Ireland General Discussion

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Oh joy we get Foxrock added to our lot. I suspect that would favour FG as would the other areas added (though this is just educated guessing really.)

Can someone tell me what's going on in Meath West? (And why oh why do the Commuter belt seats remain as 3 seaters - that just benefits FF.)

I'll get back to the comments on education once I'm back at home (next Monday; I'm here in Maynooth now and then going down to Offaly at the weekend where there is no Internets. Yay!) and not trying to hurry at a computer which all the 3rd years wish to use. Though that candlelight idea sounds like fun

Btw, the constitution needs to be changed to make seats fit into electorates not population.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Oh joy we get Foxrock added to our lot. I suspect that would favour FG as would the other areas added (though this is just educated guessing really.)

Can someone tell me what's going on in Meath West? (And why oh why do the Commuter belt seats remain as 3 seaters - that just benefits FF.)

The maintenance of two three seaters in Meath and the lack of change in the north of Dublin City would seem to hurt Sinn Féin most.

Btw, the constitution needs to be changed to make seats fit into electorates not population.

OK, heres something I'm not prone to saying... but think of the children!

The issue here is really non-nationals (of course if they give the vote to non-nations then I wouldn't complain.)

You're right though about this really screwing SF in North Dublin and.. The socialist party; whose partizans (yes they are real!) are raging as Clare Daly's major base in Dublin North (Ie. Around the Airport area and South Swords) has been moved into Dublin West - Joe Higgins' hunting ground. So any chance of two seats is pretty much screwed. Funny, I never considered the Airport to be in West Dublin. Funny what you learn, eh?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Gully, what's the collective noun for members of Sinn Fein? Obviously it's not "Sinners"...

While I prefer "Terrorists" or even "Judean People Frontists" the correct name is actually "Shinners". (As it make it looks Irish, putting a h after the first letter in a word is common in certain gaelic constructions.)

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Back to this again:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In a way that's right but modern 'idols' tend to be a bit more abstract. For example every town in Ireland once had a local priest and a great deal of mythology grew up around the powers of local priests (often in the most rural areas this was combined with alot of old Gaelic mysticism, just showing that the Celtic religions never quite died they just started worshipping crosses instead.) of course there were figure heads like the Pope, The Archbishop, etc but until the invention of mass communication the Pope was directly irrelevant to the lives of Irish people he was just the guy (who no-one knew what he looked like; now that's a sobering thought.) who was in Rome who told the other guys who were Cardinal who told the Archibishops etc what to do. Nowadays I think nearly everyone (at least in my age group; so excluding Vincent Browne) knows what Paris Hilton looks like but actually know her as a person? How do you "know" a person anyway?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True; but even more than other nations perhaps because of our location and history we tend to blame solely external sources like the OMG TEH BRITS!!111

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm sorry if I don't get misery porn? Personally I don't think our culture is a great state is so many of the communitariat seem to be to sexually arouse themselves with the idea of a economic recession. Do we really hate ourselves that much? Or is this just the smugly educated upper middle class folks who become leading journalists (usually writing articles in the Sindo about how awful consumerism is why discussing their latest pair of Manolos.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No doubt; but that won't happen, why? The idea of liberal Democracy is routed in the notion of an active and educated (often self-educated) citizenship. Now admittely alot of these ideas belong to the age of the Printing press and the Enlightment (Books of course the best medium to express Political ideas, but how many people in Ireland are aliterate - can read but don't?) but I don't believe we can have a Democracy or anything similiar without out. Otherwise we are just giving more power than an already morally bankrupt political class.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True; but we are probing deeper than pure economics here (thus "pseudo-science") why is the level of demand like it is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No or not quite and here is the problem; I realize the contradiction here alas as why that is beyond my meagre talents aswell to truly explain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because understanding it is an intregal part of understanding the country in which I was born and raised into?

Also I don't believe much is holding Irish society actually together; in this I agree with the most conservative and reactionary Catholics while it's replaced a series of values which are always rooted locally and "in the soil" so the speak most of the new values (of course this is a sweeping statement, like all sociology, In Offaly I met a middle-aged women who criticized the people I was staying with because they did their laundry on a sunday.) are dependant on high levels of disposable income and foreign investment (Both "Visible" and "invisible" like tourism), and even those don't seem to be effective given the level of self-destruction we see in Irish society (Binge Drinking, et al not that binge drinking wasn't a problem "back in the day", That culture was destroyed by it's contradictions.. so will this one.) What will happen once the money goes away? Then what we will have?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True. But all Media has an in-built "message" which goes beyond what is obvious. Advertising to take the easy example hidden message is that all life's problems are simply solved and can be resolved in a matter of minutes; no thought, no nuance, no emotion just the robotism of "buying stuff". The Irish Times is full of information which seems to exist outside of space and time - for example can one really understand anything about the Middle-east crisis without at least a knowledge of it's history, all newspapers give the perception that information is a daily occurance which exists outside of human context (ie. There are these things called days and what happens on one day doesn't effect what happens on another.) Okay again this is a generalization, but my point is the media is effecting how we think; which then creates the enviornment to what we think. Of course in reality there is nothing we can do about that if 1 million people quite like owning and watching their TVs.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's unnatural for an Irish story to end happily. It never does.

Personally there is alot to be grateful for; but I can't help feel there is both a nasty masochistic and anti-intellectual streaks in Irish society (to begin with).

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps it's only a communitariat thing. But I notice this in Irish society and not just in Irish society but in Western society aswell (but as this thread is dealing solely with Ireland...). Alot of what is defined as modern "liberalism" seems to be dominated by a nasty streak of self-hatred and while alot of what is "Conservatism" is anti-intellectual. (See Fianna Fail, The Republicans, etc.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh no doubt about that, I'm showing it's not in the nature of a newspaper to do so. Which is the problem. Are you familiar with "The Medium is the Message" (Which is kind of central to my thesis here)?

(I'm not bothered to write out a whole Thesis here plus I suck at explaining such ideas, I leave this up to wiki whose article is actually fairly good: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Medium_is_the_Message. Each Medium has a certain nature, not just Oral or Visual or Typographic but there is certain things one can do with certain mediums that are just not feasible with others (for various reasons) and within certain periods one Medium tends to be more dominate over the other to give an example for where I stole this thesis in the 1850s the Lincoln-Douglas Debates on slavery lasted seven hours consisting of only three speeches (Proposition-Opposition and Prop Rebuttal) by the two politicians, yet it was quite clear from the records that these were widely tended events from across the population. Imagine doing a seven hour debate on Television? Or on the Internet; which is replacing TV as the "dominant" technology? Nah. Attention Span is one thing, meaning that each seperate medium is part of our enviorment and shapes the way we think, etc.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well quite alot of things actually an average sized book is likely to contain much more information than a TV show of average length. Plus with Television there is a need to "enforce" imagination by choosing actors, sets, etc while in the book it would all be on the printed page. This may seem irrelevant at first, but given that one is surrounded by mediums all the time and
that there is always a tendenancy to preference even very young; (A Child watches how much ads by the time they turn 18? In the hundreds of Thousands iirc) which can influence on how   
you think. A book and a TV show have such inbuilt assumptions in them which even if you don't accept what is in front of you as "fact" can clearly warp you perception on a historical event.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Exactly. But I don't see why is this particularly a good thing. (Not that it is bad either; just a
value of "society".)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, now? Of course very few people blame the Brits now, much more fashionable is the Roman Catholic Church or De Valera or whatever. When I mentioned the Brits I merely referring to about 50 years old pre-Troubles, such as the Euphoria of Nationalism which engulfed in Ireland in 1966 50 years after 1916 with all that rhetoric which would be impossible now. But that doesn't mean we have matured, just shifted to a different side of the same cube.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh no doubt that we may be heading into slightly dangerous waters (though I doubt it will be as bad as the 1980s. At the very worst, the early 70s) I referring to the reaction of certain commentators towards the possibility, both "Conservative" or "Liberal" who seem to can't wait for it to get started and try to portray the possibilities as in a dramatic and over-the-top way as possible. (As our Melodrama-disguised-as-Politics show "Prime Time" shows.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

See Above.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In other words, they feel it is abstract from their lives and bears no relation to the "real world" but is rather a media event. Which of course is why so little change is going to be forthcoming, even reluctant acceptance of "reality" will mean "reality" is accepted and so on.

Interesting to note though that voting has gone down since the Economic boom while there are some obvious reasons for this (The Tribunal relevations being one of them) it's quite curious to note that people seemingly had more faith in politicians in the 1980s when Turnout was above 80% and emigration for many may have felt that high.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A country is an abstract idea which becomes a reality through its laws, its borders, its government, etc. When you grow up one of the first indicators of identity you have in the Modern world is your nationality; I think I learned that I was Irish when I was two, this may seem normal but is only a relatively recent invention dating back to the Enlightment. (And In Ireland's case, the National Revival movement of the 19th Century) So in order to adapt to being "Irish" you sub(?)conciousnessly adopt some notions of Irish which may pick up, of course it's hardly the only personal influence but there are notions of "Irishness" out there and even though we may not be aware of them it effects our identity at some level or another. One can't really be a 'united' nation without some kind of unifying culture, which is why a United Ireland was a true impossibility in the 1920s (or at least a peaceful one) but more likely now, though still a long bit away.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

FTR, I'm enjoying this fireside chat

Cool. Nice to see an intruder.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Some of what you say is true; though I guess it depends on how you define "liberalism" and "Conservatism" as those words seem to shift meaning every decade or so. (Margaret Thatcher would probably have been in the Liberal party; if she lived in the 19th Century.) I would say no doubt since Reagan though in the United States what has become known as Conservatism has a very, very strong Anti-Intellectual streak, as does most forms of conservatism as it is it's desire to maintain the "Status Quo".

For Example two of the last four American presidents were men who appeared to be of very unsound mind, Bush and Reagan both Conservatives (If you accept that it was all an act; then it was a very popular and effective act. What does that mean?) as they described themselves both played towards certain soundbites like "Family Values" or "With us or against us" and of course draconian civil liberty legislation like the PATRIOT Act all these things show what I mean   
by "Anti-Intellectualism":
1) Bush and Reagan both elected in part because they played to a prejudice against "Elitist Liberals" - usually College educated people who did not speak in the accent of Ordinary folks, they played characters as if out films, actually one of them was an actor, their entire persona was based on Television, which is by defintion a non-Intellectual medium (not that I think Television is bad; I'm just stating what it is) They portrayed themselves as against the "Elite" being liberals who "hated America", by playing this up they were attracted the Anti-intellectual vote and help spread that ideology across America. Hell alot of modern day Republican values are based on such a thing. (Creationism, anyone?)

2) These men then defined the language by soundbites to attack any who disagreed; so If I oppose Bush "I hate America", if I believe in Gay Marriage "I am part of the Homosexual agenda" and so on. In a way conservatives are winning the "Culture war" in that they defining the language of debate in many quarters (though I still find it hard to believe that anyone can say "Homosexual agenda" without laughing) of the country; what's happened though is that "liberals" are winning the war of ideas to the future leaders of the country by their own language, "Human Rights", "Freedom", "Equality", etc.

As for the "Liberals" it again depends on how you use that word; here I define it as how "liberal" is often used in media circles even though I admit I define myself as "Liberal" (Personally I think we need new words). Alot of this self-hate is described was based around enviormentalism which is often a neo-puritianism rather than Race issues; though I admit it may be prelevant there it's not something I pay much attention to. A core of Enviormental movement's core ideology (That is how the Enviormental movement wants to be seen; not the idea of Global warming itself) is:
1) Due to the evil corrupt forces of (always) 'Western' man (this is often disguised as "Capitalism") the earth is being raped and destroyed.
2) Therefore we must forego our traditional culture and we deserve it for our evil ways (again "Capitalism" or "Imperialism")
3) Often then there is a proviso about how other "civilisations" lived in harmony with nature - none of them 'western' o\c, but were destroyed by the evil forces of western man (Often embodied by "The Corporations".)

This is then often then put under a cloud of "intellectualism" which tries to justify this prejudice; but often comes across being smug and self-gratifying, as you say.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We gave some very under-the-counter support to the Allies. Despite De Valera signing Hitler's condolences book.

Btw, we were not a dominion in 1939 - we lost dominion status in 1937 - we were still a member of the Commonwealth but in reality a Republic in all but name.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, only if people 'defining' the nation and the National "quality" decide those are important. But often that's the case. For the past 60 years in Britain there has been a move away from what "Britishness" is partly due to "Multiculturalism". Of course the problem of Multiculturalism is that it can't be seen as a one way process.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ireland's never been United under "native" rule, unless you count the Rule of high king Brian Boru (1002-1014); but he was really more of a weak Feudal type monarch in an island with no sense of central authority; that idea came from the British.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Better? No. But some mediums are better at conveying different things than others; you can't make an abstract arguement over Television and if you watching two guys arguing abstractly isn't very "Televisual".

Look at TV news; most of the imagery shown on TV news is when you come down to it, meaningless - only vaguely related to what they are talking about. But it is there because no-one will see two newsreaders just talk to the screen for 25 minutes.

Plus here it should be pointed out the nature of Television tends to need biggish budgets to produce programs, so needs to dominated by financial interests or the Goverment. The same can't be said of book reading; though it's increasingly becoming true of the publishing industry.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Somewhat; the medium shapes the world which the producer\director\author is limited to. Obviously who's in creative charge matters and for that matter, whether the 'content' is profitable is also important. Sadly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never said it was. (Though it may be if children are over-exposed; but the psychological evidence is inconclusive iirc. I have to ask; why do Children TV-violence so attractive? why are most video games violent? etc. There are reasons for this; something innate in human nature perhaps (that great cop out arguement) or perhaps it is something "programmed" into it. Since the invention of film pretty much continously the "barrier" has been moved, though Hollywood tried to retard it for a while (due to the influence of Ultra-Catholic groups AAMOF until the 1960s) does suggest the need for sensation to increase profit, or what? God knows; I'm just putting ideas out. Most of them probably wrong.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Put a three years old in front of a TV show for children (like Balamory or something) and there's your example.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is some element of that; but it doesn't explain everything - why for example are turnouts for referenda lower than they were nor is this is a particularly historical trend - In most European countries (and America) that I think off the turnout has being going down over the past 20 years almost in a straight line and that's nothing to do with the nation's economic performance.

I suggest the distance between Irish Politicans and the "People" is greater than it was before; though obviously alot greater than in most countries. This is contributing to the lower turnouts, that and the other factors we've mentioned.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Beats me what it means. But to put things on a superficial level we both support Irish sports teams for example even though our personal connection with the team is very tenuous (non-existant in anything but the flag in most cases) so we must identify ourselves with "Irishness" on some level.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Shows my comments that some mediums have "innate" natures which leads towards certain things above others. You are not going to see a 7 hour debate on the TV like the Lincoln-Douglas debates, no?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The important word there is "mass". I wasn't neccesarily thinking of the "mass" really. But no objections there.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Probably.

But then again it is a very human trait to see it's cultural attributes as being the "most human". For example we westerners don't eat insects; even though logically there is no reason we shouldn't (Actually some are nutrious) yet because of it this whenever we someone eat an insect on TV or in a book or etc it is meant to show they are "out of the boundaries" of society or in more recent times, for our own peculiar amusement (Reality TV: Could that concept even have been thought up in 1950? By Aldous Huxley maybe, but normal Television producers (if there any were at the time)?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah yes and for me it was Christopher Crocodile. Actually I misread my own post; I was meant to show how Television can impact on how people think and how this can be most effective if put at a early age. And yet going back to what I said earlier about insects; and how these cultural prejudices are more effective when thought of as "human". (The Ancient Greeks thought themselves more human than non-Greeks; yet there are certain aspects of their society which we would not consider human in any way. Especially Spartan society.) So making an Objective judgement is probably impossible; in the way you can't make a judgement on how you learned not to eat insects.

Anyway to give the classical historical example, the spread of Printing and the Reformation, by creating books at a much faster rate then which was previously possible with written manuscripts it allowed a much closer study of the bible by scholars then was previously possible; this created a scenario where ideas could spread very quickly (by the standards of the Middle ages) and so once a "heretic" could get around to questioning the hierarchy the hierarchy could not react to suppress it as it had before to previous reformers like Jan Huss. This spread of ideas meant many people rethink their relationship with the Roman Catholic hierarchy. The form of this idea was the printed book; based generally on logical arguement (or at least books considered valid arguements) and the written word; which led to an interpitation not previously possible with only an elite class of Scribs and the Roman Catholic hierachy and it's papal bulls. The only reason the Reformation 'worked' in Germany, England, Scotland and not in most other countries was due to Political reasons.

In other words the book created new possibilities to criticize the world people were living in and by doing so created a scenario where in order for ideas to be taken seriously one needed to trained in the "book style" of thought) or for that matter, just to read ideas at all (and of course here we go into reading as purely a leisure pursuit) and then after generations we have a new way of thinking, which pretty much continued up until the 19th or 20th Century depending on which media ecologist you talk to.

People were trained to accept books from an early age and how to read them (Which is a much more difficult thing than it seems..) and thus needed to be intregrated into this way of thinking. The same is true now; except the mediums are so much different. Plus most modern (or postmodernist) literature isn't even written in the classical "book Style" with lineal narrative which leads from one thing to another (The phrase "I don't follow" comes to mean "I don't understand".) most of these books don't tell "stories" in the classical sense and this is mainly due to the influence of other media. Or in other words, What a 19th century book version of Family Guy look like?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Been the Opposite. Hah.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Exactly. The point is that the idea of a 7 hour political debate has grown absurd due to the nature of the media around us - back in the 19th Century the most advanced form of media was 'print' (or might have been telegraphy by that point, Unsure on exactly date. Even if it was, it wasn't advanced enough at this stage to make too big a difference.) and if you look at most 19th Century novels they tend to be alot bigger than today's, with a lineal (or near-lineal) narrative and with a use of language which now often tends to strike us moderns as ponderous (even in the "penny dreadfuls") this was due to the nature of the medium and society at the time where there was often alot of free time, at least for those with a high level of education and with far less distractions than today so of course book reading became the media of choice and in order to fill time long plots were necessary, the use of lineal narrative shows how these people had a sense of order in the universe with one event following the other and the language gives an insight on how well read most of these readers would have been (remember, I'm talking mainly about the Upper classes here.)

So it should no surprise that very long forms of debate took off, the nature of book reading at the time lead to a very different state of mind (sometimes simply known as "Attention Span" but it's more than that) which made the idea of a seven hour long debate not uncommon. The Episodic nature of television (especially in a free market enviornment), the fractured and anonymous nature of the Internet, the Impersonality of most modern Music medium (let's not forget up until the 30s iirc in order to hear music at all you pretty much needed to go to the performers.) leads to a great different form of how the human mind processes information.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, a good question. And an answer I'm too sure of tbh. I think I used this show how to society can be 'controlled' so to speak by conditions which go outside the very nature of politics. This is a tendency among many people especially polly junkies like us to see society's affairs being mainly dominated by decisions politicians do or don't make; this is probably down to the way history is taught in schools as focused mainly political events. In reality I tend to see Politicans as the servants of the wider society; whose shape is partially dominated by media (Would Bertie Ahern have been elected to Anything in the 19th Century; after all most of his appeal seems to come from "ordinary North Dublin man - ness" something could not have been communicated back then at all. The same is actually true of George W Bush or Ronald Reagan in America. Could imagine those three in a serious seven hour debate?)

[Tetro Kornbluth]

That poll is not surprising. That 9% FF has lost were the people who swung towards them heavily on election day, the previous undecideds. Also unsurprising is that Green support has fallen quite a bit in Dublin but is compensated by a rise in the rest of the country.

Of course doing a poll now is totally pointless, unless on the unlikely event that John Gormley will decide to pull out (which he won't). Also I wonder if those results were ever to repeated whether Fine Gael would end up being the largest party?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nah, this is doing f' all reading week.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's really both. A sort of reproductive process. The media shapes the people (as children) who will eventually shape the media

Aswell as being reproductive it also tends to be a static one, at least in a television society (which is still the main media in Ireland; certainly of those over a certain age. That and Newspapers) as demand is shaped by people's perceptions, individual culture, etc while perceptions and individual culture are often shaped by this demand (in the media).

Now here of course I'm not saying that Mediums that the only process driving change in society; but in this society Individuals are less likely to have an impact on it by themselves as Television requires a 'mass'. Though with the rest of the Internet this will be changing. (Though probably fracturing; but it's really still too early to really judge.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course not. See above. Especially now that our politicians are probably the first generation of those you have known the medium of TV pretty much all their lives.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now you are just being pedantic.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

From the Lincoln-Douglas record it would (surprisingly enough) need the participants to have major skills in rhetoric and arguement but also significant knowledge of the debate and the facts (And the history of the issue would be very important in the Slavery debate) in itself, what we now is an exchange of vapid soundbites not actual knowledge. Which obviously harms democracy.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

As I was bored I decided to use a uniform swing to see what would happen in Dublin south (which hopefully will have nothing to do with by 2012) by those results using 2007 as a basis and amusing the same candidates:

FF 32.6
FG 31
LAB 15.3
GP 11.4
PD 5.9
SF 3.1
OTH 0.7

A couple of things are note, Liz O'Donnell (PD) has retired from politics and won't be candidate at the next election. With that unless Fiona O'Malley decides to run probably finishes off PD chances here (in a constituency where if they functioned at all they would have at least one seat) - where those votes would go to is hard to tell actually as there is a tendenancy for whenever the PD to do well for FG to do badly so there is a clearly of correlation of sorts. There are also rumours that Seamus Brennan will be retiring in 2012 and that would take a good amount off the FF vote. In order for FF to get two seats in this scenario they would need O'Donell Votes and Green transfers. Which would be interesting to note.

But still early, early days.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sort of. But you make it out to be some sort of concious decision making rather than something which actually shapes how people think and thus how they make decisions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh no doubt. I'm just trying to explain why they don't.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True and false. Though more so true than it was in, say, the 19th Century. Generally though I find that there is a tendenancy to rely on the media you grew up on, at least as for average people are concerned.

What I am trying to say is that within media there can be "liberal" strands or "conservative" strands and yes consumer choice plays a part in that. But what is defined as "liberalism" or "conservatism" is often defined by very media that the viewpoint is put across. SKY News and John Waters are after all two very different beasts. But both lean on the right obviously.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hey, wash your tongue.

In saying that Maynooth is probably the only town in Kildare North where I would like to live, but given that the alternative options are Naas, Celbridge, Leixlip and Kilcock the competition is hardly shining.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No. Please inform.

Of course it's hard to imagine it being more full of sh!te then your average John Waters article.. but then I'm intrigued and disgressing.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

If the Calendar is correct...

Happy Birthday, Jas.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I'd be pretty depressed If I shared your birthday given some of the events which have happened during (according to wiki):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Though you do Share Roy Rogers (1911) birthday; so I guess that makes up for it.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I'd be pretty depressed If I shared your birthday given some of the events which have happened during (according to wiki):

Well, in the words of one of the most important philosophical influences I've had:
"Well of course everything looks bad if you remember it!"

Truly an intellectual inspiration to us all.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I'm not looking forward to the EU treaty campaign at all.. as much as I look forward to any referendum really. Much more full of spite and (generally useless) debate than even General elections.

I will be voting no, btw. The country will vote yes. It has been decided.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do not profane this post by mentioning the name "Justin Barrett" (pgfm).

As bizarre as it is to find myself on the same side as fascists, terrorists and the editing board of Alive! and The Irish Family Press it is exactly the opposite reason to that shower that I will vote no. That is the Undemocratic, centralizing nature of the European Union - which is not something I oppose per se but rather have not been very fond of in recent years. It's not I oppose taking away powers from the Irish State (actually it's something I wish could be done) but to put them into an even more bureocratic body which is even less democratic is something I think everyone interested in Democracy should opposed. But then again they might take our lattes away.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think the entire arguement will be "OMG THINK OF TEH POLES!!111" - after all they did win Nice II on that logic.

Btw, I assume you being a typical social democrat of these parts will vote "yes".

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

On other hand I think it's Ireland's best newspaper - no newspaper can make me feel the range of emotions that Alive! does. Not always positive emotions, but hey you can't have everything.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Another thing you should know by now about me is that I take every opportunity to bash the Irish Political consensus whenever possible. As you probably guess this is to be the debate:

Cliche Eurosceptic douche: Ireland's National sovereignty, neutrality is to be under...
Cliche Main Party TD: (Interrupting): Yes... Think of de Keltic Tigah! Without de EU we would not have de Keltic Tigah!
Cliche Eurosceptic douche: Yes.. yes.. but Ireland and <Insert reference to Abortion, De Valera, The Catholic Church, The heroes of 1916, Hunger Strikers or that vague abstraction known as "de nation" depending on preference>
Cliche Main Party TD: Yes.. Yes.. but De Keltic Tigah!
Cliche Eurosceptic Douche: But.. But
Cliche RTE presenter: Mr TD is right, De Keltic Tigah! De Keltic Tigah! It's changed everything!11

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Drat at my predictability.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nah if I had been there would have been random reference to property prices; misery porn for the polly junkies.

Too much RTE is bad for the brain... (which is why I hardly watch TeeVee any more.)

Btw You didn't answer my question:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Ah Okay at least you shall make an informed (I was originally going to write "uninformed" in a Freudian slip, perhaps?) decision according to the vast sum of prejudices once has gathered though life experience your point of view. So shall I. I think.

The government will of course try and ruin any potential debate as possible or to reduce it to RTE standards (see above).

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My experience mainly runs towards mysterious leafets coming through the letter box that no-one ever reads.

Anyway to be pedantic the Government itself is of course limited to what it can or can't do in terms of finances. Of course there are no laws on how TDs will debate on television or on the radio; or how their misinformation will be put across.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You forgot Anthony Crawley (I think that's his name) - no-one knows what he does exactly but he always seem to randomly appear to attack the EU during referendum campaigns and then suddenly vanish afterwards till the next referendum (save a few letters to the Irish Times) - As for the "absurd position" god help the country once the "opposition" gets its house in order, if that is possible. You would at least think that our TDs would try some intelligent debate to smash up the opposition - instead of screaming, shouting, instilling guilt\fear into the populace and being belligerant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes.

Oh if only one person - one person - in this whole Anti debate could look up what the Broken Window fallacy was then the Establishment (I do hate that word, but I am being lazy tonight - as well as avoiding studying for my first college exam tommorow. Students!) would be in serious trouble. Observe.

Cliche representative TD: The EU has been great for Ireland, The Economy of Ireland, End of conflict and war in Europe, Peace, etc, et bloody cetera.
The Voice of Reason: Excuse me, do you know what the Broken window fallacy is? It means you are seeing events in a very straight line without even thinking what might have been. Just because the Economy is very good and we are in the EU doesn't neccesarily mean that those things are linked. It's the nature of life that we can't be certain what happened if we went down paths we may have chosen instead of the ones we did. Perhaps Ireland would really be a knowledge economy and have an even higher GDP (side note: and we all know that's the most important thing EVAR!)  if we didn't join the EU in 1973, that is unless you have evidence to back up your assertion.
Cliche representative TD: Er... Ehhm... TEH POLES!111 De Keltic Tigah!11....