How to Pass a Law

Ok, I'm an amateur when it comes to passing legislation, but here's my interpretation of how you go about things.

In the US:

1. Have an idea, preferably one that can be synopsized to a single sentence. This sentence will usually be vague and aspirational so as not to tie you down to any specific proposals. Something like "Make America safer for Americans" if you're Republican or "Make Poverty History" if you're Bob Geldof, or "Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others" if you're somewhere in between.
1a. Get some photos of the President and other high ranking politicians in compromising positions. This will be very useful later.
2. Win an election. Easy enough if you have the right friends.
3. Make up some draft proposals. Get flamed by the opposition. Get flamed by the public. Get your office, home, car, child's school, mother etc. blockaded by angry protesters. Expect farcical and fanatical opposition.

4. Negotiate with the opposition to try to find a solution more amenable to the masses. As long as the bill still conforms to your initial vague aspirational statement, then you can't be accused of running away from your ideals. Just remember that a large amount of the opposition are convinced that you are either an elitist, baby-killing communist or a knuckle-dragging, inbred racist, so you're not going to get everyone on your side no matter how much you give in.
5. Try to pass the bill in the House. Use of the materials obtained in step 1a can be useful here.
6. Repeat steps 3-5 until you get it passed.
7. Try to get it passed in the Senate. Again, use of the materials obtained in step 1a can be useful here.
8. Repeat steps 3-7 until you get it passed in the Senate.
(In general, these phases are the most annoying and you may have to cede authorship/sponsorship of the bill and sacrifice all chance of doing anything else in your political career.)
9. Get the President to sign it. This is easy of the election you won in step 2 was the presidential election. Otherwise, step 1a comes in handy again.

In Ireland

1. Get enough seats to be needed in a coalition.
2. Have an idea. Commission a consultant to write a report about it.
3. Wait for a scandal to happen.
4. Comment that action on this scandal is imminent. Commission a report on the report in view of the specific scandal.
5. Introduced the bill to the Dáil in the last two days before a break to limit debate. Force the bill through the Dáil and Senate in record time through your use of the whip.

Dermot Ahern version


1. Put together some version of your religious beliefs that look vaguely like legislation.
2. Use your influence to push it through.

The Grand Slump

Am I the only one left feeling unfulfilled after this Six Nations?

After the drama of last year's championship, it was inevitable that this year would not live up to the same level of excitement. However, tension was almost completely devoid from this year's proceedings. Mistake after mistake after mistake robbed me of any enjoyment of the game as it slowed to a halt. The effects of whatever new rules that were brought in seem to have reduced the game to a kicking dominated affair. Defences are so good that running the ball is dangerous, as the Wales-France match showed. Two intercept tries from France, who were happy to play for territory all tournament. The result? Grand Slam for them. The England-Scotland encounter was about the most dreadful rugby match that had ever been inflicted on the world.

There were flashes of brilliance, and yes, there were moments of tension. Today's match in Dublin had both of them. I however benefit from having Sky Sports and I watch the Super 14 matches occasionally whenever I have the time. The gulf in pace, runnig, excitement is ridiculous. In the 39 games played so far in the season, each game is averaging 53.5 points. In the Six Nations this number is 39.6. Essentially, that's an average of 2 more tries per game. And that's not even "international standard" rugby.

Since the game went professional, the skills needed for a good defence (essentially fitness, strength, teamwork) have all benefited, and the natural flair needed for attacking rugby has remained static. Some of the ELVs that were experimented with last year I think would actually have been good to encourage a more running attacking game. Keeping the back line 5m back from the scrum gave people more space to run; making quick throws easier encourages counter attack play and discourages kicking for position; free kicks rather than penalties means less kicking for touch and for goal and more attacking play. The whole point was to increase the emphasis on attacking play to force coaches and teams to think and train more in that way.

I'm not saying that there's no place for the grinding tension of close control near your opponents' line, but can't something be done to at least make a RANGE of tactics effective?

P.S. I know that the photo is not from this year's Six Nations, but it's cool.

Forgive Me My Sins

My blog has been neglected of late. I could blame many things, but it's mostly because I got a little lazy. I hereby beg forgiveness from the internet gods and shall hope that no punishment shall be inflicted.

Speaking of punishment and forgiveness...

While I was away last week (the ISDA festival was flipping unreal), a story broke about Cardinal Brady. The basic version is that he was in a meeting where victims of Fr. Brenden Smyth's sexual abuse were forced to swear an oath of silence about their allegations. Unsurprisingly, this led to a tide of calls for Cardinal Brady's resignation.

Morally, there was fault. He knew about the monster that was Fr. Smyth and all he did was pass the buck to his superior's and not say anything in the intervening twenty years before Fr. Smyth saw justice. Twenty more years of abusing innocent children could have been prevented. Surely, resigning is the only correct course?

Personally, I don't think so.

The then Fr. Brady was in no position of power. He did the best he could within the structures. Can we blame him for not speaking out? Not really. The culture at the time was one of denial and cover-up. Fr. Brady was not the only one to know. Practically everyone knew on some level what was going on. I lay the blame at the higher levels of hierarchy at the time and not at the lowest level. Realistically, everyone who could replace him was probably complicit on a similar level. He could do a lot more trying to work from the inside.

The key question is whether his ability to lead the Church has been compromised. In reality, I don't think so. Given the small role he played in the past, given the potential good he can do from where he is now, given the ability of the man; I can only see him doing good from here. I don't want to sound insensitive, but I do not think that the victims of Brenden Smyth are served by his resignation. Fr. Smyth was the perpetrator. The hierarchy at the time were the ones complicit.  Not Cardinal Brady.

These calls for his resignation come from a desire for vengeance against the institution rather than from some viewpoint of justice.