The Cedar Lounge Revolution

More on staffless libraries… October 18, 2016

Thanks to the person who forwarded this:

‘Staffless Libraries’ meeting for Galway – Ó Clochartaigh

Due to growing concerns around the rollout of ‘staffless libraries’, Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh is organising a public meeting in Galway to discuss the pro’s and con’s of this new policy.

Speaking today the Galway West – South Mayo Senator says:

‘Concerns have been raised with me about the rollout of this new policy which sees libraries opened on a ‘self-service’ basis after hours. The pilot project which has been run in counties Offaly & Sligo is now to be piloted in Galway in the Ballinasloe and Oranmore libraries.

‘The Local Government Management Agency who are spearheading the initiative and the county council who operate our library services say that this new departure will allow for increased access to the services during unstaffed hours.

‘The ‘Staff Our Libraries’ campaign who are opposed to the development say that they want to keep libraries ‘staffed, safe and open to all’ and that they believe the new approach does not support that.

‘I am organising a public meeting in the Westwood Hotel on Monday the 24th October at 8pm to discuss the matter. I have invited the Local Government Management Agency, Galway County Council and the ‘Staff Our Libraries’ campaign to send representatives. I am also inviting all the public representatives in the area to attend.

‘We hope to be joined by a number of literary figures as well who have voiced their concerns over recent weeks in relation to the future of our libraries.

‘I am asking members of the public and particularly library users who are interested in this issue to join us as well, to inform themselves as to what is being proposed and to make their views known to the relevant people.

‘The one thing we all agree on is that the library services we do have play a really important role in our communities and that anything that can be done to enhance and develop them in a positive way would be welcome’.

Cruinniú faoi ‘Leabharlanna Féinfhreastail’ dhá eagrú i nGaillimh – Ó Clochartaigh

De bharr imní leanúnach a bheith dhá léiriú maidir le forbairt ‘leabharlanna gan foirne’, tá an Seanadóir Trevor Ó Clochartaigh ag eagrú cruinniú poiblí i nGaillimh leis na buntáistí agus mí-bhuntáistí don gcur chuige nua polasaí seo a phlé.

Ag labhairt dó inniu deir Seanadóir Ghaillimh Thiar – Maigh Eo Theas:

‘Tá imní léirithe liom maidir leis an gcur chuige nua seo ó thaobh seirbhísí leabharlanna di, a d’fhágfadh oscailte iad faoi chóras féin-fhreastal i ndiaidh gnáth uaireanta oscailte. Bhí tionscnamh phíolóta den chineál seo ar bun i gcontaetha Uíbh Fhailí agus Sligeach agus táthar anois chun é a thriail amach i leabharlanna an Uarán Mór agus Béal Átha na Slua, i nGaillimh.

‘Deir an Ghníomhaireacht Bainistíochta Rialtais Áitiúil, atá ag cur an tionscnamh nua seo chun cinn, agus an Chomhairle Chontae a bhíonn ag bainistiú ár seirbhísí leabharlainne go gciallaíonn an fhorbairt seo gur féidir breis rochtain do na leabharlanna a chur ar fáil ag amanna nach mbeidh foireann ag teastáil.

‘Deir urlabhraithe an fheachtas ‘Staff Our Libraries’ atá i gcoinne na h-athruithe seo, go bhfuil siadsan ag iarraidh go gcoinneofar na leabharlanna ‘sábháilte, le baill fóirne I láthair agus oscailte do chách’ rud nach féidir a mhaíomh dar leo, faoin leagan amach nua.

‘Tá mé ag eagrú cruinniú poiblí in Óstán an Westwood i nGaillimh, ag a 8 a chlog ar an Luan 24ú Deireadh Fómhair leis an gceist a phlé. Tá cuireadh tugtha agam d’ionadaithe ón nGníomhaireacht Bainistíochta Rialtais Áitiúil, Comhairle Chontae na Gaillimhe agus ón bhfeachtas ‘Staff Our Libraries’ chun freastal ar an gcruinniú. Tá cuireadh dhá thabhairt chomh maith d’ionadaithe tofa na Gaillimhe ar fad.

‘Tá súil agaim go mbeidh pearsain linn chomh maith ó shaol na litríochta, a bhfuil a n-imní léirithe acu le tamall anuas maidir le todhchaí ár leabharlanna poiblí.

‘Tá mé ag iarraidh ar an bpobal, ach go h-áirithe iad siúd a úsáideann na leabharlanna agus a bhfuil suim acu san ábhar seo, freastal ar an gcruinniú le h-eolas a fháil dóibh féin faoina bhfuil beartaithe agus a gcuid tuairimí féin ina leith seo a chur in iúl do na daoine cuí.

‘An t-aon rud a aontaíonn muid ar fad faoi ná an ról tábhachtach atá ag na seirbhísí leabharlainne inár bpobail agus más féidir rud ar bith a dhéanamh le feabhas a chur orthu ar bhealach dearfach go bhfáilteofar roimhe sin’.

Video of the opening session of Ireland and the Spanish Republic October 18, 2016

There is a week of talks on Ireland and the Spanish Republic to mark the 80th Anniversary of the Spanish Civil War, details which we’ve posted here.

This is a recording of the opening session on Monday 17th in Liberty Hall with speakers Emilo Silva and Harry Owens.

Peacekeeper’s Story. October 18, 2016

Thanks to the person who forwarded this, from Archon of the Southern Star…

Be sure to see the film Siege at Jadotville! It’s a fascinating story about a small group of Irish Army men from the 35th Battalion ‘A’ Company who routed a force of 3,000 Belgian and Katanga mercenaries during the Congo civil war.
Outnumbered 20 to one, the 157 lightly armed Irish UN peacekeepers held the line for five days until they ran out of ammunition and water but, thanks to the remarkable tactical awareness of their leader, Comdt Pat Quinlan, and the military skills of his men, they suffered no fatalities.
The film raises issues that resonate in today’s political world. The most important is why 55 years were allowed to pass before the Irish government and the military top brass acknowledged their heroism?
The occupation of Jadotville, ostensibly to protect civilians, was ordered by Irish diplomat Conor Cruise O’Brien (then special representative to the secretary general of the UN, Dag Hammarskjold) and by Lt Gen Seán McKeown, who had overall command of UN troops in the Congo.
On taking up their position, almost 3,000 Belgian mercenaries and Katanga insurgents attempted to overrun the Irish and to use them as hostages as part of a political bargaining strategy with the UN. In the ensuing battle, the Irish killed 300 mercenaries and wounded hundreds before surrendering.

But because the myth of UN impartiality in international conflicts had to be preserved, Jadotville was disgracefully swept under the carpet with the connivance of the Irish Army and Government.
And for decades the chin-wagging faction in military circles promoted the lie that Comdt Quinlan’s surrender was cowardly. It was depicted as an embarrassment, a shame, and his men were referred to contemptuously as the ‘Jadotville Jacks’.
Also hidden was the fact that neither Lt Gen McKeown nor Conor Cruise O’Brien gave the Irish peacekeepers decisive orders.
In a letter published after his death in 1997, Comdt Quinlan’s anger at the incompetence of the civil and military leadership was evident. Both O’Brien and McKeown had recklessly sent ‘A’ Company into a position that was untenable and the commandant was not prepared to let his men die for nothing. ‘The UN made a mess of things. Organised by the Belgian Government, we were lured to Jadotville and ended up as hostages … it is a pity that we, who never believed in the use of force, had to suffer for the blunders of little dictators and stupid military leaders … we were not there to shoot Africans, we came to help them.’
Finally, last month, at a ceremony in Custume Barracks, the State made a delicate effort – bungling might be a better word – to acknowledge the bravery of those who fought at Jadotville. A Presidential Unit Citation (whatever that is) was presented to the surviving soldiers. But, neither President Higgins nor the Minister for Defence, Enda Kenny (who is also Taoiseach), turned up.
Instead an unknown mini-minister, Paul Kehoe, graced the event. He had little to say. Also present was local motormouth,‘Boxer’ Moran TD, who hoovered up whatever headlines (and votes) that were floating about.
In a one-liner, the Indo described the event in a way that characterised the Government’s attitude: ‘Soldiers involved had sought acknowledgement for their work for more than 50 years’. Their work’, mind you!

As for the film, Jadotville, which went on release almost at the same time that the State carried out their ‘recognition’ ceremony, it depicts Cruise O’Brien as a megalomaniac who is indifferent to the fate of the Irish soldiers holding Jadotville. Lt Gen McKeown is presented as indecisive and under the thumb of O’Brien.
Neither man comes out well in the film, least of all McKeown, who was in command of 20,000 troops of different nationalities and yet, showing little concern for the consequences, sends Comdt Quinlan’s ‘A’ company into mercenary held territory that had poor communication and an access route that was easily blocked to reinforcements and supplies.
At the end of the film, Comdt Quinlan, on behalf of himself and the men, socks Lt Gen McKeown on the chin. The scene met with cheers from the audience, and although it was clearly a bit of poetic licence on the part of the filmmakers, it caught the mood.
As for the contemptible ‘Cruiser’, regular Irish soldiers universally detested him. The film, however, does not record the dismal trajectory of his later political career when he was forced to step down from his UN position and from the Irish diplomatic service in the wake of ‘war-mongering’ accusations from the international community. As Britain’s prime minister, Harold Macmillan cruelly said: he was ‘an unimportant, expendable man’.

But Cruise O’Brien’s Congo antics did not put an end to his partiality for mischief-making. In the 1969 general election, he bounced back on winning a seat for the Labour Party in Dublin North-East. During the years 1973-77 he became the most loathed government minister since the Irish Civil War.
Seeing the potential, he jumped on the anti-nationalist bandwagon after the outbreak of armed conflict in the North, and he vigorously enforced censorship of RTE under Section 31 of the Broadcasting Act.
Shepherding the passage of the 1976 Emergency Powers Bill through the Dáil, he declared his intention was to extend censorship beyond broadcasting and to target educators who failed to ‘cleanse themselves’ of the culture of republicanism.
Newspaper editors who published pro-republican or anti-British letters were also to come under his legislative cosh. He supported the Heavy Gang, turned a blind eye to Garda brutality and described Bloody Sunday victims as ‘Sinn Féin activists operating for the IRA’. He opposed the Good Friday Agreement on the basis that it allowed Sinn Féin into government.

It is likely that his failure to be taken seriously as an earnest parliamentarian eventually drove him barking mad. For instance, he proposed in his Irish Independent column that the British Government should ask the US Air Force to carry out surgical air strikes on West Belfast in order to solve the IRA problem once and for all!
The damage he did was enormous – Katanga an obvious case – but the families whose relatives were killed or maimed in the Dublin Monaghan bombings on May 17th 1974, and who cannot get closure to those terrible events, have no reason to remember him with fondness.
Because of O’Brien’s influence on the FG/Labour government, the State made no serious effort to apprehend the British agents responsible for the carnage. The Garda investigation was wound down after three months and a huge amount of documentation mysteriously went missing.
Cruise O’Brien’s bizarre excuse for the failure of the Cosgrave government to prosecute the case was that people had no right to be angry at those responsible for the bombings, unless part of that anger was directed towards republicans.
The ‘little dictator’ who declared war on Katanga – and later on his own people – will not be forgotten.

Politics shorn of politics is still politics. October 18, 2016

One of the most notable aspects of the US Presidential debates has been how much has devolved to personality. It is, perhaps, the inevitable outcome of a Presidential system – or at least one likely outcome across time – but it’s an ugly ugly thing for all of that. And it’s not as if there aren’t differences between the candidates and their respective platforms.

Even the rhetoric of ‘lock her up!’ feels of a piece with that. Trump’s threat to ‘jail’ Clinton isn’t serious process led politics. It’s emoting on a grand scale. And yet, the suspicion remains that if not political – or ideological, it has political ramifications if ever the situation occurred where he was in a position to implement it:

David Maraniss, a journalist and author, said: “As shocking as his debate statements were, they were of a piece with his earlier threats to use executive power to go after the media, set immigration restrictions based on religious affiliation, and declare the Central Park Five guilty long after scientific evidence found them innocent. Freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and the application of scientific proof are all wholly foreign to him.”

Perhaps, then, this is more of a worldview that we’re seeing here, one that is inchoate, difficult to pin down precisely, formed and sustained by fears and bigotry, and therefore – added to the nature of the candidate – free-flowing and inconsistent. Yet, as Maraniss notes look at all those inconsistencies, those contradictions, and the larger picture of an approach that would in practice be even more deeply injurious than contemporary aspects of the US polity becomes evident. It doesn’t need a programme as such, it simply needs a bending and fracturing of the system, imperfect as it already is, to see deeply pernicious outcomes.

Here’s a troubling one too.

Dr Louis Picard, professor of public and international affairs and African Studies at the University of Pittsburgh, and a frequent worker in Uganda … said Trump has also copied the tactics of some African political parties by questioning the legitimacy of the election in advance and claiming it will be rigged against him. “It does worry me in the long term because we’re starting to get this into the system and it won’t go away,” he said.

By the way, just on the campaign, I’m far from a booster of Hillary Clinton, in a way one pity of the campaign has how Trump has by his clowning prevented a forensic critique of her politics being applied, but the sheer misogyny in some of the attacks on her from the right is staggering. But then, again, where’s the surprise. I remember a friend of mine telling me some years ago of attending a formal international reception at which were a number of representatives of the great and good in the US, a small number of who made it very clear in informal conversation that they regarded Obama in appallingly racist terms. Small wonder that the first viable female candidate for President should receive not dissimilar stuff, though in this instance even more openly to judge from the rhetoric and garb of some at Trump events.

As striking is this exchange:

Up in the stands, a 65-year-old woman in full Trump gear who’d driven two hours from central New Jersey told me that GOPers who disavowed Donald were “not true Republicans.” Even Paul Ryan? “I don’t care for him,” said the woman. “He’s a conservative Democrat. Trump is a real Republican, born and bred.” But Trump used to be an actual Democrat, I pointed out. “Just for a short time,” the woman insisted.
I asked her if the leaked footage of Trump yukking it up about genital assault had given her pause. “What he said is really vulgar,” she began, before telling me that she’d been crassly propositioned by multiple men at her workplace over the years. “I was demoted three times for saying no,” she said. And then, in a flurry of words that made little sense to me, she transformed her experiences with sexual harassment into a pro-Trump argument, concluding, very confusingly (and inaccurately): “That soap actress, she said no and he accepted it.”

And the fact that Trump keeps upping the ante is curious in the extreme. The ‘drugs’ charge at the weekend against Clinton is testament to this. It’s as if the very first thing that pops into his head he runs with. Doesn’t matter how credible it is or not, he just goes. Let’s hope he’s gone as a political figure by the end of the election.

CLR Book Club – Week 8 October 18, 2016

Here’s a question, how do we make this more interactive?

Progressive Film Club October 17, 2016

A three larger party system? October 17, 2016

Adrian Kavanagh has been number crunching on foot of the second last poll and the results are intriguing. He notes that:

The 6th October Irish Times/Ipsos-MRBI opinion poll estimates party support levels as follows: Fianna Fail 26% (down 7% relative to the previous Ipsos-MRBI opinion poll), Independents and Others 24% (up 2%) – including Anti-Austerity Alliance-People Before Profit 3%, Social Democrats 2%, Green Party 3%, Renua <1%, Independents 15% – Fine Gael 26% (up 2%), Sinn Fein 19% (up 3%), Labour Party 5% (NC). M

His projections are:

Fianna Fail 48, Fine Gael 48, Sinn Fein 31, Anti Austerity Alliance-People Before Profit 3, Green Party 3, Labour Party 2, Social Democrats 2, Independents 22.

And he notes that for IPSOS/MRBI polls the summer was something of a watershed with FG and FF achieving near parity. Now the latest ST/B&A poll has seen that somewhat reversed but if the IPSOS/MRBI trend continues that will be indicative. And he considers a point:

Sinn Fein support levels are notably closer to those of Fine Gael and Fianna Fail that was the case with Labour for most of the state’s history, if these support trends were to pan out in future elections it could well be the case that a new “three party system” could well be replacing the old “two-and-a-half party system”. This is not, of course, to downplay the significant level of support that is still commanded by the Independents and Others grouping, but this grouping – as discussed in detail above – does face greater challenges in terms of translating support levels into seat gains than would be the case for the larger political parties.

I think that that is highly persuasive as an analysis. SF does seem, with remarkable ease, to have leap-frogged the Labour Party and moved into a position closer to FF and FG. I’ve spoken before of a ceiling on FF’s ambition – partly this may be due to the legacy of the crisis, partly due to the difficulties of clawing back percentages from other rival groupings, but if accurate and FF cannot really bounce much higher than 30% or so that will put a significant dampener on its ambitions.

Speaking of legislation on the right to die… October 17, 2016

…as we were in relation to Brenda Fricker’s comments. Christy Dignam – also interviewed in Hot Press by Jason O’Toole, mentions the Halligan Bill.

Will you consider going to the Dignitas centre In Switzerland to end your life?
Yeah, absolutely. I have thought about it, if it goes a certain way. I’ve seen people dying of cancer. And I’ve seen them dying screaming in fucking agony. There’s no bleeding way I would put myself through that. I would absolutely – without a fucking shadow of a doubt – consider using that option
Minister John Halligan recently revealed to Hot Press that he plans to table a Bill for legislation on the right to die in our own country with dignity.
I seen it, yeah.
What that be something you’d support?
I would, yeah. Absolutely. I don’t think it’ll be successful because we’re still too ingrained in the Catholic mindset. I don’t think he’ll get away with it, but I admire what he is trying to do. But definitely, I would consider that. Why put yourself through that, if there’s no hope? If you’re at a point where there’s no hope and you’re in absolute fucking agony – why make your last couple of months a fucking unpleasant experience? Get out of it.

I think that’s interesting, the point Dignam makes about the prospects of the legislation, but even that it is getting a bit of currency as an issue is perhaps indicative of how things have changed in relation to contentious issues reaching a public hearing.

It’s an interesting interview too in its own right quite apart from that – Dignam is someone who has faced multiple challenges in his life and continues to do so.