Author Archives: Stefan Geens

Sourze vs Weblogs.se

Posted on by
9

It sounds like a dotcom business plan from the summer of 1997: “Let’s make a vanity publishing website, where people pay us to post their content. $13 for a single rant, $40 a month for unlimited rants. Then we give them a small portion of the money back in prizes: $450 for the month’s most popular post, $450 for our favorite post, and $5,500 to a ‘writer of the year’.”

I’ve been baffled by Sourze [Swedish] ever since Anna showed it to me after I explained blogging to her. “Oh, you mean like Sourze?” she said. No, not like Sourze. I have no idea how this site continues to function in the age of blogs. Sourze’s motto: “Everyone has something to tell. Tell it.”Sourze posts usually don’t make it past 200 reads, well below most blogs’ stats. And why should we trust the opinions of people who have been snookered into paying for their thoughts? Figure out the free blog already, get it listed on weblogs.se and sweblogs.com, and you will be guaranteed a sympathetic Swedish readershipGoogling Sourze, I find I’m not the only one questioning their business model..

I finally figured out tonight what it was that Sourze reminded me of: the $100,000 Porsche you could win at Dubai airport by buying one of a thousand $1,000 lottery tickets. You’d think that if you can afford a ticket at such odds, you’d probably already own the car, but evidently enough people have more money than sense.

Perhaps Sourze still exists because blogging has yet to reach a critical mass in Sweden. Its 9 million inhabitants boast some 170 self-reported weblogs, compared to 2148 self-reported blogs for a similar population in New York City.New York is a special case, granted. People who move there tend to come out as bloggers at an alarming rate. Unlike in New York, mentioning blogging in a casual conversation here still draws blank stares. The blogging meme likely needs another year before it perks the ears of mainstream Swedish media. But when it does, it will be a beautiful thing; A Swedish diplomat friend was complaining today that writing reports for the foreign ministry was such a damn formal affair. Why can’t they be more direct, more opinionated, more immediate, more inviting to dialogue, more like blogs? Why not indeed?

I’m debating whether I should translate this post into very bad Swedish, pay my $13, and post it on Sourze, as my small contribution to the coming Swedish blogging revolution…

Why Sweden should vote against joining EMU

Posted on by
16

So far there is nothing to worry about. With every passing day, Swedes are less and less likely to be choosing EMU when they vote in a referendum on September 14. Earlier this month, a Gallup poll [Swedish] pinned the yes-vote at 31%, down from 35% a month earlier, while the no-vote grew to 46% from 40%Less than a year ago [Swedish], support for joining EMU stood at 56%, with 41% against..

With only a short summer left for campaigning, it’s time to panic if you’re a Swedish politician in favor of joining EMU. Obligingly, Prime Minister Persson and the leaders of other pro-EMU parties last week decided to ramp up the yes-campaign immediately [Swedish], and to coordinate their canvassing. Their big hope: winning over the sizable percentage of undecided voters.

The main problem for the yes side is that its arguments are just not compelling enough. To their credit, they have mainly pushed the supposed economic benefits of eurofication to the fore Benefits: no more transaction costs, price transparency, no more exchange rate uncertainties. Downsides: read on.rather than dragging out the old bugbear of political marginalization. I think this is because the debate has become remarkably depoliticized. A decade ago, there were heated argument about the merits or otherwise of an “ever-closer union.” Today, the question is, “Which currency regime makes more sense for Sweden?” and the answer to that does not depend on whether you know the words to the Internationale, but on whether Sweden is A similar level-headedness is prevailing in the UK, where EMU membership depends on the passing of 5 tests that involve purely economic considerations. Quite an improvement from the days of “Up Yours, Delors!” (Well, maybe not.)an optimal currency area [PDF].

It’s hardly something to storm the barricades over. Clearly, people vote with their pocketbooks, not their passports. The Quebecois and the Puerto Ricans never seem to manage to secede. In Europe, separatist movements only gain clout in regions that stand to gain financially: It’s the rich Catalans, Flemish and Northern Italians who would shed their poorer cousinsEven New Yorkers are not immune to the impulse..

In any case, the marginalization bugbear has no bite. Demanding currency union as a prerequisite for political union would only make sense if politicians still controlled monetary policy. Thankfully, in modern economies, independent central banks now control interest rates, lest governments are led into temptation. The grand vision of a single European currency has appeal in its simplicity, but lacks the adaptability to serve the interests of those countries not at the core of euroland. Instead, Europe should have as many or as few currencies as is economically sound. This should have no bearing on political projects going forth, some of which I am in favor of, and others that I am notThe CAP, for example, really stinks..

But the likes of Delors and Giscard d’Estaing see currency union as a tool for building a common identity. This strategy worked during the unification of Italy, the creation of Belgium, and most recently, with German reunification. There’s no denying that over time, a common currency can help with nation building. The euro is clearly a political project. But at what price?

Several regions could really use a weaker currency than what they have now. Quick economics recap: Currencies are an efficient way to compensate for fluctuations in productivity between regions over time. Wages do so only partially — they tend to only go up. If there are variations in productivity within a currency area, then the state needs to shore up the less productive region with infrastructure works and other fund injections, or else people leave for the jobs of the more productive regions, if there is labor mobility.In the US, West Virginia comes to mind, as do Sicily and Wallonia in the EU. For the comparatively unproductive West Virginians, the US dollar is overvalued, so their “exports” to other states are uncompetitive. With no recourse to a depreciating currency, West Virginians have coped by moving the hell away from there. In Wallonia the story is slightly different; the workforce is not nearly as mobile as in the US, so Walloons stay put, relying instead on the European Commission’s program for “social and economic cohesion.” Even so, this program only chips away at the problem; Wallonia could really use a cheaper currencyFor Europe’s traditional basket case currencies — Greece, Italy, Portugal — the exchange-rate mechanism that led to EMU was a godsend, letting them dismantle their disgraced central banks, which allowed them to control inflation. Different story..

Sweden has the opposite problem. Its economy has been more successful than the eurozone’s over the past 3 years, in part because the central bank has been able to fine-tune the response to exogenous shocks. Had Sweden joined the euro at its inception, it would have been subject to sub-optimal interest rates, which would have led its economy to grow slower than it has, by a margin greater than the savings from abolishing transaction costsHere [PDF] is a great overview of how Sweden has managed outside the EMU so far.. These transaction costs, by the way, are getting smaller all the time, while ever more efficient hedging strategies are neutralizing exchange rate volatility risks.

There is a further fiscal constraint imposed on EMU members and aspirants that Sweden could do well without: the misconceived Stability and Growth Pact, which has been plaguing France and Germany. Joe Stiglitz explains in this Wall Street Journal article:

WSJ: Europe thought it could weather the downturn in the U.S., which turned out not to be the case. Do you think Europe’s economic and monetary union made Europe better or worse off in coping with the slowdown? You don’t think Europe’s economic and monetary union, EMU, is working well?

MR. STIGLITZ: A lot of people focused at the time [it was constructed] at the risk to the periphery — that Portugal could be in recession while everything else in the region was going fine — and then not having the flexibility to react to that. Policy would be set with a focus on Germany and France, and so much the worse for Portugal. As it turns out, it’s Germany and France that are having the problems. Also, it was set up at a time when the main problem was inflation. But, of course, inflation isn’t the problem today; unemployment is. France has made it very clear that it wants the Stability and Growth Pact redefined so it can have a more expansionary fiscal policy, and I think that is perfectly correct. As it is, Europe has adopted a regime that is pro-cyclical, which flies in the face of what it should be doing. [It should be anti-cyclical. So when the economy is going well, you don’t want your government spending more, pushing the economy faster. Similarly, when a recession hits, the worst thing would be cutting government spending, which would worsen things.]

But why are Sweden’s big business leaders for joining EMU, while small business organizations and trade unions are not? Because the costs and benefits of joining are not distributed equally. Sweden’s multinationals export far more than medium and smaller businesses, so they stand to gain more from abolishing transaction costs completely. But it is the economy as a whole that stands to suffer if Sweden is constrained by a maladjusted monetary (and even fiscal) policy.

So the eurozone is not the optimal currency area for Sweden. Nöro in Swedish, nØro in Danish (the Ø deftly reminding us it isn’t the euro). “Oro” was briefly considered — it means gold in Spanish and anxiety in Swedish: a fortuitous juxtaposition.Instead, I propose the Nordic euro, or neuro. The neuro will comprise Sweden, Finland (as soon as it leaves the euro), Denmark, Norway and the UK at its core. Iceland is free to join, as are the Baltic trio when they feel their economies are mature enoughAnd if it really tries, Russia can join by 2025, the 300th anniversary of the death of Peter the Great..

Like the euro, the neuro is made up of countries with which Sweden trades. In fact, of Sweden’s five largest export markets only one uses the euro; three are neurozone: Germany (10.6% of total exports), USA (10.3%), Norway (8.8%), the UK (7.5%), and Denmark (6.5%). Finland (6.3%) comes next. One of the arguments made by the pro-EMU side is that joining a currency union encourages growth in trade between its members, leading to more synchronized economies. To the extent that this argument is true for the euro, it applies equally to the neuro.

In addition, neuro economies are much more similar to each other than to all those Mediterranean economies the euro took on board; no strikes interrupting tourism in the neurozone, nor olive crop failures. Instead, neuro economies revolve around high-tech knowledge-based industries,One possible exception: the oil industry in Norway so they react to exogenous shocks in much the same way. Linguistically, the neurozone is very compatible: all speak fluent English, while the core speaks a Swedish/Danish/Norwegian that is mutually intelligible. This has led to much higher levels of labor mobility among neuro countries than among euro countries. In short, The neuro passes all the tests for an optimal currency area. The euro does not.

EMU makes sense for the Benelux, France and Germany. The other countries should get out while they can. Perhaps the Mediterranean basin can start its own currency union. May I propose the miró?

24 nya fotografer

Posted on by
Reply

Anna Lekvall is having her first “real” photo exhibit, as part of a group show with fellow classmates from Kulturama. Needless to say, the photo they chose to headline the show is hers. Aren’t we proud? I helped them design the poster:
 

 
If you’re in town, drop by for the opening on May 16. It’ll be a lot of fun.

Lawrence of Arabia: The Interview

Posted on by
3

Mr. Lawrence, gentlemen, thank you for taking the time to talk with me. If an indication of greatness in a work of art is its relevance to future generations, then David Lean’s
Lawrence of Arabia is getting better all the time. I saw the film again last weekend for the first time since the Iraq War. You can construct an astute critique of the situation in the Gulf today merely by judiciously quoting the script verbatim. For example…I would like to start by asking you to comment, Sir, on the suspicions many Arabs have regarding the Coalition’s ambitions in the region.

LAWRENCE: I’ve told them that that’s false: that we’ve no ambitions in Arabia, have we?

ALLENBY: I’m not a politician, thank God. Have we any ambition in Arabia, Dryden?

DRYDEN: Difficult question, sir.

LAWRENCE: I want to know, sir, if I can tell them in your name that we have no ambitions in Arabia.

ALLENBY: Certainly.

That is gratifying, but surely you agree that Coalition and Iraqi interests do not automatically align. For example, in the preferential granting of oil exploration rights?

BRIGHTON: I must ask you not to speak like that, sir. British and Arab interests are one and the same.

FEISAL: Possibly.

ALI: Ha! Ha!

I see. Ah, Mr. Bentley, from the Chicago Courier, you had a question?

BENTLEY: One: What, in your opinion, do these people hope to gain from this war?

LAWRENCE: They hope to gain their freedom. Freedom.

BENTLEY: They hope to gain their freedom. There’s one born every minute.

LAWRENCE: They’re going to get it, Mr Bentley. I’m going to give it to them. The second question?

No, that’s enough from him. I would like instead to gauge your sentiments on what is next for the region. Is there a hitlist of rogue states? Is Syria next? Surely such aims can only be a pipe dream at this juncture?

BRIGHTON: Dreaming won’t get you to Damascus, sir, but discipline will. Look, sir, Great Britain is a small country; it’s much smaller than yours; a small population compared with some; it’s small but it’s great, and why?

ALI: Because it has guns!

BRIGHTON: Because it has discipline!

FEISAL: Because it has a navy; because of this, the English go where they please and strike where they please and this makes them great.

LAWRENCE: Right.

So might makes right? That’s quite an audacious statement, Prince Feisal. But this hasn’t stopped your Arabian Kingdom from throwing in your lot on the side of the coalition’s might.

FEISAL: And I must do it because the Turks have European guns, but I fear to do it; upon my soul, I do. The English have a great hunger for desolate places. I fear they hunger for Arabia.

LAWRENCE: Then you must deny it to them.

What do you mean by that, Sir? You’re not seriously prescribing pan-Arabism as a solution?

LAWRENCE: So long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people; a silly people; greedy, barbarous, and cruel, as you are.

I’m only being cruel to be kind in my questioning, Mr. Lawrence. But perhaps I’ll allow a softball question. What was your favorite bit of the war?

LAWRENCE: We’ve taken Aqaba.

BRIGHTON: Taken Aqaba? Who has?

I think he is confusing Aqaba with Umm Qasr, Colonel Brighton.
Understandable, they’re both their respective country’s only port. I’m sorry, do continue Mr. Lawrence. Did you meet stiff resistance on the part of the Iraqis?

LAWRENCE: No, they’re still there, but they’ve no boots. Prisoners, sir. We took them prisoners; the entire garrison. No, that’s not true. We killed some; too many really. I’ll manage it better next time. There’s been a lot of killing, one way or another. Cross my heart and hope to die, it’s all perfectly true.

And how… Yes, Mr. Bentley, what is it now?

BENTLEY: Well, it’s just I heard in Cairo that Major Lawrence has a horror of bloodshed.

FEISAL: That is exactly so. With Major Lawrence, mercy is a passion: with me it is merely good manners. You may judge which motive is the more reliable.

Let me guess; yours? But you yourself have been quite expert at playing off against each other the interests of the Americans, British, Russians, Iranians…

FEISAL: … and the French interest too, of course. We must not forget the French now…

Quite. One final question, If I may. Looking forward, what do you see as the lasting impact of this war, say 10 years from now?

DRYDEN: Well. It seems we’re to have a British waterworks with an Arab flag on it. Do you think it was worth it?

ALLENBY: Not my business. Thank God I’m a soldier!

Thank you gentlemen.

Draken

Posted on by
Reply

There
 
Sweden has the highest per-capita number of cinema screens in Europe, according to this book, which is also the source of the images and information for this post.is a brilliant new performance space in Stockholm, but it is in desperate need of talent.

It’s the Draken Cinema, a standout example of Swedish modernist design. The main room is spectacular, with a very unusual all-beech arched ceiling that reminded me of the wooden concert hall at the Sydney Opera House. Built in 1938, it is one of many classic Stockholm cinemas, but it was closed in the mid-90s as it was simply too large to profit from its one screen and over 1,000 seats.

On Saturday, it reopened in its new guise as space for occasional events. Instead of rows of seats, there are now terraces flowing towards the stage, with tables and chairs on them. The potential for this place is enormous. Upgrade the Ikea furniture, replace the ad-hoc (but cheap) student-run bar in the back with what Sturehof has on offer, put the zitty kids in black tie, set a latin Jazz band on stage, and you’d have yourself the swishiest, grooviest nightclub this side of, er, Berlin.

We were among the first in — a misunderstanding on Anna’s part (this night out was all her doing) — so we had plenty of time to catch up on politics over vodkas Anna was for the Iraq war, but against the Afghanistan war. I was thoroughly confounded.. This was a good thing, for the booze inured us against the assault on our musical taste that followed.

First up: Two guys with synthesizers wearing scarves made from Christmas tree lights. One of them had discovered how to electronically alter the tone of his voice and proceeded to sing old Swedish songs as a girl for half an hour. They both put cardboard boxes over their heads. Maybe they were ashamed.

Then there was a very long intermission. We wondered where the next act was. Then we wished we hadn’t. Next up, three guys with synthesizers and a drummer with no sense of timing. They proceeded to play traditional Lap polyphonic songs transcribed for three synthesizers and arhythmic drums. Or they might have been.

Next up, a guy who performed for exactly 20 seconds (no synth), followed immediately by one guy on a synthesizer and a singer. They did Talking Heads/Cure inspired music, without the inspiration. Then we left. No wonder they drink themselves into a stupor here. I certainly had to. I consequently have no idea who these people were, who organized it and why. But I do know Draken deserves a whole lot better than this.

Andrew Sullivan, label whore

Posted on by
7

This blog has at times been quite obsessed with the musings of Andrew Sullivan, mainly because if there is one thing which exasperates me it is seemingly smart, articulate people spouting absolute nonsense. Naomi Klein is his left-wing equivalent.This was the case with his defense of the ideas of Pim Fortuyn, another person to which this criticism applies. It was also the case with his early strong push for war with Iraq. But a person can only take so much, and I stopped reading his blog as it evolved into a shrill one-note take on the world. Being predictable is not a good thing for a blog to be. Why bother reading itEspecially if you do not allow comments, which goes against the concept of the blog as dialogue.?

Sullivan does have one feather in his cap. His single-minded pursuit of fellow Republican Trent Lott a few months ago for his on-the-record support for segregation resulted in Lott losing the cherished US Senate majority leadership position. Now, Sullivan has a new target in his sights: Senator Santorum, That name sounds so Star Wars-like. Palpatine, Santorum, Sebulba… Which of these is not like the other?who seems to be for legislating against gay sex. Sullivan, who is gay, may not win this latest round, but not for want of trying.

Which leads me to the original thought in this post (sorry to take so long): Sullivan may have finally solved that dilemma first formulated by Woody Allen all those years ago in his exordium to Annie Hall:

The-the other important joke for me is one that’s, uh, usually attributed to Groucho Marx, but I think it appears originally in Freud’s wit and its relation to the unconscious. And it goes like this-I’m paraphrasing: Uh … “I would never wanna belong to any club that would have someone like me for a member.”

The recipe for happiness, then, is simple: Join a club that would rather not have you as a member. For good measure, Sullivan has joined two: The Catholic Church, which calls homosexuality a sin, and the Republican Party, which believes Santorum is an “inclusive” man, as the President opinedIt’s April 27, and it is snowing outside!.

There is something unusual about a gay person so determined to label himself as not just religious, not just Christian, but Catholic, of all things. The differences between denominations are doctrinal, and the intelligent religious person, surely, will see that these schisms are the work of Man, not God. So join a more tolerant faith, already! But not Sullivan: He has joined a group of people whose tenets are clearly homophobic, and now protests too loudly all the way to communion.

As for his Republicanism, it is even odder, in my mind. He is British, first off, cannot even vote, certainly can’t register to vote and hence has absolutely no use for labeling himself Republican. Why can’t he just be the sum of his beliefs? Is he under the impression that attaching a label to his thoughts confers some kind of prestige? Andrew Sullivan, label whoreLabel whore: “Someone who only wears brand name clothes, with the name of the brand usually placed somewhere for all to see. A walking advertisement for a clothing store or brand.” ?

I believe, despite protests to the contrary, that he truly enjoys his pained crises of conscience. They are entirely of his own making. But perhaps there are signs that enough is enough: This week he said that “it is beginning to make it simply impossible for gay people and their families – or any tolerant person – to vote for the president’s party.” Is he preparing us for a highly public defection?

Don’t count on it. But it may become necessary to read Sullivan again. Not for the quality of the discourse, but as a psychological drama.

Anthony Lane on Lilja 4-Ever

Posted on by
2

The New Yorker, arriving in Stockholm with a month’s delay, has been unreadable of late, because nothing destroys my interest in a thriller more than knowing the plot. And I certainly know the plot of this war. So I’ve turned to the online samplings, in effect mortgaging my future pleasures to tide me over during this intellectual dust storm from paper-based pundits.

But it is with great pleasure that I discovered Anthony Lane’s review of Lilja 4-Ever online, and I feel gratified that he seems to have liked it as much as I do; for the strange thing about this film is that you do not just care about Lilja, you come to care about the movie itself. It’s the kind of movie you want to make sure your friends see. I still get flashbacks from specific scenes: the deflated basketball, Lilja in the mud, her name carved in the bench, and that Rammstein music…

But what is up with the name change? Why does it have to be called Lilya 4-Ever in its US release? it’s not as if the intended audience—the usual east coast art-house crowd and not a soul more—are in danger of mispronouncing the name, and in doing so deciding to forego it.

Render unto Caesar

Posted on by
5

Jesus was executed by Pontius Pilate because he was a rabble-rouser. This much is agreed by scholars. What kind of rabble-rouser he was is the topic of heated debate. I’ve long cherished the notion that Jesus was a political operative, a separatist agitating against collaboration with the Roman occupiers, invoking God’s authority to legitimize his cause. This is not an inherently atheistic stance—liberation theology has taken this view and run with it—but it does recast Jesus’s motives on a much more human scale.

I took this composite shot of the Temple Mount in the winter of 2000/2001. Click to enlarge.

Recently, this view has fallen into relative disfavor. The weight of scholarly opinion has shifted towards a strictly eschatological Jesus, one who went around preaching the imminent end of the world and the coming kingdom of God, not 2,000+ years hence but in a matter of weeks.

Whenever there is such controversy, The New York Review of Books—that ambulance chaser of scholarly conflict—seems hell-bent on asking the proponent of one camp to disparage review a recently published work of a professional rival. And thus we have E.P. Sanders, Art and Sciences Professor of Religion at Duke, reviewing Crossan and Reed’s Excavating Jesus: Beneath the Stones, Behind the Texts.It’s in the April 10 Edition of NYRB, which has just arrived in Stockholm in time for Easter. The New Yorker issues are longer in the coming—in the latest issue, I am still subject to quickly aging pre-war presaging.

Alas, the Sanders article is not available for free online. But a Sanders co-conspirator, Paula Fredrikson at Boston University, has an engaging (if oddly formatted) overview of all the Jesuses in play today:

We have one apocalyptic Jesus. He caused a scene in the Temple to symbolically enact a prophecy of impending redemption (Sanders). We have two non-apocalyptic Jesuses, a Cynic and a Jewish Cynic. The Cynic Jesus went up to Jerusalem as a normal pilgrim and was killed—no Temple tantrum (Mack, Seeley). The Jewish Cynic Jesus went up for the first time in his life that one Passover. Disgusted by what he saw (he had had no idea, remember, what Jerusalem would be like), he overturned the tables, thereby symbolically destroying the Temple’s brokerage function (Crossan). And, finally, we have one metaphorically apocalyptic anti-nationalist Jesus who went up to Jerusalem at Passover to confront the Temple system, which he symbolically challenged, indicted and condemned (Borg, Wright).

But what about Fredrikson’s Jesus?

I had an apocalyptic Jesus who went up to Jerusalem for Passover at or as the climax of his mission. He symbolically enacted the Temple’s impending destruction. The gesture implied no condemnation of his native religion but, rather, announced the imminent coming of a new Temple and, hence, as well, God’s kingdom. The act brought him to the attention of the priests, who became alarmed at the potential for mass disturbance during the holiday when Pilate was in town. They facilitated his arrest, and Pilate killed him.

Which Jesus is the most likely is beginning to depend more and more on circumstantial evidence, hence the quest for historical context. Sanders counters Crossan’s rendition of a Jesus engaging in “resistance against the distributive injustice of Roman-herodian commercialization”Life imitating the art of Monty Python? by examining precisely how much Jewish agrarian life had been altered by Roman influence. His answer: little to not at all. Eventually, it gets personal, as such matters are wont to do, and Sanders posits that Crossan’s bias in favor of a rebellious Jesus is based on Crossan being Irish, with the Romans and the British in the role of oppressor.

But what is interesting is that none of the various versions of Jesus imbue the founder of Christianity with particularly flattering attributes. Sanders calls Crossan’s Jesus “a minor social deviant and critic.” Fredrikson calls her apocalyptic Jesus “an embarrassment” to later Christian apologists, thus:

Jesus securely anchored in his first-century Jewish apocalyptic context—working miracles, driving away demons, predicting the imminent end of the world—is an embarrassment. Is it sheer serendipity that so many of our reconstructions define away the offending awkwardness? Miracles without cures, time without end, resurrections without bodies. The kingdom does not come, it is present as an experience, a kinder, gentler society, mediated, indeed created, by Jesus. Then what is this kingdom language doing here anyway?

For me, the most refreshing aspect of reading this research is the lack of any concern on the part of scholars as to whether Jesus was the son of God or not. All assume that a charlatan or a psychotic would have had as much a chance of garnering a movement as the real deal.

Regardless of which he is, Jesus can be useful, especially as a repository for parables when trying to make a point with people who belong to prayer groups. And there is clearly use for one now regarding the reconstruction of Iraq when arguing with the Presidents’ men. Contracts need to be awarded. Should they go to American companies? British companies? Certainly not French and German companies? What Would Jesus Do?

Naomi Klein sees nothing but nefariousness in US motives. She starts off well, but gets a bit shrill by the end. She loses credibility when she seriously suggests that the Iraq war was fought because “‘free trade’ by less violent means hasn’t been going that well lately.” What an unsubtle appeal to Marxian dialectics!

In the other corner sit the newly smug neocons, who feel that since they made the effort, they should reap some spoils, in the guise of a long-lasting military presence and a preeminent role in the reconstruction of Iraq.

I think both sides miss the point. What we need to do here is render unto Caesar. If the US is paying, by all means award those contracts to American companies. It’s the traditional way of dispensing aid and pleasing your constituents. If the funds are coming from Iraq’s oil revenues, or if the exploitation rights of that oil are being sold, then it should be up to an Iraqi representative government, which, if it so chooses, can hand it to the French.

The seeming lack of overwhelming gratitude on the part of Iraq’s civil society towards the US is probably borne from a suspicion of America’s intentions, a suspicion they do not seem to harbor about the British. The indigenous representative government that will form from this inchoate mess may not be as pro-American as Bush hopes. To what extent will there be pressure to ensure collaboration with the invading force? And for how long? These are all reasons to get the UN involved as soon as possible. The best way for the US to prove to its critics that it had only its own safety in mind and not its commercial interests is to not pursue those interests too ruthlessly. Do as Jesus would: Heal, but do it for free. It worked for him.

Save the Robots

Posted on by
7

In London yesterday morning, BBC television news carried a quitessential New York story: a bouncer had been stabbed and killed by a patron after the patron had been asked to stop smoking inside a nightclub, as required by a new law. In the 15 seconds it aired, a camera panned across a purple awning that looked, well, familiar.

It was. It was Guernica, I later found out. Guernica sits atop the legendary Save the Robots, which sits atop the mythicalA seriously outdated web review still includes Save the Robots. Robots, an original East Village punk establishment. I caught the tail end of Save the Robots when I settled on Saint Marks in 1996. Save the Robots sat across empty lots on Avenue B, between 2nd and 3rd, and was the default destination whenever a 4am closing time at 7B We always suspected 7B was actually called The Horseshoe Bar, or maybe Vazac’s but it often proved easier to conflate name and location, especially as their Jack and cokes barely ever had any coke in them. Many of the beat poets drank their livers away at the corner of 7th and B—Allen Ginsberg lived around the corner. was not reason enough to call it a night.

Save the Robots had a smoky cellar for a dance floor where seriously loud techno-cum-punk was played without apologies out of a cage where the DJ protected his records. The place was open all night, so club kids developed the strategy of sleeping in Tompkins Square Park during the days and frequenting Save the Robots at night. Spending the night in Tompkins Square Park was no longer possible after 1989, when the park acquired closing hours in order to remove the tent city that had sprung up there. The result was some pretty darn serious riots.In those days, the aide mémoire for navigating Alphabet City still rang true: A is for Adventurous, B is for Brave, C is for Crazy, D is for Dead.

By around 1997 or 1998, the place was closed on account of one too many drug busts. It was ridiculously easy to score drugs there, Not that I ever tried. or rather, it had been. Giuliani’s Quality of Life Campaign was extending into the foxholes of the alternatively lifestyled, and popping pills on the raised sofas of the main room was just not on anymore, especially now that those empty lots were being filled with “medium income” housing and their attendant families.

In its place came Guernica. It remains one of the better places to dance in the East Village, but youThe best is Sapphire Lounge. Still, although New York is many things, dance capital is not one of them. have to make a beeline past yuppie scum to a fresh downstairs dance space. How strange that after all those years as a druggie landmark of sorts, somebody would end up being killed at the place over a cigarette.