The savage murder of two innocent Polish men in Drimnagh during the week disgusted me. How can this country raise children who are willing to end life so cheaply and so viciously? The usual talking heads popped up to tell us that this was an ‘isolated incident’; did not indicate a general anti-immigrant feeling; shocked a community. But the tragic thing is, that as a society, we all have to share some responsibility for allowing things to get to this point.

This casual violence is the ultimate extension of a selfish society; of youth who idolise a lifestyle of sloth, excess and a ‘gangsta’ attitude. It is an extreme case, but the motivation behind it isn’t isolated - just ask the people of Limerick. Life is cheap, society sets the price and the poorest communities pick up the bill.

Liberals will tell you that the perpetrators are victims themselves: victims of social exclusion and disadvantage. There is disadvantage in Ireland, and Drimnagh has its fair share. But I don’t imagine the kids involved in this crime go hungry. They probably wear designer sports gear and have PlayStations, mobile phones and an active social life. They are not being forced to work down mines or in cotton mills like the disadvantaged children of our past. They are not disadvantaged in an absolute sense - they are disadvantaged relative to how the middle class thinks life should be lived.

I was at a Fine Gael meeting a few years ago where the subject of community policing and ASBOs was being discussed. A member of the audience suggested that the real problem in these communities was self-esteem. This is an interesting thought and one which has come back to me time and again since. The speaker suggested that a lack of self-esteem made for a life without ambition. It left people disengaged. But the sad thing is - the youths involved have self-esteem, lots of it, to the point of supreme cockiness.

The problem is that the values that they measure themselves against are not those of a mature, caring society. There is no room for compassion, self-sacrifice, ambition or taking responsibility for faults. Their world of disposable celebrity is all about superficiality, greed, consumption and satisfaction-on-demand.

In the past, social stigma was a powerful mechanism for ensuring social cohesion. In a tight community, social standing depended on the views of peers. Since these communities were often quite socially isolated, or perhaps socially insulated, they were less open to having their value-systems influenced from outside.

Perhaps as a society we should call time on this decay. Our values as a society are worth defending. I think it is time for the State to consider introducing social stigma as a punishment for anti-social behaviour.

To the middle classes, prison is still a stigma, as is having your name published as a tax defaulter or a drink driver.

Unfortunately these devices no longer carry the same shame to disadvantaged communities. To some, prison is a right of passage and in the UK anti-social behaviour orders have become a mark of social standing. They do not stigmatise. They do not discourage. Put simply - they do not work.

Perhaps something more radical should be attempted. The real need is to find some mechanism for ensuring that the punishment imposed is meaningful within the value system of the accused, and ideally that, in time, their value system should realign with that of society as a whole.

In medieval times, ridicule and shame were used to achieve this; wrongdoers were placed in the stocks. I don’t think we’d consider that as a realistic proposition today, but there should be some modern equivalent and it’s hardly beyond our collective imagination to identify a suitable contemporary equivalent.

In parallel, the State should put resources into constructive activities that generate positive esteem. The activities should be ones that are of genuine interest to teenagers, like providing equipment and training for modifying cars. This could be used to incentivise good behaviour.

Whatever happens, the current drift and decline has to stop, and some radical thinking is needed.

While you may have found Brian Cowen’s performance in the Dail on Tuesday ‘low key’ (Irish Independent, February 27), I think the ordinary decent FF member will have been buoyed by what they saw.

In the Tanaiste they will again have seen and heard a strong leader; a leader willing to be unambiguous, definitive and spirited.

A man who can fight on solid ethical ground that will not give way under him.

In sporting parlance — he is willing to pick up the ball and run; his goal is clearly in sight.

The Taoiseach seems more interested in arguing with the referee, and avoiding a defeat.

Perhaps as a keen Gael, the Tanaiste might be reminded of another charismatic Dub when he looks at Mr Ahern’s recent performances.

Bertie is increasingly like Charlie Redmond, refusing to accept that a red card means you leave the pitch.

The Dubs haven’t won an All Ireland since, and unless Cowen takes charge Fianna Fail may face a similar fate.

As of today, Achem’s Blunt One has passed the 4,000 visitor mark since I went public with it last October - which isn’t too bad for four months. I just wanted to say thanks for all the comments and visits, and here’s to getting to 10k!

Democracies have always jealously guarded the principle of parliamentary privilege. It is a shield behind which our representatives can act fearlessly in the public interest; our last line of defence against the powerful.

Brave men and women have used it to blow the whistle on corruption, criminality and subversion. Mr Ahern has chosen to demean and debase this privilege. He has taken this precious and noble device, and he has gone to the courts to use it to vindicate moral cowardice and a lack of transparency that would embarrass most right-minded people.

As a citizen, the courts are open to all of us. But as citizens we also have an inalienable right to do what is right. Does the Taoiseach really believe there is some constitutional issue at hand here about reconciling public accountability and parliamentary privilege?

Could he not be as brave as those for whom the device of privilege was intended, and waive it in order to protect that other precious principle of democracy - the integrity of public office?

Why has Mike Huckabee decided to stay in the contest for the Republican nomination for President? He had a good Super Tuesday, but it is unlikely that he can move from his current base to take the nomination. So if he has little or no objective chance of victory - what’s the point?

Well consider his supporters - the Christian right of the GOP. He can provide a home for conservatives, and so will draw votes from Mitt Romney. His continuing candidacy appeals to a very different electorate to Senator McCain, so his campaign will not be damaged by Huckabee. Better yet, by taking support from Romney, it actually improves McCain’s chances. But again, why would Huckabee want to support a sometime RINO with a maverick record and many positions that would be at odds with his own.

The only logical answer is that by taking the southern states, Huckabee is pitching for the VP slot on the ticket. Ordinarily, an ambitious politico would view the Vice Presidency as a stepping stone to a presidential campaign. However, McCain’s age and potential for ill-health makes the VP a potential President without the need for an election whether through death, or more likely,  the 25th amendment.

So why would Huckabee give indirect support to McCain? Maybe because it’s his best path to becoming President.