Ordo Ab Chao

Excellent article from kuro5h1n here. This illustrates the fundamental flaws in the US electoral system i.e. essentially forcing the voter to choose between 2 deliberately polarised viewpoints (democrat or republican) when they may share neither. Approval voting is different in that it allows the electorate to vote for all the candidates or choices that they endorse. Indeed, this electoral system is favoured by the United Nations. The article is well worth reading, pointing out that the US electorate doesn't necessarily imply its citizens as their right to vote isn't protected by the constition. Yes that wasn't a misprint! Americans have a constitutional right to bear arms (a right that many of them exercise to the hilt of their fully automatic assault rifles) but not to vote. This right is reserved for the members of the electoral college system who, theoretically at least, may arbitrarily distribute the votes as they see fit. And even if you do vote, the chances of it being accurately counted are much lower than could reasonably be expected. The US has a long tradition of voting fraud, even in Florida!

E-voting is a very sensitive issue in Ireland. It was due to be introduced for local and MEP (Member of the European parliament) elections in may of this year but real concerns about the reliability and security of the proposed system caused it to be abandoned to the embarassment of the current government. Many computer science academics, myself included, were distinctly worried about the proposed system based on disclosed implementation details, it's closed nature and many glaring flaws in both hardware and software that would have mandated the use of a Voter-Verified Audit Trail (VVAT). So we created petitions and discussed the pertinent issues with politicians across the media. As happens, this was often portrayed as academics having a left-ish political agenda. It seemed like we weren't allowed to disapprove of the system on purely technical grounds. Perhaps a degree of intellectual hubris is desirable when a politician explains to a computer scientist that "the system can't be hacked as it's not on the internet".... No kidding!


In the US, Diebold elections produces a similiar system. It's equally flawed and controversial. Basically the Diebold offerings General Election Management System (GEMS) produces two tables for vote counts and precinct summaries which may not match. They should but the hack to falsify results is quite trivial. Not very comforting.


Well the creators of the popular computer game The SIMS have seized on the debate by introducing e-voting into their hugely popular life simulation game. Their 'Dumbold' system:

is programmed with cheats, bugs and easter eggs, which you can discover and read about by playing around with it. It demonstrates and simulates some alarming problems with real world electronic voting machines, with many surprising effects and subtle interactions

I particularly like the feature where Baxter the Chimp (catchy name, I'd vote for him) erases election votes. So if you're planning to run for office in a major western democracy you could do far worse than practive your electioneering skills with Baxter.

Boing-boing's humorous take on secession. There's a strong element of truth in this. I was watching a debate last night contrasting the voter turnout in the US with that in the UK at the last eleection. UK politicians generally believe that elections shouldn't be decided based entirely on religious or moral issues. The differences between the 2 major political parties are a lot less tangible than in the US and can be reduced towards attitudes to tax and public spending (and even then the differences are arguably minimal as they must react to changes in the world economy)
However, in the US it's always seemed like republicans and democrats sit on two opposing political fences with democrats sneering at republicans for being unsophisticated and republicans lambasting democrats for being amoral and ungodly. The reality lies somewhere between this polarised map of the US. (i.e. My political colours would be more democrat than republican but I must admit that Colin Powell and John McCain are sophisticated, smart and quite moderate in many ways and I have much respect for them, while some democrats are quite infantile in their attacks on "republican hicks") It's an interesting debate but I can't help but feel that it leads to gross simplification of the issues and flawed foreign policy. Still, as a TV pundit pointed out "It's democracy in action. The country may be divided but after the results people will go home and get on with their lives. There will be no rioting in the streets"

We all know that the American consitution protects citizens rights to bear arms. Wrong! It's a bit more subtle than that. The 2nd amendments actually reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". There is much debate about whether this amendment only applies to state sanctioned militias (whatever they might be in the event of civil-war?) However, we can all agree that there's quite a difference when the 1^st half of the amendment is included. So while organisations like the National Rifle Association (NRA) have done their best to popularise the myth that the 2nd amendment is an unlimited excuse to buy an automatic assault rifle for hunting deer or family protection their claims are actually quite tenuous. The US supreme court has deemed that this amendment applies to federal law only, doesn't affect gun-control laws passed by individual states and actually "means no more than (the right to keep and bear arms) shall not be infringed by Congress". For all you legal buffs out there, this ruling was passed almost 130 years ago in 1876 (United States v. Cruikshank). This was reaffirmed ten years later in Presser v. Illinois. Various state gun control laws have been upheld based on these decisions for years. In 1980 the Supreme Court again presented the opinion that "these legislative restrictions on the use of firearms do not trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties". So American's don't have the right to bear arms? It's a myth right? Unfortunately after over a hundred years of consistency in interpretation of this amendment the US supreme court executive branch (including former AG John Ashcroft) presented THEIR INTERPRETATION in 2002 that the 2nd amendment DOES in fact protect the US citizens right to own guns. This doesn't necessarily obviate gun-control or personal responsibility in the choice of gun(s) owned. Indeed according to the most recent pre-election harris poll in 2004 a slim majority of 52% favour tougher gun control laws.

Up until 2002, however, this supposed "right to bear arms" was actually a bit of a myth and flew in the face of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 2^nd amendment. It may be a moot point as 73% of american's agreed (in 2002) with the sentiment of their "consitutional right to bear arms". Big enough lie, often enough etc...

There are arguments against gun control aswell. Some of these seem plausible enough, others are downright paranoid and jefferson's quote about using firearms as a last resort to protect themselves from the tyranny of the goverment is bogus and can be filed neatly in my drawer marked right-wing, gun toting, self-justifying propaganda. If only this was just a drawer... This file gets any bigger I'm gonna need a new house.
I can't help feel that the 2002 reinterpretation of the 2^nd amendment is commentary du-jour and will not stand the test of time. The text of the amendment hasn't been amended ;-) and it's fair to say that the 2002 interpretation doesn't sit easy with many lawyers in the US. Check out the excellent overlawyered.com for information on this and other aspects of US legal practice. Stunning and shocking in equal measure.
Also check out the useful summary of gun control in the US here

Thanks to Kieran Colfer for the debate and the link. You're as sharp as ever! Mind like that oughta be subject to some kind of state legislation to keep you from hurtin' yourself, boy! ;-)

Picked up a very interesting article from taint.org (thank you Justin) about "selves and others", website which keeps track of the published articles of speakers, writers and journalists with leftish political views. Having followed the link to selves and others I was intrigued by another link to Stephen Zunes article on Arafat's role in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Now that Arafat has died and the eulogies are flowing in, it's useful to recap on his leadership of the PLO; his beliefs and policies. Well worth a read for anybody with a passing interest in middleeastern politics.

Just to balance my post a few days ago about Arafat's role in the middle-eastern peace process, here's a contrasting view of arafat's role in Palestinian/Isreali relations (or lack thereof). My last post contained an article by the political scientist Stephen Zunes opining that Arafat was often the excuse rather than the reason for the failures in achieving a peaceful resolution to the palestinian/israeli peace process. It's only fair to point out that while Arafat may not have been directly responsible for many of the atrocities committed by factions under the PLO umbrella he arguably contributed to the failure of the Oslo Accords and their final peace talks chaired by Bill Clinton at Camp David in July 2000. The political writer Seth Gitell had the following take on the failure of this process, pinning the blame on Clinton's attempts to harry both sides into striking a potentially unworkable deal (to be fair, he didn't have much time) and an unwillingness on the part of Arafat to accept basic tenets of the deal from the outset

"Clinton has never understood that a steadfast and even-handed approach by America to issues between the Israelis and Palestinians is more than likely to produce a Camp David-style impasse. This has happened at each juncture during the "peace process." When the Palestinians ventured off the Oslo reservation, they were met with only the most polite admonishments. After Arafat gave the green light to violence when Israel opened the tunnel in Jerusalem, the United States responded tepidly. The Clinton administration's even-handed missives — warning both sides to avoid intemperate actions — would almost be comic if not for their damaging effect.

This permissiveness on the part of the Clinton administration — the looking the other way at Arafat's violations of Oslo, the winks, the nods — served to encourage an ultimate breakdown in the negotiations. Because Arafat came to believe he could use Clinton as a lever against the Israelis, he learned that he should always hold out for more. Even at the beginning of Camp David, this strategy seemed to work for Arafat. When Barak offered civil control of parts of Jerusalem, Arafat balked. Barak came back with a more generous proposal. Knowing that the Israelis are weary, that their morale is low, that they recently unilaterally surrendered Lebanon, Arafat had every incentive to push for the maximum — and then walk away."

The justification for Palestinian involvement in the Camp David talks is described below while the official Palestinian comments on the failure of this process can be found here

"The Arab consensus prior to Oslo was that a resolution of the conflict must be based on the exchange of land for peace. The Palestinian leadership, for its part, would not accept a peace process outside the framework of international legality. However, Israel rejected any framework in which it acknowledged it was an occupier, and refused to make any commitment to withdraw and stop building settlements. The impasse was broken only when Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Chairman Yasser Arafat stepped in and, contrary to his own instructions to his Washington representatives, agreed to negotiate with Israel without any conditions and in an open-ended process. The Oslo Accords were the result."

This statement goes on to state that Israel "rejected any framework in which it acknowledged it was an occupier, and refused to make any commitment to withdraw and stop building settlements.". This was hardly a surprise to Arafat or any other member of the PLO. Indeed, one feels Clinton's frustration at his "failure" to broker peace when the Palestinian stance from the very beginning seemed highly unlikely to bring about any agreement, despite concessions from the Isreali government. Whatever your beliefs on his attempts to reign in the more extreme factions within the PLO, as leader of the PLO, Arafat could not abdicate responsibility for the failure of the Oslo accords. If you consider the acts of horrific violence and retaliation perpetrated by both sides since, this failure is saddening.
In saying this, this is a hugely complex issue with contrasting opinions on both sides of justice, blame and solutions. In a conflict such as this a neutral observer often concludes that no party is innocent, none is entirely to blame and the greatest casualty is the thousands of people who have lost their lives in the many years of fighting.

I doubt if the one of United States' founding fathers and greatest thinkers would be too impressed with the subtle and blatant curtailing of civil liberties by the enactment of the US Patriot Act. I stumbled across the following quote of Ben Franklin's earlier today while I was looking for something else. Wise words that the current administration could do with heeding.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. " --Benjamin Franklin

More information on Benjamin Franklin can be found here

I doubt if Cicero would be impressed. OK, maybe the post title is a little OTT but I've posted in the past about the many weird and whacky rulings of Italian judges, most particularly relating to rape and sexual harassment. Well I picked this up from Reuters recently and it's the mind-alterning icing on the italian legal hash cake. It transpires that a man who wishes to collect a pre-agreed payout of around 450,000 Euros from his insurance company has been told to come back in 14 months to determine the result of his case. The catch? He has 6 months to live and wants to use the money to ease his final days.. If this wasn't bad enough it turns out that his claim goes back over a decade

when he was left paralyzed by a motorcycle accident. Confined to a wheelchair, he subsequently developed a lethal infection of the spine...

If this was a freak incident of italian legal woe then it would be more tolerable. However, in Italy it takes on average 3,041 days to obtain a definitive sentence in a civil case.

I was born and raised a Roman Catholic but like most of my Irish 20-something contemporaries I have happily lapsed into a state of occasional church visits brought about more by guilt than any real conviction about catholic teachings or doctrines. Doesn't mean that I'm not a spiritual person or even that I'm an atheist but there's a strong degree of gnostic scepticism in my attitudes to all religious organisations, creeds & their underlying/supporting rituals. However, I was fascinated to read this article on Kuro5h1n today. Whatever your personal opinion on his legacy as pope or his pronouncements on socioethical matters such as abortion, divorce or, most controversially, contraception he was undoubtedly one of the truely great figures of the 20th century. Not just because of his longevity in the office of pope but because of his profound impact in bringing about the demise of communism in eastern europe and the end of the "eastern-bloc" of communist countries that opposed the US during the cold war of the 70s and 80s.
An extract from the kuro5h1n post is telling

Karol Wojtyła, Archbishop of Krakow, was the leading figure in the movement by which the Polish Catholic Church became involved in politics. It was he who successfully led the movement to force the state authorities to authorize the building of a church in Nova Huta (by, essentially, embarassing them into it). It was his decision as Archbishop which allowed dissidents to use church basements to set up discussion groups for anti-regime agitation. It was he who stood as the foremost advocate for the notion that there was a Truth besides that which the state had authorized.

The catholic hierarchy in Poland, led by Wojtyla, bet that the Polish government was too afraid of the church's power to punish this insurrection. They gambled with their lives and won.

in so doing, they turned the Polish Catholic Church into something unique: it became the only entity in the entirety of communist Eastern Europe which held a moral authority independent of the state. It was the only independent source of power which was tolerated in the communist world anywhere.

I had an interesting discussion with a friend of mine over the past few days about the origins of patents & the constitutional rights of patenters to protect their Intellectual Property. This is especially interesting considering the furore in Europe over the software patents issue. Well in the good old US, the founding fathers enshrined in their constitution of 1789.

"The Congress shall have Power . . .
To promote the Progress of Science and the useful
Arts, by securing for limited
Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right
to their respective Writings and Discoveries . . .
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and
proper for carrying into Execution the Foregoing
Powers . . ."

I recently noticed that some comments I made about the war on terror, patriot act and Arafat found their way onto the website of the Irish Freedom Institute. This is an Irish non-profit think-tank founded in 2003 to propose policies which are "pro-freedom, pro-enterprise, less government and strengthened security". I must admit that I originally thought this organisation would be proposing whacky (i.e. naieve) ideas with a strongly left-leaning idealogy for the resolution of world problems. It's nothing of the sort. IMHO the FI has many extremely sound and innovative policies with insightful analysis and a predisposition to solve rather than blame. An example is their recent posting about the evolution towards democratic governance in Iraq. A thoughtful and illuminating read rather than the kind of oh-so-trendy and irritating US-bashing polemic that many sections of the media have been feeding us for the past few months. It's easy to criticise the nature of the political and military analysis that led to the war in Iraq while forgetting that the establishment of a democratic government in place of a despotic dictatorship is a worthy aim. The key issue is oil and the proposed FI solution is to hand over the oil industry to the people of IRAQ through a public share structure is novel and may indeed address the previous issues of having the countries major source of wealth entirely under state control. A few words of caution however.

1. the US' unfeasible timetable for democratisation was probably due to worries about the unpopularity of a long stay in Iraq with the vast majority of the Iraqis and the US population, regardless of how either group feels about democracy or the war on terror. This kind of misrepresentation is just a fact of life in democratic systems based on political parties. Politicians lie to protect themselves!


2. Giving every citizen an inalienable stake in the Iraqis oil industry is as difficult as establishing democratic governance after years of the oppresive Ba'th-ist regime. The difficult is in finding a management and shareholder structure that both the international community and the Iraqis people will respect to facilitate effective operation in a country still riddled with corruption. Oil prices are rising and the US will be under a lot of pressure to stabilise Iraqis production while not appearing to be jeopardising the democratic process through self-interest. No mean feat

Thanks for the comments of the readers of Freedom Institute blog. The comments were very gratifying. I'm glad that readers like the layout of this blog & its general eclicticism. I'll be making more of my graphic art available to subscribers via a new photogallery. Also, thanks to Richard Wanghorne of the Freedom Institute for his interest.

Buying a newspaper is always a mixed bag. So much of what passes for reportage these days is merely opinion dressed-up as fact. However today while rifling through the Sunday TImes I happened upon an article from journalist Rod Liddle. Rod's principal claim to fame is cheating on a woman he'd married months before. As a sideline he's assistant editor of the Spectator. I can hardly contain my awe and respect! Today, however, he's condemning Roy Keane as a "thug" who's favoured riposte is "stick it up your b&**()ks". "...If this was an honest, decent world... he'd still banged up". At least he's not "as thick as a plate of mince" as he indirectly alledges Rio Ferdinand is. Is it just me or does this kind of journalistic sermonising leave a foul taste in your mouth? Mr. Liddle is a verbal thug who habitually insults personalities from the relative safety of his newspaper columns to gain notoriety, popularity, feed his ego and increase his bank balance. It's a living I suppose but give me an honest yet flawed footballer anyday.

There's a contract tender website that Gaisan peruses every now and again and even ocassionally picks up a contract or two from. It's an appealling, functional and well-run site. So where's the problem? Well there's just one that I've identified. Massive differences in expectations between project posters and project bidders and far too many complex projects available with tender estimates that are completely unrealistic. However, as described in my previous post, there are still quite a few people willing to professionally shoot their feet off just to make some money. E.g. Let's say a small employment agency decides they're going to go online with job/applicant profile management, opportunity tracking, online ad placement and CC payment handling etc. Sounds realistically complicated no matter how much code exists out there you've still got to produce a smooth and professional site that works reliably and securely. In real terms that involves painful exercises such as creating templates, coding CSS, image editting, browser comparisons, SEO etc. Let's say it's a full week's work to finish. At least, bear in mind this SHOULD generate additional revenue for its owners. So that's 8 hours * 5 days = 40 hours. So how much for this project, ceiling of 1000 euro or 25 euro/hour. Why should it be more you may ask? Well my answer is simple. About 50% of our business involves redesigning sites that were botched the first time around. Generally these were ordered by people who had unrealistic expectations about cost, functionality and performance. Frequently customers who are reluctant to pay our rates at first are pleasantly surprised at the high quality, personal service and the painstaking attention to detail. So who's to blame? Some customers definitely have unrealistic expectations. I heard someone say they could get a website including hosting for 30 quid. Fine, go get it. Some web and software developers do casual work that isn't declared for a substantial discount. Some just don't know any better. In my opinion the grey market for s/w services is killing the industry in this country and damaging public perception. Academic applicants for IT places have dipped substantially and many 2nd level students cite the following reasons for not applying.

• The works is difficult and the hours are long


• IT salaries are modest by comparison with trades or professional activities

The job should be difficult and should require smart and dedicated people. That's a given but the salaries need to reflect this or the best and brightest in this country will wisely follow other career paths. As in my previous comments I'd urge software engineers who can afford it, not to do freebies or cut-price projects for anyone. Instead focus your mind on how much money you would have made if you'd chosen the following professions:

1. doctor


2. psychologist


3. solicitor


4. plumber


5. electrician


6. auctioneer


7. auditor

They've been at home for the past 2 hours while you're trying to get that last bit of code to work or struggling over that last storage/switch/whatever configuration detail.

I've been chatting with R for the past few months about a subject dear to both our hearts, equity within the Irish legal system. I'm referring to impartiality here, to be completely unambiguous. We've researched jurisprudence which is the analytical study of legal reasoning which attempts to unravel the ethical, social, cultural and historical contexts for laws and legal precedents. Jurists often acknowledge the futility of the field of study but it's worthwhile thinking about the legal system in the context of Irish attitudes to the state, the legal system and regulations in general. In particular I've been thinking about John Austin the 19th century British jurist who's command theory of law is outlined in his 1832 book The Province of Jurisprudence Determined. The command theory states that a law is distinct from natural order or morality and is "a rule laid down for the guidance of an intelligent being by an intelligent being having power over him.". The more powerful being is often an all encompassing sovereign. Non-compliance is punished by a sanction. Many of the weaknesses pointed out in Austin's theory seem to me to be pedantic and it will suffice here for further discussion. In Irish society we have several major problems in promoting legal obeisance.

1. Many laws (e.g. speed limits on sections of roads) are indirectly invoked by local council rather than central government. There is a general perception that some of these laws are misguided, shouldn't be enforced and wouldn't be enforced. They meaning elected representatives appear to be persecuting people needlessly. This may not be the case but the perception of a law affects its adherence


2. Sanctions are clearly not equitable in the area of white-collar crime. There are many examples of lovable rogues or "cute whoores" to use a common colloquialism who have been implicated in bribery and corruption but are still at large. Instead of sanction, they gain notoriety.

I can think of one well known meat baron whose company was demonstrated to be involved in fraud with minimum social, financial and legal sanction. One former Taoiseach effectively held a bank to ransom while minister for finance to avoid paying his own personal loans. Let's ignore the recent scandal of Ivor Callely. It's crass lawlessness at the highest level of government. Yet, it goes effectively unpunished as the Irish love a rogue.
Ultimately after the extravagantly expensive Moriarty and Flood tribunals what the country needs to see is sanction. Not excessively punitative but real financial and social sanction of those implicated in corruption. Those involved in racketeering, corruption and bribery should not be lionised, praised or sniggeringly regarded. The banks should be prevented from rushing to the aid of white collar criminals in a greedy web of self-interest that creates an entirely partisan system of justice. The good news for the people of Ireland is that the remedy begins at home. We're a nation of habitual law breakers. A broad sweeping statement but unfortunately true. Practically all of us think a small crime, evading a bit of tax here, speeding there, drinking a bit too much then driving is perfectly OK. It's no surprise, we're a country forged in rebellion and we often have an pschizophrenic attitude to the tragic-drunk, the gangster, the rioter and indeed the gunman. What should we do to counteract this?
Something like California's 3-strikes rule would be a start. This could be adapted to be more sensible and less punitative but from studies on the subject, it sure as hell works. The combination of automatic punitative fines and some jail time would make people pause for thought before drink driving or committing white-collar fraud. Another step would be to stop apparently over-zealous restrictions being enforced before any evidence is provided that they're required. E.g. don't have a 60 km/h restriction on a dual-carriage way (as in waterford) when there's no reason for it that stands up to scrutiny. On this stretch of road I've counted 10 cars in the past 2 months driving within the limit but I'm not aware of any incidents that justify a limit of under 40mph for what is the best stretch of road in the greater waterford area. Other similiar crackpot ideas that I've heard discussed and advocated by local councillors include banning hooded sweatshirts in an attempt to prevent crime. Incredible but true. I agree with Austin and Bentham's assertion that laws should be clearly utilitarian and practical or they won't be enforced or enforcable. Rather than blame the goverment and the law makers we need to understand that we elect the goverment and our transgressions shape the laws. The buck stops right at your own door, not a faceless and criminal element that is somehow responsible for all the ills in Irish society. Instead it's the upwardly mobile individual and socially respected individual who buys recreational drugs from the gangster, who stashes money in an offshore account and who buys expensive gifts for local councillors and planners to curry favour who's the real culprit. In this celtic tiger economy this person is everywhere. Perhaps the people get exactly what they deserve?
I leave it over to the more than capable hands of Irish Minister for Justice, Michael McDowell to sort this mess out.

Say what you like about him but Michael McDowell is never boring and evokes anything but apathy throughout the Irish electorate. Over the past few weeks I've listened to opinions as diverse as "McDowell is insane, a real whacko" & "McDowell is the only decent man in government". Wherever your sympathies lie, the minister for justice can irk them. Should McDowell have leaked information to the press or made his allegations about Connolly using his Dail priviledges? For every yay, there's a nay. Personally, I think it's a difficult call. I'm not a fan of the CPI or what many regard as a provisional republican hypocrisy which looks for splinters in the eyes of others while ignoring their own planks (or baseball bats) but it's inappropriate to categorise this as sedition in an open and democratic society. Even if you conceive that CPI's purpose is to dig up dirt on parties other than SF to help win votes or discredit dissenters, it's still a stretch to call this sedition. It's my opinion that McDowell was angry with the noises coming from CPI and wanted to bring Connolly down. The precise reasons why the DPP failed to bring a case forward are classified but McDowell adopted a publish and be damned approach. Connolly is alledged to have incriminated himself through a fake passport application and McDowell much like that other Irish anti-hero Roy Keane "hit him hard".
The allegations of "trial by media" against McDowell generally overlook two important points:

1. McDowell isn't stupid. This was a risky and brave thing to do. The effectiveness of the leaking the garda intelligence claimed by some commentators could have backfired spectacularly and cost him his job.


2. McDowell himself was tried by the media for his actions and put under enormous pressure to resign. There were few supporters, his friend Sam Smyth among them.

A particularly insightful commenter on another blog comments that

"It is instructive that the one man, Frank Connolly (who has set himself up as an arbiter of public probity) who could deal an immediate hammer blow to McDowell’s political and quite possibly legal career (by demonstrating that he was not in Columbia at the time in question) has chosen not to do so, citing higher moral ground. This is a particularly weak response from a man dedicated to rooting out all that is wrong in public life."

Bang on the money. Also, in response to another commenter, the involvement of Fergus Flood in the formerly well funded CPI does not automatically imply that senior members of the organisation don't have strong provisional sympathies or these beliefs do not inform the operation of this organisation. Ultimately, this is moot as to my recollection it's Connolly who garda intelligence implicates in a bogus passport application and not the CPI. McDowells party leader, Mary Harney, questioned the role and principles of the CPI in a television show after McDowells Dail statement on the matter.

For all the cat-calls and jeers, McDowell remains the most compelling figure in Irish politics. Many of his actions are defined by a refusal to forget the atrocities committed in the name of Irish Republicanism and a dedication to equitable justice for all. Forgiveness does not imply blind revisionism. In the words of philosopher George Santayana

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"

A friend of mine has brought the following rant to my attention. There's little point in arguing with an organisation whose sole purpose is to criticise the views and statements of another organisation (the FI) but I'd like to make a few points:

• FFFF's listing of Gaisan as a pro GOP blog is misleading. Gaisan isn't pro/contra anything political. The opinions on this blog are personal and have nothing to do with Gaisan.


• I have never said I was pro-Bush in any of my blog posts. I have however endeavoured to illustrate the idiotic fallacies of those who are blindly anti-Bush as childish ramblings. The man isn't perfect but it's not fair to say he's an idiot.


• I would not have voted for Bush Sr. or Jr. had I been given the opportunity to do so. This is substantially different from the reductionism of a "goodies versus baddies" approach which characterises most of the personal attacks from Fi Fie... I liked Clinton & Al Gore. Equally I have huge respect for Colin Powell who I believe should have been the US' first black president. He has the intellect and integrity that becomes a great statesman.


• There isn't any great crusade on this blog to do anything except air an opinion. I live in a democratic country and I'm therefore free to do that.


• I like Richard Waghorne's Sicilian Notes although I do not necessarily agree or condone all opinions expressed. It's called freedom of choice and Richard Waghorne understands that, unlike some.

Now that I've got that off my chest I can go back to hacking software.

This is old news but I've only really gotten a big buzzing bumble bee in my bonnet about it recently. Possibly because of the SouthPark debacle. I'm sure some readers, including Miles, have a skeleton or two in the closet. What if you could change the past or just make everybody forget about whatever activity/aspect of yourself you find embarassing. Well the good old church of scientology has adopted a very pragmatic approach to this particular dilemna. A few years back it sent a nasty C&D letter to google telling them to censor search results linking to sites which discredit scientology. Now let's be nice and impartial about that. This was an act of pure unadulterated evil. Thanks to Dan Brown it seems half the world thinks they're personally related to Jesus but the scientologists have to censor Google. The approach of messrs. Brin and Page was masterful (microsoft-like?) in it's acrobatics, ensuring that the reason for censorship is out in the open through the innovative ChillingEffects website. Here's a full list of the scientologist's gripes, generally focussing on copyright infringement on material relating to their technologies.

What I missed at the time (cos I'm so s-l-o-w) was that the archives of various scientologist debunking pages such as Xenu.net have actually been expunged from the Internet Archive. So when future generations examine what the opinion was in the greater digital community in 2006 about Scientology, large swathes of negative opinion will not be available.
This is awfully sinister. Remember Orwell's 1984 anyone? From the Internet Archive's own pages.

The Internet Archive is working to prevent the Internet — a new medium with major historical significance — and other "born-digital" materials from disappearing into the past. Collaborating with institutions including the Library of Congress and the Smithsonian, we are working to preserve a record for generations to come.<

The Internet Archive is opening its collections to researchers, historians, and scholars. The Archive has no vested interest in the discoveries of the users of its collections, nor is it a grant-making organization.

There's little point in maligning a group of well meaning academics who run a not-for-profit organisation. About as much point in making them censor their archive, suppressing (that greatly abused word in scientology) dissenting voices. But there you go, all's fair in love, war and cultdom.

I have little problem with any religious belief. Most can be made to appear silly when subjected to cold and rational scrutiny. This in itself does not make any article of faith untrue, it just means that it's something that cannot be proven and is taken on faith. After all atheism is a belief structure. It's intrinsic to humanity to believe in something even if it's the absence of a god, dog or a flying spaghetti monster. Intuitively it's a divisive rather than a spiritual path to censor those with a different opinion to your own. I guess I'd like to grow old in a world where the Internet enables safe freedom of thought and expression. A little bit of anarchy keeps the asylum a safe place, without it the pressure builds up and leads to lawlessness & war. Think of the internet as a democratic safety valve.

Earlier this month I noticed an article in the Sunday Times relating how the Vatican's diplomatic immunity had been waived in a US-based child sexual abuse case where the claimant alledges that the vatican knowingly transferred a priest to their diocese when they had strong grounds to believe he was a serial perpetrator of sexual abuse against children.
I didn't notice the case reported in any of the other papers although I'm open to the possibility that it was. The following extract is taken from the University of Pittsburgh's Jurist website. It's

"A federal judge in Oregon allowed a sexual abuse lawsuit against the Catholic Church to move forward Wednesday, rejecting the Vatican's bid to dismiss the suit for lack of jurisdiction. The ruling allows a Seattle-area man to continue with his claim [complaint, PDF] that the Holy See [official website] is liable for transferring the Rev. Andrew Ronan from Ireland to Chicago to Portland, even though the church knew Ronan had a history of sexual abuse. The lawsuit, filed in 2002 [AP report] in the US District Court for the District of Oregon [official website], alleges the Vatican, the Archdiocese of Portland and the archbishop of Chicago conspired to protect Ronan by transferring him from city to city. District Judge Michael Mosman [official profile] ruled that Ronan was an employee of the Vatican under Oregon law and noted that there are exceptions to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act [text], which typically grants the Vatican and other foreign states immunity in US courts. The 1976 act does not shield states when engaged in commercial or certain harmful activities in the United States. The judge added that the Holy See offered no evidence contradicting its involvement in transferring Ronan to protect him."

By deeming that under Oregon law the priest was an employee of the vatican, its immunity was waived. However, I was surprised by the additional piece of information obtained from the Sunday Times report.

"The ruling follows a four-year legal battle in which the Vatican insisted that the alleged victim spend at least $40,000 (£21,700) translating all legal documents into Latin, the official language of the Holy See."

I think it reasonable and truthful to describe the following as chicanery:

"The Vatican twice rejected translations by two American Latin professors, saying their translation of “court”, “conspiracy to commit fraud” and “defendant” and many other phrases were incorrect. The two professors hired by the Anderson firm also had to translate modern terms such as “fax number” (numerus isographicus) and e-mail (inscriptio electronica) as well as dense legal arguments relating to foreign immunity. The Vatican gave up its battle against the translations last December.

I think I'll finish with a fitting entry from the Book of Job

"Then answered Bildad the Shuhite, and said, / How long wilt thou speak these things? and how long shall the words of thy mouth be like a strong wind? / Doth God pervert judgment? or doth the Almighty pervert justice? / If thy children have sinned against him, and he have cast them away for their transgression; / If thou wouldest seek unto God betimes, and make thy supplication to the Almighty; / If thou wert pure and upright; surely now he would awake for thee, and make the habitation of thy righteousness prosperous."

It was funny listening to Cian Foley of up the deise fame on the radio this morning. It was even funnier when a few kilkenny texters said that kilkenny was "as much a city as anywhere else". If we ignore the general incorrectness of this statement we can focus on the specific incorrectness; Kilkenny is actually a large town (by Irish standards) and not a city at all. Waterford, on the other hand, was the 4th largest city in Ireland for many years but successive governments (BOTH FF & FG) ignored over 30 years of requests for a university, better roads, radiotherapy treatment facilities, sports facilities, government funded industrial parks etc. Funny thing is that all these projects were funded in Galway which overtook Waterford and Limerick in terms of population. Despite the people of Waterford putting their hard earned money to work for Galwegians for many years it seems there's selective amnesia and no gratitude for their roads, hospitals, industry & university :) To paraphrase Monty Python... "So apart from all that, what did the Waterfordians ever do for us?"

Far from being a county of "whingers" as the TV3 weatherman Martin King tried to brand us we've been working assiduously for the past few years to try and equalise the government sanctioned imbalance through public-private-partnerships and the creation of practical strategic development plans where our infrastructure is improved. It's amazing how recently Dublin government discovered that Waterford was a port too and therefore needs decent infrastructure. Perhaps they use the same map as Martin King and couldn't find us?

Here's hoping that WIT's university bid is successful as it is perhaps the single most important initiative for the entire county guaranteeing prestige and significant new employment. Several government-commissioned reports from educational experts have affirmed our case in the past so you'd think it would be a foregone conclusion but in the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson

"Nothing astonishes men so much as common sense and plain dealing."

I've decided that the money's (more than) acceptable & the perks are fantastic. Ah who am I kidding it's less than half of "peanuts", does that make it nuts or peas?

I'm gonna become a TD anyway. It's my civic duty to charge the Irish tax payers for listening to me waffle for the next 5 years. Oh wait, that's gonna happen anyway! Oh well, maybe it's the power :)

My name might not be on the Waterford ballot but feel free to add my name and a little tic if you support my campaign manifesto. Not to be confused with my art gallery of the same name which I'm shamelessly plugging like a politicians memoirs. Jayz, I'm good at this.

I PROMISE

• Not to visit your house and listen to your silly problems as if I'm going to do something about it
• Not to pretend to be more knowledgable than I am about a range of issues including planning, incineration, the environment, nuclear power, health care
• Not to take out any advertisements in the paper with my photo on them or any mugshot endorsements from potential voters
• To avoid saying I'm "tough on crime" at any stage during my campaign.
• To avoid saying I'm "working hard for the people of Waterford" during my campaign.
• Not to exploit the impoverished in my attempt to gain political power by portraying myself as a "working class hero" and general do-gooder
• Not to pretend I support the INO's action if you're a nurse or condemn it if you're not
• To pay consultant doctors the 400k a year they deserve if you're a consultant. Skip that, they all vote PD's anyway
• Not to reference Michael Collins, Eamon DeValera, Padraig Pearse or any of a number of long dead Irish heroes in my election manifesto. (well, I wasn't serious about that promise)
• Not to take credit for anything good that happens in Waterford during my term including health care facilities and much needed transport infrastructure which has already been agreed.
• Not to pretend I've been spending every spare moment lobbying the minister of education for the proposed University of the South East
• Not to be affiliated with any political party, especially any party who's name is in Irish with long illustrious histories to be wheeled out at election time like a sacred cow.
• Not to smoke in the Dail bar to prove how with-it and cool I am
• To build a 60,000 all seater multi-purpose stadium for every man, woman and child. Sorry, my principles just dissolved in a puff of electoral smoke.

I'm still in a state of shock. Although it could be the antibiotics I'm taking for my throat infection. Someone from WLR called me this afternoon about my last political blog entry. Apparently I'm convincing the impressionable young voters of Waterford to spoil their votes. Well, I think I overdid the "it's ironic of course" schtick in the interview but I'm still a little bemused that enough people are reading my blog to make it news worthy and that anyone thought it wasn't a humorous if slightly jaundiced view of Waterford electioneering.

To give the post it's context, it came about from many discussions with colleagues and friends about the upcoming election. It's fair to say that most aren't enthused about any of the candidates and even less impressed by their election claims and promises. There's also the depressing feeling that if we don't have a minister we'll be ignored for another 5 years so needs must ... All the evidence points to this being true and if WLR want to run a feature on this I'll surely give them a hand. They should also give Cian "WellBoy" Foley a call as he's sure to have an opinion or 20.

So why are "yoof" so jaded with the current elections? Perhaps it's the essentially bi-partisan hegemony of governance in Ireland. To use an analogy it's like saying we can have spaghetti on toast or beans on toast for another 5 years. We may liven them up with some red tomatoes or some green parsley. Even some mature cheddar. We're not getting an omelette though no matter how much we plead. Personally, I'd like steak but there's not a single party in Ireland that can offer me one :)

Equally we're not afforded the right to vote for "None Of The Above". Surely, in a democratic society we should be allowed to reject the election candidate list? Unfortunately our choice is to vote or not to vote (that is the question!).

On the grounds that we do have real choices in a proportional representation system like we have in Ireland it is our civic duty to have a good hard look at each candidate and their policies and rank them. If there are 7 candidates then list all 7 in order of preference. This is the closest thing you'll get to "None of the Above" so take advantage of it!

It occured to me that my comments may have been construed as a genuine desire to run for public office. Someday I may do so. I also realise that blogging about blogging is the technological equivalent of eating yourself feet first. However, as was demonstrated in my radio interview I'm not averse to cramming both feet into my mouth :)

Just seen a brilliant documentary of Channel 4's More4 station. Death of a Nation is a compelling look at modern Russia. The documentary shows widespread disatisfaction with "Managed Democracy" which seems to be at odds with much of the freedom and civil liberties that we associate with democracy. It puts a lot of our (& my own) whinging about bipartate politics into poignant perspective. It also dismisses Putin's presentation to the west and highlights a violent and authoritarian regime similiar to Western perceptions of the old USSR. Russia seems like a country on the brink of disaster, caught between the extremes of unchecked capitalism and dictatorial communism. No side truely in control.

The documentary was narrated by Marcel Theroux, Louis' less sardonic and altogether more thoughtful brother. I won't discuss it further as it really needs to be watched to be appreciated.

I feel intensely sorry for McDowell. You see I've actually read many of his comments in the Dail, listened to what he has to say and admired the gusto with which he carried out his duties as Minister for Justice. Never an easy role! Over the years I've been impressed by a dedicated, hardworking, erudite and clever man who is not really suitable for Irish politics. I know many who feel delighted he's gone. They believed hook, line and sinker the media representation of the man who dared to express tough and unpopular opinions in this land of milk and honey. Of course he wasn't always right and his aloof nature and righteousness didn't help. The hatred many invested in McDowell would have been better channeled elsewhere. I'd like to believe that they'll retrospectively understand that he's a sincere and good man (albeit endowed with a lawerly conceit) and perhaps contrast this with the even more arrogant and corrupt rogues of days gone by. A little corruption goes a long way at the polls, or so the Irish people proved on Thursday.

I share no sense of vindication in the passing of the PD's into political obscurity. They have served this country well. They have been a vital part of the country's current success and I'm concerned there are no fitting replacements for either Harney or McDowell in the next government. There are genuinely tough times ahead as the celtic cub emerges into ungainly adolescence under the watchful and often reproachful eye of Mother Europe. The electorate have spoken however and democracy will serve up the government they deserve.

Hopefully the Celtic teenager will eventually learn to overcome the peer pressure of the kids from the 4th estate and look more objectively at our political figures and their relative merits.

Just read the following article on MSN. It was referenced on their news channel this morning. It's amazing how communism under Gorbachev seemed so much friendlier than democracy under Putin. There are many starving in his own country and he's issuing threats of retaliation for acts not yet taken and not directly threatening his own country. We should remember very closely where this man came from, what his background is and how recently the former USSR had plans to invade Europe.

There's an article in today's Sunday Times about tighter controls on provisional driving license holders in Ireland. In the interests of full disclosure I'd like to point out that I am one. Now I can begin my rant with a clear conscience. The Road Safety Authority like to say the driving test is fair and that it contributes to safer roads. Go to the driving test's website and you'll see what I mean. I think that this is absolute nonsense with is disproven by empirical evidence. There are over 400,000 provisional license holders on the roads in Ireland. This is a massive portion of the total number of drivers in the country. This number has been swelling over the past few years so, seeing as how these drivers are so unsafe, have the number of serious accidents being increasing? No, they've remained relatively static. Yes, a simple look at the figures tells you that the roads have not actually become more unsafe because of the larger number of provisional license holders. So why the need for the draconian legislation where people who've been driving for many years safely will need to be accompanied by a holder of a full license, even if the accompanying person got their license not by passing a test but through an amnesty granted the last time we had a serious problem with the number of provisional license holders? Well, the simple truth is that the minister has decided his stance makes him look good, tough, decisive. I think it makes him look out of touch, clueless and unaware of some of the real reasons for accidents on our roads. It's also a bit sneaky that this has been foisted on an unsuspecting public AFTER his party get reelected. Could that really be a coincidence?

So let's look at the problems that every road user in the country faces:

• The roads: Travel around the world and you'll quickly see that Ireland has some of the worst road surfaces in Europe.Yet the government feels able to charge VRT, compounded on VAT, compounded on Import Duty on every car in Ireland. Why are our road surfaces so fundamentally bad, so uneven, incorrectly cambered, so COMPLETELY UNSAFE?
• The test itself: How many people are killed because a driver hits a curb during a 3 point turn? How many people are killed because a driver fails to indicate properly going around a roundabout (come to think of it can any driver in Ireland use a roundabout properly?). Why isn't motorway driving covered? The test is a pile of steaming dog shit which fundamentally doesn't measure the skills or attitude necessary to drive safely. Much of it feels arbitrary and silly in conception and implementation
• The unwillingness of drivers to report incidents of extremely bad driving to the Gardai. Overtaking blind into bends is a HUGE problem in this country. It seems there's no shortage of idiots who do this but they must be getting away with it because they're still driving

I guess what really pisses me off about this is that I'm a law abiding citizen who feels let down by his government. Leaving aside the fact that I didn't vote for them and won't be doing so in a hurry. I've applied 4 times to do the test. The first time I failed because of 5 marks against for clutch related minor offenses. In all honesty I didn't believe and still don't believe that this made me an unsafe driver. I subsequently discovered I had a problem with my clutch which neither the driving school where I took lessons nor the test examiner spotted. So, basically my first attempt should probably have ended in success.I'd been driving for a year, had no accidents and felt reasonably comfortable behind the wheel.

I was paying around 3500 euro in insurance to drive an old Renault Megane at the time. The second time I applied, the exhaust fell off my old car the night before the test. I could have driven a safer and newer car but for my insurance premium but that's another rant. I discovered the extent of the problem that morning but the test was too early and I ended up not being able to attempt the test as the instructor dismissed my car as unroadworthy. I was told the waiting list was almost a year so I was devastated with what happened.

The third application was made with a sense of dread. The waiting list in Waterford is insane and it took in excess of a year to get notification of the test. Due to some, common, issue with the postal service the notification arrived while I was in the US. Needless to say I couldn't get back in time and missed another test. I applied again a few months ago and am still waiting to be tested. I sincerely hope it happens soon yet I am filled with a feeling of dread when I consider the generally hostile and antagonistic way testers behave in the experience of me and my friends. How is it normal to sit beside an unfriendly and apparently sadistic person issuing curt instructions and taking notes when you're trying to concentrate on driving? Maybe I needed a harsher home life to prepare me for the demeaning experience that is the driving test in Ireland?
Or maybe that's just the unpleasant red haired bloke in the Waterford test center...

So to summarise I've been driving for over 6 years. I have a provisional license. I have not received points for speeding or any other violation. I have had NO accidents yet have driven everything from a Renault Megane to a bulky Nissan Pathinder to a very fast BMW Z4. None, not a scratch. I haven't made a claim on my insurance nor had a claim made against me. I treat my car like a new born baby. Albeit one that gets left outside in the cold on a regular basis :)

I have been pulled over once by the gardai when I got a new car and was having difficulty with the tiptronic gearbox. Long story. I received no points, just a few queries. If I feel like I'm little danger to other road users it's because I've empirically demonstrated that to be the case. Which is more than I can say for the large number of drivers I see without L plate who can't use a roundabout, overtake going into corners, exceed the speed limit on narrow country roads and generally put themselves and others in harms way yet somehow are deemed safe. Yet for the sake of a sound-bite and a trendy yet ill-conceived initiative I and others like me are the enemy.

An alternative would be to force everybody to go to driving schools and do a number of tests over a period of time designed to determine if they have the correct skills and attitude to drive reasonably and safely. If the Minister feels the test is worth doing, it should be worth doing properly!

To the tune of "The Ugly Duckling"

There once was a little rundown country with fields of green and brown And the other states of, with wealth so great said Welcome to EC town So we went with a swagger and a roll and a gait and signed on the dotted line

So the poor little rundown country
a former colony with no wealth of its own
signed on the line
its future assigned
at a meeting they held in Rome.
yes a meeting, a treaty, a meeting they held in Rome.

So the poor little rundown country
finally had money to survive
The few rich made cakes
from overflowing butter lakes
and refridgerated everthing not alive.
refridgerated, yes refridgerated, we froze the bejaysus out of everything not alive.

(change in key)
All through the 70s and most of the 80s
we struggled and we scraped,
those of us with more, hid it all offshore

All through those years,
wealth was rare indeed
farmers made their livings from animals and seed

Til a proud and cunning king
who owned nearly everything
had a stunning revelation of the
power of low corporate taxation.

"Only the rich are saved
greed is good he raved
Invest in companies a chara
F*&king make it so O'Meara :)"

(change to original key and take deep breath!)
So the modestly wealth no-longer rundown country
with competitiveness statistics that enticed
Became the leading manufacturer, outside the US- in fact we were,
of everything from software to computer mice.

So our now quite wealthy little country
got the cash, we'd craved for years
When you've got BT's, you'd never want for Sears
Debt seemed very cheap, twas no surprise to see
a million quid spent recklessly on a 4 bed semi-D

(long pause to reflect)

Oh there once was a little country, that refused to face the facts
The construction industry has sold half the country into a life of slavery
Hours of traffic jams, 2 jobs, no kids unplanned
and the promise of negative equity.

Yes the promise, the guarantee, the absolute irrefutable fact of impending negative equity.

Ah sure, I don't mean it really. The government are as much if not more to blame :)
Apologies for the bad rhyming, I guess it's the sentiment that counts. I'm buying a house at the moment and am totally fed up of the vested interests (aka auctioneers) telling me that

• The market isn't affected really, there's a lot of scaremongers about.


• Houses at this price level aren't affected (lucky me!)


• There's a few years of boom to go


• It's a fair price, we're only acting in the best interests of the seller


• We're taking the houses off the market, it's always easier to sell in the new year and we'll be putting the prices up I'm afraid.


• There may be a dip but we're confident of a "soft landing"

Cobblers, as they say. How is it that with supply outstripping demand by almost 2 to 1, thousands of empty houses and apartments all around the country, crazy multiples of income to debt and thousands of jobs dependent on a sector which has been showing signs of slowing down for over 18 months will there somehow be a miraculous "soft landing". Caveat emptor.

This applies to political salaries right? I'm not the only irish blogger who believes that the current government lack vision. With apologies to the greens who are in government for the first time, FF has presided over a period where construction and its related industries have been incentivised to the detriment of pretty much everything else. While the government have been slow to recognise that the good times are ending, there have been parallels with property booms and subsequent busts in other European countries. Anyone who feels this is scare mongering should have a look at the insightful