Face Off

The tyranny of beauty is not a recent phenomenon. It is a shared secret that looks and public relations are vital, especially for Hollywood and pop celebrities. Selling a glamorised image comes first, while selling the actual art comes later. What is worrying is that this has also become the norm for most politicians.

An article by Freeland C. in the FT Weekend magazine draws attention on how the build up of a politicians’ image is no longer a woman’s exclusive habit. There are many examples of politicians and other public men who based part of their popularity on their looks, healthy lifestyle and on how they dress up; from JFK to Barack Obama and from Ronald Reagan to Brady Dougan.

Understandably, this is the way marketing works. People who contest for popular elections or claim an important place in society, must look and behave accordingly. They must present a powerful, ambitious and confident image which will attract the electorate’s vote. Nevertheless, not every candidate has the above mentioned characteristics. Behind every candidate there is a strong promotion company and a group of advisers who build up images that hardly resemble reality. However, people like to play the game. We vote for looks, we easily prefer them to skills.

A friend of mine admitted that if Bill Clinton could contest for president for a third time, she would vote for him. She was charmed by his masculinity since the Lewinsky scandal. It is disappointing that we have reached the stage where people use such criteria in making up their minds for elections. This is not the X-factor show. This is the future of our societies, countries and maybe of our planet.

Desperate housewives facing drastic laws

New European law aims to harmonise the divorce law from 2008. This legislation will discourage women from having the hearing of their cases in England, where divorce laws have been characterised as “very friendly to women.”[1] This law will disable wives from claiming the huge amounts of compensation for their marriage’s breakdown. Recent divorce cases of celebrities in England, awarded spouses almost half of their husband’s assets.

As expected, feminist groups protest. They express their grave disapproval over the rules that will allow cheating husbands to escape without proper compensation for their ruined lives. They strongly favour the existing paternalistic attitude of the judiciary, even if this entails in not being in line with the rest of Europe.

Objection my Lords; I understand that in this century the two sexes are treated equally. Therefore, I am expecting the judiciary to show less tolerance to divorced wives who can get a job and provide their selves a decent living. Otherwise, I will be expecting you to provide equal compensation to cheated husbands’ who have fallen victims of their wives’ dishonesty. I doubt this will ever happen, because the society is still dominated by men in many aspects of everyday life.

The British society is not as role-oriented, where women are more likely to be associated with housekeeping. I suggest that if women are interested in proving their independency and equality with men, they should not claim damages at all. This would show that they can stand on their own feet and they are able to continue their lives after an unsuccessful marriage.

I believe that by claiming compensation, in the absence of any valid reason, they are degrading themselves, implying that they cannot survive without their husbands’ sponsorship.

[1] Rogers L, “Divorce: Do women win too much?” NEWSTATESMAN, 19 February 2007, p.32

Who's that Truth?

Is it not extraordinary how the media and the public treat politicians? We demand a high level of professionalism from them when they handle cases of international affairs, even if we deep down know that this entails to more hypocrisy, lying and equivocations. At the same time, when it comes to domestic matters we expect them to tell us the naked truth, otherwise they will lose our confidence.

I read Michael Kinsley’s article in last week’s TIME magazine. He commented on some political statements which the press calls gaffes, because they were telling the public the truth. The article mentioned the statement of the President Jacques Chirac saying that “It wouldn’t be so bad if Iran got a nuclear bomb, or perhaps a second bomb later,” and the latest from Joe Biden describing his opponent in the American elections as an “articulate and bright and clean and a nice looking guy.”

Why the fuss? Because these people said their truth –albeit in a clumsy way- where they were not supposed to. On the other hand, if they have been more diplomatic, people would probably accuse them hiding their real beliefs. I agree that certain realities should not be announced when, for example they offend the national interest. However, I believe that by stating your truth, or at least the objective truth, even in a cynical way, makes conscious citizens to appreciate your honesty. At the same time, the statement sparks the beginning of a debate from which something valuable may emerge. This strengthens democracy.

Effectively, in a world where celebrities have become even more careful in their statements to the media, I would treat such political gaffes from with more sympathy and appreciation.

Happy Pig Year 2007

Dear classmates, thank you for sparkling my life this year!

Speed Kills

Last week’s issue of the ‘Economist’ touched upon the European constitution problem. The article suggested that in order to keep the constitution alive, the Union should focus on the different lobbies that have been created within it and learn to live with them. This will enable the EU to advance and specialise by dividing the various powers and responsibilities amongst the relevant member states. For example, those interested in defence, can form a closer group and leave others to deal with issues such as the environment, economics or foreign policy.

It has worked in the past, so why not this time? The Schengen agreement was signed by fifteen different states including Norway, Switzerland and Iceland who are not members of the EU. Similarly, the Euro was not adopted by the UK, Denmark or Sweden. To date Slovenia is the only new member to join the monetary Union. The EU will effectively become a club whose members agree on the fundamentals, but leave the exact details to each country’s discretion.

The so-called ‘two-speed’ Europe will be transformed into ‘multi-speed’ Europe and in practice things will work more efficiently. However, was that the original purpose of forming the EU? A ‘self-service’ development such as this will undoubtedly allow member states to better serve their self interests, but it will also disrupt the way to ‘an ever closer Union,’ where European countries come together for the common good. The ‘United States of Europe’ which was the vision of some pro-European politicians, such as the prime minister of Belgium, will never come true.

The point is that nobody will notice, nor care. Multi speed Europe might get us there faster, but do not forget that speed kills.

When Words Exonerate International Crimes

Andrew Purvis wrote about the Cyprus problem for the Time magazine. His focus was the rise of criminality, as a result of the continuous occupation of the island by Turkish troops. Being a Cypriot myself, I have experienced the whole situation and I feel that Mr Purvis does not make an effort to remain neutral. He undoubtedly states the historical facts accurately, but his use of certain words gives his article a tone that shows his bias towards the Turkish side.

Mr Purvis rightly said that the so-called ‘Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus’ is not recognised by any state apart from Turkey, because it was created as a result of military invasion. You do not need to be an International Law lawyer to realise that since this is the case, you cannot call the leader of the Turkish Cypriots a ‘president,’ as Mr Purvis does. If a state cannot exist, then common sense dictates that a president cannot exist. Call him a representative, but not president.

Similarly, he said that the possible failure of compromise between the two Cypriot communities “threatens to derail crucial talks on Turkish accession to the EU.”[1] Again, the way that this was expressed, gives the impression that it is Cyprus’ fault if the talks fail. As far as I know, in order to join the EU, a candidate state must fulfil certain criteria. Here, the candidate is Turkey, not Cyprus. Speaking of “unwillingness to compromise” wrongly suggests that Cyprus is placing obstacles to Turkey’s admission. Instead, he should point out Turkey’s failure to meet the requirements, because of its illegal foreign policy.

It is impressive how someone can exercise policy through the use of everyday language and misinform the people.

[1] Purvis A, 2007. “Holes in the Hard Line,” TIME, November 13, 2006

Picture Stories

I already had my first lecture on picture stories this term. The teacher said that we should tell stories by taking pictures. The first attempt will take place next Wednesday, but just for the sake of practicing I decided to produce the first one yesterday. So, what do you think the story is? Here are the pictures:

A. This is my adorable kitchen in Senghennyd court. Communal cuttlery supposedly washed await their owners to use them. The paradox in this kitchen is that you need to wash the plates before you use them. Then each leaves his plate dirty for the next one to wash it up and use it for himself. No wonderI started hiding things in my own room...

B. This is real art! You can see one of my housemate's cuttlery next to the basin. Fact: He uses these towels to clean his dishes. Do not be fooled by their appearance. He considers them to be 'clean.' Also, look at the pint glass. There is some kind of liquid inside, nobody knows what it is. It's been like that for ages. I wish he finishes his drink one day and we'll get rid of him at last!

C. I left the best for last! This is our sticky table. Once he used it to eat (Or should I say, spit) he left it sticky for days. No need to wipe it or wash it. Fantastic! I needed half litre of dettol to wash this up, but still cannot find the courage to sit in and eat decently. It's hard to be a student!