Waking from the fever dream

Last month I saw a picture, a photograph, that burned down the Potemkin village of American politics that tends to rise in even the most skeptical mind during the fever dream known as the presidential campaign. We all get caught up in it, especially those of us who’ve been following politics for decades, and were marinated for many years in a mainstream perspective. I myself was raised as a “yellow dawg” Democrat in the South. The idea, of course, was that no matter whom the Democrats nominated—even it was a yellow dog—you voted for them. My father—perhaps to his credit?— carried on with this ideal long after almost all of his fellow white rural Southerners had abandoned the Democrats for the dog-whistle racism of the modern Republican Party. I remember well one of his most abiding pieces of political wisdom. It was 1984, and a neighbor of ours—a big, hulking, slightly backward country boy who’d been devoted to my father since their school days—told him: “Chief, I’m thinkin’ about votin’ for Reagan this time. What do you think?” My father leaned against the back of his pickup truck and said in a cool, even tone: “Buford, a man who’d vote for Reagan would eat shit.” Buford nodded his head vigorously. “You right about that, Chief!” (But I’m sure he voted for Reagan anyway.)

Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz,  Berni Sanders and Donald Trump

Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz,  Berni Sanders and Donald Trump

So I’m well aware that it’s hard not to get caught up in the horse race of the Grand Quadrennial Derby: “Was this a good move for Bernie? Will HRC take a hit from Bill’s gaffe? Is Trump faltering? Will the GOP elites come around to Cruz?” And so and so forth, with the myriad other permutations and speculations that can dazzle the mind—and numb the moral sense—while watching the political circus.

But then something will shake you— or slap you—awake. And so one day I saw a photograph someone tweeted from the Yemen Post. It showed a young girl—12, 14, the age was hard to tell. She was on her hands and knees face down in the dirt, trying to suck water from a hole in a dirty rubber pipe. And in that instant, all the silly, stupid, evil folderol of the campaign circus, all the earnest bunting that adorns the Potemkin village, fell away. I saw the picture, and I knew—once again—this is America in the modern world. This is American foreign policy. This is what it is, this is what it does. This is a war that our Peace Prize-winning president has been conducting with his Saudi allies for more than a year. It’s been responsible for the “excess deaths” of 10,000 children, according to UNICEF. (Let’s repeat that: TEN THOUSAND CHILDREN.) It has driven millions to the brink of famine. It has destroyed schools, hospitals, infrastructure. It has been a gigantic boon for al Qaeda by attacking its deadliest foes in Yemen, the Houthis, and giving it scope to spread.

It is a humanitarian disaster and a moral outrage of the highest order. And yet ... there is no outrage.  There is scarcely any notice, beyond a bare minimum of “marginal” websites and a few stories deeply buried, and stripped of context, in the bowels of the mainstream press. In the past year, a “progressive” administration—whose policies will be continued by either of the Democratic nominees (yes, even Bernie says he wants to see more Saudi militarism in the region)—has been directly complicit in the deaths of TEN THOUSAND CHILDREN. And no one involved in the presidential circus—not the candidates, not the media, not the analysts, not the horse race afficianados—gives the slightest damn. None of them—and nothing in the sinister clownery of his election—deals with the reality of what we are doing in the world. No one will speak of its true, deeply criminal nature—not even the “radical,” “revolutionary” “Democratic Socialist” candidate. So what, in the end, are they really talking about? They’re talking about nothing. They’re talking about bullshit. They’re talking about anything on God’s green earth—or rather, God’s bloodstained, gouged-out, dying earth—but reality.

The reality is a young girl forced to go down on her hands and knees to pry a few drops of water from a broken pipe. She could be your daughter. She could be you. She is a human being who did nothing wrong but be born in a place where a few “progressive” American elites—headed by the Peace Prize-winning president—wanted to play with their head-chopping, womanhating allies to achieve and maintain dominance over the oil lands and their strategic environs. In the end, it comes down to that brief scene in Warren Beatty’s film, “Reds,” where a plump, patriotic bergmeister from Portland calls on Jack Reed to explain “just what this war [WWI] is all about!” Reed rises amongst the tuxedoes and pretty outfits at the gathering and says but a single word: “Profits.” That’s why the Yemeni girl is face down in the dirt, scrambling desperately for water. That’s all it’s about, this “war on terror,” that’s the only thing it’s ever been about: profits. And whoever is elected, that’s not going to change.

 


All hail the new Fianna Gael Alliance

 

The Irish, it seems, are too thick to think about more than one serious issue at a time, writes Gene Kerrigan

Gene Kerrigan

Cartoonist: Tom Halliday

Cartoonist: Tom Halliday

The Fine Gael/Fianna Fail Alliance, after spending two whole months forming a government, is agreed on the continuation of the Irish Water project.

Fianna Fail, being a party of principle, stoutly held to its election promise that it would not enter coalition with Fine Gael. They entered the Alliance instead.

Fianna Fail, being a party of no principle beyond its own advancement, readily agreed to ditch its election promise to "abolish Irish Water".

But, of course, Irish Water doesn't matter any more.

We're all agreed, are we not - the Fianna Gael Alliance, the Independent Alliance, and the officer class of the media - that there are "far more important issues" than Irish Water.

And it's only €3 a week.

They're right - in that most of us can afford €3 a week.

But they're also wrong. The combined actions of FF and FG, with their helpers, have resulted in the spread of low-wage jobs, so that more people than ever don't have a spare €3 at the end of the week.

There are other people who have the €3, but things are so tight that they have to choose carefully how they spend it.

And there are people who could manage the €3 but they figure they've already taken a financial hiding, to save the bankers and the builders.

Ah, but, say the Fianna Gael Alliance fans, surely there are more serious issues?

They're right - and, again, they're wrong.

They're right because the consequences of homelessness, or a chaotic public health service, or property speculation, or untreated mental problems, are far more serious than the consequences of water charges.

But, they're wrong in that we don't have to forget Irish Water in order to be angry at Leo Varadkar diverting millions from mental health resources. We know they have a low regard for us, but we're not nearly as dim as the average backbencher.

Irish Water has been about siphoning money from us, to no good purpose, but the long-term aim has been privatisation.

The protests have been about the money - and they forced FG/Labour to drastically reduce the charges. But they've also been about opposition to selling the water supply to private interests. Few things anger people more than being treated as a fool. And what has angered many, even those who reluctantly coughed up for the water charges, was the brazen way in which the parties tried to take us for a ride.

Where did Irish Water come from? What has been going on? Let's consider what we found out over the past two years.

A cynical Chicago politician laid down a rule: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." He meant that a crisis gives manipulative politicians an opportunity to get away with things that would arouse dissent in normal times.

From the 1980s, the Thatcher revolution spread the gospel of privatisation: transport, water, telecoms - the quality of services declined, as fat cats vanished over the horizon in trucks full of money.

In Ireland, the politicians followed suit where possible, and did so with their usual efficiency. Telecoms - closely followed by the Moriarty Tribunal; bin charges, closely followed by a decline in service. They're working on transport, and making a hash of it.

Privatising water was dicey. No one dared try it on.

Then, the bankers crashed the economy in 2008. And, you never want a serious crisis to go to waste.

In 2009, Fine Gael invented the notion of Irish Water; in 2010 Fianna Fail ran with it; FG picked up the ball after the 2011 election.

The European Central Bank, working to the same privatisation agenda, pushed things along.

This, of course, is all left-wing paranoia. Until you look at the record. Or try to.

What was discussed at Irish Water's initial meetings? That would be nice to know, but as RTE's This Week programme found out, a rake of meetings took place without the retention of minutes recording what was discussed or decided.

This is not at all usual.

The customary hordes of "consultants" feasted on the easy prey - a pack of cheetahs descending on a virginal gazelle. Around €50m was spent on consultants, we were told, then we got a total of €86m spent on consultants and lawyers.

A nominal €150m was set aside for setting up the company, with a "contingency" fund of another €30m - maybe that was for tea bags and Marietta biscuits in case anyone got peckish at those un-minuted meetings.

Irish Water furiously denied splashing bonuses around to the top staff. The top staff, they said, were given "performance-related rewards".

Half a billion was spent on meters. A vast Irish Water set-up exists to raise the money it costs to run Irish Water.

But, really, privatisation? They wouldn't be so manipulative, would they?

You can't sell a utility paid for out of tax. You must create a "revenue stream" to produce a profit for speculators.

We know that a PwC report commissioned by the Government wrote of "competitive markets in the water sector at a later date". It suggested Irish Water be designed for "the possibility of future retail competition".

We know that Eurostat wrote bluntly, in a letter to the Central Statistics Office, that "privatisation is ultimately envisaged". Outfits like Eurostat are used to calling things as they see them.

The CSO asked for that reference to be removed from the letter.

We know that when Irish Water started writing to us it demanded our PPS numbers: and our home phone numbers, mobile numbers, email addresses and bank account details.

Why did they need all this data? They said it was so they'd know where to deliver the water.

Eh, you've got a goddamn pipe leading to our homes.

They were creating a database that would be a lucrative asset when it came time to privatise Irish Water.

How do we know they would treat our data as an "asset"?

Well, when you ploughed through a difficult-to-read website you found that in a sale of Irish Water our data "will be one of the transferred assets".

Irish Water could transfer or process our data at will, the website said, and "by submitting data to Irish Water, the Customer agrees to this".

When they knew people were ferreting around their site, they took down the stuff about privatisation.

Oh, that old stuff, that was - well, we didn't mean to put that up, that was a mistake. Really.

Spontaneous protest, beyond anything that the Left could organise, sprang up. This forced the politicians to cut the bills, temporarily. The aim is to do whatever it takes to get us on the books, to create that saleable "revenue stream".

Protesters were bad-mouthed as a "sinister fringe". They were compared to Islamic State. Every mistake by any individual - and there were mistakes - was treated as a planned manoeuvre by the whole movement. It was not the media's finest hour.

Already, the politicians who have wreaked havoc on public health, asset-stripped the citizens and presided over soaring rates of suicide, tell us we must stop thinking about Irish Water. And think of serious issues.

As though we're incapable of taking a position on more than one serious issue at a time.

Already, I'm sorry to say - but not surprised - the media has joined in this meme. All hail, it seems, the new Fianna Gael Alliance! There will be fun to be had spotting the odd infight. But the media, I fear, is entering one of its "responsible" periods. As the cringe-making media performance on "government formation" showed, we don't have sources, we have handlers.

Original article: Sunday Independent May 1, 2016


Risteard Ó Domhnaill: From Corrib gas to a battle for the future of the Atlantic

 

Risteard Ó Domhnaill follows up his Corrib gas documentary with a remarkable new film about the political, economic and environmental threats to the Atlantic Ocean

 

It’s a story that hasn’t really been told. People don’t understand it.”

Risteard Ó Domhnaill, a filmmaker born and raised on the landlocked fields of Co Tipperary, is the first to admit that, for the average landlubber, it can be hard to picture the life of the sea, to get a sense of how the people who work it live their lives.

Ireland’s waters cover an area 10 times the size of our landmass and contain some of the richest fishing in Europe, but  Ó Domhnaill contends that we continually “turn our back” on that valuable resource.

“The way we look at the ocean, we always saw it as something related to emigration or tragedy or invasion,” he says. “Fish was something you get on Friday as a penance.  Mouldy, dry fish. We don’t have a positive attitude towards the ocean.”

Ó Domhnaill, a theoretical physics graduate and TV cameraman, has spent much of the past decade attempting to change this attitude. His first feature-length documentary, The Pipe, was a vital piece of independent journalism covering the controversial establishment of the Corrib Gas Project in Rossport, Co Mayo.

Through the lens, Ó Domhnaill witnessed a community organised in resistance against a violence all the more shocking for its proximity. What he captured is the spirit of the people fighting for what they believe is right. For all its political, historical and environmental import, The Pipe remains a charmingly intimate story.

His new film, Atlantic, picks up where The Pipe left off by following its ripples out into the wider world. Ó Domhnaill heads to Norway, Newfoundland and the Donegal coast to find stories that help elucidate the complex development of our offshore resources over the past 50 years.

Atlantic, which is narrated by Brendan Gleeson and was initially financed through a crowd-funding campaign, blends contemporary characters and archive footage to track the growth of big oil and industrial super-trawler fishing, as well as the decline of coastal communities in all three countries.

The film holds out hope that by learning from one another’s successes and mistakes, these otherwise disconnected communities might find better ways to deal with common threats to their livelihoods, communities and entire landscapes.

As Ó Domhnaill says: “Water doesn’t recognise borders.”

Climate change dominates

Despite rarely addressing it directly, the threat of climate change leaks through every scene in Atlantic. Coming off the back of The Pipe, Ó Domhnaill wanted to highlight the political and economic factors creating this “perfect storm” of overfishing and oil exploration, as well as exposing the agents profiting from it.

As he travelled up and down the coastlines, talking to people, a different story began to emerge.

“The game has changed in the five years since I started this,” he says. “The price of oil collapsed. Climate change became a much bigger issue. The issues with the ocean, environmentally, began to creep back in. Who knows what’s going to happen, what’s going to hit the ocean? Acidification, warming of currents? We’re facing a crossroads. We can’t just fence off our part of the sea and say ‘We’ll look after that’. It’s a much bigger challenge.

“The game has changed, the reality has changed, the science has changed. What’s more important now, what’s come more to the fore, is how do we manage this in a way that can sustain us into the future, in a way that we won’t destroy it?”

This is where Ó Domhnaill’s subjects shine. Whether sitting in a clapboard house in the tiny Newfoundland village of Renews with the Kane family, or fishing off the coast of Norway with Bjørnar Nicolaisen, Ó Domhnaill lets the people of these small, oft-forgotten communities tell their own stories. The stories, as edited by Nigel O’Regan, interweave, each strengthening the others’ experiences.

Nicolaisen is very articulate, explaining in what Ó Domhnaill calls a “very philosophical” way how our ocean resources need to be cared for. It’s an age-old truism about the environment, no less powerful for being repeated: if we look after it, it will look after us.

“They are people who don’t have a great education or anything, but they’ve got a knowledge and understanding far beyond an academic knowledge,” he says of these fishermen. “I’m trying to tap into that. I think Bjørnar’s message is very powerful. It’s about understanding the ocean, working with the ocean. Not just seeing it as something to grab, but as something you look after.

“You understand the cycles, you take what’s fair and it’ll always be there. That’s a real message that I want to come from the film.”

Counting salmon

At the same time, Atlantic is not a twee celebration of the local, the folksy or the home-grown.

Take Jerry Early, a fisherman from Arranmore island whose livelihood from salmon was destroyed by a change in the law. During the course of the film, Early ends up in court for bringing home wild salmon, a protected species, after catching them in nets intended for other types of fish.

“I didn’t try to romanticise Jerry,” says Ó Domhnaill. “No one is saying Jerry Early’s a saint. If he brought home an odd salmon or two he wasn’t supposed to, I’m not saying that’s right. But he’s the one with five fishery officers running around Arranmore island, hiding behind rocks, trying to catch him out for a few salmon. And yet there are no observers on the big boats offshore.

“It’s up to the audience to decide. They’ve seen Jerry’s story, they know he acted illegally when it came to the salmon – he didn’t throw the salmon back in the water dead. But, morally, where do your sympathies lie? He looks offshore at the super-trawlers just hoovering up fish and firing dead fish back.

“Which is the greater evil? Is it fair to just focus on punishing the smaller fishermen when, at the same time, you’re taking their livelihood away from them?”

This commitment to ambiguity, to not offering all the answers, is one of the great strengths of Atlantic. It reflects an uncertainty at the heart of the subject matter; how do we weigh up the ineffable factors of community, craft and tradition against the easily calculated profits of industry? Is something legitimate just because it’s legal? It’s a question that takes the viewer into a place of morals and values, and engages them in asking difficult questions.

There’s more to this than fighting for the little guy; it’s a question of how we want to live.

“How do you put a monetary value on a community?” asks Ó Domhnaill. “Take the Arranmore community. If you’re a civil servant looking at that, you’ll go, right, we’ll save a lot of money if we take these guys off the island and we put them in the town. The services will be cheaper, education, all that kind of stuff. It’s a very simple argument: ‘These are a nuisance.’

“It’s not until you actually immerse yourself in those communities that you realise the huge wealth in those communities that you can’t put a monetary value on.

“You can’t put a monetary value on culture, on heritage, on knowing where you’re from.”

Risteard Ó Domhnaill, filmmaker

Risteard Ó Domhnaill, filmmaker

Original article:  Ian Maleney, Irish Times, Apr 28, 2016

See also coverage of the film in The Irish Examiner April 26, 2016  Risteard Ó Domhnaill's new documentary 'Atlantic' focuses on fishing industry