I will keep on saying this until I am blue in the face and the cows have come home, the death penalty is wrong. I don’t care how a country carries it out wether it is lethal injection, electrocution, hanging, stoning or a bullet in the head. It is wrong! This isn’t about me being pro life, this is about morals and standards.
I also question the need to have numerous witnesses including the media there to watch the execution. I always thought that going to court and watching a criminal being convicted and sentenced was to show that justice had been served. Why then do we need to have the victims family there at the execution? It can’t be to see that justice is served or the prison system would be open to any and all visitors so they could check that the people convicted are actually in prison. A morbid curiosity? quite possibly. Could it be closure? Again quite possibly but executing someone does not bring the original victim back, I don’t believe for one minute it ends any pain or grief. Someone needs to explain the logic of this to me.
I do not believe there is any faith or religion that has ever existed that says it is okay to kill another person. If you actually believe that an eye for an eye is an acceptable form of justice. Then you have no right to preach against others who fall far below the acceptable level of human rights that everyone is entitled to.
Yes the person being executed does suffer, I agree that this may not be anywhere close to the suffering of their victims. We can start with the build up to the execution which can take years, the final meal (something else I can’t work out), being taken into the death chamber followed by the process of execution. Death isn’t always instant and you can’t expect me to believe that there isn’t any pain involved.
I am not here to preach forgiveness, it is a great person who can truly forgive another for taking a loved ones life. I just think that as we approach 2011 there isn’t a place in this world for the death penalty, there are numerous other ways that justice can be served.
Friday, 24 September 2010
Thursday, 16 September 2010
The Pope's visit to the UK
Today sees the first state visit to the United Kingdom and the the first visit by a pope in 28 years. The Pope has been invited by her majesty so it is a state visit, he is also here as the head of the Catholic church. The Holy Father will be here for four days and will be visiting Edinburgh, Glasgow, London and Birmingham.
Whilst I may be struggling with my faith I consider myself a progressive Catholic. I believe that faiths and religion can be a part of society but it needs to be part of a progressive society. I do find solace and some peace within the church at times but I do differ and at times I am very strongly against some of the views and teachings of the church. Contraception is one point where I just can’t agree with the Church. It isn’t wrong to use contraception and never will be, I would rather someone use the pill or another form of contraception than bring an unwanted child into the world.
I have been and continue to be very frustrated with the way the church has been dealing with cases of abuse by priests. I really wish they would be very decisive and take more action against these priests. The Holy Father apologising and meeting victims of abuse to understand their suffering is not enough, people need to see action. This all over shadows the good the Catholic Church does do around the world. People will only see the negative, especially when action is either non existent or very slow to occur. Likewise I wish some of the senior clergy would keep their views about this country to themselves.
I do have very mixed views about this state visit by the Holy Father, and like it or not it is a state visit. In times of very savage spending cuts I wonder if the state can afford to pay the twelve million pounds it is paying towards this visit. We are all paying for something that is only going to benefit a few. I can’t remember any other state visit which involved the invited person touring the country and only a brief amount of time with her majesty. As I have previously said the Catholic Church does have views and teachings which are very much out of touch with today’s society. As this is a state visit are these views then reinforced?
As a Catholic I am delighted that the Holy Father is visiting the United Kingdom and I hope that his visit does in a very small part start to heal the gaping wounds left by the abuse scandal. If this is part of the reason for his visit then I would strongly suggest that the Holy Father needs to visit Ireland as a matter of priority. I hope his visit does bring people together and personally I would have liked to have been at one of the masses.
I have so far watched the start of his visit via the BBC news website and was left feeling distinctly underwhelmed by it. Yes there were crowds but not nearly as much as I believe people were anticipating. This may change at the weekend and we may see far bigger crowds in London, I am really not sure though.
Whilst I may be struggling with my faith I consider myself a progressive Catholic. I believe that faiths and religion can be a part of society but it needs to be part of a progressive society. I do find solace and some peace within the church at times but I do differ and at times I am very strongly against some of the views and teachings of the church. Contraception is one point where I just can’t agree with the Church. It isn’t wrong to use contraception and never will be, I would rather someone use the pill or another form of contraception than bring an unwanted child into the world.
I have been and continue to be very frustrated with the way the church has been dealing with cases of abuse by priests. I really wish they would be very decisive and take more action against these priests. The Holy Father apologising and meeting victims of abuse to understand their suffering is not enough, people need to see action. This all over shadows the good the Catholic Church does do around the world. People will only see the negative, especially when action is either non existent or very slow to occur. Likewise I wish some of the senior clergy would keep their views about this country to themselves.
I do have very mixed views about this state visit by the Holy Father, and like it or not it is a state visit. In times of very savage spending cuts I wonder if the state can afford to pay the twelve million pounds it is paying towards this visit. We are all paying for something that is only going to benefit a few. I can’t remember any other state visit which involved the invited person touring the country and only a brief amount of time with her majesty. As I have previously said the Catholic Church does have views and teachings which are very much out of touch with today’s society. As this is a state visit are these views then reinforced?
As a Catholic I am delighted that the Holy Father is visiting the United Kingdom and I hope that his visit does in a very small part start to heal the gaping wounds left by the abuse scandal. If this is part of the reason for his visit then I would strongly suggest that the Holy Father needs to visit Ireland as a matter of priority. I hope his visit does bring people together and personally I would have liked to have been at one of the masses.
I have so far watched the start of his visit via the BBC news website and was left feeling distinctly underwhelmed by it. Yes there were crowds but not nearly as much as I believe people were anticipating. This may change at the weekend and we may see far bigger crowds in London, I am really not sure though.
Wednesday, 15 September 2010
Art
I have a question for you, when does art stop becoming art and become say for example porn? When does art become offensive? Nudity has been used in art for many hundreds of years now wether it be painting, drawing or sculpture. From the start I have to say I do not have a problem with nudity in art. I have a piece called Lioness by David Charles hanging on one of my walls which features a naked woman. I have another print called Bondage Ballet 4 by John Tisbury.
There are a huge amount of people on a website called DievantArt who seem to think if they take a photo of a naked person it is called art. On a daily basis there are a huge amount of pictures of various body parts and women in sexual positions taken using poor quality cameras and mobile phones that people seem to think is art. It isn’t and never will be art. Some of you will be saying by now that art is in the beholder. True but just because someone takes a picture of a naked lady doesn’t make it art.
Ireland surprises me, it really does. Everytime I go there my interest in the arts tends to increase and develop. You may think that Ireland is a very conservative place and in some cases you may be right. Within the arts and particularly performance art they seem to be pushing the boundaries more and more.
My first real experience would be with a performance artist called Amanda Coogan who uses her body and nudity in her work. It isn’t sexual nudity but it does leave very little to the imagination. I respect her and her work even if sometimes I have to spend a while working out some of her pieces.
A few years ago I went to see a contemporary dance at the project arts centre in Dublin which featured the peformers stripping to their underwear towards the end of the performance. Again nothing wrong with this and in the context of the dance it made sense.
There is a piece called Barbed Hula by Sigalit Landau which is a two minute video of her using a barbed hula. Again this has full frontal nudity and as she is using barbed wire obvious injury. Is this art? Well Tracy Emin thought so. I would have to agree with her.
I was looking on the Project Arts centre website to see what they had on over the next few months and found another dance piece called The Work The work created by Emma Fitzgerald and Aine Stapleton. The difference with this dance is that it has full nudity in it and scenes of an explicit nature. I found a review of this work in the New York times and reading through it the scences of an explicit nature include masturbation. Below is a quote taken directly from the review by Roslyn Sulcas:
The Work The Work,” which ended on Saturday, is no exception, but takes things up a notch near the beginning when the women lie down and masturbate so mechanically and emotionlessly as to strip any eroticism from the act. Before and after, they move with indeterminate small gestures and bent-legged walks, often close to the whitewashed brick walls of the performance space
Reffering back to my original question which was when does art stop becoming art and becomes for example porn? Masturbation is a sexual act, you can strip away all the emotion, do something mechanically and try to remove all of the eroticism but it is still a sexual act.
Does this make this porn? It has full nudity and a sexual act it in so if we simplify things then the answer must be yes. However, if we look at the whole picture then I would have to say no it isn’t. You have to look at it within the context of the performance, is it being portraid as a sexual act within the context of the performance? No it isn’t, as the review says they have stripped all of the eroticism from the act. If it was porn then the New York Times wouldn’t be reviewing it, likewise the authorities and the Project Arts centre in Ireland wouldn’t be allowing the show to go ahead.
I have watched The Dog of all Creation which again has both dancers naked in it, my first reaction was why are they naked? It didn’t do anything to enhance their performance but then again it didn’t take away from the performance. It wasn’t sexual, it just seemed to be dance without barriers. You have to have a huge amount of confidence to do something like that infront of strangers and I really don’t think it would work for everyone.
Art is something that is constantly evolving, the boundaries should be pushed and tested by artists. Society itself will deem what is and what isn’t acceptable. Art is supposed to create a reaction and emotions, art should make you think and create debate.
www.projectartscentre.ie/
www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/arts/dance/25work.html?_r=1
There are a huge amount of people on a website called DievantArt who seem to think if they take a photo of a naked person it is called art. On a daily basis there are a huge amount of pictures of various body parts and women in sexual positions taken using poor quality cameras and mobile phones that people seem to think is art. It isn’t and never will be art. Some of you will be saying by now that art is in the beholder. True but just because someone takes a picture of a naked lady doesn’t make it art.
Ireland surprises me, it really does. Everytime I go there my interest in the arts tends to increase and develop. You may think that Ireland is a very conservative place and in some cases you may be right. Within the arts and particularly performance art they seem to be pushing the boundaries more and more.
My first real experience would be with a performance artist called Amanda Coogan who uses her body and nudity in her work. It isn’t sexual nudity but it does leave very little to the imagination. I respect her and her work even if sometimes I have to spend a while working out some of her pieces.
A few years ago I went to see a contemporary dance at the project arts centre in Dublin which featured the peformers stripping to their underwear towards the end of the performance. Again nothing wrong with this and in the context of the dance it made sense.
There is a piece called Barbed Hula by Sigalit Landau which is a two minute video of her using a barbed hula. Again this has full frontal nudity and as she is using barbed wire obvious injury. Is this art? Well Tracy Emin thought so. I would have to agree with her.
I was looking on the Project Arts centre website to see what they had on over the next few months and found another dance piece called The Work The work created by Emma Fitzgerald and Aine Stapleton. The difference with this dance is that it has full nudity in it and scenes of an explicit nature. I found a review of this work in the New York times and reading through it the scences of an explicit nature include masturbation. Below is a quote taken directly from the review by Roslyn Sulcas:
The Work The Work,” which ended on Saturday, is no exception, but takes things up a notch near the beginning when the women lie down and masturbate so mechanically and emotionlessly as to strip any eroticism from the act. Before and after, they move with indeterminate small gestures and bent-legged walks, often close to the whitewashed brick walls of the performance space
Reffering back to my original question which was when does art stop becoming art and becomes for example porn? Masturbation is a sexual act, you can strip away all the emotion, do something mechanically and try to remove all of the eroticism but it is still a sexual act.
Does this make this porn? It has full nudity and a sexual act it in so if we simplify things then the answer must be yes. However, if we look at the whole picture then I would have to say no it isn’t. You have to look at it within the context of the performance, is it being portraid as a sexual act within the context of the performance? No it isn’t, as the review says they have stripped all of the eroticism from the act. If it was porn then the New York Times wouldn’t be reviewing it, likewise the authorities and the Project Arts centre in Ireland wouldn’t be allowing the show to go ahead.
I have watched The Dog of all Creation which again has both dancers naked in it, my first reaction was why are they naked? It didn’t do anything to enhance their performance but then again it didn’t take away from the performance. It wasn’t sexual, it just seemed to be dance without barriers. You have to have a huge amount of confidence to do something like that infront of strangers and I really don’t think it would work for everyone.
Art is something that is constantly evolving, the boundaries should be pushed and tested by artists. Society itself will deem what is and what isn’t acceptable. Art is supposed to create a reaction and emotions, art should make you think and create debate.
www.projectartscentre.ie/
www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/arts/dance/25work.html?_r=1
Tuesday, 14 September 2010
Challenging Thoughts
During my therapy sessions we are currently trying to challenge some of my most destructive thoughts and feelings. Some of them are quite evil and obviously these thoughts are not constant but when they start things tend to get quite difficult for me. I thought I would share some of them with you.
I need to self harm
No one would weep over my dead body
No one likes me
I need the release I get when I self harm
No one has ever been proud of me
I need to punish myself for failing my daughters
I haven't achieved anything.
"you are hopeless, useless, a wimp, failure" Normally said by my parents several times a day
I didn't push myself hard enough when I attempted suicide, therefore I am a failure
Evil aren't they, some of them are just fucked up? Most of them are easy enough to challenge when I am thinking straight and logically, even when I am not thinking straight and wobbling I am able to dismiss some of them. There are some though that are pure evil and they are the ones I am working on at the moment.
I need to self harm
No one would weep over my dead body
No one likes me
I need the release I get when I self harm
No one has ever been proud of me
I need to punish myself for failing my daughters
I haven't achieved anything.
"you are hopeless, useless, a wimp, failure" Normally said by my parents several times a day
I didn't push myself hard enough when I attempted suicide, therefore I am a failure
Evil aren't they, some of them are just fucked up? Most of them are easy enough to challenge when I am thinking straight and logically, even when I am not thinking straight and wobbling I am able to dismiss some of them. There are some though that are pure evil and they are the ones I am working on at the moment.
Monday, 13 September 2010
Perfection Part 2
Perfection is something we all attain to in life. It is the ultimate achievement for a person in life. What exactly is perfection, can perfection be universal? how does one achieve perfection?
Perfection is defined as a state of completeness and flawlessness. Fair enough but can it be universal? This must depend on the people defining it. Allow me to give some examples to you.
A diamond is perfect isn’t it? Most people would say yes but in reality this isn’t the case. A diamond can and does have internal flaws so unless you buy an exceptionally expensive and rare internally flawless diamond then it can’t truly be called perfect.
My daughters were perfect. Yes even my eldest daughter with her over developed cheeks. Others may look at a slimy tiny baby with over developed cheeks and think completely different (although they would be wrong in my daughters case). Anyone who has had children is going to think their babies are perfect.
Get a hundred percent on a test and you will have achieved perfection. You can’t do any better can you? In theory no you can’t but we need to look at the wider picture. To truly achieve perfection in an academic subject you need to achieve one hundred percent at the highest level. This doesn’t take away from your achievement but how many times have you heard on the news reports of people claiming G.C.S.E’s and A levels are getting easier.
Classical music and the opera. A soprano achieving the highest note in an aria may move someone to tears. Is this perfection? You may leave the performance thinking that the soprano has achieved perfection by hitting F7 which would be a compliment to the performer. However is it really perfection? Scientifically hitting the right note at the right pitch could be called perfect but it isn’t beautiful. Most performers are always looking for ways to improve so achieving perfection is impossible.
One can’t judge oneself perfect, only others may do that. Perfection is what most people desire for but most if not all will never actually realise. The desire to improve oneself is fundemental to most people, my question is that if you do achieve perfection then what?
Perfection is defined as a state of completeness and flawlessness. Fair enough but can it be universal? This must depend on the people defining it. Allow me to give some examples to you.
A diamond is perfect isn’t it? Most people would say yes but in reality this isn’t the case. A diamond can and does have internal flaws so unless you buy an exceptionally expensive and rare internally flawless diamond then it can’t truly be called perfect.
My daughters were perfect. Yes even my eldest daughter with her over developed cheeks. Others may look at a slimy tiny baby with over developed cheeks and think completely different (although they would be wrong in my daughters case). Anyone who has had children is going to think their babies are perfect.
Get a hundred percent on a test and you will have achieved perfection. You can’t do any better can you? In theory no you can’t but we need to look at the wider picture. To truly achieve perfection in an academic subject you need to achieve one hundred percent at the highest level. This doesn’t take away from your achievement but how many times have you heard on the news reports of people claiming G.C.S.E’s and A levels are getting easier.
Classical music and the opera. A soprano achieving the highest note in an aria may move someone to tears. Is this perfection? You may leave the performance thinking that the soprano has achieved perfection by hitting F7 which would be a compliment to the performer. However is it really perfection? Scientifically hitting the right note at the right pitch could be called perfect but it isn’t beautiful. Most performers are always looking for ways to improve so achieving perfection is impossible.
One can’t judge oneself perfect, only others may do that. Perfection is what most people desire for but most if not all will never actually realise. The desire to improve oneself is fundemental to most people, my question is that if you do achieve perfection then what?
Dream of you
I don't normally post reviews of music but I thought I would make an exception for Sharon Corr's new album Dream of You. I remember reading in Hot Press that Sharon was working on an album many months ago, I looked for further information but couldn't find anything. I joined Twitter and have been following Sharon since day one, she followed me back and we have tweeted several times.
The album itself was released on the 10th September in Ireland and today in the UK. I believe it is also being released worldwide over the next few weeks. My first thought of the album is that this is a very mature album. I had very high expectations for this album and it doesn't disappoint me. In a way it reminds me of White Ladder by David Gray which for me can only be a good thing! It is very chilled out but you can almost fell the pain being expressed in parts of the album. Real world would be an example of this.
I tweeted over the weekend that I believed that Sharon's album would go higher in the charts than Andrea's did. Listening to it, I have no doubt that this is the case and it will do. Andrea's album was good but Dream of You is great, I am sure Andrea would be happy and proud to see this.
Would I recommend that you buy this album? Without a doubt I would.
Michael
The album itself was released on the 10th September in Ireland and today in the UK. I believe it is also being released worldwide over the next few weeks. My first thought of the album is that this is a very mature album. I had very high expectations for this album and it doesn't disappoint me. In a way it reminds me of White Ladder by David Gray which for me can only be a good thing! It is very chilled out but you can almost fell the pain being expressed in parts of the album. Real world would be an example of this.
I tweeted over the weekend that I believed that Sharon's album would go higher in the charts than Andrea's did. Listening to it, I have no doubt that this is the case and it will do. Andrea's album was good but Dream of You is great, I am sure Andrea would be happy and proud to see this.
Would I recommend that you buy this album? Without a doubt I would.
Michael
Wednesday, 8 September 2010
Money, giving to charity and the recession
We are a charitable lot aren't we? We really are! At times seeing the response to calls for help from charities and organisations in times of major disaster makes me feel proud. I have personally worked in call centres taking donations for Children in Need and the response is overwhelming. Give yourselves a round of applause, pat on the back and hugs all round.
Now thanks to the banks and various other institutions we have had a credit crunch and a recession. This means that companies are going into administration, people are loosing their jobs, money is tight, banks are being given tanker loads of our money and governments are having to make cuts to everything because they are up to their eye balls in debt.
This means that charities and other organisations are having their funding cut and losing donations. This means that there are now a huge amount of people screaming for money, donations and help. The world they knew has ended but they still need money. I know where I live I get bags and leaflets posted through the door on a daily basis asking for donations. Walk through the city centre and you can guarantee that someone will try and stop me to get me to sign up to give monthly donations. They can be fairly aggressive and I have resorted to telling one of these people to fuck off after he grabbed me.
In these hard times the best piece of advice I can give you is be selfish. It is silly giving money to charity for five minutes of self satisfaction if you then can't afford to put food on the table or clothes on your back. Regardless of how desperate their situation seems to be, there is no point putting yourself in their position by donating what you can't afford to give.
If you have time spare then volunteer, remember giving your time is just as good as giving money. Clothes and belongings that are in a reasonable condition that you are going to throw away? Donate them! If someone stops you in the street tell them no! If you do sign up for something then realise you can't afford it then cancel the direct debit agreement. Give only what you can!
Now I am in the position where there are numerous charities and organisations that I would like to support but I can no longer afford to give to them all. I want to but it isn't realistic so I am going to have to choose which ones I will regularly support. You may want to select one charity that you have a connection with.
The charities and organisations are:
Temple Street Children's university Hospital www.templestreet.ie
Royal Hibernian Academy www.rhagallery.ie/index
National Self Harm Network www.nshn.co.uk
SANDS www.uk-sands.org
National concert hall Dublin www.nch.ie/Home.aspx
The Cathedral of St John the Baptist www.sjbcathedral.org.uk
Now thanks to the banks and various other institutions we have had a credit crunch and a recession. This means that companies are going into administration, people are loosing their jobs, money is tight, banks are being given tanker loads of our money and governments are having to make cuts to everything because they are up to their eye balls in debt.
This means that charities and other organisations are having their funding cut and losing donations. This means that there are now a huge amount of people screaming for money, donations and help. The world they knew has ended but they still need money. I know where I live I get bags and leaflets posted through the door on a daily basis asking for donations. Walk through the city centre and you can guarantee that someone will try and stop me to get me to sign up to give monthly donations. They can be fairly aggressive and I have resorted to telling one of these people to fuck off after he grabbed me.
In these hard times the best piece of advice I can give you is be selfish. It is silly giving money to charity for five minutes of self satisfaction if you then can't afford to put food on the table or clothes on your back. Regardless of how desperate their situation seems to be, there is no point putting yourself in their position by donating what you can't afford to give.
If you have time spare then volunteer, remember giving your time is just as good as giving money. Clothes and belongings that are in a reasonable condition that you are going to throw away? Donate them! If someone stops you in the street tell them no! If you do sign up for something then realise you can't afford it then cancel the direct debit agreement. Give only what you can!
Now I am in the position where there are numerous charities and organisations that I would like to support but I can no longer afford to give to them all. I want to but it isn't realistic so I am going to have to choose which ones I will regularly support. You may want to select one charity that you have a connection with.
The charities and organisations are:
Temple Street Children's university Hospital www.templestreet.ie
Royal Hibernian Academy www.rhagallery.ie/index
National Self Harm Network www.nshn.co.uk
SANDS www.uk-sands.org
National concert hall Dublin www.nch.ie/Home.aspx
The Cathedral of St John the Baptist www.sjbcathedral.org.uk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)