Friday, September 19, 2003
Tell us something we don't knowThe Irish Times has me baffled. Yesterday it led with a survey that announced that three out of five people aged 15 to 17 drink alcohol. Today we've got part two of the 'most comprehensive ever' youth poll announcing that 'one in four young people aged 15 to 17 have had sex'.
Who would have known? Teenagers are drinking and having sex! Has it been so long since anybody in the Irish Times has been a teenager that this is coming as news to them?
posted by Dick O'Brien at 12:11 PM | link |
--------------------
Thursday, September 18, 2003
Free Cuba!It will be interesting to watch the European response to the latest calls to support Cuban dissidents against Castro's dictatorship now that they are issuing from Vaclav Havel, Lech Walesa and Arpad Goncz. These are guys who understand that oppression cannot be mitigated, that nothing - not universal literacy or widespread healthcare access, not the sugar cane industry or your morally compromised neighbours to the north - absolutely nothing justifies denying people's most basic freedoms. Will the people who supported them in the 1980s against Soviet communism line up with the Cuban people against Castro's police state? Or will we continue to hear that at least Fidel makes the trains run on time?
posted by Jon Ihle at 12:41 PM | link |
Re: The French and Iraqi Sovereignty
I'm less credulous than Dick about France's bona fides regarding Iraq and American policy in the Middle East. I agree with the exceedingly moderate Tom Friedman that it is right to regard as cynical and manipulative a diplomatic policy that last year happily enabled a hideous one-man government in Iraq, but now is anxious to establish popular rule there as quickly as possible. The French aren't defending a principle, and they aren't genuinely trying to help - they're just trying to get in America's way. Arguing about sovereignty is just the means to that end.
posted by Jon Ihle at 11:46 AM |
link
|
Andrew Gilligan and George Bush
I'd like to see a poll conducted in Britain and Ireland to see whether, despite the fact that it is pretty clear now that Andrew Gilligan is a lying liar who tells lies, most people believe his smear that Blair and his administration 'sexed-up' or blatantly lied about intelligence assessments of Iraq's potential WMD capability. I'd bet that such a poll would return a result of public ignorance on the scale of the much-touted polls in the US that purport to show that most Americans believe Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the September 11 atrocities.
(Actually, I don't think Americans are ignorant about Saddam and September 11 - I think they are making a logical analogy between the types of enemies they are fighting. I wonder how many Americans would have said in 1943 that the Nazis were involved in the attack on Pearl Harbor.)
Anyway, the Gilligan/Blair mess and the Saddam/9-11 meme are examples of the power of metonymy in shaping human perception. In fact, I believe it is the chief rhetorical culprit in all sorts of logical fallacies, especially regarding cause and effect. Basically people tend to mistake proximity for relatedness, or associated qualities for shared essence. So when Bush rhetorically links Saddam with Al Qaeda, he helps shape an idea that there is no difference between the two; likewise the repeated syntactical proximity of Tony Blair with the words 'sexed up' (although he never used them) in whatever context, leave the impression that he was the source of misinformation regarding the WMD documents, even though it has emerged that Andrew Gilligan did the falsifying.
posted by Jon Ihle at 11:40 AM |
link
|
--------------------
Wednesday, September 17, 2003
The French and Iraqi sovereigntyBlog Irish today takes a shot at the current French negotiating position regarding Iraq. The catalyst is this piece in today's Irish Times, which reports:
"France said yesterday it wanted fast international recognition of Iraqi sovereignty but accepted it could take time before a full handover of power from US occupation forces was possible.... The US Secretary of State, Mr Colin Powell, said a French timetable for a transfer of power from US authorities was unrealistically fast. The French Foreign Ministry insisted it made a distinction between recognition of Iraqi sovereignty, which it would prefer within a month, and the transfer of executive powers. 'What's needed is a very strong political step recognising its sovereignty,' a Foreign Ministry spokesman said."
Bran has this to say:
"In other words, France wants the international community to engage in a charade and claim that it is recognising Iraqi 'sovereignty' while not according it the power inherent in the term. If the Americans had more colonial experience, they might see the value of this sort of deception. During the debates before the invasion of Iraq, Clinton's foreign policy trouble shooter Richard Holbrook quoted Henry Higgins in exasperation: 'The French don't care what you say, as long as you pronounce it properly.' But Oscar Wilde probably nailed it better. He described French history as the striking of a series of poses, of tableaux vivants. Now, apparently, we are all to join in."
However, looking at the story from the Irish Times that Blog Irish quotes from, if you read on, there's further explanation of the French position:
"Last week the French Foreign Minister, Mr Dominique de Villepin, said France sought the recognition of Iraqi sovereignty 'in a very short timeframe, for example, a month'. The French would then like a gradual handover of executive powers, including control of the oil-rich country's budgetary purse-strings, and general elections next year."
In other words, recognising sovereignty would be the first step in a handover of power. The French proposal has a clear timetable for elections, something we don't have yet from the US. There was more meat to the French proposal than Blog Irish lets on. Whatever you may think of it, it's hardly a charade.
posted by Dick O'Brien at 4:52 PM | link |
Quote of the week
I almost forgot about this one. Courtesy of the Irish Times comes this one from QPR manager Ian Holloway:
"To put it in gentleman's terms, if you've been out for a night and you're looking for a young lady and you pull one, you've done what you set out to do. We didn't look our best today but we've pulled. Some weeks the lady is good looking and some weeks they're not. Our performance today would have maybe not been the best looking bird, but at least we got her in the taxi."
I wonder what Mrs. Holloway thought of that one.
posted by Dick O'Brien at 3:03 PM |
link
|
Re: Sweden and the Euro
Gavin has more to add in our ongoing discussion on Europe. It's fair enough that he's sceptical about European integration. It's an enormous issue and neither side of the debate can be ignored. However, just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean that it isn't democratic. Gavin states:
"If the EU were democratic, it would be accountable and transparent. I do not think it is. Is that fair?"
Once more I have to point out that the EU's decision making process is conducted by our own elected representatives. They stand accountable to us the voters and we can signal our disapproval via the ballot box. As for transparency, I've never experienced any difficulty in discovering what I need to know. One look at the EU site reveals that it publishes reports on almost every single mundane thing it does. If anything, they've almost too much information up there.
Gavin adds:
"Furthermore that we did have a second referendum could also nullify the idea of having any future referenda at all. What's the point? The only answer Europe wants to hear is yes, and be damned with us fogies who vote no. It has been pointed out that a referendum will be held on the Convention, but I can ask now...why? Even if we vote no, surely such a result will not be accepted, and we will have to do the whole thing again. It makes the whole idea of referenda farcical."
Again I have to come back to my point that if the country really had made its mind up, we could have voted no a second time. It's hard to justify that the opinion of a narrow majority of 35pc of the electorate should stand in stone, especially when it runs contrary to everything the Irish people voted for to date. Having said that, the rejection of the first referendum was probably a valuable lesson to Ireland. Yes, we'll have another referendum on the EU constitution. You can be sure that this time people will pay attention to it, that it will be subject to national debate and that more people who care about the issue will actually come out and vote.
posted by Dick O'Brien at 3:00 PM |
link
|
--------------------
Tuesday, September 16, 2003
Re: Sweden and the EuroGavin's followed up on my comments below on the European issue. He still feels that the EU is undemocratic:
"The EU I would strain to call a democracy, simply because of the nature of the hierarchy of power in Brussels. For Nice, a referendum was only held in Ireland due to our constitution, and I am certain were it nor for that the government would have decided for us with no debate whatsoever. No other country in Europe voted on it."
Just what is so undemocratic about the EU is beyond me. Sure, we all hear about the bureaucrats in Brussels, but all the decisions are made by our elected representatives. The Council of Ministers comprises of our governments while the European Parliament is directly elected. European Commissioners are appointed by our governments who, once again, answer to the people of each state. If people don't like what their government is doing in Europe, they should start voting for someone else. In Ireland that hasn't been the case to date.
Of course you could always make it more democratic by increasing the influence of direct representation. But this would move us further towards federalism, something the euro-sceptics don't want. You can't have it both ways.
Gavin continues:
"Dick argues that if we didn't want it we would have voted no the second time. But did he not see the campaign mounted, using large sums of taxpayers money, to shame and bully Irish people to vote yes. And it was that blatant, to me at least. Brussels could not have been clearer - vote no and pay the consequences for dissent. That is not democracy."
As a voter, I never felt bullied, but I did feel that the government dropped the ball in terms of not explaining what was involved the first time around. As to alleging that the government in some way bought the election, its impossible to uphold. The upshot of the McKenna judgement is that the government can't use state funds to simply promote one side of the argument. Indeed, at the time of the first referendum, it was felt that the government was far too cautious in the light of the McKenna judgement and backed off too far from promoting its point of view. The result was the only voices being heard were those of the naysayers. You can also read the Nice debate another way. From being enthusiastic supporters of all things European, we suddenly rejected Nice. We were asked were we sure about this and we changed our minds. Another way of looking at it is voter turnout, which jumped dramatically with the second referendum. Those who didn't bother to express an opinion on the issue came out the second time around and said they wanted Nice.
As for Prodi's remarks, there's nothing exceptional about them. It's not about forcing people into something, but rather emphasising that you can't cherry pick too much. The EU has been built on compromise. Sooner or later you have to decide whether your in or your out. Each has its own sacrifices.
posted by Dick O'Brien at 3:48 PM | link |
A close shave
Queuing in the supermarket this morning I noticed a new addition in the lineup of razors. It's the Wilkinson Sword Quattro. The selling point is that it has four blades. I remember way back being sold on the merits of the two blade razor and I still use one. When Gillette launched the Mach 3, with three blades I remember thinking enough was enough, I'm getting a close enough shave as it is. But four blades? When is the madness going to stop? What's next? Will Gillette respond with a five blade razor? Just how big will razors get?
I don't know what other shaving bloggers think, but I've found that simply changing the blade on my razor frequently is the easiest route to getting a close shave. A nice shaving cream and slapping on a bit of moisturiser afterwards usually does the trick in terms of a sore face. Spending god knows how much on three and four blade razors seems a little excessive.
Prior to posting I did a little searching online and found that the razor business is pretty cutthroat. Gillette is apparently incensed about the Quattro. According to this piece:
"The company has filed a suit against Schick over Quattro, the first four-blade razor, for an alleged patent infringement. The suit, filed in a federal court in Boston, alleges that the new razor uses technology that Gillette developed to allow the three blades on its Mach 3 system to extend progressively closer to the face and provide a smoother shave. Gillette claims it spent $750m to develop Mach 3."
Who would of known it took $750 million to put three blades in a razor? No wonder the damn things are so expensive.
posted by Dick O'Brien at 1:50 PM |
link
|
War reporting and the rhetoric of reaction
Andrew Sullivan has two excellent posts from yesterday on seemingly unrelated topics. The first references Albert Hirschman's book "The Rhetoric of Reaction" - which I haven't read - and usefully reproduces one of its core insights: that conservative reaction generally takes one of three rhetorical forms - the perversity thesis, the futility thesis or the jeopardy thesis. The second post discusses a piece by NYT Iraq correspondent John Burns in Editor and Publisher in which he exposes the shameful pandering of Western journalists to the Ba'ath regime in the pursuit of access.
One thing Burns emphasises is that it is possible to do independent journalism in totalitarian countries, but jobbing journos are trading ethics for efficiency. But I'm confused. As far as I can tell, most reporting from Iraq could be classified under one or more of Hirschman's reactionary tropes - that is, many journalists (and I've done this) write to a thematic template or master narrative that exists independent of the facts. If that's the case, why bother with access at all? Why even go through the motions of being a thorough journalist?
posted by Jon Ihle at 11:14 AM |
link
|
Sweden and the Euro
Plenty of people seem to be reading a lot into the Swedish rejection of the single currency. The Daily Mail today (sadly not online) was telling it was a landslide, but with 56pc voting 'no', I think 'comfortable victory' is probably a more appropriate term. It's far to early to say whether this vote will have any significant effect on the European project. For those in the Eurozone, what happens at home may be of more significance than what the Swedes think. While it may influence the Danes, the other non-Euro country, the UK may pay little attention to it, as it seems public opinion there doesn't take too many cues from the continent.
With a simply 'yes' or 'no' vote, its hard to judge the motivation behind the rejection, however this piece in the Irish Times throws a little light on the matter:
"The government-backed Yes campaign was well organised and well funded but euro opponents ran a highly effective campaign, saying the euro would erode Swedish autonomy and threaten the country's welfare state. Sweden enjoys higher growth and lower unemployment than the euro zone, and Mr Persson admitted last night that it was not an 'opportune time' to convince Swedish voters of the benefits of adopting the euro."
It seems the Swedes may have done a straight comparison and decided they were doing well enough without. One wonders if the vote would have been the same if Sweden were performing worse than the rest of Europe. It's a hypothetical question, but the motivation is a short term answer to a long term question.
Having said all that, it’s a small irony that the things that the EU is often seen to stand for, such as the welfare state, was precisely the thing the Swedes were trying to protect.
The Telegraph also notes that most of Sweden's big businesses, who contributed large amounts of funds to they Yes campaign, were disappointed:
"Swedish industrialists responded to the news with dismay, saying that it would affect their country's chances of attracting future investment and would damage export prospects."
Once again, it runs against what you'd expect, given what you hear from euro-sceptics. Business had decided that the Euro was good for them, so much so that, as the Guardian reported, mobile phone company Ericsson, one of the country's biggest brand names, threatened to quit the country should the vote go against the Euro. It remains to be seen whether the warning was just election talk or if the company will put its Euro where its mouth is, so to speak.
Few Irish bloggers have been posting on this issue, the only one I've seen so far being this post from Gavin, who says:
"Europe is a dinosaur, it is an undemocratic shambles. It is an offence to the very idea of democracy. It is a travesty of global proportions. Thank you Sweden for giving a polite two fingers to Brussels. Speaking as an Irish person, I have never, and probably will never forgive either the Irish government or Europe, for the debacle of two Nice referenda in Ireland. Holding a second referendum on the Nice Treaty was the final nail in the coffin of my belief in Europe. It also demonstrates to me the very nature of the EU, an axe-wielding megalomaniac."
As to how he can say that the EU is undemocratic, I'm not sure. If anything it's too democratic, given the painfully slow pace that things move at. The Nice Treaty is a separate issue from Sweden and the Euro and the Irish double referendum was a bizarre, but not undemocratic exercise. If Irish people didn't really want Nice they would have voted No the second time. Its true it was a shambles. Used to an electorate that usually voted for anything EU related served up to them, the Government didn't bother explaining much about Nice. Ironically, the debate that should have happened before the referendum, took place afterwards. Holding more than one referendum on an issue isn't unprecedented. We seem addicted to having referendums on abortion and on two occasions, 1959 and 1968 Fianna Fail tried to abolish proportional representation. In this light, the Nice Treaty wasn't much of a travesty.
posted by Dick O'Brien at 12:47 AM |
link
|
--------------------
Sunday, September 14, 2003
Life imitates cartoonsDoonesbury's flash mob really did happen, according to AP. I never knew that Trudeau won a Pulitzer prize.
posted by Dick O'Brien at 10:16 AM | link |
Cancun
This report from the Observer isn't too hopeful on the prospects of progress being made at the WTO talks in Cancun:
"Fears are growing that the United States could effectively walk away from crucial trade talks in the Mexican resort of Cancun aimed at solving the deepening economic and social crisis afflicting billions of the world's poorest people... A high level source in the UK delegation told The Observer said: 'It's difficult to know what the Americans want. They're staying in their hotel. They're behaving like the Soviet Union in the Eighties. It's making it difficult to know what they want.' This view has been echoed by other senior delegation members. 'It's in nobody's interests to see America going into its shell,' said CBI director general Digby Jones."
However, it isn't just the Americans causing problems. The piece notes:
"It is understood that the European Union has yet to make any significant concessions on agriculture, although these are expected to come later today. The EU is putting pressure on the Americans to conclude a deal on cotton which will see the Bush administration drop its subsidies to farmers."
Meanwhile, protesters outside are giving a new meaning to the phrase 'giving crap to the cops.'
posted by Dick O'Brien at 10:08 AM |
link
|
--------------------
