There are many topics where the Rich feel pretty safe picking up votes from those not-so-rich and the death penalty is one of them.

It’s ironic that I write this on what is known as “Star Wars Day”, because the debate surrounding capital punishment reminds me of a quote from Episode III of the movie saga.

When Obi-Wan (Ewan McGregor) and Anakin/Lord Vader (possibly the worst actor to join an established movie cast in film history Hayden Christiansen) are duelling towards the end of “Revenge of the Sith”, there comes this exchange :

Anakin : “If you’re not with me, then you’re my enemy!”

Obi-Wan : “Only a Sith deals in absolutes.”

An ironic quote I know, since Obi-Wan himself is offering an absolute of sorts…but the point is that when someone jumps to an extreme in a debate, it usually means they have a personal agenda in mind rather than a desire to come up with a reasonable conclusion that has considered all the available options with an open mind.

My contention is that it has been a concerted effort of the establishment to muddy the waters on most major issues in an attempt to disguise their overall aim of simply keeping the rich richer. 

I Am NOT suggesting they are as “evil” as the Sith in the Star Wars saga, however….note that I am comparing them to a character who’s story arc both begins and ends with much “good in him”.

To return to the death penalty, the problem faced by anyone who opposes it is that they can be depicted as ones who wish to excuse any crimes committed by a prisoner who finds him or herself on “death row”.

Consider the following; my apologies if it is overly gruesome…

“(Clayton) Lockett was convicted of kidnapping and shooting 19-year-old Stephanie Neiman, as part of a 1999 home invasion. She survived the initial assault; Lockett ordered two accomplices to bury her alive. He also raped one of her friends. He was convicted in 2000 and sentenced to death. His accomplices are serving life sentences.” – The Guardian

So if I tell you that I feel the state of Oklahoma did a bad thing by botching Lockett’s execution during the week, you could say that I am somehow suggesting that he didn’t deserve any punishment (or if you were feeling really ballsy you could say I somehow approved of what he did) and to top off your argument you could offer this supposed clincher – “what if he had done this to someone you cared about?”

Well there is no arguing with this mindset, though that doesn’t make it right.

Here is the bulk of my case against the death penalty, with points in no particular order…as you can see, much of it is based on my beliefs.

1) I don’t believe there exists “absolute” certainty on any court ruling, and to reject the death penalty would respect the fallibility of the judicial system.

2) Of course it is natural for the victims and their families/communities to seek harsh retribution, and I definitely would, but this is why the defendants are tried by the State and not by those in mourning.

3) Having studied Psychology (not extensively enough for a career yet enough to have a decent grasp) I would see beyond the financial burden on the tax-payer to keep such prisoners alive and appreciate the opportunity to study them and their pathology with a view to possibly preventing dangerous people such as this killing again.  A vain hope you might say but is it any more vain than the hope of finding a cure for cancer?

4) I firmly believe that the existence of the death penalty does not act as a deterrent for cold-blooded murder.

5) I also believe that this is not an argument which can be presented as “an eye for an eye”.  When a person commits murder, even if it is carefully planned, the process in no way resembles that of a legislative body coming up with a means of establishing a protocol for a state execution.  When you call for the death penalty you are asking your parliament to debate and draft a set of laws which outlines precisely how to kill a prisoner.  As was illustrated by the State of Oklahoma, this presents a multitude of difficulties.  If you reach a point where you have to say “well screw the laws, he deserved what he got”, you set a precedent that when taken to its own extremes renders the judicial system virtually worthless.

Here is my utopian suggestion to help solve the debate over the death penalty.

Take a jurisdiction like Ireland which doesn’t have it at the moment.  We used to hang people here so it’s not like we never had it, so we would make for a good test case.

I would suggest that we hold a referendum, with a simple question : “Do we re-introduce the death penalty to Ireland?  Yes or no”.  But although the question may be simple, the vote itself would be unorthodox.

For this special election, everyone would be made aware of a special provision.  Should the “Yes” side of the argument win, then the names of all who voted for the motion would be kept on a register, though not for publication. 

The reason their names would be retained is that for every time a prisoner was to be put to death, 12 from the register would be chosen, and all would be compelled by law to be present at the execution, and further still, one would be chosen at random to actually carry it out.

Throughout history although many have argued for the death penalty, when it comes to actually doing it, great lengths have been taken to hide the identity of those performing it. 

The guy operating the guillotine would wear a mask, the guy throwing the switch for the electric chair would be behind a screen, the people holding the guns for a firing squad would do so through a hole in the wall and in the case of the gas, multiple people would be used to drop pellets into the chamber with only one of them actually containing the killer gas so that nobody knew who actually killed the inmate.

My contention is simple –  you want it, you do it. 

Your name can still be kept private, as is currently the case with executioners, but although I know full well my suggestion would never actually happen, i wonder just how many would vote yes if it did.

I guess we’ll never know. JLP

You can always count on American politics to throw up a good laugh and boy, has Cliven Bundy fit the bill just nicely in recent weeks.

But the source of the humour, for me anyway, hasn’t been the man himself even though he is involved in an armed stand-off with the federal government over his long-standing non-payment of “grazing fees”.

The true mirth-merchants in the saga are the good ol US Republican party and their propaganda machine Fox News for whom Bundy’s “cause” was like a red rag to bullshit, with their senior host Sean Hannity taking centre stage.

What comedy there was to be had when it turned out (much to all of our surprise – not) that Bundy was in actual fact an ignorant racist.

I tell you…Usain Bolt couldn’t have run away from the man faster than the Republicans did.

In fairness, having heard Bundy’s interviews on national networks since his racist rant took YouTube by storm, it seems that the GOP at least got one of their spin doctors to work with him to try and haul things back a little bit, but the damage was done.

So the question has to be asked…why did they give a whack job like Bundy such a national stage in the first place?  Because there is a massive election coming up in November, that’s why.

The US President is elected every four years but in between there are what are known as “Midterms” when a lot of the seats in both of the other executive branches of government are decided.  The Republicans currently have control of the Senate, but since state legislatures around the country are unable to gerrymander constituencies for the Upper House, the Democrats have a fighting chance to hold sway there, and currently do.

But even that isn’t a sure thing anymore, and the GOP’s goal has to be to seize control of both houses to make President Obama’s last two years in power virtually worthless when it comes to getting anything done.

For this, they need to persuade all the Cliven Bundys across the country to go out and vote, because if only the uber rich people who really control the Republican party voted, they wouldn’t even clear 5% let alone close to 50.

Of course for me it is an endless source of amusement  to see their faith in the Nevada rancher so hopelessly backfire on them, especially when Jon Stewart gets in on the rib-poking.  But there’s also a downside in the whole story when I put it in the context of the current state of politics here in Ireland.

The US Democrat Party is far from perfect, but one thing I have noticed in recent years is that it is extremely good at unifying its message.  There’s a consistency to the narrative which you get from TV presenters like Rachel Maddow, online news sources like the Huffington Post, podcasts like The Majority Report and even comedy programmes like The Daily Show which is refreshing to say the least.

It is this consistent output that has the likes of the Koch brothers going to such great lengths to both discredit them and push their own candidates by any means necessary.  You could even argue that their hasty rush toward Bundy was a compliment to the American “left*”.

Do you see any nut-jobs getting such support here in Ireland?  Not so much.  Why?

Going by some of the million or so placards which are pinned up on billboards around Dublin for the upcoming Irish version of the midterms, there is a party called the “United Left”.  That term, on this island anyway, is quite possibly a bigger joke than the entire Bundy saga.

To say the anti-establishment movement is fractured in this country is a gross understatement.  First, you have the Labour Party in government. 

Now let me be clear…I do NOT believe Labour are truly anti-establishment; they represent the  bigger unions, whom I consider to be part of the establishment.  But they ARE considered “left”, and thus would attract a sizeable chunk of the votes of those who wish to vote that way (including myself at the last election).

Sadly, although it is grossly unfair to pin austerity entirely on Labour (in fact it would probably be much worse if Fine Gael were alone in government), they have allowed themselves to have this done to them by the mostly-conservative Irish media while offering precious little themselves to alter the public perception.

Then you have the other high profile organisations & figures on the “left”.  The Greens?  Already hacked to pieces after getting into bed with Fianna Fáil.  Sinn Féin?  They may be anti-establishment, but a different type of establishment.  They’re not “left” in any sense of the word, because in no way is “nationalist” a sense of the word IMO.  Yet they still seem to be hoovering up many of the votes being jettisoned by Labour and must feel like they are within touching distance of actual government.  Ming Flanagan & Mick Wallace?  Whatever good they may have done as TDs has been forever lost in the ether as they have allowed their public personas to become caricatures.

So do the pro-establishment parties here even need a figure like Cliven Bundy to rally their base?  Not in the slightest.  It doesn’t hurt them that The Iona Institute are pursuing their pitiful “Christians are the real victims in Irish society” narrative, but on a broad scale it isn’t really necessary. 

I am convinced that Ireland has it’s own Jon Stewart, it’s own Arianna Huffington, it’s own Rachel Maddow, even it’s own Barack Obama.  The question is – does anyone have clout, cash & cojones to give them even half the support that Bundy briefly enjoyed? JLP

* = one of the Prime Directives of this blog is to steer away from the usage of “left” and “right” to describe political discourse but sometimes on longer posts I feel have to resort to it with inverted commas my only refuge.

That I feel compelled to say “Lord rest them” whenever I mention my grandparents is a testament to how they raised me as a Catholic.

OK – maybe the fact that I no longer practice the faith (nor have I for many a decade) is hardly a ringing endorsement, but still there are many things left in my day-to-day behaviour which hark back to those days when they did their best to immerse me in the rituals and practices demanded by the Vatican.

Still, overall I suppose their attempts to bring me into the flock failed, but not for a moment do I consider them failures.  The main reason the “indoctrination” never took hold was that it is meant to be presented as the only philosophical option when there is so much information on the wider world for young people these days, even when my generation was growing up in the pre-internet age.

It must have been extremely frustrating for them.  My grandparents (Lord rest them) not only “failed” with me but also with my mother and her two brothers before me – sometimes I think the main reason they not only took on the challenge of raising me but also brought me to Catholic-centric Ireland was because they saw themselves as having a “second chance”.

The religious aspect of my upbringing came more from my grandmother – since my grandfather served in World War 2 (military intelligence for US army in Czechoslovakia) his outlook on life was always more “worldly” yet he was a man of few words and let her deal with that side of things.  I should note that he had cancer nodes on his voice box and had an operation to have it removed, but I think the lack of voice actually suited his character and he turned down all offer of having a “robot”-style voice as a replacement.

The thing about the paternal influence in your life saying little is that on the rare occasions when they do say things, they stay with you.

I remember one time when I was well into my “know-it-all teenager” phase I was harping on some weighty subject or other.  Lord only knows (there’s another one!) what the actual topic was, but it doesn’t really matter.  The audience for my rant consisted merely of Grandpa, and naturally I assumed he was paying attention to what I was saying.

What he said in his whispery tone when I paused for breath, however, made me think otherwise.

“You think you’re always right, don’t you?”

Taken aback doesn’t even begin to describe how I felt.  There I was trying to make a point about something that was important to me, but as it turned out I wasn’t even being listened to at all.

“Well, what do you want me to do…think I’m always wrong?”

“See?  You’re ‘right’ again!”

That brief exchange could well have been the catalyst for my blogging today.

I don’t see anything wrong with having opinions, nor do I see anything wrong with sharing them.  But what my grandfather taught me is that you have to be careful about how you present those opinions because it will affect how they are received.

Not once have I ever presumed my views right, neither back then nor now.  By expressing them I am challenging the world at large to set me straight or at the very least nudge me in the right direction if I am even slightly off.

With this blog I am trying to outline my views on the world at large, and in particular the way we are prevented from doing that by the premises and spin with which we are presented on a daily basis.

I imagine my grandmother is up in heaven with her head in her hands.  Beside her, I imagine my grandfather is allowing himself a wry smile when she isn’t looking. JLP

Hi there, sorry I didn’t post last week but I had been out the night before so I “earned” a rare Sunday morning lie-in!

My mother has put me on to a podcast called “The Best Of The Left” which, although it clearly accepts the “left v right” premise, is still a good listen.  There is generally a new show every 3 days and each one features clips taken from various sources highlighting stories and issues which more than likely will have fallen through the cracks of the mainstream media, intentionally or otherwise.

One such story came from good ol’ Texas where a case was heard in court of a 16-year-old boy who was driving a pickup truck while drunk and killed as many as FOUR people as well as seriously injuring two who were with him in the vehicle.

To cut a long story short, he did no jail time.  Why?  Because his lawyer convinced the court that he “suffered” from a “condition” known as “affluenza” which apparently means “enormous wealth blinded the youth from the responsibilities resulting from his actions”.

So in other words, he got off with a 1-year probation because his family was rich.  But for me, that’s not what stinks about this story.  What stinks about this story is the fact that this was actually the “best” outcome for the families of the victims.

Were he to be convicted and do prison time, sure, the families would have had their sense of justice BUT they would have been denied the opportunity to take him to “civil court” where a financial settlement could be reached.  This way, according to Reuters, they “may be entitled to monetary damages of up to $20 million each”.

All of which means in layman’s terms, if you have enough money, you can LITERALLY get away with murder.

One of the commentators on the podcast quipped :

“If this youngster and his family are overly burdened by their wealth, I’m sure the wider society would be more than happy to relieve them of some of it.” (paraphrase)

I certainly couldn’t blame the families for accepting this deal.  I could blame the system which allows for such a deal to be put before them in the first place.  Whoever said “the law is an ass” was spot on. JLP

One of the many tactics used by the Right Rich to give them traction is the vilification of the “media”.  It is also one of the more successful ones.

Basically, the purpose of what we call “journalism” is to both establish the facts on an issue and then report them.  This comes directly into confrontation with the purpose of conservative political spin, that being to hide the overall objective at work, ie allowing the rich to get richer.

So the more doubt that can be cast over journalism, the more the RIch get away with justifying their actions.

Of course it doesn’t help when so-called journalists can be bought.  Entire media empires are owned by the likes of Rupert Murdoch, Silvio Berlusconi and here in Ireland, Denis O’Brien and their basic function is to serve as a mouthpiece for their interests whenever they see fit.

And the prevalence of these conservative media outlets puts even more pressure on the few journalists left who actually want to get on with the task of reporting the facts as they see them, pushing them instead towards what we’re meant to believe is a “balanced” view taking the Rich point of view as “half” of the argument.

Probably the best and most powerful of these is Fox News.  They make full use of the First Amendment of the US Constitution to push forward the conservative agenda.  If that were to be your only source of gleaning information, you would quite literally be brainwashed into thinking that everything President Obama does, for example, is pushing the country ever closer to a socialist Muslim state.

The constant hammering home of their message puts pressure on other news sources to lean more towards those who choose to “attack” the Rich, rather than those who simply want to report the facts.  This is a terrible shame in my opinion.  And I find myself doing it all too often when I write myself, so it’s not like I’m saying it’s easy.

“OK, I’m about to give my opinion on something.  But when I do, what will the conservatives say about it?  They’ll call me a tree-hugger, or a liberal, or a socialist, or some other label that they invented and have been drilling (fracking?) into everyday usage for decades.  So everything I say I have to try and water down in case I leave myself wide open to their response.  Or even worse still…what if my opinions are ones they actually agree with?  Screw it…I just won’t say anything.”

Sound familiar?

I’m hoping to get to a point with this blog that I can just sit at my computer every Sunday morning and hammer out my opinions on things without giving a damn about how certain people will react, especially when that reaction doesn’t represent a counter-argument, rather a smokescreen that when broken down is nothing but puerile name-calling. 

Might take me a while to get there though.  Already I have edited and re-edited this short post about a dozen times!  JLP

This is the tale of my latest customer service saga.

You know the ones…where you have a complaint about a product and you embark on a journey which involves a seemingly endless series of phonecalls & broken promises?

But before I tell my tale, let me be clear on one thing…I am NOT writing this post expecting to get anything, because I actually accept that my product was broken and not covered by the manufacturer’s warranty.

What has me up in arms is the fact that Samsung knew my product was broken and not covered by the manufacturer’s warranty on February 19th, yet on March the 5th I had to go find this out for myself, so who knows when they would have gotten around to telling me.

Now they will tell you that this was not their fault, rather that of the repair company to whom they had outsourced the work. And THIS is why the story qualifies for this blog.

Here in Ireland we don’t complain about poor customer service nearly enough.  We don’t even complain about the fact we don’t complain nearly enough.  This has made the businesses that provide these services extremely complacent over the years, and this experience with Samsung is just one of many for me, so I have to assume it is one many have endured.

We are just talking about a tablet here.  Of course there are far worse things happening in the world, and in many ways I’m going way OTT by calling this a “saga”.  On twitter this story would be worthy of the hashtag #firstworldproblems.

But all I needed was a phone call or email, even if it was a couple of days after that February 19th date.  We regret your tablet’s damage does not fall under warranty, sir, we will return it to you at the earliest available opportunity.  In that case, if I came on here and bitched and moaned about them, it would be nothing but sour grapes.

So again I should point out that this is not what I am doing here, because I’m pretty sure that is the premise that many businesses would try to establish over a case like mine, which in turn is why I would be normally be reluctant to share the story.

This practice of outsourcing is fine to an extent, but if a business is in any way worth its salt it should at least accept ownership of a situation, much as I accept ownership of the fact that I didn’t purchase an extended warranty with the tablet that would have meant it would be replaced whatever happened.

Not only was it two weeks between the repair company posting notice that my tablet wasn’t covered and my discovering it for myself, I was actually in contact with Samsung during that fortnight and they knew nothing about it, so when I alerted them to that fact, I really don’t think I should have gotten this response :

“I am sorry with the issues regarding a repair on your device. As our service centre has deemed your device as Out Of Warranty, then I would advise that you contact them directly.
I have provided you with their details below…”

My issue was with Samsung.  I should only ever have to deal with Samsung.  For them to resort to blaming other companies (or sometimes, though not in this case, they single out individual employees) is nothing short of cowardice in my mind, and certainly doesn’t reflect the prestige they display in their advertising.

I made it clear in my contact with them that all I was looking for was two answers: (1) When am I getting my tablet back? and (2) What was the reason for the delay?  Had they provided answers for this, I would have cried no harm, no foul.

But to be given no explanation, a terse non-apology and instructions to go and contact the repair company myself is tantamount to being shown the finger.  And I’m pretty confident that this isn’t an isolated incident (with businesses in general, not just Samsung), not to mention the fact that there are those out there who actually ARE entitled to something in return who don’t get it.

Several people I dealt with along the line were fine, especially those on the phone.  My conclusion is that at eventually somebody got involved with my case who either (a) was too scared to be the one to tell me that my tablet wasn’t covered, or (b) didn’t consider me to be worth bothering about since I wasn’t going to make them or their company any money.  And I’m not sure which of those two scenarios is worse!

I could rant for much longer but I won’t.  I will tack on the timeline of my experience to the end of this post, but I certainly don’t expect you to read it, though some of it really does represents the customer service version of the Keystone Cops! JLP

---

SAMSUNG “SAGA” TIMELINE

Jan 30 – made original query

Jan 30 – 1^st contact from Samsung (email) , told tablet is still under warranty and once I provide certain details it can be collected for repair

Jan 31 – Send details as requested

Feb 2 – Receive phonecall from Samsung, told it will be collected, and that I would be contacted before collection. (note – there was initial confusion over my phone number, in my first query I had given the wrong one, my fault)

Feb 11 (approx) – Receive phonecall from Samsung, unaware of 1^st phonecall. Afterwards I receive 2 separate text messages that the job had been cancelled but assumed they were in error.

Feb 12 – receive text message : “Thank you for contacting Samsung. Your customer reference number is 2116741756. Our Authorised Service Centre will contact you to arrange an appointment.

Feb 13 – After returning home from being out, I see I have received a note through the door that Nightline had been to collect tablet without having contacted me first. I ring straight through to Samsung and I’m told they will definitely be there to collect the following day, so I change my plans so I can be there.

Feb 14 – Nightline collect both Tablet & charger.

Feb 17 – Receive phonecall from Nightline asking if I have tablet to be collected. I tell them they have already done it.

Feb 19 – I check Samsung website using reference number I was given – it says “cancelled by agent”, so I contact Samsung again by email expressing my concern

Feb 20 – receive phonecall re-assuring me it was technical error and that my order had been passed on to an “escalation team”, I am asked to provide tracking number from Nightline just in case

Feb 24 – Further to previous phone call I pass on the tracking number (delay here was my fault, couldn’t find docket)

Feb 25 – receive phonecall confirming that nightline had indeed delivered parcel

Feb 28 – I receive text message – “SOCIETE BOULONNAISE D’ELECTRONIQUE has been unable to contact you to arrange an appointment regarding your Samsung GT-P3110, If you require any further assistance please call 0330 726 7864 with reference 2116741756” Nobody had been in contact since Feb 25. I ring the number and am told they will look into it, later that day they say they have been on to Fonfix and someone from there will contact me

Mar 5 – Still no word since last Friday, so I go onto Fonfix website myself and discover (see screengrab) that status has been “awaiting reply to estimate” since February 19.

Also Mar 5– I send email to Samsung including this timeline up to and including the above screengrab, requesting answers to two questions : 1) When do I get my tablet back? 2) What was the reason for the delay?

Mar 6 – receive email reply from Samsung tell my they are sorry and that I should contact repair company myself

Mar 9 – I compose blog post rant to make myself feel better. It works a bit.

Mar 10 – Samsung reply via twitter saying they will “look into my case”

Mar 14 – having heard nothing I emailed the repair company as suggested by Samsung. They have no record of my tablet.  So I ring Samsung and I was probably too polite but I let them know that all I want is my frickin tablet back.

Mar 20 – Tablet & charger are returned, with no notification that I am to expect a courier, so I may have missed them.

THANKS FOR NOTHING SAMSUNG IRELAND.

Just so we’re clear I don’t think I have created a new way of thinking with this Clearing The Premises blog.  In fact, if anything, it’s the opposite.

I’m just trying to put my own spin on a mindset that I know is shared by others – if I thought I was the only one who thought that way, sure there would be no point in writing about it because you’d all think I was a candidate for the funny farm.

There was even an example of it in the plot line of the Lego Movie for crying out loud!  But I won’t give you any spoilers…

Anyway…let me try a different way of explaining why this site is called CTP.

We discuss “politics” way too much.  What we should be discussing is “government”.  In other words, less about the “who” and more about the “how”.

But the media is more about the conflict.  And trust me, I’m not one of those who loves to have a bash at the media…by bashing them we in turn bash the public that feeds on what they produce.

So when it comes to “politics” the discussions are almost exclusively run through this prism :

LEFT V RIGHT

I believe everything about that is wrong – the “Left”, the “Right” and even the “V”.  Allow me to challenge them one by one.

1. RIGHT RICH : By observing conservative election strategies over the years, it is clear they are never interested in winning everyone’s votes.  They just want enough votes to get elected.  Anything from the mid-to-high 40s in terms of percentage is considered a decent return for them, so they do what they can to either buy votes or keep people away from the polls altogether.

But by calling them the “right”, we afford them half of the “space”, when in fact if you take away all the people who vote for them out of loyalty, fear or whatever reason, you actually get an extremely small percentage, which the Occupy Wall Street movement estimated as 1% but I actually think is a lot lower.  So the way I see it, the Left/Right model is way, way off base.

For me the ideal name to rebrand them with is “establishment” because it demonstrates how they got their power by establishing themselves.  Thing is though, that word is way too clunky.  So let’s just call em “rich” – much more media-savvy name don’t you think?

2. LEFT  US : So we’ve rebranded the right, what’s left? (see what I did there) What’s left is US.  I had a bit of a struggle with the fact that US could be mistaken for United States, but then I realised that would be a good exercise for my fellow Americans in that they need to realise that there’s more to “us” than what’s within their own borders.  And through proper education, everyone can learn the proper definition of US.

3. V > :  And when I say “everyone can learn the proper definition of US”, I mean EVERYONE.  That INCLUDES the “Rich”.  There’s a lot of animosity towards the establishment and in many cases it is understandable.  But we need to find a way to take the conflict out of it if there is ever to be a meaningful path forward.  The Rich rule by fear but I believe that is partly because they themselves fear the consequences if they let go of their power.  Maybe, just maybe the US can show them those consequences won’t be so bad. 

All we have to do is turn that V on it’s side, so from LEFT V RIGHT we go to this way of looking at the priorities of government…

US > RICH

Simple, ain’t it?  Now I have world peace sorted out, what’s next? Ah yes, how Ireland can win the Six Nations 😉  JLP

Though I want to continue posting on this site every Sunday morning, it’s my rugby sites which are earning me money at the moment and given that we’re smack bang in the middle of the Six Nations, you’ll appreciate I’m in the middle of a busy spell.

I have put aside this time for doing my Leinster writeup (they played on Thursday night) so what I will do here is direct you to a post that was written for HarpinOnRugby by a Kate McEvoy, who seems to be something of a kindred spirit when it comes to such matters and this piece, inspired by some remarks made about LGBT sportsmen and women by a former rugby international, carries many of the themes I set up this blog for.

So without any further ado, here is the link to her post.  I’ll be back next week.  JLP

[no spoilers here I promise!]

It goes without saying that I am delighted at the return of House of Cards. 

The show has filled the gaping hole left by the end of The West Wing and with Netflix dumping an entire season on us all at once, I am now left with the challenge of finding gaps of an hour here and there when I can watch as I am the only fan in my household.

Of course to enjoy shows like this it helps to first have a grasp on how top-level American politics works with its Congress and its committees and what-not.  But even with that knowledge I strongly recommend that you watch with subtitles so that specific references don’t fly over your head.

Behind it all I have a pet peeve that more people don’t watch shows like this.  These are realistic portrayals of how our governments actually operate.  Why WOULDN’T we be more interested?

Some say such shows glorify the “left” and demonise the “right”.  I’m not so sure anyone can say HoC is glorifying its lead character of Frank Underwood, played brilliantly by Kevin Spacey!

In the Season 1 Episode 1’s very first scene (trust me…this is NOT a spoiler) he puts a dog run over by a car out of its misery before anyone arrives that could save it.  He explains to the camera that he was “willing to do what needed to be done”.  Obviously this was meant to symbolise the realities of political life at the very top!

Then the plot departs on its meandering path of intrigue, scheming, conflicting agendas and Machiavellian back-stabbing.  Underwood is anything but a saint, though even in the West Wing, although its central character President Bartlet is held up as a paragon of virtue, in that storyline he couldn’t have possibly gotten where he was without the help of Leo McGarry, who clearly lined his pockets during his rise to the top and felt the need to shred a ton of documents when his time as White House Chief of Staff was over.

What shows like these teach us, the way I see it anyway, is that not only is it important to at least have a grasp of the goings on at the highest political level, but also to appreciate that the people involved are merely human beings with the same weaknesses as you and me.

ironically as I was watching Season 2 eps 1 and 2 yesterday, the doorbell rang and it was someone canvassing for the upcoming local council elections here in Ireland.  I was given the leaflet you see below and on the back the candidate gives a summary of his candidacy including his background plus some bullet-points covering his objectives – all the greatest hits for lefties are covered like fighting austerity, unemployment, the environment & public transport.

Of course given what I had just been watching I was tempted to ask the guy at my door, who happened to be the candidate’s brother, questions like “How is his campaign funded?” or “What would Paul do if he found a dog in the street that had just been run over” or (though this one came to me afterwards) “How about a campaign slogan like ‘Let Me Give You A Hand”’?”

But also, given what I had just been watching, I didn’t want to stand there on my doorstep jabbering so I politely took the leaflet, shut the door and waded back into the pool of the ever-developing plot.

Joking aside, the most telling sign (pun intended) that the general public here in Ireland care very little about politics comes at election times, when candidates appear willing less to compete by open debate on the topics that matter, and more on flooding the main streets with oversized photo-shopped head-shots.

If it were down to me House of Cards and shows like it would be compulsory viewing at secondary schools, even with it’s “realistic” language and occasional nudity, or perhaps because of it as that would no doubt get youngsters’ attention.

People get to reach the top on the back of a “house of cards” because for the most part, we let them.  If we could just let our level of understanding about how government work get to the level of our understanding of things like team sports, X Factor and soap operas, we might just see a bit more accountability from our leaders.     MIGHT. 

Best of luck to Paul Hand with his campaign.  Once I can find out exactly which pies he has his fingers in, I may just vote for him. JLP

I have absolutely nothing against business as a practice or even a profession.  Really I don’t.  Well, at least not in principle.

Basically I can’t see any other way for goods & services to be supplied to the general public other that by people specialising in certain areas and organizing themselves in such a way as to provide them.  So it should follow that I have nothing against those who provide that organisation receiving some kind of reward for their efforts, and I’d even go so far to say that governments can play a role in helping them when they can.

The reason I feel the need to say this is that the second I suggest, for example, that perhaps things like health and education should be priorities for government ahead of the concerns of private enterprise, I would no doubt be branded a “socialist” or even a “communist” by pro-establishment commentators.  And the reason for this, I feel anyway, is because those commentators feel the need to jump to such an extreme for fear of losing the argument.

Because anyone who has studied the realm of Economics will know that it is not just the goal of the business community to make profits, it is to MAXIMISE them.  This means every avenue must be explored to ensure that this year’s bottom line is greater than last year’s.

And why shouldn’t they behave like that?  I don’t feel any less empathy for their concerns than I do towards my 4-year-old when he’s engrossed in some imaginary scenario with his toys.  The only thing is…when it’s time to put the toys away and focus on something else, like going out or bedtime or some other important function of day-to-day life, they can’t be allowed to scream and whinge so they can get their own way and continue what they are doing.

Unfortunately many Western countries are so blinkered when it comes to the concerns of the business community that they don’t even feel the need to hide it.  Take the floods we saw during the week which luckily didn’t affect me personally, but had devastating repercussions in the south of the country.

Turn on the evening news and you see RTE rightly making the floods a headline story…yet when they send their reporters out to assess the damages, where do they go first?  The businesses on the high street.

Now once more I must point out that I do not wish ill on any business owner and no doubt the floods did have adverse effects for them.  But what of people in their homes, particularly the elderly?  What of hospitals?  What of schools?  And most of all…what of the homeless? 

I’m not saying those weren’t covered by the media by the way, they were.  But as the title of this post suggests, it is clear who we are meant to consider first when such unfortunate events happen.

I firmly believe that allowing our government to focus their energies on providing quality education and healthcare to all of its citizens would actually be beneficial to the business community.  If they could choose from a workforce that was healthy and well-educated then surely the increase in production (and iin turn profits) would be great?

Sadly, they seem to be more concerned that a workforce which was educated and healthy would be both smart enough and fit enough to turf them out.   And they disguise this fear by suggesting, again by going to extremes, that such a “socialist” system would produce nothing but scroungers.

Maybe it’s time for US to educate THEM just how much the appreciative contributors to society would out-number the free-loaders. JLP