Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

February 08 2013

Nächtlicher Regen in Kyoto



Kotozuka Eiichi (1906-1976): Nächtlicher Regen in Kyoto

(Gefunden bei Couleurs)

Reposted from02mysoup-aa 02mysoup-aa

January 31 2013

Stanley Kubrick an IBM

In August of 1966, 2 years prior to the release of 2001: A Space Odyssey, Stanley Kubrick wrote to the vice president of his production company and asked whether IBM — a company with whom Kubrick consulted during production, and whose logo briefly appears in the film  — were aware of HAL’s murderous actions in the story. His letter, and Roger Caras’s reply, can be seen below.

It’s worth noting that both Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke have since denied that HAL represented IBM, and have claimed that the “one-letter shift” between the names “HAL” and “IBM” is purely coincidental.






(Gefunden bei lettersofnote.com)

Reposted from02mysoup-aa 02mysoup-aa

Blackfacing [Anglizismus 2012] | sprachlog

Das Wort Blackfacing ist abgeleitet vom Englischen blackface, der Bezeichnung für eine ursprünglich aus den USA stammende Theater– und Varieté-Tradition, bei der weiße Schauspieler/innen oder Sänger/innen auf meistens übertrieben stereotypisierte Weise als Schwarze geschminkt auftreten.

Einen soliden Einstieg in die Geschichte des Blackface bietet die englische Wikipedia. Für die Geschichte des Lehnworts Blackfacing ist zunächst entscheidend, dass diese Praxis in doppelter Weise rassistisch belegt ist: Erstens, weil die Tradition aus einem zutiefst rassistischen historischen Zusammenhang stammt, in dem ein Auftreten schwarzer Schauspieler/innen als inakzeptabel gegolten hätte, und zweitens, weil beim Blackface nicht nur das Make-Up selbst und die dazugehörige Mimik übertrieben stereotypisiert ist (dicke rote Lippen, struppige Haare, weit aufgerissene Augen, wie auf dem weiter unten abgebildeten zeitgenössische Plakat), sondern auch die Zusammenhänge, in denen es verwendet wurde (Schwarze als naive, immer fröhliche Unterhalter).

[Hinweis: Der folgende Beitrag enthält eine rassistische Abbildung.]

Diese rassistischen Untertöne der Praxis und die Gedankenlosigkeit, mit der sie auch an deutschen Theatern immer wieder eingesetzt wird, führten im Jahr 2012 mehrfach zu Protesten, durch die auch das Wort (manchmal in der eigentlichen englischen Form Blackface, häufiger aber in der im englischen sehr seltenen Form Blackfacing) in die öffentliche Diskussion geriet. Absolut betrachtet scheint das Wort zunächst eher selten zu sein, das Deutsche Referenzkorpus enthält nur vier Treffer, die alle aus dem Januar 2012 stammen. Auch im Duden sucht man es vergeblich.

Nun fehlt im Deutschen Referenzkorpus allerdings bislang die gesamte zweite Jahreshälfte 2012; eine Suche im Google-News-Archiv zeigt aber, dass das Wort das ganze Jahr über zu verschiedenen Anlässen verwendet wurde. Vor 2012 finden sich im Google-News-Archiv dagegen nur vereinzelte Treffer, erstmals 2009 im Zusammenhang mit Günter Wallraffs Film „Schwarz auf Weiß“ (z.B. taz, 22.10.2009). Das Wort war also 2012 in der breiteren öffentlichen Diskussion nicht übermäßig häufig, wurde aber durchgängig und deutlich häufiger verwendet als in den Jahren zuvor. Dass es insgesamt nicht so häufig ist, wie beispielsweise Fracking oder Hashtag liegt mit daran, dass es weniger Anlässe zu seiner Verwendung gab und dass die Proteste gegen die Praxis von vielen Medien noch nicht ausreichend ernst genommen wurden, um darüber zu berichten.

Wm. h. west's big minstrel jubilee – amerikanisches werbeplakat von 1900

Wm. H. West's Big Minstrel Jubilee – Amerikanisches Werbeplakat von 1900

Das Wort Blackfacing erfüllt aber grundsätzlich die ersten zwei Bedingungen unseres Wettbewerbs: Es stammt aus dem Englischen und hat 2012 einen klaren Häufigkeitsanstieg erfahren.

Dass es eine interessante Lücke füllt, zeigt die Diskussion, die sich um das Wort entsponnen hat. Zum ersten Mal erhielt es 2012 im Januar mediale Aufmerksamkeit, als Dieter Hallervorden in einem Theaterstück eine schwarze Figur von einem schwarz geschminkten weißen Kollegen spielen ließ (alle vier Treffer im Deutschen Referenzkorpus beziehen sich auf diesen Vorfall). In Kommentaren auf der Facebook-Seite des Theaters führte das zu Hinweisen auf die rassistische Tradition des Blackface, woraufhin sich das Theater und der Regisseur Hallervorden alle Mühe gaben, auch die letzten Zweifel an einem unterschwelligen Rassismus ihres Vorgehens auszuräumen — das Theater, indem es behauptete, einen qualifizierten schwarzen Schauspieler zu finden, sei schlicht unmöglich gewesen und überhaupt könne es nicht angehen, dass „die Kunst“ sich von „einer Gruppe von Menschen im Internet“ vorschreiben lassen müsse, was Rassismus sei, und Hallervorden, indem er fragte, ob „Sigmar Gabriel sich für Maßnahmen gegen den Hunger in der Welt einsetzen [dürfe], obwohl er über Leibesfülle verfüg[e]” (ganz so, als habe man ihn dafür kritisiert, sich gegen Rassismus zu engagieren, und nicht dafür, Rassismus zu replizieren).

Wenn es bei dieser einen Diskussion geblieben wäre, bräuchten wir über das Wort blackface/blackfacing im Zusammenhang mit unserer Wörterwahl nicht weiter zu reden, aber es folgten weitere Diskussionen, z.B. im März im Zusammenhang mit zwei Theaterstücken, die das Blackface sorgsam mieden, im April im Zusammenhang mit einem Aktionskunstwerk in Stockholm und im Oktober, als ein amerikanischer Dramatiker dem Deutschen Theater eine Aufführung seines Stückes untersagte, weil doch wieder zum Blackface gegriffen wurde. Auch ganz aktuell findet sich das Wort wieder in der öffentlichen Diskussion um einen Literaturkritiker, der eine mäßig originelle Besprechung der sprachlichen Überarbeitung von Kinderbüchern mit schwarz geschminktem Gesicht aufzeichnete [Hinweis: Verlinkter Text enthält rassistische Sprache und Bilder].

Das Wort Blackfacing ist also auf dem besten Wege, Teil des deutschen Wortschatzes zu werden. Dass es bereits einen gewissen Integrationsprozess hinter sich hat, zeigt sich übrigens sowohl auf der Ebene der Form, als auch auf der Ebene des Inhalts. Auf der Formebene fällt auf, dass sich im Deutschen fast ausschließlich die Form Blackfacing findet, im englischen Sprachraum dagegen hauptsächlich die Form blackface verwendet wird, häufig in der Kombination in blackface. Während das englische Wort also das Make-Up selbst bezeichnet (bzw. die Tatsache, dass es jemand trägt), bezeichnet das deutsche Wort Blackfacing durch die Partizipialendung –ing einen Prozess, bezieht sich also auf die Praxis des Schwarzschminkens. (Im Deutschen ist Blackfacing natürlich streng genommen kein Partizip, da –ing ja kein deutsches Morphem ist, aber das Prozesshafte vermittelt die Form trotzdem in Analogie zu den vielen anderen entlehnten englischen ing–Formen, die allesamt Prozesse bezeichnen.)

Auf der inhaltlichen Ebene gibt es erste Hinweise darauf, dass sich das Wort aus seinem ursprünglichen Zusammenhang löst und auch außerhalb von (Theater-)Inszenierungen dunkelhäutiger Menschen verwendet wird. So findet sich das Wort z.B. an verschiedenen Stellen im Zusammenhang mit einer Aktion der Gruppe Femen, bei der sich Aktivistinnen auf dem Berliner Slutwalk einen (schwarzen) Niqab auf den Körper malten.

Die Auseinandersetzung mit der eigenen Kolonialgeschichte und der damit einhergehenden rassistischen Vergangenheit ebenso wie mit der rassistischen Gegenwart kommt in Deutschland sehr viel schleppender in Gang, als etwa in den USA, aber immerhin beginnt sie langsam. Es ist anzunehmen, dass dabei auch die Diskussion um das Blackface weiter geführt wird, und dass sich damit auch das Wort Blackfacing weiter verbreiten wird. Es hat also nicht nur eine interessante Struktur und Bedeutungsgeschichte, sondern auch eine hohe gesellschaftliche Relevanz. Es ist damit ein solider Kandidat im Rennen um den Anglizismus des Jahres, durchaus schon in diesem, aber ganz sicher im nächsten Jahr.

Reposted from02mysoup-aa 02mysoup-aa
02mydafsoup-01

Xenie - (2) Erfolgreiches Volksbegehren gegen Studiengebühren in Bayern



Teures Piratenvolk, Du fuhrst voran mit flatterndem Wimpel!
Andere hissten ihn spät - erst als die Küste in Sicht.




 Creative commons lizenzvertrag
Xenie - Volksbegehren gegen Studiengebühren in Bayern 2013 von offene Ablage: nothing to hide | oAnth steht unter einer Creative Commons Namensnennung-NichtKommerziell-KeineBearbeitung 3.0 Unported Lizenz.
Über diese Lizenz hinausgehende Erlaubnisse können Sie unter https://twitter.com/02mytwi01 erhalten

January 30 2013

02mydafsoup-01

5 Tweets: Vermutlich erfolgreicher Ausgang des Volksbegehrens in Bayern gegen Studiengebühren

------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- -------------------------------------
02mydafsoup-01

Xenie - Studiengebühren - Bayern




Insgeheim hadern die Götter mit den bayrischen Wählern,
Dass eine   S t u d i e n gebühr  just sie im Unbill vereint.






Creative commons lizenzvertrag
Xenie - Volksbegehren gegen Studiengebühren in Bayern 2013 von offene Ablage: nothing to hide steht unter einer Creative Commons Namensnennung-NichtKommerziell-KeineBearbeitung 3.0 Deutschland Lizenz.
Über diese Lizenz hinausgehende Erlaubnisse können Sie unter https://twitter.com/02mytwi01 erhalten

Book of the Day: Why Small-Scale Alternatives Won’t Change The World

Key thesis: The localist form of citizenship may empower us, but it cannot confront capitalism. Against a global network of power must emerge globalised forms of struggle.

* Book: No Local. Why Small-Scale Alternatives Won’t Change The World. Greg Sharzer. Zero Books, 2012.

Here is the summary of this book which challenges localist initiatives:

“Can making things smaller make the world a better place? No Local takes a critical look at localism, an ideology that says small businesses, ethical shopping and community initiatives like gardens and farmers’ markets can stop corporate globalization.

These small acts might make life better for some, but they don’t challenge the drive for profit that’s damaging our communities and the earth. No Local shows how localism’s fixation on small comes from an outdated economic model. Growth is built into capitalism. Small firms must play by the same rules as large ones, cutting costs, exploiting workers and damaging the environment. Localism doesn’t ask who controls production, allowing it to be co-opted by governments offloading social services onto the poor. At worst, localism becomes a strategy for neoliberal politics, not an alternative to it.”

The author Greg Sharzer argues:

“In 2011, as Greece continued its inexorable slide towards bankruptcy, The Guardian featured economist Costas Lapavitsas on how Greeks were coping with the crisis. As unemployment grew, communities lost:

the means to live as well as the norms, customs and respect of regular work. Barter has appeared among the poor and the not so poor… Schools and transport are disintegrating. People are abandoning cities to return to agriculture, a sure sign of social retrogression.

The strange Marxist curse of “social retrogression” attracted the attention of geographers David Harvey and Keir Milburn. They countered that, far from being a sign of social decay, the return to agriculture was, in fact, a sign of resistance. Going back to the land was “crucial in building alternatives to the neoliberal policies that have impoverished so many”, and “a move full of potential.”

All three economists are socialists: they believe in the power of mass social movements, like the Arab Spring and mass mobilizations across Europe, to change capitalism. Yet if they agree on an active, resistant kind of citizenship, they disagree on what direction citizens should put their energies. One is about mass resistance to austerity; the other is a form of localism. At the heart of this disagreement, I would argue, are two different concepts – not of citizenship but of capitalism.

Our world is structured by how wealth gets produced. As I argue in my book No Local: Why Small-Scale Alternatives Won’t Change The World, capitalism is a system of making wealth socially and keeping it privately. Most of us, the ‘99%’, have to work; a very small number of people, the capitalists, get to own. The latter face two major problems: they have to expand their production and lower their costs or risk competitors swallowing them up. This constant drive to expand creates unnecessary production and crisis. When the profit rate falls, capitalists have to do everything in their power to restore it. That can mean a recession and austerity, or even a war – anything to eliminate excess capacity and ‘surplus’ workers.

How we respond to this austerity – resistance or adapation – depends on how we understand capitalism. Localism sees it as uneven and fragile; the dispossessed can operate at the margins to create a fulfilling life for themselves. The alternative, a democratic, revolutionary socialism, agrees that capitalism is unstable and open to change, but not at the margins: rather, capitalism creates its own grave-diggers at its very centre. The working class, who have nothing to sell but their work, create everything and can therefore run everything. Capitalism can be organized against and overcome.

In the abstract, we can choose both. By going back to the land, we can create communities of resistance that provide the material and moral strength to resist neoliberalism. However, by not confronting capitalism, this localist form of citizenship fails on every level: ethical, practical and political.

Ethically, localism lets capitalists pass the costs of their failures to workers. Why be so quick to abandon the schools, hospitals and factories that have defined contemporary society? Workers fought for the good education, healthcare and jobs that capitalist governments are trying to eliminate.

Practically, localities can’t recreate the amenities and infrastructure of an advanced society: the mass transit, renewable energy and dense urban development needed to transform to a low-carbon economy are impossible without the vast, international coordination of resources and technical know-how.

Politically, localism dodges important strategic questions: how do we oppose attacks on pensions, wages and services that workers have fought for? How do we deal with entrenched forms of state and corporate power, which have no problem with tiny cooperatives and the occasional black-masked riot, but whose profits and stability are genuinely threatened by a general strike?

The localist from-below vision empowers people as everything from consumers to producers but, crucially, not as citizens. This is because a citizen is a fundamentally political being who engages with the issues of people who don’t have the opportunity or luxury to drop out. As I argue in No Local:

Marx famously alliterated, “Here is the rose, dance here!” We begin with society as it is, not as we’d like it to be. Voluntarism means substituting one’s own personal projects and priorities for building social movements, rather than trying to understand and change conditions as they exist right now.

Lapavitsas can talk about social retrogression because he believes workers create collective wealth, in the form of public services and productive capacity. The problem is not one of austerity but ownership: in fact, workers create vast wealth, actual and potential, that is squandered privately. Put towards public, democratic ends, that wealth could end poverty, hunger and create a comfortable life for all.

How do workers learn to run things? Through resistance: fighting for change wherever the issue of the day arises, be it privatisation, layoffs or government-imposed austerity. Through struggle, we build the capacity to create independent and democratic movements. This kind of citizenship emerged in Quebec during the student occuptions of 2012, and it continues in Egypt in the struggle against the new regime. Those activists are trying to create an entirely new, collective, democratic citizenship, based on an egalitarian society.

Whatever concessions social movements were able to carve out of states in their more generous pre-crisis days, states have shown themselves to be instruments of capitalism – not because they’ve been ‘captured’ by corporate elites but because their job is to manage the system of profit-making. We can either resist or give in, but there is no outside to the class struggle. As I argue in No Local:

class struggle allows activists to learn first–hand about the strategies and principles necessary to build a movement. This kind of prefiguration embodies social justice, cooperation and community, all cherished localist values, plus one that’s even more important: collective resistance. Rather than imagining possible futures, we can practice and learn about the political steps needed to get there.

The pan-European general strikes against austerity last November are a great example. As workers connect local issues to the global crisis, we can create a new form of citizenship, confronting, not avoiding the strategic questions of how to take power from capital. Against the globalized age of austerity, we will create our own globalized age of resistance.”

Reposted from02myEcon-01 02myEcon-01
Most of What You Think You Know About Grammar is Wrong

And ending sentences with a preposition is nothing worth worrying about (RT @MindPeeler: awesome article from the @smithsonian about #linguistics http://t.co/uhj1MTRL)...

// read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/Most-of-What-You-Think-You-Know-About-Grammar-is-Wrong-187940351.html


Reposted from02mysoup-aa 02mysoup-aa

January 29 2013

World Maps of Language Families

For teaching a class on the history and geography of the world’s major language families, good linguistic maps are essential. Unfortunately, serviceable maps that depict only language families are difficult to find.

 



Thomas MacLaren Architectural Drawings Collection




Abbey farm house in the village of Charlton Adam (Somerset, England)



Arcade at Certosa di Pavia



Chalet near Davos-Dorfli



Belfry at St. Moritz

This collection contains original pencil sketches and watercolors by architect Thomas MacLaren, (b. Scotland, 1863 - d. Colorado Springs, 1928) illustrating the architecture of England, Italy, Scotland, Switzerland, and elsewhere. The works were completed between 1880 and 1891.

(Gefunden bei libcudl.colorado.edu)

Reposted from02mysoup-aa 02mysoup-aa
The lesser spotted language | ITWeb

[...]

Daniel Prado, executive secretary of the Maaya World Network for Linguistic Diversity , notes that while the Internet has become a tool of daily life for urban populations in industrialised countries, it remains internationally inaccessible to five out of seven individuals. He points out that more than five billion people lacked Internet access at the end of 2010 and that distribution itself is uneven – at most, 10% of Africans are connected, compared to 25% of Asians, 80% of North Americans and 65% of Europeans.

According to Unesco, nearly half of the world’s 6 000 languages could disappear by the end of the century. The crux of language disappearance lies in a decrease in speaker numbers – 50% of the world’s languages are spoken by fewer than 10 000 individuals.

[...]

See it on Scoop.it, via World Englishes
Reposted from02mysoup-aa 02mysoup-aa
02mydafsoup-01

January 24 2013

02mydafsoup-01
There is on soup.io no spam button, the only way is to show the spammers that the community will act via an information site ( e.g. everyones.soup.io or getsatisfaction.com ) and alarm the support ( @kitchen ). Eventually it would  be a decision by the soup support to warn first the account owner and finally, in case he carries on, to delete it.

Le jour où les bisounours mordront les vautours | RJ45

Le jour où les bisounours mordront les vautours | RJ45
http://blog.univ-angers.fr/rj45/2013/01/18/le-jour-ou-les-bisounours-mordront-les-vautours

Il est temps pour nous de mettre en place une sorte d'équilibre de la terreur qui repose sur un principe simple : un certain nombre de bibliothécaires (nombre suffisant pour rendre toute poursuite trop compliquée/coûteuse) s'engage à libérer (i.e. diffuser sur le net, via torrent par exemple, ou tout autre moyen technique) tout document issu du domaine public qui aurait été privatisé et qui aurait été acquis par l'institution dans laquelle le bibliothécaire travaille ; et le cas échéant, ces bibliothécaires mettent cette menace à exécution collectivement.

#domaine_public et un excellent #titre

Reposted fromcheg00 cheg00

French NGOs Condemn Privatisation of Public Domain

Seven European free culture associations issued a statement [fr] protesting against a public-private partnership between the French National Library BNF and Proquest database [fr], whose aim is to digitize a large amount of Public Domain works and privatize them with an exclusivity period of commercialization of ten years. Activist Philippe Aigrain explained [fr] “the genealogy of this disaster” on his blog.

02mydafsoup-01

David Cameron's EU speech - full text | Politics | guardian.co.uk 2013-01-23

   

This morning I want to talk about the future of Europe.

But first, let us remember the past.

Seventy years ago, Europe was being torn apart by its second catastrophic conflict in a generation. A war which saw the streets of European cities strewn with rubble. The skies of London lit by flames night after night. And millions dead across the world in the battle for peace and liberty.

As we remember their sacrifice, so we should also remember how the shift in Europe from war to sustained peace came about. It did not happen like a change in the weather. It happened because of determined work over generations. A commitment to friendship and a resolve never to revisit that dark past – a commitment epitomised by the Elysee treaty signed 50 years ago this week.

After the Berlin Wall came down I visited that city and I will never forget it.

The abandoned checkpoints. The sense of excitement about the future. The knowledge that a great continent was coming together. Healing those wounds of our history is the central story of the European Union.

What Churchill described as the twin marauders of war and tyranny have been almost entirely banished from our continent. Today, hundreds of millions dwell in freedom, from the Baltic to the Adriatic, from the Western Approaches to the Aegean.

And while we must never take this for granted, the first purpose of the European Union – to secure peace – has been achieved and we should pay tribute to all those in the EU, alongside Nato, who made that happen.

But today the main, overriding purpose of the European Union is different: not to win peace, but to secure prosperity.

The challenges come not from within this continent but outside it. From the surging economies in the east and south. Of course a growing world economy benefits us all, but we should be in no doubt that a new global race of nations is under way today.

A race for the wealth and jobs of the future.

The map of global influence is changing before our eyes. And these changes are already being felt by the entrepreneur in the Netherlands, the worker in Germany, the family in Britain.

So I want to speak to you today with urgency and frankness about the European Union and how it must change – both to deliver prosperity and to retain the support of its peoples.

But first, I want to set out the spirit in which I approach these issues.

I know that the United Kingdom is sometimes seen as an argumentative and rather strong-minded member of the family of European nations.

And it's true that our geography has shaped our psychology.

We have the character of an island nation: independent, forthright, passionate in defence of our sovereignty.

We can no more change this British sensibility than we can drain the English Channel.

And because of this sensibility, we come to the European Union with a frame of mind that is more practical than emotional.

For us, the European Union is a means to an end – prosperity, stability, the anchor of freedom and democracy both within Europe and beyond her shores – not an end in itself.

We insistently ask: how, why, to what end?

But all this doesn't make us somehow un-European.

The fact is that ours is not just an island story – it is also a continental story.

For all our connections to the rest of the world – of which we are rightly proud – we have always been a European power, and we always will be.

From Caesar's legions to the Napoleonic wars. From the Reformation, the Enlightenment and the industrial revolution to the defeat of nazism. We have helped to write European history, and Europe has helped write ours.

Over the years, Britain has made her own, unique contribution to Europe. We have provided a haven to those fleeing tyranny and persecution. And in Europe's darkest hour, we helped keep the flame of liberty alight. Across the continent, in silent cemeteries, lie the hundreds of thousands of British servicemen who gave their lives for Europe's freedom.

In more recent decades, we have played our part in tearing down the iron curtain and championing the entry into the EU of those countries that lost so many years to Communism. And contained in this history is the crucial point about Britain, our national character, our attitude to Europe.

Britain is characterised not just by its independence but, above all, by its openness.

We have always been a country that reaches out. That turns its face to the world. That leads the charge in the fight for global trade and against protectionism.

This is Britain today, as it's always been: independent, yes – but open, too.

I never want us to pull up the drawbridge and retreat from the world.

I am not a British isolationist.

I don't just want a better deal for Britain. I want a better deal for Europe too.

So I speak as British prime minister with a positive vision for the future of the European Union. A future in which Britain wants, and should want, to play a committed and active part.

Some might then ask: why raise fundamental questions about the future of Europe when Europe is already in the midst of a deep crisis?

Why raise questions about Britain's role when support in Britain is already so thin.

There are always voices saying: "Don't ask the difficult questions."

But it's essential for Europe – and for Britain – that we do because there are three major challenges confronting us today.

First, the problems in the eurozone are driving fundamental change in Europe.

Second, there is a crisis of European competitiveness, as other nations across the world soar ahead. And third, there is a gap between the EU and its citizens which has grown dramatically in recent years. And which represents a lack of democratic accountability and consent that is – yes – felt particularly acutely in Britain.

If we don't address these challenges, the danger is that Europe will fail and the British people will drift towards the exit.

I do not want that to happen. I want the European Union to be a success. And I want a relationship between Britain and the EU that keeps us in it.

That is why I am here today: to acknowledge the nature of the challenges we face. To set out how I believe the European Union should respond to them. And to explain what I want to achieve for Britain and its place within the European Union.

Let me start with the nature of the challenges we face.

First, the eurozone.

The future shape of Europe is being forged. There are some serious questions that will define the future of the European Union – and the future of every country within it.

The union is changing to help fix the currency – and that has profound implications for all of us, whether we are in the single currency or not.

Britain is not in the single currency, and we're not going to be. But we all need the eurozone to have the right governance and structures to secure a successful currency for the long term.

And those of us outside the eurozone also need certain safeguards to ensure, for example, that our access to the single market is not in any way compromised.

And it's right we begin to address these issues now.

Second, while there are some countries within the EU which are doing pretty well. Taken as a whole, Europe's share of world output is projected to fall by almost a third in the next two decades. This is the competitiveness challenge – and much of our weakness in meeting it is self-inflicted.

Complex rules restricting our labour markets are not some naturally occurring phenomenon. Just as excessive regulation is not some external plague that's been visited on our businesses.

These problems have been around too long. And the progress in dealing with them, far too slow.

As Chancellor Merkel has said, if Europe today accounts for just over 7% of the world's population, produces around 25% of global GDP and has to finance 50% of global social spending, then it's obvious that it will have to work very hard to maintain its prosperity and way of life.

Third, there is a growing frustration that the EU is seen as something that is done to people rather than acting on their behalf. And this is being intensified by the very solutions required to resolve the economic problems.

People are increasingly frustrated that decisions taken further and further away from them mean their living standards are slashed through enforced austerity or their taxes are used to bail out governments on the other side of the continent.

We are starting to see this in the demonstrations on the streets of Athens, Madrid and Rome. We are seeing it in the parliaments of Berlin, Helsinki and the Hague.

And yes, of course, we are seeing this frustration with the EU very dramatically in Britain.

Europe's leaders have a duty to hear these concerns. Indeed, we have a duty to act on them. And not just to fix the problems in the eurozone.

For just as in any emergency you should plan for the aftermath as well as dealing with the present crisis, so too in the midst of the present challenges we should plan for the future, and what the world will look like when the difficulties in the eurozone have been overcome.

The biggest danger to the European Union comes not from those who advocate change, but from those who denounce new thinking as heresy. In its long history Europe has experience of heretics who turned out to have a point.

And my point is this. More of the same will not secure a long-term future for the eurozone. More of the same will not see the European Union keeping pace with the new powerhouse economies. More of the same will not bring the European Union any closer to its citizens. More of the same will just produce more of the same: less competitiveness, less growth, fewer jobs.

And that will make our countries weaker not stronger.

That is why we need fundamental, far-reaching change.

So let me set out my vision for a new European Union, fit for the 21st century.

It is built on five principles.

The first: competitiveness. At the core of the European Union must be, as it is now, the single market. Britain is at the heart of that single market, and must remain so.

But when the single market remains incomplete in services, energy and digital – the very sectors that are the engines of a modern economy – it is only half the success it could be.

It is nonsense that people shopping online in some parts of Europe are unable to access the best deals because of where they live. I want completing the single market to be our driving mission.

I want us to be at the forefront of transformative trade deals with the US, Japan and India as part of the drive towards global free trade. And I want us to be pushing to exempt Europe's smallest entrepreneurial companies from more EU directives.

These should be the tasks that get European officials up in the morning – and keep them working late into the night. And so we urgently need to address the sclerotic, ineffective decision-making that is holding us back.

That means creating a leaner, less bureaucratic union, relentlessly focused on helping its member countries to compete.

In a global race, can we really justify the huge number of expensive peripheral European institutions?

Can we justify a commission that gets ever larger?

Can we carry on with an organisation that has a multibillion pound budget but not enough focus on controlling spending and shutting down programmes that haven't worked?

And I would ask: when the competitiveness of the single market is so important, why is there an environment council, a transport council, an education council but not a single market council?

The second principle should be flexibility.

We need a structure that can accommodate the diversity of its members – north, south, east, west, large, small, old and new. Some of whom are contemplating much closer economic and political integration. And many others, including Britain, who would never embrace that goal.

I accept, of course, that for the single market to function we need a common set of rules and a way of enforcing them. But we also need to be able to respond quickly to the latest developments and trends.

Competitiveness demands flexibility, choice and openness – or Europe will fetch up in a no-man's land between the rising economies of Asia and market-driven North America.

The EU must be able to act with the speed and flexibility of a network, not the cumbersome rigidity of a bloc.

We must not be weighed down by an insistence on a one size fits all approach which implies that all countries want the same level of integration. The fact is that they don't and we shouldn't assert that they do.

Some will claim that this offends a central tenet of the EU's founding philosophy. I say it merely reflects the reality of the European Union today. 17 members are part of the eurozone. 10 are not.

26 European countries are members of Schengen – including four outside the European Union – Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland. Two EU countries – Britain and Ireland – have retained their border controls.

Some members, like Britain and France, are ready, willing and able to take action in Libya or Mali. Others are uncomfortable with the use of military force.

Let's welcome that diversity, instead of trying to snuff it out.

Let's stop all this talk of two-speed Europe, of fast lanes and slow lanes, of countries missing trains and buses, and consign the whole weary caravan of metaphors to a permanent siding.

Instead, let's start from this proposition: we are a family of democratic nations, all members of one European Union, whose essential foundation is the single market rather than the single currency. Those of us outside the euro recognise that those in it are likely to need to make some big institutional changes.

By the same token, the members of the eurozone should accept that we, and indeed all member states, will have changes that we need to safeguard our interests and strengthen democratic legitimacy. And we should be able to make these changes too.

Some say this will unravel the principle of the EU – and that you can't pick and choose on the basis of what your nation needs.

But far from unravelling the EU, this will in fact bind its members more closely because such flexible, willing co-operation is a much stronger glue than compulsion from the centre.

Let me make a further heretical proposition.

The European treaty commits the member states to "lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe".

This has been consistently interpreted as applying not to the peoples but rather to the states and institutions compounded by a European court of justice that has consistently supported greater centralisation.

We understand and respect the right of others to maintain their commitment to this goal. But for Britain – and perhaps for others – it is not the objective.

And we would be much more comfortable if the treaty specifically said so, freeing those who want to go further, faster, to do so, without being held back by the others.

So to those who say we have no vision for Europe, I say we have.

We believe in a flexible union of free member states who share treaties and institutions and pursue together the ideal of co-operation. To represent and promote the values of European civilisation in the world. To advance our shared interests by using our collective power to open markets. And to build a strong economic base across the whole of Europe.

And we believe in our nations working together to protect the security and diversity of our energy supplies. To tackle climate change and global poverty. To work together against terrorism and organised crime. And to continue to welcome new countries into the EU.

This vision of flexibility and co-operation is not the same as those who want to build an ever closer political union – but it is just as valid.

My third principle is that power must be able to flow back to member states, not just away from them. This was promised by European leaders at Laeken a decade ago.

It was put in the treaty. But the promise has never really been fulfilled. We need to implement this principle properly.

So let us use this moment, as the Dutch prime minister has recently suggested, to examine thoroughly what the EU as a whole should do and should stop doing.

In Britain we have already launched our balance of competences review – to give us an informed and objective analysis of where the EU helps and where it hampers.

Let us not be misled by the fallacy that a deep and workable single market requires everything to be harmonised, to hanker after some unattainable and infinitely level playing field.

Countries are different. They make different choices. We cannot harmonise everything. For example, it is neither right nor necessary to claim that the integrity of the single market, or full membership of the European Union requires the working hours of British hospital doctors to be set in Brussels irrespective of the views of British parliamentarians and practitioners.

In the same way we need to examine whether the balance is right in so many areas where the European Union has legislated including on the environment, social affairs and crime.

Nothing should be off the table.

My fourth principle is democratic accountability: we need to have a bigger and more significant role for national parliaments.

There is not, in my view, a single European demos.

It is national parliaments, which are, and will remain, the true source of real democratic legitimacy and accountability in the EU.

It is to the Bundestag that Angela Merkel has to answer. It is through the Greek parliament that Antonis Samaras has to pass his government's austerity measures.

It is to the British parliament that I must account on the EU budget negotiations, or on the safeguarding of our place in the single market.

Those are the parliaments which instil proper respect – even fear – into national leaders.

We need to recognise that in the way the EU does business.

My fifth principle is fairness: whatever new arrangements are enacted for the eurozone, they must work fairly for those inside it and out.

That will be of particular importance to Britain. As I have said, we will not join the single currency. But there is no overwhelming economic reason why the single currency and the single market should share the same boundary, any more than the single market and Schengen.

Our participation in the single market, and our ability to help set its rules is the principal reason for our membership of the EU.

So it is a vital interest for us to protect the integrity and fairness of the single market for all its members.

And that is why Britain has been so concerned to promote and defend the single market as the eurozone crisis rewrites the rules on fiscal co-ordination and banking union.

These five principles provide what, I believe, is the right approach for the European Union.

So now let me turn to what this means for Britain.

Today, public disillusionment with the EU is at an all-time high. There are several reasons for this.

People feel that the EU is heading in a direction that they never signed up to. They resent the interference in our national life by what they see as unnecessary rules and regulation. And they wonder what the point of it all is.

Put simply, many ask "why can't we just have what we voted to join – a common market?"

They are angered by some legal judgements made in Europe that impact on life in Britain. Some of this antipathy about Europe in general really relates of course to the European court of human rights, rather than the EU. And Britain is leading European efforts to address this.

There is, indeed, much more that needs to be done on this front. But people also feel that the EU is now heading for a level of political integration that is far outside Britain's comfort zone.

They see treaty after treaty changing the balance between member states and the EU. And note they were never given a say.

They've had referendums promised – but not delivered. They see what has happened to the euro. And they note that many of our political and business leaders urged Britain to join at the time.

And they haven't noticed many expressions of contrition.

And they look at the steps the eurozone is taking and wonder what deeper integration for the eurozone will mean for a country which is not going to join the euro.

The result is that democratic consent for the EU in Britain is now wafer-thin.

Some people say that to point this out is irresponsible, creates uncertainty for business and puts a question mark over Britain's place in the European Union.

But the question mark is already there and ignoring it won't make it go away.

In fact, quite the reverse. Those who refuse to contemplate consulting the British people, would in my view make more likely our eventual exit.

Simply asking the British people to carry on accepting a European settlement over which they have had little choice is a path to ensuring that when the question is finally put – and at some stage it will have to be – it is much more likely that the British people will reject the EU.

That is why I am in favour of a referendum. I believe in confronting this issue – shaping it, leading the debate. Not simply hoping a difficult situation will go away.

Some argue that the solution is therefore to hold a straight in-out referendum now.

I understand the impatience of wanting to make that choice immediately.

But I don't believe that to make a decision at this moment is the right way forward, either for Britain or for Europe as a whole.

A vote today between the status quo and leaving would be an entirely false choice.

Now – while the EU is in flux, and when we don't know what the future holds and what sort of EU will emerge from this crisis – is not the right time to make such a momentous decision about the future of our country.

It is wrong to ask people whether to stay or go before we have had a chance to put the relationship right.

How can we sensibly answer the question "in or out" without being able to answer the most basic question: "What is it exactly that we are choosing to be in or out of?"

The European Union that emerges from the eurozone crisis is going to be a very different body. It will be transformed perhaps beyond recognition by the measures needed to save the eurozone.

We need to allow some time for that to happen – and help to shape the future of the European Union, so that when the choice comes it will be a real one.

A real choice between leaving or being part of a new settlement in which Britain shapes and respects the rules of the single market but is protected by fair safeguards, and free of the spurious regulation which damages Europe's competitiveness.

A choice between leaving or being part of a new settlement in which Britain is at the forefront of collective action on issues like foreign policy and trade and where we leave the door firmly open to new members.

A new settlement subject to the democratic legitimacy and accountability of national parliaments where member states combine in flexible co-operation, respecting national differences not always trying to eliminate them and in which we have proved that some powers can in fact be returned to member states.

In other words, a settlement which would be entirely in keeping with the mission for an updated European Union I have described today. More flexible, more adaptable, more open – fit for the challenges of the modern age.

And to those who say a new settlement can't be negotiated, I would say listen to the views of other parties in other European countries arguing for powers to flow back to European states.

And look too at what we have achieved already. Ending Britain's obligation to bail out eurozone members. Keeping Britain out of the fiscal compact. Launching a process to return some existing justice and home affairs powers. Securing protections on banking union. And reforming fisheries policy.

So we are starting to shape the reforms we need now. Some will not require treaty change.

But I agree too with what President Barroso and others have said. At some stage in the next few years the EU will need to agree on treaty change to make the changes needed for the long-term future of the euro and to entrench the diverse, competitive, democratically accountable Europe that we seek.

I believe the best way to do this will be in a new treaty so I add my voice to those who are already calling for this.

My strong preference is to enact these changes for the entire EU, not just for Britain.

But if there is no appetite for a new treaty for us all then of course Britain should be ready to address the changes we need in a negotiation with our European partners.

The next Conservative manifesto in 2015 will ask for a mandate from the British people for a Conservative government to negotiate a new settlement with our European partners in the next parliament.

It will be a relationship with the single market at its heart.

And when we have negotiated that new settlement, we will give the British people a referendum with a very simple in or out choice. To stay in the EU on these new terms, or come out altogether.

It will be an in-out referendum.

Legislation will be drafted before the next election. And if a Conservative government is elected we will introduce the enabling legislation immediately and pass it by the end of that year. And we will complete this negotiation and hold this referendum within the first half of the next parliament.

It is time for the British people to have their say. It is time to settle this European question in British politics.

I say to the British people: this will be your decision.

And when that choice comes, you will have an important choice to make about our country's destiny.

I understand the appeal of going it alone, of charting our own course. But it will be a decision we will have to take with cool heads. Proponents of both sides of the argument will need to avoid exaggerating their claims.

Of course Britain could make her own way in the world, outside the EU, if we chose to do so. So could any other member state.

But the question we will have to ask ourselves is this: is that the very best future for our country?

We will have to weigh carefully where our true national interest lies.

Alone, we would be free to take our own decisions, just as we would be freed of our solemn obligation to defend our allies if we left Nato. But we don't leave Nato because it is in our national interest to stay and benefit from its collective defence guarantee.

We have more power and influence – whether implementing sanctions against Iran or Syria, or promoting democracy in Burma – if we can act together.

If we leave the EU, we cannot of course leave Europe. It will remain for many years our biggest market, and forever our geographical neighbourhood. We are tied by a complex web of legal commitments.

Hundreds of thousands of British people now take for granted their right to work, live or retire in any other EU country.

Even if we pulled out completely, decisions made in the EU would continue to have a profound effect on our country. But we would have lost all our remaining vetoes and our voice in those decisions.

We would need to weigh up very carefully the consequences of no longer being inside the EU and its single market, as a full member.

Continued access to the single market is vital for British businesses and British jobs.

Since 2004, Britain has been the destination for one in five of all inward investments into Europe.

And being part of the single market has been key to that success.

There will be plenty of time to test all the arguments thoroughly, in favour and against the arrangement we negotiate. But let me just deal with one point we hear a lot about.

There are some who suggest we could turn ourselves into Norway or Switzerland – with access to the single market but outside the EU. But would that really be in our best interests?

I admire those countries and they are friends of ours – but they are very different from us. Norway sits on the biggest energy reserves in Europe, and has a sovereign wealth fund of over €500bn. And while Norway is part of the single market – and pays for the principle – it has no say at all in setting its rules. It just has to implement its directives.

The Swiss have to negotiate access to the single market sector by sector, accepting EU rules – over which they have no say – or else not getting full access to the single market, including in key sectors like financial services.

The fact is that if you join an organisation like the European Union, there are rules.

You will not always get what you want. But that does not mean we should leave – not if the benefits of staying and working together are greater.

We would have to think carefully too about the impact on our influence at the top table of international affairs.

There is no doubt that we are more powerful in Washington, in Beijing, in Delhi because we are a powerful player in the European Union.

That matters for British jobs and British security.

It matters to our ability to get things done in the world. It matters to the United States and other friends around the world, which is why many tell us very clearly that they want Britain to remain in the EU.

We should think very carefully before giving that position up.

If we left the European Union, it would be a one-way ticket, not a return.

So we will have time for a proper, reasoned debate.

At the end of that debate you, the British people, will decide.

And I say to our European partners, frustrated as some of them no doubt are by Britain's attitude: work with us on this.

Consider the extraordinary steps which the eurozone members are taking to keep the euro together, steps which a year ago would have seemed impossible.

It does not seem to me that the steps which would be needed to make Britain – and others – more comfortable in their relationship in the European Union are inherently so outlandish or unreasonable.

And just as I believe that Britain should want to remain in the EU so the EU should want us to stay.

For an EU without Britain, without one of Europe's strongest powers, a country which in many ways invented the single market, and which brings real heft to Europe's influence on the world stage, which plays by the rules and which is a force for liberal economic reform would be a very different kind of European Union.

And it is hard to argue that the EU would not be greatly diminished by Britain's departure.

Let me finish today by saying this.

I have no illusions about the scale of the task ahead.

I know there will be those who say the vision I have outlined will be impossible to achieve. That there is no way our partners will co-operate. That the British people have set themselves on a path to inevitable exit. And that if we aren't comfortable being in the EU after 40 years, we never will be.

But I refuse to take such a defeatist attitude – either for Britain or for Europe.

Because with courage and conviction I believe we can deliver a more flexible, adaptable and open European Union in which the interests and ambitions of all its members can be met.

With courage and conviction I believe we can achieve a new settlement in which Britain can be comfortable and all our countries can thrive.

And when the referendum comes let me say now that if we can negotiate such an arrangement, I will campaign for it with all my heart and soul.

Because I believe something very deeply. That Britain's national interest is best served in a flexible, adaptable and open European Union and that such a European Union is best with Britain in it.

Over the coming weeks, months and years, I will not rest until this debate is won. For the future of my country. For the success of the European Union. And for the prosperity of our peoples for generations to come.

January 23 2013

January 22 2013

02mydafsoup-01

Thus is the power of graphic representation

Do I understand the graph well - the red written explication is related to the whole black line, which has no relation to the x and y scales? - then it should presumingly only show the relative development between carbon dioxide incl. volcanism and the yearly temperature, which is in MHO hardly convincing, if I try to to understand the obvious down drops in the years of strong volcanic activities. But to interpret the black graph as an average temperature isn't nether very helpful comparing the line with the yearly temperature amplitudes.

Also: 1956 seems for me a pretty late starting point "attributed to human activities" - but there is certainly something like proofing ability or disability by statistics to consider, and we know that the winters during WW2 and especially in the second half of the 1940 were in Europe relatively cold. The graphic as a whole seems to have its flaws - it is lacking a contextual explication.

02mydafsoup-01
Next time you hear that vulcanoes are cause of global warming
Reposted fromscience science

January 20 2013

02mydafsoup-01
[...]

The protests were triggered by an appar­ently insig­ni­fic­ant and mar­ginal issue in local polit­ics. In Mari­bor, the second largest city of Slov­e­nia, the city mayor com­mit­ted a private com­pany to install cam­eras across the city, in order to con­trol the traffic and pen­al­ize the viol­a­tions of speed lim­its. The main prob­lem was that the pen­al­ties would be paid to the same private com­pany. This then added fuel to the already foun­ded accus­a­tions of cor­rup­tion in the city coun­cil and not­ably in the mayor’s office. The occa­sional protests cul­min­ated in what became known as the “Mari­bor upris­ing”, where, for the first time in the short his­tory of Slov­e­nian inde­pend­ency, the police used excess­ive viol­ence, water can­nons, heli­copters etc. The com­bin­a­tion of local issues and cyn­ical polit­ical reac­tions from the gov­ern­ing parties lead to the situ­ation in which a vast major­ity could recog­nize their own dis­sat­is­fac­tion and frus­tra­tion with the gov­ern­ing polit­ics, and more broadly with the prob­lem­atic polit­ical tra­di­tion in Slov­e­nia. The ini­ti­at­ives for protests spread across the coun­try and the major­ity of organ­ising was con­duc­ted through the social networks.

[...]
The People Returns: A footnote to protests in Slovenia | Critical Legal Thinking 2013-01-16
Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!

Schweinderl