So if you'll serve I'll be on my way

The Irish tubes are this morning clogged with posts of outrage from poor unfortunate Irish bloggers (blog-Eirs?) who were cruelly tricked into attending a free lecture by Obama webguru Joe Rospars last night, that turned out to be the launch event for Fianna Fail's new website, designed in part by Rospars' Blue State Digital. Scarcely had Sean Dorgan, FF General Secretary, stepped up to welcome people along before the twittering thumbs began to exclaim their displeasure at being used by the PR company for dastardly political ends. "The tubes won't stand for this", their massed fingers twitched.

I was not at the event, despite reading the same release from Strawberry Media (with Fianna Fail's name curiously absent) as everyone else, which was too much a case of "and how much would this free weekend be?" for me, no PR company organises something out of the goodness of their heart*. Instead I spent my evening out in the wilds of Maynooth learning about stuff that matters slightly more in the grander scheme of things than what clogs the tubes, with noticeably fewer Fianna Fail flacks.

The Combat Diseases of Poverty Consortium in NUI Maynooth hosted a talk by Dr Elizabeth Pisani, epidemiologist, advisor to UNAIDS, WHO, the CDC and the World Bank, and the author of "the Wisdom of Whores", a book that's always fun to ask for in busy bookshops with slow computer systems and a slightly deaf sales assistant. I first heard of Dr Pisani and her book via a large colorful promo poster adorning the wall of a US sex workers' advocacy group's stand at the World Aids Forum in Mexico City last year. Its funny how what seems completely normal in an environment surrounded by Zapatista transexuals demanding housing rights for HIV+ intravenous drug users can seem altogether more embarrassing at 10:30am on a Wednesday morning in Waterstone's with a nun standing behind me trying to buy Daniel O'Donnell's autobiography.

In her lecture last night Dr Pisani tried to break apart some of the "sacred cows" (as she put it) of the war on AIDS, and although I didn't agree with everything she said it was certainly compelling and eye-opening. She explored the way in which HIV has been marketed as universal disease that could affect anyone in society as a way of overcoming public stigma against fund raising for treatment of those actually most at risk (gay men, sex workers and intravenous drug users). She disagreed with the labeling of HIV as a disease of poverty, with some interesting data from Southern and Eastern Africa that seemed to suggest that infection rates were highest amongst the middle class and well educated. She also had data from Asia that showed that during an economic crises infection rates go down, as although more people might be forced into sex work, clients also have less money to spend on sex; fewer clients are sleeping with a wider range of sex workers, so the number of opportunities for cross-infection between multiple partners are reduced.

She looked at the business of treatment, that there was more money to be made by pharmaceutical companies and corrupt government officials in treating HIV than actually running prevention programs, and she exploded the fallacy loved by the Bush administration but condemned by anyone that actually works in the field that Abstinence-only programs worked. She ruffled a lot of feathers in the audience by suggesting that HIV should be treated by governments and health workers as an infectious disease, similar to other STDs that require mandatory notification of previous sexual partners (something gay activists in the early days of the epidemic fought hard to prevent for fear of stigmatization), and to be honest most of what she said, though uncomfortable to hear, started to make a good bit of sense.

I walked away from the talk realizing that like so many other topics I have a little knowledge on this subject, enough to be dangerous as it causes me to make assumptions based on not enough data, and skewed in an odd direction as a result of sitting in on too many medium-level workshops without ever going through the basics. I've posted a few pictures of Dr Pisani and her slides here, you can check out her blog for more info and its well worth reading her book to get a different view of the epidemic than is normally presented in the mainstream media.

Maybe don't buy it on Amazonthough, it could really mess up your future Personalized Recommendations.

* as your average PR company has less heart than the lovechild of the Tin Man and Louis Washkansky.

There ain't no way to hide your lyin' thumbs

The accompanying image is from today's Irish Times online edition; Obama may be bigger than God, but is he bigger than Bono?

Its an easy mistake to make, just ask anyone who was at the We Are One concert before the Inauguration, when hundreds of thousands stood for hours in the biting cold to see Mr Hewson crowned King of America. His mammy, I'm sure, is very proud.

I spent most of last night at a friend's pancake party, and while there may be nothing more wonderful in the world than fried batter (apart from, perhaps, fried dough), by the time I got home I never wanted to see another yummy gooey mouthful of pre-Lenten joy all butter and lemon encrusted, and unfortunately was too full to contemplate staying up the extra hour or so to watch the "I can't believe it's not the State of the Union" address. Political junkie that I am, and not having a decent fix of Obama since the Inauguration, I of course recorded the address and refused to look at any news this morning before I had a chance to sit and watch the whole thing.

And I wasn't disappointed. A good speech, covered many bases (I'm sure my unemployed IT friends in San Francisco will be delighted to hear that they can now choose to retrain as either a home weather-proofer, or to cure cancer. I say why not do both?), and still managed to raise a cheer by highlighting in a completely non-partisan way the fact that the mess everyone is in is the fault of the last guy. Job done, hope restored.

Bobby Jindal blew the Republican response by perplexingly pinning all his folksy good ol' boy charm on a story about private enterprise alone saving Louisiana from the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, somehow forgetting about the $175 Billion that the Federal Government has given to the region in the three and a half years since the catastrophe.

Although many Republicans might be stuck in the past as far as the broken record of their cries for more tax cuts go, I was surprised to see the hordes of chubby old white man fingers Twittering away on their Blackberrys throughout the Presidential address, updating their supporters with blow-by-blow tweets in a hallucinogenic scene straight from "The 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T"*.

In my last job, my VP was a crackberry addict, and one of the most infuriating of his many foibles was to tune out of meetings entirely absorbed in his PDA, not even noticing when the room had gone silent and everyone was awaiting a response for him on the presentation he had just zoned out of. It is safe to say that more often than not the business prospered in spite of his presence, but I digress. In my own department I banned the use of PDAs or phones in meetings, and the only laptop allowed to be open was the one on which a presentation was running. If you are going to be at my meeting, be at my meeting, otherwise don't bother showing up. So if people in my meetings can be expected to tear themselves away from their phones for an hour, why can't the good men and women of the United States Congress and Senate?

I had a conversation last night (after pancakes) with a friend who recently left a forum that he himself helped start, in a dispute whose origins are lost now in the mists of time, but had something to do with Phil Collins (I kid you not). Our conversation was over the use of Twitter and other similar microblogging services, the appeal of which he could not understand. He said that if he wanted to talk to someone, he would talk to them, if he wanted to send them a message, he would email or text them. He could see no purpose for publicly posting random status updates.

At the time, hopped up on sugary buttery fried battered goodness, I did an amazingly pathetic job of explaining the appeal of tweets to him, but the simple fact of the matter is that Twitter has nothing to do with communications and everything to do with relieving boredom. It is little more than mental fidgeting, twiddling the thumbs of your synapses and whistling a tuneless tune in your neurons. Your mind has found a lull in the ongoing proceedings and cries out to all and sundry, "boring, entertain me".

The fine men and women of the US Congress and Senate can try and gloss over their fidgeting thumbs by saying they are reaching out to their constituents, enabling a new era of transparency and participation in the democratic process, but the truth is that they can't even sit still for 54 minutes of smiling, clapping and the occasional bit of standing (while clapping and smiling) without getting bored and needing a distraction. No wonder the country is in the mess it is when it is governed by a group of folks with the attention span of a five year-old.

It could be worse, at least if they are busy Twittering they probably won't be caught picking their nose on camera.

oh, and if anybody wants an up-to-the-minute account of my daily fits of boredom, you can follow me here.

* a nasty 1953 musical by Dr Seuss in which the heroic student Bart suffers at the hands of his piano instructor Dr Terwilliker. Yup, that's where Sideshow Bob gets his name from.

the time is right for a palace revolution

Just back from this afternoon's national protest march from Parnell Square to Merion Square. The Gardai estimate the turnout to be over 60,000, the Unions put it at around 120,000 and the media is going with a figure of around 100,000. All I know is that we were still standing outside the Hugh Lane Gallery by the Garden of Remembrance waiting to start moving as the head of the March arrived at the Dail. It took us an hour and a half to walk the route, around 2k, and by the time we arrived at Merion Square the speeches were almost over and people had started to go home.

I marched with the Very Understanding Girlfriend and a group of lectures from a college that I used to work with, and talking with them brought home just how hard the government's changes are going to hit. On top of the 1% Income levy and the new Pension levy that will take effect on March 1st, the college is now forced to cut back on teaching hours in spite of larger student numbers. Jobs are being lost and those who remain are faced with an increased struggle just to make ends meet. The long term effects of this will be seen in the reduced caliber of graduates that will enter the job market in future years.

The Government should accept that there is no quick fix to the economic downturn, and that the recession is only getting started. It should use this time to increase the tax on the wealthiest 1% who have reaped the most benefit out of the last ten years of the Celtic Tiger, and then reverse the cuts and invest more in education, banking on our future human capital to make Ireland as attractive a place for international investment in five years time as it was in the late 90s and hope to stimulate a second golden age of growth. Unfortunately our Government is focused on the short-term, saving their own political skins at the expense of the rest of the nation.

It was good today to see so many groups come together, Unions from both the Public and Private sector, student groups and political parties, all marching side by side in solidarity in numbers not seen since the anti-war protests in the lead up to the US invasion of Iraq. The talk on the streets of Dublin today was of a series of national strikes; the unions were looking to today's march as a measure of public support for future action, and 100,000 people turned out, 2.5% of the population of the entire country, and this is only the start.

The people of Ireland are calling for change, but the only politicians who can bring this about are the Greens. They need to listen to the will of the people and do the right thing, they need to leave government and trigger an election. They need to put the interests of the country before their own political ambition. They need to do it to save their soul.

Waves of similar protests in Iceland and Latvia have brought down governments. We are living in truly interesting times.

Links
My photos of the march
Irish Times coverage
BBC Coverage

Logic of Days

Well, after four days, numerous distractions both real and literary and a very nasty sinus infection that still hasn't gone away, I've got my track to a place where I feel like I can leave it for a few days and come back to fiddle around with a few minor tweeks, but essentially nothing more major is left to do.

I've always been a big fan of Tuavan throat singing, especially the group harmonics that combine to create a wall of sound that you feel as much as you hear. This is kinda the thing I was trying for with this track, and it sounds better with a good set of headphones as you can really feel it in your head then.

Everything is done with just a Tenori-On controlling an Access Virus via Midi, and the Tenori-On on its own with a few user-created distorted vocal samples. Theoretically this could be played live, but you would need two Virus units as there are at least eight separate voices in play, and each Virus only has 4. It was interesting loading up vocal samples and controlling them in sequencer-mode, everyday I find it harder and harder to wonder what I did with out my little gray square of Tenori-On goodness.

Somehow I don't think I'll make an album's worth this month (sorry RPM Challenge, for yet another year), but its a start.

Logic of Days by UnkieDave

The best distractions money can buy

I am still working my way through "Your Brain on Music", in between trying to finish a rough draft of a track that has been bugging me since Monday. The book is a serious distraction as I keep getting sidetracked with impractical ideas for the tune that would be fun as an exercise but would end up being akin to nails on a chalkboard in a real song.

I had tried to finish the book last week while the Very Understanding Girlfriend was working from home, thus exiling me from our shared office space, but managed to get sidetracked from my planned distraction by the arrival of the even shinier distraction of "Blood in the Game", the latest volume of Brian Wood's 'DMZ'. 'DMZ' is an ongoing series of graphic novels* set in a not-to-distant future where America finds itself in a stalemated civil war. Manhattan is the eponymous Demilitarized Zone, a no-man's land where a significant number of ordinary and not-so-ordinary folks try and eek out a life of hope in spite of the oppressive interventions of two opposing military powers, a story largely told through the eyes of a journalist who occasionally gets too involved with his stories.

As with most graphic novels, 'DMZ' is more a social commentary than a pure escapist fantasy, exploring the devisions between Red and Blue State America and the media's role in exploiting and propagating those devisions. The concept of journalistic ethics and integrity are central to many of the stories, none more so than in this latest volume which focuses on the election of a provisional government within the DMZ and the rise to power of a populist leader from the streets, and asks the question can journalism really be unbiased, and if it is what use is it to anyone?

Drawing upon the obvious parallels of the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the rise of Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales and, closer to home, Barack Obama, the original individual issues would have hit the stands during the run up to last year's US Presidential election and explored the interaction between journalism and populism. What caught my eye with the graphic novel release was the Introduction by everyone's favorite journalistic curmudgeon, Greg Palast.

Palast is someone who takes his journalistic integrity seriously, working in quasi-exile from the US media establishment with most of his work commissioned by the BBC, as no US agency seems interested in exposing state-sanctioned voter suppression and other dirty campaigns. In fact much of his work only happens because he runs an independent investigative fund supported through sales of his books and dvds, and through donations. A graduate of the Chicago School of Economics with his fees paid by the Unions and acting as an undercover agent on their behalf, a student of Freidman (though not a disciple) and a contemporary of the Chicago Boys that destroyed the economies of South America and beyond, Palast is a driven crusader armed only with his raincoat and ironic iconic Press Hat. The stories he has broken show that sometimes journalists can be part of the solution, rather than reenforcing the problem.

During the last election Palast teamed up with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr to launch the 'Steal Back Your Vote" education campaign to increase voter awareness about caging and other dirty tricks both Parties used** to deny citizens their votes. The campaign saw the release of a comic book with artists Llyod Dangle, Lukas Ketner and Ted Rall and drew the support of a wide range of folks from Willie Nelson to the Suicide Girls, by way of Jesse Jackson. In the past he has worked with Ted Rall on a number of projects, so he is no stranger to comics as a medium for political expression. I don't think that I have seen him preface a work of pure fiction before, and it is always nice when people you think are cool like stuff that you like as well.

While there are no real surprises in "Blood in the Game", you pretty much know exactly where its going from the first five pages, the journey there is engaging and believable***. You could read it by itself, but to get the best out of it you should pick up the previous 5 volumes of 'DMZ', it will make a lot more sense then. Then check out Greg Palast's "Armed Madhouse", or "Best Democracy Money Can Buy" to see how elections really happen in the really real world.

Of course all of this is but a distraction to a distraction that is keeping me from finishing a track. Hopefully I'll have a rough cut up on SoundCloud soon enough, but in the meantime feel free to read DMZ.

and maybe some Palast.

This track could take a while.

* technically an ongoing series of comics, but a collection of graphic novels on one's shelves suggests to the casual observer that one is a connoisseur, a selection of single issues carefully wrapped in individual plastic bags suggests one has a fear of the opposite sex.

** true, but really it is was mostly the Republicans. And Bill Richardson. But mostly Republicans.

*** if one accepts the premise of a fair and free election held in a future demilitarized Manhattan between the candidates of two rival sides in an American civil war and a third populist candidate who is the current leader of a possibly drug dealing street gang. I know, 'fair and free election in America' stretches the bounds of credibility a bit, doesn't it?

Links
DMZ, Volume 6: Blood in the Game
Brian Wood
Steal Back Your Vote
Greg Palast

What do we want? Gradual change!

In advance of the Green Party's national Convention in March, motions to be voted on are being circulated to party members. The motions so far are interesting both for what actions are called for, and for what isn't being discussed. There are no motions on the proposed rerun of the Lisbon Treaty, nothing on Rendition Flights and the use of Shannon as a stop-over by the US military, nothing on the Shell Corrib pipeline, or any of the other hot topic issues of by-gone days. There are a few motions on traditional Green issues like waste management and sustainable development, but unsurprisingly with motions limited to one per Constituency group the Convention will be dominated by the economy and the Green response to the current crises.

What is of greatest interest to me is the fact that not one single Constituency group has submitted an outright call for the Greens to leave Government, despite the unhappiness amongst ordinary party members at decisions taken in the Budget, particularly around the area of Education. However three separate groups have addressed the unpopularity of the Government's actions and the subsequent risk to the Green vote in upcoming elections in two quite different ways.

Waterford and South Belfast Greens have submitted separate but similar motions calling for the Greens to start negotiating with other parties to form a Government of National Unity, with the Waterford motion expressly including Sinn Fein in the composition of this government, and going as far as suggesting a distribution of cabinet ministers (Fianna Fail: 5; Fine Gael: 5; Labour: 3; Green Party: 1; Sinn Fein: 1) and a rotating Taoiseach and Tanaiste. These motions, while recognizing the unpopularity of recent Government actions, seek to take a positive action and position the party as a dynamic force in Government, putting the needs of the country ahead of its own and actively trying to be part of the solution to the economic crises rather than exacerbating the problem. However as they are the first motions to be debated starting at 10:30am on Saturday with live TV coverage not starting until 11, it is unlikely that any members of the public that actually tune in will see this debate, and will be treated instead to condemnations of executive pay and bonuses and the championing of the Green economy as the solution to all our economic woes.

Very convenient.

On Saturday afternoon, after the live TV coverage has ended and the eyes of the interested public have moved on, after motions on Dublin Bus and limiting the pay of Politicians, and with members slowly making their way back to the conference floor after lunch, the closest thing to a criticism of the actions of the Greens in Government will be debated with a motion from Dublin Mid-West calling on a special conference to be called in 2010 to discuss the Greens ongoing participation in Government. The motion is in response to the ongoing cuts in Education; one of the cornerstones of the Greens' decision to enter into government with Fianna Fail and the PDs was a commitment by Fianna Fail to increase Education spending, and in many of the Green meetings that I attended following on from the budget, it was the cuts in this area that drew the most criticism from party members. The Dublin Mid-West group are clearly reflecting this sentiment in their motion, but calling on the Party to meet in a year's time to discuss the possibility of pulling out of Government is hardly the most forceful way to go about expressing their concerns. When we look back at all the changes that have happened since the budget in October, who knows what state the country will be in by 2010? It really is a case the old rallying cry of "What do we want? Gradual change! When do we want it? In due course!".

Again, the timing of the debate on this motion, well away from the unblinkered eyes of the live TV coverage, is also very convenient, protecting the Ministers from being publicly associated with difficult questions about their continuing role in Government.

Two final motions caught my eye, the first from Tipperary North Greens on the subject of dynastic politics in Ireland:

The Green Party (CG) believes that the practice of elected posts passing to relatives of the post-holder is not only a throw-back to the days of hereditary monarchy but dangerously liable to foster mediocrity and corruption. We welcome all citizens willing to step forward to serve their communities but we believe they should gain election on their own merits. We accordingly resolve never to adopt a close relative of a TD or Councillor as his or her immediate successor or as a candidate for his or her post. We also call on other truly democratic parties to follow our lead

A quick perusal of the backgrounds of current and former TD's will quickly show just how dynastic Irish politics are, particularly amongst the two main parties. It is particularly disappointing to see how few female TDs there are that are not the wives or daughters of former TDs. Our current Taoiseach, Tanaiste, and Minister for Finance are all the children of former TDs, and inherited their parent's seats upon their death or retirement. It is difficult not to wonder how much better the government's handling of our current economic crises would be if our leaders were elected on merit rather than genealogy.

I was also happy to see the motion from the Social and Economic Policy Group calling for "the removal of poverty traps in the social welfare system through the introduction of a basic income". Although the motion doesn't go into more detail after that it is nice to see that I am not the only person reading a lot of Andre Gorz at the moment.

Looking at the Convention as a whole, it looks like the tough questions will not be asked. Despite the recent resignation of two Councilors from the Party and the very real prospect of a bloodbath at the polls no group has actually stood up and said directly, "Hey, the Government has made a mess of this, we have been forced to compromise many of our core principles, we are going to be wiped out in the local elections and risk loosing all credibility in the eyes of the electorate, maybe we should do the right thing and leave government immediately, triggering a national election and giving the citizens of this country a chance to have their say."

Not that surprising really, given the fact that if they did pull out of Government they run the risk of experiencing the same fate as Labour in '97, wiped out at the polls as punishment for entering coalition with Fianna Fail against the wishes of many of the voters, an act that has taken Labour ten years to recover from.

Perhaps such discussion will happen in the workshops or over coffee, but it would have been nice to see a vigorous and healthy debate take place on the convention floor.

Full text of the above Motions

Motion 1: Waterford Greens

National Government

That the Green Party/Comhaontas Glas enter into negotiations with all other parties represented in Dail Eireann (that is Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, The Labour Party and Sinn Fein) with a view to establishing a Government of National Unity.'

Reasons for Waterford Greens motion:

Our economy is on a knife-edge; climate change is nearing a point of no return; and the gap between rich and poor risks destabilising our society. Taken together these problems almost defy comprehension.

We need solidarity among politicians if we are to find solutions to these unprecedented problems. The Dail allows little scope for bipartisan politics as the opposition are precluded from making decisions, though in the past Fine Gael bravely adopted the 'Tallaght Strategy' and supported tough government measures.

We need an even more radical change in politics for the next three years. To achieve economic, social and ecological stability all politicians must stand united. Fianna Fail and their backers have bankrupted our country. This must never happen again.

That is why our party should commence negotiations with a view to establishing a Government of National Unity. This motion leaves it open to the National Executive Committee to determine the timeframe and conduct of such negotiations. Given the misgivings of Labour and Fine Gael over Fianna Fail, low-key contact rather than 'megaphone diplomacy' may be required.

The following breakdown of cabinet seats is suggested: Fianna Fail: 5; Fine Gael: 5; Labour: 3; Green Party: 1; Sinn Fein: 1; with a possible rotation between Taoiseach and Tanaiste. This distribution achieves parity between Fianna Fail and Fine Gael and includes fair representation from other parties.

A Government of National Unity would remove some of the Fianna Fail ministers who ignored the mounting economic difficulties and left our nation in near collapse. At the same time a broader set of views would be represented at cabinet. To have credibility our government has to distance itself from property and banking interests. The addition of ministers from other parties would leave it less open to influence by these sectors.

We went into government to implement our policies. We joined a Fianna Fail-led Government because the long-term risks to our society and our planet outweighed any electoral cost to us. A Government of National Unity will allow other parties to take similar risks and share in the responsibility of securing our future. By adopting this motion, we will be putting the needs of our country ahead of all other considerations.

Motion 2: South Belfast Greens

National Government

This Conference calls on the leadership of the Party to consider the merits of a 'Government of National Unity and Sustainable Recovery'.

Background:

In light of the unprecedented threats to national welfare and sustainability posed by the global and local financial downturn, and the close association of Fianna Fail with parties and practices that have exacerbated the financial crisis in this country, the Green Party leadership is invited to consider the following advantages that might flow from the formation of a 'Government of National Unity and Sustainable Recovery':

1. The forging of grande consensus around the future of national economic growth and a 'Green New Deal' across all the major parties in Dail Eireann who would be invited to form a new administration;

2. An enhanced strategic leadership position for the Green Party in addressing the current financial crisis;

3. A continuing and prominent role in Government while creating distance from a damaged Fianna Fail party.

Motion 8: Tipperary North Greens

Nepotism

The Green Party (CG) believes that the practice of elected posts passing to relatives of the post-holder is not only a throw-back to the days of hereditary monarchy but dangerously liable to foster mediocrity and corruption. We welcome all citizens willing to step forward to serve their communities but we believe they should gain election on their own merits. We accordingly resolve never to adopt a close relative of a TD or Councillor as his or her immediate successor or as a candidate for his or her post. We also call on other truly democratic parties to follow our lead

NOTES FOR DELEGATES:

a) "Green Politics is Clean Politics" - lets show that we mean it.

b) Strictly speaking, nepotism refers to post-holders simply giving jobs to family members. However, current electoral practice in Ireland often comes close to nepotism, when close relatives of post-holders are selected as successor candidates for the same post, giving voters little or no choice beyond that of veto. Moreover, even this choice may be denied them, in practice, because excercizing their veto would challenge long-established party loyalty. This practice of near-automatic heriditary succession is undemocratic. Our motion takes the moral high ground by declaring that the Green Party will not do it.

c) Many votes for the son, daughter, widow or widower of a recently deceased postholder are based on such sentiments as sympathy for the family or respect for the deceased. These are fine sentiments - but they are not rational grounds for selecting a successor.

d) It must be very rare that a close relative of the deceased is objectively the next best person in Ireland to succeed him or her. We don't select bus drivers or bank managers that way, so why councillors and TDs?

e) An interest in and aptitude for politics may run in families, of course. This motion would not preclude a relative standing in an adjoining ward or constituency. Nor would it preclude standing in the same ward or constituency in a later election. It merely states that the Green Party will not assist an immediate succession.

f) The word 'never' is essential. The motion would be mere posturing without it, since it would be (rightly) seen that we would set it aside where political expediency demanded.

g) This motion does deny the Green Party the possibility of exploiting the 'sympathy' vote at some time in the future. However, a party based on high ideals should not stoop to such tactics. Moreover, in denying ourselves this advantage as matter of policy, we effectively challenge the practice in the hands of others. A specific challenge at election time would be much less effective - and could even backfire, because it could seem like an ad hominem attack or as unsympathetic to a grieving family.

h) This motion could be interpreted as anti-equality. However, it does not exclude on the basis of any legally prohibited grounds. It also opens the field to citizens born overseas and to Irish citizens whose grandfathers were not in the GPO in 1916. As such, it promotes equality of opportunity.

Motion 13: Dublin Mid-West Group

Participation in Government

That the Green Party/Comhaontas Glas:

- Expressing strong concern regarding the cutbacks in education funding in last year's Budget, notwithstanding the current economic downturn and the huge strains now being placed on the exchequer;

- Noting that the Government, in a motion co-authored by Paul Gogarty TD and passed in the Dáil on October 30th last, committed itself to addressing the cutbacks "at the earliest possible opportunity";

- Recognising the huge importance of targeted investment in education, especially during an economic downturn because a) it is a basic human right, b) it will enable us to develop as a more flexible, creative society that can better adapt to the many new challenges that will face us in an era of changing climate and energy scarcity and c) will allow us to better identify and take advantage of the new opportunities that will exist in terms of job creation and social development;

- Acknowledging that our education system needs a fundamental overhaul to allow our children and adults to develop the skills necessary for Ireland to thrive in a sustainable manner and that this will not be solved simply by throwing money at existing structures;

- Acknowledging that there are other areas relating to the performance of the Party in Government that members of the Party are not satisfied with and which are being expressed through other motions tabled at this Ard Fheis;

- Noting that the Party has of course made significant and welcome progress in Government departments it controls, with more to come, including in the areas of planning, insulation, food and energy security, broadband rollout and new job creation;

- Noting that the Party has also made some progress in other Departments, in terms of implementing the agreed Programme for Government, as well as working to protect the most vulnerable from recent cutbacks

- Recognising that the current economic situation has been exacerbated by bad economic decisions when times were better, as well as huge wastage and the creation of a political and financial climate that facilitated vested interests and rampant greed;

- Recognising that in this context our country more than ever needs a party in Government - that had nothing to do with creating or supporting the decisions that were made over the last 15 years - to form part of the solution, one that remains free of the developer, business and trade union interests that continue to influence our three largest political parties;

- Hereby instructs the NEC to organise a special convention to vote on our continued participation in Government following a reasonable period of deliberation and reflection, with the following arrangements applying:

- That this special convention will take place as part of our 2010 Ard Fheis/Annual Convention, with the debate commencing on a Friday evening and continuing all day Saturday until voting at 5pm, to be followed later that evening by a televised Leader's Address

- That no more than two motions shall be voted upon

- That the first motion shall be worded as follows: "That the Green Party/Comhaontas Glas instructs the Party Leader to withdraw from Government

- That if the first motion is not passed by the requisite majority that a second motion be taken, worded as follows: "That the Green Party/Comhaontas Glas reaffirms its commitment to continuing in Government for the remainder of its term of office"

- Further instructs the NEC that this convention be held in April 2010, after summer time has been implemented, so as to afford the Green Party maximum opportunity to put forward its case to the people should the membership instruct the Party to withdraw from Government and should an election be called in the immediate weeks following such a decision; and

- This Convention, in adopting the above motion, also agrees that the above provisions shall not apply should the Green Party/Comhaontas Glas no longer form part of the current Government due to any other circumstances which may arise in the intervening period

Motion 22: Social and Economic Policy Group

Basic Income

The Greens should press for the removal of poverty traps in the social welfare system through the introduction of a basic income.

Thank you clarity

Today marks the 3rd anniversary of the launch of this blog. It might not have been the first blog I started, but it was most definitely the first blog that I continued.

There is an article in today's Guardian.co.uk that says that according to a new study "Writing about your feelings can help the brain overcome emotional upsets and leave you feeling happier", and although my blog certainly isn't an online diary, it has definitely moved away from its earliest incarnation of reviews of stuff I bought, things I had seen online, and the other bland and meaningless stuff that habitually clogs up the tubes.

I started this blog purely as a way of teaching myself about online content creation, web advertising, and other similar topics. Not much thought went into the initial posts, and certainly not much of myself either. I can't quite say exactly when that all changed, when I decided to spend time writing about issues and events that mattered to me, but it certainly has helped me clarify and solidify my thoughts on a number of issues.

For me blogging is like scratching a meme to relieve the mental itch. Often when I find a moronic song bouncing around in my head I can't get rid of it without singing a bar or two out loud, much to the consternation of all and sundry around me who soon too will be unable to get the tune out of their heads. For the last two years or so when I have been unable to let a thought go, when I have felt like an idea is just bursting inside my head and I cannot move on to another topic without some form of resolution, blogging has provided that mental relief.

This blog is primarily a form of personal catharsis, and thus it always comes as a pleasant surprise when I am reminded that other people actually read it. To those of you who come back time and time again in spite of the bad jokes, rambling reactionary prose, and occasional lapses into self-indulgent sentimentalism, thank you.

Unkie Dave

A Comet in the System

I find myself somewhat discombobulated this morning as for the second day in a row the Very Understanding Girlfriend is working from home, compiling her field notes and writing up a lengthy report. This means that I am banished* from the rather small office that we both share and find myself without recourse to my usual distractions, and have thus spent the last day or so catching up on a few books that I started earlier in the year but somehow got distracted along the way or lost the will to finish.

One of the theoretical joys of being underemployed is having a vast expanse of time to devote to the many pursuits oft neglected during the 60-hour work weeks that had become the norm of my office-bound existence. After much rigorous investigation I have found this theory fatally flawed, unable to bare the strain of my not inconsequential lack of motivation, and thus in the seven weeks to date of this fine and magnificent new year I had barely managed to finish even three books, though had started at least ten.

As I have mentioned on a number of previous occasions, my reading habits have a tendency to raise my heckles and stoke the wrath of my ire, and thus one of my resolutions for this new year was to try and read less on the subject of neocon skulduggery and the antics of fellow ne'er-do-wells and try and broaden my literary horizons to include works of a more positive and uplifting oeuvre. Given that today would have been the 200th Birthday of Charles Darwin, I decided to enter into the spirit of scientific enquiry this month and dip my metaphorical toe once more into the world of popular science.

Thus I found myself yesterday immersed in the landscape of late 18th century scientific, religious and political artifice via Steven Johnson's "The Invention of Air", originally recommended by Seed Magazine as one of the top books of 2008**. The book is a light examination of the life of Joseph Priestly, inventor of soda water, a discoverer of Oxygen, early advocate of Unitarianism and friend to Erasmus Darwin, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. In fact it was through the correspondence between Jefferson and Adams that I first heard of Priestly, and although I had forsworn political angst in my New Year's reading list, I felt that a little 18th Century revolutionary discourse couldn't really hurt anyone*** and dove right in.

Unfortunately the book has left me with more than a little sense of "Meh!".

It isn't a biography, it isn't a rigorous historical account, it isn't even an exploration of either the political, scientific or religious milieu of turn of Revolutionary America or its contemporaneous English landscape, rather it unfortunately dips its toes into many waters without delving deep enough to be truly satisfying. It also suffers from the biases of the author, a dot.com entrepreneur, who frames his account as a defence of open source and networking/collaboration and a criticism of the recent Republican war on science****, both of which are valid positions but will date the book quite quickly.

One area that Johnson does highlight quite effectively is the demise of the multidisciplinary enthusiast over the last 200 years. Priestly was a jack-of-all trades; a gentleman scientist, Unitarian minister and political agitator, who made significant contributions to all three fields outside the confines of the university, academy or body corporate. Today it is almost impossible to think of anyone person that straddles all three disciplines, and in fact the relationship between Theology, Politics and Science is more usually scene as combinations of antithetical elements, theology and politics vs science, science and politics vs theology etc.

It is also quite difficult to imagine a major scientist or academic (and Preistly was arguably at times the leading scientist of his day) operating today independently of any institute, and having their work greeted with anything less than scorn or incredulity. Priestly, like many of the finest minds of his generation, was fortunate enough to have an occupation that allowed ample leisure time; while many of his contemporaries were born into wealth, he was a minister with a small and undemanding congregation, and at times a private tutor. Combined with a supplemental income donated by some of his wealthier associates he was able to devote himself to constant learning and experimentation. He shared his ideas freely with his circle of friends over coffee, dinner and through regular correspondence, and while Johnson presents his life through a heavily tinted lens it is difficult not to see Priestly as a proto-blogger, with a passion for many subjects and a willingness to comment on them all.

Given all this, and my own background as a theologian who has spent the last twelve years working in the tech-industry, now operating as a political consultant, one would imagine that the book would speak to me more. And I wanted it to inspire me, I really did, but uneven pacing, artistic licence taken to far when filling in areas that are missing historical corroboration, and at times a highly frustrating style of prose, I walked away slightly disappointed by what I felt was too superficial a treatment of a fascinating subject.

Hopefully today's choice of "This is Your Brain on Music" will frustrate me less, and leave me with something positive to show for day two of my semi-voluntary sabbatical from the happy distractions of my normal routine.

Oh, and Happy Birthday Charles Darwin!

* In all fairness this is an entirely self-imposed exile, for she would be quite happy for me to work away quietly in the background. However though she may be the sun around which I orbit I find the constant stream of exclamations and exasperations that explode from her corner of the room, fully formed and armed Athena-like erupting from the head of Zeus, to be more than a little unnerving. My sojourn in Elba is a minor inconvenience compared to the weathering the tempest of the alternative.

** I already had "The Endless City", picked up "The Dominant Animal" by the Ehrlich's, and preorderd Pollan's "Defence of Food" and Levitin's"The World in Six Songs".

*** except possibly the 18th century political establishment.

**** The only war the Bush administration actually came close to winning

Links
Seed top book picks for 2008
Steven Johnson - 'The Invention of Air'
Steven Johnson's blog
Daniel Levitin - 'This is Your Brain on Music'

The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind

Synchronicity. Not just an irritating album from the Police, but yesterday's Word of the Day for Unkie Dave.

As I started the day with the guilty pleasure that is my morning cappuccino I found myself reading a recent issue of New Scientist purchased by the Very Understanding Girlfriend and conveniently left out on a tabletop to distract me from more productive pursuits. I go through phases of reading New Scientist, it being the bathroom magazine of choice for a number of our friends, most notably those who insist on putting "Dr" on their credit cards but would be of no actual use in a medical emergency*, but more recently it has been out of favour with me for displaying the same incessant cheerful positivity about the beneficial aspects of all technological advances as the architects of Skynet or the folks who think it a good idea to teach chimpanzees how to craft rudimentary knives, open doors, drive cars or direct 'Watchmen'.

The most recent case in point was an article on CO2 scrubbing, which featured the work of Klaus Lackner and Allen Wright. They have built a device that captures CO2 directly from the air on giant sheets of plastic. The plastic is then sprayed with sodium hydroxide, which reacts with the CO2 to create a sodium carbonate solution. The solution can then be heated (to over 900C!) separating out the Sodium Hydroxide for reuse and leaving behind the CO2 that can then be stored somewhere, possibly in giant sinkholes (the article was a bit vague on what you would actually do with all the CO2 once you have removed it from the atmosphere). Lackner and Wright envision a final product the size of a standard shipping container that could be deployed easily anywhere in the world in multiple units, each unit scrubbing a tonne of CO2 a day.

Great, global warming solved so, we can all rest easily.

The synchronicity occurred late last night as the Very Understanding Girlfriend and I did something we almost never do, channel surf. We ended up catching most of a program on Discovery Science on scientific solutions to Climate Change, and were surprised to see none other than Klaus Lackner and Allen Wright talking about their CO2 scrubber. Of course this being Discovery and not New Scientist, the language they used was a little less scientifically rigorous, referring to their scrubber as 'an artificial tree', though they did refer to the same model of deploying a fleet of container-sized scrubbers, each removing a tonne of CO2 from the air per day. Or, as they helpfully explained, the equivalent of the output of a single car for a full year.

Somehow after reading the New Scientist article I failed to grasp the enormity of the task ahead, so cheery was it and upbeat and positive about the technology. In 2008 alone there were 52,940,559 new cars produced, which in total would release 145,000 tonnes of CO2 per day into the atmosphere. Thus with an average shipping container being just over 14 square meters, you would need over 2,000 square kilometers of containers just to offset the CO2 produced by that single year's production run** on a daily basis.

Okay, so maybe global warming hasn't been solved.

The problem that I had with both the New Scientist article and the TV program was that not once was there any mention of combatting the problem by reducing our use of things that produce more CO2, for example buy building, buying and using less cars. Both started from the same first principles, that our rate of consumption was a given and there was no point in even trying to change that, and so any solution to climate change must be one that allows us to grow at our current rate unchecked.

Whether it is providing a magical solution to climate change, or the prospect of Greentech revolution pulling us out of our economic recession, we are being told that technology will solve all our current problems and thus we are protected from ever having to ask ourselves the tough questions about our behavior and lifestyles. Our consumption will never have to change because we will find a way to offset that consumption, and no doubt make some money in the process.

In fact the easiest way to combat climate change is to get people to change their behavior; to buy less, to drive less, to use less electricity and to eat less meat. It really is that simple. But of course if we all consumed less, then the corporations would make less money, and we can't be having that, now can we?

But despite opposition from the corporate media to the concept of reduced consumption, it is actually quite easy to get people to change wasteful behavior. The campaigns by Irish local and national government to encourage recycling, including the introduction of Green recycling and Brown organic composting bins to Dublin households and the introduction of the plastic bag tax (originally 15¢, now 22¢ per bag) that reduced bag consumption by over 90%, show how easy it actually is for the Government to change consumer behavior when the political will is there.

However it is also all too easy for the government to add to the problem, as the Bush administration did for the last eight years by sowing confusion in the minds of the citizens as to the reality of climate change and their part in its creation and prevention. And before you think that just because Bush is gone everything will be fine now, you need only look to recent events in Northern Ireland where Sammy Wilson, Northern Ireland's Minister for the Environment, actually banned government-produced ads that encouraged people to turn off lights and reduce their energy consumption because the ads were part of an "insidious propaganda campaign that we are responsible for climate change". Yup, following on from the DUP's recent call for Creationism to be taught in schools, their Minister for the Environment also denies that climate change is man-made.

So although New Scientist and others irk me because of their incessant technological positivity, I am still glad that as a society we are finally accepting the need develop global solutions, rather than still denying the scale of the problem. I just wish that more people accepted their own role in these solutions, rather than expecting someone else to make everything better.

* as opposed to our amazing Finnish friend Johanna who is both an MD and a PhD, for which there should be a title in English that sounds better than 'Doctor Doctor', a phrase unfortunately forever ruined by the Thompson Twins.

** admittedly less if you stacked the scrubbers on top of each other, but you get the idea.

Then stills its artisans like ghosts

So yesterday unemployment in Ireland hit its highest level since records began, rising by 36,500 in January to 327,900, or 9.2%, with the Taoiseach forecasting end of year figures as high as 400,000. This figure of course only counts those who are signing on for Unemployment assistance or benefit, and does not count those who haven't registered, like me.

I was asked recently if I had signed on the dole, since I haven't worked since April, and of course I haven't. I voluntarily left work, choosing to take 18 months or so off, and had carefully budgeted and saved over the previous 4 years to be able to do so. I have no moral issue with receiving welfare from the government, and have done so myself many years ago ago, during and after college. As a worker I have paid a not inconsiderable amount of Social Insurance, deducted automatically from my salary by my employer, and thus have always felt entitled to claim that back from the government during periods of unemployment. That's what its there for, that's why you pay PRSI. However I do feel that in the current economic crises with the exchequer so low due to financial mismanagement by the government and rampant tax avoidance by the investment classes and corporations, and when there clearly isn't enough to go around, those who can support themselves are morally obliged to do so.

This is actually in contrast to my idealised situation, strongly influenced by Andre Gorz, that every citizen should be paid a guaranteed minimum income by the government regardless of their work status, financed by both a sliding-scale sales tax with luxury and convenience goods contributing a disproportionately large share, and by a significantly higher rate of personal tax on incomes grossly above societal norms.

Gorz makes a number of interesting arguments, beginning with the fact that we all work too many hours, and our pay has little to do with the actual value of the work produced during those hours:

"In the capitalist countries of Europe, taken as a whole, three to four times more wealth is produced today than thirty-five years ago. But it does not take three times more hours of work to achieve this more than tripled level of production. It requires a much lower quantity." - Gorz, "Capitalism, Socialism, Ecology" p.44

And yet as Paul Krugman points out throughout "Conscience of a Liberal", Middle and Working Class wages have actually fallen in real terms since the 1970s. So prior to the current economic meltdown, profits for companies were at an all time high, driven by a highly productive and cheaper workforce. The top 1% were enjoying a quality of life never before seen in history, and yet for the other 99% life was actually worse in real terms since the 1970s.

Gorz suggests that if corporations and the investing class weren't so greedy they could still enjoy substantial profits with workers working less hours and enjoying a better quality of life. As someone who invariably worked a 60-hour week (though was in theory compensated for only 40 of those), the diminished quality of life I experienced as a result was the major reason for leaving my job. Gorz writes of two principles of a reduced work-week:

"(a) that everyone should work less, so that everyone may work and may develop outside their working lives the personal potential which cannot find expression in their work; (b) that a much greater proportion of the population should be able to have access to skilled, complex, creative and responsible occupational activities which allow them continually to develop and grow." - Gorz, "Critique of Economic Reason" p.192

In a society where part-time work would be the norm, more employment opportunities would exist, as would opportunities for more fulfilling work. Shortfalls in earnings that may result from significantly reduced work (normally voluntarily reduced hours) would be balanced by a guaranteed minimum income supplemented by the government and financed through luxury goods taxes.

One doesn't need to be stuck in a Polish hotel with nothing on the television in English but a "My Super Sweet Sixteen" marathon to realise that consumerism in Western society is out of control. Does anybody actually need a private plane? Does anybody need a diamond-encrusted mobile phone, or for that point does anybody need non-industrial diamonds? Does anybody even need a 42" TV? The scale of our consumption of The Unnecessary is staggering, but rather than prevent anyone from using their earnings however they want, in a world of such extreme inequalities those who wish to indulge their selfish base desires should be made to contribute significantly to the overall well-being of society as part of the act of indulgence itself.

Consumerism is both a product and effect of a long work week, as with little spare time outside of the work place an individual has little time to produce things for themselves, rather than for an employer. While Gorz does not envision a time-rich worker building themselves a television, a time-rich worker would be able to undertake other pastimes with more energy and enthusiasm, and would not be dependent upon passive entertainment. A time-rich worker would buy less processed and pre-made meals, having the time to indulge in cooking, and potentially even growing and harvesting their own food. Modern society has become divorced from the simple joys of making, doing and being, for being time-poor has fed into the illusion that happiness can only be bought and that consuming is the sole leisure activity.

Going beyond Gorz I would suggest that in a time-rich society the concept of a luxury tax could be extended to items of convenience, such as processed and 'fast' foods; nobody needs to eat at McDonald's, but rather than removing the choice from individuals a higher tax should be placed on McDonald's foods in a similar way to that on cigarettes and alcohol. One consequence of this could be that obesity would return to its traditional position of being a disease of wealth, and not of poverty as it currently is.

Even in America, the second most Capitalist nation on Earth, questions are being asked about the inequalities that have emerged since the 70's. President Obama has imposed salary caps on the financial institutions accepting federal bail-outs, but even at $500,000 you have to ask what value can any individual possibly be adding to justify a salary so far from the average. The economist Tim Harford devoted a chapter in "The Logic of Life" to trying to understand why Executive pay is so high, and specifically if there is any contribution an individual could make to the success of a company that would justify today's astronomical salaries and bonuses. His conclusion, rather simply, is "No". Executive salaries have nothing to do with the abilities of the individual, and everything to do with their role as a motivational tool for those on the lower rungs of the corporate ladder to work hard and deliver strong results in the hope of moving up and one day reaching the executive level. However as we have seen in the sub-prime crises that led to our current economic collapse such incentives do not encourage people to just work harder, it encourages people to lie, cheat, cut corners and falsify results to achieve their goals. Greed in America is a far more powerful motivator than Weber's Protestant work ethic.

If a society can accept that it is morally justifiable for an individual to earn in excess of even $500,000 per year, 10 times the average US household income in 2007, then it should also find it acceptable to actively redistribute a portion of the wealth of those high earners to the other 99% who live on substantially less through a guaranteed minimum income regardless of employment status. Then more people wouldn't have to make the choice between financial security and happiness. Surely that is the hallmark of an advanced civilization?

As for me, I was fortunate enough to be able to choose to opt-out of it all, to place happiness above the need to work, to spend today outside in the snow photographing the Iveagh Gardens instead of inside compiling endless Powerpoint presentations or having to fire an employee so my VP could get their bonus this quarter.

But I still look forward to the day when happiness and productive work aren't an either/or choice for the 99%, but rather are two complimentary parts of a holistic whole.

Links
Andre Gorz - 'Capitalism, Socialism, Ecology'
Paul Krugman - 'The Conscience of a Liberal: Reclaiming America from the Right'
Tim Harford - 'The Logic of Life'
Photos of today's snow in the Iveagh Gardens

1 percent inspiration, 99 percent perspiration

This weekend all the hours standing in freezing cold of hope and change finally took their toll, and I succumbed to a hacking cough that would sound respectable on a 30-year veteran of Fleet Street, and mysteriously only arrives in the dead of night as I am trying to get to sleep (the cough, that is, not the journo). I have therefore been tired and grumpy, a potentially devastating combination for those nearest and dearest to me (or collateral damage as I like to call them), and so it has been a quiet few days as I sequestered myself away fearful of the damage my uncontrollable grump might wreak.

However in advance of this phlegmy onslaught I did venture out on Friday night to the Science Gallery for a lecture on "Lighting Up Africa", as part of the 'Lightwaves' exhibition currently running and celebrating the 1 year anniversary of the opening of the Science Gallery. The talk was on the use of microbial fuel cells (essentially using the charge generated by bacterial reactions in soil to charge a battery) as a low cost energy source for lighting and many other things, such as mobile phone charging, in the majority world where most citizens are not connected to the electricity grid. I met some of the folks at Lebone, the NGO behind this project, last year before they had reached the initial field trials stage and was impressed by how much their project has advanced since April.

It was also good to get a chance to talk over dinner with Professor David Edwards, founder of Le Laboratoire in Paris and the undergraduate interdisciplinary 'Idea Translation Lab' program in Harvard, from which the Lebone group emerged. Edwards is also the author of "Artscience", about which I wrote last year, and I was interested in finding out directly from folks who have participated in the 'Idea Translation Lab' program and the Laboratoire how exactly a culture of creativity is fostered, and how the cross-pollination of academic disciplines is achieved.

In my mind I pictured a scene where innovation happened organically, that people sharing the same physical space would slowly start to share the same mind-space and ideas would blossom, but after talking to the Lebone team it seems that innovation needs a firm hand behind it to gather everyone around a big table on a regular basis, throw out some ideas and occasionally steer the resulting conversations in a more structured and productive direction.

Innovation, apparently, does not necessarily self-propagate. It needs a force external to itself to act as facilitator, mentor, midwife and on occasion as adjudicator.

Just like the economy so.

Links
The Science Gallery
Lebone
NYT article on Lebone
The Idea Translation Lab at Harvard