Why be good ?

  Hi there !

 Thank you for reading me, or at least the first two lines. I know that in an era with so much media to distract us, it is hard to concentrate on lengthy articles like mine. So here's a new option I'm trying out. The crazy kind : talking to myself....

 Enjoy :  http://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B5a-s9kLo5kaYTY3OTZlZWUtYjE0Yi00MmQ5LWEwODUtZWJkZGRhODg0MTY3&hl=fr

Notes from the party

The party was all an idea to be with new and old friends and have them mixing. I was talking to a few friends on facebook and set up a date. A theme, I find, is always required for a successful party, as well as good way to communicate the party informations ( facebook in this instance). And here I am writing about it.
I am happy I don't have to drive anywhere. I'm high from joints passing, drunk from my whisky bottle, I've giggled a bit on a laughing balloon and accepted a ritual offering of a line. I'm writing and Dom is talking to me. Dom is my good parisian friend's boyfriend. He studies sociology and film studies, and I enjoy talking to him. I'm smoking a cigarette and drinking my whisky and he is curious about what I write before it is written. He won't be the only one and I don't mind.
The theme of the evening is movie characters. Any movie. I thought I would do a theme wide enough so everybody could come just dressed up as anything they wanted and find the movie afterwards. The real souls of the party where recognized though as the people who selected their character first and made the costume afterwards.
The evening ended up being a convention of alternative controversial protagonists. There was Ennis Del Mar from Brokeback Mountain, Marla from Fight Club, a tranvestite Edward Scissorhands, a lonely Blues Brother, two Minnie Mouse ( Mice ? ), a cross-dressed Lara Croft and Tinkerbell (Dom), a magnum P.I. and women pirates from the eponymous movie. No Indiana Jones, James Bond, Snow White. That makes me happy.
My flatmates and I have all cleaned and rearrange the house to make it party proof. Saturday was the day. I woke up early because of an accidental phone call to me by a friend. I did all my washing and went to the drier, There, I received a call from my girlfriend, a good reminder of love and puts me in a good mood.
My room is clean. Even if the house's vacuum cleaner's is deficient. I moved my bed and desk to hide the different spills and disorders. It looks clean precisely. What helped was my flatmates enthousiasm for moving all the furnitures out of the living room. I ended up having the big sofa, so I had a square made of the bed in the corner, the dest at the window and a sofa covering my book shelf wall.
I have a history of failed parties. But this one will be the exception. While writing that, I have Ace Ventura who wants to leave a quote for me, and he writes: " I can only experience a party through my body,but then I influence my body with powders, my body schema changes, the Gestalt shifts and I get BATTERED !" Thank you Ace for this quote that expresses some of the entertaining aspects of the party.
I'm just enterering now a conversation about taste. The usual top 5 favorite movies. The state of a strange mesmerizing witch in black are True Romance, Platoon, Nightmare on Elm Street, When Harry met Sally and Toy Story. Hunter S. Thompson's ones are Amores Esperos, Chopper, Monster, ,Monsters Inc. and Halloween H2O. Everything flies. The conversation change to a grand question nf art: is the appropriation of a piece of art's meaning by the public is a good thing. And as the conversation evolve, so is the spirit of the party. I just noticed that my small room, after a moment while it had only three people, has now, let me count...15 people.
When I've set up the date on the facebook group, I didn't consult my flatmates. They complained a little bit at the beginnning, or they had other plans that turned up to be not that important. A flatmate of mine tried, and succeded a bit, guilt tripping me for doing that so quickly. But every was set. We were Patrick Bateman, Ron Burgundy, Ennis Del Mar, Freddy Krugger and an un-dressed up, Hosts of the Party.
I want to thank my neighbours for really working on their costumes. I have harrassed people I'd invite about their costumes, trying to make them feel they risk stigmatization if they wouldn't come dressed up. And now, my brand new toothbrush is the new wand of Minnie from Paris, and it goes in the mouths of everybody in the room. It won't go in my mouth, I have a cold, I wouldn't want to share it.
Hosts have prepared their rooms and all rooms have different personnalities. I bought covers for the sofa and my bed, on which I poured fake blood. I also got myself a bottle of whisky that I shared, and which is now corrupted by a strange mix my flatmate did at this end of the night.
The party started with us lonely hosts waiting for our guests in a house prepared for anything except desertedness. So I went to my neighbours' who put me in a joyfull mood, dressed up in comical manners and yet so remarkably well. They came back to my house and suddenly the party kicked off with every other guests following in line behind them. It was 9.30. A good time to start a party.
I am Patrick Bateman. Suited up with blood spatter on my face, I handed my business cards with my phone number on it all night long. Next morning, I'll receive of course text messages from unknown numbers asking for my service as a cold blooded killer. Thank you Marla by the way for having provided this idea. I have discovered during the evening it is a consensus that this character suits my persona. I don't know how to interpret that. Maybe I should kill someone to see if I really share the pleasures of American Psycho's protagonist. Any volunteer ?
Our living room being empty, it was the perfect spot for our guests in a dancing mood. Our speakers weren't loud enough, so Minnie from Paris went to get hers and the party really kicked off. If I was in the living room, I would have asked for "Thhhee Paarrrttyyy" by Justice. But I wasn't there and the party didn't need any introductory song anyway.
When the party was well started, I tried to meet everybody and give my time to everybody, a hard task. I had a few friends I hadn't seen for a long time, there was catching up that needed to be done there still. I walked a lot around and maybe didn't distributed my presence well enough. If anyone feels I wasn't there enough for them at the party, I'm sorry. (No surprise, I am highly self-centered)Still, every groups of friends at some point broke and people met new people. I wasn't needed that much for the matters of introductions.
We had four of our rooms open, an empty living room and the kitchen. The key places of the party were, as always though, the hallways and stairs. You could see migrations, interactions separations and avoidances of people. What made the life of the party. I have to say arrogantly now that my room was an almost consistent nexus of the party and have been complimented to have made it so. Upstairs were the people taking different drugs, in the front room was a guy selling laughing gas balloons - I'm still not sure how he landed at our party- in my room were some joints running and generally in the house people had drinks in there hands.
I'm glad I've bought my bottle of whisky. Ennis Del Mar bought two bottles of vodkas and I think a lot of people should have thanked him for that. On their behalves, I thank you gay cowboy. It's sunday and I don't feel that sick since I stayed on my alcohol all night. Everybody brought cans and bottles of cider and beer. I don't care what people drink, but I'm trying to picture the volume that will represent in bins.
I have a party loot as well. It's not exactly a loot, I'll give the stuff back if asked. I have Hunter S. Thompson's pipe, I have Lara Croft's gun, I have a wig and a sword. I feel it's the beginning of my career as a pirate. Looting is my only incentive for such an laborious but much needed cleaning of my room needs.
Now that I'm caffeined up, I can still see that good parties have a great life. The party ended slowly - I have to make a point that I am proud as well that the first people to leave left for being too drunk or sex which are always signs of a good party-, I wasn't part of the final breaking and death of the party. I'm afraid I might, by the end, have alienated maybe some people by writing. But now, I know what was my intention when starting to write this. I wanted a general picture of the party at its peak.
I'm sitting majestuously on my desk chair, observing my whole room. Next to me on the sofa, there is a tall manly Lara Croft talking about a philosophy of time to two Beetle Juices. On the other side of the sofa, there are pirates talking and laughing with Freddy Krugger and his holiday hat. Jasmin from Aladdin and the german Minnie are talking to Tom Cruise from Top gun and a Grease's bearded Pink Lady. At the door of my room Magnum has some difficulties socializing but he manages, listening to Elwood Blues and a student of Battle Royal talking movies. In the hallway, just outside my door, we can find Catwoman and Bugs Bunny having a couple's chat in polish.
In the living room "Crazy" by Gnarls Barkley is kicking on. Edward Scissorhands and a haired Death from Lost Highway ( the bold guy dress in black in the movie is Death, but that is just my personal interpretation) are making out in a corner. It doesn't disturb the dancing of the a male Tinkerbell, Minnie from Paris,Cleopatra, Charlie Chaplin (dancing like Michael Jackson), a skier, Poison Ivy and her basket of treats and the Ugly from the good, the bad and the ugly. I ignore obviously in my description anyone not dressed up, they are extras only.
In the Kitchen, there is a swisso-malaysian drug lord couple talking to the Devil. While upstairs James Dean and Hunter S. Thompson are corrupting Ace Ventura, Ron Burgundy and Froddo. The question has to be raised though: is it because of drugs that Ace talks to animals ?
Finally, at the bottom of the stairs, there is Marla not giving a fuck and elegantly chain-smokes.


Anyway, I had a great time and I'm sorry that I can't depict better the atmosphere of that night, but I think I'll remember it.

Unveiling the french veil problem

The question of the veil ( in all its forms ( niquab or burqua) and its interdiction in public spaces is the question that devides the population of France like the question on abortion is in U.S.A.. The question of the right of aborttion in USA is discussed without an historicity on the problems, something usual for the USA. My little brother pointed out to my attention that the moral compass of values of "pro-lifes", the christian churches, has only been recently considered abortion a crime.

Just like the lack of historical perspectives on the abortion question, there is an anachronistic element in the introduction against the veil. It is in the name of laicity that the interdiction is legitimized. Laicity was important in France in the 19th century as an ideology, because the church had still legal powers (e.g. over marriage) in the name of their god. The church being a bit of an ademocratic institutions, the battle against the church as hegemonic secular institutions ras rightfull. As much as atheism rights are not that defended, laicity is here used as an ideology to combat an evilized religion, not defend democraty.

So we can observed the history of the separation of the state and the church. But as much as French can defend whatever moral values they find behind their subjective opinion of laicity, they should admit that a deeply ethnocentered idea push too far can easily be seen as a violation of human rights. It's ironic that laicity has an element of trying to free people from ethnocentrism, but is used for such restricted ideas.

A solid argument, my mother's excalibur argument on the question, for the interdiction is that it is a symbole of patriarchal oppression. And in some ways it is. Families, husbands and cohorts who force women to be covered should be prosecuted for psychological harrassement. It is though also a form of symbolic violence when women are brainwashed to believe that they are inferiors or servants.

The other party has a counter-argument, individuals right. There are more women who chooses individually to wear a veil than forced to do so in our countries. More over, from my experience, and it is a shared perception, most of the musulman women I've met in the developping world where proud of wearing a veil. From the biology teacher in Thailand to the multilingual guide egyptian, intelligent women told me that they honoured their faith and didn't ask the west to come to their rescue.

This argument doesn't hold when we observed that embedded practice of oppression against women, that the veil represents, exist. So France said let's forget the right to practice a faith, let's protect women.

And what of the consequences France ? First of all, what about the limitless collateral damages of not allowing any religious signs at school? The law was passed against the veil, but not to look islamophobic, they decided it should extent to all religious signs. As an example, let's picture a sikh in France. These peacefull people believe it is forbidden to cut or shave their hair. They do then have to wear a turban hat to hide all their hair, explaining why they can be stupidly mistaken for a afghan hat. Sikhs have already abandonned their ritual knife, understanding the fear of it, but is the french government asking them to cut all their hair, or let the hair hang and be misunderstandbly stigmatised?

Another consequence that French do not want to observe is that they do present themselves as being on a crusade against Islam, but only their imagined version of Islam. They are fuelling primordialism and political racism in islamic countries by victimizing Islam. How can the west lead by example if it imposes sets of behaviors and dressings. How not to be insulted by being targeted by a governments because of a few dangerous people that shares the same faith in name only and not in practice. It is a good way to create anti-racism racism.

My final point is that all in all, it is a political decision that is only trying to look like the average voter is protected of his fears. The average voter is racist, so lets create a problem and proposes to solve it. But as much as the problem could exist maybe before, they don't tackle anything. Forcing people to behave in a certain way has no educationnal value. The veil can be a representation of oppression, but getting read of the representation only is not getting rid of the real problem. Other forms of oppression will exist as long as the social structures that feed that oppression exist.

And what about women magazines promoting a stricter body-discipline than men in the name of beauty? Women reading this message are victim of symbolic violence, but no measures has been made against it. We do tell ourselves that forbidding women magazines will not solve anorexia in top-models or the social construction of womenhood being only a beautifull object. Telling women what are the different forms of oppression and prosecuting the people forcing a symbol on them should be the solution. Restriction is no synomym of education. Also, giving them the informations so they can come to a rational conclusion was the central ideal of real laicity, not justified racism.

This post makes me look good when you read the one before!

Stuck in Social Constructions


Cultural relativism exists since I don't know when. It actually appear in lot of texts, not under the heading cultural relativism, but under the image of a heuristic device meant to criticize a society. Voltaire, a French philosopher of the enlightenment period would use it a lot to mirror the French society and its given ideas. Cultural relativism also implies that most of our thoughts, attitudes and behaviours are the result of a social construction. We are animals, but how we see the world is not in animal way at all, it is as a political animal. The Chinese would tell the Japanese for example that there is no hierarchy of Teas in nature, but only the person tasting the tea would make that hierarchy.

But this idea that everything is the result of a given society, and is therefore not absolute, can be criticize to be ameliorated is not growing as the technologies of the world are. Logic would have said that as we have more comparative examples to make, we could liberate ourselves more from our societal cages of thoughts.

Well this conclusion has easily some counter-arguments to be made. Cultural relativism was well explained by the French anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss, who had the occasion to visit South-American tribes in the middle 20th century. Also, the different movements of the sixties were based on this idea that society wasn't and shouldn't be such a cements of thoughts and hierarchies. So what do I mean ?

Well I believe that as much as we have grown wiser maybe, we still have a long way to go to be free, and the first step is still to admit that we are far from intellectual freedom as we can be. It is in my everyday life that I do notice this conflicting processes of global-village and cultural absolutism growing without bring to us much more liberty of the mind.

The first example is the question of the nation-state. Throughout history, our spacial identity has changed. But this is something that we are not accept to see, except when our ethical education lets us use this fact as an argument. But there are not many people who are ready to accept that countries do not represent much. Coming from Belgium, it is maybe easier for me to say it, Belgium being a construction of foreign powers, and our national identity never existed before, and it is still an on-going discussion to know if there is still one. The thing is that it is the same for most countries. Belgian are maybe the only one ready to accept that there country is not an absolute.

I'll take the Irish as an opposite example. They are an island, so there is more an idea of a spacial identity there that has lived maybe throughout history. But that is the only thing. Their Celtic culture and origins can be found as well in Ireland as in England as in France or even in Spain. They do have their own language, but it is living alongside English, and as proud they are of their identity, when it facilitates them, there are not ready to get rid of the colonial language. But when it comes to Euro-phobia, they invoke, like their ex-colonial power, a defence of their culture and new nation-state as arguments against the facility of a powerful alliance. The logic of the nation-state is not a irrefutable one, since all nation-states are the products of an international history, of an international population, defending a nation-state has no real logic, except this illusion of protection of the immutable. ( I would also like to point out that nationalism is the excuse of lazy minds for not being capable of imagining an alternative global world).

An other example of social construction that people tend to favour and stick to are technologies. Technologies are embedded within a society, and other technologies, or information sources or informations tend not to change much. Even in the promises of the world wide web, individuals keep themselves to their society. A good example is the variety of social networks within the web which are restricted to only certain cultures and economies. Facebook might be a huge one, but it represents only a small part of the population. Facebook groups are only the one to which our close friends have invited us or we found, but our researches are restricted to our social knowledge. Facebook has never opened much minds, at most it embeds us into our identity because we use it as a tool of identity reaffirmation more than a tool of intellectual development. Of course, certain fields in society do use internet as the globalizing tool it should be. I have mention technologies, and to show an other example of our incapacity of opening our mind to other technologies: new operating system scare us. Who is not on Windows or Mac ? Who would want to get out of these operating systems of our prime cyborg resources to try a new things that could liberate us from this two multi-nationals monopoly? It does require someone to accept that our society can change, especially that we could be freed from a strict capitalistic system which took the appearance of monopolizing the technological field. But it is a social construct also that we are too deep in our societal structure to resist it.

Where cultural relativism does not find its place where it seems the most logical, in this global world is the field of cultures. I will talk about taste being a pure social construction because it is. We like what we like because of the society we've grown in, our education and our restricted degree of personal interest. It is no excuse that we are stuck within a taste, within a culture, to make fun of others. And that is what still happen. The most interesting thing to observe is how people stuck within such a frame will make fun of people with a high degree of personal interest. Our cultural paradigm is attached with ethical paradigm which forbid us of any openly tribal criticism, most of the time. Though how many people haven't I seen laugh at a witch doctor ceremony. But the restricted frame people find themselves in is most observable when on television, someone has a deep personal interest in one subject under all its angles. This people are treated by TV-shows and their spectators as modern freaks, because they are capable of ignoring the general consensus of taste and behaviours.

Culturally, it is funny to also observe how people selects their team in national sports. It has nothing to do with the sportive quality of the team. It is only mildly related to the region of the team. It is highly related to the media representation of the team spirit. The team spirit is not related at all to some sport spirit in any way. The team spirit represented is only an image of the socio-economic background of the fans. The big winning team of a country will most of the time be the one supported by the powerful class and the easily manipulable population of the nation. The rival team will represent the opposite majority. The third team will represent the new-comers in a high class, the people who believe in the American dream, the nouveau-rich. The other more local clubs will be supported by the local population, in a quasi-tribal way, and most of the time, there will be two teams so class conflict can be represented. Of course, cultural construction will forbid fans such observation to the selection of their team, and only pseudo-sportive arguments will be presented.

Finally, I would like to present two important examples of the impossibility of thinking of our culture relativity in the field of morals and ethics. My first example is on our political ideals. Population have real difficulties changing political perspectives. Fukuyama was really wrong when he said that the end of history was represented by our liberal democracies. African multi-ethnic populations will admit that democracy is only creating a battlefield for them. A dictator is not any better because he will have fight to have power without learning the responsibilities of powers. But are we, the previous colonial powers, ready to see a monarchy re-establishing itself once again in a country? No, just like no parties will propose a truthful universal welfare state on its program, because as much as it is proven the best social help structure, it involves to much change, and too much change or difference do scare us.

The second example is our view on genders. There are lots of voices still raised for gender equality in the world, but without considering that gender equality does represent only a culturally constructed vision of gender equity. Of course, our system is as biased as societies were choice is not given. But should a couple decide as a couple who has what kind of power through discussion and through giving and receiving power? So if men, for example, would help for the chores in the house, that does give him real power within the house, he can decide what furnitures and how to raise the children. But if he wants to have a bigger buying power for himself by working only in the office and not doing much for the house, shouldn't he have only a restricted power of decision within the house ? Then what is wrong with women working at home and having full power at home ? There is only the illusion, within each society, of gender equity or equality, at least at home, but not one society has reached a true fair system, so no society should allow itself only to criticize others.

My final point is the one where in discussions, has raised the most voices. It's my belief that our view on paedophilia is highly restricted to our social construct of it, and that we still have a long way of self-criticism to go before we can find a solution to the problem. People have a lot of difficulties to understand how paedophilia is a social construct. They have no knowledge of the evolution of the representation of childhood within our society, and our representation of sexuality and emotional involvement as well. The most difficult part for people to understand is that our social view of paedophilia probably created the atrocities that paedophilia has created. Because we have represented paedophilia as an evil incarnated, people who are attracted by children will fall into a vicious circle of shame and alienation which will not give them the occasion to openly talk about their fantasies. This self-hatred or the hatred for such a judging society can only lead to the preservation of this secret and if they are too pushed by society, to act on their fantasies in the secret, with evilness. Their intentions will not be in their eyes acceptable to anyone else, so how can they come up to people before to talk about and see if there is another way out?

I don't know, it seems to me that our incapacity to liberate ourselves from our social perspectives, to adopt, if not for only a little while, other perspectives is growing. Our history permits us to make giant steps towards real peaceful discussions. But weak people will hide themselves behind modern society as an unmoveable society, as the idea of a better world being impossible. Or worst, I do know people who can only imagine living in idealized past, like conservatives,or ideals of the past, like French republicans, both perspectives only representing limited minds.

Rock and Beyond

Like any field in society, it is subject to analysis, later on, conclusions from researches can actually reveal something about society as a whole. I have, due to my education, an important interest towards music. Most of the people do say that they like music, I know people who really do know a lot, and most have a restricted knowledge of it. I will shortly explain through two life examples the reaction coming from people who have a restricted knowledge. But first of all, I need to legitimize myself so you understand my perspective on the subject. As a player ( clarinet ) I have learned the western way to analyse a piece of music, I also had also amounted a lot of information on the history of this art through school, my parents, readings and DVD's.

I will use some premises throughout this text, the first one is that the creation of music, it's interpretation and distribution are the results of different forces in society. I don't think that someone will disagree that for the manufacturers of music, their history will account for their taste and therefore for the music they'll create. Meaningful changes in music are therefore the results of meaningful changes within society. That is why afterwards, in the field of history, music periods often possess the same name as societies period. I would even propose that music periods account in better details, like other subjects in the history of art ( e.g. literature ). As an example, the romantic period show the the dream of a liberated society by the enlightenment, and the naturalist period show the result of an industrializing society which doesn't represent the dreams of the romantics.
I have two flatmates, one is South-African, Michael, the other is English, Andrew.
Both admits a restricted taste and knowledge of music. Michael is open to some styles of music, mostly southern music of the globe and some R'n B. Andrew on the other hand, restricts himself to songs which make the charts. Both represents different sides of a global society. Michael, not being directed by society's mass choice ( a choice which important theories show that it is mainly created by the important music corporations), is open to any kind of music which he will come across. On another point, through my discussions with him, his discovery of music is an interesting point for me who is already deeply embedded by my interactions in the field. Andrew's perspective otherwise is just a reference towards something I don't want to be associate with, I try to reject as much as possible prejudices when trying new music. I'm not sure though what are my exact criteria set of taste created by my environment, but I can explain what I look for.

I like Rock and Roll, but my definition, like most people, is wide. I will use here a short dialogues from the documentary “The Last Waltz” by Martin Scorsese. It is between Martin Scorsese and Levon Helm, the drummer of the band calld “ The Band”:
“ Levon Helm – Near Memphis, cotton country, rice country, the most interesting thing is probably the music.
Martin Scorsese – Who comes from around there ?
Levon Helm – Carl Perkins, Muddy Waters the king of country music, Elvis Presley, Johnny Cash, Bo Diddley. That's kind of the middle of the country back there. So bluegrass or country music, if it comes down to that area and if it mixes there with rhythm and if it dances, then you've got a combination of all those different kinds of music. Country, bluegrass, blues music, show music. The melting pot.
Martin Scorsese – And what's it called ?
Levon Helm – Rock and Roll”
A metling pot, and that is what I like in music. Such melting pots can be found around the world but having grown up in a European country, my influences were mainly western. I like this idea of amalgam of musics and cultures. It is an aspect in world cultures which show the results of this aspiration for a global world where region cultures keep some aspect of their identity to produce something new. It unites messages and open doors to other cultures.

All this genres of music, I like to distinct them in two large categories. The first one is the one that unite music from the southern hemisphere with the northern. First of all my examples, I would like to name Charlie Parker and his third way, when he added string playing in a classical way with his jazz solo. The Clash imports of reggae music into punk rock is an example that everybody knows. It can also be observed in the souther countries. Psychedelic music during the 70's influenced great local bands from Sub-Saharan countries. There are also a lot of available covers of well-known song in South-American style. Manu Chao in this matter is also a real global artist. My last example, which I discovered last year and quite enjoy is Rachid Taha, an Algerian artist playing in France and mixes every kind of music he encountered closely.

The second category is the music which mixes the east and the west. Gogol Bordello is the most famous recent example I can think of, playing East European Folk music and punk. Blonde Redhead is another band which incorporates the Chinese tonality of its singer with its contemporary dreamy sounds. Having lived in Thailand, I listened to the music there, but I had a problem with the immobility of Thai culture, which is also observable in its music. To compare it with another country which has more diverse cultures but keep an identity, it's been a while that I listened to Japanese radios. In every style, whether it is jazz, rock or hip-hop, they have some definite real global quality bands: PE'Z, MINMI, Nujabe, Sing02 are just a few of them. It is also observable, for obvious reasons, that the Chinese scene in China has not got what I look for.

So here are some of my preferences in music. I have to state that I do listen to classics also, it is important to understand where different cultures come from. But I do believe that as good songs they can be, they can incarnate exactly what I look for in my music. I'm lost in my thoughts now and I don't know what I wanted to say. Music represents Society in lot of ways. People appreciate the art of the their milieu, and listen to whatever person they consider superior in their milieu. Knowledge of it might free people, but there is a long way to gon though some musics can maybe show the way.
There. I hope I saved my self.

Remembrance day is coming slowly but surely. And for my international readers, I'll explain to youwhat gave it away. Everybody here in England is wearing a red fake puppy flower on their coat. It's been a really long time that the poppy has been a symbol of war and its consequences, but it is after a canadian officer's poem thatn their red poppy took its meaning:



In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved, and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders Fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders Fields.

- John McCrae

But I am not after the poem. I am after people wearing this plastic red poppy flower. This came after a few discussions with fellow students who were either proudly wearing it,or proudly defending the charity it represents. I started as my usual devil's advocate role to point out all the effects of this charity but I got badly attacked on my arguments and it pushed me to the point where I do now believe my talk ( I might later go on my self-corruption of the mind).
To state my argument simply, if you were a red poppy, you support the war. Obviously, stated like that,people get offended and react on the defensive. "Wouldn't you support someone who got mugged?" Was the first
rgument I had to put away. I hope that you are a smart reader and I don't need to go too much in details to state how ridiculous it is. An officer is not payed to get mugged, he is pay to mug people. "But wouldn't you support a fireman who got badly burn". Well of course I would think about it. But a fireman is not payed to kill anything but fire and bees (and then again, bees will soon be an endangered species). An officer is payed to got to war, and I don't approve of most wars.
Another argument is that a soldier doesn't make the choice to go to war, he is ordered to. I even heard " the don't know they might need help afterward". But ignorance is no excuse. Ignorance is rarely an excuse, especially for someone who enlisted to the army, I would consider him an ignorant doubled by stupidity. If the army accept such unaware soldiers, why would I support the charity of the ex-army members. But talking sincerely and not taking into account the different remarks I received, noone is stupid enough to enlist to the army without knowing they have chances to come back impaired by their experience. If they are not prepared to suffer the consequence of their choice, why did they enlist?
I have been told that I'm ignoring the consequences of war by not buying a red puppy. I'm not buying one because I am aware of the consequences and I don't want to support the consequences of it because I don't want to support the origin of these consequences. The red puppy for remembrance day started as the soldiers fallen in world war one. I remember them for being the victims of one the most horrible war in history. But I'm not going to be the one who will backup the soldier who says "To you from failing hands we throw/The torch; be yours to hold it high." I don't want soldiers to go to war and I don't want them to be back hailed like heroes. Most of them are not. And the charity support the living "heroes" because we, as a society, haven't considered all the effects of war. The government, representative of the people, should be there for them. I don't know what position people put themselves in with this red puppy. They directly help soldiers who went to commit themselves to horrible actions, and blame at the same their representatives who ordered the horrible actions. They find the power to honour the soldiers, but have no will to criticize with as much a high profile war.
"Wars will always exist" was the second argument given to me by the guy who told me I was ignoring the consequences of war and being inactive. Again, are you smart enough to see how he brought up an argument against real inaction ? Real inaction is following the public with this charity that has the highest profile in U.-K. Real inaction is not willing to change humanity for the best. We can fight war. War doesn't have to be a constant in history. Supporting the consequences of war, making it the norm in our society, is showing a deep lack of will to fight this foe of humanity.

I made my point as clear as I could, I hope it did strike someone. This red puppy is a real narcotic. It gives everybody a sense of belonging, a sense of helping the one in need, a sense of pride to have people fighting for us, a sense of pity for those who are wounded. But it doesn't make us dream for a day where we wouldn't need any red poppy. It doesn't make us think that if we change the ground this poppies grow on, they might be white someday. By the way, white puppy flowers are extinct here in England - no one will support peace anymore. So I'll burn a red puppy, in remembrance of the people who fought against war.

Dispute over the future of DNAs' information

Another dinner sparkled a dispute where I've been told I was a theorist of conspiracies. Since we are all breathing together, we are all conspirasists, as for building theories, I pity the pragmatists.

The subject was DNA and its relevance to parents disrepancy. An academical paper on parents disrepancy shown that maybe one in four children are not the biological offspring of their parents. Of course, since most countries have voted a protection over DNAs informations, the paper did state that it was hard to come up with a correct statistical analysis.

The data were collected from different sources. The most important source for parental disrepancy is actually hospitals. To calculate the compatibility between donors and receivers, DNA decoding is done daily nowadays. And that's where hospitals come across personal informations that are hard to communicate to families. The ethical dilemmas behind this are not of my concern (though I have of course an opinion about it).

My problem was that a statistic around parental disrepancy was on the table. The Human Genome Project and all the statistical informations of our DNAs are out there, and though our personnal informations are not given to anyone, anonymous results are.
Where am I going ?

Well problems will arise behind the facts given behind these statistics. Just like Einstein didn't want bombs to be build, I'm sure that scientists still don't balance out the consequences of their study. Balancing out the result of studies is also a way to be sneered and treated like a madman at dinner table.

So what about statistical results from DNA decoding ? Do I have a theory? Well no, Foucault had a theory, I'm just using his theory to explain the possible negative consequences of such informations. The first one is a fact to illustrate the coming problems. Since humanity learned by that the HIV virus is more susceptible to touch someone with a coloured skin, the rise in donations towards remedies for against AIDS have slown down. Of course pharmaceutical companies are not going to spend as much more on a drug that touch more African countries than on a media generated-panicking simple flu.

But what about parental disrepancy, could it really create such a problem ? Well here comes Foucault and his biopower theory. Since institutional powers don't have anymore power over death, they constantly try to increase their power over life, ergo power over mariage, birth, cult of youth, video surveillance, drugs, and so on. Information about biological parenthood will be important informations for governments to know about children allocations, inheritance and other benefits that could be saved for the institutional powers.

Also, the protection on information varies from one government to the other. For example, in UK, the government protected the citizens from video surveillance abuses by allowing every citizen to ask for a copy of the video they are on. Will it stop in the future the governments to "protect" our information by allowing us a copy of such information ?

At the time of someone death, and this is already happening, investigators could go around find the other person related to the dead so everybody can claim a part of the estate, with small charge from the investigator. On children allocations, don't you think that either the state or the employer would save some money by continuing the constant push toward stopping nuclear families.
It might be a bit of a conspiracy theory. Well if I was listened to and understand, it would fall under the name of future worst case scenario based on already growing problems.