Charity begins at home......not away

I'm sure by now you've been stopped by someone in the high street sporting a bib asking for a minute of your time.The techniques now used to draw the public in to making charitable donations can range from the downright zany and in your face to the somewhat more subtle, like a request for the correct time.There is no denying though, that when you stop, these 'charitable' workers are after one thing only, your bank details.I don't have a problem with charity per se (he writes with the hardened tone of Ebeneezer Scrooge) but there's something about being confronted in the street to give donations that sits uncomfortably with me.The thing is, the people who are often beguiling the public to pledge their money aren't necessarily in it for entirely charitable reasons.They may loosely support what they're doing but when you get down to it, more often than not they're asking for money because it's their job to ask for money. Their earnestness in tackling the designated problems can seem fairly tenuous.I understand though, that while it may not necessarily be what the charity worker wants to do for their entire life, bills must be paid and the fact that good causes benefit serves as an added bonus. I have therefore reached an inner compromise with the street workers; I get to ignore them and in turn they do not incur my wrath because I can understand their position.I'm less tolerant when it comes to the relatively new phenomenon of charitable tourism.Last week I was asked by a friend to help pack bags in my local supermarket to raise money so he could go to build houses in Ghana.I don't doubt that Ghana needs better housing or in fact that my friend will be helpful when he gets out there when working on the project.My objections lie in the fact that this type of venture is usually not, at its heart a charitable act.Most people (admittedly not all) who participate in these types of programmes are doing so for their own gratification. The overriding reason for planning such a trip is not in fact to help the people of Africa but to add variety to the person's life experiences. Some of the most cynical 'volunteers' even add it to their CV to impress prospective employers. I would feel much happier if the pub quizes, bag-packing and numerous other initiatives designed to raise money for such trips were given directly to the charity and did not have to pay for flights, accommodation and food for the prospective volunteer.I think if the individual was made to pay for these costs out of their own pocket I would feel a lot happier about contributing.Until that happens my mind's eye still sees it as some kind of middle-class voyeurism. Westerners go and see people living in sub-standard conditions and report back to their friends about how awful it is for the poor unfortunates. Most of the time the tourists are housed in much better conditions than the locals they are trying to help. There's something perverse in that itself.Still, I can see the counter argument. People may be taking advantage of such schemes ultimately for their own benefits but if people are being helped then what odds? I understand that if these mechanisms weren't in place the charitable projects would not help as many people as they do. I know that as long as that continues to happen it can only be a good thing.I just think that it could be a better thing if charity, not tourism was the main reason behind chariable tourism. It's not a perfect world though and the current model is doing more good than harm. It's easy to see that I'm conflicted on this issue. I did go to pack bags for my friend the other week. Begrudingly.

Weathering the storm can drive you to drink

You may just have noticed that the Summer heatwave predicted in early May never really materialised.Instead Met Eireann reported that this July was the wettest since records began. Things got slightly better in August when Northern Ireland recorded only its second wettest showing for that month since records began.It truly has been a depressing Summer. It feels that the entire season has once again bypassed Ireland. Last year was only marginally better and it's beginning to get to me.Even when the relentless rain momentarily ceases the sky remains a purgatorial curtain of stoney grey. It is depressing to note without any hint of sarcasm that radiators have been in use more often than suncream (which is just as well apparently because, like everything else suncream is now carcinogenic. That grievance, though, is to be aired at a later date).Anyway, you get the picture. The weather's been terrible. Then again, Ireland isn't renowned for sunshine by any means so what's the big deal? I am genuinely becoming more disgruntled by the never-ending dullness and the nip in the air. It's like I'm developing reverse SAD (Seasonal Affective Disorder). I long for a few days of unabashed warmth and sunshine, when I'll toy with the idea of doing something active and starting a healthy new lifestyle. I can't even make such inevitably broken promises to myself this year.God only knows how the perverts are coping. They're locked away,on their own of course, from September to May chomping at the bit to get out and see some scantily clad women parading around during the supposedly warmer months. Some of them are bound to have abandoned their lives of perversion, seeking out something suitably more mundane to reflect the weather around them. Accountancy maybe.Bad weather and boredom go hand in hand and the only thing to do in Ireland to combat it is take yourself off to the pub.The Irish have garnered a reputation (and cringeworthily cultivated it in some quarters) for being relentless and hardnened drinkers. We probably do drink more than most other countries but really, we're not to blame, it's the weather's fault, honest! It only makes things worse when a heatwave is predicted and floods are what actually follow.The ethos seems to be, 'It may be raining but we'll drink ourselves silly to compensate.' No wonder Guinness is still thriving after 250 years!The pattern of bad weather enducing extra drinking has had more adverse effects on the nation. We've become addicted to it. When the weather finally breaks for one or two days and the majestic sun shines high in the sky, do we go and enjoy the great outdoors, basking in the beauty of nature? No, we see it only as the perfect day for a nice cool pint!

When is a psycho not a psycho?

I watched Alfred Hitchcock's 'Psycho' for the first time in my life tonight. It's one of those films that everyone in the western world and beyond seems to have seen long ago during some kind of shared cinematic childhood experience. Well, at 26 years of age I watched it and enjoyed it.Of course its resonance in popular culture meant that I was aware of the famous shower scene and the fact that Norman Bates and his mother are one and the same person before I sat down to watch it. Nevertheless the eery score, the palpable tension and some great performances all made it highly enjoyable to watch.It got me thinking though. Norman Bates is obviously deranged. He is not mentally competent. He is, for the wont of a better word, a psycho. Can Master Bates (the 13 year old in me couldn't resist) therefore be culpable for his psychotic killing spree? Essentially he is a sick person who, without the mental illness would not be driven to commit such horrendous deeds. Is it fair to hate him or should we feel sorry for him?Personally, I think, apart from very limited circumstances of say self-defence or coming under extreme duress, you have to be deranged to commit murder.The most infamous serial killers hacked their victims to pieces. To state the obvious that's not normal behaviour and to take someone's life for the fun of it is in itself psychotic. It raises a point that the majority of murderers are psychotically afflicted in some ways. Should more emphasis be put on correcting their behaviour and trying to heal them or should we lock them up and throw away the key?I don't think there's a definitive answer. A little bit of both is probably just what the doctor (a psychiatrist of course) ordered.Obviously most offenders commit murder and try to get away with. That means on some level they know what they have done is wrong and are culpable and should be faced with the lock with no key scenario. Then again the fact that they can kill someone in cold blood surely means that they are not all there. Any right-minded thinking person could never do that. I'd rather believe that than believe that people can kill in cold blood and be completely in control of their senses. To me an individual like that is a scarier prospect than all of Hitchcock's horrors put together.

Want to change your life forever.....? Look away now

Self-help books are one of life's great misnomers aren't they? Self-help by its very definition would surely mean not having to enlist the assistance of an 'expert'author to tell you how to live your life. Surely you're meant to do it on your own steam, you know, without any outside help?Recently I was urged to give Stephen Convey's 'The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People,' a whirl, much to my annoyance.I couldn't get past the title without wanting to scream profanities repeatedly in the face of the person who had recommended it, though they'd probably think I was partaking in some form of healthy primal scream therapy were I to do so.Think about this. If, in the moments before death, your life does flash before your eyes is the adjective that you would want to describe that montage "effective?"How can a life be effective? It's such a wishy-washy term, full of deliberate ambiguity, attempting to cover as many facets of life as possible in just one word.The term effective serves to negate any objectors who claim that such publications are actually about attaining financial wealth. "It's not about wealth, it's about effectiveness," they'll bleat. But, think about it, that doesn't actually mean anything. If something is effective it merely means that it works to fulfil the function it was intended for.By that logic the suicide bombers who planned and carried out the attacks on the twin towers were highly effective people. They conceived a plan, prepared for it with cast-iron discipline and executed it exactly as they intended to but strangely they never seem to get mentioned in these books.No, it's sporting heroes this, financial tycoons that and generally more agreeable folk who grace the pages.I suppose, in the main though, while it is generally tosh, it's harmless tosh. The messages being preached are fairly rudimentary - think positively, be focussed, have a plan, adapt your plan, treat others as you would wish to be treated. Yeah, friend, and I'd like to buy the world a coke.What grates is the ridiculous terminology deployed to convolute these simplistic messages. Pardon the paradigms, portals and pensitudes (I made that last one up) but isn't really what's being said the same as that which any teacher will tell you before you sit an exam in secondary school - you only get out what you put in.While objecting to the nature of the self-help genre I believe that the majority of best-selling authors aren't necessarily cynical bastards with the sole intention of ripping their devoted readers off. Most of them genuniely believe that the principles they've outlined in their books can change people's lives. They may help people to think more positively but dressing up that positivity in all the psychobabble is the equivilent of re-inventing the wheel. It's mostly common sense and those without that shouldn't even be trained to harness it in the first place.There is one exception to the harmless but annoying rule as I see it. Rhonda Byrne's 'The Secret,' has shifted millions of copies in America alone and its message of positive thinking verges on the dangerous.Once again setting aside the huge misnomer (it's hardly a secret if millions of people have read it Rhonda) the message is about attaining whatever you truly want to in life. There is a lot of incoherent rambling about the Universe delivering what you need if you can tap into it. I may be paraphrasing but let's be honest it doesn't really matter.The problem is that Byrne doesn't leave it there. It is implied that those who aren't achieving all they want to have only got themselves to blame. The power to change is within their reach but they refuse to use it.I wonder how the continent of Africa feels about this? Band Aid? We shouldn't have bothered. We should have sent them over a few copies of 'The Secret' so that they could see that the reason there are millions of them dying from famine, AIDS and malaria is because they aren't using the secret.'The Secret' does not have any scope for bad things happening to good people. It literally is like saying if you think you can fly then fly you can. Go Dumbo!Unlike most other self-help books this can actually reduce your self-esteem. If your life isn't exactly a bed of roses, and let's be honest if you're reading self-help books then it ain't, the last thing you need to hear is that it's only shit because you aren't doing enough. It's your fault. You are to blame. Yes, you! Things aren't happening beyond your control. It's you who is making your life shit - NOW CHANGE!!!!Most sane people know this is nonsense. While positive thinking never hurt anyway, negative thinking isn't responsible for all the wrongs of the world. Sometimes negative thinking can actually be constructive - thinking of the worst case scenario and preparing for it has probably saved a lot of lives throughout history.So, the next time someone offers me 'Chicken Soup for the Soul' or to urges me to harness 'The Power of Now,' the new-age message I will be delivering to them will be by all means, help yourself just please don't try to help me.