Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Though you know I agree on the overall narrative point, I think the rest of what you say is pretty skewed. You're quite willingly conflating "protest" with ineffectual la-la communication - which exists but not inescapably and not always. For example, the people who mow down GM maize in France are not jokes, and they don't dress up as corn cobs or ask anyone else to do so. And their methods of protest have been so effective that they have been stopped (I think they have been stopped, they don't...) by brutal repression in the form of very heavy jail sentences. When Bové and friends took apart a half-constructed MacDonald's to protest about the lousy food the agro-industry churns out, they hit a media nerve and spoke to the mass of people's desire to eat healthy food. Nowadays, if Bové as much as farts, they'll stick him in the slammer to catch up on all his suspended sentences. That doesn't seem to me to speak of inefficient communication, on the contrary.

Likewise, even though I feel somewhat bitter about the useless display of marginality I attended yesterday, I think you're inaccurate in claiming that

The Culture of Protest has marginalised the left

It's the other way round: Money and Power have marginalised leftwing protest. Where we're likely to agree is that this is now a consummated process.

However, every time I see the left play at Serious People and shun marginalisation like the Devil, the result is... They do like they were on the right. Do we need examples?

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun Mar 30th, 2008 at 11:46:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I am someone who stopped going to protests in May of 1970 when I was asked to chant in front of a GE stockholder's meeting, "Save Mother Earth."  I swore at that moment that I would NEVER do something that irrelevant and goofy again.

Now there is NOTHING wrong with street action.  I don't even believe it saps energy.  If that is what you think your calling to be, make puppets and march in the streets with my blessing.

However, I don't think street action is what the folks who come to Eurotribune should be doing.  Let me explain.

Because I am graceful with tools, I get along VERY well with the members of the building classes.  The idea that our problems are due to insufficient political and cultural awareness of the car mechanic or carpenter is just plain wrong.  The grassroots are FINE!!!

The real problems exist at the level where the conventional wisdom is hatched.  Our politicians make preposterous economic decisions NOT because they are corrupt, but because the guys with all the "credentials" are filling their heads with utter bullshit.

See, that is OUR job.  Not to fill our leaders heads with more bullshit, but giving them good, sound, ideas that allow them to at least ask meaningful questions.  It is why I think our Jerome is bucking for sainthood with his crusade to relabel neoliberalism as "Anglo Disease."

Let others march in the streets and organize "grassroots" campaigns.  We have other fish to fry.  If we could come up with 20 ideas as effective as "Anglo Disease" we WILL change the world.  Ideas ARE important and the time has come to ridicule the right-wing crazies out of the debate.  There is NO way to meaningfully address the big problems like peak oil and climate change without changing the operating economic assumptions.  

This is OUR battle and Eurotrib is a damn good place to figure out how to fight it.  We MUST create the new "conventional wisdom."  It is a HUGE problem but there are some seriously smart people who come here.

"Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"

by techno (reply@elegant-technology.com) on Sun Mar 30th, 2008 at 06:30:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
for those most uplifting words!

I've been feeling a bit useless and out of things to say lately. it's good to have things put in perspective again, so as not to give up too quickly...

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Mar 30th, 2008 at 07:20:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Jerome, don't feel down. Feel knurd. It's unpleasant but it works.

What you're doing has nothing to do with Greenpeace/Bové style activism. The "Anglo disease" is about framing the discourse and, interestingly enough, the action is directed towards the media and politicians, not ordinary citizens. In some degree, it's lobbying.

Plus, you have a pretty serious ally in this affair: reality. The Anglo disease is not an important issue because you feel very strongly about it (the ward single-issue activist use to gauge their own importance). It's important because it's real and it's bitting the whole lot of us right now.

That's more what I call citizen expertise: developing and articulating knowledge about important issues outside of the anointed circles so it is possible to tell them "No, you are wrong and here's the proof" when they serve their usual "expert" crap. That works even (and, probably especially well) for highly technical issues.

But you don't go around hectoring passers-by on how immoral they are for not caring deeply about the Anglo disease. That's what Greenpeace and the single-issue activists are doing and then they are all outraged and indignant when the passers-by just answer "whatever".

by Francois in Paris on Sun Mar 30th, 2008 at 09:56:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But you don't go around hectoring passers-by on how immoral they are for not caring deeply about the Anglo disease. That's what Greenpeace and the single-issue activists are doing

That is really one over the top and one too many, François. Belittle protests, or oppose the notion of protesting, if you like, but this is not even accurate.

Funny that I started this by sighing over the protest I had attended.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Mar 31st, 2008 at 03:11:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This is my experience.
by Francois in Paris on Mon Mar 31st, 2008 at 01:23:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Have never once seen it. Ditsy useless songs and slogans, oh yes, but not harassing passers-by with accusations.

But you're the tough guy around here, if you're to be believed. So you should agree with activists for being unpleasant and threatening rather than ineffectual, right?

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Mar 31st, 2008 at 02:44:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Unpleasant if they want. Threatening, certainly not. It will land them in jail. Ineffectual, always.

But you're the tough guy around here, if you're to be believed.

No innuendo, afew. What do you mean?

by Francois in Paris on Mon Mar 31st, 2008 at 03:06:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A reference to a number of your comments:

When I hear the Greenpeace whining, it really makes me want to harpoon a whale and club a baby seal just for the heck of it

I'm going to be mean and vindictive again

you should have spent more time shooting down the old guard of the PS

I don't want soft-spoken goo-goos à la Jimmy Carter. I want real sons of a bitch who don't hesitate to yield power and club the other side to pulp.

I thought that, finally, you might find that activist s-o-bs who hector passers-by were your kind of folk...

:-P

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Mar 31st, 2008 at 03:47:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No, 'cause they are ineffectual. Outcomes matter :>
by Francois in Paris on Mon Mar 31st, 2008 at 04:09:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Good comment, techno.

We've talked, off and on, of forming a "ET ThinkTank" and it always seems to bog down.

In my opinion we have a wide range of expertise with a wonderful potential waiting to be harnessed.  The harness, IMNSHO, is money and, allied to that, is a 'customer.'  The latter solves the former.  If we could find a customer willing to throw ~150,000€ a year for two years we could write a serious of position papers that would destroy the intellectual foundations of the Washington Consensus.  

Hell, we've already done it, but in an inchoate manner, spread across the years of diaries and comments.  

The job would be to go through ET, construct coherent arguments, do a bit of research, toss in the proper academic dongles, and write, write, write.  At the end of two years the output should be a minimum of two books and 10 papers.  (That's off the top of my head, we might double or - if things work out right - even treble it.)

Getting the books published is a known solution.  Getting the papers published is more - heh - academic but they could always be hand-delivered to various decision-makers and the media.  Since we're not really interested in getting tenure that's good enough, IMO.

Realistically, in order to qualify for support at that level a team would have to be formed, a funder found that would agree to fund if the teams proves itself, a set of criteria from the funder needing to be met, and the team prepare a paper meeting that criteria.  

I know, cuz I done done it - along with many other people here, doing the research and writing the paper is the easy part.  Finding the funder is the problem.  

And on that I'm of no help.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Sun Mar 30th, 2008 at 07:23:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
ATinNM:
In my opinion we have a wide range of expertise with a wonderful potential waiting to be harnessed.  The harness, IMNSHO, is money and, allied to that, is a 'customer.'  The latter solves the former.  If we could find a customer willing to throw ~150,000€ a year for two years we could write a serious of position papers that would destroy the intellectual foundations of the Washington Consensus.  
The idea of a "meta-consultancy" has legs, I think. It has been floated by a number of people. What we really need, though, is someone with sales/fundraising ability to convince potential customers that our expertise is what they need.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Apr 10th, 2008 at 04:17:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, yes, yes, but with a quibble.

I actually believe the puppets makers/street marchers are noxious. They trivialize protests and when really substantive protests come along, they have no longer any effect.

Example : the anti-war protests in the US and UK in 2002 which were 1) massive and 2) had zero effects, in large parts because the idiots have poisoned that well long ago with their narcissistic street theater BS. The March on Washington of August 1963 would have no effect whatsoever if it were to happen today.

Protests should be very rare, only about really important matters, and they should be massive and brutal.

by Francois in Paris on Sun Mar 30th, 2008 at 09:05:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
make aware the public of a problem, not change how people think about it. Of course the anti-war protests were useless in changing public opinion. Everybody knew there would be a war and it didn't lack awareness.
But there are other issues, which can profit enormously just from awareness.

I guess by the way there are a lot of people, who would oppose protesters and potentially their issues, just because they are "massive and brutal", as you write they should be. If you really can change something, like stopping a war or destructing a nuclear power plant, this can still work, but such protests won't be constructive.

Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den Menschen
Volker Pispers

by Martin (weiser.mensch(at)googlemail.com) on Mon Mar 31st, 2008 at 01:27:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Partially so.

But partially it is probably also due to the very simple fact that protests today are substantially more toothless than protests forty or fifty years ago. It used to be that when someone put a hundred thousand pairs of feet on the streets in the capital, it presaged a general strike, extensive blockades, large scale organised sabotage or some other suitably nasty reprisal if their demands were not met - or at least approached.

In other words, the Left used to have the Parliament of the Street with which to oppose the Right's control of the Parliament of the Dollar. Today, the Parliament of the Street has been left to disorganised anarchist rabble with more guts than sense and little in the way of political program or parliamentary representation [2], while the Parliament of the Dollar is still fully operational - and likely more so than back in the bad old days.

It has been postulated - and I think I tend to agree - that rapid and real progress is made not by revolution, but by the credible threat of it. Looking across the history of European democracy, the greatest democratic progress has been in the late 1840s, in the interbellum years and in the immediate aftermath of WWII. In all three cases, revolution was a very real possibility [1], with potentially extremely unpleasant consequences for the elites, were it to happen.

Sadly, though, the credible threat of revolution tends to work best when said revolution is happening to someone else at the time; and revolutions have a way of eating their children...

- Jake

[1] Respectively the Franco-German liberal revolts, the aftermath of the Russian revolution and the way the European communists had been boosted in public opinion by being the only faction to put up a more than half-hearted fight with the fascists during the War.

[2] But do note that they did get a new Ungdomshus.

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Mar 31st, 2008 at 03:55:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't know how old you are, Jake, but a disorganised anarchist rabble with more guts than sense was the kind of thing that was said about the protests forty or fifty years ago that you consider were efficient.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Mar 31st, 2008 at 04:35:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
True. But methinks you overlooked the qualifier with little in the way of political program. Not being old enough to remember it personally, I have my information second-hand at the best of times, but even if half the things I hear are post-facto rationalisations, there was a lot of political program back then.

Not so much with the present-day anarchists. They make a showing at the G8 summits, but not much more than that (and that's still a Hell of a lot more than can be said for the Serious lefties). But if you read their manifests, they specifically eschew political platforms as reactionary. Libertarians on the left.

Now, that's not to say that they couldn't be effective. The right has used right-wing libertarians to move the Overton Window quite effectively. But I don't see anything in their public statements (or their operational planning) that suggests that they are working along those lines.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Mar 31st, 2008 at 05:05:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This comment would be worth a diary.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Apr 1st, 2008 at 04:46:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Since you're addressing your comment to me, techno, (at least formally), please let me point out that you are preaching to the converted. My view of what we can and should be doing at ET is exactly what you say, and it's why I'm here.

I'm finding it quite amusing, though, that my admission that I'd gone to a street protest against GMOs is gathering me quite a basket of lectures... Some of them very good ones, of course, like yours :-)

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Mar 31st, 2008 at 03:05:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I am someone who stopped going to protests in May of 1970 when I was asked to chant in front of a GE stockholder's meeting, "Save Mother Earth."  I swore at that moment that I would NEVER do something that irrelevant and goofy again.

When 'normal' people go home just because they don't like the company of the nutters the nutters remain.

If 'normal' people really cared, they'd easily crowd out the nutters and street theatrists.

In fact, things could get as bad as for you in May 1970 only because the majority of 'normal' people bowed out of activism long before you.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Mon Mar 31st, 2008 at 10:30:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'll add that I did not go to an anti-GMO demo in order to prance around dressed as the Green Giant. I went in hopes there'd be a significant number of "normal" people like me. I was disappointed.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Mar 31st, 2008 at 11:40:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You have the luxury to be disappointed :-) I can be happy when even just the nutters turn up.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon Mar 31st, 2008 at 12:40:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, that's true.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Mar 31st, 2008 at 01:01:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
afew:
When Bové and friends took apart a half-constructed MacDonald's to protest about the lousy food the agro-industry churns out, they hit a media nerve and spoke to the mass of people's desire to eat healthy food. Nowadays, if Bové as much as farts, they'll stick him in the slammer to catch up on all his suspended sentences. That doesn't seem to me to speak of inefficient communication, on the contrary.

It's very inefficient communication for two reasons.

Firstly efficient communication means getting the job done. It means doing whatever you have to do to make sure GM crops aren't allowed to thrive, and that McDonalds is driven out of town because people would rather have their head dipped in a vat of boiling oil than eat there.

Getting a possible custodical jail sentence is just media noise. It doesn't solve the problem in any way.

If Bové took 100,000 people with him, that would make an impression. But on his own he's just another story that slots in between Bruni's fashion stylings and the weather.

Also, the real message that it gets across to the population is that if we screw with The Man we will be ignored if we're irrelevant, and taken down if we're not. This is the message that people will actually remember from this - not the possibility of progress, but the futility of supporting it.

Which is why 'Hey, at least we got some air time' is not a helpful rationalisation. We really need to be thinking of strategies which go beyond that - a long way beyond it.

The only useful metric for action is real policy change. If policy change isn't happening, there's no effectiveness, no matter how much air time an issue gets.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Mar 30th, 2008 at 10:03:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Getting a possible custodical jail sentence is just media noise.

Not my point. The communication was efficient. In a very short time it got the "bad food" message out there, in France and beyond, and it was a message that resonated across a very broad sector of public opinion. (The message was not, btw, "don't eat at MacDonald's"; it was using the example of MacDonald's to point to the entire agri-food-industry and the low quality of its products).

Since it was efficient, it was replied to with repression. The prison sentences were not meant, in my comment, to be in themselves good communication via, perhaps, some kind of eagerly-sought martyrdom. I also think it's not an efficient strategy now to persist in "civil disobedience" tactics, as the crop-mowers seem to want to do. That really will bang home the nail of "resistance is futile".

It's wa-a-a-ay easy to say the only metric is success in real policy change. Long-term strategy that is sure to work in advance? Even big money and power can't be sure of that, though they're understandably fairly good at getting their way; but what can we do? I'm looking forward to your series of diaries to clue us in ;)

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Mar 31st, 2008 at 02:57:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
persist in "civil disobedience" tactics, as the crop-mowers seem to want to do

I view crop mowing as something stronger: sabotage, with economic consequences for the planters.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Mon Mar 31st, 2008 at 10:25:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
They call it "civil disobedience" and derive it from Ghandi.

The economic consequences depend. When GM maize was "experimental", (years previous to 2007 in France), the farmer got paid under contract notwithstanding crop destruction. If it's a commercial crop (as in 2007), then destruction would mean loss of income for the farmer. (There was in fact very little mowing in 2007).

I think this is one more reason against mowing, not because I'm worried about the big subsidy-fat grain farmers, but because it's all too easy a communications theme: extremists are depriving poor farmers of their hard-earned pay.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Mar 31st, 2008 at 11:19:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think you're getting closer to the truth there.

Firstly, setting the frame is a huge part of the message. When people see protests their responses are already pre-conditioned towards framing the event as the work of silly extremists etc etc la di da.

What they don't get is any sense of personal connection with protest culture. They may get a personal connection with a specific issue - like food quality - but this won't give them a reason to cross the gap and start identifying with the people who are doing the protesting.

It's that sense of personal inclusivity - which used to be called solidarity - which protest culture lacks for anyone outside of the tiny, tiny minority of people who take part.

That's why the intellectual framing and the overall strategy are so important. The intellectual strategy - the story, the narrative, whatever you want to call it - has to be made into a drama which people feel compelled to take part in. They have to own it, personally, and they have to feel that it's all about their own personal lives. They also have to feel that change is inevitable - possibly difficult, but ultimately not something that can be stopped. It has to seep into the culture from many sources at once, until it's so obvious that it fills the frame and makes other possibilities look unbelievable.

The right has owned that territory for a few decades now. E.g. people see immigration as a personal threat in a way that GM or global warming or being raped by the financial industry isn't.  

Nothing of significance will happen until the Left can start producing narratives which create those kinds of feelings.

It's not impossible. It's happened before, and it's - kind of - happening now in the US, with Obama's campaign, which is having an effect because he's pushing all of these buttons.

I don't know how progressive he really is, and there's always the centralised cult of personality issue to work around. But if you look at how he's motivated his followers with a sense of personal participation, involvement and investment - that's exactly the kind of response the Left needs to be able to create to be effective.

We desperately need some new stories for the left which can crowd out the old extremist fist waver image. It's so easy to play to that, and the left really needs to reinvent itself as something more positive - inclusive, hopeful, welcoming, effective. Most of all, a contrast to the madness and greed on the right which is so obvious that it will make the corporate option look not bad, or evil, or frightening, but simply ridiculous.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Mar 31st, 2008 at 09:34:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
obama shows a high degree of self-mastery, that's his appeal.

he is light on his feet, lofty of mind, and very serious...and when he smiles, it's a beautiful thing to see and feel. gravitas, with humour.

he paces himself, is aware of his needs and limits, takes time off, and so far is surfing a wave of need for deep change.

with an intellect like his, being president could have some really positive outcomes. he's slight, yet has great stamina and ability to refresh himself.

he's redefining politics, and still at the beginning of his arc.

best thing to happen to america in a while...

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Mon Mar 31st, 2008 at 09:55:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't disagree with any of that.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Apr 1st, 2008 at 01:34:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think there is a lot of truth to what you write, but even you come short.

New ideas and ways aren't lacking. But you write about an "old extremist fist waver image". It's an image. The activist left is not in control of their image. Right-wing propagandists can apply negative stereotypes about fringe-leftists even to people who attempt to use new tactics. Meanwhile, they mainstream quite crackpot fringe-rightwingers with not much new to say.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Apr 1st, 2008 at 05:24:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The only useful metric for action is real policy change. If policy change isn't happening, there's no effectiveness, no matter how much air time an issue gets.

That is a metric that you can use after an event. As such it is worthless when judging if something will be effective. For example, by this metric in 1943 Gandhi's methods would be considered ineffective.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Mon Mar 31st, 2008 at 04:13:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Gandhi was successful because the Brits were bled to death after WWII and materially incapable of holding on India (and may be not that interested in holding it?). To a point, the same type of victory as the US "winning" against the Evul Soviet Empire(TM) in 1989.
by Francois in Paris on Mon Mar 31st, 2008 at 04:33:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
They were materially incapable of holding on in face of tactics like the salt march. It was a question of time. (Then again, in West only the 'nonviolence' and 'break the law with a level head' elements of Ghandi's political strategy are widely known, his point about exploiting the relative size of the occupying bureaucracy/military and the natives less so.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Apr 1st, 2008 at 04:55:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No - all I'm suggesting is that we apply some basic reality testing to protest culture.

The goal is to stop GM crops. Everyone agrees on that.

Have the protests had any influence at all on the introduction of crops? Is there any evidence that they might?

I don't think there is. We've had some threats to send someone to prison, but given the goal, where's the hard evidence that GM crops are less likely to be introduced?

Did Genoa do anything to stop globalisation? Did Aldermaston stop the UK's nuclear weapons program? Did the Iraq march stop the Iraq war?

This will probably annoy some people, but it's hard to see that CND had any effect at all on the nuclear industry. The V bombers were built, Polaris was built, Trident was built, Greenham Common was abandoned because of Gorbachev, not because of the protests.

I think there's a disinclination on the left to believing that making a noise and getting yourself heard isn't enough. The idea seems to be that if you yell loudly enough and if you're right enough, someone in authority will notice and you'll get what you want.

Unfortunately - not. No one cares about yelling until you get to the general strike level of escalation. That's not where the pressure points are.

So we can continue doing what we've always done, and getting what we've always got, or we can try something different.

Which is what Gandhi did. He reinvented the independence movement - he didn't keep doing what it had always done, hoping that this time it might actually have an effect.

His methods may not be the right methods for where we are. All I'm saying is that it's well overdue for people on the left to start saying 'Screw this - how about we break with tradition and try to think of something that might actually work, instead of hoping it might and getting pissed off when it doesn't.'

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Mar 31st, 2008 at 10:27:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Again, I agree - with almost everything. But, as I've already argued, to the question:

Have the protests had any influence at all on the introduction of crops?

I'd say yes, their influence in France, that tends (-ed?) to be the agricultural policy-setter for the EU, has delayed their introduction. For some years the EU's soft power, as it refused to import or grow GM crops, even made Monsanto consider the possibility of giving up its GM agri-programme. It's the Barroso Commission that has gradually turned the EU's position round. And the protest methods that worked ten years ago no longer apply. So there's certainly a need for something different.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Apr 1st, 2008 at 01:48:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Mowing in Germany stopped a number of research projects (by which I mean, end of the project after repeated re-planting and destruction of fields), and limited the spread (even if not turning it back). Though mowing was not that frequent back then, during the previous Schröder government, GM was legally stopped by the Green ministers, with current agriculture minister Seehofer opening up the way again only in 2007.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Apr 1st, 2008 at 05:00:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series