Great. I finally decided to continue my blog after a long, long rest:)
Now I am in Trinity College, Cambridge in the midst of the Freshers' Week. Today I had a first meeting with my tutor, that is the man who is always "on my side" (as he himself said). This tutorial system, I guess, is unique for Oxbridge because these people are always there to help with various personal stuff and it is very good to know that there is always somebody you can discuss your problems with.
Also today we had a matriculation photo. It took about an hour to position all freshers on the lawn of Neville's Court to take a decent photo of all of us. I believe it looked a bit weird when people in strange gowns dressed like Harry Potter were queuing to get their photo taken. So I guess, the photo looks like a photo with like two hundred Harry Potters.
There are lots of activities for Freshers' Week out here but I'm a bit impatient to get actually to work. Reading Natural Sciences never promised an easy life but I'm really eager to experience it first-hand.
Anyway, in due time I will get this blog in order covering all areas of interest for me from current affairs and politics to physics and science to personalia.
Monday 6 October 2008
Monday 28 April 2008
Don't strike, go to the polls! - 1
It is the first time that Labour has come so close to losing London. As you know, on May 1 Londoners are going to choose their new mayor. And it is possible that on the next day they will wake up with old Ken ousted by popular vote and other man seating in his chair. Who will be that man? Last poll, conducted on weekend, put Conservative Boris Johnson one per cent behind incumbent mayor and Labour candidate. It means that result is still unclear and depends on you coming out and going to booth to make your choice.
However merely the prospect of losing London spells for Labour a serious trouble. For many years the centre-left party had massive support of London liberal or left-leaning voters. New Labour efforts to curry favour with the City and businesspeople were successful: the party got support and donations from super-rich people and transformed London into the global hub of financial world.
But something happened. Brown's government is faltering. Wealthy businesspeople got cross with tax system and are moving out. Brown himself is very unpopular. Actually his rating is now on a par with that of Neville Chamberlain in 1940 just after the beginning of WW2. Over the last few days the PM was facing a fierce critique of his policy and several senior figures associated with Labour party question his judgement.
Taking into account recent developments losing London will just underscore an already shaped tendency in Labour's fortunes. These fortunes are going down. And it will be emphasised by the fact that the other candidate, Boris Johnson, does not seem very strong politician. For too long he was trying to be funny that many people do not view him as serious politician. He remains untested because he has not had senior posts. Much is known about his personality but very little about his administrative qualities. nobody can say whether he has enough experience to run such city as London that is more similar to small European country (both in terms of population and economic output).
On the other side, Ken Livingstone do not fare better either. He did not deliver on issues of crime, transport, public services. He is associated with troubled Labour party. Many Londoners are just tired of him.
What we have now is unpredictable result. But we will know the answer in few days. This election will show how deep Labour has fallen already and how much energy Tories have got from this fall so far.
However merely the prospect of losing London spells for Labour a serious trouble. For many years the centre-left party had massive support of London liberal or left-leaning voters. New Labour efforts to curry favour with the City and businesspeople were successful: the party got support and donations from super-rich people and transformed London into the global hub of financial world.
But something happened. Brown's government is faltering. Wealthy businesspeople got cross with tax system and are moving out. Brown himself is very unpopular. Actually his rating is now on a par with that of Neville Chamberlain in 1940 just after the beginning of WW2. Over the last few days the PM was facing a fierce critique of his policy and several senior figures associated with Labour party question his judgement.
Taking into account recent developments losing London will just underscore an already shaped tendency in Labour's fortunes. These fortunes are going down. And it will be emphasised by the fact that the other candidate, Boris Johnson, does not seem very strong politician. For too long he was trying to be funny that many people do not view him as serious politician. He remains untested because he has not had senior posts. Much is known about his personality but very little about his administrative qualities. nobody can say whether he has enough experience to run such city as London that is more similar to small European country (both in terms of population and economic output).
On the other side, Ken Livingstone do not fare better either. He did not deliver on issues of crime, transport, public services. He is associated with troubled Labour party. Many Londoners are just tired of him.
What we have now is unpredictable result. But we will know the answer in few days. This election will show how deep Labour has fallen already and how much energy Tories have got from this fall so far.
Returning to work
Since I haven't been posting here for a while, tonight I'm going to return back. This is a hot period in UK politics. Time has come to state your opinion and go to the polling stations on May 1. We should make our voices be heard in corridors of Whitehall.
In run-up to May 1 I want to present a new series of political articles under common title "Don't strike, go to the polls!". It will comprise four articles starting from today till the election day. You can read them above this post.
In run-up to May 1 I want to present a new series of political articles under common title "Don't strike, go to the polls!". It will comprise four articles starting from today till the election day. You can read them above this post.
Saturday 5 April 2008
Woody Allen is really great...
Yesterday I watched on the DVD Woody Allen's recent film 'Match Point'. This film was acclaimed by critics and many considered it as the best film Woody Allen has made over the last decade. And I can understand why.
First of all, the screenplay was wonderfully written and chain of events and consequences is utterly logical and understandable. Plot twists are assumed to underscore the main theme of the film - that of luck and its influence over our life. But I will return to the philosophical justification a bit later.
Woody Allen chose an amazing cast and all the leading actors made their contribution to the film while at the same time not obscuring the message Mr. Allen hoped to convey. It was the first movie Allen made in England and filming all these complex nets of human relationships on such a beautiful sets that were provided by ever-changing London combining modern city landscape with old-fashioned houses and stunning weather added delicate flavour to this story.
Match Point has in parts close resemblance to film noir style but also some reverberations of authentic Allen's style. Still he departed from his usual manner in centring the film around some similar to him figure (in fact, often played by Allen himself). In Match Point there is no such figure. However, Woody turned to obviously enticing for him theme of how luck influences our lives. This film has very strong philosophical subtext that can be summed in one sentence: luck has ultimate influence on people's lives. Making such a uninspiring and somewhat controversial point, this film slips into illustrating this point. It is magnificently underscored in the ending when a culprit gets away with murder, gets loving family and good job due to his luck.
Before this the main protagonist wants to have all - money, sexual pleasure, love, position etc. His life is guided by greed and lust. He is very rotten from the very beginning. Still the women he is related to aren't angels as well. One - his wife - is very selfish, she just wants babies, she loves him but doesn't understand his soul. In fact, he is too deep for her. Another one - with whom he has a fateful affair - is neurotic. When this affair leads to pregnancy, the protagonist is facing a dilemma: he can lose family, job, money under the intense pressure of his pregnant lover who demands immediate revealing of the affair and solving the situation. Leading character is dithering but at last he comes up with the solution - murder. He murders his lover and his unborn child (and, in fact, one old lady - another one of many references to Crime and Punishment by Dostoevsky) and gets away with it because of his unbelievable luck.
First of all, the screenplay was wonderfully written and chain of events and consequences is utterly logical and understandable. Plot twists are assumed to underscore the main theme of the film - that of luck and its influence over our life. But I will return to the philosophical justification a bit later.
Woody Allen chose an amazing cast and all the leading actors made their contribution to the film while at the same time not obscuring the message Mr. Allen hoped to convey. It was the first movie Allen made in England and filming all these complex nets of human relationships on such a beautiful sets that were provided by ever-changing London combining modern city landscape with old-fashioned houses and stunning weather added delicate flavour to this story.
Match Point has in parts close resemblance to film noir style but also some reverberations of authentic Allen's style. Still he departed from his usual manner in centring the film around some similar to him figure (in fact, often played by Allen himself). In Match Point there is no such figure. However, Woody turned to obviously enticing for him theme of how luck influences our lives. This film has very strong philosophical subtext that can be summed in one sentence: luck has ultimate influence on people's lives. Making such a uninspiring and somewhat controversial point, this film slips into illustrating this point. It is magnificently underscored in the ending when a culprit gets away with murder, gets loving family and good job due to his luck.
Before this the main protagonist wants to have all - money, sexual pleasure, love, position etc. His life is guided by greed and lust. He is very rotten from the very beginning. Still the women he is related to aren't angels as well. One - his wife - is very selfish, she just wants babies, she loves him but doesn't understand his soul. In fact, he is too deep for her. Another one - with whom he has a fateful affair - is neurotic. When this affair leads to pregnancy, the protagonist is facing a dilemma: he can lose family, job, money under the intense pressure of his pregnant lover who demands immediate revealing of the affair and solving the situation. Leading character is dithering but at last he comes up with the solution - murder. He murders his lover and his unborn child (and, in fact, one old lady - another one of many references to Crime and Punishment by Dostoevsky) and gets away with it because of his unbelievable luck.
Friday 4 April 2008
American problem
Two score years ago on April 4th 1968 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated in Memphis, Tennessee. He who sacrificed his life to make his famous dream come true died when he was only 39. Just a day before he delivered his remarkable speech "I've been to the mountaintop" when he said at the end following words:
These words inexplicably foreshadowed his death. And delivering this speech he really sounded like a prophet. But not all his prophecies were realised.
People still aren't nowhere near the promised land. All discrimination laws were repealed and anti-discrimination statutes are implemented. There is no place for segregation in education, transport and other public services. One can see black people in all areas of human endeavour from entertainment to politics to academy. All these achievements over the past forty years mark the transformation that American society underwent.
However this transformation is not completed. America is still bitterly divided along the old racial lines. Many African-Americans see Mr. Obama as fellow black guy and vote for him because of colour of his skin while many white Americans vote for him hoping to prove (at least, to themselves) that they torn apart their racist past. The issue of race was raised during this campaign only to make louder voices demanding the solution of this issue. It gives away a deep trouble in American society.
Solution can't be found during one electoral campaign. Serious decisions can't be made during political fight because in political fight one who shouts louder gets more attention. Now this attention is grasped by populist orators and hateful preachers. And so those people who want to make a difference should shift away from populist message and come down to earth, to lay men with all their anxieties, grievances and prejudice.
There is only one solution - changing the mindset. It means something that can't be done by politicians no matter how skilled they are, by academicians no matter how smart they are, by civil rights advocates no matter how assiduous they are. It should be done by people, by ordinary Americans. When we will stop taking into account colour of skin of our neighbours, friends, partners, people around us and beyond, then we will come to the solution. When we will get rid of our subjective assumptions and fears, then we will come to the solution. When we will understand that we all are brothers in battle with barbarism, inhumanity and prejudice, then we will come to the solution. And when we will come to the solution, we will be a little step closer to the promised land.
Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn't matter with me now. Because I've been to the mountaintop. And I don't mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land. And I'm happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.
These words inexplicably foreshadowed his death. And delivering this speech he really sounded like a prophet. But not all his prophecies were realised.
People still aren't nowhere near the promised land. All discrimination laws were repealed and anti-discrimination statutes are implemented. There is no place for segregation in education, transport and other public services. One can see black people in all areas of human endeavour from entertainment to politics to academy. All these achievements over the past forty years mark the transformation that American society underwent.
However this transformation is not completed. America is still bitterly divided along the old racial lines. Many African-Americans see Mr. Obama as fellow black guy and vote for him because of colour of his skin while many white Americans vote for him hoping to prove (at least, to themselves) that they torn apart their racist past. The issue of race was raised during this campaign only to make louder voices demanding the solution of this issue. It gives away a deep trouble in American society.
Solution can't be found during one electoral campaign. Serious decisions can't be made during political fight because in political fight one who shouts louder gets more attention. Now this attention is grasped by populist orators and hateful preachers. And so those people who want to make a difference should shift away from populist message and come down to earth, to lay men with all their anxieties, grievances and prejudice.
There is only one solution - changing the mindset. It means something that can't be done by politicians no matter how skilled they are, by academicians no matter how smart they are, by civil rights advocates no matter how assiduous they are. It should be done by people, by ordinary Americans. When we will stop taking into account colour of skin of our neighbours, friends, partners, people around us and beyond, then we will come to the solution. When we will get rid of our subjective assumptions and fears, then we will come to the solution. When we will understand that we all are brothers in battle with barbarism, inhumanity and prejudice, then we will come to the solution. And when we will come to the solution, we will be a little step closer to the promised land.
Wednesday 2 April 2008
The case against uncontrolled migration - 1
Recently the House of Lords Committee produced a report on the benefits of uncontrolled migration that blossomed under Labour rule. In fact, it couldn't find substantial benefits to the economy of the UK and assessed the overall impact of net migration as close to zero in long-term perspective. Such conclusions make Government's argument in favour of migration weaker than ever for it was primary Labour assertion that migration ostensibly brings "enormous" benefit to country's economy. When this way of reasoning is shown to be entirely false and based on rigged in favour of Government statistics, voices of critics of Labour strategy - or lack of any - gain strength.
Why? Because migration puts a considerable strain on our welfare state, on housing market, on NHS, on other public services. Words, coming from ministers who lament "shortfall" in workforce in the UK and praise hard-working migrants taking over jobs where "nobody wants to work", are utterly preposterous. We have here in this country one and a half unemployed "on training schemes" and about three million on incapacity benefit - and still Government needs foreign workers to fill gaps on job market? Why Labour don't want to make easier for unemployed people to find the job rather than inviting migrants and doping unemployed with welfare benefits? Taking into account a looming financial crisis, the situation now begs the question of why Labour did not do their utmost to empower unemployed people with jobs and not risk our stretched public services (leaving aside community cohesion). Labour showed a great incompetence and mismanagement dealing with economy as if they thought it was going to boom forever. Moreover, as government was (and is) promoting multiculturalism and such hospitality to new "British" workers as even translating in their native languages various documents (seemingly forgetting that only official language here is English language), it makes one wonder if it was a special kind of malignant strategy aimed at making this country fully cosmopolitan (i.e., uprooting national identity) and boosting the economy (and number of Labour voters) with arriving foreign people.
Where did this strategy lead us after ten years of Labour in power, we can see now.
Our economy has serious problems, our public services are over-stretched and the worst of all - the sense of community is badly damaged. This rather socio-cultural than economical phenomenon makes argument against migration so sound. And I will explore it in details over the next couple of days.
Why? Because migration puts a considerable strain on our welfare state, on housing market, on NHS, on other public services. Words, coming from ministers who lament "shortfall" in workforce in the UK and praise hard-working migrants taking over jobs where "nobody wants to work", are utterly preposterous. We have here in this country one and a half unemployed "on training schemes" and about three million on incapacity benefit - and still Government needs foreign workers to fill gaps on job market? Why Labour don't want to make easier for unemployed people to find the job rather than inviting migrants and doping unemployed with welfare benefits? Taking into account a looming financial crisis, the situation now begs the question of why Labour did not do their utmost to empower unemployed people with jobs and not risk our stretched public services (leaving aside community cohesion). Labour showed a great incompetence and mismanagement dealing with economy as if they thought it was going to boom forever. Moreover, as government was (and is) promoting multiculturalism and such hospitality to new "British" workers as even translating in their native languages various documents (seemingly forgetting that only official language here is English language), it makes one wonder if it was a special kind of malignant strategy aimed at making this country fully cosmopolitan (i.e., uprooting national identity) and boosting the economy (and number of Labour voters) with arriving foreign people.
Where did this strategy lead us after ten years of Labour in power, we can see now.
Our economy has serious problems, our public services are over-stretched and the worst of all - the sense of community is badly damaged. This rather socio-cultural than economical phenomenon makes argument against migration so sound. And I will explore it in details over the next couple of days.
Sunday 30 March 2008
Glamour instead of policy
Last week was marked by the state visit of Nicholas Sarkozy and his wife to the UK. This visit was widely reported by national newspapers and sparked much buzz about a new era in Anglo-French relations.
Mr. Sarkozy delivered a speech about virtues of British people and referred to our Parliament as historical ancestor to other democratic institutes. He heaped praise on British resolve during WW2 and wanted to look like an Anglophile. In fact, he is one. Gordon Brown didn't lag behind and promised a new "Entente formidable" with French. Carla Bruni tried to look like First Lady should look like and to put her rather frivolous past behind. Many journalists and members of public were fascinated by her glamour and now she enjoys some kind of admiration by British public.
Yet it seems like another example of emotion taking over sensible analysis. Should we actually scrutinise what Mr. Sarkozy has done in France over the last year and what he offers to his partners both here and in the US, we would be surprised. Because for all his talk during the election season about new France and the greatest reforms in our generation, he abstained from realisation of his programme. Having encountered the powerful resistance of France's almighty unions, he clearly prefers not to make any decisive moves. His dithering though has had a negative impact on his poll ratings because now he is criticised from both sides of political spectrum. For left wing he is dangerous liberal reformist and for right wing he is ditherer not fulfilling his promises.
As for his talk about bigger NATO involvement of France it is noteworthy that he wants it on French conditions. As it was noted by American experts Sarkozy wants France to have voice in NATO decision process. This may lead to possible rifts and arguments within NATO when France would act versus plans of Britain and the US. Also France wants by its involvement in NATO to be the main pillar of European defence forces and to influence European defence policy. And here we come to another important point. Mr. Sarkozy is very fond of European Union and he wants to further the integration during his spell as President of the EU Council. He denied his own voters a vote on the Lisbon treaty and it seems he will do his utmost to write his name in history of the EU. He has some Napoleonic ambitions and his policies may lead to conflict with other EU members. Angela Merkel was already angered by Sarkozy's proposal of "Mediterranean Union" and this might be just the first sign of Paris falling out with major European powers.
While Carla wooed British public, her husband tried to woo his Anglo-Saxon partners. But we should understand the true reasons of his policy and to follow his actual deeds. For it seems there were many right words but no right deeds. With his promises not fulfilled, his slumping ratings and looming financial crisis, his private life being opened to public doesn't add much gravitas to his person. Yet people were more interested here in wardrobe of Sarkozy's wife than in his policies just as people across the pond are more inclined to hear lofty rhetoric than analyse sensible reform proposals. As for me, I prefer Obama's speeches to glamour of Carla Bruni. At least, they have some political meaning.
In this time of emotions and mood running the world we should use our brains to make our future. We should be cautious and consider all options. Therefore we shouldn't' be deceived by Sarkozy's apparent addiction to Anglo-Saxons for he is trying to push his own agenda - so we should guard our interests. As for Mr. Sarkozy, it would be better for him if he tried to refrain from posturing and restrain his ambitions and actually do the reforms he promised. For if even leaders don't keep their promises, how on earth can people trust politicians again?
Mr. Sarkozy delivered a speech about virtues of British people and referred to our Parliament as historical ancestor to other democratic institutes. He heaped praise on British resolve during WW2 and wanted to look like an Anglophile. In fact, he is one. Gordon Brown didn't lag behind and promised a new "Entente formidable" with French. Carla Bruni tried to look like First Lady should look like and to put her rather frivolous past behind. Many journalists and members of public were fascinated by her glamour and now she enjoys some kind of admiration by British public.
Yet it seems like another example of emotion taking over sensible analysis. Should we actually scrutinise what Mr. Sarkozy has done in France over the last year and what he offers to his partners both here and in the US, we would be surprised. Because for all his talk during the election season about new France and the greatest reforms in our generation, he abstained from realisation of his programme. Having encountered the powerful resistance of France's almighty unions, he clearly prefers not to make any decisive moves. His dithering though has had a negative impact on his poll ratings because now he is criticised from both sides of political spectrum. For left wing he is dangerous liberal reformist and for right wing he is ditherer not fulfilling his promises.
As for his talk about bigger NATO involvement of France it is noteworthy that he wants it on French conditions. As it was noted by American experts Sarkozy wants France to have voice in NATO decision process. This may lead to possible rifts and arguments within NATO when France would act versus plans of Britain and the US. Also France wants by its involvement in NATO to be the main pillar of European defence forces and to influence European defence policy. And here we come to another important point. Mr. Sarkozy is very fond of European Union and he wants to further the integration during his spell as President of the EU Council. He denied his own voters a vote on the Lisbon treaty and it seems he will do his utmost to write his name in history of the EU. He has some Napoleonic ambitions and his policies may lead to conflict with other EU members. Angela Merkel was already angered by Sarkozy's proposal of "Mediterranean Union" and this might be just the first sign of Paris falling out with major European powers.
While Carla wooed British public, her husband tried to woo his Anglo-Saxon partners. But we should understand the true reasons of his policy and to follow his actual deeds. For it seems there were many right words but no right deeds. With his promises not fulfilled, his slumping ratings and looming financial crisis, his private life being opened to public doesn't add much gravitas to his person. Yet people were more interested here in wardrobe of Sarkozy's wife than in his policies just as people across the pond are more inclined to hear lofty rhetoric than analyse sensible reform proposals. As for me, I prefer Obama's speeches to glamour of Carla Bruni. At least, they have some political meaning.
In this time of emotions and mood running the world we should use our brains to make our future. We should be cautious and consider all options. Therefore we shouldn't' be deceived by Sarkozy's apparent addiction to Anglo-Saxons for he is trying to push his own agenda - so we should guard our interests. As for Mr. Sarkozy, it would be better for him if he tried to refrain from posturing and restrain his ambitions and actually do the reforms he promised. For if even leaders don't keep their promises, how on earth can people trust politicians again?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)