New Zealand: An Unbelievable Real Café Story! (I)

by Laura Lai/ Comment

I have read an article on Internet from ‘The Guardian’ on the fact that New Zealand’s Prime-Minister (Jacinda Ardern) was turned away from a café in New Zealand’s capital (Wellington) on coronovirus capacity. I almost got shocked (in a positive sense), when reading this article, but not because Ardern was turned away from a café on a capacity her Cabinet decided, but because I agree with all the characters in this café story including the person who wrote the article (Mattha Busby). I basically cannot disagree with any of them, although I am writing a comment.

Being used with media reports on national MPs enjoying all sorts of privileges, when the country is one of the poorest in Europe; being used with supra-national MEPs and civil servants having all kinds of substantial allowances for whatever purposes that definitely have cheaper solutions, I always looked with admiration to the Scandinavian countries and the way they cherish the public money.

The Scandinavian citizens have lots of other interesting things to do than to ‘supervise’ what those elected by them or what their civil servants working for them do with the public money, but somehow the Scandinavian politicians and civil servants have the conscience of a best use of the public money for the common good. Ministers from Scandinavia fly economy class – how’s that?! They don’t have any pride to allow themselves the arrogance to travel business class when a public servant?! Apparently, no. Furthermore, a few months ago the Queen and the King of Sweden themselves made an official visit to India and they travelled with other people rather than on some sort of ‘privileged bubble’, and guess what? They had a lovely flight.

I got used with the idea that this is typical for Scandinavia, and that there is little interest in adopting this attitude, but I am glad that the others’ way of ‘cherishing’ the public money does not influence the Scandinavian mentality either. These are two mentalities expressed in two types of behaviors running in parallel and gathering each its own admirers and followers.

            I am on the Scandinavian side, because that is the way things make sense to me and because that is the way I would do things, too. A civil servant is at the service of the citizens to take the right decisions for the common good (such as creating jobs, for example). I understand the pride of some politicians, though: the one who got elected has the most of the citizens who put the trust in them, which probably give a sense of pride, but it does not justify different arrogances, like travelling business class when on public duty and when there are plenty of public needs to find a solution to. That is why I think the Scandinavians got it right. For the way the others have got it, I am sure that there is a logical explanation, but one to which I do not subscribe, such as the view of J.-J. Rousseau.

            This French philosopher argued on the ‘Discourse on the Origin of the Inequality among People’ that there are two types of inequalities. On the one side, the ‘natural or physical’ inequality, meaning that there are some natural elements that makes us unequal, such as age, health, physical condition and a good/bad heart (with the sense of being good/bad people). On the other hand, there are the ‘moral or political’ inequalities based on an unwritten convention, by which he meant that we all consent that some of us to be more privileged than us in terms of power, wealth and honor.

            I agree with the former and I disagree with the latter. I find it hard to believe that voters consent that the elected ones or the civil servants – at the citizens’ service – to enjoy public money to make wealth, to enjoy greater honor, but the one of winning over the political adversaries with better ideas at the open ballot box contest. In terms of power, indeed, the citizens invest in some citizens the trust to take decisions for the common good in a system of balance and powers that does not make anybody omnipotent.

The café story that happened in Wellington unfolds as follows: On Saturday, May 16^th 2020, Jacinda Ardern and her partner (Clarke Grayford) went to a café for a brunch. When they got there the café was already full because of the social distancing rules and they had to leave. Fifteen minutes later, when a free table was available, the same manager run after them down the street, and guess what? They returned! The Prime-Minister herself and her partner returned! No offence, no arrogance, no nothing! Most probably, just hungry. (to be continued below)

New Zealand: An Unbelievable Real Café Story! (II)

Since May 11^th, New Zealand passed from Level 3 to Level 2 alert and life starts to re-gain its old rhythm. The fact that this country has only 1,503 COVID-19 cases and 21 dead was a collective effort during the lockdown since March 23^rd (when there were approx. 100 cases). Statistics reports that the citizens of New Zealand followed the advice of the authorities and stayed home: the number of visitors to parks and beaches dropped by 75 percent, the number of those using the buses and trains dropped by 82 percent and the visits to shops dropped by 88 percent. Furthermore, Jacinda Ardern and her Cabinet decided on a concrete form of their solidarity with the people living in New Zealand: a 20 percent pay cut for the following six months. It is a concrete top-down and bottom-up collective effort for the best preservation of the individuals and of the society as a whole. As a politician, Jacinda Ardern reached record-high approvals from her fellow citizens and voters for the way her Labour Government handled this coronavirus crisis, meaning she has the trust and the honor of the citizens to hold the power to take decisions for their common good.

I will explore hereafter the reasons why I got nearly shocked (in a positive sense) when reading this article: I generally hardly agree with poorly argumentative comments, or with those comments whose arguments are illogical to me, or those with arguments that bypass morality and decency, and I am myself – like everyone else – strongly oppinated. However, I never push further, on the contrary I step back, when I sense a clash of mentalities, because neither them nor me are going to get anywhere arguing. And all of a sudden, I read an article in ‘The Guardian’ about the New Zealand’s Prime-Minister and I agree with all of the characters in this ‘Café Story’!

            First, I agree with the author of this article, who writes that ‘while leaders of other countries may send staff ahead to make arrangements…’ – absolutely correct – Jacinda Ardern is the exception. And I agree twice with the author when it writes that ‘rarer still for them [head of states] to be turned away’ – absolutely correct. Anybody else somewhere else on this planet would have probably freaked out and who knows? Maybe it would have invited a regular citizen to leave and make room to the politician, elected and paid by the citizens. That would be a non-sense.

            Therefore, second, I agree with the manager. They were all booked. He definitely had available tables, probably in a storage room, but bringing any would mean to break the law – that is applicable equally to everybody. He decided to respect the law on social distancing and to look at Jacinda Ardern as to a regular citizen.

            I agree with Jacinda Ardern, too! Why do I agree? I agree with her answer: ‘I’ll wait, just like everyone else!’ What??? ‘Just like everyone else!’ How’s that?! Does she have any pride to allow herself the arrogance to be treated in a ‘privileged’ way? Apparently, no. And who knows? Maybe she would feel offended if treated privileged. This mentality translated in such a behavior reminded me of the Queen and the King of Sweden who traveled this year as far as to India.

            Forth, the manager is also an interesting character in this café story! Besides the fact that he respected the law without any exceptions or giving any privileges, once a table was free, he did not wait for customers to knock at his café’s door – which were closed in the previous two months because of the lockdown – but he himself ran after customers and he catched Jacinda and Clarke down the street to tell them that a table was available. How’s that?! Does he have any pride to allow himself the arrogance and the manager’s privilege to send somebody else to run after Jacinda and Clarke? Apparently, no.

            Fifth, I agree and I disagree with Clarke Grayford. I disagree when he took the whole blame on him for not having made reservations, because this almost-unreal story happened on a Saturday morning after a two-month lockdown and it could have been a spontaneous decision, but I agree that it’s polite of him to have said that. Where I fully agree with Clarke Grayford is precisely when referring to the moment when they were chased down the street by the manager to be told that a table was free. He summarized the best way possible tweeting ‘A+ service’.

To sum up, I chose to comment on this article because it is particular as writing style to write a blog article commenting on something one agrees with rather than on something one disagrees, looks for arguments and organizes them on paper. Furthermore it was also lovely to comment agreeing rather than disagreeing, and also more comfortable – in general, things are more comfortable, to me at least, when ‘two minds think alike’.

I loved to discover that New Zealand has the same attitude like the Scandinavian one that I have been long admiring. I love to be optimistic and to hope that there are plenty of other similar examples in the world. Anyway, this New Zeeland café story with the Prime Minister, her partner, and the café manager was an ‘A+ story’ with ‘A+ characters’, of an ‘A+ mentality’. Chapeau! Hat up! (the end)

Reflection on the Protests against Pandemic Lockdown

by Laura Lai/ Essay

At the end of February and beginning of March 2020 almost all governments decided on a lockdown because of the COVID-19 pandemic with the precise purpose of slowing down the spread of the virus. Basically, from one day to another, shops got closed, businesses went bankrupt, people got jobless and almost all of us forced by this new and sudden circumstance to adapt to a new indoor reality. Mid May 2020 is the period of global lockdown ease with lots of people around the globe protesting against governments for having been taken away the liberties for which people have been fighting for centuries. Theoretically can democratic governments do that?

This short analysis does not challenge the existence of the virus, but it starts from the assumption that it exists; and this analysis applies to the liberal democracies, whose democratically legitimized governments are – more or less directly – ‘accused’ of ‘tyranny’ for having temporarily put on hold citizens’ liberties.

Political theory, particularly Thomas Hobbes and John Locke in his ‘Second Treaty on Government’ make a distinction between a ‘state of nature’ governed by reason as given by God and the ‘state of law’ governed by authorities according to laws.

            There is no question that all individuals are born free and with the ‘inalienable right’ to enjoy all rights they have in the state of nature, meaning: to enjoy their own life, liberty, property, as well as the right to oppose those who want to hurt them or deprive them of their right to enjoy life, liberty, property, etc. Therefore, in a state of nature, the individual can take the law in its own hands and be himself a judge. That is the reason why it is considered that the individuals in a state of nature are equal – because they can judge and punish by themselves.

            But even in a state of nature nobody is allowed to harm anybody, because each individual is a creation of God that gives life, that allows each individual to live as long as He wants and for a purpose He has. And if the state of nature is governed by reason given by God, it makes sense that, even in the state of nature where there is no other authority but God, nobody is entitled to hurt the life, health, property of somebody else, because he who does that goes against the Will of God. Even in the state of nature, reason tells that each individual should preserve itself and should preserve humanity in general.

            However, every time when there is a smaller or larger group of people there are usually interests. Then, the divine reason is darkened by passion, selfishness, revenge, interests, ambition, etc. The biblical story of Cain and Abel is an unfortunate example of state of nature, when reason is darkened by envy – a story that shows that one of the worse things in an individual is the envy for somebody else’s wealth, success, potential, prospects, beauty, etc. and when it gets stronger than reason it can lead to murder among brothers.

The ‘state of law’ refers to the organization of the ‘civil society’ or the ‘political society’. Nowadays, even the term ‘society’ has different meanings, particularly when referring to ‘Lawyers’ Society’, ‘Writers’ Society’, etc., but they all refer to a group of people hierarchically organized and all of them hierarchically organized in the larger society. Purely theoretical a married couple is a small society, a family is also sociologically considered a small society. And we all make the whole big ‘political’ or ‘civil’ society – at John Locke, at least, the terms of civil and political society are used as synonyms although nowadays we make a distinction between the two.

            Theoretically, each individual has left the state of nature and entered the state of law, when it consented to allow institutions to organize its life according to laws we agree upon. And when the society disagrees with certain laws, it has the right to protest and even to change governments. We all left the state of nature, when we became or when we formed a country. On the other hand, individuals have also the right to flee a country in their inalienable right to pursue their own happiness and to choose to live within a society that responds better the individual needs it has, because individuals are different, needs are different, opinions are different and so are societies – differently organized although all democratic.

            The point is that each individual left the state of nature and theoretically entered the state of law when we all created ‘the society’ – an organized entity and we authorized some people to make laws, to take decisions and to judge the disputes. In the state of law – at least theoretically – nobody is exempted by the law, we are all still equal, but in front of law, and we are all expected to participate at the exercise of the law (ex. the police spreading protesters not respecting the rules on social distancing and mask wearing because of the COVID-19 pandemic).

Therefore, governments are born from individuals’ common consent, so that we can govern ourselves according to common laws for our common peace and protection that we are deprived of in a state of nature. The concept of ‘liberty’ does not mean ‘complete permission’. Not even democratic governments have unlimited power, but their powers are limited by the theoretical aim of government that is to preserve the live, health, property of each individual of the society. It is said that in a state of law nobody should have the right to destroy rights such as life and health of itself or that of humanity, unless that person has a higher or more noble purpose than that of individual and humanity' preservation.

            There are most probably no laws about how should a government do in case of a pandemic. However, the political theory suggest that in the state of law each individual has previously given this prerogative to the governments to take decisions for preservation and for the, general, public good when we entered the state of law. Governments around the world thought that a temporary and different form of organization – ‘the lockdown’ – should be the best decision to slow down the spread of the virus for all individuals’ preservation.

The Date – Creative Writing Exercise # 14

by Laura Lai/ Uncategorized

Every month I wait with great enthusiasm the criteria of the Furious Fiction writing contest of the Australian Writers’ Centre (AWC). I try to rise to the challenges and some of the previous (text) results I posted on this blog:

The American Film Academy Awards – Creative Writing Exercise #13 (Mar. 6^th, 2020)

The 75-Word Sentence - Creative Writing Exercise #10 (Oct. 28^th, 2019)

A38-Word Champion Story (Sept. 8^th, 2019)

The POV (online exercise) – Part I and Part II (July 1^st, 2019) – might have also be inspired  by the AWC

It makes me a great pleasure to try to rise to the challenges. And every time I take the challenge and send my entry, I’m wondering ‘what other challenging requirements will cross their minds next month?’

            For example, the ‘Furious Fiction’ criteria for April 2020 were the following:

 Your story must begin on the side of a road;

Your story must include the following words: apron, pigment, ribbon, icon, lemon;

Your story must include a splash.

THE DATE

At 10 a.m. she was still sleeping deep. The windows of her room were open but neither the wind slowly blowing, nor the birds singing or the sun seemed to bother her. It was the cling of her mobile phone that woke her up from her dreams. The message she got was short: ‘meet you today at 4 p.m. at the junction of the Apron Street to the Icon Street. Love you’. Then she jumped from the bed, she jumped on the bed, she screamed of joy and she buried her face in the pillow. The message was unsigned, but she knew exactly who wrote it.

            She met him online. His username was ‘Pigment’ and hers was ‘Lemon’, although a lovely and pretty high school girl. They talked online for the whole month. They learned about each other online. They shared secrets, they laughed and cried online, but they never physically met.

            She was so happy that morning that she didn’t want to waste it all staying with the face in the pillow. Jumping of joy she entered directly in the closet looking for the best outfit. She spent hours, trying things and combining different cloths. She even skipped lunch, because she was still in the closet. You cannot possibly imagine what was on her bed! It was a mountain of clothing and shoes, but she was still looking for the perfect outfit that would make this pretty young girl feel pretty. When she finally found it, she was tired and strengthless, but happy in her heart that she found this beautiful white beach dress that she bought the previous year. She put it on. She turned several times in the mirror and smiled satisfied. She thought to add also a hat. She brought a chair and grabbed from the upper shelf of her closet a white summer hat with a silk red ribbon. She had a last look at herself in the mirror and she left satisfied that she looked like beautiful bride.

At 4 p.m. she was waiting on the side of the road at the junction between the Apron Street and the Icon Street for her love story to begin. But he was not there, yet. A short, but intense summer rain started and she was still there waiting. Now she was all soaked. He showed up a couple of minutes later, when the rain was gone, the sky was clear and the birds were singing again. He rushed and he stopped the car so sudden that he splashed all the muddy water on her beautiful white dress. A young man in T-shirt and shorts, wearing slippers went out the car.

Look what you have done! she said nervously.

What?! You mean the dress?

Of course, I mean the dress. It’s my favorite dress!

Don’t worry about the dress. I’m interested in what is beneath!

# Stay Safe. Visit Egypt from Home (I)

Laura Lai at Louvre Museum in Paris

by Laura Lai/Review

Last post on this ‘Writing Break Blog’ reminded me the emotion of having seen the ‘Rosetta Stone’ found in Egypt by a French soldier of Napoleon and exhibited at the British Museum. Then, I thought to myself that this next entry should also be about a virtual visit, since it is the greatest opportunity of those of us healthy but locked down. And what a better topic during a pandemic lockdown, when we are all told to wear masks, than a virtual visit to Egypt where the most famous mask of the Antiquity was discovered in 1922: King Tutankhamen’s golden mask?

            I have not seen King’s Tut mask, I have not been to Egypt, yet – I haven’t had the means so far, I hope to have them in the future. However, when the limited means allowed, I took a picture in front of … a glass pyramid in front of Louvre Museum in Paris – yes, I’ve seen ‘Mona Lisa’ (and she saw me J!).

The Egyptian Ministry of Tourism and Archeology has recently launched a world appeal to ‘Stay Home. Stay Safe. Visit Egypt from Home’ and put at everybody’s disposal several 3D virtual tours of some archeological sites of Egypt. On this occasion I virtually visited a monastery, a mosque and a synagogue. I have previously visited monasteries, churches and cathedrals, but I have never been in a synagogue or a mosque, let alone the mosque of a sultan.

            Most of the virtual tours are not guided, but there is absolutely no chance for any of us to get lost in the Catacombs of Kom El Shoqafa, for example, during this virtual tour. However, the visit of the tomb of Queen Meresankh III is virtually guided by the queen herself. It looks that in comparison to all the other tombs, hers contain more women – although the society was male dominated – and she also included names of the painter and the sculptor, so that they do not remain anonymous as in most of the cases. All these virtual tours showed that the archeological works are done in cooperation with the American Research Center in Egypt, as well as with Harvard University and Georgia State University. The presentations include interesting information on the non-invasive techniques used to restore the walls.

            A 3D virtual tour takes the visitor to the Tomb of Menna – a person who held important state positions (in the field of agriculture) and who was a scribe. The tomb has lots of references to agriculture – the main occupation of the people along the river Nile – and where the paint needs restoration this is done in collaboration with the American Research Center in Egypt that uses non-invasive techniques (ex. ultraviolet imagining and UV fluorescence). This tomb of Menna is from the 18^th Egyptian dynasty – a period of great religious and cultural progress. It is the time period of King Akhenaton, of Nefertiti, of Tutankhamen, etc.

            A last 3D tour takes the visitor to the tomb of King Ramses VI – a long and very decorated tomb with lots of wall paintings (including the ceiling) that are still visible. He was preoccupied by astronomy and this makes some sense, because the ancient Egyptians were first familiarized with astrology, but it is with the ancient Greeks that it became more popular. It is the ancient Egyptians, who divided the sky in 12 sections and the day in 24 hours. The wall paintings are a rich source of information. For example, many of them present the process of mummification, the weighting of the heart and if it was light (from good deeds) it lived further, while if it was heavy, it was not living further.

            The ancient Egyptians believed in life after death. They took time during their lives to prepare their tombs. Queen Meresankh III, for example, arranged a place where gifts to be brought to her during festivals and a place where her relatives to talk to her spirit. Depending on the way each of us is – and we are all very different – people find this belief as being more or less ridiculous. I don’t; I also believe in the spiritual life after the physical death and I like to keep my mind open. As the spirit does not do any of the things the physics does, it does not need to be burred with such a treasure, but in my Christian religion, 40 days after the burial those who can afford make a big religious ceremony and give as charity table, bed, chairs, plates, food, carpets, cloth, etc – everything that a body would need. I do not know the religious meaning of that, but I personally understand it as a charity blessed by a priest, given in the name of God, in order to remember the defunct.

# Stay Safe. Visit Egypt from Home (II)

by Laura Lai/Review

These precise virtual tours of the archeological sites in Egypt constitute also the subject of a CNN invitation. The Ministry of Tourism and Archeology in Egypt has recently released also an invitation to the Grand Egyptian Museum – the greatest archeological museum. The hosts, Fatma Abdallah and Walid El-Batouty, picked up twenty pieces of the several thousand exhibited – though choice!

            One of the pieces is an alabaster jar with fine bird details. Alabaster was a material that was used a lot in those times. There are, for example, until the end of the 17^th dynasty and the beginning of the 18^th dynasty representations of hippopotamus (the male had a negative connotation, the female a positive one); the eyes of Queen Akhotep, the make-up of King Tut are said to have been made of alabaster.

            Another exhibited piece is a gold collar of Psusennes I (21^st dynasty). King Tut himself had a colorful collar, on his mask there was also a gold inscription indicating that the pharaoh was protected by gods. These jewelries and collars prove the technological level the Egyptians reached in those times to work out not only metal, but precious metals, too. This type of Psusennes I collar was seen in different wall paintings and it is said that it was usually offered by the king to some of his people as a reward.

            One last ‘mesmerizing’ piece – as Walid El-Batouty said – is a sculpture of Nefertiti, the wife of King Akhenaton IV (18^th dynasty). During his reign, the god Amon-Ra became the only god of Egypt – there is also a sculpture with the King with his wife Nefertiti and their two daughters, in which the King gets the ‘life’ and ‘power’ from Amon-Ra. Akhenaton becomes the capital of Egypt, but twenty years later, after the death of this king, the capital moves to Theba. The point is that under King Akhenaton IV religion and arts progressed. This sculpture of the head of Nefertiti is special because the eyes and the eyebrows are sculptured, not drawn, then the stone it was made of gives a living aspect to the face. It is said that it is possible that the sculptured eyes and eyebrows to have been filled with glass or alabaster (the eyes of the golden mask of King Psusennes I were made of glass, too). If true, this would have given this sculptured face of Nefertiti an even more living aspect. On King Tut’s collar – that is sensational – there is a representation of god Amon-Ra, too blessing Tutankhamen with power.

I think these short guided videos of the Grand Egyptian Museum are released on a double occasion: first, it is about the world slogan on the pyramids (maybe coming from the inside of them, too J) to ‘Stay Safe. Stay Home’; and second, it must be about the opening of the new headquarter of the Grand Egyptian Museum planned for December 2020. So, we were given only ‘a flavor’ of the museum.

            The Grand Egyptian Museum is the greatest archeological museum in the world. All along the history it had several headquarters itself because more archeological sites were discovered, more place it was needed, in order to exhibit all the artifacts. So happened, for example, in 1922 with the discovery of the Tomb of King Tutankhamen and the enormous treasure he was buried with.

            Until 1835 many of the Egypt’s Antiquity artifacts were sent abroad or simple got lost. In 1835 Egypt was still a monarchy and the king passed a law to forbid the export of Egyptian antiquities. However, it is the French Egyptologist Auguste Mariette (who worked at Louvre Museum and who came to Egypt in 1850) who put the basis of the first headquarter somewhere near the river Nile in 1863. But a few years later, in 1878, the museum is flooded and many artifacts lost forever. A second headquarter of the Grand Egyptian Museum was one of the palaces of the King. And it was still not enough. A French architect, Marcel Dourgnon, was in charged with the making of another headquarter far from the river Nile. It was inaugurated at the beginning of the 1900s and is the Grand Egyptian in the el-Tahrir Place (Liberty Place). After the discovery of King Tut’s tomb in 1922 the museum in el-Tahrir Place needed more space and it was re-drawn, new chambers were added. I think there were discussions about moving it again and the inauguration is now postponed for the end of 2020. Indeed, the Grand Egyptian Museum has itself its own long and fascinating history.

One last thought crosses my mind now, besides ‘staying safe and visiting Egypt from home’: to dare and make a computer drawing of King Tut, while listening to Louis Armstrong’ s song ‘What a Wonderful World’ this Antiquity world. And the Egyptian traditional falafel dish would also be good, but I will leave this for when I will afford visiting the Grand Egyptian Museum and Egypt’s archeological sites and sing to myself:

            ‘I’ll learn much more, than I’ll never know.

            And I think to myself what a wonderful world

            Yes, I think to myself what a wonderful world […this Antiquity World]’