Czas przyszły niedokonany

Ciekawe jest, że kampania prezydencka nie toczy się dookoła programów i wizji Polski, tylko tego co panowie zrobili ‘kiedyś’. Dlaczego? Może dlatego, że programów nie znamy.

Na stronie Jarosława nie ma na razie wyraźnego programu ani manifestu. Jest tylko list sprzed kilku tygodni, który ponownie patrzy w przeszłość, niewiele mówiąc o przyszłości. Komitet zapowiedział jednak, że w przeciągu tego tygodnia przedstawi dokładny program, i uchylił już rąbka tajemnicy wspominając o systemie ”4×4″ (rodzina, gospodarka, polska prezydencja w UE i ustrój państwa).

Na stronie Bronisława jest 5-cio stronicowa ‘wizja Polski’ w której niestety jedyne 2 solidne stwierdzenia to wspomaganie rozwoju harcerstwa, oraz wzmianka o wprowadzeniu okręgów jednomandatowych. Manifest mówi wiele o zakresie działań prezydenta, ale równie dobrze to samo skopiować na swoje strony mogliby wszyscy kandydaci.

Dlatego, apeluje do wszystkich młodych i starych - zamiast krzyczeć o przeszłości porozmawiajmy o tym co każdy z kandydatów może nam swoją prezydenturą zaoferować na przyszłość.

Poczekać aż się zmachają

Wszyscy mówią, że Jarosław Kaczyński nie ma kampanii, że się boi i chowa głowę w piasek. Ale efekty są jak na dłoni.

W dzisiejszej rozmowie dnia Rzeczpospolitej Małgorzata Subotić wypytuje Pawła Poncyliusza kiedy, gdzie, jak, za ile i po ile Jarosław Kaczyński wystąpi, nawiąże kontakt z publicznością. Nie rozumiejąc delikatnych aluzji Pawła, Gosia wypytuje dalej i w końcu dowiaduje się, że może w poniedziałek, może w Warszawie. Zawsze coś – można rzucić ludziom.

Otóż Jarek nie występuje, chowa się. Dlaczego? Oczywiście bo nie ma co powiedzieć, bo to ‘kandydat specjalnej troski’. Ale jest też druga strona medalu. Może sztab wyborczy Jarka to wcale nie tacy wielcy frajerzy? Może czekają, aż ci najgłośniejsi i najaktywniejsi się zmęczą? Bo w sumie, to podział jest taki: 1/3 ludzi czeka na wystąpienie Jarka aby poznać jego program, usłyszeć co ma do powiedzenia. 1/3 czeka aż Jarek się zająknie, przejęzyczy, wspomni o bracie albo o teczkach. A 1/3 nie czeka bo nie idzie głosować.

Gdyby popełnił gafę, to by było super, będzie o czym pisać i o czym w końcu rozmawiać. Bo u nas kampania nie jest jeszcze na programy, tylko na takie wybuchy pożarów, gdy ktoś doleje oliwy do ognia. A pożar można gasić na dwa sposoby: albo biec z wiadrem lać wodą i się przy tym poparzyć, albo poczekać aż z braku paliwa się słomiany zapał sam wypali.

Blinding pride

Are Poles so proud of their past that we tend to glorify it, or are we right to be boastful?

I like to take a possibly balanced and objective view in many academic debates on controversial topics, and at the same time try to be critical of my own position. Yet even now I have been caught up in the trap of nationalistic pride.

An essay for my module on Democracy and Democratization in Contemporary Europe is on the question of Polish transition to democracy. The title “Poland 1989-1991; reforma-pactada, ruptura-pactada or a civil-initiated transition?” is an attempt to compare the Polish democratization to the Spanish model and at the same time define if the path taken was a civil-initiated or elite-initiated process. Before I began my research, the answer seemed to be obvious: Polish transition was a civil-initiated process started by the Solidarity. Therefore I was surprised when in the first basing reading by Linz and Stepan (1996) in the chapter on Poland it stated that it was a negotiated transition started by the regime.

And yes it was. It was the regime that began the negotiations and proposed the Round Table negotiations. And we all should acknowledge this fact. This is not to say that the society did not play a major role trough strikes and manifestations. And this is not to say that “General Jaruzelski woke up one day and say ‘what a glorious day for democracy’”. Solidarity through its action literally put a knife up against party’s throat and made them chose between democratization, or virtually division of power between Solidarity and Party within the state.

Another thing that we should recognize, is that Solidarity could have achieved much more from the transition, did not have to agree on the Round Table, which produced a seriously unfavourable conditions for democratization, underestimated its own strength, and highly overestimated the cohesion of the party. Twenty years after democratization we should not still glorify the 1989 developments. This is the time for self-criticism and realistic debate. What I will argue – this is a topic for a dissertation. In brief, Solidarity provided the push for transition, but the negotiations were started by the regime and this gave them upper ground. True consolidation of democracy came only in 1991, and the Round Table made the opposition pay a high price for little change.

Academic experience

Does writing essays make you smarter?

Assessments for all the modules in International Studies and Political Science department at the University of Birmingham consists of three methods: in-class presentation, two or one assessed essays each term, and an exam in May/June.

The interesting part, is that the essays, with mostly prescribed titles, are supposed to stimulate students pursuit for knowledge, invention and ‘original thinking’. But what does it really come down to?

The essays are mostly reproduction of already available knowledge, i.e. books and articles from the library. The only trick is to paraphrase the reading in such way, it won’t count as plagiarism, or at least it wouldn’t appear as such. After consulting the problem, which I personally find quite disappointing, with fellow students at UCL, Manchester University and other, we concluded that: a) mark that you obtain from your essay in 80% depends on the ‘academic workshop and skills’ that you have, much more that on what you really know. This means you can actually get a comfortable 2.1 with no substantial knowledge, as long as the structure and techniques used are advanced enough. Conclusion b)  the term ‘clearly creating new knowledge’ used in the Undergraduate Marking Scheme is vague, and in many occasions impossible to achieve. Conclusion c), which is not really rocket science, is that after first two paragraphs of your essays, the marker already knows what grade you will obtain. The difference between good (2.1) and excellent (1) essay seems to be quite blurry, especially looking at number of my feedback forms where I had many ‘excellent’ but apparently not enough to get me 70, but only 69 points.

All things considered, I understand that my work may sometimes lack the edge to be a 1st, but is very close, what has a stimulating result in me working harder. On the other hand, pursuing the ‘new knowledge’ often ends in a disappointment, especially in a 2000 words essay where you don’t have the time and resources to, for example, go out on the streets and perform a research on 1000 people. Hence, as you base your essay on existing literature, any initial ‘new’ idea that you had, finds out to be already discovered by precious research, and moreover already criticized by another.

Final point to make is that majority of students choose the exam questions covering the essays they have worked on, hence not really learning anything new.

Odpowiedzialność Społeczna

Czyli kto ma robić, żeby inni nie musieli robić?

Ostatnio przejeżdżając się ulicami Miasta Stołecznego Warszawy na jednym ze skrzyżowań zauważyłem przewrócony pachołek, czy inną blokadę drogową. Znajdowała się ona na środku pasa; wszystkie samochody grzecznie omijały ją i nie przeszkadzały jej w spoczynku. Zacząłem zastanawiać się – co z tym fantem zrobić? Czy w obowiązku ‘dobrego obywatela’ należy trzymanie się, podniesienie pachołka? Rozwiązało by to problem natychmiastowo. Ale, bo zawsze są jakieś ale, po pierwsze z prawnego punktu widzenia nie można ot tak zatrzymać się na drodze bo stajemy się zagrożeniem dla ruchy (znacznie większym niż pachołek?). Dlatego, należałoby zatrzymać się na poboczu/chodniku i wtedy przejść się i pachołek uprzątnąć. Zamykając uprzednio oczywiście samochód – dobry obywatel w większości przypadków w oczach ‘zwykłych obywateli’ to frajer.

Ale dlaczego ja mam to robić? Śpieszę się do pracy! Nie będę sobie brudził rąk. Po to są służby porządkowe, aby przyjechały i udrożniły przejazd. Jedynym problemem jest to, że służby porządkowe nie działają (jeszcze) jak Batman i nie są wszędzie. Prędzej czy później przeszkodę usuną, jak ją znajdą. Można oczywiście powiadomić je telefonicznie. Ale czy ktoś zna numer? No i mam jeszcze za to płacić?! No i tak wyszło, że pachołek jak był tak jest, a my wygodnie, czysto i szybko tłoczymy się na jednym pasie.

Podróżuj z Klasą

Radek S. przywrócił Jolce K. paszport dyplomatyczny. Ja też poproszę jeden, albo jeszcze dla brata.

Nie byłaby to wcale zaskakująca wiadomość, ponieważ paszport dyplomatyczny może otrzymać żona każdego byłego prezydenta, szczególnie jeżeli naprawdę go potrzebuje. I ja też nie zawracałbym państwu gitary tą błahą informacją, gdy by pani K. faktycznie podróżowała codziennie z misją dyplomatyczną do 7 krajów na wszystkich kontynentach, i z powodu długiej odprawy spóźniała się lub miała problemy z połączeniem.

Ale pani K. żali się, że “z mężem mogła przechodzić przez salonik VIP, a kiedy podróżowała sama, była kontrolowana. W obecności ludzi ściągała buty, żakiet, przeszukiwali jej torebkę” (dziennik.pl, środa 17 czerwca 2009 10:30). I to jeszcze w dodatku żali się w wywiadzie dla ‘Gali”… Chodzi mi tutaj tylko i wyłącznie o powód żalów pani ex-prezydentowej. Widać nie leciała pani nigdy Ryanair’em z Etiudy; w salonikach VIP są pewnie darmowe drinki a zdejmowanie butów  chyba popsuło atmosferę….

Toilets

Why the doors to toilets in clubs and pubs open towards the inside? Not safe and not hygienic!

It is comfortable when you are wasted and walking into the toilet – you open the doors with one swift kick and you’re in. Fast, and you look cool. Also you don’t need to touch the doors with you hand – safe with the Swine flu around. But it doesn’t make sense when you want to get out. First of all, after you washed your hands (if you did you filthy person) you have to pull to open = touch the handle and get all the nasty stuff other people have on the their hands. Second, when you reach for the handle and somebody coming in tries to look cool, he or she breaks you hand. Not cool. Third, in case of fire, it is easier to push the doors to get out. Also, toilets are often small and crowded, so when you get in you always hit someone.

Any ideas?

Students

Over the last few days of the revision I went through many books from the uni library. What I noticed in some of them was a really annoying tendency for underlining and highlighting. I understand people have different learning techniques. Some like to take notes, others just read, some like to use highlighters. All the different colours that have specific meanings. It helps them to focus and memorize important information. I obviously do it as well – underline important quotes, names, definitions. But what I found in on of the books was an entire chapter of 30 pages underlined line after line with a pencil.

First of all – how can everything be this important? If everything is, than nothing is….It probably took this person more time and effort to underline everything, than to read the chapter and remember it. Second of all, it is a real pain to read this now. When I look at a page where something is highlighted I automatically focus on the highlighted part and ignore words in between – not the best way to study. So, when you highlight stuff in a book to help you study, you disturb my studying. Besides, you ruin a public book that belongs to the library by painting it all over.  There is also a difference between using a pencil that you can erase, and a highlighter that destroys the book.

Intolerance for different tolerance

I just finished writing an  exam in something that was supposed to be International Relations. It generally all comes down to feminism and human rights – not much about states whatsoever. One of the questions asked to what extend the agenda of human rights is a result off ‘western’ hegemony? While I was writing my answer, that I will shortly describe below, I was thinking about only one thing – who will be marking my exam. Because if it will be a radical lesbian feminist, I am officially doomed.

What I argued for, is that agenda of human rights is truly set by the so called ‘west’  ie. USA and Europe, mostly for their private interest. And here comes the big problem of proposing any ciriticism to feminism and human rights fanatics – being labeled a sexist, racist, Katol or a nazi (what totally misinterprets the meaning of this particular word). If you by any means suggest that for example women in some countries do not want, or do not need, some of the 3rd generation human rights (meaning not the basic human rights) you immediately will be called an imperialistic, conservative, radical, masculine pig. Most of you girls probably thinks this way now, thank you for proving my point. Likewise, if anybody says he/her object gay rights to be implemented by the state, is a conservative, backwards fascist. This really bothers me, because immediately declines any criticism and constructive dialogue. If somebody suggests that gay rights are incompatible with culture and values, is understood as if saying that people there are in some way different, or gay rights are just another export product of the ’west’, and immediately ends up in the same basket with people with specific haircuts and not-so-funny tattoos. No dialogue is possible any more, either you are with US, or against us.

Evil bananas

Something light to cheer up dull moods and break with sophisticated academic discussion.

Every few month ‘scientists’ working in laboratories ‘somewhere there’ came up with a new revelation about food, diet and lifestyle. The one I personally despise is the Evil Banana Theory. Many times when I was in a shop with different people, and mentioned I wanted some fruit, maybe a banana they said ‘oh you know bananas make you fat, they the most fattening of all fruit!’. My last year house mate used to say ‘oh sh*t up, it’s a fruit, it has all the vitamins and stuff inside, don’t tell me it’s bad’ and it makes sense pretty much. Bananas have simply became a victim of this new diet craze, that is turning more ridiculous. Instead of following a normal, healthy and balanced diet, which can in short be described as don’t eat junk food, they come up with weir ideas. Just veg, no carbs, only fruit, only water, only air. I’m not gotta stuff myself with 5 bananas (this sounds really weird), I just want to eat a good, healthy fruit, so back off!

I gets more silly and funny here in the UK with their Five-A-Day programme: eat five pieces of something green to be healthy. I’m telling you, they really need it here – just look at them. It gets even funnier when you look what counts for one of the five. For example juice. You may think ‘it makes sense – juice is healthy‘. But here the most crap juice from concentrate, with seven spoons of sugar per serving and taste designed in a lab, counts. What else? Does pepper on mi pizza count? Or salad (I don’t believe it’s made of veg) in my kebab? And potatoes chips are made from? The very fact that the welfare state wastes money on campaigns like this shows how bad things are down here. To all fancy diets – there is no perfect one. I think that when you eat things that don’t make you feel crap, it’s all good.

You find these revelations in newspapers and magazines mostly laying around in toilets and bathrooms. In one of them I found and article saying that swimming makes people fat, because ‘swimming in cold water, for instance, tends to make people crave high-fat foods such as buiscuits’ while other activities such as ‘running on a hot day’ suppress hunger. How am I supposed to run on a hot day in the UK? That means like 4 joggs per month in here! It’s like saying ‘walking on the left turns out to be more healthy, because statistically more destinations on Earth are on the left-hand side’ or ‘it is better to go out during the day than night because sun makes us sweat and lose callories’. Instead of spending money on useful research like this, find the cure for cancer!