Don’t ask where I am from? Ask where I am Local?

One day I received another email from Mark Ingham, with the link to Taiye Selasi, where she discusses the concept of countries, destroying the formalises automatism of: Hey! Where are you from? Her complex multi-national upbringing highlighted the restriction such a simplistic question offers. “How can I come from a nation?” she says I am not a country. Something that can fail, expand or even contract, a human made concept that is presumed singular, naturally occurring, and eternal; but something all together much more complex made of locality, which as a whole create a national identity. Yes, you can always ask more question, to discover the ‘other’ you are presumably meeting, “history was real, cultures were real, but countries where invented”.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of her talk was to me the idea of the intention behind where are you from? Behind the innocence of the question lies an aspect of power, She later highlighted that if you were from:

Mexico, Bangladesh, Poland…you had less power;

where as,

Germany, America, Japan…represented more power,

moreover,

Russia, China… were ambiguous.

This sudden realisation was really interesting. The answer actually helps frame the following of the conversation, to take into account cultural acceptance, subject that you could enter, or avoid, politics, religion, humour for instance.

I was completely on board with her speech despite my little irritation to her slow smoothed voice which, to be frank I perceived as a little pretentious, what is truly interesting was the conversation I had with a friend after I showed her this Ted Talk, (“ideas worth spreading”) she showed a true opposition to this idea of where am I local, not only was she denying the true nature of national identity, but by trying to avoid countries to prevent the ideas of stereotype popping in our brains after hearing a country, for instance France, a baguette, cheese and wine, she was actually giving the same stereotype more power and influence. As you may not then get the opportunity to  defend your uniqueness despite the stereotype as if to say they hold no truth. But as a french despite the fact that I don’t like cheese, I will drink wine at every family event or restaurant I go to, baguette is a must, and I don’t feel betrayed by this, moreover I don’t feel trapped by them and will always add context to my multi local experience in a national manner. Yet, in saying that, I am a French, women living in the United Kingdom, so it may be easier for me to hold such views.

I think she was arguing that country shouldn’t be primordial, and asking where are you local? Allowed an acknowledgement that human nature is more complex then a nationality to be the first thing you learn about them. This allows the person being ask to be flattered, and open about their true experience what truly reflects them, as you show true interest in the answer given. I believe nationality has its place in our world, to satisfy our curiosity, our lack of patience, and time, so despite my undecided conclusion I am very happy to have opened this debate, to start grasping why we say what we say by automatism.

Shame Shame Shame..Shame on you, if you cant dance too!

12239264_10152788721324229_6901898475449964711_o.png

On the 19th of November 2015 only a couple of days prior to the COP21 which heads quarter are in fact in England, only 10% of MP’s showed up for the climate change debate. This is outrageous, annoying, infuriating, but most of all where did the decarbonisation programme go? What about all those speeches David Cameron made on the subject.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2015/may/08/what-does-camerons-election-win-mean-for-the-environment

Journalist can be so nice..;)

I really like satirical cartoons, they have always been a part of the french history, but mostly because they allow cartoonist, to be more daring then in an article. The overall, cuteness, and innocence of a drawing means, the targeted enterprise, individual etc.. cant really complain about them or it will bring greater attention to the issue portrayed. This paradox make these so powerful. Secondly, everyone loves to laugh and this is easy pickings.

RKUWJclimatejonesc_02222010_520821372364

COP 21…what is this?!

The COP21, is an international political response to climate change; with the aim to create a unified effort to better the environment. Composed of 147 heads of state, and government  members, it is already successful in the global unity. Around 40,000 people are expected to participate in the event, which runs until 11 December. This will be the first time in over 20 years of UN negotiations, to achieve a legally binding, and universal agreement on climate with the aim of keeping global warming below 2°C. This was one of the principle reason for the zine, this is the concretisation of weather, or not, global warming can be tackled, and head towards a more responsible politics; as it is happening this Monday, up to the 11th of December.

http://www.cop21.gouv.fr/

I’m SORRY!

 

This is an incredible slam poem, which describes our politics, the ideology of capitalism, our own individual responsibility, but mostly through is just words, which appear harsh is a call for change, improvement, and future generations.

I don’t think i should say more, just don’t worry it successful as its not cheesy or righteous but really slick ad cool.

“profit above people, greed above need”

“nerve to call this destruction progress”

“Sarah Palin you loved the smell of fossil fuels, talk to the kids of Beijing wearing mask to go to school”

People’s Climate March!

This was a very powerful movement, which I was proud to be a part of, through my cousins taking me along. Here are some of the film photography I have taken.

Hold up thats not true we do give a sh*t. The people’s climate march, starting in New York City, spread over 2646 rallies, 162 countries, all the way to Paris, Melbourne Australia, Rio de Janeiro. this shows a true concern, but mostly a care for action to be taken. We are sick of the top down effort being enforced, blaming individuals on reducing individual waste of energy, and consumerism, while bigger business are to some extent exempt from responsibility. This is interesting to then see our response is wanting more from a bigger industries which can have the power for greater impacts.

Why politics don’t do sh*t do solve global fuck*ng warming..?

In this small zine publication, is embedded my formal essay to address the issue of why the f*ck politics don’t do sh*t to truly solve global warming. Now, I am no expert on the subject, and do not pretend to be, therefore, feel free to question my reasoning, or the ideas I borough from men and women in the spotlight. This is merely me trying to change the true debate of the environment we witness in the news, and social media, to why are we still having it? ‘Curiosity is a willing, a proud, an eager confession of ignorance.’ S. Leonard Rubinstein This is where mine took me.

They are many people whom still don’t believe in global warming, shown in a Gallup pole saying 1 in 4 americans don’t believe in it. This shows the power of formulating pole, this almost discredited the validity, and urgency of global warming yet bring no statistics to the issues, nor solution, simply maybe we shouldn’t care or feel guilty for not caring.

What is interesting is the pressure that is placed on the populations, individuals to make efforts, to reduce our waste, energy use etc… this harassment of inflicted guilt is to be frank, annoying, and becomes easier to ignore and give the finger to. It can be argued with the rational, from “the honest truth about dishonesty” by professor Dan Ariely, through the ‘what the hell effect’ if I’m going to to cheat a little, I might as well be completely bad; rather then be kind of good, thus frustrated. In a culture where abundance, and instant gratification is primordial. Secondly, it is easier to to ignore something with a distance to your direct action, not reducing any type of waste is bad. but it wont really affect your cosy life. It’s the collective laxism which is the root issue.

Hold up thats not true we do give a sh*t. The people’s climate march, starting in New York City, spread over 2646 rallies, 162 countries, all the way to Paris, Melbourne Australia, Rio de Janeiro. this shows a true concern, but mostly a care for action to be taken. We are sick of the top down effort being enforced, blaming individuals on reducing individual waste of energy, and consumerism, while bigger business are to some extent exempt from responsibility. This is interesting to then see our response is wanting more from a bigger industries which can have the power for greater impacts.

First, I would like to put forward the idea that global warming isn’t sexy. Politicians like sexy subject with great inspirational slogan, while global warming, follows mostly, with ‘effort need to be made’, ‘change’, and ‘restrictions’; so as I said, global warming isn’t sexy.

On the other hand, the issue, and reason, for a lack of action can be seen through a cynical approach to politics. The more money you receive in donation, the higher your chance of being elected. However, money always comes at a price, countering the ideology of a donation, to be free of any returned favours. For instance, when you look at Barack Obama’s contributors, of his 2012 campaign including: Deloitte LLP, a consulting, and risk management company, or IBM, you should understand that they expect his mandate to be favourable to their business practices. The total of dirty energy money invested in 2012 for political campaigns amassed to $116 000 000, just in america. Maybe money can speak louder then words here. More obviously you may look at the 163 members of congress that deny basic tenets of climate science, and earn on average 3.5 time more money just through dirty energy money, thus a $346 975 in comparison to a $96 999. You understand they motivation to disrupt the climate progress. This money is just for them to slow down, or destroy legislations that aren’t favourable to their investor. Closer to home, for instance here, in the UK, less then 10% of MP’s turned up for the climate change debate, this last 19th  of November 2015. At the end of the day energy is a business, and so is being a politician. Such an environment is when you start seeing great debating skills in politics, with Jim Inhofe bringing a snowball as evidence against global warming… should I say more?

Now politician especially during election address the environmental issues, with great speeches and promises, yet no actual plan, or realisation to carry out the promises. Nigel Lawson, a British conservative politician, and journalist, rebels against the political correctness of our time, the curse preventing any proper debate. He wrote his book, ‘An appeal to reason, a cool way to look at global warming’, to respond to his shock that no economical analysis had been done on the decarbonisation program so popular among politicians, as he quoted, ‘hell is paved with good intension’. We need to stop taking away funds from scientist with doubt, or politician, being taken away any prospect of promotion, when expressing differing opinions, this means no debate, no analysis can be thorough, or the resultant to a solution. So with political correctness you get happy pictures, and shitty result.

You are not the only one to see the great wall we are heading into, to worry about the future generation, what will they be left with? Thankfully, you get activist expressing their unhappiness, calling for change. Recently, the Tate has been put in the spotlight for accepting donations from, BP, a rather controversy filled company, after too many oil spills destroying our oceans. The main heat being on their presence throughout the museum, everywhere, patronage should be more selfless perhaps; not a way to diminish their wrong doing. We expect better, not a bow around their brand to look better, or politician, being taken away any prospect of promotion, when expressing differing opinions, this means no debate, no analysis can be thorough, or the resultant to a solution. So with political correctness you get happy pictures, and shitty result.

Perhaps, instead of blaming the lack of funding as an excuse for the lack of efficiency. Governments could start rethinking where they spend it, for instance is it necessary to spend According to the Office of Management and Budget and the Air Force Almanac, when measured in real terms  the figure is $790.0 billion, or an average of $15.818 billion per year.

To conclude this political bashing, I would like to let you think, and ponder this issue. Do you care? Do you want to care? or was this annoying? no matter what I think, today we can no longer deny the global warming urgency, but most importantly let on politician not be fully accountable for their campaign promises. Use the power of social media, such as twitter, to voice your opinion, and be proud of your convictions. The greatest issues come from lack of education, and the more we talk to one another the better our chances for change.

Research Methods

quantitative research: relies on number to express data

qualitative research: relies on sentences to express data

You would usually do quantitative research first as it is often available on open sources such as web search or books. The issue os it can generate lots of data, yet not specific to your project.

Whereas qualitative research is specifically relevant to your research as you generate the question and collect the answers. However, it may be more exposed to bias.