Does Fantasy Football ruin actual football?

"Shite, why didn't I captain Suarez this week?"

Before Christmas I was sitting in a pub in Tralee watching a football match. It was Arsenal vs Chelsea. These two are titans of the Premier League and between them possess some of the finest attackers on the planet; Hazard, Ozil, Cazorla, Walcott, Willian, Oscar, just to name the main cast. Arsenal play a wonderfully fluid style of football, their players float across the pitch with the grace of Njinsky in his pomp (Not the horse) and play with such a deft touch that they sometimes make David Ginola look like Razor Ruddock after half a pack of Lucky Strike. Chelsea, on the other hand, are certainly the more pragmatic of the two though in Oscar, Hazard and Willian, they have players who are capable of breathtaking moments of quality.

With all this in mind, isn’t it odd that I had a grin as wide as the Thames etched across my face as the game ambled, scoreless, to its denouement? Nah, because I had Terry and Koscielny in my fantasy football team and a scoreless draw was worth at least 8 points to me with the further possibility of bonus points for one of my defensive duo.

I’ll give you another example. I’m sitting in a bar in Ghana watching the Merseyside derby November last. A cracking game it was, as those who watched it will attest to, and I cheered so passionately when Romelu Lukaku knocked in a brace in the second half that it’s wonder I didn’t receive a smack in the gob from one of the Liverpool supporters sitting there next to me, glum and mute. I’m a Manchester United fan so it’s always nice to see Liverpool drop a couple of points but was this the source of my outpouring of ecstasy? Nah, as you may have guessed, I had Lukaku sitting in my fantasy team, hoovering up a tasty 8 points for his goals with three bonus points almost certainly guaranteed. And when Daniel Sturridge equalised for Liverpool in the dying moments to rescue a point for the Reds, my jovial mood was not perturbed in the slightest. I had my points and that’s all that matters.

This is the life of a Fantasy Football follower. For the uninitiated, fantasy football is a game where you select 11 active Premier League players and the number of points you accrue each week is based on the real-life performances of the players. So if one of your strikers scores a goal you get 4 points and if one of your midfielders scores you get 5 and if a defender keeps a clean sheet you get 4 and so on.

Yes, at the start of the season, every man and his dog has a fantasy football team but it takes dedication, perseverance and mental strength to last the whole season. It’s a strenuous task, taking minutes and then hours out of your day as you deliberate on who’s a better bet; Whittingham at home to West Ham or Ki-Seung Yeung away to Fulham?

But does it suck the fun out of football? When there’s a thrilling game on the telly, say a 3-3 draw or one of those mad high scoring victories like Liverpool’s 5-3 win over Stoke the other week, commentators often remark on how “the neutrals sitting at home will be loving this”. But oh, there is a paucity of games every weekend where I am actually a neutral. In the majority of games I usually have a vested interest. Or two. In the aforementioned Liverpool-Stoke game, I had Simon Mignolet in goal in my fantasy team. So I was not exactly thrilled by his less than proficient performance. At the same time, I had the honourable Uruguayan gentleman Luis Suarez captained so his two goals and one assist were much appreciated.

But that game is another example of my, perhaps, unhealthy obsession with fantasy football. When Liverpool raced into a two goal lead early in the first half, all I wanted was a nice, dour 60 minutes of scoreless football. Suarez had got his goal and Mignolet would get his clean sheet. This wish was dashed just before half-time as part-time beanpole Peter Crouch pulled one back for Stoke and then, the oldest looking 27 year old in the world, Charlie Adam, equalised for the Potters. The first goal was galling but after the initial disgruntlement I suppose there is a smidgen of liberation. After that goal flew in I thought, “Fuck it, score as many goals as you bastards want now”. I reverted back to being a proper, neutral football fan and genuinely enjoyed watching the two defences trying to outdo each other in incompetence.

So being a fantasy football nut makes neutrality downright unfeasible. But at the other end of the spectrum, it also makes supporting a team difficult. As I mentioned above I am a Manchester United fan and a very loyal and erudite one too, I would argue. While naturally I would never cheer a United loss or wish for them to drop points for the good of my fantasy football team, there have been times this season, a season which for United has been a puddle of shit might I add, where I have secretly been wishing for United to concede the odd tactical goal to add to my weekly fantasy score.

A case in point would be United’s match against Chelsea at Stamford Bridge last Sunday. I, like most mentally sound United fans, did not expect much from the game. At the same time, I am still a fan so I dearly, dearly yearned for a point or three. By half-time it was clear United had about as much chance of getting something out of the game as I have in becoming the pope’s meth dealer. So I did what any rational fantasy football manager would do, I mentally urged Oscar to get his name on the scoresheet as I had the baby-faced Brazilian in my fantasy team. “Well fuck it”, I thought, “If we’re going to lose does it make a difference if it’s 2-0, 3-0 or 4-0.”

United lost 3-1 in the end with Samuel “I’m worth more than the GDP of my country” Eto’o netting all three goals in what must surely rank as the worst ever hat-trick scored against United, narrowly edging out that time when Dirk Kuyt knocked three past Edwin Van Der Sar in Anfield from the accumulative distance of three yards.

So these are the things fantasy football does to you. It makes football a very artificial experience, one could argue. A cynic might add that it crystallises everything that is wrong with modern culture; intensely giving a shit about something which is entirely fatuous and that does nothing to advance you mentally, physically or even metaphysically. A philosophical cynic, maybe. And then someone else might point out that following an actual football team produces the exact same experience. I ain’t saying nuffink.  

Perhaps it’s a case of overegging the pudding. The Premier League is already a supreme dish which has nourished and satisfied me for two decades now. Fantasy Football is such a genius idea (Which we have the Americans to thank for) and in this digital age so instantly accessible that it’s irresistible. But maybe it’s too much. Two great things are not always compatible. One could say it’s a bit like drenching a sirloin steak in maple syrup. It is to my own personal relationship with the Premier League what the inclusion of Chachi was to Happy Days.

But fuck it, Lukaku at home to West Brom or Remy away to Crystal Palace?

Why hasn't an anti-immigration party like UKIP emerged in Ireland?

If it was a pint of Guinness he was holding we might reconsider

They were once famously branded as a party of "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists" by David Cameron but UKIP have become so popular lately that Cameron's Conservative Party have had to adopt their rhetoric and even policies to prove their right-wing credentials. Yes, no one's chuckling at Nigel Farage's party anymore with the Guardian even beginning to acknowledge their seismic effect on the British political scene.

UKIP's success has largely been built on that most primal, most basic of human emotions - fear of the outsider. They have latched on to an issue with considerable historical baggage in Britain and an issue which still carries a lot of significance for a considerable portion of the population - immigration.

Inward migration to the UK is not something new. Nor is opposition to it. But never has a party which is so explicitly anti-immigration gained such traction in the UK. But I do not wish to discuss the reasons for that. What I wish to query is why a similar party or movement has not emerged in Ireland. 

Inward migration to Ireland is a relatively new beast and while it has abated considerably since the beginning of the recession, over 50,000 people emigrated to Ireland in 2012. The social fabric of Ireland has changed significantly since the early 90s. Prior to then, Ireland was decidedly white and decidedly catholic. Not since the Vikings had Ireland witnessed any real surge in inward migration. And we were world champions of outward migration, of course. 

While reaction to immigration in Ireland has been typically difficult to gauge (We're a nation who likes to keep our political opinions to ourselves - unless we're down the pub) there is unquestionably a sense of opposition among a portion of the population, mainly older and more rural people, to immigration. This opposition, its relative strength or weakness difficult to measure, has not manifested itself in any practical way.

There has been no mass, quasi-patriotic, anti-immigration movement in Ireland like UKIP. Does this not seem strange to people? I'm not advocating the founding of such an organisation but it seems like it would have been a natural step. So what are the probable reasons for this state of affairs? I can only speculate but speculate is what I shall do. 

Well first off, as I have already alluded to, we have a prolific history of outward migration. Like, seriously prolific. If each country was a player in the Emigration World Cup we would be Pele, Romario and Messi rolled into one. So is there an argument to be made that, because of this, we have a keener understanding of and sympathy with incoming migrants than a country like the UK would? 

Stories abound of Irish immigrants being the victims of very distasteful discrimination in America and Britain for much of the 19th and 20th centuries. No blacks, dogs, or Irish as the old adage goes (Indeed, A People's History of the United States of America by Howard Zinn is a good book if you wish to read more about the difficulties faced by Irish immigrants in the US in the years after the Famine.) So, perhaps there is a case to be made that we are more naturally welcoming to immigrants than our Anglo cousins for we've seen what a challenge it can be to up-sticks and move to a strange, foreign country. 

Now that point is really only speculation. I can't prove that. So perhaps we could do with some more practical reasons. Like the fact that we have much, much bigger problems on our plate than immigration. I don't want to dwell too much on the recession or the bank bailout or our new, 21st century brand of emigration but I have to. While the economic picture in Britain since the world was shook by the stock market crash of 2008 has been far from rosy, the entire fabric of their political and economic infrastructure has not been torn apart in quite the same way ours has. 

Here's just a few statistics. The UK's unemployment rate is currently 7.4% while Ireland's is 12.4%. Indeed, Ireland's rate hit 15.1% as recently as February 2012 and the sharp decrease has less to do with positive economic activity and more to do with the gentle massaging of statistics thanks to JobBridge and similar internship schemes, underemployment and of course our old friend emigration. Which leads me on to my next point rather nicely. Since 2008, over 200,000 people have left Ireland. And the problem isn't going away with 250 people still leaving Ireland every day. 

So maybe, in a very simple way, we just don't have the time to be worrying about immigration. Contrary to what the weekend papers have been trumpeting in the last few weeks, Ireland is not yet out of murky waters and our supposed recovery has been very slow and grinding. Perhaps for the more affluent classes it is a different story, but for the majority of the population, Ireland is still waiting for an actual "good news story". We remain too distracted by a myriad of serious issuess for an issue-heavy party like the UKIP to emerge and the emphasis right now is on the economy and not much else. 

Then there's the dominance of the major parties; Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour. Now some may claim that this point is moot as the major political parties in Britain have enjoyed a similar hegemony, since the Second World War at least. Labour and the Tories have taken turns as Britain's most popular party while the Lib Dems are as used to bronze as Dannii Minogue is to botox. Judging by the local elections held last year however, UKIP have broken this triangle of power. We'll get a better idea in next year's general election but judging by the polls, they should make some healthy gains. 

A handful of small political parties have made it into power in Ireland, albeit as very junior members of coalitions with the big boys. The  Democratic Left, the PDs and the Greens have all sat around the cabinet table in the last 20 years though two of those parties no longer exist while the Greens were virtually wiped out in the last election. No small political party in Ireland has ever had the impact UKIP have made in the UK. Some may point to Sinn Féin's recent resurgence but it's an entirely different story given Sinn Féin's prominence in modern Irish history. 

Ireland's attitude towards immigration remains difficult to gauge. While the assimilation of many different nationalities has hardly been rosy, the Immigrant Council of Ireland reports that there has been an 85% increase in the number of migrants complaining of racist incidents in the past year for example, we have not seen close to the disruption caused in Britain by rising racial tensions. I'm not quite sure why this is, some may point to the fact that Britain is far more industrialised and far more densely populated than Ireland and that this is bound to cause tensions to simmer, others may say it's more to do with our apparent apathy. 

In truth, whatever negative attitudes persist in Ireland with regards to immigration, it remains very unlikely that a party like UKIP will emerge any time soon. Even after the tumult of the last half-decade, Ireland's political arena remains remarkably stagnant and remarkably short of fresh blood. We may not be happy with our current lot, but it doesn't seem like there's much of a queue lining up to replace them. 


My own personal opinion (Related to but separate from the above post)

Now,  I've remained remarkably impartial throughout the above post so I feel as though I should state my position very clearly on immigration. I am strongly in favour of the free movement of persons regardless of colour, creed or race. I have grown up in a relatively multicultural society, much more so than people 20 or even 10 years older than me did, and can say with certainty that diversity and immigration makes things more interesting. 

Now it is important to remain aware however. The free movement of persons around the EU, particularly from the poorer Eastern countries, is loudly applauded by the capitalist classes and it's not because they're champions of multiculturalism. When there's an influx of foreign labour in Ireland it is used as a tool to drive wages and working conditions down. Foreign workers are more likely to accept lower wages and poorer working conditions than Irish workers and Irish workers in turn are forced to accept lower wages and poorer working conditions for fear of dismissal.

This is a win-win for the capitalist class as, along with the obvious monetary benefits, the Irish workers generally vent their anger towards the foreign workers instead of those who really deserve their ire, the capitalist classes. This is a vicious cycle and one which unfortunately will not be rectified in the foreseeable future due to obvious systematic problems. 

Oh, and I find the policies of UKIP and Nigel Farage pretty odious. I also find their cheerleaders in the media, namely the Daily Mail and the Daily Express, odious. People should look to alternatives from the political establishment (Cameron, Miliband and Clegg along with Kenny, Gilmore and Martin are equally distasteful) but, as history has taught us, the far-right route only brings intolerance, misery and suffering. 

The rise of Snapchat: What the f**k happened?

It looks like a silhouette of Zoidberg from Futurama. Or a condom

I must admit, I'm a bit late to the party. For those of you who don't know I spent 5 months in Ghana on Co-Op so my hitherto excellent and unflappable grasp of popular culture has taken something of a hit. Twerking passed me by, as did most of Miley Cyrus' gallivanting and it was only two weeks ago I discovered that the tall lad from Glee who couldn't really sing or act or dance died in a pool of alcohol, vomit and heroin. 

The most significant change that occurred while I was away in Africa however has to be the rise of the selfie and the main vessel on which it sails, the smartphone app Snapchat. I was a puzzled boy when I returned and found that not only has Snapchat become incongruously popular but that it's so popular that it's threatening to dismantle Facebook's vice-like grip on the teen social networking market. Facebook!? Dear God, when I left it seemed it would take an alien invasion or at the very least a nuclear fallout to stifle Facebook's dominance. I had to get to the bottom of this. I had to see what all the fuss was about. So I asked myself, just why is Snapchat so popular?

The first thing that puzzled me with regards to Snapchat was the selfie. I was familiar with the term before I had left (To be honest, it's not too fucking difficult to work out) but it's become a bona fide pop culture phenomenon. It perplexes me though. Before 2013, anyone posting selfies on Facebook or any other website would be, at best, considered a tad self-satisfied and at worst a vain, preening shitcake. 

What happened in between? What made it ok to post teasing, attention-seeking images of your own mug? I was always of the understanding that there was a subtle yet strict moral code which all us decent human beings on the internet abided by. Don't cyberbully. Don't laugh at 9gag. Don't share those inane "One like = One respect for Cancer Victims" facebook posts. Don't be a vain, preening shitcake. 

But this moral code has been flipped upside down and rendered useless by the advent of the selfie. It admonishes and, nay, encourages vanity and self-obsession. The selfie has been assisted in its propulsion to ubiquity with the help of celebrities such as Cara Delevigne and Kendell Jenner. Celebrities are always reliable cheerleaders for any thing which encourages conceitedness, self-adoration and solipsism. (Solipsism is a pushing it a bit but, fuck it, I have a word count and it sounds intelligent.) These celebrities regularly post selfies on their instagram accounts to their adoring followers who number the hundreds of thousands. Instagram, ironically, is owned and operated by Facebook so maybe they aren't the big losers in this selfie explosion. 

So, in an attempt to understand Snapchat's obvious appeal I decided to download it on my own phone and give it a spin. I encountered a number of difficulties, chief among them that my phone, while ostensibly a smartphone, is a steaming pile of cheap dog shite and trying to run Snapchat on it is like trying to run the latest edition of World of Warcraft on Windows 98. I have no front-facing camera and the one on the back is a measly 3MP so the pictures end up about as clear and concise as a Jackson Pollock painting. 

Nevertheless, in the 30 or so minutes I spent faffing about on it I really didn't enjoy it. Jesus it's intrusive, constantly bugging you to "invite your friends" and "sync your contacts" so even more people can be vain, preening shitcakes with you. It sends instant messages to your phone as soon as one of your friends sends you a picture. Jesus. Do people really find their friends that interesting? 

Have we truly reached the stage in digital saturation where we want to be updated instantly as soon as our friends posts a drunken selfie or a picture of their dinner? I've barely tip-toed my way through the incipient stages of my 20s and I still feel too old for this shit. 

I can sort of understand the appeal. Snapchat is much more intimate than Facebook and, as many commentators have pointed out, Facebook has lost its cool factor thanks to the multitude of parents, aunties, uncles and even grandparents who clog up teenagers' news feeds. Is it a fad? Probably not. It's just another rung on this digital ladder which we're all climbing together. In a few years time, we'll probably be discussing the latest social networking craze that teens are flocking to (to the apparent detriment of Snapchat) and wonder if it's the end of Snapchat. But it probably won't be. Like Facebook now it'll still remain relevant and popular long past its peak. Why? Because when you get this big you don't just fall away into anonymity. Now to post a selfie of my twerkie. 

Why are young people so damn nostalgic nowadays?

In 2006 the American R&B singer Mario released a song entitled Let Me Love You. It was a major chart hit around the globe, topping the charts in seven countries. As I was an impressionable and naive 13 year old, who had not yet discovered The Beatles, Van Morrison, Indie Rock or Motown when it was released, I was rather enamoured by it. So this week I decided to scour Youtube for it and give an ol’ listen for, y’know, old time’s sake.

It’s not a fantastic song. Its melody is quite enchanting but thematically and lyrically it leaves a lot to be desired. Though that was not what bothered me when I listened to it. The highest rated comment on the video, as voted for by Youtube users, was what did it. It was the seemingly innocuous comment; “Back when music was good”.

This perturbed me. It really did. The implication that in the last 7 years music has gone belly-up and lost its way, that back in the mid-noughties the charts was only the preserve of “good music” and that now it is only the preserve of substandard bile  irritated me (It is the preserve of substandard bile now but it was too back in the 00s).

This is not an anomalous occurrence on the internet or indeed in real life. This unabridged and frankly uninformed nostalgia has long been pervasive. It sickens me. The assumption that somehow the world was a better, more moralistic and more cultured place in the past is not only untrue but morbidly stupid.

It is most commonly associated with older people. You hear it from your grandparents when they’re discussing the youth of today – They begin their sentence with the classic dictum “Back in my day” or the equally hackneyed “When I was a youngster” and then launch into a sanctimonious tirade about how people today have no manners or no respect.

It’s worth pointing out that our grandparents are part of a generation that started and finished two world wars. If it’s a choice between poor manners or world wars, I’m afraid I’m going to have to go with the poor manners.

But there is a new trend now. It has its roots, perhaps unsurprisingly, on the internet and it’s just as pervasive and just as annoying as ordinary nostalgia – it’s nostalgia perpetuated by young people. Yep, you heard me. People in their teens are now as nostalgic as people in the twilight of their lives.

There are a myriad of examples to back this up but I shall provide you with the most prominent and, coincidentally, the most annoying example of what I like to call “Youthful nostalgia”. It is the 90s kids craze.

Ah, the 90s kids craze. I’m sure some of you are at a loss. Some of you may not be familiar with it. Let me explain. It’s a movement on the internet which celebrates the popular culture and fads of the 1990s. It celebrates things like 90s TV shows, 90s music and 90s fads such as Tamagotchis and Furbies - and berates everything “modern” as if the 90s were the time of Wordsworth and Keats.  

What makes it so mind-numbingly stupid is that most of its patrons are in their teens – i.e they were only born in the 90s. They spent their formative years in the 00s. Like me. I am apparently a 90s kid. I was six when the 90s ended. Six. I was but an overgrown foetus. And there are younger people than I who celebrate the 90s as if the entire decade was some sort of eternal and perpetual utopia.

So why is this? Why do kids today insist that the current generation is nowt but a bunch of uncultured chimps and try to claim membership of a generation that was only a fleeting part of their lives?

 Maybe it’s thanks to our parents and the media. You know the way that the Pre-9/11 world is held up to be some everlasting bastion of endless peace? Or maybe every generation since the 60s habitually hates itself and longs to claim membership of every preceding decade? Tis debatable.

While it’s always fun to look back on past generations and enjoy their music and popular culture we could do well to remember what makes our generation very special indeed. We’re the first totally digital and interactive generation.  We’re revolutionaries in every little thing we do online.

I’m not saying we’re perfect. And I’m not saying we’re necessarily better than any other previous generation. What I am saying is neither are preceding generations without their faults. They weren’t paragons of virtue like some like to claim.

A short piece on my problem with students' unions

Couldn't think of a relevant pic so I just used a stock image.
 He looks a bit pissed off. It'll do.

In the garishly ornate St. Peter's Basilica this week a conclave is being held to decide who should be the next leader of what is left of the Catholic Church. Cardinals will talk, talk, bicker, debate and talk some more before voting. And voting again. And possibly even again. Then a plume of white smoke will emerge from a small chimney signalling to the world that a week and a bit of uncertainty and angst is over and that a new pope has been elected.

Unbeknownst to those cardinals and the vast majority of the world, there is a another election taking place this week. It is slightly less elaborate and less ritualistic but just as annoying, as obtrusive and as wonderfully pointless. It is the University of Limerick Students' Union election.

This election is being held to elect a new SU president, welfare officer and entertainment officer. Or something like that. There are parallels to be drawn between this election and ordinary political elections - similar amounts of hyperbole, cringe-worthy attempts by candidates and campaigners to 'get down' with the electorate and an a potent sense of vanity and self-indulgence pervading through the air. "Hyperbole" is just a fancy word for "bullshit", by the way.

Similarly there are also parallels between the SU itself and actual political institutions - even more hyperbole, vexatious bureaucracy and feelings of resentment and apathy towards it amongst its electorate. 

Some of you reading this may attend UL and may be thinking "Last week was RAG week and it was DAY-CENT and the SU organised that. Why the overt contempt, man?" Let me explain. I do not think the ULSU is particularly rank in comparison with other students' unions nor do I have any personal gripes with anyone in ULSU (Most are actually rather affable). I just dislike all Students' Unions. 

You see, I view students' unions the same way I view political institutions, namely with  suspicion. In my eyes, students' unions are, or at least seem to be, empty vessels used by self-serving, overly desirous persons to further their own personal advancement and get a good reference on their CV while feigning an interest in students and their issues.

 Now I don't see anything particularly wrong with that - in this ecnomic climate everyone needs a good CV and I'm not particularly fond of my fellow students either - it's just the way they go about it. 

You see them on Twitter. You see them around campus. You see their Facebook groups urging you to vote for them around election time. They're the type of irritating busy-bodies who treat their Twitter account as if they were a journalist at The Irish Times, discussing current affairs with the sort of discernment unbecoming of them. Discussing people and news they've never heard of as if they're experts in the field. Their profile pictures are always excessively formal and on Facebook they encourage their friends to "get involved" in the Student Union. Their sense of humour is restricted to the occasional meme. They see themselves as future leaders and thinkers. Some of them, indeed, it seems are being groomed for a future in politics.

And then they wonder why they're so unpopular. Not them personally, but the Student Union itself. Why do so very few students take an interest in it? Why do they consistently fail to reach quorum in their AGMs and EGMs? Why the low turnout for voting despite the fact that it is remarkably easy to vote? (You just need to log in to ANY computer in the University - and there's quite a few of them). Now, of course, I can only discuss the ULSU here but I'm sure this scenario replicates itself in many other students' unions around Ireland. 

Is their unpopularity down to the natural and irrevocable apathy towards anything that doesn't involve consuming copious amounts of alcohol among most students? It most certainly has a big part to play but there are other factors too. Students' unions claim to represent students but they're so out of touch it's laughable. The campaigning that takes place during election week is exceedingly annoying and it seems the promises they make are exact same each year. This, of course, is very similar to politicians' campaigns but with the difference being that we can (or should be able to at least) hold politicians to account when they're acting like divs - not exactly the same with students' unions officials. 

The only time students' unions really raise their voice is around November time - just before the Budget. With fee increases and grant levies expected in the Budget they organise a few buses to the Capital and take part in a collective "letting off of steam" exercise or "protest", if you will. Protests are valiant causes but, come on, is one poxy protest going to make a difference? Or would a sustained campaign be more practical in actually combating fee increases? Of course it would but the students' unions don't seem to care - they just want to make it appear that they do. And therein lies the problem. If I were to bestow a collective motto upon students' unions it would be that - "We don't really care but we'll pretend to."  

I can be challenged on this subject and I would welcome a rebuke. It's just as an observer of my own students' union for a year and a half now I have already formed a well-set opinion on them and their dealings. Indeed, this opinion took root very early on in my academic life and nothing since has convinced me to change. Students' unions, like the Catholic Church in this week of concurrent elections, could do with a reevaluation of what their role exactly is. 

Gerry Adams' Twitter account - Stroke of genius or publicity stunt?

Following celebrities on Twitter can be an arduous task. Indeed, it is often what line of work a celebrity is involved in that determines how interesting/uninteresting their tweets will be. Footballers tend to be boring and anodyne (Unless of course they happen to be Joey Barton). Musicians can be intriguing and engaging (Johnny Marr) or absolutely off-the wall insane (Tyler, The Creator) though many others can be depressingly cliched and woefully vapid (Ed Sheeran/Any teen sensation). Actors, rather surprisingly, are usually your best bet for stimulating and/or humorous tweets (Anna Kendrick being my personal favourite). 

Politicians then (And yes, they are celebrities) are rather pointless to follow on Twitter. All you get on your timeline is hyperbolic propaganda and contrived attempts at patriotism. Twitter to most politicians is, I assume, a necessary evil; something to connect with younger voters but given the choice, they'd rather leave it to their secretaries or aides. And many do, of course. 

This was until Gerry Adams came along. His Twitter account is less than two months old but has already amassed over 16,000 followers. Now that's not a fantastically huge amount - but for a 65 year old Irish politician who has only tweeted 181 times (That sounds like a lot, I know - it isn't really), it's pretty damn impressive. It ain't hard to see why so many people have chosen to follow him - his tweets are works of scattered, chaotic and often times incongruous art. 

The question remains though; is Gerry Adams really this eccentrically brilliant? Does he really sleep with a teddy named Ted? Does he really bathe with a rubber duck? Or is this a publicity stunt by Sinn Féin? A chance to capitalise on the growing support of him personally and the party on the whole and to perhaps even expand it? I'm going to have to stop asking questions that I can't possibly answer conclusively and just present the evidence. You, the reader of my modest blog, can be the judge. 

I'll just lay out a few of the (many) highlights so far:

                            Trouble in paradise with Ted (Who is a teddy bear)     

"Tiocfaidh Ár Latte"

Wacky happenings in Leinster House

Martin McGuinness joins Twitter

Discussing the marital status of teddy bears Ted and Tom

Charming anecdote

His rather lovely dog, Snowie

It's difficult to decipher, ain't it? In some people's minds, Adams will always be intrinsically linked to the IRA and the Troubles and they may see this as a cheap attempt to create a new identity - a sort of bumbling, bubbly sexagenarian who seems like he just happens to be a politician, that it doesn't define who he is. Such protests are not inane. Accruing support in such a hostile and divided political environment is difficult and of course remarkably important - political parties will (And have) stoop to anything to attract voters. 

Those assumptions will remain just that however - merely assumptions. 

Adams has always struck me as a peculiar sort of character though. Not quite as aberrant as he comes across on Twitter but still peculiar. He is the very first politician I remember being aware of as a child - probably because my early childhood was the mid to late 90's, i.e. peace process time. His eminent beard reminds me so much of the 90s it's almost zeitgeist-y. His Twitter account however, really did surprise me. In a good way. For the first week it existed I was convinced it was a parody account. Convinced. Then the Sinn Fein press office confirmed its validity. Oh. So he actually did tweet "Tiocfaidh Ár Latte" about a good cup of coffee. He actually does sleep (or claim to, at least) with a teddy bear. He actually does have a near-comical love/hate relationship with his advisor RG (Real name - Richard McCauley). 

Of course, other prominent members of Sinn Féin use Twitter - Martin McGuinness has just joined and Mary Lou McDonald is a prominent user - and both are more dynamic with their accounts than their jejune FF/FG/Lab counterparts. Though neither are a patch on Gerry. 

What amuses me most about any member of Sinn Féin's Twitter accounts is their use of the Irish language. It's so flagrant yet somehow subtle. It's as if they have a requisite number of words which must be as gaeilge in each tweet. They would never compose a full tweet  as gaeilge though, that would be far too confusing for the followers - most of whom are Irish and as such do not speak Irish. 

I haven't answered the question that I posed in the title of this article. Because I simply can't answer it conclusively. Adams' tweets seem so batshit insane at times that I think he simply must be putting on this overt eccentricity or at least exaggerating it. But it somehow seems genuine. His continuous bewilderment with modern technology, his strange obsession with GAA (You have to be obsessed to watch Antrim hurling), Christ, even the teddy bear thing. It makes sense in the strangest of ways. 

But then, it doesn't really matter. If he continues to churn out the comedy gold he's produced already, I won't question his motives. I don't think he'll ever top "Tiocfaidh Ár Latte", though. 

The rise of the LAD.

Romantic Ireland's dead and gone, 
It's with O'Leary in the grave
- W.B Yeats

He was a sagacious ol' soul was good ol' Billy Butler Yeats. He wrote that very line 100 years ago this year. He was cultured, he was curious and he was astute. He was everything that a LAD is not. He is the antithesis of everything LADs stand for. 

In fact, were Yeats to stroll down Grafton Street in February 2013 and were he to encounter a group of LADs, they'd more than likely deride his iconic spectacles than actually recognise him.

Ah, LADs. You may be wondering to whom I am referring to when I write LADs (You may also be wondering why I insist on typing LAD in all caps - well, you can't fully convey their overt pseudo-masuclinity with just "lad".). Am I writing about every heterosexual male? Nope. Every male under the age of 25? Nah. Every male who enjoys sports? Crumbs, no.

I am referring to the new type of adolescent male that exists today. I am talking about the default setting for so many males between 16 and 25 today. It is a new-ish strain of masculinity. It is brash, it is abrasive and Jesus Christ it is actually contagious. If you are a college student or someone who encounters students on a regular basis you should know what I mean when I type LAD.

Indeed, it ain't very difficult to spot a LAD. They're rarely quiet and they're rarely inconspicuous. They stay in herds too. LADs on their own are surprisingly manageable and even affable - it's when they're in their herd they feel the need to act lie absolute fucking imbeciles.

In case you have trouble recognising them (you shouldn't) here's a handy list of LAD characteristics (Or LADeristics, if you must) that you can cut out and keep so you know when you're in the vicinity of a LAD.

• They're the type of people who piss on your doorstep and knock over your bins for comic effect. 
• They're the type of people who start those incongruous chants inside and outside nightclubs. 
• They're the type of people who go to Santa Ponsa or Magaluf on holidays. I would rather consume my own feces before subjecting to myself to the horror of Magaluf/Santa Ponsa.
• They're the type of people who talk about having "BANTER" and have now shorten the term to "BANTS" as BANTER is just something that is so fundamental to their very existence. 
• They're the type of people who wear Hollister. It is a fucking LAD uniform. 
• They're type of people who, when asked what type of music they enjoy, reply "Anything, really" - "Anything, really" meaning a narrow selection of chart hits (Note - "Anything really" will be written as "Netin, reli" on LADs' Facebook pages).
• They're the type of people who LOVE Mumford & Sons and think that Ed Sheeran is lyrically deep.
• They're the type of people who become bona fide golfing experts whenever a Ryder Cup/US Masters is on but wouldn't know a sand wedge from sandwich every other day of the year.
• They're the type of people who think scarves are "gay" but wearing body warmers when playing football is perfectly within the realms of their pseudo-masculinity. 
• They're the type of people who think wearing a shirt is "fancy".
• They're the type of people who think climbing a couple of lampposts and taking their tops off is "MAYHEM" (I'm looking at you NUI Galway, you absolute plebs. I mean Jesus, I saw the title of that video and thought someone was going to be killed).
• They're the type of people who will tell you that chick-flicks and rom-coms are "gay as fuck" and in the same conversation will unironically profess their love for Home and Away. 
• They're the type of people who just LOVE the Fast & Furious film series. 
• They're the type of people who actually enjoy nightclubs.
• They're the type of people who had blonde highlights in their hair when they were 12, the "V" haircut when they were 14 and a mullet when they were 16. LADs are just evolved chavs after all.
• They're the type of people who take time off work/college/school during Cheltenham so they can go fritter their money away on racing beef burgers and lament their monetary losses in a very manly tone the following day.
• They're the type of people who discovered memes 8 months ago and now find the derogatory replies "Cool story, bro" and "Still a better love story than Twilight" absolutely fucking hilarious. 
• They're the type of people who pretend to know about farming.
• They're the type of people who have made facebook "creeping" an art.
• They're the type of people who love/pretend to love cars.
• They're the type of people who live for RAG week.
• They're the type of people who have just discovered Breaking Bad in the last 8 months and insist on informing you of how "unreal" it is.
• They're the type of people who can express contempt for the British Empire and the Irish language in the same breath, without a hint of irony. 

The LAD culture isn't exactly castigated or censured. Its largely embraced. Such is the sheer volume of LADs that it is difficult to start a movement against them. They have even infiltrated the corridors of power in Ireland (Leo Varadker - huge LAD). Their rise must be admired, in some ways. 

They have a mouthpiece too - a mouthpiece on social media, anyway. UniLad and The Lad Bible (You may be familiar with both) are websites but more popularly Facebook pages which celebrate LAD culture in its most visceral form. They are to LADs what the Little Red Book is to Maoists. Both supply a heady cocktail of bad jokes, overused memes and latent misogyny. 

It's difficult to define what the LAD movement really is though. Is it some post-modern counter-reaction to feminism? Is it the last roar of conventional masculinity? Or has it always existed and will always exist just now, since the advent of the internet, it is much more visible and much, much more annoying? I don't know. I'm tempted to go with the third option as I ain't one for blind nostalgia and would like to think this whole LAD thing isn't a generational problem. It also should be noted that the LAD movement is in no way exclusive to Ireland. UniLad and The Lad Bible are both British creations and their problems with LADs are just as grave as ours. 

By the age of about 25, LADs seem to settle down. Their idiocy is only passing but it leaves its mark. They become well-liked members of society after this and their contribution is valued. A handful fall through the net - which is a real shame as there is nothing worse than a LAD in his 30s - but it's a small enough portion to manage. 

So, LADs. Can't live with them. Can't live withou- Oh, no. I just can't live with them.

*For the purpose of this blog I have consciously adopted a very condescending tone. Please, it is not sincere. It is a "joke" if you must. I am typing this disclaimer so I do not receive incandescently angry hate-mail calling me a snob.