Thursday, August 27, 2015

Rosanna Davison - Eat Yourself Wootiful

Ireland has something of a reputation for literature. The contributions of our playwrights, poets and dramatists far exceeds what one would expect from a nation of our size and it was likely with this cultural talking point in mind that the Independent chose to run an intolerably long advertisement for Rosanna Davison's foray into the world of pretend medicine: a book called Eat Yourself Beautiful.
"[Davison] cites research that shows gluten to be the bad guy responsible for a huge range of medical conditions from autism spectrum disorders to schizophrenia to arthritis."
 It seems this season that gluten is the new fluoride. Naturally, Arthritis Ireland have dismissed this tosh. Others greet this claim of research with a world weary sigh, confident that those in the field of pretend medicine use the term 'research' in a manner unrecognisable from the medical understanding. Twitter got quite upset.
"When I was earning my qualification in naturopathic nutrition and biochemistry at the College of Naturopathic Medicine Ireland..." - Rosanna Davison
I was unaware that Ireland possessed a College of Naturopathic Medicine. I certainly am unsure why we might desire such an institution. Some would see the place as humorous, offering courses in magic water and the belief you can diagnose illnesses by gazing into someone's eyes. The staff list is somewhat lacking but they do speak enthusiastically about Hermann Keppler, the principal and founder.

Have you had the pleasure of watching Saul Goodman? It's a spin-off and prequel of sorts to Breaking Bad. Do check it out. Without wishing to issue spoilers there is one character who believes that WiFi, mobile phones and certain other trappings of modern life emit a field which is hazardous to his health. He would find a welcoming ear in Davison's principal:
Himalayan rock salt. Magic, basically."Himalayan salt has been under high pressure for millions of years and formed crystals, like quartz. Those mineral crystals emanate frequencies which are specific to each mineral. In other words, each single mineral in Himalayan salt is a crystal with its own frequency and electromagnetic field. Himalayan salt can therefore strengthen weak frequencies in the body and balance out the strong frequencies... Environmental pollutions including electromagnetic and geopathic stress play an increasingly greater role in our society." Hermann Keppler
WiFi emits a magical field that will make you sick, it seems, but fear not - the magic of Himalayan salts is greater, and will sort you right out.

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

Seven Reasons Not To Join CrossFit Ireland

A word cloud made from the Twitter biographies of followers of @CrossFitIreland
I've been spending too much of my disposable income on beer and cake of late. It's had a somewhat predictable effect on my centre of gravity so I've decided to look at alternative hobbies. CrossFit Ireland is walkable from work so I signed up - I now feel it important to assemble a half dozen reasons why you should not part with coin in this establishment.

Without further ado:

The Coaches
What can I say? Their taste in music is from the 80's, their humour from the 70's, and I'm pretty sure Colm's latest tshirt was originally fashioned in the 60's. There's two coaches per class of 10 - 15 participants so you get lots of individual attention. This makes it really hard to get away with sloppy technique and is completely ruining the sense of mystery and wonder I used to have about gymnastic movements.

The Enthusiasm
"How do you know if someone's doing CrossFit?
Don't worry, they'll tell you."
Listen, everyone knows that exercising isn't supposed to be fun. While proper exercisers approach the gym with a sense of drudgery and obligation, CrossFitters have the temerity to enjoy their supposed workouts. What manner of madness is this? Do you really want to risk trying a sport where the members are most famous for how much they enjoy working out? What would your life look like if exercise was more appealing than the couch? Wouldn't you rather spend your money on something that fills you with a nameless dread?

The Convenient Hours
Fancy a six am workout? Colm and Derek will be there. Seven to eight pm more your style? They'll still be there. Weekends? Yup. Want to turn up at 12:13pm and ask for a customised 27 minute workout that fits in your lunch break? They'll do that too. I'm fairly sure they don't leave.
This is awful. How's a man supposed to make up a convincing excuse for skipping a workout in these conditions?

The Criticisms
Many people who lift will give you a sustained, energy filled monologue on why CrossFit is not for them. Despite this, CrossFit wastes its time by focusing on building better athletes instead of criticising those who lift weights in a slightly different manner to them. What's really more important to you: getting in shape, or arguing with strangers on the internet? I think we both know the right call here.

The People
Regulars at CrossFit Ireland seem to be in the habit of introducing themselves to new people and making them feel welcome with polite smalltalk. They're a friendly bunch; everyone seems to genuinely want others to enjoy the sport. Unfortunately polite smalltalk is something of an impossibility halfway through your first workout so you'll be left responding to their pleasantries with sustained heavy breathing and eyes darting for escape routes. To be fair they tend not to take offence.

The New Skills
Who really needs to be able to do muscle ups anyway? When's the last time you needed to walk on your hands? People will be far more impressed when you show them your mastery of the ab roller.

The Male Ego
If you're intimidated by women who lift more than you you should definitely avoid CrossFit.
  
Friends, I urge you not to look at the class schedule. When there, avoid choosing one of the many convenient times and definitely don't contact the coaches to arrange a free class.

You have been warned.

Tuesday, August 11, 2015

Identity Ireland Twitter Stats

I'm told - with much exuberance - that it's important to hold an opinion on Identity Ireland. To be honest they seem to small to bother with the requisite reading.

Below are some stats on their Twitter account, presented largely without comment.

Total number of followers: 363

Location of followers: Normally this can be a little more involved, but to cut to the chase: 169 of their followers have timezone information set. Of those 140 are in Irish timezones. Sixteen are based in the States.
Another method of checking where followers come from is looking at the self-described location of followers. Here's a word cloud of where their followers say they're from:

I know there's a suspicion that they're mainly followed by UKIP / BNP supporters, but the evidence doesn't support this.

Follower descriptions: Here I pulled the Twitter biographies of everyone who follows Identity Ireland's Twitter account and put them in a word cloud. The more frequently a word is used in a follower's self description, the larger it gets:

Quite a few journalists in the mix, and a general bias towards those interested in current affairs.

Finally, who do their followers also follow? I checked 302 accounts, pulled a list of which other accounts they follow, and used the information to find out which other accounts are also popular with followers of Identity Ireland.
They are, in order:
  1. TheJournal.ie (Hardly a bastion of anti immigration thought)
  2. RTE News
  3. David McWilliams
  4. Dara O'Briain (immigrant)
  5. Luke 'Ming' Flannagan (seasonal migrant worker)
  6. Independent.ie
  7. The Irish Times
  8. Lucinda Creighton
  9. Vincent Browne (not famed for his condemnation of lax immigration policy)
  10. Gerry Adams (immigrant, by unionist standards)
  11. Fintan "Immigrants out" O'Toole
  12. BBC Breaking News
  13. Pope Francis (immigrant)
  14. Shane Ross
  15. Mick Wallace
  16. GardaTraffic
  17. Matt Cooper
  18. Enda Kenny
  19. Catherine Murphy
  20. Nigel Farage
I can barely bother to force an opinion for such a tiny group. Their followers are genuine accounts and almost all based in Ireland. That said, are they supporters? The Journal is the account most popular with its followers and it has not lauded the party. Other accounts followed in the main indicate left wing, pro immigration views or a general interest in current events. But given their small size, should we really care?

Friday, May 15, 2015

On The Importance Of Gender Roles And Hysterical Silly Little Bitches

Kerr's Ladies Football Club in 1921I come late to the realisation that my marriage does not meet the standards promulgated by our friends in Mothers and Fathers Matter.

I could forgive their focus on child rearing as the sine qua non of marriage. True, it devalues my childless union. The respect afforded to my parents' marriage is also diminished; their days raising children are now complete. Mothers and Fathers Matter's slurs against marriages that start or continue outside the formative years of progeny are softened by an occasional pleasantry of inclusion, a nod towards my capacity to pass on my genetic code, a formalised affirmation that, although not of the same kind, a technicality allows us to claim to be of the same category as those marriages Mothers and Fathers Matter choose to affirm.

I can no longer even claim this consolation of second class marriage. It seems my wife and I have run afoul of another condition. Let's look at articles written by some of their founders:
"Importance of gender differences in marriage is a matter of common sense... [same sex marriage] is based on a proposition that gender does not matter. But if we take the time to look around, observe and listen, it clearly matters." Prof Ray Kinsella

"[same sex marriage] proponents ... insist that two men can do the job of a mum and a dad just as well, as can two women. This means they deny the importance of sexual complementarity." - David Quinn
"Mothers and fathers bring distinctive gifts to parenting. They tend to show their love, and to provide strength and comfort, in different ways.

Our instinct is to say that there are very real and important differences between men and women and it really does matter whether one is born male or female." Dr Rik Van Nieuwenhove et al 
Emphasis mine in all cases. There is a common thread in these articles - that, solely by virtue of their gender, men and women have unique, distinct traits that are important to a child's upbringing and it is in society's best interests to ensure only marriages which provide the entire gamut of these otherwise inaccessible traits earn state recognition.


It is here I learn that my marriage is not counted as such by Mothers And Fathers Matter. My wife taught me how to drive. I have abandoned teaching her how to iron and instead do her ironing for her. Despite my best efforts she's still better on the farm than I. None of these characteristics are based on our genders. The closest we have ever come to gender specific roles in our relationship is a brief yet binding discussion on the ideal placement of the toilet seat.

Monday, May 4, 2015

It Takes A Village To Raise A Child



A guest post by the talented Joanne Duffy of Oriental Cutlery.

Hey Dave, how’s it going?

So I’ve just been watching this video that I found of you speaking against marriage equality, while 6 signs for YES EQUALITY that got ripped down in Galway are sitting in my house waiting to be put back up by the tireless campaigners here. You know all about tireless campaigning, I’m sure.
 
So, you said that this referendum is connected to protecting the 8th amendment. Now, Dave, I know you didn’t mean that. Because later in this same video you go on to tell us that this referendum is about changing Article 41, The Family in our constitution. Gay men, as you so often remind us, cannot have babies. So why would they care about abortion laws? I’m sure this was just a slip up, forgot the morning coffee did you? Sometimes I forget my coffee too and it makes me a little groggy, but it doesn’t make me confuse segments of documents upon which a Republic is founded.

Moving on then. So you’ve said that the media are biased and are on the yes side, and have been perpetuating “uninterrupted propaganda”. Now I’m no history buff, I got an honour in the junior cert but that’s about as far as it goes.  But I know that the word propaganda means  communications, usually from the Government, that are designed to influence the opinion of citizens. Can you point me to where you’ve seen propaganda? Or more importantly, go straight to the BAI. They’ll be very helpful if they hear that there is an outlet somewhere who is not adhering to the balance ruling they made. I really hope that sound I just heard was your coffee machine going on.

You went on to claim that some people are comparing you to racists, and comparing the acquisition and pursuit of same-sex marriage to the pursuit of interracial marriage in the United States. You claim that allowing people of different races to marry is fine, as no one else’s rights are affected. But the thing is, at the time, white people believed their rights were being affected. They believed it to be an affront to society that black people would be allowed to marry white people. Kind of like the way you believe that your rights, and the rights of children you don’t know, won’t ever know, and who haven’t even been born yet will be affected.  Is that coffee ready yet?

Sunday, May 3, 2015

A Taste of Sincerely Held Beliefs

I've been wearing a wedding ring for three happy years. We'll be celebrating our fourth anniversary in September. More recently I've been celebrating my support of marriage for all couples by wearing a Yes Equality badge, sometimes in English, sometimes in Irish.

Last Wednesday on College Green a lady of sorts asked me if I spoke Irish. "Tá roinnt agam ach ní bíonn mórán seans agam í a úsáid", my brain answered, a plan stymied by the fact my mouth was full.

I waved my hand in front of my face to explain my predicament and she saw my wedding ring. Pausing only to identify herself as a no voter she embarked on a monologue more shouted than spoken. I wasn't "really" married,  she told me. Nor, I learned, was I truly in love. I was merely fulfilling base sexual desire.

Having publicly denigrated the most important relationship in my life she moved focus to its wider social implications.

Those within her considerably expanded earshot learned that my sham marriage was a tool of division, malevolent in its intent to force women in the majority world to rent their wombs.

I'm not an unreasonable sort. I attempted to make the conversation less of a one way affair but she proved unwilling to indulge me. She paused only long enough to add that she was yet to wed before - perhaps sensing the surrounding audience had changed - moving to repeat her cold refrain that I should not call myself married.

I had started walking and she viewed this as an opportunity to join me, her earnestness expressing to those of reasonable hearing that the band on my left ring finger signalled the destruction of childhoods through the combined selfishness of my partner and I.

This continued, unencumbered by social grace, pleasantry, or acknowledgement that my profession of love was anything more than an abstract thought experiment to be dashed by right thinking members of society. We approached my bus stop where I half expected an unfettered treatise on the rights of people like me to avail of public transport. Instead - absent trace of irony - she apologised for being unable to spare me further time and entered Temple Bar.

And I laughed. A nervous laugh, but a laugh nonetheless. Telling me my wife and I are not truly married is as threatening  to me as saying I'm a lightly grilled cheese sandwich. We have signed government documents and constitutional protection of the commitment we have made to each other. The good folks that people this island broadly see the enterprise of our union as positive both for us and for society. They may not celebrate our anniversary with us but in general they wish us well. Our commitment is afforded a certain respect.

What if that were absent? I cannot, indeed dare not call this no voter homophobic. She is the human embodiment of a no poster and I am called upon to celebrate the expression of her sincerely held beliefs in the public square. The no side's obtuse demand is that we consider our partners, our children or our parents - that which is at the heart of our lives - fair game, a distant second priority to their sincerely held beliefs, and utterly undeserving of any modicum of respect.

We see this when Keith Mills of Mothers and Fathers Matter used air quotes to refer a student's mothers on the Late Late show last night. We saw it again, minutes later, when fellow no campaigner Paddy Manning employed the phrase "I don't care what children's charities say",  dismissing the evidence of hundreds of child welfare professionals to better denigrate families not headed by opposite sex parents.

I see it in the single parents and adopted people I have met both through friendships and through canvassing, their families ruled inferior by the stock photos and glib phrases of the No posters. And I see its effects on those who are forced to conceal the truth about the person they love.

Nearly every week I'm joined on a canvas by a first timer. We don't get many natural extroverts. What we do get is people of courage. People willing to risk personal abuse or - to my mind worse - public indifference to their desire to celebrate their love and commitment in the way my wife and I can. As a married person it buoys me to see so many willing to fight for the institution. I see a trend in these new canvassers as they shuffle through their notes and rehearse long practiced conversations. They all worry that they won't correctly recall the myriad legal distinctions between civil partnerships and marriage.

In ten weeks of canvassing that question has never arisen.

To my mind this is because the population already knows the privation inherent in a civil partnership that can never be corrected by legislative tweak: respect. The bulwark of societal support that could counteract the attempts to be made feel less by No posters and their public speakers. The right to share your relationship status without concern for the reaction. The privilege of crossing the road without strangers following you to disavow your love for your spouse. This respect, this difference between civil partnership and marriage is why my experience of what the sincerely held beliefs of that no voter is now an anecdote and not a damaging experience.

Can we grant this respect with a yes vote on May 22nd? Interracial marriage did not end racism. Mixed marriages, as they were once called, did not immediately end sectarian conflict between Catholics and Protestants. But they were both damn fine starts.

Wednesday, April 29, 2015

On Why A Consistent Mothers And Fathers Matter Would Oppose American Marriages

I graduated from DCU more years ago than I dare remember. The march of time was borne home last month when I attended a campus debate on marriage equality. I found several new buildings and a student bar that looked liked it enjoyed a regular clean. My old computer labs were peopled by socially well adjusted students possessing impeccable personal hygiene. I hardly recognised the place.

Arriving as I did dressed in work attire I was initially greeted by the students as a no voter. The reception was warm enough, and as I received directions round the campus on which I'd spent four years of my life I took a moment to clarify my side. I received a free yes badge and did my best to remember my way through a maze of new structures to find Senators Zappone and Mullen, partnered respectively with John Lyons TD and Keith Mills of Mothers and Fathers Matter.

I enjoy a planned speech as much as the next mid thirties chap surrounded by a sea of youth, but for me the joy of a debate is the unrehearsed to and fro of the questions and answers section. The students of my former university did not disappoint and the auditorium strained capacity with articulate and well researched challenges to the no side's unique and strained interpretation of facts, studies, and the very fabric of reality.

Of particular focus was the no side's claim that children of same sex couples fare worse than the offspring of opposite sex married couples. Dwelling on this unevidenced claim is appropriate - it's damaging nonsense. In addition to a strong showing from the student body a sociology professor spoke eloquently about how the crushing weight of reality shattered the assertions of Mullen and Mills. Reputable studies supporting same sex parents were listed, the absence of opposing studies noted. It fell to Mills to mount a defence.

Mills, it seems, does not much favour the available sociological data. He noted that much of it was gleaned from study participants in the United States of America, a land he views as blighted by divorce, young marriage rates, and failed marriages. Ireland, it seems, does marriage better.

But here Mothers and Fathers Matter face an unpalatable conclusion. Mills has identified a sociological group who he deems less suitable for marriage. A group that marries, to his mind, too young. A group he sees as having a higher divorce rate, something likely to - what are his words? - deprive a child of a mother and father.

So why not bar Americans from matrimony?

We could introduce legislation to inform American visitors that their marriages are not recognised on Irish soil. Perhaps we could offer a separate-but-equal track called American unions, allowing some legal protections, but leaving the institution of Irish marriage unsullied. We could poster the streets with false claims about their children and claim we act with their best interests at heart.

You may find this daft. You may wonder why anyone would seek to bar a section of society from the support and stability marriage brings to couples. In fact I rather hope you do. All I ask is that you hold that feeling close when you next hear Mothers And Fathers Matter.