jump to navigation

Meditations on class… sort of. The Irish Times asks ‘what life will be like in 2050 for a middle-class Irish family’? August 7, 2008

Posted by WorldbyStorm in Class, Media and Journalism, Social Policy, Society.
trackback

I hadn’t really intended to reference an article last week in the Irish Times. Written by Angela Long (a journalist and “media consultant”) it starts innocuously enough by arguing that: “being forced to cut back on spending is no bad thing” and that ‘Consumerism has become a cult of things people don’t need – to an absurd degree’. I think it’s fair to say many of us would agree.

Yet it somehow manages to turn a not entirely unreasonable point into something approaching an offensive one

I can’t agree more with the proposition at the end of the following paragraph:

Dundrum Town Centre is a wonderful place, a mecca for millions. Fifty million, at the latest count. And no doubt it boasts a community theatre, cinemas, adult education centre, restaurants, public square, offices and apartments, among other features. It also has about 14 places to buy accessories, 20 to buy shoes, and more than 30 for ladies’ fashions, with just a few less for the increasingly looks-conscious Irish male.

But if you want basic stuff – widgets, grommets, doorknobs – you can forget it.

And she continues in a similar vein. And yet as she does so something slightly different creeps in.

Quoting one “storage expert”, it noted that nobody designing bedroom storage a decade ago realised that people would own 30 white shirts and 30 pairs of black trousers. And that’s on top of their dozen grey trousers, six red shirts, and shoe collections to rival Filipina fetishist Imelda Marcos.

Shopping addiction has become an everyday feature rather than a problem. Surveys in countries like ours show shopping is the number-one leisure activity for droves of people. Go into store, look at things, hand over money for things, walk out with bags. Some leisure activity. But it’s all in pursuit of happiness, that sense of completeness that flashes by when the latest bags are handed over.

Who, precisely, is it that has 30 white shirts and 30 pairs of trousers? Or shoe ‘collections’? Or rather, who is this article directed at? And what of her parting words

Take comfort: that hair shirt might itch, but it will be easier to store than 25 silk ones you didn’t need.

I don’t have 25 silk shirts. Actually I have no silk shirts. I don’t have that many shirts full stop. And those I have are a bit utilitarian in terms of colour. Which makes her words irrelevant to me. But clearly there is an audience she feels it necessary to address, one which has dissipated its rapidly accrued wealth in frivolous purchases.

Now, to a certain extent, who cares? If she feels it necessary to berate people about such things well and good. But, it is the implicit assumption that every boat has risen in this tide which is so irritating. Which isn’t to say that crass expenditure hasn’t been seen across all social groups, and in various different forms, but that it’s not quite as simple as she makes out in her faux-puritan call for ‘hair’ shirts. For example, consumption isn’t merely a factor of pull – from the consumer. As a ‘media consultant’ she might – you think – be aware of the ‘push’ from industries eager to sell product. And industries that tend in many sectors to be near-indifferent to the ability of those who they project their wares to to pay. So we see orgies of consumerism at Christmas, fuelled largely by said media and industries. Most reprehensible are those who sell toys, but they’re not alone.

And thinking about puritanism, faux or otherwise, I can’t help feeling a little irked by the further assumption that our ‘toys’ should be taken away from us now. That in some sense we’ve had all we deserve. Plenty haven’t had anywhere near that, and have seen the boom fade as fast as it arrived while barely touching them.

Anyhow, despite all this, I wasn’t going to mention it until reading yesterday’s Irish Times I came across a piece in the opinion section by Dr Stephen Kinsella of the department of economics in the Kemmy business school, University of Limerick. Entitled What life will be like in 2050 for a middle-class Irish family it seems to dovetail neatly with the above.

It starts, after noting his own circumstances ‘I have a middle class job and a middle class lifestyle’ (although curiously the aspects which position this within this putative ‘middle class lifestyle’ are not precisely spelt out – and by the by, most academics who I know while very much regarding themselves as middle class are in reality stuck within contractual situations not much dissimilar to a less exalted social hinterland), by asking:

…what will life be like for an educated, middle-class family in the mid-21st century in Ireland? What trends can be reasonably relied upon to hold their magnitudes and directions this far forward into the future?

It’s the assumptions which underpin this question which are both fascinating and revealing. Note the term ‘educated’. But then the analysis swerves away into generalisations which are far from class-specific.

For example…

…they won’t have an oil problem the way we have one. By 2040, there is general agreement we won’t have enough oil to power the world’s needs. Something else will have taken its place, most likely a combination of nuclear power and cleaner, greener energy sources.

In fact, I would place a bet that the world economy will still be largely in a transition from oil-dependent energy generation technologies by the time of my first grandchild’s birth.

Nothing terribly startling there… or indeed here:

My grandchildren will have access to more information than all previous generations of mankind combined. In previous generations, mere volume of information was a strong predictor of success in warfare, industry or any other sphere of life. Now the quantity of information will not be a problem.

Or the following.

Irish society will, I suspect, be largely the same as our generation: the traditions and customs which matter will persevere. I am writing about just two generations forward, remember. What is certain is that my grandchildren will not be as influenced by religious culture as I was through my childhood, as the influence of the Catholic Church wanes further.

Note though how suddenly the middle classes have been replaced by ‘Irish society’.

Concomitant with this secular trend, the rise of a more isolated, fractured society will result in more failed marriages and divorce, and less formal living arrangements for the raising of children.

So, really an extension of the present and its trends into the future. It’s sort of like the predictions Wired magazine serve up, but without the glossy accompanying images.

The manufacturing sector will see a sharp decline over the next 20 years, as more and more basic assembly-type jobs succumb to the forces of globalisation and move to lower-waged countries. Wealth generation therefore, year to year, must come from services.

He does acknowledge that…

This is a very hard area in which to predict growth or decay. There is very little good data on service level productivity in Ireland, so we’re not quite sure how good we are relative to our neighbours and competitors internationally.

Or perhaps we don’t have a bogs notion as to what specifics might influence the overall picture… I’m far from confident that we are in a position to make any hard and fast assumptions about the 2050s, because looking back 40 odd years to the 1960s it is easy to see how much has changed since then. Indeed I’m reminded of Andre Gorz’s “Farewell to the Working Class” written in the late 1970s/early 1980s which had a brief concluding chapter on what a ‘socialist’ society might look forward to. I recall being mighty impressed when I read it way back when by the idea of bus and cycle lanes. Small, surely, but indicative of how societies leap-frog forward in unexpected ways. And talking of change let’s not ignore the remarkable social changes that have affected classes in that time period. So if anything these stabs at divining the future seem somewhat conservative.

Still, it’s not all about the middle class or Irish ‘society”. No indeed, it’s a bit more personal than that:

What policies can the Government enact to make sure the economic possibilities my grandchildren face are as favourable as possible?

No mention here about a broader social or societal solidarity. The only class linkage is explicit, if infuriatingly ill-defined. And it is taken as read that this is – per se – a ‘good’ thing.

Well, first, they need to help me save. The more the middle class saves, long term, the more their children and their children’s children will benefit. Second, they need to make sure my children survive, by providing a health service which will make the chances of this more likely. Third, the Government must ensure the natural environment my grandchildren inhabit is as conducive to their happiness as possible, while allowing service sectoral growth and general economic development to maximise the economic possibilities for my grandchildren.

Note the way in which the state is called upon to buttress the middle class, through a ‘health service’ that will ‘make sure his children survive’. But health outcomes are explicitly rooted in class, and generally speaking the middle classes see usually positive outcomes whereas the working class (and again I’m using these terms broadly myself and for a more precise read of how I regard these terms I’d direct you to Conor’s thoughts in this piece (and preceding ones) at Dublin Opinion.) see much less positive outcomes. Something that isn’t addressed at all in the piece.

And this is a bloodless vision, for example, how precisely is government to ‘allow’ service sectoral growth and general economic development to ‘maximise’ economic possibilities? I can think of a few answers, but I wonder if he’s thinking of the same ones?

Now, one might wonder what Jim Kemmy, were he alive today (incidentally a man whose views on the North I might not share, but clearly a socialist of some substance) might make of such writings.

Perhaps he might suggest that this is the conceptual eschaton (or words to that effect 😉 ) of a politics entirely divorced from class, despite its seeming linkage to a class. What does the writer mean when he uses the term ‘middle-class’? What definition does he use, and how does he see that carrying over into lifestyle? He provides no answers to those questions. I note that much appears predicated on consumption rather than production – so in a sense we see a connection to the article referenced at the top of this post. There is no effort to describe what pressures may exist within a potentially resource starved society with sharp disparities of wealth and influence. Health is mentioned in passing, but nothing about education that other great pillar of privilege or opportunity. Nor are broader social support structures addressed. There is nothing at all to contextualise this in international terms. What we are left with instead are, frankly rather optimistic, generalities which will apply to all within the society in varying measures – although those measures and their variability are crucial to what life will be like to Irish people born on this island (and note no reference to this being an island with all that that implies either).

But with no sense of what class means today it is near impossible to project what class will mean in four decades or so. I think – from my careful and forensic reading of the IT on a regular basis(!) – that I know what he means when he uses the term, but whether it is even appropriate in this context is a central point (incidentally, this isn’t meant from a class warrior point of view – one of the great mistakes of the left has been to ignore the congruence of interests across classes, and one of the other great mistakes has been to attempt to use that congruence in the way Blair et al did in the UK). Education, or the reification of education, is not the preserve of the self-appointed ‘middle class’. Health isn’t just their concern alone. The broader state of the economy concerns almost all.

So let’s start again. “What life is like for middle class and working class Irish families in 2008” might well be a good base. And then we can – maybe – make some small assessment as to the future.

Some weeks ago these posts I write were critiqued, with some validity I have to add, as regards attacking the absurdities of the “liberal” stance of the Irish Times (or words to that effect). But, really. It’s moving into something that whatever way one cuts it seems to have a near-hermetically sealed worldview not merely ignorant of but actually indifferent to the broader society within which it sits.

I guess it’s a niche.


Comments»

1. crocodile - August 7, 2008

Ah, WBS, you are so innocent – and I’m assuming you’re a bloke here. I don’t have 30 shirts either – but then I’m a bloke.
A woman colleague read Angela Long’s article and commented that the entire Dundrum Centre caters for the disposable income of women. So, increasingly, does the Irish Times – especially the Saturday magazine and the features pages: look at their advertisers. If you know a teenage girl, the assumption that shopping is a hobby or interest is no joke, it’s a reality.

Like

2. Ian - August 7, 2008

I just don’t get shopping. I prefer to do nearly anything else with my time. Is that what really separates lefties from the rest?? 🙂

Like

3. Claire - August 7, 2008

Ah, WbS, of course you don’t own 30 shirts, you’re a man and far too sensible for such materialistic frippery! 🙂 It’s us silly women who have the cheek to go out and fritter away our disposable income on shoes and ‘accessories’ and cinema tickets to ‘Mamma Mia’ (did you catch the scolding column in last week’s ‘Ticket’ in the IT?) when we should be spending it on…. er….

Haha, well the recession’s coming and we’ll have to pay for it then. No more spare cash to spend on ourselves, we greedy cows will have to start sewing our own clothes!

(As you said in the article – excessive consumerism is indeed something worthy of critique. But it’s very troubling the way it so frequently focuses on WOMEN’S spending. Where are the articles about plasma TVs?)

(Crocodile – what, exactly, is wrong with teenage girls being interested in shopping? They have part-time jobs, why shouldn’t they spend money on nice clothes? How is that a bad thing? I know defending the D4 girl stereotype is a bit of a strange tack for a feminist and lefty like myself, but – I know a lot of these girls, my little sister is one, my best friend is one. Why should they be bashed for spending Saturday afternoon strolling down Grafton St buying something nice to wear out that night? I can assure you they have other interests and hobbies as well.)

Like

4. Garibaldy - August 7, 2008

Women darning clothes? Getting a rich boyfriend seems more likely 🙂

Like

5. Claire - August 7, 2008

Hahaha, yes, it depends what school of anti-feminist thought you subscribe to. Either we’ll go back to being good, useful, practical women, with a proper focus on the domestic, or we’ll cave in to our innate and unavoidable greed and superficiality, and con some man into maintaining us. Both sound like good craic to me!

The central message is the same of course – an end to this worrying ‘independence’ malarkey. We’ll stop that terrifying ‘walking down the street giggling in little groups’. (Obviously, we’re laughing at men. Or clothes. Something silly, anyway. It should be stopped.)

Like

6. Garibaldy - August 7, 2008

At least when there talking to each other, we don’t have to listen to their inane shoe-related drivel. 😉

Like

7. crocodile - August 7, 2008

‘The central message is the same of course – an end to this worrying ‘independence’ malarkey.’
No, Claire, not really. Haven’t I seen your name over a lot of those accessories shops? Declare an interest.

Like

8. Mark P - August 7, 2008

To be fair, Claire, that article in the Ticket seemed to me to be rather more concerned with mocking Hollywood’s studios’ greedy stupidity than with scolding women for liking crap. I mean, it certainly took for granted that Sex and the City and Mamma Mia are patronising and awful, but neither that assumption nor the assertion that they have been highly successfully marketed to women is in and of itself sexist. The former part is a statement of taste (one that I personally agree with) and the latter part is self evidently true.

I may be biased on this because Donald Clarke is one of the only Irish Times writers I can read for long without feeling the overwhelming urge to gouge out my own eyes. He is also pretty withering about crass, formulaic, patronising or reactionary films targeted at men (and even ones targeted at children).

Like

9. Dunne and Crescendo - August 7, 2008

As an ex-Mod I can tell you that I had at least 15 Ben Sherman and Fred Perry shirts when I was 18 years of age. Theres plenty of 30 something men I know who think nothing of splashing out 100 plus for Lacoste or Paul and Shark shirts (in House of Fraser in Dundrum, natch). Theres a working class tradition of dressing up you know. Jesus sometimes you get the impression that left wouldn’t be happy unless everyone was wearing boiler suits with the arses falling out of them.
The Irish Times ethos is a whole other problem and the Saturday magazine should just be marketed as a guide to south Dublin’s eating habits.
As for the Limerick University Jim Kemmy school of business; its the brainchild of free-market fuck Ed Walsh and a greater insult to the memory of a stonemason from Garryowen who discovered socialism by reading ‘Labour in Irish History’ while working on building sites in London I can’t imagine.

Like

10. WorldbyStorm - August 7, 2008

D&C (and Claire), that was precisely why I included my hesitations about there being a faux-puritanism. And you’re right, there is a strain on the left which is hostile to such things (and while I was never a mod, trust me, taking John Cooper Clarke as your sartorial role model in the 1980s, drain pipe trousers/crimped hair and all, and a fair array of paisley shirts at the time I know what you’re talking about).

That’s what makes it so difficult to critique the IT on one level. Because I don’t think that self-expression is problematic per se… but in it’s extreme forms it can be… I guess it’s about balance.

The same with shopping. I’ll spend hours in bookshops, or CD shops. Good, bad? Waste of time? Waste of money? Again, it depends on balance – although I think Claire makes a good point when she asks what exactly should money be spent on.

Perhaps its something about pre-packaged stuff that’s troubling. But even there when you see how punk and mod subverted mainstream clothing styles and reworked them…

I’ve always thought the LImerick thing was exactly as you describe it.

Like

11. sonofstan - August 7, 2008

D&C is spot on: weirdly – or maybe not – House of Fraser is the only Dublin stockist for Stone Island, the discerning football hooligan’s label of choice. Guys who aren’t poor, but hardly fit the IT idea of ‘middle- class’.

As for the Limerick University Jim Kemmy school of business; its the brainchild of free-market fuck Ed Walsh and a greater insult to the memory of a stonemason from Garryowen who discovered socialism by reading ‘Labour in Irish History’ while working on building sites in London I can’t imagine.

it beggars belief – what next? a Noel Browne Memorial Private Hospital?

Like

12. WorldbyStorm - August 7, 2008

It’s sort of a slap in the face, isn’t it?

Street culture is sort of interesting, at least up to the point everyone starts getting ‘into’ Banksy…

Like

13. Claire - August 7, 2008

You leave my accessories out of this, Crocodile! I bring joy to millions of women!

Mark, like yourself I generally agree with Donald Clarke and find him one of the most readable fellas in the IT, but I stand by the ‘scolding’ assessment of last week’s column.

Anyone interested can read it here: http://www.irishtimes.com/theticket/articles/2008/0801/1217368699601.html

His fundamental point – that movies that bring women in droves are very successful, and that studios will try (and fail) to recreate the box office magic – is absolutely correct. But, sadly and confusingly, he dresses this point up in a fair amount of sexism. “Hen night movies” (show me ONE review that paints ‘Wanted’ or ‘Hancock’ as a “stag night movie”) and “the pink cowboy hat brigade”??

Not to mention the point he makes in the first paragraph – that the wonderful Wall-E has been outsold at the box office by the (apparently) formulaic and already outdated second-week Mamma Mia. The point is baffling, not least because Wall-E, though great, is a children’s film. Are twentysomething women really expected to choose it over a film marketed squarely at their demographic? Wall-E is a brilliant film. Mamma Mia is, I hear, pretty fun but forgettable. But if you’re not eight, what are you supposed to go see? Why are women blamed for the box office failure of a children’s film?

Full disclosure – in addition to my accessories empire, I have been to see both ‘The Dark Knight’ and ‘Wall-E’, but neither ‘Sex and the City’ nor ‘Mamma Mia’ – though I have no objections to either, and would go if I had the chance. I also firmly disagree with the way he implies feminists all hate SATC. Lots love it, or at least appreciate the way it allows women to be stars and to be funny. I’m not a big fan but I hate to see it vilified and mocked when more insipid comedy starring men is celebrated.

Like

14. WorldbyStorm - August 7, 2008

Yeah, I think you’re right Claire. Particularly re Wall-E and Mamma Mia. It does seem counterintuitive to blame the latter for the formers (relative) lack of success – not least because of what you say but also because difficult and/or excellent movies tend to always come in behind more commercial fare in terms of box office receipts. And always will, even in the socialist nirvana. I wouldn’t go see Mamma Mia in a month of Sundays, for various reasons, not least I’m no fan of ABBA or Meryl Streep. I’d probably watch SATC on DVD at some future point. But I wouldn’t want to be precious about it or sneering either.

One might add that both Mamma Mia and SATC might also attract a considerable chunk of the gay demographic for precisely the same reasons that any other viewers who like that sort of movie would go, people looking for escapist, over the top stuff (so different – of course- from the motivations of those going to Batman, or indeed any of the more chin-stroking superhero movies of this summer like Iron Man 😉 ). But curiously Clarke doesn’t make that point, not least because to do so might show up his argument as being a bit weak really.

And I dislike the implication of his term the ‘hen movie’.

Like

15. Dec - August 7, 2008

The shoe issue, as I discovered, is a marriage thing. Before I got married I had one pair of footwear which I changed when I didn’t like them.

5 years in I have twelve pairs; shoes, boots, runners, garden shoes, hiking boots.

Its a marriage thing for sure.

I also own a phenomenal amount of socks and plain coloured t-shirts now.

Like

16. Garibaldy - August 8, 2008

I have been to see both Sex and the City and the Dark Knight. But I own only three pairs of shoes (and two of them are the same).

Like

17. WorldbyStorm - August 8, 2008

Interesting Dec. I stick with docs. Three pairs, one for cycling one for wearing. It’s cheaper that way, and my feet have grown into them/been deformed by them… Curious thing is that back in the day I hated docs…

Garibaldy. Your taste in cinema is wide and varied 🙂

Like

18. ejh - August 8, 2008

show me ONE review that paints ‘Wanted’ or ‘Hancock’ as a “stag night movie”

Has anybody actually been to see either of those moving pictures on a stag night?

Like

19. crocodile - August 8, 2008

The SATC film caused great argument with the feminist in my life, the upshot being that I was told that, yes, it was rubbish but I had no right to say so. Well, I’ll do as much as the next man for a quiet life, but won’t take leave of my critical faculties – and wouldn’t expect Donald Clarke to do so, either.
When’s the last time you’ve seen a group of men at a film or a play? I suppose sporting events fulfil that function, with a day on Hill 16 as our equivalent of ‘Menopause: The Musical’.

Like

20. ejh - August 8, 2008

You don’t go for a night in the woods then?

Like

21. Mark P - August 8, 2008

Claire said:““Hen night movies” (show me ONE review that paints ‘Wanted’ or ‘Hancock’ as a “stag night movie” 😉 and “the pink cowboy hat brigade”??”

Well, I’m not very fond of the term “hen night movies” myself, because it does contain a certain amount of unnecessary condescension. However, the phrase is clearly meant to differentiate between films that traditionally were marketed as being for women and the recent batch of films that are marketed not simply as being for women but as being for women to go to as some kind of collective event with a large group of their friends, an experience possibly also involving dressing up and drinking cocktails. Clarke specifically wasn’t talking about the rom-com of the week or whatever the latest film in the Fried Green Tomatoes / Steel Magnolias tradition is.

Wanted and Hancock are clearly marketed as films primarily aimed at men (and teenage boys), but they are the marketing equivalent of a traditional rom-com. They are not sold as some kind of collective experience for groups of men. As ejh notes, no stag party will ever have gone to one of those films. (As an aside, I think that the term “stag party film” would probably carry with it some pretty unsavoury associations!).

On the issue of feminists and SATC, I’ve certainly encountered feminists who personally like the film, feminists who loathe the film and feminists who enjoyed the film but still felt that it was ultimately patronising crap. People’s enjoyment or otherwise of some piece of entertainment rarely maps precisely with their political views. However, in so far as I’ve seen any serious feminist analysis or reviews of the film these have been overwhelmingly negative. In fact I’d go so far as to say that it would be extremely difficult to come up with a feminist critique of the SATC movie that had much positive to say about it, beyond the fact that it had a mostly female cast and that it allowed those women to actually be funny and witty, rather than simply laugh at men’s jokes. I suppose you could make an argument that the fact that the male characters are cardboard cut outs who exist only in relation to the female ones (Big for instance appears to have no friends or family, even at his wedding) is a daring subversion of the standard Hollywood treatment of the female love-interest, but that would be stretching it a little.

This was a film directed by a man, mostly written by men, mostly produced by men and mostly marketed by men, just as most films are. The fact that it was successfully marketed at women, or that plenty of women like it (two heavily overlapping statements) does not give it any particular pro-woman credentials. To be fair though, it’s still nothing like as misogynist as the terrifyingly woman-hating “Wanted”, which was one of the most ragingly, blatantly, sexist films I’ve ever had the misfortune to see. By comparison Sex and The City is practically an Andrea Dworkin essay.

Like

22. Garibaldy - August 8, 2008

Stopped wearing docs years ago when the soles began to fall apart after 3 months. Cats are where it’s at. As for feminism and Sex and the City. It’s simply one more way of making money. I think the forthright sexuality of it has probably been an (important?) part of a change in atmosphere surrounding sex that has been good for women. One example might be vibrators – 10 years ago, I hardly knew any women with one. Now I hardly know aby without. That seems to me to be liberation. Then again, maybe women are just victims of consumerism on that front too.

Like

23. WorldbyStorm - August 8, 2008

Fall apart in 3 months… where did you buy them?

Like

24. Garibaldy - August 9, 2008

Several places, north and south. Happened repeatedly.

Like

25. WorldbyStorm - August 10, 2008

Perhaps I should have been more precise 🙂 What do you do to them? I find that they tend to split along the crease just behind the toes on the inside part… but it takes a while…

Like

26. Garibaldy - August 10, 2008

The sole splits just underneath the balls of the feet. Which might be what you are saying. I must lumber more than you.

Like

27. WorldbyStorm - August 10, 2008

Indeed you must… Actually that makes sense cos I cycle mostly and walk much less…

Like

28. Ian - September 7, 2008
29. WorldbyStorm - September 7, 2008

It’s sort of weak, isn’t it?

Like

30. Dunne and Crescendo - September 7, 2008

‘Obviously we are not dealing with a boiler suit wearing leftie.’

Absolute shite. Jim was as traditionally working class as they came and was in fact quite the Marxist in his day. I disagreed with his intellectual affiliation with BICO, but he was never less than honest in his beliefs. Of course Mr. Kinsella probably can’t fathom a man who was a stonemason, a union activist AND believed in women’s rights AND read books! Amazing.
What a prick.

Like

31. WorldbyStorm - September 7, 2008

Absolutely spot on.

But even on its own terms and in its own perspective I’ll bet you or I could make a better case for it. Either way it’s a nonsense. Not because socialists aren’t interested in economy, but because the sort of business approaches typified by the school aren’t some wooly version of Kinsella’s ‘progress’ but are broadly speaking antithetical to the humane and democratic systems and structures Kemmy sought. Starting with their undemocratic representation. The irrationality of market/business structures, etc, etc. There is a strong case for a better sort of business that would function within a strong social democratic or a socialist context, something that would encourage innovation etc, but it isn’t in that. And either way the naming smacked of a deliberate and mocking approach.

Like

32. Stephen Kinsella - November 9, 2008

Hi, Just came across your blog tonight. I wrote the 2050 piece for the Irish Times, and I’m going to expand it somewhat along the lines you suggest. Best, Stephen

Like

33. WorldbyStorm - November 9, 2008

Look forward to reading it Stephen.

Like


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: