04.19.07
Nerd Camp
Joe is making me go to BarCamp. I don’t know why. I am not a geek. I hope I don’t embarrass myself. Still, lots of fun people there, even if they are nerds 
04.18.07
Are a la carte Catholics entitled to a funeral?
This is my kind of priest – writing in today’s IT. Obviously part of an earlier correspondence which I missed. I think we need more priests to tell hypocrites like myself to sod off. (or in this case, suggesting that we spare them the bother of telling us to sod off and having the manners not to ask in the first place). Then we’d start respecting them 
“HAVING IT BOTH WAYS WITH CHURCH
Madam, – John T Kavanagh (April 12th) writes that I have “decided that certain people should not be given a church funeral service”. On the contrary, neither I nor any priest will take such a stand.
The question I was trying to raise is whether people should ask the church for a funeral if by their own choice they have no connection with Catholicism during their lives. The Church will continue to be a place of welcome to all, but should it be taken advantage of and used for convenience?
Is that respecting other people’s religion, which is surely one of the pillars of a mature secular society?
Mr Kavanagh asks: “How will people, like myself, who attend Church only for weddings and funerals fare?” He must decide for himself: Does attending a wedding in a Church once upon a time justify the expectation that the people of that religion have a duty towards him to spend two full days of their time and energy visiting the home of the deceased, sympathising with the bereaved, planning the liturgy, composing the homily, receiving the remains in the evening, celebrating the Requiem Mass the next morning and finally going to the cemetery? Is that a reasonable expectation of people he doesn’t know and has decided to have nothing to do with?
The mission of the Catholic Church is to the living. Through the proclamation of the Gospel and the celebration of the sacraments the church offers those alive the salvation of Christ. Is it fair to rob the mission of the church of its time, energy and resources in celebrating the funerals of people who decided in life not to be part of it but who expect the church to sacrifice its mission for their convenience?
So, Mr Kavanagh, the church will not refuse you a funeral, but should you ask for one?
- Yours, etc,
Fr GREGORY O’BRIEN PP, New Cabra Road, Dublin 7.”
Browne on Dunlop
At f*cking LAST someone (VB) gets to the point.
From today’s IT
” In early 2000, Frank Dunlop, the former government press secretary, acknowledged to the planning tribunal that he had given perjured evidence up to then, writes Vincent Browne .
Subsequently he entered into private interviews with tribunal counsel, and the transcript of one of those interviews, that of May 25th, 2000, has become available because of the Supreme Court decision that the tribunal’s previous withholding of such documentation was unlawful.
Frank Dunlop was being interviewed by the two senior members of the tribunal’s legal team at the time, John Gallagher and Pat Hanratty.
He was accompanied by his own counsel, Seanan Allen.
For a reason that is not clear Mr Allen asked: “Can we go off [the record] for a second.”
Then Mr Hanratty continued with a discussion that had gone on previously about Mr Dunlop’s tax arrangements, initially to do with VAT.
Mr Hanratty said: “We were interested in the Revenue files, to be totally frank with you, we were interested in your Revenue files which we have got, in the context of if you were receiving money for the purpose of dispersement to councillors, then you would be made to, if I may say so, to declare it as income because it is not in fact income.”
Later Mr Hanratty put what he described as a “hypothetical argument”.
He said: “You get £175,000, you spend half of it on yourself, therefore from a Revenue perspective they would regard that as income.
“You spend half of it on your client to somebody else. [Apparently meaning 'you spend half on somebody else'.] Therefore it could not be income and could not be liable to tax penalties or interest or anything else obviously . . . What I am saying to you is if the Revenue were told, whether they believe it or not, that this money was passed on by way of political donation or whatever, provided they were satisfied that you did not have it as income, then you are not liable for tax on it . . . What I am saying is, it is tax neutral, it is not income. Therefore it is not liable to income tax and because it is not fee for services rendered it is not liable to VAT.”
This might be run-of-the-mill conversation in normal circumstances but these were not normal circumstances.
Here was a self-admitted liar, perjurer and corrupter of the political process being examined in private by counsel for a tribunal charged with investigating this corruption, communicating to a person who was to become a key witness (in fact the key witness) that the more he could claim he spent on “political donations” (which in the circumstances meant bribing councillors) the less he would be liable for tax.”
In other words SOMEONE has finally suggested that since Frank was lying through his teeth THEN, he might just be telling a fibs NOW. Why isn’t this view more commonplace?
And since Frank obstructed the Tribunal for so long, and his now singing like a canary, are they going to cover any of his costs?
04.15.07
Bias in journalism
Ronan Quinlan in the SINDO gives the item I did on Ryan Tubridy a mention today. He’s most aggrieved with Paddy Prendiville of the Phoenix so I am almost off the hook. Phew!
“Presenter Ryan Tubridy didn’t help matters, mischievously asking if there was a “smoky room” in every newspaper where it was decided whether or not to “go for the Government”.
The suggestion was pure grist to the mill of The Tubridy Show’s other guest, Sunday Times columnist Sarah Carey, who gave her take on the Irish Independent’s 1997 election-day ‘payback time’ editorial: “You have to believe that there was a smoky room and that they [the editors] were given their orders.”
Choice
One of the defining features of the middle class is its access to choice. Which school, college, car, job, mortgage provider, doctor or bank holiday weekend destination? It’s the Holy Grail of the middle class and they get very upset if someone tries to remove this sacred right to choose.
The choice brigade infects every single aspect of public policy where the strong lose nothing and the weak lose everything. It’s hardly any coincidence that both the PD’s and the Green’s are popular amongst the middle classes since they both believe in freedom of choice : though on different issues. The next election will see these parties go head to head with the winner holding the balance of power.
One area which illustrates the philosophy of the two parties in a rather interesting way is that of water fluoridation. The Green’s want to stop the addition of fluoride to public water supplies while the PD’s are strongly in favour of it. There are two views on fluoridation. The first, as Keith Redmond of the PD’s argues is that water fluoridation has been one of the most successful public health policies in history. Research by the Oral Health Services Centre at UCC showed that Irish children eat so many sweets, brush their teeth so infrequently and see a dentist so rarely that every tooth in their head should be rotten by the time they are 8 years old. By way of comparison, children in Northern Ireland where the water is not fluoridated have 50% more dental decay than their southern counterparts. This is the despite the fact that they brush their teeth and visit the dentist more frequently than those in the Republic. In the absence of fluoride in the water, their better habits are not enough to stop the rot.
Not everywhere in the Republic has fluoridated water since many people live in rural areas without proper treatment plants. The difference in the dental health of those who live in non-fluoridated and fluoridated areas is significant even well into adulthood. A national survey of the oral health status of adults in 1989-90 showed that in the 35 to 44-year-old age group, 53% of those living in a non-fluoridated area had at least 20 natural teeth; however, 71.3% of those living in a fluoridated area had the same number of teeth. It’s pretty convincing evidence of the rightness of the policy.
The Green’s argue that adding fluoride to the water was fair enough thirty years ago but isn’t necessary now that all toothpastes have added fluoride. In fact they point to the increase in dental fluorosis, spots on the surface of the teeth, as evidence of the downside of excessive fluoride in one’s system. The PD’s Redmond says it’s only a cosmetic condition and far better to have a few cases of fluorosis than nationwide tooth decay.
The Green’s former MEP Patricia McKenna refers to dodgy studies connecting fluoride with bone cancer which have been comprehensively dismissed by proper authorities. This sort of hysterical contribution is only a liability to anti-fluoridation arguments. Health spokesperson Gormley is more concerned that our total fluoride intake is unnecessarily high and the Committee on Health and Children on which he sits has agreed to conduct a nationwide survey on total fluoride intake. When that reports we’ll have a clearer picture.
In an ideal world the Green position is the correct one. In the Nirvana of Scandinavia, wouldn’t you know, the people’s teeth are perfect even though water is not fluoridated. But they don’t eat junk and they do brush their teeth properly, so not surprisingly they have low rates of dental decay. John Gormley argues this is the best strategy : educate people about dental hygiene rather than risk over-loading the population with fluoride.
The problem for Gormley is that we don’t live in an ideal world. How long would it take to change our dental hygiene habits and what damage would be done in the process? I’m not exactly sure how many children would lose their teeth, but I can guarantee you this much. Middle class people who can afford to take their children to a private dentist will be considerably better off than those working class people languishing on waiting lists for years. This is my objection to the” freedom of choice” argument for what Patricia McKenna calls “imposed mass medication”.
The freedom to choose how you manage your children’s dental hygiene should not be, but would boil down to a class issue. In the absence of an adequate public dental service, removing fluoride from public water supplies would damage poorer children more. In that respect it’s hardly any surprise that the PD’s are in favour of national fluoridation. It’s a cheaper way to solve a public health problem even if there are some minor non-monetary costs. Fluorisis being one and the “invasion of bodily integrity” being another according to the Greens. Fluoridation was introduced in the first place because there simply weren’t enough dentists to serve the population. Adding a chemical to our water is considerably cheaper and arguably more effective than the provision of an efficient public dental health service.
The science agrees with the PD position on fluoridation and so do I. That aside, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the PD’s prefer the option which sees the least money going into public health. It fits neatly into their overall policy of reducing income taxes and by extension investment in public services. By putting money directly into people’s pockets and allowing them to buy their own services rather than rely on the State it taps into the middle class obsession with choice.
Democracies are supposed to elect a central government which collects taxes and spend them on public services to the benefit of everyone. But the richer we get the more we like to choose how to spend our own money.
A creaking health service doesn’t matter if you can afford health insurance. A primary school system that gets only two thirds of its money from the government is irrelevant if the parents in well-off districts can raise the missing funds. A county council unable to invest in a water treatment plant doesn’t hurt too much if you can afford to buy bottled water. If you are really rich you can become a tax exile or avail of numerous tax avoidance schemes. Generous donations to charities of your choice assuage your conscience while you fund political parties focussed on creating good business environments and terrible public infrastructure.
It’s a great life if you have choices. If you are poor and have no choices, it’s not so good. When choice is the most important thing in your life, it’s easy to judge the poor for being poor. After all, they are poor because they made bad choices. You wouldn’t do that, now would you?
Kids defeat opt-out from God
Note: This article appeared in the ST without the Borg reference, on the basis that lots of people mightn’t know anything about the Borg. But somehow I think the readers of this blog will gettit.
lIf you don’t watch Star Trek, The Next Generation, you might not be familiar with The Borg : the half living, half machine aliens with one sinister mission : to turn everyone else into Borg. Justly confident of victory, they inform prospective victims “Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated”. I’ve attended a few christenings recently where this catchphrase is jokingly directed at the hosts. Why the hilarity? Well the christenings are getting a bit odd.
Instead of the usual babes in arms, the subjects of the baptism are perfectly articulate children capable of personally rejecting Satan and all his works. As they solemnly participate in the ceremony, their atheist parents are torn between pride and resentment. When the children were babies the hints of hopeful grandparents had been quietly ignored. Having examined their consciences and discussed the matter seriously with spouses and peers, they decided they had no wish to present their babies for induction into a church which they had long abandoned. Hypocrisy thrown off, they congratulated each other and moved on. Or so they thought. Now they find themselves standing on an altar, lighting candles and taking vows and photographs. Why now?
Because their children went to school and met The Borg. If you live in certain urban areas there might be an opportunity to send your children to a non-denominational school. But for most people, especially in rural areas, there is one primary school which is owned and managed by the Catholic Church. Off go your little liberal darlings and back come the questions about God and demands for a First Holy Communion. Suddenly the decision you made five years ago is starting to get a bit complicated. Children usually have one burning wish : to be like all the other children. If it’s the right brand of runners or the right brand of religion : whatever the other kids have, they want it too. Catholicism offers a fancy white dress for the girls, a day out for boys and girls and the prospect of unsolicited cash donations. It’s an excellent USP and there’s no compelling reason for a 6 year old to opt out. Explaining that you’d really much prefer if they learned Buddhist Dharma wisdom rather than the Ten Commandments won’t really cut it.
Next thing you know, you’re cosying up to the local priest looking for a free Sunday so the assimilation can begin.
Unfortunately it doesn’t end there. Catholicism operates on the same marketing principal as McDonalds. Get the kids and then you get the parents. Once the baptismal certificate has been sent, the note comes home for a parents’ meeting to discuss the First Communion arrangements. This is where the orders are issued: for a child to be eligible for their communion, they must present themselves at mass every Sunday for the school year. You thought the days of going to Mass to please your parents were gone. Now you have to go to Mass to please your children. It’s hardly conducive to the development of spirituality, is it? One mother I know looks on the bright side and cheerfully brings her children along every Sunday. They’ve learned how to sit still for forty minutes and she appreciates the peace. Faith appears to be completely irrelevant to the whole exercise.
It’s only going to get worse by the way. As we heard last week, in some densely populated areas, the management want to see the baptismal certificate before the child even starts school. It’s turned into a perversion of the old Groucho Marx line about not wanting to join a club that would have you as a member. The Catholic Church seems determined to recruit those that haven’t the slightest interest in membership. Why would the church want people who clearly don’t believe in God to go to Mass every week?
I want to make clear that I don’t have a chip on my shoulder about the Catholic church. I know all the terrible things that were done in its name from child abuse that was covered up to the oppression of women to the general obsession with sin and guilt. On institutional and theological matters, I have opted out. That doesn’t prevent me from appreciating the beneficial effects of the pastoral work carried out by good priests and the comfort that faith brings to those who possess it. I am happy to provide financial support to the parish so those who need a priest won’t be without one. In any event, if I or any member of my family drops dead in the morning, a funeral will be held in the church and prayers will be said over us. It’s only fair to pay a retainer in the meantime for those services we want performed at the end.
In our own parish we have two excellent priests. The more elderly of them is an obviously holy and simple man who would inspire anyone to goodness. The younger is a fantastic worker, popular with everyone and whose management of our local schools means there will be a place for all pupils as our population grows. But that’s not the point. The point is that religion has no place in a school. Religion should be a matter of choice and that choice shouldn’t be nullified by a system in which education and religion are seamlessly presented in the state system. If you want your child to take Communion send them to a Sunday school.
Theoretically, any parent can tell the school that they don’t want their child to take Communion and remove them from the religion class. But what parent is going to make their child an oddity? It’s easier to give in gracefully and hope that the catechism-lite that seems to be taught now will leave this generation slightly better adjusted than the last.
Of course, the system suits the state enormously. For a hundred years the churches have taken on the responsibility of schools and hospitals. We got the hospitals back, but there isn’t a hope of getting the schools. Just think how much the state would have to pay to buy them all and that would only be the start of it. As we’ve discovered in recent weeks, the State relishes its lack of responsibility to manage primary schools. Children who were physically or sexually abused in primary schools have been warned by the Chief State Solicitors office not to sue the Department of Education for compensation or they will be pursued for costs. Victims of abuse must instead sue the Board of Management at the specific school. The only role the state will acknowledge is that they will pay for a certain number of teachers in the school and pay something towards the costs of building and extending new schools provided the locals cough up the balance.
We are left with a choice: do you pay extra taxes to help the state run the schools, or do you pay at the Annual Draw so the principal can buy new equipment for the class rooms. Or do you pay with your soul when you light candles and promise to love a God you don’t believe exists?
British released
I was surprised by my audible sigh of relief when I heard the sailors were to be released. They were very lucky. I loved this article in the Guardian a few days ago by Terry Jones.
No hoods. No electric shocks. No beatings. These Iranians clearly are a very uncivilised bunch
Terry Jones
Saturday March 31, 2007
The Guardian
I share the outrage expressed in the British press over the treatment of our naval personnel accused by Iran of illegally entering their waters. It is a disgrace. We would never dream of treating captives like this – allowing them to smoke cigarettes, for example, even though it has been proven that smoking kills. And as for compelling poor servicewoman Faye Turney to wear a black headscarf, and then allowing the picture to be posted around the world – have the Iranians no concept of civilised behaviour? For God’s sake, what’s wrong with putting a bag over her head? That’s what we do with the Muslims we capture: we put bags over their heads, so it’s hard to breathe. Then it’s perfectly acceptable to take photographs of them and circulate them to the press because the captives can’t be recognised and humiliated in the way these unfortunate British service people are.
It is also unacceptable that these British captives should be made to talk on television and say things that they may regret later. If the Iranians put duct tape over their mouths, like we do to our captives, they wouldn’t be able to talk at all. Of course they’d probably find it even harder to breathe – especially with a bag over their head – but at least they wouldn’t be humiliated.
And what’s all this about allowing the captives to write letters home saying they are all right? It’s time the Iranians fell into line with the rest of the civilised world: they should allow their captives the privacy of solitary confinement. That’s one of the many privileges the US grants to its captives in Guantánamo Bay.
The true mark of a civilised country is that it doesn’t rush into charging people whom it has arbitrarily arrested in places it’s just invaded. The inmates of Guantánamo, for example, have been enjoying all the privacy they want for almost five years, and the first inmate has only just been charged. What a contrast to the disgraceful Iranian rush to parade their captives before the cameras!
What’s more, it is clear that the Iranians are not giving their British prisoners any decent physical exercise. The US military make sure that their Iraqi captives enjoy PT. This takes the form of exciting “stress positions”, which the captives are expected to hold for hours on end so as to improve their stomach and calf muscles. A common exercise is where they are made to stand on the balls of their feet and then squat so that their thighs are parallel to the ground. This creates intense pain and, finally, muscle failure. It’s all good healthy fun and has the bonus that the captives will confess to anything to get out of it.
And this brings me to my final point. It is clear from her TV appearance that servicewoman Turney has been put under pressure. The newspapers have persuaded behavioural psychologists to examine the footage and they all conclude that she is “unhappy and stressed”.
What is so appalling is the underhand way in which the Iranians have got her “unhappy and stressed”. She shows no signs of electrocution or burn marks and there are no signs of beating on her face. This is unacceptable. If captives are to be put under duress, such as by forcing them into compromising sexual positions, or having electric shocks to their genitals, they should be photographed, as they were in Abu Ghraib. The photographs should then be circulated around the civilised world so that everyone can see exactly what has been going on.
As Stephen Glover pointed out in the Daily Mail, perhaps it would not be right to bomb Iran in retaliation for the humiliation of our servicemen, but clearly the Iranian people must be made to suffer – whether by beefing up sanctions, as the Mail suggests, or simply by getting President Bush to hurry up and invade, as he intends to anyway, and bring democracy and western values to the country, as he has in Iraq.
· Terry Jones is a film director, actor and Python
www.terry-jones.net
04.03.07
Daylight
An update. Remember my early waking problems? Got black out blinds. They are great. Also, with the stretch in the evenings now, when the children are in the bath I do an Others job (ref: Nicole Kidman etc) and pull all the curtains and blinds. By the time they get out they think its dark and bedtime. Cue evil laugh……….
04.02.07
Blogging
I know I haven’t been doing much blogging but my productivity has soared as a result. Current project is painting the fence – its a wooden picket style one – and no, I am not painting it white – a mahogany woodstain. But it’s pretty tricky. Lots of little corners etc. Also, I cleaned out the car – as in hoover and wash. The pebbles from the drive and biscuit crumbs appear to be the chief sources of soiling. I think I won’t bother to attempt an in-car eating ban. That’s a battle lost already.
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »