outsidein »

• On strike

  March 22, 2010 @ 11:26 pm | by Bryan

  

  A large queue of people outside the Molesworth Street Passport Office in Dublin before lunchtime today. Photograph: Bryan O’Brien/The Irish Times.

  The first industrial action that I came across in this country was the nurses’ work-to-rule a couple years ago. I distinctly remember thinking that if this is how the rich world does strikes, then either it has got something right that my part of the world has yet to figure out, or people here just don’t understand the concept of the strike.

  Leader of the Labour Party, Eamon Gilmore, brought that back to mind. In response to the strike by officials at the passport office, he is reported as saying:

  I full understand the anger of low-paid public sector workers who have had their salaries unilaterally cut twice during the past twelve months, but those who are suffering as a result of action now being taken are not responsible for these pay cuts.

  This is where I suppose the cross cultural misunderstanding sets in. Growing up, industrial action was explained to me as something people did to a third party in order to force their employers to yield in to some set of demands. It therefore goes without saying that those who suffer are not responsible for creating the conditions that led to the industrial action in the first place.

  I don’t like industrial action in general. I don’t like it because I don’t see how it succeeds apart from a complete disregard for the public; and even then success isn’t guaranteed. In order to be successful, it often demands that the aggrieved do, or at the very least be willing to do something egregious in order to demonstrate their right standing, which is just twisted. In reality, that means that unless it were now impossible to obtain a travel document, or Gardaí refused to arrest anyone, or all health professionals decided that they wouldn’t turn up to work, industrial action by any of the above is not likely to be taken seriously. If it is taken seriously, it is most likely to be thought of as an annoyance and unlikely to serve the interests of those striking. Should providers of essential services refuse to work, on the other hand, the public would rightly turn on them and blame them for the ensuing disaster.

  But what’s a trade union to do? I don’t know. But in a country in which people prize their convenience, I don’t think inconveniently highlighting the plight of the low paid worker will win much sympathy. The trade union might win political capital. Politicians will seek to do the same on the basis of their reactions to the situation. But the passport office worker will almost certainly lose out.

  Then again, in this part of the world, you can’t just fire an entire department for going on strike. So maybe there’s hope.

  Comments (29)

• In whose name?

  February 24, 2010 @ 3:10 pm | by Bryan

  

  PSNI forensic experts at the scene of Monday night’s car bomb attack outside Newry courthouse in Co Down. Photograph: Reuters/Cathal McNaughton.

  I drove past the odd police checkpoint and had to follow a few diversions as I was going through Newry last night. Having listened to news reports on the bombing, read newspaper articles, seen photographs, and having caught a glimpse of what this sort of attack means for directly affected communities through Pól Ó Muirí’s Daddy, there’s a bomb scare blog post, I’m confused.

  In his Long Walk to Freedom, Nelson Mandela is candid about his role in the perpetration of what the apartheid government might have called ‘acts of terror’. In Mandela’s defence, a case can probably be made for attacking the infrastructure of an oppressive regime when such acts are supported by the majority.

  Maybe it’s just ignorance on my part – ignorance of Irish history and Northern politics – but I really don’t understand the justification behind the Newry court bombing. I don’t understand how actions that do not have the support of the majority, that are more likely to lead to political disengagement that engagement, can be cloaked under the banner of republicanism, dissident or otherwise.

  When those who had planted the bomb celebrated their success, I wonder in whose name they thought they were celebrating?

  Comments (23)

• CAF on Togo

  January 31, 2010 @ 11:09 pm | by Bryan

  I sometimes wonder whether the ability to inhabit an alternate universe is a necessary qualification for entry into officialdom. How else does one make sense of CAF’s (The Confederation of African Football) decision to ban and fine Togo’s national football team for pulling out of this year’s Africa Cup of Nations?

  I’m struggling to understand how that kind of decision is reached. The football body’s executive committee met to discuss Togo’s exit from the competition, and then what? Someone said, “Sad as the fatal attack may have been, it’s imperative that we uphold Article 78 of our constitution?” And then what, the rest of the committee said, “Oh yes, article 78 … once you let go of things like Article 78, the whole game falls apart?”

  Who reads the 78th article of anything? The first 10 or 20, maybe, but the 78th? And even if the entire executive committee was intimately acquainted with that article, even if they thought it was vital that it be upheld, didn’t any of them have the decency to point out the obvious? That the sanctity of life, respect for the dead, simple decency – that these things trump rules, constitutions, articles and even the whims of big men in dark suits?

  The decision to ban Togo shames CAF. Either Piers Edwards is right and there’s a horrifying political dynamic to it – in which case CAF is guilty of trying to manipulate a tragedy for political gain – or my made up scenario isn’t too far from what really happened – meaning that CAF’s top brass are callous beyond words.

  In either case, they occupy a universe that is very different to the one in which ordinary fans of African football dwell. There may be a lot wrong with my continent, but the sort of attitude towards life that CAF has demonstrated is ordinarily only thought of as the pathology of criminals, bandits and the completely unhinged.

  Comments (12)

• Why are we marching?

  November 6, 2009 @ 4:40 pm | by Bryan

  

  Clockwise from top left, the routes and starting times of the protest marches in Galway, Dublin and Cork.

  I’m not sure how I feel about today’s planned marches. I’m a huge supporter of deliberative forms of governance. I also strongly believe in the right of people to protest and publicly register their collective sense of anger. But I have little time for meaningless gestures, and I fear today’s protests fall into that category.

  About 15 years ago Zimbabwe was a flawed, but generally prosperous country that looked like it had a bright future. Somewhere along the line, several big issues came up which polarised the nation. Instead of engaging in a deliberative process, both sides adopted a confrontational approach. National challenges were cast as consequences of the incompetence or callousness of one side or the other, leading to further polarisation and more aggressive confrontation. Fast foreward 15 years, and what was once a prosperous country now resembles a frail invalid who may never return to her previous state of health.

  People have all sorts of ideas about what went wrong in Zimbabwe, some of which have more merit than others. Whatever the other reasons, had the main protagonists actually engaged with each other, had they not gone down the easy road of confrontation but had tried to work things out, the country would, at the very least, be far healthier than it is today.

  That’s Zimbabwe. What has that to do with demonstrations across Ireland? I think the same principles apply. Why are people protesting? If you were to give the gathering in Dublin or Galway a magic wand, or better still the authority of the cabinet, what would they do with the power? Are these protests simply an expression of anger, or is there a substantive underlying demand? I’m all for simple displays of anger, but then what? Do the protesters want a general election to be held in order to elect new leadership? Is the fall of the present government the aim? Do they support a specific set of economic policy recommendations? If so, have all the consequences been thought out and debated?

  Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think the protesters and organisers are the bad guys, or that the cabinet are the unappreciated good guys, any more than I think Zimbabwe’s government had an open door policy 15 years ago. But shouting across the room at the person who is ignoring you probably isn’t going to get them to take a serious look at your recommendations. In fact, the more time and energy are invested into shouting and ignoring, the less that goes towards thought, deliberation and problem solving.

  I don’t understand – maybe it;s just human nature. People, in both their private and public spheres, don’t like to address things directly. We’re broke, and resources that are there are distributed unevenly. Rather than debating how those resources should be distributed, how benefits and burdens should be shared, and what distributional outcomes political, economic, social and legal process should lead to, we fight over specific cases like NAMA, or Brendan Drumm’s pay. NAMA was a bad idea, Drumm shouldn’t have got that bonus, but both are inconsequential when compared to the need to deliberatively establish a national vision, and a plan by which to get there.

  If I could pass one law, it might be that every high school student be made to watch Spike Lee’s Do the Right Thing, and then to write an essay entitled On the futility of Buggin’ Out.

  Comments (16)

• Mutually assured destruction?

  October 7, 2009 @ 10:52 pm | by Bryan

  

  Not too long ago, as part of a film course, I got to watch the 1964 film, Dr. Strangelove, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. This hilarious satire pokes fun at the cold war notion of mutually assured destruction.

  As Stanley Kubrick brilliantly illustrates, mutually assured destruction was not too different from a bunch of powerful politician and generals playing chicken with nuclear weapons. The idea was that if war could be made to inevitably result in ‘mutually assured destruction’, keeping a finger on ‘the button’ would keep the other side from striking first. Put simply, no rational person plays chicken if they know for a fact that it will lead to their demise. In Kubrick’s film however, mutually assured destruction comically leads to just that.

  There is something almost as comical in the latest climate change controversy. The Americans don’t want to be bound by the Kyoto protocol if it means that China gets to continue polluting. At first glance, that position seems almost honourable, but it’s not. This isn’t a principled stance by the US against acts that may lead to the irreversible damage, if not destruction, of the global commons that is the environment. No, this is much more like a 3 year old’s “Me too!” tantrum. If China and India are going to keep on wrecking the planet and making a buck in the process, then no little thing like international law, international public opinion, principle or even common sense will be allowed get in the way of the superpower doing likewise.

  I’m tempted to sensibly look at both the American (with the EU playing the role of sidekick) and Chinese (together with the vast majority of the rest of the world) perspectives more deeply. But why bother? When all is said and done, there is very obviously a widespread lack of understanding, concern or both, about the results of man’s poor stewardship of the planet.

  Kubrick was definitely onto something. There comes a point at which the best response to the absurd, no matter how important, is to shake your head and laugh.

  I wonder if anyone is going to make a film or write a book with the subtitle How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Global Warming.

  Comments (5)

• Silvio … again.

  September 29, 2009 @ 1:54 pm | by Bryan

  

  US president Barack Obama and his wife Michelle welcome Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi to the welcoming dinner for G20 leaders in Pittsburgh last week. Photograph: Getty Images.

  The question I asked my Italian friend still stands: does this stuff really play well in Italy? How? How has Silvio Berlusconi managed to maintain his domestic popularity?

  Comments (8)

• Hooray for the G20?

  September 25, 2009 @ 1:50 pm | by Bryan

  

  “The fact that 20 or so individuals right now are determining economic trade policies for four to five billion people just isn’t right,” Mr. Griffith said. “That’s why we’re here.”

  Most news organisations are making a big deal over the fact that the G8 is being replaced by the G20. The fact that a handful of the most powerful ‘developing nations’ are being added to the elite club that gets to set the economic rules for the rest is supposed to represent the dawn of a new inclusive era or something. It does no such thing.

  Let’s take a look at some of these ‘developing nations’. China. India. South Africa. Turkey. Brazil. These aren’t exactly the nations that I would pick were I trying to get a good understanding of the concerns of the typical state in the South. China is China. India, while being home to some of the world’s poorest people, is also incredibly wealthy. So much so, the Indians not only sent a rocket to the moon, they were also the ones who recently discovered water there. They’re not exactly Malawi or Haiti – nations trying to come up with a formula for growing enough food to meet domestic needs. As for Brazil, the OECD has been trying to woo them for a while. The OECD, you may have noticed, have not expressed much interest in Cuba or Paraguayi. The G20 is so inclusive that neither Nigeria nor Egypt, Africa’s second and third wealthiest nations, were deemed worthy. And yet, just about all of Europe is represented there by the EU. But just to make sure, France, Germany, Italy and Britain get their own special seats. The same is true of North America – the US, Canada and Mexico are all members.

  So just to re-cap, the G20 is made up of Europe, North America, and everyone else with too much economic clout to ignore. And what happens when only the powerful get to make the rules? Let’s look at the response to the recent financial crisis, shall we? As was recently demonstrated on the excellent three part BBC television series, The Love of Money, the politically powerful got together with the economically powerful to craft a solution to the crisis. Unsurprisingly, it was decided that to avoid catastrophe, the economically powerful could not be allowed to fail. Equally unsurprisingly, the chosen mechanism of their rescue was a transfer of wealth from the rest, to those deemed to large to fail. Could it be that the proposal to transfer wealth to struggling mortgage holders instead of, or in tandem with the banks bailout, would have got more of a hearing were struggling mortgage holders part of the deliberations? Hoping that China, Brazil or even South Africa will represent Malawi’s economic interests is like expecting AIB or Bank of Ireland to ask the Finance Minister to consider my local credit union’s needs, and give some of the taxpayer money allocated to the banks to St. Anthony’s Credit Union instead. I’m not saying it couldn’t happen, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.

  Like Trevor Griffith, I have serious problems with a small group from the most powerful nations making potentially life and death decisions for the rest of the planet. If however, that’s the direction the world is going to take, then at least let’s be completely honest about it and get rid of the charade that is the United Nations General Assembly. Maybe let’s get rid of the UN altogether? It can’t be that important if the real decision makers use it as a pit stop en-route to G20 meetings.

  Comments (19)

• Swine flu

  April 30, 2009 @ 4:32 pm | by Bryan

  I don’t mean to trivialise a very serious problem, or to appear insensitive to the families of those who are ill and those who have died. That said, I don’t understand the hysteria around swine flu that is emanating from a lot of media outlets.

  All potentially fatal illnesses must be taken seriously. Communicable diseases should also raise public concern. But outside of Mexico, swine flu has resulted in one mortality. I understand the need for monitoring, the need to keep the public informed, and the need for a public awareness campaign to limit the risks of further transmission. But hospital acquired MRSA is far more significant in Ireland than swine flu. In fact, even in Ireland, the spread of HIV between heterosexual, white non-i.v. drug users is a growing problem that isn’t given the time of day outside of the medical community.

  So why all the panic about swine flu? Is it a reflection of modern culture? Maybe we have all watched so many episodes of shows like 24 that we have been conditioned to expect global disasters that have the potential to wipe out the whole race. Or maybe, we just like ‘excitement’ and a developing story. That 3000 people die each day of malaria in Africa, while lamentable, is something we have come to expect. It’s no longer news. And it’s something that is happening far away. Swine flu on the other hand is exciting! There have probably been less than 3000 cases in total (and that probably becomes definitely once you exclude Mexico), but it could happen to you! Swine flu might be coming after you! If it does, statistics show you’ll probably be fine after a few days’ treatment. But the fact that it might land on your doorstep is enough for this virus to be a top story.

  I never cease to be amazed by how the world works.

  Comments (22)

• 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)

• Irish Blog Awards

  February 23, 2009 @ 9:56 am | by Bryan

  Congratulations to fellow Irish Times blogger, Fiona, who won the Best Arts and Culture award. Not only is her Pursued by a Bear a fantastic blog, Fiona was terrific company at the event!

  This was my first time at the Irish Blog Awards. I now understand why the venue was sold out so quickly. Not only is the whole thing a lot of fun, it’s also a great opportunity to meet people who you might interact with regularly online. So, for example, Maman Poulet’s Suzy Byrne is now a real person in my mind, not just a series of really interesting thoughts. Similarly, you get to meet amazing people like Gavin and Anthony – I haven’t had too many discussions on politics that were as interesting as the one I had with them.

  Thanks to Damien and everyone else who put the event together. Thanks also to Teamwork Project Manager, who sponsored my category. And congratulations to Tommy, who rightly won the Best Newcomer award.

  Comments (6)