Cheering Up I: British Comedy

Someone, whose twitter account I am following, asked her followers what song would cheer her up. Several responses came, love songs, cheerful songs, but there was a very conspicuous absence: the song which concluded the Monty Python movie "The Life of Brian". Of course, I am referring to "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life". Then I thought how almost each separate scene of that movie is so incredibly hilarious, that just watching one scene makes my day. Oh, the scenes! The stoning scene, the balcony scene, what have the Romans done for us?, the grammar teaching scene, Stan wanting to have a baby, the calling for action, the crack suicide squad, the persecution of the hermit - and so many others. And after that I came to realize how much I enjoyed the Monty Pythons (like their Ministry of Silly Walks and Philosophy Football sketches from their Flying Circus) and British humor in general. 

Who can hold back a laugh at most of the Yes, Minister or Yes, Prime Minister scenes (here's just one of my favorites - just wait for the final retort)? Or Blackadder? I even enjoy watching such old series, as Jeeves and Wooster; I particularly like their jazzy intro or Hugh Laurie and Stephen Fry singing Cab Calloway's "Minnie the Moocher". Of course, there are so many other classics: Faulty Towers, Only Fools and Horses, etc.

So, because in every life we have some trouble, but when you worry you make it double, you can always cheer up-up-up with some British comedy!

Blogging Jane Jacobs' "The Death and Life of Great American Cities": The Uses of City Neighborhoods

Jacobs continues where she left off: having discussed the role of the streets and of neighborhood parks, she goes on about the role of the neighborhood itself as a self-governing (albeit not necessarily in a formal sense) body; this, of course, entails defining what constitutes a neighborhood. Surprisingly enough, Jacobs proposes that we think of city neighborhoods in three levels: a small neighborhood, centered around a street, a larger district, distinct within a city, and a whole city by itself.

This seeming contradiction is explained very well if one understands how cities function as a whole, as opposed to just being the sum of self-contained smaller units (neighborhoods or districts): one of the main properties of an urban center is that people can find, within the whole city, a sizable number of other people sharing their own interests or offering the specialized services (or even goods) they might desire. The potential for such specialization requires a significant concentration of people-potential customers, that only a city can offer. Moreover, there are governmental functions (such as policing, for example), that, most of the time, belong to the authority of the city government - which, however, cannot work properly if it is cut off from the actual neighborhoods. An important entity, then, to which all city dwellers look up, is the city itself.

On the other hand, street neighborhoods, i.e. neighborhoods on the smallest scale, cannot be defined solely through geographical borders and isolated (and insulated) from one another; if so, the whole sense of a city is lost for their inhabitants. They come about naturally, usually around a center which might either be a park or a church or a store, which many of the neighborhood's people frequent, and through the neighbors' interaction many parallel webs of relationships evolve, which result in the existence of a neighborhood. But small neighborhoods like that have little or no political clout; in the rare instances they seem to have more of an impact, that is due to some important person or institution (such as a college campus) living or situated in the neighborhood and, in that case, the neighborhood can only be dependent on the particular person's or institution's whims.

That is why Jacobs argues for another neighborhood level, the district, which can be understood as a number of street neighborhoods, in geographical proximity, which share more or less common problems - and usually has some political representation, in the form of electing a representative to the City Council. The chapter on the uses of city neighborhoods is filled with examples of organizations and mobilizations, mostly at the district level, which were effective in challenging decisions made at a central level. Moreover, organizations at the district level can be very helpful in informing central municipal authorities on the issues of the respective districts, serving as an intermediary between the Mayor or the Police Commissioner and the street neighborhood.

Again, in all three levels of neighborhoods, Jacobs stresses the various relationships that emerge from the daily interaction of the neighbors or of people of common interests or goals within a district or a city. She notes that it does take time for these relationships to be built and to become strong. She also observes that in ethnically homogenous neighborhoods such ties might be developed faster, but at the expense (crucially) of interaction with the bordering neighborhoods, which would form a strong network within a district. Apart from that, ethnical homogeneity would also mean the exclusion of newcomers not belonging to the dominant ethnic group and its breach would result in massive changes, having an indirect effect of making the neighborhood undesirable to those who had settled in because of its ethnic composition. Such changes, then, have an adverse effect on the process of building overlapping relationships and networks (which require time to begin anew) and, consequently, on the effectiveness of the neighborhood as such.

This chapter ends the first part of the book, titled "The Peculiar Nature of Cities". In sum, Jacobs argues that cities have their own properties which are markedly different than those of suburbs and should be treated as whole, diverse entities, rather than the accumulation of small, autonomous communities, particularly since the diversity and specialization in services or jobs afforded to city dwellers is their main motive for living in a city in the first place.

Blogging Jane Jacobs' "The Death and Life of Great American Cities": Neighborhood Parks

General introduction - disclaimer: I am involved with an independent run for the municipal elections in Athens, due next November. The group I support is called "Orange" and is led by Mr. Tasos Avrantinis, a very dear and able friend. Jane Jacobs' seminal book "The Death and Life of Great American Cities", published as far back as 1961, contains observations which would be relevant even in today's Athens, since many of the problems facing the American cities of that period have causes and explanations common to most large metropolitan areas. Although Jacobs was not an architect or a city planner by trade (she was a journalist and actively opposed many of "master planner" Robert Moses' plans in New York City), her observations are very astute and her arguments are very convincing. I am beginning a series of posts, in which I intend to write down the basic points of her book's chapters, as I am reading them.

Neighborhood parks - introduction: Although the first specialized chapters in the book deal with the functions of sidewalks, my first post will be on the chapter addressing neighborhood parks. There is a very specific reason for this: a whole airport in Hellenicon, to the South of Athens, has closed. Its whole area (belonging to the Greek government) is double to that of Central Park in New York City. There are many voices calling for the establishment, in this area, of the largest municipal park in Europe. This concept reeks megalomania, of course, and is in no way sustainable (all the more so, given Greece's precarious current financial situation). 

Jacobs spends a very large part of her book contradicting the accepted wisdom of most city planners on many issues, the role of neighborhood parks among them. She uses a lot of empirical evidence to back her claims (much of which we can relate to with our own experiences half a century later), which are also supported by compelling arguments of reason. Her central thesis is that parks do not operate independently of their surroundings and do not add value to them by themselves. In fact, it is rather the other way round. And a prominent observation she makes is that with parks, most of the time, it's either very good or very bad, no middle ground. Parks can either be an extension of the neighborhood, in which case the flourish, or they can be cut off from it, in which case they become decrepit.

She gives many examples of parks which are filled with people all the time and contrasts them to many dilapidated parks, including many which had been planned and were expected to bring great value to their neighborhood. On general, it seems that parks, which are situated next to mixed-usage areas fare much better than parks situated in exclusively residential areas; parks situated near business areas fare even worse. The main reason for this is that, in mixed-usage areas, there are people at all times of day walk or wonder on the park. People going to work, people coming to work, mothers and children in the morning, mothers and children in the afternoon, people taking a lunch break from work, etc. 

Another very important aspect of parks, often overlooked in Greece (where we go to great pains to show how much green and trees we can plant in as little space as possible) is that the inside of the parks should be visible from the surrounding streets. That way there will be no dark parts, with the informal supervision afforded by the passers-by and the neighbors (which is the focus of one of the chapters on the role of sidewalks) available at all times. That is one of the reasons that most successful parks are rather small ones. Moreover, Jacobs proposes that general-themed parks should have variety in their settings and a center, which would be the area carrying the most activity in the parks. Their relationship to the sun is also important: the sun must, ideally, not be cut off from the park by very tall surrounding buildings.

Experience has proved that parks, which are not suitable for general, everyday use, can function as specialized parks with very good effect (swimming pools and skating rinks were hits in New York City, theaters and concert venues also). Jacobs also mentions parks, whose only function is to provide a visual relief for passers-by. Her examples are taken from the very small parks in San Francisco which have been set on corners created by the convergence of the streets.

I must also not fail to mention that Jacobs dispels the myth, that parks reduce pollution. She notes that it takes almost a small park to offset the carbon-dioxide emissions of four persons. If parks are designed to be too big, resulting in the metropolitan area widening up and the use of the automobile being required (as is the situation in Los Angeles), the effect on the environment is rather adverse.

Learning from the "tube"?

Well, television was always regarded in "educated circles" here in Greece as a "silly box", making its own viewers sillier. This might explain in part an article by Ms. Marianna Tziantzi in the Greek edition of the Athens daily "Kathimerini", presenting the whole Mad Men phaenomenon to her readers, particularly the interest displayed by viewers in the show's historical accuracy and the many fora and on-line conversations (giving this example from the Wall Street Journal), in which viewers try to point out any inaccuracies in the way people speak and behave in the series (embarrassing the show's creator Matthew Weiner into admitting that he was regretting having a character utter the phrase "the medium is the message" four years before Marshall McLuhan famously coined it). Ms. Tziantzi goes on to state that research like that would be seen as a complete waste of time in Greece. Of course, this is due to the fact that TV is in no way seen as an art form and, even more than that, it is inconceivable in Greece that anything other than serious documentaries might have more than light entertainment value, much less any educational scope.

Luckily, that is not the case in the States. Mad Men has propelled a discussion on the '60s - a period where norms of behavior changed, race relations reached a crucial point, gender relations took a new dynamic, and the prevalent conformity of the '50s (symbolizing authority as far as the youths in the U.S.A. and Europe, as well, were concerned) was challenged. The painstaking period research by the show's creators allows for the series to provide viewers with a solid background for the discussion which, eventually, leads to their own soul-searching.

Even in the past, TV series would foreshadow or even provoke significant developments in society as a whole. Star Trek, in its seeming naiveté, was almost an allegory, a conversation on the relationship between different cultures, different civilizations, and the extent to which third parties should not intervene, even in cases, in which their (i.e. the potential interveners) core values are breached - a conversation that is definitely relevant today. Plus, Star Trek had the audacity to display the first interracial kiss on television.


Other series took head-on prevailing issues of their days. That "All in the Family" or "The Cosby Show" were the most popular TV series in their time is telling (I was very fortunate in that these shows were aired on Greek television). They were shows, which a whole family could watch together, and which could very well spur a conversation between parents and their children. They took on their head issues like bigotry, personal, family and racial relations, responsibility (by kids, teens, and adults alike), etc.


This is not to underestimate the sheer artistic value of some TV series, particularly those produced in the new millennium's first decade (the "aught's") - "The Sopranos" have been rightly praised, but for me another HBO show stands out even more prominently: I am referring, of course, to "The Wire". In this excellent series, set in Baltimore, MD., one can really find the elements of a Greek tragedy (or, rather, many Greek tragedies at the same time). Realistic characters, with traits a viewer would recognize in herself/ himself or her/ his friends, neighbors, acquaintances; functional and dysfunctional interpersonal and group relationships corresponding to actual relationships in real life; stories of personal triumph or demise; characters the viewer can sympathize with, can adore, be loyal to, indifferent to, or loathe; a mother not hesitating to send her son to deal drugs, so she can keep up her lifestyle; a gang leader wannabe, not hesitating to sleep with an incarcerated comrade's girlfriend, later to order his execution in jail; hubris and sometimes vindication; an acute description of politics, or the press, or schools in parts of America; and a world where there are good guys who are not 100% perfect, bad guys who are not 100% despicable (although moral relativism is absent: there are good guys and bad guys), with people trying to do their best under adverse circumstances and displaying a strong sense of honor (in both cases this includes gang members), where the "good guys" do not always win, where there cannot be a final resolution.


So, yes, there are many things we can learn from TV and, notwithstanding the pronouncements of our self-appointed cultural elite here in Greece (which have remained unchanged since the early '70s, when TV started to become popular), I will try to seek them.

What I learned from Tony Judt's "Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945"

Recently, I finished reading Tony Judt's "Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945", and I would like to share some of my impressions of this terrific book, which I think anyone even remotely interested in history would enjoy very much.

Let me begin by saying that it is a very informative book. While it's not written to be read only by history buffs, some elementary knowledge of European history is required to follow it; nevertheless, even well informed readers will learn many new things by reading the book. Moreover, the book does an excellent job of putting every single fact it describes into context, so the reader understands its significance to the way things turned out the way they did, both the hows and the whys. I, for one, was surprised to find out how much, immediately after the end of World War II and for some years on, the fear of a rearmed Germany, which would display the same territorial ambitions as the Third Reich, exceeded even the fear of the mighty Soviet military machine in Europe - and how it lead to coal, one of Germany's most important assets, being put under an international authority, the High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community, the harbinger of the European Economic Community that would evolve to be the European Union; that, in fact, fear lay among the seeds of European integration even more so than ideals of co-operation among peoples or the desire for an enlarged common market.

The descriptions in the book, particularly those of a devastated Europe in the aftermath of the war, are very realistic, they bring to mind scenes from movies of the Italian neo-realist cinema in their detail and realism. Another of the author's talents is his ability to switch from a broad approach to very detailed views of periods, countries, etc., in a way consistent with his whole narrative. The author might take us, for example, from a general view of the influence of the Catholic Church in politics throughout Europe (including Poland) to the specific role the Catholic Church played in Franco's Spain, and the reader will enjoy the transition. The book, then, is broad in its scope, but detailed enough, without becoming tiresome, for the reader to have gained a complete picture of the forces that led Europe to where it is today.

For my part, I learned a lot from Judt's description of the communist States of Eastern Europe. Judt narrates, in fascinating detail, how the Soviet Union managed to install puppet regimes in the lands it had conquered during the War, although communist sympathies among the local population were minimal; and how the leaderships of these regimes were always men (never women) of no more than average intelligence, with a bureaucratic set of mind and their ability to convey orders from Moscow being their most valuable asset. Each time someone more intelligent would rise to the top in a communist party, signs of independence would invariably lead to either an intra-party putsch or, worse, to the intervention of the Red Army (the role show trials played in the solidification of such regimes and the riddance of party leaders of Jewish descent is also accounted for - a notable exception was Poland in 1956, where the local party chiefs, primarily Władysław Gomułka, were able to convince the Soviets that a number of reforms they undertook would pose no threat to the stability of the Warsaw pact - and Moscow's relative tolerance in the matter made many people in Hungary believe that they could undertake similar reforms, leading to the intervention of the Red Army later that year). The fall of these regimes, precipitated by their inefficiency, which no propaganda machine could hide from their citizens, the restlessness such inefficiency caused and some small liberties granted to the population, in order to appease them, is another outstanding part in the book.


Finally, I should mention that one of the underlying themes of the book is the search for (or even the existence of) a common European identity, especially after the enlargement of the European Union in 2005 (the year the book was published) and the rejection of the european Constitutional Treaty by electorates in France and the Netherlands. Although English has become the lingua franca of today's Europe (to the extent that it is acceptable for a Flemish and a Walloon in Belgium to converse in English, rather than offend one another by not using their respective languages), a European identity seems to be being carved more in juxtaposition to the United States of America, rather than anything else. The welfare state (although Judt does recognize its limitations and the need for its overhaul) is a distinctly European, as opposed to American, feature. Even more important is the role of the State in matters of culture. European States pride themselves in the many state-run orchestras, theaters, cinema foundations, etc. they have, whereas in America art is left to the private sector (as it should, at least in this blogger's opinion); and, ironically enough, one of the central functions of the various European countries in their own cultural affairs is to prevent their cultural landscape from being americanized. And, last but not least, the Iraq war is mentioned as an example of the traditional powers of European integration (mainly France and Germany) chiding the countries that participated in the so-called "coalition of the willing" (Great Britain, France, the Czech Republic, etc.) as taking an un-European stance.


P.S. Tony Judt passed away a couple of weeks ago. He had suffered from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrig's disease); he was active until the very end. He wrote down experiences of his illness, and essays on his life, among others, for the New York Review of Books. Many of these essays are still available online. 

The Great What-If's

Bernard Knox, a redoubted classics scholar, passed away on July 22. His obituary in the New York Times ends with a hypothetical he presented, when speaking against the attempted refudiation (sorry, repudiation), on the part of some radicals, of Western tradition in general: "God knows what the world would be like if we were all brought up on the stuff they'd like us to read".

Well, this reminds me of so many "what if" scenarios that have been brought up in conversations, in a political or historical or scientific or much lighter context. One of the most common political hypotheticals in Greece is what would have happened, if the Communist forces had won the Civil War of 1946-1949 here. A very interesting alternative history novel, titled "Lenin Square, formerly Constitution Square" (Constitution Square is one of the central locations in Athens, right in front of the Parliament building) by Dimitris Fyssas, is based on this supposition.

So, let's have a poll among ourselves: what is the hypothetical you have encountered most in your discussions? Here is a sample list (feel free to add more):

1. Wars - Battles

The Persians winning in Marathon

Mark Antony winning in Actium

Arabs winning in Poitiers

The Saxons winning in Hastings

The Turks conquering Vienna or winning in Lepanto

The British winning in Lexington

Napoleon winning in Waterloo

The Confederates winning in Gettysburg

2. Science - Technology

Archimedes not spending enough time in his bath-tub

Newton not sitting under the apple tree

Darwin not making the journey on the Beagle

Fleming not discovering penicillin

The Germans/ Soviets getting the A-bomb first

Steve Jobs graduating College

Al Gore not inventing the Internet

3. Politics

Alexander the Great not dying of disease in 323 BC

Columbus not being granted the ships to go westwards to find India

Alexander Hamilton defeating Aaron Burr in their duel

J.W. Booth failing to assassinate Abraham Lincoln

L.H. Oswald failing to assassinate JFK

Lenin's train not making it to St. Petersburg

The burglars entering a different room in Watergate hotel

Margaret Thatcher not defeating Edward Heath for the leadership of the Conservatives

The Soviet Union invading Poland in 1980

Ross Perot winning the 1992 elections

Al Gore winning the 2000 elections (alternatively, as appeared in conversations: Ralph Nader not entering the election)

Dred Scott, Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade (and, of course, Bush v. Gore) being decided differently

4. Culture - sports

Beethoven not losing his hearing

Babe Ruth not being traded to the NY Yankees

Miranda v. Arizona being decided differently

This is a list of all the what if's that I have encountered in conversations or read someplace or other and can recall now. I would appreciate more what-if's added by you (and maybe a small alternative storyline!).

And, as a postscript, watch how Lord Black Adder made many what if's actually happen, while discussing with Baldrick the role of the individual vs. broader forces and trends in the making of history.

5. Addenda (recommended by friends with good and not-so-good intentions)
Paris (of Troy) being gay
Pontius Pilate acquitting Jesus

(P.S. For Greek readers, wondering why a U.S. Supreme Court decision, Miranda v. Arizona, is listed on the culture category: there would be no "You have the right to remain silent" without it)

The Haikus and Other Poems by Bertram Cooper

Mad Men's fictional character Bert Cooper, played by Robert Morse, is supposed to be a big fan of (Ayn Rand and) everything Japanese. (spoilers follow) Matthew Weiner is planning to share with Mad Men's viewers in a later season a collection of haiku and other poems taken from Cooper's notebooks (seems he had the time to fill a few). Here is a sampling (in random order):

1.

Speak not readily

Of Spring and cherry blossoms

In full August

2.

A red sun rising

My soul lies unperturbed

In blackness - grief

3.

Beginning anew

With the son of my brother

And three others

4.

I knew Don Draper.

Don Draper worked for me - Pete,

You're no Don Draper

5.

A Samurai's sword

Should be treated with respect

Even by movers

And here's a couple of limericks in Bert Cooper's collection:

1.

I once took Lee Garner to chatter

He kept asking what is the matter

I knew smoking kills

But it does pay the bills

So I stayed confined to the latter.

2.

I once met an adman named Guy

They said he could make donkeys fly

But he lost a foot

And he took the boot

So poor Lane was spared of Bombay

Are We Allowed to Criticize Religions?

This article by Reason magazine puts the matter into perspective. It is deplorable that "political correctness" (from both sides of the political spectrum) so easily leads to a discussion being more self-referential than it should have. I cannot see why anyone can quote the Bible and indicate that many passages are repugnant or self-contradictory or hate-inciting or whatever, the same with the Qur'an, the Torah or other holy texts of various religions. The Reason article is correct in pointing out that all the rage today is to not offend Muslims. The Mohammed cartoon stories, and the way in which the United States reacted, almost admonishing the artist who drew them, instead of taking a stance consistent with the First Amendment to their own Constitution, is a (sad) case in point. Respect, courtesy, they are indeed necessary for a society to function and to set rules of behavior between its members; but such rules can only rise to be social norms or conventions and not lead to their violation being a punishable offense. If a mere claim by persons or groups that some form of behavior or other offends them could lead to a criminalization of other people's behavior (and, mostly, of their speech or expression), then the whole premise behind freedom of expression would become moot. And, of course, Muslims (this is in reference to a Sam Harris article linked to in a comment to the previous post) can claim no special right of non-offense relative to all others.

Religious Toleration Stories

August the 15th is an important religious holiday for Greeks - it marks the Dormition of the Theotokos, i.e. the Virgin Mary, who is held in high esteem as Mother of Jesus and as a symbol of motherhood by Orthodox Christians. Many religious symbols and relics are associated with Mary, many convents and places of worship too, and Maria is the most common name among Greek women. Panagiotis and Despina, two other very common names, are also derived from Mary (Panagiotis being the masculine form of "Panagia", i.e. all-holy, and Despina meaning "Lady"). One of the most important places for Virgin Mary's worship was the Monastery of Panagia Soumela, situated in the Pontos region in today's Turkey, which was a center of worship for the Christians of Greek origin living at the perimeter of the Black Sea ("Pontiacs"); almost all of them were part of the population exchange between Greece and Turkey that took place in 1923, following the Treaty of Lausanne. Since that exchange took effect, the Monastery would no longer function as a place of worship, but rather as a tourist attraction and the Pontiacs who came to Greece built a new Panagia Soumela Monastery on Vermion Mountain. It is apparent that references to the original Monastery very often carried nationalistic undertones and last year a crowd of nationalistic politicians gathered at the original Monastery and sought to perform Mass there; the Turkish authorities, who had not granted such permission (and no such permission, to my knowledge, was ever requested), intervened and the matter ended after some mild protestations, which failed to gain any traction.

This year, however, the Turkish government (of mildly Islamist leanings, no less) decided to allow worshippers to hold Mass at the Monastery; and, indeed, the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew, led the Mass on August the 15th. Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan's decision and declaration that no harm was caused by the religious worshippers (quoted in an excellent editorial in the Hurriyet Daily News newspaper) was a statement of an authority at ease with itself (and made by a Prime Minister who brandishes his Muslim piety, as opposed to his declaredly secular predecessors), making reference to the religious tolerance of the Ottoman Empire, and of religious and national confidence.

Contrast Turkey's stance with the debate over whether a Muslim Community Center should be built near the site of the September 11, 2001 attacks - and notice the phobic reactions by the so-called conservatives. The essence of their arguments is ably refuted in William Saletan's article on Slate magazine, but I would like to put my two cents in: the most sensational (and appealing to the sentiment) claim is that, by putting a place of Muslim worship so near Ground Zero, terrorists will have consolidated their 9/11 "triumph" and be able to rub it in everyone's (the victims', their relatives', New Yorkers', Americans') face; as if allowing Muslims to worship at the place of their choosing is something American Democracy should view as a defeat (not to mention that any such notion would equate the people worshipping in the Center with the 9/11 terrorists only by virtue of their appeal to a common religion). Quite the contrary: by allowing Muslims to freely worship even on Ground Zero America would be able to rub in Al Qaeda's face that 9/11 achieved nothing its masterminds hoped for - that America is the place, where, better than anywhere else, people of any nationality or creed can publicly and (why not?) proudly display their religious affiliation, their national heritage, any part of their identity they consider important, so long as they do not cause harm to others. On the contrary, Al Qaeda (as Saletan correctly indicates) is the real enemy of Muslims everywhere, threatening and executing those, who do not share is perverse interpretation of the Qur'an.

To those, who doubt that the Qur'an would lead to a civilization that could be considered enlightened by today's standards let me only point out that, at the 8th and 9th centuries AD (that is only a couple of centuries after Islam was founded) the best physicians and mathematicians (algebra is an Arab word, after all) would be found in the Arab world (from Baghdad to Alhambra) - and that it is Muslim scholars who preserved ancient Greek texts (most profoundly Aristotle) from the fanaticism of the Christians of the time.

The United States of America is a country much more powerful than Turkey and its tradition of tolerance and separation between religion and State is rooted much deeper into the American traditions and way of life. One can only hope that America follows Turkey's example, displays the confidence of Prime Minister Erdogan, and upholds these traditions, so central to its very character, even in the face of phobic demagogues.

Update: This Washington Post article raises some very interesting points.

E pluribus unum; Ευρωπαϊκή ολοκλήρωση και αμερικανικό σύνταγμα

Initial Positions on European Integration

OK, we (Greece) are holding elections for the European Parliament and we are going to send our delegates there. That is considered a given. And, despite the vocal objections from the far left, our participation in the European Union and in the euro-zone has never really been put into question. Moreover, it is without doubt that Greece has benefited immensely from participating in the E.E.C., the European Union and the euro-zone. A great amount of money has been poured into Greece, which led to many public works being completed, the auditing functions of the european institutions have kept the greek public debt within comparatively reasonable proportions and the stability of the euro saved Greece from financial disaster. So, overall the balance has been positive.

Yet, this should not deter us from taking a closer look at the way the European Union functions or the proposals put forward in the Treaty of Lisbon for the Union's reform. There are inherent dangers, which we shall examine, among others that of an emerging european mega-bureaucracy, the undefined powers of the Union as against those of the member-States and so on. Also, the so-called "democratic deficit" should also be taken into account.

In a series of posts we shall examine the balance of powers between the Union and the member-States and, also, amongst the Union's instruments.

An English-language Blog for a Greek Political Party

Dear readers, this blog's host has joined the new political movement, Drassi (= Action), an effort to bring common sense to Greek politics.

There are a number of interesting blogs following this party in Greek; your host is an occasional contributor to them. This blog will continue posting in English, in order to provide outsiders who might be interested with a glimpse of greek politics, as seen through the lens of common sense.

Our main immediate goal is to achieve a respectable vote tally at the forthcoming elections for the European Parliament. This blog will seek to present the party's positions on the issues of European integration and to invite opinions, if possible, from citizens of Europe outside Greece. Any suggestions are welcome at the host's e-mail, which is available at his profile.

A Sense of Kennedy Entitlement

Charles Krauthammer has this to write regarding Caroline Kennedy's wish to be appointed to the Senate seat in New York which will be presumably vacated by the Secretary of State appointee Hillary Clinton. This blog can only concur.

Budget, Devolutions, and Revenue

Read this article on the thought process of a commission dealing with revenue raising for Scotland; ideas that have been tested, with various results in other confederate or quasi-confederate states.

A Conservative Post-Election Critique

Read it. It is a very interesting story of what has happened since 1980.

A Different Race

From Andrew Sullivan's Blog:

Today let the issues be the issue!

Vote NO to Proposition 8

Voters in California are voting on a proposed constitutional amendment that would consider valid only a marriage between a man and a woman in California (the so-called Proposition 8).

Such an amendment would institutionalize, in effect, discrimination based on sexual orientation. Sen. Dianne Feinstein's statement (one of the few statements by the Senator that this blog would wholeheartedly subscribe to) casts the problem in its correct scope. By voting in favor of Proposition 8 a majority of voters (presumably straight voters) officially and unreservedly decides that a minority (gays) should be relegated to second-tier citizen status. That entails a very dangerous exercise of the majority's (any majority's) rights.

This blog is against discrimination in all forms. It is not in favor of gay rights per se, since it considers that there are no "gay" or "straight" rights. It is against labeling people based on their sexual preferences. Defeating Proposition 8 is not a matter of preferring gay people's rights to straight people's rights; in actuality, no straight person's right is breached by the official recognition of the bond between two partners of the same sex. Defeating Proposition 8 is a matter of defeating discrimination in its most heinous, institutionalized form.

The Chicago Tribune's Powerful Endorsement of Sen. Obama for President

Read it; it is very thoughtful, although a lot of it is based on the editorial board's familiarization with Sen. Obama from his time as a Illinois State Senator.

Joe Wurzelbacher, the Person of the Third Debate

So, there was Joe the plumber, Sen. John McCain's friend, who would become famous for complaining that he shouldn't face an extra tax burden for making a yearly net profit in excess of $ 250,000. Is he the typical voter? Do his anxieties reflect the "middle class", America's backbone, as per Sen. Obama's campaign? He was put to good use by Sen. McCain, who, however, failed to give a concise picture; when he wants the federal government to guarantee home-owners' mortgages, where is he going to find all the money to do so?

John McCain - a Hero for Not Inducing Too Much Hatred

That's the essence of this New York Times piece. On the other hand, his vice-presidential nominee, Gov. Sarah Palin, has been found to have abused executive power over a family matter in Alaska. I'm trying to find a page-1 (or maybe page-2) article on Sen. Biden - where is he?

A Devastating Review of John McCain's Life in Rolling Stone Magazine

This piece presents Sen. John McCain in the darkest of colors, the complete opposite of the persona he tries to present as a candidate. Although his time as a POW is treated rather harshly, there seem to be quite damaging elements in his conduct as a U.S. Senator. Let's see the impact or the revisions of this article.

Sarah Palin and the New York Times

Gov. Sarah Palin quoted the New York Times ("[her] copy of [yesterday's] NYT") yesterday to establish a relationship between Sen. Barack Obama and Bill Ayers; quite an improvement, since last time she spoke up, she couldn't mention the papers she reads every day. It's a real shame that this campaign season is centered around her and any silliness she purs out, doggone it! And no discussion of the serious issues is taking place any more. I hope the next presidential debates focus more on substance than on all this.

The Dumbing Down of American Politics - Salon Magazine

Read this very interesting piece. This blog has very many disagreements with the Obama-Biden ticket's professed policies - in fact, it is closer to some of the things Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin are saying in the form of slogans. But the latter do not even come close to enunciating a proper conservative or libertarian position; they only give ridicule to ideas of smaller state intervention. Their support of the bail-out plan, as proposed by the Bush administration, is very indicative of their propensity to favor state intervention, when it seems politically expedient to do so. The lip service that the Republican ticket occasionally pays to libertarian ideas helps only to mock them further in the eyes of many people. Overall, the Republican ticket is a disaster for people espousing deregulation and free markets - and bringing the level of the discourse down to "folksiness" only makes matter worse.

All About Sarah

The Vice-Presidential debate was all about Sarah Palin's performance; how would she do, whether she could speak, etc. (although, it seems, much of the presidential campaign is about Sarah Palin). Most people think she did better than expected, but then those expectations were set very low, after her complete mumbling answers to Katie Couric (whose rather timid questioning she called "gotchas"). So she proceeded with her prepared sound-bites, in the knowledge that the moderator was unable to expose her discrepancies through a follow-up question, peppering her answers with "doggone it"'s and supposed folksy charm. A nice show-off but, when you really think about it, a dreadful precursor of things to come, if she were to win the vice-presidency. Being a "Joe six-pack" would probably disqualify a person from the presidency, yet Gov. Palin seems to endorse the opposite idea: it doesn't matter if she cannot handle details, focus on the substance of questions, etc., as long as she speaks like a 19th century Wild West folk hero. Maybe the GOP should nominate Bart or Homer Simpson for the job next time (granted, they are not Wild West heroes, but, boy, they sure wish they were, plus they don't blink). In the process we found about this guy, Sen. Joe Biden, who seemed at times to really know his stuff on foreign policy. Not that I approve of the Obama-Biden duo's socialist-policy tendencies (in which they will probably not be checked by Congress, as it seems that economic populism is all the rage currently), but at least his thoughts seemed very coherent on some serious questions. Judging only by the debate, I'd vote hands down for him.

Blogging the U.S. Presidential Election

This blog is going to follow the last stretches of the U.S. Presidential Election. It is going to make an endorsement within a couple of weeks, although, at the outset, neither of the major contenders seem to espouse the blog's libertarian ideals. We will also be following, when possible, the Libertarian Party candidate, Rep. Bob Barr. Right now the election seems Sen. Obama's to lose. However, one week is a long time in politics, let alone 4 weeks. Let's keep an eye on those presidential guys.