Datasets:
Recag
/
C4_1

Dataset card Data Studio Files Community
1
text
stringlengths
10
56.7k
The tens of thousands of Irish people living abroad are unlikely to be given a vote in the general election, despite a series of committee recommendations.
THE GOVERNMENT has faced fresh calls to allow Irish expatriates register to vote in the forthcoming general election, after it emerged that it shelved an official report recommending that Irish citizens be allowed to vote regardless of where they live.
Today’s Irish Daily Mail says that a report from the Oireachtas committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, commissioned in 2009 and which advocated that non-resident Irish citizens be given a vote in general elections, has been ‘mothballed’ by the state.
That report follows a further report produced in 2008, when the same committee advocated “improved measures” to facilitate Irish citizens who were out of the country on voting day.
However, a task force on Irish emigrants, which produced a report for Brian Cowen in 2002 when he was Foreign Affairs minister, endorsed the findings of another Oireachtas committee – that on the Constitution – which recommended that voting rights remain confined to ordinary residents.
Ironically, the Seanad elections – where graduates of Trinity College or the National University of Ireland elect six members of the 60-strong Seanad – are run entirely by post, and do not base their electorate on whether voters live abroad.
Labour TD Ciarán Lynch – a member of the Environment committee that twice advocated extending the vote to citizens overseas – said ministers were apparently unwilling to implement the reports’ findings.
Labour’s document on political reform published earlier today made no reference to changing the electorate for ballots, though it did promise to introduce spending limits for local and Presidential elections.
Email “Calls grow for election votes for Irish abroad”.
Feedback on “Calls grow for election votes for Irish abroad”.
Emerson: Must we abandon our concepts of God?
In pre-scientific times, it was easy to believe that Earth was positioned in the middle of the universe. In early Chinese concepts, not only was our planet the centre of all that existed, but more than that, China itself was known as “the middle land” by the people who lived there. It seemed at that time, reasonable to assume that God was a great creator who looked upon his creation with kindness and care, and knew every individual by name as they offered their prayers to their creator.
Today, our knowledge of science has expanded our concept of the universe to unimaginable proportions. We now know that our planet, comparatively speaking, is as a small speck of dust among millions of huge stars as the cosmos continues to expand beyond billions of light years and multi-billions of stars and countless planets. It is now believed there are vast numbers of planets, some with a good possibility of sustaining forms of life yet unknown to us. Modern scientists do not regard our planet, Earth, as the centre of the universe.
In simple terms, either the early concepts of God were true, and such a caring and loving God exists, or such a creator does not exist. At least, God does not exist in accordance with earlier simplified concepts that place humans as the apex of creation.
Let’s assume for now, that such a caring creator God exists. If so, all those who offer prayers for guidance will be provided with similar responses to their prayers. Ethical matters will not depend upon relativistic answers. All who worship God will know what ethical approaches to take, and life will be harmonious, consistent, and morally correct. It will not be important whether believers are Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, or any other of the multitude of religions. God will be the same universal God who looks after all people and all ethical directions. God will not offer relativistic guidance, but God’s answers will be consistent, true, and unchanging. Religious believers will be guided by God in all matters regarding ethics, and life among religious followers will be harmonious. Believers will not disagree over questions such as divorce, sexual orientation, marriage ceremonies, religious sacraments, methods of fasting, or women as clergy. Nor will God change his advice from time to time. Modern religious believers must look at this concept of a powerful and consistent God and decide whether or not belief in God actually brings believers together in such a harmonious way on ethical questions. Or do religions sometimes divide us on important ethical matters?
Another possibility is that while there may be a great creator God, we as humans do not understand God’s commands. Believers bring to their thoughts and prayers their own perception of what they think is fair and just and ethical. Believers genuinely come to believe that what they consider ethical, is what their God is telling them. In this scenario, from time to time, even among religions, there will be various answers given on ethics by religious experts from many religious persuasions. There will even be times when such religious differences lead to disagreements and to wars among religions.
A third possibility exists. That is, believers create God concepts rather than the other way around. Believers bring to their religious thinking their own cultural concepts and societal mores that seem to work fairly well within their own communities. But these ethical concepts really have little to do with a creator God of earlier times. Answers instead will be relevant to each particular culture and its customs.
A fourth concept exists. Maybe there is no God at all. It is easy for most of us today to dismiss the multitude of earlier historic gods such as Zeus, Odin, Poseidon, and Thor. Arguments over their advice were often conflicting and led to battles among believers. It may be, just as earlier believers have had to re-think their ideas of earlier multitudes of gods, we will have to mentally refashion our present concepts of God and even abandon some of them. This will be an important and momentous ongoing task for future religious thinkers and for human kind.
— Goldwin Emerson is a London professor emeritus of education with an interest in philosophy and moral development.
BOSTON (Reuters) - Corporate America’s reputation plunged in the eyes of average Americans last year, as the rush of companies to Washington for financial support soured popular support for big business.
Eighty-eight percent of respondents in a survey said business’s reputation was either “not good” or “terrible,” the highest in the poll’s 10-year history and well above the 68 percent to 74 percent who had held that opinion over the past five years. Results of the Harris Interactive survey were set to be released on Tuesday.
Financial services companies and Detroit automakers were among the 60 best-known companies with the worst reputations among U.S. consumers, while drug, tech and consumer products companies were most admired, according to the survey.
Respondents said the brutal recession has darkened their view of corporate America, with 75 percent reporting their opinion of corporations was lower due to the downturn. They saw little hope for economic improvement, with 43 percent expecting conditions to get worse over the next six to 12 months.
The five companies with the worst reputations were troubled insurer American International Group Inc, oilfield services company Halliburton Co, automakers General Motors Co and Chrysler LLC, and failed savings and loan Washington Mutual.
One of the striking differences in this year’s survey was the number of financial services firms that climbed into the list of the most visible companies. American Express Co, JPMorgan Chase & Co, Wachovia Corp, Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, Washington Mutual and AIG are all newcomers to the list this year.
“The financial services industry right now has a fundamental problem in regaining the trust and business of their customers,” Fronk said.
The U.S. Treasury has already pumped about $525 billion into the financial sector in a bid to keep the industry afloat through the worst financial crisis in decades. It’s also given more than $25 billion in aid to Detroit automakers General Motors and Chrysler.
Ninety-eight percent of respondents said they believed corporations needed to do more to adopt sustainable business practices, but held out little hope they would make sufficient changes on their own. Eighty-five percent said that regulation would be needed to urge them along.
The group’s polling shows that consumers are less likely to invest in or do business with companies with poor reputations.
Harris polled 20,483 Americans in two waves between September 2008 and February 2009.
Mix the strawberries in the blender.
Stir the gelatin into the cold water, and heat slowly in a saucepan over medium-low heat until the gelatin is totally dissolved.
Stir together the strawberries and the gelatin mixture and add the frozen apple juice concentrate.
Spray a 9 x 12-inch pan with cooking spray. Pour the mixture into the pan and chill until firm.
To unmold, turn the pan upside down onto a cookie sheet.
Using alphabet letter shaped cookie cutters, cut Super Letters out of the gelatin.
Serving (optional): Have party guests make their name or pick out their initials.
“Travel in Slovakia - good idea”. It doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue, but then few tourism slogans do. At least that’s according to a new map which reveals the catchphrases of destinations around the world.
Some marketing departments have clearly been working harder than others with a handful of countries opting for simple alliteration rather than trying anything fancy (“Incredible India”; “Beautiful Bangladesh”; “Pristine Paradise Palau”; “Brilliant Barbados”). See the map in full size here.
Other nations have had a bit of fun. Indeed Telegraph Travel is particularly fond of Djibouti’s quip, “Djibeauty”, and Morocco’s play on words, “Much Mor” (see what they did there?).
Some destinations have been slightly bolder. Belgium, for example, has declared itself “The place to be”, while Estonia, one of the world’s smallest countries, has plumped for a big adjective: “epic”.
The United States claims to be “all within your reach”, which is optimistic given that it’s the third largest nation of Earth.
Curiously, a number of nations have decided to use their slogans to explain where they are. Cue Portugal and Andorra, which have somewhat boringly opted for “Europe’s west coast” and “the Pyrenean country”.
Four nations make competing claims to being the cradle of civilisation with their slogans: Mozambique (“come to where it all started”); Ethiopia (“land of origins”); Egypt (“where it all began”); and Israel (“land of creation”).
However, the prize for the most bizarre catchphrase has to go to “think Hungary more than expected”. Perhaps something was lost in translation.