Yesterday Dáil Éireann, our national parliament, returned from its long Christmas break. While most Irish people had a few days off work to celebrate Christmas and the incoming of a New Year, but went back to work in the first days of January, our elected representatives gave themselves an extremely generous six-week winter holiday.
Given that they also have a very long summer break, and that last year an extra five weeks were lost due to the general election, the Dáil did probably not sit for more than 75 days in 2007. Even without an election interrupting procedures, there are on average seldom more than 100 days of parliamentary session in a calendar year.
This means that our parliament has become a part-time institution, while TDs (members of the Dáil) are getting paid ever more money and generous expenses allowances for less and less work. Since double (and multiple) mandates were abolished and TDs can no longer hold other positions (like seats on city and county councils), one would have thought they would spend more time in the Dáil. But that seems not to be the case.
We hear from various politicians, especially from members of the opposition parties, that "there is never enough time for debates", and ever so often legislation is rushed through the Dáil in amazing haste. This is often the case with very important laws, pushed through as "emergency legislation". One has to wonder how thorough and proper such legislation can be, when it cannot be probed and checked appropriately by TDs because the government does not allocate enough time for debates.
I am not a legal expert, but I am told that many bills passed by the Dáil are flawed or have loop holes through which people and companies rich enough to employ expensive lawyers can slip if they so please. Would parliamentarians spend more time in their work place, this might not be the case. So the questions have to be asked: Does the Dáil actually work well? And is it taking enough care of our national interests and representing the people who elected its members?
One also has to question if a country with just over four million people needs a 166-seat parliament. Compared with other much larger nations, the people of Ireland are rather over-represented, at least when it comes to the numbers. For example, the USA, a nation of 300 million, has 400 members in the House of Representatives. Germany, with a population of over 83 million, has 614 seats in the Bundestag, the lower chamber of the federal parliament, while in the British House of Commons 646 members represent around 60 million citizens.
With ever more legislation being decided on European level (and only later introduced into the legal systems of the EU member states through relatively easy procedures), one has to wonder if Ireland can really justify 166 TDs for much longer. Perhaps a parliamentary reform could do a lot to streamline and thus to strengthen both Houses of the Oireachtas. Strangely enough, most political parties have suggested exactly that - while in opposition - but never gone near the idea when they were in government.
Next time you meet one of your local TDs, it might be a good idea to raise the matter with him or her. Only if we talk with our elected representatives, they will actually know what we think, and especially what we think of them.
The Emerald Islander
31 January 2008
30 January 2008
A Day that changed the World
Some days have changed the course of history, and January 30th is such a significant day. Unfortunately the events it is noted for have done much harm to the world and did cost the lives of millions of people.
There were - to the astonishment of most people - many negative events that all happened on this day, including the public beheading of both King Charles I of England (in 1649) and Oliver Cromwell (in 1661). It was also on January 30th, 1835 that the first attempt to assassinate a US President was made, when a mentally ill man tried - but failed - to kill President Andrew Jackson in the Capitol in Washington.
On this day in 1889 Archduke Rudolf of Austria, the only son of Emperor Franz Joseph and heir to the throne of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, was found dead at Mayerling, a Royal manor house, together with his young mistress, Baroness Mary Vetsera. Both had been shot and the official version suggested a suicide pact. However, as the documents of the official investigations of the case have never been made public and remain a state secret even today, suggestions have surfaced that it was in fact an assassination, ordered by conservative court officials who strongly disliked the Archduke's liberal and modern ideas, including a major reform plan for the empire.
And, more close to home, the House of Lords in London rejected the Irish Home Rule Bill on January 30th, 1913. This was a major setback for the Liberal government's plan to give the Irish people a fairer role inside the British Empire. This rejection, predominantly with the votes of conservative peers, was a contributing factor to further unrest in Ireland, which culminated in the Easter Rising of 1916.
On this day, 75 years ago, Adolf Hitler was appointed by President Paul von Hindenburg as Reichskanzler (Prime Minister) of Germany.
Ever since the day has been marked as Tag der Machtergreifung (Day of Seizing Power), although this name is actually not quite correct.
Hitler did not seize power, and even if he had wanted to, he did at that time neither have a force strong enough to do it with, nor the opportunity.
What really happened was that Hitler was chosen to be the leader of a new coalition government, formed by various right-of-centre parties, including his own, the NSDAP (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei - National Socialist German Workers Party). All this was completely legal and under the proper rules of the democratic system of the Weimar Republic. (Which only proves that a democracy is no guarantee against the forces of totalitarianism, if they are determined to succeed...)
In fact only three of the eleven members of Hitler's cabinet were from the NSDAP: Wilhelm Frick (Minister of the Interior), Hermann Göring (who had several portfolios for the Reich and the State of Prussia) and Hitler himself. So at the begin of his reign the Führer had not even a majority in his own government.
The main reason for Hitler's appointment was the total collapse of the previous arrangements that had kept the Weimar Republic intact for fifteen turbulent years. Changes of government, of chancellors and ministers, and fluctuating majorities in the Reichstag (national parliament) were the main reasons for the instability of the young German republic. After fundamental disagreements between Hitler and the conservative Franz von Papen which of them should be Reichskanzler, the year 1932 saw two general elections in quick succession: the first on July 31st, and the second on November 6th.
In the first election the NSDAP polled 37.2% of the votes and became the largest party in parliament. On the grounds of this result Hitler demanded to form a government, but was not invited to do so by the President. He was offered to become Deputy Prime Minister in a coalition government, but being determined to make his dream - to rule Germany and make it a great country - come true, he rejected that offer outright. Either he would be leader, or he would stay out of the government. With no one able to form a stable government, another general election was called for November. To everyone's surprise Hitler's party lost about 2 million votes and ended on only 33.1%. However, that was only a mathematical correction and changed nothing in the positions of the parties and their leaders.
The main problem was that Hitler demanded to be Reichskanzler and refused anything less, but the other party leaders and President von Hindenburg tried to prevent exactly that. The result was a constitutional crisis, which led eventually to the appointment of former Defence Minister General Kurt von Schleicher as Reichskanzler. He was the first general in the post since 1890. But he turned out to be a complete disaster, and by the end of January Hitler remained literally the only real alternative, short of a third general election within twelve months.
When he was - reluctantly - appointed to the post, it was actually quite a surprise for him, and even more for his party, as they had mentally already accepted that Hindenburg would never budge. But the old President, already marked by signs of sickness from which he would die 19 months later, was tired of crisis and insecurity. The conservative parties had assured him that they could handle Hitler and would keep the NSDAP in check. Well, the rest - as they say - is history.
60 years ago, in 1948, January 30th was again a sad and tragic day. In the Indian capital Delhi Mohandas K. Gandhi, India's spiritual leader who had gained the rare honorific "Mahatma" (great soul) and led his nation in the long and hard struggle for freedom, independence and true democracy, was assassinated by a Hindu extremist, who disagreed with Gandhi's peaceful attitude towards everyone, including Muslims.
The murder of the world's most peaceful man, whose simple life and philosophy inspired hundreds of millions in India and beyond, shocked the whole world.
It really seems as if January 30th is somehow under a strong negative influence by cosmic forces, as the day has seen even more tragic events in later years. In 1956 the house of the black American civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. was bombed (but luckily King survived hat attack). And in 1962 two of the seven Flying Wallendas, the famous high-wire acrobats, were killed in a tragic accident while performing in Detroit, Michigan.
Here in Ireland the 30th of January will always be remember as "Bloody Sunday". On this day in 1972 British paratroopers shot and killed 14 innocent people during a peaceful civil rights march in the city of Derry and wounded many more. Despite several public inquiries since, neither the culprits nor their military leaders and political masters have ever been held responsible for this criminal act which will forever cast a dark shadow over Britain. And certainly no one in Ireland will ever forget it.
In the light of recent events in the USA one should also mention that George H. W. Bush, later to be Vice President under Ronald Reagan and then himself the 41st President of the USA, was appointed the 11th Director of the CIA on January 30th, 1976.
And on this day in the year 2000 a Kenyan airliner crashed into the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Ivory Coast, killing all 169 people on board.
Fortunately this year the dark day has not caused any further tragedy, and the only bad thing right now is the cold and very stormy weather. But we should take a moment to think, to reflect and to remember all the sad and terrible events that happened over centuries on this day.
The Emerald Islander
There were - to the astonishment of most people - many negative events that all happened on this day, including the public beheading of both King Charles I of England (in 1649) and Oliver Cromwell (in 1661). It was also on January 30th, 1835 that the first attempt to assassinate a US President was made, when a mentally ill man tried - but failed - to kill President Andrew Jackson in the Capitol in Washington.
On this day in 1889 Archduke Rudolf of Austria, the only son of Emperor Franz Joseph and heir to the throne of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, was found dead at Mayerling, a Royal manor house, together with his young mistress, Baroness Mary Vetsera. Both had been shot and the official version suggested a suicide pact. However, as the documents of the official investigations of the case have never been made public and remain a state secret even today, suggestions have surfaced that it was in fact an assassination, ordered by conservative court officials who strongly disliked the Archduke's liberal and modern ideas, including a major reform plan for the empire.
And, more close to home, the House of Lords in London rejected the Irish Home Rule Bill on January 30th, 1913. This was a major setback for the Liberal government's plan to give the Irish people a fairer role inside the British Empire. This rejection, predominantly with the votes of conservative peers, was a contributing factor to further unrest in Ireland, which culminated in the Easter Rising of 1916.
On this day, 75 years ago, Adolf Hitler was appointed by President Paul von Hindenburg as Reichskanzler (Prime Minister) of Germany.Ever since the day has been marked as Tag der Machtergreifung (Day of Seizing Power), although this name is actually not quite correct.
Hitler did not seize power, and even if he had wanted to, he did at that time neither have a force strong enough to do it with, nor the opportunity.
What really happened was that Hitler was chosen to be the leader of a new coalition government, formed by various right-of-centre parties, including his own, the NSDAP (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei - National Socialist German Workers Party). All this was completely legal and under the proper rules of the democratic system of the Weimar Republic. (Which only proves that a democracy is no guarantee against the forces of totalitarianism, if they are determined to succeed...)
In fact only three of the eleven members of Hitler's cabinet were from the NSDAP: Wilhelm Frick (Minister of the Interior), Hermann Göring (who had several portfolios for the Reich and the State of Prussia) and Hitler himself. So at the begin of his reign the Führer had not even a majority in his own government.
The main reason for Hitler's appointment was the total collapse of the previous arrangements that had kept the Weimar Republic intact for fifteen turbulent years. Changes of government, of chancellors and ministers, and fluctuating majorities in the Reichstag (national parliament) were the main reasons for the instability of the young German republic. After fundamental disagreements between Hitler and the conservative Franz von Papen which of them should be Reichskanzler, the year 1932 saw two general elections in quick succession: the first on July 31st, and the second on November 6th.
In the first election the NSDAP polled 37.2% of the votes and became the largest party in parliament. On the grounds of this result Hitler demanded to form a government, but was not invited to do so by the President. He was offered to become Deputy Prime Minister in a coalition government, but being determined to make his dream - to rule Germany and make it a great country - come true, he rejected that offer outright. Either he would be leader, or he would stay out of the government. With no one able to form a stable government, another general election was called for November. To everyone's surprise Hitler's party lost about 2 million votes and ended on only 33.1%. However, that was only a mathematical correction and changed nothing in the positions of the parties and their leaders.
The main problem was that Hitler demanded to be Reichskanzler and refused anything less, but the other party leaders and President von Hindenburg tried to prevent exactly that. The result was a constitutional crisis, which led eventually to the appointment of former Defence Minister General Kurt von Schleicher as Reichskanzler. He was the first general in the post since 1890. But he turned out to be a complete disaster, and by the end of January Hitler remained literally the only real alternative, short of a third general election within twelve months.
When he was - reluctantly - appointed to the post, it was actually quite a surprise for him, and even more for his party, as they had mentally already accepted that Hindenburg would never budge. But the old President, already marked by signs of sickness from which he would die 19 months later, was tired of crisis and insecurity. The conservative parties had assured him that they could handle Hitler and would keep the NSDAP in check. Well, the rest - as they say - is history.
60 years ago, in 1948, January 30th was again a sad and tragic day. In the Indian capital Delhi Mohandas K. Gandhi, India's spiritual leader who had gained the rare honorific "Mahatma" (great soul) and led his nation in the long and hard struggle for freedom, independence and true democracy, was assassinated by a Hindu extremist, who disagreed with Gandhi's peaceful attitude towards everyone, including Muslims.The murder of the world's most peaceful man, whose simple life and philosophy inspired hundreds of millions in India and beyond, shocked the whole world.
It really seems as if January 30th is somehow under a strong negative influence by cosmic forces, as the day has seen even more tragic events in later years. In 1956 the house of the black American civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. was bombed (but luckily King survived hat attack). And in 1962 two of the seven Flying Wallendas, the famous high-wire acrobats, were killed in a tragic accident while performing in Detroit, Michigan.
Here in Ireland the 30th of January will always be remember as "Bloody Sunday". On this day in 1972 British paratroopers shot and killed 14 innocent people during a peaceful civil rights march in the city of Derry and wounded many more. Despite several public inquiries since, neither the culprits nor their military leaders and political masters have ever been held responsible for this criminal act which will forever cast a dark shadow over Britain. And certainly no one in Ireland will ever forget it.
In the light of recent events in the USA one should also mention that George H. W. Bush, later to be Vice President under Ronald Reagan and then himself the 41st President of the USA, was appointed the 11th Director of the CIA on January 30th, 1976.
And on this day in the year 2000 a Kenyan airliner crashed into the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Ivory Coast, killing all 169 people on board.
Fortunately this year the dark day has not caused any further tragedy, and the only bad thing right now is the cold and very stormy weather. But we should take a moment to think, to reflect and to remember all the sad and terrible events that happened over centuries on this day.
The Emerald Islander
29 January 2008
My Mornings will never be the same again
Spending most of my days behind a desk, I have acquired the habit to go for a run around the town early in the morning. It is the only time I have for doing it, and I usually start quite early, between 4.30 and 5 a.m. At this early hour the town is quiet, unpolluted and almost empty. Few people in Ireland get up that early, and only if they have to. So apart from the odd taxi and an occasional Garda patrol I encounter only three kinds of people: the few who make early morning deliveries to shops, the very few who might be heading for the first bus to Dublin, and a handful of men from the city council who clean our streets every day.
They are always there, like the cats, the seagulls, the rooks and jackdaws, going about their work quiet and efficiently. I know that most people would not give them a thought or even a second look, but as I am slightly different, I always say "good morning" when I pass them, and sometimes even stop for a brief conversation. You might think that there would not be much to talk about with dustmen, but there you would be wrong. The idea that they are those who have to get such a "dirty" job because they could not get a better one is a very out-dated view of the world. These days, in the 21st century, dustmen are well paid public employees who receive the best civil service bonuses, since they work at the most unusual times (starting between 3 and 4 a.m.) and under every weather condition. So the job attracts a whole range of different people, including a university graduate, an evangelical lay preacher and a poet. When they are on the early shift, they are finished with work and can go home, free to do what they like, by the time I finish lunch and begin the second third of my working day.
When I lived in Cork, I actually became so friendly with one of the city's street sweepers (who is engaged in much local charity work) that we are still in contact now, years later, and when I have work in Cork, we might meet in a nice little tea shop in the city, have breakfast together and a really good talk.
Of the dustmen here in town, the most gentle and friendly, is called Jim, and we have spent many a morning talking for a few minutes about almost everything, from the weather to business and politics, from the strange behaviour of people (and what they throw away) to favourite books and philosophy. He would be one of the "old guard", having been in the job for most of his life, and coming close to retirement age. And he would always have a smile for me.
Sadly this will be no more, and my early mornings will never be the same again, as Jim has died, suddenly and unexpected, at the age of 57. Today, on a cold, miserable morning with pouring rain, he was laid to rest, mourned by his family, his colleagues and many more, myself included.
The Emerald Islander
They are always there, like the cats, the seagulls, the rooks and jackdaws, going about their work quiet and efficiently. I know that most people would not give them a thought or even a second look, but as I am slightly different, I always say "good morning" when I pass them, and sometimes even stop for a brief conversation. You might think that there would not be much to talk about with dustmen, but there you would be wrong. The idea that they are those who have to get such a "dirty" job because they could not get a better one is a very out-dated view of the world. These days, in the 21st century, dustmen are well paid public employees who receive the best civil service bonuses, since they work at the most unusual times (starting between 3 and 4 a.m.) and under every weather condition. So the job attracts a whole range of different people, including a university graduate, an evangelical lay preacher and a poet. When they are on the early shift, they are finished with work and can go home, free to do what they like, by the time I finish lunch and begin the second third of my working day.
When I lived in Cork, I actually became so friendly with one of the city's street sweepers (who is engaged in much local charity work) that we are still in contact now, years later, and when I have work in Cork, we might meet in a nice little tea shop in the city, have breakfast together and a really good talk.
Of the dustmen here in town, the most gentle and friendly, is called Jim, and we have spent many a morning talking for a few minutes about almost everything, from the weather to business and politics, from the strange behaviour of people (and what they throw away) to favourite books and philosophy. He would be one of the "old guard", having been in the job for most of his life, and coming close to retirement age. And he would always have a smile for me.
Sadly this will be no more, and my early mornings will never be the same again, as Jim has died, suddenly and unexpected, at the age of 57. Today, on a cold, miserable morning with pouring rain, he was laid to rest, mourned by his family, his colleagues and many more, myself included.
The Emerald Islander
28 January 2008
Beauty and the Beast
This morning someone from abroad told me that Ireland is a beautiful country. I was very pleased to hear that, since it certainly is. As I was not born here and chose the country as my homeland a long time ago, I can probably see it even more strongly than those who have never been anywhere else.
But, as the poet has it, where there is beauty, there is also usually some kind of a beast about. In Ireland's case this part is currently played by Mary Harney, our Minister for Health. She must be the most unpopular politician in the country, and this has nothing to do with her being a woman. It is a combination of her abrasive personality and her disastrous policies that has put her in the emerald doghouse for a long time.
Like many bad politicians she had a good start by being rewarded for failure. When she made a bit of academic history by becoming the first female auditor of the then male-dominated Historical Society at Dublin's Trinity College, she came to the attention of Jack Lynch, then leader of the Fianna Fáil (FF) party. In the 1977 general election she stood as a FF candidate, but was not elected. Instead of going home and doing what most unelected political candidates do - be disappointed for a while, then pick themselves up and try again next time - Mary Harney, then an inexperienced young teacher, got a taste for power and cronyism. Jack Lynch, who had won the election and become Taoiseach, made his protégée a Senator (as one of the eleven appointed by An Taoiseach). At the age of 24 she was the youngest person ever to become a member of Seanad Éireann (the upper house of our parliament) and still holds this record.
In 1981, with some experience and a lot more support from her party, she was elected to Dáil Éireann (the lower house of our parliament) in the Dublin South-West constituency, having had her first electoral success already two years earlier, when she won a seat on Dublin City Council.
After only four years on the back benches, she became a leading member of the so-called "Gang of 22" who voted in favour of the Anglo-Irish Agreement in 1985 and was expelled from Fianna Fáil. The following year she became founder member of a new party, called Progressive Democrats (PD), under the leadership of former FF minister Desmond O'Malley. Almost all of the early PD members were disgruntled ex-FF politicians who had issues with the abrasive and authoritarian style of the then party leader and Taoiseach Charles Haughey.
It came therefore as a surprise to many when in 1989 the Progressive Democrats joined FF in a coalition government under Haughey's leadership. This move brought Mary Harney her first bit of real power, as she was appointed Minister of State with responsibility for Environmental Protection. In this capacity she banned the sale of bituminous coal and thus can claim the credit for having eliminated the capital city's infamous smog.
But the coalition with Haughey was not an easy one, and in late 1992 the PDs withdrew from the government, which also marked the end of Haughey's political career. (After the following general election FF, under their new leader Albert Reynolds, formed a new coalition with the Labour Party.)
In February 1993 Mary Harney was appointed deputy leader of the Progressive Democrats and succeeded Desmond O'Malley as party leader in October. This was probably the turning point in her personal and political attitudes. Like many women with political power, she began to show a certain toughness and became more and more abrasive, as if she had to prove that she was even harder than the men.
Following the hard fought 1997 general election and lengthy negotiations, the PDs entered once again into coalition government with Fianna Fáil, now led by the former Finance Minister Bertie Ahern. Harney was appointed as the first female Tánaiste (Deputy Prime Minister) and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment.
In this new role she began rapidly to make political enemies and to become highly unpopular in large parts of the Irish population, mainly because of her extreme capitalist ideology and anti-union attitudes. She became the main champion of privatisation of public services and utility companies and is responsible for much of the turmoil these measures caused (and still cause) in contemporary Ireland. At the same time she substantially reduced government support for the community employment scheme and various social support networks, forcing many of them to close due to lack of funding.
There were many occasions when she showed a preference for private over national interests. In December 2001, to name just one significant example, she used a government aircraft (50% funded by the EU Commission and meant to be used exclusively for maritime surveillance) to fly to County Leitrim (in the far north-west of Ireland) to officially open a friend's off-licence (alcohol shop). When the story surfaced, she was forced to apologise and admit that she had abused her position, but that was it and no further consequences followed.
In the 2002 general election, riding on the unexpected economic boom Ireland had enjoyed since 1995 (when both FF and PD were in opposition), the Progressive Democrats doubled their parliamentary seats from four to eight and the ruling coalition continued, with Harney retaining her previous positions. However, a year later she was reported to "seek new challenges" and looking for a new department. In the cabinet reshuffle of September 2004 she was appointed Minister for Health and Children, while remaining Tánaiste. (Ireland must be the only country in the world where a clinically obese person can become responsible for the health service. In all other countries I know this would be seen as very bad PR, to say the least.)
Soon it became clear why she had sought this change, when she embarked on a ruthless policy of privatisation in the health sector, just as she had done in the field of other public services before. This has led to a disastrous two-tier system, which critics call quite fittingly an apartheid health service. And while waiting lists for treatment grow ever longer and patients have to wait long hours on hospital trolleys before being seen by a doctor, Mary Harney is unrepentant and keeps attending numerous opening ceremonies for new private hospitals and health facilities.
In March 2006, 16 months after Harney took office as Minister for Health, the Irish Nurses Organisation (INO) announced that a record number of 455 people were waiting on hospital trolleys in Ireland on one single day. Two months later the INO unanimously passed a motion of no confidence in Mary Harney, accusing her of being negative and antagonistic towards nurses.
In June 2006 an official statistic ranked the Irish health service as the second least "consumer-friendly" in Europe, coming 25th out of 26 countries, ahead only of Lithuania.
And in July the Ireland on Sunday newspaper reported that Harney's mother, Mrs. Sarah Harney, jumped a queue of two emergency cases to receive hip surgery at the Adelaide and Meath Hospital in Tallaght (a suburb of Dublin).
Also in 2006 Harney introduced "risk equalisation" into the Irish healthcare market, which was hugely resisted by the private British health insurer BUPA . Despite High Court proceedings, the controversial law was upheld and this has forced BUPA out of the Irish healthcare market (BUPA Ireland has since been bought by the private Irish owned Quinn Group). In January 2007 a leaked memo from Harney stated that the planned Cancer Care Strategy, due for completion in 2011, would not be delivered on time. The list could go on and on, but I don't want to make this entry a never-ending story.
In an Irish Times poll in December 2006 60% of the respondents said that the appointment of Ms. Harney to the position of Minister for Health had not led to any improvement in the health service.
Having meanwhile come under pressure from inside her own party, Mary Harney resigned as PD leader and Tánaiste on September 7th, 2006. She was succeeded in both positions by her deputy, the then Minister for Justice Michael McDowell, a man even more abrasive and arrogant than Harney herself, but like her a died-in-the-wool supporter of plain capitalism, privatisation and social service cuts.
Subsequently the Progressive Democrats got the voters' answer in the 2007 general election. Of their eight TDs (members of parliament) only two were re-elected (and with drastically reduced voter numbers). Unfortunately Harney was one of the two, just about scraping back into the Dáil, while McDowell and all other leading party officials lost their seats.
Nevertheless the decimated and almost wiped out PDs, now again with Harney as the "acting" leader (because no one else wants the job), were once again brought back into the government by Bertie Ahern and Mary Harney retains her portfolio as Minister for Health. Of all the many scandals the current government has produced, this is probably the largest and most significant, and a clear slap in the face of the Irish electorate.
It is unlikely that Bertie Ahern will ever sack his strange protégée and former deputy, but given the trouble he is in himself in recent months it might not be his decision for too much longer. If Mary Harney has any common sense and decency left in herself, she might well consider her position and gently jump before she might be pushed by the next Taoiseach. In six weeks she will be celebrating her 55th birthday, and perhaps this might be an appropriate occasion to step down after more than three decades in politics. If nothing else, the Irish people - myself included - would be grateful to her.
The Emerald Islander
But, as the poet has it, where there is beauty, there is also usually some kind of a beast about. In Ireland's case this part is currently played by Mary Harney, our Minister for Health. She must be the most unpopular politician in the country, and this has nothing to do with her being a woman. It is a combination of her abrasive personality and her disastrous policies that has put her in the emerald doghouse for a long time.Like many bad politicians she had a good start by being rewarded for failure. When she made a bit of academic history by becoming the first female auditor of the then male-dominated Historical Society at Dublin's Trinity College, she came to the attention of Jack Lynch, then leader of the Fianna Fáil (FF) party. In the 1977 general election she stood as a FF candidate, but was not elected. Instead of going home and doing what most unelected political candidates do - be disappointed for a while, then pick themselves up and try again next time - Mary Harney, then an inexperienced young teacher, got a taste for power and cronyism. Jack Lynch, who had won the election and become Taoiseach, made his protégée a Senator (as one of the eleven appointed by An Taoiseach). At the age of 24 she was the youngest person ever to become a member of Seanad Éireann (the upper house of our parliament) and still holds this record.
In 1981, with some experience and a lot more support from her party, she was elected to Dáil Éireann (the lower house of our parliament) in the Dublin South-West constituency, having had her first electoral success already two years earlier, when she won a seat on Dublin City Council.
After only four years on the back benches, she became a leading member of the so-called "Gang of 22" who voted in favour of the Anglo-Irish Agreement in 1985 and was expelled from Fianna Fáil. The following year she became founder member of a new party, called Progressive Democrats (PD), under the leadership of former FF minister Desmond O'Malley. Almost all of the early PD members were disgruntled ex-FF politicians who had issues with the abrasive and authoritarian style of the then party leader and Taoiseach Charles Haughey.
It came therefore as a surprise to many when in 1989 the Progressive Democrats joined FF in a coalition government under Haughey's leadership. This move brought Mary Harney her first bit of real power, as she was appointed Minister of State with responsibility for Environmental Protection. In this capacity she banned the sale of bituminous coal and thus can claim the credit for having eliminated the capital city's infamous smog.
But the coalition with Haughey was not an easy one, and in late 1992 the PDs withdrew from the government, which also marked the end of Haughey's political career. (After the following general election FF, under their new leader Albert Reynolds, formed a new coalition with the Labour Party.)
In February 1993 Mary Harney was appointed deputy leader of the Progressive Democrats and succeeded Desmond O'Malley as party leader in October. This was probably the turning point in her personal and political attitudes. Like many women with political power, she began to show a certain toughness and became more and more abrasive, as if she had to prove that she was even harder than the men.
Following the hard fought 1997 general election and lengthy negotiations, the PDs entered once again into coalition government with Fianna Fáil, now led by the former Finance Minister Bertie Ahern. Harney was appointed as the first female Tánaiste (Deputy Prime Minister) and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment.
In this new role she began rapidly to make political enemies and to become highly unpopular in large parts of the Irish population, mainly because of her extreme capitalist ideology and anti-union attitudes. She became the main champion of privatisation of public services and utility companies and is responsible for much of the turmoil these measures caused (and still cause) in contemporary Ireland. At the same time she substantially reduced government support for the community employment scheme and various social support networks, forcing many of them to close due to lack of funding.
There were many occasions when she showed a preference for private over national interests. In December 2001, to name just one significant example, she used a government aircraft (50% funded by the EU Commission and meant to be used exclusively for maritime surveillance) to fly to County Leitrim (in the far north-west of Ireland) to officially open a friend's off-licence (alcohol shop). When the story surfaced, she was forced to apologise and admit that she had abused her position, but that was it and no further consequences followed.
In the 2002 general election, riding on the unexpected economic boom Ireland had enjoyed since 1995 (when both FF and PD were in opposition), the Progressive Democrats doubled their parliamentary seats from four to eight and the ruling coalition continued, with Harney retaining her previous positions. However, a year later she was reported to "seek new challenges" and looking for a new department. In the cabinet reshuffle of September 2004 she was appointed Minister for Health and Children, while remaining Tánaiste. (Ireland must be the only country in the world where a clinically obese person can become responsible for the health service. In all other countries I know this would be seen as very bad PR, to say the least.)
Soon it became clear why she had sought this change, when she embarked on a ruthless policy of privatisation in the health sector, just as she had done in the field of other public services before. This has led to a disastrous two-tier system, which critics call quite fittingly an apartheid health service. And while waiting lists for treatment grow ever longer and patients have to wait long hours on hospital trolleys before being seen by a doctor, Mary Harney is unrepentant and keeps attending numerous opening ceremonies for new private hospitals and health facilities.
In March 2006, 16 months after Harney took office as Minister for Health, the Irish Nurses Organisation (INO) announced that a record number of 455 people were waiting on hospital trolleys in Ireland on one single day. Two months later the INO unanimously passed a motion of no confidence in Mary Harney, accusing her of being negative and antagonistic towards nurses.
In June 2006 an official statistic ranked the Irish health service as the second least "consumer-friendly" in Europe, coming 25th out of 26 countries, ahead only of Lithuania.
And in July the Ireland on Sunday newspaper reported that Harney's mother, Mrs. Sarah Harney, jumped a queue of two emergency cases to receive hip surgery at the Adelaide and Meath Hospital in Tallaght (a suburb of Dublin).
Also in 2006 Harney introduced "risk equalisation" into the Irish healthcare market, which was hugely resisted by the private British health insurer BUPA . Despite High Court proceedings, the controversial law was upheld and this has forced BUPA out of the Irish healthcare market (BUPA Ireland has since been bought by the private Irish owned Quinn Group). In January 2007 a leaked memo from Harney stated that the planned Cancer Care Strategy, due for completion in 2011, would not be delivered on time. The list could go on and on, but I don't want to make this entry a never-ending story.
In an Irish Times poll in December 2006 60% of the respondents said that the appointment of Ms. Harney to the position of Minister for Health had not led to any improvement in the health service.
Having meanwhile come under pressure from inside her own party, Mary Harney resigned as PD leader and Tánaiste on September 7th, 2006. She was succeeded in both positions by her deputy, the then Minister for Justice Michael McDowell, a man even more abrasive and arrogant than Harney herself, but like her a died-in-the-wool supporter of plain capitalism, privatisation and social service cuts.
Subsequently the Progressive Democrats got the voters' answer in the 2007 general election. Of their eight TDs (members of parliament) only two were re-elected (and with drastically reduced voter numbers). Unfortunately Harney was one of the two, just about scraping back into the Dáil, while McDowell and all other leading party officials lost their seats.
Nevertheless the decimated and almost wiped out PDs, now again with Harney as the "acting" leader (because no one else wants the job), were once again brought back into the government by Bertie Ahern and Mary Harney retains her portfolio as Minister for Health. Of all the many scandals the current government has produced, this is probably the largest and most significant, and a clear slap in the face of the Irish electorate.
It is unlikely that Bertie Ahern will ever sack his strange protégée and former deputy, but given the trouble he is in himself in recent months it might not be his decision for too much longer. If Mary Harney has any common sense and decency left in herself, she might well consider her position and gently jump before she might be pushed by the next Taoiseach. In six weeks she will be celebrating her 55th birthday, and perhaps this might be an appropriate occasion to step down after more than three decades in politics. If nothing else, the Irish people - myself included - would be grateful to her.
The Emerald Islander
27 January 2008
The Big Swiss Talking Shop
Every year in late January the great and the good, but especially the rich and very rich gather in a small Swiss Alpine resort called Davos for the "World Economic Forum" (WEF). Every year it makes the news, and we learn from an ever increasing media coverage the names of all the famous people who are well-known and wealthy enough to be invited. But what we don't learn from our newspapers and electronic media is what actually goes on in Davos.
Well, we are told that there are many "discussion forums" and "workshops", as well as "project group meetings", and each of them is sporting a bunch of names we know from politics, big business or other areas, like the arts, culture, entertainment or NGOs. But what are they actually doing and discussing in Davos? And is there ever anything real coming from it? Anything that has a positive impact on the world?
If one looks at the WEF website, one can well get the impression that this is the forum that does have all the answers to all the questions, and therefore all the power to make the world a better place. How come than that there are still wars and oppression, poverty, under-development, hunger and starvation on this planet? If all the great and good meet in Davos every year to see the light and get things right, why is so much going wrong?
The answer is really quite simple. Despite all the power and money that is assembled every year in Davos, the "World Economic Forum" is really not more than a very exclusive and expensive big Swiss talking shop. It gives participants a few days off their regular job, be it prime minister, pop star or CEO of a bank or large multi-national company, and gives the rest of us the impression that they care and that - in the remoteness of the snowy Alpine landscape - "something is done" to solve the world's problems.
But even though the WEF is meeting every year since 1971, with hundreds of leaders talking for thousands of hours and producing large piles of studies and position papers, the state of our planet has gradually worsened since, politically as well as economically. However, the worst decline is that of the environment. Despite clear warnings from scientists and many serious studies, global warming was allowed to happen, because the great and good, powerful and mighty leaders of the world do not care. They are more concerned with short-term profits than with the long-term survival of the human race and the state of the planet.
Between them the political leaders and business executives who meet annually in Davos are well able to change the world. And they have done so. The globalisation of trade and industry is a direct result of the WEF, and so is the ever increasing domination of our lives by electronic media and the tons of uncontrolled advertisment they dump on us. Most of the rich people who meet in Davos "to solve the problems of the world" are the very same who create them, by flooding the globe with all what is bad for us, from junk food and alcohol to polluting cars, and from mindless entertainment to senseless global tourism. The political leaders who attend the annual gathering are those who are happy to allow all this to happen, in the name of the free flow of capital, free trade and rich men's rules.
And you would need to be a rich man - or a very wealthy company or organisation - to be part of the WEF. Each member pays a basic annual membership fee of $ 12,500 and a $ 6,250 Annual Meeting fee. However, to take part in deciding the agendas of the Annual Meeting and the regional meetings, a member must pay $ 250,000 a year to be an Institutional Partner and/or Knowledge Partner, and
$ 78,000 to be an Annual Meeting Partner. So there is no shortage of money at the WEF, which has an annual income of more than $ 100 million (about a third from membership fees), even though it is supposed to be a not-for-profit organisation.
Founded in 1971 by the German-born Swiss economist Prof. Klaus Martin Schwab (right), the WEF did start with relatively small meetings in Davos, but has meanwhile become the world's largest international networking organisation. Besides the Annual Meeting in Davos in January there are now also regular regional meetings for Africa, East Asia, Europe & Central Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and Russia, as well as an Annual Meeting of the "New Champions", which are companies from China, India and various developing countries.
Meanwhile the usually very quiet resort of Davos has seen protests against the WEF, organised by anti-globalisation campaigners. Due to the cold temperatures and the efficiency of the Swiss police and army they are however relatively small and peaceful (as the picture of this year's "Mooning against Mammom" in Davos shows), compared with the protests that accompany now for many years the annual G-7/G-8 summits.
A main point of criticism are the so-called "informal" meetings and workshops that take place in and around Davos during the week-long Annual Meeting. While all the official WEF lectures and debates are public and open to the media, all "informal" events are strictly private. And those are the meetings that really matter, where politicians and business executives forge friendships and close deals with far-reaching consequences. It is said that Bill Clinton was endorsed by the WEF before he ran for President, and another politician long linked with the WEF is Britain's ex Prime Minister Tony Blair, now one of the 23 members of the WEF Foundation Board (where he rubs shoulders with people like former UN secretary general Kofi Anan, Queen Rani of Jordan and Irish politician turned businessman Peter Sutherland).
Every year in January millions of words are written and broadcasted about the WEF, and the paparazzi have a field day with so many famous faces gathered in a small town like Davos. For a week we all hear about the "World Economic Forum", and then follows another year of absolute silence, during which we are left wondering what is going on. Maybe it is time to face the facts and realise that not much is going on at all. The world is spinning out of control fast, while greedy businessmen and politicians are sharing the spoils as long as there is time. And then - in late January - they all meet in Davos for a week. If one would need to put the essence of this annual meeting into a brief statement or headline, it would only need two words to be described: Money talks.
The Emerald Islander
Well, we are told that there are many "discussion forums" and "workshops", as well as "project group meetings", and each of them is sporting a bunch of names we know from politics, big business or other areas, like the arts, culture, entertainment or NGOs. But what are they actually doing and discussing in Davos? And is there ever anything real coming from it? Anything that has a positive impact on the world?If one looks at the WEF website, one can well get the impression that this is the forum that does have all the answers to all the questions, and therefore all the power to make the world a better place. How come than that there are still wars and oppression, poverty, under-development, hunger and starvation on this planet? If all the great and good meet in Davos every year to see the light and get things right, why is so much going wrong?
The answer is really quite simple. Despite all the power and money that is assembled every year in Davos, the "World Economic Forum" is really not more than a very exclusive and expensive big Swiss talking shop. It gives participants a few days off their regular job, be it prime minister, pop star or CEO of a bank or large multi-national company, and gives the rest of us the impression that they care and that - in the remoteness of the snowy Alpine landscape - "something is done" to solve the world's problems.
But even though the WEF is meeting every year since 1971, with hundreds of leaders talking for thousands of hours and producing large piles of studies and position papers, the state of our planet has gradually worsened since, politically as well as economically. However, the worst decline is that of the environment. Despite clear warnings from scientists and many serious studies, global warming was allowed to happen, because the great and good, powerful and mighty leaders of the world do not care. They are more concerned with short-term profits than with the long-term survival of the human race and the state of the planet.
Between them the political leaders and business executives who meet annually in Davos are well able to change the world. And they have done so. The globalisation of trade and industry is a direct result of the WEF, and so is the ever increasing domination of our lives by electronic media and the tons of uncontrolled advertisment they dump on us. Most of the rich people who meet in Davos "to solve the problems of the world" are the very same who create them, by flooding the globe with all what is bad for us, from junk food and alcohol to polluting cars, and from mindless entertainment to senseless global tourism. The political leaders who attend the annual gathering are those who are happy to allow all this to happen, in the name of the free flow of capital, free trade and rich men's rules.
And you would need to be a rich man - or a very wealthy company or organisation - to be part of the WEF. Each member pays a basic annual membership fee of $ 12,500 and a $ 6,250 Annual Meeting fee. However, to take part in deciding the agendas of the Annual Meeting and the regional meetings, a member must pay $ 250,000 a year to be an Institutional Partner and/or Knowledge Partner, and
$ 78,000 to be an Annual Meeting Partner. So there is no shortage of money at the WEF, which has an annual income of more than $ 100 million (about a third from membership fees), even though it is supposed to be a not-for-profit organisation.
Founded in 1971 by the German-born Swiss economist Prof. Klaus Martin Schwab (right), the WEF did start with relatively small meetings in Davos, but has meanwhile become the world's largest international networking organisation. Besides the Annual Meeting in Davos in January there are now also regular regional meetings for Africa, East Asia, Europe & Central Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and Russia, as well as an Annual Meeting of the "New Champions", which are companies from China, India and various developing countries.The main 1000 companies in the world are invited to the WEF, based on annual revenues of more than $ 1 billion. This leads inevitably to under-representation of companies from poorer countries. The WEF claims that now 200 new companies, mainly from the developing world, are invited to join the WEF membership and events, but they have not made much of an impact yet. At the Annual Meeting, each January in Davos, 39% are from Europe and 36% from the USA, which gives the developed countries of the West a 75% majority. However, these 75% of WEF members represent only about 17% of the world's population.
Even though the WEF is anxious to give the impression of transparency, openness and general benevolence, there are plenty of critics who question those intentions.Meanwhile the usually very quiet resort of Davos has seen protests against the WEF, organised by anti-globalisation campaigners. Due to the cold temperatures and the efficiency of the Swiss police and army they are however relatively small and peaceful (as the picture of this year's "Mooning against Mammom" in Davos shows), compared with the protests that accompany now for many years the annual G-7/G-8 summits.
A main point of criticism are the so-called "informal" meetings and workshops that take place in and around Davos during the week-long Annual Meeting. While all the official WEF lectures and debates are public and open to the media, all "informal" events are strictly private. And those are the meetings that really matter, where politicians and business executives forge friendships and close deals with far-reaching consequences. It is said that Bill Clinton was endorsed by the WEF before he ran for President, and another politician long linked with the WEF is Britain's ex Prime Minister Tony Blair, now one of the 23 members of the WEF Foundation Board (where he rubs shoulders with people like former UN secretary general Kofi Anan, Queen Rani of Jordan and Irish politician turned businessman Peter Sutherland).Every year in January millions of words are written and broadcasted about the WEF, and the paparazzi have a field day with so many famous faces gathered in a small town like Davos. For a week we all hear about the "World Economic Forum", and then follows another year of absolute silence, during which we are left wondering what is going on. Maybe it is time to face the facts and realise that not much is going on at all. The world is spinning out of control fast, while greedy businessmen and politicians are sharing the spoils as long as there is time. And then - in late January - they all meet in Davos for a week. If one would need to put the essence of this annual meeting into a brief statement or headline, it would only need two words to be described: Money talks.
The Emerald Islander
26 January 2008
The Flight into Egypt
When I was a little boy, two of my favourite stories from the New Testament were the Visitation of the Magi (three wise men) and the Flight into Egypt, perhaps because they both involved animals (which I always liked), travel and exotic people and places (which always interested me very much). I suppose my upbringing as the child of a much traveled father, who worked for the Foreign Office, has opened my eyes towards the wider world at a very young age.
In those days our life was much less hectic than it is now, and within the family there were many traditions we kept and observed. For example, there was never ever meat eaten on a Friday, and on Saturdays we always had a vegetable stew. On Saturday morning my mother would bake a cake (which would never be touched before Sunday afternoon), and on Saturday evening the whole family would sit together and play a nice and interesting board game. We did not have a television set then (the first one only arrived in 1966, to follow the Football World Cup) and everything was a lot more gentle and sensible.
Part of the daily life and the traditions was also that the two coldest months of the year - December and January - were very special. They were packed with events and celebrations, culminating of course at Christmas. But there were so many smaller events around Christmas, and all tied in with the great story of Mary, Joseph and their baby Jesus. It started with Mary's journey to her cousin Elizabeth (in early December) and ended with the baby Jesus being "presented in the Temple" (Christians did not use the word circumcised then) on February 2nd.
This was also the day we packed up the family crib and stored it away in the attic, until it would be brought down again on the first day of Advent.
January 6th, Epiphany, was the day when we placed the three wise men inside the stable, after we had put them already on the periphery of the crib landscape, and shortly afterwards we did celebrate the Flight into Egypt (as shown on the Russian icon above), for which my mother would bake special biscuits with almonds and honey. Even though I do no longer observe all these traditions and have not had any of the special foods for many years, at the back of my mind they are still present as distant memories, connected with the winter time.
So when I heard a few days ago that the Palestinian people of Gaza, under blockade by Israel and ignored by the West (for all too obvious political reasons), have demolished elements of the "security barrier" that partitions the Gaza Strip from the Sinai peninsula and started to flock onto Egyptian territory, I was instantly reminded of the biblical Flight into Egypt two thousand years ago.
On foot and bicycle, by donkey cart and pickup truck, tens of thousands of Palestinians stream into northern Egypt, mainly to buy goods no longer available in Gaza, especially in recent days during a complete blockade by Israel, which also shut down the electricity supply for the city.
After some hours most of the Gazans return home again, laden with medicine, food and drinks, soap, cigarettes, petrol, cement and countless other supplies. Even sheep, goats and cattle are brought back to Gaza, as well as household goods, television sets and satellite dishes.
For most of the Palestinians it is only a short trip, as they cross from Rafah in Gaza to Rafah in Egypt. The city has been divided by the border in 1982, when Egypt accepted the return of Sinai from Israel, but declined to take back the Gaza Strip as well. And all the goods and things no longer obtainable in Gaza are freely available in shops on the Egyptian side of the barrier.
The scenes of desperate people, breaking down the border wall in search of freedom and the basic food and goods they need for their survival, also reminded me of a very similar event I witnessed myself in November 1989, when the people of East-Berlin began to demolish the wall that had divided the German capital for more than 28 years.
It is amazing that politicians all around the world never learn the lessons of History. No power, regardless how strong, can divide people if they want to be together, and no wall will ever keep people from following their destiny. At first such barriers have always a negative effect, as they frustrate the people and dampen their political ambitions. But once the dividing line becomes a fact of daily life, something children grow up with and adults learn to hate, it also loses its power as a deterrent. And sooner or later the people will then find the courage to stand up against it and break it down.
For Egypt's political leadership - allied to and strongly influenced by the USA - the recent development in and around Gaza creates a dilemma. “If we prevent Palestinian civilians from crossing and confront them with force, we open ourself to unlimited public scrutiny at home. And if we let the Palestinians through, we face the risk of not knowing who or what is coming in, and also strong criticism from Israel and the United States,” told me a fellow analyst from Cairo.
Egyptian police units, at first attempting to stop the Palestinians and close the barrier again, have meanwhile given up on that idea and decided to do nothing for the time being.
However, the breaching of the barrier at Rafah could well lead to a re-start of the Palestinian peace process. Being no longer isolated and blockaded like a medieval city under siege, Gaza and its people have seen a glimpse of hope and found a way out of their dilemma. It will now depend on the political leaders of Egypt, Israel, the USA and the EU countries (on whose financial donations the Palestinian administration depends heavily for survival) as well as the leadership of the two Palestinian parties - Fatah and Hamaz - to find a practical solution for the Gaza Strip. The people on the ground have shown unmistakably that they are no longer willing to be used as the political football for rival factions and nebulous strategic plans. Short of destroying Gaza and wiping out its population - a deed so dastardly that not even George W. Bush would contemplate it - there is no way back to the situation before last Wednesday and the Gaza Strip will once again be connected to the outside world, one way or another.
Unconnected to the political development, there is another thought that crossed my mind when I began writing this entry. In the New Testament there is only one single reference to The Flight into Egypt, a very short passage in Matthew's Gospel. No other gospel or biblical text mentions it and some scholars even suggest that Matthew made it up, as a reverse reference to Moses, who fled from Egypt into Palestine.
But there is another aspect to it. On ancient maps the name of Gaza is spelled in various ways, including as Naza and Nazarat. As there is absolutely no historical or archaeological evidence for the existence of a town called "Nazareth" in Galilee in ancient times (including the first century CE), it is quite possible that the biblical Flight into Egypt was actually a flight to Gaza, which is in easy reach from Bethlehem. This would give a whole new dimension to the severe suffering the people of the Gaza Strip have to endure in modern times.
The Emerald Islander
In those days our life was much less hectic than it is now, and within the family there were many traditions we kept and observed. For example, there was never ever meat eaten on a Friday, and on Saturdays we always had a vegetable stew. On Saturday morning my mother would bake a cake (which would never be touched before Sunday afternoon), and on Saturday evening the whole family would sit together and play a nice and interesting board game. We did not have a television set then (the first one only arrived in 1966, to follow the Football World Cup) and everything was a lot more gentle and sensible.
Part of the daily life and the traditions was also that the two coldest months of the year - December and January - were very special. They were packed with events and celebrations, culminating of course at Christmas. But there were so many smaller events around Christmas, and all tied in with the great story of Mary, Joseph and their baby Jesus. It started with Mary's journey to her cousin Elizabeth (in early December) and ended with the baby Jesus being "presented in the Temple" (Christians did not use the word circumcised then) on February 2nd.This was also the day we packed up the family crib and stored it away in the attic, until it would be brought down again on the first day of Advent.
January 6th, Epiphany, was the day when we placed the three wise men inside the stable, after we had put them already on the periphery of the crib landscape, and shortly afterwards we did celebrate the Flight into Egypt (as shown on the Russian icon above), for which my mother would bake special biscuits with almonds and honey. Even though I do no longer observe all these traditions and have not had any of the special foods for many years, at the back of my mind they are still present as distant memories, connected with the winter time.
So when I heard a few days ago that the Palestinian people of Gaza, under blockade by Israel and ignored by the West (for all too obvious political reasons), have demolished elements of the "security barrier" that partitions the Gaza Strip from the Sinai peninsula and started to flock onto Egyptian territory, I was instantly reminded of the biblical Flight into Egypt two thousand years ago.
On foot and bicycle, by donkey cart and pickup truck, tens of thousands of Palestinians stream into northern Egypt, mainly to buy goods no longer available in Gaza, especially in recent days during a complete blockade by Israel, which also shut down the electricity supply for the city.After some hours most of the Gazans return home again, laden with medicine, food and drinks, soap, cigarettes, petrol, cement and countless other supplies. Even sheep, goats and cattle are brought back to Gaza, as well as household goods, television sets and satellite dishes.
For most of the Palestinians it is only a short trip, as they cross from Rafah in Gaza to Rafah in Egypt. The city has been divided by the border in 1982, when Egypt accepted the return of Sinai from Israel, but declined to take back the Gaza Strip as well. And all the goods and things no longer obtainable in Gaza are freely available in shops on the Egyptian side of the barrier.
The scenes of desperate people, breaking down the border wall in search of freedom and the basic food and goods they need for their survival, also reminded me of a very similar event I witnessed myself in November 1989, when the people of East-Berlin began to demolish the wall that had divided the German capital for more than 28 years.
It is amazing that politicians all around the world never learn the lessons of History. No power, regardless how strong, can divide people if they want to be together, and no wall will ever keep people from following their destiny. At first such barriers have always a negative effect, as they frustrate the people and dampen their political ambitions. But once the dividing line becomes a fact of daily life, something children grow up with and adults learn to hate, it also loses its power as a deterrent. And sooner or later the people will then find the courage to stand up against it and break it down.
For Egypt's political leadership - allied to and strongly influenced by the USA - the recent development in and around Gaza creates a dilemma. “If we prevent Palestinian civilians from crossing and confront them with force, we open ourself to unlimited public scrutiny at home. And if we let the Palestinians through, we face the risk of not knowing who or what is coming in, and also strong criticism from Israel and the United States,” told me a fellow analyst from Cairo.
Egyptian police units, at first attempting to stop the Palestinians and close the barrier again, have meanwhile given up on that idea and decided to do nothing for the time being.
However, the breaching of the barrier at Rafah could well lead to a re-start of the Palestinian peace process. Being no longer isolated and blockaded like a medieval city under siege, Gaza and its people have seen a glimpse of hope and found a way out of their dilemma. It will now depend on the political leaders of Egypt, Israel, the USA and the EU countries (on whose financial donations the Palestinian administration depends heavily for survival) as well as the leadership of the two Palestinian parties - Fatah and Hamaz - to find a practical solution for the Gaza Strip. The people on the ground have shown unmistakably that they are no longer willing to be used as the political football for rival factions and nebulous strategic plans. Short of destroying Gaza and wiping out its population - a deed so dastardly that not even George W. Bush would contemplate it - there is no way back to the situation before last Wednesday and the Gaza Strip will once again be connected to the outside world, one way or another.
Unconnected to the political development, there is another thought that crossed my mind when I began writing this entry. In the New Testament there is only one single reference to The Flight into Egypt, a very short passage in Matthew's Gospel. No other gospel or biblical text mentions it and some scholars even suggest that Matthew made it up, as a reverse reference to Moses, who fled from Egypt into Palestine.
But there is another aspect to it. On ancient maps the name of Gaza is spelled in various ways, including as Naza and Nazarat. As there is absolutely no historical or archaeological evidence for the existence of a town called "Nazareth" in Galilee in ancient times (including the first century CE), it is quite possible that the biblical Flight into Egypt was actually a flight to Gaza, which is in easy reach from Bethlehem. This would give a whole new dimension to the severe suffering the people of the Gaza Strip have to endure in modern times.
The Emerald Islander
25 January 2008
When God made Time . . .
The weather around Ireland and the British Isles is once again atrocious. Over the past 24 hours a new low front closed in on us, and as I write this, storms of force 10 are blowing in most sea areas. There are even some hurricanes (force 12) reported, but fortunately not in our areas. They are raging further up North, around the Shetland Islands, towards the Faeroes, and all the way to Norway. Tonight my special thoughts go out again to the skippers and sailors who have to master these conditions in order to keep us all supplied with the things we need.
Here on dry land the weather was actually surprisingly pleasant today. We still got some rain and wind, but not a lot. And for a few hours it felt quite mild. Now, that the wind has picked up speed again, it feels more colder and I have lit the fire to keep the house warm. This afternoon the farmer who sells us fire wood called again, so I am well stocked up.
It is never really certain if he comes on Thursdays or Fridays, and sometimes he even appears on a Saturday, after we have been already wondering if something has happened to him. But somehow he always comes, at his own time and pace, and this is so typical for the traditional way of life in Ireland.
When God made time, he made a lot of it - an old saying here - shows the generous attitude the average Irishman has to time in general and appointments in particular. Never expect people to be on time in Ireland, and if they are, they are most likely foreigners or were educated abroad.
It is not unusual that certain people forget appointments altogether, and sometimes a meeting that was set for a particular day and time is moved, postponed and moved again until a really suitable and agreeable time has been found. Or until the matter that was to be discussed is no longer of any relevance.
Subsequently the Irish have a reputation of being lazy, and - in all fairness - there is some real substance for seeing us that way. But the rather liberal attitude Irish people have towards time has several reasons. One is our Celtic heritage. Celts lived close to Nature, in small communities, connected with the traditional way of the seasons, of sowing and planting, growth and harvest, celebration and rest. In those days there were no clocks and watches, and the only "maker" of time was Nature, or God.
Another reason for the Irish reluctance to hurry is the time of occupation and colonialism forced upon the Celtic clans of Ireland. While the initially hostile encounters with the Vikings led soon to a fair co-existence between the two on the Emerald Isle, the Norman conquest in the late 12th century created a two-tier society which has been with us ever since.
Little is there in common between the haves and have-nots, the masters and their servants. So the only way of showing opposition - short of violence and rebellion - was to slow things down in all areas. In their arrogance the Normans and English thought not much about it, as they saw us as inferior beings anyway.
A third reason for the slow pace of life here was - and still is - the strong influence of the Church. Organised Christianity, and especially the Catholic variety of it, puts much emphasis on the "next world", the "life after death" when everything will be much better and we all will be rewarded for our suffering and shortfalls in this life. For the Church this is an easy promise, but it gives many people also the excuse to take this life not so serious.
In modern Ireland there is also an ever-present fourth reason for being late. The ever-growing number of cars on our roads - most of which were designed in the 19th century for a society of less mobile people who used horses, donkeys, carts and coaches - causes massive traffic jams in Ireland every day. It is bad enough on normal days, but let there be foul weather, heavy rain or storm, and things get much worse. This morning thousands of commuters around Dublin spent hours in their cars, waiting for the participant vehicles of a traffic accident to be removed from the M 50 motorway. One of the reasons for taking so long was that the tow-trucks, on their way to the accident, were themselves caught in another traffic jam (until they got a motorcycle escort form the Garda Siochana, our national police).
In all fairness, there are improvements on the way, and especially around Dublin a massive and futuristic looking network of roads and highways is constructed. But some of this construction work leads - inevitably - to more congestion and traffic jams. That Dublin's workers arrived in the city at all this morning is due to the wit and quick reaction of a Superintendent in the Garda Traffic Corps. When he heard of the problems, he literally got on his (motor)bike, went to the scene of the accident and personally organised the removal of the damaged cars from the lanes of the motorway. A couple of patrol cars came to his assistance, and eventually all was well again: the sheer endless motorised columns rolled into the city. However, such unbureaucratic personal initiative by an individual civil servant is rare. So rare in fact, that it landed the Superintendent on "Today with Pat Kenny", the nation's favourite late-morning radio programme.
From the safety of my little house, warmed by the crackling fire in the hearth, I salute the Superintendent for his spirit and initiative, and Pat Kenny for letting us know about it. More of the same is needed, and every good example inspires others. And to those still on the roads and highways of Ireland now I say a gentle Slan abhaile (Safe way home).
The Emerald Islander
Here on dry land the weather was actually surprisingly pleasant today. We still got some rain and wind, but not a lot. And for a few hours it felt quite mild. Now, that the wind has picked up speed again, it feels more colder and I have lit the fire to keep the house warm. This afternoon the farmer who sells us fire wood called again, so I am well stocked up.
It is never really certain if he comes on Thursdays or Fridays, and sometimes he even appears on a Saturday, after we have been already wondering if something has happened to him. But somehow he always comes, at his own time and pace, and this is so typical for the traditional way of life in Ireland.
When God made time, he made a lot of it - an old saying here - shows the generous attitude the average Irishman has to time in general and appointments in particular. Never expect people to be on time in Ireland, and if they are, they are most likely foreigners or were educated abroad.
It is not unusual that certain people forget appointments altogether, and sometimes a meeting that was set for a particular day and time is moved, postponed and moved again until a really suitable and agreeable time has been found. Or until the matter that was to be discussed is no longer of any relevance.
Subsequently the Irish have a reputation of being lazy, and - in all fairness - there is some real substance for seeing us that way. But the rather liberal attitude Irish people have towards time has several reasons. One is our Celtic heritage. Celts lived close to Nature, in small communities, connected with the traditional way of the seasons, of sowing and planting, growth and harvest, celebration and rest. In those days there were no clocks and watches, and the only "maker" of time was Nature, or God.
Another reason for the Irish reluctance to hurry is the time of occupation and colonialism forced upon the Celtic clans of Ireland. While the initially hostile encounters with the Vikings led soon to a fair co-existence between the two on the Emerald Isle, the Norman conquest in the late 12th century created a two-tier society which has been with us ever since.
Little is there in common between the haves and have-nots, the masters and their servants. So the only way of showing opposition - short of violence and rebellion - was to slow things down in all areas. In their arrogance the Normans and English thought not much about it, as they saw us as inferior beings anyway.
A third reason for the slow pace of life here was - and still is - the strong influence of the Church. Organised Christianity, and especially the Catholic variety of it, puts much emphasis on the "next world", the "life after death" when everything will be much better and we all will be rewarded for our suffering and shortfalls in this life. For the Church this is an easy promise, but it gives many people also the excuse to take this life not so serious.
In modern Ireland there is also an ever-present fourth reason for being late. The ever-growing number of cars on our roads - most of which were designed in the 19th century for a society of less mobile people who used horses, donkeys, carts and coaches - causes massive traffic jams in Ireland every day. It is bad enough on normal days, but let there be foul weather, heavy rain or storm, and things get much worse. This morning thousands of commuters around Dublin spent hours in their cars, waiting for the participant vehicles of a traffic accident to be removed from the M 50 motorway. One of the reasons for taking so long was that the tow-trucks, on their way to the accident, were themselves caught in another traffic jam (until they got a motorcycle escort form the Garda Siochana, our national police).
In all fairness, there are improvements on the way, and especially around Dublin a massive and futuristic looking network of roads and highways is constructed. But some of this construction work leads - inevitably - to more congestion and traffic jams. That Dublin's workers arrived in the city at all this morning is due to the wit and quick reaction of a Superintendent in the Garda Traffic Corps. When he heard of the problems, he literally got on his (motor)bike, went to the scene of the accident and personally organised the removal of the damaged cars from the lanes of the motorway. A couple of patrol cars came to his assistance, and eventually all was well again: the sheer endless motorised columns rolled into the city. However, such unbureaucratic personal initiative by an individual civil servant is rare. So rare in fact, that it landed the Superintendent on "Today with Pat Kenny", the nation's favourite late-morning radio programme.
From the safety of my little house, warmed by the crackling fire in the hearth, I salute the Superintendent for his spirit and initiative, and Pat Kenny for letting us know about it. More of the same is needed, and every good example inspires others. And to those still on the roads and highways of Ireland now I say a gentle Slan abhaile (Safe way home).
The Emerald Islander
24 January 2008
The largest Bank Fraud in History
While the world's rich and famous and the masters of global finance and industry gather in the Swiss Alpine resort of Davos for their annual "World Economic Forum", Société Générale, the second-largest bank in France, has just uncovered a massive fraud by one of its own traders which will cost it € 4.9 billion (which is equivalent to $ 7.1 billion or £ 3.7 billion). It also announced new write-downs of € 2.05 billion, related to the "sub-prime" mortgage crisis in the USA. Trading in the bank's shares, which have fallen by nearly 50% over the past six months, was suspended in Paris after the announcements.
Société Générale's chief executive Daniel Bouton offered his resignation, but it was rejected by the bank's board. It appears that he will have to stay and face the unpleasant facts a "very junior trader" could create, apparently unchecked and unsupervised, right under his eyes in the Paris head office.
The bank will need to seek € 5.5 billion in new capital to offset the losses, but it said it would still make a profit of € 600 to 800 million for 2007, despite the blows to its balance sheet.
"One of our traders," a spokesman announced, "has taken massive fraudulent directional positions in 2007 and 2008, beyond his limited authority." He added that the trader in question, whose current whereabouts seem to be unknown, had confessed to the fraud and was being dismissed. His managers will have to leave the bank as well.
Frederic Hamm, fund manager at Agilis Gestion, believes that this fraud "impacts the reputation of the bank", and it would be more than odd if it did not.
Richard Fuld, chairman of Lehman Brothers, took the news more coolly and said that "nothing stuns me, nothing really surprises me these days." Well, perhaps the boss of such a large bank can allow himself this degree of aloofness and cynicism. But for the rest of us, those whose money has been squandered once again by a rogue and foolish insider of the international financial system, it is outrageous. In fact, it is the largest ever recorded single case of fraud against a bank in the world, and it cries out loud for consequences - in economical as well as legal and political terms.
Ion-Marc Valhi of Amas Bank is one of the more critical insiders and said this morning: "I am sorry, but I have a hard time buying the fact that a single trader was able to set up a 'secret trade' of 4.9 billion without anybody finding out." I agree. What bank would allow a fairly minor employee the uncontrolled access to her entire financial assets? Well, one would think none, but reality tells us a different story today.
In my opinion the biggest scandal in this is not the actual fraud as such and the unprecedented loss it has caused, but the fact that the banks, supposed to look after our money and keep it safe, are allowed to use it for betting and gambling operations on the international markets. It is important to realise that the losses Société Générale is facing now are not the result of bad loans or imprudent investment. They are the result of gambling, of losing bets on the future development of shares. These so-called "future markets", as they are misleadingly named (since there is really no market), are just enormous bookies' dens and its operation is in no way different from betting on a horse or predicting the outcome of any sporting match. These days betting seems to be ever more popular, but it should be left to individuals, who do it with their own money. Banks, on whose stability and services everyone depends in a modern economy, should not be allowed to gamble, and especially not with their customers' money. It is more than time to lay down the law on this, in clear terms and backed up by international agreements (like those we have in the meantime on "money laundering"). Otherwise we could as well just take all our money and throw it into the sea.
The Emerald Islander
P.S. Only three days ago - in the face of the turmoil on the world's stock markets, but not knowing anything about the scandal at Société Générale - I did ask if we can trust the banks. I think that my question has been answered much clearer and quicker than I ever expected.
Société Générale's chief executive Daniel Bouton offered his resignation, but it was rejected by the bank's board. It appears that he will have to stay and face the unpleasant facts a "very junior trader" could create, apparently unchecked and unsupervised, right under his eyes in the Paris head office.
The bank will need to seek € 5.5 billion in new capital to offset the losses, but it said it would still make a profit of € 600 to 800 million for 2007, despite the blows to its balance sheet.
"One of our traders," a spokesman announced, "has taken massive fraudulent directional positions in 2007 and 2008, beyond his limited authority." He added that the trader in question, whose current whereabouts seem to be unknown, had confessed to the fraud and was being dismissed. His managers will have to leave the bank as well.
Frederic Hamm, fund manager at Agilis Gestion, believes that this fraud "impacts the reputation of the bank", and it would be more than odd if it did not.
Richard Fuld, chairman of Lehman Brothers, took the news more coolly and said that "nothing stuns me, nothing really surprises me these days." Well, perhaps the boss of such a large bank can allow himself this degree of aloofness and cynicism. But for the rest of us, those whose money has been squandered once again by a rogue and foolish insider of the international financial system, it is outrageous. In fact, it is the largest ever recorded single case of fraud against a bank in the world, and it cries out loud for consequences - in economical as well as legal and political terms.
Ion-Marc Valhi of Amas Bank is one of the more critical insiders and said this morning: "I am sorry, but I have a hard time buying the fact that a single trader was able to set up a 'secret trade' of 4.9 billion without anybody finding out." I agree. What bank would allow a fairly minor employee the uncontrolled access to her entire financial assets? Well, one would think none, but reality tells us a different story today.
In my opinion the biggest scandal in this is not the actual fraud as such and the unprecedented loss it has caused, but the fact that the banks, supposed to look after our money and keep it safe, are allowed to use it for betting and gambling operations on the international markets. It is important to realise that the losses Société Générale is facing now are not the result of bad loans or imprudent investment. They are the result of gambling, of losing bets on the future development of shares. These so-called "future markets", as they are misleadingly named (since there is really no market), are just enormous bookies' dens and its operation is in no way different from betting on a horse or predicting the outcome of any sporting match. These days betting seems to be ever more popular, but it should be left to individuals, who do it with their own money. Banks, on whose stability and services everyone depends in a modern economy, should not be allowed to gamble, and especially not with their customers' money. It is more than time to lay down the law on this, in clear terms and backed up by international agreements (like those we have in the meantime on "money laundering"). Otherwise we could as well just take all our money and throw it into the sea.
The Emerald Islander
P.S. Only three days ago - in the face of the turmoil on the world's stock markets, but not knowing anything about the scandal at Société Générale - I did ask if we can trust the banks. I think that my question has been answered much clearer and quicker than I ever expected.
23 January 2008
No one dares to challenge China
Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown has just returned from his first official visit to China. The main reason for the trip - and main subject of his talks with Chinese officials - was, to no one's surprise, trade.
We (the developed countries of the West) have meanwhile reached a point where about 85% of our normal consumer goods are manufactured in China. Most toys are produced there, too, and a large proportion of books published in the English language are printed and bound in China.
This has led to the strange situation that we are more and more dependent on China, while the Chinese government swims in billions of Dollars, Pounds and Euros, not really knowing what to do with it. Recently a new economic development office was opened by China's President Hu, and the director of this office was given the sum of $ 200 billion as starting capital. More might be at his disposal later, and he has the task to invest this money in suitable projects and industries in the West.
In a few years we might find ourselves in the situation that we are not only completely dependent on China for our household goods, books and toys, but that China also holds and controls significant stakes in our remaining industries and institutions. Not one person in political power in the West today seems to see the potential danger this entails.
And none of our political leaders dares to raise his (or her) voice to challenge China on the issue of Human Rights. It is no secret that - despite a complete turn-around in economic policy - the People's Republic is still a Communist state with severe restrictions on freedom of speech, expression and many other human rights. China's prisons are full of various kinds of dissidents, and many of them are forced to provide slave labour for factories that produce goods for the Western market. None of our politicians and leading businessmen takes any notice of that, despite regular and meanwhile numerous reports compiled by Amnesty International. We are deliberately closing our eyes and minds to the facts of modern China and her human rights' abuses, just as the West closed eyes and minds to the (well known) facts of the Third Reich and its treatment of Jews and political prisoners.
We are sleep-walking into a massive spider's web and enable the building of an economic monster even Dr. Frankenstein would not have dared to create. And this does not even take into account the position of Taiwan, which could well be the trigger for a massive war between China and the USA in the foreseeable future. It amazes me how little our leaders have learned from History.
So far any free and democratic society that has tolerated and supported an oppressive and totalitarian regime had eventually to pay for that mistake in blood, gold and many other commodities. There is still time to re-think our policies towards China, but with every day, every ship full of goods made in China, and every trade delegation visiting Beijing the room for free movement and decisions is getting smaller.
The Emerald Islander
We (the developed countries of the West) have meanwhile reached a point where about 85% of our normal consumer goods are manufactured in China. Most toys are produced there, too, and a large proportion of books published in the English language are printed and bound in China.
This has led to the strange situation that we are more and more dependent on China, while the Chinese government swims in billions of Dollars, Pounds and Euros, not really knowing what to do with it. Recently a new economic development office was opened by China's President Hu, and the director of this office was given the sum of $ 200 billion as starting capital. More might be at his disposal later, and he has the task to invest this money in suitable projects and industries in the West.
In a few years we might find ourselves in the situation that we are not only completely dependent on China for our household goods, books and toys, but that China also holds and controls significant stakes in our remaining industries and institutions. Not one person in political power in the West today seems to see the potential danger this entails.
And none of our political leaders dares to raise his (or her) voice to challenge China on the issue of Human Rights. It is no secret that - despite a complete turn-around in economic policy - the People's Republic is still a Communist state with severe restrictions on freedom of speech, expression and many other human rights. China's prisons are full of various kinds of dissidents, and many of them are forced to provide slave labour for factories that produce goods for the Western market. None of our politicians and leading businessmen takes any notice of that, despite regular and meanwhile numerous reports compiled by Amnesty International. We are deliberately closing our eyes and minds to the facts of modern China and her human rights' abuses, just as the West closed eyes and minds to the (well known) facts of the Third Reich and its treatment of Jews and political prisoners.
We are sleep-walking into a massive spider's web and enable the building of an economic monster even Dr. Frankenstein would not have dared to create. And this does not even take into account the position of Taiwan, which could well be the trigger for a massive war between China and the USA in the foreseeable future. It amazes me how little our leaders have learned from History.
So far any free and democratic society that has tolerated and supported an oppressive and totalitarian regime had eventually to pay for that mistake in blood, gold and many other commodities. There is still time to re-think our policies towards China, but with every day, every ship full of goods made in China, and every trade delegation visiting Beijing the room for free movement and decisions is getting smaller.
The Emerald Islander
22 January 2008
Global Warming threatens Ireland
Alarming news have reached Ireland today. The Giant's Causeway, a UN World Heritage Site and Northern Ireland's biggest tourist attraction, could soon be suffering from the effects of Global Warming. According to the National Trust the amazing natural site is threatened by rising water levels and coastal erosion.
A report, compiled by scientist from the Queen's University in Belfast and the University of Ulster, warns that part of the Middle and Little Causeway could be under water for much of the winter by the end of the century. The Grand Causeway could also suffer serious erosion by about 2080, and new approach routes for visitors would probably have to be built.
In the shorter term, predicted stormier weather at the site over the next decade would require greater safety measures to be introduced to stop people falling from the cliff next to the famous octagonal basalt stones.
In the medium term – from 2050 to 2080 – many more of the stones will be under the waves.
But the Giant's Causeway is only one of three National Trust properties in Northern Ireland that are threatened by rising water levels, expected to change by about a metre by the end of the century. Murlough national nature reserve and Strangford Lough, both in County Down, are also at risk from coastal erosion and flooding.
At Strangford Lough, sea levels are predicted to rise by 25cm by 2050 with a "worst case scenario" prediction of a one-metre rise by the turn of the century. The lough, which is internationally important for its birds and other wildlife, is designated a marine nature reserve and a special area of conservation. The greater the sea level rise, the greater the loss of its important tidal mud flats. This would have a significant impact on the availability of food for the tens of thousands of Brent geese and other birds that winter there. As more of the lough's islands disappear under water, there would also be a detrimental impact on the summer breeding of seabirds, including terns, ringed plovers and cormorants, and the population of seals.
The Murlough reserve could see 50-400 metres of the existing dune frontage eroded away, together with a serious loss of vegetation.
The report also highlights general climate changes to be expected in Ireland. Within the next fifty years we will experience warmer annual temperatures, wetter winters and drier summers, and increased frequency of extreme storm surges and extreme waves. By the year 2100 the sea levels on Ireland's coasts will also have risen by an estimated 85 to 100 centimetres, compared with the current levels.
Many years ago, when the first warnings of Global Warming appeared in scientific studies, hardly anyone took notice of them. No one in Ireland thought then that it could effect us. But after decades of ignorance the planet's ecological clock is now ticking faster. The rising sea levels are not only a threat to the existence of many island nations in the Pacific (such as Tuvalu), they will change every coastline on Earth and the lives of millions of people (including the Irish).
The world's big polluting nations and their industries, and especially the USA, have wasted decades that could have been used to reduce the carbon output and slow down Global Warming. Instead they have been burning fossil fuels without any thoughts of the future and the rest of us. Now we all have to face the consequences and pay the price. Thank you, Mr. Bush!
The Emerald Islander (looking for his Wellington boots)
A report, compiled by scientist from the Queen's University in Belfast and the University of Ulster, warns that part of the Middle and Little Causeway could be under water for much of the winter by the end of the century. The Grand Causeway could also suffer serious erosion by about 2080, and new approach routes for visitors would probably have to be built.In the shorter term, predicted stormier weather at the site over the next decade would require greater safety measures to be introduced to stop people falling from the cliff next to the famous octagonal basalt stones.
In the medium term – from 2050 to 2080 – many more of the stones will be under the waves.
But the Giant's Causeway is only one of three National Trust properties in Northern Ireland that are threatened by rising water levels, expected to change by about a metre by the end of the century. Murlough national nature reserve and Strangford Lough, both in County Down, are also at risk from coastal erosion and flooding.
At Strangford Lough, sea levels are predicted to rise by 25cm by 2050 with a "worst case scenario" prediction of a one-metre rise by the turn of the century. The lough, which is internationally important for its birds and other wildlife, is designated a marine nature reserve and a special area of conservation. The greater the sea level rise, the greater the loss of its important tidal mud flats. This would have a significant impact on the availability of food for the tens of thousands of Brent geese and other birds that winter there. As more of the lough's islands disappear under water, there would also be a detrimental impact on the summer breeding of seabirds, including terns, ringed plovers and cormorants, and the population of seals.
The Murlough reserve could see 50-400 metres of the existing dune frontage eroded away, together with a serious loss of vegetation.
The report also highlights general climate changes to be expected in Ireland. Within the next fifty years we will experience warmer annual temperatures, wetter winters and drier summers, and increased frequency of extreme storm surges and extreme waves. By the year 2100 the sea levels on Ireland's coasts will also have risen by an estimated 85 to 100 centimetres, compared with the current levels.
Many years ago, when the first warnings of Global Warming appeared in scientific studies, hardly anyone took notice of them. No one in Ireland thought then that it could effect us. But after decades of ignorance the planet's ecological clock is now ticking faster. The rising sea levels are not only a threat to the existence of many island nations in the Pacific (such as Tuvalu), they will change every coastline on Earth and the lives of millions of people (including the Irish).
The world's big polluting nations and their industries, and especially the USA, have wasted decades that could have been used to reduce the carbon output and slow down Global Warming. Instead they have been burning fossil fuels without any thoughts of the future and the rest of us. Now we all have to face the consequences and pay the price. Thank you, Mr. Bush!
The Emerald Islander (looking for his Wellington boots)
21 January 2008
Can we trust the Banks?
Today has seen a massive collapse of share prices on all European stock markets, after a similar plunge was recorded over night on the stock markets of Japan, Hong Kong and India. Tokyo's Nikkei index closed down 3.86%, reaching its lowest level for more than two years, while Hong Kong's Hang Sang fell by 5.5%. Many investors around the world sold shares in panic, because of serious concerns that the US economy is about to fall into recession. This led to spectacular losses of up to 7% in some markets.
In London the FTSE 100 index tumbled by 324 points (or 5.5%) to 5578, taking £ 84 billion off the value of its listed shares. In Paris the CAC lost 6.8% and closed at 4744, and in Frankfurt the DAX plunged a massive 7% to a final position of 6790. Most stock exchanges, including London, Paris and Frankfurt, recorded their biggest single-day losses since the attacks of September 11th, 2001. In Dublin € 3 billion were wiped off the value of Irish shares as the ISEQ index closed down 273 points (or 4%) at 6261, its lowest level in two and a half years.
Wall Street is closed for the annual Martin Luther King holiday, but analysts expect that tomorrow the US markets will suffer losses as well, especially since the ailing US economy is the main reason for today's sharp reactions.
The world-wide stock market panic is a direct reaction to George W. Bush's announcement of plans to revive the faltering US economy through large injections of extra money. There are new worries that many US consumers, facing difficulties paying their mortgages, are also beginning to default on credit cards. That increases already existing fears about the effect this will have on banks' willingness to lend.
So once again the world's economic stability and our all livelihood depends on the banks. These are the very same banks that have been gambling with our money for decades, creating large profits for themselves, while inventing ever more and higher fees for providing normal financial services to the majority of businesses and individual customers. In their never-ending greed the major financial institutions - including Citi Bank, the world's largest bank - went even further and created financial products that make no sense at all and were bound to fail.
They deliberately sold - through a network of shady agencies - mortgages to people whose income was never large enough to pay them back. The so-called "sub-prime" mortgages were then bundled by the banks and sold on to other banks and investors around the world as a separate financial product.
These dubious financial machinations created a house of cards that has meanwhile collapsed with a massive crash. The world's financial markets are subsequently in turmoil and the signals of recession are visible everywhere. All this has an even worse effect on the US economy, which has been already weakened by George W. Bush's concentration on war rather than economic and social stability. Hundreds of billions of Dollars are pumped into the Military-Industrial Complex, while many ordinary Americans are struggling to survive, often on the breadline or even below it.
For decades the USA have lived on borrowed time and even more borrowed money. Few people are aware of the fact that more than 80% of loans taken out in the USA are financed with money from abroad, often by banks and institutions in countries much poorer than the United States.
Now the financial chicken are coming home to roost, but one should not expect that the banks will bear the brunt of the crisis. They have already written off tens of billions of Dollars, even before today's massive drop of share prices, and some of the top bankers resigned in disgrace. However, there is no need to feel sorry for them, since they are not feeling sorry for us either. And they retired with large pay-offs and even larger pensions, all paid for in the end by people like you and me. And make no mistake: the banks will find ways and means to slip out of the disaster and make us - the ordinary people - pay for all their greedy follies.
This makes me wonder if we can actually trust the banks. We all need them, of course, since in the modern world of the "global village" financial transactions without banks are difficult and in many cases impossible. Thus the banks have established a hold over us, and ever more it leads to shameless exploitation of normal and poor people, for the benefit of the rich and wealthy as well as the banks themselves. While banks are not shy to take great risks with our money, gambling it away daily on the world's stock and commodity markets, they still treat ordinary people with harshness and arrogance. This will continue to be the case, as long as the customers do not stand up against the banks, apply the same standards to them that they apply to us, and make them stop losing our money in senseless US loans and reckless gambling around the globe.
Personally I have reduced my dealings with banks to the absolute unavoidable minimum. I also shop around for the best conditions and most decent service, and all for the better of everyone. Though I will not tell you what to do and how to behave, you are welcome to follow my humble example.
The Emerald Islander
20 January 2008
Green Party divided over Europe
Ireland's Green Party, for seven months now the junior partner in the new government, is divided over the future of the European Union. Party delegates met yesterday in Dublin and voted in favour of supporting the Lisbon Treaty in the forthcoming referendum, but fell just short of the required two thirds majority. Of the 318 delegates eligible to vote at the conference, 195 (63%) supported the Treaty, while 117 (27%) opposed it.
The current decision makers in the party are the three men who brought the Greens into the coalition with the main government party Fianna Fail (and were handsomely rewarded for doing so). They are John Gormley, the new Green Party leader and Minister for Environment, Heritage and Local Government (left), Eamon Ryan, Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (right) and former party leader Trevor Sargent, now junior minister in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (below right).
By joining Fianna Fail, the party they fought most vehemently in opposition, the Greens have not only crossed a big political rift, but nailed their colours firmly to the mast of the coalition.
For many Irish people, including Green Party members, this was a betrayal of traditional Green values and positions.
I tend to share this view myself and will not support the Greens in future. For me they have abandoned their principals and gone over to the other side, without need or being forced to do so. After nearly 25 years of clean, moral and progressive policies in opposition the change to a supporter and junior partner of the most corrupt force in Irish politics is simply too much to bear. But what I personally will never forget and forgive the Greens is that by joining Fianna Fail in the current coalition they kept the defeated and decimated remnants of the right-wing ultra-capitalist Progressive Democrats in power as well, and - most tragically - their leader Mary Harney in her position as Minister for Health. More than anything else this is doing enormous damage to our health service, and thousands of sick and elderly people are suffering as a consequence.
For me it is therefore not very important if the Green Party supports the Lisbon Treaty or not. Being the only of the 27 EU countries whose constitution requires a referendum on any new EU treaty, it will be the Irish people who decide the matter, and not political parties.
Since the government will be pressing for a "yes" vote, the Green ministers will have no choice but to do the same, unless they wish to resign from their only recently acquired positions. This is most unlikely. Among the ordinary party members and supporters around the country there is already a clear division of minds, and not only over the Lisbon Treaty.
The referendum debate only shows more clearly that the Green leaders left many long-standing supporters behind when they joined Fianna Fail in government. It does not help that Taoiseach Bertie Ahern is coming under ever more pressure to reveal and clarify his muddled financial affairs, and it will be more important and of more interest to voters what position the Greens take in this matter. It was no secret that Mr. Ahern has serious question to answer when the Green Party decided to support him as Taoiseach. They could have supported a "rainbow" coalition with Fine Gael and the Labour Party, which would not only have been much closer to their own political principles, but also given Ireland a new political start, much needed after more than ten years of Fianna Fail dominated governments.
Having sold their political soul to Bertie Ahern, the Green Party will now have to live with the consequences. Observers predict that the division over the Lisbon Treaty is only the beginning of their problems, and that the cracks in the once fairly united environmental movement are widening.
Green ministers in government might well bring us more restrictions and bureaucracy, higher taxes and an already unpopular ban of traditional light bulbs. But they will not change the structure and direction of Fianna Fail and might well have to pay the price for their decision in the next elections, in the same way as Labour Party and Progressive Democrats did after being in coalition with Fianna Fail.
The Emerald Islander
This means that the party itself will not take a clear position on the matter, and that individual members will be free to support whichever side they wish. Even though leading party members try to play down the division, it appears that the Green Party is now split into two factions.
Party leader and Environment Minister John Gormley, himself strongly in favour of the Lisbon Treaty, accepted the result and congratulated all those who had spoken on both sides.
But former MEP Patricia McKenna, a leading opponent of the Treaty, said she was "over the moon", as she had feared the party leadership might secure a two thirds majority. The result of the vote, she stated, meant that the party membership would not be "pushed around", and claimed that it would strengthen the hands of the two Green Party ministers in government as it showed that "there were some things the members would not stand for".
The current decision makers in the party are the three men who brought the Greens into the coalition with the main government party Fianna Fail (and were handsomely rewarded for doing so). They are John Gormley, the new Green Party leader and Minister for Environment, Heritage and Local Government (left), Eamon Ryan, Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (right) and former party leader Trevor Sargent, now junior minister in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (below right).
By joining Fianna Fail, the party they fought most vehemently in opposition, the Greens have not only crossed a big political rift, but nailed their colours firmly to the mast of the coalition.
For many Irish people, including Green Party members, this was a betrayal of traditional Green values and positions.
I tend to share this view myself and will not support the Greens in future. For me they have abandoned their principals and gone over to the other side, without need or being forced to do so. After nearly 25 years of clean, moral and progressive policies in opposition the change to a supporter and junior partner of the most corrupt force in Irish politics is simply too much to bear. But what I personally will never forget and forgive the Greens is that by joining Fianna Fail in the current coalition they kept the defeated and decimated remnants of the right-wing ultra-capitalist Progressive Democrats in power as well, and - most tragically - their leader Mary Harney in her position as Minister for Health. More than anything else this is doing enormous damage to our health service, and thousands of sick and elderly people are suffering as a consequence.
For me it is therefore not very important if the Green Party supports the Lisbon Treaty or not. Being the only of the 27 EU countries whose constitution requires a referendum on any new EU treaty, it will be the Irish people who decide the matter, and not political parties.
Since the government will be pressing for a "yes" vote, the Green ministers will have no choice but to do the same, unless they wish to resign from their only recently acquired positions. This is most unlikely. Among the ordinary party members and supporters around the country there is already a clear division of minds, and not only over the Lisbon Treaty.
The referendum debate only shows more clearly that the Green leaders left many long-standing supporters behind when they joined Fianna Fail in government. It does not help that Taoiseach Bertie Ahern is coming under ever more pressure to reveal and clarify his muddled financial affairs, and it will be more important and of more interest to voters what position the Greens take in this matter. It was no secret that Mr. Ahern has serious question to answer when the Green Party decided to support him as Taoiseach. They could have supported a "rainbow" coalition with Fine Gael and the Labour Party, which would not only have been much closer to their own political principles, but also given Ireland a new political start, much needed after more than ten years of Fianna Fail dominated governments.
Having sold their political soul to Bertie Ahern, the Green Party will now have to live with the consequences. Observers predict that the division over the Lisbon Treaty is only the beginning of their problems, and that the cracks in the once fairly united environmental movement are widening.
Green ministers in government might well bring us more restrictions and bureaucracy, higher taxes and an already unpopular ban of traditional light bulbs. But they will not change the structure and direction of Fianna Fail and might well have to pay the price for their decision in the next elections, in the same way as Labour Party and Progressive Democrats did after being in coalition with Fianna Fail.
The Emerald Islander
19 January 2008
Peril on the Sea
Today the weather in and around Ireland is quite bad again. As I write this, a storm is blowing over my little house and heavy rain is falling on the roof. But even though it is an old house, it is stable and I have nothing to worry, while I sit in front of a blazing fire that keeps us (the cat and myself) warm.
However, not everyone is so lucky today. A while ago I heard on the radio that once again a fishing trawler is in distress off the coast of Ireland, this time about 40 miles north-west off the coast of Donegal (in the far North-West of the island).
She is the 33m long British registered "The Shark" from Scotland, but commanded by a Spanish Master and crewed entirely with Spanish sailors. According to the reports a serious fire has broken out in the vessel's galley and she has difficulties bringing it under control in the rough sea conditions of the area.
The Irish Coastguard helicopter from Sligo was called out and already airlifted nine non-essential crew members to Carrickfin Airport in Donegal. Seven other crew members remained on board to fight the fire, while a lifeboat from Arranmore was standing by at the scene.
For further assistance the LE Eithne, flagship of the Irish Naval Service (and the largest of her 8 patrol vessels), was dispatched as well.
After reaching "The Shark" at about 1800 h local time, LE Eithne sent a seven-men strong naval fire-fighting team across, while five more crew members of the fishing vessel were transferred to the lifeboat. The Naval Service reported later that the fire has been extinguished and a naval fire watch will remain on board over night. No one was injured in the incident.
This is good news and will please everyone on the island tonight. There is certainly material damage to the trawler, and it might well have to be towed to the nearest port for assessment and repairs. But the most important thing is that no lives were lost and no one was hurt.
Such is not always the case. Despite a well-organised system of Coastguard and RNLI lifeboat stations around Ireland, there is hardly a year without lives and vessels being lost at sea. Only a year ago two well-known local fishing boats from our area (on the southern coast of Ireland) sank in heavy weather on the same day, with a total loss of seven lives. This was - and still is - a great shock for the close-knit communities of fishermen along the coast. One of them was a new and very modern vessel, and it is still not clear why it sank so suddenly and without sending a distress call over the radio.
We live now in a highly sophisticated world with much modern technology, and many walks of life have become quite safe and almost risk-free. But the sea is still the most powerful and uncontrollable part of our planet, covering 71% of the Earth's surface (a fact so often forgotten by most people). Anyone who has ever been at sea will know how difficult it can be to keep a ship afloat and steady, especially in rough weather conditions.
During my active service in the Navy I experienced many such situations, including a severe gale (force 11) in a destroyer and several gales (force 10) in frigates and smaller vessels. This was not easy and required all our wits and skills. But compared with most fishing boats our naval vessels were giants. So my heart goes out every time I hear of sailors in distress, and I always hope that they will return safe and sound.
I am not a church-goer and do not belong to any organised religion, but on days like this the tune and words of our traditional Navy hymn come to me, as clear as they sound in every church and chapel around the coast of our islands:
The Emerald Islander
However, not everyone is so lucky today. A while ago I heard on the radio that once again a fishing trawler is in distress off the coast of Ireland, this time about 40 miles north-west off the coast of Donegal (in the far North-West of the island).
She is the 33m long British registered "The Shark" from Scotland, but commanded by a Spanish Master and crewed entirely with Spanish sailors. According to the reports a serious fire has broken out in the vessel's galley and she has difficulties bringing it under control in the rough sea conditions of the area.
The Irish Coastguard helicopter from Sligo was called out and already airlifted nine non-essential crew members to Carrickfin Airport in Donegal. Seven other crew members remained on board to fight the fire, while a lifeboat from Arranmore was standing by at the scene.
For further assistance the LE Eithne, flagship of the Irish Naval Service (and the largest of her 8 patrol vessels), was dispatched as well.
After reaching "The Shark" at about 1800 h local time, LE Eithne sent a seven-men strong naval fire-fighting team across, while five more crew members of the fishing vessel were transferred to the lifeboat. The Naval Service reported later that the fire has been extinguished and a naval fire watch will remain on board over night. No one was injured in the incident.
This is good news and will please everyone on the island tonight. There is certainly material damage to the trawler, and it might well have to be towed to the nearest port for assessment and repairs. But the most important thing is that no lives were lost and no one was hurt.
Such is not always the case. Despite a well-organised system of Coastguard and RNLI lifeboat stations around Ireland, there is hardly a year without lives and vessels being lost at sea. Only a year ago two well-known local fishing boats from our area (on the southern coast of Ireland) sank in heavy weather on the same day, with a total loss of seven lives. This was - and still is - a great shock for the close-knit communities of fishermen along the coast. One of them was a new and very modern vessel, and it is still not clear why it sank so suddenly and without sending a distress call over the radio.
We live now in a highly sophisticated world with much modern technology, and many walks of life have become quite safe and almost risk-free. But the sea is still the most powerful and uncontrollable part of our planet, covering 71% of the Earth's surface (a fact so often forgotten by most people). Anyone who has ever been at sea will know how difficult it can be to keep a ship afloat and steady, especially in rough weather conditions.
During my active service in the Navy I experienced many such situations, including a severe gale (force 11) in a destroyer and several gales (force 10) in frigates and smaller vessels. This was not easy and required all our wits and skills. But compared with most fishing boats our naval vessels were giants. So my heart goes out every time I hear of sailors in distress, and I always hope that they will return safe and sound.
I am not a church-goer and do not belong to any organised religion, but on days like this the tune and words of our traditional Navy hymn come to me, as clear as they sound in every church and chapel around the coast of our islands:
- Eternal Father, strong to save,
- Whose arm hath bound the restless wave,
- Who bidd'st the mighty ocean deep
- Its own appointed limits keep;
- Oh, hear us when we cry to Thee,
- For those in peril on the sea!
The Emerald Islander
18 January 2008
Charlie Wilson's War
As the matter of Afghanistan has come up yesterday, this might be a good time to add a little film review related to the subject. (I hope you do not mind that I use this weblog also to review books, films or even computer games now and then.)
Like most films I watch, the one I want to talk about today reflects on real events. It is called Charlie Wilson's War and based on George Crile's book with the same title (first published in 2003).
Both book and film tell the most unbelievable - but entirely true - background story to one of the most secret and successful intelligence operations in modern times, Operation Cyclone. This was the code name for Americas covert operations in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan during the 1980s, a secret war against Communism the CIA directed through various channels, including Israeli defence industries, Egypt's Ministry of Defence, Pakistan's government, army and inter-service intelligence agency (ISI), the Saudi Royal Family, and various other individuals, organisations and groups. Many of these groups, at the time known under the collective name "Mujahideen" (Arabic for strugglers), have meanwhile disappeared into history, but some of the names on the CIA's "list of friends" are still of relevance. They are Hezbi Islami (lead by the fanatic Gulbuddin Hekmatyar), Al-Qaeda (lead by the scholar Abdullah Yusuf Azzam) and Maktab al-Khadamat - or "MAK", as the Americans called them - (lead by Osama bin Laden). *
But even though the film is about Afghanistan and shows plenty of it, some with original footage from reconnaissance and news reports of the time, its main focus is the title hero Charlie Wilson, a member of the US House of Representatives from East Texas. A Democrat with very liberal views and a gregarious personal lifestyle, Charles Nesbitt Wilson (left, and not to be confused with the now sitting Congressman Charlie Wilson, a Democrat representing Ohio) was not the kind of politician one would find centre-stage in the limelight of national politics. Quite the opposite, in fact. But Wilson, a former naval officer, had some unusual friends, among them the colourful Houston socialite Joanne King Herring, a woman endowed equally with great wealth and great beauty. Her special concern for the plight of Afghani refugees who fled to Pakistan in their millions after the Soviets had invaded and occupied their country led to Wilson becoming interested as well. And even though a rather small fish in the great pond of Washington D.C., the Texan Congressman sat on the right committees, among them the one that appropriates secret funding for the CIA and other US intelligence agencies. With a combination of persuasion, political horse trading and using every trick in the book Wilson (played by Tom Hanks, who also produced the film) manages to increase the CIA's covert operations budget for Afghanistan from an original $ 5 million per annum to more than $ 600 million each year!
Hanks, who is an amazingly authentic look-alike of the real Charlie Wilson, does not only create a well-deserved memory for all those who were involved, he also shows us how Congress really works and how easy it is in fact to manipulate massive amounts of money without the public ever having the slightest idea of it. Had there been ever any doubt about it, this film demonstrates how very similar the modern US Congress is to the Senate of ancient Rome.
Not surprisingly, this is a very American film, which means that messages are coming straight at you and miss the subtlety one might find in some European productions. But it is a very good and informative film, which I highly recommend to anyone interested in current affairs.
The only shortfall in this otherwise well-made film is the casting of Julia Roberts as the wealthy Texan socialite Joanne King Herring.
No disrespect to Ms. Roberts, who has appeared in many films and is certainly a very talented actress, but she did not bring across the personality and spirit of Joanne Herring, and most significantly not her exceptional beauty. The real Joanne (pictured here with Julia Roberts) is like a mixture of Marilyn Monroe and Margaret Thatcher all in one, and also not very tall (while the real Charlie Wilson is). As Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts are almost of the same height, the great physical difference and the element of Charlie towering over Joanne are entirely missed. And - again with no disrespect - Ms. Roberts' mouth and nose are just too large to be really beautiful, while Joanne Herring has a really classic porcelain doll's face.
As it happens, this is the second time that Julia Roberts was chosen to play a woman of historical significance which she neither resembles physically nor fits in any way. The other was Kitty Kiernan, the girlfriend of Ireland's revolution hero Michael Collins, played in the film of the same title by Liam Neeson.
It appears that certain Hollywood studios insist on particular "stars" appearing in their films, regardless if they fit the character or not. And being one of the highest paid actresses in the USA, I suppose that Julia Roberts just gets as many major roles as possible. Sadly, it does not always work. But nevertheless, she is a vivacious woman and fits at least the bill in this way, even though she looks not a bit like the real Joanne King Herring (who even now, as an elderly woman, has still one of the most beautiful faces in the western world...)
In contrast to Julia Roberts, the casting of Phillip Seymour Hoffman as the unconventional Greek-American CIA agent Gust Avrakotos makes the film not only more realistic, but also adds a lot of quite funny elements to it. Rough diamonds like the real Avrakotos are rare, but without them most intelligence services could not function.
Even though the director, Mike Nichols, has made a number of films before, the German-born son of Russian Jews is better known for his theatre work. With Charlie Wilson's War he does move into new artistic territory, and it seems he feels quite at home there already.
The Emerald Islander
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* After Azzam's death in 1989 Osama bin Laden merged MAK with Al-Qaeda and became its new leader.
Like most films I watch, the one I want to talk about today reflects on real events. It is called Charlie Wilson's War and based on George Crile's book with the same title (first published in 2003).
Both book and film tell the most unbelievable - but entirely true - background story to one of the most secret and successful intelligence operations in modern times, Operation Cyclone. This was the code name for Americas covert operations in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan during the 1980s, a secret war against Communism the CIA directed through various channels, including Israeli defence industries, Egypt's Ministry of Defence, Pakistan's government, army and inter-service intelligence agency (ISI), the Saudi Royal Family, and various other individuals, organisations and groups. Many of these groups, at the time known under the collective name "Mujahideen" (Arabic for strugglers), have meanwhile disappeared into history, but some of the names on the CIA's "list of friends" are still of relevance. They are Hezbi Islami (lead by the fanatic Gulbuddin Hekmatyar), Al-Qaeda (lead by the scholar Abdullah Yusuf Azzam) and Maktab al-Khadamat - or "MAK", as the Americans called them - (lead by Osama bin Laden). *
But even though the film is about Afghanistan and shows plenty of it, some with original footage from reconnaissance and news reports of the time, its main focus is the title hero Charlie Wilson, a member of the US House of Representatives from East Texas. A Democrat with very liberal views and a gregarious personal lifestyle, Charles Nesbitt Wilson (left, and not to be confused with the now sitting Congressman Charlie Wilson, a Democrat representing Ohio) was not the kind of politician one would find centre-stage in the limelight of national politics. Quite the opposite, in fact. But Wilson, a former naval officer, had some unusual friends, among them the colourful Houston socialite Joanne King Herring, a woman endowed equally with great wealth and great beauty. Her special concern for the plight of Afghani refugees who fled to Pakistan in their millions after the Soviets had invaded and occupied their country led to Wilson becoming interested as well. And even though a rather small fish in the great pond of Washington D.C., the Texan Congressman sat on the right committees, among them the one that appropriates secret funding for the CIA and other US intelligence agencies. With a combination of persuasion, political horse trading and using every trick in the book Wilson (played by Tom Hanks, who also produced the film) manages to increase the CIA's covert operations budget for Afghanistan from an original $ 5 million per annum to more than $ 600 million each year!Hanks, who is an amazingly authentic look-alike of the real Charlie Wilson, does not only create a well-deserved memory for all those who were involved, he also shows us how Congress really works and how easy it is in fact to manipulate massive amounts of money without the public ever having the slightest idea of it. Had there been ever any doubt about it, this film demonstrates how very similar the modern US Congress is to the Senate of ancient Rome.
Not surprisingly, this is a very American film, which means that messages are coming straight at you and miss the subtlety one might find in some European productions. But it is a very good and informative film, which I highly recommend to anyone interested in current affairs.
The only shortfall in this otherwise well-made film is the casting of Julia Roberts as the wealthy Texan socialite Joanne King Herring.No disrespect to Ms. Roberts, who has appeared in many films and is certainly a very talented actress, but she did not bring across the personality and spirit of Joanne Herring, and most significantly not her exceptional beauty. The real Joanne (pictured here with Julia Roberts) is like a mixture of Marilyn Monroe and Margaret Thatcher all in one, and also not very tall (while the real Charlie Wilson is). As Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts are almost of the same height, the great physical difference and the element of Charlie towering over Joanne are entirely missed. And - again with no disrespect - Ms. Roberts' mouth and nose are just too large to be really beautiful, while Joanne Herring has a really classic porcelain doll's face.
As it happens, this is the second time that Julia Roberts was chosen to play a woman of historical significance which she neither resembles physically nor fits in any way. The other was Kitty Kiernan, the girlfriend of Ireland's revolution hero Michael Collins, played in the film of the same title by Liam Neeson.
It appears that certain Hollywood studios insist on particular "stars" appearing in their films, regardless if they fit the character or not. And being one of the highest paid actresses in the USA, I suppose that Julia Roberts just gets as many major roles as possible. Sadly, it does not always work. But nevertheless, she is a vivacious woman and fits at least the bill in this way, even though she looks not a bit like the real Joanne King Herring (who even now, as an elderly woman, has still one of the most beautiful faces in the western world...)
In contrast to Julia Roberts, the casting of Phillip Seymour Hoffman as the unconventional Greek-American CIA agent Gust Avrakotos makes the film not only more realistic, but also adds a lot of quite funny elements to it. Rough diamonds like the real Avrakotos are rare, but without them most intelligence services could not function.
Even though the director, Mike Nichols, has made a number of films before, the German-born son of Russian Jews is better known for his theatre work. With Charlie Wilson's War he does move into new artistic territory, and it seems he feels quite at home there already.
The Emerald Islander
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* After Azzam's death in 1989 Osama bin Laden merged MAK with Al-Qaeda and became its new leader.
17 January 2008
Afghanistan is not our Job
Robert Gates, US Secretary of Defense and formerly Director of the CIA under President George H. W. Bush (who himself is a former Director of the CIA), is not happy with NATO. In a statement, published yesterday in the Los Angeles Times, the current Master of the Pentagon complains that "NATO forces in southern Afghanistan do not know how to properly combat a guerilla insurgency". And that, Gates suggests, could be "contributing to rising violence in the country".
Having spent a third of my life on active service with NATO, and having been on the ground in the Pakistan/Afghanistan area during the 1980s, I claim a personal right of reply to Mr. Gates, who is himself no expert on guerrilla warfare and insurgency. (He is, like Condoleezza Rice, an expert on the former USSR and was repeatedly criticised for concocting evidence to show that the Soviet Union was stronger than it actually was.)
The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) was established with the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty in Washington, D.C. on April 4th, 1949. This document was again based on (and an extension of) the Treaty of Brussels, signed in the Belgian capital on March 17th, 1948. Both treaties have the same purpose: to establish a strong defence and security structure for Europe and the North Atlantic region (including the USA and Canada). In the text of the treaties it says quite clearly:
Afghanistan happens to be part of Asia, and therefore is not part of NATO's area of action. It is also a fact that Afghanistan has never committed a single act of aggression against any of the 26 member states of NATO. So why are NATO troops fighting in the South of Afghanistan and are functioning as occupation and garrison forces in the North of that country?
Like so many things in recent years it all is a result of "9/11" and the irrational and aggressive policy on which the Bush administration embarked ever since that day. George W. Bush blamed the terror acts of September 11th, 2001 - without giving so far any evidence whatsoever - on a group called "Al-Qaeda" (which means in Arabic the base) of which hardly anyone outside the professional intelligence community had ever even heard of before.
Those familiar with the matter knew that this group had been formed by the CIA in the 1980s as an Islamic frontline organisation for its own covert operations against the Soviets in Afghanistan. (The recently released film Charlie Wilson's War gives an interesting insight how this came all about.)
When Al-Qaeda's leader Abdullah Yusuf Azzam died in November 1989, he was replaced by the 42-year-old economist and CIA agent Osama bin Muhammad bin 'Awad bin Laden, son of a rich Saudi trader with close ties to the Saudi Royal Family. (The Bin Laden family has also long-established oil business contacts with the Bush family of Texas.)
As George W. Bush claimed that Afghanistan, by then freed from Russian occupation and ruled by the radical Islamic Taliban regime (which has its origins in a Pakistani education movement, formed also to strengthen the fight against the Soviets and partly financed by Saudi Arabia and the USA), was "sheltering Al-Qaeda on its territory" he held the poor and underdeveloped Asian country - known in ancient times as Bactria - responsible for the events of "9/11". Once again no evidence was provided by the White House, but massive US pressure bullied the NATO council to interpret "9/11" as "an attack on a member state". With this political carte blanche in his pocket, George W. Bush decided to invade Afghanistan and, as the attacked party, the USA asked NATO for political and military assistance.
Subsequently troops from many European NATO states joined the US forces in Afghanistan, the more cautious ones as garrison troops in the relatively pacified North, others (especially British, Canadian and Dutch units) in actively fighting the remnants of the Taliban in the South, close to the border with Pakistan (which is still the homeland and main base of the Taliban movement).
During the 40 years of the "Cold War" the specific structure of NATO as the world's only real and true defence alliance saved the peace in Europe and prevented any Soviet aggression against the member states. Everyone - in the West, in the East and anywhere else - knew that NATO would never start a war with anyone, nor support any aggression, but it would in the strongest and fiercest ways possible defend its members (marked blue on the map) against any offensive act, no matter which nation(s) would be the aggressor(s).
NATO's unique position not only gave her enormous power and stability, it positioned her on the moral highground and made her a respected player on the international stage, trusted by others and admired for her sincerity.
When I was on active service, we were proud to be NATO soldiers, who would never attack anyone, but be the staunch defenders of freedom, our homelands and their liberal way of life.
This is all in the past now. By allowing the USA to hijack NATO and turn it into an auxiliary force for the Bush administration's political and military adventures in the Middle East, the other member states have given up the principles of the North Atlantic Treaty. Today NATO is no longer an independent, trusted and respected multi-national defence organisation, but merely a convenient military tool, freely used and mis-used by the White House.
So when Robert Gates, the only career CIA agent ever to reach the position of Director and a man with much political mud on his boots, claims that NATO is not suited for fighting a guerrilla war in Afghanistan, he is probably right. Never mind that some of the European forces there - in particular Britain's SAS and Royal Marines - are much better trained than any US forces in the theatre, they should not be there at all, as Afghanistan is clearly "out of area" for NATO.
If Mr. Gates feels the need to fight a guerrilla war in Southern Afghanistan, maybe he should send more of his own troops to do it. However, his suggestion that the NATO troops' apparent lack of enthusiasm to kill Afghan civilians "contributes to rising violence in the country" is a most ridiculous statement. Ever since 2001 it has been the incompetence of the US leadership, their unwillingness to commit enough ground troops, and their careless use of US air power against innocent Afghan civilians that created growing instability and violent resistance in Afghanistan.
It was the USA that created Al-Qaeda and financed the Taliban, the USA that attacked, invaded and occupied Afghanistan, and the USA that established the current puppet regime of President Hamid Karzai (another former CIA agent and close friend of the Bush family), during whose time in office the production of Afghani opium has reached record amounts never seen before.
Afghanistan in its current state of insecurity and crisis is therefore entirely an American problem and not a job for NATO. The sooner European leaders realise that and withdraw their military support for the futile and dangerous US neo-colonialism, the sooner NATO might try to regain some of her previous good reputation, if that is still possible at all. With an ever more bellicose Russia, recovering her old political and military strength thanks to massive gains from oil and gas sales to the West, NATO might still be needed in the role for which it was originally created.
The Emerald Islander
Having spent a third of my life on active service with NATO, and having been on the ground in the Pakistan/Afghanistan area during the 1980s, I claim a personal right of reply to Mr. Gates, who is himself no expert on guerrilla warfare and insurgency. (He is, like Condoleezza Rice, an expert on the former USSR and was repeatedly criticised for concocting evidence to show that the Soviet Union was stronger than it actually was.)
The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) was established with the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty in Washington, D.C. on April 4th, 1949. This document was again based on (and an extension of) the Treaty of Brussels, signed in the Belgian capital on March 17th, 1948. Both treaties have the same purpose: to establish a strong defence and security structure for Europe and the North Atlantic region (including the USA and Canada). In the text of the treaties it says quite clearly:
The Parties of NATO agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence, will assist the Party or Parties being attacked, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.There is no mention of Asia or other continents and areas in the North Atlantic Treaty and also no passage that declares NATO an auxiliary force of the USA, earmarked to support her in her dubious foreign adventures.
Afghanistan happens to be part of Asia, and therefore is not part of NATO's area of action. It is also a fact that Afghanistan has never committed a single act of aggression against any of the 26 member states of NATO. So why are NATO troops fighting in the South of Afghanistan and are functioning as occupation and garrison forces in the North of that country?
Like so many things in recent years it all is a result of "9/11" and the irrational and aggressive policy on which the Bush administration embarked ever since that day. George W. Bush blamed the terror acts of September 11th, 2001 - without giving so far any evidence whatsoever - on a group called "Al-Qaeda" (which means in Arabic the base) of which hardly anyone outside the professional intelligence community had ever even heard of before.
Those familiar with the matter knew that this group had been formed by the CIA in the 1980s as an Islamic frontline organisation for its own covert operations against the Soviets in Afghanistan. (The recently released film Charlie Wilson's War gives an interesting insight how this came all about.)
When Al-Qaeda's leader Abdullah Yusuf Azzam died in November 1989, he was replaced by the 42-year-old economist and CIA agent Osama bin Muhammad bin 'Awad bin Laden, son of a rich Saudi trader with close ties to the Saudi Royal Family. (The Bin Laden family has also long-established oil business contacts with the Bush family of Texas.)
As George W. Bush claimed that Afghanistan, by then freed from Russian occupation and ruled by the radical Islamic Taliban regime (which has its origins in a Pakistani education movement, formed also to strengthen the fight against the Soviets and partly financed by Saudi Arabia and the USA), was "sheltering Al-Qaeda on its territory" he held the poor and underdeveloped Asian country - known in ancient times as Bactria - responsible for the events of "9/11". Once again no evidence was provided by the White House, but massive US pressure bullied the NATO council to interpret "9/11" as "an attack on a member state". With this political carte blanche in his pocket, George W. Bush decided to invade Afghanistan and, as the attacked party, the USA asked NATO for political and military assistance.
Subsequently troops from many European NATO states joined the US forces in Afghanistan, the more cautious ones as garrison troops in the relatively pacified North, others (especially British, Canadian and Dutch units) in actively fighting the remnants of the Taliban in the South, close to the border with Pakistan (which is still the homeland and main base of the Taliban movement).
During the 40 years of the "Cold War" the specific structure of NATO as the world's only real and true defence alliance saved the peace in Europe and prevented any Soviet aggression against the member states. Everyone - in the West, in the East and anywhere else - knew that NATO would never start a war with anyone, nor support any aggression, but it would in the strongest and fiercest ways possible defend its members (marked blue on the map) against any offensive act, no matter which nation(s) would be the aggressor(s).NATO's unique position not only gave her enormous power and stability, it positioned her on the moral highground and made her a respected player on the international stage, trusted by others and admired for her sincerity.
When I was on active service, we were proud to be NATO soldiers, who would never attack anyone, but be the staunch defenders of freedom, our homelands and their liberal way of life.
This is all in the past now. By allowing the USA to hijack NATO and turn it into an auxiliary force for the Bush administration's political and military adventures in the Middle East, the other member states have given up the principles of the North Atlantic Treaty. Today NATO is no longer an independent, trusted and respected multi-national defence organisation, but merely a convenient military tool, freely used and mis-used by the White House.
So when Robert Gates, the only career CIA agent ever to reach the position of Director and a man with much political mud on his boots, claims that NATO is not suited for fighting a guerrilla war in Afghanistan, he is probably right. Never mind that some of the European forces there - in particular Britain's SAS and Royal Marines - are much better trained than any US forces in the theatre, they should not be there at all, as Afghanistan is clearly "out of area" for NATO.
If Mr. Gates feels the need to fight a guerrilla war in Southern Afghanistan, maybe he should send more of his own troops to do it. However, his suggestion that the NATO troops' apparent lack of enthusiasm to kill Afghan civilians "contributes to rising violence in the country" is a most ridiculous statement. Ever since 2001 it has been the incompetence of the US leadership, their unwillingness to commit enough ground troops, and their careless use of US air power against innocent Afghan civilians that created growing instability and violent resistance in Afghanistan.
It was the USA that created Al-Qaeda and financed the Taliban, the USA that attacked, invaded and occupied Afghanistan, and the USA that established the current puppet regime of President Hamid Karzai (another former CIA agent and close friend of the Bush family), during whose time in office the production of Afghani opium has reached record amounts never seen before.
Afghanistan in its current state of insecurity and crisis is therefore entirely an American problem and not a job for NATO. The sooner European leaders realise that and withdraw their military support for the futile and dangerous US neo-colonialism, the sooner NATO might try to regain some of her previous good reputation, if that is still possible at all. With an ever more bellicose Russia, recovering her old political and military strength thanks to massive gains from oil and gas sales to the West, NATO might still be needed in the role for which it was originally created.
The Emerald Islander
16 January 2008
Greedy Dublin
Yesterday I spent all day in our capital city Dublin. I had an important project meeting, which went very well, and then to select and book a hotel for another client.
There has never been a shortage of hotels in Dublin, and in recent years - as a result and by-product of our "Celtic Tiger" economic boom - many new ones have been built. So there is now rather a surplus of hotel rooms in Ireland's capital and one would assume that this might lead to more competition and fair pricing. But, as I had to learn yesterday, this is not the case.
Since I have not been in need of a hotel room in Dublin for many years, I decided to visit a number of recommended hotels, check out availability and prices, and have a personal look at the rooms on offer before I make the booking.
As I had expected, there was no shortage of rooms. But the prices most hotels were asking for surprised me greatly. If one needs a decent and modestly comfortable room with the usual facilities - such as a proper bathroom, writing table and internet access - one can no longer find it in Dublin for a decent price. The "Celtic Tiger" has obviously eaten up all common sense and decency of Dublin hoteliers, who have collectively joined the league of greedy b......s.
The only hotels that still offer relatively reasonable prices are those on the outskirts of Dublin, huge multi-storey concrete blocks far away from the city centre and all its attractions, and often wedged in by industrial estates, motorways and large building sites.
In the inner city the prices for rooms have risen well above the European average, and even in some cases above the level of London and New York. I was really and truly surprised, especially since the quality of most rooms I saw did in no way match the asked prices.
In all I visited a dozen hotels, and in most of them I found relatively small second (and even third) rate rooms with no great comfort, and often only a shower instead of a proper bath. But the prices were nevertheless first rate!
But what annoyed me most of all is the practice of Dublin hotels to charge massively more for a room on Fridays and Saturdays. It is not unusual that room prices are higher for a weekend booking, but in all hotels I have stayed so far - in many different cities and countries - booking a whole week gives one a general price for the seven days. Not so in Dublin, where visitors are charged extra weekend prices, even if they are staying in the hotel for a much longer time. The difference between the regular price for a room and the price charged for Friday and Saturday ranges between 20% and more than 100% extra!
As I said, I would not be surprised to encounter higher rates when booking only for a weekend, since there are often large sporting events that bring more people into Dublin. The city is also popular with young British visitors for extended drinking sessions, apparently more attractive to them than the pubs and clubs they can find at home. And they also come only for a weekend.
But when one books a hotel room for a week or even longer, it is usual to be given a fair price that does not change on certain days, only because some other visitors might come to watch a Rugby match or get senselessly drunk.
But the hotels of Dublin are obviously on a greed trip, out to milk visitors as much as possible, and with no thoughts or regards to image and reputation. "Grab as many Euros as you can get from each customer" has replaced "Cead Mile Failte" (A hundred thousand welcomes, the old Irish phrase used by the Irish Tourist Board) as the motto for the Irish capital.
This scandalous display of greed might bring in a few extra millions for a while, but on the long run it can and surely will deplete the influx of visitors, especially as there are now many more options for interesting weekend breaks all over Europe (and to many cities that have a lot more culture and attractions to offer than Dublin, and for much lower prices).
Another observation I made during my reconnaissance of Dublin hotels is the lack of Irish staff. Of the 12 hotels I visited yesterday, only one had an Irish receptionist on duty. Almost all staff I encountered was foreign, with a high proportion of Polish women in reception and Pakistani men in the role of hotel porters. The waiter who served me dinner was Russian, and several of the hotel managers I spoke with came from South Africa. Where are all the Irish gone? I really like to know, since we are no longer a country of emigrants.
Eventually, after hours of searching and arguing, I found a hotel that could offer my client a fair deal. The price for the room is still higher than it should be, but of all the available options it is the most attractive, with the largest and best-furnished rooms, and additional facilities not offered by anyone else. So my search was in the end successful for my client, and his visit to Dublin will - hopefully - be pleasant and successful as well. But I left the city with a generally bad feeling and will in future be very hesitant to recommend to anyone a stay in Dublin, if it can be avoided.
After all, there are many more Irish cities with plenty of hotels and other accommodation. And they, as far as I am aware, have not (yet) joined the Dublin gravy train of greed.
Glad to back at home again, I remain for now
The Emerald Islander
There has never been a shortage of hotels in Dublin, and in recent years - as a result and by-product of our "Celtic Tiger" economic boom - many new ones have been built. So there is now rather a surplus of hotel rooms in Ireland's capital and one would assume that this might lead to more competition and fair pricing. But, as I had to learn yesterday, this is not the case.
Since I have not been in need of a hotel room in Dublin for many years, I decided to visit a number of recommended hotels, check out availability and prices, and have a personal look at the rooms on offer before I make the booking.
As I had expected, there was no shortage of rooms. But the prices most hotels were asking for surprised me greatly. If one needs a decent and modestly comfortable room with the usual facilities - such as a proper bathroom, writing table and internet access - one can no longer find it in Dublin for a decent price. The "Celtic Tiger" has obviously eaten up all common sense and decency of Dublin hoteliers, who have collectively joined the league of greedy b......s.
The only hotels that still offer relatively reasonable prices are those on the outskirts of Dublin, huge multi-storey concrete blocks far away from the city centre and all its attractions, and often wedged in by industrial estates, motorways and large building sites.
In the inner city the prices for rooms have risen well above the European average, and even in some cases above the level of London and New York. I was really and truly surprised, especially since the quality of most rooms I saw did in no way match the asked prices.
In all I visited a dozen hotels, and in most of them I found relatively small second (and even third) rate rooms with no great comfort, and often only a shower instead of a proper bath. But the prices were nevertheless first rate!
But what annoyed me most of all is the practice of Dublin hotels to charge massively more for a room on Fridays and Saturdays. It is not unusual that room prices are higher for a weekend booking, but in all hotels I have stayed so far - in many different cities and countries - booking a whole week gives one a general price for the seven days. Not so in Dublin, where visitors are charged extra weekend prices, even if they are staying in the hotel for a much longer time. The difference between the regular price for a room and the price charged for Friday and Saturday ranges between 20% and more than 100% extra!
As I said, I would not be surprised to encounter higher rates when booking only for a weekend, since there are often large sporting events that bring more people into Dublin. The city is also popular with young British visitors for extended drinking sessions, apparently more attractive to them than the pubs and clubs they can find at home. And they also come only for a weekend.
But when one books a hotel room for a week or even longer, it is usual to be given a fair price that does not change on certain days, only because some other visitors might come to watch a Rugby match or get senselessly drunk.
But the hotels of Dublin are obviously on a greed trip, out to milk visitors as much as possible, and with no thoughts or regards to image and reputation. "Grab as many Euros as you can get from each customer" has replaced "Cead Mile Failte" (A hundred thousand welcomes, the old Irish phrase used by the Irish Tourist Board) as the motto for the Irish capital.
This scandalous display of greed might bring in a few extra millions for a while, but on the long run it can and surely will deplete the influx of visitors, especially as there are now many more options for interesting weekend breaks all over Europe (and to many cities that have a lot more culture and attractions to offer than Dublin, and for much lower prices).
Another observation I made during my reconnaissance of Dublin hotels is the lack of Irish staff. Of the 12 hotels I visited yesterday, only one had an Irish receptionist on duty. Almost all staff I encountered was foreign, with a high proportion of Polish women in reception and Pakistani men in the role of hotel porters. The waiter who served me dinner was Russian, and several of the hotel managers I spoke with came from South Africa. Where are all the Irish gone? I really like to know, since we are no longer a country of emigrants.
Eventually, after hours of searching and arguing, I found a hotel that could offer my client a fair deal. The price for the room is still higher than it should be, but of all the available options it is the most attractive, with the largest and best-furnished rooms, and additional facilities not offered by anyone else. So my search was in the end successful for my client, and his visit to Dublin will - hopefully - be pleasant and successful as well. But I left the city with a generally bad feeling and will in future be very hesitant to recommend to anyone a stay in Dublin, if it can be avoided.
After all, there are many more Irish cities with plenty of hotels and other accommodation. And they, as far as I am aware, have not (yet) joined the Dublin gravy train of greed.
Glad to back at home again, I remain for now
The Emerald Islander
15 January 2008
Back to Comm School . . .
Even though I regard myself as a modest man, I do take some pride in my work and skills. This goes for my now civilian life as well as my past service in the Navy, where I was a signals and communications officer (until promotion elevated me to command duties). So when it comes to any matter of communication I know a thing or two.
Listening to the BBC World Service, I just learned of a new development in the case of the recent naval encounter between ships of the US Navy and Iranian speedboats in the Strait of Hormuz. (For details see my entry of January 7th)
Having first been interpreted and reported by the Americans as a hostile approach by Iranian speedboats (most likely manned by naval elements of the Revolutionary Guard), sending some crude and threatening messages over ship-to-ship radio to the US squadron, comprised of the AEGIS cruiser USS Port Royal (CG-73, first picture), the destroyer USS Hopper (DDG-70, second picture) and frigate USS Ingraham (FFG-61, third picture), it appears now that this was not the case after all.
A thorough investigation of the incident has - according to the BBC and the American service newspaper Navy Times - revealed that the Iranian interpretation of "a normal encounter at sea" is much more likely than the alarming original report from the US 5th Fleet and various members of the US government, including George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Analysis of the recorded messages revealed that they were most likely sent by "a well-known practical joker and prankster" and did in no way originate from any of the Iranian vessels. This would support the official Iranian statement that denied any hostile acts or intentions.
During a press briefing at the headquarters of the US 5th Fleet in Bahrain on Sunday the commanding officers of two of the ships involved explained in detail what happened to them while on patrol on January 6th. Captain David Adler (of USS Port Royal, right) and Commander Jeffery James (of USS Hopper, left) confirmed the approach of Iranian speedboats, which came at times as close as 100 yards to the American ships. They said that they followed pre-planned procedures for such an encounter and sent warnings across on ship-to-ship radio. However, the naval officers refused to tell how close they had actually come to open fire upon the Iranian boats.
I am struck by the carefree willingness of the US government to escalate and exploit this rather minor incident (and one cannot but ask what the real reason for that was), and by the obvious incompetence or lack of experience of the US ships' radio officers and their ratings. Had I been radio officer in one of the US vessels, I am sure I would have been able to distinguish between a practical joker, sending in English, and genuine radio signals from the Iranians.
If highly trained personnel, operating the most sophisticated communication equipment that is currently available, fail on such a task, it would be advisable to send them back to the Naval Communications (in short: Comm) School for a refresher course.
On a general note I very much doubt that the five tiny Iranian speedboats (like the one pictured here to the right) did at any time and under any circumstances pose a real threat to the vastly superior modern US warships and their sophisticated weapons and electronic warfare equipment.
During the "Cold War" our ships and equipment were a lot less powerful, but the personnel was obviously better trained and motivated. Illegal wars, it appears, are not even popular with the victorious troops who are sent to fight them.
The Emerald Islander
Listening to the BBC World Service, I just learned of a new development in the case of the recent naval encounter between ships of the US Navy and Iranian speedboats in the Strait of Hormuz. (For details see my entry of January 7th)
Having first been interpreted and reported by the Americans as a hostile approach by Iranian speedboats (most likely manned by naval elements of the Revolutionary Guard), sending some crude and threatening messages over ship-to-ship radio to the US squadron, comprised of the AEGIS cruiser USS Port Royal (CG-73, first picture), the destroyer USS Hopper (DDG-70, second picture) and frigate USS Ingraham (FFG-61, third picture), it appears now that this was not the case after all.
A thorough investigation of the incident has - according to the BBC and the American service newspaper Navy Times - revealed that the Iranian interpretation of "a normal encounter at sea" is much more likely than the alarming original report from the US 5th Fleet and various members of the US government, including George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Analysis of the recorded messages revealed that they were most likely sent by "a well-known practical joker and prankster" and did in no way originate from any of the Iranian vessels. This would support the official Iranian statement that denied any hostile acts or intentions.
During a press briefing at the headquarters of the US 5th Fleet in Bahrain on Sunday the commanding officers of two of the ships involved explained in detail what happened to them while on patrol on January 6th. Captain David Adler (of USS Port Royal, right) and Commander Jeffery James (of USS Hopper, left) confirmed the approach of Iranian speedboats, which came at times as close as 100 yards to the American ships. They said that they followed pre-planned procedures for such an encounter and sent warnings across on ship-to-ship radio. However, the naval officers refused to tell how close they had actually come to open fire upon the Iranian boats.I am struck by the carefree willingness of the US government to escalate and exploit this rather minor incident (and one cannot but ask what the real reason for that was), and by the obvious incompetence or lack of experience of the US ships' radio officers and their ratings. Had I been radio officer in one of the US vessels, I am sure I would have been able to distinguish between a practical joker, sending in English, and genuine radio signals from the Iranians.
If highly trained personnel, operating the most sophisticated communication equipment that is currently available, fail on such a task, it would be advisable to send them back to the Naval Communications (in short: Comm) School for a refresher course.
On a general note I very much doubt that the five tiny Iranian speedboats (like the one pictured here to the right) did at any time and under any circumstances pose a real threat to the vastly superior modern US warships and their sophisticated weapons and electronic warfare equipment.During the "Cold War" our ships and equipment were a lot less powerful, but the personnel was obviously better trained and motivated. Illegal wars, it appears, are not even popular with the victorious troops who are sent to fight them.
The Emerald Islander
14 January 2008
It needs one to know one
George W. Bush decided to begin the last of his eight years in the White House with a lengthy tour through the Middle East, which included his first ever visit to Israel. For a politician who has been a staunch supporter of Israel for many years and has meddled in the region more than any other US leader in recent times, it is somewhat surprising that he has left it so late. But, as they say, better late than never.
After leaving Israel, without offering a solution for the Palestinian problem or anything else, Bush moved to the Persian Gulf emirates, where he gave a major speech yesterday in Abu Dhabi. This speech, well written and addressed to all major nations in the region, covers a wide range of political aspects in a broad sweep.
However, the most significant part is the passage in which he accuses Iran to be "the world's leading state sponsor of terror". It appears that by doing so Mr. Bush overlooks conveniently one other contender for this accolade: his own country.
Reading and analysing Bush's words one cannot help but seeing a lot more parallels between his accusation of Iran and the current situation at home in the USA. Let me give you just a few examples (and if you want to read the whole speech, you can find it on the website of the White House or access it through BBC online news).
"Iran is today the world's leading state sponsor of terror," Bush said. "It sends hundreds of millions of dollars to extremists around the world - while its own people face repression and economic hardship at home."
This is a heavy accusation, but we have only Mr. Bush's word for it. There is no positive proof, no shred of evidence.
We all still remember vividly the presentation the then Secretary of State Colin Powell gave to the UN about the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" Iraq was accused to have. Powell even had a whole set of photos, drawings and diagrams in support of his arguments. But, as we now know, the whole thing was a tissue of lies, supported by fake and deliberately fabricated material.
What we do know is that the USA spends billions of dollars each year in support of oppressive and undemocratic states (such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt etc.), plus hundreds of millions on covert operations, conducted mostly by armed groups seen by many as forces of terror. Not even to mention the billions wasted on the illegal occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan...
And when it comes to the matter of repression and economic hardship at home the finger Bush points at Iran is pointing right back at him and the USA. Perhaps there is still some more freedom and liberty in the United States than in today's Iran, but ever since the current administration passed the "Patriot Act", many of the liberties once taken for granted by Americans are suspended or gone. Especially those who don't agree with Bush and his cronies find themselves now in a very repressive country called USA.
And due to Bush's massive over-spending on military and intelligence matters the USA are in a serious economical crisis, with enormous debts, an ever falling dollar, rising inflation and great hardship for the majority of Americans who are not millionaires. Many of my American friends, all in meaningful employment and regarded as middle class people, tell me how difficult it is now even for them to make ends meet. The really poor Americans are meanwhile on the bread line and often even below it. (In New York alone more than 4 million people - equivalent to the total population of my country - now depend of regular food hand-outs...) Such is not the case in Iran.
"It seeks to intimidate its neighbors with ballistic missiles and bellicose rhetoric," Bush continued, talking about Iran. "And finally, it defies the United Nations and destabilizes the region..."
Well, well... I thought when I heard these words last night on the BBC World Service, isn't he really talking about himself and his country, rather than about Iran?
There is undoubtedly a lot wrong with Iran and its leadership, but not as much as with the USA since the Bush administration took over nearly seven years ago.
There is an old saying that "it needs one to know one", often used for people with special skills, like artists and writers, but also common for spies and many other kinds of individuals. Perhaps that also goes for political scoundrels and adventurers...
The Emerald Islander
After leaving Israel, without offering a solution for the Palestinian problem or anything else, Bush moved to the Persian Gulf emirates, where he gave a major speech yesterday in Abu Dhabi. This speech, well written and addressed to all major nations in the region, covers a wide range of political aspects in a broad sweep.
However, the most significant part is the passage in which he accuses Iran to be "the world's leading state sponsor of terror". It appears that by doing so Mr. Bush overlooks conveniently one other contender for this accolade: his own country.
Reading and analysing Bush's words one cannot help but seeing a lot more parallels between his accusation of Iran and the current situation at home in the USA. Let me give you just a few examples (and if you want to read the whole speech, you can find it on the website of the White House or access it through BBC online news).
"Iran is today the world's leading state sponsor of terror," Bush said. "It sends hundreds of millions of dollars to extremists around the world - while its own people face repression and economic hardship at home."
This is a heavy accusation, but we have only Mr. Bush's word for it. There is no positive proof, no shred of evidence.
We all still remember vividly the presentation the then Secretary of State Colin Powell gave to the UN about the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" Iraq was accused to have. Powell even had a whole set of photos, drawings and diagrams in support of his arguments. But, as we now know, the whole thing was a tissue of lies, supported by fake and deliberately fabricated material.
What we do know is that the USA spends billions of dollars each year in support of oppressive and undemocratic states (such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt etc.), plus hundreds of millions on covert operations, conducted mostly by armed groups seen by many as forces of terror. Not even to mention the billions wasted on the illegal occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan...
And when it comes to the matter of repression and economic hardship at home the finger Bush points at Iran is pointing right back at him and the USA. Perhaps there is still some more freedom and liberty in the United States than in today's Iran, but ever since the current administration passed the "Patriot Act", many of the liberties once taken for granted by Americans are suspended or gone. Especially those who don't agree with Bush and his cronies find themselves now in a very repressive country called USA.
And due to Bush's massive over-spending on military and intelligence matters the USA are in a serious economical crisis, with enormous debts, an ever falling dollar, rising inflation and great hardship for the majority of Americans who are not millionaires. Many of my American friends, all in meaningful employment and regarded as middle class people, tell me how difficult it is now even for them to make ends meet. The really poor Americans are meanwhile on the bread line and often even below it. (In New York alone more than 4 million people - equivalent to the total population of my country - now depend of regular food hand-outs...) Such is not the case in Iran.
"It seeks to intimidate its neighbors with ballistic missiles and bellicose rhetoric," Bush continued, talking about Iran. "And finally, it defies the United Nations and destabilizes the region..."
Well, well... I thought when I heard these words last night on the BBC World Service, isn't he really talking about himself and his country, rather than about Iran?
There is undoubtedly a lot wrong with Iran and its leadership, but not as much as with the USA since the Bush administration took over nearly seven years ago.
There is an old saying that "it needs one to know one", often used for people with special skills, like artists and writers, but also common for spies and many other kinds of individuals. Perhaps that also goes for political scoundrels and adventurers...
The Emerald Islander
13 January 2008
Cities of Culture
This weekend the English port city of Liverpool held a series of spectacular celebrations to mark the official begin of its status as the European Capital of Culture for 2008. Predictably a lot of attention was paid to these show events by the British media, and equally predictably they featured prominently the two surviving members of the Beatles, Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr.
Ever since their spectacular success as Britain's best-known and most influential music group in modern times, the Beatles - and everything even remotely connected with them - have been used and exploited by Liverpool's cultural bureaucrats to promote their grubby city and make it look more exciting and interesting than it actually is.
When I heard a few years ago that Liverpool had been chosen as European Capital of Culture for 2008, I was frankly quite surprised. It had been known that under the rotation system of the EU Britain was due for this annual honour in 2008, and then had to select the most suitable city from a number of candidates. In my opinion there are many more suitable cities, richer in culture, in the UK than Liverpool, which is better known for crime and deprivation. And - even though this goes a long time back - one should never forget that Liverpool was one of the main profiteers of the slave trade. Not an element I would regard as culture.
But, as with so many things in Britain, one should not expect too much, and certainly never the best and most logical solution. It just never happens in the UK.
By now it is of course too late and Liverpool will bathe itself in the glory and host a massive string of events, in total about 350 throughout the year. And I wish them good luck with them.
However, the question for me is what amount of culture and long-term input will remain in Liverpool when the year is over? On this line I am skeptic, knowing Liverpool and what is going on there below the great cultural canvas that covers the city for the moment.
Three years ago Ireland was due to provide the European Capital of Culture and the powers to be had chosen Cork, our second-largest city (after our capital Dublin had been chosen already in 1988, the year of the city's millennium celebrations).
As it happens, I was involved in the preparatory work for the events in Cork during 2002 and 2003, but not during the actual celebratory year 2005 itself (as I had another and even larger commitment for that year). There was a lot of planning done in advance, and Cork even used the opportunity to modernise its complete sewage system, although that did not directly fall into the category of culture. Much was done well, and the opening ceremony was quite breathtaking and impressive, especially for a small country like Ireland.
However, during the year 2005 itself the impact the status of European Capital of Culture had on Cork was a lot less than the city council had hoped for. Maybe the fact that the much smaller city of Waterford - 123 km east of Cork - hosted in the same year the start of the International Tall Ships' Race (and attracted more than 450,000 visitors in only four days) did not help Cork. But the main reason for the relatively limited interest was that there is just not enough natural and regular culture there, while many other attractions in the country were operating as normal and having many visitors, too.
The whole concept of the European Capital of Culture, as much as it was originally a good idea, is by now a bit dated and tends to get stale like old bread. After all the obvious choices for the honour have been selected already in previous years and hosted very successful and effective events, the award of the title is dropping down the list of available cities, reaching the second and third rate choices. Eventually the title will either have to be awarded to the major cities for a second time, or it will lose its value and should better be abolished altogether.
Strangely enough, quite the opposite is the case. Now the title of European Capital of Cultures is actually awarded not to one city per year, but to two: one in a member state of the EU, and the other outside the EU. This - frankly - makes no sense at all and devalues the status of the chosen cities even further.
Besides Liverpool the second European Capital of Culture for 2008 is the Norwegian port city of Stavanger. Outside Norway hardly anyone has taken notice of that, and the media in the English-speaking world only mention Liverpool. This is highly unfair to Stavanger, especially as the city has made a great effort and some of her 150 planned events are more original and more interesting than many of the shows lined up in Liverpool. But inflation means devaluation, and with simply too many specifically organised cultural events in one year everyone will in the end be disappointed. Like in every other way and walk of life, less could mean more in European culture.
The Emerald Islander
Ever since their spectacular success as Britain's best-known and most influential music group in modern times, the Beatles - and everything even remotely connected with them - have been used and exploited by Liverpool's cultural bureaucrats to promote their grubby city and make it look more exciting and interesting than it actually is.
When I heard a few years ago that Liverpool had been chosen as European Capital of Culture for 2008, I was frankly quite surprised. It had been known that under the rotation system of the EU Britain was due for this annual honour in 2008, and then had to select the most suitable city from a number of candidates. In my opinion there are many more suitable cities, richer in culture, in the UK than Liverpool, which is better known for crime and deprivation. And - even though this goes a long time back - one should never forget that Liverpool was one of the main profiteers of the slave trade. Not an element I would regard as culture.
But, as with so many things in Britain, one should not expect too much, and certainly never the best and most logical solution. It just never happens in the UK.
By now it is of course too late and Liverpool will bathe itself in the glory and host a massive string of events, in total about 350 throughout the year. And I wish them good luck with them.
However, the question for me is what amount of culture and long-term input will remain in Liverpool when the year is over? On this line I am skeptic, knowing Liverpool and what is going on there below the great cultural canvas that covers the city for the moment.
Three years ago Ireland was due to provide the European Capital of Culture and the powers to be had chosen Cork, our second-largest city (after our capital Dublin had been chosen already in 1988, the year of the city's millennium celebrations).
As it happens, I was involved in the preparatory work for the events in Cork during 2002 and 2003, but not during the actual celebratory year 2005 itself (as I had another and even larger commitment for that year). There was a lot of planning done in advance, and Cork even used the opportunity to modernise its complete sewage system, although that did not directly fall into the category of culture. Much was done well, and the opening ceremony was quite breathtaking and impressive, especially for a small country like Ireland.
However, during the year 2005 itself the impact the status of European Capital of Culture had on Cork was a lot less than the city council had hoped for. Maybe the fact that the much smaller city of Waterford - 123 km east of Cork - hosted in the same year the start of the International Tall Ships' Race (and attracted more than 450,000 visitors in only four days) did not help Cork. But the main reason for the relatively limited interest was that there is just not enough natural and regular culture there, while many other attractions in the country were operating as normal and having many visitors, too.
The whole concept of the European Capital of Culture, as much as it was originally a good idea, is by now a bit dated and tends to get stale like old bread. After all the obvious choices for the honour have been selected already in previous years and hosted very successful and effective events, the award of the title is dropping down the list of available cities, reaching the second and third rate choices. Eventually the title will either have to be awarded to the major cities for a second time, or it will lose its value and should better be abolished altogether.
Strangely enough, quite the opposite is the case. Now the title of European Capital of Cultures is actually awarded not to one city per year, but to two: one in a member state of the EU, and the other outside the EU. This - frankly - makes no sense at all and devalues the status of the chosen cities even further.
Besides Liverpool the second European Capital of Culture for 2008 is the Norwegian port city of Stavanger. Outside Norway hardly anyone has taken notice of that, and the media in the English-speaking world only mention Liverpool. This is highly unfair to Stavanger, especially as the city has made a great effort and some of her 150 planned events are more original and more interesting than many of the shows lined up in Liverpool. But inflation means devaluation, and with simply too many specifically organised cultural events in one year everyone will in the end be disappointed. Like in every other way and walk of life, less could mean more in European culture.
The Emerald Islander
12 January 2008
Crossing the Rubicon
As a historian with some interest in Astrology I have often wondered if certain days of the year are under a specific astral influence. It appears that over the centuries many days seem to attract or create certain kinds of events. There are days which subsume positive events, and others that did bring mostly negative influence. There are also days that changed the course of countries or even History itself.
January 12th is such a day, even though its significance is no longer general public knowledge and only remembered by students of ancient History. However, the event that took place on January 12th in the year we now number as 49 BCE, has created a phrase still widely used, even though its actual origin is rarely known to those who use it.
The phrase I refer to is "Crossing the Rubicon", which now means the making of an important or significant decision with consequences, a decision that cannot be undone again and will not be ignored.
It was coined by the Roman writer and historian Suetonius, who used it in the chapter about Caius Iulius Caesar in his famous work "The Lives of the Caesars". It refers to the begin of the Roman Civil War in 49 BCE, and specifically to the crossing of the Rubicon, a small river of only 29 km length in Northern Italy, by one of Caesar's legions, the Legio XIII Gemina.
The river itself was of no importance (and has by now almost completely disappeared, although parts of it can still be found today), except for the fact that it marked the official border between Italia - the central homeland of the Roman Empire, including Rome itself - and the Roman province of Gallia Cisalpina in Northern Italy (now better known as Lombardia).
Ever since the Romans drove out their king and established the Republic, they were extremely weary of potential internal conflict and created an elaborate legal system to prevent that. No legion was allowed to enter the vicinity of the city of Rome (which was exclusively garrisoned by the Praetorian Guard) and no military leader, no matter how successful, could bring his soldiers with him to Rome (with the exception of small contingents that were allowed to march in the hero's triumphal procession, but had to return to their camps outside the city before nightfall).
During the time of the First Triumvirate (59-52 BCE) between Caesar, Crassus and Pompey the ban of combat legions was extended to cover the whole of Italia.
When the Triumvirate ended - mostly because of discrepancies between Ceaser and Pompey - the Senate, dominated by more conservative elements, sided with Pompey and appointed him as the sole Consul in 52 BCE. Meanwhile Ceasar, whose great military success in Gaul had made him a hero and champion of the people, remained Governor of Gallia and Illyricum.
When his term of office ended in 50 BCE, the Senate, led by Pompey, ordered Caesar to return to Rome and disband his army. Moreover, the Senate forbade Caesar to stand for a second consulship in absentia. Caesar thought he might be prosecuted and politically marginalised if he entered Rome without the immunity enjoyed by a Consul or without the power of his army. Pompey then accused Caesar of insubordination and treason, and that led the powerful hero of Gaul to act preemptively.
By ordering his 13th Legion - the only one he had actually brought with him from Gaul - to cross the little river Rubicon, Caesar knowingly broke the law and thus de facto declared war on the Senate. The rest, as they say, is History. During the Civil War the long-established internal power structure of the Republic deteriorated, various political alliances were formed and broken, and at the end Ceasar was the undisputed ruler and dictator of the Empire. However, the conservative forces in the Senate never forgave him and subsequently murdered him on the steps of the Senate, only minutes before he would have been declared Imperator.
In modern times another "Rubicon", this time the border of technological possibilities, was crossed twice on January 12th: first in 1882 when Thomas Edison began to operate his central station in London, and the second time in 1908, when the first long-distance wireless message was sent from the Eiffel Tower in Paris.
In the USA the 12th of January has also a special Rubicon-like significance for women, especially those who campaign for equality and political participation.
While on January 12th, 1915 the US House of Representatives still rejected a proposal to give women the right to vote, it was on the very same day 17 years later that Hattie W. Caraway, a Democrat, became the first woman to be elected to the US Senate.
At first succeeding her husband, who had died while serving as Senator for Arkansas, Mrs. Caraway was then re-elected in 1938 and 1944 and stayed in the Senate for a total of 14 years.
More recently another "Rubicon" was crossed in 1991, when on January 12th the US Congress passed a resolution that authorised President George H. W. Bush to use military power to force Iraqi occupation troops out of Kuwait. The subsequently executed operation "Desert Storm" defeated the Iraqi army in a mere 100 hours and liberated Kuwait.
It did, however, also create the background and basic conditions for the illegal war against (and occupation of) Iraq that Bush's son George W. started in 2003. And like the crossing of the Rubicon by Legio XIII Gemina in 49 BCE de facto started the decline of the Roman Republic, the action against Iraq in 2003 is seen by many as the begin of the end of the USA as we knew her.
Wishing you a peaceful weekend, I remain for today
The Emerald Islander
January 12th is such a day, even though its significance is no longer general public knowledge and only remembered by students of ancient History. However, the event that took place on January 12th in the year we now number as 49 BCE, has created a phrase still widely used, even though its actual origin is rarely known to those who use it.
The phrase I refer to is "Crossing the Rubicon", which now means the making of an important or significant decision with consequences, a decision that cannot be undone again and will not be ignored.
It was coined by the Roman writer and historian Suetonius, who used it in the chapter about Caius Iulius Caesar in his famous work "The Lives of the Caesars". It refers to the begin of the Roman Civil War in 49 BCE, and specifically to the crossing of the Rubicon, a small river of only 29 km length in Northern Italy, by one of Caesar's legions, the Legio XIII Gemina.
The river itself was of no importance (and has by now almost completely disappeared, although parts of it can still be found today), except for the fact that it marked the official border between Italia - the central homeland of the Roman Empire, including Rome itself - and the Roman province of Gallia Cisalpina in Northern Italy (now better known as Lombardia).Ever since the Romans drove out their king and established the Republic, they were extremely weary of potential internal conflict and created an elaborate legal system to prevent that. No legion was allowed to enter the vicinity of the city of Rome (which was exclusively garrisoned by the Praetorian Guard) and no military leader, no matter how successful, could bring his soldiers with him to Rome (with the exception of small contingents that were allowed to march in the hero's triumphal procession, but had to return to their camps outside the city before nightfall).
During the time of the First Triumvirate (59-52 BCE) between Caesar, Crassus and Pompey the ban of combat legions was extended to cover the whole of Italia.
When the Triumvirate ended - mostly because of discrepancies between Ceaser and Pompey - the Senate, dominated by more conservative elements, sided with Pompey and appointed him as the sole Consul in 52 BCE. Meanwhile Ceasar, whose great military success in Gaul had made him a hero and champion of the people, remained Governor of Gallia and Illyricum.
When his term of office ended in 50 BCE, the Senate, led by Pompey, ordered Caesar to return to Rome and disband his army. Moreover, the Senate forbade Caesar to stand for a second consulship in absentia. Caesar thought he might be prosecuted and politically marginalised if he entered Rome without the immunity enjoyed by a Consul or without the power of his army. Pompey then accused Caesar of insubordination and treason, and that led the powerful hero of Gaul to act preemptively.
By ordering his 13th Legion - the only one he had actually brought with him from Gaul - to cross the little river Rubicon, Caesar knowingly broke the law and thus de facto declared war on the Senate. The rest, as they say, is History. During the Civil War the long-established internal power structure of the Republic deteriorated, various political alliances were formed and broken, and at the end Ceasar was the undisputed ruler and dictator of the Empire. However, the conservative forces in the Senate never forgave him and subsequently murdered him on the steps of the Senate, only minutes before he would have been declared Imperator.
In modern times another "Rubicon", this time the border of technological possibilities, was crossed twice on January 12th: first in 1882 when Thomas Edison began to operate his central station in London, and the second time in 1908, when the first long-distance wireless message was sent from the Eiffel Tower in Paris.
In the USA the 12th of January has also a special Rubicon-like significance for women, especially those who campaign for equality and political participation.
While on January 12th, 1915 the US House of Representatives still rejected a proposal to give women the right to vote, it was on the very same day 17 years later that Hattie W. Caraway, a Democrat, became the first woman to be elected to the US Senate.
At first succeeding her husband, who had died while serving as Senator for Arkansas, Mrs. Caraway was then re-elected in 1938 and 1944 and stayed in the Senate for a total of 14 years.
More recently another "Rubicon" was crossed in 1991, when on January 12th the US Congress passed a resolution that authorised President George H. W. Bush to use military power to force Iraqi occupation troops out of Kuwait. The subsequently executed operation "Desert Storm" defeated the Iraqi army in a mere 100 hours and liberated Kuwait.
It did, however, also create the background and basic conditions for the illegal war against (and occupation of) Iraq that Bush's son George W. started in 2003. And like the crossing of the Rubicon by Legio XIII Gemina in 49 BCE de facto started the decline of the Roman Republic, the action against Iraq in 2003 is seen by many as the begin of the end of the USA as we knew her.
Wishing you a peaceful weekend, I remain for today
The Emerald Islander
11 January 2008
Them and us
Another very cold day in Ireland led me to my local fuel merchant to order some more peat for the weekend. I still had some left in the house, but the current temperatures - combined with forecast of more cold weather - made me to stock up, just to be on the safe side. As my house is very old, it does not have the modern conveniences of proper insulation. So the only way to keep it warm is to have a fire burning in the fireplace all day. And that, of course, uses up my supplies of peat and fire wood. Yesterday I received a delivery of the latter, which is supplied to by a dear farmer from the county each week. So all I needed was more peat.
No problem with that, since it is - besides wood - Ireland's only naturally occurring type of fuel and still available in large quantities. But I was surprised to learn that the price for a bail of peat logs had gone up once again. This time last year I paid 3.20 Euros for a bail, in Autumn the price rose to 3.60, and now it has reached a full 4 Euros! Though I am not happy with it, I have no choice but to pay it, as the alternative would be sitting cold and unhappy in an unheated house.
The massive increase of fuel prices is only one element of a general trend here. Being already a quite expensive country for many years, with everything - from basic food to the cost of housing and transport - between 50% and 100% higher priced than on the European continent, it is not always easy to make ends meet in Ireland. But now we also have the highest rate of inflation in the EU and the cost of living is rising in all areas with amazing speed.
A pound of butter, until recently available in all major supermarkets for 1.42 Euros, is now 1.76, and the price for a particular type of simple tea cake has risen in one leap from 2.49 to 2.99. As many things get more expensive over time almost everywhere, an increase of prices is not such a great surprise in general. But what is shocking for many people in Ireland - myself included - is the frequency and in particular the rate of increase, which is often well above the inflation rate and thus drives it higher and higher all the time.
Sadly there is no equivalent increase in most people's income, so the costs for simply living and surviving becomes more and more problematic, especially for those in the lower income bracket. People working in the private sector, and especially the self-employed and owners of small and medium-size businesses, have not seen much increase of earnings in recent times, while costs of running a business have increased as well as the costs of living.
The only group of people in Ireland whose income has steadily (and often quite significantly) risen over the years and will continue to do so are our politicians, civil servants and employees of public bodies and institutions. They all benefit from a system known as Benchmarking, which gives them an automatic wage increase based on the national average. The system, probably not unique to Ireland, but also not very common elsewhere, was introduced as a result of a special good will agreement between the government and the public service unions, ending a long period of frequent and often devastating strikes that hampered Ireland's economy for decades.
I still remember with some horror a series of strike actions in the early 1990s, where within a few months the bank clerks went on strike twice and the post office employees once. For some weeks there was not only no mail, but it was almost impossible to conduct any normal financial transactions. It did a lot of damage to many businesses, and once again the smaller enterprises were suffering the most.
Such impediments have disappeared from Irish life since Benchmarking was introduced, and in general everyone was happy with it. But during the period commonly referred to as the "Celtic Tiger", which brought a massive and unexpected economic boom to Ireland for about ten years, the beneficiaries of Benchmarking received a massive increase of earnings that created - perhaps without intention - a new class system in Ireland. While everyone working in the many areas of the private sector had to negotiate increases of wages and benefits (either personally or through their trade unions), those included in the Benchmarking system received theirs without having even to ask for it.
Thus Ireland is now a country of them (who are benchmarked) and us (the majority of people).
The most scandalous part of it is a vastly unproportionate pay-increase for leading politicians, who basically award it to themselves (even though now there is officially a commission, set up by the government, that makes "suitable recommendations" for the increase in politicians' pay).
Based on this commission's report our Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Bertie Ahern has just raised his own salary by a staggering 38,000 Euros per annum, which is more than most Irish people earn in a year. It makes Mr. Ahern the highest paid leader in the world, even though Ireland is a quite small and unsignificant country with a population of only four million. Cabinet ministers got an increase of 25,000 Euros (which is still more than the annual income of most workers) and in line with that lower ranking officials were also rewarded handsomely in proportion.
All this happens at a moment in time when it is obvious that the great economic boom is over. In a global situation of insecurity (mainly created by the USA, but effecting every country on the planet) and massively rising prices for oil, steel, minerals and even food Ireland is no longer as competitive as it once was. So the government is telling everyone to expect a slow-down or even recession, with necessary reductions of personal income and lifestyle. However, at the same time our leaders exclude themselves from such predicted hardship and make sure that they are safe, sound and extremely well remunerated (which also includes enormous provisions for the pension plans of politicians).
Meanwhile even the once so secure civil servants and public employees are beginning to feel a bit of a pinch, as the recently announced Benchmarking figures show little or no increase of pay for the majority of them. Only the top grades will still receive their by now usual top-ups.
The mood among many people in Ireland is therefore quite gloomy right now, and the very cold weather does not help either. But the question is if our people will eventually do anything about the unfair system of them and us. In most other countries I know there would already by some social action, with demonstrations and signals of unrest. But not so in Ireland. Irish people love to grumble and complain, but when it comes to action they remain lazy and complacent. This is the main reason for the scandalous way ordinary Irish people are treated by our government for years. Now, with the Green Party being in government as a junior coalition partner, we also see an increase in bureaucracy and restrictive regulations, pretending to improve the environment. In reality they change very little, except that they make our lives ever more complicated, regulated and expensive.
As long as Irish people cannot be bothered to stand up for their own interests, this unfortunate situation will continue, perhaps until we are once again a poor and neglected country from which all those with the interest of finding a good job have to emigrate (as it was the norm for more than two centuries). Even though all signs and signals are pointing already in this direction, I am somehow still in hope that one day a great awakening will come and our people will act to rectify the appalling conditions. What we need is one nation of Irish people, working together for the common good, instead of the unfair class system we inherited from the British and augmented with the greed of our politicians and civil servants. It need not to involve another Post Office, a simple series of public demonstrations against the government would be more than enough.
Widely disappointed and disillusioned, but still carrying a small ember of hope, I remain
The Emerald Islander
No problem with that, since it is - besides wood - Ireland's only naturally occurring type of fuel and still available in large quantities. But I was surprised to learn that the price for a bail of peat logs had gone up once again. This time last year I paid 3.20 Euros for a bail, in Autumn the price rose to 3.60, and now it has reached a full 4 Euros! Though I am not happy with it, I have no choice but to pay it, as the alternative would be sitting cold and unhappy in an unheated house.
The massive increase of fuel prices is only one element of a general trend here. Being already a quite expensive country for many years, with everything - from basic food to the cost of housing and transport - between 50% and 100% higher priced than on the European continent, it is not always easy to make ends meet in Ireland. But now we also have the highest rate of inflation in the EU and the cost of living is rising in all areas with amazing speed.
A pound of butter, until recently available in all major supermarkets for 1.42 Euros, is now 1.76, and the price for a particular type of simple tea cake has risen in one leap from 2.49 to 2.99. As many things get more expensive over time almost everywhere, an increase of prices is not such a great surprise in general. But what is shocking for many people in Ireland - myself included - is the frequency and in particular the rate of increase, which is often well above the inflation rate and thus drives it higher and higher all the time.
Sadly there is no equivalent increase in most people's income, so the costs for simply living and surviving becomes more and more problematic, especially for those in the lower income bracket. People working in the private sector, and especially the self-employed and owners of small and medium-size businesses, have not seen much increase of earnings in recent times, while costs of running a business have increased as well as the costs of living.
The only group of people in Ireland whose income has steadily (and often quite significantly) risen over the years and will continue to do so are our politicians, civil servants and employees of public bodies and institutions. They all benefit from a system known as Benchmarking, which gives them an automatic wage increase based on the national average. The system, probably not unique to Ireland, but also not very common elsewhere, was introduced as a result of a special good will agreement between the government and the public service unions, ending a long period of frequent and often devastating strikes that hampered Ireland's economy for decades.
I still remember with some horror a series of strike actions in the early 1990s, where within a few months the bank clerks went on strike twice and the post office employees once. For some weeks there was not only no mail, but it was almost impossible to conduct any normal financial transactions. It did a lot of damage to many businesses, and once again the smaller enterprises were suffering the most.
Such impediments have disappeared from Irish life since Benchmarking was introduced, and in general everyone was happy with it. But during the period commonly referred to as the "Celtic Tiger", which brought a massive and unexpected economic boom to Ireland for about ten years, the beneficiaries of Benchmarking received a massive increase of earnings that created - perhaps without intention - a new class system in Ireland. While everyone working in the many areas of the private sector had to negotiate increases of wages and benefits (either personally or through their trade unions), those included in the Benchmarking system received theirs without having even to ask for it.
Thus Ireland is now a country of them (who are benchmarked) and us (the majority of people).
The most scandalous part of it is a vastly unproportionate pay-increase for leading politicians, who basically award it to themselves (even though now there is officially a commission, set up by the government, that makes "suitable recommendations" for the increase in politicians' pay).
Based on this commission's report our Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Bertie Ahern has just raised his own salary by a staggering 38,000 Euros per annum, which is more than most Irish people earn in a year. It makes Mr. Ahern the highest paid leader in the world, even though Ireland is a quite small and unsignificant country with a population of only four million. Cabinet ministers got an increase of 25,000 Euros (which is still more than the annual income of most workers) and in line with that lower ranking officials were also rewarded handsomely in proportion.
All this happens at a moment in time when it is obvious that the great economic boom is over. In a global situation of insecurity (mainly created by the USA, but effecting every country on the planet) and massively rising prices for oil, steel, minerals and even food Ireland is no longer as competitive as it once was. So the government is telling everyone to expect a slow-down or even recession, with necessary reductions of personal income and lifestyle. However, at the same time our leaders exclude themselves from such predicted hardship and make sure that they are safe, sound and extremely well remunerated (which also includes enormous provisions for the pension plans of politicians).
Meanwhile even the once so secure civil servants and public employees are beginning to feel a bit of a pinch, as the recently announced Benchmarking figures show little or no increase of pay for the majority of them. Only the top grades will still receive their by now usual top-ups.
The mood among many people in Ireland is therefore quite gloomy right now, and the very cold weather does not help either. But the question is if our people will eventually do anything about the unfair system of them and us. In most other countries I know there would already by some social action, with demonstrations and signals of unrest. But not so in Ireland. Irish people love to grumble and complain, but when it comes to action they remain lazy and complacent. This is the main reason for the scandalous way ordinary Irish people are treated by our government for years. Now, with the Green Party being in government as a junior coalition partner, we also see an increase in bureaucracy and restrictive regulations, pretending to improve the environment. In reality they change very little, except that they make our lives ever more complicated, regulated and expensive.
As long as Irish people cannot be bothered to stand up for their own interests, this unfortunate situation will continue, perhaps until we are once again a poor and neglected country from which all those with the interest of finding a good job have to emigrate (as it was the norm for more than two centuries). Even though all signs and signals are pointing already in this direction, I am somehow still in hope that one day a great awakening will come and our people will act to rectify the appalling conditions. What we need is one nation of Irish people, working together for the common good, instead of the unfair class system we inherited from the British and augmented with the greed of our politicians and civil servants. It need not to involve another Post Office, a simple series of public demonstrations against the government would be more than enough.
Widely disappointed and disillusioned, but still carrying a small ember of hope, I remain
The Emerald Islander
10 January 2008
Women in Politics
Hillary Clinton stated today that her show of emotion was "a deciding factor in her sweeping to victory" in the New Hampshire Primary. She admitted in a TV interview that the rare show of her feelings, when tears welled in her eyes after being asked a personal question, helped sway many voters, especially women.
Basking in the glory of defeating Barack Obama and confounding predictions that her presidential campaign was over after her defeat in the Iowa caucuses, the former First Lady said she hoped her tearful moment proved her sincerity.
I do not share Mrs. Clinton's view. Being the cold, controlled and manipulating person she is - and has been for a long time - it is much more likely that her tearful moment in New Hampshire was as much a calculated performance (which seems to have achieved the desired result) as all her other speeches, actions and public appearances have been.
There is no doubt that politics does often create emotional moments, and it is also a fact that by nature women tend to be more emotional than men. But it is rarely seen that an otherwise cool and composed politician breaks out in tears during a public session. Had this politician been a man, it would have had a negative effect, as the public perception would have been of a moment of weakness and losing control over himself. Men are not supposed to do that, especially when in high public office or aspiring to such.
But when a female politician starts weeping in public, it seems to earn her some sympathy, most of all from other women, who assume that it must be horrible for a woman to be in politics and that all is much harder for a female candidate. There is no business like show business...
Personally I do not appreciate weeping politicians, regardless of their sex, party or position. To be a leader is a difficult job with huge responsibilities, and one looks for strength, character and exemplary behaviour in such a person, not for streams of tears. And if crying is really all a leader (or one aspiring to become one) has to offer to the public, it is clear that this person is certainly not suited for the position.
But Mrs. Clinton did not only disappoint me with her New Hampshire tears. What I find much more disturbing is her triumphalist behaviour after she narrowly won the state, only 2% ahead of Barack Obama. Had she won with a margin of 10% or more, I could tolerate the way she went over the top in her victory celebration.
Having studied Psychology and being an avid observer of public figures and their body language, I am frankly shocked by Hillary Clinton's hysteria after the first modest win she gained in a very small state at the beginning of the Primary season.
This photo of her was taken in New Hampshire and carried today by a number of newspapers, including the British "Daily Mail" where I saw it first. By itself it says a lot more than words can do. One does not need to be a psychologist to recognise the expression of the proverbial "mad woman in the attic"... (but no President would have such an expression)
If there is still some common sense and decency left in the American voters, then this picture of Hillary should be a warning and make sure that she is not elected President.
For the benefit of those who don't know me personally I should say that I have nothing against women, and that I hold them actually in high esteem. This even extends to women in politics, as in my opinion the input of both men and women is needed to cover all aspects of a nation and in this way create a fair and balanced system of government.
However, when one looks at the track records of women who were not only involved in politics, but rose to high public offices, the result is rather disappointing and somewhat discourageing.
Of the women who hold or held significant government positions in the USA in recent times the only one that stands out as a positive example is Jeane Kirkpatrick, who was US Ambassador to the United Nations from 1981 to 1985. Even though originally a Democrat and supporter of the campaigns of Humphrey and McGovern, she accepted when President Ronald Reagan offered her the job.
Even some Republicans admit that Condoleezza Rice is by far the worst Secretary of State the USA have had in modern times, and the least qualified and suited for the position.
The first woman in charge of the State Department, Madeleine Albright, was only marginally better and for most of her period in office more the "token woman" than a real maker of great policy and shaker of diplomatic matters. She was, however, a lot more energetic and determined than former US Attorney General Janet Reno.
The greatest blunder in recent US history is also down to a woman, as it was Judge Sandra Day O'Connor, the first female Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, who handed the unelected George W. Bush the keys to the White House by casting her vote in his favour and thus creating the 5:4 Supreme Court decision by which Bush was declared the 43rd President.
Outside the USA women have actually been active in politics a lot longer and often much more than in America. It would be too complex to name and review them all, but let me give you just a few significant examples:
- Sirimavo Bandaranaike, three times Prime Minister of Sri Lanka and the world's first ever female Prime Minister, was directly responsible for creating the deep political rift between the majority Singhalese and the minority Tamil communities in Sri Lanka, which lead in 1983 to the country's civil war (that still continues today, even though now on a lower level of violence).
- Indira Gandhi, four times Prime Minister of India, was the least fair and democratic of India's Prime Ministers, creating much division and unrest in the sub-continent, especially among the minority communities (which led eventually to her assassination by her own body guard).
- Golda Meir, Israel's first - and so far only - female Prime Minister is often portrayed as a dear elderly lady and a mother figure of the Jewish nation. The reality was quite different from that image. Golda Meir personally sanctioned numerous acts of aggression against individuals and countries, including the clandestine vendetta campaign against Palestinian intellectuals (several of which were murdered by Israeli agents in Europe) in 1972. But more significant is that she always put the interests of her Mapai (Labour) party ahead of national interests. This led to a series of bad mistakes, the most serious of which nearly lost Israel the Yom-Kippur-War of 1973 (and could well have meant the end of the State of Israel).
- Margaret Thatcher is probably the best-known female politician, and many still refer to her with some reverence as the "Iron Lady". There is no doubt that she was tough and determined, and certainly a woman of conviction and exceptional courage. But she was also an arch-capitalist and enemy of the common people, and during her time as British Prime Minister (1979-1990) she systematically destroyed the natural social and economical structure of Britain's society. In a cynical comment on her ideology she even coined the phrase: "There is no such thing as society." (The fall-out of her policies still hampers Britain today and fills her prisons with thousands of uneducated criminals, hopeless drug addicts and up-rooted drifters with no perspective...)
Only one of the world's current female leaders has so far made a very positive impact in her own country as well as in world politics. She is Helen Clark, Prime Minister of New Zealand since 1999 (and the second woman to hold this office).
The jury on Angela Merkel, Federal Chancellor (Prime Minister) of Germany since November 2005, is still out. Although she has surprised some observers with a number of tough decisions, she lacks charisma, inspiration and other natural leadership qualities.
Sadly there are also outright failures among the world's female leaders, some of which are by now almost forgotten. They include the former Prime Ministers Edith Cresson (France), Maria de Lourdes Pintasilgo (Portugal), Hanna Suchocka (Poland), Milka Planinc (Yugoslavia), Kazimiera Danute Prunskiene and Irena Degutiene (Lithuania), Tansu Ciller (Turkey), Benazir Bhutto (Pakistan), Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina Wazed (Bangla Desh), Beatriz Merino Lucero (Peru), Elisabeth Domitien (Central African Republic), Portia Simpson-Miller (Jamaica) and Claudette Werleigh (Haiti).
The wooden spoon for the worst performance of a female Prime Minister, however, must go to Kim Campbell, the first - and so far only - female leader of Canada. Having been previously the first female Minister for Defence, she succeeded Brian Mulroney as Prime Minister on June 25th, 1993. Feeling strong and confident, she soon called general elections for November 5th of the same year, during which her Conservative Party - in power since 1984 - was wiped out. All but two MPs lost their seats - including Ms. Campbell - and the Canadian Conservative Party disappeared into political oblivion.
Here in Ireland we have mixed experience with female politicians. In 1990 the independent human rights lawyer Mary Robinson, a clear outsider, was elected Ireland's first female President. During her seven years' tenure she changed the climate of domestic Irish politics forever, in fact so much that no political party even dared to nominate a man as her successor. She also had great influence internationally and became the United Nations' High Commissioner for Human Rights after stepping down as President in 1997.
Subsequently Mary McAleese was elected as her successor, and she is still President of Ireland (now in her second seven-year term, to which she was elected unopposed). It was the first time in history that an elected female head of state was succeeded by another woman.
On the other hand we also have the worst Minister for Health one could imagine. She is Mary Harney and was for a long time also (the first female) Tanaiste (Deputy Prime Minister), as well as Minister for Enterprise and Employment.
It is quite obvious that the sex of a person does not give any advantage or disadvantage for the holding of high political office. However, on an overall scale, the number of women who had a negative impact in politics clearly outnumbers those who made positive contributions. There are many reasons for that, but one is certainly that the structure of most political systems is more geared for male thinking and attitudes than for female intuition and emotions. It would be a mistake to see anything wrong in that, but equally there is no reason for standing still either.
Women can and do have important roles in all walks of life, and politics should be no exception. But the manipulative use of specifically female emotions for electoral purposes - as done by Mrs. Clinton in New Hampshire - will neither earn respect, nor is it a guarantee of success (even if it has worked in New Hampshire). Only true skills, commitment and the ability to take responsibilities of the highest order make a real leader. I did have my reservations about Hillary Clinton before, but in New Hampshire she has demonstrated for me that she is not of the right mindset to lead a great nation, and in connection with it the Western world.
The Emerald Islander
Basking in the glory of defeating Barack Obama and confounding predictions that her presidential campaign was over after her defeat in the Iowa caucuses, the former First Lady said she hoped her tearful moment proved her sincerity.
I do not share Mrs. Clinton's view. Being the cold, controlled and manipulating person she is - and has been for a long time - it is much more likely that her tearful moment in New Hampshire was as much a calculated performance (which seems to have achieved the desired result) as all her other speeches, actions and public appearances have been.
There is no doubt that politics does often create emotional moments, and it is also a fact that by nature women tend to be more emotional than men. But it is rarely seen that an otherwise cool and composed politician breaks out in tears during a public session. Had this politician been a man, it would have had a negative effect, as the public perception would have been of a moment of weakness and losing control over himself. Men are not supposed to do that, especially when in high public office or aspiring to such.
But when a female politician starts weeping in public, it seems to earn her some sympathy, most of all from other women, who assume that it must be horrible for a woman to be in politics and that all is much harder for a female candidate. There is no business like show business...
Personally I do not appreciate weeping politicians, regardless of their sex, party or position. To be a leader is a difficult job with huge responsibilities, and one looks for strength, character and exemplary behaviour in such a person, not for streams of tears. And if crying is really all a leader (or one aspiring to become one) has to offer to the public, it is clear that this person is certainly not suited for the position.
But Mrs. Clinton did not only disappoint me with her New Hampshire tears. What I find much more disturbing is her triumphalist behaviour after she narrowly won the state, only 2% ahead of Barack Obama. Had she won with a margin of 10% or more, I could tolerate the way she went over the top in her victory celebration.Having studied Psychology and being an avid observer of public figures and their body language, I am frankly shocked by Hillary Clinton's hysteria after the first modest win she gained in a very small state at the beginning of the Primary season.
This photo of her was taken in New Hampshire and carried today by a number of newspapers, including the British "Daily Mail" where I saw it first. By itself it says a lot more than words can do. One does not need to be a psychologist to recognise the expression of the proverbial "mad woman in the attic"... (but no President would have such an expression)
If there is still some common sense and decency left in the American voters, then this picture of Hillary should be a warning and make sure that she is not elected President.
For the benefit of those who don't know me personally I should say that I have nothing against women, and that I hold them actually in high esteem. This even extends to women in politics, as in my opinion the input of both men and women is needed to cover all aspects of a nation and in this way create a fair and balanced system of government.
However, when one looks at the track records of women who were not only involved in politics, but rose to high public offices, the result is rather disappointing and somewhat discourageing.
Of the women who hold or held significant government positions in the USA in recent times the only one that stands out as a positive example is Jeane Kirkpatrick, who was US Ambassador to the United Nations from 1981 to 1985. Even though originally a Democrat and supporter of the campaigns of Humphrey and McGovern, she accepted when President Ronald Reagan offered her the job.
Even some Republicans admit that Condoleezza Rice is by far the worst Secretary of State the USA have had in modern times, and the least qualified and suited for the position.
The first woman in charge of the State Department, Madeleine Albright, was only marginally better and for most of her period in office more the "token woman" than a real maker of great policy and shaker of diplomatic matters. She was, however, a lot more energetic and determined than former US Attorney General Janet Reno.
The greatest blunder in recent US history is also down to a woman, as it was Judge Sandra Day O'Connor, the first female Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, who handed the unelected George W. Bush the keys to the White House by casting her vote in his favour and thus creating the 5:4 Supreme Court decision by which Bush was declared the 43rd President.
Outside the USA women have actually been active in politics a lot longer and often much more than in America. It would be too complex to name and review them all, but let me give you just a few significant examples:
- Sirimavo Bandaranaike, three times Prime Minister of Sri Lanka and the world's first ever female Prime Minister, was directly responsible for creating the deep political rift between the majority Singhalese and the minority Tamil communities in Sri Lanka, which lead in 1983 to the country's civil war (that still continues today, even though now on a lower level of violence).
- Indira Gandhi, four times Prime Minister of India, was the least fair and democratic of India's Prime Ministers, creating much division and unrest in the sub-continent, especially among the minority communities (which led eventually to her assassination by her own body guard).
- Golda Meir, Israel's first - and so far only - female Prime Minister is often portrayed as a dear elderly lady and a mother figure of the Jewish nation. The reality was quite different from that image. Golda Meir personally sanctioned numerous acts of aggression against individuals and countries, including the clandestine vendetta campaign against Palestinian intellectuals (several of which were murdered by Israeli agents in Europe) in 1972. But more significant is that she always put the interests of her Mapai (Labour) party ahead of national interests. This led to a series of bad mistakes, the most serious of which nearly lost Israel the Yom-Kippur-War of 1973 (and could well have meant the end of the State of Israel).
- Margaret Thatcher is probably the best-known female politician, and many still refer to her with some reverence as the "Iron Lady". There is no doubt that she was tough and determined, and certainly a woman of conviction and exceptional courage. But she was also an arch-capitalist and enemy of the common people, and during her time as British Prime Minister (1979-1990) she systematically destroyed the natural social and economical structure of Britain's society. In a cynical comment on her ideology she even coined the phrase: "There is no such thing as society." (The fall-out of her policies still hampers Britain today and fills her prisons with thousands of uneducated criminals, hopeless drug addicts and up-rooted drifters with no perspective...)
Only one of the world's current female leaders has so far made a very positive impact in her own country as well as in world politics. She is Helen Clark, Prime Minister of New Zealand since 1999 (and the second woman to hold this office).
The jury on Angela Merkel, Federal Chancellor (Prime Minister) of Germany since November 2005, is still out. Although she has surprised some observers with a number of tough decisions, she lacks charisma, inspiration and other natural leadership qualities.
Sadly there are also outright failures among the world's female leaders, some of which are by now almost forgotten. They include the former Prime Ministers Edith Cresson (France), Maria de Lourdes Pintasilgo (Portugal), Hanna Suchocka (Poland), Milka Planinc (Yugoslavia), Kazimiera Danute Prunskiene and Irena Degutiene (Lithuania), Tansu Ciller (Turkey), Benazir Bhutto (Pakistan), Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina Wazed (Bangla Desh), Beatriz Merino Lucero (Peru), Elisabeth Domitien (Central African Republic), Portia Simpson-Miller (Jamaica) and Claudette Werleigh (Haiti).
The wooden spoon for the worst performance of a female Prime Minister, however, must go to Kim Campbell, the first - and so far only - female leader of Canada. Having been previously the first female Minister for Defence, she succeeded Brian Mulroney as Prime Minister on June 25th, 1993. Feeling strong and confident, she soon called general elections for November 5th of the same year, during which her Conservative Party - in power since 1984 - was wiped out. All but two MPs lost their seats - including Ms. Campbell - and the Canadian Conservative Party disappeared into political oblivion.
Here in Ireland we have mixed experience with female politicians. In 1990 the independent human rights lawyer Mary Robinson, a clear outsider, was elected Ireland's first female President. During her seven years' tenure she changed the climate of domestic Irish politics forever, in fact so much that no political party even dared to nominate a man as her successor. She also had great influence internationally and became the United Nations' High Commissioner for Human Rights after stepping down as President in 1997.
Subsequently Mary McAleese was elected as her successor, and she is still President of Ireland (now in her second seven-year term, to which she was elected unopposed). It was the first time in history that an elected female head of state was succeeded by another woman.
On the other hand we also have the worst Minister for Health one could imagine. She is Mary Harney and was for a long time also (the first female) Tanaiste (Deputy Prime Minister), as well as Minister for Enterprise and Employment.
It is quite obvious that the sex of a person does not give any advantage or disadvantage for the holding of high political office. However, on an overall scale, the number of women who had a negative impact in politics clearly outnumbers those who made positive contributions. There are many reasons for that, but one is certainly that the structure of most political systems is more geared for male thinking and attitudes than for female intuition and emotions. It would be a mistake to see anything wrong in that, but equally there is no reason for standing still either.
Women can and do have important roles in all walks of life, and politics should be no exception. But the manipulative use of specifically female emotions for electoral purposes - as done by Mrs. Clinton in New Hampshire - will neither earn respect, nor is it a guarantee of success (even if it has worked in New Hampshire). Only true skills, commitment and the ability to take responsibilities of the highest order make a real leader. I did have my reservations about Hillary Clinton before, but in New Hampshire she has demonstrated for me that she is not of the right mindset to lead a great nation, and in connection with it the Western world.
The Emerald Islander
09 January 2008
Not much Hope for America
When I listened this morning to the reports coming from New Hampshire, I was quite astonished to hear what Hillary Clinton had to say. After winning this semi-open (which allows anyone to vote, not just registered party members) Primary of the Democrats by a narrow margin of two percent over her nearest party rival Barack Obama, she gave a speech that sounded as if she had just been elected President, or at least won the nomination of her party. What she did win in fact were nine delegates from New Hampshire to the national nomination convention, bound to vote for her. Not more and not less.
I cannot say that I was surprised, having observed her campaign (as well as all the others) now for quite some time. There is an air of superiority and arrogance in Mrs. Clinton's approach to politics, an attitude that implies she might be the only suitable person for the Presidency, simply because she has lived in the White House before. If that would be a fair criteria, thousands of US citizens would qualify, from presidential advisers to cooks, gardeners and chamber maids, many of which spent a lot longer in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue than Mrs. Clinton.
If she were a Catholic or Christian Fundamentalist, she might as well claim a "God-given right" to follow in her husband's footsteps. The whole idea of people succeeding their fathers, husbands or other close relatives in high public office is not democratic at all. Hereditary succession, even though occasionally to be found in republics, is usually the practice in monarchies (and often with quite negative effects).
It is no secret that I am a Republican, in the general and especially Irish meaning of the word. If I were an American, I could not call myself that and would be most likely independent, with a slight leaning towards the Democrats. So when I look at the 13 remaining candidates for the US Presidency (six Democrats and seven Republicans), I think I can do this fair and unbiased and see every single one with the same critical scrutiny.
And what I see - on both sides - is not encouraging and does not offer much hope for the USA, her people and subsequently the whole world, which is much effected by anything that happens in the United States.
Having been in charge of the White House now for seven years, as well as in control of the House and Senate for six of them, the Republicans are in a right mess, entirely created by themselves and especially by George W. Bush and his inner circle of right-wing capitalists, war mongers and bible bashers.
The defence budget and the national debt are at a record high, as the administration spends money on their wars and other military projects as if there was no tomorrow. And for them - the Bush clan and its extremist supporters - there probably isn't. Even many Republicans are now very critical of the dangerous policies that have turned most of America's supporters (myself included) against the USA. In fact, there was no room for compromise, as Bush made it quite clear that one could only be "with us (his administration) or against us".
Given a choice that narrow, many chose to refuse the USA any further support and sympathy, especially when it became clear that under the Bush regime the one remaining super power on this planet would break every international law in the book, start illegal wars and invade and occupy far-away foreign countries that had never committed a single hostile act against the USA.
Even more disgusting and unacceptable is the creation of illegal detention centres and secret prisons abroad, where thousands of people were - and still are - held captive for years, without any charge, without any evidence against them, and without access to a lawyer! Alongside the administration sanctioned the use of torture on a massive scale, and - cowardly as Bush and his henchmen are - made sure that it was never done on official US territory, so they could pretend it did not happen at all. However, the facts are well known now and indisputable, and all this has backfired massively on Bush and destroyed the trust and confidence billions of people on the globe once had in the USA as a free and fair country.
With Bush having served two terms and Vice President Richard "Dick" Cheney not standing for the Presidency (probably because he knows himself that he would have absolutely no chance of getting elected) the field is wide open. Looking at the candidates that seek the nomination of the Republican Party, one has to wonder how serious the Republicans are in their wish to carry on with the responsibility for their nation. Only one - Senator John McCain of Arizona - is a serious candidate with competence and ability, but he is also the oldest contender in the field. In case of him being elected, he would be the oldest ever man to become President, even beating the record so far held by Ronald Reagan.
This might not be negative at all, as it will need an experienced leader to sort out the mess Bush created and win back trust from the American people as well as countries and people abroad.
All things being equal, for me McCain is certainly the one person most qualified to be President, out of the 13 candidates still running on both sides.
However, being a Republican he would not only inherit Bush's mess, but also be forced to treat matters more lenient and even defend many of the failures the current administration made in every possible field of politics. This could lead to even more distrust and further deterioration of America's reputation in the world.
The other six potential candidates running for the Republican nomination have in my opinion no realistic chance, and some could make things even worse than they are now already. Even the theoretical thought of a Mormon (Mitt Romney) or a fanatical creationist who "loves shooting things" (Mike Huckabee) in the White House and having control of the massively inflated US military power - including the nuclear options - sends cold shivers down my spine.
Rudy Guliani, a former Mayor of New York City and a cold and calculating opportunist, is not a man to be trusted with anything. He is best remembered for "9/11" and his harsh policies of "zero tolerance" against the petty criminals, poor and homeless of New York, but that alone is no qualification for the Presidency. Any mayor in office would have done what he did under the circumstances of "9/11", and his "zero tolerance" campaign actually created as many problems as it solved. Subsequently more than four million people (of the more than 18 million who populate the New York metro area) are now living below the official poverty line and depend on regular food hand-outs.
Since leaving office in New York Guliani tries to show himself as a "liberal conservative", but not in a very convincing way. Many voters will rightfully wonder how "liberal" a man could be after making his name with the slogan of "zero tolerance". (They might also remember that George W. Bush ran during his first presidential campaign with the slogan "compassionate conservatism", and we all know what he did since...)
The remaining three - Congressman Duncan Hunter from California, Congressman Ron Paul from Texas and Fred Thompson, a professional actor and former Senator from Tennessee - are not likely to win any significant support and will drop out of the race sooner or later. Neither of them has a large enough political and financial base, and that is eventually the crucial factor in US politics.
Four previous Republican contenders - Senator Sam Brownback from Kansas, former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore, Congressman Tom Tancredo from Colorado and former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson - did already quit before the start of the Primary season.
Given the crimes and massive mistakes of the Bush administration, many Americans (including Republicans) as well as foreign observers expect and wish that the next US President should be a Democrat. Those with hope for a better future see that only a drastic change at the top of the political system could bring a real change, and cynics think that it will be better to let Democrats deal with the mess and chaos of the Bush administration than burden another Republican with it.
Therefore the attention of the world's media is currently more on the Democratic Party and its remaining six contenders. (Two other Democrats - Senator Joe Biden of Delaware and Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut - have already dropped out after the Iowa caucuses on January 3rd.)
Of the six still running Hillary Clinton, Senator for New York, is clearly the favourite. Not for political achievements or experience, but mainly for three other reasons: She is the publically best-known of all candidates, she has collected the largest amount of money for her campaign (so far more than $ 90 million) and she is clearly the most determined of them all. She is also in many quarters seen as a true Liberal, and a significant portion of US women would like the idea to have her as the first ever female President.
However, the former First Lady carries a lot of baggage and it remains to be seen if that could become a factor during the campaign. One of the most serious details is that she actually voted for the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, and that she has not moved much away from this obvious mistake. It will depend on how much the disastrous war still matters to the American voters.
Further obstacles in Mrs. Clinton's path to power are her undisputed coldness and arrogance, a lack of true compassion and her attitude that she "knows best" and is "most experienced". That could in fact be her Achilles heel, since her actual experience in practical politics is limited to her term as the Junior Senator from New York. Being married to a President brings undoubtedly a lot of benefits, insights and interesting encounters, but it is no substitute for responsibility and holding high office.
In fact, her only venture into real politics during her husband's administration - her attempt to reform the hopeless and completely unfair US health system - ended in disaster and chaos. Not surprisingly, she has so far nor even mentioned this shambolic episode of her career and one wonders how long it will take until one of her opponents does.
Second favourite among the Democrats, and the only one of all candidates who offers real hope and a new approach to US politics, is Senator Barack Obama from Illinois. The son of a Kenyan father and white American mother would - if elected - be the first non-white President and as such the natural carrier of hopes and aspirations for America's poor and deprived people (many of which are black). However, there seems to be a tendency that he receives so far not as much support from these quarters than one might have expected. Obama is also the first non-white politician who does deliberately not play the race card himself (as it was done in previous years and campaigns by black Democrats like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and others). He is in fact the first coloured candidate fully and easily acceptable to white Americans (as his decisive win in the 95% white state of Iowa has shown), while a large segment of the black population supports Hillary Clinton, mainly out of loyalty to her husband.
If I had a vote in the USA, it would clearly go to Mr. Obama. If there is any chance for the USA to recover from the catastrophic Bush years within the foreseeable future, it will need a man of vision, courage and new ideas. Among the 13 remaining candidates on both sides Barack Obama is the only one with such qualities, reminding one in more than one way of John F. Kennedy in his presidential campaign. And like Kennedy he has the ability to reach many of the young and unconventional Americans who have long given up on the established parties and traditional politicians. This could work well in his favour, and personally I hope it does.
What could be held against Obama is his lack of experience, especially when it comes to foreign policies. However - despite Hillary Clinton's forceful speeches - when it comes to practical and hands-on experience in politics, Barack Obama has more on his CV than the former First Lady.
As Obama is also the first leading US politician with open sympathies for the Palestinians, it is to be expected that he will not do very well in New York and other areas with a strong Jewish community. As New York is also Mrs. Clinton's current home turf, she will certainly make good use of the situation. But whatever she might throw into Obama's way, the fact remains that she is "yesterday's woman", representing old and worn-out ideas, while he is "tomorrow's man".
The third contender, and surely the "dark horse" in the Democratic stable, is John Edwards, a former Senator from North Carolina, who was John Kerry's running-mate in the Presidential Election of 2004. Energetic, handsome and a "man of the people" with great public rapport, he should not be written off, even though he currently trails Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in third place. In matters of political experience he outshines both of them, and he has a strong and solid support base of white voters, especially in the Southern states. As things stand for now, he has the best chances to be nominated again as the running-mate (for the Vice Presidency), with either Clinton or Obama as the main nominee. Should, however, Hillary Clinton fail to muster the amount of support she expects, John Edwards might well have a chance to pick up many of her delegates and secure a nomination, with Barack Obama as running-mate.
So far barely noticed by the pundits is outsider Bill Richardson, currently the Governor of New Mexico. Of all Democratic candidates he is by far the politically most experienced, having been a Congressman, US Ambassador to the United Nations and US Energy Secretary. Despite such an impressive service record, his public profile is rather low, which will dampen his chances for the first prize. But having collected so far more than $ 18 million (a fifth of Hillary Clinton's funds) in campaign contributions, he might have enough financial stamina to keep going all the way, with a chance to become either running-mate or - in case of a Democratic win in November - to take a senior position in the new administration.
With a new Democrat in the White House there might also be interesting appointments for the remaining two also-rans, former Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska and Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio. In the long and strenuous march through the Primaries, however, they will not find much support from voters.
As much as commentators emphasize the New Hampshire Primary, it is far too early to make a clear prediction for either of the parties. Nevertheless it appears that John McCain might carry on from where he left off in 2000 (when he also won New Hampshire, but was then pushed out of the race by massive corporate donations to the Bush campaign). Mitt Romney's funds (of now $ 63 million - twice as much as McCain's) make him a serious contender by force, but is remains to be seen if America is ready for a Mormon in the White House. Lack of support for Romney could benefit Rudy Guiliani, who collected $ 47 million in campaign funds, but has not yet spent much of it. If his unorthodox strategy of completely ignoring certain states will eventually pay off - well, only time can tell.
In the Democratic Party the contest is clearly between Senators Clinton and Obama. After Iowa and New Hampshire they stand at a one-all draw, with Michigan to come next in a week's time.
I am still astonished how much Mrs. Clinton praised herself last night after winning in the New Hampshire Primary with 39%, while Obama received "only" 37%. What few people realised and not one commentator mentioned is the fact that this result is only a win by percentage. What really matters in the Primaries is the number of delegates a candidate takes from each state to the nomination convention. And on that count Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama drew in New Hampshire, each receiving the support of nine delegates (with the remaining four going to John Edwards).
On the long and winding road ahead anything is possible with two such strong and determined candidates, and this year promises at least to be one of the more colourful and interesting on the often quaint and dreary plains of US politics. However, I cannot see much hope for the future of America (and the world) unless Barack Obama becomes the 44th President of the USA.
The Emerald Islander
I cannot say that I was surprised, having observed her campaign (as well as all the others) now for quite some time. There is an air of superiority and arrogance in Mrs. Clinton's approach to politics, an attitude that implies she might be the only suitable person for the Presidency, simply because she has lived in the White House before. If that would be a fair criteria, thousands of US citizens would qualify, from presidential advisers to cooks, gardeners and chamber maids, many of which spent a lot longer in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue than Mrs. Clinton.
If she were a Catholic or Christian Fundamentalist, she might as well claim a "God-given right" to follow in her husband's footsteps. The whole idea of people succeeding their fathers, husbands or other close relatives in high public office is not democratic at all. Hereditary succession, even though occasionally to be found in republics, is usually the practice in monarchies (and often with quite negative effects).
It is no secret that I am a Republican, in the general and especially Irish meaning of the word. If I were an American, I could not call myself that and would be most likely independent, with a slight leaning towards the Democrats. So when I look at the 13 remaining candidates for the US Presidency (six Democrats and seven Republicans), I think I can do this fair and unbiased and see every single one with the same critical scrutiny.
And what I see - on both sides - is not encouraging and does not offer much hope for the USA, her people and subsequently the whole world, which is much effected by anything that happens in the United States.
Having been in charge of the White House now for seven years, as well as in control of the House and Senate for six of them, the Republicans are in a right mess, entirely created by themselves and especially by George W. Bush and his inner circle of right-wing capitalists, war mongers and bible bashers.
The defence budget and the national debt are at a record high, as the administration spends money on their wars and other military projects as if there was no tomorrow. And for them - the Bush clan and its extremist supporters - there probably isn't. Even many Republicans are now very critical of the dangerous policies that have turned most of America's supporters (myself included) against the USA. In fact, there was no room for compromise, as Bush made it quite clear that one could only be "with us (his administration) or against us".
Given a choice that narrow, many chose to refuse the USA any further support and sympathy, especially when it became clear that under the Bush regime the one remaining super power on this planet would break every international law in the book, start illegal wars and invade and occupy far-away foreign countries that had never committed a single hostile act against the USA.
Even more disgusting and unacceptable is the creation of illegal detention centres and secret prisons abroad, where thousands of people were - and still are - held captive for years, without any charge, without any evidence against them, and without access to a lawyer! Alongside the administration sanctioned the use of torture on a massive scale, and - cowardly as Bush and his henchmen are - made sure that it was never done on official US territory, so they could pretend it did not happen at all. However, the facts are well known now and indisputable, and all this has backfired massively on Bush and destroyed the trust and confidence billions of people on the globe once had in the USA as a free and fair country.
With Bush having served two terms and Vice President Richard "Dick" Cheney not standing for the Presidency (probably because he knows himself that he would have absolutely no chance of getting elected) the field is wide open. Looking at the candidates that seek the nomination of the Republican Party, one has to wonder how serious the Republicans are in their wish to carry on with the responsibility for their nation. Only one - Senator John McCain of Arizona - is a serious candidate with competence and ability, but he is also the oldest contender in the field. In case of him being elected, he would be the oldest ever man to become President, even beating the record so far held by Ronald Reagan.
This might not be negative at all, as it will need an experienced leader to sort out the mess Bush created and win back trust from the American people as well as countries and people abroad.
All things being equal, for me McCain is certainly the one person most qualified to be President, out of the 13 candidates still running on both sides.
However, being a Republican he would not only inherit Bush's mess, but also be forced to treat matters more lenient and even defend many of the failures the current administration made in every possible field of politics. This could lead to even more distrust and further deterioration of America's reputation in the world.
The other six potential candidates running for the Republican nomination have in my opinion no realistic chance, and some could make things even worse than they are now already. Even the theoretical thought of a Mormon (Mitt Romney) or a fanatical creationist who "loves shooting things" (Mike Huckabee) in the White House and having control of the massively inflated US military power - including the nuclear options - sends cold shivers down my spine.
Rudy Guliani, a former Mayor of New York City and a cold and calculating opportunist, is not a man to be trusted with anything. He is best remembered for "9/11" and his harsh policies of "zero tolerance" against the petty criminals, poor and homeless of New York, but that alone is no qualification for the Presidency. Any mayor in office would have done what he did under the circumstances of "9/11", and his "zero tolerance" campaign actually created as many problems as it solved. Subsequently more than four million people (of the more than 18 million who populate the New York metro area) are now living below the official poverty line and depend on regular food hand-outs.
Since leaving office in New York Guliani tries to show himself as a "liberal conservative", but not in a very convincing way. Many voters will rightfully wonder how "liberal" a man could be after making his name with the slogan of "zero tolerance". (They might also remember that George W. Bush ran during his first presidential campaign with the slogan "compassionate conservatism", and we all know what he did since...)
The remaining three - Congressman Duncan Hunter from California, Congressman Ron Paul from Texas and Fred Thompson, a professional actor and former Senator from Tennessee - are not likely to win any significant support and will drop out of the race sooner or later. Neither of them has a large enough political and financial base, and that is eventually the crucial factor in US politics.
Four previous Republican contenders - Senator Sam Brownback from Kansas, former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore, Congressman Tom Tancredo from Colorado and former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson - did already quit before the start of the Primary season.
Given the crimes and massive mistakes of the Bush administration, many Americans (including Republicans) as well as foreign observers expect and wish that the next US President should be a Democrat. Those with hope for a better future see that only a drastic change at the top of the political system could bring a real change, and cynics think that it will be better to let Democrats deal with the mess and chaos of the Bush administration than burden another Republican with it.
Therefore the attention of the world's media is currently more on the Democratic Party and its remaining six contenders. (Two other Democrats - Senator Joe Biden of Delaware and Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut - have already dropped out after the Iowa caucuses on January 3rd.)
Of the six still running Hillary Clinton, Senator for New York, is clearly the favourite. Not for political achievements or experience, but mainly for three other reasons: She is the publically best-known of all candidates, she has collected the largest amount of money for her campaign (so far more than $ 90 million) and she is clearly the most determined of them all. She is also in many quarters seen as a true Liberal, and a significant portion of US women would like the idea to have her as the first ever female President.
However, the former First Lady carries a lot of baggage and it remains to be seen if that could become a factor during the campaign. One of the most serious details is that she actually voted for the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, and that she has not moved much away from this obvious mistake. It will depend on how much the disastrous war still matters to the American voters.
Further obstacles in Mrs. Clinton's path to power are her undisputed coldness and arrogance, a lack of true compassion and her attitude that she "knows best" and is "most experienced". That could in fact be her Achilles heel, since her actual experience in practical politics is limited to her term as the Junior Senator from New York. Being married to a President brings undoubtedly a lot of benefits, insights and interesting encounters, but it is no substitute for responsibility and holding high office.
In fact, her only venture into real politics during her husband's administration - her attempt to reform the hopeless and completely unfair US health system - ended in disaster and chaos. Not surprisingly, she has so far nor even mentioned this shambolic episode of her career and one wonders how long it will take until one of her opponents does.
Second favourite among the Democrats, and the only one of all candidates who offers real hope and a new approach to US politics, is Senator Barack Obama from Illinois. The son of a Kenyan father and white American mother would - if elected - be the first non-white President and as such the natural carrier of hopes and aspirations for America's poor and deprived people (many of which are black). However, there seems to be a tendency that he receives so far not as much support from these quarters than one might have expected. Obama is also the first non-white politician who does deliberately not play the race card himself (as it was done in previous years and campaigns by black Democrats like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and others). He is in fact the first coloured candidate fully and easily acceptable to white Americans (as his decisive win in the 95% white state of Iowa has shown), while a large segment of the black population supports Hillary Clinton, mainly out of loyalty to her husband.
If I had a vote in the USA, it would clearly go to Mr. Obama. If there is any chance for the USA to recover from the catastrophic Bush years within the foreseeable future, it will need a man of vision, courage and new ideas. Among the 13 remaining candidates on both sides Barack Obama is the only one with such qualities, reminding one in more than one way of John F. Kennedy in his presidential campaign. And like Kennedy he has the ability to reach many of the young and unconventional Americans who have long given up on the established parties and traditional politicians. This could work well in his favour, and personally I hope it does.
What could be held against Obama is his lack of experience, especially when it comes to foreign policies. However - despite Hillary Clinton's forceful speeches - when it comes to practical and hands-on experience in politics, Barack Obama has more on his CV than the former First Lady.
As Obama is also the first leading US politician with open sympathies for the Palestinians, it is to be expected that he will not do very well in New York and other areas with a strong Jewish community. As New York is also Mrs. Clinton's current home turf, she will certainly make good use of the situation. But whatever she might throw into Obama's way, the fact remains that she is "yesterday's woman", representing old and worn-out ideas, while he is "tomorrow's man".
The third contender, and surely the "dark horse" in the Democratic stable, is John Edwards, a former Senator from North Carolina, who was John Kerry's running-mate in the Presidential Election of 2004. Energetic, handsome and a "man of the people" with great public rapport, he should not be written off, even though he currently trails Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in third place. In matters of political experience he outshines both of them, and he has a strong and solid support base of white voters, especially in the Southern states. As things stand for now, he has the best chances to be nominated again as the running-mate (for the Vice Presidency), with either Clinton or Obama as the main nominee. Should, however, Hillary Clinton fail to muster the amount of support she expects, John Edwards might well have a chance to pick up many of her delegates and secure a nomination, with Barack Obama as running-mate.
So far barely noticed by the pundits is outsider Bill Richardson, currently the Governor of New Mexico. Of all Democratic candidates he is by far the politically most experienced, having been a Congressman, US Ambassador to the United Nations and US Energy Secretary. Despite such an impressive service record, his public profile is rather low, which will dampen his chances for the first prize. But having collected so far more than $ 18 million (a fifth of Hillary Clinton's funds) in campaign contributions, he might have enough financial stamina to keep going all the way, with a chance to become either running-mate or - in case of a Democratic win in November - to take a senior position in the new administration.
With a new Democrat in the White House there might also be interesting appointments for the remaining two also-rans, former Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska and Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio. In the long and strenuous march through the Primaries, however, they will not find much support from voters.
As much as commentators emphasize the New Hampshire Primary, it is far too early to make a clear prediction for either of the parties. Nevertheless it appears that John McCain might carry on from where he left off in 2000 (when he also won New Hampshire, but was then pushed out of the race by massive corporate donations to the Bush campaign). Mitt Romney's funds (of now $ 63 million - twice as much as McCain's) make him a serious contender by force, but is remains to be seen if America is ready for a Mormon in the White House. Lack of support for Romney could benefit Rudy Guiliani, who collected $ 47 million in campaign funds, but has not yet spent much of it. If his unorthodox strategy of completely ignoring certain states will eventually pay off - well, only time can tell.
In the Democratic Party the contest is clearly between Senators Clinton and Obama. After Iowa and New Hampshire they stand at a one-all draw, with Michigan to come next in a week's time.
I am still astonished how much Mrs. Clinton praised herself last night after winning in the New Hampshire Primary with 39%, while Obama received "only" 37%. What few people realised and not one commentator mentioned is the fact that this result is only a win by percentage. What really matters in the Primaries is the number of delegates a candidate takes from each state to the nomination convention. And on that count Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama drew in New Hampshire, each receiving the support of nine delegates (with the remaining four going to John Edwards).
On the long and winding road ahead anything is possible with two such strong and determined candidates, and this year promises at least to be one of the more colourful and interesting on the often quaint and dreary plains of US politics. However, I cannot see much hope for the future of America (and the world) unless Barack Obama becomes the 44th President of the USA.
The Emerald Islander
08 January 2008
The brief quadrennial Fame of NH
I think it was Andy Warhol who coined the phrase that in future everyone will be famous at least once, but only for 15 minutes. By now we all know how right he was with his prediction, as the world is full of virtual nobodies who have been "famous" or at least noticed by some part of the media for a few minutes.
What goes for people also applies - with only slight alterations - to places. The French seaside resort of Cannes, otherwise a rather quiet town, is briefly in the news for a few days when the film festival takes place there; Davos, a town high up in the Swiss Alpes and even quieter than Cannes at normal times, makes the headlines each year during the World Economic Forum held there; and various other towns, cities, areas and even countries enjoy similar brief fame and media attention for various reasons.
One of those places is the state of New Hampshire in the North-East of the USA. Usually more than quiet and hardly noticed for any special things or achievements (if one overlooks that Dan Brown, the bestselling author of The Da Vinci Code, was born in 1964 in the New Hampshire town of Exeter), New Hampshire attracts the attention of the world's media once every four years at the start of a US Presidential Election year.
This brief quadrennial moment of fame has nothing to do with New Hampshire itself. It only happens because NH (as the state is called by locals) is traditionally the first of the 50 US states to hold a so-called Primary, a state-wide election in which members of the two major parties in US politics (Democrats and Republicans) determine which of the usually quite numerous candidates should be supported by the delegates the state sends to the nomination conventions later in the year.
Looking at it from the outside, the whole political and election system of the USA seems rather strange. It can only be explained and understood if one remembers the history and development of the USA as a nation, especially during the 19th century. During a time when the Union grew ever larger and at a fast pace, expanding further and further into the West, but with all her political and economical centres still concentrated on the East coast, some system needed to be established to guarantee that new states and territories far away from the seat of power had at least some say in the political process of the nation. (They never had a lot of influence then, and the dominant position of the old East coast states only changed with the introduction of modern transport and communication.)
The system of the Primaries, as well as the institution of the Electoral College that eventually elects the President (yes, the leader of the Western world is not - and never was - directly elected by the people) go back to these early days of the USA, when it could take delegates from the West and other remote areas several days to travel to the federal capital Washington D.C.
And as much as the USA have been in the forefront of technological, economical and structural modernisation for almost two centuries now, there has been no modernisation of the political system. This is one of the reasons why on average less than 50% of US citizens participate in elections, and why so many of them have not a clue in which way they are ruled and governed.
It makes the American habit to go around the world and preach to other nations about "fair elections and Democracy" even more shallow and futile than it would be otherwise, in particular since the United States of America are not - and never have been - a Democracy. They are a Republic and very much alike the ancient Republic of Rome, on which the Founding Fathers of the Continental Congress modeled their new nation in the late 18th century. (Any doubters of this statement are advised to read the US Constitution and related documents.)
If anyone would create or re-create the USA today, with all the available means of modern communications and transportation, it would never been done the way it was 230 years ago. That is not surprising. But what does make one wonder is why there has never been any change and improvement to the US political system, and especially to the way elections are conducted. Could it be that the existing system - as quaint, cumbersome, outdated and expensive as it is - actually suits the rich and powerful people who make up the ruling classes in the USA, in the same way as it suited the Founding Fathers?
It is known that several of the Founding Fathers, especially Franklin and Jefferson, wanted to establish a Democracy modeled on the system of ancient Athens. But the majority - among them George Washington - saw this as "not very practical" and feared that "Democracy could give too much power and influence to ordinary and simple people who might fail to understand the needs of the nation and her government".
Ever since US politics have been a field for wealthy people, and it is not accidental that the 100 members of the US Senate are also the world's most exclusive millionaires' club (since there is not one Senator who is not at least a millionaire). This is only one of the many direct parallels between the USA and her ancient role model, the Roman Republic.
Tomorrow morning we will know what the people of New Hampshire have decided today, but it will not have much news value in a few days, as the massed caravans of politicians and journalists move on to the next states for their Primaries. After a few of these contests, some of the weaker candidates will drop out of the race, and eventually all will be decided before the many delegates elected during the Primaries will even get to the nomination conventions of the two major parties. For the past 60 years they have deteriorated more and more into "Oscar"-like show business events, with thousands of brainwashed people, dressed-up in silly costumes, reveling around, shouting, singing and waving placards. Such is the political system of the USA, and unless someone with both vision and courage emerges and leads the way into a new era, it will go on and on, until no one - in the USA as well as abroad - will take it any longer for serious.
The Emerald Islander (who no longer does already)
What goes for people also applies - with only slight alterations - to places. The French seaside resort of Cannes, otherwise a rather quiet town, is briefly in the news for a few days when the film festival takes place there; Davos, a town high up in the Swiss Alpes and even quieter than Cannes at normal times, makes the headlines each year during the World Economic Forum held there; and various other towns, cities, areas and even countries enjoy similar brief fame and media attention for various reasons.
One of those places is the state of New Hampshire in the North-East of the USA. Usually more than quiet and hardly noticed for any special things or achievements (if one overlooks that Dan Brown, the bestselling author of The Da Vinci Code, was born in 1964 in the New Hampshire town of Exeter), New Hampshire attracts the attention of the world's media once every four years at the start of a US Presidential Election year.
This brief quadrennial moment of fame has nothing to do with New Hampshire itself. It only happens because NH (as the state is called by locals) is traditionally the first of the 50 US states to hold a so-called Primary, a state-wide election in which members of the two major parties in US politics (Democrats and Republicans) determine which of the usually quite numerous candidates should be supported by the delegates the state sends to the nomination conventions later in the year.
Looking at it from the outside, the whole political and election system of the USA seems rather strange. It can only be explained and understood if one remembers the history and development of the USA as a nation, especially during the 19th century. During a time when the Union grew ever larger and at a fast pace, expanding further and further into the West, but with all her political and economical centres still concentrated on the East coast, some system needed to be established to guarantee that new states and territories far away from the seat of power had at least some say in the political process of the nation. (They never had a lot of influence then, and the dominant position of the old East coast states only changed with the introduction of modern transport and communication.)
The system of the Primaries, as well as the institution of the Electoral College that eventually elects the President (yes, the leader of the Western world is not - and never was - directly elected by the people) go back to these early days of the USA, when it could take delegates from the West and other remote areas several days to travel to the federal capital Washington D.C.
And as much as the USA have been in the forefront of technological, economical and structural modernisation for almost two centuries now, there has been no modernisation of the political system. This is one of the reasons why on average less than 50% of US citizens participate in elections, and why so many of them have not a clue in which way they are ruled and governed.
It makes the American habit to go around the world and preach to other nations about "fair elections and Democracy" even more shallow and futile than it would be otherwise, in particular since the United States of America are not - and never have been - a Democracy. They are a Republic and very much alike the ancient Republic of Rome, on which the Founding Fathers of the Continental Congress modeled their new nation in the late 18th century. (Any doubters of this statement are advised to read the US Constitution and related documents.)
If anyone would create or re-create the USA today, with all the available means of modern communications and transportation, it would never been done the way it was 230 years ago. That is not surprising. But what does make one wonder is why there has never been any change and improvement to the US political system, and especially to the way elections are conducted. Could it be that the existing system - as quaint, cumbersome, outdated and expensive as it is - actually suits the rich and powerful people who make up the ruling classes in the USA, in the same way as it suited the Founding Fathers?
It is known that several of the Founding Fathers, especially Franklin and Jefferson, wanted to establish a Democracy modeled on the system of ancient Athens. But the majority - among them George Washington - saw this as "not very practical" and feared that "Democracy could give too much power and influence to ordinary and simple people who might fail to understand the needs of the nation and her government".
Ever since US politics have been a field for wealthy people, and it is not accidental that the 100 members of the US Senate are also the world's most exclusive millionaires' club (since there is not one Senator who is not at least a millionaire). This is only one of the many direct parallels between the USA and her ancient role model, the Roman Republic.
Tomorrow morning we will know what the people of New Hampshire have decided today, but it will not have much news value in a few days, as the massed caravans of politicians and journalists move on to the next states for their Primaries. After a few of these contests, some of the weaker candidates will drop out of the race, and eventually all will be decided before the many delegates elected during the Primaries will even get to the nomination conventions of the two major parties. For the past 60 years they have deteriorated more and more into "Oscar"-like show business events, with thousands of brainwashed people, dressed-up in silly costumes, reveling around, shouting, singing and waving placards. Such is the political system of the USA, and unless someone with both vision and courage emerges and leads the way into a new era, it will go on and on, until no one - in the USA as well as abroad - will take it any longer for serious.
The Emerald Islander (who no longer does already)
07 January 2008
American Gunboat "Diplomacy"
As a former naval officer I have a natural interest in all maritime matters, and especially in the activities of the world's navies. (You might be familiar with the saying that one can take a man out of the Navy, but never the Navy out of the man...)
So when there is a news report about naval operations, deployments or anything else concerned with warships I always listen with special interest and great attention.
Today we learned that two days ago an incident happened that could easily have started a new war in the Middle East. Three US warships - the AEGIS cruiser USS Port Royal (CG-73), the destroyer USS Hopper (DDG-70) and the frigate USS Ingraham (FFG-61) - encountered in the Strait of Hormuz (see map above) five speed boats from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. After a brief stand-off, during which the Iranians apparently sent a number of threats and verbal insults over ship-to-ship radio, their speed boats turned away and returned to Iranian coastal waters. Not a moment too soon, it seems, as the Americans where so shocked by this encounter that they were preparing to open fire.
Had they done that, we could find ourselves now witnessing the begin of US military operations against Iran, something the White House - and especially US Vice President Richard Cheney - are very keen on for quite some time.
Gunboat "Diplomacy" is nothing new and has been employed by many governments for centuries. Especially the 19th and early 20th century saw numerous actions of that kind, most of them exercised by Britain, but also by France, Germany and other colonial powers. However, in recent decades the game of applying political pressure through the deployment of naval forces has been predominantly played by the USA, since the end of World War II the largest maritime power on the planet.
The Strait of Hormuz is an area in which the US Navy has been present with a changing number of warships for a long time, since the narrow stretch of water that separates the Persian Gulf from the Gulf of Oman is of great strategic importance, especially for the West and the USA, as about a fifth of the world's crude oil production is shipped through this very passage.
And although it is regarded as an international shipping lane, the area also consists partly of the coastal waters of Iran, America's arch enemy since the pro-western Shah Reza Pahlewi (who was in his time Washington's strongest ally in the region) was deposed in 1979 by Ayatollah Khomeini.
Since then there have been a number of clashes between the USA and Iran. On April 18th, 1988 a full-size sea battle developed, during which the US Navy sunk two Iranian frigates and six speed boats of the Revolutionary Guards (very much like the ones encountered two days ago).
On July 3rd, 1988 the AEGIS cruiser USS Vincennes (CG-49), a sister-ship of the USS Port Royal, shot down a civilian Iranian airliner, killing all 290 people on board.
In later years there have been several smaller incidents, but without any losses of lives or ships on either side.
After the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 the climate in the Persian Gulf region became naturally more serious and hostile, and for at least four years now the US government is looking for a suitable excuse to attack and invade Iran as well. The issue of the "Iranian nuclear weapons" dominated the White House propaganda for years, until recently a secret US intelligence report came to public knowledge, stating that Iran had "no nuclear capability and no activities to develop such for four years".
With time running out for George W. Bush and Richard "Dick" Cheney (who is the main hawk in Washington and desperate to deal with Iran before he has to leave the White House), it seems that the US administration is now searching for any possible excuse to start another war in the Middle East, even though it has become more than clear that they cannot even win the two in which they are already involved in (Afghanistan & Iraq).
Five tiny speed boats, even though armed, are no match whatsoever for three of the most modern and powerful warships of the US Navy. One can only be grateful that an obviously sensible regional commander - most likely the Admiral in charge of the US Fleet to which the three ships belong - saw the situation for what it was and prevented the incident from getting out of hand.
In my own naval career during the so-called "Cold War" I saw plenty of such incidents and close encounters, then with Russians and other ships from the Warsaw Pact. And it was always down to level-headed naval officers to prevent a shooting war.
If one would leave decisions only to the politicians, we would have seen a lot more wars already. But it is down to the soldiers and sailors on the ground to keep cool and keep the peace. Never in modern times was a war started by the military, it was always down to politicians who are never to be found in the firing line.
The Emerald Islander
So when there is a news report about naval operations, deployments or anything else concerned with warships I always listen with special interest and great attention.
Today we learned that two days ago an incident happened that could easily have started a new war in the Middle East. Three US warships - the AEGIS cruiser USS Port Royal (CG-73), the destroyer USS Hopper (DDG-70) and the frigate USS Ingraham (FFG-61) - encountered in the Strait of Hormuz (see map above) five speed boats from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. After a brief stand-off, during which the Iranians apparently sent a number of threats and verbal insults over ship-to-ship radio, their speed boats turned away and returned to Iranian coastal waters. Not a moment too soon, it seems, as the Americans where so shocked by this encounter that they were preparing to open fire.
Had they done that, we could find ourselves now witnessing the begin of US military operations against Iran, something the White House - and especially US Vice President Richard Cheney - are very keen on for quite some time.
Gunboat "Diplomacy" is nothing new and has been employed by many governments for centuries. Especially the 19th and early 20th century saw numerous actions of that kind, most of them exercised by Britain, but also by France, Germany and other colonial powers. However, in recent decades the game of applying political pressure through the deployment of naval forces has been predominantly played by the USA, since the end of World War II the largest maritime power on the planet.
The Strait of Hormuz is an area in which the US Navy has been present with a changing number of warships for a long time, since the narrow stretch of water that separates the Persian Gulf from the Gulf of Oman is of great strategic importance, especially for the West and the USA, as about a fifth of the world's crude oil production is shipped through this very passage.
And although it is regarded as an international shipping lane, the area also consists partly of the coastal waters of Iran, America's arch enemy since the pro-western Shah Reza Pahlewi (who was in his time Washington's strongest ally in the region) was deposed in 1979 by Ayatollah Khomeini.
Since then there have been a number of clashes between the USA and Iran. On April 18th, 1988 a full-size sea battle developed, during which the US Navy sunk two Iranian frigates and six speed boats of the Revolutionary Guards (very much like the ones encountered two days ago).
On July 3rd, 1988 the AEGIS cruiser USS Vincennes (CG-49), a sister-ship of the USS Port Royal, shot down a civilian Iranian airliner, killing all 290 people on board.
In later years there have been several smaller incidents, but without any losses of lives or ships on either side.
After the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 the climate in the Persian Gulf region became naturally more serious and hostile, and for at least four years now the US government is looking for a suitable excuse to attack and invade Iran as well. The issue of the "Iranian nuclear weapons" dominated the White House propaganda for years, until recently a secret US intelligence report came to public knowledge, stating that Iran had "no nuclear capability and no activities to develop such for four years".
With time running out for George W. Bush and Richard "Dick" Cheney (who is the main hawk in Washington and desperate to deal with Iran before he has to leave the White House), it seems that the US administration is now searching for any possible excuse to start another war in the Middle East, even though it has become more than clear that they cannot even win the two in which they are already involved in (Afghanistan & Iraq).
Five tiny speed boats, even though armed, are no match whatsoever for three of the most modern and powerful warships of the US Navy. One can only be grateful that an obviously sensible regional commander - most likely the Admiral in charge of the US Fleet to which the three ships belong - saw the situation for what it was and prevented the incident from getting out of hand.
In my own naval career during the so-called "Cold War" I saw plenty of such incidents and close encounters, then with Russians and other ships from the Warsaw Pact. And it was always down to level-headed naval officers to prevent a shooting war.
If one would leave decisions only to the politicians, we would have seen a lot more wars already. But it is down to the soldiers and sailors on the ground to keep cool and keep the peace. Never in modern times was a war started by the military, it was always down to politicians who are never to be found in the firing line.
The Emerald Islander
06 January 2008
Now Christmas is over
In the Western Christian Churches today is known as Epiphany, the day connected with the visit of the Magi (or three wise men). It is also the last of the twelve traditional days of Christmas. This goes back many centuries and has its origin in the change from the old Julian to the new Gregorian Calendar. As there was a difference of 12 days between the two, people began to celebrate them during the coldest and darkest period of the year, around Christmas. However, this twelve-day-festival has its roots in even older Pagan celebrations from ancient times.
It only shows that humans are creatures of habit, especially when it comes to feasts and holidays. So regardless what the dominant belief system might be, the traditional times of celebrations tend to remain the same. Pick, for example, any Christian feast day and you will find that it corresponds with an older Pagan feast on the same day, or very close to it.
Nowadays, as we live in a global village dominated mostly by American customs and even more by US business interests, it can easily be forgotten what our traditional winter festival is about. It appears that the massive advertising and marketing campaign for Christmas starts a little bit earlier each year (in 2007 a local supermarket began offering special Christmas goods in late September) and from November on - just as soon as "Halloween" is out of the way - every large department store and shopping centre is festooned with Christmas decorations and sports also a fat middle-aged man with fake cotton-wool beard, dressed in a strange red outfit with white trimmings of fake fur. This creature, commonly known now as "Santa", is the most recent addition to the pre-Christmas season and as fake as his beard.
Even though the figure has its roots in ancient characters like the Christian bishop St. Nicholas from Asia Minor and the Pagan "Grandfather Frost" from Russia, the modern version "Santa" (sometimes also called "Father Christmas") was created during the depression period of the 1920s in the USA as a marketing ploy for the Coca-Cola company and dressed in their corporate colours red and white.
Few people these days seem to be aware of this, and subsequently the season that once was Christmas becomes more and more a completely meaningless conglomerate of over-sentimental trash, massive consumerism and senseless over-eating and drinking.
Personally I do not participate in this sad charade, but I can only speak and act for myself. I do not have the right to tell others what to do and how to behave. But if anyone wishes to do what I am doing now for many years - simply ignoring the fake "Christmas" and live a normal life - it would please me to see such a sign of common sense.
When I was a child, Advent and Christmas were spiritual periods and full of joy and mystery. All this has disappeared under an avalanche of greed and capitalist manipulations, and I wonder if it will ever be possible to return to the true meanings of the winter festival season.
In the Orthodox Churches of the East, in contrast, today is actually Christmas Day, since they are still following the old Julian Calendar. During the past few weeks Jews also celebrated Hanukkah, Muslims had Ramadan and not so long ago Hindus enjoyed the feast of Diwali. But even though all these religious holidays are as significant as Christmas is for Western Christians, they do not create the same silly wave of secular consumerism. Therefore I wonder what has gone wrong with our Western culture and why we are the only ones that fall so gullible into the trap of ruthless capitalism?
Perhaps there is an answer, perhaps not. For now I am grateful that it is all over for another year and am happily returning to a relatively normal world around me. However, there seems to be no escape from the constant marketing onslaught of big multi-national companies. When I went shopping for my weekend groceries yesterday I spotted already the first batch of chocolate Easter eggs...
In my small spot of sanity, surrounded by a crazy world, I remain for now
The Emerald Islander
It only shows that humans are creatures of habit, especially when it comes to feasts and holidays. So regardless what the dominant belief system might be, the traditional times of celebrations tend to remain the same. Pick, for example, any Christian feast day and you will find that it corresponds with an older Pagan feast on the same day, or very close to it.
Nowadays, as we live in a global village dominated mostly by American customs and even more by US business interests, it can easily be forgotten what our traditional winter festival is about. It appears that the massive advertising and marketing campaign for Christmas starts a little bit earlier each year (in 2007 a local supermarket began offering special Christmas goods in late September) and from November on - just as soon as "Halloween" is out of the way - every large department store and shopping centre is festooned with Christmas decorations and sports also a fat middle-aged man with fake cotton-wool beard, dressed in a strange red outfit with white trimmings of fake fur. This creature, commonly known now as "Santa", is the most recent addition to the pre-Christmas season and as fake as his beard.
Even though the figure has its roots in ancient characters like the Christian bishop St. Nicholas from Asia Minor and the Pagan "Grandfather Frost" from Russia, the modern version "Santa" (sometimes also called "Father Christmas") was created during the depression period of the 1920s in the USA as a marketing ploy for the Coca-Cola company and dressed in their corporate colours red and white.
Few people these days seem to be aware of this, and subsequently the season that once was Christmas becomes more and more a completely meaningless conglomerate of over-sentimental trash, massive consumerism and senseless over-eating and drinking.
Personally I do not participate in this sad charade, but I can only speak and act for myself. I do not have the right to tell others what to do and how to behave. But if anyone wishes to do what I am doing now for many years - simply ignoring the fake "Christmas" and live a normal life - it would please me to see such a sign of common sense.
When I was a child, Advent and Christmas were spiritual periods and full of joy and mystery. All this has disappeared under an avalanche of greed and capitalist manipulations, and I wonder if it will ever be possible to return to the true meanings of the winter festival season.
In the Orthodox Churches of the East, in contrast, today is actually Christmas Day, since they are still following the old Julian Calendar. During the past few weeks Jews also celebrated Hanukkah, Muslims had Ramadan and not so long ago Hindus enjoyed the feast of Diwali. But even though all these religious holidays are as significant as Christmas is for Western Christians, they do not create the same silly wave of secular consumerism. Therefore I wonder what has gone wrong with our Western culture and why we are the only ones that fall so gullible into the trap of ruthless capitalism?
Perhaps there is an answer, perhaps not. For now I am grateful that it is all over for another year and am happily returning to a relatively normal world around me. However, there seems to be no escape from the constant marketing onslaught of big multi-national companies. When I went shopping for my weekend groceries yesterday I spotted already the first batch of chocolate Easter eggs...
In my small spot of sanity, surrounded by a crazy world, I remain for now
The Emerald Islander
05 January 2008
Power tends to corrupt
As so often in Ireland the bad weather lasted only one day. When I went out this morning for my usual round of Jogging it was not only calm and dry, there was actually bright sunshine and a clear blue sky with not a single cloud to see. Such is always a joyful experience and makes my morning exercise even more successful.
However, there hangs a cloud of thought over this part of the world, which results from an event that made the news yesterday and continues to be discussed on the British airwaves.
On one of the coldest and most miserable days of the year, one of the largest suppliers of energy in Britain, called N-Power (these days large companies have ever more anonymous and meaningless names), announced an increase in consumer prices for electricity and gas of more than 17% on average (and up to 27% in certain areas).
This came only a few days after Britain's railway companies (all private now, after the last Conservative government broke up the well-functioning national railway group British Rail and fragmented it in the most ridiculous and shambolic way) raised the prices for their tickets by 4.8% on average (and up to 8.7% for certain fares).
Consumer groups have issued statements of protest, there are interviews on the BBC, and a couple of politicians did raise the question of need, fairness and even legality. But this is as far as such things go. No one, and certainly not the British government (always the capitalists' best friend), will stop N-Power from charging ordinary British consumers until they bleed dry. For large industrial customers there are of course the so-called "heavy user tariffs", which means that those who use a lot of energy are getting it cheap, while those who use a normal or small amount are massively overcharged for it.
This happens despite a growing general awareness of global warming, carbon footprints and energy misuse. And despite a clear statement of Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown that the UK would be reducing the amount of energy used, in order to make a real contribution to save the planet.
Well, maybe this is what is really behind the announcement. People are beginning to understand the environment and save energy, so big utility companies like N-Power (which is, by the way, now owned by the large German energy group RWE) make less money from selling energy. And to compensate for the losses by volume they are now raising the prices per unit.
There is absolute no proper reason or justification for such a drastic increase in energy prices, several times the rate of inflation! But who is going to stop it? These days all British utility companies are completely privatised and care a lot more for their share holders and directors than for customers. They are like the industry's private herd of cows, to be milked as much and as often as it pleases the bosses. Ordinary people have no rights, and no ways to avoid this shameless exploitation of truly Victorian dimensions.
We all need electricity, as it is practically impossible to live and function without it. So the likes of N-Power have consumers over a barrel, in particular as no politician or regulator will come to their aid. All people can do is pay and pay, and should they run out of money, the energy companies will disconnect them and - to add insult to injury - even charge a hefty extra fee for doing that!
Here in Ireland things are not much better, and the price for electricity rises and rises just as our main national supplier ESB (still partly controlled by the government, but partly in private hands now as well) pleases. Subsequently Ireland has one of the highest energy prices in Europe, which makes life for ordinary people increasingly difficult and has even already some negative influence on the growth of our national economy.
What kind of world have we created for us and our children? Is this really how we want to live in the 21st century?! Handing the control over our lives to governments, police, intelligence services and greedy private utility companies? Where are our Human and Civil Rights? And where is the Common Sense that is supposed to guide society?
Lord Acton, the great British historian and author of many well-known quotations, would be livid if he were still alive. Yesterday, when I heard of the shameless greed of N-Power, I thought immediately of one of his most famous statements, which he made 120 years ago in a letter to Bishop Creighton. It is so fitting that it could be the motto of the privatised energy industry, and especially of N-Power.
"Power tends to corrupt," Lord Acton wrote, "and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
With this I rest my case, and remain for today
The Emerald Islander
However, there hangs a cloud of thought over this part of the world, which results from an event that made the news yesterday and continues to be discussed on the British airwaves.
On one of the coldest and most miserable days of the year, one of the largest suppliers of energy in Britain, called N-Power (these days large companies have ever more anonymous and meaningless names), announced an increase in consumer prices for electricity and gas of more than 17% on average (and up to 27% in certain areas).
This came only a few days after Britain's railway companies (all private now, after the last Conservative government broke up the well-functioning national railway group British Rail and fragmented it in the most ridiculous and shambolic way) raised the prices for their tickets by 4.8% on average (and up to 8.7% for certain fares).
Consumer groups have issued statements of protest, there are interviews on the BBC, and a couple of politicians did raise the question of need, fairness and even legality. But this is as far as such things go. No one, and certainly not the British government (always the capitalists' best friend), will stop N-Power from charging ordinary British consumers until they bleed dry. For large industrial customers there are of course the so-called "heavy user tariffs", which means that those who use a lot of energy are getting it cheap, while those who use a normal or small amount are massively overcharged for it.
This happens despite a growing general awareness of global warming, carbon footprints and energy misuse. And despite a clear statement of Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown that the UK would be reducing the amount of energy used, in order to make a real contribution to save the planet.
Well, maybe this is what is really behind the announcement. People are beginning to understand the environment and save energy, so big utility companies like N-Power (which is, by the way, now owned by the large German energy group RWE) make less money from selling energy. And to compensate for the losses by volume they are now raising the prices per unit.
There is absolute no proper reason or justification for such a drastic increase in energy prices, several times the rate of inflation! But who is going to stop it? These days all British utility companies are completely privatised and care a lot more for their share holders and directors than for customers. They are like the industry's private herd of cows, to be milked as much and as often as it pleases the bosses. Ordinary people have no rights, and no ways to avoid this shameless exploitation of truly Victorian dimensions.
We all need electricity, as it is practically impossible to live and function without it. So the likes of N-Power have consumers over a barrel, in particular as no politician or regulator will come to their aid. All people can do is pay and pay, and should they run out of money, the energy companies will disconnect them and - to add insult to injury - even charge a hefty extra fee for doing that!
Here in Ireland things are not much better, and the price for electricity rises and rises just as our main national supplier ESB (still partly controlled by the government, but partly in private hands now as well) pleases. Subsequently Ireland has one of the highest energy prices in Europe, which makes life for ordinary people increasingly difficult and has even already some negative influence on the growth of our national economy.
What kind of world have we created for us and our children? Is this really how we want to live in the 21st century?! Handing the control over our lives to governments, police, intelligence services and greedy private utility companies? Where are our Human and Civil Rights? And where is the Common Sense that is supposed to guide society?
Lord Acton, the great British historian and author of many well-known quotations, would be livid if he were still alive. Yesterday, when I heard of the shameless greed of N-Power, I thought immediately of one of his most famous statements, which he made 120 years ago in a letter to Bishop Creighton. It is so fitting that it could be the motto of the privatised energy industry, and especially of N-Power.
"Power tends to corrupt," Lord Acton wrote, "and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
With this I rest my case, and remain for today
The Emerald Islander
04 January 2008
Aethelred and other Unreadies
Today the rain is back, and with a vengeance. Augmented by regional snowfalls (especially in the North) and gale-force winds in all coastal waters around the island, rain and sleet is gashing down as if someone above the clouds was dashing it out with large buckets. An extremely unpleasant day, and one of those when one will avoid leaving the house if it is at all possible.
The cat, wise creature that she is, had one brief look out the window in the morning, then turned around and went back before the fireplace, which has been blazing red-hot all day, in order to keep the little old house we inhabit warm and comfortable.
I had to go out eventually, to the bank and for some shopping, but I left it until after lunch. By that time conditions in our area had somewhat improved, the wind had calmed a bit and the rain actually stopped for about half an hour. I managed to get out and back before the rain started falling again, so on a personal note the day was not too bad after all for me.
Others were not so lucky. Over large areas of Ireland, especially in the West and North, the weather was so atrocious that the local authorities decided to close schools and a number of roads on grounds of safety.
Some roads, including a stretch of the main national road to Cork, were covered with ice and a number of accidents occurred before the Garda Siochana (Ireland's Police) issued closing orders in the West.
In the North, which is still occupied and ruled by the British, many schools were closed after a sudden and unexpected snowfall had made many roads impassable. Thousands of motorists got stranded, with large amounts of man-hours being lost to the economy, Belfast's airport closed as well and life in general was seriously disrupted.
This sort of thing happens almost every Winter here, and in some years more than once. And each time the authorities in charge of maintaining (and clearing) the roads are found wanting and unprepared! I wonder why it is that they are never able to cope with the relatively mild and uncomplicated winter conditions here, while at the same time the authorities in other European countries, where the Winters are much longer and harder than here, have no such problems. In Northern, Eastern and Central Europe, where snow and ice is present for months each Winter, all major (and even many minor) roads are cleared every day, and if necessary several times a day, railways function and school closures are unheard of.
As
a historian this reminds me of a famous - or rather infamous - medieval King of England, who ruled our neighbour island from the late 10th to the early 11th century. His name was Aethelred and the ineptness of his government earned him the by-name "the Unready".
I know that some of those names attached to ancient rulers can be a bit crude, but in this case it is well deserved and speaks for itself. To be fair to Aethelred (whose portrait you see here), he had not an easy start, succeeding to the throne at the tender age of 10, at a time when England was regularly attacked by Danish Viking armies. So some of the unreadiness associated with him must have been a result of incompetent advisers and court officials. (Not much has changed in Britain since, and many dithering boards and committees there are still responsible for a whole range of mishaps, procrastination, failures and scandalous disasters...)
For all of his adult years Aethelred was faced with the ever more hostile Danes, who had since the 9th century ruled a significant part of North and North-East England (known as Danelaw or Danelagh), but lost control of it shortly before Aethelred became King. Understandably, the Danes wanted their lands back, and having a large supply of well-trained and heavily armed Viking warriors at their disposal, they kept trying to achieve their goal almost every year.
Having not enough soldiers and pretty poor commanders, Aethelred realised that he could not match the Danish armies in battle. So he decided to introduce the force of monetary power into English politics and paid the Danes large sums of money for not attacking and ravaging his frail kingdom. The clever Danes took the money and withdrew, but only to come back the next year, demanding more. This went on for almost a quarter of a century, and the amount of money paid to the Viking raiders grew larger each time.
Neither Aethelred nor his kinsmen, advisers and military commanders seem to have considered to prepare for another Danish attack, build defences and raise an army strong enough to meet and beat the Vikings next time they appeared on England's shores. So even the Danes came back as regular as the seasons, every time the English were unprepared for it, not ready to fight and could only hope another and even larger payment would save them again.
Eventually the Vikings grew tired of the game, and in 1013 (one year before Ireland's High King Brian Boru defeated the Vikings of Dublin in the Battle of Clontarf) King Sveyn I "Forkbeard" of Denmark chose blood over silver, invaded England in force and drove Aethelred and his court into exile. Sveyn had not much joy with his victory, because he died only five weeks later. His successor, King Canute the Great (best remembered for ordering the tide to turn back into the sea), was officially proclaimed King of England in 1014. A year later Canute moved South and broke the last English resistance Aethelred and his kinsmen could muster against him. Having lost his kingdom and everything, Aethelred died as a sick and broken man in London in 1016, aged 48, entering history books as the most inept Anglo-Saxon ruler of England, forever marked as "the Unready".
Even though he achieved little and eventually lost everything, he left some legacy that continues to have influence on England and Britain even today. He was the first English ruler to use large sums of money as means of major policy, he began the long-standing (and often tragic) English tradition of dithering and ignoring foreign threats, and - probably most significant - he was the indirect cause for the Norman invasion of 1066, as his second marriage to Emma of Normandy established a claim to the English throne, used 50 years after Aethelred's death by his wife's grand-nephew, Duke William of Normandy (later King William I "the Conqueror" of England), as the excuse to invade England.
Another century later the Normans moved on to invade and conquer Ireland, and their legacy is still present and has influence on both parts of Ireland today. And so has - sadly - Aethelred's practice of dithering, ignorance, incompetence and procrastination. On a day like today many of Ireland's people feel and encounter the results of that, even though most of them might never have heard of Aethelred the Unready. History has a long arm, and it strikes all of us, the ready and the unready, the educated as well as the ignorant.
From a safe chair in front of a nicely burning fire I wish you all a pleasant weekend, hoping you are ready and prepared for more bad weather, as it is fore-casted for tonight.
The Emerald Islander
The cat, wise creature that she is, had one brief look out the window in the morning, then turned around and went back before the fireplace, which has been blazing red-hot all day, in order to keep the little old house we inhabit warm and comfortable.
I had to go out eventually, to the bank and for some shopping, but I left it until after lunch. By that time conditions in our area had somewhat improved, the wind had calmed a bit and the rain actually stopped for about half an hour. I managed to get out and back before the rain started falling again, so on a personal note the day was not too bad after all for me.
Others were not so lucky. Over large areas of Ireland, especially in the West and North, the weather was so atrocious that the local authorities decided to close schools and a number of roads on grounds of safety.
Some roads, including a stretch of the main national road to Cork, were covered with ice and a number of accidents occurred before the Garda Siochana (Ireland's Police) issued closing orders in the West.
In the North, which is still occupied and ruled by the British, many schools were closed after a sudden and unexpected snowfall had made many roads impassable. Thousands of motorists got stranded, with large amounts of man-hours being lost to the economy, Belfast's airport closed as well and life in general was seriously disrupted.
This sort of thing happens almost every Winter here, and in some years more than once. And each time the authorities in charge of maintaining (and clearing) the roads are found wanting and unprepared! I wonder why it is that they are never able to cope with the relatively mild and uncomplicated winter conditions here, while at the same time the authorities in other European countries, where the Winters are much longer and harder than here, have no such problems. In Northern, Eastern and Central Europe, where snow and ice is present for months each Winter, all major (and even many minor) roads are cleared every day, and if necessary several times a day, railways function and school closures are unheard of.
As
a historian this reminds me of a famous - or rather infamous - medieval King of England, who ruled our neighbour island from the late 10th to the early 11th century. His name was Aethelred and the ineptness of his government earned him the by-name "the Unready".I know that some of those names attached to ancient rulers can be a bit crude, but in this case it is well deserved and speaks for itself. To be fair to Aethelred (whose portrait you see here), he had not an easy start, succeeding to the throne at the tender age of 10, at a time when England was regularly attacked by Danish Viking armies. So some of the unreadiness associated with him must have been a result of incompetent advisers and court officials. (Not much has changed in Britain since, and many dithering boards and committees there are still responsible for a whole range of mishaps, procrastination, failures and scandalous disasters...)
For all of his adult years Aethelred was faced with the ever more hostile Danes, who had since the 9th century ruled a significant part of North and North-East England (known as Danelaw or Danelagh), but lost control of it shortly before Aethelred became King. Understandably, the Danes wanted their lands back, and having a large supply of well-trained and heavily armed Viking warriors at their disposal, they kept trying to achieve their goal almost every year.
Having not enough soldiers and pretty poor commanders, Aethelred realised that he could not match the Danish armies in battle. So he decided to introduce the force of monetary power into English politics and paid the Danes large sums of money for not attacking and ravaging his frail kingdom. The clever Danes took the money and withdrew, but only to come back the next year, demanding more. This went on for almost a quarter of a century, and the amount of money paid to the Viking raiders grew larger each time.
Neither Aethelred nor his kinsmen, advisers and military commanders seem to have considered to prepare for another Danish attack, build defences and raise an army strong enough to meet and beat the Vikings next time they appeared on England's shores. So even the Danes came back as regular as the seasons, every time the English were unprepared for it, not ready to fight and could only hope another and even larger payment would save them again.
Eventually the Vikings grew tired of the game, and in 1013 (one year before Ireland's High King Brian Boru defeated the Vikings of Dublin in the Battle of Clontarf) King Sveyn I "Forkbeard" of Denmark chose blood over silver, invaded England in force and drove Aethelred and his court into exile. Sveyn had not much joy with his victory, because he died only five weeks later. His successor, King Canute the Great (best remembered for ordering the tide to turn back into the sea), was officially proclaimed King of England in 1014. A year later Canute moved South and broke the last English resistance Aethelred and his kinsmen could muster against him. Having lost his kingdom and everything, Aethelred died as a sick and broken man in London in 1016, aged 48, entering history books as the most inept Anglo-Saxon ruler of England, forever marked as "the Unready".
Even though he achieved little and eventually lost everything, he left some legacy that continues to have influence on England and Britain even today. He was the first English ruler to use large sums of money as means of major policy, he began the long-standing (and often tragic) English tradition of dithering and ignoring foreign threats, and - probably most significant - he was the indirect cause for the Norman invasion of 1066, as his second marriage to Emma of Normandy established a claim to the English throne, used 50 years after Aethelred's death by his wife's grand-nephew, Duke William of Normandy (later King William I "the Conqueror" of England), as the excuse to invade England.
Another century later the Normans moved on to invade and conquer Ireland, and their legacy is still present and has influence on both parts of Ireland today. And so has - sadly - Aethelred's practice of dithering, ignorance, incompetence and procrastination. On a day like today many of Ireland's people feel and encounter the results of that, even though most of them might never have heard of Aethelred the Unready. History has a long arm, and it strikes all of us, the ready and the unready, the educated as well as the ignorant.
From a safe chair in front of a nicely burning fire I wish you all a pleasant weekend, hoping you are ready and prepared for more bad weather, as it is fore-casted for tonight.
The Emerald Islander
03 January 2008
A cold Day with hot News and kind Gifts
After all the rain we had yesterday, today was a dry day, which is always welcome. But it was - and still is - very cold for Ireland. Strictly speaking it is never really cold here, if one compares it with some other European countries I have lived in (such as Austria, Germany or Norway), simply because we get the benefit of the Gulf Stream, or - to be precise - the North Atlantic Drift, which is the North-Eastern extension of the actual Gulf Stream. This means that the climate in Ireland is a mostly moist and temperate one, with no great heat waves during the Summer and no hard frost in the Winter. However, there are always some days when it is significantly colder than usual, days with an easterly wind that brings cold dry air from the Continent. Such is the case today.
To make life bearable, I keep the fire burning all day and the cat likes that very much, spending a lot of time sitting right in front of the fireplace and staring philosophically into the flames. How I wish sometimes I had more time to do the same...
But no such luck for me. Today I had to spend a good few hours to sort out a recent computer problem. On New Year's Day, shortly after I started this weblog, my main desktop PC quit his services (I hope that was not a bad omen...) and currently I am operating from my laptop. As there was nothing I could do on January 1st, nor yesterday, while being in Cork, today was the day to consult the IT expert. Well, to make it short and plain: I will need a new PC. Nothing lasts forever, and that includes of course computers. But it is always a bit sad to say good bye to any companion - person, beast or mere machine - with whom one has spent a lot of time in creative partnership. I had a look at various models and will now take a few days to think before I make my choice of a suitable replacement.
On a wider scale I have to accept that a broken-down computer might be annoying, but it is a lot less serious than the things and events other people around the world have to cope with. In many countries people live under brutal regimes, have not enough to eat and suffer from terrible diseases.
In Pakistan the new year began with the mourning for Benazir Bhutto and a complete collapse of public order. And in Kenya the conditions are even worse, with open riots, shooting and massacres between rival tribes and political parties after a botched election. More than 300 Kenyans have been killed so far, many hundreds more were wounded and thousands made homeless. And, almost too normal to make the news these days, in Iraq and Afghanistan the daily bloodshed continues with soldiers and civilians being killed and wounded, while there is no real prospect of any proper solution for either country.
What strikes me as the most significant in all these bloody events is that they are happening as a result of "Democracy", or what a lot of people take for Democracy, this often misused word. In our (the Western countries' and especially the USA's) misguided obsession to bring "Democracy" to the developing world, we drag many countries which have no democratic tradition and no real understanding of the concept into ever greater confusion and turmoil.
Pakistan, Kenya, Iraq and Afghanistan - as well as many other developing countries - are still dominated by an ancient tribal structure and have not even developed Nationalism. This is not really that surprising when one remembers that even in Europe Nationalism only emerged during the 19th century.
When it comes to true Democracy, the countries who really have such a system in proper operation can be counted with the fingers of two hands. And neither the USA nor the UK are among them. Contrary to common public opinion the USA is a Republic, but not a Democracy. And Britain, the USA's staunchest ally, is the last feudal state in Europe. If you find this hard to believe, take some time and read the US Constitution and the rules and procedures for the UK government and parliament (as they don't even have a Constitution in the UK).
What - I wonder - gives us the right to go around the world, imposing an idealistic system of government onto other countries and nations, most of which are totally unprepared and unsuited for it?
It is the Western arrogance, the assumption that we know better because we have more money and more power. This makes no sense, and is in the end counter-productive. The US attempt to bring "Democracy" to Iraq and Afghanistan with military force has discredited even the idea of Democracy so much in the Middle East that there is no chance of any democratic development for a long time to come. Even the more moderate and westernised politicians from this area, who in the past favoured a democratic system, would not dream of suggesting it now. All they would hear from their people would be the reference to the US aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Reflecting on all the "hot" news I heard today on the radio, I can only count my blessings and be grateful to live in a peaceful country on the edge of Europe, with a roof over my head, enough food to eat and a warm fire against the cold weather outside. Even more so as I also received a very nice parcel today, with kind presents for the New Year, sent to me by a dear friend abroad.
In the hope that friendship and kindness may eventually prevail over hardship, cruelty, murder and wars and one day the whole planet may be as peaceful as Ireland is tonight, I remain
The Emerald Islander
To make life bearable, I keep the fire burning all day and the cat likes that very much, spending a lot of time sitting right in front of the fireplace and staring philosophically into the flames. How I wish sometimes I had more time to do the same...
But no such luck for me. Today I had to spend a good few hours to sort out a recent computer problem. On New Year's Day, shortly after I started this weblog, my main desktop PC quit his services (I hope that was not a bad omen...) and currently I am operating from my laptop. As there was nothing I could do on January 1st, nor yesterday, while being in Cork, today was the day to consult the IT expert. Well, to make it short and plain: I will need a new PC. Nothing lasts forever, and that includes of course computers. But it is always a bit sad to say good bye to any companion - person, beast or mere machine - with whom one has spent a lot of time in creative partnership. I had a look at various models and will now take a few days to think before I make my choice of a suitable replacement.
On a wider scale I have to accept that a broken-down computer might be annoying, but it is a lot less serious than the things and events other people around the world have to cope with. In many countries people live under brutal regimes, have not enough to eat and suffer from terrible diseases.
In Pakistan the new year began with the mourning for Benazir Bhutto and a complete collapse of public order. And in Kenya the conditions are even worse, with open riots, shooting and massacres between rival tribes and political parties after a botched election. More than 300 Kenyans have been killed so far, many hundreds more were wounded and thousands made homeless. And, almost too normal to make the news these days, in Iraq and Afghanistan the daily bloodshed continues with soldiers and civilians being killed and wounded, while there is no real prospect of any proper solution for either country.
What strikes me as the most significant in all these bloody events is that they are happening as a result of "Democracy", or what a lot of people take for Democracy, this often misused word. In our (the Western countries' and especially the USA's) misguided obsession to bring "Democracy" to the developing world, we drag many countries which have no democratic tradition and no real understanding of the concept into ever greater confusion and turmoil.
Pakistan, Kenya, Iraq and Afghanistan - as well as many other developing countries - are still dominated by an ancient tribal structure and have not even developed Nationalism. This is not really that surprising when one remembers that even in Europe Nationalism only emerged during the 19th century.
When it comes to true Democracy, the countries who really have such a system in proper operation can be counted with the fingers of two hands. And neither the USA nor the UK are among them. Contrary to common public opinion the USA is a Republic, but not a Democracy. And Britain, the USA's staunchest ally, is the last feudal state in Europe. If you find this hard to believe, take some time and read the US Constitution and the rules and procedures for the UK government and parliament (as they don't even have a Constitution in the UK).
What - I wonder - gives us the right to go around the world, imposing an idealistic system of government onto other countries and nations, most of which are totally unprepared and unsuited for it?
It is the Western arrogance, the assumption that we know better because we have more money and more power. This makes no sense, and is in the end counter-productive. The US attempt to bring "Democracy" to Iraq and Afghanistan with military force has discredited even the idea of Democracy so much in the Middle East that there is no chance of any democratic development for a long time to come. Even the more moderate and westernised politicians from this area, who in the past favoured a democratic system, would not dream of suggesting it now. All they would hear from their people would be the reference to the US aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Reflecting on all the "hot" news I heard today on the radio, I can only count my blessings and be grateful to live in a peaceful country on the edge of Europe, with a roof over my head, enough food to eat and a warm fire against the cold weather outside. Even more so as I also received a very nice parcel today, with kind presents for the New Year, sent to me by a dear friend abroad.
In the hope that friendship and kindness may eventually prevail over hardship, cruelty, murder and wars and one day the whole planet may be as peaceful as Ireland is tonight, I remain
The Emerald Islander
02 January 2008
Grey Clouds with Silver Lining
This morning I traveled to Cork, Ireland's second city, for a number of meetings. The weather was quite bad, with dark grey skies and rain over the island. It was well after 8.30 a.m. when the first proper daylight appeared, but even then the heavy clouds above were hanging so deep that one could almost touch them with one's hands.
But in Ireland one is used to days like this. After arriving in Cork, I had a number of short morning meetings, introducing a new range of products I developed to potential customers. All went well, as I had expected, and with no surprises.
Then came lunchtime, and a pre-arranged long meeting for which I had no expectations, only a good feeling. How right I was! It turned out to be the most pleasant and inspiring meeting I have had for a long time. In a world full of empty-minded and selfish automatons one can still find the rare gem of a person, with warmth, spirit, personality and many good ideas. How lucky and how happy I am today is hard to express in words. And way beyond my own thoughts and feelings a new entity might have received its first creative sparks today. It is very early days yet, but I do have a positive feeling and am confident that it can be achieved. Keep reading and you will know all about it when it happens...
Having returned home very late, in rain and darkness, I look back on this day with great joy. It was dominated quite strongly by massive grey clouds, but they all had beautiful silver linings. They say that money is not everything, and neither is the weather.
With almost dry hair and warming in front of the fire, I remain for today
The Emerald Islander
But in Ireland one is used to days like this. After arriving in Cork, I had a number of short morning meetings, introducing a new range of products I developed to potential customers. All went well, as I had expected, and with no surprises.
Then came lunchtime, and a pre-arranged long meeting for which I had no expectations, only a good feeling. How right I was! It turned out to be the most pleasant and inspiring meeting I have had for a long time. In a world full of empty-minded and selfish automatons one can still find the rare gem of a person, with warmth, spirit, personality and many good ideas. How lucky and how happy I am today is hard to express in words. And way beyond my own thoughts and feelings a new entity might have received its first creative sparks today. It is very early days yet, but I do have a positive feeling and am confident that it can be achieved. Keep reading and you will know all about it when it happens...
Having returned home very late, in rain and darkness, I look back on this day with great joy. It was dominated quite strongly by massive grey clouds, but they all had beautiful silver linings. They say that money is not everything, and neither is the weather.
With almost dry hair and warming in front of the fire, I remain for today
The Emerald Islander
01 January 2008
Happy New Year
Greetings,
and a happy, peaceful and prosperous New Year to you all!
This is the very first entry into my first ever weblog, and even though I am quite an accomplished and experienced writer with a track record of more than 35 years and publications in several languages and countries, I am entering new territory here. But I am optimistic and confident that I will manage to post a new entry every day, sharing my thoughts, views, opinions and analysis with the world.
I have no idea if anyone will read my weblog, and if so, if it will inspire others to think, to comment or even perhaps to agree with what I am writing. We shall see. I do have strong opinions on many topics and subjects, and plenty of personal experience with various parts of the world. I am never reluctant to say and write what I think, but I do not have any fixed agenda, do not belong to any political party or any organised religion. What you will read here are the plain words of a free spirit, a life-long seeker of truth and a fighter for freedom and human rights. Occasionally you will also find the output of my other self, which is a writer and poet who wants nothing else than live in harmony with others, on a peaceful and ecologically sound planet.
The idea to have a weblog has been with me for quite some time, ever since a friend and colleague suggested it to me. But I thought that it makes sense to start such an effort at a significant time, like the beginning of a new year, and so I made it one of my New Year's resolutions to write a daily weblog. Now that I have started there is no way back. I believe that I am joining a growing number of people, numbered in millions already, who take it upon themselves to express their views beyond the normal borderlines of their daily existence.
A hundred years ago it took a ship about eight months to sail from Europe to Australia, so any letter carried that way would take even a bit longer before it would reach its addressee. Today we send a message by e-mail from anywhere to anywhere on this planet, in a second or even less. This is not only a revolution of communications, but a revolution in every way and for everyone alive today.
Though I emerged from a very conservative family, I have always welcomed and embraced change, especially when it brought with it a lot of new and beneficial options. In the short span of my own life I have experienced at least four technological revolutions, and I am sure that there is even more to come. When I started working as a very young reporter, it took several hours, about 30 people and large and expensive machinery to turn any story, put together on an old mechanical type writer, into newsprint on paper. Now I am writing a story on my computer, select the font, headline and even complete layout, and then send it off by e-mail for publication or - with the push of one button - get a complete printout in less than a minute. Even though this is totally normal these days and in no way surprising to anyone, it still fills me with awe and respect now and then. Being not a gifted man in matters of technology, engineering or computer science, I admire those who have the brains, gifts, skills and imagination to create all the new communication systems we now use. Occasionally I am told by some of them how they, in turn, respect people like me, who can put pen to paper (or fingers to keyboards) with great ease, but I still think that theirs is the greater achievement, for the benefit of us all.
In principle we all have our strengths and weaknesses. It is important to be aware of them, and to act accordingly each day and in every situation. Diversity means wealth - in a material and even more so in an immaterial way - and it grows best in a general climate of peace and freedom. Where creativity and innovation are stifled by laws, doctrines or irrational believe systems, we often see in a short period of time a decline of culture and prosperity. But as soon as a formerly repressed area or society gains freedom, the results are quite astonishing and often even surprising for outsiders.
2007 has seen plenty of both, and the same will be the case in 2008. Nothing new about that, and nothing special. However, we all have the chance and opportunity to make an impact, a difference and perhaps even a significant change in our own life and environment. And the more people work in a positive and sensible way for the greater good of humanity and planet Earth, the better life will be for all of us.
With all good wishes for 2008 to each and every one of you I close for today and remain
The Emerald Islander
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
