Watching the live Leaders' Debates over the past fornight has proven a truly insightful experience, though not only an insight into British politics. The one thing that has stood out, in my opinion anyway, is the manner in which British MP's conduct themselves in debates.
Brown, Cameron and Clegg may squabble slightly, but they do something that no Irish Politician has done in a very long time - they speak with confidence. Cowan, Kenny and Gilmore regularly put me to sleep; they lack charisma, confidence and most importantly, they lack leadership qualities. Most politicians in Dáil Éireann could do with a course of Public Speaking classes. I learned more about speaking confidently and clearly locked away in a demonstration room every lunch time for two years than most Irish politicians seem to have learned in the terms in government.
Another thing which has caught my attention is the differential ideological approaches of the respective candidates and their parties. Divisions are clear - their policy outlines are precise and we can see where Labour, Lib. Dem and Conservatives differ; in Ireland it seems to come down to a treaty from 1922. That's the sad fact, our country is still overshadowed by a division that is at this point, in my opinion, irrelevant, in the political spectrum at least. I'll probably be shot for saying that, but I honestly believe it. Gilmore's left wing party fails to provide the alternative that the country needs; our choices are limitied to two centre-right wing parties and trade unionists of the left. There is no real choice.
Furthermore these three parties search for no solutions, they are far too content to spend the majority of their time arguing. Ireland has spent enough time locked in internal squabbles; parties are all too happy to pick holes in each others' policies. Having a snipe has taken precedence above finding a solution. We need leaders at a time of economic crisis; we need people we can believe in. Not a single Irish politician has instilled in me the belief that they are fit to be in government or in opposition. Watching those who sit in Dáil Éireann squabble sickens me to the core. Ireland has become a sadistic, cynical, self obsessed country in the absence of the Celtic Tiger - we care only about how to get ourselves back into a position in which we can buy whatever we want; nobody cares about the wealth of the nation. We don't have the kind of leaders we need; ones who will knock our heads together and tell the people of this country to 'wise up'. Squabbling is not the way forward, co-operation is. We're in the red, we won't get out of that without making some cuts. Those in opposition would have to do the same thing were they in government. In-fighting simply won't do at this stage. I'd rather not vote than involve myself in another pointless General Election. Bringing Fine Gael or Labour into power won't change it either.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should adopt the British system; First Past The Post is a ludicrous electoral system. Neither am I saying we should follow England's example. What I am saying though is that it's such a pity that we have no figures with the charisma and confidence of Brown, Cameron and Clegg, no leaders who can clearly stand up and simply give a speech in the style of Barack Obama. Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese have had no problem doing so, so why can't our politicians? Why can our politicians not foster a desire to get involved in people my own age? I study politics and the majority of those I study it with would rather not vote than pick one of the current choices we have. It's time that both the politicians and people of Ireland, for want of a better phrase, 'got with the programme'.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
sex and the shitty
Something has been annoying me for the guts of god knows how long. That would be the preconception that as I am female it must automatically follow that I love Sex and the City.
I don't.
At all.
My mother wasn't one for shielding me from the world as a child and so from a tender age I was exposed to Graham Norton and Sex and the City. To be honest, Graham was far more entertaining.
Sex and the City seems to be some attempt to empower women. To be honest, I find it vapid at best. Whilst attempting to take some modern angle on feminism the show does little but foster an image of women as sex starved male obsessed maniacs, who constantly feel the need to be with their 'girlfriends' whilst HE is the enemy. Men are objectified. Wow. That REALLY does so much for the women's' movement doesn't it? We do to them what we complained about them doing to us, that solves EVERYTHING!
Carrie's soliloquys sicken me. I'd rather pull my hair out than listen to the monosyllabic drawl of a catty self-pitying thirty-something who could do with eating something. Samantha entertained me for a while, she is amusing, but there's having a joke about someone being obsessed with sex and there's Samantha. I'm not a prude, but I don't need to see that much thanks, if I wanted to watch soft porn I'd google it. Charlotte is painful and Miranda is just plain neurotic. Some women talk about the characters as though they're role models - I'd love to be able to fathom why.
The majority of my friends love this show for some reason. Don't get me wrong, I know for some it's light entertainment, but for me it's just mind-numbing. I don't understand how these women have no male friends, no guys who they have the banter with! Every woman just has gay designer friends that they talk shoes, scarves, bags and boys with! Soooo sooo true, like OH EMM GEE, it's like, MY life! When I go to NYC I HAVE to parade abotu like Carrie and the 'gals'.
It pains me that being female is associated with loving Sex and the City.
But I mean you know, I sit at my laptop typing out an article that I'm thinking out in my head. Evidently I'm SUCH a Carrie.
Carrie on love, as far away from me as possible please.
I don't.
At all.
My mother wasn't one for shielding me from the world as a child and so from a tender age I was exposed to Graham Norton and Sex and the City. To be honest, Graham was far more entertaining.
Sex and the City seems to be some attempt to empower women. To be honest, I find it vapid at best. Whilst attempting to take some modern angle on feminism the show does little but foster an image of women as sex starved male obsessed maniacs, who constantly feel the need to be with their 'girlfriends' whilst HE is the enemy. Men are objectified. Wow. That REALLY does so much for the women's' movement doesn't it? We do to them what we complained about them doing to us, that solves EVERYTHING!
Carrie's soliloquys sicken me. I'd rather pull my hair out than listen to the monosyllabic drawl of a catty self-pitying thirty-something who could do with eating something. Samantha entertained me for a while, she is amusing, but there's having a joke about someone being obsessed with sex and there's Samantha. I'm not a prude, but I don't need to see that much thanks, if I wanted to watch soft porn I'd google it. Charlotte is painful and Miranda is just plain neurotic. Some women talk about the characters as though they're role models - I'd love to be able to fathom why.
The majority of my friends love this show for some reason. Don't get me wrong, I know for some it's light entertainment, but for me it's just mind-numbing. I don't understand how these women have no male friends, no guys who they have the banter with! Every woman just has gay designer friends that they talk shoes, scarves, bags and boys with! Soooo sooo true, like OH EMM GEE, it's like, MY life! When I go to NYC I HAVE to parade abotu like Carrie and the 'gals'.
It pains me that being female is associated with loving Sex and the City.
But I mean you know, I sit at my laptop typing out an article that I'm thinking out in my head. Evidently I'm SUCH a Carrie.
Carrie on love, as far away from me as possible please.
ashes to ashes
I find it hilarious that people are complaining about the fact that airlines were banned from flying through the ash cloud. Across Europe business are shouting the odds about the ineffective governments whose attempts to deal with the ash cloud were a 'shambles'. Surely commerce would have faced far worse a disaster were planes to fall from the sky?
A pilot who flew through an ash cloud and lived to tell the tale was on sky news about 20 minutes ago. He boasted that airline pilots regularly flew through the remnants of ash clouds when flying over Java. Hmm, seems to be a valid enough point doesn't it? This pilot decreased altitude and managed to re-start his engines and safely land the aircraft. But what if he hadn't? Now I'm no Nostradamus, doomsday isn't my speciality, but just because he managed to re-start his engines doesn't mean every pilot who wandered into an ash cloud would be so lucky.
Don't get me wrong, I can't even begin to understand the frustrations of being stuck abroad for days on end with no idea as to when I'd get home. I'd be devastated were it to happen and most likely feel the frustration. However, I'd rather be safe and frustrated and eventually make it home than risk my neck flying through a cloud of molten rock particles. Pyroclastic clouds and Pompeii, Pinatubo and plummeting temperatures evidently mean little to the masses. Get me what I want, even if it might kill me.
For the first time in my life I find myself AGREEING with Michael O'Leary. It's blasphemous I know, but I have to say, the man has a point. Now I know Ryanair is a bit of a pain at times, but all they're there to do is fly you to your destination. It's the public transport of the airline world if you will. You pay about €30 for a flight, or occasionally for a return (thank you Europe), you break the bank on the hotel and then a tongue-twister of a volcano in Iceland goes boom. Should O'Leary cover your hotel costs? No. Not in my opinion anyway.
Fair enough if he cancelled your flight for no reason, or Ryanair was just being the proverbial pain the backside that it generally is, but for God's sake, you get what you paid for. You book a budget flight because you know it's not first class service, it's just supposed to get you there. O'Leary is not a God (he and I may differ on this point), he cannot stop the volcano (a clever soul on Facebook advocated the most attractive means of doing so - chucking Justin 'it's past my bedtime' Bieber as a sacrifice. roflcopter). If he's refunding your flight be happy. It's more than he'd usually do.
A pilot who flew through an ash cloud and lived to tell the tale was on sky news about 20 minutes ago. He boasted that airline pilots regularly flew through the remnants of ash clouds when flying over Java. Hmm, seems to be a valid enough point doesn't it? This pilot decreased altitude and managed to re-start his engines and safely land the aircraft. But what if he hadn't? Now I'm no Nostradamus, doomsday isn't my speciality, but just because he managed to re-start his engines doesn't mean every pilot who wandered into an ash cloud would be so lucky.
Don't get me wrong, I can't even begin to understand the frustrations of being stuck abroad for days on end with no idea as to when I'd get home. I'd be devastated were it to happen and most likely feel the frustration. However, I'd rather be safe and frustrated and eventually make it home than risk my neck flying through a cloud of molten rock particles. Pyroclastic clouds and Pompeii, Pinatubo and plummeting temperatures evidently mean little to the masses. Get me what I want, even if it might kill me.
For the first time in my life I find myself AGREEING with Michael O'Leary. It's blasphemous I know, but I have to say, the man has a point. Now I know Ryanair is a bit of a pain at times, but all they're there to do is fly you to your destination. It's the public transport of the airline world if you will. You pay about €30 for a flight, or occasionally for a return (thank you Europe), you break the bank on the hotel and then a tongue-twister of a volcano in Iceland goes boom. Should O'Leary cover your hotel costs? No. Not in my opinion anyway.
Fair enough if he cancelled your flight for no reason, or Ryanair was just being the proverbial pain the backside that it generally is, but for God's sake, you get what you paid for. You book a budget flight because you know it's not first class service, it's just supposed to get you there. O'Leary is not a God (he and I may differ on this point), he cannot stop the volcano (a clever soul on Facebook advocated the most attractive means of doing so - chucking Justin 'it's past my bedtime' Bieber as a sacrifice. roflcopter). If he's refunding your flight be happy. It's more than he'd usually do.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
schneider's bakery - exceedingly bad kids tv
Mr. Motivator had a massive impact on my childhood. Mostly because I'd spend my Saturday mornings wishing he'd disappear off the screen because he was regularly followed by the Power Rangers or the lesser known Super-Human-Samurai Cyber Squad (a tv show which my memory of is not shared by many of my friends). Biker Mice from Mars, Gigantor, Sweet Valley High, Sister-Sister, California Dreams, Rugrats, Sailor Moon, Pokémon, Rainbow Bright, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Saved By The Bell, Tucker, Hey Arnold!, Doug, Pepper Anne, Recess, Two of a Kind, Raising Dad (a personal favourite, cancelled far too early), Sonic The Hedgehog, Dinobabies, Tiny Toons, Animaniacs, Are You Afraid of the Dark? (didn't have the guts to watch it), Goosebumps (yet another tv show I was too timid to sit through), Clarissa Explains It All, Sabrina the Teenage Witch... the list of shows I grew to love is endless. Yet something about them strikes me - they were, for the majority, clever. Their humor was witty and dry. They challenged kids to think and to form opinions, they threw concepts out there and didn't try and shield kids from what was happening, from life itself. This honesty, wit and insight is something which, in my opinion anyway, modern children's television fails to offer.
Kids tv today really grinds my gears to be perfectly honest, especially the productions of one man; Dan Schneider. I'm probably going to hang myself out to dry here, but what he attempts to sell as 'comedy', is downright insulting to the intellectual capabilities of kids in my opinion. I failed to be enchanted by Kenan and Kel, The Amanda Show lead to my regular avoidance of Nickelodeon at certain times of the evening, and then came Drake and Josh. The name Dan Schneider became synonymous with my discontent. Zoey 101, iCarly and the latest abomination Victorious! have done little to raise Schneider's credibility in my eyes. Schneider's Bakery (as he has dubbed his production company) produced every single one of these shows, along with so-called comedy sketch show All That.
The scripts are poor and the humor is idiotic - screaming the word 'ointment' or having a 'nasty rash' seem to be entertaining all of a sudden. Inanimate objects have apparently become a source of great humor. Now don't get me wrong, I love lamp as much as Bric does, but there's a way to do that kind of comedy, and Schneider's production fall short of the mark. Ron Burgundy's leather bound books and scent of rich mahogany made me laugh as much as the next person, but Kenan and Kel's 'tuna' failed to reel me in. Drake and Josh initially seemed to have potential - two very different brothers with a scheming sister, a plot line that could easily have been used to create a pretty decent comedy. Sadly, no, it also went down the 'ointment, rash, foot fungus' route. I'm not even going to comment on Zoey 101, it shames me to have even watched enough of it to have been able to formulate an opinion in the first place. Schneider's Baker's dozen is infested with mould.
What annoys me most about these shows is their presumptions about the things kids can comprehend. Suddenly the world is only about boys, girls, ointment, foot fungus and delusional parents. Entertainment seems to have been replaced with the need to create the next big thing, the next Hannah Montana or High School Musical (Disney's just as bad as Nickelodeon). Back in the day, kids weren't treated like idiots. TV networks seemed to value their intelligence, their imagination and their ability to process things.
If we're not careful we're going to start breeding a generation of overprotected, unimaginative morons.
Kids tv today really grinds my gears to be perfectly honest, especially the productions of one man; Dan Schneider. I'm probably going to hang myself out to dry here, but what he attempts to sell as 'comedy', is downright insulting to the intellectual capabilities of kids in my opinion. I failed to be enchanted by Kenan and Kel, The Amanda Show lead to my regular avoidance of Nickelodeon at certain times of the evening, and then came Drake and Josh. The name Dan Schneider became synonymous with my discontent. Zoey 101, iCarly and the latest abomination Victorious! have done little to raise Schneider's credibility in my eyes. Schneider's Bakery (as he has dubbed his production company) produced every single one of these shows, along with so-called comedy sketch show All That.
The scripts are poor and the humor is idiotic - screaming the word 'ointment' or having a 'nasty rash' seem to be entertaining all of a sudden. Inanimate objects have apparently become a source of great humor. Now don't get me wrong, I love lamp as much as Bric does, but there's a way to do that kind of comedy, and Schneider's production fall short of the mark. Ron Burgundy's leather bound books and scent of rich mahogany made me laugh as much as the next person, but Kenan and Kel's 'tuna' failed to reel me in. Drake and Josh initially seemed to have potential - two very different brothers with a scheming sister, a plot line that could easily have been used to create a pretty decent comedy. Sadly, no, it also went down the 'ointment, rash, foot fungus' route. I'm not even going to comment on Zoey 101, it shames me to have even watched enough of it to have been able to formulate an opinion in the first place. Schneider's Baker's dozen is infested with mould.
What annoys me most about these shows is their presumptions about the things kids can comprehend. Suddenly the world is only about boys, girls, ointment, foot fungus and delusional parents. Entertainment seems to have been replaced with the need to create the next big thing, the next Hannah Montana or High School Musical (Disney's just as bad as Nickelodeon). Back in the day, kids weren't treated like idiots. TV networks seemed to value their intelligence, their imagination and their ability to process things.
If we're not careful we're going to start breeding a generation of overprotected, unimaginative morons.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
thesaurus
I find it truly amazing that I can be easily captivated by an item of clothing. The cleverer the design or premise, the more captivated I become. Or perhaps it's not about it being clever or appealing, but merely about the ease with which nostalgia and quirkiness seem to capture my attention.
I'm not exactly into high fashion. I don't see the point in wearing something 'chic' for the sake of it - I'd much rather lounge about in something comfortable. Though to be perfectly honest, I have submerged myself in the nautical theme that seems to be in fashion this season. After all, how can you look good if you don't feel like you do? It's all about the confidence - dear God I'm quoting Gok Wan. Can somebody save me from pop culture please?
Today I found a gem, a truly amusing t-shirt.
It says thesaurus.
It's a dinosaur.
It's a dinosaur in glasses.
Moreover it's a dinosaur in glasses sitting on a pile of books reading a book.
I'd wager that that book is a thesaurus.
I don't know why, but the imagination behind the t-shirt truly struck me. I stood back and thought 'wow - there's someone somewhere who has the exact same frame of mind as I do, who enjoys the intellectual banter, who is revelling in intellectual promiscuity! In my opinion there's a lot to be said for clever use of language, for imagination and for dinosaurs. Particularly dinosaurs depicted sitting on piles of books in glasses reading thesauruses.
I'm not exactly into high fashion. I don't see the point in wearing something 'chic' for the sake of it - I'd much rather lounge about in something comfortable. Though to be perfectly honest, I have submerged myself in the nautical theme that seems to be in fashion this season. After all, how can you look good if you don't feel like you do? It's all about the confidence - dear God I'm quoting Gok Wan. Can somebody save me from pop culture please?
Today I found a gem, a truly amusing t-shirt.
It says thesaurus.
It's a dinosaur.
It's a dinosaur in glasses.
Moreover it's a dinosaur in glasses sitting on a pile of books reading a book.
I'd wager that that book is a thesaurus.
I don't know why, but the imagination behind the t-shirt truly struck me. I stood back and thought 'wow - there's someone somewhere who has the exact same frame of mind as I do, who enjoys the intellectual banter, who is revelling in intellectual promiscuity! In my opinion there's a lot to be said for clever use of language, for imagination and for dinosaurs. Particularly dinosaurs depicted sitting on piles of books in glasses reading thesauruses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
