“You seem much (more) sure in yourself, you know that? More solid.” Ciaran was across our hotel room as I was about to pass out for an hour’s nap. I hadn’t seen him since, what I can only assume is, over a year ago. “It’s difficult to place my finger on it but it’s as if you aren’t a try-hard anymore, less ephemeral.”

It was hard to really understand what he was trying to tell me. I can probably chalk that up to the tiredness at the time, the debilitating flu I was fighting or the almighty hangover from the night before. However, I think I got the gist of it; my American sojourn has had profound effects on who I am.

I was in Vermont that weekend attending the US Universities Debate Championship as a judge. I had decided to go to it, as it would give me a chance to catch up with some old friends, meet some fun new folk and have a last hurrah before the finals countdown. Burlington is your quintessential college town, picturesque, tiny and filled with sorority houses. It made a great change from the hustle and bustle of the big city.

If I had to look back on the eight months I’ve been here, I can say that I have really warmed to living in a metropolis. There’s something exciting about the constant buzz, the lights and the people in big cities that small towns and the countryside lacks. Everything is set up for convenience, so daily life is a breeze.

However, my trip to Vermont reminded me of allure of quiet living. Being able to look up and see the stars for the first time in almost a year really is amazing. Can I definitely make a call over which one I prefer? Probably not, but I’m glad to be in a position where I have experienced both.

When you move away from your home, your familiar settings, your close friends and your family, there is a big adjustment you have to make. I’m sure many UCD students from outside of Dublin can understand what I mean, but I think that when you can’t hop on an intercity train or pick up the phone to call (time difference is still a pain after eight months), there is a greater feeling of isolation.

The feeling is further compounded by the fact that life back home plays out through Facebook. One has to really try to make the most of it and integrate; otherwise you won’t feel like you’re really there, but waiting to return instead.

Chicago has been good to me. I have made some fantastic new friends from all types of walks of life, I have a job that keeps me afloat and shows me the ins and outs of practicing law, got up to some crazy adventures and I finally got to live out my childhood dream of visiting America for an extended period of time (before August, the only American soil I set foot on was the embassy’s). Will I ever return to America? Sure. It is a great place. Would I ever move to America? I don’t think so.

While it is fun and exciting, I feel the culture is just too glossy. As you dig beneath the surface you see inequalities and prejudices. It is a country where it is cheaper to buy processed, fattening foods than to buy fresh produce. Moreover, it is a country more obsessed with military might and political wrangling than on fixing its education, environment and health systems.

Yet despite all of this, I’ve been proud to make it my home for the year. I would urge anyone who gets the chance to go on an exchange. You will learn more about yourself than you could ever imagine. And if you do go on one, be sure to engage with it fully, from the classes to the people you meet and the parties you make. It will be the best year of your life.

I’ve watched Ireland’s slow decline etch itself out through the papers and global news outlets. It would be nice to say that it is where my future lies but I somehow doubt that. Whatever happens, I know that I’m equipped with the skills to make something of myself anywhere. At least I’ll always have had my time in the Windy City. Goodbye Chicago, it’s been great.

In his latest travel column, James Fagan compares the horrors of airport-traumas to his newfound love of the NFL in all its glory

If being on exchange is a student’s idea of heaven, then airports must be purgatory. One must go through to reach those golden, or in my case frozen, lands afar. Like many travellers this winter, I had the complete non-joy of having flights cancelled by inclement weather. As a result, I was able to sample the finer offerings of some of the transatlantic route’s finest (I use the term so loosely it may fall off the page) airports.

Most of my disdain is directed at Chicago’s main hub, O’Hare. Upon my first day of attempting to get home, I arrived at terminal two to drop off a departing Argentinean friend. Thinking it was also my terminal, I let out of a sigh of relief when I saw that it was relatively big and shiny (that usually means comfort).

Unfortunately, after a self check-in kerfuffle involving an angry fist-pound on the contrarian kiosk, I found out that I would be flying out of terminal five instead. In my defence it was the airport’s fault for omitting what terminal I was to fly out from on my check-in. Furthermore, everyone and everything in airports are perpetually stupid, especially devices labelled “self-service”.

Following that stress, I discover that I will in fact not be getting my flight because Amsterdam, where I’m connecting, no longer exists on this Earth owing to apocalyptic snow. That $36 taxi ride I took to the airport was such a good investment!

Flash-forward to the day I actually get a flight back to Ireland and low and behold, terminal 5 is as delightful as an Italian regional airport. The walls are several shades of gray, as are the windows, the floors, the seats and the full-body x-ray scanners. So much for smuggling a Burger King through to the foodless waiting area.

I spy a vending machine – $3 for a Pepsi and $2 for a Twix. The economist inside me praises the airport management company’s monopolising tendencies; the weary traveller that I am, however, drops a couple of F-bombs. Out loud. In a public place. At an inanimate object. Facepalm.

Following my sojourn in Ireland, where everyone is now perpetually depressed, I have returned to Chicago for the long haul. Moreover I can finally say that I am an NFL fan. The past couple of weeks have seen the playoffs decide who will play in the Superbowl in Texas come February 5th.

For a glorious while, it seemed that the Chicago Bears would in fact make it to Arlington. The thought of living in this city as Cutler, Urlacher and the rest of the boys did us proud was so good it became all I could talk about for a period of about two weeks. I was having fantasies about the inevitable street parties/riots/lootings. However, as faith and the Bears’ shocking inconsistency would have it, that dream will never come to pass. That is, of course, until I can use science or magic to make it 1985 again.

As soon as the game got underway, there were cheers and sighs as the teams battled it out. That very manly of expressions, the humble high five, became the only real way of communicating when die-hard fans roared as Bears regained possession. In the end however the bar fell silent, there was to be no victory for the Bears. No chance of reaching Superbowl XLV. Yet despite the defeat, it was clear from the sea of navy and orange that the fans had enjoyed themselves.

At our end of the bar a crowd of us gathered around a mother and her infant son (who was wearing a set of Packers-themed pyjamas) and while a few of us shot the breeze with her, the girls went goo-goo gaga over the baby. Speaking with her, it was clear that she considered game days as being fun for all the family.  One of my friends from the law school quipped that the baby might be a liability. I retorted: “It’s Sunday, NERD!”

It’s strange how much the day reminded me of how the pubs back home were when I was younger – everyone chatted and had a good easy-going time. Being home at Christmas, it struck me how that culture has seemingly slipped away except for on rare, long-planned occasions. It’s a pity, because pubs and bars are social places and not just somewhere to get tanked before you hit a usually craptacular club. While they may not get airports right, laid back enjoyment is one thing the Americans certainly do well.

James Fagan is a UCD student currently on Erasmus in Chicago.

It’s only November and the cold is already starting to bite here in Chicago. Right now, it’s three degrees Celsius (adjusted for wind chill, of course) outside my apartment and the funny part is, it actually gets colder. Fun fact: the coldest ever recorded temperature in Chicago was in 1985, when the wind chill brought temperatures to minus 64 degrees Celsius. Think about that for a moment; this was colder than the average temperature in Antarctica!

But the cold weather does have its upsides. For example, not only do the Chicago streets become a veritable catwalk of winter chic with parkas, fur hats and shorts (in the case of my roommate Joey), but it also leads to some crazy stories.

One of the girls last year had the unfortunate problem of having only just washed her hair, realising she was late for class. So without drying her hair or putting on a hat, she ran out the door. Within 60 seconds of going outside, her hair was dry, or more correctly, it was frozen solid. On a more worrying note, last year a student from the residence was found stuck to the pavement after attempting to walk eight blocks, wearing just his jeans and shirt. What a place to live, right?

My goal of watching every American sport live while living here got a boost a few weeks ago, when I got surprise tickets to the Chicago Bears game against the Washington Redskins. Only in America can a 60-minute game last three hours and have a fly-over by a squadron of fighter jets.

The fact that they flew past at the exact time the last line of the national anthem was sung out confirmed one widely-held presumption: America is in love with itself. The atmosphere at the game was ridiculously over the top. There was a lot of beer, hot dogs and pretzels, and the Bears’ fans even booed their own team. A day at the Aviva stadium it certainly wasn’t.

Having finally turned 21, I can now legitimately sample the nightlife that the city has to offer and it is possibly the most varied selection I’ve ever seen.

The big thing here is the neighbourhood bar. Every neighbourhood has its own one and each has its own feel. To that end, if you want the undergraduate-style watering hole, you head out to Lincoln Park. For the classier people among us, there are places in Near North such as the trendy Hub51 and the ultra-exclusive The Underground. Prices vary from $1 beers to $10 Vodka & Cokes depending on where you are, but you’re sure to find something to suit your tastes.

Whatever you do, however, never agree to go to Carrolls’ Western Bar. On second thought, go once for the experience and then never return. Unfortunately, I was dragged out there a few times for late-night beers.

The place is the definition of a dive. There is no divider between the urinals and in the sole toilet in the men’s room, they play terrible country music and the bar man is about 70 years old, half blind and needs to turn his good ear to you in order to take your order. If you are in the mood for a late-night music bar, hit up Buddy Guys Legends on Wabash for some absolutely sublime live blues music.

Lectures continue to rock on like they were going out of fashion. As the semester has progressed, my accent has led to some confused looks from the teachers, but at least I have only a couple more weeks until the end of classes. Unfortunately, that means lots and lots of essays. I never thought I would prefer to have examinations, but continual assessment is almost unbearable.

No doubt many of you followed the mid-term elections and think that the publicity they get here is huge – but in reality, they don’t get that much coverage. If it weren’t for reading the Irish Times and BBC News websites, I wouldn’t have even known about it.

Ordinary people just don’t get excited for the elections and if they do, it’s hidden away. There are no banners, placards, flyers or canvassers. It is remarkable considering how much the media machine pushes American politics down your throats. Turn of the telly and it will pass you by, the only reminder of politics being the street works outside with a sign saying: ‘Paid for by the American Investment and Recovery Act’.

Mountains, beaches, sunshine and rain. Hills, strands, pubs and golf courses. There are many places around the world that have all these things, yet to me there is only one place that truly captures their essence: a small little area on a quiet little peninsula in north-north-west Donegal, called Rosapenna. It has been a regular holiday destination throughout my childhood, be it in rented cottages or – if we decided to push the boat out – a weekend in the hotel.

I’m back up after almost three years, and the change is noticeable. There are more houses, more developments and changes to the layout of the golf course (a big deal, as you’ll find out in a moment). Seeing it really evoked a longing in my heart for those happy days, way back when.

I decide after having arrived to break off from my parents and go for a walk on Tramore, the beach where I threw tantrums if made walk it as a child. The walk takes me up over the original start to the golf course, now a track of dirt for a housing development which the recession has since flatlined. Yet as I round the bend to the beach I was sidelined by a freight train of nostalgia.

My nose fills with the woody smell of burning turf. Under my boots I feel the gravel path give way, after years of disuse and some heavy erosion. I look up and I can see the valley below, which makes up the front nine of the golf course (now with added clubhouse). As a child I would walk the course with my parents, enjoying the sun or listening to a tape on my brother’s Walkman I had borrowed (read ‘nicked’). I think it was one October lunchtime on the 5^th hole that I defeated the Elite Four for the first time.

As I step down onto the beach the sand compresses, leaving gaping holes in the shape of my feet much like it would when I was three – or six, or ten, or all the other times I was here.  Directly across from me there is a rocky outcrop of jet black igneous stone with yellow speckles. The rocks lie like petals, fallen haphazardly upon each other.

These rocks also hold special meaning; a whole summer full. Back in 1995 a heatwave crossed Ireland which coincided with our summer holiday. I think I spent pretty much all of those two weeks diving off the rocks into the sea, or exploring the rock pools with their red sea anemones.  Yet now the rocks seem so much smaller; funny how the mind’s eye grows memories to larger than life.

My walk takes me along the beach stepping over arterial channels of water which run back to the lowering tide, crushing seashells and playing chicken with the incoming waves. Their roar is a better companion than any MP3 player ever could be. All around me I could see the landmarks of the area each holding its own memories: the forest park at Ards where I would go for picnics; the Capuchin Monastary beside it where I once met a Fr Pacificus, whose beard was almost waist length; and Muckish Mountain, covered with ice and snow, which reminded me of Glenveagh where one can also see the Mountain.

When I arrive back into the hotel I think back upon the walk I have taken – a literal trip down memory lane. While the moments are long gone, and the area changed from what it was, at its core it is still the same because I can look back into the past using that which is still there.

I think that when it comes to our lives, it is the little things within the larger picture which define whether we are happy – be they something simple such as beating a videogame or slightly more out of the ordinary like meeting an eccentric monk.

On this trip I visited Glenveagh again. Golden eagles were introduced to the park in 2002, and it had been my dream to see one. This trip I finally did; the ranger had one down to show off to visitors. That moment will become one of the little things I will remember with joy in later life.

Yet this philosophy of appreciating the little goals and mini adventures isn’t confined to holidays – it permeates our entire lives. This year in college I have taken on what some might call a masochistic level of extracurricular activities; however, these will ensure I have plenty of memories from college at the smaller, more personal level such as bantering in the Observer office or running a friend’s campaign for auditor.  These will be the things which will weave together to create contentment when I look back on college, years from now. And looking back on my time with the Observer and in other places, I wouldn’t change a thing as the memories are awesome. See you in the funny pages.

This is an edited extract from James Fagan’s new blog, The Industrial. It is updated weekly and can be found at http://theindustrial.blogspot.com/.

As I write this article, I am travelling by train through the countryside. The fields are seas of emerald, flowing past in stark contrast to the bare skeletal branches of the trees which line them. Yet, as it is spring, the scene has an aura of renaissance about it. Every tree is waiting to bloom back into life and complete the picture.

In many ways it’s fortunate that the Students’ Union elections fall at this time of year. They bring the promise of injecting life into UCD by making it a university of the students, providing them with what they need. The bleak winter of student politics, however, isn’t so cyclical.

Every year brings promises of a greater focus by the candidates on what they think we want. We have Ents candidates promising wild parties that would rival the orgies of olde, Campaigns & Communications candidates pledging to stick it to The Man, while the President guarantees to change the world in the name of UCD.  But yet, it’s a rare occurrence that meaningful policies and initiatives actually come about as a result of Union elections. Most promises are unattainable – and, at best, populist hooks to secure votes.

A students’ union is an important facet to any college; it’s the only method of focusing the needs of the student body into a coherent form and bringing it to the attention of the governing authority. The office of the Welfare Vice-President provides vital information regarding counselling and sexual awareness. The Education VP helps to voice students’ concerns regarding curricula and related issues. However, it would appear that some candidates want to use it as an opportunity to bolster their CV or to extend their time in college, their commitment to the job half-hearted.

It’s rare for one of the sabbatical officers to actively seek out and meet with the students they have been elected to represent. They need to take the time to invite in views of the students during term-time, and not just when drawing up a campaign manifesto. Since when have the student body’s pressing concerns only existed in March? All sorts of problems crop up during the year, but there is no clearly visible or promoted channel for raising them. Why should this year’s troubles have to wait until next year to have action to resolve them taken?

The other problem is that unions can find themselves working to fulfil outdated and unwanted mandates. Seven years ago, our predecessors voted in two referenda about the sale of Coca-Cola products in Union shops. Ever since, candidates have run for office pledging to once again put the Union’s Coke boycott to a vote. To date it hasn’t materialised – at the time of writing there are whispers that it may take place this year, but I’ll be a Doubting Thomas and wait until I see it with my own eyes.

The impetus required to bring about such a referendum isn’t so large – particularly when you’re taking a sabbatical from college and you have no academic worries. If you’ve promised to do something, you have no excuse for not following through with it. An elected job comes with the expectation that you are an instrument of your electorate, and will toil hard to achieve what they want in an expedient manner.

More worrying, however, is the position of the Union of Students in Ireland, our national union. USI’s officers aren’t elected directly by its members, yet it claims to represent the interests of all Irish students. This hardly appears to be very democratic; this can lend itself to the use of extreme approaches to issues without any form of a rational debate. Take the example of sit-ins at government ministries: as a tame and impotent way of campaigning; it cheapens the value of the student viewpoint by perpetuating the belief that we are all grouchy extremists in our approach to politics.

An appropriate example is an incident which took place at Durham University, where a public debate was to be held, featuring two speakers from the British National Party. The response from the National Union of Students, USI’s British counterpart, was a lengthy letter to the Debate Union and the President of the University filled with quasi-legal nonsense and threats of disruptive protests. The debate was called off. What must be questioned is what gives the national union the right to dictate the lives of its member students, empowering it to prove nothing and to stifle debate. It is paramount that our Union works to ensure that such an incident can never happen here.

Moreover, we need to ask ourselves whether membership of the national union is essential. It can work as a unified voice when there are issues, but paying it over €100,000 per annum in affiliation fees means that money that can be spent on the concerns of students is going to waste.

Democracy is, by its own essence, about representing people. Unions have an onerous duty to look out for our welfare. The officers have achieved great things in the past but at the moment there is a serious stagnation in UCDSU. Whoever comes into power this March needs to fully understand this, get out of the office and meet us, the students. Until then our university will never see its full potential come to bloom.

Two weeks ago the Minister for Education, Batt O’Keeffe, announced his intention to abolish the umbrella organisation of the National University of Ireland. The decision to remove the body, whose job is to oversee entry matriculation, quality assurance and to award degrees, has been controversial, with opposition politicians and student representatives criticising it. I, however, welcome this move.

The problem that afflicts the NUI is as simple as it is untenable. Set up in 1908 at the behest of the universities, it’s a toothless paper tiger. When the goal of a body is to ensure the smooth running and quality of a sector, it should have no historical ties.

In its current structure, the NUI is relatively unchanged from what it was 100 years ago, predating the current existence of the Irish Free State. The intervening century has seen radical social, economic and, to a degree, political change. Several new universities and higher education institutions have appeared, offering novel and highly coveted courses. If a body has not adapted to incorporate these changes, it is best cut. To restructure the NUI from its current form would be a waste of money.

One of the more interesting criticisms levelled at the abolition of the institution is that there will be a loss of “brand” power. The argument goes that NUI is a well-respected label that is internationally renowned. This is false. The world’s most recognised university rankings, the THE-QS World University Rankings, show us that. Of the top 200 in the list, the only Irish universities are Trinity and UCD. Brand name recognition? No. The NUI prefix is nowhere in their names, and only one of those two – UCD – falls under its umbrella. Name recognition comes from universities themselves and how they perform individually. The dinosaur of the NUI doesn’t have any measurable impact. And as for its contribution to Seanad Éireann? That waste of space is another article in itself.

The Government’s responsibility for providing education includes the duty to ensure bureaucratic efficiency. This may sound like an oxymoron, but it’s a dearth of bad governmental decisions that has conditioned the populous to think that way. Without an efficient governing body, no meaningful improvements can come about.

One of the best methods of ensuring this efficiency is to engage in the principle of subsidiarity, where decisions are taken at the lowest level possible of an organisational hierarchy. Control bodies like the NUI should be stopping universities from creating self-serving agendas resulting in poor allocation of resources, while preventing the doubling-up of jobs.

The other aspect of an efficient bureaucracy is that decision-making ought to be centralised – there shouldn’t be multiple agencies carrying out the same decisions and processes. When this occurs we see bloated employment sectors, money wasted on redundant employees, and confusion for the public as to whom they should approach. Removing NUI is only the first step towards a solution; it obviously needs to be replaced with a more dynamic body, but doing so straight away wouldn’t fix the problem of multiplicity.

At the moment there are several authorities overseeing education in Ireland. The NUI covers seven institutions; HETAC oversees Institutes of Education (except for DIT) and all non-university providers of Level 7-10 programmes; FETAC oversees further education at levels 1-6, while the NQAI oversees FETAC, HETAC and DIT, but not the universities. Ireland is pants-on-head shambolic.

The best move forward is a single body, an idea already being mooted. This would greatly simplify quality assurance, ensuring ease of comparability between institutions, and allow students to easily progress through Further, Higher and ultimately Postgraduate education. Internationally it would work to improve Irish education as a brand because it can stand behind all institutions. However that is another tricky situation, as to have a truly world class education sector would require an overhaul of the universities themselves.

In short we have too many. As an island of roughly four million in population we have seven universities, 14 institutes of technology, and more than thirty other institutions. As it currently stands, this stretches Government budgets to straining point. I have previously argued in favour of fees, but even if they were reintroduced, funds are too lightly spread between these institutions to really accelerate their quality. Underestimating the importance of internationally competitive graduates is a death sentence on any society wanting the best for its citizens. They create the most value on work, create innovative deals and inspire and become tomorrow’s leaders.

So what should we do? The best method would be to create regional centres. For example TCD, DCU, UCD and NUIM could become a University of Dublin. Either it would be federal like the University of London, which would mean a sharing of resources such as libraries or it would be more central like Oxford with TCD being the centerpiece. In the latter example each institution would become a campus. Funding could be allocated in a much more targeted fashion as each university could share its knowledge and expertise resulting in stronger faculties all round.

Some might argue that this would result in job losses and costs to the taxpayer – all the usual bleeding-heart opposition to long-term change that fills political debates. We need to take a long-term view about the future of our country, however, and need to be educated to create more industries with more jobs that have higher wages for all. Having a bias as to the effects of restructuring and reforming is what has hindered us so far. Now is the time to make tough decisions and the abolition of NUI is the first step in what may be a long march to greatness.

When I walk into a deli or go to a restaurant, I order food. This food is good for me, it nourishes me, and it makes me stronger. I don’t exactly need it, it is certainly a premium. One thing is clear; I don’t expect to get it for free. If I can’t afford the restaurant food, I eat my own. If I can’t afford that, I can get food stamps under social welfare. Thus, to demand free food would be unreasonable.

Why, then, should be the opposite be true for third level education? We recognise that to attend university is a choice; we recognise the opportunities that it opens up for us. We don’t necessarily have to go to one of the universities – there are many institutes of higher education we could attend if we so fancy, so there is a level of premium attached to institutions. Considering that there are mechanisms for grants, if we want to go to college then we can receive a subsidy. If we can afford then we should be obliged to we our own way.

This country needs the drain of free university education to be consigned to history. Public debts are at an all time high, and year after year, Ireland’s universities siphon off unnecessarily high amounts of money from the coffers. Were fees to be introduced, everyone would be a winner.

The universities would get more cash. This appears to be paradoxical but look at it this way. By having the majority of students pay their dues, universities can receive similar levels of funding that the government gives them presently, so the colleges run as they currently do. This frees up the government to do more things. First it can give targeted funding to improve services and facilities without having to pay for the day to day running of universities. Secondly, it allows it to increase the subsidy payments to the socially disadvantaged to get them into university. The cost to the government will be less than if they tried to do all three things (run, fund and subsidise), but the benefits realised to society overall will be net.

Furthermore, opening up the university to market forces would result in gains to students. Universities will be necessitated to evolve from the lumbering giants that they currently are into highly competitive machines. Courses will need to be academically fine tuned; student services will need to be effective and of high quality. Moreover, there will need to be an attractive price to ensure there is sufficient take up.

People oppose fees at the moment because to reintroduce them would apparently force some students out of college. However, at the moment people are prevented from attending because subsidies, as they stand, do too little. Freeing up government capital allows more comprehensive welfare systems to be brought in, bringing more disadvantaged people into college.

For those who fall outside the range of subsidies, there are those who can pay outright and there are those who can avail of new student loan products (which you pay off, whether you emigrate or not) or even more socially fitting would be payment via graduate tax, paying for the benefit accrued should a third-level education result in a well-paid job.

The recent backpedalling by the Government on force of the Green Party was a step in the wrong direction. Fianna Fáil was scared into accepting a deal as a way of saving cabinet members their jobs. It may seem as a victory to the Greens, to Labour and to every student union out there but it is a crippling blow to the state as a whole.

There was no proper governmental debate on the issue of third-level fees. No white papers were tendered. No academic institution input was given, bar the inflammatory antics by student groups. A worthy idea was thought up, but it was never given the rational discussion it deserved – becoming a bargaining chip, thrown away to appease the political fatcats.

It is an endemic problem in our society that people entertain the notion of deserving things as a right. This is false; the only things we should be actively provided are those things that keep us alive – basic securities such as food, medicine and housing need to given. Then come second order necessities like education, awarded through giving people the opportunity to partake in them.

We are entrenched in a culture of taking things for granted, and when asked to take on our burden we balk. For a better education system we need to take up the slack. Fees are the only way this can happen.

Paris, Seville, Brussels, Vienna, Dublin. Normally were you to see a list of those cities, the question, “Which is the odd one out?” would spring to mind. Usually you would be correct in saying Dublin. On this occasion, however, this list isn’t to Dublin’s detriment – as last month Dublin joined those cities in offering a public bicycle scheme.

For those unaware with what a public bike scheme entails, it’s a pretty simple concept. Anyone can rent a bike from a terminal in a city and return it to the same terminal, or a different one somewhere else in the city, for only a nominal charge. To prevent theft, you must usually enter your credit card details and guarantee a fee if the bike is not returned – in Dublin a fine of €150 is levied if the bike is not returned within 24 hours.
For any city to introduce such a service is laudable: firstly, it helps to promote cycling as a mode of transport. Cycling has several advantages over other forms of transport: it maintains a cyclist’s fitness levels; it’s kind to the environment, with zero emissions; and it’s more comfortable than a humid, packed bus – as many Dublin Bus users can grudgingly confirm.
Moreover, from the perspective of tourism, the scheme is particularly welcome. It facilitates the advertisement of a city as a place to holiday, presenting it as a destination with good public amenities. It offers a way for people to see the sites from their own perspective and at their own pace, rather than on the top of an open-air bus. In Dublin such amenities are particularly necessary to ensure that the capital is an enjoyable city to visit, especially with the difficulties facing the tourism industry in these uncertain economic times.
Compared to more rural destinations, cities have a more difficult task in staying competitive for tourists. Rural attractions are generally areas of environmental and historical interest; they mainly need stimulating conservation and easy access to stay attractive. Cities, however, need to offer more than just environmental and historic attractions. A fusion of culture and nightlife with the modernism that only innovative developments and investment can bring about makes a city appealing to those who want a city break. A cycling scheme helps facilitate this.
For a cycling scheme to take off successfully, there needs to be a well thought out, affordable system in place. Dublinbikes certainly ticks this box, allowing the first half hour of use for free, with bike terminals just 300 metres away from each other.
However there are a number of issues which may ultimately make the service a failure. The scheme is located in Dublin city centre, which is great for tourism as mentioned earlier, but a nightmare for safety. Road works are commonplace in the city, particularly around the new Luas developments near the IFSC which houses four bike terminals. Anyone who has braved city cycling can understand the risk that arises when the road surface is reduced to potholes and uneven tarmac as a result of construction works. Even worse is the lack of dedicated cycle lanes within the city centre streets. The lack of demarcated routes for cyclists opens them up to kerb-hugging drivers, which can tragically result in someone meeting the business end of a truck, as happened to a male cyclist on Wellington Quay two weeks ago.
While cyclists must endeavour to wear protective clothing, forcing them to mix with heavy traffic is asking for trouble. What is worrying is that users of this scheme will be unlikely to use helmets, considering none are provided at the terminals, thereby increasing their risk of serious injury if they get in an accident.
The solutions to these problems are not easy to come by. A push towards a more pedestrianised city centre could potentially help, but any such move would likely face strong opposition from local businesses. A possible solution would be the creation of Quality Bus Corridors on the inside lanes of all roads within the city centre, and not just at certain sections. The recent conversion of College Green into a bus corridor is a welcome move in the right direction, as it removes congestion from one of the busiest interchanges in the city.
Whatever concerns hang over the scheme, it should be welcomed for the potential benefit it brings to Dublin – but whether the scheme takes full flight remains to be seen.

THE ODDS ARE that unless you have been living under a rock for the past couple of years you have heard of Facebook. The social networking website was founded in 2004 and currently boasts over 175 million active members, a market value between 3 and 5 billion dollars and an international headquarters here in Dublin. It has seen a membership surge in Ireland in the last few years thanks to its user-friendly controls, applications and its popularity overseas. However the question posed is, despite its popularity, is it actually a useful website?

No doubt one of the great benefits of Facebook is that it allows you to keep in contact with your friends. Nobody can disagree that it feels great to suddenly find a long lost friend through the website. Yet in reality it doesn’t work that easily. It seems more and more profiles are seeing their friend numbers rise steadily as people readily accept new friends. However, once the number of friends goes up how easy is it to actually stay in touch with them?

In February, the Economist ran an article that reported on the size of social networks. Of note was reference to the Dunbar hypothesis which argues that there is a theoretical upper limit to the number of people in a social group the human brain can cope with. This number, rounded to 150 has become known as ‘the Dunbar number’. Yet with users’ profiles generally reaching over that number, up into the hundreds and sometimes over 1000, it is highly unlikely that they get the full benefit from Facebook. These high numbers of people make it virtually impossible to keep track of everyone, let alone remember who they are.

How is it that one can keep in touch with one’s close friends easily if the homepage is being cluttered up with updates and posts from people they barely know? Maybe you only met once, on a night out when maybe you were ‘tired and emotional’ but somehow that makes them your friend and eligible to connect with you online.

What appears to be happening is that people are just accepting people for the sake of it and bloating their profiles. Just because someone is in your college course of 300 people and has a mutual friend doesn’t really mean that you should accept their request.

“For all its pitfalls the site does serve a deep human requirement. It allays our fears of being alone”

Facebook is also interesting in that it has embraced the new found craze of micro-blogging through status updates. Micro-blogging is a form of blogging, popularised by Twitter, which consists of short and usually done on the go from a mobile phone. It allows people to sprout off what they are thinking right there and then quickly. Sounds somewhat cool but it certainly is not.

What has happened is that people are constantly updating their status to let everyone know where they are, what they are doing, what they are thinking and even what they are eating. What is the point in letting people know what is going on with every second of your life? Your life is just not that interesting all of the time.

It is as if people are trying to fulfil a need they have – a need for people to take interest in them and every inch of their lives. Yet if it is notoriety or interest that you want to garner you are probably better off in actually writing a real blog. At least then you can let more of your personality and reason shine through, more so than you can in a single line comment. I doubt Perez Hilton would have received such fame if his blogs consisted of just one line entries.

For all the fun that Facebook offers it does have a sinister side in that it can lead to the undoing of a person. Last month an Essex teenager was fired from the marketing firm at which she worked for comments made on her Facebook profile. She had commented about her job being boring. When her boss saw this she was immediately let go. The firm justified its position saying her “disrespect and dissatisfaction” made their working relationship untenable. It is fair to assume that a firm would not take lightly that it is being bad mouthed publicly by one of its own employees.

That incident is an example of how far reaching our comments on Facebook can go. It just takes a slip of the tongue and things could come crashing down around you. In the United States firms have been known to search job applicants profiles in order to double check résumés and perform background checks. How would you feel if you lost a job because a firm didn’t exactly approve of certain activities you allude to in your info pages or updates? Suddenly your large friend network or status updates doesn’t seem that appealing any more.

Most people who try to stop using the site eventually come back to it because for all its pitfalls the site does serve a deep human requirement. It allays our fears of being alone. It allows us to be in constant contact with those we consider friends in all parts of the globe, it allows us to share memories and organise events. As such it is no wonder that the site is so addictive, even though at face value it seems to be pointless a collection of photos and text comments.

No doubt as years go buy the site will continue to improve and hopefully people will use common sense in what they say and who they accept. We don’t know what the years ahead will hold for the site, but the implications in the future of a world always connected at a personal level will be interesting to behold, and it is all thanks to Facebook.

Over the past year there have been a number of incidents at colleges and universities around the country involving intimidation of high-profile guests, the prevention of invited guests from speaking, or the complete prevention of them attending events organised by college societies.

The most recent case occurred on the 3rd February in NUI Galway (NUIG). The NUIG Literary and Debating Society invited former-Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern to a reception and public interview on the campus. The event had to be called off when anti third-level fee protesters heckled and jostled Mr Ahern. A gardaí presence was required to escort the former Taoiseach to ensure his safe exit.

This level of intimidation is similar to events in UCD last year such as Conor Lenihan’s cancellation of speaking to the Literary and Historical (L&H) society over rowdy protests and the prevention of Minister Eamon Ryan from entering the lecture theatre where he was due to speak at a Law Society (LawSoc) debate. Such protests raise questions over how far we can go with our right to protest.

It is certainly an objectionable idea that the rights of these groups to protest, which one cannot disagree with, should supercede and directly conflict with those who have come to attend the events in question. One might argue that they need to be able to bring their message out in the clearest, loudest manner possible on certain occasions. However this cannot be at the expense of others.

Many of the people who attend debates and events are members of the organising society and as such have paid money to be so. While this may be small it does mean that they have a right to see the guests promised to them. While we have a right to protest, there is a limit to what you can do.

The protests in question are depriving others of a right to receive something they have both paid for and have a genuine interest in. How can the protests then be seen as being legitimate in a democracy if they are preventing others from doing something they are fully and legitimately entitled to? In short they cannot.

“This behaviour merely shows you as an uncouth, spineless coward who doesn’t have sufficient convictions to rationalise and present your ideas for people to react to”

There is an argument that can be put forward in favour of the protests, that their protests are entwined with their right of free expression. Proponents of this would say that freedom of expression should never be limited as it is too important to make your views heard, even if a few may suffer a small bit of disruption. To handle this point it is important to understand what the justifications of an unlimited freedom of expression are, of which there are two main viewpoints.

Firstly, there is the idea that opinions are part of what makes us an individual. Extending from this is that in a democracy, where independence is valued, we have the right to influence the world around us with our opinion. If this isn’t done then we do not live in a democracy per se, as our views are unheeded and blocked from being brought out. Our intrinsic value as a thinking, feeling human being is ignored.

Yet these protests do not fit with this. They simply go too far. The protesters can influence their world, bringing forth their ideas without preventing guests from speaking or attending events. They are neglecting the value of others and their ideas. They clearly have no respect for others, so how can they be deserving of more respect?

Secondly (and perhaps more importantly), freedom of expression is seen as fulfilling a role in society. This role is to raise issues in the realm of political debate, to make people think and to cause controversy so to speak. Sparking this ‘controversy’ leads to debate that should always be welcomed in society. It helps to form new ideas and solutions to problems because it makes people engage with something they may not have thought of themselves. Debate is a springboard for development and should be encouraged.

However these protests are not adding to debate on the issue they are trying to address. In fact they are running away from it. The protests have prevented people speaking on the very issues the groups are campaigning for or against. How is it fair that one side can put forth their central idea but prevent the other side from putting out theirs or even responding at all? Surely that makes them the very limiter of expression that they are vehemently against.

Furthermore, the protesters do not even develop their ideas beyond shouting “Down with X” accompanied by a slogan of “Think of Y’s rights”. So it’s not exactly adding constructively to any debate. There is nothing wrong with keeping things simple for the sake of bringing attention to your qualm but when you don’t let someone engage with you nor get up on the debating rostrum yourself then there is a problem. This behaviour merely shows you as an uncouth, spineless coward who doesn’t have sufficient convictions to rationalise and present your ideas for people to react to.

To get their ideas across what they must do is explain their points of view. Their current behaviour serves only to paint them as radicals, ostracising themselves from the debate. If they want to drum up support they need to do it in a civilised fashion. It is counter-intuitive to annoy and upset a large group of people in order to try obtaining support for what would otherwise be a worthy cause.

In conclusion these protests are an illegitimate way to further the groups’ points. Protests should be a vital component to our society and political process; they do serve a good role in highlighting issues dear to people. Yet when your protest stops constructive debate, is ignorant of and in direct, overwhelming conflict with the rights of others then you are part of the problem not the solution.