Booker 2008

The Man Booker longlist for 2008 has been announced, as follows:

Aravind Adiga              The White Tiger
Gaynor Arnold             Girl in a Blue Dress
Sebastian Barry           The Secret Scripture
John Berger                 From A to X
Michelle de Kretser      The Lost Dog
Amitav Ghosh              Sea of Poppies
Linda Grant                 The Clothes on Their Backs
Mohammed Hanif         A Case of Exploding Mangoes
Philip Hensher             The Northern Clemency
Joseph O’Neill              Netherland
Salman Rushdie          The Enchantress of Florence
Tom Rob Smith            Child 44
Steve Toltz                   A Fraction of the Whole

Shortlist will be announced on September 9th and the winner will be announced on October 14th.

Time to get reading… start with the full list on amazon here, but be warned that two of the books haven’t been released yet!!

Somebody please think of the children

This story from the examiner has ruined my day.

It’s sad to think that racially abusing a 14 year old it only the tip of the iceberg, but sadder still was a comment I heard made by a representative of the Carlow GAA board on newstalk this morning. Asked what he thought of the situation he pointed out that the Éire Óg team that the child in question plays for should be applauded for having accepted him fully into their team.

Now I’m sure he didn’t mean to sound like he was reinforcing the racism the child was being exposed to, but maybe that’s half the point.

A 14 year old who shows up and tries out for his local GAA team (or whatever sport) should always be accepted, no matter what his skin colour, no matter what his country of origin - the list goes on and the equality authority are more than capable of posting a copy to every home in the land. It should not be marked out as some sort of gracious achievement that this boy, or any other, was accepted. The word missing from the GAA rep’s statement is the word “despite…”, which, incidentally, contains the magic word, ’spite’.

Sport should be about competing fairly and with due respect to those you are playing against and with. So-called ’supporters’ who reduce themselves to that kind of abuse should be held responsible, and so too should the team they are ’supporting’ - otherwise things won’t change.

It’s hard to believe that the issue of racism (and perhaps discrimination generally) won’t get worse if the economy keeps going the way it is. When there were jobs all around it was much easier to ignore the ignorant few who insisted that “the foreigners are taking all our jobs”. Sadly those few might be about to be joined by a very angry and increasingly large group of the recently redundant. I for one am more than a little scared of what could happen next.

Bad chuggers

A few months ago I was stopped on the street by one of the many charity collectors who hover around grafton street. He used the unique opening line of “You were in <insert name of secondary school here>”. Which mainly creeped me out because I swear I had never seen him before.

Anyway, he had my attention, he gave me the usual shpiel - just €X per month will change lives etc. For the record, I know that’s true. That’s why, as I explained to him at the time, I not only work for a charity and volunteer with others but also donate €X per month and have done for years. That’s when it all got a bit ugly.

“Well if you can donate to one surely you can donate to us too?”

Eh, I have a limited amount of expendable cash, and while I freely admit I want to keep some of it for overpriced coffees and pretty clothes, nonetheless is it really your place to push me on this?

“Come on, another €X per month won’t make that much difference to you”

Actually, if I gave €X per month to every charity that asked for it, I’d have €0 per month left. Lines have to be drawn.

“Jesus come on it’s not that big a deal”

Okay, and now you’ve matched rude with aggressive, and I’m walking away…

Last night a charity collector called to the door, and luckily my other half answered.

Again, the charity was explained, the money was requested, and my other half said thanks but no thanks.

And again came the “But come on, it’s only €X?”

And again: SERIOUSLY I said no, that’s time to politely walk away.

Instead she went through much the same sequence as above, and by the end of it not only did she not walk away with the cash, but the charity she was collecting for got a big black mark against their name.

I don’t know if there’s someone out there offering a course in “Aggressive Chugging 1.01″, but they need to be stopped. I accept that chuggers not only serve a purpose, but have a very tough job, and get a lot of random abuse. But if someone is at least giving you a listening ear, be gracious, be polite, and remember whose shirt you are wearing.

Nice one Nic

I haven’t looked yet, but I think Martyn Turner’s cartoon today should probably be something alone the lines of Sarkozy shooting himself in his big EU foot (in mouth).

You really have to wonder what kind of impact the general european reaction is going to have on a potential second vote.

People who voted yes the first time, on the grounds of a ‘more democratic europe’, not to mention certain issues being safeguarded by the need for unanimity, will surely have to think twice if a second vote is forced upon us, thus disproving both of those notions?

Monday blues?

Here’s a mini cure - news that Big Brother Australia has been cancelled.

Is this a sign of things to come, and is there a petition somewhere that can be signed to try to force Channel 4 to do the same?

Big Brother may have served some purpose for the first few years - it was an intriguing social experiment if nothing else. But it has descended beyond farce into drivel. They probably should have cancelled it five years ago, but in the absence of an ability to time travel now is the time to call a halt to the lazy nonsense before what remains of its target audience start watching Friends reruns instead.

eeny meeny

Apparently gardaí are looking into the case of a woman who called Liveline yesterday saying she had helped her father to die.

I don’t know if that means they are really are or not, but let’s assume so.

Now here’s what I’m wondering. The half dozen or so people who have written into the Times & Independent in the past week, giving their name and address, and stating that they will actively break the new driving laws on the grounds of entitlement, or whatever. Who’s looking into that?

In fact, while we’re at it, when a wide variety of celebrity types, or even TDs, admit freely and openly that they break various narcotics laws, who looks into that?

I’m all for law enforcement, genuinely I am, but if we’re going to pick and choose who to prosecute, surely a desperate, bereaved lady shouldn’t be top of the list?

How far can you stretch that logic?

Last night on Questions & Answers, the issue of gay marriage vs. civil unions was raised, and I think it’s fair to say the debate went as expected. Davids Quinn and Norris were sat beside each other for a reason.

The main objection to gay marriage, both in that debate and in others such as the article by Breda O’Brien in Saturday’s Times, seems to be the need to protect the traditional institution of marriage as a mechanism for securing the lives and livelihoods of children.

So, by that logic, are we willing to bring in a fertility test for marriage?

As Nóirín Hegarty mentioned last night, there are definitely plenty of people hiding behind the “save the children” argument to avoid seeming as intolerant as they in fact are to the very notion of gay marriage. This question isn’t for them.

But for those who very genuinely are concerned about the need to conserve an institution which is designed purely in the name of procreation of the species, surely the next logical step is, in the name of equality, to ensure that the right ot that institution is made unavailable to heterosexual couples who cannot fulfill the demands of that institution?

Going a step further, once a man and woman have been tested and proven fertile, presumably they should have to sign a contract (or perhaps the marriage registration documents could be altered for this purpose?) guaranteeing that they will ‘provide an heir’ within, say, 12 months?

Once we have that set up, we can deal with little issues like childcare costs, paternity leave, and the eventual move towards one-son-only families.

When in doubt, don’t ask…

Here’s to the end of democracy, eh?