Reading etc.

This has been sitting unposted in my drafts since May.  I felt it needed more work.  But it’s Nablopomo. I’m desperate.  Wait until you see what I end up posting tomorrow.

So to summarise, this is neither topical nor quite what I wanted to say.  With that enticing introduction, I am sure that you are keen to read on.

There’s been a lot on the radio about 1968.  The other day I was in the car and there was a woman on the Belgian radio saying how, although she was 35 in 1968, it had changed her life.  She was pregnant with her third child and in the spirit of the times she had changed the school they planned to send the child to and she was looking forward to a bright, new, future.  She wasn’t too pleased with the way it turned out.

Meanwhile, British Radio 4, when I switched over, was doing a somewhat heavy piece about the philosophers of ’68 and their thinking.

I’m not quite sure what I’m trying to get at here.  In the French piece you could really sense that they were trying to change the world and imagine what it was like to be there then (I perhaps haven’t done it justice). The English piece was just a bit dull.

Remember, I said that I distrusted the influence of the British media in the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty?

Sarah Carey had an opinion piece in the Irish Times during the week on this very topic.  Since the Irish Times is still getting to grips with new media and this piece may disappear off into paid subscriber only material, let me give you a few quotes:

“For anyone relying on the Sunday Times for information on its continuing coverage of the Lisbon Treaty, they would do well to ask themselves [who is behind this and what is his or her agenda].

For over three years, I worked for the Irish edition of the Sunday Times, which, like other British newspapers the Sun, News of the World and the Times, plus Sky television, is owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News International. During my three years with the Irish edition of the Sunday Times, I was only vaguely aware that it was a distant outpost of Murdoch’s empire.

We seemed to be like the hobbits in Lord of the Rings. The Eye of the evil Lord Sauron was rarely fixed on our petty domestic issues and we got on with the business of political and social opinion without any comment from Wapping. Except for Lisbon.

Some months before the date for the referendum was announced, I told Irish editor, Frank Fitzgibbon, that I was eager to write a piece in favour of Lisbon. At the time, we seemed to be in agreement on the political imperative that the treaty be passed, though it’s possible I misunderstood his views. We also discussed the fact that Murdoch’s well known pro-US-hawkish views would obviously be the opposite, but we shrugged our shoulders.

Time passed, the date was set and I staked my claim to the pro-treaty column. But something had changed. Fitzgibbon told me that not only would I not be writing a pro-treaty column, but no other writer anywhere in the paper would either. This was not a matter for Sarah’s precious little ego, but a cover-to-cover ban on any pro-treaty comment. Apparently since our first conversation, Fitzgibbon had looked into his heart and discovered the democratic deficit. From seemingly being in favour of Lisbon, he was now cheerfully banning all opinion favourable to Lisbon from the paper.

He argued that only broadcasters were legally required to present balanced coverage, and that as a privately-owned newspaper the Sunday Times was under no legal obligation to offer opposing views. I countered that while this was legally correct, he was under an ethical obligation to provide an alternative view, especially when that view tallied with the extraordinary political consensus that Lisbon was good for Ireland. He claimed he was under no such obligation – and that was that.

I should have written the column anyway and resigned if he refused to print it. But I was in no financial position to go around resigning on a point of principle, and I backed off. So no kudos to me. Part of me accepted that Fitzgibbon had a point: everyone is entitled to their agenda. The problem only arises – which it did in this case – when it’s not really your agenda at all. […]

In whose interests did the Sunday Times campaign against the Lisbon Treaty to the exclusion of all favourable comment? Was it because they really believed that Ireland is best served by wrecking the treaty or because Eurosceptic views were imported, or worse, imposed, from Britain? [….]

If our entire political establishment was dismayed because Lisbon was defeated and the cheers from Wapping were ringing in our ears, doesn’t that make anyone wonder whether No was the right answer to the question?”

Case closed, wouldn’t you agree?

A couple of years ago, I read an interview with a photographer wherein he said that the desire for celebrity photographs is entirely driven by women.  I stopped reading all the trashy gossip magazines.  In-flight fodder became slightly more worthy. I still look at the headlines in the shops but I do not buy.

It is distressing.  The way Brittney Spears had a nervous breakdown in public was horrific.  Kerry Katona’s widely publicised problems shouldn’t be widely publicised.  I don’t care whether these women courted the press at any stage in their careers.  They shouldn’t be hounded.  I can see no public interest in it and a great deal that is disturbing.   And, loath though I am to admit it, the photographer was right.  The phenomenon is driven by women, women like me.

I read a very cool review of the work of Annie Leibovitz in one of the Sunday papers. Her work had no humanity.  But what is wrong with a little glamour?  Surely this is what we pay film stars for.  Why are we so obsessed with their feet of clay?

I never buy gossip magazines any more and, you know, you shouldn’t either.

This preaching thing? I should warn you, I may get worse before I get better, it’s hard to stop once you start.

OK, tomorrow, definitely tomorrow, my next house.

Imagine, if this happened to you, what would you think?

There you are chatting to a colleague about this and that and he says smugly “I give a tithe of all I possess to a relief fund for sub-Saharan Africa”.  His tone proclaims him to be holier than holy and certainly holier than you, you godless person who should be giving to charity too.

Would you not think, what a (insert swear word of choice here)? Would you not think that this kind of behaviour was entirely socially unacceptable?  Unless, your colleague is Bill Gates, in which case, you would, I assume, cut him some slack.

Why then, is it laudable for eco-swots to constantly go on about their eco-virtues?  These people are messianic.  I realise that they spent a long time wandering in the desert but they’re making up for it now.  Who would have thought that the bearded, sandal and sock wearers would inherit the earth (for what it’s worth, of course)? They believe that the issues they raise are the most important thing in the world and, furthermore, you are too stupid to understand them, so they must lead you by their shining example.  This is too important an issue not to preach about.

I know lots of people who give to charity, quietly and unostentatiously.  They seem to feel no compulsion to set the world to rights by telling everyone else exactly what they should be donating and to whom.   Why do the eco guilt-trip brigade feel that it is only through witnessing and fully, oh yes fully, understanding their peerless behaviour that the rest of us can be brought to our senses?  Personally, if I meet someone else who has to tell me why I must recycle for the planet, I intend to invest all our savings in a Hummer (well, given the stock market crash, a small deposit, say a tenner).

Can I be the start of the backlash, please?

For clarification: I do believe it’s good to give charity; I sort my rubbish for recycling; I only drive to work once a week, on other days I sometimes even cycle; I use rechargeable batteries and recycle the old ones; I bring reuseable bags to the supermarket; I try to take the train rather than the plane when I can.  I just don’t feel compelled to tell everyone all the time.  Though I appreciate I just did.

For further clarification: this probably isn’t relevant for Americans.  You could possibly do with some eco voices in the wilderness over there.  I would be very happy to export some of our fully-functional European models.  This would probably be good for the balance of payments also and world trade would be the overall winner.

Perhaps I should stop while I still can.