The Sunday Times The point of no return


S the representatives of 120 nations and thousands of climate change experts and campaigners work in Cancun, Mexico, to try once again to avert the pending disaster that is com- ing to the world, I add my voice to those of hundreds of thou- sands and if not millions crying out for the conference to succeed. It’s vitally urgent for humanity that progress be made in reduc- ing world levels of carbon diox- ide, methane emissions and de- forestation. The greenhouse gas- ses emitted when we burn coal, oil, wood, garbage in power plants all over the world in ever increasing amounts are called that the gasses, especially CO2, rise into the earth’s stratosphere and form an insulation blanket that traps the earth’s heat leading to an overheated planet causing


A


the climate to be affected, vio- lently at times. The most direct impact this has is seen in the re- treating ice glaciers of the Arctic. The once gigantic mountains of ice and snow are melting rapidly and the mirror effect they had in radiating the sun’s rays back into space is greatly diminished. Scien- tists measure the retreating ice and warn that if the temperature of the planet increases above 2 degrees centigrade, the Greenland mass of ice will disappear. That will be a point of no return. The water un- leashed by this catastrophic event will cause sea levels to rise 7 me- ters. Millions of coastal villages that rely on fishing will be wiped out and driven inland.


With the ice diminished, the natural reflectors gone, the sun- beams can penetrate the oceans and scorch the earth. This year


In China, Pakistan and India, FR. SHAY CULLEN


alone, millions of people have suffered the consequence of the highest temperatures on record in many countries. Forest fires raged beyond control in Russia, Greece and Portugal. Hundreds of thou- sands of hectares of woodland has been destroyed, 18,000 hec- tares in Portugal alone. Such a loss of green shade adds to the rise in global warming. Moscow had temperatures that were 20C higher than normal. That was a massive climate change.


A novel look at novels R


EMEMBER the cliché that failed writers assuage them-


selves with? “There are no great writers, only great readers.” Post- modern literary criticism has brought additional comfort in saying, everything is text. It is the reader that decides what these texts are to be. That is why a simple aside by the


Pope on the use of condoms has created widespread controversy. Professor Florentino H. Hornedo, who teaches philosophy and litera- ture at the University of Santo Tomas, may have put a finger on the cause of this in his discussion of the conflict between Modernism and Postmodernism. “The former is rooted in a way of knowing aimed at a supposed objectivity, the latter is a whole way of life concerned mainly with the meaning of things for me, and the hope that my mean- ing is allowed or tolerated, or even shared, by others in my world . . . “It is not that simple however. For each individual has a story [narra- tive] of himself, and he also creates a narrative account of the world he encounters. Everyone therefore, has a narrative account of the world; and everyone is an actor in his own story for which reason no one is ever objective. And each one acts in ac- cord with his own story; and this is the root of possible conflict with others who have a different account of the world . . . ” At the moment, the conflict is


between those aligned on both sides of the Reproductive Bill con- troversy. But the matter of “text’ has wider implications in phi- losophy and literature. Professor Hornedo continues:


“The important point to note with regards to Postmodernist real- ity-frame is that our understanding of the world-out-there is in the form of signifier [the text of our story] sig-


BENJAMIN G. DEFENSOR


nifying a signified [our concept of the world-out-there]. But since the signifier and the signified are differ- ent, our understanding of the world [our ‘reality’] is never the same as the world-out-there. Our reality or ‘truth’ is our personally mediated account of it. So when we commu- nicate to others any of our under- standing of the world, we are merely communicating our inter- pretation of it—our meaning. And since we communicate with words and other forms of signifiers, the words do not convey the world- out-there. Thus our speech and writing—including literature— have no referent outside them- selves. They re constructs which are open to reading as ‘text’ where text is understood as anything open to meaning-construction.” Thomas C. Foster who wrote the best-selling, How to Read Literature Like a Professor, dis- cussed this ambiguity in How to Read Novels like a Professor, an- other best seller. …”Ambiguity is the way of the


novel, even when it is not the goal of the writer. There is simply no way to close out all possibilities except the one primarily intended while creating characters who are even remotely human. The essay can successfully restrict meaning; the novel, not so much. Why? In part we can blame language, that rich vein of multiple meanings.


As public figures often discover to their pain, it’s very difficult to make statements that are completely accu- rate, straightforward, and without embarrassing subtext (Underscoring supplied). What are you going to do with a language that contains self-antonyms, those words that are their own opposites, where the verb ‘to dust’ can mean ‘to remove particles as from furni- ture’ and ‘to distribute particles, as with powdered sugar’? And this isn’t an isolated instance; there are scores, perhaps hundreds of them. English is always shifting meanings, borrowing from other languages, getting all slanged up, verbing nouns and nouning verbs. It’s the most flexible and malleable of languages, but also the most maddeningly imprecise. Novelists can’t control that, and mostly they run with it, using that ambiguity to their advantage. In part, too, it’s the nature of the novel, which describes action rather than explaining it. Texts that attempt to explicate them- selves tend to lack drama and immediacy. Besides, we would regard that as a lack of faith in the enterprise: If you have to ex- plain it for your readers, you just have failed in the initial narra- tion. But I think the real cause is that human beings are funda- mentally ambiguous. We say one thing but mean another, fumble to explain ourselves, contradict our beliefs with our behavior, perform actions even we don’t understand, hide much of our true being from the world and perhaps from ourselves. If the novel is to be faithful to human existence, characters are going to share in that ambiguous nature.” “Think it’s just me? Here’s what


Erica Wagner says on the subject, ‘Good novels go on beyond their


final pages. They leave their au- thors and enter the minds of readers, who will ask questions, make demands and sometimes find themselves dissatisfied, just as they do with the flesh and blood creatures who inhabit the world outside the pages of a book.’ Wagner is a novelist as well as the literary editor of the Times of London, so she knows a thing or two about reading—and writ- ing—novels. She’s right, of course: good novels do go on be- yond the text. But I would shift the dynamic just a hair: good readers invent themselves in nov- els in ways that stretch the texts. Our readings are dialogic: we in- terrogate the narrative, asking the questions and making the de- mands Wagner suggests, pursuing some possibilities while giving others a pass and, yes, sometimes finding ourselves dissatisfied. “The novel is interactive in the fullest sense. Good reading, and by this I mean not professorial or professional but merely the kind of reading that novelists hope for and deserve, actively enters into conversation with the created nar- rative, bringing out nuances, mix developing or resisting sympa- thies, exploring meanings. We meet the writer on her turf, but it’s also our turf. Meaning and significance happen in that place where writer and reader confer. The result isn’t merely that we get the most out of the novels, but that we get the most out for ourselves. Great novels, cer- tainly, and maybe all novels, change us, but not merely by giv- ing us something special. They also change us because of what we give to them. That’s a winner all the way round.”


opinion@manilatimes.net T


devastating floods resulted; mil- lions were and are still homeless living on handouts. Perhaps the unusual heavy melting ice on the Himalayas was the cause and su- per powerful typhoons caused by the warmer oceans evaporating the sea and raining down a bil- lion tons more water. Everything in this amazing and beautiful planet is connected and interacts. Living creatures are the most ef- fected, that means you and me and every plant and animal. We must protect them from human greed and overdevelopment. The conference in Cancun has persuaded the greatest emitters of greenhouse gases, China, India and the USA to cut back on emis- sions. If the ever-rising tempera- ture is not held below 2C, then we can expect the worst. That is the


tipping point when one event trig- gers another and the domino ef- fect kicks in. The permafrost marshland and bogs of Siberia and North Canada are already re- leasing billions of tons of meth- ane gas that clogs the atmosphere. Wildlife and plants that survive the cold will be greatly affected and become extinct. Drug resist- ant species of giant mosquitoes will likely breed and swarm south to human populations bringing malaria and dengue.


If humanity does not change from an addicted self-destructive consumer society to a responsible sustainable society, we will pay an awful price in human hardship. Nations driven to unchained greed and global ambition for power and dominance can only lead people to self-harm, collapse of the economy and poverty.


We can all do something to make it a better and safer world. We can save electricity, drive less miles, buy locally grown foods, eat organic natural food, start a small tree planting project on waste land wherever you live and support a group campaigning for a clean and healthy environment. Preda Forest Feast Fair-trade sales of dried mangos pay for the plant- ing and protection of 200 fruit tree saplings 2 meters tall done with the indigenous people for the past six years. So eating the right food does justice, plants trees, saves the soil, provides shade, cools the earth, conserves water and pre- vents landslides. Everything is connected on this God-given planet. Be a part of something re- ally good. Let’s lets save it.


preda@info.com.ph Diplomacy unmasked


HE dumping of about 250,000 sensitive US State Department communications on the Web, a wrecking job by WikiLeaks cable, has turned the world of diplomacy upside down, uncaged numerous state secrets, angered foreign govern- ments and world leaders and strained relations between the diplomatic community sand the United States. WikiLeaks, founded by Julian Assange, an Australian, had started releasing the documents, most of which date from be- tween 2007 and February 2010, until Amazon closed down the dump. WikiLeaks is believed to have obtained much of the ca- bles from Bradley Manning, a disgruntled 23-year-old Army intelligence officer.


The huge cache of diplomatic wires unloose by WikiLeaks covers Washington’s ties with major governments and lead- ers in Europe, the Middle East, Latin America and Asia. They say much about America’s for- eign policy and about diplo- macy in progress in the major capitals. It’s all about history today, that could provide big and small footnotes in the his- tory books tomorrow, but the surprises are gone with the WikiLeaks blabbermouthing. Numerous analysts who have read the cables say, however, that the papers could add to confusion if the contents are taken out of context. They add that the cables add little to un- derstanding of what’s happen- ing in terms of events and policy. Overall, the diplomatic messages are on target, describ- ing the action on the ground as generally accurate.


Supersized government?


WASHINGTON D.C.: People who won- der what America’s budget prob- lem is ultimately about should look to Europe. In the streets of Dublin, Athens and London, an- gry citizens are protesting govern- ment plans to cut programs and raise taxes. The social contract is being broken. People are furious; they feel betrayed.


Modern democracies have cre- ated a new morality. Government benefits, once conferred, cannot be revoked. People expect them and consider them property rights. Just as government cannot randomly confiscate property, it cannot withdraw benefits with- out violating a moral code. The old-fashioned idea that govern- ment policies should serve the “national interest” has given way to inertia and squatters’ rights. One task of the National Commission on Fiscal Respon- sibility and Reform—co-chaired by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson—was to discredit this self-serving morality. Otherwise, changing the budget will be hard, maybe impossible. If everyone feels morally entitled to existing benefits and tax breaks, public opinion will remain hopelessly muddled: desirous in the abstract of curbing budget deficits but adamant about keeping all of Social Security, Medicare and eve- rything else. Politicians will be scared to make tough decisions for fear of voter reprisals. Unfortunately, Bowles and Simpson ducked this political challenge. They performed an accounting exercise to shrink the deficit without trying to de-


ROBERT J. SAMUELSON


fine what government should do and why. Their package of spending cuts and tax increases claimed to reduce budget defi- cits by $3.9 trillion between 2012 and 2020. Many of their proposals made sense: for ex- ample, simplifying the income tax by decreasing tax breaks and lowering rates. With a broader tax base, lower rates could raise more money; work and investment incentives would remain, because taxpay- ers would still keep a large share of any extra earnings. But what was missing was a moral rationale for change, ex- cept for some familiar platitudes: “American cannot be great if we go broke;” or, “We have a patri- otic duty . . . to give our children and grandchildren a better life.” The trouble with these pleasing lines is that they don’t address the practical question of why existing recipients of government sup- port—farmers, the elderly, local governments, for example— should lose it. Answers exist. It’s not in the national interest to subsidize


farmers, because food would be produced at low cost without subsidies. It’s not in the na- tional interest to subsidize Americans, through Social Secu- rity and Medicare, for the last 20 or 25 years of their lives because healthier people live longer and the huge costs make the budget unmanageable. It’s not in the national interest to subsidize mass transit, because most ben- efits are enjoyed locally: if the locals want mass transit, they should pay for it. As we debate these questions, groups will inevitably promote their self-interest. But in doing so, they should have to meet exact- ing standards that their self-inter- est also serves the broader na- tional interest. Having received or been promised benefits does not create a right to them. At most, it justifies a pragmatic claim for gradual termination. Bowles and Simpson provided few guide- posts. They mainly wanted their numbers to add up.


The biggest blunder of their approach involved huge pro- posed cuts in defense, about a fifth of federal spending. Na- tional security is government’s first job. Bowles and Simpson re- duced it proportionately with all other discretionary spending as if there’s no difference between a dollar for defense and a dollar for art subsidies. Nor was there much effort to identify programs that should be eliminated be- cause they fail the national need test. Good programs would have been cut along with the bad. Fi- nally, spending on the elderly,


now about two-fifths of the budget, was treated too gently. Social Security’s full eligibility age would have increased slowly to 69 years around 2075. These programs are essential, but eli- gibility ages should be raised faster and, for wealthier recipi- ents, benefits cut more. This was a formula for chang-


ing government without a phi- losophy of government. For years, it was assumed that a rap- idly growing economy could pay for added programs. The result was the careless use of govern- ment for almost anything that made a good slogan or could support a lobby. The underlying economic assumptions were overoptimistic. Now, an aging so- ciety and uncontrolled health costs will automatically expand the size of government well be- yond today’s tax base. Demo- graphics mean government will become supersized unless we trim its responsibilities. We need a new public philoso-


phy that acknowledges these re- alities. Perhaps Bowles-Simpson will start the needed conversa- tion. Government will be big, of- fending conservatives. But it also should be limited, offending lib- erals. The social contract will be rewritten either by design or, as in Europe, under outside pres- sures. If we keep the expedient morality of perpetual pro- grams—so that nothing funda- mental can ever be abandoned— then Europe’s social unrest could be a prelude to our own. (C) 2010, THE WASHINGTON POST WRITERS GROUP


But to a man, the analysts— backed by a huge crowd of angry world leaders and foreign diplo- mats—have concluded that the leaks have unmasked uncompli- mentary thoughts and indelicate remarks about presidents, pre- miers, kings, and foreign minis- ters in a language described as “largely undiplomatic.” Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin was not amused that US diplomats called Russia “an oligarchy run by the security services, suspected mafia influ- ence over Moscow and said President Dimitri Medvedev played Robin to Putin’s Bat- man,” reported AFP. Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan


“was livid at allegations men- tioned in the cables that he kept secret Swiss bank accounts” “Shameful,” said an Argen- tine state minister that US Sec- retary of State Hillary Clinton inquired through a cable about the “psychological health” of President Cristine Kirchner. Foreign leaders were angry that US diplomats had privately


FRED DE LA ROSA


doubted their abilities, honesty and intentions. The printed comments were not the same support and assurances they re- ceived from the Americans in private meetings.


The media and protocol po- licemen are predicting a with- drawal of trust in diplomatic talks, official or informal. A great degree of reticence will change the rule of trust that gov- erns diplomatic conduct. This is a setback to US foreign


policy. Business won’t be con- ducted as usual in American diplomatic posts. “Diplomatese,” the term used for correct diplomatic language, has helped preserve harmony by skirting open confrontation and unbridled candor. In confiden- tial cables, the gloves are appar- ently off.


President Barack Obama has named a security expert to pre- vent the massive leak from hap- pening again. Washington is vowing pros- ecution for Assange and accom- plices for compromising state secrets and violating the confi- dentiality of diplomatic cables. Civil rights groups are cau- tioning, however, about infringe- ments of freedom of speech and expression, an enduring hall- mark of the American way under the US Constitution. Meanwhile, the noose is tightening around Assange’s neck. Swedish authorities have won a court ruling to question and arrest the WikiLeaks founder in a rape case in Sweden. The Interpol is helping. The move could lead to his extradition to the US.


Malacañang is reportedly


worried by the Wikileaks disclo- sures. Manila Standard Today and the Philippine Star reported that of the 250,000 cables, approxi- mately 1,796 were identified as having been transmitted from the United States Embassy in Manila to Washington, D.C. The documents may not


have anything damaging to re- port about the six-month-old administration of President Benigno Aquino 3rd. But the insights, analyses and percep- tions from the Embassy staff or on Cabinet appointments, Pal- ace gaffes, policy and decision- making could be embarrassing, Palace watchers say.


opinion@manilatimes.net Global view


SUNDAY


D e cember 5, 2010


A 5


opinion


WASHINGTON POST WRITERS GROUP


ONE MAN’S MEAT


REFLECTIONS


THE OBSERVER


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16