It's knows everything?

There's been a lot of discussion recently based on this Atlantic article, written by Nicholas Carr, simply entitled "Is Google making us stupid?" In it he argues that Google is having all sorts of detrimental effects on his brain, life and writing. He quotes mainly anecdotal stories to argue that, in general Googlers attention-spans are declining, along with our desire to be immersed in anything longer than about 500 words of text (meaning end of pesky Novels or Theses!): "Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words" he says, "now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski."

Caleb Crain is of the opinion that the internet is even changing the way we write. He notes how most Blogs have a light, easy and inviting tone which almost begs the reader not to browse elsewhere: "A text on the internet rarely takes for granted your decision to read it or to continue reading it. There is often, instead, a jazzy, hectoring tone." 

Is this all just "intellectual angst" as posited by Shane Hegarty, or how much the Internet is changing what, how and how much we read and write?

Alberto Manguel, in "The Library at Night"  (it sounds like a lovely book, but one I'm sure I'll never read!) suggests the consequence of the multimedia world are that: "The library that contained everything," Manguel laments, 'has become the library that contains anything."  

Yes it's great to have almost all information just a click away, but truth and wisdom cannot be accessed in 500 words alone.  

"When it comes to sheer electoral crassness, it's hard to beat what the Irish have just done."

 Roger Cohen – Opinion piece in International Herald Tribune

---------

"We, as young europeans, say NO to this NO. Europe is our big country !"

Facebook Group set up in reaction to the Irish No vote (1,000 members so far).

---------

"I do not have the impression that our politicians reflect much, if at all, on the recent loss of confidence in and respect for them."

Former Taoiseach Garret Fitzgerald comments on the reasons for the Treaty's rejection

---------

"Rich Ireland stopped poor Croatia on its way to become a decent and developed European country. Without the EU's help, Ireland will be as poor as Croatia is today. Thank you, "brothers"! "

Tomislav Zivkovic from Croatia in a letter to the Irish Times.

--------

"Our nasty new friends"

Headline of Irish Independent Editorial Opinion piece (refers to British Eurosceptics, the French National Front and other groups who welcomed our decision)

--------

"We can always offer the Irish membership of the British Commonwealth. It is the least we can do to repay our gratitude to them."

John Palmer commenting on what some British Eurosceptics were joking on the day of the rejection.

--------

""We seem to think that, if people are asking questions about Europe, it's because they are hostile -- it may be just because they're asking questions."

Trade Commissioner Peter  Mandelson commenting on how Europe reacts to criticism:

--------

"Anti-Europe camp has got a soul,"…what used to be "passion" for Europe at the earlier stages of EU integration has "now emigrated to the other camp."

Socialist MEP Martin Schultz on how the anti-European side now has the momentum regarding the European debate.

 Why Lisbon failed:

1. Declining trust to politicians, Irish people have lost a huge amount of respect for politicians since revelations of corruption and won't believe them or be lead by them when asked to trust them.

2. Negative tone of debate/campaign - even when Irish people listened to the debate it was usually a No myth (based on some random Article from the Treaty) being debunked, which left people confused and gave the No side more credulity. The Yes campaign also did not have enough knowledge in debates to demolish the No myths (the admission that the Taoiseach & the Irish Commissioner had not read the Treaty did not help with this perception).

3. The "Blame Brussels" excuse that national politicians use, leaving Irish people with the impression that something, over which they felt they had no control, was deciding vital issues regarding how they lived their lives (the fishermen dispute brought this into clear view). This gave rise to fears that Brussels was going to act on abortion, Gay marriage (if only!) and other moral or social issues. 

4. The No campaign was bigger than ever, there was posters and leaflet drops in my small village for the No side, this has never happened before. Why they were so motivated is probably because of the disengagement of people to politics, people saw the No campaign as the nearest thing we have to a kind of populist people's movement (the No campaign is our Obama!)

5. The deliberate "You must read the Treaty" line propagated by the No campaign (knowing it was unreadable without serious academic study) followed by "Vote no if you don't know" coming up to voting day.

 

Why there's hope:

1. The newly empowered but ideologically divided No campaign is probably going to collapse into internal squabbling. Sinn Féin are getting a lot of the coverage even though their campaign was patch at best and this is bound to annoy Libertas and Cóir who (I feel) won this campaign with visually arresting campaign literature.

2. The vast majority of Irish people dislike Sinn Féin and most especially Gerry Adams who knows little about the Republic's politics. Their current talk about charting a course for Ireland's future in Europe will inevitably bring back memories of how they retarded Ireland's future for so long in their campaign of violence.

3. Libertas is likely to set itself up as a political party (charting a course set out by its founder – Declan Ganley 5 years ago in the United States), nearly new political parties in Ireland fail.

3. If Irish people see their interests being materially damaged by a No vote, they would reconsider. The No was a soft one, people were not ideologically bound to their decision, and if they felt it was a choice between Lisbon or active involvement in the EU they would choose to vote again.

4. The main Media outlets are very much behind another vote and will probably smooth the way to another Referendum. If there is scope for one, there will probably be an Opinion Poll soon showing a majority wanting a re-run of the Treaty Referendum.

5. A civil society campaign (which led to the Nice Treaty being passed the second time), lead by groups outside politics would be much more effective than the failed politician lead campaign.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom marries the hand-holding couple Phyllis Lyon, 84, left, and Del Martin at City Hall. They first said “I love you” in an era when most Americans couldn’t fathom two women in a committed relationship.

California, Monday, at 5:01 p.m. was the moment that same-sex marriage became legal by order of the California Supreme Court. Many gay couples immediately entered the union that was long denied them, and finally their mutual love was recognised by their State. Hopefully the same can happen soon in Ireland. (Credit - LA Times)

Buh-bye...

On 10th June, Congressman Dennis Kucinich took 3 hours to read 35 articles of Impeachment against President George Bush into the House Record. That's probably as far as they will go, however they do read as a comprehensive list of the failures and mistakes of the Bush administration. These include misspending, incompetence, misrepresentation, delberate misleading, invasion of a sovereign country, illegal detention, torture, imprisonment, violating laws/constitution, obstruction - the list goes on.    

Despite all this, I really find it hard to condemn George Bush. I have also been elected to an office (mine was piddlingly small in comparison – Deputy President of University of Limerick Students' Union but nonetheless important to the people who depended on me) I somehow understand how one can a) become a victim of circumstances that you don't control and b) find yourself advocating a position you don't believe because you followed a path that seemed like a good at the time) suddenly realise that, even though society tells us we can do anything, you maybe just do not have the skills for a certain part of your task.  

He has admitted that his use of phrases such as "bring them on" and "dead or alive" had "indicated to people that I was, you know, not a man of peace". However, bringing in a certain type of person into his Administration/circle of dependants, he probably allowed himself to be manipulated into these statements and the actions that went with them. He goes on to defend the Iraqi war, however saying "No I don't regret it all. But I could have used better rhetoric," Bush said. "The decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision."  

A certain amount of what Bush has done has been progressive, increased funding of AIDS research in Africa, and his (late) support of efforts to bring Israeli-Palestinian peace. However, saying that he wanted to "leave behind a series of structures that makes it easier for the next president" to tackle issues such as Iran's nuclear programme and establishing a Palestinian state, is naïve wishful thinking. He is being politely listened to, but generally ignored. He is hoping to save the reputation of this disastrous Presidency through international diplomacy, but this cannot be done while he clings to Iraqi-type interventionist policies and refuses to acknowledge faults. It is for this reason that he will fail, not because he has 6 months in office. 

Bush is not a stupid man, he has gone through his life surrounding himself with excellent people and managing them efficiently. However what he probably cannot see is that he has been and is being managed by those around him. He could probably still contribute in his last 6 months to America and the world, but first he must seek forgiveness from a damaged people and a damaged world and truly build the international structure necessary to face global challenges. 

 
(Edited through addition of first paragraph on 17/06/08).

8 steps to change, could it be that easy?

I've complained a lot in this Blog about leaders (politicians especially) not leading change in their own particular areas. Obviously it's easy for me to preach this message having never (besides Student Union day) in a position to understand the difficulties that go along with the responsibility to change.

To educate myself about this I've started reading the above book, "Leading Change", by John P. Kotter. It's a book that was recommended by former Lieutenant Governor  of Massecheusets(Deputy Governor to Mitt Romney) Kerry Healey when we met her on the Boston College Young Leader's Programme 2007. She was teaching a course in Harvard where she outlined how the Romney administration adapted the above book from its private sector roots to implement public sector change in their administration.

 The 8 stage process Kotter outlines is as follows:

1. Establish a sense of urgency

2. Create the guiding coalition

3. Develop a vision and strategy

4. Communicate the change vision

5. Empower broad=based action

6. Generate short-term wins

7. Consolidate gains and produce more change

8. Anchor new approaches in the corporate culture.

 

I will report back on what the above actually means (and if I feel it has any applicability to public sector change) in a few weeks!

Young Leaders' Group  with Dr. Kerry Healey, former Lieutenant-Governor of Mass. (I'm 4th from right)

How the typical Irish Mayor is viewed

(credit: The Simpsons)

I see dead cows...

Happy Europe Day!

New Táiniste & Minister Mary Coughlan: "Great to see a woman in the post"

Tangentially, real change could come to Ireland if there were more women in powerful political positions, the Spanish Government's female majority is an example for us all. However, my view is that Minister Coughlan may not be the example to follow.

Admittedly her Ministerial experiences have been in Agriculture and Social & Family Affairs – two “management” Departments that give little scope for policy dynamism. One area, however, she’s targeted diligently has been the undermining of the rights of gay people. As Minister for Social and Family affairs in March 2004, she attempted to introduce legislation withdrawing protections and rights from gay partners under an amendment to Social Welfare legislation. The amendment would have defined the word “spouse” solely in terms of opposite sex relationships. Also in 2004, Minister Coughlan took it upon herself to tell a European Union conference on Family and Social policy that Ireland would never be ready for same-sex marriage or gay adoption. “Ever” is a very long time, obviously Minister Coughlan had foresight denied to us who had been foolishly campaigning for just that.

The question is whether it’s right to have a Táiniste that has repeatedy tried to undermine the rights of a minority group in the country they govern? Obviously discrimination against gay people is no impediment to progress in this government.

Finally, as an addendum – isn’t it depressing that we have a Taoiseach, Táiniste and Minister for Finance who are inheritors of their father’s seats? Is this what you need for the sticking power needed for high office, a guaranteed seat because of your name, so you can concentrate on climbing the Ministerial ladder?