Well in an excellent piece on the Econonomist Free Exchange blog they accuse the ECB of doing just that, but doing it with the entire Eurozone:
Who killed the euro zone?

An institution that professes itself terrified of inflation has undertaken a policy programme that actively inflated the debt of Eurozone members and turned the attention of the markets on that sovereign debt to the point where the bond market is now broken.

We hear a lot of talk of the break up of the Euro, the death of the currency, but it is the institution that wields the most power, the ECB, that may be recast in the fire.

Mary Rafferty in particular did this with the help of excellent work by a highly professional team including Eoin O’Sullivan of Trinity. The laxity of standards of the Mission to Prey production will be examined by the investigations in train so I’m not getting into that in any depth, in the meantime I highly recommend a read of Vincent Browne’s critical take on the affair in the Sunday Business Post (27/11/11).

But I want to take a moment here to point out what I believe is a calculated untruth that is being propagated by defenders of the institutional Church.

Taking the opportunity that has arisen from the injustice suffered by Fr Reynolds, certain commentators have used the incident to allege that the media is institutionally biased against the Catholic Church, that an agenda is being pursued and that the real effect of that is discoverable in attitudes to the Church amongst the population at large.

Firstly it is a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument to claim that a) because the population at large  tend to disproportionately over-estimate the extent of child sexual abuse among priests, the media must be responsible for creating a false image, and because the media is responsible for a false image, it must be unduly selective in reporting priestly abuse above other forms. The further extension of this fallacious logic is to say that if the media is unduly over-concentrating on cases of child sexual abuse it must be driven by a bias or agenda hostile to the Church. The great secularising bogey-man.

That argument conveniently relies on a figure for reported allegations of cases of child sexual abuse. We’ll look at that figure shortly but let me argue that this figure is the bare minimum for the level of abuse and, crucially, completely misses the systemic failure that most of the population now understand the Church to have been guilty of. Such a figure doesn’t extend the portrait of responsibility to those in the Church who were aware of child sexual abuse and stood by while it occurred or covered it up. That taint is likely to be part of the public perception of the extent of abuse. The use of these figures to paint a minimal picture of sexual abuse of children is a denial of institutional responsibility and the institutional character of the problem of sexual abuse of minors among Catholic priests

So the argument is logically dodgy, and the real figure cited is likely a  minimum and probably not the understanding of what the public have in mind when apportioning responsibility.

But even if the argument held, and that minimum figure wasn’t understating abuse, there remains the question if the media is responsible for a false popular perception, what is that perception? And here is where some commentators are being willfully misleading.

The finding that the Irish Catholic takes from the Iona Institute’s presentation of Amárach Research is reported as follows: “One in five respondents believed that half or more priests had abused a child. The most-authoritative study, conducted in the United States, puts the number of priests accused of abuse at 4pc”

So the perception of abuse is being compared with the 2004 John Jay Report’s findings. Some initial observations: 1) The US is not Ireland, 2) The John Jay Report was commissioned by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and was a survey in which individual Dioceses examined their own files and responded.

We are all too aware of what occurs when Bishops are left to be responsible for monitoring and reporting abuse & allegations or conducting an internal audit. But suspend all judgement of the motives or methodologies of the John Jay Report, extend it the authority granted by the Irish Catholic, accept that it can be used to pretend that the Irish context is similar and that we can infer that the same figures hold here. Let’s pretend 4% of Irish priests were accused of sexual abuse of a minor between 1950 and 2002.

Further, pretend the argument above is not logically fallacious. The John JayReport, upon whose 4% figure Breda O’Brien (on Tonight With Vincent Browne), Senator Rónán Mullen (on Marian Finucane’s radio show) and David Quinn (on Today with Pat Kenny) used to construct their allegation of bias against the Irish media, is fully titled The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States.

It deals with sexual abuse of minors. The question asked of respondents in the Amárach Research reads as follows:

Q. In your opinion, approximately what percentage of Irish priests are guilty of child abuse?

No mention of strictly sexual abuse there, which is what that 4% figure relates to. Child abuse is the subject of the Amárach Research question, NOT the extent  of the narrower and particular crime of sexual abuse of a minor. Most Irish people would, I contend, distinguish between the broad sense of child abuse by priests including deprivation in institutions such as Letterfrack, the thrashings handed out by priests and brothers in schools, the verbal abuse etc and the particular cases of child sexual abuse. It’s simply not the case that the question mimics the John Jay Report. It does not ask:

Q. In your opinion, approximately what percentage of Irish priests have been accused of sexual abuse of a minor that has been reported to their Bishops?

The Amárach Research/Iona Institute can be accessed here:
http://www.ionainstitute.ie/assets/files/Attitudes%20to%20Church%20poll.pdf

You can see that on the page 9 they insert the text:

Average Estimate = 28%. Actual = 4% accused*
* Source: John Jay College of Criminal Justice

Even here the Iona Institute have failed to resist the temptation to misrepresent. That 4% relates to 6,700 substantiated accusations against 4,392 priests in the USA (4% of 109,694) but filtered out 4,000 allegations for various reasons.

But there is simply no comparison between what is claimed to be perception and reality by the Iona Institute. The whole argument as presented over the past week is a completely false construction based on a figure from a foreign source, a fallacious logic and a piece of research that is being falsely presented and in total it amounts to an dishonest argument, that  public defenders of the Catholic hierarchy are either too ignorant to spot or are wilfully spreading to suit an agenda of their own.

So what’s the takeaway here? Be very very cautious of the assertions that the Iona Institute makes, of the research it commissions and how it uses it, of the sources it selects and the commentators who are parrot their talking points on the airwaves.

There is in all probability an over-estimation of the sexual abuse of minors by priests, it’s probably nothing like the magnitude alleged above, and exists for the reasons that the Church had an institutional role, Priests involved themselves professionally in roles in close proximity to minors and the abusers were part of a group that pronounced on matters of morality and most strikingly on matters of sexual morality. Whereas most other abuse occurred in people’s homes, where the media have little right to intrude, and where there are a different far more complex set of responses that the media have no role in amerliorating

But it bears no relevance to the case of the horrible wrong that was done to Fr Reynolds.

The Pot is, in calling the Kettle black, is precisely that.

———

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/9521963.stm

———–

Just sharing two further, disturbing stories on the maltreatment and alleged torture of Bahraini medics published today:

Bahrain doctors tortured into confessing, say families
By Rupert Wingfield-Hayes BBC News, Bahrain
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13851761

Bahraini leadership faces new claims that torture took place in hospital
By Alistair Dawber, The Independent, London
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/bahraini-leadership-faces-new-claims-that-torture-took-place-in-hospital-2299944.html

• On Tuesday Maureen O’Sullivan questioned Eamon Gilmore on Holohan’s attendance at the RCSI graduation ceremony and the probity of that.
• On Wednesday Prof MX FitzGerald wrote a letter to the Irish Times voicing his disgust and disappointment with Irish medical organistaions: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2011/0622/1224299383224.html
• Which sparked a debate on RTÉ Radio One’s Liveline programme including a contribution from Prof Damian McCormack. I was on air briefly. A very interesting and enlightening piece form the Liveline team. One retired consultant called in to say he was returning his degrees in protest. You can listen here: http://www.rte.ie/radio1/player_av.html?0,null,200,http://dynamic.rte.ie/quickaxs/209-r1-liveline.smil
• Today’s Irish Times includes further coverage and two letters, one from myself: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0623/1224299455606.html

The horrific scenes on the streets yesterday and last night broke my heart. Under vicious attack from pro-Mubarak thugs, who appeared to have the backing of the State, if not under the direct direction of the regime, the demonstrators of Tahrir sq have been sucked into a situation of violence of the Mubarak’s making. This is a trap to cement the army’s position. Robert Springborg on the Foreign Policy’s Middle East Channel reckons that this means the end of the anti-regime protest’s aspirations. His pieceis well worth a read. I hope he’s wrong but there’s a clear logic to what he says that is reflected in the surreal goings on being relayed live to the world by Al Jazeera.

If this is the case, those who saw in the protesters a shadow of the Shah and the events of 1979 will sigh with relief while pointing to the Potemkin village of progress the army will construct. While there are countries that have slowly grown a civil society and civilian government in the shadow of the army before emerging strong democracies (Turkey or Chile for example), the bitter truth is that if the regime and army really are engineering a defeat of the people like this, it will open the door to extremism unseen before in Egypt.

And this is precisely what the Quilliam Foundation is warning against in a briefing note [PDF] issued today.The British think-tank which deals with Islamic extremism, explicitly likens the situation to that of Algeria in the wake of the 1992 elections:

“The situation in Egypt is now reminiscent of events in Algeria in 1992.”

The scenario that they outline is one of:

• peaceful pro-reform demonstrations being discredited
• faith in democratic reform being lost (reinforcing the message broadcast after the Hamas victory next door during the PA elections)
• the west losing influence amongst the people for failing them in their moment of potential victory
• violent extremists winning the argument, becoming emboldened and dragging the country down a spiral of violent action and reaction as happened in Algeria.

If the regime and the army really are on the verge of extinguishing the protests through trickery and instability, the role of West is heightened. A democratic transparent Egypt is a better partner in the Middle East than one fractured and humiliated.

In other words with no monetary tools available to adjust the Irish economy such as inflating debt away, devaluing the currency etc, the ECB and IMF are playing a game of chicken and are relying on the economy to go through a period of internal deflation up to a point before throttling back on the price we pay for their support. The “internal deflation” policy is an explicit policy of the ECB etc, true, but I wonder just how much they have planned a step down on the “bailout’s” punitive terms after a certain period in order to encourage deflation initially before reviving the economic prospects somewhat after a period. If they have designed the package to do that then aren’t they playing chicken with the economy?

-Dead

-Very Dead

-Extremely Dead.

Obama’s been so completely caught out on pro-democracy movement in Arab states it’s mind-boggling. Nobody is mentioning the US during the protests, no US flags are being burned; in Egypt much like Tunisia, it’s an Egyptian movement to reclaim an Egyptian future. Washington seems baffled with little to say other than “calm down, please.” And those noises are being totally ignored as Egyptians seize their moment. In truth the character of events is self-defining, no US intervention is going to sway events too much right now; a popular democratic movement is difficult manipulate from afar unlike an autocrat in recipt of aid. This is beyond America’s influence.

Meanwhile in the Occupied Territories the Palestine Papers show George Mitchell and the Obama administration threw the Bush administration Roadmap in the bin after the Palestinians had met their obligations under the first phase. They absolved the Israelis of meeting their parallel obligations to cease building settlements as part of the same first phase. Mitchell told Erekat it wasn’t an agreement in any legal sense and pretty much to get over it, that the new talks meant new parameters, parameters like allowing Israel to continues the development of illegal settlements. There won’t be another attempt at restarting the peace process for some time if it means a repeat of the last round of talks which amounted to little more than humiliation of the Palestinian leadership and even more rapid settlement expansion once the building freeze was lifted. Whatever incarnation it takes next, the US will not be the chief broker. The PA and Abbas are now  making a unilateral move to gain the recognition of their final status aims in the international community but one wonders will Ramallah be shaken as Tunis and Cairo have been?

I remember reading plenty of opinion in the run up the 2000 election that Bush would be less prone to bowing to Israel than Gore on the peace process and more realist in his approach, but I thought that post 9/11 he fell in with the “security” agenda of Netanyahu more than Gore might have. It’s still pretty surprising to see Obama undermine the small amount that Bush actually did on that peace process and I wonder if any US President will see an agreement between the Palestinians and Israel inked under his (or her) guidance. When Obama claimed to have pressed the Reset button on relations with the Arab world after his Cairo speech did he in fact mistakenly press the Sleep button?

Now there’s revolution in Cairo and the peace process is dead and the US’s words have never mattered less between Casablanca and Muscat. As the neighbourhood teeters and pursues a logic of its own, that Nobel is an embarrassment. And for Israel these must be deeply troubling times.

Now reading the newspapers you’ll spot several columnists warning of the situation developing like Iran post-79. These writers don’t have a positive contribution to proffer on just how Egyptians should handle their frustration and repression. Instead it’s the same reactionary, pro-”stability” canards being rolled out again. Some of these reactionary columns come dressed in the clothes of a form of Western Liberalism that fears any Arab world which does not aspire to their post-Fukuyama end of history liberal democracies and dreads a moral universe informed by Islam rather than Kant. But they do not stray too far from the more caustically realist Cassandras in their acquiescence in the crushing, humiliating reality of “stable” Arab states dominated by aging autocrats.

The true dark possibility that I fear, however, more resembles Algeria post-92 which is a far far worse spectre. There the regime reaction to the FIS’s clear course towards power following their dominance of the first round of the general election led to the second round being cancelled and a nightmarish civil war matched only by Lebanon’s in the region. But of course Algeria was never substantially on the radar of the US so that nightmare isn’t a part of the idiot columnists’ mental universe and they don’t consider the horrors of a military regime holding on as happened in Algeria. Luckily Egypt doesn’t have the equivalent of the GIA. At least not yet. Just Hamas on it’s border and a peace process killed by Israel. But then the GIA didn’t begin it’s campaign of carnage until the FIS had been outlawed and repression made the order of the day. The sooner Mubarak’s gone the better for everyone. Even the US.

Stop beating around the bush, just nationalise it. That way you don’t have to pump in the potential black hole in cash, you can just assume ultimate responsibility for the debts and allow the bank to operate as if it never had toxic assets, that is, making loans to those who are worthwhile. Then you can allow those debts that are assumed to be toxic to either unwind themselves over time without the bank going to the wall or you can shift them into a holding bank/ company.

Nationalising removes the legal obligation of the bank to the shareholders that would remain if the government attempted to “insure” the bad debts (as though the government can afford to do that at the moment). €340 million? Just buy the damn thing Lenihan, it would be in the best interests of bank customers and the taxpayers. This goes for BoI too.
Or that’s how I see it.