. But for those non-Christians among us who will be celebrating Christmas this year along religious lines, singing from the same hymn sheets as our more devout counterparts, where should we look for spiritual nourishment? The litany of secular greeting card concepts: peace, love, goodwill & so on, are surely key components of a secular faith.
But beyond this, perhaps we should endeavour to re-claim and re-brand the so-called "arrogance" of humanism, with its inherent capacity for irrational and boundless optimism - something just as basic and just as vital as belief in a higher being. Hope that is not embodied in the form of such a being, but rather in existence itself. Faith in our environment, in ourselves and in each other.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Going round again
Upon re-reading some my recent and not so recent posts, it occurs to me that perhaps something of a disclaimer is in order, just to point out that you might have to adjust the levels of your inbuilt sarcasm detectors to "mental", if attempting to gleam any threads of coherence at all out of my fragmented ramblings.
So I turned on the news this morning, as one does the morning after say - a big football match or a national election, in order to find out "the score" as it were, with Bali.
But of course, you don't get the results of a footie match or a national election being announced as "well, actually, we really haven't got a clue about the outcome". Unless it's a Belgian national election of course. Anyway, I found this most dis-heartening. But of course, it's so much worse than dis-heartening.
I like the way the BBC have covered the conference so far, I have to say. Incidentally, I also approve of the way the BBC exposed Gordon Brown's late arrival at the Lisbon treaty signing for the spineless, petty gesture that it was (and even interviewed my best friend Mr. Nigel Farage, who did a very good impersonation of someone for whom the world has more or less just ended). But back to Bali - I think the way they juxtapose the reports on the suits at the conference with the picture of "just down the road" in the rice fields, where people's livelihoods (and lives) are at stake, and they fear for their futures but hey, what can you do, etc, helps to reinforce the real scandal of the whole process. I don't mean to sound like Al Gore - but the immorality of it. Of shirking on such heavy, heavy responsabilities, of treating it like just another diplomatic impasse that has to be negotiated around with words that are just a little bit more ambiguous in order to keep people happy (cf. the Lisbon treaty, on that note).
Studying the rhetoric of colonialism, which may well turn out to be my vocation in life such is the passion I've uncovered for it, or "cultural diplomacy" if you want to be euphemistic about it (and they generally do) has on so many occasions struck me as bearing disturbing similarities to the rhetoric we hear nowadays regarding the environment. Oh the implications.
And no, I have to disagree with my learned African Politics lecturer, much as I revere him and his enthusiasm for political outcomes in a made-up imaginary country called The Gambia, I personally don't think the word "discourse" is an empty term. In fact, such a suggestion smacks of someone who clearly doesn't understand (french) sociology, and probably doesn't respect it either, if they're going around making statements like that. Discourse, is crucial. Not in itself, but because it's symptomatic of underlying attitudes and conceptions. Yes, I definitely think so.
If you want an example of an empty term, try - everyone's favourite - "sustainable development". Nobody in the world thinks sustainable development is a bad thing. It's something we can all agree on, and as a result - means absolutely nothing. This discovery, made at an early stage of my "Environmental sociology 101" class, was the source of considerable disillusionment for me because I actually thought we were making some real progress in this direction.
"Protection" is another favourite, that crops up in both. And problematic, because although it sounds nice & benign, in some contexts protection can mean annexation, can mean isolation, can basically mean theft. Depriving people of their livelihoods on the basis of "environmental protection" might sound like a moral dilemma, but it shouldn't. It's an ingenius way of turning the problem on its head. Yes, of course the (over)developed nations should lead by example, they should step up to the plate and commit to binding targets that slash their emissions so developping countries can go about meeting decent living standards without too much pressure and strain. But then remind yourself, that these are the very same nations, who 200 years ago decided to pump all the resources from their colonies, in order to fund their grand industrial entreprise (not to mention their monuments and palaces...). And instantly, it's the likelihood, rather than the emissions, which are slashed.
Between Gordon Brown's pig-headedness, Bernard Kouchner's casual quasi-threats of war against Iran, and George Bush every living breath, you don't have to look very far to realise that we are not living in an era of solidarity. Fairness and altruism, are not part of the equation, let's be clear about it.
Although there's been such scope for optimism this month, what with the EU-Africa Summit, the Lisbon treaty ratification, and ground-breaking talks at Bali, hopes for a real global breakthrough just haven't materialised. The problem is, the approach to diplomacy in these forums is still the same old dusty one that's always been deployed.
Case in point - Lisbon. Those who supported the original EU constitution aren't happy because it's been twisted out of shape and watered down so much, and those who opposed it initally are hardly any more enthusiastic. As for the Eurocrats, it's almost as if they're embarrased, trying to sneak it under the radar, to scrape back some legitimacy, but almost doing themselves more harm in the process. But this is inevitable if you're trying to resurrect & repackage a defunct and much-maligned document. The prognosis of Bali, at its most optimistic, seems to be about regenerating the Kyoto protocol, in a new & improved format that we can all agree on. But it's the same strategy of attempting to "replace" a treaty that failed, and has lost all credibility.
Perhaps it's no surprise that, for all their professed noble intentions, the same kind of diplomacy just leads to attempts to reproduce the same kinds of agreements. Which are inevitably destined to suffer a similar fate, unless they're modified to be made more pallatable - to the point of rendering them irrelevant.
The lesson is, sometimes - if at first you don't succeed, perhaps it's time for a radically new approach.
So I turned on the news this morning, as one does the morning after say - a big football match or a national election, in order to find out "the score" as it were, with Bali.
But of course, you don't get the results of a footie match or a national election being announced as "well, actually, we really haven't got a clue about the outcome". Unless it's a Belgian national election of course. Anyway, I found this most dis-heartening. But of course, it's so much worse than dis-heartening.
I like the way the BBC have covered the conference so far, I have to say. Incidentally, I also approve of the way the BBC exposed Gordon Brown's late arrival at the Lisbon treaty signing for the spineless, petty gesture that it was (and even interviewed my best friend Mr. Nigel Farage, who did a very good impersonation of someone for whom the world has more or less just ended). But back to Bali - I think the way they juxtapose the reports on the suits at the conference with the picture of "just down the road" in the rice fields, where people's livelihoods (and lives) are at stake, and they fear for their futures but hey, what can you do, etc, helps to reinforce the real scandal of the whole process. I don't mean to sound like Al Gore - but the immorality of it. Of shirking on such heavy, heavy responsabilities, of treating it like just another diplomatic impasse that has to be negotiated around with words that are just a little bit more ambiguous in order to keep people happy (cf. the Lisbon treaty, on that note).
Studying the rhetoric of colonialism, which may well turn out to be my vocation in life such is the passion I've uncovered for it, or "cultural diplomacy" if you want to be euphemistic about it (and they generally do) has on so many occasions struck me as bearing disturbing similarities to the rhetoric we hear nowadays regarding the environment. Oh the implications.
And no, I have to disagree with my learned African Politics lecturer, much as I revere him and his enthusiasm for political outcomes in a made-up imaginary country called The Gambia, I personally don't think the word "discourse" is an empty term. In fact, such a suggestion smacks of someone who clearly doesn't understand (french) sociology, and probably doesn't respect it either, if they're going around making statements like that. Discourse, is crucial. Not in itself, but because it's symptomatic of underlying attitudes and conceptions. Yes, I definitely think so.
If you want an example of an empty term, try - everyone's favourite - "sustainable development". Nobody in the world thinks sustainable development is a bad thing. It's something we can all agree on, and as a result - means absolutely nothing. This discovery, made at an early stage of my "Environmental sociology 101" class, was the source of considerable disillusionment for me because I actually thought we were making some real progress in this direction.
"Protection" is another favourite, that crops up in both. And problematic, because although it sounds nice & benign, in some contexts protection can mean annexation, can mean isolation, can basically mean theft. Depriving people of their livelihoods on the basis of "environmental protection" might sound like a moral dilemma, but it shouldn't. It's an ingenius way of turning the problem on its head. Yes, of course the (over)developed nations should lead by example, they should step up to the plate and commit to binding targets that slash their emissions so developping countries can go about meeting decent living standards without too much pressure and strain. But then remind yourself, that these are the very same nations, who 200 years ago decided to pump all the resources from their colonies, in order to fund their grand industrial entreprise (not to mention their monuments and palaces...). And instantly, it's the likelihood, rather than the emissions, which are slashed.
Between Gordon Brown's pig-headedness, Bernard Kouchner's casual quasi-threats of war against Iran, and George Bush every living breath, you don't have to look very far to realise that we are not living in an era of solidarity. Fairness and altruism, are not part of the equation, let's be clear about it.
Although there's been such scope for optimism this month, what with the EU-Africa Summit, the Lisbon treaty ratification, and ground-breaking talks at Bali, hopes for a real global breakthrough just haven't materialised. The problem is, the approach to diplomacy in these forums is still the same old dusty one that's always been deployed.
Case in point - Lisbon. Those who supported the original EU constitution aren't happy because it's been twisted out of shape and watered down so much, and those who opposed it initally are hardly any more enthusiastic. As for the Eurocrats, it's almost as if they're embarrased, trying to sneak it under the radar, to scrape back some legitimacy, but almost doing themselves more harm in the process. But this is inevitable if you're trying to resurrect & repackage a defunct and much-maligned document. The prognosis of Bali, at its most optimistic, seems to be about regenerating the Kyoto protocol, in a new & improved format that we can all agree on. But it's the same strategy of attempting to "replace" a treaty that failed, and has lost all credibility.
Perhaps it's no surprise that, for all their professed noble intentions, the same kind of diplomacy just leads to attempts to reproduce the same kinds of agreements. Which are inevitably destined to suffer a similar fate, unless they're modified to be made more pallatable - to the point of rendering them irrelevant.
The lesson is, sometimes - if at first you don't succeed, perhaps it's time for a radically new approach.
Thursday, December 06, 2007
British primary school teacher arrested for naming teddy bear after prophet.
As news stories go, you couldn't ask for a better formula, or a more perfect cast...
The face of the well-intentioned noble european who sets out into darkest Africa seeking to bring education and light into the lives of those in need (stop me if you've heard this one before) and what does she get in return? Arrested, abused, and very nearly executed!
Happily, it's just a matter of Gordon Brown and his diplomats to the rescue and before you know it "common sense" has prevailed over extremism, and Ms Gibbons is, of course, on her way home within a matter of days.
And don't worry, it turns out Ms Gibbons is the gracious & forgiving type, and bears absolutely no hard feelings against the Sudanese or indeed Islam. Which is a damn sight more than they deserve. In fact, this mild, altruistic primary teacher who "wouldn't hurt a fly" sounds like an examplary individual in just about every respect, which of course makes the whole affair even more deplorable.
There's been many an indignant response to the claim from the Sudanese Embassy that the whole thing amounts to no more than "a storm in a teacup based on cultural misunderstandings", because we shouldn't be downplaying the event but instead taking it extremely seriously, despite exceptional and brief character of the whole affair. But the issue I want to address here is not about freedom of speech, religious law or whether or not 15 days in prison and/or 40 lashes for "insulting islam" is justified.
It's not so much the story itself that's objectionable, so much as the sheer amount of coverage it's been getting. And the way they've managed to use the incident to spark a "debate" about Islam.
The Sky News team has certainly been doing its bit, saying things like:
"There are going to be people who say "well this just proves what kind of a religion Islam really is..."
Are there? And are they going to be saying it on national television, or is that just you?
"Prominent religious leaders have all spoken out in unison to say that "British Islam" condemns this..."
Let's be clear about it - our own born & bred British muslims are one thing, the ones way over there in the axis of evil are quite another story. Why they should have bothered to speak out in the first place really doesn't at all seem obvious to me either.
I'm wary enough of the BBC but I absolutely loathe Sky News, it's the kind that had a camera fixed on the McCans front door for a week non-stop and calls it "breaking news". On that note, if you want a good critical & humorous perspective on TV news, I'll refer you to my hero Mr Brooker. Watching sky news doesn't so much supply information, as propose a partisan view of certain current events it has some vague notion of but really knows very little about, and tailors its scant information to adhere to the pre-conceived "plot" of the stories. If anything, it dis-informs.
I mean what is this story REALLY about?
It's just the kind of story we need to remind us all that there's dangerous extremist lunatics out there, that we should still be afraid and outraged by them - just in case we were getting rather too complacent about the state of the world and the global political consensus. And what's more, it also illustrates beautifully that our government has our best interests at heart, and will always fight our corner in the face of such trials. It's exactly the kind of fuel that threats of unilateral military action need in order to gain popular support and hey - Sudan rhymes with Iran, and everyone knows what they're up to.
Game on - nuclear annihilation.
This follows on quite nicely from my earlier discussion on sociology - that nothing above question or without an agenda of some sort.
This is what university in France taught me, and plenty of other things beside, but this is the central, fundamental key moment when something was clarified, something was lit up, and I felt as if I'd broken through a wall in my mind. Learning is normally a gradual, progressive exercice, happening over months and years, creeping too incrementally for you to realise, but sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it comes in a flash. In France I was brutally & suddenly confronted to the harsh reality that even the most fundamental values and foundations, the ones we build everything else upon, the ones that shape us, are the result of a struggle, an agenda, they are part of a dominant paradigm - just one of an infinity of others. And what's more - it's all imaginary. This rhetoric, this nationalism, this so-called clash of civilisations, these "revendications a l'universel" - are all riddled with implicit conceptions, that need to be dissected and taken out of context and looked at in an altogether new light and it's like performing self-dissection, and in this way it's inevitably limited, because we can only extract to a certain point... a bit like the paradox of exploring the unconscious, yet essential in order to understand the world, not understand as in comprehend the News, but REALLY understand.
We look at the problems in the world today, in society - problems like racism, globalisation, immigration, xenophobia, descrimination, intolerance, religious fundamentalism, conflict, nationalism, genocide, sectarian violence, but these are all symptons. And this is why it's so difficult to make sense of them, without seeing beyond, without looking to the underlying causes - to the roots.
In fact, it's not so much about what's there - as what isn't. As what ISN'T on the news, what the politicans AREN'T talking about, what is ommitted. As Adam Hochschild argues, our world today is "shaped far less by what we celebrate & mythologise than by the painful events we try to forget" - Leopold's Congo being one example, but that's another story...
As news stories go, you couldn't ask for a better formula, or a more perfect cast...
The face of the well-intentioned noble european who sets out into darkest Africa seeking to bring education and light into the lives of those in need (stop me if you've heard this one before) and what does she get in return? Arrested, abused, and very nearly executed!
Happily, it's just a matter of Gordon Brown and his diplomats to the rescue and before you know it "common sense" has prevailed over extremism, and Ms Gibbons is, of course, on her way home within a matter of days.
And don't worry, it turns out Ms Gibbons is the gracious & forgiving type, and bears absolutely no hard feelings against the Sudanese or indeed Islam. Which is a damn sight more than they deserve. In fact, this mild, altruistic primary teacher who "wouldn't hurt a fly" sounds like an examplary individual in just about every respect, which of course makes the whole affair even more deplorable.
There's been many an indignant response to the claim from the Sudanese Embassy that the whole thing amounts to no more than "a storm in a teacup based on cultural misunderstandings", because we shouldn't be downplaying the event but instead taking it extremely seriously, despite exceptional and brief character of the whole affair. But the issue I want to address here is not about freedom of speech, religious law or whether or not 15 days in prison and/or 40 lashes for "insulting islam" is justified.
It's not so much the story itself that's objectionable, so much as the sheer amount of coverage it's been getting. And the way they've managed to use the incident to spark a "debate" about Islam.
The Sky News team has certainly been doing its bit, saying things like:
"There are going to be people who say "well this just proves what kind of a religion Islam really is..."
Are there? And are they going to be saying it on national television, or is that just you?
"Prominent religious leaders have all spoken out in unison to say that "British Islam" condemns this..."
Let's be clear about it - our own born & bred British muslims are one thing, the ones way over there in the axis of evil are quite another story. Why they should have bothered to speak out in the first place really doesn't at all seem obvious to me either.
I'm wary enough of the BBC but I absolutely loathe Sky News, it's the kind that had a camera fixed on the McCans front door for a week non-stop and calls it "breaking news". On that note, if you want a good critical & humorous perspective on TV news, I'll refer you to my hero Mr Brooker. Watching sky news doesn't so much supply information, as propose a partisan view of certain current events it has some vague notion of but really knows very little about, and tailors its scant information to adhere to the pre-conceived "plot" of the stories. If anything, it dis-informs.
I mean what is this story REALLY about?
It's just the kind of story we need to remind us all that there's dangerous extremist lunatics out there, that we should still be afraid and outraged by them - just in case we were getting rather too complacent about the state of the world and the global political consensus. And what's more, it also illustrates beautifully that our government has our best interests at heart, and will always fight our corner in the face of such trials. It's exactly the kind of fuel that threats of unilateral military action need in order to gain popular support and hey - Sudan rhymes with Iran, and everyone knows what they're up to.
Game on - nuclear annihilation.
This follows on quite nicely from my earlier discussion on sociology - that nothing above question or without an agenda of some sort.
This is what university in France taught me, and plenty of other things beside, but this is the central, fundamental key moment when something was clarified, something was lit up, and I felt as if I'd broken through a wall in my mind. Learning is normally a gradual, progressive exercice, happening over months and years, creeping too incrementally for you to realise, but sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it comes in a flash. In France I was brutally & suddenly confronted to the harsh reality that even the most fundamental values and foundations, the ones we build everything else upon, the ones that shape us, are the result of a struggle, an agenda, they are part of a dominant paradigm - just one of an infinity of others. And what's more - it's all imaginary. This rhetoric, this nationalism, this so-called clash of civilisations, these "revendications a l'universel" - are all riddled with implicit conceptions, that need to be dissected and taken out of context and looked at in an altogether new light and it's like performing self-dissection, and in this way it's inevitably limited, because we can only extract to a certain point... a bit like the paradox of exploring the unconscious, yet essential in order to understand the world, not understand as in comprehend the News, but REALLY understand.
We look at the problems in the world today, in society - problems like racism, globalisation, immigration, xenophobia, descrimination, intolerance, religious fundamentalism, conflict, nationalism, genocide, sectarian violence, but these are all symptons. And this is why it's so difficult to make sense of them, without seeing beyond, without looking to the underlying causes - to the roots.
In fact, it's not so much about what's there - as what isn't. As what ISN'T on the news, what the politicans AREN'T talking about, what is ommitted. As Adam Hochschild argues, our world today is "shaped far less by what we celebrate & mythologise than by the painful events we try to forget" - Leopold's Congo being one example, but that's another story...
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Politics vs. Sociology
Week after week, I am amazed at the disparity in terms of brain cell count (or to be more diplomatic - critical faculties) between the two disciplines my degree course uncomfortably straddles.
Political science - or, the 4 hours a week when I feel the overpowering urge to drop out of college, because I clearly haven't a prayer. I have no idea where these kids come from, or more to the point where their knowledge, poise and capacity to string words together to make beautifully incisive, pertinent & eloquent statements comes from.
Sociology - or, the 4 hours a week when I feel the overpowering urge to drop out of college because I'm surrounded by intolerable half-wits. There's a few people in particular, who've incurred my wrath with their inane contributions. I don't name names of course, but I will spout quotes. Especially gems such as:
"But isn't, like, nature, like, too big to manage? I mean - the Nile is, like, huge."
Yes. You're not wrong, the Nile is, effectively, huge. And so is the Amazon, for that matter!
...was the altogether too forgiving response of our docile lecturer. No sharp-tongued lashing to the tune of "Good God, the Nile might well be somewhat on the large side, but have you even stopped to consider, for one second, the sheer scale of the entire human industrial entreprise you STUPID CHILD."
The Irony (with a capital), as I see it, is the remarkable lack of correlation between these (admittedly anecdotal) observations, and the nature and demands of the disciplines themselves. Or at least, the disciplines as taught by our esteemed, now-ranked-top-53-in-the-world-according-to-the-Times, thank you very much mr Provost, educational institution - Trinity college.
Political science, in essence, once you've nailed down a decent research question, really boils down to applying rigorous methodolgy, quantifying "stuff", totting up data - a monkey could do it.
Sociology, on the other hand, as I learned last year in France (as opposed to how I was taught it for the two years prior) is complex beyond imagination. It's a horrifying mess of historical legacies, underlying socio-economic factors and, worst of all - individual motivations. But more than that - it effectively requires the ability to see the invisible, to posess real mastery in terms of critical thought, to be able to extrapolate the underlying values & assumptions which you don't see because you're not MEANT to see them, because you've been conditioned not to, and because everything has been engineered precisely so you won't see them, so you'll be without any shred of doubt that some things just are neutral, natural, eternal & universal - that some things just "are". When really, they just aren't. At all. Or at least, who says they are? Because somebody is or has, that much is certain.
And this is what so irritates me about the failure of some to take sociology seriously (justified in some respects - it's ok to be a joker in a joker's course such as "Gender & popular culture" of course, in fact it's almost impossible not to be, but we all know how I feel about that one). I didn't take it seriously, until I was faced with the revelation, that nothing is beyond question, or goes without saying (something I should have realised well before as it had been heavily hinted at in a remarkably prescient and important course the IB involves - Theory of knowledge).
When I say my degree course straddles two disciplines uncomfortably - this is not limited to the purely academic endeavours and the disparities between them. As this term has gone on, I've come to realise that the two disciplines correspond to two different, contradictory world views of my own.
In sociology, I find myself in staunch support of those who advocate a new form of citizenship, of greater participation, of realising democracy - in order to acheive environmental justice, perhaps as part of a pragmatic or "real" world approach to concretising that ubiqutous & slippery concept of sustainable development.
In political science, on the other hand, I adhere to Platonic view that really, we'd all be better off if we scrapped democracy and put in place a merit-based system where competent people are in charge, and make all the decisions on behalf of "the masses". I won't shy away from the terms "despotism" and "autocracy", because I'm well aware that's what it amounts to. But perhaps this model is limited to the theoretical, notional world of ideas, of the endless philosophical dialectic that ties itself in knots in search of the elusive utopia.
What fundamentally differs here is a judgement on the capacity of human beings to make intelligent decisions for themselves, to run their own lives, and just how much power & influence should be allocated to them accordingly.
And yet somehow, my appraisal of this capacity (ie. in sociology - considerable, in politics - zero) is curiously inversed to my experience, in terms of the scholars of both schools.
Political science - or, the 4 hours a week when I feel the overpowering urge to drop out of college, because I clearly haven't a prayer. I have no idea where these kids come from, or more to the point where their knowledge, poise and capacity to string words together to make beautifully incisive, pertinent & eloquent statements comes from.
Sociology - or, the 4 hours a week when I feel the overpowering urge to drop out of college because I'm surrounded by intolerable half-wits. There's a few people in particular, who've incurred my wrath with their inane contributions. I don't name names of course, but I will spout quotes. Especially gems such as:
"But isn't, like, nature, like, too big to manage? I mean - the Nile is, like, huge."
Yes. You're not wrong, the Nile is, effectively, huge. And so is the Amazon, for that matter!
...was the altogether too forgiving response of our docile lecturer. No sharp-tongued lashing to the tune of "Good God, the Nile might well be somewhat on the large side, but have you even stopped to consider, for one second, the sheer scale of the entire human industrial entreprise you STUPID CHILD."
The Irony (with a capital), as I see it, is the remarkable lack of correlation between these (admittedly anecdotal) observations, and the nature and demands of the disciplines themselves. Or at least, the disciplines as taught by our esteemed, now-ranked-top-53-in-the-world-according-to-the-Times, thank you very much mr Provost, educational institution - Trinity college.
Political science, in essence, once you've nailed down a decent research question, really boils down to applying rigorous methodolgy, quantifying "stuff", totting up data - a monkey could do it.
Sociology, on the other hand, as I learned last year in France (as opposed to how I was taught it for the two years prior) is complex beyond imagination. It's a horrifying mess of historical legacies, underlying socio-economic factors and, worst of all - individual motivations. But more than that - it effectively requires the ability to see the invisible, to posess real mastery in terms of critical thought, to be able to extrapolate the underlying values & assumptions which you don't see because you're not MEANT to see them, because you've been conditioned not to, and because everything has been engineered precisely so you won't see them, so you'll be without any shred of doubt that some things just are neutral, natural, eternal & universal - that some things just "are". When really, they just aren't. At all. Or at least, who says they are? Because somebody is or has, that much is certain.
And this is what so irritates me about the failure of some to take sociology seriously (justified in some respects - it's ok to be a joker in a joker's course such as "Gender & popular culture" of course, in fact it's almost impossible not to be, but we all know how I feel about that one). I didn't take it seriously, until I was faced with the revelation, that nothing is beyond question, or goes without saying (something I should have realised well before as it had been heavily hinted at in a remarkably prescient and important course the IB involves - Theory of knowledge).
When I say my degree course straddles two disciplines uncomfortably - this is not limited to the purely academic endeavours and the disparities between them. As this term has gone on, I've come to realise that the two disciplines correspond to two different, contradictory world views of my own.
In sociology, I find myself in staunch support of those who advocate a new form of citizenship, of greater participation, of realising democracy - in order to acheive environmental justice, perhaps as part of a pragmatic or "real" world approach to concretising that ubiqutous & slippery concept of sustainable development.
In political science, on the other hand, I adhere to Platonic view that really, we'd all be better off if we scrapped democracy and put in place a merit-based system where competent people are in charge, and make all the decisions on behalf of "the masses". I won't shy away from the terms "despotism" and "autocracy", because I'm well aware that's what it amounts to. But perhaps this model is limited to the theoretical, notional world of ideas, of the endless philosophical dialectic that ties itself in knots in search of the elusive utopia.
What fundamentally differs here is a judgement on the capacity of human beings to make intelligent decisions for themselves, to run their own lives, and just how much power & influence should be allocated to them accordingly.
And yet somehow, my appraisal of this capacity (ie. in sociology - considerable, in politics - zero) is curiously inversed to my experience, in terms of the scholars of both schools.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Obituary
Central Societies Committee treasurer Joe O'Gorman writes:
"Many of you will be saddened to learn that Matteo Matubara died on November 18th. He had been becoming increasingly frail over the past few months and it was obvious to all who knew him that he was not long for this world. He was the last of a number of eccentrics who pottered about College over the years whose only real link to the place is the most important: they were known by generations of students for whom, in many ways, they formed a nostalgic link with their time in College."
Matubara, or "Mat the Jap" as he was affectionately known by the student body at large, was indeed one of the more renowned & improbable Trinity personalities. He was the subject for all manner of outlandish rumours, stories and mythology as to where he came from, and why he inhabited the college as he did, wandering the corridors and cobblestones of Trinity, of which I heard only a few. These stories were passed around over the years, probably greatly distorted in the process, stemming from the general intrigue for such an idiosyncratic character, at once ubiqutous and elusive. Among the students he inspired sentiments of fear, mockery, curiosity, bemusement, indignance and affection. For my part, I now realise I'll probably never know the real story of Mat the Jap, but no doubt that will remain part of the mystery and charm that he will be forever associated with in my mind, indeed a nostalgic link with my days in College - a symbol of those years, and of Trinity itself.
"Many of you will be saddened to learn that Matteo Matubara died on November 18th. He had been becoming increasingly frail over the past few months and it was obvious to all who knew him that he was not long for this world. He was the last of a number of eccentrics who pottered about College over the years whose only real link to the place is the most important: they were known by generations of students for whom, in many ways, they formed a nostalgic link with their time in College."
Matubara, or "Mat the Jap" as he was affectionately known by the student body at large, was indeed one of the more renowned & improbable Trinity personalities. He was the subject for all manner of outlandish rumours, stories and mythology as to where he came from, and why he inhabited the college as he did, wandering the corridors and cobblestones of Trinity, of which I heard only a few. These stories were passed around over the years, probably greatly distorted in the process, stemming from the general intrigue for such an idiosyncratic character, at once ubiqutous and elusive. Among the students he inspired sentiments of fear, mockery, curiosity, bemusement, indignance and affection. For my part, I now realise I'll probably never know the real story of Mat the Jap, but no doubt that will remain part of the mystery and charm that he will be forever associated with in my mind, indeed a nostalgic link with my days in College - a symbol of those years, and of Trinity itself.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
If you think you're feeling stressed at the moment, spare a thought for the king of Belgium. There was scarcely a whisper about Albert II's visit to Trinity earlier this month. In fact, the Belgian flag fluttering discretely alongside the tricolour above front square provided one of the only clues as to the dignitary's fleeting presence, as well as a cordoned off area and a few bored looking guards hanging around. Keeping a low profile might well be desirable whilst he recovers from recent surgery following an injury. Happening to be the head of a State that has been without a government for over 5 months now and appears to be in danger of disintegration might also be affecting his morale.
Of course, there is a temptation to overstate the extent of the "political crisis" facing Belgium at the moment. There is no doubt that the Belgian system is, and always has been, marked by a great degree of complexity. It's ability to function despite the cross-cutting divisions, both linguistic and political, is a testament to the robust efficiency of the administration, but also to the efforts of co-operation which until now, have always carried it through despite the considerable structural obstacles. Flanders and Wallonia have always co-existed as regions with a fairly advanced degree of autonomy, but in recent times seem to have become increasingly isolated from one another.
How they have succeeded in remaining united within the same State thus far is an enigma that Flemish professor Rik Torfs gave some insight into when he appeared on a British radio programme recently, expounding the uniquely Belgian brand of "weak nationalism" - where one succeeds in feeling a sense of belonging to a nation without needing to feel proud of it.
"Why should you be proud of your own identity?" he scoffed, "I am a man, and I'm not proud of it; I am a Belgian, and I'm not proud of it."
Words to be heralded as the voice of reason by those stateless drifters among us for whom the concepts of nationalism and patriotism alike are entirely foreign (pun half intended). Indeed, why can't we be content to be part of a nation, without needing to feel proud of it aswell, and without it necessarily alienating us from others. That isn't to say that a healthy measure of patriotic fervour isn't entirely tolerable and even desirable. Where would we be without the kind of stereotypes that inspire taunts at international football matches, politically incorrect jokes and the scathing commentaries that always accompany the Eurovision song contest.
However, proclaiming the success of the Belgian model could be seen as tempting fate given the precarious state of the Belgian national adminstration at the moment, with its non-existant government.
Lack of nationalism means Belgians appear far more inclined than many of their European counterparts to transfer their sense of attachment either upwards (to the supranational EU, essentially) or downwards (to their regions and local communities), indicating that perhaps this same sense of geographical and cultural identity still exists, but merely operates at different levels than traditional, straighforward nationalism. Certainly we have seen a rise in "regionalism" as an alternative to nationalism. Sub-national patriotic sentiment has flourished as a result of the ongoing process of regionalisation, including a law introduced fifteen years ago abandoning the compulsory teaching of both languages to all Belgian schoolchildren. As a result a new generation has grown up within the context of a state of quasi-apartheid. The current state of deadlock is then perhaps due, not so much to the playful rivalry, to xenophobia or even occasional outright hostility. They have simply had enough of each other. The prospective next prime minister Yves Leterme's insinuations about the Walloons have not gone down well, but he is merely voicing what so many Flemish have been muttering amongst themselves for years, disgruntlement that appears to have gathered sufficient momentum as to throw a spanner in the works the political machinery.
Charting these developments leads to some rather sobering conclusions. The evidence would appear to suggest that a nation without a strong sense of nationalism is doomed to fail, or at least, is in danger of coming perilously close. Perhaps this is why the politicians of countries that appear to be overly "fragmented" immediately call for reflection and a dialogue on the state of its national identity. If the ties that bind seem to be loosening, a national consensus on identity might help a country pull itself together. If in doubt - get the flags out. This seems to be the strategy of UK Secretary for Justice Jack Straw who has been extolling the virtues of "pride" in one's country as a force for cohesion. And if the power of this imaginary concept is such that it really can make or break a country, Belgium seems to be in real trouble.
It seems to me that no amount of artificial government-sponsored national pride pushing is going to resolve the issues of social fragmentation in Britain. Conversely, Belgium's chances of survival aren't so bleak, especially when you consider what the seperatists are up against. The fate of the Euro-bubble of Brussels, for one thing, seems an irresolvable connundrum. Officially bilingual, Brussels is now so overun with expats as to have turned the place into a veritable tower of babel, virtually annihilating any trace of authentic identity it may once have had in the process. In fact the only conceivable option might be for it to become an administrative city-state housing the European institutions and various other international organisations whose headquarters might require a "neutral" seat in the interests of fairness and good diplomacy.
Thus, Belgium's saving grace might lie in the fact that the sheer volume of upheaval threatened by a split might well outweigh that of the dissent. The notorious bureaucracy so loathed by all may well turn out to be a Godsend in so far as preserving the status quo goes. This, along with high standards of living and general overall contentment among the population combine to make Belgium a most inhospitable environment for a revolution.
Of course, there is a temptation to overstate the extent of the "political crisis" facing Belgium at the moment. There is no doubt that the Belgian system is, and always has been, marked by a great degree of complexity. It's ability to function despite the cross-cutting divisions, both linguistic and political, is a testament to the robust efficiency of the administration, but also to the efforts of co-operation which until now, have always carried it through despite the considerable structural obstacles. Flanders and Wallonia have always co-existed as regions with a fairly advanced degree of autonomy, but in recent times seem to have become increasingly isolated from one another.
How they have succeeded in remaining united within the same State thus far is an enigma that Flemish professor Rik Torfs gave some insight into when he appeared on a British radio programme recently, expounding the uniquely Belgian brand of "weak nationalism" - where one succeeds in feeling a sense of belonging to a nation without needing to feel proud of it.
"Why should you be proud of your own identity?" he scoffed, "I am a man, and I'm not proud of it; I am a Belgian, and I'm not proud of it."
Words to be heralded as the voice of reason by those stateless drifters among us for whom the concepts of nationalism and patriotism alike are entirely foreign (pun half intended). Indeed, why can't we be content to be part of a nation, without needing to feel proud of it aswell, and without it necessarily alienating us from others. That isn't to say that a healthy measure of patriotic fervour isn't entirely tolerable and even desirable. Where would we be without the kind of stereotypes that inspire taunts at international football matches, politically incorrect jokes and the scathing commentaries that always accompany the Eurovision song contest.
However, proclaiming the success of the Belgian model could be seen as tempting fate given the precarious state of the Belgian national adminstration at the moment, with its non-existant government.
Lack of nationalism means Belgians appear far more inclined than many of their European counterparts to transfer their sense of attachment either upwards (to the supranational EU, essentially) or downwards (to their regions and local communities), indicating that perhaps this same sense of geographical and cultural identity still exists, but merely operates at different levels than traditional, straighforward nationalism. Certainly we have seen a rise in "regionalism" as an alternative to nationalism. Sub-national patriotic sentiment has flourished as a result of the ongoing process of regionalisation, including a law introduced fifteen years ago abandoning the compulsory teaching of both languages to all Belgian schoolchildren. As a result a new generation has grown up within the context of a state of quasi-apartheid. The current state of deadlock is then perhaps due, not so much to the playful rivalry, to xenophobia or even occasional outright hostility. They have simply had enough of each other. The prospective next prime minister Yves Leterme's insinuations about the Walloons have not gone down well, but he is merely voicing what so many Flemish have been muttering amongst themselves for years, disgruntlement that appears to have gathered sufficient momentum as to throw a spanner in the works the political machinery.
Charting these developments leads to some rather sobering conclusions. The evidence would appear to suggest that a nation without a strong sense of nationalism is doomed to fail, or at least, is in danger of coming perilously close. Perhaps this is why the politicians of countries that appear to be overly "fragmented" immediately call for reflection and a dialogue on the state of its national identity. If the ties that bind seem to be loosening, a national consensus on identity might help a country pull itself together. If in doubt - get the flags out. This seems to be the strategy of UK Secretary for Justice Jack Straw who has been extolling the virtues of "pride" in one's country as a force for cohesion. And if the power of this imaginary concept is such that it really can make or break a country, Belgium seems to be in real trouble.
It seems to me that no amount of artificial government-sponsored national pride pushing is going to resolve the issues of social fragmentation in Britain. Conversely, Belgium's chances of survival aren't so bleak, especially when you consider what the seperatists are up against. The fate of the Euro-bubble of Brussels, for one thing, seems an irresolvable connundrum. Officially bilingual, Brussels is now so overun with expats as to have turned the place into a veritable tower of babel, virtually annihilating any trace of authentic identity it may once have had in the process. In fact the only conceivable option might be for it to become an administrative city-state housing the European institutions and various other international organisations whose headquarters might require a "neutral" seat in the interests of fairness and good diplomacy.
Thus, Belgium's saving grace might lie in the fact that the sheer volume of upheaval threatened by a split might well outweigh that of the dissent. The notorious bureaucracy so loathed by all may well turn out to be a Godsend in so far as preserving the status quo goes. This, along with high standards of living and general overall contentment among the population combine to make Belgium a most inhospitable environment for a revolution.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
The Great Green experiment - an update
Last saturday, october 6th, the Irish Green Party held a special party conference in Dublin. A sort of "where we're at" explanatory session, coupled with a "where to now?" element of inviting feedback from the party ranks and membership.
Before the rest of the day's business (which included workshops, questions and answers, and hustings for the party chair position, Cathaoirleach), the conference was opened by a series of short, sharp & to-the-point speeches by some of the "key people" in the Party. In my not so diligent notes I collected a variety of soundbites from these speeches, some more inspiring than others but all interesting in that each speaker set their own tone, employed their own particular rhetoric to push whatever message it was they felt most appropriate for what was really the first confrontation with the party membership since the election debacle, the controversial but unprecedented and exhilirating move to enter into government. As a result - a lot of tough punters to be won over, some work to be done in terms of rallying the troops, defending a decision which, despite the firm majority of 86.5% in favour, divided the party in no small way.
Mary White, TD, defended the move with no apologies and in no uncertain terms, calling it "progress" whilst lamenting the futility of "ideas without power". "Carpe Diem", she reminded us, "we have seized the day... We have abandoned the certainties of opposition" and a good thing too, for if we hadn't, "we should not call ourselves a political party, but a lobby group..." and finishing with a pointed flourish - "united we stand".
Dónall Geoghegan spoke briefly to emphasise the "educational job" we have, as well as to point out that the link between transport development and climate change cannot be ignored. Well, yes and no.
Next up - Everyone's favourite, Trevor Sargent, Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture - the first to qualify the good news with a reality check of sorts, mentioning that, with 6 vs. 78 in the Dail, there were inevitably going to be "an awful lot of bitter pills to swallow" (this essentially in response to the heckling from some disgruntled hardcore true-green members in the front row). What else did Trevor say? Ah yes, that food security is a huge concern and must be a priority, that Bali is going to be the big one in terms of a make-or-break radical campaign of action against climate change globally, and that all of us in the room better be growing our own fruit and veg (in a slightly patronising tone, with a hint of menace) because we wouldn't want to be seen to be telling the general public to do it if our own members aren't leading by example, now would we? Also - forget intercultural dialogue, turns out 2008 is the year of the Potato, which for Ireland is, of course, a seriously big deal.
The ubiquitous John Gormley, party Leader & Minister of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, spoke next. Firstly to denounce what he described as the excessive "negativity" in the room he was sensing, and then, presumably in an attempt to turn things around, embarked on a lyrical exaltation of our acheivements and their significance. "We have stepped up to the plate.... displayed leadership and courage", and in slightly plainer terms, in case anyone was still unconvinced, "we a doing a good job! We have delivered and we will continue to deliver!" followed by a litany of ways in which we have and are delivering, e.g. green paper on local reforms, etc.
So while Mary celebrated the political advances, Trevor put it all into perspective, and JG lavished on the majestic terms, Eamon Ryan, Minister of the Department of Communications; Energy and Natural Resources, brought things back to basics, to fundamentals.
In a bit of a Gordon Brown-style autobiographical anecdote, he mentioned a particular time in his schoolboy days when he suddenly came to understand the complexity of the world, the "web of life", that the earth is "breathing, it has flows, its own regulatory system..." etc. He described this epiphany as a great "moment of clarity" and if anyone sitting in the audience needed to be reminded why they were here, I think his approach provided this most succinctly, most elegantly and in the most fundamental of terms.
For me, it was not an answer to a question I had been asking myself explicitly, but a moment of realisation. Or rather, a further step in a process of realisation that has been ongoing ever since I first joined the Young Greens on my university campus 3 years ago this month.
Bringing things back to our role, our place in government, Ryan alluded to the lefty bandit-style of politics and view of social justice, that consists of "taking power to give power back". An end to be acheived not through "Revolution, but parliamentary democracy" - something that was later contested during the ensuing debates, but obviously we have not joined a government so as we can subsequently overthrow it. We are now officially playing the game.
All in all it was a day marked by criticism and acclaim. Overshadowing the jubilant mood of the coalition honeymoon were the recent attacks from Labour (The Greens are refusing to take responsibility for anything), the jibes from the socialist workers camp (the Greens have sold out and gone back on everything they ever stood for) and indeed the fierce condemnations from the rank & file, Cllr Chris O'Leary, for example, seemed to speak for all the unhappy grassroots members, who see the party morphing into something quite different, and don't like it one bit.
Despite the bitter pills being forced down their throats however, John G & co did manage to turn things around, and the angry mob were soothed and pacified by their reassuring words, their slick discourse and "cute" demeanour. Looks like they really have all turned into excellent politicians, for better or worse.
The accusation of "selling out" is a tricky one, and one which I fear will not go away, and it's so sad that the majority and the most virulent of attacks seem to be coming from other left-wing parties or groups. But I suppose that's rivalry, and indeed that's politics, the way it always will be - no matter who you vote for, somehow the government always gets in.
Nevertheless. This is now a gouvernment of which at least 6 members know the value of a good, deep breath of fresh air.
Before the rest of the day's business (which included workshops, questions and answers, and hustings for the party chair position, Cathaoirleach), the conference was opened by a series of short, sharp & to-the-point speeches by some of the "key people" in the Party. In my not so diligent notes I collected a variety of soundbites from these speeches, some more inspiring than others but all interesting in that each speaker set their own tone, employed their own particular rhetoric to push whatever message it was they felt most appropriate for what was really the first confrontation with the party membership since the election debacle, the controversial but unprecedented and exhilirating move to enter into government. As a result - a lot of tough punters to be won over, some work to be done in terms of rallying the troops, defending a decision which, despite the firm majority of 86.5% in favour, divided the party in no small way.
Mary White, TD, defended the move with no apologies and in no uncertain terms, calling it "progress" whilst lamenting the futility of "ideas without power". "Carpe Diem", she reminded us, "we have seized the day... We have abandoned the certainties of opposition" and a good thing too, for if we hadn't, "we should not call ourselves a political party, but a lobby group..." and finishing with a pointed flourish - "united we stand".
Dónall Geoghegan spoke briefly to emphasise the "educational job" we have, as well as to point out that the link between transport development and climate change cannot be ignored. Well, yes and no.
Next up - Everyone's favourite, Trevor Sargent, Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture - the first to qualify the good news with a reality check of sorts, mentioning that, with 6 vs. 78 in the Dail, there were inevitably going to be "an awful lot of bitter pills to swallow" (this essentially in response to the heckling from some disgruntled hardcore true-green members in the front row). What else did Trevor say? Ah yes, that food security is a huge concern and must be a priority, that Bali is going to be the big one in terms of a make-or-break radical campaign of action against climate change globally, and that all of us in the room better be growing our own fruit and veg (in a slightly patronising tone, with a hint of menace) because we wouldn't want to be seen to be telling the general public to do it if our own members aren't leading by example, now would we? Also - forget intercultural dialogue, turns out 2008 is the year of the Potato, which for Ireland is, of course, a seriously big deal.
The ubiquitous John Gormley, party Leader & Minister of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, spoke next. Firstly to denounce what he described as the excessive "negativity" in the room he was sensing, and then, presumably in an attempt to turn things around, embarked on a lyrical exaltation of our acheivements and their significance. "We have stepped up to the plate.... displayed leadership and courage", and in slightly plainer terms, in case anyone was still unconvinced, "we a doing a good job! We have delivered and we will continue to deliver!" followed by a litany of ways in which we have and are delivering, e.g. green paper on local reforms, etc.
So while Mary celebrated the political advances, Trevor put it all into perspective, and JG lavished on the majestic terms, Eamon Ryan, Minister of the Department of Communications; Energy and Natural Resources, brought things back to basics, to fundamentals.
In a bit of a Gordon Brown-style autobiographical anecdote, he mentioned a particular time in his schoolboy days when he suddenly came to understand the complexity of the world, the "web of life", that the earth is "breathing, it has flows, its own regulatory system..." etc. He described this epiphany as a great "moment of clarity" and if anyone sitting in the audience needed to be reminded why they were here, I think his approach provided this most succinctly, most elegantly and in the most fundamental of terms.
For me, it was not an answer to a question I had been asking myself explicitly, but a moment of realisation. Or rather, a further step in a process of realisation that has been ongoing ever since I first joined the Young Greens on my university campus 3 years ago this month.
Bringing things back to our role, our place in government, Ryan alluded to the lefty bandit-style of politics and view of social justice, that consists of "taking power to give power back". An end to be acheived not through "Revolution, but parliamentary democracy" - something that was later contested during the ensuing debates, but obviously we have not joined a government so as we can subsequently overthrow it. We are now officially playing the game.
All in all it was a day marked by criticism and acclaim. Overshadowing the jubilant mood of the coalition honeymoon were the recent attacks from Labour (The Greens are refusing to take responsibility for anything), the jibes from the socialist workers camp (the Greens have sold out and gone back on everything they ever stood for) and indeed the fierce condemnations from the rank & file, Cllr Chris O'Leary, for example, seemed to speak for all the unhappy grassroots members, who see the party morphing into something quite different, and don't like it one bit.
Despite the bitter pills being forced down their throats however, John G & co did manage to turn things around, and the angry mob were soothed and pacified by their reassuring words, their slick discourse and "cute" demeanour. Looks like they really have all turned into excellent politicians, for better or worse.
The accusation of "selling out" is a tricky one, and one which I fear will not go away, and it's so sad that the majority and the most virulent of attacks seem to be coming from other left-wing parties or groups. But I suppose that's rivalry, and indeed that's politics, the way it always will be - no matter who you vote for, somehow the government always gets in.
Nevertheless. This is now a gouvernment of which at least 6 members know the value of a good, deep breath of fresh air.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
We are not made of sugar
Clockwise from top - The Czech, the Armenian, the Romanian, the Macedonian and the Albanian whom, much to my distress, I bid farewell to in the very early hours of yesterday morning as we all went or seperate ways from Krakow. This, after having spent a week setting the world to rights with regards to the question of ethnic minorities and many other matters besides, in accordance with the Young Greens doctrine, along with participants from such places as Turkey, Bosnia, Malta, Ukraine & Georgia.
I was intrigued to meet all the faces behind the lengthy, complicated names I'd been drafting visa letters for, but I have to say, I never suspected to have my expectations exceeded to such an extent.
Thank you to the best bunch of politically incorrect neo-degenerates I've ever had the privelege to encounter. For everything you taught me and the countless times you made me laugh. I feel as if my heart has shifted East, and soon hopefully, so will the rest of me.
Monday, July 30, 2007
For those who might not be aware, 2006 was the year of worker mobility.
2008 will be the year of intercultural dialogue.
2007 would appear entirely void of symbolic significance - oh, except that it marks 40 years since the decriminalisation of homosexuality, in the UK.
In light of this, it seems rather fitting that one of my main tasks at the FYEG office last week was to draft and edit a letter to the Croatian prime minister, in the aftermath of the Zagreb Pride march, some weeks ago. The letter in full has been published here, and the European Green Party have also issued a press release about it on their website.
Zagreb is the most recent in a string of incidents related to Gay Pride events in Eastern and South Eastern Europe over the past few months. Marches have taken place in Moscow, Warsaw, Riga, Zagreb, etc - all with varying degrees of counter-demonstration and reactions of varying hostility. None, however, have been entirely without violence, abuse. This coupled with the implicit nods from the gouvernment who refuse to actually call the attacks hate crimes is a worrying state of affairs, especially in countries that are now full EU members.
My "boss" Judith Verweijen, office coordinator of FYEG has attended a number of marches in areas such as these, and I'd recommend a look at her blog if you're interested in a good description of the kind of climate that accompanies such events, it's quite an eye-opening evaluation, detailling, for instance, how protestors were often escorted out of the city after the march for fear "releasing" them back into the public way would inevitably endanger their lives.
At this stage, very early stage of acceptance, it is not a question of sexual preference, it is first and foremost a fundamentally political issue. Rights are rights, and oppression is oppression, whomsoever is directly concerned and targeted, because where it exists, it touches everything, it is pervasive of all areas of life, and it dictates & sets a very distinct tone and climate. This is why solidarity is so important, whether with minorities, women, the handicapped, under-priveleged, any particular race or religion... it's not fighting someone else's fight, it's fighting your own because making a stand against discrimination is an action in its own right and has far wider implications than any one small segment of society's battle. As the final part of our letter stresses in no uncertain terms...
And its such an important point for the Greens especially because it hangs on all those core issues, equality, freedom, civil liberties, dignity, respect - and it's about shifting paradigms and changing mindsets and if anyone is aware of how important and how feasible that is, it's the Greens, because being so progressive is what sets them apart from all the other political "families".
It's true. In glorious Western Europe we do now have widepsread tolerance framed in law, and many other nations are following suit. But complacency is enemy number one, and you can still detect little things that
aren't right. Like Chris Moyles using "Gay" as an insult, to 5 million listeners at 7AM in the morning. And nobody is more aware of these little things, than the people who are most entitled to feel aggrieved by them - the gay demographic.
Philip Hensher of The Independent writes: "It used to be commonplace to read newspaper articles extolling the virtues of the gay best friend for the girl about town who wants to choose some new cushions. Now that
it has dawned on even the most slow-witted of lady columnists how very offensive that is, its been replaced by articles asking what there is for gay people to complain about how they've got everything they ever asked for."
Clearly these columnists (I'll leave aside the misogynistic overtones) have never been to a Gay Pride March in the Balkans. Sometimes it is an honest lack of knowledge about how immense the disparity is between countries when it comes to same-sex policy.
Or sometimes it's just a new, perhaps even more malevolent kind of homophobia. Like the perfectly vile Alain Soral, who is definitely top 5 on my hit list at the moment, asking one gay man what his problem was because "You would love to think that there's opposition, but the truth is - nobody has a problem with you anymore" and calling it a "faux debat" (false debate). Not only is it flagrantly untrue, it's obscenely offensive. WHO IS HE to say it, anyway?!
Some of these MEPs are good at that as well, as in a recent debate on Homophobia at the in Strasbourg, a certain Dutch female MEP rose to give an impassioned tirade against those in the chamber who felt that homophobia shouldn't be discussed about in the European Parliament plenary. "You can be for or against," she said, "But don't tell us we're not allowed to talk about this - do not distort the debate!"
2008 will be the year of intercultural dialogue.
2007 would appear entirely void of symbolic significance - oh, except that it marks 40 years since the decriminalisation of homosexuality, in the UK.
In light of this, it seems rather fitting that one of my main tasks at the FYEG office last week was to draft and edit a letter to the Croatian prime minister, in the aftermath of the Zagreb Pride march, some weeks ago. The letter in full has been published here, and the European Green Party have also issued a press release about it on their website.
Zagreb is the most recent in a string of incidents related to Gay Pride events in Eastern and South Eastern Europe over the past few months. Marches have taken place in Moscow, Warsaw, Riga, Zagreb, etc - all with varying degrees of counter-demonstration and reactions of varying hostility. None, however, have been entirely without violence, abuse. This coupled with the implicit nods from the gouvernment who refuse to actually call the attacks hate crimes is a worrying state of affairs, especially in countries that are now full EU members.
My "boss" Judith Verweijen, office coordinator of FYEG has attended a number of marches in areas such as these, and I'd recommend a look at her blog if you're interested in a good description of the kind of climate that accompanies such events, it's quite an eye-opening evaluation, detailling, for instance, how protestors were often escorted out of the city after the march for fear "releasing" them back into the public way would inevitably endanger their lives.
At this stage, very early stage of acceptance, it is not a question of sexual preference, it is first and foremost a fundamentally political issue. Rights are rights, and oppression is oppression, whomsoever is directly concerned and targeted, because where it exists, it touches everything, it is pervasive of all areas of life, and it dictates & sets a very distinct tone and climate. This is why solidarity is so important, whether with minorities, women, the handicapped, under-priveleged, any particular race or religion... it's not fighting someone else's fight, it's fighting your own because making a stand against discrimination is an action in its own right and has far wider implications than any one small segment of society's battle. As the final part of our letter stresses in no uncertain terms...
We sincerely hope that you share our profound conviction that there can be no freedom where people, especially those belonging to vulnerable minorities, exist in conditions of injustice, intolerance and fear... Therefore, we urge you, Mr. Prime Minister, and the Croatian government to firmly and publicly condemn the homophobic attacks at and after Zagreb PRIDE and to urgently take the necessary measures to promote the full respect of the inalienable European values of equality, non discrimination, and freedom of expression throughout Croatian society.
And its such an important point for the Greens especially because it hangs on all those core issues, equality, freedom, civil liberties, dignity, respect - and it's about shifting paradigms and changing mindsets and if anyone is aware of how important and how feasible that is, it's the Greens, because being so progressive is what sets them apart from all the other political "families".
It's true. In glorious Western Europe we do now have widepsread tolerance framed in law, and many other nations are following suit. But complacency is enemy number one, and you can still detect little things that
aren't right. Like Chris Moyles using "Gay" as an insult, to 5 million listeners at 7AM in the morning. And nobody is more aware of these little things, than the people who are most entitled to feel aggrieved by them - the gay demographic.
Philip Hensher of The Independent writes: "It used to be commonplace to read newspaper articles extolling the virtues of the gay best friend for the girl about town who wants to choose some new cushions. Now that
it has dawned on even the most slow-witted of lady columnists how very offensive that is, its been replaced by articles asking what there is for gay people to complain about how they've got everything they ever asked for."
Clearly these columnists (I'll leave aside the misogynistic overtones) have never been to a Gay Pride March in the Balkans. Sometimes it is an honest lack of knowledge about how immense the disparity is between countries when it comes to same-sex policy.
Or sometimes it's just a new, perhaps even more malevolent kind of homophobia. Like the perfectly vile Alain Soral, who is definitely top 5 on my hit list at the moment, asking one gay man what his problem was because "You would love to think that there's opposition, but the truth is - nobody has a problem with you anymore" and calling it a "faux debat" (false debate). Not only is it flagrantly untrue, it's obscenely offensive. WHO IS HE to say it, anyway?!
Some of these MEPs are good at that as well, as in a recent debate on Homophobia at the in Strasbourg, a certain Dutch female MEP rose to give an impassioned tirade against those in the chamber who felt that homophobia shouldn't be discussed about in the European Parliament plenary. "You can be for or against," she said, "But don't tell us we're not allowed to talk about this - do not distort the debate!"
Friday, July 27, 2007
Everybody loves a circus...
Next week marks the tearful farewell to the European Parliament, as my second internship draws to a close. From Socialists in Strasbourg to Greens in Brussels, the experience has been entirely enriching, if not entirely consistent. (NB. in case anyone feels as if they've missed something, a blog entry giving my reasons for my treachery is currently in the works, as I try to think of enough reasons to justify myself).
Given that I'm now no longer dependant upon the Parliament's presence in Strasbourg for a job, I'm at last free of any vested interets and able to take a more impartial, or critical, view on the matter. But I can only imagine the fallout following Sarkozy shooting down the by now rather formidable attempts to reform the double-seat structure of the EP and the monthly trek backwards & forwards it entails (the "travelling circus" as its been endearingly dubbed). The One Seat campaign, has gathered an impressive million+ signatures, MEPs themselves are generally rather influential people but this something that they just can't seem to budge. And as we know, Sarkozy is not one for beating around the bush, he doesn't say ask me later, he just says No. Never. Not now, not in a million years. cf. Turkish accession, for exemple. So much for the bold reformer, but he certainly has a knack for bold outright rejection. No no no. Veto veto veto.
And yet, there had been high hopes, hopeful whispers that Sarkozy, for all his sins, was a progressive-thinker, a moderniser, in favour of moving forward. In favour, even, of efficiency, time-saving, and good old-fashioned common sense. But of course it wasn't long before those aspirations bit the dust, and Sarkozy went as far as reaffirming the symbolic status of Strasbourg - of franco-german reconciliation, of European unity. I didn't write down the exact quote, but it was something along the lines of: discussing Strasbourg would amount to discussing the very basis of Europe - the precarious equilibria on which it is founded. "L'Europe - ca ne se discute pas." We won't mention of course, the arrogance and inaccuracy of talking about "Europe" as a whole, as opposed to the EU.
I find it difficult to grasp what exactly he's refering to, what this immobile, unchanging, eternal foundation consists of, in his eyes. If he is refering to the nature of the founding agreement, t
he ideas on which Political Europe was built in its very early stages, what are we basing ourselves on, exactly? A strictly economic mutually beneficial agreement between 6 small nations on matters relating solely to coal and steel production? Oh the unbridled idealism!
Or perhaps he's referring to more recent history, which if anything shows just how malleable & transient the EU structures are, if you take a look at all the changes, structural reforms, upheaval, enlargement, twists & turns over the past 10 to 20 years.
This all would seem to suggest that the foundations, like the borders, are entirely up the discussion, in fact, what is the EU if not one long discussion, negotiation, compromise, to claim it as static at the base is as nonsensical as suggesting the political consensus in general is. When has anything political ever be set in stone, least of all something in constant evolution, progressing by trial & error, like the european project.
Sarkozy can call the shots on his own turf, and we've already seen he isn't shy about doing so. But the EU forum necessitates a little more "give" even among the big players. Now that my internship contract has been safely brought to term, I'm quite happy to deplore the Strasbourg Circus like the rest of them. The arguments generally fall into 3 main categories:
I suspect the majority of the dissenting voices are spurred on in their crusade by the sheer inconvenience inccured, while the Greens highlight the carbon footprint aspect. It distresses them a lot, firstly because of the C02 munching involved, but also because of the hypocrisy - the EU presents itself as a leader in envrionmental policy but fails to lead by example.
And it's not all a lot of hot air, either. Numerous reports have been published stating exact facts and figures about energy consumption, of which this one by the Greens-EFA group appears to be the most concise, compact and comprehensive
For me the issue is less than clear-cut. Yes the waste of energy is a scandal, but it's a scandal that's been going on for a while now, so a lot of people have gotten used to it. Also, having just finished my erasmus year in Strasbourg, I have to say the town does now occupy a special place in my heart, which prevents me from dismissing the whole idea as entirely stupid. And God knows what we'd do with that awful building... european college, museum, science park, circus anyone?
Given that I'm now no longer dependant upon the Parliament's presence in Strasbourg for a job, I'm at last free of any vested interets and able to take a more impartial, or critical, view on the matter. But I can only imagine the fallout following Sarkozy shooting down the by now rather formidable attempts to reform the double-seat structure of the EP and the monthly trek backwards & forwards it entails (the "travelling circus" as its been endearingly dubbed). The One Seat campaign, has gathered an impressive million+ signatures, MEPs themselves are generally rather influential people but this something that they just can't seem to budge. And as we know, Sarkozy is not one for beating around the bush, he doesn't say ask me later, he just says No. Never. Not now, not in a million years. cf. Turkish accession, for exemple. So much for the bold reformer, but he certainly has a knack for bold outright rejection. No no no. Veto veto veto.
And yet, there had been high hopes, hopeful whispers that Sarkozy, for all his sins, was a progressive-thinker, a moderniser, in favour of moving forward. In favour, even, of efficiency, time-saving, and good old-fashioned common sense. But of course it wasn't long before those aspirations bit the dust, and Sarkozy went as far as reaffirming the symbolic status of Strasbourg - of franco-german reconciliation, of European unity. I didn't write down the exact quote, but it was something along the lines of: discussing Strasbourg would amount to discussing the very basis of Europe - the precarious equilibria on which it is founded. "L'Europe - ca ne se discute pas." We won't mention of course, the arrogance and inaccuracy of talking about "Europe" as a whole, as opposed to the EU.
I find it difficult to grasp what exactly he's refering to, what this immobile, unchanging, eternal foundation consists of, in his eyes. If he is refering to the nature of the founding agreement, t
he ideas on which Political Europe was built in its very early stages, what are we basing ourselves on, exactly? A strictly economic mutually beneficial agreement between 6 small nations on matters relating solely to coal and steel production? Oh the unbridled idealism!Or perhaps he's referring to more recent history, which if anything shows just how malleable & transient the EU structures are, if you take a look at all the changes, structural reforms, upheaval, enlargement, twists & turns over the past 10 to 20 years.
This all would seem to suggest that the foundations, like the borders, are entirely up the discussion, in fact, what is the EU if not one long discussion, negotiation, compromise, to claim it as static at the base is as nonsensical as suggesting the political consensus in general is. When has anything political ever be set in stone, least of all something in constant evolution, progressing by trial & error, like the european project.
Sarkozy can call the shots on his own turf, and we've already seen he isn't shy about doing so. But the EU forum necessitates a little more "give" even among the big players. Now that my internship contract has been safely brought to term, I'm quite happy to deplore the Strasbourg Circus like the rest of them. The arguments generally fall into 3 main categories:
- The cost issue - tax payers money argument costing them 200million euro a year alledgedly
- The environmental and carbon footprint issue
- The plain hassle & bother issue
I suspect the majority of the dissenting voices are spurred on in their crusade by the sheer inconvenience inccured, while the Greens highlight the carbon footprint aspect. It distresses them a lot, firstly because of the C02 munching involved, but also because of the hypocrisy - the EU presents itself as a leader in envrionmental policy but fails to lead by example.
And it's not all a lot of hot air, either. Numerous reports have been published stating exact facts and figures about energy consumption, of which this one by the Greens-EFA group appears to be the most concise, compact and comprehensive
For me the issue is less than clear-cut. Yes the waste of energy is a scandal, but it's a scandal that's been going on for a while now, so a lot of people have gotten used to it. Also, having just finished my erasmus year in Strasbourg, I have to say the town does now occupy a special place in my heart, which prevents me from dismissing the whole idea as entirely stupid. And God knows what we'd do with that awful building... european college, museum, science park, circus anyone?
Sunday, July 15, 2007
We hold these truths to be self-evident, or at least - we should
You'd be forgiven, after last week, for suffering from a touch of "concerts for a cause" fatigue, what with the Princess Diana concert so closely followed by Live Earth, and the echo of Live 8 still ringing in the not so distant past.
With Live Earth, along with such trendy campaigns as MTV Switch, Pop culture meets environmentalism, in much the same way as it met poverty during Live 8 in 2005, just as it had two decades before. Good intentions, I think we can safely assme, I'm just not quite convinced about their methods yet.
The main focus appears to be raising awareness, rather than asking outright for donations. Clearly, the music industry believes it has a special & unique power for good, that it can use at will to alter the public consciousness, to stir up outrage and outcry, to summon support, or in some cases dissent. But ultimately, in the case of live 8 for example, it's poverty-fighting organisations like Oxfam & others who put in the groundwork, who actually get food to people who are starving, who actually ACT rather than wallow in their heightened state of musically-inspired awareness. And to do that, they need the funds, whether from private donations or public gouvernment spending money. That's how it works. In theory.
But climate change isn't a charity. It's a problem of a radically different nature and as such merits a good deal of reflection on how it should be tackled most effectively. Yes awarenesss needs to be raised, yes it needs a higher profile, and yes hearts and minds do need to be won. But the similarities end there.
This is not a problem that money can solve. Poverty, if in theory rather than in practice, is. Even if it's not sustainable to try to solve it in the way the Western world currently is, and even if the systems in place are inherently flawed and unfair. It does not, technically, necessitate a complete overhaul of our industry, of our conception of growth and progress, of our daily household & personal habits. Maybe it should, but no earthly force is going to bring about that transformation. In the case of Global warming, perhaps one just might.
Trevor Nelson, one of the presenters, said it was nice to have someone more informal than Al Gore, in his suit and tie, pushing the message of environmentalism. But are they really? Isn't this another cause? Like Diana gig, only days before, and all of live8, celebrities latch onto a cause brought to the forefront of public consciousness – they don't put it there! and the vast majority of them it seems, are also completely incapable of talking about the subject in any kind of remotely articulate terms. And they're hardly about to convince people of anything if they don't even appear to know why they're there. And even if they did, I wouldn't hold my breath.
I'm not saying their intentions aren't golden, or that their hearts aren't in the right places, I'm just really not convinced that this is the way to save the planet.
And it doesn't really impress me either, to see Russel Brand making sarcastic cracks about feeding baby rhinos. Surely one of the most basic of token efforts made by these "celebrities" ought to be to take the whole thing seriously at least, especially given the lack of consensus (political, not scientific) on the subject.
That's not to say of course, that one can't take a light-hearted approach, or have a sense of humour about it all. Those science twins managed that pretty well:
"Skeptics say global warming is being caused by... The SUN
Answer: Get rid of the sun.
Aviation is responsible for much of the CO2 emissions
but you don't care - because holidays are nice.
Cars are responsible for pollution and also CO2 emissions
but you don't care - because public transport is for poor people.
Etc."
Especially with a question that potentially involves so much science, there's nothing wrong with bringing it back to basics, making sense of it all, and putting it in rational terms. Surely this format is the most effective way of changing attitudes and changing habits, when seeking to adress "the general public".
But beyond eliciting a few laughs with ironic quips, how do you actually entice them into actually doing anything, in concrete terms? To me it seems the most straightforward approach is to translate these large principles into actions and rationalise those actions in terms that make them appear self-evident. Everyone's come across these lists of things you can do to play your part, and so here's my selection, complete with what's in it for you.
Some Golden rules...
- switch the light off – pay less on your electricity bill
- print on both sides – less to be carried around
- with as many pages as you can possibly squint to read on one sheet – less ink and paper gets used up, less frequently needs replacing
- if the windows are open, the heating should be off – should stop you wasting money on heating bill
- unless the heat is completely unbearable, give air conditioning a miss – you won't get an AC cold, and you'll acclimatise much quicker
- sack the tumble dryer - ruins your clothes, surely everybody knows that?
- recycle, obviously – well there's just no excuse not to in this day and age, is there?
- boycott stuff with too much packaging (i.e. if you can buy loose fruit vs. in a package, you know which to go for) – less trash, always agreeable
- always remember to bring your trusty reusable bag out shopping – chance to show off how trendy/well-travelled/politically active you are, depending on your choice of bag
- cut down the carbon miles, buy local – shopping at markets is a soul-restoring exercice
- buy fairtrade – generally lovely, great quality stuff
- support companies that are making an effort, boycott the ones that clearly aren't – gives you a (misplaced) feeling of control and influence
- boycott the evil multinationals - it might not save the whales but it'll help you sleep at night, and probably avoid obseity as well
- turn the red light off (i.e. don't leave appliances on standby) – again, will help you sleep at night, those things are annoying...
- don't rush to flush if it's just a... you know the rest – erm...
- take the bus, tram, bike or walk – people-watching. enough said. often quicker and cheaper, too. and the latter two are much healthier.
- stop moaning about wind farms – they're lovely, end of.
- and finally, the one I almost can't bring myself to say... try not to fly, unless it's completely necessary – sorry, no benefits. or redeeming aspects. at all. whatsoever. apparently you can meet interesting people on long gruelling international bus journeys, but I'm far from convinced.
What is the blatant correlation that emerges? Environmentally-friendly equals enhanced quality of life, equals more ethical work practices, often equals greater social justice, almost always equals simply a more humane way of living. For that, we first need to push away the dodgy alternative we're being fed, and maybe that requires something of a small revolution.
And who should start that revolution? Answer – the people who usually start revolutions. Leaders, to Politicians. The ones to come, rather than the ones we have. Those who acknowledge the problem, who are informed about it, and most importantly who are willing and brave enough to begin the trend that others will follow – Taking personal responsibility for our actions. This is critical – in the context of Globalisation and I mean that in the sense of the emergence of problems on a global scale. Inescapably, it implies a new conception of multilateral negotiating between states, a new conception of cooperation.
When the planet is under threat, it can no longer be each nation for themselves. Rather it has to be about multilateralism, unity and shared responsibility. I know the word makes me sound like an old lefty Trot but solidarity. No longer an aspiration, it may well turn out to be a precondition of the preservation of our species. And shame on those nations who appear still not to have grasped this obvious transformation, who it appears, want to push backwards the precarious progress that has been made thus far – naming no names Sweden with its threatening noises about leaving the EU, or Britain with its blunt refusals to make any concessions or sacrifices to anyone, ever. But why should they, I mean they used to rule over a third of the world. Try reminding the population of that fact, Gordon Brown, when they're submerged under water, and see how much of a useful consolation it is. Oh wait, most of them already are.
We don't need Madonna gyrating on stage yet again, what we do need is the triumph of common sense (I know, how many times in history has that occurred – the outlook is bleak from the get-go) and a general realisation of what we're up against. Realisation of the collective influence of consumers. It's not complex, in fact the message should be as simple as a slap in the face.
Get your priorities sorted - everybody wins.
Except those afflicted with a love of planes...
This might not cure you, but it's a step in the right direction.
With Live Earth, along with such trendy campaigns as MTV Switch, Pop culture meets environmentalism, in much the same way as it met poverty during Live 8 in 2005, just as it had two decades before. Good intentions, I think we can safely assme, I'm just not quite convinced about their methods yet.
The main focus appears to be raising awareness, rather than asking outright for donations. Clearly, the music industry believes it has a special & unique power for good, that it can use at will to alter the public consciousness, to stir up outrage and outcry, to summon support, or in some cases dissent. But ultimately, in the case of live 8 for example, it's poverty-fighting organisations like Oxfam & others who put in the groundwork, who actually get food to people who are starving, who actually ACT rather than wallow in their heightened state of musically-inspired awareness. And to do that, they need the funds, whether from private donations or public gouvernment spending money. That's how it works. In theory.
But climate change isn't a charity. It's a problem of a radically different nature and as such merits a good deal of reflection on how it should be tackled most effectively. Yes awarenesss needs to be raised, yes it needs a higher profile, and yes hearts and minds do need to be won. But the similarities end there.
This is not a problem that money can solve. Poverty, if in theory rather than in practice, is. Even if it's not sustainable to try to solve it in the way the Western world currently is, and even if the systems in place are inherently flawed and unfair. It does not, technically, necessitate a complete overhaul of our industry, of our conception of growth and progress, of our daily household & personal habits. Maybe it should, but no earthly force is going to bring about that transformation. In the case of Global warming, perhaps one just might.
Trevor Nelson, one of the presenters, said it was nice to have someone more informal than Al Gore, in his suit and tie, pushing the message of environmentalism. But are they really? Isn't this another cause? Like Diana gig, only days before, and all of live8, celebrities latch onto a cause brought to the forefront of public consciousness – they don't put it there! and the vast majority of them it seems, are also completely incapable of talking about the subject in any kind of remotely articulate terms. And they're hardly about to convince people of anything if they don't even appear to know why they're there. And even if they did, I wouldn't hold my breath.
I'm not saying their intentions aren't golden, or that their hearts aren't in the right places, I'm just really not convinced that this is the way to save the planet.
And it doesn't really impress me either, to see Russel Brand making sarcastic cracks about feeding baby rhinos. Surely one of the most basic of token efforts made by these "celebrities" ought to be to take the whole thing seriously at least, especially given the lack of consensus (political, not scientific) on the subject.
That's not to say of course, that one can't take a light-hearted approach, or have a sense of humour about it all. Those science twins managed that pretty well:
"Skeptics say global warming is being caused by... The SUN
Answer: Get rid of the sun.
Aviation is responsible for much of the CO2 emissions
but you don't care - because holidays are nice.
Cars are responsible for pollution and also CO2 emissions
but you don't care - because public transport is for poor people.
Etc."
Especially with a question that potentially involves so much science, there's nothing wrong with bringing it back to basics, making sense of it all, and putting it in rational terms. Surely this format is the most effective way of changing attitudes and changing habits, when seeking to adress "the general public".
But beyond eliciting a few laughs with ironic quips, how do you actually entice them into actually doing anything, in concrete terms? To me it seems the most straightforward approach is to translate these large principles into actions and rationalise those actions in terms that make them appear self-evident. Everyone's come across these lists of things you can do to play your part, and so here's my selection, complete with what's in it for you.
Some Golden rules...
- switch the light off – pay less on your electricity bill
- print on both sides – less to be carried around
- with as many pages as you can possibly squint to read on one sheet – less ink and paper gets used up, less frequently needs replacing
- if the windows are open, the heating should be off – should stop you wasting money on heating bill
- unless the heat is completely unbearable, give air conditioning a miss – you won't get an AC cold, and you'll acclimatise much quicker
- sack the tumble dryer - ruins your clothes, surely everybody knows that?
- recycle, obviously – well there's just no excuse not to in this day and age, is there?
- boycott stuff with too much packaging (i.e. if you can buy loose fruit vs. in a package, you know which to go for) – less trash, always agreeable
- always remember to bring your trusty reusable bag out shopping – chance to show off how trendy/well-travelled/politically active you are, depending on your choice of bag
- cut down the carbon miles, buy local – shopping at markets is a soul-restoring exercice
- buy fairtrade – generally lovely, great quality stuff
- support companies that are making an effort, boycott the ones that clearly aren't – gives you a (misplaced) feeling of control and influence
- boycott the evil multinationals - it might not save the whales but it'll help you sleep at night, and probably avoid obseity as well
- turn the red light off (i.e. don't leave appliances on standby) – again, will help you sleep at night, those things are annoying...
- don't rush to flush if it's just a... you know the rest – erm...
- take the bus, tram, bike or walk – people-watching. enough said. often quicker and cheaper, too. and the latter two are much healthier.
- stop moaning about wind farms – they're lovely, end of.
- and finally, the one I almost can't bring myself to say... try not to fly, unless it's completely necessary – sorry, no benefits. or redeeming aspects. at all. whatsoever. apparently you can meet interesting people on long gruelling international bus journeys, but I'm far from convinced.
What is the blatant correlation that emerges? Environmentally-friendly equals enhanced quality of life, equals more ethical work practices, often equals greater social justice, almost always equals simply a more humane way of living. For that, we first need to push away the dodgy alternative we're being fed, and maybe that requires something of a small revolution.
And who should start that revolution? Answer – the people who usually start revolutions. Leaders, to Politicians. The ones to come, rather than the ones we have. Those who acknowledge the problem, who are informed about it, and most importantly who are willing and brave enough to begin the trend that others will follow – Taking personal responsibility for our actions. This is critical – in the context of Globalisation and I mean that in the sense of the emergence of problems on a global scale. Inescapably, it implies a new conception of multilateral negotiating between states, a new conception of cooperation.
When the planet is under threat, it can no longer be each nation for themselves. Rather it has to be about multilateralism, unity and shared responsibility. I know the word makes me sound like an old lefty Trot but solidarity. No longer an aspiration, it may well turn out to be a precondition of the preservation of our species. And shame on those nations who appear still not to have grasped this obvious transformation, who it appears, want to push backwards the precarious progress that has been made thus far – naming no names Sweden with its threatening noises about leaving the EU, or Britain with its blunt refusals to make any concessions or sacrifices to anyone, ever. But why should they, I mean they used to rule over a third of the world. Try reminding the population of that fact, Gordon Brown, when they're submerged under water, and see how much of a useful consolation it is. Oh wait, most of them already are.
We don't need Madonna gyrating on stage yet again, what we do need is the triumph of common sense (I know, how many times in history has that occurred – the outlook is bleak from the get-go) and a general realisation of what we're up against. Realisation of the collective influence of consumers. It's not complex, in fact the message should be as simple as a slap in the face.
Get your priorities sorted - everybody wins.
Except those afflicted with a love of planes...
This might not cure you, but it's a step in the right direction.
Monday, July 09, 2007
Daydream believer
Given that I'm now working full time at the European Parliament, rather than 3 days a month like I have been for most of the year, you might think I'd have no end of intellectually stimulating and politically cutting-edge tidbits to share with you. Not so.
I did to go a working group meeting (can't remember exactly what the name of the working group was, but it was mostly liberals so it was almost certainly something about rights of some sort) which the president of the EP Hans-gert Poettering had also been invited to, to talk about the place of religion in the EU (apparently a result of Poettering's recent invitation of the Pope to the EP which some members took exception to).
A couple of representatives of the British Humanist association were there aswell, which was very insightful. There's nothing like being presented with the voice of reason every once in a while. Would recommend a look at that, definitely.
Religion for me is a bit like patriotism in its various formes - flags and national anthems. In certain circumstances, and on certain special occasions, their appeal just proves too much to resist, especially where large groups of fellow beleivers/patriots are present, but common sense generally prevails in the end. I would rather describe myself as a fervent beleiver in the virtues of secularity, rather than a God-denier. Although I'm no agnostic. They're almost as bad as centrists (who as we well know, can barely make up their minds which side of bed to get out of in the morning).
One (religious) woman made an interesting point. Separation of church and state does is to be distinguished from the separation of religion and politics which, she claims, is impossible. Presumably because, we cannot remove religion from our politics, because it is one of the fundamental contributing factors that determines these politics, the convictions we hold. Unfortunately, I think she may be right.
But other than that brief foray into the murky world of the metaphysical, I've been mainly concerning myself with what I'll be missing this summer at all those festivals I won't be going to. So far, the investigation has been short of devastating. But here's one thing I came across which might be worth a look.
This is Kate Nash, 19, we'll call her baby Lily Allen. The similarities are rife. That strange gritty sweetness, an ethereal voice with a "butter wouldn't melt" melodious quality - but with words that are frankly rude, crude and unkind. Both representating the East London massive with their refreshingly sharp cockney diction, and both products of the Myspace revolution, not that that's anything to boast about (we'll refrain from recalling the horrors of Sandi Thom, also generated by the same cyber-process).
I can't speak for anything else she's done but as far as this track goes - I just can't stop playing it. I'm a big fan of believable lyrics, as in - sounding like they mean it. It's such a simple formula tune-wise, but it's the words, as if being sung through gritted teeth, and with a breaking voice, which manage to convey a kind of urgent sadness, of humble everyday existential angst. It doesn't have to be anything melodramatic, but songs that convey a particular mood and a feeling, especially an uncommon one are never without some merit. I dont have to identify with them either, just be drawn into it.
The fusion of a light-ish upbeat melody with lyrics that betray the tone entirely, that evoke implicitly or explicitly an acute sense of distress - is something we've encontered recently in James Morrisson's "Wonderful World" - ironic to the extreme. And in addition to the contrast, the words themselves. Tunes are one thing, but in my opinion one cannot over-emphasise the lasting impact of brilliant lyrics. Perhaps this is partly down to the reflection and acting that generally accompanies them, but I also think the language itself is pretty vital. Words that are continually a pleasure to hear and to say, that evoke and that surprise. Songs like "Rehab" by Amy Winehouse, most stuff by the Kaiser chiefs, and anything by Lily Allen - are made by their lyrics, and where the tunes are weak - are saved by them. Clever, witty, unexpected, often funny, & sometimes charming lyrics that roll off the tongue, that remind you that just occasionally music meets character, substance and story-telling.
And it doesn't have to be grandiose or momentous, moralising or philosophising, it can be about the most trivial of occurences as long as it strikes a chord with those who hear it. Songs that endure, for me, endure by their words and by their conviction.
Saturday, July 07, 2007
Released
Perhaps because I myself come from a dynasty of journalists that this issue struck a particular chord with me. There are no words to describe the sense relief and the admiration felt by myself and I'm sure a great many others, on july 4th, when Alan was first released after 114 days in captivity, and then went on to give a series of interviews and appearances on television and radio throughout the day. His release, like the man himself, comes as a glimmer of hope, amidst the turmoil of a situation that seems desperate and hopeless.
Le dernier mot
Various things appear to have gotten in the way of maintaining this blog. Exams, goodbyes, the usual initial holiday slump of inactivity... But now that my existance has resumed what might considered as some sort of rhythm, there's chances I might get more disciplined about it.
Perhaps it was after May 6th, the day when everything officially became possible, that I was too disheartened to face the prospect of political commenting for a while.
As a result, this should have been posted a good 2 months ago, and although the ship may have sailed (or yacht, whatever it was) I feel as if I should just put it up, if only for posterity.
The French election was eye-opening indeed, in terms of shedding some light on the French attitude vis-a-vis politics in general, or rather the act or "civil duty" of casting ones vote. The notion of people making the trip to the polls expressely to turn in a blank ballot (or "voter blanc") gave me something of an insight as regards the rapport with democracy the French in general seem to have - a very healthy one. This was evem recognised by the Independant, following the 1st round, which listed a number reasons why the french election was reassuring (makes a nice change, the media admitting everything might actually be going ok, rather than milking a perceived "crisis of representation" for all it's worth).
I have to say when I did check the results on May 6th, after putting it off for as long as I could, my heart sank, more than I was expecting, given the honest expectations of the outcome which I think were shared by most. The awful tragedy of such a close-run election (not in relative terms perhaps but 47-53 sounds fairly well proportioned to me) - 16,8 million people are dissappointed, are unhappy, are discontent, are afraid, are insensed at the result, all the way down the political spectrum.
In the aftermath, place de la bastille is burning, and the looks of absolute terror and dread in the eyes of some of he Segolene supporters make my blood run cold. Personally, I've been exile for about 2 weeks now. But what about them?
Millions upon millions of people who weren't convinced by this notion of swapping la "culture du partage" for the "culture de la croissance", the triumph of firmness over compassion, who felt uneasy about the appointment of a minister for "immigration & national identity", who saw through the scare-mongering, who questionned his blunt veto to Turkey, who were worried by an attitude to immigration that regards it as welcoming "toute la misere du monde" into the french territory, who anticipated the dangers of "zero tolerance" policy, and who questioned the threat of deconstruction of the social model (which sarko explicitly referred to when he asserted that people ought to be living off the products of their own work, not aids & benefits, because before we can distribute we need to create "la richesse" - absent in France, according to Sarko, when, as Olivier Besancenot frequently reminded us - there has never been so much wealth in France). What about us?
And what about the absolute scandal of people who don't even live in France being able to vote, while so many people who do and are directly affected are disenfranchised and unable to.
I deplore the people who voted for Sarko because they share in his vision of how to reform French society, but most of all I deplore the people who voted for him, despite twinges of fear, of unease, despite the alarm bells ringing at the back of their minds, because they told themselves "he won't be gouverning alone". Those who, it appears, are willing to let the country go up in flames, for whom the appeal of good firm leadership proved just too much to resist.
And I'm not saying the French haven't got a clue, on the contrary I think they're remarkably
well-informed, remarkably "conscious" politically, mobilised and rational, and I wouldn't insult the intelligence of the vast majority by insinuating that those who voted for Sarkozy aren't completely aware of what he stood for, down to the very fine details.
Sarkozy keeps claiming the French people have voted for change, for "la rupture", despite his party being the one that's been in power for the last 5 years. But this is entirely consistent with the general contradiction that has been running through his campaign right from the start, in his slogan as in some of his frequently offensive and bizarre statements. My personal favourite is his touching assertion that "People who beleive are people who hope".
Well M. Sarkozy, I'm no beleiver but I have, on occasion, been known to hope. I think the best we can hope for now, is that things will essentially stay the same.
I'll leave you with the sombre reactions of Liberation...
Perhaps it was after May 6th, the day when everything officially became possible, that I was too disheartened to face the prospect of political commenting for a while.
As a result, this should have been posted a good 2 months ago, and although the ship may have sailed (or yacht, whatever it was) I feel as if I should just put it up, if only for posterity.
The French election was eye-opening indeed, in terms of shedding some light on the French attitude vis-a-vis politics in general, or rather the act or "civil duty" of casting ones vote. The notion of people making the trip to the polls expressely to turn in a blank ballot (or "voter blanc") gave me something of an insight as regards the rapport with democracy the French in general seem to have - a very healthy one. This was evem recognised by the Independant, following the 1st round, which listed a number reasons why the french election was reassuring (makes a nice change, the media admitting everything might actually be going ok, rather than milking a perceived "crisis of representation" for all it's worth).
I have to say when I did check the results on May 6th, after putting it off for as long as I could, my heart sank, more than I was expecting, given the honest expectations of the outcome which I think were shared by most. The awful tragedy of such a close-run election (not in relative terms perhaps but 47-53 sounds fairly well proportioned to me) - 16,8 million people are dissappointed, are unhappy, are discontent, are afraid, are insensed at the result, all the way down the political spectrum.
In the aftermath, place de la bastille is burning, and the looks of absolute terror and dread in the eyes of some of he Segolene supporters make my blood run cold. Personally, I've been exile for about 2 weeks now. But what about them?
Millions upon millions of people who weren't convinced by this notion of swapping la "culture du partage" for the "culture de la croissance", the triumph of firmness over compassion, who felt uneasy about the appointment of a minister for "immigration & national identity", who saw through the scare-mongering, who questionned his blunt veto to Turkey, who were worried by an attitude to immigration that regards it as welcoming "toute la misere du monde" into the french territory, who anticipated the dangers of "zero tolerance" policy, and who questioned the threat of deconstruction of the social model (which sarko explicitly referred to when he asserted that people ought to be living off the products of their own work, not aids & benefits, because before we can distribute we need to create "la richesse" - absent in France, according to Sarko, when, as Olivier Besancenot frequently reminded us - there has never been so much wealth in France). What about us?
And what about the absolute scandal of people who don't even live in France being able to vote, while so many people who do and are directly affected are disenfranchised and unable to.
I deplore the people who voted for Sarko because they share in his vision of how to reform French society, but most of all I deplore the people who voted for him, despite twinges of fear, of unease, despite the alarm bells ringing at the back of their minds, because they told themselves "he won't be gouverning alone". Those who, it appears, are willing to let the country go up in flames, for whom the appeal of good firm leadership proved just too much to resist.
And I'm not saying the French haven't got a clue, on the contrary I think they're remarkably
well-informed, remarkably "conscious" politically, mobilised and rational, and I wouldn't insult the intelligence of the vast majority by insinuating that those who voted for Sarkozy aren't completely aware of what he stood for, down to the very fine details.
Sarkozy keeps claiming the French people have voted for change, for "la rupture", despite his party being the one that's been in power for the last 5 years. But this is entirely consistent with the general contradiction that has been running through his campaign right from the start, in his slogan as in some of his frequently offensive and bizarre statements. My personal favourite is his touching assertion that "People who beleive are people who hope".
Well M. Sarkozy, I'm no beleiver but I have, on occasion, been known to hope. I think the best we can hope for now, is that things will essentially stay the same.
I'll leave you with the sombre reactions of Liberation...
"There is great disappointment after so much fervour, so much passion and so much hope in renewal. France has made a clear choice... Nicolas Sarkozy is a legitimate president... The other France will seek compensation in the parliamentary election. In the meantime, sick at heart, it ponders defeat intent on hope in spite of it all... This setback should rouse the forces of
imagination and modernization, that bring together daring and reality. For its
part, Liberation embarks upon this task from today. The values of competition
have won the day but the values of solidarity and justice remain."
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Down to the wire
As I'm sure you're all aware, tomorrow the French go out and vote their new head of State in, it's been extremely well covered in the international press actually, I was pleasantly surprised. After the "premier tour" the Independant devoted its front page to the result, along with a lengthy analysis.
Anyway, in the spirit of useless last-minute appeals... The situation at this stage is hardly straightforward from my perspective, especially in light of my earlier brush with unbridled idealism. I mean obviously we don't want that liberalist demagogue in power and condemn, in the strongest terms, anyone who supports him. The TSS (Tout sauf Sarkozy) message, being fiercely pushed by the Young Greens for example, and indeed the anti-liberal Left, does strike me as unfortunately negative, and really the TPS (Tous Pour Segolene) alternative ultimately seeking the same upshot, seems like a more appealing stance. This is why I'll share with you something I came across during the last Parliament session, circulated by French socialist MEP Catherine Trautmann, which I think lays out the case for Sego quite comprehensibly.
Les Européens pour Ségolène Royal
Nous, parlementaires européens, apportons notre soutien à Ségolène Royal, candidate à la présidence de la République Française pour les motifs suivants:
- L'Europe a besoin de plus de démocratie et d'intégration politique. Nous ne voulons pas d'un mini traité européen négocié au sommet. Ségolène Royal s'engage à soumettre par référendum le texte du nouveau traité aux citoyens;
- L’Europe a besoin de garantir son modèle social, de lutter contre la pauvreté et favoriser l'accès de tous à l'emploi et à la connaissance. Ségolène Royal s’engage en faveur de la cohésion sociale et territoriale;
- L’Europe doit prendre la tête de la résistance au changement climatique. C’est une urgence planétaire. Ségolène Royal est une partenaire européenne crédible pour mettre en œuvre une politique de sobriété énergétique et favoriser les modes de transport les moins polluants;
- L'Europe a besoin d'un monde multipolaire, plus sûr et plus solidaire. Ségolène Royal s'engage à soutenir le développement équitable des pays du Sud et à faire respecter le droit international;
- L'Etat de droit, la démocratie et les droits de l'Homme sont au cœur des valeurs européennes. Ségolène Royal s'engage à lutter contre toutes les formes de violences et d'atteintes à la dignité humaine. Elle défend l'indépendance de la justice et l'Etat impartial. Avec elle, nous faisons le pari de l'intelligence collective des citoyens et de leur participation, en France et en Europe, pour faire progresser la vie des Européens.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Le moment de verité
It was over the course of the various legs of my journey from Strasbourg to Dublin yesterday, that I finalised my position, albeit merely a theoretical one, with regards to the imminent premier tour of the french presidentiel election. It's a shame I haven't been able to comment more about it, which is mainly down to a lack of research on my part, something I belatedly attempted to remedy as I set off on my travels armed with a stack of lefty press and a lot of time to kill.
In the spirit of optimism, of not being strategic or playing the game, and approaching the premier tour without the spectre of the second overshadowing it, in a rather strange turn of events I've abandoned my affiliations, shallow as they are, with the Jeunes Socialistes in favour of a strange, distant & seldom-visited place, and where my fundamental beliefs truly lie - la gauche anti-libérale. As Politis laments however, we have not one candidate representing this camp, but three. I certainly don't know all there is to know about Marie-Georges Buffet, Olivier Besancenot, or José Bové, however based on that which I have learned, it's the latter, the alter-mondialiste, who gets my non-vote. A definition of voting which has been put forward in the past, and on which there appears to be consensus, although I compltely disagree with it, is the notion that voting is equivalent to, or signifies - giving an opinion. Personally I don't think voting, generally speaking, has anything to do with giving an opinion, rather with making a choice from a highly constrained range of options with a pre-determined spectrum, a compromise. But I suppose it depends what way you vote. Strategic voting, for Segolene in my case, would certainly have nothing to do with my opinions, or only a very little. Bové on the other hand, gets a little bit closer. A vote based on ideals, on aspirations, on hope.
In Politis, Bernard Langlois rationalises this "vote of conviction" (as opposed to the "useful vote") in the following terms:
In the spirit of optimism, of not being strategic or playing the game, and approaching the premier tour without the spectre of the second overshadowing it, in a rather strange turn of events I've abandoned my affiliations, shallow as they are, with the Jeunes Socialistes in favour of a strange, distant & seldom-visited place, and where my fundamental beliefs truly lie - la gauche anti-libérale. As Politis laments however, we have not one candidate representing this camp, but three. I certainly don't know all there is to know about Marie-Georges Buffet, Olivier Besancenot, or José Bové, however based on that which I have learned, it's the latter, the alter-mondialiste, who gets my non-vote. A definition of voting which has been put forward in the past, and on which there appears to be consensus, although I compltely disagree with it, is the notion that voting is equivalent to, or signifies - giving an opinion. Personally I don't think voting, generally speaking, has anything to do with giving an opinion, rather with making a choice from a highly constrained range of options with a pre-determined spectrum, a compromise. But I suppose it depends what way you vote. Strategic voting, for Segolene in my case, would certainly have nothing to do with my opinions, or only a very little. Bové on the other hand, gets a little bit closer. A vote based on ideals, on aspirations, on hope.
In Politis, Bernard Langlois rationalises this "vote of conviction" (as opposed to the "useful vote") in the following terms:
After April 22nd, no doubt this small parenthesis of misplaced idealism will be brought to an abrupt close, and I'll be brought sharply back to the reality of the situation, back to strategy and playing´the game, in short - back to politics."Ce candidat est celui qui exprime au plus prés ce que je crois? Je vote pour lui, même si je sais qu'il n'a aucune chance de figurer au second tour. C'est ainsi que je fais progresser les idées auxquelles je tiens, que j'apporte ma pierre a la construction d'une Cité moins ignoble que celle ou nous sommes contraints de vivre, que je donne une visibilité plus grande a une autre monde possible. N'est-ce pas se conduire de la façon la plus démocratique?"
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Unhappy Birthday
It may not quite top the list, but when it comes to things I really don't feel like thinking or talking about, Iraq is definitely up there.
I've just had it up to here with it.
I'd had it up to here with Iraq days after it began, when gigs were getting cancelled, shortly before the whole world went mental. A grossly unsatisfactory situation redeemed only by the novelty of being able to throw the word "war" around in a current context. And the obscene flippancy isn't quite so lost on me today.
So I did sit through that special edition of question time, on the occasion of the fourth anniversary, and listened to the whole thing. Only just. It featured, of course, the token pro-war american diplomat, the fiercely anti-war Tony Benn, some idiot from the conservative party, and the former prime minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto, a less obvious choice perhaps, but I felt she spoke the most sense out of any of them. Tony Benn is of course my hero for life, I've heard him speak in person at a conference I went to last year, and it was fantastically inspiring, however in this situation his rhetoric was just a bit too caricatured I felt, and instead of being involved in the argument most of the panel (especially the yank) just ignored him.
Even more interesting, however, and more harrowing also, was the input of the audience, which included iraqis, people of other middle-eastern nationalities, and people who's lost friends and relatives in the war such as one woman whose son was killed while serving.
Her comment, "I'm proud of my son but ashamed of my gouvernment for sending him to Iraq," struck me as bizarre. This sounds like something an American would say. I'm not being funny, and I hate to generalise, but I remember after Lewinsky-gate americans saying things like "I feel ashamed of our president" as if he was a close relative or something, and it sounded odd to me then and still does now. English people, on the other hand, generally don't tend to feel ashamed of their politicians - they hammer them into the ground, they jump down their throats and are the first to condemn them, they don't stand beside them and accept partial responsability for their idiocy! Which, if you ask me, is a far healthier approach.
Isn't that the whole point behind the opposition, the anti-war coalitions, the mass demonstrations and the endless outrage - that are all summed up in the seminal dictum - Not in our name.
I don't think the Brits have any call to feel ashamed for the actions of their government, anymore than Iraqis do for the those of Saddam Hussein.
Why the association? Why the apologism? Whence the shared responsibility? To whom is this misguided loyalty felt to be owed and why? I am not "ashamed" of Tony Blair for supporting Bush and sending troops to Iraq, I'm not ashamed of Bertie Ahern and the Irish government for letting american planes land in Shannon, I'm not ashamed of the people who defend them, who advocate imperialistic regime change and who continue to justify the whole wretched process. I'm outraged and incensed by it. I was outraged 4 years ago, and I'm still outraged today.
Watch last Thursday's edition of Question Time
Tony Benn's Stop the War coalition
Because I will never have recommended it enough, Baghdad Burning.
I've just had it up to here with it.
I'd had it up to here with Iraq days after it began, when gigs were getting cancelled, shortly before the whole world went mental. A grossly unsatisfactory situation redeemed only by the novelty of being able to throw the word "war" around in a current context. And the obscene flippancy isn't quite so lost on me today.
So I did sit through that special edition of question time, on the occasion of the fourth anniversary, and listened to the whole thing. Only just. It featured, of course, the token pro-war american diplomat, the fiercely anti-war Tony Benn, some idiot from the conservative party, and the former prime minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto, a less obvious choice perhaps, but I felt she spoke the most sense out of any of them. Tony Benn is of course my hero for life, I've heard him speak in person at a conference I went to last year, and it was fantastically inspiring, however in this situation his rhetoric was just a bit too caricatured I felt, and instead of being involved in the argument most of the panel (especially the yank) just ignored him.
Even more interesting, however, and more harrowing also, was the input of the audience, which included iraqis, people of other middle-eastern nationalities, and people who's lost friends and relatives in the war such as one woman whose son was killed while serving.
Her comment, "I'm proud of my son but ashamed of my gouvernment for sending him to Iraq," struck me as bizarre. This sounds like something an American would say. I'm not being funny, and I hate to generalise, but I remember after Lewinsky-gate americans saying things like "I feel ashamed of our president" as if he was a close relative or something, and it sounded odd to me then and still does now. English people, on the other hand, generally don't tend to feel ashamed of their politicians - they hammer them into the ground, they jump down their throats and are the first to condemn them, they don't stand beside them and accept partial responsability for their idiocy! Which, if you ask me, is a far healthier approach.
Isn't that the whole point behind the opposition, the anti-war coalitions, the mass demonstrations and the endless outrage - that are all summed up in the seminal dictum - Not in our name.
I don't think the Brits have any call to feel ashamed for the actions of their government, anymore than Iraqis do for the those of Saddam Hussein.
Why the association? Why the apologism? Whence the shared responsibility? To whom is this misguided loyalty felt to be owed and why? I am not "ashamed" of Tony Blair for supporting Bush and sending troops to Iraq, I'm not ashamed of Bertie Ahern and the Irish government for letting american planes land in Shannon, I'm not ashamed of the people who defend them, who advocate imperialistic regime change and who continue to justify the whole wretched process. I'm outraged and incensed by it. I was outraged 4 years ago, and I'm still outraged today.
Watch last Thursday's edition of Question Time
Tony Benn's Stop the War coalition
Because I will never have recommended it enough, Baghdad Burning.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Thanksgiving
A gold star for the BBC for not being on a complete downer about the Treaty of Rome anniversary, & coming up with a list of ten things the EU has done for you. And one which, furthermore, professes to transcend from the europhile-eurosceptic bickerings, and stick to the cold, hard incontestable facts. So not only is it positive - it's positive and neutral! Surely not. Anyway, I won't list them all here for you, but here are my top 3, in descending order. If you look closely you might notice a theme running through it.
3. Easy travel "In the old days, travellers in Europe had to put up with different currencies, regular border crossings and customs checks, and even trains of different gauges... Now one currency, the euro, suffices for most European countries and border posts have been abandoned between the 15 countries that have implemented the Schengen accords"
2. Cheap Flights "Between 1992 and 2000 prices at the cheaper end of the market fell by 40%. At the same time, consumers benefited from a wider choice of both carriers and destinations, the number of routes linking EU member states increasing by nearly 50%"
1. Foreign Study "Thousands of students take part in foreign exchanges ever year under the EU's Erasmus programme. The programme helps students learn foreign language, gain experience of another culture, and profit from the host country's expertise in their field of study."
No surprises then, that I'm primarily grateful to the EU because it's the reason I've been to 8 countries so far this year (9 if you count Luxembourg, but who counts Luxembourg) and most of them more than once, extremely cheaply and with a minimum of currency, passport & security hassle. Because it's the reason I'm able to to do this Erasmus lark. And of course, because it puts money in in my bank account every month for the pleasure of faffing around the Parliament.
Cheers, the EU. Have a good one.
We'll talk about the protectionism, eurojargon & democratic deficit when the party's over.
I'm from Barcelona
So mission Spain-averse reverse got off to a good start, Barcelona turns out to be surprisingly enchanting, and enchantingly surprising. Myself and Marg did all the usual required things one would expect, consumed inordinate amounts of tapas & sangria, visited the melting church & various other trippy bits & pieces of Gaudi architecture, & smoked inside excessively because we could, as well as some slightly less conventional things aswell, like drinking Starbucks coffee for breakfast by the port, and downing several rounds of baby guinnesses on St Paddy's night. I blame the taking of such cultural liberties on the her being a yank factor.
It's black & white Italian cinema fortnight at Odyssey, which I'm possibly even more excited about than I was during the Fin film or Gypsy themed sessions. On tuesday went to see "Ladri di Biciclette" with a small crew from my science-po de l'europe class, and tomorrow I'm hoping to get to "La Strada" because it just doesn't do never to have seen a Fellini film, does it?
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Press release
Rather eventful session this week, am now on first-name terms with all the security staff following an epic battle against bureacracy in order to get an expired pass renewed. Myself and Rafaele also interviewed Pierre Moscovici, which was rather traumatic as it involved getting to the apparently non-existant 12th floor of the tower, which is located in a parallel universe we were eventually able to find with the help of none other than Mr Anti-Europe himself & leader of the UK Europe-haters contingent - Nigel Farage, who was entirely amiable and extremely helpful, so my opinion of him has been radically reconsidered. Somewhat.
Anyway, a lot of things came up but the rest of it will have to wait as am in Barcelona ce weekend, attempting to stamp out the last remnants of my Anti-Span policy, which things like Dali, the institution of a Socialist gouvernment led by a valiant pro-European, and not hating the Spanish language nearly so much as I used to - have all contributed to gradually remedying.
As for that military coup I mentioned, the state of affairs appears to be even worse than I first thought, as calls for an early election & demonstrations of collective action, with protests leading impressive numbers out onto the streets to condemn Zapatero's political decisions and even his "illegitimate" regime, prove that it isn't just the officers who are grumbling. I suppose mobilisation is good thing in itself, even if they're mobilising in the wrong direction. Aie aie aie, non me gusta.
Anyway, a lot of things came up but the rest of it will have to wait as am in Barcelona ce weekend, attempting to stamp out the last remnants of my Anti-Span policy, which things like Dali, the institution of a Socialist gouvernment led by a valiant pro-European, and not hating the Spanish language nearly so much as I used to - have all contributed to gradually remedying.
As for that military coup I mentioned, the state of affairs appears to be even worse than I first thought, as calls for an early election & demonstrations of collective action, with protests leading impressive numbers out onto the streets to condemn Zapatero's political decisions and even his "illegitimate" regime, prove that it isn't just the officers who are grumbling. I suppose mobilisation is good thing in itself, even if they're mobilising in the wrong direction. Aie aie aie, non me gusta.
How will you spend yours?
Normally I don't condone making fun of the EU, it's too easy a target, although I will share with you part of an article by Roger Boyes suggesting ways to celebrate the EU's 50th birthday on the 25th of March, just in case you were at a bit of a loss for ideas...
Organise a street party The families at number 25 and 27 will insist that it was all their idea and you have diluted the fun by inviting the whole street. Don’t forget to ask the Turkish family at No 72, then change your mind and ask for the invitation back. You can’t stop the Romanians from the council houses at the end of the road coming, though. Set a date for the party, then argue about the buffet until midnight the day before. Call it a success, whatever happens
Birthday song Gather the neighbours to sing Ode to Joy. In 40 languages. Simultaneously
Family fun Consult everybody about the sort of celebrations they want. If they don’t want your own favourites ask again until they wearily agree with you
Put out more flags Festoon the lampposts with flags of all EU nations. Under Flag Display Parity of Esteem regulation 24, section vi, paragraph 6a, all the flags must be regulation size. Only the Union Jack will adhere to this, however. None of the neighbours will take any notice of the rule. Take down the Union Jack after the Health and Safety regulation 6,124 deems it a hazard to birds. The other flags continue flying
The birthday cake Cut the cake into 27 pieces. Argue about who put what into it and who should get which slice until it goes stale. Eat it anyway. Complain about the extra bit the Jones’s took and ask who ate all the raisins
Celebrate peace Make a speech pointing out that no-one in the street has attacked a neighbour for 50 years. Try not to look at the nice couple who work at the Deutsche Bank as you say it
I think I'll be going for the third option.
Organise a street party The families at number 25 and 27 will insist that it was all their idea and you have diluted the fun by inviting the whole street. Don’t forget to ask the Turkish family at No 72, then change your mind and ask for the invitation back. You can’t stop the Romanians from the council houses at the end of the road coming, though. Set a date for the party, then argue about the buffet until midnight the day before. Call it a success, whatever happens
Birthday song Gather the neighbours to sing Ode to Joy. In 40 languages. Simultaneously
Family fun Consult everybody about the sort of celebrations they want. If they don’t want your own favourites ask again until they wearily agree with you
Put out more flags Festoon the lampposts with flags of all EU nations. Under Flag Display Parity of Esteem regulation 24, section vi, paragraph 6a, all the flags must be regulation size. Only the Union Jack will adhere to this, however. None of the neighbours will take any notice of the rule. Take down the Union Jack after the Health and Safety regulation 6,124 deems it a hazard to birds. The other flags continue flying
The birthday cake Cut the cake into 27 pieces. Argue about who put what into it and who should get which slice until it goes stale. Eat it anyway. Complain about the extra bit the Jones’s took and ask who ate all the raisins
Celebrate peace Make a speech pointing out that no-one in the street has attacked a neighbour for 50 years. Try not to look at the nice couple who work at the Deutsche Bank as you say it
I think I'll be going for the third option.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
