I will not try to answer your question for Lionel Hutz but I will answer for myself.

I did not say it was ME trying to justify any type of violence, it was a case of trying to understand why someone would feel the need to murder. If you talked to any one who committed violence during our Troubles “THEY” (not me) could and would argue all day long that it was a rational response to events happening around them.

Nasty, but a reality in our Country. No one should ever forget our past and it should never be swept under the rug but it should not be allowed to consume our fragile Peace Progress.

I trust your question has now been answered in an unambiguous way.

His feelings and a bob might be able to get him a coffee at Starbucks, but that’s about all their good for. And, yes, his “re-contextualizing” of Republican violence was, at its base, shellacking a turd. And, yes, his notion that there is possibly any “rational explanation” or “mitigation” for the murder of a couple of teenage boys and their grandfather is unreasonable on its face.

As for the rest, I’ll ask you the same question that Lionel can’t answer — what possible rational mitigation can there be for blowing up a grandfather, his grandson, a 15 year old deck-hand and an 83 year old woman? You keep telling me that I am somehow unreasonable for looking askance at this notion, but no one seems to have the faith in their position to answer that question. You seem to think it is unfair that I present a loaded example to test this mitigation nonsense — and, frankly, that is what meant when someone mewls “that’s a cheap shot.”

I’m not the one trying to put a smiley face on either the present idiocy of the current politics, nor the murders of the past. Call me old-fashioned and uptight, but I really don’t see any “mitigation” or “rational response” in killing grandfathers and children or killing non-combatants in soft-target hits.

I am, however, tired of folks trying to “re-contextualize” and “mitigate” what happened with happy little platitudes and mealy-mouthed conflict resolution psycho-babble.

Not off the cuff, but it has to better than this make-work idiocy of the current Executive. As a minimum, a failed government, followed by an election, would give the populace a chance to make their opinions known. The failure of an iteration of the Executive needn’t be fatal to the process, as you seem to assume. In fact, failure followed by a new election — in other words, something that happens in normal countries, would be a confidence builder.

Lionel Hutz: “That may be part of the reason, but I would suggest that this is only happening because the devolution envisaged by the GFA and SAA have not been fully envisaged yet.”

The agreement wasn’t envisioned with Smilin’ Gerry and the Rev. Dr. No running the show, either. I wouldn’t trust this collection of geeks and freaks with rounded kiddie scissors, based on their past performance, let alone the current gridlock.

Lionel Hutz: “You’re taking Stephen’s comment out of context, he meant it was whataboutery!”

For starters, Stephen’s kvetch really is neither here nor there — you suggested a standard — we should listen to their explanation and try to empathize with the murdering bastards. Now, glossing over the fact that PIRA hasn’t exactly been forth-coming in the whys and wherefores of their murders, I accepted your standard and challenged its validity, based on the circumstances of the Mountbatten murder. I would disagree that this is “whataboutery,” insofar as it is your proposed standard. I am merely proposing a test case for your standard. Now, I will freely cop to cherry-picking the test case, but this standard you propose has to withstand all the misdeeds of all parties.

Lionel Hutz: “I don’t believe an eye for an eye is gonna work with NI. In any democratic society, we don’t pass sentence until we hear mitigation”

And I ask again, what could possibly “mitigation” could there be for killing a couple of children and their grandfather?

When Lionel Hutz expressed his feelings on why republicians took up violence during some reminiscing about his Mother & Father being disenfranchised and discriminated against, your response was to imply that Lionel was trying to rationalize what was done. L. Hutz denied your riposte and went on to define rational and irrational thoughts as human traits.

As far as I am aware, the human species holds the rights to rational and irrational thoughts. This is when you took “a cheap shot” by highlighting nasty events from our past. I do admit you had the right to express those views but you had already lost your arguement but not to be outwitted you resorted to the emotive card.

Just because you think something is irrational does not mean everyone else will. If you did, that would make you self righteous.

After I said it was a cheap shot you then proceeded to insinuate that I called you a liar and that I wanted everyone to stop talking about all the murders and I also wanted to sweep uncomfortable truth under the rug. These notions of what i was saying come from you andonly you, i never came close to expressing these opinions.

When you came up with the word “unfair” and atributed it to me, then went on to make snide remarks like, “Instead, here you are, saying I’m being less than fair and peppering your post with exclamation points. “Fair” is a playground word and you getting self-righteous and emotional does nothing to strengthen your arguments—school-boy histrionics just don’t impress.” I did feel less than impressed myself!

It is good to know that P&J will happen and it would be great if more people would catsh up with modern Northern Ireland instead of living in the past. The past must be dealt with comprehensively to secure our future but we must not let our past dictate our future. Night!

Sorry I have not responded, had to go to bed, now work, reply later.

Dread,

I have to disagree. Failure is the best teacher

Do you have any evidence for this statement? Can you provide an historical example of where a sectarian conflict has given way to a settlement of majority rule, or voluntary coalition, which has not resulted in bloodshed? It didn’t work in NI after partition, why would it have worked in 1998?

The reason the DUP and SF fight so hard over such small stakes is that they have so little to lose in failing. They can holler and posture and play games of brinkmanship because regardless of whatever happens, the UK and RoI will prop them up, regardless of how stupidly they act.

That may be part of the reason, but I would suggest that this is only happening because the devolution envisaged by the GFA and SAA have not been fully envisaged yet. Stormount is not falling over bread a butter issues. The 11+ debacle didn’t even take it down. When devolution is fully rolled out and this starts to occur because of bread and butter issues, i’ll agree with you. Until then, I believe you are looking at this too simplistically.

Ah, but that is “unfair” and “a cheap shot,” according to Stephen—too horrible to even mention, let alone something that someone could expect PIRA to explain. Likewise, I don’t seem to recall PIRA permitting those aboard the yacht such niceties as a full and complete hearing.

You’re taking Stephen’s comment out of context, he meant it was whataboutery! I don’t believe an eye for an eye is gonna work with NI. In any democratic society, we don’t pass sentence until we hear mitigation. We have to hear it, investigate and examine it and understand it. But this is a seperate issue…

Back to the mandatory coalition:

Mason

In answer to your response to my earlier post, no electoral system is perfect, but at least other systems, however imperfect, don’t have a pre-determined result

Thats hardly correct, the government today is vastly different than in 1998. The people still have a choice over who really leads this country, its just also have to respect the diversity of the electorate.

You criticize the UK system, but every constituency elects the most popular candidate and the formation of a government requires the support of a majority of those elected

Thats a very cleverly constructed sentence. Ofcourse you are correct, but the formation of the government does not require and in fact has rarely attracted the support of the majority of the elecorate.

Would you prefer the U.S. system which in 2000 gave the Presidency (and therefore control over the U.S. nuclear arsenal) to the candidate who got fewer votes?

Yes, quite simply, its by far more democratic. Its not perfect but George Bush got more votes than Tony Blair ever got. And the American’s actually vote for Bush, whereas Blair only got votes from his own constituency. And also, the electoral college only elect the president. The sovereign power, Congress, gets two separate elections. Thats democracy!

In all seriousness,the people have spoken argument doesn’t work in a fragmented society. The poeple do not have a collective voice, and there is no point in considering NI as a single nation as the two communities have different nationalities. The wishes of both communities, so long as they are so fragmented, have to be recognised.

Also the GFa and St Andrews Agreement do not guarantee places for IRA leaders and its not to appease them. The agreements guarantee that every substantial part of the electorate, if you have around 10% or more, will have a say in government. If Sinn Fein lose the debate amongst nationalists, they dont govern. UNfortunately they are winning it, and who are you to undermine that democracy1

Would you prefer the U.S. system which in 2000 gave the Presidency (and therefore control over the U.S. nuclear arsenal) to the candidate who got fewer votes?

You ask me what I would think if we had a voluntary coalition form of government at Stormont and this threw up, say, a coalition of UUP, Alliance and SF? I would adopt the attitude of an American politician (whose name escapes me) who, on losing an election, said: “The people have spoken. The bastards!” In other words, I would hate it and work democratically for a different result in the next election, but if was arrived at freely, I would, as a democrat, have to accept it.

The irony of democracy is that fitness for government requires a willingness to accept opposition if you lose. (And please spare us the arguments that Northern Ireland is a gerrymandered state with a built-in Unionist majority: single-party (or single-philosophy) government is long since consigned to history. The only large-scale gerrymandering going on here now is courtesy of the GFA/St A. Agreement which essentially guarantees places in government for IRA leaders to appease them. Democracy? I don’t think so.

I have to disagree. Failure is the best teacher, while over-reliance on crutches merely breeds dependence on those crutches. The reason the DUP and SF fight so hard over such small stakes is that they have so little to lose in failing. They can holler and posture and play games of brinkmanship because regardless of whatever happens, the UK and RoI will prop them up, regardless of how stupidly they act.

Lionel Hutz: “And those who use voluntary coalition as a cover for the wish to disenfranchise sinn féin voters are disingenuous. I suspect you know that.”

Hell, I’d say you’re being polite by pretending they have cover.

SF has the problem that, as the one major party that was explicitly aligned with a terrorist organization, they have at least twice had the spectacle of being in government while their hard-men have killed folks — it makes rationalizing their presence a little difficult to stomach in some quarters, as you might imagine.

Lionel Hutz: “Of course all acts of violence have to be acknowledged. And before condemning comes in you have to hear the explanation and try to understand otherwise it’s just finger pointing. For example, a wife kills her husband, does the judge hand down the sentence straight away? No. Because it just might be that she was abused for decades. That’s an analogy by the way, I’m not equating it. The point is, everything has to be heard, examined and understood.”

Ah, but that is “unfair” and “a cheap shot,” according to Stephen — too horrible to even mention, let alone something that someone could expect PIRA to explain. Likewise, I don’t seem to recall PIRA permitting those aboard the yacht such niceties as a full and complete hearing.

Please, by all means, tell me what crime the grandson committed that blowing his up was a “rational” response. What horrible misdeed did the fifteen year old deck-hand commit that would make his death “understandable?” PIRA blew them up with no more feeling than a man swatting flies or picking weevils out of a biscuit, evidenced by Gerry’s bland comment in the aftermath. I’m not even sure they’d be able to sell “it seemed like a good idea at the time.”

Despite all evidence to the contrary?

Lionel Hutz: “It boggles my mind but I honestly believe these voters do, partly because they think that are best placed to get the best deal for them. Sinn Fein are showing their inadequacy, DUP are just lucky that SF are so inept since they castrated any bargaining chips they had. ”

So, despite the obvious, the electorate still waiting for Santa Claus…

So it’s not ready yet. That’s the point. It’ll be 20 or 30 years before they are. The brinkmanship must end first. The learning curve is better completed with the training wheels on. There’ll be less blood spilled that way. And those who use voluntary coalition as a cover for the wish to disenfranchise sinn féin voters are disingenuous. I suspect you know that.

This was the point I made last night about NI being unusual in managing to sustain peace with a new democratic model. The mandatory coalition was successful and the need is still there

a response to dreads post at 6
Somehow, when dealing with terrorists, I doubt turning the other cheek accomplishes very much.  Additionally, given Stephen’s reaction, even mentioning the action seems to be “a cheap shot” in some quarters…  Before they can be condemned (and, by your own admission, there is no shortage of Republicans unwilling to condemn them) you first have to be willing to acknowledge them, would you not agree?< \I>

And, yet, you see no impediment or problem coming from Republicans electing terrorists to represent them in the halls of government.  The terrorist is celebrate and you accept the celebration, despite your claim of not being able to stand them. 

Again you’ve taken my comment out of context. The context is the part you quoted directly below and I explain why I think Sinn Fein’s popularity grew.

Except, after the initial feel-good “the future is ours,” progress hasn’t really progressed.  While I will allow that it isn’t all the executive’s fault, a good chunk of this failure to move has been—the electorate chose from the tails of the political curve, not the middle and the predictable outcome—gridlock—has been the result.  Great symbolism, but sometimes it is a dangerous thing to be too symbol minded.< \i>

I would agree with this but I would add that this doesn’t mean that the electorate do not genuinly believe that the tail ends are the best to make progress. It boggles my mind but I honestly believe these voters do, partly because they think that are best placed to get the best deal for them. Sinn Fein are showing their inadequacy, DUP are just lucky that SF are so inept since they castrated any bargaining chips they had.

Still throwing toys out of the pram, I see…

First of all, Lionel Hutz did not blog, he commented.

Second of all, his comment was a rationalization of terrorism. By bringing up the uglier incidents, I was examining / testing his sincerity, at least as far as one can, via this medium. I may disagree with him, but at least he is willing to stand on his chosen ground and accept the inevitable slings and arrows that come from his chosen position, all without throwing a tantrum or complaining that he’s not being treated “fairly.”

Life is, by its nature, is unfair. Plan accordingly.

I said it had a few benefits, i.e. stating the obvious. “Preferring” the current set-up is essentially admitting that the voters of N.I. are constitutionally incapable of handling grown-up politics.

Normal parliamentary politics would require folks work with one another, as opposed to the current game of brinkmanship, veto and grid-lock. Admittedly, given the current crop of politicos, I’d expect that N.I. would change governments at a rate that would put the Italians to shame, but that would be part of the learning curve. Frankly, I think the current crop of politicos could foul up a wet dream, given more than half a chance, regardless of the system used.

You took Lionel Hutz blog out of context and you are certainly not a person that should talk about anyone being self-righteous!!!!!!!!!!

It would have the benefit of being normal Parliamentary democracy, without the training wheels.

Its much better than the UK system, the only “democracy” that I know of where 40% of the vote can result in a landslide majority for one party, which then have automatic right to govern and use their “majority” to push through whatever they please. A Great Model.

Its much better than the UK system, the only “democracy” I know were 40% of the vote can result in a landslide majority one party that then have automatic right to govern and use their “majority” to push through whatever they.

There are problems with D’Hondt ofcourse. Can I ask you though, if the DUP pissed everyone off and the UUP, SDLP and Sinn Fein decided to enter into a voluntary coalition would u like it. Or supposing by the next assembly election, Sinn Fein, SDLP and Alliance could make a majority, would you prefer that?

I assume you are unionist as Ive never heard of a nationalist speaking of a voluntary coalition. The Unionist support for the idea is predicated on the notion that the only ‘side’ of the community that could form a voluntary coalition would be the unionists. Well at the moment, UUP and DUP couldn’t do it on their own, they would require a third party. I’m just curious, what would your government look like.