1. To score a hundred at Lords on front of a full house when opening the batting for Ireland.
2. To fire a shotgun in a manly fashion and not be thrown backwards by the recoil.
3. To be in a position to turn down Nicole Kidman.
4. To be able to afford a Canali suit.
5. To find a pair of trousers that fit me comfortably and aren't Road cords.
6. To live in New York. Again.
7. To have a den, filled wall to wall with books, which nobody would know about but me. And I could go there and write and read and write some more.
8. To own US Esquire magazine, Time, and the Wisden Cricketer. And to be a media barren in the Elliot Carver mould in general.
9. To be woken at 4.30am by the office telling me there had been a coup in Pakistan and I was booked on the 7am from Heathrow to Karachi. I would always have a suitcase packed for just such an event.
10. To be able to wake at 7am and not curse.
Friday, July 22, 2005
In My Head
It's 3am. I'm bored senseless. I'm off tomorrow so I feel obliged to be up till all hours which i am doing but now I've nothing to do but go to bed. Oh well...
Gwen Stefani rocks.
Gwen Stefani rocks.
Saturday, May 14, 2005
The joy of the Savoy
So I went to The Interpreter yesterday (a very, very good film but could have been one of the greats) and I had a choice of where to see it: The Savoy or UGC. Even though UGC had it on at a better time i found myself rushing to get to the Savoy. And when I got there I realised why.
The Savoy is the last of the "old" cinemas left in town apart from maybe the screen. The Carlton, Adelphi, Ambassador, even the Cameo are gone in the name of progress but the good old Savoy remains. Why do I love it so much? Maybe it's the massive Cinema 1. Maybe its the rich, old Velvet seats. But it's not. It's the fact that the ushers wear tuxedos. I feel so important when the usher is wearing a tux. Sure beats the hell out of some spotty kid in a t-shirt up in motherfucking UGC. I guess I wanna feel important, and the Savoy allows me to feel that way.
The Savoy is the last of the "old" cinemas left in town apart from maybe the screen. The Carlton, Adelphi, Ambassador, even the Cameo are gone in the name of progress but the good old Savoy remains. Why do I love it so much? Maybe it's the massive Cinema 1. Maybe its the rich, old Velvet seats. But it's not. It's the fact that the ushers wear tuxedos. I feel so important when the usher is wearing a tux. Sure beats the hell out of some spotty kid in a t-shirt up in motherfucking UGC. I guess I wanna feel important, and the Savoy allows me to feel that way.
Sunday, May 08, 2005
A disasterous protest vote
Is this the end for the moderate viewpoint in Northern Ireland? It would appear to be so. The UUP's vote has collapsed. They now have only one seat left in Westminster. The SDLP have taken a hit from Sinn Fein. Now the two extreme parties from both communities are in the ascendency.
Was this an endorsement of the DUP and Sinn Fein's position, however, or was it a protest vote in either community? In other words, did people vote for the DUP as the anti-Sinn Fein party or did they genuinely believe in what the DUP are doing and vice-versa? I believe it was a protest vote.
The UUP were always the strongest party of the Union in the North. They were also relative moderates compared to Ian Paisley and the Democratic Unionist Party as were the SDLP in the Nationalist community. Ian Paisley has been the face of extreme Unionism and leader of the DUP for thirty years. Why should he suddenly become so popular now? It is not what he has done recently- he has not changed in all his time in politics. What has changed is the Good Friday agreement and the "appeasement" of Sinn Fein in Loyalist minds. Paisley's message of the Catholic threat to the Ulster Protestant way of life now rings true where in the past he has been easy to dismiss as the unacceptable face of Loyalism and a crack on the extreme right of reason never mind Unionism. For many Protestants in the North, the IRA and Sinn Fein have got all the gains out of Good Friday, whether its prisoner early release (which Loyalists have also been granted) or delays in decommisioning (all the protests have been from the Unionist side about IRA decommisioning; there has been little or no mention about Loyalist extremists handing in their weapons). This has emboldened the Reverand to push for more. The demand that the IRA provide a photo of their decommisioning- something which Paisley must have known the IRA would never agree to- was as much for political gain as it was for proving that decommisioning was taking place.
Unfortunately for Northern Ireland, his strategy seems to have worked. By playing on the supposed threat on the Protestant way of life from Nationalists his party has become the dominant representative of Protestants in the province. His message has also become a self-fulfilling prophecy. By raising passions as he has, the Republican community has looked at the two parties on offer and, even after the Northern Bank Raid and the Robert MacCartney controversy has chosen the more extreme of the two; the "best" defender of Republicanism, Sinn Fein.
Like in Hamlet, it has been appearance rather than reality which has mattered in this election and now things look grim for the North. A few days ago I heard a commentator say that Election 2005 in the North was about finding a negotiating team for both communities. I hope they do end up around a table but I highly doubt it. It could be a long time before we see devolved government in Stormont again.
Was this an endorsement of the DUP and Sinn Fein's position, however, or was it a protest vote in either community? In other words, did people vote for the DUP as the anti-Sinn Fein party or did they genuinely believe in what the DUP are doing and vice-versa? I believe it was a protest vote.
The UUP were always the strongest party of the Union in the North. They were also relative moderates compared to Ian Paisley and the Democratic Unionist Party as were the SDLP in the Nationalist community. Ian Paisley has been the face of extreme Unionism and leader of the DUP for thirty years. Why should he suddenly become so popular now? It is not what he has done recently- he has not changed in all his time in politics. What has changed is the Good Friday agreement and the "appeasement" of Sinn Fein in Loyalist minds. Paisley's message of the Catholic threat to the Ulster Protestant way of life now rings true where in the past he has been easy to dismiss as the unacceptable face of Loyalism and a crack on the extreme right of reason never mind Unionism. For many Protestants in the North, the IRA and Sinn Fein have got all the gains out of Good Friday, whether its prisoner early release (which Loyalists have also been granted) or delays in decommisioning (all the protests have been from the Unionist side about IRA decommisioning; there has been little or no mention about Loyalist extremists handing in their weapons). This has emboldened the Reverand to push for more. The demand that the IRA provide a photo of their decommisioning- something which Paisley must have known the IRA would never agree to- was as much for political gain as it was for proving that decommisioning was taking place.
Unfortunately for Northern Ireland, his strategy seems to have worked. By playing on the supposed threat on the Protestant way of life from Nationalists his party has become the dominant representative of Protestants in the province. His message has also become a self-fulfilling prophecy. By raising passions as he has, the Republican community has looked at the two parties on offer and, even after the Northern Bank Raid and the Robert MacCartney controversy has chosen the more extreme of the two; the "best" defender of Republicanism, Sinn Fein.
Like in Hamlet, it has been appearance rather than reality which has mattered in this election and now things look grim for the North. A few days ago I heard a commentator say that Election 2005 in the North was about finding a negotiating team for both communities. I hope they do end up around a table but I highly doubt it. It could be a long time before we see devolved government in Stormont again.
Friday, April 22, 2005
Benedict XVI: Conservative or Radical right winger?
So to some surprise Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was elected Pope Tuesday. It was not thought he had enough votes in the Conclave to claim a 2/3s majority but he got in on the fourth (or possibly fifth) vote. The fear that seems to be present in many quarters of his church now, especially in the developed world, is that Benedict will be a radical conservative pope and thus alienate even more a flock that has drifted away from the Catholic Church in alarming numbers over recent years. This is based primarily on Benedict's writings and speeches during his time as Pope John Paul II's "enforcer" over the last quarter century. He has suggested that because Christ took the male form it proves man's intrinsic superiority to women. He has also suggested that homosexuality is morally abhorrent and at a mass recently he spoke out against rampant liberalism and the dangers of changing to suit "fads" in the modern world.
This attitude alarms many people but I am not one of them. What else should a Pope be? He is, after all, the defender of the Catholic faith on Earth. The Church has not accepted homosexuality for 2,000 years. Why should it accept it now? Women priests have not been permitted for 2,000 years. Why should they be allowed now? One need only look at the Church of England to see what can happen to a church that seeks to change itself in order to attract a new generation. Religion should not feel the need to change to suit the people. If somebody doesn't like the idea of mass being in Latin or drowned in incense then that's not the church's problem (that's one thing about George Bush- I may hate him but I know exactly what he stands for). Hamlet doesn't change because solliloquys and brooding young men go out of fashion. Why should the church be any different?
Of course the Pope is a Conservative, as he should be. A liberal Pope runs the risk of the Church changing where change is unneccessary. Yes some changes should be made. The official stance on contraceptives and specifically condoms, for example, is not just outdated but plain irresponsible. Apart from the obvious risk of contracting STDs, surely it is as big a sin to bring a child into this world when the parents are incapable of raising that child officiently as it is to prevent conception in the first place. This, however, would not be changing just for change's sake. This would be common sense as much as anything else. It is not as if sex out of wedlock is a modern issue after all. In general though, the Pope should maintain the status quo and I believe Benedict to be able to do this effectively.
At the end of the day though, what the death of John Paul and succession of Benedict has thought me is that whoever is the Pope has little effect on my everyday life. If I'm about to have sex I'm not going to think of a guy 800 miles away who says it's a sin to use a condom and I'm not going to tell a gay friend that I think he is evil. Perhaps that is why I believe the Pope should always be a Conservative. It's reassuring to know what my church stands for and that it won't be forever changing what it stands for but it will make little difference to me whether I live up to certain aspects of its teachings or not.
This attitude alarms many people but I am not one of them. What else should a Pope be? He is, after all, the defender of the Catholic faith on Earth. The Church has not accepted homosexuality for 2,000 years. Why should it accept it now? Women priests have not been permitted for 2,000 years. Why should they be allowed now? One need only look at the Church of England to see what can happen to a church that seeks to change itself in order to attract a new generation. Religion should not feel the need to change to suit the people. If somebody doesn't like the idea of mass being in Latin or drowned in incense then that's not the church's problem (that's one thing about George Bush- I may hate him but I know exactly what he stands for). Hamlet doesn't change because solliloquys and brooding young men go out of fashion. Why should the church be any different?
Of course the Pope is a Conservative, as he should be. A liberal Pope runs the risk of the Church changing where change is unneccessary. Yes some changes should be made. The official stance on contraceptives and specifically condoms, for example, is not just outdated but plain irresponsible. Apart from the obvious risk of contracting STDs, surely it is as big a sin to bring a child into this world when the parents are incapable of raising that child officiently as it is to prevent conception in the first place. This, however, would not be changing just for change's sake. This would be common sense as much as anything else. It is not as if sex out of wedlock is a modern issue after all. In general though, the Pope should maintain the status quo and I believe Benedict to be able to do this effectively.
At the end of the day though, what the death of John Paul and succession of Benedict has thought me is that whoever is the Pope has little effect on my everyday life. If I'm about to have sex I'm not going to think of a guy 800 miles away who says it's a sin to use a condom and I'm not going to tell a gay friend that I think he is evil. Perhaps that is why I believe the Pope should always be a Conservative. It's reassuring to know what my church stands for and that it won't be forever changing what it stands for but it will make little difference to me whether I live up to certain aspects of its teachings or not.
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
The Weekend
Not a lot happened to be honest. Played a match against Wanderers, won 55nil. They were crap. Went to Sideways on Saturday night though. What a film that is! One of the funniest I've seen in a long time. Kind of American Pie with middle aged men instead of the Stifmeister etc but its a lot more serious and a lot better.
Belvo in the Senior Cup Final on Paddys Day- lovin' it!
Belvo in the Senior Cup Final on Paddys Day- lovin' it!
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
The failings of Madden 2004
So in my unemployed boredom, I turned to the trusty Playstation and a spot of Madden '04 to pass the time. It's a great game but it has faults.
Although there are not many, there is one glaring ommision when compared to, say, the 2002 version. Namely the lack of classic stadia. In the case of the Washington Redskins, this would be the great RFK stadium. In Madden 2002 you could play in franchise mode at RFK. In 2004 however, we're stuck with frickin' FedEx Field. Come on EA, sort it out or else I'm gonna have to switch to NFL 2k5!!
Sitting here now with my cup of hot orange for my sore throat. Gonna have to take a panadol before bed- can't be like this for the weekend.
Although there are not many, there is one glaring ommision when compared to, say, the 2002 version. Namely the lack of classic stadia. In the case of the Washington Redskins, this would be the great RFK stadium. In Madden 2002 you could play in franchise mode at RFK. In 2004 however, we're stuck with frickin' FedEx Field. Come on EA, sort it out or else I'm gonna have to switch to NFL 2k5!!
Sitting here now with my cup of hot orange for my sore throat. Gonna have to take a panadol before bed- can't be like this for the weekend.
The Joys of Public Service Exams
Right, as the title of this blog suggests, I am currently unemployed. So, in an effort to remedy this problem, I did an exam to work for Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council here in Dublin. For anybody who hasn't done one of these, their basically aptitude tests tailored to test your suitability to the job. This is about my sixth or seventh. They used to be a bit exciting but now they are just so boring it's not true. The fact that most of the people doing the exam seemed to be "simple" and hence the exam ran way over time didn't lighten my mood in the slightest.
And I've a sore throat so couldn't train tonight (I play rugby by the way; 2nd row for Old Belvedere 3rd XV- top of our league!)
Oh well, at least I've got 6c text messages off Vodafone so I can have a good moan to my friends about it...
And I've a sore throat so couldn't train tonight (I play rugby by the way; 2nd row for Old Belvedere 3rd XV- top of our league!)
Oh well, at least I've got 6c text messages off Vodafone so I can have a good moan to my friends about it...
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
The Da Vinci Code, am I missing something?
First ever post, my God I am now a blogger!!!
Feel free to post comments by the way, the more the merrier!
Anyway, enough of that, what's with the Da Vinci code? I've finally started it (after everbody else) and I' m up to about p.316 but frankly it's doing nothing for me. I mean it's not exciting at all. Dan Brown's writing style just doesn't work as far as I'm concerned. He seems to be obsessed with showing off his wonderful knowledge of Opus Dei and symbology but he all he does is come across as a know it all. I was in the States in 2003 and the book was everywhere but I had never heard of it and now it's a world wide hit but I just can't see the greatness in it. If anybody can tell me what's so great about it then please email me.
mailto:fredericktunney@gmail.com
Feel free to post comments by the way, the more the merrier!
Anyway, enough of that, what's with the Da Vinci code? I've finally started it (after everbody else) and I' m up to about p.316 but frankly it's doing nothing for me. I mean it's not exciting at all. Dan Brown's writing style just doesn't work as far as I'm concerned. He seems to be obsessed with showing off his wonderful knowledge of Opus Dei and symbology but he all he does is come across as a know it all. I was in the States in 2003 and the book was everywhere but I had never heard of it and now it's a world wide hit but I just can't see the greatness in it. If anybody can tell me what's so great about it then please email me.
mailto:fredericktunney@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)