Archive for the 'Politics' Category

NUS Conference Speeches

A certain popular road-warrior, Wes Streeting, on the way to being elected NUS National President. I wish I’d had a chance to meet him. Perhaps in the future. This speech doesn’t seem as impressive as it was at the time. In the hall as he was speaking there was a buzz of energy and of possibility. It’s very easy to sound angry on the podium, but to be angry with a passion and with direction is what’s powerful. Wes, for one, certainly has that power. I couldn’t be more pleased that he was elected.


Absolute comedy pisstake joy at the NUS conference. Ross Stanley is someone to watch out for, he made a number of coherent contributions during the course of the three days and came across well in all of them. Then he came out with this at the end of day two, showing one CAN do politics with a sense of humour.

NUS LGBT Conference Manifesto

I am a fourth year Politics student, and I’ve just returned from the NUS Annual Conference. I’ve been involved behind the scenes in LUU LGBT events since my first year, helping plan events and considering strategy. This past term I ran for election to the Union Exec because I want to promote OUR issues and highlight that we are still not truly liberated.

We have too many friends who are silent about the discrimination we face daily, and we have too many friends for whom ‘gay’ is a term for ‘weird’. We must campaign for our rights and ensure that our visibility on campuses across the country is a force for improvement. We must continually compel Student Union Officers to represent STUDENT ISSUES BEFORE ALL ELSE, not political concerns thousands of miles away.

It is easy to be distracted by irrelevant agendas. We weaken our cause by directionless rants about issues not within our mandate. The NUS system takes some work to understand but can be made to work in our favour. I will aid our delegates in casting INFORMED votes and help them understand how to make the system support our positions.

* I strongly oppose and am continually offended by the ban on gay male blood donors.
* I prefer ‘marriage’ to ‘civil partnership’. How can it be acceptable that LGBT citizens are denied the same institutional unions as everybody else?
* FIGHT to encourage the acknowledgement of LGBT issues by the student body. We can and must be more ambitious than we are. When LGBT allies and non-activist friends show their support we CAN BE A FORCE OF STRENGTH AND PROGRESS.

VOTE Patrick for LGBT Conference!

Being Atheist by Christopher Hitchens

Jonathan Miller, who’s now kind of the new chairman of the International Secular Society or the British Humanist Association, one of the two, in England. He said to me the other day, he doesn’t like the word atheist because he doesn’t think there should be a special word for it, if you don’t have a word for saying you don’t believe in the Tooth Fairy.

A Different Argument: Interview with Christopher Hitchens in The Seattle Weekly

US Politics: Not Hillary, No Longer Barack, but Mike Gravel is the New Star.

Subtitled: Gravel’s Got Rocks!

Senator Mike Gravel sounds a bit like a sage Al Gore who’s been around the block a couple times and is sick and tired of the hypocrisy and weakness of potential leaders. He’s bold and old and comes across as a granddad with an opinion. Perhaps, at times, a little long-winded, he’s quickly becoming my one-to-watch of all the US Presidential candidates. I hope he’s paid due attention and supported by the people as much as he’s trying to empower them.

Three videos of his thoughts; the first is a short clip from an interview on MSNBC, the second from a speech he gave in New Hampshire: “We should be guided by Eisenhower’s warning that an inordinate emphasis on military power breeds a culture of militarism that threatens all vital areas of our society.” and the third from the debate amongst Democratic candidates for the presidency on April 26th in South Carolina.





The full transcript of the debate in South Carolina is avaible from MSNBC. More videos of Senator Gravel are avaible via Google Video

More at www.gravel2008.us
and http://www.nationalinitiative.us

Turner Prize: Unfortunate Symbolism



Brian Haw, taken by Tommy Forbes.

The UK’s Turner Prize for modern art has a history or rather controvertial pieces and outspoken critics. This year one of the shortlisted artists combines these two aspects of the prize to produce a piece of installation art that refers to aspects of the UK’s current political climate as well as our conceptions of protest. Mark Wallinger has recreated many of the placards, posters and signs of the peace protestor Brian Haw who has maintained a daily protest opposite the Houses of Parliament since June 2001. The government, long embarassed by the protests tried, in 2005, to pass a law (widely seen as) specifically aimed at Mr Haw.

On a side note, Mr Haw can clearly be a prickly character. Here’s an exchange that accompanies the photo below, which I found on Flickr:

I went to Tate Britain yesterday to see Mark Wallinger’s recreation of Brian Haw’s Parliament Square protest. It’s incredible. Afterwards I thought I’d walk down to the square and see Brian for myself. He was making a cup of tea and when I asked him if I could please take a photo he didn’t seem to mind. . . . until that is I decided it might be a good time to make polite chit chat . . . here’s how it went . . . .

Tommy: “How are you today?”

Brian Haw: “Don’t ask me such fucking stupid questions!”

I apologised and then left. I didn’t think it was that much of a shit question.

mark wallinger PA photo

What’s interesting about Wallinger’s piece is that his nomination opens the Tate up to criticisms of again producing art that isn’t really art. He may be making a social commentary about the works of Haw, but does a subject become ‘art’ by simply moving from its usual environment? This is especially relevant when it is being moved only a couple of hundred metres from outside the Houses of Parliament to within the confines of the Tate Gallery. It’s hardly original work. Haw’s work is original, while Wallinger’s comes across as simply a pale representation others’s passion. The photo right displays this perfectly for me. While Haw’s face has elements of peace, hope, cheekiness, and determination, Wallinger’s look is that of utter boredom. You can’t be bored at a protest. While Haw has to daily live with the threat of police harassment and trouble-makers from the general public Wallinger can sit in safety and paint a line along the floor of his exhibition space demarkating the scope of the law barring ‘unauthorised protests’ within one mile of Parliament. [see ‘Make Peace Not War‘ on Flickr]

Christoph Grunenberg, the director of Tate Liverpool, where the prize will be presented, added that the jury, of which he is chair, said: “It was not our intention to set out a political message. It was just interesting that we discovered this pattern which seemed to emerge. Only after the jury had met and discussed the works did we realise there was a strong concentration of political work and work about religious beliefs and spirituality.

“It’s an obvious truth, but works of art are actually political acts and artists act as mediators. If you look at the artists this year, there is a spectrum of overtly political works such as Wallinger’s and pieces that are about the individual’s relationship to the world they live in.”
The Independent

The debate about the value of ‘conceptual art’ is openly acknowledged by the Tate, addressed on their Turner Prize website by [in part]:

‘Conceptual art’ is also used to label work which makes us think or challenges our assumptions about what art is or should be. So is the real problem that contemporary art does not fit neatly into people’s ideas of what art should look like (something based on craft and skill, that can be hung neatly in their living room perhaps?) and so is dismissed as conceptual, and by association not worth the effort? Rather than reacting against the conceptual and the contemporary with a knee-jerk reaction of ‘But is it art?’, we should celebrate the possibilities that have been opened up so that artists - and viewers - can tackle ideas and issues and engage in debate. Is it not better, and more exciting, to leave preconceptions behind and look with a fresh eye and an open mind? Turner Prize: Conceptual Art - ‘cold, mechanical, conceptual bullshit’

My preferred artist from the shortlist would be Zarina Bhimji whose work, for me, is evocative of political upheaval and strife and difficulty by maintains an interpretative element that seems to be lacking in Wallinger’s work.

further reading
Guardian Turner Prize 2007 Photo Gallery
Independent: Art takes back seat as politics and religion dominate Turner shortlist
Brian Haw online: parliament-square.org.uk
Indymedia - Parliament Sq. Protest Trashed by Police 8-23/05-06

Indiana teacher suspended, transferred for gay-tolerant school publication

[Indiana teacher] Amy Sorrell was put on paid leave in March following the publication of a pro-gay tolerance essay by sophomore Megan Chase in the Woodlan Junior-Senior High School Tomahawk (which Sorrell supervises). Following a warning for “insubordination” by the school’s principal Edwin Yoder, Sorrell was suspended from teaching and put under “investigation” Yoder also said all future issues of the school newspaper would require his approval before going to press.

The results of the school’s “investigation,” according to the Indianapolis Star? Sorrell will be “transferred to another school and barred from teaching journalism for three years.”
Towleroad.com: Indiana Teacher Transferred, Barred from Teaching Journalism for Allowing Pro-Gay Tolerance Essay

‘Army Families’ now a priority in the US

“Top notch care and support of Army Families demonstrate our sincere appreciation and gratitude for their many contributions, and allow our Soldiers to fully concentrate on the fight and focus on their duties.

“Effective immediately, the word ‘Families’ will be capitalized in all Army correspondence. Please ensure wide dissemination of this change. Thanks for your continued efforts to do all you can to provide steadfast support to our Army Families.”

Also, Extended Tours, Multiple Deployments, Shortened Home Leave and Other Words Will Be Capitalized From Time To Time, As Deemed Necessary. via A Kamen in Washington Post

Les Elections Présidentielles

Selon Le Figaro, un chiffre étonnant des électeurs en France n’avaient pas encore choisi leur candidat préféré: il a dit (dans un sondage) que ca reste à 38%! C’est bizarre ça. With only days to go, only 62 percent of electors have declared, in polls, to have decided on their preferred candidate. The first round of elections takes place in four days.

Le Figaro’s April 18th Poll

Chris Dodd’s Veil of Ignorance: What if YOUR Child were Gay?

The Democratic Presidential candidate from Connecticut was asked about his position on gay ‘marriage’ during a talk with New Hampshire High School students. His response refers obliquely to John Rawls‘ Veil of Ignorance:

With ones own children: “They may grow up as a different sexual orientation than their parents. How would I want my child to be treated if they were of a different sexual orientation?”

Rawls’ book ‘A Theory of Justice’, one of my favorite works of political philosophy, refers to the decision making process through which a society ought to go about defining its own rules:

“no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like. I shall even assume that the parties do not know their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities. The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance.”

What makes Dodd’s pronouncement interesting is the fact that he is a father of two girls and, though (perhaps oddly) an opponent of gay marriage, a supporter of civil unions and their recognition on a federal level.

via Rod 2.0: Democratic Prez Hopeful Dodd: “What if Your Child Were Gay?”
and AP News: Dodd asks: What if your child were gay?

French Presidential(e) Elections

The sneaky ‘e’ is a wink to Madame Ségolène Royal who is the Parti Socialiste’s candidate. She’s been a bit creative with her campaign by appending an ‘e’ (signifying the feminine form) to the word président, creating ‘présidente’. This is notable because président is normally a masculine word, and because everyone is making a huge fuss about how she’s a woman. Early in the campaign (which only officially started today) she was asked, ‘But who will take care of the children?!’ France may be more progressive than some states but in other ways it seems as progressive as a glacier. They’re as chauvinist as any rabid Republican in the US, but fiercely proud of their liberties, equalities and fraternities, as long as that doesn’t include women being paid equally to men, equal treatment of immigrant groups and so forth. It’s a funny place; I love it.

At around 10:30 last night I was randomly channel surfing and came across a promo for the news of TF3 (Télévision France 3). Because I was in that exhausted phase that I get for a while after a really good but hard run, I decided to wait around for this news program. While waiting for it, rather unexpectedly, I was presented with 15 minutes or so of political ads for the various Presidential candidates. I read the newspapers here a lot so actually catching these things was fascinating; even more so because I’ve been taking a class on Political Communication in which the professeur would each week give us a summary of the campaign and often show clips of the high profile interviews of each (main) candidate. A couple things that I thought of on seeing these ads:

  • At times the fringe parties do themselves no favors. They use their allotted time to show themselves chatting with ‘representative’ citizens on the street. This doesn’t work because combined with people talking in odd accents and too fast, fast cutting of the film, the subtitles (show for all candidates) and the possibility of picture-in-picture to make room for someone signing the broadcast, there’s too much going on. It looks disorganised. Viewers don’t care about having to watch other ‘ordinary’ people question a politician: they’re not very good at it. We know this because we have professional interviewers who find it hard enough with training. ‘Everyday people’ doing their job just makes the citizenry stupid.
  • The far left liberals don’t need to put everything they display on a red background. It’s already clear they’re the communist party. They did, however, have by far the best presentation, with ‘live’ text on the screen and short snippet-like responses: the kind of thing needed to keep a viewer interested. How many people will really wait for 15 minutes to see all of the broadcasts? I’m guessing, not that many.
  • Ségolène Royal had active and lively graphics but instead of showing a lot of what she had done, most of the time, as when they had dozens of clips of her in bubbles flying toward the viewer, it made the production look amateur. She was also the only candidate who didn’t face the camera head on. She looked like she really meant to talk to somebody else on the other side of the room rather than the camera.
  • There was no mention of the Iraq war in any of the broadcasts. The top topics were unemployment (’le chômage est beaucoup trop haut’), tax on business , immigration (’nous avons toujours la peur dans notre pays’) and nationalism (’being a citizen should be an honour not a right!’), the environment, economic protectionism (I’ll tell Bruxelles to…’) and a need for a renewal of social values. Many of the broadcasts seemed to say absolutely nothing at all, or at least ten seconds after their end I’d already forgotten the content.
  • Neither Bayrou, Le Pen nor Sarkozy were on tonight. Perhaps that’s a special treat for tomorrow.

In the news, the thing that really struck me (call me strange), is that the ads on political billboards put up in every town (normally outside schools and other public buildings) are put up by ClearChannel. ClearChannel, an American multinational that controls billboards all over the world, hundreds of radio stations in the US and a large number of concert venues and promotion vehicles. I just think it’s ironic that a company that stands for so much that France is actively against is the one actually promoting their political process.