Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
NECESSITY ISN’T ALWAYS the mother of invention.
Lots of the things we rely on to cure our diseases, cook our meals, and sweeten our days weren’t deliberately designed.
They were just happy accidents.
Read on to see how society-shaping inventions — from Coca-Cola to penicillin and the microwave oven — came about by chance.
Inventor: Richard Jones, a naval engineer.
What he was trying to make: In 1943, Jones was trying to design a meter to monitor power on battleships.
How it was created: Jones was working with tension springs when one of them fell to the ground. The spring kept bouncing from place to place after it hit the floor — the Slinky was born.
Inventor: John Pemberton, pharmacist.
What he was trying to make: Living in Atlanta in the 1880s, Pemberton sold a syrup made of wine and coca extract he called Pemberton’s French Wine Coca, which was touted at a cure for headaches and nervous disorders.
How it was created: In 1885, Atlanta banned the sale of alcohol, so Pemberton created a purely coca-based version of the syrup to be mixed with carbonated water and drank as a soda. The result was a perfect beverage for the temperance era — a “brain tonic” called Coca-Cola.
Inventor: Ruth Wakefield, owner of the Toll House Inn.
What she was trying to make: Wakefield just wanted to make some chocolate cookies.
How it was created: While mixing a batch of cookies in 1930, Wakefield discovered she was out of baker’s chocolate. As a substitute she broke sweetened chocolate into small pieces and added them to the cookie dough. She expected the chocolate to melt, making chocolate cookies, but the little bits stuck.
Inventor: George Crum, a chef at the Carey Moon Lake House in Saratoga Springs, New York.
What he was trying to make: Crum was trying to serve a customer French fries in the summer of 1853.
How it was created: A diner kept sending his French fries back, asking them to be thinner and crispier. Crum lost his temper, sliced the potatoes insanely thin and fried them until they were hard as a rock. To the chef’s surprise, the customer loved them.
Inventor: John Hopps, an electrical engineer.
What he was trying to make: Hopps was conducting research on hypothermia and was trying to use radio frequency heating to restore body temperature.
How it was created: During his experiment he realized if a heart stopped beating due to cooling, it could be started again by artificial stimulation. This realization led to the pacemaker in 1951.
Inventor: James Wright, an engineer at General Electric.
What he was trying to make: During World War II, the United States government needed rubber for airplane tires, boots for soldiers, and the like. Wright was trying to make a rubber substitute out of silicon, since it was a widely available material.
How it was created: During a test on silicon oil in 1943, Wright added boric acid to the substance. The result was a gooey, bouncy mess. While he couldn’t find a practical application, the impracticality of Silly Putty is what makes it awesome.
Inventor: Percy Spencer, an engineer with the Raytheon Corporation.
What he was trying to make: In 1946, Spencer was conducting a radar-related research project with a new vacuum tube.
How it was created: While experimenting with the tube, a candy bar in Spencer’s pocket started to melt. Already a holder of 120 patents, Spencer grabbed some unpopped popcorn kernels and held them by the device.
Sure enough, they started to pop. Spencer knew he had a revolutionary device — and an enabler to lazy cooks everywhere.
Inventor: Constantine Fahlberg, a researcher at Johns Hopkins University.
What he was trying to make: Fahlberg was trying to find a new use for coal tar back in 1879.
How it was created: Home from a long day at the lab, Fahlberg noticed that his wife’s biscuits were way sweeter than usual.
The secret ingredient: The chemical that would eventually be known as saccharine had been on his hands after the lab work. The researcher immediately requested a patent and mass produced his product.
Inventor: Spencer Silver and Art Fry, researchers in 3M Laboratories.
What he was trying to make: In 1968, Silver made a ”low-tack” adhesive at 3M, but he couldn’t find a use for it.
How it was created: Silver’s adhesive was remarkable for the fact that you could stick something light to it — like a piece of paper — and pull it off without damaging either surface. What’s more, the adhesive could be used again and again. He tried to find a marketable use for the product for 3M for years, to seemingly no avail.
Years later, his colleague Fry found himself frustrated when he couldn’t find a way to stick papers into his book of hymns at the church choir. And like that, the idea for the Post-it was born — though it wasn’t until 1980 that it was launched nationwide.
Inventor: John and Will Kellogg, brothers and breakfast entrepreneurs.
What they were trying to make: The brothers were trying to boil grain to make granola.
How it was created: In 1898, the brothers accidentally left a pot of boiled grain on the stove for several days. The mixture turned moldy but the product that emerged was dry and thick. After a few experiments, they got rid of the mold — and created Corn Flakes.
Inventor: Sir Alexander Fleming, a scientist.
What he was trying to make: Ironically, Fleming was searching for a “wonder drug” that could cure diseases. However, it wasn’t until Fleming threw away his experiments that he found what he was looking for.
How it was created: One day in 1928, Fleming noticed that a contaminated Petri dish he had discarded contained a mold that was dissolving all the bacteria around it. When he grew the mold by itself, he learned that it contained a powerful antibiotic — penicillin — used to treat ailments ranging from syphilis to tonsillitis. Thanks to penicillin and other antibiotics, the rate of death due to infectious disease is now one-twentieth of what it was back in 1900.
-Drake Baer with Alyson Kreuger
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
It’s time to move past David Norris and focus on the real issues… me. yeah right Mary
Why is journal.ie giving Mary Davis this platform to pitch herself as a candidate? By the way, who is Mary Davis?
Why shouldn’t they.
I’m sure all the other candidates could if they want to write an article themselves.
David Norris was given a column on here previously. Why shouldn’t other (actual) candidates be offered the same opportunity if they wish to take it?
As for those who ask “Mary who?” below, why don’t you try perhaps checking out her website to enlighten yourself a little bit more. After all she does tick the same “independent of political parties”, “international profile” and “has done lots of campaigning work” boxes as David Norris!
“Mary who?”
“Mary – how did you get appointed to all those bodies?”
Divine intervention?
——————————————————-
Write “David Norris” on the Ballot Paper
Mark an “X” Beside His Name
Send A Message
I’m afraid I can’t “move past” David Norris.
I was denied my opportunity to vote for my candidate of choice by the mainstream political parties, who have undermined democracy by placing themselves in the way of independent candidates.
The constitution requires the President to be directly elected by the people.
It doesn’t say “jumps over hurdles set by party shills”.
Although I have the greatest of respect for Mary Davis, a candidate whose integrity is apparently above reproach, I’ve dug my heels in.
——————————————————-
Write “David Norris” on the Ballot Paper
Mark an “X” Beside His Name
Send A Message
Exactly it’s disgraceful. He should be on the ballot paper and the people decide out of all candidates who they want
Just a few points –
You’re upset about a lack of democracy in the Presidential race. The Senate is undemocratic and David Norris has been a member for a number of years.
You’re upset about the nomination process and I agree. Were you as upset when Dana failed to get a nomination last time round? What did you do to campaign for a change to the system over the last seven years?
You plan to spoil your ballot. Do you think all the other candidates are equal? Do you see no difference between a progressive like Higgins, who was a political ally of Norris on a number of issues and conservative candidates like Mitchell and Dana?
Even if he’d managed to get a nomination, something which looked unlikely even before recent events, Norris wouldn’t have been elected on first preferences. he’d have relied on second preferences from people like me. Sometimes you have to take what you see as second best, that’s part of politics.
If the system is changed as part of a broader review of the constitution, and I hope it will be, and the new requirement if 20,000 or 30,000 signatures and a candidate you support fails to get that number will you again spoil your ballot?
In your opinion should anyone be allowed to run for President? What rules would you have in place?
Why the heck would I do that?
@ Jason
Lets get the straw man argument out of the way first.
My post addressed the issues of the day – THIS presidential campaign – MY choice of candidate.
In both past presidential elections my choice of candidate was elected, so why would I be supporting Dana?
Feel free to complain and get up a Facebook campaign if she fails to get sponsored a second time around.
You can use my arguments to bolster your “Get Dana on the Ballot for President” posts – they’re not copyrighted and apply to all candidates.
As for the substantive issue of who should be “allowed” to be on the Ballot – that’s a real can of worms.
I believe anyone eligible should be allowed on the Ballot without let or hindrance, particularly mainstream party influence or financial hurdles, subject to them being competent to discharge the duties of president if elected.
And that applies to the Seanad and the Dáil elections too.
After all what’s the worst that could happen.
Someone who is motivated to improve Ireland, who is literate and articulate enough to shoulder the responsibility and communicate their ideas well might get taken off the dole queue?
I’d like to see that happen.
With a quarterly address to the Oireachtas to tell them the President’s views on how well they’re running the country, perhaps…
Might give us a taste of some real democracy – a people’s president.
And I’d still vote “David Norris”.
——————————————————-
Write “David Norris” on the Ballot Paper
Mark an “X” Beside His Name
Send A Message
I’m sorry Mary but this article comes across as being completely self serving. David Norris made a mistake in writing the letter that he did, but one letter, written out of concern for the man that he loved, should not overturn decades of tireless work on behalf of children and minorities both in this country and abroad. David Norris is every inch a hero – maybe not the hero that we wanted or the hero that we thought that he was – but the hero we need in these troubled times.
He supported a rapist,is that who we want to represent us,
“made a mistake” – OMG – its time to educate yourself about the law!
My education regarding the law is not lacking. Norris committed no crime. Nawi expressed that he had been told by the teenager in question that he was of legal age, and the supreme court in this country actually struck down the statutory rape law on the grounds that it did not permit the defense of being ignorant of the age of the minor. http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0523/sex.html
Correct on all points Graham.
But its clear the Labour and Fine Gael shills and homophobes won’t let facts get in the way of a good smear campaign.
——————————————————-
Write “David Norris” on the Ballot Paper
Mark an “X” Beside His Name
Send A Message
@ Kieran O’Halloran
You’ve just defamed Nawi.
He didn’t rape anybody.
“Statutory rape” is not “rape”
The act was consensual.
Learn the law before posting again.
——————————————————-
Write “David Norris” on the Ballot Paper
Mark an “X” Beside His Name
Send A Message
@michael statutory rape is rape. That is why it is called rape and a 15 year old is a child.
Yes, keep ignoring problems concerning adults abusing children. You are good at that in this country…..
@ Diorai D
You are a child from birth to puberty.
After puberty you are physically and sexually an adult.
During puberty you may be a pre-teen or teenager but you are no longer a child.
Rape is the offence of sexual intercourse with a victim who is forced or coerced and does no willingly give consent.
Statutory Rape is the offence of having sexual intercourse with someone below the statutory age of consent and involves consensual sex with the younger party.
By far the majority of reported cases of actual child abuse are heterosexual.
Many occur within families and go unreported.
——————————————————-
Write “David Norris” on the Ballot Paper
Mark an “X” Beside His Name
Send A Message
Call me condescended to, but I thought that those reasons were why I wanted to vote for David Norris in the first place.
Political parties didn’t stop David Norris from running
David Norris stopped David Norris from running. Both acts writing about pederasty and his backing of Mr Nawi have and should have stopped him from being president.
Mr Norris is not running and people should not put his name on the ballot. Our democratic right to vote was hard fought for and should not be thrown away to make a point or send a message. The only way to hurt the parties and send a message to them is when voting for them or not in the next general election.
Mainstream political parties stopped David Norris from running.
While most people now accept that Fine Gael and Labour were behind the recent with-hunt of gay senator David Norris from the Presidential Election and the previous blocking of his getting nominated in the first place, there are always a few crocodiles in Egypt who didn’t get the memo.
The mainstream parties and their gombeen men right wing religious homophobe shills have undermined the process of election of the president which should be “by direct vote of the people” by placing themselves and their prejudices and their party political machines in the way.
As for the “dead generations” – digging them up is worse than the “we’re doing this for the children” waffle.
Fianna Fáil in their greed and stupidity undermined our economy.
Fine Gael and Labour in their actions have undermined Irish Democracy.
And they’re only here six months?
All the mainstream parties have betrayed the sacrifices of the “dead generations”.
Whats the use of having a vote if the same incompetents end up running the country again and again?
I don’t rate any of the other Presidential candidates, they have yet to make their mark or they’re tainted with party politics.
Sean Gallagher is Fianna Fáil
Michael D benefited from Labour’s skulduggery
Gay Mitchell is a right wing religious homophobe
Graybo – has already been paid enough taxpayers money
There is only one way to make this point.
I’m not waiting for the next election to send these boyos a message.
There is only one way to express your rejection at their corruption and parish pump politics.
——————————————————
Write “David Norris” on the Ballot Paper
Mark an “X” Beside His Name
Send A Message
Michael, Mary Davis is a totally independent candidate, the only one in the race!
Who seems to have been appointed to a load of Quangos.
How do you explain this?
——————————————————-
Write “David Norris” on the Ballot Paper
Mark an “X” Beside His Name
Send A Message
Mary who?
If my husband had sex with a 15 year old girl, I certainly wouldn’t be writing a letter saying what a good moral person he was. I’d also be dubious re any claims about him being unsure of her age or attempts to lessen the crime by trying to blame the victim. The older mature person needs to be the one who walks away and who goes to any length to protect the minor who is 20 or 30 years younger their junior. It’s a pity we can’t hear from the victim or his parents and hear their side of the story.
Sorry, this comment was meant to be addressed to Graham Kavanagh’s post just below.
Ah sure all men are the same Mary.
——————————————————-
Write “David Norris” on the Ballot Paper
Mark an “X” Beside His Name
Send A Message
So, what do those who gave the thumbs down disagree with-that the older, more mature person should walk away or that it would be good to hear from the victim and his parents? Or maybe they think that “moral” is a good description for someone who takes advantage of a child. I’d imagine that those on both sides of the argument could find little fault with those particular observations.
Are all candidates going to have a chance to write an self-promoting article?
With all the endless talk about David Norris, isn’t it about time that we heard a little from some of the other candidates? I’m sure if any candidate pens a short piece for journal.ie, they won’t be turned down. But, would they really want the grief and negativity from those who can’t except the fact that Norris is out of the race. There’s no point flogging a dead horse!
Its the old joke isn’t it?
“I’m into sadism, bestiality and necrophilia – am I flogging a dead horse?”
Oh look Mary made a funny!
Still so worried about Norris’s continuing support you have to keep posting here.
Be afraid – be very afraid! LOL!
——————————————————-
Write “David Norris” on the Ballot Paper
Mark an “X” Beside His Name
Send A Message
What are you talking about, Michael? Having organised my time well, I have plenty of time to post. I think I’d find it hard to beat your record though! Is there some sort of limit on how often we can express our opinions?
Nope, no limit, unless the Journal kick us off.
That would be counterproductive for them I think.
For every comment you or I post there are many ‘likes’ and ‘dislikes’.
But there are even more readers of these forums and this is a commercial site.
Did you really not get that joke Mary?
——————————————————
Write “David Norris” on the Ballot Paper
Mark an “X” Beside His Name
Send A Message
Norris please!!
NO!!
Yes thanks.
Who is this German guy Gis Bayertz with the Village People moustache?
——————————————————-
Write “David Norris” on the Ballot Paper
Mark an “X” Beside His Name
Send A Message
You’re pretty obsessed with people’s appearance, aren’t you?
“Obsessed with people’s appearance”?
No Mary, I was taking this piss out of his anti-gay stance while he wore a mustache like members of a known gay group, Village People – several of them had Big Mustaches.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_People
I’m not going to have to spoon-feed explanations of every joke I make, am I? LOL!
——————————————————
Write “David Norris” on the Ballot Paper
Mark an “X” Beside His Name
Send A Message
"revolve around personality"
"focus onto the individual"
So lets vote for the inanimate carbon rod then.
Making such statements with such flawed internal logic should bar you from running. To follow your logic through you should never have spoken of yourself in the first person.
Seriously Mary, such a smug, condescending, self-serving piece won’t give you my vote.
I’m sure she’ll be crying into her soup!
Soup?
Consommé – please.
We’re talking a better class of candidate here than you Labour and Fine Gael muckers would appreciate.
——————————————————-
Write “David Norris” on the Ballot Paper
Mark an “X” Beside His Name
Send A Message
Sorry, that should of course had read “muck-rakers” and not “muckers” – aka “Pig-Farmers”.
My apologies to all the big Pig Farmers whose support for Fine Gael is legendary and whose deep understanding of international politics and concern human rights is renowned throughout the United Nations.
Just like David Norris.
——————————————————-
Write “David Norris” on the Ballot Paper
Mark an “X” Beside His Name
Send A Message
Is this the journals formal endorsement of Mary Davis our will all candidates be getting a column?
Well if they don’t give a column to all the candidates that will shine a very different light on their reporting of Norris and Nawi (and the dreadful comments they let get posted).
I can’t wait to have a go at the rest of them so I hope they all write a piece.
Yes, It’s only fair that all candidates should be scrutinized as closely as David Norris was.
Have at them and see what sticks. If they are not suitable like Norris isn’t, then they should go too.
Gosh, the woman gets a little bit of publicity and the knives are out. David Norris was never out of the news before the controversy erupted, He also got a fair bite of the cherry on this site and his supporters were out in force.
Well done Maurice.
Lets scrutinize them all excruciatingly.
Didn’t see you contributing much to the debate on right wing homophobe Gay Mitchell, but I’m sure you’ll weigh in at some point.
——————————————————-
Write “David Norris” on the Ballot Paper
Mark an “X” Beside His Name
Send A Message
The President will do what s/he is allowed to do by the government. No amount of cliched aspirational can’t will change that.
Succes for Ireland is not jusy about policy – the so called softer aspects to success is all about knowing and impressing the right people. It’s all about setting a theme which can still have huge impact on real events.
Mary McAleese has proved that this is the case. The off ice of President has been behind a lot of the bridge building that has supported the peace process. Add to that the fact that (in my opinion) President McAleese is person of admirable qualities, someone that I am proud to have representing me as an Irish man.
I have never been involved in party politics because I believe that it is a large part of the cause of our present problems. But I have started to get involved in this campaign because I have looked at each candidate and concluded that the candidate that has the qualities most aligned with my ideas of a President ,is Mary Davis.
And she is truly an independent candidate!
I admire her achievements to date, and her background. She has an international profile far exceeding any other candidate, which I believe is the very area where we need Peace Process like attention in the next 7 years.
To those who ask “who is Mary Davis” I can only say, REALLY look at each candidate, and you will certainly know who she is!
@ Kenneth
Your post was supposed to support Mary David I take it?
Then you should have at least posted a link to her wiki page instead of talking about your own journey of political self-discovery.
Otherwise you’ll look like a Michael D Higgins supporter trying to deflect attention away from Norris.
——————————————————-
Write “David Norris” on the Ballot Paper
Mark an “X” Beside His Name
Send A Message
@ Michael …;)
Fantastic piece. Ms. Davis is proving to be a very impressive candidate.
What’s fantastic about it?
It doesn’t really matter what is or isn’t fantastic about it Stephen. To get an endorsement from John is like getting an endorsement from George W. Bush so that’s the end of Mary Davis.
@ cybernoelie – too cruel!
@ John McGuirk
Did your style of school debate begin and end with mere assertions?
Criticism of written work without analysis?
Not good enough.
——————————————————-
Write “David Norris” on the Ballot Paper
Mark an “X” Beside His Name
Send A Message
It’s time to realise that the Irish presidency has bugger-all to do with “the issues” as the Irish president makes no policy-making decisions. What we need is someone who can think for him or herself, not someone who says eveything he’s supposed to say, believes everything he’s supposed to believe, etc. — like Michael D Higgins.
It’s too late for David Norris, whose opinions on pederasty I strongy disagree with. It’s not too late for Dana, whose opinions on abortion, contraception etc. I strongly disagree with.
Umm.
Do you think we should mount a smear campaign against Dana Rosemary Scallon?
A sort of a Dark Version of All Kinds of Everything or should it be more targeted?
——————————————————-
Write “David Norris” on the Ballot Paper
Mark an “X” Beside His Name
Send A Message
I hope to f***ing god he just goes away with his Grecian views of sexuality, and learns to live within the remits of society
Well that’s an interesting concept. If David Norris had always lived within the remits of society, then homosexuality would be illegal and you’d be a criminal.
If Mary is so keen on equality why not step down in support of David Norris. BTW peeps, nobody can hear you protest on Twitter or Facebook. Make the effort and support David Norris / protest the democracy deficit. Tomorrow 12:45 Leinster House Kildare St. Text of letter of protest here: http://t.co/kxFed60
Can we just get over the norris thing…he f**kt it up for himself….its got nothing to do wit his persuasion….at least Mary D is focusing on what we need in a President not harping on about someone who is now a non-runner.
Norris came undone by questioning the validity of the convition itself – it was not just a character ref which he wrote.
Now more than ever Ireland needs a safe pair of hands as President – Davis at this point looks like the only credible person to deliver that.
Ohhhh Noooo Patrick.
We couldn’t *just get over* Norris.
That’s what our political lords and masters in the Fine Gael and Labour camps would like.
And you wouldn’t know WHICH independent candidate they’ve offered support, help and advice to, would you.
Although the sponsorship of County Councils usually gives the game away, doesn’t it?
Mmmm. Yes, it does.
——————————————————-
Write “David Norris” on the Ballot Paper
Mark an “X” Beside His Name
Send A Message
Any news on who the Michael D supporter was that put the final knife into Norris?
Yeah it was David Norris……………..didn’t know he was a Michael D supporter now though.
Yes Norris was clearly unfit to be president – but which Michael D supporter put the knife in?
Its irrelevant.
Norris will make a fine president.
As opposed to any candidate backed by the mainstream political party shills who have just undermined the right of the electorate to chose their president by “direct vote of the people”.
——————————————————-
Write “David Norris” on the Ballot Paper
Mark an “X” Beside His Name
Send A Message
Norris’ views are repulsive. The reports in today’s Mail only reinforce my opinion of him.
It is in the public interest if a Michael D. supporter is feeding these stories to the media. Is the individual involved his campaign and why are these details only being released now. I suspect early enough to get Norris’ base to follow Michael D and late enough so that any other candidate will not have time to put a campaign together.
Norris’ base may chose not to follow Michael D. since Michael D’s party allegedly leaked the story to a pro-Israeli blogger.
To be honest I cannot see Michael D himself supporting a witch-hunt.
But his party leader, his advisor and their Fine Gael coutnerparts?
They’re a whole other story.
——————————————————-
Write “David Norris” on the Ballot Paper
Mark an “X” Beside His Name
Send A Message
To summarize today’s ‘shock’ revelations in the lame scream mania:
The organization that David was involved with supported an organization that supported an organization that wanted the age of consent abolished – during a time when homosexuality was illegal in Ireland and when the age of consent was 21 in the UK thereby criminalizing everyone under the age of 21 (an age by which most people have long started having sexual encounters). They believed that a codified legal age of consent was an overall artificial and arbitrary construct that criminalized innocent people and that the courts should decide what an age of consent would be in individual cases (and that the courts would decide on an overall minimum age).
This same organization had a branch that wanted to open a public debate about paedophilia especially with regard to rehabilitating paedophiles and to stop them from being driven underground through witch-hunts and ‘moral panic’. Some members of that organization went further and wanted paedophilia decriminalized – these peope ended up branching off and those that stayed eventually led to the downfall of the organization.
At no time has David Norris actually supported paedophilia (quite the opposite).
David said at a meeting nearly thirty years ago that he personally wanted to have a sexual experience with an older man but he was unable to do so without criminalizing any older man he might engage with sexually. This is the frustration that led David to question society’s taboos – something I do myself on a regular basis as a sociologist.
I can tell you that the LGBT movement had many strange bedfellows [sic] over the years in their struggles and if we were all to be criminalized and smeared because of a few degrees of separation from something dodgy then a lot of us would be criminals (including our straight friends).
Really? People can’t understand this? Or don’t want to understand it?
Was the group that was interested in rehabilitation called ‘ The Paedophile Information Exchange?” Interesting information about that group on Wikipedia.
A lot of this new knowledge seems to have come from The National Library’s Archives, specifically documents from Irish Queer Archive. I wonder how it came to light.
I have to than you for a several well-written posts cybernoelie
If you look at the the information I extracted from wiki about the Iona Institute you will see support given to it by three political figures
Joan Burton
Gay Mitchell
Martin Mansergh
Three people from three difference political parties courting favour with an organ of a conservative, right wing religious organization, the Catholic Church.
Mansergh, Burton and Mitchell – not in a month of Sundays!
Yet Mansergh was Bertie’s advisor when he gave the indemnity to the Catholic Church.
And there they all are in black and white.
The fact that its those three bedfellows frightens the life out of me!
——————————————————-
Write “David Norris” on the Ballot Paper
Mark an “X” Beside His Name
Send A Message
@ Maria
consider that if Norris was an ex priest before he became a senator, would he have all this support? I doubt it…..
**facepalm**
consider that if Norris was an ex firefighter before he became a senator, would your question still be irrelevent? Very likely….
@ Kevin
Consider grammar in your next post.
No, wait… that would just make you an elitist academic.
I prefer you as a member of the proletariat pontificating on that unknowable alternate universe where David Norris became a priest.
——————————————————-
Write “David Norris” on the Ballot Paper
Mark an “X” Beside His Name
Send A Message
@Michael
Read back through all your posts on this story.
Look at the tone you’ve taken with other people, including making fun of their appearence, questioning their sexuality and pointing out their grammatical errors.
Now, ask yourself are you helping or hurting your case?
I’m not making a case Jason.
I’m just pricking a few egos.
Without defaming anyone.
——————————————————-
Write “David Norris” on the Ballot Paper
Mark an “X” Beside His Name
Send A Message
A gay man yourself? Really? I doubt it.
Here are some facts of life Mommy forgot to teach you.
Between birth and puberty you are a child.
At fifteen most boys are nearly finished puberty.
Mid you, there were always one or two later developers.
Despite all the confections put upon it by the legals, dem’s the facts.
——————————————————-
Write “David Norris” on the Ballot Paper
Mark an “X” Beside His Name
Send A Message
We should probably take a look at the mind behind the attractive smile to see if Mary Davis is a shrewd political operator or a clueless person you wouldn’t want as President.
Would she have the “Nous” to understand the special role people of influence must play in today’s geopolitical arena.
From
“It is ultimately my desire that there would be a highly influential group of between 18 and 25 people that would come together two or three times a year, interact with us and help us to achieve our goals,” said Davis.” Monaco was a step towards that. Obviously you have to get to know all these important people before you can have your council.”
Well that’s put my mind at rest on one score – she definitely knows what politics is about.
——————————————————-
Write “David Norris” on the Ballot Paper
Mark an “X” Beside His Name
Send A Message
Read all of the article, she certainly have this “nous” you mention!!
I did.
============================
“Davis sells the Special Olympics as a ready-made route for companies which are building corporate social responsibility programmes – “Look beyond the profit and look at society and what you can give back”
Then she comes in with the kicker:
“In the recession, research chows that 65% of people have remained loyal to a brand that has a giving element to it.”
============================
Am I the only person who is uncomfortable with using this language to describe the Special Olympics?
Am I just being incredibly naive or is this the way you have to be to succeed in selling disability?
——————————————————-
Write “David Norris” on the Ballot Paper
Mark an “X” Beside His Name
Send A Message
@ cybernoelie
Thanks – I’m impressed by your knowledge of all this.
Despite the numbers of posts made, I’m still relatively new to this kind of forum.
One link per post it is so. :)
——————————————————-
Write “David Norris” on the Ballot Paper
Mark an “X” Beside His Name
Send A Message
The Irish Catholic? Really? I don’t suppose you’d like to quote me passages from the bible that condemn David Norris too?
From what I can see, The Irish Catholic did not generate this story, just reported its existence.
Because two stories written in the Irish Times and the Daily Mail will have exactly the same nuances when discussing the same facts?
Exactly Graham,
I’ve read many articles written by David Quinn and saw so many holes, so many conflated and inflated arguments, so much convoluted crap that I actually had to stop reading his stuff it made my head spin so much and the Daily Mail has the same effect on me. Reading the Quinn article most of what I could see was guilt by association. David has controversial views, we all know that, he’s not afraid to broach ‘taboo’ subjects – this is something that fearful, small and closed-minded people can’t cope with.
I’ll wait for it all to come out before I make up my mind and even then I’ll leave my mind open just enough to allow a rational and reasonable argument change my mind if necessary.
Well considering David Quinn’s directorship of the Iona Institute, he’s hardly what one would call and independent, objective commentator. I can’t say that I’ve been able to track down this story anywhere but the Irish Catholic, and until I have seen it carried by a reputable paper (not a tabloid), then I would definately regard it with a jaundiced eye.
Is the Sunday Times a tabloid? I’d like to learn a bit more about this story myself as it’s not being widely reported. There is a discussion going on on Politics.ie. I looked at what David Quinn wrote and he just repeats the story as reported. I suppose you could say that no one is completely objective as is apparent on sites such as this. I suppose when it comes to be broad-minded, that might include considering all viewpoints and seeing if there might be any merit in the other person’s argument.
That’s my job Graham. How are you?
When will we find out about Mary Davis’s views on the questions we all ask. I’d worry that the office of president might be seen as a head of community and symbol of coming together. The head of state must lead, inspire and bring us together in a non-partisan way but must also discern and understand the process of making law. I think Mary Davis is a fine person but apart from excellent community leadership, I don’t know a thing about her views or skills in other areas. She’s right though, we need to move on from #Norris now
I expect you’ll find out the answers to the questions you ask after you’ve asked them.
Don’t hold back on my account – fire away.
——————————————————-
Write “David Norris” on the Ballot Paper
Mark an “X” Beside His Name
Send A Message
I see my last (long) comment has now disappeared.
Yet another reason to give up on the Journal.
Have you taken your own advice?
Try posting it to the three Facebook pages supporting Norris and politics.ie – not everyone reading is a shill. :)
——————————————————-
Write “David Norris” on the Ballot Paper
Mark an “X” Beside His Name
Send A Message
I’m not on Facebook Michael.
It’s just so disappointing, Journal staff delete a comment a day after it went up, a comment that took me a long time to post, and they give no reason, no excuse – they just delete comments to their own arbitrary rules and whims. My comment contained nothing offensive, defamatory or libellous but for some reason they’ve deleted it – it’s not like they don’t know who posted it, they could have the common decency to send you a tweet about it.
The fact that Labour and Fine Gael thought they could get away with playing the Gay Card against Norris astonishes me.
Unlike a certain Labour Party TD who was caught in the Phoenix Park where Rent Boys – male prostitutes of an indeterminate age – ply their profession, Norris has never been associated with male prostitutes
Emmet Stagg OTOH cannot make this claim.
http://www.independent.ie/unsorted/features/az-of-sex-scandals-119664.html
“STAGG IN THE PARK In 1994 Emmet Stagg, a Minister of State in the Fianna Fail and Labour coalition government, openly admitted indiscretion with a rent-boy in the Phoenix Park.”
“For weeks Stagg’s resignation seemed imminent but eventually salvation came in the form of support from Tanaiste Dick Spring and Taoiseach Albert Reynolds who said “charity and restraint” should be shown to the government minister.”
“The Labour Party demanded a Garda inquiry into who told the press about Mr Stagg’s late-night trips to the Phoenix Park. Emmet Stagg is still Labour TD for Kildare.”
——————————————————————-
The current Wiki Article on Emmet Stagg confirms
“Emmet Stagg (born 1 October 1944) is an Irish Labour Party politician. He is currently a Teachta Dála (TD) for the Kildare North constituency and Labour Party Chief Whip.[1]”
You have to admire the brass neck of Mainstream Politicians and their Shills who would hunt down and hound out of the race a Presidential Candidate of the calibre of Norris because of his supporting his long term (albeit unfaithful) gay partner in his hour of need, while one of their own is known to have consorted with prostitutes a stones throw away from the Presidential Office.
Given the tolerance and support already shown to a Member of the Labour Party it seems totally hypocritical of them to witch hunt Norris out of the race.
No surprises there so – “Hypocrisy” and “Misrepresentation of the Truth” is a politician’s Stock in trade.
Unlike Norris, who shoots from the hip on all subjects, however the Right Wing Religious Inquisition may twist his words.
Its yet another reasons why I admire the man and will continue to support him.
——————————————————-
Write “David Norris” on the Ballot Paper
Mark an “X” Beside His Name
Send A Message
@ Maria
I imagine it came to light because several civil servants using taxpayers money were paid to trawl the archives to “get the dirt” on David Norris.
Norris has always been a flamboyant public figure – “stealth” is not part of his vocabulary.
You’d imagine that in all his years of openly being gay his transgressions would be just lying around waiting for some Party shill to use against him.
Not a bit of it – which suggests there is very little to pin on him.
Pig Farmers and Muck Raking – they go together well.
——————————————————-
Write “David Norris” on the Ballot Paper
Mark an “X” Beside His Name
Send A Message
Mary Davis has my #2 at this stage, after Michael D. She’s an impressive candidate.
Not impressive enough, obviously.
——————————————————-
Write “David Norris” on the Ballot Paper
Mark an “X” Beside His Name
Send A Message
While not a supporter, I think Mary Davis could be the candidate to watch. If she can finish third on first preferences she could be very transfer friendly. A large field would favour her.
If she can get between Mitchell and Higgins after the second or third round she could win.
Sounds like a tricky position to be in to me.
——————————————————-
Write “David Norris” on the Ballot Paper
Mark an “X” Beside His Name
Send A Message
It could go either way.
——————————————————-
Write “David Norris” on the Ballot Paper
Mark an “X” Beside His Name
Send A Message
Wondering why we haven’t seen op ed pieces by Gay Mitchell or Sean Gallagher yet?
Are they afraid of the skeletons that will be dug up by Labour on them?
——————————————————-
Write “David Norris” on the Ballot Paper
Mark an “X” Beside His Name
Send A Message
@ cybernoelie
Comments regarding deletions seem to be posted by Journal staff on the page the deletion occurred.
——————————————————-
Write “David Norris” on the Ballot Paper
Mark an “X” Beside His Name
Send A Message
And hours later they haven’t bothered telling me why my comment was deleted, a comment (thanks to you) that has been reposted with a whole bunch of [allegedly]s stuck in because that’s the only reason that I can see why they would have deleted it (even though all those statements can be Googled and backed up). Yet the Journal has left absolutely hateful homophobic comments alone despite those comments being reported. Go figure!
Surely this is enough to quieten all the Norris backers left.
No wonder so many of Norris’ team resigned. Notice that this hasn’t been widely reported on. Censorship or what? How many can keep supporting David Norris in light of this new information?
You think anything coming out of the self-deluded, twisted, fundamentalist mind of David Quinn will influence me?
Or the mindless, populist, ignorant, moral panic pages of the Daily Mail?
Think again.
Is it not in the Sunday Times too? If it’s not true, there’s a massive defamation case in the pipeline. If it is true, no point shooting the messenger. Sometimes we have to accept that those we thought were beyond reproach have feet of clay. At the very least, the story merits some further investigation into the facts, or maybe David Norris will be good enough to inform us of the truth of the matter.
To say that this story not being widely reported on is due to censorship is rather mischevious. It could just as easily be a case that other (reputable) newspapers haven’t been able to confirm the facts being reported in this article.
I’m sorry to disappoint you, Mr. Anonymous “Political Bypass”, but the past week has seen Norris and his ex-partner Nawi repeatedly defamed in these pages, so I’ll take anything “reported” out of context or paraphrased by others with a grain of salt – especially where I haven’t read the original source in context for myself.
Even in the last day or so you will find posts on the Journal.ie from someone who cannot understand the difference between Rape and Statutory Rape, two wholly different offences in terms of the intention of the parties and trauma to the victim in the first instance and the younger party in the second instance.
But now here you are, hiding behind your anonymity like a good Jesuit and drip feeding paraphrase and innuendo to support a Catholic Agenda, from as long ago as 1975?
========================================
The article was written by David Quinn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Quinn_(Irish_journalist)
David Quinn founded teh Iona Institute which went public in 2007
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iona_Institute
“In March 2007, Labour Party spokesperson on Finance, Joan Burton TD,[13] launched The Iona Institute’s first policy document, Tax Individualisation: Time for a Critical Rethink.”
“In September 2007, Gay Mitchell MEP hosted an conference named The Fragmenting Family on behalf of the Iona Institute.”
“The following November, the Institute released a document entitled ‘Domestic Partnerships: A response to recent proposals on civil unions’, the foreword to which was written by Martin Mansergh TD.[12]”
========================================
Let’s answer these comments, brought by a right wing Catholic newspaper, and let’s do so by putting them in context.
Firstly there is a minute, apparently a paraphrase of Norris comments at a meeting -
“… The Mail on Sunday has uncovered in the National Library minutes of the first meeting of the Union for Sexual Freedom in Ireland held on May 10, 1975.”
“Norris addressed the meeting and according to the minutes, “David said as a child it had been his greatest desire to be molested so he, more than most people, knows the rarity of the homosexual child molester.””
Given the source (a catholic newspaper), and the twisting of reported facts on the Journal.ie last week and as done originally on a pro-Israeli blog in relation to Nawi, I would not accept this description of what Norris said as being verbatim.
Regardless of the detail of the way things may have been said, in relation to the bare facts there is nothing new here.
“Child” here is used in the context of the day, the 1970′s, where the separate identity of “teenager” was still a novelty in the eyes of the establishment in Britain and Ireland and referred to any person under the age of consent, which was then 18.
Norris is in record as having wished to be introduced to the gay lifestyle by a mature older male. This life experience is still sought by many adolescent gays, who, raised in and identifying with a heterosexual society, are often troubled dealing with their own self-revulsion and insecurity, afraid to ‘come out’ in case they would lose the respect of their peers and unsure of how to express their sexuality given the lack of societal support, even today.
Secondly there are references to an organization of which Norris was allegedly member, the International Gay Association.
Even the Mail doesn’t state that he actually was a member, only that he wrote one of its “founding documents”.
This document is not identified and Norris’ status is not clarified, it is left hanging as an inference.
This is much like President George w. Bushes assertion – without proof then or later – that Saddam Hussein possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Sloppy journalism and innuendo presented as fact, in other words.
========================================
But let’s move on.
Without establishing Norris status, the Mail then lays a series of loosely connected links.
“It [the Mail] also catalogues the support given to a pro-paedophile organisation in the 1980s called the Paedophile Information Exchange (which at the time was a member of Britain’s National Council for Civil Liberties).”
Well if it “catalogued” the support, why didn’t it state WHO gave the support? The inference is that Norris was involved, but nowhere is it stated that this is the case. More waffly “reporting” and innuendo.
The Mail also states
“In the 1980s the International Gay Association passed two motions.”
There is no reporting of actual dates. There is no suggestion Norris was a Member, only an inference.
“One called for the abolition of the age of consent, whilst the second called for an international solidarity campaign on behalf of the Paedophile Information Exchange.”
At no point does it suggest that Norris was involved with this organization.
“At the time of the letter, members of exchange were being prosecuted for ‘conspiracy to corrupt public morals’ over ads that appeared in a magazine that were alleged to have promoted indecent acts between adults and children.”
Its not clear what age the children in the case were. Its probable that they refer to persons under 18, but they could be much younger – the Mail doesn’t make this clear. What also isn’t clear is that Norris is not a member of the Exchange. By this lack of clarity it is possible to infer that he is in fact a Member.
This sort of waffly, inferential linkage to Norris continues until even the Mail decides it should clarify the matter and admits.
“The National Gay Federation, to which David Norris belonged, was a member of the International Gay Association.”
========================================
So now we can see the link between Norris, the National Gay Federation to which Norris “belonged” (whatever that means) and the International Gay Federation. Close reading of the reported Mail article fails to show that there is a direct link between Norris and the International Gay Association.
But let’s look at the more interesting allegations made in the Mail’s piece about the International Gay Association.
“One called for the abolition of the age of consent…”
This seems outrageous today, but what was the context back then? I have to warn you that its a bit of an eye opener.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent_manifestations_%28UK%29
Since the 1970s, a number of demonstrations have taken place in the UK in favour of lowering the age of consent, either on the grounds of claims for children’s rights, gay liberationism or, more recently, “as a means to avoid unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted infections (STI’s) and ‘bad sex’ via education and health promotion”.[1]
Sociologist Matthew Waites, author of The age of Consent – Young People, Sexuality and Citizenship, observed that:
“By the mid-1970s the case for a lower minimum age for all was finding wider support, with questions being posed concerning the merits of lowering the legal age for male/female sexual behaviour – not only within grassroots sexual movements, but also within religious organisations and liberal intellectual circles.[2]
(…)[Contemporarily,] “significant sections of liberal opinion in the political mainstream, including prominent campaigners for children’s interests and sexual health, support at least some selective decriminalisation of sexual activity between young people under 16”.(…) More generally in academic work, particularly in Sociology, writing on sexuality from various perspectives has questioned the extent of prohibitions on sexual activity involving children.[3]
========================================
Nor was this movement unknown to the mainstream religious groups and academics of the day
========================================
Religious groups
In April 1972, a conference of the Quakers religious group in the UK, the Society of Friends Social Responsibility Council, passed a resolution in favour of lowering the age of consent in Britain from 16 to 14.[5][6]
Soon later, in July 1972, Dr. John Robinson, Dean of Trinity College, Cambridge, and chair of the UK’s Sexual Law Reform Society, defended an age of consent of 14 in the Beckley Lecture to the Methodist Conference.[5][7]
Both of them have made the case for equality at 14, thus comprising heterosexual and homosexual relations.
========================================
In the next piece you can see that, far from all the organizations in the Mail article being of one mind there were significant differences, particularly with reference to the National Council for Civil Liberties
========================================
Liberty (The National Council for Civil Liberties)
In March 1976, the UK’s political pressure group Liberty, under their alternate name National Council for Civil Liberties, (NCCL) called for an equal age of consent of 14 in Britain. Its submission to the Criminal Law Revision Committee generated extensive newspaper coverage. Albeit the report recognised the merits for the abolition of the age of consent, it proposed the retention of a prohibition upon sex below the age of 14 “as a compromise with public attitudes”:[8]
“Although it is both logical, and consistent with modern knowledge about child development, to suggest that the age of consent should be abolished, we fear that, given the present state of public attitudes on this topic, it will not be politically possible to abolish the age of consent”.[9]
========================================
While the above quotations from the Wiki article refer to events over a quarter a century ago, more recent research is also relevant here
========================================
Government Youth advisory
In 2000, a committee of 12 teenage girls set up to advise the UK government on youth issues recommended that the age of consent be reduced to twelve. The website from which the group was recruited also conducted a poll of 42,000 girls between 12 and 16 on the age-of-consent. 87% agreed that it should be lowered from 16.[10][11][12]
========================================
To sum up, you have to closely parse any Meeja Organ’s utterances to understand what they are actually saying, as to what they might like you to infer.
When you actually get past the emotive terms like “paedophilia” and “child” you will discover a lot of strange facts about this while area.
For my own part I would find it hard to countenance going further than the Israeli law in relation to the Age of consent.
However my opinion is not the law and the law has some unusual exceptions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent
========================================
If anything, truth about what’s being said by and within the British Establishment is stranger even than what Norris detractors say about Norris.
But more importantly, for all the trawling for soundbites and “incriminating comments” Norris is also ON RECORD about his attitude to child sex abuse, somethign his detractors conveniently forget.
From -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Norris_(politician)
2002 Magill magazine interview
In January 2002, the politics/current affairs magazine Magill published an interview where Norris discussed social attitudes to incest, age of consent, and paedophilia.[47] The interview contains statements which Norris denies making, such as:
“ I cannot understand how anybody could find children of either sex the slightest bit attractive sexually… but in terms of classic paedophilia, as practised by the Greeks for example, where it is an older man introducing a younger man or boy to adult life, I think that there can be something to be said for it. ”
According to Norris, he was only read two paragraphs of the interview before publication, and he asked for corrections to be made to those paragraphs, and these corrections were not made.[48] The interviewer, restaurant critic Helen Lucy Burke, says that she had read the article to Norris before publication, and that he had wholeheartedly endorsed what was written. The interview was partially recorded but Burke said in June 2011 that she has the tape but can’t find it.[49] Burke called Norris’s comments on sex with minors “disturbing”[47] and later “evil” and “against the law”.[49] The Ireland on Sunday newspaper ran the headline “Senator Backs Sex With Children” a few days after the 2002 interview. When the article resurfaced in 2011, Norris said:
“ I have learned, over ten years. I originally refused to do the interview because I said this is all going to be sensational stuff about sex, that’s what journalists are interested in, she said no, this is going to be a positive profile for your [senate 2002] election. [...] Out of politeness, which was a really foolish mistake, I didn’t stand up and leave the restaurant. [...] I was foolish to engage in an academic discussion about ancient Greece with a restaurant critic.[48] ”
In a May 2011 statement on his Presidential campaign website, Norris affirmed “I did not ever and would not approve of the finished article as it appeared”. Norris asserts that he and Burke engaged in an “academic discussion about Classical Greece and sexual activity in a historical context; it was a hypothetical, intellectual conversation” and that the “presentation of references to sexuality in the article attributed to me were misleading in that they do not convey the context in which they were made”.[50] Norris also spoke about the Magill profile in an interview with Joe Jackson for the Sunday Independent, in which he refutes the allegations, saying -
…he responded in “…horro…r”, and that “…it so completely misrepresents everything I said. In the interview I said I cannot understand how anyone would consider it appropriate to have sex with children”.[51]
========================================
Taking all the foregoing int account, I support David Norris.
——————————————————-
Write “David Norris” on the Ballot Paper
Mark an “X” Beside His Name
Send A Message
I see from Cybernoelie’s response below that I underestimated the Age of Consent in the UK in the seventies.
I recalled it was 18 in the response above – apparently it was 21.
Happy to stand corrected.
——————————————————-
Write “David Norris” on the Ballot Paper
Mark an “X” Beside His Name
Send A Message
I see my comprehensive rebuttal of this piece of catholic propaganda was deleted?
Why?
Afraid it will offend the Irish Catholic?
Or are the Labour an Fine Gael shills influencing the Journal’s editorial staff?
It seems very odd that you’d delete a piece which has references for every comment, after a week where you’ve let defamatory comment about Nawi and Norris stand for days.
——————————————————-
Write “David Norris” on the Ballot Paper
Mark an “X” Beside His Name
Send A Message
And now the rebuttal is back again? There is something very odd going on with this page.
——————————————————-
Write “David Norris” on the Ballot Paper
Mark an “X” Beside His Name
Send A Message
Great bit of research Michael.
FYI: If you have more than one hyperlink in a comment it gets flagged as spam and has to wait to be viewed by someone before it gets ‘published’ so that’s why your post appeared, then vanished and then reappeared.
@ Cybernoelie
My thanks for your advice went into the previous post thread.
Thx.
——————————————————-
Write “David Norris” on the Ballot Paper
Mark an “X” Beside His Name
Send A Message
@ Cybernoelie,
I’ve tweeted you a possible solution.
have your say