Why Insults Bring People Together

Insult

It’s such a truism that wherever you go in life, whatever you achieve, you will invariably meet a few people who are callous and sour, who seem to want to insult others for no good reason. Whether you’re in the dregs or the gods, someone is usually liable to start lobbing vitriol without cause.

I’m not referring simply to a lack of social tact, but to those who speak with the obvious intention of hurting another; that special brand of human that evidently derives pleasure from seeing another become upset.

In conversations relating to social interactions, one of the most difficult things to discuss without bias are these types of abusive people. It’s so easy to turn into a bitching session, because the easiest (and most satisfying) way to look at them and their comments is to simply demonize them.

Because, really, just how difficult is it to follow The Golden Rule? Yes, it’s a cliche but one that remains self-evident: Isn’t it just… easier to be good and polite to people? In a purely practical sense, doesn’t it lessen the burden of social responsibility, of being mindful of others? Doesn’t it make life simpler and more carefree?

Maybe these traits are just habits of thinking, or maybe there’s something more to it. When I discussed this with others, we found ourselves referring to those who have made kindness and compassion a habit as having “figured it out”. It’s not something that necessarily comes with age, either. I know teenagers who seem to have it “figured out” and people of middle-age and older who are very difficult to deal with.

So then, what is the point of putting someone down? Something happened recently that gave me a little perspective on it. Anyone who keeps an eye on the news will know that the world is going through a huge economic crisis. My native country, Ireland, which had been until recently been experiencing an unprecedented financial boom, is now officially entering a recession.

Hearing about this on the news, it does bring a sense of despondence; things are going to get a bit rough.

Recession

But at the same time, I found myself experiencing a definite feeling of satisfaction; a sense of, “Well, it’s about bloody time we copped on to ourselves and stopped wasting so much money”.

I realized that this thought was not so much an objective view; rather, it was a feeling that all these politicians and property tycoons who had spent so much money, all those people who had borrowed ridiculous amounts of cash to purchase huge new houses and cars, were getting their just desserts. I couldn’t help but feel vindicated that those of us who had had financial responsibility drilled into our heads since childhood had come up trumps.

And yet, that’s still a generous description. Because basically, all it boils down to is that satisfying feeling that more people have been brought to your level, that your social status is somehow more justified because more are now there with you.

And isn’t that type of thinking basically a more abstract version of insulting someone outright? It just remains contained rather than spoken. It’s still taking someone down a notch; not because you actually dislike them and feel that they deserve it, but because your own ego needs validation. It’s basically insecurity, and insecurity is very lonely. It causes us to seek out company. And which is the faster method of getting it – – working on oneself in order to remove any neuroses and foibles, or throwing a terrible insult at someone in order to make them feel insecure and lonely too? The personal development could take years, the insult, seconds.

So the person who casts that mean-spirited jibe is actually trying to bring the victim closer to themselves; Misery loves company. It can often be painful to witness the success or happiness of someone who was once in the same boat as you, while you’re still stuck in that boat. That’s why it’s often difficult to see someone you know get a promotion, go on a long trip abroad etc. It’s not because it affects you directly, though your ego may tell you so, but rather because the relationship between yourself and the person leaving has changed. And it’s always easier to leave than to be left behind.

If you look at any Internet chatroom that relates to a psychological condition, such as anxiety, bulimia etc, you will find that they are peopled almost entirely by people who seem to have the condition perpetually, rather than any who have recovered and want to offer help. Is this because people don’t want to help others once they’ve recuperated? No. It’s because the misery of these groups feed off themselves, love the company, and loathe the one who makes the move to leave the nest.

Those who say they are recovered are not immediately praised; in fact, they are regularly vilified and regarded as pariahs in the community. That person no longer meets the standards of sickness and misery necessary for acceptance, and are now considered a dangerous interloper.

Sponge

Indeed, the drive to surround oneself with peers with whom one feels equal is a basic animalistic trait; it even occurs on a cellular level. In his book The Lucifer Principle, author Howard Bloom describes how, when you run an aquatic sponge through a sieve, it will liquify into a muddy substance before its cells regroup . Run two of them into a bucket, and the cells from each will manage to recognise their own kind and reconstitute themselves into their original forms.

Similarly, if a person, dissatisfied with their selves or circumstances, finds themselves in amiable, happy company, they may feel desperately out of place. But who would up and leave their social stratum to seek out unhappier contemporaries? No; since they cannot recognise their kind around them, the abuse they hurl and misery they induce are an attempt to create their own kind.

Yes, it’s true that throwing insults at someone could be construed as little more than a socio-Darwinistic attempt to weaken others and drive them out of the social circle, gene pool, etc. But then, why do these exchanges happen so frequently between couples, siblings, people who should have no interest in gaining an evolutionary one-up on the other? Because to slight someone can have an alternate purpose. If the insulter feels troubled and insecure, the insult can create a similar state in the victim. In spite of all the drama and tears, at least both are back in the same boat.

It’s warped, but the most cutting aspersion can actually bring people together. And if disparity is so often the reason for the discharge of unwarranted malice, then, hopefully, maintaining one’s awareness of this fact can defuse its power completely.

f

Why Constraint Is Good

The amount of information available to us on the Internet is limitless,but how often do we actually take a look at a totally random site? When do we ever go on a trawl through hundreds of disparate pages, unless it’s for the purposes of research? On the other hand, sites like StumbleUpon and Digg are hugely popular, and becoming moreso.

Why are these filtration sites so popular? Don’t they somehow fly in the face of the random beauty of the Internet? Well, maybe from a technological perspective. But true chaos is not generally desirable to the human experience. We enjoy being held back, and it works in our favour.

Illustrations are readily evident in the creative arts. For example, the first Matrix film was a hugely ambitious project that drew in discrete elements of Manga, existentialist philosophy, martial arts, technology etc. It should have been a total mess. It wasn’t. The second and third Matrix films, however, used the exact same elements – and were total messes ( Come on, what the hell what going on in the third one?). The difference? Personally, I think it may have been the lack of constraints on the directors (the Wachowski brothers) after the monumental success of the first film. With their debut, they were taking a huge gamble and absolutely had to at least make it a little audience-friendly to guarantee box office returns. After that, Warner Bros said, “Hey guys, do whatever you want.” And the Wachowskis indulged, throwing everything and the kitchen sink into the sequels. Filmmaking with no restraints resulted in films that made no sense.

“Donnie Darko” is one of the most beautiful, rich films I’ve seen. The director, Richard Kelly was given a much bigger canvas and budget to make his second film, based on Donnie’s success. The result was “Southland Tales“, a free-jazz-on-film film that makes very little sense and, to my mind at least, is intensely boring.

Indeed, constraint is a wonderful thing when applied properly. It gives you something to prove, something to rail against.

Every self-help book worth its salt tells the reader that they absolutely must set out their goals. This may be via a process of writing them down, of intensive visualization, of telling your friends and family of your deadlines so that you will adhere to them. The common element with every goal that is set is that is immediately enforces a set of constraints. It focuses the mind like a laser, pushing out other, irrelevant thoughts. If you have one thing to do, and one thing only, the chances are that you will do it.

Constraint often equates with brevity, which can be a wonderful tool for effectively conveying information. Dan Brown’s “The Da Vinci Code“, which was an international publishing phenomenon, was notable for its concise chapters. Readers loved that; it made for a fast-paced read, which, though it heavy with religious and historical symbolism, was sectioned into easily-digested portions. One of my favourite books, The Lucifer Principle, does the same with an elaborate theory on the relationship between science and religion.

I think that’s why someone like Kurt Cobain or Bob Dylan will always be more appealing to the masses than guitar virtuosos like Steve Vai or Joe Satriani. Cobain and Dylan were and are much more restrained in terms of their musical ability, and that can be a good thing. There’s a scene in the Nirvana film “Live, Tonight, Sold Out!” where a music journalist described Nirvana’s music as being like nursery rhymes that you can’t get out of your head. I always thought that was very insightful; for example, “Come As You Are” is based on a slow riff that consists of 5 notes. Vai or Satriani, on the other hand, could easily play 10 notes per second on one of their tracks. Which is a fantastic ability, but complexity doesn’t necessarily mean quality. And it’s those nursery-rhyme, 5-note melodies that invariably seep into public consciousness and convey their message most effectively. I guess that’s why it’s ‘popular’ music.

I suppose the ideal is to have all of these creative tools at one’s disposal, but to still be able to maintain that popular sensibility when you want to use it. A great example of one such musician is Jeff Buckley; his technical abilities were second to none, but he was consistently able to distill them down to something subtle, refined and accessible.

And that’s a difficult thing to do, because having too many options can be crippling. It goes against the classical idea that more choice equates to more freedom, which equates to more happiness – but there it is. In his book “The Paradox Of Choice“, author Barry Schwartz argues ‘why the abundance of choice in modern society is actually making us miserable’. He says that it actually creates a state of paralysis; that having too many things to choose from makes it very difficult to actually make a choice. Not only that, but even if you do make a choice, and a good one at that, but the idea that you could have made a better decision in the first place can make you regretful.

f

Here is Schwartz’ short lecture from the famous TedTalks series:

f

Schwartz makes the example of clothing; when he was younger, buying a pair of jeans was simple. You went into the store and you bought the one type of jeans that was on the rack. And you were happy with them, because there was no other choice to make. Today, you go to buy a pair of jeans and are confronted with hundreds of varieties; faded, stone-washed, designer, boot cut, torn, brand-label etc etc. So while you may find a pair that fits and looks pretty good, the unrealised potentiality of choice still hangs over you. And if you do happen to find something – anything – wrong with those jeans, it can only be your fault. Why? Because the choice was all yours.

This may seem trivial, but if you expand that phenomenon across millions of different products, combined with the incessant psychic pummeling of advertising (which tells us explicitly that we will be unhappy if we make the wrong choice), we can imagine the rate of misery generated growing exponentially. We are told that we need the products to be content; then the range of choice makes contentment, even with the product, impossible anyway.

Henry Ford said about his cars, “You can have it in any colour, as long as it’s black”. And that was coming from one of the most successful industrialists of the twentieth century. That’s not to say that “the good old days” of one choice only were perfect. But having one choice certainly makes things a lot simpler, and seems to promote contentment. Even if that one choice is far from ideal, it still gives the chooser something to complain about and fight against; a goal of sorts. But limitless choice means that the burden of responsibility is totally on the shoulders of the chooser. There is no constraint, the individual becomes a veritable island of personal responsibility – and that can lead to a great deal of misery.

Why Fundamentalism Reflects The Unevolved Mind

f

In March 2008, the outspoken Dutch politician Geert Wilders released his short film, entitled “Fitna” onto the Internet. The piece is a savage critique of fundamentalist Islam, and purports that the religion as a whole has an intrinsically bellicose nature.

Wilders supports this suggestion with a selection of warlike quotes from the Koran, such as:

“They but wish that ye should reject faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing as they, so take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah. But if they turn renegades, seize them and kill them wherever ye find them, and take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”

In order to indicate a link between these modern-day atrocities and the age-old texts, he shows us images of 9/11, the Madrid and London bombings and footage of the beheading of hostage Eugene Armstrong. We see clips of various extremist Islamic preachers, proclaiming in no uncertain terms that it is the Muslim’s duty to terminate any non-believers with extreme prejudice; “Annihilate the infidels and the polytheists”, “Allah is happy when non-Muslims get killed”, etc.

Wilders’ film ends with a written postscript:

“It is not up to me, but up to Moslems themselves to tear out the hateful verses from the Koran. Muslims want you to make way for Islam, but Islam does not make way for you. The government insists that you respect Islam, but Islam has no respect for you. Islam wants to rule, submit, and seeks to destroy our Western civilization. In 1945, Nazism was defeated in Europe. In 1989, Communism was defeated in Europe. Now, the Islamic ideology has to be defeated.”

The International community was acutely aware of the film’s prospective impact, even before it was released. When a video alleged to be a trailer for the short film was put on YouTube, Pakistan blocked the site from being accessed across the entire country. This actually resulted in the site going offline around the world for two hours.

When the film became available on the Internet, tensions grew. Political condemnation was worldwide and virtually unanimous. Public protests took place in Dam Square, Amsterdam. On the 7th of April, Indonesia blocked and continues to block YouTube because of its refusal to remove Fitna from its servers. Muslim nations have invariably threatened, at the very least, a review of their diplomatic relations with the Netherlands.

And a Fatwa has been put out on the life of Wilders himself. This is no empty threat; another Dutch filmmaker, Theo Vah Gogh (a descendant of Vincent’s family) was murdered after he made a film entitled “Submission”, about the physical and mental abuse that women often suffer in Islamic societies. The film was well received by some, but caused an uproar in Muslim communities.

As a result, on November 2nd 2004, a Muslim extremist named Mohammed Bouyeri murdered Van Gogh in Amsterdam as he cycled to work. Bouyeri shot Van Gogh eight times, slashed his throat (almost to the point of decapitation) and stabbed him in the chest. He also left a note pinned to the body, threatening jihad against Jews and Western governments. That was the climate in which Wilders made his own, arguably more controversial film.

Considering the circumstances, it seems very difficult for any non-religious person to side with Wilders’ film. Certainly, yes, it only presents one side of the story, but regardless of the film, the evidence seems highly stacked in favour of his argument. Fitna‘s featured preachers unequivocally desire conflict against the kuffars (non-believers) and believe that Islam can and should be the world’s sole religion.

The problem is that religious intolerance is considered such an awful taboo, such anathema to the mores of Western civilization, that it allows hate speech, indoctrination and mob mentality to exist untouched as long as it poses as the free expression of religious tenets. This allows aspects of fundamentalism to insinuate themselves into mainstream culture.

Islam is just one example of this phenomenon; Christian fundamentalism is rife in the USA; children are sent to camps to learn total submission to antiquated Catholic values. They speak in glossolalia and shed tears of joy, believing themselves to be conduits of the good Lord’s will. Of course, this all has practical uses, it creates an army of non-questioning youths who disdain abortion, divorce, sex before marriage etc; and who support totally the actions of a Christian president who wants to spread democracy overseas.

(Indeed, there’s been a lot of controversy recently about Barack Obama’s preacher, Jeremiah Wright, mainly because he has stated that 9/11 was a direct result of US’ interference with Middle Eastern nations. The very idea that America may have actually been partially responsible for the attacks that day is abhorrent to good American Christians, so they call the man a “traitor”.)

I don’t think that any religion is immune to this phenomenon (except possibly Buddhism, which embraces the questioning of even its most sacred beliefs), and Islam tends to enforce its rules with particular brutality. And it does so at the expense of countries that allow it to flourish. Indeed, the tremendous hypocrisy is that it abuses the open laws of countries that allow people of varying religions to settle there. They are allowed to practice their religions unmolested, and then preach hatred against the openness of the very cultures that allow them the freedoms of speech to do so in the first place.

I’m aware that it’s quite difficult to make this argument without getting into countrified “Not In My Back Yard” moralities. But there is a line. For example, the Latvian government recently jailed an Englishman for urinating on the Freedom Monument in Riga. The Freedom Monument is a tribute to those who fought and died in the Latvian War of Independence, and some drunken guy taking a piss on it was a terrible insult to the Latvian people. The Latvian foreign minister called the English “pigs” and threw the man in jail. And there was no international condemnation of the action.

On the other hand, when an English teacher in the Sudan allowed a class to name a teddy bear “Mohammad”, she was convicted of “insulting religion, inciting hatred and showing contempt for religious beliefs” by Islamic authorities. She was sentenced to 15 days in jail and was deported upon release. Not only that, but

“…approximately 400 protesters took to the streets, some of them waving swords and machetes, demanding Gibbons’s execution after imams denounced her during Friday prayers. During the march, chants of “Shame, shame on the UK”, “No tolerance – execution” and “Kill her, kill her by firing squad” were heard. Witnesses reported that government employees were involved in inciting the protests.” Wikipedia

Wanting to end someone’s life because of the name they gave a teddy bear suggests something more to me than simple religious offence. I think that many people, and certainly those who subscribe to the fundamentalist aspects of any religion, are assuming a personality type; the kind that tends towards the total abdication of individual responsibility.

True responsibility is an imposing prospect. It involves a lot of work. It involves searching the Gods, quite literally, for the meaning of life. It involves the realization that everyone else’s actions make just as much sense to them as yours do to you. It involves the admission that you, and you alone, are responsible for your actions; if you insult your friend, beat your wife, kill someone, it’s because you chose to do it, not because some ancient text gave you permission. It’s liberating, but it also deletes a huge portion of one’s ego and cuts you adrift from the woolly cotton braids of what at least purports to be “tradition”.

In that sense, it’s interesting that the word Islam actually means “submission”. Because that’s what fundamentalism demands. And it’s attractive. It entices so many because it offers the promise of an easier life. It offers a psychological return to the womb, where some all-powerful entity will provide you with all you need to survive; you don’t need to make any decisions for yourself, because everything has been already decided for you.

The problem with that, though, is that when these people see others taking responsibility for their lives, exploring the wonders and limits of existence, it drives them hog-wild. It wounds them so deeply because in their heart of hearts, they know that they are missing out. If there is any spark of human curiosity left in them, it flares up and reminds them that they have cravenly abandoned their duties. It’s like ol’ Fred Nietszche says; “Fear is the mother of morality”.

It seems similar, to me at least, to the actions of the classic sociopath. This person indulges in anti-social behaviour, but, when confronted with the the truth (or any criticism whatsoever) of their actions, reacts with furious disdain. It’s similar to a child who has been caught lying, but who continues lying to maintain their innocence. They know they’re in the wrong, and the only way they can react is with anger, tears and even violence.

Fortunately for religious zealots, this anger, these tears and violence can be channeled through the untouchable medium of religious outrage. Claiming insult of one’s theistic persuasion is thus used as the basis to lash out at others for any and all of man’s frailties; sexual frustration, mortality, depression, fear. All of this encourages a regression to tribalism – mob mentalities that rail against centuries of progress in racial integration. The non-believers are less worthy than believers, and that’s non-negotiable.

To reiterate, this is certainly not confined to Islam. And like other religions, Islam has an introspective, mystic tradition that encourages reflection, non-violence and self-discovery (Sufism). Christianity had a similar tradition, known as Gnosticism. In fact, it could be argued that religion regularly seems to reflect different personalities, or at least, personalities at different levels of maturity. People are drawn to whatever aspects of  their religion that tend to echo their own beliefs and experiences. If you desire peace and love, both Christianity and Islam can be argued to justify that. If you want violence and bloodshed, both can be argued to justify that, too.

(I wonder if so many of these old religious texts, written in such vague aphorisms, are actually meant to be gauges of man’s maturity as a civilization. Since they seem to be textual Rorschach tests, people tend to draw from them what they will; love, hatred, peace, violence, whatever.)

But what if the believers in violence and bloodshed start to encroach on the progress of peace? Well, that’s the heart of the problem; the cultures that have embraced racial and religious integration are slow to do anything for fear of violating their own democratic ideals. In doing so, they may allow hate speech to flow and the warlike traits of the collective psyche to grow.

I recently came across a proverb that went something like this:

“The problem with the world is that wise people are open-minded and unsure, but the foolish are absolutely certain.”

I think that sums it up. The heads of our democracies must be wary of and penalize those who would preach racism, insularity and violence. Doing so does not violate the tenets of democracy, it encourages them.

As I have argued, religion tends to reflect aspects of the individual personality. In the same way that the most peaceful person may sometimes feel a jolt of fury or jealousy, they must dispel these feelings instead of letting them fester and grow. But that involves a personal decision and personal action.

And it’s action that must be taken; otherwise, the fears and tribalisms can take hold from within and undo so much of the progress of personal and social evolution. Although a world of total peace and integration would be wonderful, we haven’t reached it yet. And if the road to it is left unpoliced, we never will.

f

f

Further Viewing:

Geert Wilders’ “Fitna”

Channel 4 Dispatches: Undercover Mosque

Documentary featuring undercover investigation into the influence of religious extremism throughout the UK.

How To End The Carnage On Irish Roads

The Irish media has been inundated over the last few days with debate about how to deal with the dangerous driving on our country’s roads.

This has been prompted by a weekend of utter carnage in which eight people lost their lives; five men, one woman and two children. And though this is a particularly high statistic for a single weekend, it is by no means surprising; we have become accustomed to hearing about horrendous crashes and loss of life on an almost daily basis. From time to time we may wonder just how this could happen as consistently as it does. But to anyone who actually drives on these roads, the only shocking thing about the statistics is that they are not higher.

A few weeks ago I drove from Cork to Dublin to see a gig. The 3 1/2 hour drive was a horribly stressful experience. As is acknowledged daily on the national media, Irish motoring is treacherous at best. I use my car pretty much every day, and I regularly drive from Cork to Kerry. But it takes a good long journey to Dublin to really demonstrate just how bad things really are. So, I’ve decided to share with you some observations based on that trip and other experiences in the last few months.

1) The speed limits are a gentle suggestion, rather than a law. Nobody takes heed of them. If you drive at the speed limit, you will be overtaken by almost every car behind you. Fact. Not only that, but you will be invariably tailgated for miles while intolerant drivers wait for that window of opportunity to tear past you.

2) There are scumbags all over the roads driving tin missiles at ridiculous speeds. Paint me pink bigoted polka dots, but I am sick and tired of being p.c. when it comes to this issue. I am all for an inclusive society, but let’s not keep out minds so open that our brains fall out. To me, some scobe in a Honda Civic crashing at 140 kmph into an oncoming car is the same as some scobe murdering an innocent passerby with a screwdriver. These people don’t care about the consequences of their actions, how easily what they are doing can end in the wanton destruction of human life. They don’t care because it hasn’t been taught to them – and even if they do mow down some innocent pedestrian, they know perfectly well that it will be treated as a motor “accident” rather than manslaughter or murder in a court. A fine, then jail for a few months, maybe a few years. So what?

3) Just to provide an example of the above: On the way to Dublin, we stopped at the house of an acquaintance. While there, an unknown friend of that friend arrived into the house and announced, proudly, that he had just been racing a new car. “That was fastest I ever drove”, he said, “150 mph”. Just to reiterate, folks: that’s One Hundred and Fifty Miles per hour. On the main Cork to Dublin road. Now, why would this idiot walk into a room and say something like that? Simply, because he knows that he can. And that’s the typical Irish attitude; if you can get away with it, then it’s acceptable. It’s a little anecdote to share with others, even people you’ve just met.

4) Irish motorists take the stupidest risks on a regular basis. Aside from the aforementioned tailgating, the most common is overtaking at totally inappropriate places, not to mention speeds. Driving home to Kerry from Cork yesterday, my sister and I both saw, within five minutes of each other, two near-collisions on the main Cork-Mallow road. Both were approaching bends in the road, and both doing at least the speed limit. The first one, in particular actually had to swerve at the last second to avoid ploughing into oncoming traffic. And you know what? Noone blew their horns, everyone carried on as normal. Why? Because this reckless behaviour IS normal on Irish roads. This happens all the time. It is common knowledge that if you drive certain routes, you are guaranteed to see people driving like maniacs.

There is a very simple solution to all of this. And it bypasses the whole debate over whose fault it is – the RSA’s, the drivers themselves etc. Because at this point, all that is moot. The simple solution is this.

r

Ready? Here we go.

UNMARKED CARS.

Let me explain with another example. On that same stretch of road I just mentioned (Cork – Mallow), there actually was a garda presence yesterday. And it was this: A big white Garda car parked on the side of the road, barely hidden, and blatantly visible at least about 5-10 seconds before actually passing it. The SUV that had just passed me out, doing about 130 kmph, slowed down to the speed limit as it passed. About 30 seconds later it had accelerated to its original speed and soon vanished from view. That Garda car being there was totally useless. And even if he gets three penalty points and a fine, so bloody what? He can still get back in his SUV and drive away, safe in the knowledge that the odds of actually being caught again are miniscule.

If the Gardai stopped driving around in stripy white cars with the word GARDAI emblazoned across the front of it, maybe – just maybe – they’d have more chance of actually catching people breaking the law, don’t you think? Because, let’s face it, the methods they are using at the moment are all but useless.

Why, for the love of God, don’t they just go out in unmarked cars? This simple move, implemented on a wide enough basis, would have a massive impact on drivers’ behaviour. At the moment, if you speed all the way through your road trip and don’t encounter one of those big white cars, you know you’re grand. There are no repercussions whatsoever for your behaviour, and you will do it again. It becomes habit, as does all the aggression and impatience that you’ll feel when stuck behind someone actually obeying the limit.

But if that car you just overtook at 140kmph suddenly hits sirens and flashing lights, pulls you over and spits out a pair of pissed-off cops who have caught you red-handed in the act of endangering the lives of other motorists (or even if you saw this happening to someone else) – you would seriously think twice about doing it again. If there’s even the vaguest possibility that the guy in front of you doing the limit is a cop, you might at the very least wait for a safe place to overtake.

The debates raging in the media about rolling out speed cameras, making drink driving laws more strict, enforcing provisional licences etc are all basically, distractions. And Fianna Fail badly needs these distractions at the moment, because the entire transport infrastructure in this country is a complete joke. In this country, if you have to get from A to B within a certain time, then you drive. The buses are totally unreliable, expensive and the drivers are often petty little Hitlers who could care less for the people they are transporting. The train service is even worse; they are prohibitively expensive, you are not guaranteed a seat, and the service has known to actually take longer to reach their destination than buses on the same route. That’s defying the laws of physics.

These services only survive because they are government-subsidised and have a total monopoly on the industry. They go on strike whenever they want, at the drop of a hat. Hey, they even decided to pull one over the weekend! From The Belfast Telegraph:

“Iarnrod Eireann has had to cancel more services this afternoon due to unofficial industrial action by some train drivers. Ten commuter trains operating on lines through Connolly Station have been cancelled due to the action, which relates to a dispute over rosters. This morning’s 6.30am Portlaoise to Dublin train and this evening’s 5.30pm service from Dublin to Carlow had already been scrapped as a result of the row.”

“A dispute over rosters“. I think that almost every person I know who has ever worked in shift jobs has experienced disputes over rosters. But they didn’t deal with it by going on strike, because the irresponsibility of doing so would have lost them their jobs. “Unofficial industrial action” basically means that these guys can do whatever they want, whenever they want. And the government allows them to do so with impunity. There is no responsibility, no regulation, no accountability for anyone. For Christ’s sake, is it even possible for one of these guys to get fired?

I don’t mean to seem facetious. Indeed, all of this would be funny if it weren’t so intimately connected to the carnage on our roads. People are avoiding using public transport, with good cause, and this means more and more cars on our streets, roads and motorways. And the total lack of effective motor law enforcement means that the CIE credo of “no responsibility, no regulation, no accountability” swells to embrace the dangerous drivers who know that nobody will police their actions.

Because without actual physical Garda presence on the roads, in a capacity that actually puts the fear of getting caught into people, nothing will change – absolutely nothing. It is the attitudes of motorists that need to be addressed. Graphic advertisements don’t work. News reports don’t work. The Gardai have to do their jobs as protectors of the peace and get out there and start catching dangerous drivers in the act.

And if using subterfuge is the most effective way to achieve that, then so be it.