Category Archives: Politically Incorrect

This is the team I am predicting Eddie Howe will name for Saturdays clash at Leeds. It has just one change from Watford with Jacob Murphy coming in on the right for Ryan Fraser.

Newcastle played well for 50 minutes last weekend against Watford but were limited in creating chances. Once Allan Saint-Maximins bit of magic broke the deadlock early in the second half, the lads withdrew into their shell.

The cautious approach allowed Watford over 30 minutes to push for the leveler which they eventually found in the closing stages. Howe admitted after the match that the fragile mentality of the group when taking a lead played a large part in the outcome.

Despite that, I believe Howe will make minimal changes tomorrow. There are no new signings to come into the team, unlike the last two weekends. Howe is still without Federico Fernandez, Callum Wilson, and Isaac Hayden.

Ryan Fraser has enjoyed a long spell in the starting eleven. The winger has started the last five matches but has created very little in the final third. Though he did link up well with new signing Kieran Trippier against The Hornets.

Jacob Murphy could be an option to come into the team and provide something different on the right. Newcastle need to create more clear-cut chances and this could be an opportunity for Jacob, who played well in the FA Cup defeat against Cambridge.

Jamal Lewis is also a potential change. However, tomorrow may be too soon for the young left-back despite returning to the bench last weekend. Howe was asked about Lewis during his Friday morning press briefing. He was quick to stress that the 23-year-old hasnt been back in training for long.

Paul Dummett was a safe hand at left-back against Watford. The 30-year-old should start again tomorrow. I just dont see Howe dropping either Jamaal Lascelles or Fabian Schar just yet. Though once a new arrival comes in or Fernandez returns that could be a different story.

More here:
Howe Makes Just One Change In Our Predicted Team For Leeds - The Newcastle United Blog - The Newcastle United Blog

One is always told one should never, never, never, compare anybody to Hitler. He is beyond the pale, too evil and too often the person most people latch on to while trying to prove some badly constructed analogy. To a large extent, this is of course true. And if Helen Zille would only take this advice about comparing things to apartheid and colonialism, the DA might attract some more voters. You can at least put me in this camp.

Of course, there is some irony in the above, in that the apartheid government could well be compared to Hitler. Certainly Hendrik Verwoerd, Nico Diederichs, Piet Meyer, John Vorster and PW Botha were all great supporters of Hitler and his dreams in the 1930s and 1940s. The comparison can be made, surely? But what of Zilles recent comparison of the ANC to the National Party? Her exact words were: The old NP cadre deployment usually managed to build strong state-owned entities, a capable state, and led to significant industrialisation and economic growth. Quite the opposite under the ANC.

Offensive though it might be, I am told by many people around me that Zille is making a perfectly valid comparison. To me when I first read it, it smacked of the Italian right-wingers who long for the reincarnation of Il Duce. Mussolini, the saying goes, got the trains in Italy to run on time. This is easily comparable to saying that apartheid led to significant industrialisation and economic growth, is it not? The Mussolini quote is, I was told by an old Italian, wholly untrue and has been variously debunked. Interestingly, it was also a comment regularly made in the US when Donald J Trump came to power.

Much like the Mussolini craving, Zilles comment is not only morally and politically questionable, but factually incorrect. As the academic Jonathan Hyslop has shown, under apartheid the country and the government paid heavily for replacing bureaucrats in the 1940s, 50s and 60s with National Party supporters (ie cadre deployment).

The new officials placed in the senior positions of the civil service lacked the training and expertise of the people they had supplanted. This led to an all-too-familiar skills shortage, an issue that plagued the apartheid government. And when it packed the courts with its own judges, none of them brought the country justice or accountability. No government official was ever prosecuted during apartheid, while perfectly harmless intelligent men and women were thrown into jail for little to no reason, often without charge.

What is more, the quasi-fascist state that was apartheid was in fact deeply inefficient. It lost the fight in Angola, the economy tanked in the late 1970s, it lost control of the country in the 1980s and in fact was hopelessly outmanoeuvred by Cyril Ramaphosa during the negotiation process. As Jacob Dlamini has written about and shown, the competent apartheid bureaucrat is something of a myth.

It is true that for the first 30 years of apartheid rule the economy was booming. But the boom included many factors that had next to nothing to do with the government itself it was riding an international economic wave. And the mines, where the money came from, were not under their control. The 80s and 90s tell another story. When the Nats jumped the sinking ship in 1994, the country had suffered three years of negative growth. This position was, however, turned around somewhat after they left. In fact, until 2008 the economy under the ANC was reacting well. There were of course signs, with the onset of load shedding and the continual issues with corruption, that many planks in our ship were rotten.

So, if a comparison is to be made it should be:

As one of the great South African historians, Cornelis de Kiewiet put it, South Africa has always advanced politically by disasters and economically by windfalls. And the simple truth is, we havent had an economic windfall in many a long age. This is certainly one of the main issues behind our current set of woes.

But getting back to comparisons, it is said comparisons should always in some manner trade on like-for-like, apples against apples and oranges against oranges. So, is comparing the National Party to the ANC really possible?

The apartheid government in 1966 admitted in fact it boasted that it had since 1948 spent only R4-million on housing for South Africas 16.3 million blacks, coloureds and Indians. At the same time, it had spent R216-million on housing for about 3.3 million whites.

The apartheid government provided services for a tiny proportion of our population. Add to this, the population providing all the hard labour in this service delivery were the very ones not benefiting from it. One might well be able to build things better when workers have no rights to citizenship, no rights to vote, no right to protest. The pharaohs did a pretty decent job in building those pyramids! Or more correctly, their slaves did the good job. But again, maybe this is not a like-for-like comparison. Apartheid and the land of the pharaohs were very different systems of government, although they did both live off the labour of the dispossessed. Perhaps a better comparison with apartheid is what happens in certain current Middle Eastern states.

Thankfully, apartheid no longer exists south of the Limpopo. And its systems and ways of working are simply not comparable to our current problems. The terrible and corrupt job done by the ANC is not operating under apartheid laws and apartheid ways of working. To compare the two is like comparing a bucket to a battleship.

The question is, why doesnt Zille compare apples with apples? Why does she not compare us with countries with similar population sizes, similar democratic and economic systems, similar bills of rights, and with similar ethical racial concerns? France, Britain, Italy, Germany and South Korea (even the US) are all there ready for comparison.

And when we compare these to the way our country is run, then you really do see what an appallingly bad job the ANC is doing. Our education system is bordering on hopeless, we have no national health service, our police force is creaking at the seams, our National Prosecuting Authority is seemingly incapable of prosecuting anybody in authority, and tens of millions of people live in appalling conditions comparable only with the structures and facilities of the Middle Ages.

Sure, I hear those saying there are problems in the UK, France, the US and so on. But it would be a denial of the truth to claim the UKs trains are like ours; that the French education system is similar to what we have; that US prosecutors are just like the NPA; and the constant flow of electricity into US, Asian and European homes is similar to our shoddy shedding. These are in many senses (but not all) incomparable. Even living in the slums of the US is quite different from living in a South African shanty town or on our cities pavements. The ANCs attempt to better the lives of our people has been a complete disaster, a betrayal and in many ways amounts to the actions of the morally bankrupt. No one can, in all honesty, deny this.

So, with these comparisons readily available to Zille, why does she go back to the bad, flawed and morally repulsive comparison with apartheid? Well, the only thing that strikes me is that she is doing it to benefit her politics, which has now progressively (or regressively) become that of the white right.

She, for whatever curious psychopolitical reason, has given up on attracting black voters and has thrown, once and for all, her lot in with the progeny of apartheid hence the comparisons. Her political soundbites are nothing more than a political dog whistle, calling all the racists back into the laager.

One assumes this can be the only reason why she likes, so regularly, to mention those Caucasian days when electricity managed, without fail, to reach 750,000 homes; when judges found in favour of their racist views rather than those of justice; when the apartheid government destroyed the economy; and when a state could murder the likes of Steve Biko with impunity.

Helen Zille, of all people, should know better. DM

Related Articles

See the rest here:
Please, Helen Zille, stop the 'worse-than-apartheid' cadre-deployment dog-whistle tactic - Daily Maverick

We have learnt in recent weeks that there was a culture within 10 Downing Street of ignoring the rules. For those who are mystified about how this could have happened (and, in theory, there may be such people), all I can say is that this would not have happened under Theresa May. Or David Cameron. Or, I suspect, any other prime minister in modern times.

This is a Conservative government very different from its predecessors. In its attitude to rules and conventions, the manner and style of leadership, its coalition of electoral support, its policy priorities and its views towards our institutions; it all represents a distinct break with the past. This break has enabled a Conservative Party that had been in office for nine years to renew itself and win the support of new voters. It has also, on a number of occasions, caused queasiness from supporters of, and senior figures from, previous Tory administrations.

Are these characteristics determined by the character of the Prime Minister or are they the consequence of larger forces? Are the years of Boris Johnson an aberration or evidence of a more fundamental change in our politics? As Johnsons hold on office weakens and the prospect of a change of prime minister increases, the answers to those questions will help explain the future direction that the Conservative Party and the country will take.

There is no doubt that Johnson was an unusual figure to become Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. He came to office without having been leader of the opposition or long years as a minister. He had a brief and undistinguished spell as foreign secretary a grand position but of little relevance in understanding domestic policy and eight years as mayor of London where he was content to delegate many of his responsibilities.

Johnson was an inexperienced minister, however, he was an experienced public figure. He had been a household name for more than 20 years as a television personality who also happened to be a politician. People described him as colourful and larger than life and they very often liked him.

In 2008, when I was canvassing in my constituency I would find people volunteering that they were voting for Boris in the London mayoral elections, at least until I pointed out that they lived in Hertfordshire. Some years later, Mays cabinet held an away day and travelled by train to Runcorn station in Cheshire. There were a few locals milling around as the entire cabinet (minus the prime minister) walked along the platform unrecognised before the excited cry went up theres Boris! Johnson has always been judged more as a celebrity than as a politician. This has contributed to him being generally more highly regarded by those not closely engaged with politics than by fellow politicians.

[See also: Why Boris Johnsons No 10 is so dysfunctional]

He was widely viewed including by Conservative MPs as lacking administrative ability, a deep understanding of policy (only now, we learn, is he reading his briefing papers) and, it has to be said, a reputation for integrity. These perceptions blew up his 2016 leadership election campaign when the crown was there for the taking. It also meant that he was not the obvious successor to May for most of her time in office but, by the time of her fall in 2019, the majority of his colleagues were prepared to put aside their reservations and support him. He was seen (correctly as it turned out) to be a solution to the Brexit impasse and a means of delivering a Conservative majority. This was more important than competence and honesty.

The politics of 2019 were extraordinary and, if you want to make the case that Johnson is an aberration, one can argue that he would only have assumed office in those extraordinary circumstances. Now that those circumstances have passed, the argument goes, we can return to normality. The Conservative Party can elect a more conventional leader and pursue a more conventional Tory agenda. Post-Johnson politics can look like pre-Johnson politics (only with the UK outside the EU because, after all, he got Brexit done). Let us not speak of him again.

Just at the moment, this prospect is somewhat tempting for many Conservatives, but it would be a misreading of events. It ignores the causes of the Brexit impasse, it ignores the political risks that faced the Conservative Party in 2019 and it ignores the political opportunity which Johnson seized at the last general election and which the Conservatives are likely to want to replicate.

Johnson skilfully exploited the nations weariness with a problem he had helped to create the apparently endless drama that was leaving the European Union. Reassured by Leave politicians that this would be a simple and straightforward matter in which the UK held all the cards, it came as a shock to the electorate that negotiations proved to be complicated and that the EU was not prepared to give the UK everything it demanded.

Matters were not helped by the most intractable issue being one of little direct relevance to the population of Great Britain the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. This received little attention at the time of the 2016 referendum (despite the best efforts of Tony Blair and John Major) but the logic of the issue meantthat there was no way of delivering a satisfactory Brexit.

The UKs regulatory and customs divergence from the EU meant that a UK-EU border was necessary. In the context of Ireland, this meant either a border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland (raising questions about the integrity of the UK) or between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (raising questions about the Northern Ireland peace process). We could, of course, have decided not to diverge on regulatory and customs matters, but this would have brought into question the whole point of Brexit.

[See also: Commons Confidential: Will Allegra be next to turn on Boris Johnson?]

It was this trilemma that sunk Mays withdrawal agreement. As a sincere unionist and someone acutely conscious of the risks of creating a border on the island of Ireland, she obtained an agreement that effectively kept the UK in the single market for goods until the border issue could be resolved. This was a practical solution to the trilemma, but it failed the Brexiteers purity test.

Brexit had become redefined so as to mean that any compromise with the EU (or, indeed, any compromise with logic) was unacceptable. As one of the leaders of the Leave campaign, Johnson might have engaged with and understood the issue and tried to explain to his followers that it was necessary to address a real practical problem. Where he led, Brexit supporters might have followed.

Instead, Johnson dismissed the Northern Ireland border as nit-picking by Remainers (once likening it to moving between the two London boroughs of Islington and Camden) and sided with the sovereignty purists of the European Research Group. His answer to the Northern Ireland border question was to hang tough, shout louder and threaten the EU with a no-deal Brexit.

On the substance, Johnson turned out to be wrong. He thought he could avoid a border but agreed in October 2019 to putting one in the Irish Sea. He tried to reverse this while negotiating a new EU trade deal in the autumn of 2020 but again backed down and is still trying to renegotiate the Northern Ireland Protocol without much success. His position, however, did bring political rewards the support of the European Research Group in the Conservative leadership election and a comfortable victory among the staunchly Eurosceptic party membership.

Johnsons triumph among Conservative MPs was not, of course, limited to the diehard Brexiteers. It helped enormously that he was the favourite among the members and was always likely to win. That can focus the minds of those wanting a frontbench career. He was also the candidate who could most plausibly see off Nigel Farages Brexit Party, the winner of the 2019 European Parliament elections.

The risk for the Conservatives in 2019 was that they faced being squeezed on the Brexit-supporting right by Farage while being squeezed on the Remain supporting centre by the Liberal Democrats. This had happened in the European elections and Conservative MPs were terrified that it would happen again in a general election.

Johnsons strategy was to unite the Brexit side of the debate. Brexit had created a risk but also created an opportunity. By seeing off Farage, it meant that the Conservatives could appeal to a new part of the electorate cultural conservatives who had voted Labour and Ukip in the past and who wanted to see Brexit done. They liked Johnson a charismatic, anti-establishment, politically incorrect, optimistic, patriotic, affable character who did not take himself too seriously. He promised them change, more nurses and police officers and a bit of a laugh. He was also up against Jeremy Corbyn. In December 2019, Johnsons ambition was fulfilled and he won an 80-seat majority.

It is worth dwelling on this moment. It tells us three things about modern politics that are relevant to the post-Johnson world as well as his emergence as Prime Minister the nature of the parliamentary party; the determination to close down space to the Conservatives right; and the changing alignment of British politics.

Johnsons three predecessors as Conservative prime minister John Major, David Cameron and Theresa May were all brought down (or, at least, deeply damaged) by their inability to control the Eurosceptic right. Johnson, in contrast, exploited the right.

For a sizeable element of the Tory party, sovereignty has assumed an almost theological quality. They no longer exist in a world of trade-offs and compromises, of pros and cons, but a world of absolutes. In the context of Northern Ireland, this requires a continued refusal to accept the choices available and an insistence that we can avoid a border in the Irish Sea and diverge from the EU. Future leadership candidates will be acutely aware of this.

Incidentally, for most of these MPs, they also have a vision as to what Brexit means. Divergence is for a purpose and that purpose is to make the UK more competitive, to deliver the next stage of the Thatcherite revolution. The reality is that Brexit means reversing much of Thatcherism putting up taxes because the economy is smaller than it otherwise would have been, erecting trade barriers and imposing new regulatory burdens on business but the increasing tendency is to blame Johnsons Big State instincts for this predictable turn of events.

The events of 2018-19 also revealed a wider change of temperament within the parliamentary party. Conservative politics became about campaigning not governing, with well-organised factions talking to the like-minded, and using every method possible to exert pressure on the government. The Tories became more a party of protest than of government, with a research group for every cause.

In recent weeks, the most prominent of these groups has organised opposition to Covid restrictions. The country is fortunate that Omicron has turned out to be as mild as it has something that was not certain when a hundred Conservative MPs rebelled over the Plan B restrictions. Had these MPs got their way, with Plan B not implemented, (and had Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer, and Jenny Harries, the chief executive of the UK Health Security Agency, not warned the public to ration their socialising), the NHS may well have been overwhelmed this January.

[See also: The question is not if Boris Johnson goes but when]

Again, as with Brexit, Covid-19 has exposed a tendency among Conservative MPs to view the world as they would like it to be, not as it actually is. Their risk appetite is insatiable. Johnsons removal would not change this he was relatively cautious on Omicron.

The threat of an alternative party to the right of the Conservatives has diminished since 2019. This is partly due to Johnsons positioning and partly due to coronavirus. Farage and other Brexit veterans have associated themselves with the anti- lockdown cause, which has had little cut-through with their traditional older, Covid-vulnerable supporters. The Reform Party has consistently performed poorly in by-elections and opinion polls.

Post-Covid, however, the opportunity to change the subject and prompt public animosity towards immigration will increase. A significant breakthrough for the Reform Party remains unlikely but Farages influence comes not from his own success but his influence over those Conservatives easily spooked by the prospect of losing votes to him. If anything, Johnsons removal would increase these Tory concerns because his successor will not have Johnsons track record of diminishing Farages appeal.

The final lesson is that there is a long-term realignment of politics in the UK and throughout the developed world. Whereas once the economically secure voted centre right and the economically insecure voted centre-left, voting behaviour has become increasingly influenced by cultural matters. The way in which a particular constituency votes increasingly depends not on income levels but upon population density, ethnic diversity and education levels.

This has created an opportunity for the centre right and helped deliver the Red Wall to the Tories. Johnson, with his performative patriotism, ideological flexibility and apparently disarming personality, was able to woo this part of the electorate in a way that few Conservatives can. Reconciling the small-state instincts of many Tories with this electoral opportunity is a challenge that any leader of the Conservative Party will have to address but, with our current political geography, it is hard to see how the views of the median voter in a Red Wall swing seat (economically to the left, culturally to the right) can be ignored. This does not suggest a return to Cameroon-style liberal conservativism any time soon.

Johnsons period in office may be coming to an end. What replaces him will not be Johnsonian as such. He never offered a coherent philosophy and, ethically, any change will be a step in the right direction. Rule-breaking parties wont be an issue. But the forces apparent in 2019 an unruly, even delusional, parliamentary party, the fear of a threat from the right, and a realigned electorate that rewards cultural conservatism will continue to drive the politics of the Conservative Party for years to come.

David Gauke is a former Conservative secretary of state for justice and was MP for South West Hertfordshire from 2005 to 2019

This piece is the cover story of this weeks New Statesman magazine,subscribe here.

Sign up for The New Statesmans newsletters Tick the boxes of the newsletters you would like to receive. Morning Call Quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics from the New Statesman's politics team. World Review The New Statesmans global affairs newsletter, every Monday and Friday. The New Statesman Daily The best of the New Statesman, delivered to your inbox every weekday morning. Green Times The New Statesmans weekly environment email on the politics, business and culture of the climate and nature crises - in your inbox every Thursday. This Week in Business A handy, three-minute glance at the week ahead in companies, markets, regulation and investment, landing in your inbox every Monday morning. The Culture Edit Our weekly culture newsletter from books and art to pop culture and memes sent every Friday. Weekly Highlights A weekly round-up of some of the best articles featured in the most recent issue of the New Statesman, sent each Saturday. From the archive A weekly dig into the New Statesmans archive of over 100 years of stellar and influential journalism, sent each Wednesday. Events and Offers Sign up to receive information regarding NS events, subscription offers & product updates.

Go here to read the rest:
David Gauke: How my party lost its way - The New Statesman

Globalisation has brought the world closer everyday. Following the same concept, Taiwan tech giants have one to set up their business in India.However, they have come face to face with an extremely unavoidable problem- the language barrier and the cultural difference!

Due to the growing problems between Taiwan and China, they decided to set up their new business ventures in India. Unfortunately, they forgot that India is its own country with its own languages, cultures and politics. This slight mishap has proven to be a major barrier in their plans!

Taiwan has the 14th largest economy in the world due to its ability of having the largest electronic manufacturing capability. It has been trying to politically distance itself from China however, the countrys economic fortunes are closely intertwined with those of Chinas.

Recent observation has led Taiwanese companies to realise that they have invested $200 billion into China and they have come to the conclusion that they want to diversify their investments and risks. They have also expressed interest in wanting to move away from hardware manufacturing and focus on growth that has software as its focus and hence, have wanted to partner with countries like India.

Multinational Corporations with roots in Taiwan have engaged in diversification of their assets in various countries for years. This particular diversification move has been undertaken by one particular companys globalisation and liberalisation policies. These companies are extremely well-equipped for situations which might require de-risking strategies and have the capability for expansions of positive growth.

These multinational corporations of Taiwan are averse to putting all their eggs into one basket. Hence, they have decided to set up offices and branches in India to better utilise the resources the country offers.

GJ Huang, the executive VP of Institute for Information Industry(III) says,India is an important partner of Taiwan for industrial development. There is going to be a paradigm shift in foreign investments made by Taiwan.

Taiwan has expertise in manufacturing hardware while India is known for its software and system designs. The country has only invested $200 million in India which is a minuscule amount compared to their $200 billion investment in China.

Mr.Huang further adds,This wide gap shows there is a huge opportunity for Taiwan to explore investment options in India.

This budding partnership is important to both countries as India will receive future investments from Taiwan and Taiwan can reap the benefits of manufacturing hardware in India which is objectively cheaper than manufacturing in China and provides better final quality of the products.

While everything about this investment opportunity sounds correct and economically beneficial to both countries on paper, reality hits a little different. China and Taiwan share common cultural roots which makes it easier for the companies of either country to function in the neighbouring one.

However, the officials of Taiwanese businesses have been hit with the nasty shock that India and Taiwans culture has nothing in common. The language barriers, raucous democracy and the cultural differences are hitting the businesses hard making it difficult to cope.

One of the major challenges is that India lacks the same infrastructure Taiwanese companies have encountered in China and hence, are used to. Terry Gou, the founder of Foxconn, was able to extract commitments to provide workers accommodation and the numerous other support services needed for a massive manufacturing operation by playing local governments off against each other in the battle to land the next iPhone factory.

It will be incorrect to assume that Chinese workers are more compliant than their Indian counterparts but Taiwanese management has found that local governments in China have a tendency of siding with companies over their workers. This situation is less likely in India, where leaders favour voter support during elections.

The major difference between the management styles of Taiwanese companies in China and India is the decision to hire local leaders to undertake the positions in the company while they operated on their own with their personal officials in China.

However, Taiwanese firms in India must learn to adjust with their surroundings faster if they want customers to shift their focus from Chinese manufactured products. Currently New Delhi and Taipei are both in a hurry to create a strong trading relationship in order to dampen Beijings economic power.

Disclaimer: This article is fact-checked

Image Sources: Google Images

Sources: EconomicTimes, ThePrint, TheSparrow.News, BusinessStandard +more

Meet The Blogger:Charlotte

This Post Is Tagged Under: Globalisation, Taiwan, tech giants, China, India, languages, cultures, politics, Taiwan, electronic manufacturing capability, Taiwanese companies, investments, risks, hardware manufacturing, software, Multinational Corporation, liberalisation, de-risking strategies, multinational corporations, GJ Huang, Institute for Information Industry(III), industrial development, system designs, partnership, common cultural roots, language barriers, raucous democracy, cultural differences, Terry Gou, Foxconn, iPhone factory, Chinese workers, Taiwanese management, Chinese manufactured products, New Delhi, Taipei, economic power.

The rest is here:
Indian Cultural Shock Hits Taiwans Business Ventures Here - ED Times

An electric car or battery electric car is simply defined as an automobile that is propelled by one or more electric motors, using energy stored in batteries. Compared to internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, electric cars are quieter, have no exhaust emissions, and lower emissions overall. In the United States and the European Union, as of 2020, the total cost of ownership of recent electric vehicles is cheaper than that of equivalent ICE cars, due to lower fueling and maintenance costs. Charging an electric car can be done at a variety of charging stations; these charging stations can be installed in both houses and public areas.Out of all cars sold in 2020, 4.6% were plug-in electric, and by the end of that year there were more than 10 million plug-in electric cars on the worlds roads, according the International Energy Agency. Despite rapid growth, only about 1% of cars on the worlds roads were fully electric and plug-in hybrid cars by the end of 2020. Many countries have established government incentives for plug-in electric vehicles, tax credits, subsidies, and other non-monetary incentives while several countries have legislated to phase-out sales of fossil fuel cars, to reduce air pollution and limit climate change.Dr. Robert Duran of Norwich University stated that the Tesla Model 3 became the worlds all-time best-selling electric car in early 2020, and in June 2021, became the first electric car to pass 1 million global sales. Earlier models with widespread adoption include the Japanese Mitsubishi i-MiEV and the Nissan Leaf.The United States, the European Union, China and General Motors want to make battery-powered electric cars the champion of motorists worldwide. At the same time, United States and European agricultural interests and investors are pouring serious money into biofuels that go into cars and trucks running on liquid fuels. The billion-dollar question is whether they can both be right about the future of transportation. The answer may not be as simple as it seems.Right now, electric cars clearly have the momentum and the inevitability narrative on their side. The Biden administrations ambitious infrastructure proposal sets aside $174 billion to subsidize electric cars, but little for biofuels. As Bloomberg News has reported, Europe is taking unprecedented steps to phase out gasoline and diesel cars and bring an end to the almost 150-year-long era of the internal combustion engine. The United Kingdom has imposed a 2030 ban on the sale of cars lacking a plug, and Germany has extended for four years its subsidies for electric vehicles. China plans to produce 8 million of the vehicles by 2028.Ian Johnson, Secretary General of the Club of Rome, stressed that the biofuels cause isnt helped by a legacy of controversy and environmental opposition. This dates back to early concerns about the value of agricultural fuels in abating greenhouse gases, as well as worries about their impact on food prices and fragile ecosystems. That makes it easy to dismiss the idea of pursuing two paths forward as a waste of time and resources. Others suggest this is another sorry example of the schizophrenic policies that we end up with when politicians shy away from choosing between powerful interests, in this case farmers and environmentalists.But with liquid fuels powering 1.3 billion vehicles around the world now, a both of the above approach makes sense. Graham Noyes, Executive Director of the Sacramento-based Low Carbon Fuels Coalition stated that A strategy of skipping biofuels and electrifying everything means choosing to use massive quantities of fossil fuels that emit the most toxic and carbon intensive emissions,That same logic explains why the $135 billion a year global biofuels industry is betting that new innovations and investments in efficiencies will not only widen their products climate advantage over fossil fuels. It also believes these investments will keep the industry competitive with zero emission vehicles deep into a coming age of electricity, and even beyond.A California fuel importer explained it to media that Electricity out here is the new gold rush, but bright shiny objects arent going to get us to the promised land. Investors, corporations and farm-level bio-refineries have been backing that idea with their wallets.Last June, for example, Raizen, an energy company based in Sao Paulo, Brazil, announced it would open a new 21 million gallon a year refinery converting sugarcane to ultra-low-carbon ethanol to cater to increasing demand for cellulosic biofuels. Toyota has been experimenting with a new flex-fuel Prius hybrid capable of using up to 100 percent very-low-carbon ethanol. This could result in a climate impact no greater than that of electric passenger cars that plug into dirty power grids in countries such as the United States or Brazil.According to Graham Noyes, at the same time, a heartland biofuels industry that underpins the economies of hundreds of American farming communities is pinning its hopes on such things as a planned $2 billion dollar multi-state pipeline network. By some estimates, this could shrink bio-refineries carbon footprint by as much as 25%. The pipeline will capture carbon dioxide emitted during ethanol fermentation and bury it deep underground in North Dakota. Californias unsung workhorses.In California, the home state of Tesla and also the countrys largest fuel market, biofuels made from mundane agricultural products have been key in cutting the climate impact of transportation in the state by 7.5% since 2011. The unsung workhorses of this improvement include biofuels made from corn, soybeans, hog and beef fat, manure gases from dairies, and used cooking grease.A biofuels executive with a knack for politically incorrect metaphors stated that renewable diesel from choice white grease the daintier name that traders use for pig fat already powers some Amazon delivery trucks. Its the prettiest girl in town,.What is unclear is how a dual track to the future of transportation will play out in marketplaces and supply chains. In the United States, the outlines of a coming conflict have already begun to appear. Ahead: Collapsing corn prices?, a report recently commissioned by the Agricultural Retailers Association which is representing companies selling farm equipment, seeds and other inputs, predicts collapsing corn prices and farm revenues if the sale of new liquid-fueled passenger cars is banned, as California Governor Gavin Newsom has ordered starting in 2035.The 6 million member American Farm Bureau Federation has joined an alliance with the United States oil industry to fight federal and state electric car subsidies seen as discriminating against biofuels and farming communities.But many in the United States biofuels industry believe that competition on a level playing field would be much better for the industry and the effort to curb climate change than a brawl in the courts and Congress. They support the expansion of commercial carbon markets, such as one in California, in which fuels and technologies are rewarded based on their contribution to greenhouse gas abatement, as determined by regulators using data and science.For that they are finding some powerful support. A newly-formed alliance of United States car companies argues that improved internal combustion engines will be needed for years. These will benefit from lower-carbon, high-octane liquid fuels, including renewables.

Read the original here:
The economics of electric cars and biofuels - Satenaw Ethiopian News/Breaking News | Your right to know!

A great stand upknows that bombing doesnt matter. Bombing is part of the art, part of the performance of itIf you can offend people and still get laughs, youre in some kind of real special ethos.

So said the late Bob Saget, who passed away last week at age 65, of Norm Macdonald in a tribute episode of Bob Sagets Here For You after Macdonald died in September 2021. But this special ethos also applies to Sagets 1998 directorial debut Dirty Work, made in collaboration with Macdonald, the films co-writer and star.

A buddy comedy about down and out best friends Mitch (Norm Macdonald) and Sam (Artie Lange) who open a revenge for hire business in order to get the money for Pops (Jack Warden) exorbitantly priced heart transplant, Dirty Work was a massive critical and commercial flop. It bombed so badly that Saget, who was always proud of the project despite its status as a failure, even claimed to have received a personal bill for $30 million from MGM. Maybe Dirty Work bombedmaybe Saget and Macdonald offended people with their crass, politically incorrect brand of humorbut they certainly got plenty of laughs. In the decades since its release, Dirty Work has rightly earned its place in the comedy cult classic hall of fame for its stacked lineup of comedy legends (Don Rickles, Chevy Chase, Chris Farley in his final film appearance and an uncredited young Adam Sandler as Satan, to name a few) and sheer concentration of well-timed jokes per minute.

Critics main issue with Dirty Work was that the jokes were too lowbrow, too terminally stupid and brain dead, to quote the New York Times review. Sure, the humor is crude, low class and not aiming for levels of intelligence much higher than that of the seventh grade, but that doesnt mean theyre not funny as hell. Mitch gets revenge on cruel car salesman Anton Phillips (David Koechner) by interrupting the live shooting of his commercial by hiring sex workers to play dead in the trunks; thanks to Sagets keen directorial timing and Macdonalds dry delivery, Mitch and Phillips play dead prostitute whack-a-mole, popping trunks open and closed, trying to prove their respective points.

Critics failed to see that its this dynamite combination of Sagets brash cheekiness and Macdonalds sneaky, dimpled charm that makes them soar. Another one of Dirty Works most famous gags involves Mitch and Sam planting fish around a house for a client, only to be interrupted by two warring drug gangs who take the fish scent as a signal to start killing each other; instead of showing the violence, the camera never leaves Mitch and Sams gleeful expressions, turning to horror in the other room as they realize the destruction theyve caused. The question of whether Sagets decision to use off-screen space and sound was made out of financial necessity or artistic expression is irrelevant because the gag lands so smoothly.

Another possible explanation for critics initial dislike for Dirty Work could be that the joke was on them, and Saget didnt care much if they got the joke or not. Although it would be inaccurate to say that all of Dirty Works jokes are punching upSaget and Macdonald take more of an aim at everyone including themselves approachmany of the jokes are aimed at high art, and those who can afford to enjoy it. For their final act of revenge against Travis Cole (Christopher McDonald), the wealthy real estate tycoon who screwed them over, Mitch and Sam lead a stampede of prostitutes, homeless guys and skunks through Coles opera house on opening night of Don Giovanni. Theyre using skunks to heighten the atmosphere of squalor and despair. Brilliant! exclaims one opera critic as hoards of well-dressed operagoers flee the scene.

Youre ruining Don Giovanni! Cole laments to Mitch. Don Giovanni? Whos that dude? Mitch asks, genuinely puzzled. The opera! Youre ruining the opera! cries Cole. Oh yes, well, we are ruining that, Mitch responds blithely.

Much like Mitch and Sam within the world of Dirty Work, Saget and Macdonald werent at all unfamiliar with ruining the operawith disrupting the entertainment industry as troublemaking outsiders. They brought Dirty Works ethos of dont take crap from anybody into their real lives by pushing boundaries in bad taste, asking questions about what lowbrow actually meant, and to whom. Instead of fearing backlash, they welcomed itwith material consequences, in Macdonalds case.

Right before Dirty Works release, Macdonald was abruptly fired from Saturday Night Lives Weekend Update after he cracked one too many jokes about a close buddy of top NBC executive Don Ohlmeyer: O.J. Simpson.

O.J. Simpson vowed never to rest until the real killers of Nicole Brown Simpson are brought to justice, Macdonald quipped at his Weekend Update desk, before a photo of O.J. playing golf soon after his trial flashed on screen. And the manhunt continues. While jokes about O.J. Simpson may not seem particularly transgressive today, they struck a nerve, at least with the affluent upper-level ghouls at NBC.

Sagets comedic style pushed the envelope of bad taste in another way: Pure, unadulterated, in-your-face raunch. Although Sagets lasting legacy will be his beloved role as Danny Tanner on Full House, he earned the moniker Americas filthiest dad by telling some of the dirtiest jokes of all time. In an early set at Rodney Dangerfields club, Saget joked, Im a happy guy, because I got married. Married my girlfriend of seven years. Thats her age, Im going to jail. His version of The Aristocrats in the 2005 documentary of the same namemade up mostly of pedophilia, incest, shit, piss, fisting, blood, etc.is still shocking to the average listener today. Saget may have cut his teeth on blue humor, but he launched himself into the cosmos of American popular culture through wholesome dad charm.

A lot of time and energy has been devoted to discovering which side of Saget was the real himwas Saget able to get away with cackling his way over the line by using Danny Tanner as a shield, or did the dirty jokes play off of and overcompensate for his untouchably pure persona? There is room for threads of both these ideas to be true. Perhaps Saget was best able to be curious about human nature through both extremes, the naughty and the nice. Why shouldnt audiences appreciate the virtuous nature of Danny Tanner, while also acknowledging that dirty jokes make us laugh despite ourselves, even if thats uncomfortable to admit out loud in polite society? Sagets Jekyll and Hyde dichotomyclean personal morality for the family viewers at home, X-rated jokes at the clubis another thing he shared with Macdonald, a man whose jokes often toed offensive lines while maintaining his wholesome persona.

It is Saget and Macdonalds strong bond, outsiders perspective and commitment to finding humor in deep, human vulgarity that makes Dirty Work work, even though much of the heavy raunch was cut in favor of a family-friendly PG-13 rating. (Note to self: Snyder Cut is out, Saget Cut is in). While the cuts to Dirty Work have historically been written off by the studios overall negative attitude toward R-rated comedies, or as punishment against Macdonald specifically due to his NBC feud, they could also be seen as an early example of tangible backlash against Saget and Macdonalds shared envelope-pushing comic sentiment. Its not that the bits left on the cutting room floor were particularly transgressive (most of them are dick jokes), but its the principle of Sagets artistic intentions, no matter how silly or vulgar, being trespassed upon by studio execs who determine what good taste is. Saget and Macdonald might both be gone, but Dirty Work lives on as a testament to their long lasting friendship and shared love of bad taste for bad tastes sake.

Brooklyn-based film writer Katarina Docalovich was raised in an independent video store and never really left. Her passions include sipping lime seltzer, trying on perfume and spending hours theorizing about Survivor. You can find her scattered thoughts as well as her writing on Twitter.

Read more here:
Bob Saget and Norm Macdonald Championed Bad Taste in Dirty Work - Paste Magazine

Last week was a momentous one for voting rights in America, and not just because of President Joe Bidens urgent (if unsuccessful) plea for Congress to pass legislation protecting access to the ballot. More than 800,000 people in New York City gained the right to vote with the enactment of a new law allowing legal noncitizens to participate in municipal elections.

The law represents one of the biggest single expansions of voting rights in recent years, as well as an enormous victory for immigrants in the nations largest city. But Americans didnt hear about it in Bidens speech in Atlanta. Nor would they know about it from listening to congressional Democratic leaders who have championed both the partys election overhaul and liberal treatment of immigrants. Indeed, few prominent Democrats seem interested in discussing New York Citys law at all; over the past two weeks, I asked a range of party leadersmembers of the citys congressional delegation, the chairs of the congressional Hispanic, Black, and Asian American and Pacific Islander caucuses, the White Houseto weigh in on the law and whether immigrant voting rights should be a topic of national debate. Hardly any would agree (or, officially, make time in their busy schedules) to speak on the issue.

Although Representative Hakeem Jeffries of Brooklyn, the fourth-ranking House Democrat and a potential future speaker, has publicly backed the measure, other well-known New York Democrats, including Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, have said nothing about it.

The new law represents one of the starkest recent examples of the bifurcated policies on voting and immigration that have emanated from states and cities in the absence of action on each issue by Congress. As Republican-led governments have restricted access to the ballot and the rights of immigrants, Democratic strongholds have moved aggressively in the other direction. (The New York law applies only to people who have legal status in the U.S. and have resided in the city for at least 30 days. It does not confer voting rights to undocumented immigrants.)

We believe that New York needs to lead the way in this moment to demonstrate that while folks are trying to limit our democracy, were trying to expand it, Murad Awawdeh, the executive director of the New York Immigration Coalition, told me.

National Democrats often applaud efforts such as the expansion of mail balloting in blue states and allowing undocumented immigrants to obtain drivers licenses. Their silence on New York Citys immigrant-voting law, however, likely reflects an ambivalence by the citys own leadership and national advocates for immigration reform about both the political wisdom of the policy and its constitutionality.

It is a fraught debate, Muzaffar Chishti, a senior fellow at New York Universitys Migration Policy Institute, told me. It has actually gotten less introspection in New York City than it deserves, and I think part of it is that it is politically incorrect to raise doubts about anything that on its face looks pro-immigrant.

Some advocates went even further, suggesting that by granting so many foreign-born residents a benefit reserved for citizens, New York Citys progressive lawmakers were endangering immigrants who could be subject to even more severe restrictions imposed by reactionary Republicans elsewhere. They are putting at real risk the lives and the livelihoods of immigrants, documented or not, in more conservative parts of the country, Ali Noorani, the president of the National Immigration Forum, told me. I worry that this decision by New York City will lead people to take revenge on the immigrants that live in their communities.

Read: The obvious voting-rights solution that no Democrat will propose

For such a historic advance in voting rights, the New York laws final enactment was anticlimactic, even a bit awkward. Although the city council overwhelmingly approved the proposal, the part of its debate that drew the most attention was a speech in opposition by its Democratic majority leader, Laurie Cumbo, who suggested that the votes of immigrants would dilute the votes of Black New Yorkers and noted that Latinos voted in greater numbers for Donald Trump in 2020 than they had four years earlier. Outgoing Mayor Bill de Blasio questioned whether the city had the power to grant noncitizens the right to vote but left the legislation for his successor, Eric Adams, to handle. Adams declined either to sign or veto the bill, allowing it to become law by default.

Republicans have not been nearly as shy about discussing the new law. The Republican National Committee, along with a number of GOP officials in New York, is suing the city, contending that the measure violates state law and New Yorks constitution. Only American citizens should decide the outcome of American elections, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy tweeted. The citys lone Republican member of Congress, Representative Nicole Malliotakis of Staten Island, has joined the lawsuit. Her likely opponent in the fall, former Democratic Representative Max Rose, declined my interview request.

The liberal case for allowing noncitizens to vote is fairly straightforward: People who live, work, and pay taxes in a community, the argument goes, should have a say in how its governed. Federal law now prohibits noncitizens from voting in elections for Congress or president, but most states granted voting rights to noncitizens for much of the countrys early history, and a few states allowed them to cast ballots well into the 20th century. For that reason, proponents of the idea like to say that theyre not granting voting rights to noncitizens, but restoring them. About a dozen towns and small citiesmost of them in Maryland and Massachusettsallow noncitizens to vote in municipal elections. Chicago and San Francisco permit noncitizens to participate in school-board elections.

In todays politics, where Republicans have repeatedly blocked comprehensive immigration legislation in Congress and weaponized hostility toward foreigners in elections, the idea of noncitizen voting resides on the far edge of mainstream debateif not well beyond it. Advocates who have lobbied lawmakers for nearly two decades to provide a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants told me that the idea of extending voting rights to legal permanent residents had never entered the discussions about an overhaul of federal immigration laws. In an indication of how little debate the topic has generated, a poll conducted for The Atlantic by Leger found that one-quarter of all respondents had no opinion about whether noncitizens should be able to vote in local elections. In a separate question, a majority of respondents (53 percent) said that noncitizens should never be permitted to vote in elections in the U.S. Slightly more than one-quarter (27 percent) supported universal voting rights for legal noncitizens, while 20 percent said that they should be able to vote only in local elections.

In an op-ed last month, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (now a Democrat although he was first elected as a Republican) offered what he called a pro-immigrant case against noncitizen voting. He wrote that the proposal devalues citizenship and that reformers should keep their focus on easing the path to citizenship for immigrants rather than bestowing on them its biggest benefit in advance. The noncitizens covered under New York Citys law will include legal permanent residents, those with work visas, and residents given legal status after they were brought into the U.S. illegally as children. Theyll be eligible to vote in local elections, such as for mayor and city council, beginning in 2023. But many advocates are skeptical that theyll get that chance because of the possibility that the law will be struck down first. Proponents would have to argue that municipal elections are exempt from state election statutes specifying that no person shall be qualified to register for and vote at any election unless he is a citizen of the United States. Its clearly legally problematic, Chishti said.

The politics of noncitizen voting are a big cause of concern for immigrant advocates, but not in the way people might expect. Republicans seem likely to use the New York law to attack their opponents in the midterm campaign, but Democrats dont believe those attempts will be any more damaging than the controversies GOP candidates are already ginning up about immigrants and the southern border. All they do is run on shame and fear and lie, Representative Jamaal Bowman of New York told me. So I dont worry about that.

Nooranis main worry was that the tit-for-tat nature of the battle over immigrants could jeopardize marginalized communities in more conservative areas of the country. Another fear is that the logistical challenge of implementing and enforcing New Yorks law could cause more political headaches than its passage. Noncitizen voting on the local level has occurred without much problem in small jurisdictions such as Takoma Park, Maryland, a progressive community outside Washington, D.C., where immigrants have been able to vote for mayor and city council since 1993. But until recently, Takoma Park held its municipal elections in separate years than elections for state and federal offices, and the number of noncitizen voters totaled about 100, the city clerk, Jessie Carpenter, told me.

New York Citys major municipal elections, such as its mayoral race, occur in odd years, but occasionally voters must decide citywide ballot measures alongside congressional, gubernatorial, or presidential races. In those years, the citys Board of Electionsan institution not renowned for its administrative competencemust distribute separate ballots to noncitizen voters who could risk deportation if they mistakenly voted in a state or federal election. Are we sending people to commit federal crimes? asked Jeremy Robbins, the executive director of the American Immigration Council. Chishti said the situation presented a potential nightmare, warning that incidents of inadvertent voter fraud would play into the GOPs otherwise weak argument about the integrity of elections in big Democratic cities. You have to do a massive educational campaign to make sure that people are vigilant about not crossing that line, he said.

When I spoke to Mireya Reith, an Arkansas-based co-chair of the Fair Immigration Reform Movement, she was happy for New York and not particularly focused on the knotty details of implementing its immigrant-voting law. We all celebrate that progress, she told me, applauding the city for being ahead of the curve. The victories for immigrants that Reith touted on behalf of the local advocacy group she helped found, Arkansas United, were of an entirely different sort. The coalition had helped win passage of legislation increasing work and educational opportunities for immigrants in the conservative state while blocking more punitive proposals.

As for voting rights, the most optimistic view she could offer was that perhaps Arkansas would be ready for that conversation a few years down the road. The same, she said, was probably true of Washington. This week the Senate is poised to block, on a party-line vote, legislation aimed at protecting the rights of people already allowed to vote in the U.S. Any debate about providing ballots to those who arent is hard to envision anytime soon. I dont think youre going to see this discussion nationally, Reith said. Im not seeing that appetite.

See the original post here:
The Voting-Rights Debate Democrats Dont Want to Have - The Atlantic

Breadcrumb Trail Links

When one reaches a certain age, it becomes hazardous to express traditional opinions about society. One risks being labelled an evil boomer.

Author of the article:

Publishing date:

Things are weird right now. COVID-19 is turning our lives upside down, but there is more than that going on. When one reaches a certain age, it becomes hazardous to express out-of-the-box read: traditional opinions about society. One risks being branded an evil baby boomer with a mind shut tight like an alligators snout on its prey.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

As if years spent on this Earth count for nothing. As if past mistakes and successes mean nothing. As if the knowledge that a historically important generation, the post-war babies, acquired over the decades is irrelevant, because it is tainted by racism and transphobia and other discriminatory mental postures.

But, it seems, ageism is OK.

We are ignorant vieux schnoqueswho should shut up once and for all. But sometimes, our cauldron, too, boileth over.

Theres a fantastic new sitcom on TVA called Le Bonheur, about a French teacher who reaches the end of his rope with his inept students and decides to change his life and move to the country.

The first show opens with actor Michel Charette delivering a hysterical tirade as his character has a meltdown in front of his students.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Year after year, I teach students more stupid that those from the previous year. After 20 years, what does it produce? Vegetables, ostie, not even capable of pluralizing horse, and who want to decide the sex of chairs, tabarnac.

His rant is so politically incorrect that all French-language media ran stories about it, and call-in shows lines were jammed with people who largely agreed with the main characters frustrations about modern youth.

At the same time, some academics earnestly bewailed the episode as deepening the generational divide, exaggerating youth viewpoints and even damaging the future of the French language by turning off youth with harsh criticism, perhaps even driving them to less-demanding English.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

No sense of humour there.

Generational head-butting is old. I grew up during the 60s and 70s when it probably reached a peak, fed by sex, drugs and rock and roll, and rage at the United States for the war in Vietnam. (When the Soviets brutally invaded Afghanistan in 1979, however, there werent anywhere near as many demos.)

Every generation has its blind spots. Ours but not mine was Marxism. While young people today might argue whether binary biological sex exists, we debated whether communism was a great idea badly implemented. I remember fist fights at the Pie IX mtro station near my house between Communists and Maoist CEGEP students.

Now, Marxism appears to be gaining appeal among millennials. In case you forgot, Marxism is all about the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism by the proletariat (working class people), and the establishment of a classless communist society.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

For example, one of the founders of Black Lives Matter, Patrisse Cullors, came out as a trained Marxist in 2015. BLM co-founder Alicia Garza, describes herself as a queer social justice activist and Marxist according to the Poynter Institutes PolitiFact . To include social justice and Marxism in the same sentence indicates she has missed a few history lessons.

Im not suggesting that all BLM supporters are Marxists, nor that anyone is wishing for the return of politburos and gulags, just that todays Marxists still seem to believe that if the cause is saintly enough, people can simply be rebooted.

Those of us who have been around a little longer generally dont harbour warm and fuzzy feelings for thing like disrupting the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure. Last year, after much controversy, BLM removed that line from its list of beliefs, but it remains part of Marxist doxa.

A bad idea then, a bad idea now. And forever.

The schism between young and old is as deep as the frustrations expressed by the teacher in Le Bonheur.

Every generation thinks it knows better than the one that preceded it. To todays youth, I say, be careful what you wish for, you may get it.

lravary@yahoo.com

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Sign up to receive daily headline news from the Montreal Gazette, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of Montreal Gazette Headline News will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notificationsyou will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

Read the original here:
Lise Ravary: Le Bonheur teacher's rant strikes a chord and a nerve - Montreal Gazette

Agents of the National Police Corps have arrested a well-known 'madam' accused of forcing several women, all of them of Chinese nationality, to have sex or give erotic massages 24 hours a day in an apartment in Son Gotleu.

The Immigration Department of the National Police has uncovered a hundred apartments or chalets where prostitution is practiced. More than 85 percent are brothels where women practice prostitution and the remaining 15 percent is divided between apartments male sex, transvestites or transsexuals.

The pandemic and the restrictions imposed by the government have largely changed the habits of sex workers and their clients. At present, sexual practices in the street have been practically eradicated. The sex workers advertise privately (Milanuncios, Pasin etc...) or use mobile applications such as Tinder or Grinder to attract clients. The number of independent workers is 10 percent, while the remaining 90 percent work on commission with those in charge of the improvised brothels.

The Police learned through confidential information that massage and sexual services were being offered in a house near the neighbourhood of Son Gotleu, Palma. The police officers proceeded to carry out an inspection in the aforementioned property and were able to verify that massage and prostitution services were being offered there, identifying several Chinese citizens, all of them without proper immigration status in Spain.

It was also found that the 'madame' had several women working 24 hours a day as prostitutes and forced the young women to accept any type of proposition from the clients. In addition, she had one of them working about ten hours a day performing cleaning tasks, buying household goods, or preparing food in exchange for 10 euros a day. The 'madame' took advantage of the serious situation of vulnerability of the victim as she was here illegally and could not work legally. The alleged perpetrator was arrested for a crime related to prostitution, favouring illegal immigration and against the rights of the workers, and a police report was processed and sent to the court.

Sources confirm that it was a centre with great activity and that it was frequented by a great number of clients. At present, the police have counted about ten houses run by oriental people who practice prostitution.

See the article here:
More than 100 apartments in Palma used for prostitution - Majorca Daily Bulletin

Because the framing (of law) is not if he is guilty, the framing is if he is found guilty, said bishop Franco Mulakkal in 2018, in an interview with Republic TV.

In 2018, a nun at the Missionaries of Jesus convent in Kottayam accused the bishop of raping her 13 times between 2014 to 2016. Nearly four years later, he was acquitted citing lack of evidence, with no witness turning hostile and multiple nuns alleging that they too were harassed by the same bishop.

In the 24 pages of the victims version within the 289-page judgement were details of how Mulakkal had forcefully undressed, fingered and grabbed her, and kissed her breasts. He also made an attempt to insert his sexual organ into the mouth of the victim, and rubbed his penis on her face. The nun alleged that he forced her to hold his penis, ejaculated on her and then after the incident, using his power, authority and position, he threatened her that if she attempted to disclose the incident to any one, she would be eliminated.

It took her eight hours to recount everything. She had to remember dates, details of her life, the violence itself. It was traumatic but ultimately, still what she gave was a sterling statement, said Sandhya Raju George, one of the advocates representing the nun.

On January 14, despite the sterling statement, Mulakkal was acquitted by the trial court in Kottayam and continues to be the head of the diocese under which the survivor nuns congregation falls. The survivor and five other nuns who supported her live inside the convent, a little away from the other inmates and under police protection. She is scared. Now, he can do anything he wants to her, said Sandhya Raju George.

A glaring question that the judgement keeps coming back to is the long delay in reporting the matter also remains unexplained. But this cannot be answered without understanding the structures of power that underline life within a convent.

Locating the power

Former Kottayam SP S Harishankar, in his statement to the press after the acquittal, briefly locates this power dynamic. What you have to understand here is that this is a woman living within a fiduciary relationship (one involving management of responsibilities). Her entire existence itself is dependent on the accused. He is one who gets to decide if she should remain dead or alive. In a situation like this you cannot expect a woman to immediately come forward and complain.

When a young woman decides to become a nun, three important vows are said to guide her life there on: poverty, chastity and obedience.

Sister Julie George, a nun who joined the convent when she was 20 after being influenced by her friends, explained that usually the men perform the important rituals, while nuns are expected to clean the altar, decorate it and ensure the place is ready for when the priest or bishop takes the stand.

A priest, who spoke to Newslaundry on the condition of anonymity, explained that when a nun joins a congregation, she makes a decision to be a foot soldier of God. A nun takes a vow to do a certain specific kind of work and live a certain kind of lifestyle, he said. The structure is such that only men have agency to perform rituals. So this gives them a very different kind of power; its more than political power. Even the official decision-making bodies within a Catholic church are monopolised by this clergy of celibate men.

The priest said that no woman has or can ever be part of the clergy while the men are placed on a higher religious pedestal. A section in the judgment referred to this as it pointed out that the nun testified that she considered Mulakkal like God.

Sister Julie George explained for a nun, bishops are very important, not just spiritually but for daily life. Our congregations, we come under a bishop. We have to be on good terms with the bishop or else life becomes difficult.

This structure is dictated by the canon lawwritten for the governance of the church.

The priest said that in terms of agency for nuns, they are generally in charge of the maintenance of their convent, the records, expenditure, and a lot of times they end up teaching at the missionaries and recruiting other nuns. In certain congregations, nuns even own property but that depends on the congregation. In this case, this particular congregation falls under the patronage of the bishop of Jalandhar which at that time was Franco Mulakkal.

Sister Julie said that in her congregation, nuns are more independent but congregations founded by bishops are completely suppressed and oppressed by the bishop. That was the kind of convent this survivor lived in. Even financial expenditure or how much money a nun can get per month is completely decided by that bishop.

Sister Julie elaborated that the practice of nuns attending to the priests and bishops is a very traditional and oppressive concept. This attending to the clergymen involves kneeling before the priest or bishop, kissing the ring, ironing his clothes, attending to his basic needs, basically giving him all their attention. The patriarchy is very happy with this.

The extent of power exercised by Mulakkal is evident in the number of times the judgment refers to how the bishop asked nuns to iron his cassock and how other nuns took his suitcase and bag to the room. The bishop also controlled the complainant by often threatening to stop giving funds for the kitchen renovation work happening inside the convent.

There are several references to the kitchen work in the victims version. She went inside with the permission of the accused. When she handed over the cassock, the accused asked her to bring the papers of the kitchen work. She took the papers and knocked on the door. On getting permission from the accused, she entered the room. But the accused suddenly slammed the door and grabbed PW1 (the nun) from behind. She was numb with terrorshe asked the bishop what he was doing? Accused replied that it was he who sanctioned the kitchen work and held her tight. He forced her to lie down on the bed. He lifted her dress. He grabbed her breasts and squeezed them and pulled her inner wear down. The accused tried to push his penis forcefully into her mouth.

In another instance, it stated that PW1 (the nun) feared that she would be done away with. Accused warned her that it was he who sanctioned the money and that he can stop it again. She opened the door and went to her room. She was so embarrassed that she couldn't speak out. She knew that Bishop Franco would go to any extreme to eliminate all those who stand in his way.

Father Augustine Vattoli, among the few priests who came out in support of the survivor, said You have to understand how difficult it is for a nun to come out against a bishop. In fact, how many priests have openly come out? Barely any. Why? The church is all powerful. Look at what happened to Sister Lucy and me. So its very easy to ask why she didn't come out earlier, he said.

In 2018, soon after he participated in protests against Mulakkal, the Catholic Church sent Vattoli a strongly-worded notice warning him of strict action. Sister Lucy Kalappurakkal, who organised protests supporting the nun, was expelled from her convent on disciplinary grounds in June 2021.

Was there any delay in the complaint?

Former Kottayam SP Harishankar explained that it is incorrect to say there was delay in reporting the incident because there was continuous action in reporting the incident within the church.

Governed by canon law, the church has its own legal mechanisms which its inmates rely on. In many ways, nuns are to consider the canon law of higher value than a countrys penal code.

In 2017, the Catholic Bishop Conference of India issued a guideline to deal with sexual harassment at work place. It said institutions must have an Internal Complaints Committee and listed out the process of redressal of complaints.

According to Laurie Goodstein, the Vatican correspondent of the New York Times, it was in 2019 that Pope Francis, in response to a question by another reporter, for the first time agreed to sexual abuse within the church. The same year, the Pope issued what was called a ground-breaking law which required all Catholic priests and nuns around the world to report sexual abuse and cover-ups by their superiors to church authorities. The law also gave whistleblower protection.

The same year, after Mulakkals case became public, the Kerala Catholic Bishop Council also published a guideline for protecting minors and vulnerable adults. The guideline suggests that if found guilty of abuse, a priest or bishop may be defrocked, that is, removed from priesthood.

Given all these internal mechanisms, the survivor in the Mulakkal case tried to file an internal complaint, not once or twice but 14 times.

By the end of 2014, a little after the sexual abuse began, the nun began resorting to oral and written mechanisms. This included her approaching at least six priests, one spiritual mother, seven other sisters, three cardinals and three bishops. The nun also wrote a letter to the Apostolic Nuncio, and when she got no response, she also sent him two emails. The Apostolic Nuncio is a Vatican representative who is an ambassador or diplomat of the Holy sea; he reports to the Pope. She also wrote to Pope Francis. But she was compelled to approach the Kerala police when all these internal mechanisms failed.

According to the priest quoted above and Sister Julie, these internal mechanisms are a mere eyewash.

Sister Julie George said that even if the internal mechanism is in place, it is the clergymen who dominate it. Men are the ones running these committees. It is not victim-friendly and so a priest is hardly ever held accountable. Who knows if these letters really reach the Pope or not?

Not just in India

In 2016, when a woman in Kerala accused a priest of sexually harassing her over email and messages, the bishop suggested she go to another priest and subsequently was temporarily transferred, but within a month he was back to the same church. Such instances have been reported across the globe.

There was an uproar in 2002 when the Boston Globe newspapers Spotlight team detailed the deep-rooted system of transfer and cover-up of priests in cases involving sexual abuse. In 2005, an Indian priest in Minnesota was accused of molesting minors, including nuns. He was briefly suspended but quickly reinstated. In 2006, a BBC documentary titled Sex Crimes and Vatican showcased the systemic rot within the church when it came to accountability for sexual violence within the clergy. In 2018, 23 nuns in Chile were expelled from the congregation for reporting sexual abuse.

Why are so many nuns committing suicide? There is a serious mental health crisis here. Theyre closeted and silenced too often, said advocate Sandhya Raju George.

According to a report published by The International Journal of Indian Psychology in 2020, an article titled uncertainty in deaths of nuns in Kerala over 30 yearsan overview claimed that since 1987, in Kerala alone, bodies of over 17 nuns were found in various convents. Nuns were found dead in their rooms, the wells or in water tanks. The research stated that in all cases, neither the convent authorities nor the diocese and Kerala Catholic Church has lodged an FIR or investigated to find out the reason for the deaths. Almost every case was initially closed by stating as normal deaths.

Loving and hating the patriarchy

The Catholic church expects all inmates to strictly remain celibate. If a nun is found unchaste, she is expected to leave the congregation and give up nunhoodshe is considered unchaste even if she is sexually abused.

Regarding Mulakkals case, Father Nathan, who believes this to be a completely patriarchal approach, said, Especially for people who have vowed chastity, to stand in the witness box and talk about sexual assault is something that is very traumatic. And if there is no truth to it, no nun will not come out and say it happened.

The victim version had pointed to the nuns fear of being considered unchaste. She knew that if she spoke out, she would be expelled from the convent. She thought that she would be killed. Hence she chose to remain silent. When she was assigned Bible reading, the prosecution explained how she could not hold the Christian holy book.

Sister Julie George added that while no other institutions are as patriarchal as the church, there are nuns who are happy about this and Mulakkals acquittal.

Sister Ann Mary from Thrissur is among such nuns favouring the verdict. According to her, the survivor and the nuns supporting her, instead of being obedient to the rules and regulations of the congregation, wanted more power and position and created a drama because they wanted property. She believes that the case is financially and politically motivated. Look how many Hindus and Muslims are supporting this case. It is not a genuine case.

She also accused the nuns for having tried to destroy the reputation of the Catholic church. She said if she ever faced sexual assault, I have no right to raise my voice. If it is a genuine case, of course my congregation will support me. She also questioned the alleged delay in reporting the crime. I don't understand what is going wrong with this ladyIf she is really obedient, she would never have gone out of the way like this.

Power and lust

Section 376C of the IPC specifies a punishment of five years in jail for anyone who, in a position of authority, takes advantage of his official position to commit sexual violence on someone he has control over.

The judgment also harps over this question by asking if it is proved that the accused was a person in authority or that he is in position of control or dominance over PW1. It dedicates 13 pages to discuss the relationship between power and lust. Power and lust often play equal part in sexual violence. Power inequalities/imbalances, in terms of age, strength and money, often go along with incidents of rape, particularly when the surrounding community allows a veil of silence to cover the behaviour of the predator.

It concludes, As far as this case is concerned, there is ample documentary and oral evidence to conclude that the accused was exercising real authority over the congregation and the nuns. He is definitely a person in authority. This point is accordingly answered.

But despite this deep dive into the bishops power over the nuns life, Mulakkal today stands a free man.

With research assistance by Saeeduzzaman

See the rest here:
Power, lust and church: Mulakkal verdict brings focus back on sex abuse in convents despite 'checks' - Newslaundry