When in doubt, don’t ask…

Here’s to the end of democracy, eh?

White Elephants & Bagels

FF seem determined to distract from the small matter of the economy with a range of other issues which are sure to piss at least some people off.

Did Eamon Ó Cuív really question the “DRINK (responsibly)” ads? Are Fianna Fáil members allowed to do that?

Did Jim Walsh think it was a surprise to anyone when him and his lovely friends decided that state sanctioned discrimination is actually kinda fun?

And on a related note, did Sen. Mary White not see the irony of her statement on newstalk this morning when she said “I don’t support gay marriage but I do support their human rights”?

Legitimislation

I for one am very excited about becoming a qualified cohabitant.

In the meantime, the best quote I’ve found about this whole malarky is from the original debate on decriminalisation in 1993, courtesy of one Nora Owen:

For goodness sake, we are not making it compulsory as if we should all go out and practise homosexuality as soon as this Bill is enacted. There is a feeling that this legislation is attacking heterosexuals and family life, but that is not the case. We are legislating for a basic human right.

Hero of the Week

Willie Walsh - what can you say, other than buy that man a pint?

And on that, what’s in the drinking water in England that allows people to take responsibility for their actions? And can we import it, whatever it is??

Sad but true

Marie Cocco’s article in yesterday’s Washington Post sheds an uncomfortable light on the reality of the Democratic nomination process that seems to be finally coming to a conclusion.

When I have mentioned the role gender has played in the race, far too many people have dismissed as nonsense the possibility that Clinton has in any way been discriminated against for being a woman. I have had difficulty deciding if this is because they don’t think misogyny is a problem, or they don’t recognise misogyny at all.

Similarly, when all that nonsense with the (blissfully) EX taoiseach’s slush funds was going on, there were far too many people actively denying that there was any corruption involved. Even when a full list of the amount of money involved was presented.

Cocco raises questions that at some point are going to require an answer -

Would the silence prevail if Obama’s likeness were put on a tap-dancing doll that was sold at airports? Would the media figures who dole out precious face time to these politicians be such pals if they’d compared Obama with a character in a blaxploitation film? And how would crude references to Obama’s sex organs play?

What worries me is the prospect that they won’t be answered in the lifetime of this generation. What with all this equality and how women are grand now that we’re allowed to work sometimes for 17% less pay.

I have been swayed by Obama’s apparent ability, and I have loved watching the level of engagement he seems to have inspired, particularly in young people. But if he is to be the Democratic nominee, and if he is to be the next president, then will he rise to this platform, and challenge this discrimination?

Surely nobody has watched the press coverage of Hilary Clinton’s campaign as closely as he has.

If he is as intelligent as he seems, he can’t have missed the ‘highlights’ that Cocco’s article lists.

If he is as worthy as he claims, he can’t miss the opportunity to make this change.

What is your attitude to ageism?

Better question: what is your definition of ageism?

‘Say No to Ageism’ week has been launched, and bus stops are being plastered in delightful posters that ask us to question our ageist attitudes - as long as we only do it in one direction.

Once again, the ‘equality‘ authority asks us to remember that older people are people too. Personally I hadn’t forgotten, but I appreciate that some people might. What I don’t appreciate is the way them equality folk supposedly aim to challenge that view, every year.

This year’s posters feature four portrait images - for example: three old men, in grey/b&w photos, with words like ‘grumpy’ and ‘over the hill’ stamped on them; and the fourth is a full colour image of a young woman, where the caption is simply ‘Lucy’.

I got angry enough to design my own version of the poster.

But then I decided being sued wouldn’t be ideal so I’m not going to post it. Probably.

The point is, this isn’t “Say No To Ageism” this is “Say No To Old-Ageism, but go ahead and keep stereotyping young people”. It seems particularly ironic in the context of this alternative initiative - but it says a lot that this is separated from the general ageism campaign.

Look at the latest drinkaware ads - there were four different scenarios where someone was too drunk and thus ruining society - and every one of the drunk people were of the under-30 variety. Because we’re all drunks, without exception - and more importantly, there are no drunks over 30. They’re just lovely social drinkers who not only drink responsibly at all times, but have a fundamental human right to drink a few pints then hop in the car and drive themselves home.

Can you imagine the reaction if rural students (a fundamental evil, how dare they be young while also working hard to get a decent education, clearly they are up to no good, ever!) had reacted to the new licensing laws by announcing that there should be a dispensation for 18-24 year olds because if they didn’t go to the bar with their classmates and then drive home after pints they’d be socially isolated??

I’m not trying to belittle the importance of appreciating older members of society - in fact, as I’m confident I’ve mentioned before, I think the lack of a widespread ‘respect your elders’ attitude is nothing short of disgusting - but the fact remains that if you are claiming to address ageism, then address all of it!

So it’s not just me!!

This afternoon on Newstalk/Lunchtime, Bertie’s “HISTORIC” speech was being discussed. Again.

Thankfully this time around there was less text-in-your-tale-of-weeping-to-the-sound-of-Bertie’s-voice nonsense, but the discussion did centre around what a miraculous moment this was for all of us and how proud we should be, not to mention how proud Bertie should be of himself(???!!!!!).

Then, the moment of sublime intervention from one of the panellists.

What’s all this nonsense lads, it was a crap speech.

Or, to quote the man (didn’t catch the name, I’m thinking Michael something?),

“It was statesmanlike - it said nothing”

And he’s right.

Before the speech, George Hook was talking about the Gettysburg address. Ahern himself referred to JFK.

But, while the speech was a perfectly reasonable synopsis of Irish history, there was nothing worth talking about - nothing worth debating, and certainly nothing worth quoting.

Admittedly his impending departure took a lot of the punch out of the speech, but given that at the very least some coverage of the speech was inevitable, surely it would have been the perfect opportunity to say something worth saying?

Make it stop…

Before he even gets started on his speech… can someone just stop him?

Or at the very least, can the BCI, or some similar all-powerful types, decree from on high that on a certain date in the relatively near future (can we say May 30th?), we can all stop talking about the man?

I’d almost like to count the number of times I’ve heard his name on radio in the last day/week/month/year/decade. My head is spinning at the thought of it.

Let’s just get on with things.

Love him or hate him, he’s done now.

What’s next?

On a lighter ‘note’

JD Salinger thought Raiders of the Lost Ark sucked.

Seriously - take a look, or if you’re so inclined, buy the proof… and maybe send it to Messrs Lucas & Spielberg as a memento.

And then two weeks went by…

Last night I ended up in a two hour long discussion about the impending doom of it all, and how none of us can really afford to flippantly quit jobs on the grounds that it’s not perfect and there’ll be another one around the corner. This is prompted by multiple friends who are currently making that exact plan, and multiple others (mainly of the generation who have seen a recession first-hand) gently suggesting that they re-attach their booties to reality for a bit.

The point? Maybe there wasn’t one. Even the government is admitting that the economy is getting a bit slower. I’m not yet convinced that it will be a ‘proper’ recession, but I am convinced that whatever correction (that’s the buzzword, isn’t it?) occurs will be difficult for a generation who, for the most part, have grown up with everything they wanted, and have never gotten around to developing coping skills for when things go wrong. It makes me wonder how those who never got to ‘have it all’ in the first place will be treated and/or cope. It also makes me deeply suspicious of the government.

Is it just me, or are they all suddenly using a lack of cash as the best new excuse for their consistent mismanagement of every possible area of public service?

Last year we had six solid months of ‘there’s no recession coming, that’s crazy talk’, then they got re-elected, then they made a few more messes, then yer man resigned and now in his last week he finds the cojones to admit that the health and education systems in this country are circling the proverbial drain. It counts as news only because of the admission. Nobody in this country needs to read the latest report from the OECD, because we’ve been living that particular dream for years.

Apparently there is no more money for mental health services. And there is no more money for suicide prevention. And, in fact, according to some people, things are just fine as they are.

Look at the papers. Look at the front page of every paper in the country (try to ignore the utterly counter-productive tone of many of the headlines) in the last four days and then tell me that things are just fine as they are.

There is no money for mental health services. But the taoiseach is urging his successor to buy a new government jet. It’s like a very, very bad joke - one that is actively going horribly, horribly wrong.