All that I need to know about being Irish, I learned from a T-shirt

BOSTON, U.S.A.— It was with a mixture of amusement and disbelief that I saw the following shirt in a storefront in Harvard Square: It was green and it showed three young men slouched in various positions, unconscious from having drunk too much. Then, in capital letters above the men, the shirt announced "IRISH YOGA."
When I told my sister about my vision of wearing that shirt at work while sitting across from my Irish colleague, she replied, "You should!"
"Oh, I'd get in trouble for that," I said. Let's face it, the Irish aren't exactly known for their ability to laugh at themselves—Father Ted notwithstanding.
But then again, it seems incredible to see that shirt on display in the Boston area, with its heavy Irish Catholic population, of which I'm part myself. Who could have come up with the idea and production of such a shirt but Irish-Americans themselves?
I think it's wonderful that we can have a sense of humor. The Irish themselves may despair of "plastic paddies," but that's mostly a result of our penchant for singing drinking songs we don't fully understand, crying in our green beers, and—to our eternal shame—donating to the IRA. In other words, for taking ourselves far too seriously. But if McAmericans can look at themselves through the lens of sarcastic humor, the whole of Ireland might just respond, "Now that's more like it!"
That maxim applies no matter who you are. For instance, I have a friend who's second-generation Italian and he's constantly using the adjectives "guinea" and "eyetie." He doesn't mean it, of course, but that's just his way of saying "screw you" to the sort of people who would demand that he see himself more as Italian than American. He knows better than that and I admire him for it.
We Irish-Americans need to place more emphasis on our American heritage too. Sure, our blood runs thick with Celtic genes. But let us never forget why we were born here and why we speak with the accents that we do.
And long live the humor with which we finally seem able to view ourselves.

One dead, many spared?

Previously published on Blogcritics.

All right, I'll be the first to admit that I find anyone who is both a church-goer and a doctor who's willing to perform late-term abortions to have a very strange relationship with his conscience. I do not, however, think that he should be killed. I am anti-abortion myself, but I do not subscribe to the militant pro-life hypothesis that one life killed is many spared.
George Tiller was no angel given the slaughter he engaged in. I understand that the very thought of his work is truly cringeworthy—and I certainly don't comprehend how you could have a relationship with God while tearing a person apart in the womb. It is positively grotesque.
But George Tiller needed to answer to God for that. As long as late-term abortions remain legal, he could not be tried for murder. But for Pete's sake, take it up with your Congressman; no matter how disgusted you may be by Tiller's profession, you are not the jury, judge and executioner in his case.
The far-Christian Right whackjob that shot him was clearly in that frame of mind, and he is far from alone. These people do honestly frighten me. If they had their way, we'd be living in a theological state no different from that of Saudi Arabia or Iran. (Only, our God would be better than their God, and we know that to be true because we said so!) Pardon the pun, but God help us.
(If me having said that, in light of yesterday's entry endorsing the Christian Party, seems strange to you, just know that I consider there to be a great deal of difference between Christian values versus Christian fundamentalism. I revere the former; I despise the latter.)
Ask yourself if you feel sympathy for animal rights campaigners who kill researchers and bomb their laboratories. No? They're insane, and they're terrorists, you say? If I am disgusted and disheartened by vivisection (which I am), you're saying that I must work within the law to express my outrage?
Well, I agree, but tell me why, exactly, is that not also true in the case of abortion clinics and the doctors who work there?
The fact remains, Tiller was a person already out in the world, someone whose life was still technically sacred. How can anyone say that he would not repent for his crimes later in life? You cannot kill to prevent killings, except in war. And honestly, folks, is that what this whole putrid abortion debate comes down to?
At a Wichita memorial service in memory of the late doctor, one mourner's sign read: "Tiller's Killer Is A Terrorist Hypocrite Coward." I whole-heartedly agree.

The Christian Party for E.U. and local offices

On Thursday, the European Union elections, in which Britons will vote to elect seats in the European Parliament—a sham, I grant you—as well as local British council elections will take place. I cannot vote myself, but that won't stop me from making an endorsement in this space.
Let's run through the main parties in the running:
(1) Labour—You would have to be living in a cave or outside the country to not know what a train-wreck they are. They've been in power too long and they've run out of fresh ideas. They are the party of a thousand promises and they fail to deliver on even one of them. Labour was starting to look defensive and arrogant during Tony Blair's last term, but the past two-and-a-half years under Gordon Brown's stewardship have been insufferable. Labour won't listen to what the voters actually desire, they just want to keep trying to force laws that no-one wants down our collective throat, such as the I.D. scheme. All the while, they ignore the festering garbage heap they've turned this country into, literally with bi-weekly rubbish collections and figuratively with their lack of immigration controls. Anyone who would still vote for a party that seeks only to replicate itself and remain our not-so-loving big brother needs help.
(2) Conservative—They would be my pick for the next General Election. But this upcoming election is too soon in which to reward the Tories with seats, and reward them for what? Simply opposing Labour? I need to hear fresher and more original ideas from the Conservatives. Also, this election also comes too soon after the MP expenses scandal in which the Tories fared as badly as Labour. David Cameron has done a good job to patch up the damage, ousting the fleecing MPs from their seats and laying it on the line to the party in general. But Mr. Cameron still has work to do and he needs to get it done over the next year, especially with regard to convicing me (and the rest of the public) that the Tories will stand up to the E.U. over its diktats.
(3) Liberal Democrats—They are not much better than the American version, and while I certainly agree with them on one or two issues, it would take a massive dose of LSD—not that I've ever tried it—to get me to endorse these Europhile Lefties.
(4) Green—Pretty much what I've said about the Lib Dems. They cannot convince me that they're not really Red in disguise.
(5) United Kingdom Independence Party—While I appreciate UKIP's basic premise of severing our ties to the E.U. and restoring full British sovereignty, they seem like a one-trick pony. I have never heard much from UKIP aside from "Out of Europe!" What else do these guys stand for, if anything?
(6) British National Party—Anti-Semitic racists and fascist troublemakers. No matter how respectable they try to come across, they're only sprinkling sugar on their poop. And in their spare time, that's exactly what BNP members push through the letterslots of anyone who dares not to be white and British.
(7) The Christian Party/Christian Peoples Alliance—Now here's an interesting party for you. The Christian Party, of course, stands for Christianity and the recognition that our freedom of life in Britain and Europe derive from that faith. But they also stand for conservative values. They claim that they can provide a real alternative to the BNP. The Christian Party opposes the European superstate, wants to expose European corruption, desires a fair but firm immigration policy, intends to beat the Greens at their own game by moving away from carbon-based policies, and endorses "compassionate conservative" ideas on social justice, trade and the economy.
The idea of the BNP gaining seats to represent Britain in Europe is horrifying, but it is also reality. It would appear that only UKIP or the Christian Party/Christian Peoples Alliance can siphon votes from those who are angry enough to vote for the BNP, but just intelligent or moral enough to feel no pride in so doing. These voters only want to send a serious message to the powers that be, and they need an alternative; indeed, it is crucial. I believe that the Christian Party is that alternative and deserves the chance to prove its mettle.
Nightdragon endorses The Christian Party/Christian Peoples Alliance for the June 4 elections.

Ross: Much ado about nothing

Let's get one thing straight right off the mark: I don't like Jonathan Ross. Not only is he a scandalously overpaid talk-show host, but he revels in being a scandalously overpaid talk-show host to the point of insensitivity (Ross chose to joke over the £6 million he earns for his show while 1, 800 people lost their jobs at the BBC due to budget cuts).
He's touted as one of the best comedians that Britain's ever produced, but his comic skills are mediocre at best. All Ross ever usually does for me is make me sick. If I observed him drowning, I'd throw him a cement block.
Given the furious reaction of the public to the Manuelgate incident, I'd hoped that the BBC would see the sense in permanently cancelling his Friday night TV show from their line-up. But of course, the BBC being the pureblind corporation that it is, they elected on merely suspending the show for three months instead, which did nothing toward doling out to Ross the large dose of humility that he so desperately needs.
Naturally, it's no surprise that he's in trouble again, for comments he made on his BBC Radio 2 program. Ross is not the sort of man who learns from his mistakes.
However, I wish to defend him here. Yep, though it hurts, I've got to say that Ross really did nothing wrong in this instance.
With reference to Hannah Montana-themed prizes being given away in a competition, Ross joked: "If your son asks for a Hannah Montana MP3 player, you might want to already think about putting him down for adoption before he brings his ... erm ... partner home." Radio 2 report that they've had a number of complaints about that remark, enough to possibly land Ross in hot water yet again.
Perhaps joking about giving a gay son up for adoption is over the top. But, having a laugh over the possibility of any young male wanting a Hannah Montana MP3 player is something I too would do. In fact, I fully admit, when I first read Ross's quip, I chuckled. But to call me a homophobe would offend me and it would be a dead-wrong assertion.
Jonathan Ross should have been humbled six months ago. That was a missed opportunity. And it is right that he be reviled for joking about unemployment. But haranguing the man for being a homophobe due to one silly little joke is going a bit far.

Not exactly the definition of a train wreck

Sportswriters are like weather forecasters: With their expert knowledge at hand, they can predict what will happen, but almost never is their reporting written in stone as the absolute truth.
Stephon Marbury is one such case in point.
When the Celtics picked him up as a free agent in February, the majority of basketball pundits couldn't say enough bad things about Marbury and the trade: What was Danny Ainge (the C's general manger) thinking? Marbury will spoil this team's close-knit chemistry. He'll be a worse egomaniac than Ron Artest, a bigger troublemaker than Allen Iverson. He's a space cadet, the Manny Ramirez of basketball. You can just kiss the Celtics' bid for an 18th Championship good-bye.


AP photo
Fans like me, however, knew that Marbury's time would come and, when it did, it would be positive. And it came in a big way last night and was astoundingly positive.
Firstly, contrary to all "expert" predictions, Marbury has been the ultimate quiet man, showing up for work every day, be it practice or game time, paying his dues and cheering his teammates on from the sidelines. He hasn't fought with his colleagues, and he hasn't complained about riding the bench. Secondly, he even declined to pour scorn on his former team, the Knicks, with whom his relationship was acrimonious. (After joining the Celtics, Marbury told reporters that he did not hold a grudge against the Knicks and simply wanted to play basketball wherever he was wanted.) That alone told me much about Marbury, inasmuch as he wasn't quite as evil as the sports pundits had forewarned.
As a Celtic, Marbury hasn't gotten more than 5 points in a game. Up until last night, that is, when he netted 12. And while twelve may not seem such a huge number, Marbury collected all twelve points during a pivotal fourth quarter in a scarily close game. Twelve suddenly looks very huge.
One thing's clear at any point: Marbury's presence during the last 15 minutes of the game was crucial and it tipped the balance back in favor of Boston. With their 92-88 win, the C's lead Orlando 3 games to 2 in the series.
This is not the same team as last year's. The C's are weaker without their big guy Kevin Garnett and are also missing Leon Powe's presence. But they are doing very well for a team that was predicted to crumble under the supposedly bad attitude of Stephon Marbury.
And whether or not they ultimately win their 18th banner, they certainly defied the critics' predictions.

Meet fire with fire indeed

Previously published by Blogcritics

Massive kudos to Birmingham Mail columnist Maureen Messent whose recent column concerning Somali pirates is right on the money.
For those of you who can't be bothered to click on the link and read the entire piece, just one paragraph from the column should suffice:

And let’s not pretend these predators are our equals deserving of our respect. Blowing a few of their boats to smithereens, along with their crews, is the sole language they will understand.

Hallelujah, sister! Here's at least one Brit who hasn't drunk the Tabernacle of Political Correctness's Kool-aid, one Brit who isn't a slave to wimpy and culturally suicidal European notions of what constitutes "human rights," one Brit who gets it.
Let me man the guns and I'll happily blow every single one of these sub-human apes to smithereens and I'll still sleep very comfortably, thank you very much. In fact, I wouldn't even fucking hesitate.
Exactly how do we prove ourselves better than the pirates, the Taliban or any other assorted terrorist scum by respecting their so-called humanity? Why are they deserving of it?
If they have absolutely no notion of human rights, leniency or mercy, and aren't inclined to extend any of it to us, I don't see why they themselves should receive any in return. What are we Westerners proving with our "enlightened" attitude toward them? That we're stupid, naïve and, as aforementioned, culturally suicidal? Absolutely. As Michael Ignatieff points out in his book "Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry," the West, with its knee-jerk political correctness, is forsaking its political heritage of individualism, in the process eroding the foundations upon which a universal system of human rights may be built.
This brings to mind a letter-to-the-editor somebody had written to a London newspaper complaining about the treatment one of the captured pirates, a 16-year-old, who was captured by the U.S. and extradited there. The letter writer bemoaned the "African being brought to America in chains." Which just goes to show that even with that half-black hippy in the White House, anti-Americanism still runs strong (or that some people apparently believe we're still living 200 years in the past). If not even Obama is decrying the fate of this innocent little lamb-to-the-slaughter, that ought to provide a clue; but then Obama did vow to stand up to the pirates which is what any sensible person would do.
Believe me, all this talk about respecting human rights and having to show compassion, leniency and mercy to our sworn enemies is just the sort of claptrap worthy of the Left-wingers who spout it, those Westerners who hate their society, their culure and themselves. It is sentiment to be expected of those who identify with the world's rag-tag rabble, the language of solidarity with those who deserve nothing more than a body ridden with bullet holes and a dumping in the nearest garbage incinerator.

Nightdragon, the amateur entymologist

During a recent trip to central Florida, I had the chance to employ my amateur knowledge of entymology. (I've been casually studying insects since the age of 9, and I took two semesters of entymology for my Associates Degree eons ago.)
While standing on the balcony of our motel, overlooking the pool, I heard a slight flutter, felt something touch my leg and then hop off. I looked down and saw an insect just like this one:


Once I got over the incredible thought that a six-legged freak show like this had actually been on my person—I performed a quick little "eww, eww" dance to commemorate it—I stooped down to examine the creature.
When I got too close, it stretched out its wings as if to fly away, so I immediately backed off. I checked the insect out from all angles, as closely as I could without it feeling threatened.
"It's not a cricket," I said to myself. "And I'm pretty sure it's not a beetle." I looked at the head, the overall body shape and the way its wings were folded, and determined it to be a bug—that is, a true bug, a member of the order Hemiptera. (All bugs are insects, but not all insects are bugs.) Only problem is, I had never seen a bug this large.
Once I was home, I did a search for "Florida bugs" and I came to the Florida leaf-footed bug, Acanthocephala femorata, and immediately recognized it. All I had to go on was the overall head and body shape, but I knew a bug when I saw one. Made me feel rather proud.
I also wrestled with this creature too, although I'm pretty sure it's not an insect, bug or otherwise!