Dear santa, i’m back! i want some
1. spongebob stuoff, and 2.a magic kit. From, Fergal.P.S. iF you can’t find what it says here in your sack or bag, don’t
worry. i like EVERY present that is for Fergal!!!
Fortunately for him, we do indeed have both some SpongeBob lego, and a magic set. But I will have to have a word with him about using “please” a bit more often!
Remember when I said that commuting to work by train would mean I did a lot more reading? Not so. Since I bought my MP3 player, I’ve been listening to a lot of Doctor Who – staring with canonical stuff, The Abominable Snowmen, The Web of Fear and The Space Pirates, and then (with so much to choose from) going for Big Finish’s series of Doctor Who audio plays in which the history of the Whoniverse somehow worked out differently. I listened to the seven plays in order, but will review them out of order as they seemed to me to naturally group as follows:
I understand fan reaction to “Exile” was pretty negative, but I really enjoyed it as well; after three depressing stories (the two Doctor-as-villain ones, and “Deadline” which is discussed below), I was really relieved to hear one which was a bit more light-hearted. Apparently Time Lords change sex if they commit suicide (this may not be canonical), and so Arabella Weir‘s Doctor is hiding from them on Earth, staking shelves in Sainsbury’s and getting smashed down the pub, having fled Gallifreyan justice. There is much chasing around the countryside by a comedy duo of Time Lord agents. Fun, though with a darker edge.
In “Deadline”, Sir Derek Jacobi plays a retired writer who rues the day he failed to get his show, Doctor Who, commissioned back in the early 1960s; there is a very intricate exploration of inner space, families, failure, fandom, and so on, but as I said earlier I found the tone decidedly downbeat. But it makes an interesting pairing with “Auld Mortality”, as both have the same point of departure, if from different directions, and both feature the Doctor as to a certain extent the narrator of his own story. It is by Robert Shearman who wrote the Ninth Doctor story “Dalek”. I must say that if you are thinking of trying out the series, “Auld Mortality” and “Deadline” are the ones to get to see if the concept is to your taste.
In summary, then, “Auld Mortality” and “Shada” are particularly recommended, though none of them is bad.
13) The Elusive Quest: Reconciliation in Northern Ireland, by Norman Porter
Like Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, this was lent me by a friend and I have been feeling guilty about not reading and returning it, though in this case only for a year and a half rather than fifteen years.
I admit that I had avoided it for the wrong reasons. Porter achieved some prominence, briefly, in Northern Ireland’s political discourse about ten years ago for his first book, Rethinking Unionism: An Alternative Vision for Northern Ireland (sample chapter). Since I am not a Unionist, I couldn’t get very enthusiastic about his attempts to repackage it, and it seemed to me that while Porter had succeeded in producing an alternative vision which was, indeed, not too far from mine, his project was fatally flawed by insisting on calling this “Unionism” in any form; to my mind, if you aim for a decent civic society, which respects and equally guarantees the rights of all its citizens, that surely is largely irrelevant to the question of whether Northern Ireland should continue to be in the UK, join the rest of Ireland, be somehow shared or become independent (though not irrelevant as to how that issue should be resolved). So for that reason I didn’t bother reading the first book, though I was well aware of its arguments.
I’m very glad to say that my friend who insisted on lending me The Elusive Quest was right to do so. Porter has moved on from Unionism, and here presents a devastating critique of both the Unionist and Republican traditions (he spends less time on more moderate Irish nationalists, though does not ignore them entirely). His refutation of the liberal pretensions of Unionism is clear and comprehensive; his attack on the ethics of both sides utterly convincing; and his dissection of the Sinn Fein/IRA attitude to the peace process, based entirely on showing the flaws in its own internal logic, is the best I’ve read. The book was published in 2003, before it became clear that the UUP had lost the internal battle in Unionism, so some of the commentary on Trimble is now of historical interest only; but his critiques of Unionism in general remain sound.
But this is not a negative book. Those impressive passages attacking both side (near the end) are embedded in a very positive political argument, that the key to building a healthy society is to achieve reconciliation, and that the only criterion worth using to judge the actions of politicians is the extent to which they achieve it. His case is cleverly made, with a thought-provoking matrix of theoretical background and rebuttals of potential opposing arguments. I would have liked a few more specific policy recommendations, but perhaps this is beside the point – the book is about mind-sets, rather than actions.
Inevitably, given my own interests, I’ve been trying to think of how Porter’s arguments could be generalised to the rest of the world. I think the key message is here:
It is too easy to latch on to the idea of the alleged incommensurability of unionist and nationalist discourses, to excuse paltry attempts to work through our differences in a way that lessens divisions and permits the articulation of common purposes. At the very least, it is wildly implausible to suppose that reconciliation is impossible in the North because unionists and nationalists are so mysterious to each other that they find each other’s interpretations or perspectives incomprehensible… This is not to deny that misunderstandings and misperceptions abound, that divisions continue and that shared commitment to common purposes is hard to engender and even harder to sustain. But these problems are more plausibly traced to a relative scarcity engagement between major sections of our traditions, to the poor quality of the engagements that do occur, and to the fact that unionists and nationalists often disagree. And the crucial point is that these are things we can do something about: disagreements invite further discussion and deliberation, engagements can be increased and their quality improved. Recognising plurality and respecting difference does not have to imply abandoning hope in understanding others or in reaching substantial agreement about how we may together govern ourselves. It is at times a difficult hope to sustain, but that is not because it aims at something that is in principle beyond reach.
Communication is always necessary and appropriate, and that it is wrong, logically and morally, to assume that you already know in advance what the other side are going to say, so there is no point in talking to them. Indeed, it’s a point that is true for life in general, and not just in the politics of divided societies.
My first day off work since I finished at the old job has been a tiring one.
![[info]](https://i0.wp.com/stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?resize=17%2C17){kind=small}
artw needed the car first thing to get B to her day-care centre, and it being the day of U’s school’s Christmas service and also U’s birthday, the only way to ensure timely arrival of at least one parent at the service (less important) and guaranteed Cake for U and her classmates (essential) was for me to climb on my bike, for the first time in months, and drop by the shop on the way to U’s school. It’s only 7 km, but boy was I wrecked by the time I got there.
The service itself was quite different from last year’s. Then, the school had got all the kids to dress up and play a part, but it was actually a bit distressing to see U marched about uncomprehendingly if beautifully dressed up as an angel. (B, who was still at the school then, vehemently opted out of participating, as is her wont.)
This year, they had got the kids who were able enough from each class to participate to the level of their understanding, doing readings and prayers and a smaller-scale Nativity enactment. It was more chaotic, but, I felt, more compassionate. The sound system was pretty poor and we parents sitting way up at the back of the assembly hall (which used to be the church of a leper colony on the outskirts of Leuven) couldn’t hear much; and those of us whose Dutch is not at that level got even less. But I felt that our barrier to comprehension, in a way, echoed that of many of the children.
I had to cycle home again (and, I admit, there was some walking involved) and then take the car for a mid-day engagement (which I will write about below) in Antwerp, and then zoom off to B’s daycare place in Tienen to collect her, without getting lunch until I finally made it back home at 3.15. Then, artw‘s sister H arrived, and we have spent the evening helping U to celebrate her birthday; presents include jigsaws which she has done with great determination, and a bouncing and singing Tigger which has provoked both trepidation and fascination.
It’s grim to attend such events. The somewhat bemused if inarticulate comments from the ten-month-old little girl were especially poignant. When B, normally a pretty jovial and light-hearted colleague, paid his tribute to the woman he had hoped would be his partner for most of the rest of his life, I wept; and I was not the only one.
For a lot of people, Christmas is not a particularly happy time. My godmother, my mother’s stepmother, died on Christmas Day a few years back. The following Christmas was the time when we realised that our little B had undergone that retreat into her own mostly happy, but somewhat confused world from which she has not emerged, and into which U has followed her to a certain extent. We’ve learned to roll with it, and I’m sure my friend B and his little girl will; but I’ll be thinking of them this Christmas, and next, and after that as well.
I’m fed up of having to google this up every year. Here, for reference, is my Christmas dinner recipe:
ROAST LOIN OF BOAR
WITH JUNIPER BERRIES
(to feed 6 people)
INGREDIENTS :
3lbs boned and rolled loin of wild boarMarinade :
1/3 pt red wine
3tbsp vinegar
2 sliced carrots
1 sliced onion
2 shallots roughly chopped
2 crushed cloves of garlic
2 bay leaves
small bunch parsley
few sprigs fresh thyme
few sprigs marjoram
9 whole juniper berries
2 tsp saltSauce :
3/4 pt stock
1oz flour
1 1/2 tbsp lard or olive oil
METHOD
Bring all the marinade ingredients to the boil, and simmer for 3 minutes. Leave to cool. Score the fat on the loin lightly across the top, and place the meat in a deep dish, covering with the marinade. Leave for 2 or 3 days, turning the meat twice a day. Remove the meat and wipe it dry. Place it in an oven-proof braising pan or heavy casserole dish over heat, and add the oil or lard. Brown the meat well and remove it from the pan. Bring the marinade to the boil in a second pan. Mix the fat and the flour into a roux in the pan, and strain over the hot marinade, stirring until smooth. Add enough warm stock to thin the mixture. Put back the meat, cover the pan and cook in a low oven (330 deg. F, 170 deg. C, gas 3) for 2 1/2 hours. Place meat in a serving dish. Transfer the sauce into a pan, skim off the fat and bring to the boil.
Thanks to
It’s a nifty little image file, new every time you look at the page.
U is four today. She may not be hugely conscious of the day’s significance, but she will have a good time.
She was born exactly ninety years after Claudia “Lady Bird” Johnson, who is 94 today.
(And it is the 58th birthday of both Noel Edmonds and Patricia Hewitt, who were born exactly two years before the Bee Gees. And the anniversary of the deaths of Admiral Dönitz in 1980 and Samuel Beckett in 1989.)
…time for a brief moment of nostalgia: the soon-to-be-ex-employers’ promotional video is now on YouTube. I have about ten seconds on it, starting at 02:02.
12) [Doctor Who] Timewyrm: Revelation, by Paul Cornell
Cornell’s first novel, I think, and pretty good stuff, winding up the Timewyrm tetralogy (1, 2, 3) that kicked off the Virgin series of New Adventures of Doctor Who. A decent effort, certainly on a par with the first and second books of the series for quality (the third being pretty dire). The Doctor has to confront his enemy, the Timewyrm, by hunting through the nooks and crannies of his own mind with help from his own past incarnations (and I liked the Doctor/Doctor interactions, not usually done this well). Many of the characters spend much of the book taking sanctuary in a church which is their only protection against a bizarrely hostile environment outside – a setting Cornell of course used again in the Ninth Doctor TV story, “Father’s Day”.
The famous spoof broadcast last week is still stirring up trouble here. There has been a fascinating exchange of open letters between the chief editors of two leading Belgian papers, Le Soir for the Francophones, De Standaard for the Flemings. I may rise to the occasion of doing a translation into English (including pointing out where the respective translators have not done their job accurately), but meantime here are both originals and translations, originals (Le Soir’s letter in French, and De Standaard’s letter in Dutch) on the left, translations on the right.
| Beste vrienden,
Vous vous insurgez à grands cris contre l’image caricaturale qu’a donnée de la Flandre la fiction de la RTBF sur la mort de la Belgique. Vous nous accusez même d’être tous complices, nous les journalistes francophones. A propos de la fiction de la RTBF, vous pouvez aussi: Caricaturale, l’émission ? Elle l’était. C’est le genre imposé d’une telle fiction. Si la scission devait devenir un jour réalité, sachez qu’elle aurait aussi, dans la vie des gens, un impact caricatural. Mais de là à prétendre que les francophones vous ignorent, vous caricaturent systématiquement, non ! C’est faux et c’est injurieux à notre égard. Non, nous ne vous dépeignons pas qu’à coups de clichés. Oui, nous dirigeons nos enquêtes, nos reportages, nos analyses vers ce qu’on vit et ce qu’on dit en Flandre. Interrogez-vous. Pourquoi pensez-vous que l’immense majorité des téléspectateurs y a cru, à l’indépendance de la Flandre, à la mort de la Belgique ? Parce que quand vous dites « confédéralisme », les francophones comprennent « séparatisme ». Serions-nous moins intelligents ? Non. Au contraire, nous sommes, sans cesse, à votre écoute. Nous nous efforçons de décoder l’ambiguïté de certains discours. Quand votre ministre-président, Yves Leterme, dit que la Belgique n’a pas de valeur ajoutée, nous, francophones, en déduisons qu’il la rejette. Quand le cartel flamand CD&V/N-VA, première force politique de Flandre, annonce, pas plus tard que mardi, qu’il exige l’autonomie dans tous les domaines, des soins de santé à l’emploi, de la fiscalité à la SNCB, de la Justice à la police, nous comprenons, nous francophones, que vous ne voulez plus rien gérer avec nous. Quand vous parlez de confédéralisme, nous y voyons une coquille vide. Quand vous dites aspirer à un Etat plus efficace, nous craignons que vous souhaitiez surtout réduire les transferts de la solidarité. Nous ne sommes pas naïfs. « Nous en avons marre », écrivait vendredi le rédacteur en chef du Standaard. Cher Peter Vandermeersch, sachez que nous aussi, nous en avons parfois marre de vos clichés. Marre d’être décrits comme des paresseux, des chômeurs qui refusent de travailler. Marre d’être dépeints comme des assistés, qui se plairaient à vivre aux crochets des Flamands travailleurs. Marre d’entendre dire que nous sommes intellectuellement incapables d’apprendre le néerlandais. La caricature ne fait pas progresser le débat. Elle le tue. Le Soir a depuis longtemps investi temps et espace dans l’enquête et la rencontre avec la Flandre. Ne citons que les exemples récents : Bénédicte Vaes a séjourné dans la rédaction de la Gazet van Antwerpen avant les élections communales, nous avons échangé avec De Morgen nos pages opinion et nos critiques théâtrales, publié un éditorial commun en français à l’occasion du festival « Toernee general » et d’autres projets uniront en 2007, Morgen, KVS, Soir et Théâtre national. Nous consacrons chaque lundi une revue de presse aux journaux néerlandophones. Nous publions des sondages reprenant les résultats pour l’ensemble du pays là où celui du Standaard se contente de suivre la Flandre et ses Bekende Vlamingen. Alors, cher Peter Vandermeersch, Le Soir vous fait cette proposition : nos deux journaux ont des liens proches, mais nos positions éditoriales divergent souvent sur les enjeux communautaires. Mettons dès lors nos esprits critiques et notre professionnalisme en commun au service d’une grande enquête sur la Belgique et ses régions, que nous publierons avant les élections. Le devenir de la Belgique mérite mieux que des humeurs, il impose la rigueur. Vous êtes partant ? |
BESTE Vrienden,
Jullie hebben met zijn allen erg verontwaardigd gereageerd op de karikaturale manier waarop Vlaanderen werd voorgesteld in de RTBF-reportage over het einde van België. Jullie hebben er ons, Franstalige journalisten, zelfs van beschuldigd er allemaal medeplichtig aan te zijn. Was de uitzending karikaturaal? Dat was ze zeker. Dit soort fictieprogramma vereist dat. Trouwens, als de scheiding ooit een feit zou worden, dan kunnen jullie ervan op aan dat ze ook in het echte leven voor veel mensen karikaturale gevolgen zou hebben. Maar om daaruit meteen te besluiten dat de Franstaligen niets over jullie weten en systematisch een karikatuur van jullie maken, dat gaat te ver. Het klopt niet en het is oneerlijk tegenover ons. Wij praten niet louter in clichés over jullie. Wat we wel doen, is gedegen onderzoek voeren en analyses en reportages maken over wat er reilt en zeilt in Vlaanderen. Denk eens even na. Waarom geloofde de overgrote meerderheid van de kijkers volgens u meteen bij het zien van de uitzending dat Vlaanderen de onafhankelijkheid had uitgeroepen en dat België niet meer bestond? Het is eenvoudig: als jullie het hebben over ,,confederalisme”, dan verstaan de Franstaligen dat als ,,separatisme”. Zijn we dan misschien minder intelligent? Helemaal niet, maar we luisteren altijd heel goed naar jullie. We doen onze uiterste best om het soms dubbelzinnige discours in Vlaanderen te ontcijferen. Als jullie minister-president, Yves Leterme, zegt dat België voor hem geen enkele meerwaarde heeft, dan leiden wij daaruit af dat hij België afwijst. Als het Vlaamse kartel CD&V/N-VA, de grootste politieke formatie in Vlaanderen, vorige dinsdag aankondigt dat het autonomie eist in zowat alle domeinen, van de gezondheidszorg tot werk, van de fiscaliteit tot de NMBS, van Justitie tot politie, dan begrijpen wij daaruit dat jullie helemaal niets meer samen met ons willen besturen. Als jullie het hebben over confederalisme, dan is dat voor ons een lege schelp. Als jullie beweren te streven naar een efficiënter bestuur, dan vrezen wij dat jullie in de eerste plaats de solidariteitstransfers willen terugschroeven. Wij zijn niet naïef. ,,Nous en avons marre”, schreef de hoofdredacteur van De Standaard vrijdag op pagina 3 van zijn krant. Beste Peter Vandermeersch, wij hebben af en toe ook schoon genoeg van jullie clichés en karikaturen. We hebben er schoon genoeg van altijd weer beschreven te worden als luiaards, als werklozen die weigeren een baan te zoeken. We hebben er genoeg van afgeschilderd te worden als steuntrekkers die niets liever doen dan op kosten van de Vlamingen te leven. We zijn het beu te moeten aanhoren dat we intellectueel niet in staat zijn om Nederlands te leren. Karikaturen helpen het debat niet vooruit, ze maken het kapot. Le Soir besteedt al heel lang veel tijd van journalisten en veel ruimte op haar pagina’s aan onderzoek naar en toenadering tot Vlaanderen. Ik noem alleen maar de recentste voorbeelden: onze redactrice Bénédicte Vaes verbleef in de aanloop naar de gemeenteraadsverkiezingen op de redactie van Gazet Van Antwerpen, we hebben onze opiniepagina’s en theaterrecensies uitgewisseld met De Morgen , we hebben een gezamenlijk editoriaal gepubliceerd in het Frans naar aanleiding van het festival Toernee general . Ook voor 2007 staan er gezamenlijke projecten op stapel. Voorts brengen wij elke maandag een overzicht van de Nederlandstalige pers in België. Wij publiceren opiniepeilingen waarvan de resultaten gelden voor heel het land, terwijl de peilingen van De Standaard alleen betrekking hebben op Vlaanderen en zijn Bekende Vlamingen. Daarom, beste Peter Vandermeersch, doet Le Soir u een voorstel. Onze beide kranten staan dicht bij elkaar, maar de editorialen over communautaire kwesties liggen vaak mijlenver uit elkaar. Laten we daarom de krachten van onze kritische geesten en ons professionalisme bundelen om een grootschalig onderzoek op te starten naar België en zijn regio’s, te publiceren voor de federale verkiezingen. De toekomst van België verdient beter dan de stemming van het moment, ze vereist nauwkeurigheid en doortastendheid. Béatrice Delvaux |
| Chers amis, Met belangstelling en verbazing, maar vooral met veel enthousiasme, hebben we op de redactie van De Standaard de ,,Lettre à nos amis flamands” gelezen die u in het weekeinde op de frontpagina van uw krant hebt afgedrukt. Het is een uitgebreid antwoord op het artikel (“Nous en avons marre”) dat wij vrijdag in deze krant hadden geschreven na het ophefmakende RTBF-“journaal” over de onafhankelijkheid van Vlaanderen en enkele daaropvolgende analyses in de Franstalige pers. Uw antwoord bestaat in essentie uit drie delen. Om te beginnen ontkent u verontwaardigd dat u op de redactie van Le Soir in clichés zou denken en schrijven over Vlaanderen. U geeft goede argumenten om aan te tonen dat u wel degelijk inspanningen doet om Vlaanderen in uw krant te brengen. In de tweede plaats probeert u ons duidelijk te maken dat wat wij in Vlaanderen verstaan verstaan onder “confederalisme” bij jullie wel eens klinkt als een ,,lege schelp”. Ons streven naar een meer efficiënte staat, zien jullie als een afbouw van de “solidariteitstransfers”. “Nous ne sommes pas naïfs”, schrijven jullie… En tenslotte steekt u de hand uit. “Mettons dès lors nos esprits critiques et notre professionalisme en commun au service d’une grande enquête sur la Belgique”. Een groot gemeenschappelijk journalistiek project dus over de toekomst van België. Voor ik antwoord op uw voorstel formuleer ik drie bedenkingen. 1. Ik wil hier niet meteen de polemiek voeren. Maar ik kan enkel vaststellen hoe moeilijk de dialoog is als er, in onze ogen, slechte wil is aan de andere kant van de taalgrens. Eén voorbeeld: niet later dan dit weekeinde ruimden wij in onze krant plaats voor een interview met Philippe Dutilleul, de maker van de RTBF-,documentaire” over de splisting van Begië. Zonder verpinken beweert de man dat “70 procent van de Vlamingen separatistisch stemt”. Dit klinkt in onze oren als complete nonsens. Enkel Het Vlaams Belang (desnoods eenzijdig) en eventueel de N-VA, ( via het ,”bruistabletmodel”) willen het separatisme. Samen zijn die twee niet goed voor zeventig, maar voor zowat dertig procent van de stemmen. Ik geef het graag toe, Philippe Dutilleul maakt geen deel uit van uw redactie. Maar ziet u mijn punt? 2. Ik wil meteen in eigen boezem kijken. Ook wij maken dergelijke fouten. Ook wij moeten er ons voor hoeden Wallonië te herleiden tot de corruptie van sommige bonzen in Charleroi of Namen. En, al vele jaren levend met een extreem-rechtse partij, dreigen we verblind te raken voor racistische uitspattingen ervan. Maar moeten jullie, beste collega’s. de hand ook niet in eigen boezem steken? Zijn jullie hard genoeg voor jullie politieke klasse? Zijn jullie kritisch genoeg voor zij die van Brussel een van de slechtst bestuurde steden van West-Europa hebben gemaakt? Verdedigen jullie zelf niet een te gemakkelijk status-quo? 3. Het feit dat bijna negen op tien kijkers van de RTBF geloof gehecht hebben aan de reportage over de Vlaamse onafhankelijkheid – tegengehouden trams incluis – heeft velen in Vlaanderen de ogen geopend. Het toont dat u, de Franstalige media, én wij, de Nederlandstalige media, er de voorbije jaren niet in geslaagd zijn om het genuanceerd denken over de verdere stappen in een mogelijke staatshervorming aan ons beider publiek duidelijk te maken. Het toont dat wij beiden een immense “chantier d’explication” voor de boeg hebben. Daarom, beste collega’s, klinkt jullie voorstel ons hier op De Standaard als muziek in de oren. Laat ons inderdaad een groots onderzoek opzetten waaraan journalisten van Le Soir en De Standaard samen werken. Waarin we vragen noch taboes uit de weg gaan. Waarin we duidelijk maken aan onze lezers wat er leeft in Vlaanderen, Brussel en Wallonië. Wat België is, en in de ogen van de enen of de anderen, moet zijn. Laat ons dus doen waarin ons beider kranten goed zijn: steengoede journalistiek afwisselen met diepgravende debatten. Feiten en meningen. Geen karikaturen. Vriendelijke groet, |
Chers amis, c’est avec un intérêt mêlé de surprise, mais surtout avec un grand enthousiasme, que nous avons lu, ici à la rédaction du Standaard, la « Lettre à nos amis flamands » qui faisait la une de votre édition de ce week-end.
C’est une réponse détaillée à l’article paru vendredi dans notre propre journal, suite à la retentissante « édition spéciale » de la RTBF sur l’indépendance de la Flandre et aux quelques analyses qui ont suivi sa diffusion dans la presse francophone. Votre réponse tient essentiellement en trois points. Tout d’abord, vous réfutez avec indignation le fait que les journalistes de la rédaction du Soir puissent être victimes d’un certain nombre de clichés sur la Flandre, dont ils se font le relais. Vous avancez d’excellents arguments pour démontrer quels sérieux efforts vous fournissez pour présenter la Flandre dans votre journal. Deuxièmement, vous tentez de nous expliquer que ce que nous appelons « confédéralisme » en Flandre ne représente pour vous qu’une « coquille vide ». Et dans notre lutte pour un État plus efficace, vous ne voyez qu’une tentative de mettre fin aux « transferts de solidarité ». « Nous ne sommes pas naïfs », écrivez-vous… Pour finir, vous nous tendez la main (…) pour un grand projet journalistique communautaire, donc, sur l’avenir de la Belgique. Avant de répondre à cette proposition, je souhaite formuler trois remarques. 1. Je n’ai aucunement l’intention de relancer d’emblée la polémique, mais je ne peux que constater combien le dialogue est difficile étant donné la mauvaise volonté qui caractérise, de notre point de vue, l’autre côté de la frontière linguistique. (…) Pas plus tard que ce week-end, nous avons fait place à une interview de Philippe Dutilleul, l’auteur du soi-disant documentaire de la RTBF sur la scission de la Belgique. Ce dernier prétend sans sourciller que « 70 % des Flamands sont partisans du séparatisme ». Pour nous, c’est un parfait non-sens. Seuls le Vlaams Belang (au besoin unilatéralement) et éventuellement la N-VA (via le modèle du « comprimé effervescent ») prônent le séparatisme. Ils rassemblent seulement quelque 30 % des suffrages. Je l’admets volontiers, Philippe Dutilleul ne fait absolument pas partie de votre rédaction. Mais sans doute voyez-vous où je veux en venir. 2. Je tiens avant tout à faire notre propre examen de conscience. Nous aussi, nous faisons quelques erreurs du même acabit. Nous devons, nous aussi, faire attention à ne pas réduire toute notre vision de la Wallonie à la corruption de quelques bonzes à Charleroi ou à Namur. Et, après de nombreuses années passées à côtoyer un parti d’extrême droite, nous risquons de devenir aveugles face à leurs dérives racistes. Mais ne devriez-vous pas vous aussi, mes chers confrères, faire un peu d’autocritique ? Etes-vous assez fermes vis-à-vis de votre classe politique ? Vous montrez-vous assez critiques vis-à-vis de ceux qui ont fait de Bruxelles l’une des villes les plus mal administrées d’Europe de l’Ouest ? (…) 3. Le fait que près de 90 % des téléspectateurs de la RTBF aient ajouté foi à ce reportage sur l’indépendance flamande a ouvert les yeux à de nombreuses personnes en Flandre. Cela montre que vous, les médias francophones, et nous, les médias néerlandophones, avons manqué ces dernières années à notre tâche de faire comprendre à notre public réciproque la problématique complexe des prochaines étapes d’une possible réforme institutionnelle. Nous nous trouvons face à la perspective d’un immense « chantier d’explication ». C’est pourquoi, mes chers confrères, votre proposition résonne comme de la musique à nos oreilles, ici au Standaard. Lançons-nous donc ensemble dans une enquête de grande envergure (…)Dans laquelle nous débattrons sans tabous. Dans laquelle nous ferons voir à nos lecteurs ce qui se vit en Flandre, en Wallonie et à Bruxelles. Ce qu’est la Belgique et ce qu’elle devrait être, pour les uns comme pour les autres. Faisons ce que nos deux quotidiens savent fort bien faire : alterner un journalisme implacable et des débats en profondeur. Des faits et des opinions ; et pas de caricatures. Amitiés. |
I think De Standaard wins on points.
We’ve been re-watching last year’s Doctor Who, and finished on Sunday night with Bad Wolf / The Parting of the Ways. I’ve also meantime been watching the last of the Seventh Doctor’s stories, and so far have seen Battlefield (awful) and Ghost Light (Fascinating), and was pondering a deep and meaningful comparison of the two sets of stories. Maybe I will still do that, but meantime here’s my renewed take on the Ninth Doctor:
Overall: Ecclestone is one of the great Doctors. The only other two to convincingly portray the character as an alien were Hartnell and Tom Baker, and oddly enough I feel that there are similarities in style between their respective successors, Troughton, Davison and Tennant, all going for a more human, more cuddly version of the Doctor, more devoted to his human companions; which is fine, but it’s not quite the same thing; none of them ever felt dangerous. Ecclestone manages to do serious, funny, even afraid, and you can’t take your eyes off him.
The stories: To my surprise I found that I liked several of them much more on re-watching than I had first time round. This goes in particular for Boom Town, the second Slitheen story, set in Cardiff, where Annette Badland as the baddy gets her head and neck movements just exactly right, and she and the Doctor viciously expose each others’ ethics; and yet it’s still very funny when it’s meant to be.
But I saw new merits also in Father’s Day – perhaps because I feel I know more about Rose’s father now, after this year – and Bad Wolf / The Parting of the Ways. The World War II two-parter, The Empty Child / The Doctor Dances, is still the best, though I still dislike the Doctor’s patriotic speech – he’s pro-human, sure, but McCoy had a much better line about the British Empire in Ghost Light. The first Slitheen story, Aliens of London / World War Three, is still rubbish.
Anyway, more thoughts on new vs old Who when I finish watching the last of the old.
11) Crooked Little Heart, by Anne Lamott
A rather heartwarming novel of adolescence, grief, sexual awakening, and tennis set in the Bay Area of California. Definitely enjoyed it.
Top UnSuggestions:
If you can’t think of something helpful to say, it’s better not to say anything at all.
Well, I’ve spent the morning happily putting all 400 of our children’s books onto my LibraryThing catalogue. (Which takes my total book tally to 2869; wonder when I will break 3000?)
I’m sorry to go on about the UnSuggestions, but some of them for classic children’s books are too good not to share:
Green Eggs and Ham, by Dr Seuss – Unsuggestion: Olympos, by Dan Simmons (at least until the system realises that I own both).
One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish, by Dr Seuss – UnSuggestion: Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance, by Noam Chomsky
Dr Seuss’s ABC and Fox in Socks, by Dr Seuss – UnSuggestion (1) (2): The Complete Stories, by Franz Kafka
Mr Brown Can Moo! Can You?, by Dr Seuss – UnSuggestion: No Logo, by Naomi Klein
When We Were Very Young, by A.A. Milne – UnSuggestion: Altered Carbon, by Richard Morgan (again, this will change once the system realises I own both)
Now We Are Six, by A.A. Milne – UnSuggestion: Learning Perl, by Randal L. Schwartz
Pippi Longstocking, by Astrid Lindgren – UnSuggestion: The Blind Watchmaker, by Richard Dawkins
Pippi in the South Seas, by Astrid Lindgren – UnSuggestion: The Naked Lunch, by William S. Burroughs
Esio Trot, by Roald Dahl – UnSuggestion: A Storm of Swords, by George R.R. Martin (though again, I have both)
The Tale of Two Bad Mice, by Beatrix Potter – UnSuggestion: A Game of Thrones, by George R.R. Martin (as before, I have both)
Five Children and It, by E. Nesbit – UnSuggestion: Being and Nothingness (L’être et le néant), by Jean-Paul Sartre
and this last one is rather poetic, though, alas, it too will probably vanish once the system realises I have both:
Doctor Dolittle, by Hugh Lofting – UnSuggestion: Getting Things Done, by David Allen.
10) Perfume, by Patrick Süskind
The story of a man in 18th century Paris, born with no body odour of his own, who grows up to be a perfumer and a psychopath, murdering teenage girls in order to capture their vital essences. The descriptions are tremendously convincing – smell is not something we often read about, so to have it here at short book length is quite an achievement. The perfumer is indeed monstrous, but the story very satisfying.
See also
Top UnSuggestions for this book: 11 books on evangelical Christianity, followed by Mercedes Lackey’s Storm Breaking.
Not quite the end of the year, but these were the posts on my lj that got the most posts since December 18 last year (I’ve made the cut-off point 20 rather than 15 replies too):
![[protected post]](https://i0.wp.com/stat.livejournal.com/img/icon_protected.gif?resize=14%2C15){kind=icon}
Phone call [ +20 ] Job hunt concluded [ +26 ]Alas, my first of two contributions to the mid-year reviewergate slapfight made the top spot; followed by the second of two more intellectual contributions on population movements, then some good old Northern Irish election stuff. The two locked posts on the list are updates on my job situation. But I’m glad that the majority of these are good sane discussions.
9) Pyramids, by Terry Pratchett
A bit surprised at myself for not having read this before. I remember Terry Pratchett coming to Cambridge to speak at a CUSFS meeting in, I suppose, 1988, and reading bits of this to us – the bit in the dormitory where young Arthur is trying to say his prayers, and I think also the scene parodying Plato’s Symposium. I must have started reading it at one point, because I remember the line about the eight heraldic hippos, who, if danger ever threatens Ankh-Morpork, will run away. But there was lots more I didn’t remember, so I must have been reading it for the first time (including the quote in the icon for this post). As always, very good fun, with lots of material packed in tightly with wit. Not as deep as his later books, which is hardly surprising.
Top UnSuggestion for Pyramids: Systematic theology: an introduction to biblical doctrine by Wayne Grudem
The Colour of Magic | The Light Fantastic | Equal Rites | Mort | Sourcery | Wyrd Sisters | Pyramids | Guards! Guards! | Eric | Moving Pictures | Reaper Man | Witches Abroad | Small Gods | Lords and Ladies | Men at Arms | Soul Music | Interesting Times | Maskerade | Feet of Clay | Hogfather | Jingo | The Last Continent | Carpe Jugulum | The Fifth Elephant | The Truth | Thief of Time | The Last Hero | The Amazing Maurice and His Educated Rodents | Night Watch | The Wee Free Men | Monstrous Regiment | A Hat Full of Sky | Going Postal | Thud! | Wintersmith | Making Money | Unseen Academicals | I Shall Wear Midnight | Snuff | Raising Steam | The Shepherd’s Crown
Someone challenged me to find an UnSuggestion where I was the only person to own both books. I have a couple of near misses – while I do own copies of Good Omens, the top UnSuggestion for both Gilead and John Adams, and I also own Goodnight Moon, the top UnSuggestion for Native Tongue by Carl Hiassen, I have omitted to put either of the UnSuggestions in question in my catalogue.
But eventually I found a case where I not only own both books but they are both in my LibraryThing, so I am indeed the only user to have catalogued both (and have reviewed both on this journal). The top UnSuggestion for Tom Shippey’s J.R.R. Tolkien: Author of the Century is The Alchemist by Paolo Coelho. Not surprised – I found the latter insipid and self-indulgent, and the former dense but rewarding.
Well, that’s a satisfying start to the weekend!
Edited to add: Gosh, here’s another one that is a bit more surprising – the top UnSuggestion for Russell Shorto’s superb history of New Amsterdam, The Island at the Centre of the World, is the equally superb first volume of George R.R. Martin’s “Song of Ice and Fire” fantasy series, A Game of Thrones. Do enthusiasts for early American history have and aversion to epic fantasy, and vice versa? I wonder.
I’ve mentioned before about the odd comments attracted by my post from last July reviewing George Soros’ latest book. It has now taken a step in a completely different direction with someone requesting technical advice about Winstall.exe – I don’t plan to respond, and I don’t encourage anyone else to do so either!
Delighted to see that the Alliance Party has selected a candidate for South Belfast from outside the usual charmed circle of party activists. Back in the day, I was always hopeful that the party (indeed, that all parties) might be able to enlarge their talent pool a bit. It’s good to see that a) there are people like Anna Lo willing to take the plunge and b) poltiical parties ready to encourage them.
Note the careful wording of the statement that she is the first ethnic minority candidate to stand for the Northern Ireland Assembly. There was a minor candidate in the 1982 Westminster by-election, also in South Belfast, called Jagat Narain, and the Green Party ran a couple of candidates for the 1996 Forum whose names suggest non-European background. However, she is certainly the first ethnic minority candidate to be selected for a potentially winnable seat, and almost certainly the first ethnic Chinese candidate to stand for any election in Northern Ireland.
It would be unwise to overstate the importance of the Chinese vote – the 2001 census had 4155 ethnic Chinese in the whole of Northern Ireland, of whom the 1112 in South Belfast were the largest concentration; but some of those will be under 18, and not all of them will have registered to vote. But Alliance failed to win the last seat in South Belfast by only 150 votes in 1998, and the margin between the last elected and the runner up in 2003 was even tighter. So every vote will count in March (assuming, of course, that there is an election then).
See Slugger O’Toole for the usual begrudgery.
…in today’s Independent!
Well, the London office went through the 345 applicants for the internship in my new job, and weeded them down to 15, as far as I can tell by throwing out anyone who didn’t speak at least four languages and have a Masters degree. (One did slip through who doesn’t yet have his M.A., but he has written two books so I suppose that’s all right.)
Making the final selection is not going to be easy.
Two more classic Doctor Who series watched/listened to recently, the first featuring the First Doctor, Ian, Barbara and Vicki having a holiday during the reign of the emperor Nero, and the second plunging the Second Doctor, Jamie and Zoe into a well-intentioned attempt to do high Space Opera. All four episodes of The Romans are still available; only #2 of six of The Space Pirates survived the purges, though the full soundtrack with linking narration by Fraser Hines is available.
The Romans has a considerable, and surprisingly effective, comedy element, carried almost entirely by Hartnell’s Doctor. On a whim, he decides to leave their holiday villa and go to Rome (taking Vicki with him) pretending to be a murdered musician, and succeeds in fending off Nero’s jealous attempots to have him killed. There is a much less funny sub-plot involving Ian and Barbara, kidnapped by slavers, who also end up in Rome – Ian as a gladiator, Barbara as palace slave, pursued by the lustful Emperor – before making their escape. (Somewhere there must be a definitive list of the characters who have lusted after Barbara: Ganatus in a very gentlemanly way in The Daleks, the much nastier Vasor in The Keys of Marinus, the equally nasty El Akir in The Crusade, and now Nero.) The Ian/Barbara chemistry is very sweet – they have a nice joke between them about looking in the fridge. The script rather neatly resists bringing the travellers together, so that neither the Doctor and Vicki nor Ian and Barbara ever discovers what the other pair of characters is up to in Rome. Hartnell is simply superb, utterly watchable, imperious, funny, devious. It’s a shame that Maureen O’Brien can’t quite rise to the challenge of being his straight man, but this was only her second story, so I suppose one must make allowances.
The Space Pirates features the TARDIS crew getting caught up in a conflict between pirates and law enforcement in outer space. My biggest problem with it was the accents of two of the key supporting characters: General Nikolai Hermack, played by plummy-voiced Jack May, later briefly famous as Garkbit the waiter in the Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy and less briefly as Nelson Gabriel in The Archers, who can’t quite decide if he is doing his usual toff or something slightly more foreign; and even worse, Gordon Gostelow’s veteran miner Milo Clancey, whose voice wanders all over the southern and western United States with hints of Irish and Antipodean as well. Especially when you have to experience five of the six episodes on audio, and #3 is of particularly bad quality, it is a real distraction from your enjoyment. Having said that, it’s not as bad a story as some people say, though it is rather unusual – the Doctor and his friends are more acted upon than acting, and spend a lot of time trapped or locked up while the story continues around them. To judge from the surviving episode, it looked like a half-decent effort, though my long-buried physicist instincts slightly rebelled at the immense violations of celestial mechanics committed by the writer.
Neither of these is essential Who, but both had their good points. The Romans is worth getting for amusement, The Space Pirates only for completists I think.
| UUP | Barr | 625 | +10 | 635 | -635 | 0 |
| DUP | Fielding | 678 | +8 | 686 | +316 | 1002 |
| Alliance | Fitzpatrick | 694 | +362 | 1056 | +212 | 1268 |
| SF | Leonard | 253 | -253 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| SDLP | Rae | 219 | -219 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Total electorate 7482, total votes 2494 (34%), 25 invalid (1%), total valid 2469.
See further discussion.
The Alliance Party has won a local council by-election, in the not obviously promising district of Skerries, in Coleraine. It’s the first local by-election the party has won since I was its Director of Elections ten years ago. The figures on the first count were:
Alliance 694
DUP 678
UUP 625
SF 253
SDLP 219
I don’t as yet have the later figures, but obviously Alliance picked up more transfers from the Nationalist parties than the DUP managed from the UUP (some of whose votes would also have leaked to Alliance anyway). So, more sober analysis to follow; but in the meantime, congratulations to Barney Fitzpatrick and his team.
8) The Crying of Lot 49, by Thomas Pynchon
Woman discovers she has been made the executor of her ex-husband’s will, and is sucked into a bewildering world of conspiracies around subversive alternative postal systems. Reminded me a bit of Neal Stephenson’s Cryptonomicon and associated books, which presumably drew some inspiration from this source. But it didn’t really grab me. At least it was short.
Top UnSuggestions for this book:
1 Don’t Waste Your Life, by John Piper
2 Honeymoon, by James Patterson
3 R is for Ricochet, by Sue Grafton
nhw sent to me…
Those of you who are professional editors, or who speak Arabic, or who just like laughing at extremist rigt-wingers when they do something stupid, will appreciate this:
In order to forge closer ties with its political friends in the Middle Eastern Islamic countries, the Serbian Radical Party (SRS) printed the September issue of its party organ, Velika Srbija, in the Arabic language, but the writing was printed left to right, defying the Arabic right-to-left rule, the sensationalist Kurir tabloid writes on Wednesday.
In an effort to find out how the Radicals came to make such a major blunder, the tabloid contacted SRS Vice-Chairman Dragan Todorovic, who said he could not explain the omission “because he does not speak Arabic.”
Todorovic said that the Arabic-language edition of Velika Srbija is edited by Anjad Migati, himself an Arab, advisor to the SRS chairman and member of the party’s innermost leadership. Todorovic added that Migati is a highly educated and literate man and was surprised at the omission.
Migati, too, was surprised when informed of the error, pleading “a mistake made by the printing shop.”
“The mistake is obvious, but have no concern, the target readership is clever and will find their way about it,” he said.
I just love that last line.
