Sky's rag news channel is reporting that Gordon Brown has just been in a four hour meeting with BBC bosses to discuss the Brand/Ross/Sachs situation. This is Brown's second foray into this 'scandal'. Clearly he has nothing better to be doing. With nuisances such as Iraq, recession and the day-to-day running of a country taking up so much of his precious time, it's good to see that the Prime Minister has got his priorities straight.
Why the furore over this? A comedian has made a poorly judged gag that has caused some offense- shock, horror! As if that has never happened before... The witch hunt for Ross & Brand has been ludicrous, and clearly driven by tabloid media. I'm just back from a day in England myself, and all the usual rags are adorned with cries to pretty much burn the pair at the stake. One even indulged in a little bit of pot'n'kettle style offense-causing themselves, referring in their headline to 'Jonathan Woss'. Sigh.
Since I'm a big believer in not condemning something as 'offensive' unless one has actually seen/heard the material oneself (and I'm willing to bet the vast, vast majority of those who complained to Ofcom have not), you can listen to the show that started it all in the readmore.
Part One:
Part Two:
What's a million times worse than these clips is this one from Sky's website where reporters persist on harassing Sachs as he repeatedly asks 'Is that not enough?':
Oh well, I'm sure Georgina Baillie is delighted with this kickstart to her career, and I'd imagine it's not gonna hurt Russell Brand's popularity either. I just hope the Beeb have the good sense not to drop the excellent Jonathan Ross, thus handing him on a plate to a rival network and paying out a hefty settlement for the pleasure.
Have You Nothing Better To Do?
Good Friday In Modern Ireland
Yesterday Judge Mary Fahy of Galway District Court found herself presiding over some interesting charges brought against nine Galway City restaurants.
The nine restaurants were found to have on Good Friday last offered patrons wine with their meals. As booze drinkers countrywide will well know, this kind of carry-on does not jive well with the law of the land. Sure, what would Holy Jeebus say if he heard of such a thing? "You should have stocked up with a few cans from the offie last night", no doubt.
Though well aware of the rules in this regard, Judge Fahy decided to cut the crap and say what all the rest of us were thinking. Branding the prosecutions 'ridiculous' in today's world, she declared that, while the Gardaí were technically right in bringing the cases before the court "I myself think it's absolutely ludicrous that people on holidays especially cannot have a glass of wine with their meal".
Three cheers for common sense!
I'd like to advocate further progress along these lines and call for Off Licenses to be allowed open on Good Friday... but with their already losing a substantial amount of business with the latest licensing laws I'd hate to deprive them of the windfall that always comes with panicked booze purchases on Holy Thursday.
Krauthammer follows Hilton's lead.
Today Charles Krauthammer continued to bemoan the American Democratic party from his column syndicated in The Irish Times... this time criticising Barack Obama's policies on energy.
Apart from nitpicking what is clearly just good, general advice by portraying it as a solid proposal (or even a campaign platform) and attacking it with statistics- Krauthammer comes up with a suggestion of his own, and proceeds to explain it in depth. This proposal, to amalgamate both parties energy policies, is a bold one, and one which shall certainly earn Mr Krauthammer some admirers. What a wonderfully novel way of approaching the situation- and how sensible!
Unfortunately for Krauthammer, he was not the first to come up with this particular strategy, but was merely following the lead of one of the greatest political theorists of our time. Someone who made the same proposal only last week, not only beating Charlie to the punch, but also putting it much more eloquently than he ever could:
Surely this is just a coincidence? Great minds... etc? Except it seems not. Credit where credit's due, Mr Krauthammer!
Sarkozy Says Ireland Must Vote Again
So the rumblings of a second Lisbon vote are getting steadily louder, largely thanks to the exceptionally loud voice of French president and hard-ass Nicolas Sarkozy. Not being known for beating around the bush, Sarkozy, whose country has just assumed the EU presidency, commented yesterday that Ireland will just 'have to vote again'. Brian Cowan, Dick Roche et al were quick to (nervously, I presume) laugh off Sarkozy's comments as 'just one of many views held across Europe'. Bless them.
Ctd in the readmore...
Like a clumsy autocratic parent, Sarkozy has resolved to address the issue in the manner to which he is accustomed- wading in and effectively saying 'this is how it is, just deal with it'. While the French may be quite partial to this style of government, the Irish are a very different bunch, and I fear Sarkozy is going to learn this the hard way.
Even those who may be inclined towards a Yes vote are bound to be miffed by comments such as these, and I can see opinions already changing out of spite. We don't like to be told what to do, and take great pleasure in telling people to bugger off when we think they deserve it. The French premier is putting himself firmly in line for such an act of defiance, and in all likelihood the Irish electorate will be more than happy to play the role of the stroppy teen. The sweat forming on Cowan's brow is telling. He is well aware of the fact that we need to be treated with kid gloves, and being manhandled by European big-shots is bound to be counter-productive.
Nervous shuffling can also be heard from certain parts of the No camp in the last few weeks, as comments like this add increasing support to the realisation that the treaty is unlikely to be renegotiated. One of the more vocal arguments for a No vote was that 'Ireland can do better', and like the perennial chancers that we are the majority of us put our hands up and asked for more.
Hence the current stalemate: the EU must continue to grow, and evidently the consensus is to grow as per the initial plan- through the Lisbon Treaty. With the 'all for one and one for all' thrown out the window, we're left with a simple 'are you in or are you out?'
Unfortunately this decision has already been made, and the only way the question can legitimately be posed again is if, like in the case of the Nice Treaty, the terms are in some way changed. Which brings us back to our request for more…
What exactly is it that we want? What exactly can we be given that we don't already have? This is the question that is worrying Messers Cowan, Roche et al, and the question which is prompting a characteristic 'cut the crap' response from Nicolas Sarkozy.
As much as we don't like being asked the same question twice, and as much as our own character demands a bullish retort rather than subservient compliance, maybe that's not the wisest plan of action in this particular case. We chanced our arm, and it didn't quite work out the way we'd planned. So now the question may be posed again, and though it will read the same, the ramifications will be very different. Let's not balk at the repetition, but instead really concentrate on what's being asked.
News Round-Up
As of yesterday The Irish Times has gone online. In celebration, lets have a news roundup:
TD Mary O'Rourke has a novel way of solving the Mugabe crisis- by putting her foot in her mouth. (Irish Examiner)
Seymour Hersh reveals $400 million US funding for 'Secret War' in Iran- Will they ever learn? (New Yorker)
Take note, secret warriors- Iran doesn't take kindly to spies. (Irish Times)
'Thieving Gypsy' clampdown in Italy. (Irish Times)
RSA hopes for 'sensible' approach to enforcement of driving regulations. Oh how I hate them. (RTE)
Drink-driving no longer necessarily has to involve driving. (Irish Times)
Vote No to Lisbon Or Vampires Will Eat Your Babies
According to an Irish Times survey published today, the No side on the Lisbon Treaty has gained the lead- holding 35% of the vote, while Yes has dropped to 30%.
The shocking part of this is that the main reason given by those who answered No was that "they don't understand the treaty". Is it just me, or is that an incredibly moronic answer? Voting No because you don't understand makes absolutely no sense. First off: the information is there- go out and get it. Make yourself understand. Secondly, if you don't want to do this and insist on staying in the dark- then don't vote at all!
To me this is the greatest success of the No campaign- confusing everyone. All sorts of irrelevant issues have been brought into this debate. Most of the No argument is based on sensationalism. Because of this we have debates on TV & Radio which solely consist of one side saying 'This is the case', the other saying 'That is NOT the case', and back and forth ad infinitum.
It's underhanded rhetoric which has characterised this referendum campaign. The likes of Coir (national crazies) have been handing out leaflets with such utter rubbish it's shocking that anyone would believe it. According to these loons, Lisbon will (amongst other things) legalise hard drugs & prostitution. They also criticize the treaty's intention to respect the rights of all major religious organisations, while condemning it's lack of a specific reference to the Catholic deity.
The media is obliged to provide equal coverage to both sides of the debate, but with the vast majority of our politicians voting Yes, media debates are reduced to having to give airtime to crazies like the above Coir (last night's late debate on Newstalk, for example) & the other one- Jim Corr, who raved last week on Today FM about how we should vote No to 'fight the New World Order'. Sigh...
Lets just hope people see sense, be it one way or the other, and vote on the actual treaty- not some moron's publicity stunt.
Listen to Crazy Jim Corr here.
Has The World Gone Mad? (Yes, Of Couse It Has)
Brad Jayakody, 30, was shocked when he was told to change his top if he wanted to catch his flight from Heathrow’s Terminal 5.
IT consultant Brad — on a British Airways trip with four colleagues to Dusseldorf, Germany — asked to see the security chief.
He thought the boss would "see sense" — but he backed up the decision and threatened him with ARREST.
"But then the guy told me to stop and said ‘you cannot get on the plane because there is a gun on your T-shirt’."
Brad, of Bayswater, West London, added: "It’s a cartoon robot with a gun as an arm. What was I going to do, use the shirt to pretend I have a gun?
"I was flabbergasted. I thought the supervisor would come over and see sense, but he didn’t. After I changed he said if I changed back I would be arrested."
A spokesman for Heathrow operator BAA said: "If a T-shirt had a rude word or a bomb on it for example, a passenger may be asked to remove it.
"We are investigating what happened to see if it came under this category."
AAAGGGHHH!!! The Madness. Surely these Heathrow employees should be clipped around the ear and told to get back to reality. Funny, in a slightly Lisbon Treaty related angle to this story, I heard on RTE news last week that Yes on Lisbon will bring an end to the whole '100 mils of liquid on a plane' thing, and get rid of the stupid plastic bag precaution. Thank jeebus. Let's steer this ship back towards the realm of sanity.
More Idiot's Guide To The Lisbon Treaty
Since posting our original Guide to the Lisbon Treaty the debate has somewhat heated up. The 'Yes' campaign has finally started, and the referendum is finally getting daily national media coverage.
Understandably a few more issues and questions have arisen which we didn't quite touch on in our initial 'Idiot's Guide'. So this post is something of an add-on to the original. It's not going to be as lengthy as the first one, as most of the issues were covered there, but should answer some of the outstanding questions.
As usual, a healthy skepticism is urged when reading this kind of thing. I'll reiterate what I said before the last one: I don't have a party affiliation, or an agenda. This research was conducted to try to make sense of all the crap floating around concerning this treaty. My opinion at this stage is that I'll be voting yes, but this is based solely on the facts turned up during my research (for which I've read everything I could get my hands on, listened to debates & speeches, attended meetings, and even read a lot of the actual treaty- which is as horribly dense as everyone says it is).
Righto. Click the 'read more' to get going.
Lets take this point by point.
Firstly, the main one, and the issue that is pissing me off the most.
Losing an EU Commissioner
One of the recurring arguments against the treaty is the fact that Ireland will lose an EU Commissioner. This one seems to be rolled out at every debate, with people such as Sinn Fein's Mary Lou McDonald consistently describing it as 'Ireland losing power in Europe'.
This is utter crap, and here's why:
1. EVERYONE loses a commissioner, not just Ireland. There are only so many jobs to go round in the commission, and having more people sitting around the table than is necessary is counter-productive. So if Lisbon gets passed there will only be as many commissioners as there are jobs, with each country sitting out a few years in rotation. No one's getting the short straw.
2. (and this is the big one) Commissioners are not representatives of Ireland in Europe. The commission is the entity designed to protect the interests of the Union as a whole. When entering the post each commissioner must swear an oath that their actions will only be motivated by the interests of the Union, and all national concerns will be put aside.
So we could have a hundred Irish commissioners in there twenty-four hours a day and it still wouldn't matter a damn to Ireland.
'The Lisbon Treaty is Self-Amending'
What's meant by that in the first place? Basically that be signing off on Lisbon we'll never have to vote on things like this again, because it incorporates a mechanism for 'beaurocrats' to make changes in the future without all this silly voting malarkey.
Well, yes, it does cut through some red tape. Article 48 of the treaty allows for a speedy, simplified method of drawing up a future amended treaty. Obviously creating a document of this nature takes time (check out the document itself, it's fairly intense), so Lisbon attempts to make this process less painful. But... as the treaty is very careful of in all areas, any changes must always be "in accordance with member states' constitutional requirements". Which means there's no way they could just sneak in something dramatic and get away with it.
But more importantly- the changes in Article 48 are merely to the process of drawing up an amending treaty. There is no change to the fact that any amendment must be ratified in the proper fashion, ie: we'll still have to vote on it. First in the European Parliament, then on to individual states to be decided upon in either the National Parliaments, as is the case in most of Europe, or through a referendum, as is the case with Ireland. Everyone will still get their say on whether or not any of these future amendments are passed.
There will be a new 'President of Europe' (ala President of the USA)
This is a common mistake made by confusing the new post of 'High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy' with a 'President of Europe'. There will be no 'President of Europe'. The new post is largely administrative, and combines the existing posts of (deep breath) 'High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy' and 'European Commissioner for External Relations'.
The bearer of this post will have no formal powers, but rather work as a mouthpiece for the previously agreed upon foreign policies of the Union. This seems to be just another instance of making the whole thing less messy and cutting out some red tape. The new High-Representative will put a face on Europe for purposes of foreign policy, but that policy will still be decided upon in the same way it always has- through the Parliament, the Commission, and ultimately the individual member states.
Militarisation
Ok, so the neutrality thing is a buzz issue, but I think it's fairly clear to everyone at this stage that Ireland's neutrality is not affected by Lisbon. But what impact will the treaty have on the military, if any? Well, the truth is that if Lisbon is ratified, there will definitely be more militarisation.
Once you've picked yourself up off the floor we'll continue.
It is a desire of some that all armies within the Union be of reasonable standard, so that each countries armed forces are capable of operating effectively. Hence Lisbon obliges each country to increase it's military spending to achieve this level. There's talk of centralised spending (instead of all the individual countries putting in small equipment orders, Europe puts in one big one, hence cheaper), but that's not in the treaty- it'll be argued over another day.
This does not mean we'll build our army in to a major force. This does not mean we can be conscripted into the army (Irish or European). This does not mean military issues will have any more attention than they do now. What this means is that when we go off on peace-keeping missions (such as the one in which Irish troops are currently involved in Sudan) our army will be equipped to a certain standard, and one that is common throughout all of Europe.
~
These four seem to be the issues which keep cropping up, but of course there are bound to be others which we've yet to address- so you can probably expect another post on Lisbon before the day of the referendum. I hope everyone's still vaguely keeping up will all the madness.
If you haven't read our original Idiot's Guide you can check it out here.
Trapped In The Courtroom
After a six year delay, R. Kelly has finally gone on trial today. Kelly stands accused of child pornography having videotaped himself having sex with a minor roughly ten years ago. Apparently a small contingency of media & protesters surrounded the court building, including two guys holding a banner reading "R. Kelly: world's greatest pedophile". Oh lord...
Could this be the new 'Trial of the Century'? Will Kelly reach the dizzy lows of Jackson or OJ? Personally I'm holding out for his 'Crimes Against Music' trial. That should be a humdinger.
egoeccentric's Idiots Guide To The Lisbon Treaty
One of our sporadic politics posts, and probably the heaviest one yet, but I reckon this is fairly relevant. Bear with me...
I've been pondering this one for some time. It's really important that we understand the Lisbon Treaty before we go to vote on it in June, but it's an awkward bugger to understand.
I've tried to trawl through all the material on the subject (which is a bloody lot) in order to try to give it a summing up that you wouldn't need a degree in politics to understand.
As is the way with these things, they're tough to write without bias. I've tried to do so, but all the same a healthy skepticism is urged.
Just so you know where I stand, I started neutral but I'm now swinging towards Yes. I'm not a fan of any particular party so I have no agenda. Questions are welcomed, and I encourage anyone interested to check out information for yourself (RTE have a good section on it here).
Ok, so lets get started...
Background
The EU is essentially held together by a series of treaties between countries on various issues. As time goes by we have to update of these treaties to make them relevant & more effective. So the Lisbon Treaty is basically taking existing treaties (Masstricht, Rome etc) and crossing out some things, rephrasing others and inserting some new bits.
The point is to streamline the EU and make it 'more efficient' or 'better equipped to deal with challenges'.
At the moment we're working under a system designed for 17 states, but in fact there are 27 states involved. So the system needs to be updated in some way.
The initial plan was to do up a European Constitution, which was drawn up... but rejected by France & the Netherlands in 2005. It's rejection was more than likely due to campaigning by groups that were protective of the countries' individual sovereignty, and anti-globalisation movements.
Following this rejection, work was started on re-drafting the Constitution into a more acceptable form... the Lisbon Treaty.
So what's it all about?
The treaty has several functions. It's effectively summing up all the other treaties and making them all neat and tidy. The idea is to establish exactly the purposes of the EU, its aims, and how it functions.
And yes, there are some changes.
For example:
What the hell does all that mean?
Ok, lets looks at these main points:
1. The way in which decisions are generally made will be changed.
You'll have to excuse the jargon on this one. Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) will become the main way decisions are made (when opinions aren't unanimous).
This method is designed to fairly represent based on population, but at the same time allow for fears of smaller countries that they might be bullied by the bigger states. There's lots of provisions to ensure that this doesn't happen, like if four member states are against a contested proposal, no matter how big or small those states are- the proposal is shot down. This way smaller states aren't at risk of losing their voice.
How QMV is worked out is a very maths-y process, which isn't my strong point, so you can read about it here. All in all the process gets more democratic, and more representative of reality, ie all states have a say, not just the big uns, or the ones who were in first.
2. The EU will be made into a solid legal entity.
This seems to be an economic provision more than anything. The EU will be more effective on the World stage if it's recognised as a legal entity in itself, ie- it will be able to perform better in World markets.
3. The sizes of the commission, and the parliament will be restricted.
The European Comission will be reduced in size from 27 Commissioners to just 18.
This is done purely with efficiancy in mind. It was decided that there wasn't enough tasks to warrant 27 Commissioners, so a Commission of 18 will be more effective than 27, ie- decisions will be easier and faster made. Who sits on the commission will be allocated on a rotational basis, so at any given time there will be 9 countries without a Commissioner.
The amount of MEP's in Parliament will be capped at 751, for pretty much the same reason- you can't get things done with thousands of Ministers all vying for attention. The seats will be allocated proportionately based on population.
4. National parliaments will be given a greater roll.
For the first time, EU proposals will have to be run by National Parliaments before they're approved. The individual parliaments will be able to give their views on proposals well before they're passed, and if enough parliaments are opposed to the change it'll be amended or withdrawn. This gives us a bit more control of things, and eases some fears of the whole 'random bureaucrats in Brussels' thing.
5. Introduction of 'Citizen's Initiative'.
Another step in the same direction- for the first time regular citizens will be able to propose European legislation by producing a petition with a million EU signatures (which sounds a lot, but isn't really).
6. The Charter on Fundamental Human Rights becomes legal.
The Charter on Fundamental Human Rights does exactly what it says on the tin. It's a great document which sets out standards of human rights. Right now it has no legal standing, merely a guideline, but Lisbon makes it legal. This means it can stand up in court. So if you reckon your human rights are being breached in some way, you can go to an Irish court on the basis that it breaches this EU charter.
Our own Irish constitution is particularly kickass on human rights anyway, so we pretty much already have the benefits that this provides, but that's not the case for all 27 countries in the union.
Things you've probably heard or are wondering about:
There is a thing in the treaty called the 'Solidarity Clause', which says that member states are compelled to help another member state if it falls victim to a natural disastour, terrorist attack, etc. BUT... the treaty explicitly states that individual countries foreign policies are respected. Which means that Ireland's neutrality will be preserved. So there's no risk of anyone being conscripted into a super-european army.
Yes. For the first time the environment is focused on. The treaty adds to the aims of the EU the intention to preserve the environment, and recognises the threat of climate change. By adding this to the unions aims, it allows Europe to actually do something about the issue.
Yes and no, but mostly no. First off, it's not just Ireland who'll lose a commissioner, every country will, so we're not being picked on- it's just fairer that way. Secondly, and more important- the nature of the commission is that commissioners are not representatives for their own country, but all countries in the union. On entering their post they have to swear an oath saying they'll be motivated only for the good of the union, not the country of their nationality. So even if Ireland had a commissioner in 24/7, it wouldn't mean more of a voice for Ireland.
I reckon I've covered most aspects of the treaty here, at least the ones that seem to be most controversial, but it's totally worth having a look into it yourself.
If anyone has any other element which the want cleared up, or any questions on it, ask away via comment or email and I'll do my best to answer.
The most important thing is to actually get out and vote, be it yes or no, as this will affect all of us in some way or another (this means you, Bob, you buffoon). Do it!
Click here for the add-on to his post: 'More Idiot's Guide to the Lisbon Treaty'
Pete Doherty Goes To Jail
As can be seen from Bob's post below, No-Talent-Scumbag Pete Doherty has been sentenced to up to fourteen weeks of jail time.
Being a filthy knacker, Doherty (pictured right, with cowboy friend) has been in trouble with the law on several occasions in the past. In 2005 he spent four nights in Pentonville Prison on robbery & blackmail charges, telling the Sun upon leaving that he'd stay away from drugs and never return to prison.
Presumably this was just a case of feeding the reporter any old shit so he'd bugger off and let Doherty go about scoring some more heroin. Surprise surprise, Janruary 2006 saw the 'musician' spending thirteen nights under lock & key for possession of heroin and crack (classy).
more in read more...
Once more professing to 'sort himself out', he managed to crawl (covered in his own vomit, no doubt) all the way til October 2007 before being sentenced again, this time for drug possession and dangerous driving. Instead of throwing away the key as they clearly should have done, the court gave Doherty a suspended sentence, with the threat of at least four months jail if he persisted with his campaign of scumbaggery.
Instead of participating in a rehab course and reporting regularly to court as he had been ordered, Doherty elected to smoke crack and rob the elderly of their pension money (probably), and has now had the suspended sentence thrown back at him. He was due to peddle his filthy wares at the Royal Albert Hall on April 26th, and torture the good people of Glastonbury at the end of June, but now it looks like his only performances for the foreseeable future will be in the prison showers.
So good news for Glasto fans & Pentonville ass-rapists, bad news for London crack dealers. Lets just hope next time he goes away (and there will be a next time) he stays there for good.
Bertie Out!
Breaking news that I'm sure all will be hearing whispers of by now, Bertie Ahern has announced that he will resign on May 6th, a damn sight sooner than most of us expected.
Seems the pressure of thieving & lying has finally got to him.
More on this story on RTE.
First Casualties Of The Sub-Prime Market
The implosion of the sub-prime mortgage sector in the US is largely being credited for the financial down-turn we're seeing in Global markets.
The Irish Government are, as usual, asking us all to tighten our belts (while they add extra notches to theirs); but while we worry, the real damage of the current financial climate is already being seen- in the US.
Los Angeles has recently seen a number of shanty towns spring up due to the large number of houses being repossessed. This is pretty outrageous for the 'Richest Nation In The World'. Considering how much has already been spent on the war in Iraq, and how much more is likely to be spent in the future, this seems even more of a tragedy.
Check out this shocking BBC report:
Thanks to the watchful Oz for the heads up.
Idiot Of The Day
From The Irish Times:
AMSTERDAM: A shoplifter looking to make a quick getaway from a dutch supermarket after stealing a packet of meat left police a crucial piece of evidence- his 12-year-old son.
In his haste, the thief (45) made a solo dash to his car. Police in the southern town of Kerkrade said they contacted the thief via the boy, but he had refused to return and collect his son.
The man told officers to get hold of the youngster's mother instead. However, he turned himself in yesterday.
Mills Gets £24.3 Million To Go Away
Heather Mills (right), has managed to squeeze £24.3 million out of Paul McCartney. The former Beatle had offered gold digging 'model' a fairly damned respectable £15 mil, but the crazy bitch threw it back in his face and demanded £125 million instead.
So the whole process was dragged publicly before the courts, a scenario Mills was more than happy with as it afforded her more opportunities to shite on for the cameras about how great she is. Which is exactly what she did as soon as the settlement was made- rushed out to further throttle her dignity by making sweeping statements to the press about how thrilled she was with the 'incredible result' and about how it's great news for 'all the charities that i obviously plan on helping'.
Her elated demeanor differed slightly from her reported behavior inside the courtroom, where she apparently threw a glass of water over McCartney's lawyer, who emerged from the court with wet hair. When asked about what happened, Mills laughed (manically, I'd imagine) and said that the lawyer had been “baptised in court”.
Classy.
Its only a shame that nobody thought to throw water on Heather Mills when this whole debacle started, as the chances are she would have melted.
That's Not My Semen!
Hmm, Sperm for Tickets is apparently a hoax.
Funny, it really didn't seem that implausible. Bob even signed up for some Evil-Sperm donating.
It seems it's some sort of viral advertising campaign... but for what?
SciencePunk has the full story
Young? Virile? Need Festival Tickets?
Penniless music fans are being offered an interesting new way of getting their hands on festival tickets.
Apparently donations to Irish fertility clinics have dropped by 40% in the past four years, prompting the clinics to pursue an innovative new way of drumming up support. So now you can swap your sperm for festival tickets.
The folks over at Sperm for Tickets are offering passes to any major festival in Europe in exchange for some of your swimmers. Donations can even be made from the comfort of your own home, as the service utilizes a patented new technology. They'll courier special keep-fresh containers to anywhere in Europe, and you just send it right back to them. Kinda like the quick lodgement facilities in banks, I guess..
Those three day Oxegen passes are looking pretty good right now, eh?
Click here if you're curious
Irish Idiots Defence Force
A bunch of absolute morons calling themselves the 'Irish Citizens Defence Force' have sent threatening letters containing live shotgun cartridges to Minister for Health Mary Harney, Minister for Enterprise Trade & Employment Micheál Martin & several Fertility Clinics around the country.
What year do they think this is? It's rather sad to think that someone thought this would be the best way to go about getting things done. I can only imagine the simpletons in question are either (a) bunker residing loons or (b) twelve year old boys. It's the old 'schoolyard bully' mentality which they really should have grown out of by now.
Regardless, it's pretty damned audacious of these idiots to go billing themselves as representatives of Irish Citizens. I think I can say with reasonable certainty that the VAST majority of Irish folk would prefer to work out their problems with the government in a peaceful civilized fashion (ie Liveline).
Apparently the group attested in their letters to clinics that fertility treatment is 'a crime against humanity'. Whereas violence clearly isn't.
This is the kind of stupid, stupid people we're dealing with.
Sigh..
Click here for full story
Scotsman Sinks Obama Advisor
Samantha Power, an Irish born adviser to Barack Obama has been forced to resign from his campaign due to comments she made about Hillary Clinton.
"She is a monster, too - that is off the record - she is stooping to anything,"
The Scotsman obviously doesn't know the meaning of the term 'off the record', or (more than likely) just don't give a damn. Sensing a snappy headline, and no doubt trying to shift a few issues, the daily newspaper published the comment anyway, leading to Ms Power's being forced to resign.
Which is fairly shitty.
Blathnaid has the full story here, and her own take on the madness here.
So was Samantha Power justified in her comments?
Hmmmmm.....
(Don't mind me, I'm just shit-stirring)
(Although this is rather creepy)
