14 December 2008
Extract from
'The Bacon Diaries'
Monday: 1pm. I am in my local, reading the menu. Despite a weekend of Christmas parties I still feel festive. I order the stuffed turkey.
A far from paltry pile of poultry arrives. I am drooling as I lift a flap of meat with my fork ... but wait, there's something miss- ing. Where's the ham?
I look at the menu again. There's '_ and cabbage', 'toasted _ and cheese', '_ and mash' and 'baked honeyglazed _'.
Switching my brain on I remember: pork is off. I push my plate away and contemplate Christmas – no, LIFE – without lovely pork. It's horrible. I realise that I am rocking back and forth, moaning quietly, the early stages of cold turkey. Soon, I notice the sound of manic crunching coming from the gloomier recesses of the pub. It is then that I make a startling discovery, which I'll tell you about later.
Tuesday: 11am. Air of gloom as lay-offs increase. Country waits for safety verdict from EU. A German friend of mine, Jason, is getting calls begging him not to eat Irish pork. The schweinhund! My own swine hunt continues as I beg for a rasher sandwich.
2pm. Wondering if Cowen has done the right thing by doing a Schwarzenegger (Total Recall). Is he the man to save our bacon now our goose is cooked? Medi- cal cards, Lisbon and now this?
3pm. I contemplate the thorough Irishness of the pig. No Victorian Punch cartoon of a Paddy was complete without a pig in his parlour.
Pigs feature in our mythology, bedtime stories and rhymes: from 'Mac do Tho's Pig' to the 'Three Little Piggies' to 'This Little Piggy Went to Market'. Actually, doesn't the last line of that go: "and this little piggy had roast beef."? Change that to: "this little piggy had rendered animal waste tainted by dioxin-rich fuel fumes.…"
The pig has given us phrases for when we're celebrating: "we're on the pig's back." Cocking up: "you made a pig's ear of that." Earning: "bringing home the bacon." In trouble: "Sketch! It's the Pigs!!"
I resolve to forego Lidl and wait for Irish ham to return. I will then buy lorryloads of it. I will ask you to do the same.
Wednesday: 4pm. The Danes are saying nasty things about our pork. It's obvious they just want payback for Clontarf. It's nothing to do with selling their products here.
While they're mouthing off, the EU says our rashers are safe. SAFE?? Haven't they seen the gick that comes off them when they're frying? You're more likely to die of a coronary eating one than dioxin poisoning. It's 'Rasher Roulette' – but we love it.
5pm. I decide to appeal to any butcher reading this to make me a quiet offer on a dioxin ham. Part of the deal is you have to cook it for me. I'm serious. Email me.
Thursday: 9.30am. See some workmen forlornly eating ciabatta rolls filled with falafal and rocket leaves. Even their 'builder's crack' isn't smiling. They don't know Superquinn is back selling Irish pork.
10.45am. Again wondering if the government overreacted. I conclude that, in fairness, it may be the first thing that Cowen's lot has got right. It seems a case of "damned if you do, etc."
11.30pm. Dream of Cowen posing for the cameras stuffing his face with bacon to show the world everything is okay. He looks like a man who likes his rashers. Maybe by the time this is printed he will have done so.
Friday: 8am. Wake up worried that I'm having dreams about Brian Cowen.Then I remember to explain Monday's crunching sound.
As I was suffering pork withdrawals, the bar was doing a brisk trade on piggy methadone – aka, Bacon Fries. I ordered three packs and wondered how they would go with sprouts. Then I read the ingredients. I was startled. Did you know that Bacon Fries have zero pork in them?
Despite looking the part, they are a sham. Then, when it comes to the crunch, they disintegrate.
And no, Mr Cowen, we're not drawing any comparisons ... this time.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Sunday, December 7, 2008
At least the price of drowning our sorrows is staying the same
Question: What's the difference between a pint of Guinness and a Dublin city councillor? (The answer's at the end, now please read on…)
Last week, the nation's publicans announced their new initiative to battle the economic crisis.
The price of a pint (cue drumroll) will be… FROZEN for 12 months. Ta-dah!
This announcement was greeted with derision by most tipplers who saw it as a cynical PR ploy by the vintners' associations.
People don't have sympathy for publicans. Drink is too expensive in pubs, the mark-up on soft drinks is outrageous and don't get me started about crisps.
Publicans blame the smoking ban, drink-driving laws, energy costs and Diageo (Guinness) for hiking up prices. Everybody, except themselves.
Since 2001, 10% of Ireland's pubs (1,500) have closed. The Thomas Read group last week became the latest casualty. In isolated rural areas these closures are causing serious hardship.
In 2001, pubs held 68% of the drinks market. Last year, this figure dropped to 48% as off-licences benefited from more people drinking at home.
Why is this? Price is obviously a factor. Dublin's city-centre drinkers are well used to being fleeced. One pub near the Dáil actually hikes up its prices after 11pm.
Then there's the drink driving. And the new work practices; earlier starts, later arrivals home from work.
There's the cheaper off-licences too: if you can buy a bottle of wine for the price of two pints why go to the pub?
In September, the ESRI pointed out one good reason for not doing your drinking at home. It revealed that the number of cases of women in their mid-30s presenting with liver disease more than doubled from 18 in 2002 to 39 in 2006. The figure for men in this age category had risen from 45 to 47. The HSE's Dr Joe Barry blamed the rise on increased consumption of wine at home.
The temptation to open that second bottle is definitely greater at home where we can let our hair down in private.
And there'll be a lot more drinking done at home this Christmas due to the bargains in Newry. Sainsbury's up there, by the way, sells more alcohol than any other branch in the UK.
This is not good for the nation's livers – or locals.
The pub isn't just about getting jarred. It's the nation's parlour. It's the home of debate, banter, people-watching. We romance there, we cheer our teams there, we wake our loved ones there: as Charlie Chawke was being interviewed by RTÉ outside The Goat pub on Monday, there were three funeral lunches taking place inside.
The Consumer Agency last week correctly said prices must come down if pubs are to survive. In October, the Evening Herald reported that many Dublin publicans were doing the opposite and raising prices before the budget. They did the same in August prior to a rise by Diageo.
That hike by Diageo had been criticised by the Irish Farmers Association, who said that while the company was blaming high raw material costs, its main supplier of barley was cutting the price paid to growers by more than 20%. Was this barley saving ultimately passed on to customers? No.
Despite their transgressions, the vintners deserve credit for their price freeze. Diageo should follow their lead and not raise prices next March as it have said it will.
The publicans effectively took a price cut last Monday when they absorbed the VAT hike and will do so again if Diageo doesn't play ball. It's small change, but it's a start. Instead of being accused of cynicism, they should be encouraged to continue along this road.
Save your derision, instead, for Dublin City Council. Unlike the publicans, these clowns are still raising their prices. Last week, they hiked parking charges up 20 cents an hour, claiming it would free up space for Christmas shoppers.
If that's so, will they lower the charges after Christmas? Don't hold your breath.
And so, finally: what's the difference between a pint of Guinness and a city councillor?
One's famous for its big, thick head… and the other's a pint of stout.
Last week, the nation's publicans announced their new initiative to battle the economic crisis.
The price of a pint (cue drumroll) will be… FROZEN for 12 months. Ta-dah!
This announcement was greeted with derision by most tipplers who saw it as a cynical PR ploy by the vintners' associations.
People don't have sympathy for publicans. Drink is too expensive in pubs, the mark-up on soft drinks is outrageous and don't get me started about crisps.
Publicans blame the smoking ban, drink-driving laws, energy costs and Diageo (Guinness) for hiking up prices. Everybody, except themselves.
Since 2001, 10% of Ireland's pubs (1,500) have closed. The Thomas Read group last week became the latest casualty. In isolated rural areas these closures are causing serious hardship.
In 2001, pubs held 68% of the drinks market. Last year, this figure dropped to 48% as off-licences benefited from more people drinking at home.
Why is this? Price is obviously a factor. Dublin's city-centre drinkers are well used to being fleeced. One pub near the Dáil actually hikes up its prices after 11pm.
Then there's the drink driving. And the new work practices; earlier starts, later arrivals home from work.
There's the cheaper off-licences too: if you can buy a bottle of wine for the price of two pints why go to the pub?
In September, the ESRI pointed out one good reason for not doing your drinking at home. It revealed that the number of cases of women in their mid-30s presenting with liver disease more than doubled from 18 in 2002 to 39 in 2006. The figure for men in this age category had risen from 45 to 47. The HSE's Dr Joe Barry blamed the rise on increased consumption of wine at home.
The temptation to open that second bottle is definitely greater at home where we can let our hair down in private.
And there'll be a lot more drinking done at home this Christmas due to the bargains in Newry. Sainsbury's up there, by the way, sells more alcohol than any other branch in the UK.
This is not good for the nation's livers – or locals.
The pub isn't just about getting jarred. It's the nation's parlour. It's the home of debate, banter, people-watching. We romance there, we cheer our teams there, we wake our loved ones there: as Charlie Chawke was being interviewed by RTÉ outside The Goat pub on Monday, there were three funeral lunches taking place inside.
The Consumer Agency last week correctly said prices must come down if pubs are to survive. In October, the Evening Herald reported that many Dublin publicans were doing the opposite and raising prices before the budget. They did the same in August prior to a rise by Diageo.
That hike by Diageo had been criticised by the Irish Farmers Association, who said that while the company was blaming high raw material costs, its main supplier of barley was cutting the price paid to growers by more than 20%. Was this barley saving ultimately passed on to customers? No.
Despite their transgressions, the vintners deserve credit for their price freeze. Diageo should follow their lead and not raise prices next March as it have said it will.
The publicans effectively took a price cut last Monday when they absorbed the VAT hike and will do so again if Diageo doesn't play ball. It's small change, but it's a start. Instead of being accused of cynicism, they should be encouraged to continue along this road.
Save your derision, instead, for Dublin City Council. Unlike the publicans, these clowns are still raising their prices. Last week, they hiked parking charges up 20 cents an hour, claiming it would free up space for Christmas shoppers.
If that's so, will they lower the charges after Christmas? Don't hold your breath.
And so, finally: what's the difference between a pint of Guinness and a city councillor?
One's famous for its big, thick head… and the other's a pint of stout.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Fair play to Pat The Ripper for reminding us of our manners
30 November 2008
The Toy Show has been put back in the attic for another year. The audience are back home, showing off their free gifts – and photos with Pat – to the neighbours.
One woman who isn't sharing their memories is the raffle winner from Cork who told Pat she wasn't interested in attending, prompting him to rip up her tickets.
His behaviour has his detractors quoting his wages, perceived woodenness etc. His fans, and others, think what he did was understandable, considering the woman's attitude towards the nation's favourite Christmas show.
Whatever way you look at it, Pat The Ripper's reaction was a statement on the death of good manners in this country.
A fortnight ago the president of DCU, Professor Ferdinand von Prondzynski, said "we now treat the concept of manners as outdated, and maybe even vaguely embarrassing."
This wasn't a new observation. In 1998, the Small Firms Association began organising seminars on etiquette. It said that life here had become so fast that "people do not have the time to be polite" adding, "20 years ago good manners were expected, now they are noticed."
As prosperity increased, we changed from the 'Can-do' race to the 'Can-do-what-we-want' race.
I encountered an example of this in the cinema last Tuesday. A couple arrived late, pushed their way down our row and then rustled, texted, spoke loudly and drummed the back of the seats in front of them. When they were shushed from across the cinema they laughed.
I didn't say anything. I'm not going to get thumped over a film.
They are not unique. They have soulmates, for example, in the people who use their mobile phones as weapons of mass distraction by shouting into them in public places like the bus or dentist's waiting room.
Or in private: a survey by the firm 'easyMobile' found that 75% of people answer calls during dinner with friends. Sixty per cent of those same people thought this practice was rude – when others did it.
Then there are the commuters who turn their iPods up full volume. And the shop assistants who ignore you while they chat on the phone. And the people who don't say "thank you" when you hold the door open for them. And the neighbour who leaves their dog out barking all night.
What about the inconsiderate people who park in front of gates? Or in disabled parking spaces? (Rosanna Davison got clamped in one last month.)
Or land their helicopters on the roofs of shopping centres?
Or let their children run wild around restaurants?
And how about the youngsters who hang around the streets being obnoxious?
What do we do about all this selfish behaviour? We let it go because we're too scared to confront it. That's not without reason: you just don't know how violent the response will be.
Lynne Truss, the author of Talk to the Hand: The Utter Bloody Rudeness of the World Today, maintains that many rude people live in their own little 'bubbles', cut off by headphones or the overriding importance of their own desires.
In philosophy this is known as 'solipsism': "I close my eyes and the world ceases to exist."
Too many Irish people are guilty of this blind disregard for others. There is also an increasing number of aggressive types who know what they're doing is rude but just don't care.
Even our politicians, whose manners used to be so well-greased – and irritating – have let standards slip. Brian Cowen's preternatural rudeness suggests, "I got your votes, now p**s off."
I was never a big fan of Pat Kenny on TV – until 'Ticketgate'. Some saw him being petulant, I saw him saying that he wasn't going to tolerate rudeness on his show.
That lady from Cork did little to promote common courtesy. Still, I feel a bit sorry for her. If only she had told a white lie: "I haven't decided who to bring", when asked, she wouldn't have made the headlines.
Come to think of it, then neither would the announcement that the raffling of her tickets had raised €1,500 for Our Lady's Hospital for Sick Children in Crumlin, Dublin.
Good man, Pat. Keep fighting the good fight.
Any chance you could rip up Cowen's Finance Bill?
November 30, 2008
The Toy Show has been put back in the attic for another year. The audience are back home, showing off their free gifts – and photos with Pat – to the neighbours.
One woman who isn't sharing their memories is the raffle winner from Cork who told Pat she wasn't interested in attending, prompting him to rip up her tickets.
His behaviour has his detractors quoting his wages, perceived woodenness etc. His fans, and others, think what he did was understandable, considering the woman's attitude towards the nation's favourite Christmas show.
Whatever way you look at it, Pat The Ripper's reaction was a statement on the death of good manners in this country.
A fortnight ago the president of DCU, Professor Ferdinand von Prondzynski, said "we now treat the concept of manners as outdated, and maybe even vaguely embarrassing."
This wasn't a new observation. In 1998, the Small Firms Association began organising seminars on etiquette. It said that life here had become so fast that "people do not have the time to be polite" adding, "20 years ago good manners were expected, now they are noticed."
As prosperity increased, we changed from the 'Can-do' race to the 'Can-do-what-we-want' race.
I encountered an example of this in the cinema last Tuesday. A couple arrived late, pushed their way down our row and then rustled, texted, spoke loudly and drummed the back of the seats in front of them. When they were shushed from across the cinema they laughed.
I didn't say anything. I'm not going to get thumped over a film.
They are not unique. They have soulmates, for example, in the people who use their mobile phones as weapons of mass distraction by shouting into them in public places like the bus or dentist's waiting room.
Or in private: a survey by the firm 'easyMobile' found that 75% of people answer calls during dinner with friends. Sixty per cent of those same people thought this practice was rude – when others did it.
Then there are the commuters who turn their iPods up full volume. And the shop assistants who ignore you while they chat on the phone. And the people who don't say "thank you" when you hold the door open for them. And the neighbour who leaves their dog out barking all night.
What about the inconsiderate people who park in front of gates? Or in disabled parking spaces? (Rosanna Davison got clamped in one last month.)
Or land their helicopters on the roofs of shopping centres?
Or let their children run wild around restaurants?
And how about the youngsters who hang around the streets being obnoxious?
What do we do about all this selfish behaviour? We let it go because we're too scared to confront it. That's not without reason: you just don't know how violent the response will be.
Lynne Truss, the author of Talk to the Hand: The Utter Bloody Rudeness of the World Today, maintains that many rude people live in their own little 'bubbles', cut off by headphones or the overriding importance of their own desires.
In philosophy this is known as 'solipsism': "I close my eyes and the world ceases to exist."
Too many Irish people are guilty of this blind disregard for others. There is also an increasing number of aggressive types who know what they're doing is rude but just don't care.
Even our politicians, whose manners used to be so well-greased – and irritating – have let standards slip. Brian Cowen's preternatural rudeness suggests, "I got your votes, now p**s off."
I was never a big fan of Pat Kenny on TV – until 'Ticketgate'. Some saw him being petulant, I saw him saying that he wasn't going to tolerate rudeness on his show.
That lady from Cork did little to promote common courtesy. Still, I feel a bit sorry for her. If only she had told a white lie: "I haven't decided who to bring", when asked, she wouldn't have made the headlines.
Come to think of it, then neither would the announcement that the raffling of her tickets had raised €1,500 for Our Lady's Hospital for Sick Children in Crumlin, Dublin.
Good man, Pat. Keep fighting the good fight.
Any chance you could rip up Cowen's Finance Bill?
November 30, 2008
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
It's not easy being green when you're a shower of muppets
Kermit the Frog once sang: "It's not easy being green." After the Finance Bill last week, I know how he feels.
The constant bad news had left me – like many of us – budget-numb, but on Thursday I wanted to see if two pieces of green legislation had made it through; the parking levy and tax exemption for bicycles. They did.
The €200 levy applies to employee parking spaces across our major cities. The bike scheme offers generous tax breaks to employers and employees on up to €1,000 spent on a bike and accoutrements. The measures are the Greens' stick-and-carrot to get us out of our cars. This is for our own good, apparently.
We'll be healthier (unless we fall under a bus).
We'll be less stressed as we freewheel to our dwindling workplaces.
The rain won't be as bad as we might think: Met Éireann statistics show that the average Dubliner who cycles for 15 minutes into work, five days a week, will get wet on only four days out of 100.
Bicycle shops will thrive: during August, the world's largest bike-maker, Giant Manufacturing, sold a record 460,000 units as a result of rising oil prices.
We'll be happier and more fulfilled. So why is this Great Plan making me saddle sore?
Let's start with public transport.
On Pat Kenny's radio show last week, Green TD Ciarán Cuffe said we have a good system in place and should use it, or the bikes. Agreed, it's better than it used to be, but it's far from perfect.
There are still regular delays on the Dart and poor link-ups. For example, if you're travelling from Swords to Baggot Street you have to take a bus into Talbot Street and a long walk, or another bus, across town. Ask most citizens and they will gripe about some route or another.
The latest figures show that the proportion of people using public transport over cars has remained static for the past four years despite major investment. Some Dublin drivers still doggedly prefer enduring gridlock to using our buses, trains and trams.
When deputy Cuffe was praising CIÉ to Pat Kenny he didn't mention that it will be increasing fares by 10% as the €200 parking levy is being introduced. How much of an incentive to motorists is that? Pay higher fares, the levy or get a bike. Some choice.
Conor Faughnan of AA Ireland said last week the levy was a "cosmetic exercise" which won't alleviate traffic problems, but will just create hardship. With increased fares, of course it will.
His answer – the logical one – is more Park and Ride sites. Last July CIÉ introduced Pay and Display instead, with clamping, at 37 stations on the greater Dublin rail network.
The bike scheme IS purely cosmetic, although maybe no-one's told the Greens yet.
Fianna Fáil knows it will appeal to some people living near the city, but the majority from further afield will pay the steeper fares or still drive and pay the levy. It knows the €400,000 the scheme will cost is peanuts compared to what it can shear off drivers through road tax etc.
It's not a huge amount. Co-incidentally, it's not even as much as we paid the country's prisoners (€467,000) in damages for accidents/attacks in our jails over the past five years.
However, it could be used more effectively on almost anything else other than bicycles. It could have been put towards vaccinating 12-year-old girls against cervical cancer, for example.
Here's a question for the Greens: what kind of country pays its criminals €467,000, doesn't vaccinate its children and spends €400,000 on bicycles?
Every cent counts in the current crisis and yet we're wasting money on this claptrap. If we're going to throw away resources on free bikes, why don't we exempt shoes for committed pedestrians as well? It's ridiculous.
And who is going to police the scheme? What's to stop me getting a tax exempt bike and selling it on at a profit? Will there be roving garda units set up to check ownership of bikes?
This scheme – however well-intentioned – highlights just how inexperienced and naïve the Greens are. The country doesn't want good intentions. It wants strong, intelligent leadership.
Remember Mr Gormley: "It's not easy being Green."
Especially if people think you're a shower of muppets.
November 23, 2008
Kermit the Frog once sang: "It's not easy being green." After the Finance Bill last week, I know how he feels.
The constant bad news had left me – like many of us – budget-numb, but on Thursday I wanted to see if two pieces of green legislation had made it through; the parking levy and tax exemption for bicycles. They did.
The €200 levy applies to employee parking spaces across our major cities. The bike scheme offers generous tax breaks to employers and employees on up to €1,000 spent on a bike and accoutrements. The measures are the Greens' stick-and-carrot to get us out of our cars. This is for our own good, apparently.
We'll be healthier (unless we fall under a bus).
We'll be less stressed as we freewheel to our dwindling workplaces.
The rain won't be as bad as we might think: Met Éireann statistics show that the average Dubliner who cycles for 15 minutes into work, five days a week, will get wet on only four days out of 100.
Bicycle shops will thrive: during August, the world's largest bike-maker, Giant Manufacturing, sold a record 460,000 units as a result of rising oil prices.
We'll be happier and more fulfilled. So why is this Great Plan making me saddle sore?
Let's start with public transport.
On Pat Kenny's radio show last week, Green TD Ciarán Cuffe said we have a good system in place and should use it, or the bikes. Agreed, it's better than it used to be, but it's far from perfect.
There are still regular delays on the Dart and poor link-ups. For example, if you're travelling from Swords to Baggot Street you have to take a bus into Talbot Street and a long walk, or another bus, across town. Ask most citizens and they will gripe about some route or another.
The latest figures show that the proportion of people using public transport over cars has remained static for the past four years despite major investment. Some Dublin drivers still doggedly prefer enduring gridlock to using our buses, trains and trams.
When deputy Cuffe was praising CIÉ to Pat Kenny he didn't mention that it will be increasing fares by 10% as the €200 parking levy is being introduced. How much of an incentive to motorists is that? Pay higher fares, the levy or get a bike. Some choice.
Conor Faughnan of AA Ireland said last week the levy was a "cosmetic exercise" which won't alleviate traffic problems, but will just create hardship. With increased fares, of course it will.
His answer – the logical one – is more Park and Ride sites. Last July CIÉ introduced Pay and Display instead, with clamping, at 37 stations on the greater Dublin rail network.
The bike scheme IS purely cosmetic, although maybe no-one's told the Greens yet.
Fianna Fáil knows it will appeal to some people living near the city, but the majority from further afield will pay the steeper fares or still drive and pay the levy. It knows the €400,000 the scheme will cost is peanuts compared to what it can shear off drivers through road tax etc.
It's not a huge amount. Co-incidentally, it's not even as much as we paid the country's prisoners (€467,000) in damages for accidents/attacks in our jails over the past five years.
However, it could be used more effectively on almost anything else other than bicycles. It could have been put towards vaccinating 12-year-old girls against cervical cancer, for example.
Here's a question for the Greens: what kind of country pays its criminals €467,000, doesn't vaccinate its children and spends €400,000 on bicycles?
Every cent counts in the current crisis and yet we're wasting money on this claptrap. If we're going to throw away resources on free bikes, why don't we exempt shoes for committed pedestrians as well? It's ridiculous.
And who is going to police the scheme? What's to stop me getting a tax exempt bike and selling it on at a profit? Will there be roving garda units set up to check ownership of bikes?
This scheme – however well-intentioned – highlights just how inexperienced and naïve the Greens are. The country doesn't want good intentions. It wants strong, intelligent leadership.
Remember Mr Gormley: "It's not easy being Green."
Especially if people think you're a shower of muppets.
November 23, 2008
Friday, November 21, 2008
Cardinal Brady should remember the credo 'live and let live'
November 16, 2008
Two men, two wildly opposing views. On the right stands Cardinal Sean Brady, crozier ready to smite anyone who would legitimise gay unions. To his far left is Peter Tatchell, controversial English gay rights campaigner.
Cardinal Brady has indicated that the bishops may mount a constitutional challenge to the government's Civil Union Bill, which will give gay couples a form of marital status. Unsurprisingly, gay groups are outraged.
His Eminence is not the only cardinal to be targeted by gay activists in recent weeks. Last Tuesday, mass was said to commemorate the death in 1890 of Cardinal John Newman, amid Tatchell's claims that the saint-in-waiting was gay.
Tatchell says the founder of Ireland's first Catholic University had a gay union with a priest, Fr Ambrose St John. He bases this claim largely on the cardinal's last wish to be buried beside his friend.
Last month, the church disinterred Newman to move him to a larger place of veneration in Birmingham as part of the beatification process. Tatchell claims the disinterment was to cover up the gay relationship. He has no hard evidence for this.
That Tatchell would "out" a dead cardinal is no surprise. In 1994 his group, OutRage, publicly invited 10 Church of England bishops to "tell the truth" about their sexuality. It also threatened to out 20 gay MPs for their "hypocrisy." One MP died of a sudden heart attack, believed by some to be a result of the campaign.
Outing the dead and invading the privacy of the living has earned Tatchell many detractors.
One can't imagine him being invited around to tea at Cardinal Brady's palace. And yet the two men have more in common than they realise: they are both extremists. As a result, they are damaging their respective causes.
As Primate, the cardinal must be allowed to voice his concerns for society. That's his right. However, he must not challenge the bill for two reasons: it would be fundamentally unjust and will further damage his church.
Earlier this year, a national poll by Lansdowne Market Research showed that 58% of us believe gay couples should be allowed marry in a Registry Office. I don't know how many of that 58% are practising Catholics, but I'll bet there's more than a few. How will they feel about their religion if Cardinal Brady presses ahead with a legal challenge? That the church teaches compassion but won't be swayed by the compassion of its own flock?
The extreme view is that the bill will undermine marriage's special status in the Constitution. Here's a question: if marriage is so important to the church then why won't it allow priests marry? This was possible up until the 11th century. The name 'Taggart' is actually derived from Mac an tSagairt – 'son of the priest'.
Last Monday, the Bishop of Nottingham, Malcolm McMahon – who is tipped to be England's next Catholic leader – said there are no doctrinal reasons for stopping married men becoming priests.
A survey by Newstalk radio earlier this year found that 63% of Irish priests thought the celibacy rule should change. The Vatican does not. Perhaps it believes it would be unable to bear the cost of supporting priests in the same type of union Cardinal Brady is championing.
This bill will not undermine marriage. It will, if anything, endorse the concept of a caring union – gay or straight – as integral to the welfare of society.
The state is simply caring for its citizens by drawing up this bill. Brady should care for the church by not legally challenging it.
When the church undermines the credo of 'live and let live' through extremism, it undermines itself. It alienates those who want to live by that credo.
Although Peter Tatchell is campaigning for civil rights, his extremism has alienated many of the same people.
The cardinal has no right to discriminate against gays, and Tatchell has no right to interfere with the manner in which the church goes about making saints.
Tatchell should live and let rest in peace.
The cardinal should live and let live together.
November 16, 2008
November 16, 2008
Two men, two wildly opposing views. On the right stands Cardinal Sean Brady, crozier ready to smite anyone who would legitimise gay unions. To his far left is Peter Tatchell, controversial English gay rights campaigner.
Cardinal Brady has indicated that the bishops may mount a constitutional challenge to the government's Civil Union Bill, which will give gay couples a form of marital status. Unsurprisingly, gay groups are outraged.
His Eminence is not the only cardinal to be targeted by gay activists in recent weeks. Last Tuesday, mass was said to commemorate the death in 1890 of Cardinal John Newman, amid Tatchell's claims that the saint-in-waiting was gay.
Tatchell says the founder of Ireland's first Catholic University had a gay union with a priest, Fr Ambrose St John. He bases this claim largely on the cardinal's last wish to be buried beside his friend.
Last month, the church disinterred Newman to move him to a larger place of veneration in Birmingham as part of the beatification process. Tatchell claims the disinterment was to cover up the gay relationship. He has no hard evidence for this.
That Tatchell would "out" a dead cardinal is no surprise. In 1994 his group, OutRage, publicly invited 10 Church of England bishops to "tell the truth" about their sexuality. It also threatened to out 20 gay MPs for their "hypocrisy." One MP died of a sudden heart attack, believed by some to be a result of the campaign.
Outing the dead and invading the privacy of the living has earned Tatchell many detractors.
One can't imagine him being invited around to tea at Cardinal Brady's palace. And yet the two men have more in common than they realise: they are both extremists. As a result, they are damaging their respective causes.
As Primate, the cardinal must be allowed to voice his concerns for society. That's his right. However, he must not challenge the bill for two reasons: it would be fundamentally unjust and will further damage his church.
Earlier this year, a national poll by Lansdowne Market Research showed that 58% of us believe gay couples should be allowed marry in a Registry Office. I don't know how many of that 58% are practising Catholics, but I'll bet there's more than a few. How will they feel about their religion if Cardinal Brady presses ahead with a legal challenge? That the church teaches compassion but won't be swayed by the compassion of its own flock?
The extreme view is that the bill will undermine marriage's special status in the Constitution. Here's a question: if marriage is so important to the church then why won't it allow priests marry? This was possible up until the 11th century. The name 'Taggart' is actually derived from Mac an tSagairt – 'son of the priest'.
Last Monday, the Bishop of Nottingham, Malcolm McMahon – who is tipped to be England's next Catholic leader – said there are no doctrinal reasons for stopping married men becoming priests.
A survey by Newstalk radio earlier this year found that 63% of Irish priests thought the celibacy rule should change. The Vatican does not. Perhaps it believes it would be unable to bear the cost of supporting priests in the same type of union Cardinal Brady is championing.
This bill will not undermine marriage. It will, if anything, endorse the concept of a caring union – gay or straight – as integral to the welfare of society.
The state is simply caring for its citizens by drawing up this bill. Brady should care for the church by not legally challenging it.
When the church undermines the credo of 'live and let live' through extremism, it undermines itself. It alienates those who want to live by that credo.
Although Peter Tatchell is campaigning for civil rights, his extremism has alienated many of the same people.
The cardinal has no right to discriminate against gays, and Tatchell has no right to interfere with the manner in which the church goes about making saints.
Tatchell should live and let rest in peace.
The cardinal should live and let live together.
November 16, 2008
Monday, November 10, 2008
Retail guilt' and why I won't be doing my civic duty today
The lights are on and there's no one home – because everyone's in town shopping for Christmas.
This was the dream scenario for the genius who decided Christmas should come to Dublin two weeks earlier than last year.
This evening, Dublin's lord mayor Eibhlin Byrne will light up the 'Beacon of Hope' tree on O'Connell Street to lure us into the city's 4,000 shops.
It is our civic duty, apparently, to buy our way out of the recession.
This twisting of the space-time continuum is nothing new. The retail festival of Hallowe'en now starts in September and 'de facto' Christmas the day after it.
Pressure, pressure, pressure. Buy, buy, buy.
The next progression will be to bring forward St Stephen's Day so the sales can start early.
This call to civic duty is a prime example of how we are controlled by Retail Guilt. This is the opposite of Retail Therapy, as there is very little enjoyment to be derived from it – unless you're selling something.
Not enough time to spend with your children? Throw money at them instead. Buy our latest designer clothes and computer games.
Are you a bad friend? 'Real' friends spend a fortune texting everybody in their phonebook on New Year's Eve. Don't leave anyone out now. (Premium rates apply.)
Guilt, guilt, guilt.
Bad man if you think Hallmark days – Granny's Day, Valentine's Day, Pet Rabbit Day – are a cynical ploy to extract guilt money.
Utter swine if you don't buy a letter from Santa. On Tuesday, I saw a newspaper ad for a phoneline offering to write one to your child for €7. Memo to parents: if you can't be bothered to do it yourself, then the gesture is meaningless.
And finally this: 'unpatriotic' Dubliner if you don't shop in town.
There are many good reasons for not doing this 'civic duty'. Firstly, local businesses need our money as much as city ones. Then there's the traffic, the queues, the €4.10 you spend in a taxi before it goes anywhere. Most importantly, there are the prices.
According to Mercer consultants, Dublin is the eighth most expensive city in Europe. This is probably why last Christmas 290,000 of us travelled to the US instead of Dublin and spent, on average, €1,900. There are considerable savings to be made there on everything from iPods to jeans. Last month, Dublin's retailers revealed how much these trips are hurting when ISME, almost petulantly, accused customs officers of turning a blind eye to them.
It's not just the United States that's challenging Dublin's shops. In June, the National Consumer Agency found a basket of 42 branded goods was 28% cheaper in Tesco in the North. A Dunnes basket was 31% cheaper.
The merchants' response to competition is to bring Christmas forward. It's laughable.
Why is it our civic duty to bail them out, despite having been fleeced by them during the rip-off years?
Dublin's retailers are faced with hardships. Grafton Street is the fourth most expensive place in Europe to rent, according to a report by Jones Lang LaSalle. As a result, it has become like a British High Street as only the big name chains such as Next, River Island, Oasis, Boots, Marks and Sparks etc, can afford to pay the rent.
However, business is business, and if Dublin's shops want mine, then the deal is this: lower your prices. Give me an incentive other than waving fairy lights at me.
Not that all of them want to give me those either. In 2006, the Dublin City Business Association claimed up to 30% of retailers were unwilling to pay for the lights. That was back when they saw no need to love-bomb us. Now we're no longer being taken for granted.
They have reeled out the mayor to emphasise that the real meaning of Christmas is consumerism.
What is even more annoying about this guilt trip is the fact that the lights she is turning on today aren't even made in Ireland. They're from France. Why couldn't they source lights here?
The lights are on but there's no one home, all right.
dkenny@tribune.ie
This was the dream scenario for the genius who decided Christmas should come to Dublin two weeks earlier than last year.
This evening, Dublin's lord mayor Eibhlin Byrne will light up the 'Beacon of Hope' tree on O'Connell Street to lure us into the city's 4,000 shops.
It is our civic duty, apparently, to buy our way out of the recession.
This twisting of the space-time continuum is nothing new. The retail festival of Hallowe'en now starts in September and 'de facto' Christmas the day after it.
Pressure, pressure, pressure. Buy, buy, buy.
The next progression will be to bring forward St Stephen's Day so the sales can start early.
This call to civic duty is a prime example of how we are controlled by Retail Guilt. This is the opposite of Retail Therapy, as there is very little enjoyment to be derived from it – unless you're selling something.
Not enough time to spend with your children? Throw money at them instead. Buy our latest designer clothes and computer games.
Are you a bad friend? 'Real' friends spend a fortune texting everybody in their phonebook on New Year's Eve. Don't leave anyone out now. (Premium rates apply.)
Guilt, guilt, guilt.
Bad man if you think Hallmark days – Granny's Day, Valentine's Day, Pet Rabbit Day – are a cynical ploy to extract guilt money.
Utter swine if you don't buy a letter from Santa. On Tuesday, I saw a newspaper ad for a phoneline offering to write one to your child for €7. Memo to parents: if you can't be bothered to do it yourself, then the gesture is meaningless.
And finally this: 'unpatriotic' Dubliner if you don't shop in town.
There are many good reasons for not doing this 'civic duty'. Firstly, local businesses need our money as much as city ones. Then there's the traffic, the queues, the €4.10 you spend in a taxi before it goes anywhere. Most importantly, there are the prices.
According to Mercer consultants, Dublin is the eighth most expensive city in Europe. This is probably why last Christmas 290,000 of us travelled to the US instead of Dublin and spent, on average, €1,900. There are considerable savings to be made there on everything from iPods to jeans. Last month, Dublin's retailers revealed how much these trips are hurting when ISME, almost petulantly, accused customs officers of turning a blind eye to them.
It's not just the United States that's challenging Dublin's shops. In June, the National Consumer Agency found a basket of 42 branded goods was 28% cheaper in Tesco in the North. A Dunnes basket was 31% cheaper.
The merchants' response to competition is to bring Christmas forward. It's laughable.
Why is it our civic duty to bail them out, despite having been fleeced by them during the rip-off years?
Dublin's retailers are faced with hardships. Grafton Street is the fourth most expensive place in Europe to rent, according to a report by Jones Lang LaSalle. As a result, it has become like a British High Street as only the big name chains such as Next, River Island, Oasis, Boots, Marks and Sparks etc, can afford to pay the rent.
However, business is business, and if Dublin's shops want mine, then the deal is this: lower your prices. Give me an incentive other than waving fairy lights at me.
Not that all of them want to give me those either. In 2006, the Dublin City Business Association claimed up to 30% of retailers were unwilling to pay for the lights. That was back when they saw no need to love-bomb us. Now we're no longer being taken for granted.
They have reeled out the mayor to emphasise that the real meaning of Christmas is consumerism.
What is even more annoying about this guilt trip is the fact that the lights she is turning on today aren't even made in Ireland. They're from France. Why couldn't they source lights here?
The lights are on but there's no one home, all right.
dkenny@tribune.ie
Monday, November 3, 2008
November 2, 2008
Freedom of speech must be cherished, not used for nasty gags
There's an episode in Father Ted that concerns racism – or, at least, attitudes to it.
Ted has been accused of being racist after putting a lampshade on his head, squinting and saying, "I am Chinese if you ple-ease", just as a Chinese family appears at his window.
Panicking, he says, "Dougal, I wouldn't have done a Chinaman impression if I'd known there was going to be a Chinaman there to see me do a Chinaman impression."
Later, he appears to give them a Nazi salute when, in fact, he is only waving at them. They storm off.
The episode brilliantly highlighted our belief that we're not racist if the foreigner doesn't see us being racist. At the same time it parodied knee-jerk reactions to perceived racism. Far more importantly – as it was a comedy – it was hilariously funny.
Minister for integration Conor Lenihan is also hilariously funny, although he doesn't normally mean to be.
Last week he invoked the Father Ted Defence that "I was only waving" when he appeared to give Leo Varadkar a Nazi salute in the Dáil. "Hi Leo/Heil Leo" do sound alike, after all.
Lenihan called Varadkar a fascist over his proposal this summer that we pay unemployed foreigners to go home voluntarily. Stress on 'voluntarily'.
Herr Lenihan later dropped the Father Ted Defence and goosestepped over to what we'll call the Tommy Tiernan Defence: "I was only joking."
Varadkar laughed it off but is still perceived as a racist for his proposal.
Kevin Myers, like Varadkar, has also been accused of being racist when trying to start a debate about immigration. On the Late Late in September 2007 he argued that anyone who tries to discuss the issue is branded a racist. He was right. There still hasn't been a meaningful debate and he was branded a racist.
Myers doesn't do himself any favours. Recently the Press Council found he caused "grave offence" with an incendiary article about giving aid to Africa. In it he asked why he should do anything to "encourage further catastrophic demographic growth" in Ethiopia. Importantly, the council added the article hadn't been intended to incite racial hatred.
I don't in any way condone Myers' antagonistic, spittle-speckled descriptions of Africans as Kalashnikov-toting and "priapic" and absolutely don't believe they should be let starve. However, while his language was hugely offensive, at the core of the article there appeared to be sincere concern for that unfortunate continent. He wanted to start a debate about it.
This begs the question: is how he delivered his opinion more important than why he delivered it?
Another Late Late Show guest who, like Myers, loudly exercises his right to free speech was also accused of being racist last week.
After snorting at Travellers and disabled people, Tommy Tiernan set about immigrants. He did this by mewling in a 'funny' voice and asking the time. This 'observation' was followed with an impression of a Chinese person working in a takeaway. Again it wasn't clear what his point was. There was no insight, no context.
Was it that non nationals sound ridiculous?
Unlike Myers, Varadkar and even Father Ted's creators, Tiernan used his right to free speech to mock immigrants. This was justified with the idiotic defence that if we all laugh at each other we'll all be grand, lads.
While Myers and Varadkar are trying to break into the debating chamber, Tiernan entered the living rooms of thousands of non-nationals and sneered at them. Just to flog a DVD. He needs to learn that when free speech is used against the vulnerable it becomes the enemy of freedom. The freedom to work in a takeaway, for instance, without being laughed at.
Some comedians use their job to observe society's absurdities, others throw custard pies. Tiernan did neither. He broke the first rule of comedy: he just wasn't funny. And the more 'outrageous' he tries to be, the more boring he is becoming as a comedian.
Perhaps next year the Late Late will have Conor Lenihan on instead.
At least he's good for a laugh.
dkenny@tribune.ie
November 2, 2008
Freedom of speech must be cherished, not used for nasty gags
There's an episode in Father Ted that concerns racism – or, at least, attitudes to it.
Ted has been accused of being racist after putting a lampshade on his head, squinting and saying, "I am Chinese if you ple-ease", just as a Chinese family appears at his window.
Panicking, he says, "Dougal, I wouldn't have done a Chinaman impression if I'd known there was going to be a Chinaman there to see me do a Chinaman impression."
Later, he appears to give them a Nazi salute when, in fact, he is only waving at them. They storm off.
The episode brilliantly highlighted our belief that we're not racist if the foreigner doesn't see us being racist. At the same time it parodied knee-jerk reactions to perceived racism. Far more importantly – as it was a comedy – it was hilariously funny.
Minister for integration Conor Lenihan is also hilariously funny, although he doesn't normally mean to be.
Last week he invoked the Father Ted Defence that "I was only waving" when he appeared to give Leo Varadkar a Nazi salute in the Dáil. "Hi Leo/Heil Leo" do sound alike, after all.
Lenihan called Varadkar a fascist over his proposal this summer that we pay unemployed foreigners to go home voluntarily. Stress on 'voluntarily'.
Herr Lenihan later dropped the Father Ted Defence and goosestepped over to what we'll call the Tommy Tiernan Defence: "I was only joking."
Varadkar laughed it off but is still perceived as a racist for his proposal.
Kevin Myers, like Varadkar, has also been accused of being racist when trying to start a debate about immigration. On the Late Late in September 2007 he argued that anyone who tries to discuss the issue is branded a racist. He was right. There still hasn't been a meaningful debate and he was branded a racist.
Myers doesn't do himself any favours. Recently the Press Council found he caused "grave offence" with an incendiary article about giving aid to Africa. In it he asked why he should do anything to "encourage further catastrophic demographic growth" in Ethiopia. Importantly, the council added the article hadn't been intended to incite racial hatred.
I don't in any way condone Myers' antagonistic, spittle-speckled descriptions of Africans as Kalashnikov-toting and "priapic" and absolutely don't believe they should be let starve. However, while his language was hugely offensive, at the core of the article there appeared to be sincere concern for that unfortunate continent. He wanted to start a debate about it.
This begs the question: is how he delivered his opinion more important than why he delivered it?
Another Late Late Show guest who, like Myers, loudly exercises his right to free speech was also accused of being racist last week.
After snorting at Travellers and disabled people, Tommy Tiernan set about immigrants. He did this by mewling in a 'funny' voice and asking the time. This 'observation' was followed with an impression of a Chinese person working in a takeaway. Again it wasn't clear what his point was. There was no insight, no context.
Was it that non nationals sound ridiculous?
Unlike Myers, Varadkar and even Father Ted's creators, Tiernan used his right to free speech to mock immigrants. This was justified with the idiotic defence that if we all laugh at each other we'll all be grand, lads.
While Myers and Varadkar are trying to break into the debating chamber, Tiernan entered the living rooms of thousands of non-nationals and sneered at them. Just to flog a DVD. He needs to learn that when free speech is used against the vulnerable it becomes the enemy of freedom. The freedom to work in a takeaway, for instance, without being laughed at.
Some comedians use their job to observe society's absurdities, others throw custard pies. Tiernan did neither. He broke the first rule of comedy: he just wasn't funny. And the more 'outrageous' he tries to be, the more boring he is becoming as a comedian.
Perhaps next year the Late Late will have Conor Lenihan on instead.
At least he's good for a laugh.
dkenny@tribune.ie
November 2, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
