A climate of fear

Sometimes, the rather unremarkable events of our lives reveal interesting things about the kind of society we live in. This, I suppose, is the basis of social history. After 9/11, most pundits proclaimed that the world was entering a new era. I sometimes wonder whether this was true, and whether the ubiquitous phrase "post-9/11" can ever have any real explanatory power. It's interesting to see how far these labels can be accomodated to everyday happenings.
Every weekday, I get an email from the BBC telling me which stories are going to appear on that evening's "Newsnight" - a kind of current affairs-analysis programme. Today, for the first time in two years, the Hotmail spam filters thought it was a piece of junk mail and sent it to the "junk" folder. But why?
The originating address has not changed. Nothing was significantly different about the email in fact, except that the subject line of today's email reads "NEWSNIGHT SECURITY DEBATE" instead of the usual "In tonight's programme." Clearly, having the word "security" in the subject line sets Hotmail's junk alarm bells ringing.
It's understandable when you think about it. Home security, financial security, psychological insecurity (usually about penis size) and - now and again - even Homeland Security are the staples of junk emails.
If the marketers who use junk emailing to send messages are focusing on security so much that the word itself suggests "junk," then what does this tell us about the world we live in? Pretty obviously it tells us that we live in a world in which we are constantly being informed of new reasons why we ought to be insecure - why we ought to be afraid. And it isn't only crime, terrorism and war, it's every element of our lives. If I don't buy the nicer-scented but more expensive toothpaste, will the pretty boy/girl want to kiss me? If I don't get plastic surgery will anyone take any notice of me? If I don't have the branded shoes, will the other kids laugh at me? If I don't eat the cholesterol-reducing margerine (which in my local supermarket is 400% more expensive than the regular stuff), will I collapse before I'm 35? If I don't get the best mortgage will I end up destitute? And so on...
There are two important purposes for fear - the first is that it is about the best marketing tool there is. The second is that it discourages critical analysis of society - ensuring that the political status-quo remains unchallenged, because our brave leaders, despite their minor flaws, are the only ones who can deliver us from the threat of terrorism, or weapons of mass destruction, or immigrants, or some cataclysmic combination of all three.
In other words, it serves the interests of large corporations and the political-economic system that primarily to ensures that they thrive.

Perhaps this isn't post-9/11 at all then. The manipulation of people by fear has far more vintage than 3 1/2 years. But the terror produced by the events since that date is making the system all the more effective.
Even the Hotmail spam filters have realised this. It's time we did too.

The party of business

The Tories used to advertise themselves as the "party of business", back in the days when they could sell Thatcherism as fostering enterpreneurism, and they could confidently invoke endorsement from Adam Smith for all manner of corporate-welfare programmes, safe in the knowledge that "The Wealth of Nations" would remain on the book-case collecting dust, unread - the true mark of a "proper" education.
In about 1994, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Peter Mandelson and their chums realised that Labour were never going to get anywhere unless they were able to demonstrate their commitments to profits, income inequality (which has steadily risen since 1980) and corporate power. And amply rewarded they were.
So impressive has been "New" Labour's performance - with the PFI providing a magnificent route by which corporations can extract profits from the only resource to which they were still denied access by 1997, our public services, only the most prominent of a flood of efforts by Labour to make it easier for firms to make profits, regardless of the effects on consumers (just look at our supermarkets, transport system, hospitals, prisons and tell me taxpayers are getting value for money) that the Chief Execs have fallen in love with Tony and Gordon (it matters not whether the twain can stand the sight of each other).
Not any great surprise, then, that 63 business leaders and major Labour donors should publish a letter in the FT today, also ensuring a front-page story on the matter, to line up in support of the incumbents at the election.
Business leaders have realised that "New" Labour's real commitments aren't to social justice, equality, opportunity and dignity for ordinary people, but to corporate profits. The only puzzle to be solved is, why hasn't the electorate?

Howard

I've just finished watching the last of the 30-minute interviews the BBC has conducted with the leaders of the 3 main parties this week. You can see them all online on demand. The last one was with Conservative leader Michael Howard, who most people in Oxford, Stellito tells me, find rather terrifying. Well, that's Oxford. I find him rather terrifying too, but after watching him for 30 minutes, I've found him to be terrifyingly impressive. Quite simply, Michael Howard's 30 minutes of prime-time on BBC1 (probably about 3 million people watching) involved the best display of being interviewed and debating in public I think I have ever seen. Anyone who wants to know how to win an argument should watch closely. Everything was right on target - anticipating his interviewer's (the famously difficult and challenging Jeremy Paxman, who once asked Howard the same question thirteen times in the course of an interview) attempts to interrupt him; ensuring that his answers were clear, concise and comprehensible; and using a technique I don't think I have seen before - Howard and the Tories are campaigning on 5 main issues - police, hospitals, school discipline, tax and immigration - and Howard rattled them off very quickly, so that the viewer would focus on the two or three that mattered to them, and forget the rest (very useful for appealing to prospective conservative voters who want less tax and cleaner hospitals, but aren't quite down with the xenophobic overtones of the campaign).
Now, why should we care if Michael Howard is a good interviewee?
The reason is that if Howard can utilise his strengths and get his message across personally to enough voters, then the Conservatives could do very well indeed. Maybe not this time, but in four years, they could be electable. Howard is the strongest Tory leader since Thatcher in my view. And we ought to beware. In 2009, he could be posing a real challenge.
Is it a reason to vote Labour? Absolutely not.
I've been finding out about St. Albans' Independent candidate Mark Reynolds in the last couple of days. He won't win, but I think I'm going to vote for him. He promises to hold open surgeries for constituents all weekend, every weekend. He won't win, but campaigns like this could make lazy MPs much more responsive to their constituents - which is, after all, their job.

Energy

Probably the most important question of the next fifty years is going to be whether or not we are able to cut carbon emissions sufficiently to make the globe inhabitable by the time our grandchildren reach retirement age. There's a pretty good chance of the answer being no, as is now widely appreciated. Radical action is needed immeadiately if we are to avoid catastrophe.
For politicians, however, these are hardly the most pressing concerns. A "climate change review" is due to report to the British government some time this summer to recommend what action needs to be taken - no doubt it will conclude, as most respected scientists have already, that the most drastic measures will need to be taken to move to renewable energy sources. But in an interview with the Financial Times, the environment secretary Margaret Beckett 'warned it will "probably take a bit longer" because "obviously at the moment we aren't focused on it".'
All of this has to do with the government's wish to avoid the complex issue of nuclear energy. But do we really wish to leave our fate in the hands of a government who "obviously" is not focused on matters of the future inhabiability of the planet? I don't.

"The international community humiliated"

In Tony Blair's interview today with Jeremy Paxman for the BBC, Iraq came up again. I thought I'd heard every line Blair had on this one (something along the lines of "tough choices and difficult decisions" (that you really wouldn't understand) came up as usual) but today we had a new one. If Britain had decided not to go to war, it would have "left the international community humiliated and Saddam [Hussein] emboldened."
Quite a statement! We're back to the Kosovo argument now, where what is really at stake is not "security" but "credibility". However, in the case of Kosovo, at least NATO was involved, even if some members were less keen than others. In the case of Iraq, the term "international community" in this context can only refer to those who invaded Iraq - i.e. the global hegemon and its "junior partner," along with such formiddable players on the world stage as Poland.
Where does a "credible" "international community," or global hegemon, leave us? My view would be that it leaves us up the creek without a paddle, so to speak. There is no doubt that the credibility of the "international community" (if you define it as the US government and whoever agrees with it, rather than defining it as most of the people in the world) has been strengthened by the war in Iraq. The US is now in a position to ensure, for example, that European (especially Russian) oil companies don't get too many big ideas about investing in Iran. They'll get their slice of the pie, but only if they demonstrate that they know their place.
Governments in South America (which the US regards as naturally its own exclusive domain - this is why the threat of communist subversion in Cuba or Nicaragua generates prophecies of doom) have continued to learn lessons from Iraq's mistakes - Hugo Chavez will probably avoid another US-backed coup attempt (the last one was 2002 for those who missed it) but he'll need to ensure he doesn't upset the investors. Argentina are being pulled in to line too, as I mentioned on Monday.
Sometimes slips of the tongue reveal more about what drives foreign policy than the speaker might hope. At least he's stopped using the word "liberation" to describe what has become of life in Iraq.

Benedict XVI

"Good value for those looking to gamble, in my view, it Joseph Ratzinger (Germany) at 7-1; I reckon Ratzinger stands a far better chance than those odds suggest." - "Papal Bull," 5th April 2005.

Not wanting to blow my own trumpet too much, I reckon this wasnt a bad forecast - although I admit I only narrowed it down to 4 candidates. If only I was the gambling type...

So what does it all mean? Well at 78, Benedict (as he'll be known) won't be around for very long. But while he's around, the conservatism of JPII is likely to be preserved. More from my April 5th post:
Tettamanzi: a couple of sites suggest he might have been one of the authors of Humanae Vitae, the 1968 document which strongly condemned the use of contraception. Reuters reports that "he firmly backed" it. Whichever is the case, his views should be clear enough.
Ratzinger's "blunt judgments delight conservatives and outrage liberal Catholics." A close adviser to John Paul, he has "denounced sexual liberalism in the West."

More detail I'm certain in tomorrow's papers (or a good news website near you) but in brief, things look as though they will probably continue without too much disruption, which isn't much of a surprise.

The real meaning of debt

Interesting story in this morning's FT about Argentina (Andrew Balls and Scheherazade Daneshkhu, "Argentina rejects calls to reopen credit talks," 18/04/2005):
The IMF's governing body, the IMFC have issued a statementwhich "suggests they have lost all patience with Argentina." But why?
"Argentina is off-track with its current IMF programme which means that while it is repaying the fund it has effectively abandoned its programme in part owing to its failure to meet the structural reform targets it signed up to."
Hmmm. Argentina apparently has to come up with "a strategy to resolve the remaining arrears outstanding to private creditors." But it seems "repaying the fund" is insufficient. Hidden in the detail of the story is the fact that "Both the IMFC and the G7 also said there should be no backsliding on structural reforms needed to promote sustainable growth in the country." And this is the real point. What's the point of Argentina simply repaying its debt if it does not deregulate its markets and open them up to private investment? Why bother with any of this globalisation stuff at all if G7 companies are unable to cream off massive profits?
This is the real world of global trade, all over the world. And this is the reason why Argentina, along with most of the rest of the world, is consigned to poverty and exploitation, until we start playing by very, very different rules.

Sunday Republican fun

As I was typing the title, I realised it risked offending those who associate the word "republican" with the Bush/Regan style of doing things - rest assured folks, I havn't had a Damascean conversion over the weekend, it's just an aversion to monarchism.
Anyway, for those of you who don't recieve, or don't pay enough attention to, the excellent Popbitch newsletter, here is a piece of irreverance to mark the marriage of Britain's royal heir to Camilla. And here you can find the lyrics to this wonderful ditty.
Warning: By clicking all 3 links above you will be exposing yourself to language, concepts and kazoo solos that you may find offensive and are almost certain to disturb you. So if you're of a nervous disposition, an impressionable and tender young age, at work, or just really hate kazoos, you might want to consider more wholesome entertainment.

Election

Decisions to make before May the 5th over whether and how to vote. In the Holburn & St. Pancras constituency where I spend most of my time these days, Frank Dobson is almost certain to win for Labour. The 2001 result gave Dobson 54% of the vote, Lib Dems 18% and Conservatives 16.9 %. Furthermore, Dobson is a good MP who listens to his constituents concerns and acts on them, in my experience. So there isn't much point in me voting here, unless I wanted to make a point by voting for a minority party (elements of the Greens' and Respect Coalition's programmes attract me - cutting carbon emissions and opposing imperialism - but other elements put me off - lack of coherent policy on anything other than their "core issues," George Galloway's ego (he called himself the "leader of the anti-war movement" even though the movement was meant to be a coalition! So much for the MAB, entirely forgotten now, even at protests), and the fact that their candidates don't stand a chance (although Respect reckon they might win in Bethnall Green and Bow with Galloway and with another candidate in Hackney).
But in St. Albans in 2001, Lib Dems came third in 2001 (Labour 45%, Cons 35.2%, Lib Dem 17.9%) - despite their constant strength in local elections. In St. Albans it really would be a case of a very strong Lib Dem vote (or large-scale abstention) risking a Tory victory.
But how seriously can this threat be taken any more? It's not only the case that Labour have adopted Tory-style policy across the board (tuition fees, PFI and other ways to partially privatise public services, bellicosity etc etc) but the Lib Dems have also embraced a degree of privatisation, in important areas.
A Health policy paper says: "We want to see the NHS as part of a wider health system, that system brings together a wide range of public and private agencies. Through both the range of services and its community leadership role local authorities are well placed to develop and deliver programmes designed to promote good health." Very "New Labour" indeed, and continuing PFI is going to be the preferred route.
So can I bring myself to vote for a party who want to privatise healthcare (and probably other things too - I could only find a skimpy two-page policy document on school education). Their policy on intellectual property is only marginally to the left of that advocated by the Bush administration, and their commitments on development are hardly radical by comparison with Labour.
Lib Dems are basically trying to appeal to lefties solely on an anti-war ticket - but if that's all that concerned me, I'd be voting for Galloway.
One element of the Lib Dems general policy stance appeals, however - that is strengthening local government. In the context of a political situation in which all three parties have adopted a reflexively positive stance on the privatisation of essential services, those concerned with winning them back need to think carefully about how to win back democracy - how to change the country from being a nominal democracy in which people are invited to choose between two (or three) almost identical parties twice a decade to being a functional democracy in which the wishes of ordinary people matter. The way to do it is to begin at a local level, and that can only happen if local government is not stifled by the demands of central government. The Lib Dems are the only party anywhere near this. Even if they got elected, the victory would be one of tiny significance, but it would be a start. It is for this reason that I advocate voting Liberal Democrat. Even in a constituency like St Albans where the risk of the Tories winning is real, I belive the risk is so small that it makes no difference.

Remake

Well this was going to concern the fact that the excellent "The Amityville Horror" has been remade, on general release here today. I havn't seen it yet, but come on... how often are remakes of good films worthwhile? Anyway, what is really concerning me is that the Stratford (East London, not upon-Avon) Picture House are doing PARENT AND BABY SCREENINGS. For The Amityville Horror. Am I the only person to find this to be just a little bit inappropriate?

EDIT: According to BBC Radio 5 Live film critic Mark Kermode, the whole demonic possession bit was invented by the defense lawyers for the guy who got prosecuted for killing his family. This was news to me, but makes the (original) film seem like even more fun. Kermode's analysis says that the original is so great because of the subtext dealing with moving house (money flying everywhere at one point as the house eats the family's assets). Thus, anyone too young (or too rich? does this explain why so many film critics slated it?) to understand what mortgages are about won't appreciate it. I reckon all this is going a bit far... but I'm guessing he's basically right - the original had a lot of strong points for what it is, while the remake looks atrocious (as usual - these are the people who remade the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, apparently). They even cut it to ensure an R-rating (and here, a 15 rating). Wimps. By the way, a special edition DVD of the 1979 version came out here this week.

Bolton

Leaving aside the politics of it all for a moment, I have a very simple request for the people in charge of these matters (and I am most certain that there are people in charge of these matters). If I have to stare at John Bolton's face every time something significant happens at the UN over the next few years, please, PLEASE, will somebody inform him of either: the fact that "Just for Men" market products which can make his moustache match his hair; or: that he can pick up 10 disposable razors and a bar of soap at Tesco for less than the price of a pint.

Thankyou.

The system is working

Since the January 30th elections, many people who opposed the invasion of Iraq and oppose the ongoing military occupation have found it difficult to overcome the sophistry of those who ordered the invasion, and their ideologues. George Bush's government "hailed the Iraqi elections as a success that vindicated its strategy of spreading democracy in the Middle East" the Financial Times reported the next day (Guy Dinmore and Ben Hall, FT, 31 Jan 2005, p. 3). "The force of freedom...was felt throughout Iraq today" the Daily Telegraph quoted Tony Blair as saying. (Jack Fairweather and Anton La Guardia, Daily Telegraph, 31 Jan 2005, p. 1).
But how about American and British people? They were not, apparently, quite so enthusiastic about the whole thing. Amid muted admissions from "Western experts" that "the vote wasn't perfect", (Ben Hall and Roula Khalaf, FT, 31 Jan 2005, p. 1) the FT reported that "Opinion polls in both the UK and the US show a growing majority want their governments to start pulling out troops, whether or not the election produces a stable government in Baghdad." (Dinmore and Hall) The same, apparently, goes for the Iraqis. "Tens of thousands of Iraqis marked the second anniversary of the fall of Saddam Hussein by marching here in the capital on Saturday to demand the withdrawal of American forces" the New York Times reports. "One of the main chants of the morning, echoed by thousands, was: 'No America, no Saddam! Yes to Islam!'" Pretty unequivocal I think.
How then might we explain the widely-reported enthusiasm for participation in the elections from Iraqis, and their simultaneous opposition to the occupation. If the elections, representing the Iraqis new found democracy and freedom were a direct result of the occupation, why such strong and vocal (if, for the most part - as illustrated yesterday - peaceful) opposition?
The editors of the Financial Times might give us a clue. "The triumphalists in Washington who now claim total vindication for their almost totally bungled strategy are right to point out that these elections would not have taken place under Mr Hussein. But they should reflect that the reason they took place was the insistence of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who vetoed three schemes by the US-led occupation authorities to shelve or dilute them. Mr Sistani is the man who has held the Iraqi ring." (Leader, FT, March 10th 2005, p. 10). Not quite what Tony and George would like us to believe, but safe enough tucked away near the back of the business news paper, highly unlikely to be read by anyone who take seriously the propaganda about the occupation.
Today's NYT quotes a student whose views echos those found in serious opinion polls: '"We are asking that the occupier leave our country," said Amer Shihab, a university student who had come from Kut in southern Iraq. "Iraq now has enough competent forces to maintain security by itself."'
Of course, even those of us keenest to see an end to the occupation can agree with that analysis. The level of violence and instability in Iraq remains shocking, despite recent reports of less incidents per day.
How to solve the situation? Those who strongly oppose the occupation advocate sending UN forces. In principle, this is not a bad idea, but in practice, it is highly problematic. UN forces would be unlikely to significantly reduce the level of violence because the UN, like most institutions, are viewed by Iraqis (and most of the global population) as subordinate to - in fact, tools of - the global hegemon and its allies. The UN lacks sufficient credibility to oversee Iraq's development, because it would be seen as occupation by proxy - understandably, given Iraq's recent history.
The situation in Iraq should be a stark reminder to us all that the post-war international institutions increasingly lack credibility in most of the world, where they are seen as tools of the powerful. George Monbiot (see particularly his book "Age of Consent" and also his most recent Guardian piece) thinks this is positive: at some point, most of the globe is going to become so fed up with being exploited by the masters (that's us, folks) that they will render the international institutions - designed to reinforce the power of the USA and its allies - totally unworkable.
I don't like the sound of this too much though, and find Monbiot's certainty that tearing down old institutions will necessarily result in the creation of democratic ones, a little too dialectic. To avoid chaos, I propose that what is necessary is for alternative (parallel) democratic international institutions to be created. With sufficient participation, they might achieve such power that they become recognised as the truly legitimate international arbiters, with the world's powerful states forced to concede that the existing instutions are now truly "irrelevant" and join the rest of the globe.
A project of such epic proportions that it's unrealistic? Well perhaps, but a better plan than rejoicing - as Monbiot does - at the efforts of the powerful nations of the world to make international institutions pure instruments of their power, while revelling in ones dubious certainty that this will necessarily result in the total collapse of the UN, the WTO, the IMF, World Bank and all the rest of it followed quickly by the peaceful emergence of democratic alternatives. So why is my dreaming better than Monbiot's? Because Monbiot advocates destruction in the ludicrous hope that something better will suddenly emerge (kind of like the Russian revolutionaries, it seems) while I'm advocating building something better, then replacing what we have.
Can any of this help the Iraqis? Not as quickly as help is needed. If the country is to stand a chance of functioning, it needs British and American troops to leave as quickly as possible. For now, I think, the UN will have to do.

Papal Bull

Well papal matters might have seemed a whole lot more exciting in during the Cold War, but James assures me the election of the new pope is a matter of global signifiance (see news sites passim).
So who is it going to be? Paddy Power have Dionigi Tettamanzi (Italian) and Francis Arinze (Nigerian) joint favourites at 11-4. Good value for those looking to gamble, in my view, it Joseph Ratzinger (Germany) at 7-1; I reckon Ratzinger stands a far better chance than those odds suggest. An intriguing piece in Monday's FT proposed that "Older cardinals may not want the next Pope to dominate the Church for as long as John Paul did, and for this reason the 77-year-old Cardinal Ratzinger crops up as a possibility." Other factors don't stand in Ratzinger's favour though. Firstly, many Italians in the Vatican would like the mantle to be passed back to Italy, in line with 500 years of tradition. But there is also (as widely reported) a degree of pressure from various circles for a Latin American or African pope.
Now here, the gap between the Vatican and the rest of the world exposes itself - and here is the reason why there is so much room for speculation about the candidates. Today's FT reports: "the election of a non-European pope would be a popular choice with clergy and laity who want to affirm the Church's mission to stand up for social justice, tackle poverty and consolidate its expansion outside its historical European heartland." Quite, but the conservatives in the Vatican aren't keen on most of the Latin American candidates - many of whom were associated with "radical" movements in the 1980s. Further, many of the top Latin American candidates are too young. If a Latin American candidate emerged, I would guess it would be Dario Castrillion Hoyos, "75 year old Mr Castrillion is a conservative who works inside the Vatican machine." (FT again). The chances of the Vatican appointing someone like Jorge Mario Bergoglio, a 68-year old Jesuit who travels around Buenos Aires by bus, are extremely slim. Paddy Power have Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga at 9-2, but for my money, his age (62) and his politics (left-leaning) put him out of the running.
So by my reckoning, if the next pontiff is indeed non-European, it's going to be Francis Arinze or Dario Castrillon Hoyos. If European, it's probably between Dionigi Tettamanzi and Joseph Ratzinger. Of course, a surprise is certainly possible, but these looks like the most likely candidates to me; I would certainly be surprised if the appointee is a non-European aside from the two I've identified.
So let's take a look at these four chaps, with a particular focus on their views on sexual morality. I've no idea why there is such widespread focus on the "confrontation with Islam" in the newspaper discussions - it is certainly not analagous to JPII's "confrontation" with Communism, which was very definitely to be eradicated - few seriously believe Islam can be eradicated, even if a fanatical few might think it should be. So the most interesting element of the coming papacy, as James correctly pointed out, is development issues. The line in the Vatican on global trade and debt is always, as far as I can see, almost identical to Blair's - lots of chatter about global justice, and very little more. So the really significant development issue is that of HIV/AIDS, especially in Africa, where cultural and religious beliefs and practices are preventing education about and use of condoms from spreading as fast as the virus. Global trade arrangements, debt, poverty and intellectual property are all also crucial matters in the struggle to bring HIV/AIDS under control, but the Church does not really have a view, or much influence over these. Its teaching on contraception does have influence, however, and particularly in Africa.
Therefore, I'll be analysing the four candidates on what I can find out about their views on sexual morality and contraception.
According to CNN, Francis Arinze has said: "In many parts of the world, the family is under siege. It is opposed by an anti-life mentality as is seen in contraception, abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia. It is scorned and banalized by pornography, desecrated by fornication and adultery, mocked by homosexuality, sabotaged by irregular unions and cut in two by divorce." That pretty much speaks for itself.
Dario Castrillon Hoyos [cannot produce appropriate accents, so apologies to Spanish speakers; rest assured, Serbo-Croat names get far worse treatment] has complained that "traditionalists often do not recieve enough respect from Church leaders." but I can find out little more about him, aside from an unsubstantiated claim from a dubious source of connections with right-wing Colombian governments. FT and Reuters both stress his opposition to liberation theology during the 80s.
Tettamanzi: a couple of sites suggest he might have been one of the authors of Humanae Vitae, the 1968 document which strongly condemned the use of contraception. Reuters reports that "he firmly backed" it. Whichever is the case, his views should be clear enough.
Ratzinger's "blunt judgments delight conservatives and outrage liberal Catholics." A close adviser to John Paul, he has "denounced sexual liberalism in the West." (Reuters yet again).

So barring any major surprises, we largely know what we're going to get. Someone reasonably conservative, who is unlikely to shake things up too much, and certainly not with regard to contraception. What will all of this mean? Probably business as usual, including for the 3000 people who die every day from AIDS, a number that will surely continue to rise in the absence of radical action. But if the Vatican pulls a real conservative out of the bag, could the whole thing collapse in on itself? With a real reactionary at the helm, how will the clergy and the laity - who, remember, "want to affirm the Church's mission to stand up for social justice, tackle poverty and consolidate its expansion outside its historical European heartland" respong?
George Monbiot, in his Guardian column today, suggested that the appointment of Paul Wolfowitz as World Bank chief could be a good thing. The bank will continue to operate as it has since its inception, Monbiot argues, but such a controversial figure will undermine the credibility of this "illegitimate institution."
One might see a parallel between these two appointments then - in both cases, perhaps it takes a real reactionary to expose the worst aspects of an institution.
Now, am I suggesting the Vatican is as destructive for most of the globe as Monbiot's description of the World Bank? Well, not quite, but its teaching on contraception certainly has similar effects - more death and disease. Sacrilege? Well, no worse in my view than Ratzinger's observation that "history is full of examples of Popes whom the Holy Spirit surely would not have selected." Why should anyone believe the situation has magically changed? It's up to Catholics to wake up to this fact, just as its up to all of us to wake up to how the World Bank operates and what drives it to do so.
Reactionary leaders of the World Bank and the Catholic Church could aid this process. Or does Monbiot have too much faith in ordinary peoples' responses to oppression? As usual, it's up to all of us to decide.

Marketing position

Every month I get an email newsletter from Penguin. The main reason is the monthly prize draw to win loads of books, but sometimes it has news of interesting-looking material. Anyway, here is an excerpt from April's newsletter:

"'A Short History of Tractors in Ukrainian' by Marina Lewycka;
Longlisted for the Orange Prize for Fiction, this witty debut novel is as entertaining as its title."

Hmmm... anyone aspiring to marketing work for Penguin should keep an eye out for a new position opening soon, methinks.

Isolation and individualism

Those who express concern about the individualism and isolation that pervades our societies can often seem somewhat fanatical, especially when they link these trends to capitalism and to consumerism, or suggest that elites in our societies have an interest in furthering this process. Now and again, however, some branch of government will come up with an idea or an initiative so obviously likely to have detrimental effects on our society (if one views isolation an individualism as detrimental) that other explanations seem inadequate.
I've just got home from a conference on the history of the Soviet Union, and one of the speakers noted that "we can accuse Soviet leaders of a great many crimes over the 74 years they were in power, but naivete is not one of them." A sensible point, but one which applies equally to this country, I think. All of these initiatives cost money and use up resources, and no matter how hare-brained they might appear to those of us whose role is merely to observe the country being goverened and not to take part in it (an indication that the "democracy" and indeed the "freedom" we treasure is really only nominal; it is not functional) it is nonetheless very rare that anything happens for no reason.
What then, to make of news that police in Northamptonshire are implementing a "card" system to deal with teenagers who they fear might engage in "anti-social behaviour"? Apologies, but the only news report I can find of this story is on a BBC childrens' news website, and so is rather brief and superficial. It reports that yellow "warning cards" will be given "to kids who are hanging around in large groups but haven't broken the law" while red cards will be issued to those who do break the law, and a letter will be sent to their parents. "The scheme is aimed at getting kids to realise that hanging around in groups can make some people feel scared and threatened."
And here is the crux of it, "hanging around in groups" is what is being discouraged by the police, even though, given the fact that there is no law against it (yet) it is in fact outside of their jurisdiction. Now let us consider the effect of issuing yellow cards to a group of kids who are "hanging around in a group." It is the clear intention that issuing the yellow card has some effect - otherwise they would not be bothering with it in the first place. There are only two likely effects in fact: the first (less likely, I think) is that the group of kids moves or dissipates, thus becoming less "threatening". The second (far more likely, I think) is that issuing a yellow card will provoke illegal behaviour, allowing the police to issue a red card, an anti-social behaviour order or other measures, depending on the nature of the offence they manage to provoke. What is clear is that the police are engaged in actively discouraging legal behaviour - free assembly, in effect.
It is certainly the case that anti-social behaviour - including legal behaviour - can be a major nuisance to people, and that many (especially the elderly) may fear for their safety in the presence of rowdy youths. The problem obviously needs to be addressed. But not by the police.
It is time for the people of this country to radically re-evaluate the role of authority in our society, and recognise that freedom - that which seperates us from our polar opposite, our "other," our intractable foe, the eternally backward nations it is our historical (Messianic?) role to "liberate" from their own undemocratic, unchanging traditions, if our leaders are to be believed - is under direct threat. It is time for the people of this country to demand that authority exists only where it can justify itself. It is time to engage in this assessment directly, rather than leaving it to those representatives we trust to govern our affairs.
In my opinion, there is plainly no defence for the police forces actively and systematically discouraging behaviour which our facade-democracy has not decided is beyond the boundaries of the law.
Not only this, but it is time to examine precisely what is at work here. The disengagement of ordinary people from questions of the legitimacy of authority and other questions of how our affairs should be run is increasing all the time, and it is aided by our isolation from one another, by our individualism. The more isolated we become, the harder it is to engage with others in discussions about what is happening and the meaning of "politics" and political decisions. This process strengthens the power of unaccountable authority in society by decreasing the degree to which it is subject to close scrutiny. And as the power of unaccountable authority accumulates, the more it can serve to increase our isolation. The process can continue until we have lost our freedom, lost our democratic rights, without really realising that it has happened, and certainly not realising HOW it has happened, making it harder, in turn, to win freedoms back, to curb the power of unaccountable (or, by popular perception, illegitimate) authority.
I think it is of the highest significance that this story is deemed to be of interest only to children, and not to the rest of us, therefore reported nowhere in the media but by a childrens news programme. This should serve in itself as an indication that our democracy is not functioning as it should - as most people would wish it to - and that radical action is necessary if we want to live in a democratic society. We must act now, before radical action itself becomes an impossibility.