"The way that people arrange the yoghurt in a haphazard format is such that I must conclude they did not play with Lego enough as a child."
"You're a little bit OCD right?"
"Ha maybe a little."
Where do you draw the line between perfectionism, high standards, and OCD? Surely one person's finnicky details are another person's I couldn't give a shit. So who's to decide?
And the conclusions we can draw from such obscure details? People are amazing and beautiful and messed up all simultaneously.
I've heard it said that people act, think and judge from their values. I guess one could summise that my value here is 'maximising yoghurt pottles on tray', but larger than that, going to the extreme, so hopefully you cut out some work for yourself later.
This can sometimes conflict with other people's value of 'only have enough' or 'make it look pretty'. Obviously aesthetic value is also important to me, but it is of secondary importance to me, practicality trumps.
Maximising yoghurt pottles... this is my version of laziness. Most people just leave things until later, mine is get in, do it once, do it right, do it with all the best knowledge and resources you have so that you (hopefully) don't have to do it again any time soon.
This seems to fly in the face of the hospitality industry in general, or what I have encountered of it.
What interesting conclusions have you drawn recently? Tell me your story in the comments.
Wednesday, 26 June 2019
Review of the Documentary My Ireland
We've just come from the Irish Film Institute, where we watched the documentary 'My Ireland' created by Anthony Monaghan.
We watched this trailer
and thought it would be a great opportunity to learn more about our new country, and particularly some of its uglier truths.
We waited until 11:25 for the film promoters to even turn up and let people in for a film that was starting at 11:30. We showed our online tickets to the film and they wrote our names on a piece of paper. Then, when we entered the theatre, instead of showing ads to promote other films, or having an introduction to the film playing, we were asked to wait in silence for another 15 minutes or so while late comers arrived.
A gentleman then got up and gave a scathing expose of the 'film establishment' in Ireland, and the difficulties their crew had had getting support, opportunities or funding for this film. It spoke a lot about if this film was about homophobia or a transgender person then it would have gotten funding easily.
Certainly, there are people that choose which topics are trending and which stories to run, but comparing the issues around the extreme poverty of working class Ireland to the atrocities faced by the LGBTQ+ movement, on Pride week no less, was a bit on the nose. The legal and moral barriers that that movement has had to overcome are decidedly more difficult than those currently facing the working class. We are not (yet) at a stage where you get incarcerated for being poor.
The film itself commenced and touched on issues of Irish youth emigrating, separating these into two categories - those who emigrate for the adventure and experience of it and those who emigrate for economic necessity.
The film's protagonist and creator told his story of migrating to England then the US when he was 15 because there were no jobs in rural Ireland, no opportunities, and there were several other people that echoed this sentiment in the film.
He and others retold how the lack of opportunity in rural Ireland historically has caused great problems between urban and rural Irish, and also has a fall out effect on rural areas - there are a lack of services, a lack of infrastructure and investment, meaning people can't stay because there are no jobs, no hospitals, no doctors, no schools, no community, and living there is unsustainable. This concept is not limited to Ireland, but certainly it is not fun to face anywhere.
The film then dove into the issue of homelessness, presenting this as a problem nationwide, with the example of urban Dublin given, and many people weighing in on the subject. The causes of this problem were attributed to greedy landlords, reliance on the private sector for social housing, the crash in 2008, vulture funds, and government ambivalence, or acquiescence - in that The Dail elected are part of the 1% that are profiting off the homelessness market by way of emergency housing grants and owning the hotels where homeless families are housed, this funded through tax payer dollars.
The government was blamed a lot, and there was talk (greeted with clapping and cheering in the theatre) of a revolution, because this way of doing things is unsustainable. The point was raised of 'at any time, these people can be voted out of government'. Well, yes, yes they can, but if the people who are being served by the current government are the ones who vote, then that will not happen, because they will vote for the status quo. And the people who need the change are so stressed trying to subsist, stressed about if they can keep a roof over their heads and if they can feed themselves, then they do not have spare time or energy for political engagement.
In order for a revolution to happen, there needs to be so much desperation that there is no other choice but to stand up and fight. At the moment, it is unclear who the enemy is, as it is a collection of nebulous entities - 'the government', 'vulture funds', 'banks'. These are not clear targets for a strike, these are difficult to fight against as they do not have one leader, one meeting place or one office. They are national or global and dispersed.
The narrative of the film was that Ireland used to be colonised by the English and they were very good at subjugating us, but now we've become very good at subjugating ourselves.
It has also fueled increased inequality between rich and poor. It has meant less government oversight of private business and it has also meant corporations lean on governments to give them even more liberties than they currently possess. It means that these countries are ruled more and more by a corporate oligarchy, and this idea of democracy being 'of the people, by the people, for the people' now begs the question of 'which people?' because it is certainly not the majority that are benefiting from these policies.
In my understanding, government is there to create and foster a healthy economy for the benefit of everyone, and then take a chunk of that through tax so that there are sufficient social services to benefit everyone - housing, education, healthcare, care for the environment etc.
This is not what is happening with current governments in Ireland, and in other OECD nations. The Irish dream of a republic founded on equality and inclusiveness for all citizens is arguably far from a reality at the moment. But this is not a problem that is limited to Ireland.
This film has sold itself short by focusing on the symptoms of a neoliberal economy, rather than naming that as the issue and getting to the crux of the problem. This is a disappointment, because it has skirted around interrelating issues without really attacking the cause. The issues of vulture funds taking homes, of being evicted due to not being able to pay your mortgage, of homelessness, of suicide due to financial issues, of rural poverty, of lack of opportunities in the regions, these are symptoms of a much bigger issue: the way the world is doing capitalism benefits some, but not all, and certainly not most.
So while there is some truth in this film placing the blame at the feet of the government, this is a complex confluence of issues, and if there were to be a revolution, these macroeconomic issues would need to be thoroughly understood for a revolution to incite any real positive change.
We watched this trailer
and thought it would be a great opportunity to learn more about our new country, and particularly some of its uglier truths.
We waited until 11:25 for the film promoters to even turn up and let people in for a film that was starting at 11:30. We showed our online tickets to the film and they wrote our names on a piece of paper. Then, when we entered the theatre, instead of showing ads to promote other films, or having an introduction to the film playing, we were asked to wait in silence for another 15 minutes or so while late comers arrived.
A gentleman then got up and gave a scathing expose of the 'film establishment' in Ireland, and the difficulties their crew had had getting support, opportunities or funding for this film. It spoke a lot about if this film was about homophobia or a transgender person then it would have gotten funding easily.
Certainly, there are people that choose which topics are trending and which stories to run, but comparing the issues around the extreme poverty of working class Ireland to the atrocities faced by the LGBTQ+ movement, on Pride week no less, was a bit on the nose. The legal and moral barriers that that movement has had to overcome are decidedly more difficult than those currently facing the working class. We are not (yet) at a stage where you get incarcerated for being poor.
The film itself commenced and touched on issues of Irish youth emigrating, separating these into two categories - those who emigrate for the adventure and experience of it and those who emigrate for economic necessity.
The film's protagonist and creator told his story of migrating to England then the US when he was 15 because there were no jobs in rural Ireland, no opportunities, and there were several other people that echoed this sentiment in the film.
He and others retold how the lack of opportunity in rural Ireland historically has caused great problems between urban and rural Irish, and also has a fall out effect on rural areas - there are a lack of services, a lack of infrastructure and investment, meaning people can't stay because there are no jobs, no hospitals, no doctors, no schools, no community, and living there is unsustainable. This concept is not limited to Ireland, but certainly it is not fun to face anywhere.
The film then dove into the issue of homelessness, presenting this as a problem nationwide, with the example of urban Dublin given, and many people weighing in on the subject. The causes of this problem were attributed to greedy landlords, reliance on the private sector for social housing, the crash in 2008, vulture funds, and government ambivalence, or acquiescence - in that The Dail elected are part of the 1% that are profiting off the homelessness market by way of emergency housing grants and owning the hotels where homeless families are housed, this funded through tax payer dollars.
The government was blamed a lot, and there was talk (greeted with clapping and cheering in the theatre) of a revolution, because this way of doing things is unsustainable. The point was raised of 'at any time, these people can be voted out of government'. Well, yes, yes they can, but if the people who are being served by the current government are the ones who vote, then that will not happen, because they will vote for the status quo. And the people who need the change are so stressed trying to subsist, stressed about if they can keep a roof over their heads and if they can feed themselves, then they do not have spare time or energy for political engagement.
In order for a revolution to happen, there needs to be so much desperation that there is no other choice but to stand up and fight. At the moment, it is unclear who the enemy is, as it is a collection of nebulous entities - 'the government', 'vulture funds', 'banks'. These are not clear targets for a strike, these are difficult to fight against as they do not have one leader, one meeting place or one office. They are national or global and dispersed.
The narrative of the film was that Ireland used to be colonised by the English and they were very good at subjugating us, but now we've become very good at subjugating ourselves.
Well, this is not a new phenomenon, that the rich rule over the poor. This has always been true amongst any major advanced civilisation, it is true of feudalism, it was true in ancient Greece, it was true in ancient Rome, it was true in Asia, arguably worse in all of those circumstances. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying this is a good thing -but it is not just limited to Ireland. The people who have the money have the power.
The director spoke about how much different the situation is in America. I do not know which part of America he is in - St Louis, Missouri, I think - but I feel very much like he has his head up his arse, because Ireland has largely taken its capitalist financial policy right from the Right Wing American handbook, resulting in this mess.
Our journey from New Zealand took us through the USA for 3 weeks, and we saw a tent ghetto in LA on Venice Beach where homeless people live, as well as various other parts of the city. We were daily asked in New York for money, food, a smile from people who had had one misstep, an accident, lost their job, and were now homeless, unable to get into further employment. A man who had lost his hand at his workplace was begging for money for himself and his family, and wanted simple human kindness, people to look him in the eye, to talk to him, to hug him, equally as much as he wanted money or food. He wanted to be treated like a human.
I want to say this wouldn't happen in New Zealand, but it is happening, it is. It is not quite as obvious, but we have been having a housing crisis for the last decade with housing prices in Auckland in particular going up astronomically.
This crisis - in housing, and more broadly in inequality - has been growing in most developed nations since the 1980s when there was serious economic reform, and neoliberal laissez-faire policies were put in place, where it was believed that the invisible hand of the market would autocorrect issues and free trade was key to economic growth. This was termed Thatchernomics in the UK, Reganomics in the US, Rogernomics in New Zealand and probably something equally lame in Australia and Canada. This is not new financial policy, it is a more liberal version of 19th century liberal economic theories.
The director spoke about how much different the situation is in America. I do not know which part of America he is in - St Louis, Missouri, I think - but I feel very much like he has his head up his arse, because Ireland has largely taken its capitalist financial policy right from the Right Wing American handbook, resulting in this mess.
Our journey from New Zealand took us through the USA for 3 weeks, and we saw a tent ghetto in LA on Venice Beach where homeless people live, as well as various other parts of the city. We were daily asked in New York for money, food, a smile from people who had had one misstep, an accident, lost their job, and were now homeless, unable to get into further employment. A man who had lost his hand at his workplace was begging for money for himself and his family, and wanted simple human kindness, people to look him in the eye, to talk to him, to hug him, equally as much as he wanted money or food. He wanted to be treated like a human.
I want to say this wouldn't happen in New Zealand, but it is happening, it is. It is not quite as obvious, but we have been having a housing crisis for the last decade with housing prices in Auckland in particular going up astronomically.
This crisis - in housing, and more broadly in inequality - has been growing in most developed nations since the 1980s when there was serious economic reform, and neoliberal laissez-faire policies were put in place, where it was believed that the invisible hand of the market would autocorrect issues and free trade was key to economic growth. This was termed Thatchernomics in the UK, Reganomics in the US, Rogernomics in New Zealand and probably something equally lame in Australia and Canada. This is not new financial policy, it is a more liberal version of 19th century liberal economic theories.
The 1980s version in New Zealand involved selling off of State Owned assets so that the government remained solvent, reduced government spending, reduced government jobs, having a smaller government sector, creating tax breaks for the wealthy business people who are creating lots of jobs, and taxing spending on goods and services, ridding imports of duties, all based on trickle down economics. Some would get wealthy and then pass it on to others by way of spending our creating jobs.
Then the strategy was create a free-trade policy with as many countries as you can, to encourage importing and exporting, and maximise your competitive advantage. This philosophy worked to pull the world out of the crash of 1987, it revived economies, it reduced government spending, and it created economic growth, yes. It also eviscerated unions and was the beginning of the end of a decent life for the working class.
It has also fueled increased inequality between rich and poor. It has meant less government oversight of private business and it has also meant corporations lean on governments to give them even more liberties than they currently possess. It means that these countries are ruled more and more by a corporate oligarchy, and this idea of democracy being 'of the people, by the people, for the people' now begs the question of 'which people?' because it is certainly not the majority that are benefiting from these policies.
In my understanding, government is there to create and foster a healthy economy for the benefit of everyone, and then take a chunk of that through tax so that there are sufficient social services to benefit everyone - housing, education, healthcare, care for the environment etc.
This is not what is happening with current governments in Ireland, and in other OECD nations. The Irish dream of a republic founded on equality and inclusiveness for all citizens is arguably far from a reality at the moment. But this is not a problem that is limited to Ireland.
This film has sold itself short by focusing on the symptoms of a neoliberal economy, rather than naming that as the issue and getting to the crux of the problem. This is a disappointment, because it has skirted around interrelating issues without really attacking the cause. The issues of vulture funds taking homes, of being evicted due to not being able to pay your mortgage, of homelessness, of suicide due to financial issues, of rural poverty, of lack of opportunities in the regions, these are symptoms of a much bigger issue: the way the world is doing capitalism benefits some, but not all, and certainly not most.
So while there is some truth in this film placing the blame at the feet of the government, this is a complex confluence of issues, and if there were to be a revolution, these macroeconomic issues would need to be thoroughly understood for a revolution to incite any real positive change.
There are solutions available, but they will be very unpopular with the wealthy elite. There are solutions available, but there needs to be political leadership. This idea is touted in the film, and I thoroughly agree with it. Theoretically, this can be done from within the current system, but it requires governments to have a spine, to realise that a destitute working class can't help their economy and that 'priming the pump' as in Keynesian economics has some merits.
But coming back to the film. The director did a lot to undermine his own creditability. The film seemed overall to be an extension of his personal journey through losing his house, and the various societal factors for this. Towards the end of the film, he spoke about how the lack of religion is now starting to erode Irish society - as if it is not possible to lookout for ones' neighbour if one doesn't go to church? Or that society can't be created outside of church?
He then, after the film, took questions and was asked about how life in Ireland compared to life in the States, how the film was going to be distributed, and various other things. The way the director answered these questions was with a lot of blaming others and segwaying to seemingly unrelated subjects.
But coming back to the film. The director did a lot to undermine his own creditability. The film seemed overall to be an extension of his personal journey through losing his house, and the various societal factors for this. Towards the end of the film, he spoke about how the lack of religion is now starting to erode Irish society - as if it is not possible to lookout for ones' neighbour if one doesn't go to church? Or that society can't be created outside of church?
He then, after the film, took questions and was asked about how life in Ireland compared to life in the States, how the film was going to be distributed, and various other things. The way the director answered these questions was with a lot of blaming others and segwaying to seemingly unrelated subjects.
This helped me to realise perhaps why he had had difficulties finding funding partners, and why others were hesitant to help him. He rambled, had no actual facts or figures and was ill-prepared to engage in intelligent conversation about the subject matter.
This film has great promise, but so little of it is actually realised. It touches on issues that affect a vast majority of Irish people, but assigns blame in strange places, with a familiar echo of 'can't we just go back to how it used to be?'
I left the film feeling like this film was a great excuse for the filmmaker to create a rant because he lost his house, not a revolutionary indictment on the Republic of Ireland, which with a few more facts and figures, and a few less musical interludes, it could well have been.
I hope 'My Ireland' gets a thoroughly good edit before going to film festivals, and that it can do well there, because these are issues that do need to be discussed, but this film is not yet the film to catalyse this.
This film has great promise, but so little of it is actually realised. It touches on issues that affect a vast majority of Irish people, but assigns blame in strange places, with a familiar echo of 'can't we just go back to how it used to be?'
I left the film feeling like this film was a great excuse for the filmmaker to create a rant because he lost his house, not a revolutionary indictment on the Republic of Ireland, which with a few more facts and figures, and a few less musical interludes, it could well have been.
I hope 'My Ireland' gets a thoroughly good edit before going to film festivals, and that it can do well there, because these are issues that do need to be discussed, but this film is not yet the film to catalyse this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)