outsidein

• Pamela Izevbekhai

  March 30, 2009 @ 2:28 pm | by Bryan

  

  Pamela Izevbekhai with her children, six-year-old Jemima and eight-year-old Naomi, at the High Court in Dublin yesterday where she challenged a decision to deport her and her daughters. Photograph: Garrett White/Collins

  It looks like Pamela Izevbekhai’s fight to prevent her deportation and that of her two daughters is crumbling. Pamela has been in Ireland for about four years. She sought asylum here based on claims that her daughter had died following female genital cutting (FGM) and that her remaining daughters were at risk of the same fate. Recently, it was discovered that some of the documents used to support her claims were forgeries (further details of the case are available here and here). Pamela insists that she only found out the documents were forged recently and that her claims are true.

  This is a difficult matter for me to comment on. It’s not one of those subjects where things seem black and white. For starters, while there are serious questions that must be raised about Mrs Izevbekhai’s credibility, her claims are too serious to just dismiss. But even if it were possible to get to the truth, it would still be difficult to decide what to do with her. Were she found to have told the whole truth, there would be plenty of people who still would not support her asylum claim - not least of which would be the Nigerian government. Honestly, were I a Nigerian government official, I think I would take exception to the idea that Nigeria is incapable of protecting a woman and two children. There are also plenty of Irish folk who, in the current economic climate, want to see a policy of ‘Irish money for Irish people’.

  Suppose it emerges that Pamela made the whole thing up. There are still reasons to ask her to be allowed to stay in Ireland. For starters, her very public campaign will not have endeared her to those she claimed posed a threat, as well as to those of her compatriots with more nationalist tendencies. Even if she did not need asylum when she asked for it, she may need it now. Besides that, this is a woman who went to great lengths in an attempt to provide a better future for her children. I cannot, in good conscience, condemn someone for doing something that, where I in her shoes, I too may have done. If it turns out that Pamela did in fact lie to better her lot and that of her children, she will have added her name to a very long list that goes back a very long time. Despite my anger at the damage such a revelation could do to those who are in genuine need of asylum, phrases like “let him who has no sin cast the first stone,” (Jesus and Wyclef Jean) and, “But by the grace of God, there go I,” (John Bunyan) come to mind.

  I recently read a profile on the blogger Andrew Sullivan by Johann Hari. The English philosopher, Michael Oakeshott apparently had a major influence of Sullivan. According to the profile, “At the core of Oakeshott’s thought is the belief that human beings are extremely limited in what we can know … In light of this extreme fallibility [we] should err on the side of inaction. Claims to certainty … are invariably hubristic.”

  With respect to Pamela Izevbekhai’s case, I think an Oakeshottian approach would be wise.

  Comments (60)

• Picture of the week

  March 28, 2009 @ 8:15 am | by Bryan

  

  A child plays with a national flag at a place decorated in celebration of the 38th anniversary of Bangladesh’s independence in Dhaka March 26. Photo: Andrew Biraj/REUTERS

  Comments (0)

• Lula’s … remark

  March 27, 2009 @ 1:48 pm | by Bryan

  

  Gordon Brown, the British prime minister, right, shakes hands with Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Brazil’s president, prior to a news conference at the Alvorado Palace in Brasilia, Brazil March 26. Photo: Adriano Machado/Bloomberg News

  The sensible side of me thinks it would be best to leave Lula’s statement alone. It’s likely to land me in trouble, especially since I’m not appalled by it. Still … it’s a subject that’s worth discussing.

  Brazil’s President, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva stoked controversy when, speaking about the world’s economic crisis, he said the following:

  “It is a crisis caused and encouraged by the irrational behaviour of white people with blue eyes who before the crisis appeared to know everything, but are now showing that they know nothing … As I do not know any black or indigenous bankers I can only say it is not possible for this part of mankind, which is victimised more than any other, to pay for the crisis.”

  Justifiably, some commentators are unhappy at what they see as a racist statement. I think there are two important things to look at. Is the above racist? More importantly, what are the implications of the fact that the leader of one of the largest ‘emerging nations’ has no problem saying that standing besides Gordon Brown?

  Years ago, there was an hilarious South African sit-com called Suburban Bliss. It revolved around a black family that had just moved into a white neighbourhood after the 1994 democratic elections. The granny of the family, mama Mloyi (I think that was her name), had an ongoing feud with an old white neighbour (I forget his name). In one episode she insults her rival and he rightly accuses her of racism. Her response is that she can’t possibly be a racist since she loves black people.

  I think Lula’s ‘white people with blue eyes’ line was inappropriate and undiplomatic, but I don’t think it was racist. Is that because I share mama Mloyi’s views on what constitutes racism? I hope not. I don’t think so. Off course there are black bankers. There are plenty of bankers of all hues and nationalities who were part of the financial machine that has crippled the real economy. In that respect, Lula’s statement is plain wrong. But were you to pick up a copy of Fortune, or watch a day’s worth of CNBC, you would have to be blind to miss the validity of Lula’s claim.

  What interests and maybe even concerns me is the fact that he raised the issue and articulated it in those terms. I wonder if it was really for the ‘domestic market’, as Gordon Brown suggested, or if he was sending a signal to the rest of the world. Lula is approaching the end of his tenure as Brazil’s president. I doubt that he needs to dish out ‘cheap shots’ for political milage domestically. I wonder if instead his wasn’t a retort to the Obama suggestion that every country with the means to do so should help shoulder the burden of the recession.

  If the other emerging nations take a similar stance, the upcoming G20 summit could turn out to be an exciting one for all the wrong reasons.

  Comments (16)

• Thursday Book Club

  March 26, 2009 @ 3:45 pm | by Bryan

  I tried to run an online book club on this blog last year. Honestly, it was a flop. There were some major highlights though. For starters, Fishing in Utopia: Sweden and the future that disappeared, the book I chose, was perhaps the most beautiful autobiography I have ever read. Another major positive was that Andrew Brown, the author, was one of the few people who participated in the discussions. That was a big honour.

  What I took away from that experience was that blogs are not a great medium for a book club. I am now toying with the idea of picking an interesting non-fiction book and going through it, book club style, on the Dine to Read forum. It’s a great concept (Dine to Read) and I think a book club would work well on that platform.

  If anyone would be interested in tackling a book like Polanyi’s The Great Transformation, or something else that’s a little off the beaten track but relevant for our times, and something that would get us all to think, please let me know. Could you also take a look at the forum and tell me if you think that website would be a good place to meet (so to speak). Thanks.

  Comments (2)

• A German view of the world?

  @ 3:26 pm | by Bryan

  

  German Minster of Finance, Peer Steinbrück. Photograph: Jakub Szypulka

  I am fast becoming a fan of Peer Steinbrück, Germany’s Finance Minister. Anyone who has the sense to invite his fiercest critic over to discuss differences of opinion, and potentially iron some of them out, is worth listening to.

  In an interview about six months ago, Steinbrück said,
  “We are experiencing the most severe financial crisis in decades, although one should be careful about historic comparisons with 1929. One thing is clear: After this crisis, the world will no longer be the same. The financial architecture will change globally … There will be shifts in terms of the importance and status of New York and London as the two main financial centers. State-owned banks and funds, as well as commercial banks from Europe, China, Russia and the Arab world will close the gaps, creating new centers of power in the financial world.”

  At an event last night, a London based banker said something similar. He mentioned that he was in the process of moving to a Singapore and taking up a new job there. In his opinion, based on anecdotal evidence, the financial centre of gravity is shifting from London, and he is convinced that in a few years, Shangai will take up the role historically played by London and New York.

  In his at times difficult to read but extraordinarily insightful 1944 book, The Great Transformation, Karl Polyani chronicles introduction of the market-based economy. One of the take-home messages of the book is that once this transformation took place, finance and the market gained more importance than politics and the state. The idea of nominally communist China as the centre of global finance seems to validate that claim.

  As for that market-based economic system itself, when asked if capitalism itself is in crisis, Steinbrück gave an interesting answer:
  “I don’t think so. But the behavior of some elites is worth criticizing. We have to be careful not to allow enlightened capitalism to become tainted with questions of legitimacy, acceptance or credibility.”

  Comments (6)

• Charity newspapers

  March 25, 2009 @ 10:03 am | by Bryan

  There’s an interesting report by the Washington Post on a proposal by US law-makers to allow newspapers to operate as nonprofit organisations. Senator Ben Cardin is reported as having said that,

  “The economy has caused an immediate problem, but the business model for newspapers, based on circulation and advertising revenue, is broken, and that is a real tragedy for communities across the nation and for our democracy.”

  It’s an interesting argument. For a while now, there has been some concern about the future of newspapers, especially in their print form. With information readily available online for free, a lot of people just don’t buy newspapers anymore. The trend seems to be gathering pace. To make up for lost revenue perhaps, many formerly reputable newspapers have been accused of having morphed into a series of adverts with the odd bit of news here and there. The BBC’s Andrew Marr was especially critical of this trend in his book, My Trade.

  To be honest, I don’t like the ad-based model of revenue that most newspapers currently employ. At some level, and this happens to all news organisations to varying degrees, the needs of the advertisers will influence the shape and structure of the final product. Isn’t that how CNBC opened itself up to Jon Stewart’s criticism for example? That ‘news organisation’ has come to be seen by many as an on-going advert for the stocks of various companies.

  I like the idea of news papers that aren’t concerned about Shareholders. I hope Senator Cardin’s bill gets passed. If nothing else, it will lay the ground for a fascinating social experiment.

  Comments (18)

• Comparing notes

  March 24, 2009 @ 12:16 pm | by Bryan

  A friend and I had an interesting conversation yesterday over a cup of coffee. Like so many other people, we were discussing the economy and how people have been responding to the worsening climate. Maybe it’s because he is American, or maybe we’re both just enthralled by the Obama administration; whatever the reason, it wasn’t long before we were comparing the steps being taken by the Irish government to deal with the economy, with those being taken by their American counterparts.

  The Obama administration has been criticised for spending too much and focusing on too many things at the same time. Their response has been that the market may rise and fall from day to day, but ultimately, what matters is the real economy. So they justify unprecedented national debt with the argument that it will place America in a place where she can produce goods to sell to the rest of the world, and stimulate the economy to grow fast enough to cover the borrowings. In short, their focus is on the long, rather than the short term state of things. I’m not a finance person, but that argument makes sense to me. If the fundamentals of the economy are healthy and it is doing well, the market will reflect that.

  It seems as though Ireland, and most of Europe for that matter, are more focused on the immediate future. I still haven’t heard a politician or commentator discuss what Ireland will make or do to drive economic growth post-recession other than talk of a vague knowledge base economy (KBE). An economist I have a lot of time for disputes that any such thing even exists. But let’s say it does, the reintroduction of university fees, cutting resources to primary and secondary level schools, and the absence of a plan for that KBE that is laid out for all to see and work towards makes talk of a KBE seem like just that … talk.

  Having said all of that, looking back on my conversation yesterday, I think we missed the greatest difference between the US and Ireland in terms of the recession. The US has a president with an approval rating greater than 60%. Whenever it looks like Congress may not back one of his plans, he just goes on the road, holds some town hall meetings, gets people to petition their representatives, and he gets his way. That social capital, apart from enabling the administration to work towards fixing things, has helped produce a sense that the US is rowing in one direction.

  Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of Ireland. There is still so much bickering on so many levels that the prognosis is worrying at times. Sooner or later, the nation needs to get behind a leader and a plan.

  In the words of scripture, a house divided against itself cannot stand.

  Comments (16)

• Picture of the week

  March 21, 2009 @ 1:23 pm | by Bryan

  This week, I’ve picked three photos taken by some of my favourite photobloggers. It was so hard narrowing it down to three I decided I’d just put them all up. To visit the original photoblogs, just click on the photographer’s name.

  
  La Fheile Phadraig i gCorcaigh. Photograph: Donncha O Caoimh.

  
  St Patrick’s Day parade in Limerick. Photograph: Kevin Murphy.

  
  St Patrick’s Day. Photograph: Claire Wilson.

  Comments (3)

• Obama’s message to Iran on Nowruz (Iranian New Year)

  March 20, 2009 @ 3:55 pm | by Bryan

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yft9ZCe3VCw&rel=0

  This is definitely a shift from the Bush doctrine! Any thoughts?

  Comments (6)

• French protests

  March 19, 2009 @ 3:46 pm | by Bryan

  Sarah Carey had a brilliant opinion piece in yesterday’s Irish Times. Especially interesting in light of today’s protests in France were these remarks:

  “Irish voters are pretty much a right-wing bunch who want the government to leave as much money in their own pockets so that they can spend that money in a manner of their choosing. We’re republicans alright, but the American kind and with great benefits. It’s called having your bread buttered on both sides.

  That’s why Joe Higgins, the only actual socialist, lost his seat in 2007. That’s why the Sinn Féin surge never materialised. And that’s why people didn’t vote Labour. Because no matter how much our lily-livered left attempted to dress up their “Me too” policies, the bouncy castle-renting suburbanites knew they’d been having an income-tax-free party for 10 years and hoped Fianna Fáil would keep the party going.”

  A key issue for the French protesters is the demand for higher taxes on high earners. They also want ‘a boost to poorer paid salaries, more measures to protect employment … and a halt to planned job cuts in the public sector’.

  I wonder what Sarah Carey would make of French voters. It wasn’t long ago that they rejected the left’s Ségolène Royal for Mr Sarkozy (a decision which I found as baffling as the Americans’ choice of Bush over Kerry). It seems that in the same way that Irish public opinion is, as Carey points out, that tax exiles (and the rich in general) should pay for the recession and recovery, the French want their rich to foot the bill.

  Both suggestions are fine and logical to a point. I agree that those who have more should pay more. But I also think that there is a good bit of hypocrisy from the ‘take it from the rich’ crowd. Where do you draw the line between the rich and the ‘middle income’ earners? Obama has set that limit at $250k. What if, because Ireland is in such a bad place, Brian Cowen had to set his limit at €50k? How would the country feel about high taxes starting from that bracket and rising exponentially above that? If these are desperate times, and if drastic measures are needed, I wonder how much support that kind of measure would get.

  Joe Higgins and the socialists will probably never be in government. Why? The idea of behind socialism is great. The problem is that in practice, it costs a little more than most people are willing to pay. It’s much easier to strike and protest and vilify the wealthy whose existence we help to guarantee with our votes.

  Comments (11)

• Obama, Saviour of the World?

  March 18, 2009 @ 12:55 pm | by Bryan

  

  Taoiseach Brian Cowen presents President Barack Obama with a bowl of shamrock for St Patrick’s Day at the White House in Washington yesterday. Photograph: Gerald Herbert

  For as long as I can remember, the general consensus about the United States, where I grew up anyway, went along the lines of, “The US is an incredible place. The only problem with America is that they thinks they rule the world.” As for G. W. Bush, people outside the US were never really comfortable with him, but the negativity increased when it was felt that he had embarking on an imperial mission. Remember the furore over his “crusades” rhetoric? And who can forget US military personnel admitting, on TV, that their first mission in Iraq would be to “secure the oil fields”?

  Because 8 years is a long time, I had started to think that the idea of an American ‘big brother’ was a purely American construct. Resentment to Bush was so widespread that it began to feel as though most of us outside the US wanted an America that was primarily concerned with America, not the whole world. But I’m not so sure any more.

  My doubts began with Gordon Brown’s visit to the US. His speech to both houses of Congress seemed to me little more than a plea for the US to arm-twist the rest of the world into adopting Brown’s solutions for the economic meltdown. It wasn’t too different from a small child who goes to the biggest child on the play ground and asks him to help take over the place.

  Brian Cowen’s visit to the US over St Patrick’s and his meeting with Barack Obama had a similar ring. The Taoiseach is reported to have said that ‘America’s leadership would be at the heart of the global resurgence, and Ireland was a steadfast friend of the US.’ Again, that sounds to me like ‘you need to take over this playground, and when you do, remember, I’m your friend!’

  There are many more ‘world leaders’ falling over each other for an opportunity to meet President Obama and get their opportunity to tell him how wonderful he is and how only he is, to borrow from The Matrix, the One.

  Am I missing something? What happened to talk of a post-American world? What happened to not wanting the US to dominate everything? Was all of that just anti-Bushism? Were the crowds in Berlin during the US presidential race just a sign of what was to come - a global coronation of the man of the moment?

  I’m not anti-US or anti-Obama. I’m actually a pretty big fan of both. What I don’t like are hegemons. On top of that, a belief that an America with vast global influence is dangerous when Bush is president, but good when Obama is in charge, is both foolish and dangerous.

  Comments (22)

• Happy St Patrick’s

  March 17, 2009 @ 8:30 am | by Bryan

  

  April Coirdonnier (left) and Maribeth Snyder, both from Florida, USA, enjoying the St. Patrick’s Festival in Dublin March 16. Photo: Eric Luke/The Irish Times

  It’s not quite Christmas, or my birthday, but I get a lot of phone and email traffic on St Patrick’s Day. At some stage of the day, I’ll get an email or call from a friend in Australia. Apparently, the day is no small thing in that country. Family members in England and Canada will phone to find out about the celebrations in Galway. I’ve already swapped notes with a good friend in New Mexico on our respective plans for the day. Last but not least, I may get in touch with friends in Zimbabwe who will be wearing green and celebrating the day. Yes, Zimbabwe.

  For a small country, Ireland knows how to cause waves far beyond its borders. Before my friend in Australia discovered the day for himself, he asked me to describe St. Patrick’s Day. The best that I could come up with at the time was to describe it as Ireland’s version of Australia Day - people meet up, eat, drink, wave flags and let the rest of the world takes notice. In retrospect, looking at the global reach of the occasion and its political significance, that may not have been a bad comparison after all.

  Happy St. Patrick’s Day

  .

  Comments (8)

• Picture of the week

  March 14, 2009 @ 8:15 am | by Bryan

  

  Crowds gather outside Belfast’s City Hall for a silent protest against the murders of two soldiers at Massereene barracks, Co Antrim, and the murder of a policeman in Craigavon, Co Armagh. Photograph: Jonathan Porter/presseye.com.

  Comments (6)

• Not the real enemy

  March 13, 2009 @ 1:10 pm | by Bryan

  

  Bernard Madoff arrives at Manhattan Federal court in New York city yesterday. Madoff admitted in court to running a massive Ponzi scheme for two decades and tricking investors out of billions of dollars. Photograph: Stephen Chernin/Getty Images.

  A pundit, I don’t remember which one, recently remarked that Bernie Madoff is not the enemy. His point was that although Madoff ripped lots of people off huge sums of money, the attempt at turning him into the poster boy for the economic meltdown was wrong. The pundit was right.

  Con artists existed before the crisis and they will exist long after it has passed. The trouble in the global economy is not the doing of a few dishonest people. It’s not even the doing of a few greedy bankers. Things are so much easier to deal with when you can come up with a tangible villain and get the opportunity to throw rotten tomatoes at him. But to be satisfied with that would be to miss the point.

  In the debate over which matters more, systems or agency, I am firmly of the opinion that structures are more significant than the people. I don’t think the problem is that people like Madoff can be greedy. I think the problem is that the economic system is set up in such a way that our collective greed props up the likes of Madoff, collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), and gross inequality.

  The arrest of Madoff, the firing of some bankers, and maybe the seizure of some of their assets are all well and good. But none of those things address the fundamental problem that led to the current economic mess. I hope that we aren’t so satisfied when we get our pound of flesh that we lose interest in dealing with the real problems.

  Comments (5)

• Media control

  March 11, 2009 @ 1:15 pm | by Bryan

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXlFnYV0y4M&rel=0

  Last week Jon Stewart discussed CNBC like only Jon Stewart can on The Daily Show. He made a lot of fun at the financial news television station. The summary is that CNBC, whose core audience is the business elite, has talked up the economy and the stock market even as things were tanking. Stewart’s basic point was that the CNBC, which is incredibly influential, comes across as a propaganda machine for the business world.

  Who controls the media and who the media speaks for has been an issue for some time now. The production and distribution of mainstream media is an expensive business. It is therefore reasonable to ask if those who provide the bulk of the funding get to control, to some degree, the message.

  Examining power in the political arena, Robert Dahl concluded that at the end of the day, only a handful of people were the key decision makers. He didn’t feel that was a problem though because they had competing interests. For him, rule by a competing group of elites was perfectly acceptable. Other schools of thoughts disagreed because though there was a degree of competition over the interests of these decision makers, they had many similar interests not shared by groups not represented at the level of the political elites.

  Back to the media, if CNBC speaks for the business class, who, as Jon Stewart points out, speaks for homeowners who can’t afford to pay their mortgage? Even in an Irish setting, to what degree does access to, and representation within mass media dictate the terms of public debate - be that over the economy, politics or other other social issues?

  Steven Lukes, who took on board some of Dahl’s views, saw power as more than just the ability to set the agenda. For him, the ability to keep some things from being raised constituted another dimension of power, as well as the ability to alter the perceived needs/wants of a group/person.

  Bearing that in mind, I’m curious, is there a social group in Ireland that ‘controls the media’ in the same way that the business class ‘control’ CNBC’s message in the US? And if there is, has that affected the what has been on the agenda and what has been left out with regards the debate on what to do about the economy and banking system?

  Comments (8)

• Transcultural understanding

  March 10, 2009 @ 2:41 pm | by Bryan

  

  Mary Fitzgerld has written a fascinating series of articles from Saudi Arabia titled Inside the desert kingdom. Today’s article, What do Saudi women want? is extremely thought provoking. When this type of issue is tackled, there is usually an obvious bias and a fair degree of pontification. Fitzgerald’s account is balanced and careful, and still very interesting.

  In spite of that, I was still troubled after I read her piece. I’ve spent months in an academic institution grappling with ideas about social change, representation, self determination, cultural domination and power in general. The one sure conclusion that I have come to is that these ideas interact in a very messy way and it is often very difficult to separate one from another. Reading about Saudi women’s right to drive, or lack thereof, only confirmed that conclusion.

  Personally, I don’t like the idea of some rules applying to only some segments of society. I think there is only a very fine line between that and exploitation. And like most people from societies in which women have the right to drive, I think it is wrong to deny them that right. That said, as Fitzgerald points out, the driving issue is only symbolic of a deeper one - the role of women and the place occupied by Islam in Saudi Arabia.

  Which brings me to my personal discomfort with regards to her article. I am a strong believer in the right to self determination. I am also a collectivist. I come from a culture in which individual rights at times must give way to collective rights. The atomistic view and emphasis on individual rights in the Western world is based on Western philosophy much of which came out of the Enlightenment. In the same way that I respect and admire the Western world for having come up with a value system that works, albeit imperfectly, I strongly feel that the rest of the world has the right to choose their own value system - regardless of how that goes down in the Western world or anywhere else.

  Fareed Zakaria, in this week’s edition of Newsweek, argues that regardless of how most of the outside world views radical Islam, it exist and is probably here to stay. He differentiates between groups who want to live according to Sharia law and those who want to set off bombs. The former may be radical Islamists, but generally just want the right to live as they see fit in their locations. The latter, a minority, are dangerous extremists. Zakaria argues for dealing with the latter while working with the former. I think his rationale is that the people living under radical Islam will tend to either be okay with it, or will find ways of circumventing it.

  Both Fareed Zakaria and Mary Fitzgerald do a brilliant job of bringing up a subject that will probably grow in importance in the future. Personally, in addition to their their contributions so far, I would like a better understanding of those who, like the protagonist in Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart, feel like they’re fighting a losing battle against cultural domination.

  I can’t wait for tomorrow’s installment from Fitzgerlad on Saudi youth.

  Comments (13)

• An idea

  March 9, 2009 @ 10:06 am | by Bryan

  “What should replace the current banks? We urgently need to create a publicly owned and operated “good bank” similar to that proposed by the Financial Times columnist and academic Willem Buiter. This institution (or institutions if some competition is deemed advisable) would assume the deposits of the existing banks. These are already guaranteed by the government in any case. The government would then purchase the good assets of the existing banks for the new good bank. Buying good assets has the advantage of paying a price set in the markets. Assets whose ultimate worth is uncertain and hence hard to price would be left with what are now legacy bad banks. The legacy bad banks would still be owned by their shareholders and would owe obligations to their bondholders. These groups would then assume the risk they contracted for in the first place. The legacy bad banks would be prohibited from accepting new deposits but would have the cash from the sale of their good assets as operating capital. One really attractive aspect of this proposal is that the existing management could be left to manage the remaining assets. If these guys (and gals) are as clever as their bonuses indicate perhaps they can dig the legacy banks out. But if not, there’s always the bankruptcy court with the owners, lenders and managers squarely in the gun sights where they belong. With the bankruptcy of the legacy bad banks, the financial system will be in the hands of the government’s good banks. The public will have dodged the bullet.”

  “This is not necessarily a radical proposal. If you are conservative, the new banks can be privatised after a few years, perhaps at a profit for the state. If you’re a social democrat, the new banks can be kept in public hands and run like utilities providing the basic credit infrastructure of the private economy. If you’re a little more radical, the new banks can become the centre of a popular development strategy to cope with extended bad times. This may well be needed as the current downturn is one of the big ones like the Great Depression of the 30’s and the Great Stagflation of the 70’s and early 80’s. For this reason, the government’s Mr. Micawber strategy, muddling through until something turns up, cannot work with the country’s financial system.”

  - Terrence McDonough, professor of economics at the National University of Ireland, Galway.

  Disclaimer: I know, and am a big fan of Terrence.

  Comments (13)

• A tragedy on so many levels

  March 7, 2009 @ 5:18 pm | by Bryan

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a00WYcx7VlM&rel=0

  I’m not going to participate in the speculation around this incident. Hopefully there will be an independent inquiry and the either the rumours will be put to rest or the appropriate action will be taken. Suffice it to say that this is the last thing that Zimbabwe needs at the moment.

  My condolences go out to the Tsvangirais and Mrs Tsvangirai’s family.

  Comments (6)

• Picture of the week

  @ 8:00 am | by Bryan

  

  Ferid Sinan pauses from working in his coalmine, where he also lives, near the central Bosnian town of Kakanj March 3. Photo: Damir Sagolj/REUTERS

  Comments (4)

• al-Bashir

  March 6, 2009 @ 8:30 am | by Bryan

  

  People protest against Sudan’s President Omar Hassan al-Bashir in front of the International Criminal Court in the Hague. Photograph: Reuters/Jerry Lampen

  In a very brave move, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for Sudanese president, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, on Wednesday. This is the first time that the ICC has gone after a sitting head of state.

  Here’s the difficulty that arises from the arrest warrant: al-Bashir still enjoys the support of China and Russia, both of whom sit on the UN’s Security Council. The African Union, as well as several other bodies have long argued that issuing the warrant will worsen the humanitarian crisis in Sudan. And as if to prove them right, Sudan threw 13 NGOs out of its jurisdiction which was followed by a plea from the UN’s secretary general to reconsider. Ban Ki-moon is rightly worried that the humanitarian situation in the country will worsen.

  I believe in the rule of law. I think those who break the law should be punished. Only a very small minority would argue with the fact that al-Bashir deserves to be brought before the Hague. But I dislike posturing and double standards. Unless the issuing of that arrest warrant actually leads to an arrest, the threat of the ICC is diminished. And unless the law is applied consistently to all, is it really still law? The fact that some genocidaires are pursued while others are not leaves bodies like the ICC open to charges of neo-imperialism.

  Honestly, I’m not sure how I feel about the arrest warrant. Like so many other things, I wholeheartedly support the intention, but am unsure about the method. If he finds his way to the Hague in the near future though, I will be ecstatic. The world needs all the reminders it can get that war crimes may be punished severely.

  Comments (5)

• Ideas about the economy

  March 5, 2009 @ 8:00 am | by Bryan

  Ireland’s economic meltdown is no small matter. €5 billion now has to be found this year to keep the growing deficit in check. The late Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize winning economist and significant proponent of neoclassical economics, is quoted as having said:

  “Only a crisis, real or perceived, produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.”

  Yesterday, the finance minister asked the Opposition to suggest measures that can be taken to save the required €5 billion. The big question on my mind is this: what ideas are lying around at the moment? Are they any different to the ones that led to this mess in the first place?

  I believe in accountability. If anyone is to be blamed for the state of the economy, the party in government must be held responsible. But I think they get more blame than they deserve. Yes, the wealth from the ‘years of plenty’ could have been used more wisely, but there weren’t too many complaints at the time, as evidenced by the results of the last general elections. And in terms of ‘ideas’, and more speifically, economic ideology, all of the large parties were singing from the same hymn-sheet.

  Which brings me back to the ‘ideas’ question. What alternatives are there out there? Why aren’t they being debated in the public sphere? Surely the ‘politically impossible’ has the potential now, far more than in the past, to turn into the ‘politically inevitable’? It seems to me that in Ireland especially, there is still a reluctance to really ‘think outside the box’.

  Just about all of the out the box thinking that has gone on so far has been within the confines of the same ideas box that led to the meltdown. I mean no disrespect to the Opposition, but I have little confidence that their suggestions will come from a different place.

  Comments (24)

• Gordon Brown’s Address to Congress

  March 4, 2009 @ 11:28 pm | by Bryan

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W-AJRo5G4I&rel=0

  Am I the only one who finds the Prime Minister’s address disturbing?

   

  Comments (16)

• Representation

  March 3, 2009 @ 8:30 am | by Bryan

  One of the classes I’m currently taking is on film studies. Perhaps the most contentious issue that comes up in just about every one of those classes is the issue of representation. Who gets to speak for whom and how are non-’mainstream’ groups represented?

  An interesting case in point is the highly successful Slumdog Millionaire. Most people who aren’t familiar with slum life in India feel that it is an eye opener as well as a positive, uplifting story. Some also feel that it highlights the plight of people who might otherwise go unnoticed. The hope is that once that plight comes to the surface, some action will be taken.

  I must confess, I haven’t watched the film yet. But similar arguments were made about Blood Diamond. My take on it, however, was very different. I felt that it reinforced stereotypes and told the one story of Africa that West has traditionally run with. Typically, this narrative has Africans in peril, with some courageous Westerner either coming to save the day (Blood Diamond and Tears of the Sun) or not (Last King of Scotland and Hotel Rwanda), condemning said Africans to unimaginable horrors. As you may have guessed, I don’t like the way Hollywood generally portrays Africans.

  Based on that, I was curious about how Indians would respond to Slumdog Millionaire. India has an impressive film industry of its own. As such, a film like that is not as defining as one that is set in a place like Sierra Leone which doesn’t have its own thriving film industry. Still, Priya Rajsekar’s opinion piece in this newspaper highlights her mixed feelings towards the Slumdog Millionaire. She notes that,

  “The mood of the moment is one of exhilaration, not just for those involved in the making of the movie, but also for Indians, worldwide. This despite the fact that it has taken this cultural treasure trove with more than a billion people over 80 years to get this far, and that too with a great deal of hand-holding by a British filmmaker.”

  Priya also points out that although the film avoids some of the worst caricatures out there, it does still emphasize one aspect of India at the expense of all the others. Newsweek’s Sudip Mazumdar takes a different view. In the words of this former ‘slumdog’, “I’ve met former slum dwellers who broke out of the cage against odds that were far worse than I faced. Still, most slum dwellers never escape. Neither do their kids. No one wants to watch a movie about that.”

  Comments (11)