Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Pundit soup
Opinion: Time for the pundits to stand up and tell us what we need to do.
I must begin by stating that I do not wish to become a regulator of free speech. Although, like chalk against the chalkboard, idle rhetoric never ceases to make up the general consensus and I must protest against it.
The most recent examples would be the visits of HM and Barack Obama. These were such positive progressions in the face of diplomacy, the first one was more historically significant, but both have ignited that what is most deplorable of Irish society; idle speculation. Idle speculation doesn’t just describe views unsupported by evidence, but it is also something that is uniquely Irish. Thinking one knows of what one speaks (when one is really clueless) is a well known Irish trait.
Those who are experts in speculating idly are pundits. The pundits, being the majority tribe in Irish espousing stupidity, came forth most vigorously during the Queen’s visit. The exaggerated, falsifying myth that Ireland was consistently oppressed by Britain for 800 years, is a product of tribal folklore; and such a myth was of course used by the pundits, as a pathetic rebuttal towards the Queen’s visit. It’s easy to use such a myth, although those who use it never actually mention when, how or where the British first invaded this country. Notice that you will never hear that 800 figure being used by any historian. Those who were stupid enough to talk of how we should reject the Queen’s coming here, never spoke of what advantages would arise from committing oneself to such a rejection. If such a point were made, then they would have the ghost of an already weak argument.
It’s interesting that oppositionists to the Queen’s visit who have no interest in improving diplomacy and the strengthening of Anglo-Irish relations surprisingly applauded Barack Obama’s visit. I applauded it also. Naturally, those who protested George W. Bush’s visit to Ireland only a few years ago, to show their anger about Guantanamo bay and the Iraq war, forgot that Obama didn’t do much about Iraq and still hasn’t closed Guantanamo bay like he said he would. No matter, how much of a liberal you the reader may be, I can hope that you notice the paradox here.
Something that surprised me more than this paradox was how mature a stance the now infamous carpetbagger Gerry Adams took. Sadly this cannot be said for the rest of his party. For those who aren’t aware of Adams’ notorieties, this is the man who when asked why he still hadn’t taken his seat at Westminster, replied “I think Guy Faulks had the right idea when it comes to Westminster”.
It’s interesting that nationalists are very careful about when, and at whom, they choose to place the finger of blame. Bloody Sunday, which occurred in January 1972, was no doubt a tragic spillage of fourteen innocent Catholics. This most tragic of events is glorified by Sinn Féin/IRA and used to fuel hatred of the British. Although, nationalists purposely choose not to remember what happened only a month before in December 1971.
Only a month before Bloody Sunday, on December 4th 1971, McGurk’s Pub in Belfast was blown up by the UVF. This bombing resulted in the deaths of fifteen Catholics. You may not have known that, I knew not of it until a year ago. Now Sinn Féin/IRA never remind us of this most tragic of events that resulted in the deaths of one more person than Bloody Sunday. Ask yourself why is this? Does this mean that nationalists view the lives of those fifteen people who died that day as being of less value than the fourteen who would be killed a month later? That certainly seems to be the message which is being put forward.
It seems to me that the pundits think that they have the all answers to lead us to the road to recovery, while the politicians do not any. Movements like ‘Claiming our future’ and ‘We the Citizens’ strive to think of ideas to improve Irish society and form policy initiatives. In my opinion, these movements stink of what can only be called empty rhetoric. I repeat my previous point, that anyone has the right to hold an opinion or put forward a suggestion. I, an arrogant and cynical popinjay do it more than most, but what’s needed right now is well-thought, realistic plans that may create change (change being the favourite word of the pundits), but that far exceed the simple empty rhetoric that those who have the answers spout out.
I knew that a new level of stupidity was reached when people who pretend to have such a loving of democracy, actually said that this year’s election was a wasted opportunity. That type of thinking is abusive of democracy and disrespectful of the electorate. I don’t see how one could say that the most recent election is an opportunity missed, when the new cabinet have not even been in government for one hundred days yet! More important than that is what this great opportunity missed out was? Was it to simply get Fianna Fáil out of power? That DID happen.
Another example of naïve punditry is hearing people say that they’re sick of our parliamentary system being dominated every term by either Fine Gael or Fianna Fáil. While this may be true, the same people are hoping for a third party to emerge. Now that the Labour party are growing in strength, the exact same people are saying that they no longer like Labour. It is this sort of talk that denotes what Orwell meant by ‘doublespeak’. It seems to me that these pundits cannot be satisfied, are born oppositionists, and don’t even know what they want. It is true that our parliamentary system is a vicious duopoly of three parties yes. The pundits certainly don’t know how to change this though.
Naïve punditry is seen in one of its most perverted forms in feminism. The call of the clitoris has recently been a desire for parliamentary gender quotas. When questioned over the necessity of quotas, the feminist replies that not enough women are in politics. Considering that women are more likely to vote for men, as has been proven, one must question whether it is just an egotistical pursuit? Is it that women just want to vote for women? If so, what a slanderous, sexist desire to possess.
Containing my contempt towards rhetoric which is absent of both literary beauty and substance is difficult, to put it mildly. This most populist rhetoric has become common among the left; who as I always remind people, should never be accused of being quick to catch on to anything.
If you’re as sick of such traditions as I, then consider the cyanide. Now, I am the one conforming to using such rhetoric. Such a comment lacks substance, truth and humour. How did I resort to this?
By: Cormac O’Malley
