Back Seat Drivers
A lot of tragic misconceptions abound on WW. Like it would never happen that in order to ensure that the voting pool was kept manageable and confined to monolithic interests, especially in our populist, lobbying-prone polity, a certain, lax attitude to the economy might be taken among our political overlords. Nah, they'd never be that cynical.
And, er, didn't they have a little sectarian objection to hiring papist types not 200 miles up the road - but hey, given the wonderful basket of human rights available under the apartheid dispensation, what would anyone want with a pesky vote??
Interestingly, the ludicrous libertarian yoof among us have failed to call for voting rights to be tied to property, as in formerly halcyon bourgeois times. I guess daddy refused to buy them housey wouseys.
But why stop at this Copernicus? I mean, if voting entitles you to control the public treasury, surely those who contribute the most should get the most votes. What about one vote for every 20K you earn every year?
You bleeding heart liberals!
Personally I think that the unemployed should be used in medical experiments.
For no reason in particular, just for a laugh!
Dick, you're right, voting should entitle you to control the treasury. In my spare time, I run a modest, central African kleptocracy in which I've restricted the vote to me and some of my closest personal friends on the basis that we are the only people who do any work around here - you know, meeting petroleum company executives and selling mining rights to western corporations. Sadly, for my people, they don't have the skill-sets required to actually work in these dynamic, exciting industries. So no votes for them.
As you say, this entitles me and my pals to exclusive control over treasury matters and I have made the rational choice, based on the maximisation of my utils of satisfaction and a careful examination of my opportunity costs, to buy some sports cars and stick a couple of billion in a numbered Swiss account.
Diana, re your suggestion, we have an abundant natural resource - unemployed poor people - which is crying out to be exploited by someone with the necessary moral clarity.
I'd be mildly careful with the humorous drug asides - I prefaced querelous remarks on a Frank Neary post which characterised people trying Slobo in the Hague to uphold human rights and punish quite recent crimes as jobsworth cynics engaged in an "industry" by asking if he realised magic mushrooms had been banned.
In the spirit of freedom of expression he threatened me with a libel action, accused my bessie mate, Fustar, of being me, required him to denounce me, called me a "cunny" and "sphinxter" and, in support of Wulfbeorn's ban, expressed the intention to email same with details of my "obsessional" behaviour.
If Wulfie's been turned, you may find a solicitor's letter in the mail.
Fret not. Mere vulgar abuse doesn't constitute defamation. And I should know ;)
Who's Frank Neary?
the land of ireland guy. he was on here giving out about falacies within falacies recently.
That was actually Frank McGahon, from Internet Commentator. Must go look this other Frank up.
My apologies, that was Frank McGahon, I remembered after posting.
Anyway, it's the land of ireland guy. Terrible website name.
Evening all!
It's the other Frank!
Hey Frank, how's that best humour award getting on? The FI don't dole them out to just anyone.
Your powers of summing up are lamentable, boy! and with Gormley and Sargent as teachers and Cuffe as a lecturer, that makes three not two educators.Just thought I'd tewll you that while I'm her. Evening Dick. Did you like the Slobo post?
I have a copy of my exchanges with 'bessie mate' Fústar which he felt very eager to delete from his site. Would you like me to email you a copy :-)
I read it. It was pretty disturbed.
As is the fact that you've retained copies for further use.
Fustar is a comix and pop culture blog. It's a bit much to come on there making reckless accusations.
You need to relax.
C
You're some prize tulip. Do you use any illegal substances to fuel your cranked-up commenting activity?
Evening Dick. Did you like the Slobo post?
You mean this?
The "human rights industry", a "show trial"? Or "people whose lives were disrupted or ended during the break-up of Yugoslavia have suffered what they've suffered, and nothing will change that."
You're really covering yourself in glory there Frank.
I like the idea qua Frank that, hey, the crime is over, the people are dead, so why bother prosecuting the perp?
The only logical conclusion is that we should lock people up before they commit the crimes.
So follow me everyone. We're all locking ourselves into the 'Joy and thowing away the keys.
Just saw the update on the post. My conclusion exactly. Some ideas don't merit serious engagement. It's incredibly unlikely that a reasoned critique will have any effect on the kind of person who suggested it in the first place.
And I'm not talking about Mill. We've moved on.
Have to say, wulfbeorn's post raises interesting questions about irishelection.com - and I'm not just saying this because I think he's a whackjob. But what did this post have to do with the 2007 Irish election?
I note that, with the exception of Cian, by far the most prolific posters on the blog are Simon, Frank Neary and wulfbeorn, which is fine, if they are the ones doing all the donkey work - and I wouldn't object to the relevance of most of the posts - but if people are just going to start lashing up their ideological opinions rather than to inform the site's browsers about "machinations leading up to the 2007 election", the blog is probably going to lose its way very quickly - and its audience.
Shouldn't there be an objective test against which posts should be judged, especially if the blog is threatening to turn into a right-wing diatribe, which couldn't remotely be said to be reflective of more than the 3.96% of the electorate who voted PD at the last election - and I realise Frank is an FFer, but his politics are well to the right of most members of the party.
I like the idea of a franchise proportional to my property, especially since I have a modest plantation tended by 200 slaves or, if you prefer, Irish Ferries crew members doing a nixer. I have a feeling, though, that people with less tangible assets will object to this arrangement. Allow me, therefore, to offer a compromise: each slave shall count for 3/5 of a vote when I cast my preferences. We can even put it in the constitution, right after we have our referendum on what multi-culturalism means.
copernius,
Now that we're on first name terms. Your thinking is not so clear today either, A recent quiz told me I'm a moderate on social issues (56% permissive) and a conservative on economic ones (63% permissive) — a centrist, in short. It says I exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness. http://thelandofireland.blogspot...are-you-
on.html
I'm not sure whether your assessment was based on that or something else.
I thought Mills was better after he teamed up with Boon and signed Barbara Cartland. Don't know if Wulfbeorn would agree, but I'm liberal about other peoples' literary tastes.
You have plenty of interestnig and reasonable posts on your blog Frank about housing, planning etc., but I haven't seen your quiz results and have formed my opinion based on your extreme reaction to the comments I left on your blog and to your disdain for the legal culture of human rights.
I was also under the impression that your humour gong from the Freedom Institute spoke volumes.
I'm happy to be corrected however.
I'm getting ready to be told the humour gong was for the other Frank.
I think not.
They had to give it to someone, the fibbies did. And lets face it, they couldn't give it to Frank McGahon.
So do you really think arguing against war crimes trials is a moderate position then Frank?
They had to give it to someone, the fibbies did. And lets face it, they couldn't give it to Frank McGahon.
Why not? He is, after all, a Libertarian (the world's wackiest cult, bar Scientology).
http://
internetcommentator.typep...tarianism_.html
Exactly, EWI, it's not as if there was actually a need to display a sense of humour.
My favourite Frank Gahon post was the one where he said humanities degrees shouldn't be funded by the taxpayer, unlike technical degrees (er, like his).
Where he thinks society's administrators, teachers etc are supposed to come from, I don't know.
Speaking of libertarians, has anyone seen the latest picture on sillyman's notes?
Is it subject to copyright or can it be exploited according to fair use principles?
'So do you really think arguing against war crimes trials is a moderate position then Frank?'
Who was arguing against war crimes trials? Questioning their and the UN's effectiveness is not the same thing.
Who was arguing against war crimes trials?
Oh sorrry. Usually when someone labels it a "show trial" I tend to assume they don't approve.
You said they couldn't achieve anything - if you want to call justice a mere bagatelle. Look back at the quote Dick used. It's not like you're referring to the degree of effectiveness involved in a particular process, you're saying the trial is pointless.
How is this not an argument against war crimes trials?
Is it subject to copyright or can it be exploited according to fair use principles?
Fair use, or fair dealing as its known in Irish law excludes photos, so no, he could sue you for using his photo.
Can I sue him for having it taken?
1. Slobodan was being tried for alleged war crimes. I don't believe it is appropriate to assume he would or necessarily should have been convicted.Milosovic.
2. Correct me if I am wrong but my belief is that the USA takes a position that its citizens will not be allowed to be tried by an international court for alleged war crimes, so the system itself is less than 100% legitimate.
3. As Lord Goldsmith pointed out to the UK government in his legal advice prior to the present war in iraq, a war may have no basis in law but if there is no prosecution then that makes a bit of an ass of the law and the International judicial machinery, and in my opinion exposes it to ridicule.
4. Partly following on from 3 above, to prevent war crimes occurring would be rather preferable to prosecuting some heads of state many years later.
I note that, with the exception of Cian, by far the most prolific posters on the blog are Simon, Frank Neary and wulfbeorn, which is fine, if they are the ones doing all the donkey work - and I wouldn't object to the relevance of most of the posts - but if people are just going to start lashing up their ideological opinions rather than to inform the site's browsers about "machinations leading up to the 2007 election", the blog is probably going to lose its way very quickly - and its audience.
Ill bear that in mind and perhaps see what contribs in general feel about the site.
I hope I don't come across as anything other than disinterested there Cian (especially as I can hardly be said to be eye-to-eye with the personnel in question). I just think it's worth noting before things get too out of hand and the project loses its shape.
I'd be inclined to ask people to only cross-post stuff that was relatively impersonal in tone and related to the activities of the players in the election itself. But that's just me. The people involved may have a different vision for the blog - perhaps leaning more towards sticking up a political wish list.
I would have posted something over on Irish Election, but there didn't seem anywhere appropriate.
Frank,
So you were arguing against war crimes trials then?
1. Just because Milosevic dies before a verdict doesn't mean it's a "show trial".
2. The US changed its mind about signing up for the International Criminal Court. Milosevic was being tried by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, a different court. That was established by Resolution 827 of the UN Security Council. The US voted for that resolution. Secondly, the refusal of one country to recognise a court doesn't confer illegitimacy. As of November, 100 countries had recognised the ICC, including Ireland. Thirdly, there is plenty of precident for war crimes trials. Do you think Nuremburg was a farce?
3. Not sure if I understand your point here. Are you saying unless the UK is prosecuted for the war in Iraq, the system is useless?
4. Of course preventing crimes is always preferrable, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't prosecute either. That applies to everything, not just war crimes.
Ill bear that in mind and perhaps see what contribs in general feel about the site.
Speaking as a contributor who hasn't posted anything yet, I guess it boils down to whether you have anything at all related to Irish politics or just stuff directly related to the election. The danger of the former is you risk being all over the shop and of the latter is that there isn't that much material to work with at this early stage. Perhaps this is a situation where an old fashioned idea of an editor may be useful? On the other hand, you could argue that its reasonable to let things be and as the election draws closer people will naturally be drawn more into the nitty gritty of the campaign.
Perhaps Slugger O'Toole might be a good role model? There's another group blog with a relatively tight focus. You'll notice the contributors tend to stick with the hard news in their posts and leave the opinion to the comments section.
No fair comment, we are only as good as whoever posts and we have a balance on paper but its getting regular contribs to balance left and right on the site.
I'd be inclined to ask people to only cross-post stuff that was relatively impersonal in tone and related to the activities of the players in the election itself.
But blogs are personal and most are sounding posts for one opinion or another. I think that is the strength-you know what you get and can argue on a genuine basis.
Perhaps Im wrong.
Dick, I agree that right now the issue is that we have lots ready and not much to talk about yet. The dilemma is to let the site go quiet or let people post away.
I think ill stick up a post on irishelection to that end and see what the reaction is. Please come across and give some input.
C
Dick,
1. As the court will not now reach a verdict it seem s we can never know if the prosecution of Milosovic was or was not justified.
2. Confer illegitimacy? I think your logic and/or your language has/have become inverted there.
3. You'd need to read the entire opinion to fully understand the point. It's available somewhere on the internet in pdf.
4. As you well know, I never argued anything of that sort.
Huh?
1. And what about all of the other prosecutions then. In your opinion, were they show trials? If so why?
2. Now I think you're dodging the issue. You said the system was less than legimiate because the US didn't allow its citizens to be tried. The US in fact voted for it to be set up. Why is it illegimate?
3. I'm not doing your research for you. Tell me why Goldsmith's point makes this court dodgy.
4. If you didn't argue this, why did you bring it up?
1. My post related to Milosovic.
2. ?????????????????
3. I've read and understood the Goldsmith opinion in full.
4. ??????????????????
1. So are you saying that only Milosevic's trial was a show trial and all their others weren't?
3. Good for you. Now would you mind explaining what it has to do with this?
2, 4. I presume you're conceding the point on these ones since you've nothing left to say?
Re your Goldsmith point, Frank. You say his contention is that "if there is no prosecution, it makes an ass of the law and judicial machinery", although you seem to have melded his opinion and yours a bit towards the end.
At any rate, in the Slobo case, there was a prosecution. Ergo, ass not made of law. At least not on that basis.
Report in today's Irish Independent states '(t)he stakes are also high for Ms Del Ponte, who has been criticised for her handling of the marathon trial of the former Yugoslav leader...
With no outcome to the Milosevic case, Ms Del Ponte has redoubled her efforts to secure Mladic and his political master Radovan Karadzic'
Well that settles it, Frank. I'm converted. Fuck human rights.
1. Milosevic as a head of state was certainly the star attraction till he went and died, denying the prosecution wigs the possibility of their moment of glory at getting a conviction.
2. So one country, the United States, regards as legitimate an international court so long as it doesn't prosecute any of its citizens? It sounds llike it has legal but not moral legitimacy.
3. As at 1 above the entire notion of international prosecution of war crimes is denied legitimacy if some of the most powerful states are above the law by virtue of the fact that can feel fairly certain that no prosecution will be pressed against them for waging wars which have no legal basis.
4. I'll have to ask you with respect m'lud to point me to where I stated that war crimes shouldn't be prosecuted.
1. Yep, Milosevic's trial was certainly the most high profile, but what does this have to do with proving it was a show trial?
2+3. So let me get this straight. Just because the States refuses to recognise the ICC, that means nobody can be prosecuted for war crimes? For the record, I was one of the people who thought their backing out of the ICC was a disgrace. But the reality is we can't force them participate. Should that mean we just sit on our hands and do nothing about people we actually can prosecute?
4. I asked you to back up your assertion it was a show trial. You responded with four points, the last of which was that its better to prevent crimes in the first place. Now if this isn't part of your argument as to why the trial was a sham, then why did you say it?
"Copernicus": My favourite Frank Gahon post was the one where he said humanities degrees shouldn't be funded by the taxpayer, unlike technical degrees (er, like his).
Busted: I seem to remember you saying "I don't know that much about your politics.
By the way, since when do we need any more "administrators" and where does it say they have to have a humanities degree? Teachers have to have a hdip in ed which is a vocational (note: not "technical") degree. But, in any case, if you bother to go and reread the original post, (an earlier one here) you'll see that I made the narrower point that absent "free" fees, you would see fewer enrolling in humanities courses and this would be desirable. At no stage did I say that the government should pay for vocational degrees only. As it happens I don't think that "free" third level fees for everyone is a good idea, humanities or vocational. For the record, the government didn't pay my university fees (graduated UCD 1989).
"EWI": Why not? He is, after all, a Libertarian (the world's wackiest cult, bar Scientology).
The link you provide hardly supports your contention
Why am I busted? I've popped over having linked from your comments on my blog and had a good nose around.
I don't really want to get into a massive debate with you about the tertiary education sector, its role and function in society and its funding, as it's a complicated issue, but I don't think your position is particularly nuanced or insightful.
You might want to note, by the way, that the "h" in hdip stands for higher, as in it's a postgraduate degree. And that primary degree? Quite often in the humanities.
Actually, we do need more administrators. Check out Damian Mulley's recent post on the cost in the telecoms sector of the lack of regulators, check out Dick's recent post on the exploitation of foreign workers. And not everybody with a humanities degree ends up in the public sector.
You are definitely under the impression that a humanities degree is a bit of self-indulgent whimsy undertaken by louche people who like novels - but actually what an arts degree does is train you to think. Which, surely, is a component of every course of study at this level. It disciplines your mind.
An English degree isn't a course of literary appreciation, for example, it's a course of critical training. And I have a pretty good idea that that is news to you.
I have to say that this whole thread is off topic in a million different ways. We wouldn't last five seconds on sicilian notes.
But the crack is mighty and we may even have prompted a change in the way the Irish public receive and digest their political news from the first general election of the Web 2.0 dispensation on.
I don't really want to get into a massive debate with you about the tertiary education sector
Well then don't make a comment like:
but I don't think your position is particularly nuanced or insightful.
You might want to note, by the way, that the "h" in hdip stands for higher, as in it's a postgraduate degree. And that primary degree? Quite often in the humanities.
"Quite often" indeed. At least you've moved from your original implication that a humanties degree was necessary and sufficient for a teacher.
Actually, we do need more administrators. Check out Damian Mulley's recent post on the cost in the telecoms sector of the lack of regulators, check out Dick's recent post on the exploitation of foreign workers.
No, actually we don't. We have now a vast bloated benchmark-enriched public sector. You want more administrators? use the department of Agriculture employees who will soon be paid to sit on their arses and do the crossword because their job no longer exists.
And not everybody with a humanities degree ends up in the public sector.
Well d'uh. I suppose it's a revelation to you that not everyone in the public sector has a humanities degree either.
You are definitely under the impression that a humanities degree is a bit of self-indulgent whimsy undertaken by louche people who like novels
No, I just think that arts course enrollment is inflated because of the secondary benefits that go with just "being at college".
but actually what an arts degree does is train you to think. Which, surely, is a component of every course of study at this level. It disciplines your mind.
Give me a break. You would hope that any third level course would "discipline your mind". That doesn't mean that it's necessary to study ancient sumerian artifacts to be able to, say, monitor compliance with health and safety regulations.
An English degree isn't a course of literary appreciation, for example, it's a course of critical training. And I have a pretty good idea that that is news to you.
That's rich coming from someone who thinks logical fallacies are some weird "right wing" [sic] obsession.
Look: the point is simple and you haven't bothered refuting it. I simply don't see the benefit for society (including those who never went to college) to subsidise third level students. If their course is valuable, all but the poorest students should be able to pay for it.
No, I just think that arts course enrollment is inflated because of the secondary benefits that go with just "being at college".
Frank, I wonder what you think those secondary benefits are, cause they certainly don't include widespread social respect, as you've once again amply demonstrated. Also, do you think arts degrees are overvalued in the job market? If yes, why? If no, is it merely these as-yet-undefined secondary benefits that attract inflated enrollment despite the limited prospects upon graduation? Or has the market got it right re: arts grads, but the arts grads are intrinsically wrong in some way?
Note: I paid - a lot - for my arts degree.
copernicus,
'Well that settles it, Frank. I'm converted. Fuck human rights.'
What on earth has international structures for prosecuting alleged war criminals got to do with human rights? You can't possibly claim that such structures prevent or deter violations of 'human rights', which are in any event aspirational and not absolute. Nor can prosecution restore the harm done, though I can buy the argument that prosecution and conviction can give some sense of comfort and closure to the aggrieved survivors and their representatives, and the satisfaction of seeing that perpetrators of abuses aren't let get away with their crimes. But an international judicial structure which has built into it the near certainty that some states will get away with being a law to themselves but will adminsiter the law to lesser nations, has a big credibility, especially when it proves itself incapable of closing its cases or indeed of having all the main perpetrators of alleged war crimes including those in command, to face legitimate justice.
Now copernicus, you wrote above that I 'threatened (you) with a libel action, accused (your) bessie mate, Fustar, of being (you), required him to denounce (you)'. But that is not a factual account of what occurred, now is it.
For the sake of truth and fair play, because that is what we are doing here, what I wrote was 'You're so literal-minded. Otherwise I'd sue you for defamation.'
The first sentence is an expression of my firmly held opinion at the time. The "otherwise" which follows gives a clear statement that I was not intending to sue you 'copernicus' for defamation.
To establish some greater knowledge as to the identity of this 'copernicus', whom I did not intend to sue, I looked at the Blogger profile which 'copernicus' had used when commenting on the Slobo post, I followed the links which led only to the Fústar blog. There, under a post which expressed sentiments in favour of
'diversity, multiplicity of voices'
I entered a comment which read
'A commenter using the name 'copernicus' and whose blogger profile linked directly to this Fustar site does not share your expressed sentiments about 'diversity, multiplicity of voices'.
Now copernicus, that could not reasonably be interpreted by any reasonable person as accusing ' bessie mate', Fustar, of 'being' you, or indeed of 'requiring' him to 'denounce' you. Now, could it? Take your time.
I'll repeat what I wrote, to help jog your memory.
'A commenter using the name 'copernicus' and whose blogger profile linked directly to this Fustar site does not share your expressed sentiments about 'diversity, multiplicity of voices'. Care to comment or dissociate Fustar from 'copernicus'?
You claim that has the same meaning as 'accused' your bessie mate, Fustar, of 'being' 'copernicus', AND 'required' him to 'denounce' you.
I'm waiting for your response. Take your time.
Dick,
Trials must, with rare exceptions, be held in public. All trials are show trials. It is a description.
An assertion, which is a declaration or forthright statement, would be something relating more to fact than perception.
Initially exasperated, but now quite amused at how this blog is turning into a kind of Casablanca interzone, the place you go to settle scores notched up elsewhere in the blogosphere. Everybody comes to Dick's...
Frank, I wonder what you think those secondary benefits are
For a significant portion of arts graduates (note: not all) it's simply being at college, the student lifestyle, meeting likeminded individuals and most importantly, staving off the inevitable day when they have to become a salaryman drone. My point is that "free" third level fees nudges more into this category than would be the case if they had to pay more towards it.
The second point about "free" fees is that it is hard to see any justification for them - the benefit accrues largely to the prosperous middle class. You could make a reasonable case that society as a whole benefits from having a literate and numerate populace which would justify funding secondary education. Once you get to third level you're getting diminishing returns and I can't see why someone who didn't go to college should pay towards the education of someone who will probably go on to earn more than her.
Probably because the post that this thread relates to was a condescending mockery of what a third party had written on a blog elsewhere which had not made any mention of this blog. The theme seems to have developed from there with further inaccurate assertions made along the way about other third parties.
This is not a site I had ever visited, but as I was mentioned by name in comments I thought it worth checking out that element of it.
I scrolled down the front page once or twice but it's not my kind of read.
To clarify, mine above was a respone to ' Ben Good' not the other Frank (hi, Frank).
I'm gone now, so you can go back to play with yourselves again now.
Frank,
Firstly- I wasn't complaining- I like the broad church of contributors and commenters on the site. Otherwise I wouldn't (very, very occasionally) post here.
Secondly- disagree with you-the original post was fair game, a response to a hugely eccentric idea that was put out there for the very purpose of stirring up controversy. Dick was scathing about the idea, but he didn't make any "inaccurate assertions".
And on the topic of assertions, where did you get the idea that the term "a show trial" meant "a trial that takes place in public?" From Wikipedia: "the term 'a show trial' describes a type of public trial in which the judicial authorities have already determined the guilt of the defendant". Knowingly or unknowingly, this is what you are saying about the Milosevic trial; it's up to you to withdraw it or back it up.
Ben made my point before me.
Changing the definition of words probably isn't the best way to win an argument. But hey, if we couuld all do that, life would be so much easier.
'Changing the definition of words probably isn't the best way to win an argument'.
Show trial is not defined in my Pocket Oxford dictionary or in Oxford's Concise Dictionary of Law. If someone has logged onto wikipedia and suggested a definition of 'show trial' that is their business. however the definition you quote is an accurate reflection of the 'presumption of guilt' atmosphere around the Milosevic trial in front of a court which demonstrably lacks moral legitimacy. Teh credibility of the international structures is further strained by the fact that many of the worst events of the Yugoslavia break up happened under UN presence, and arguably cack-handed actions by the EU in the early 1990s by the EU presidency precipitated the break-up and ensuing strife.
Frank, are you honestly saying you always thought a show trial was just a public trial?
If Wikipedia ain't good enough for you:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org
or
http://dictionary.msn.com
However the definition you quote is an accurate reflection of the 'presumption of guilt' atmosphere around the Milosevic trial in front of a court which demonstrably lacks moral legitimacy.
Basically, umpteen comments later you haven't presented a shred of evidence to prove that the verdict was decided in advance of the conclusion. An "atmosphere" is a perception, your perception to be more accurate. It isn't proof. If you think it is, great, we can make all sorts of arguments. "Bertie Ahern is corrupt." "Why?" "Oh you know, there's an atmosphere of corruption around him".
'The theme seems to have developed from there with further inaccurate assertions made along the way about other third parties'
should have read
'The theme seems to have developed from there with, further, inaccurate assertions made along the way about other third parties'
of which copernicus made several:-)
Frank, you can't win an argument by stating that postivie statement a) implies negative statement b). For example, you explicitly state that my comment "where does he think society's administrators and teachers are to come from" is the equivalent statement "all teachers and administrators have a humanities degree". It may come as a surprise to you to discover - your ability to laterally think being somewhat challenged - that I went to school and, shock, horror, was taught by science graduates. It may also come as a surprise to you to learn that I am well aware of the fact that the civil service is choc full of scientists and engineers - why some of them are my friends and relations.
You're the one who basically stated that the Dip was the teaching qualification, but it's not and sought to imply that the training was entirely vocational. You were rather transparently spinning the facts.
Every one of your other responses takes exactly the form of the above - more of your lovely fallacies, and as I have a lot of experience I can tell that were I to engage you and dismiss each one, I'd find the sand to have shifted beneath my feet in every subsequent comment. That's pretty tedious to have to deal with.
Other Frank, you know what you did. Deal with it.
that should have read the "Dip was the only aspect of the teaching qualification"
Other Frank is selectively quoting in a vacuum btw. He conveniently leaves out the post he left first. The comment above being a response to a bewildered Fustar comment.
As I pointed out at the time, three seconds research on the "about" page would have answered his questions and prevented him from cutting and pasting irrelevant material from irrelevant posts to his own blog and making wild assertions all over the place.
I have to say I was under the impression that you'd managed to put the matter in perspective and move on Frank, perhaps relying on your award winning sense of humour to embrace the notion of the absurd.
Jackals
It may come as a surprise to you to discover..
Well, no because I already made that point but it does rather shoot your argument in the foot. Who needs "shifting sands" from me when you've got such shaky foundations.
You're the one who basically stated that the Dip was the teaching qualification, but it's not and sought to imply that the training was entirely vocational. You were rather transparently spinning the facts.
Give me a break, now you're doing what you accuse me of. Your strong implication, as I understood it, was that a large enrolment in humanities was necessary to provide teachers and all these administrators we allegedly need. If you're now saying that a large enrolment in humanities isn't necessary for these well then we don't have that much to disagree about (in this particular instance).
and as I have a lot of experience I can tell that were I to engage you and dismiss each one, I'd find the sand to have shifted beneath my feet in every subsequent comment
That's rich coming from you.
That's pretty tedious to have to deal with.
It is indeed.
I'm obviously not saying it isn't necessary. Here we go with the shifting sands. You're now saying that me saying enrolment in the humanities is necessary to provide adminisatrators and teachers" is the same as saying "enrolement in the humanities is necessary to provide all administrators and teachers.
It's one thing to defend arguments I have made, but it's entirely ridiculous to expect me to defend arguments I haven't. If you were interested in a genuine debate, you'd have taken my points at face value and expressed your alternative position. Instead, you're just distorting what I actually said, as if that will convince people that you're right and I'm wrong.
I'm sure people can see for themselves what you're rather pointlessly doing. I don't respect it, and my opinion that your position is neither nuanced nor insightful stands. It doesn't require debate. People can form their own views by visiting your site. I'm sure some will agree with you and some won't.
er, that was quite obviously me.
Dick,
'you haven't presented a shred of evidence to prove that the verdict was decided in advance of the conclusion.'
Now why would I do that?
copernicus,
you're losing it again. Hoisted on your own pe-fucking-tard
Slán libh
And that, ladies and gentlemen, was Mr. Frank Neary.
Me again btw.
Amid all the back and forth I note that no-one has referred to the best-known historical instance of the phrase "show trial", namely the Stalinist purges. These were trials as propaganda exercises, the decision made well in advance, and the abject "confessions" made in court not for reasons of legal process but to frighten the crap out of any potential dissidents.
A trial, in western democracies, is understood as comprising various elements such as a right to know oner's accusers, the right to legal representation, and the right to have one's trial in public. So to suggest that "show trial" merely means trial in public is to reduce the phrase to a tautology, which, as anyone who knows about Stalinist Russia will tell you, it certainly isn't.
That International Law has lacunae is hardly a new observation, but War Crimes/Crimes Against Humanity are of a moral qwuality that they demand a response, despite the fact that any judicial (as opposed to humanitarian) response will be inadequate, and too late. The trials are moral exercises, and their public nature is an integral element. Finally, I suggest all concerned read Hannah Arendt if they haven't done so already.
And while I'm here...
Wulfbeorn's argument for disenfranchising welfare recipients is based on a false premise, namely, that the right to vote derives from one's economic position. The right to vote rather derives from the democratic of the state, and the voter's status as an adult citizen.
It is, to use that much despised (well, much despised by some people anyway) phrase, a human right, not an economic one. I'd be intersted to see how the Wulfbeorn plan could be implemented. It involves a redefinition of citizenship, which could only be done by way of constitutional referendum. If you can persuade Turkeys to vote for Christmas Wulfbeorn, your idea might just have a future.
copernicus,
I was lurking. Go raibh maith agat. Late night last night at cian's, I see :-)
Fergal,
Good post.
That should have read "the democratic *nature* of the state"
Excellent analysis Fergal. I made the point in response to my brother on my blog that we shouldn't confuse economics with politics in attempting to establish where we lie on the political spectrum. It's very disturbing post Thatcherism that "capitalism" is being taken as a political philosophy rather than as a) a form of livelihood and b) a system of economic organisation.
As you point out, human rights becomes an unfashionable concept, its legitimacy to be tested against market forces.
It's a peculiar argument coming from a professed libertarian, who wants to reduce the burden of the state on the citizen. As the burden gets reduced, you end up with fewer net contributors to the exchequer, therefore fewer voters. Unless that's the whole point, of course.
It's one thing to defend arguments I have made, but it's entirely ridiculous to expect me to defend arguments I haven't. If you were interested in a genuine debate, you'd have taken my points at face value and expressed your alternative position.
What is your point then? Because I can't see the "distortion" in inferring that from Where he thinks society's administrators, teachers etc are supposed to come from, I don't know. you intend to convey that a large enrolment in humanities degree courses necessary is necessary for "administrators, teachers etc." you seem to also assume that based on this premise there should be free fees for humanities courses. I can't see how this follows and I haven't seen any argument from you explaining why it does.
My position is fairly simple: "Free" fees for third level is a bad idea for several reasons, not the least of which is that you have relatively poorer people subsidising richer people. As I note above, society arguably benefits from a populace educated up to second level. The benefit of third level education is mostly internalised to the actual third level students. If your interest is in improving access to third level education for those lower on the socio-economic ladder, this can easily be addressed by means-tested grants. You don't have top make it free for everyone else. Another reason is that this subsidy does represent a distortion. Now there's a lot more to the cost of an education than the tuition fee but at the margins you are getting more people enrolling who, if they were spending their own money, probably wouldn't choose to go.
Instead, you're just distorting what I actually said, as if that will convince people that you're right and I'm wrong.
Hmm, that sounds familiar. Oh yes, here you are above:
My favourite Frank Gahon post was the one where he said humanities degrees shouldn't be funded by the taxpayer, unlike technical degrees (er, like his).
Which is a misrepresentation and one which is easy to confirm.
Look, the only reason I got into this in the first place was because you and that eejit "EWI" were gratuitously (as in absolutely nothing to do with the original post or the thread that followed) slagging me off and misrepresenting what I wrote. If you find it so "tedious" to deal with, next time you are of a mind to drag my name into a discussion which has nothing to do with me, kindly resist the urge.
Oh dear, this could be mistaken with a Harry's Place thread. Thoroughly enjoyable, I must say. But perhaps overly vindictive, I think. Can we calm it down just a bit; the atmosphere is just a tad hostile - which, when between a group of people whom I genuinely do like and respect, really isn't very nice. Not for me anyway, and - let's face it - that's what counts.
On the basis of Kevin's charming advice, I've declined to read through Frank's extensive and tedious looking comment.
Oops.
I feel bad, that was mean, but one last comment to tie the thread into our recent discussion of the Joe Duffy show. I for one would love to hear the reaction from the housewives of Ireland were someone brave enough to phone in and suggest that anyone in receipt of children's allowance should have their vote taken away.
Interestingly, how do you decide who in a household receiving this payment should be reduced to "recipient class" status. The college-age child in respect of whom the payment is maintained, the mother in whose name the "book" is likely held, or perhaps throw in the husband, if there is one, as an indirect beneficiary?
Can we calm it down just a bit; the atmosphere is just a tad hostile - which, when between a group of people whom I genuinely do like and respect, really isn't very nice
Fuck that. Please carry on the fighting. This is a blast.
I love the raw fight between scummies and intelligent rational folk
Frank, I think I speak for the all the intelligent, rational contributors when I paternally and kindly condescend to say it's nice to know you scummies are getting something out of it.
Oh hi, Twenty,
I found some of your turds here.
Hey Twenty,
April Fool.
They're worse than your worst poos.
Fuck that. Please carry on the fighting. This is a blast.
Longest thread ever in the Boggersphere...?
Longest thread ever in the Boggersphere...?
It's been over the 100 mark at United Irelander. This is the 97th here. I'd just like to say how much I've enjoyed it too. It's been hugely satisfying.
Seems from the link below that the hapless Ms Del Ponte and the War Crimes circus weren't much appreciated by genocide survivors in Rwanda.
http://www.internews.org/
activit...un02.html#0627d
For a more general discussion of genocide prevention, see http://www.preventgenocide.org/p...or/
2002june.htm
... and fee-splitting of public monies by barristers with their accused (and therefore presumed guilty) clients.
Commenting by HaloScan.com
