Monday, February 23, 2009
More
Strange it is, that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being "pushed to an extreme;" not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case. Strange that they should imagine that they are not assuming infallibility when they acknowledge that there should be free discussion on all subjects which can possibly be doubtful, but think that some particular principle or doctrine should be forbidden to be questioned because it is so certain, that is, because they are certain that it is certain. To call any proposition certain, while there is any one who would deny its certainty if permitted, but who is not permitted, is to assume that we ourselves, and those who agree with us, are the judges of certainty, and judges without hearing the other side.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Saturday, February 21, 2009
And in other news...
I found a like minded individual...
Him.
No, no. Not the brother. Fat chance. I'm talking about the estranged boyfriend. I've done similar things, have I not?
Pah. What a legacy. What a notion to fight. Nobody's ever going to understand me are they? Just as well I live life the way I do.
Him.
No, no. Not the brother. Fat chance. I'm talking about the estranged boyfriend. I've done similar things, have I not?
Pah. What a legacy. What a notion to fight. Nobody's ever going to understand me are they? Just as well I live life the way I do.
Myths...
Grrrr....
A few things have annoyed me of late. Nothing more than this.
A few things to be said and I'll say it bluntly. And quickly.
People have the freedom to object. About bloody anything. And if you dare to say that these lawyers are being idiots striking for nothing, you're a clown. There is still a place for conscientious objection in this world, thank god. And if you think there's NOTHING happening in Sri Lanka to raise a ruckus about that's your prerogative. Just so you know, its being called genocide. Across the world. What it actually is does not concern me. But don't say its nothing, and that these chaps are being silly.
Next, lawyers choose to strike or not work, that's their choice. Their lives. But it is not, and has never been a non violent strike. A hundred lawyers preventing a few thousand lawyers from arguing their cases by stationing their thugs in every courtroom, and physically manhandling anybody who attempts to is not non violent. There is a system in place. Its merits are not in debate here, but elsewhere. You do not get to stop the machinery of the State because you feel like it. You may choose not to work. Don't choose for me as well. You haven't the right. If you compel me to follow you, it is no longer non violent.
Next, whatever you do, pelting rotten eggs at litigants, irrespective of whether they're powerful politicians is not dignified, not decent, and really, what were you thinking?
If you do in fact believe that as representatives of the legal fraternity, pelting eggs, rotten or otherwise at litigants is incalled for and that those responsible must be dealt with, do NOT resist their arrest when it happens. Oh and, the police have no obligation to consider your dignity and wait to arrest you in your office rather than at the High Court. You can't be the spectacle just when you choose. Just who the hell do you think you are? How DARE you scream into cameras about being defenders of the people, the law and all that is sacred about this thing we call society?
Next, you don't need a thousand strong police force to arrest twenty lawyers. You came for vengeance and you know it. What are these lawyers going to do? Run? And best of luck getting anybody to believe you were doing only what is legal. You came looking for a fight and came prepared.
I have a perspective. And that is this. If I'm not allowed to work I don't get to eat. Its that simple. Get out of my way. Live your own life.
Perhaps what is also worthy of a mention is that all of this, all of this is simply politics. No more. The initial advocates strike was people finding a cause to acquire power. Some say it was all carefully orchestrated to create instability in the State and facilitate a change of government. And all of this is just snowballing now. And while I usually sit by and say that this is how things are, dear god, I writhe in agony at each side in this ridiculous episode trying to sound pious. Piety brings out the devil in me.
God in heaven, help me. I never had any illusions about the dirt in this profession, but there are shoot on sight orders in the High Court. And a bar council president telling all who'll listen that people will pay for what was done to the lawyers.
Bah.
A few things have annoyed me of late. Nothing more than this.
A few things to be said and I'll say it bluntly. And quickly.
People have the freedom to object. About bloody anything. And if you dare to say that these lawyers are being idiots striking for nothing, you're a clown. There is still a place for conscientious objection in this world, thank god. And if you think there's NOTHING happening in Sri Lanka to raise a ruckus about that's your prerogative. Just so you know, its being called genocide. Across the world. What it actually is does not concern me. But don't say its nothing, and that these chaps are being silly.
Next, lawyers choose to strike or not work, that's their choice. Their lives. But it is not, and has never been a non violent strike. A hundred lawyers preventing a few thousand lawyers from arguing their cases by stationing their thugs in every courtroom, and physically manhandling anybody who attempts to is not non violent. There is a system in place. Its merits are not in debate here, but elsewhere. You do not get to stop the machinery of the State because you feel like it. You may choose not to work. Don't choose for me as well. You haven't the right. If you compel me to follow you, it is no longer non violent.
Next, whatever you do, pelting rotten eggs at litigants, irrespective of whether they're powerful politicians is not dignified, not decent, and really, what were you thinking?
If you do in fact believe that as representatives of the legal fraternity, pelting eggs, rotten or otherwise at litigants is incalled for and that those responsible must be dealt with, do NOT resist their arrest when it happens. Oh and, the police have no obligation to consider your dignity and wait to arrest you in your office rather than at the High Court. You can't be the spectacle just when you choose. Just who the hell do you think you are? How DARE you scream into cameras about being defenders of the people, the law and all that is sacred about this thing we call society?
Next, you don't need a thousand strong police force to arrest twenty lawyers. You came for vengeance and you know it. What are these lawyers going to do? Run? And best of luck getting anybody to believe you were doing only what is legal. You came looking for a fight and came prepared.
I have a perspective. And that is this. If I'm not allowed to work I don't get to eat. Its that simple. Get out of my way. Live your own life.
Perhaps what is also worthy of a mention is that all of this, all of this is simply politics. No more. The initial advocates strike was people finding a cause to acquire power. Some say it was all carefully orchestrated to create instability in the State and facilitate a change of government. And all of this is just snowballing now. And while I usually sit by and say that this is how things are, dear god, I writhe in agony at each side in this ridiculous episode trying to sound pious. Piety brings out the devil in me.
God in heaven, help me. I never had any illusions about the dirt in this profession, but there are shoot on sight orders in the High Court. And a bar council president telling all who'll listen that people will pay for what was done to the lawyers.
Bah.
The unexpected holiday was fun for a while. But this is starting to affect.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Yeah Yeah
I remember. I do. For a nut like me its really something. I don't care for dates. Never did remember.
I wish I didn't. Loads of feeling that have caused me nothing but misery. It annoys.
Anyway. Nevermind. Such is life.
Happy 4th of July.
I wish I didn't. Loads of feeling that have caused me nothing but misery. It annoys.
Anyway. Nevermind. Such is life.
Happy 4th of July.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Hear hear
The disposition of mankind, whether as rulers or as fellow citizens, to impose their own opinions and inclinations as a rule of conduct on others, is so energetically supported by some of the best and by some of the worst feelings incident to human nature, that it is hardly ever kept under restraint by anything but want of power; and as the power is not declining but growing, unless a strong barrier of moral conviction can be raised against the mischief, we must expect, in the present circumstances of the world, to see it increase.
Me likey. here. But falls into his own trap, methinks.
But me still not satisfied. Too many rebuttable assumptions in his ideas.
Me likey. here. But falls into his own trap, methinks.
But me still not satisfied. Too many rebuttable assumptions in his ideas.
Monday, February 16, 2009
The politics of hope
On election eve, reported Gallup, most Obama supporters were “engaged” but “deeply pessimistic about the country’s future direction”. My guess is that many people knew what was coming, but hoped for the best. In exploiting this hope, Obama has all but neutered the anti-war movement that is historically allied to the Democrats. After all, who can argue with the symbol of the first black president in this country of slavery, regardless of whether he is a warmonger? As Noam Chomsky has pointed out, Obama is a “brand” like none other, having won the highest advertising campaign accolade and attracted unprecedented sums of money. The brand will sell for a while. He will close Guantanamo Bay, whose inmates represent less than one per cent of America’s 27,000 “ghost prisoners”. He will continue to make stirring, platitudinous speeches, but the tears will dry as people understand that President Obama is the latest manager of an ideological machine that transcends electoral power. Asked what his supporters would do when reality intruded, Stephen Walt, an Obama adviser, said: “They have nowhere else to go.”
here
here
Friday, February 13, 2009
Hair, and why its so important
The Ukip peer Lord Pearson lauds Geert Wilders as a "very brave man" and, for the latter's hairstyle alone, one must agree. When a man objects to being described as a racist, it takes a certain sense of gall and irony to puff one's silvery locks into the finest supremacist quiff available on the hairdresser's menu. Maybe it's the way every strand is in such strictly controlled uniformity that makes one look at this hairdo and immediately think "Ah! Racism!" Maybe it's the Satanic-looking point from which it emerges on his untroubled brow. Maybe it's the way one instantly wonders how many copies of Mein Kampf he can store under there. It is a rare day that one is gifted with a chance to describe a man's hair as racist but, truly, there is no other word for this "Toni & Guy meets Himmler" look. If Prince Harry is concerned he has exhausted the possibilities of costumes for fancy dress parties, he is highly recommended to start growing and powdering now.
-Hadley Freedman
See picher.
Teehee. Nair is going through a period of extended Guardian worship.
-Hadley Freedman
See picher.
Teehee. Nair is going through a period of extended Guardian worship.
Fortunate
There are few things more attractive than a girl who can tell you exactly what kind of idiot you are.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
First world politics
can be so illusory. Is this so very far removed from footwear throwing?
Titian, the Tory and Wikipedia: a modern morality tale
Robert Booth
The Guardian, Thursday 12 February 2009
Article history
When David Cameron sat down yesterday after his weekly joust with Gordon Brown at prime minister's questions he must have thought he had landed more than just a glancing blow to his rival's credibility.
The Conservative leader had found a weak spot in one of the prime minister's more esoteric recent political pronouncements when in Davos last month, Brown said he had much in common with the Italian Renaissance artist Titian who did his best work in his dotage and reached the age of 90.
It was not the unlikely comparison between the dour Scot and the Italian genius that the opposition leader thought amiss, rather its biographical accuracy and Cameron pounced.
"The prime minister never gets his facts right," said the Conservative leader. "You told us the other day you were like Titian aged 90. The fact is Titian died at 86."
But the blow did not sting Brown for long, because no sooner had PMQs wrapped up, what had seemed an old-fashioned points scoring exercise morphed into a parable of modern political chicanery.
Sharp-eyed observers noticed that at 12.34pm, Titian's biography on Wikipedia was edited to reduce his age. The original birth and death dates were set at 1485 and 1576, meaning Brown could have been correct, but they were changed to 1490 and 1572.
A quick search of the online encyclopedia's records showed that someone at the IP address 194.203.158.97 was behind the edit and a check with the internet register revealed that address is registered to Conservative central office.
Titian, the Tory and Wikipedia: a modern morality tale
Robert Booth
The Guardian, Thursday 12 February 2009
Article history
When David Cameron sat down yesterday after his weekly joust with Gordon Brown at prime minister's questions he must have thought he had landed more than just a glancing blow to his rival's credibility.
The Conservative leader had found a weak spot in one of the prime minister's more esoteric recent political pronouncements when in Davos last month, Brown said he had much in common with the Italian Renaissance artist Titian who did his best work in his dotage and reached the age of 90.
It was not the unlikely comparison between the dour Scot and the Italian genius that the opposition leader thought amiss, rather its biographical accuracy and Cameron pounced.
"The prime minister never gets his facts right," said the Conservative leader. "You told us the other day you were like Titian aged 90. The fact is Titian died at 86."
But the blow did not sting Brown for long, because no sooner had PMQs wrapped up, what had seemed an old-fashioned points scoring exercise morphed into a parable of modern political chicanery.
Sharp-eyed observers noticed that at 12.34pm, Titian's biography on Wikipedia was edited to reduce his age. The original birth and death dates were set at 1485 and 1576, meaning Brown could have been correct, but they were changed to 1490 and 1572.
A quick search of the online encyclopedia's records showed that someone at the IP address 194.203.158.97 was behind the edit and a check with the internet register revealed that address is registered to Conservative central office.
Boo
This is a soppy, boring super depressing blog.
It annoys.
Gah.
I should be cooler than this.
I can be cooler than this.
I will be cooler than this.
Be the miracle! Be the miracle!
It annoys.
Gah.
I should be cooler than this.
I can be cooler than this.
I will be cooler than this.
Be the miracle! Be the miracle!
(Is feeling brought along by happening upon other, similarly sentimental blogs and feeling all icky)
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Do I even feel like it?
in truth, when I read about the goings on in a non descript Mangalore Pub I didn't particularly care, apart from a more primal concern for the safety of the individuals attacked. I'm not the kind of person who gets enraged by this sort of thing and takes to the streets shouting slogans. It isn't me and I've never been particularly good at it.
I'm the kind who'd be more annoyed at the NCW report, and fantasize about alleging incompetence of its authors with no more than a cold stare.
I'm also the kind who'd play intellectual parcheesi, trying to sort out a coherent rationale for the physical assault of teenaged girls in a pub.
I think I managed to find one too. Only I don't much care for it. But its tempting to argue it. I have automatic responses to
Those girls weren't hurting anyone.
Actually they are. There is a general underestimation of the manner in which a way of life threatens other ways of life. Free choice does not exist isolated of its effect on its surroundings. Such is not possible. By choosing to live a certain way, whether intended or not, an example is created, which in turn illustrates a choice that may be made. It creates an expansion of choices, directly attacking restrictions on choices, which are one of the pillars of the 'system' for lack of a better term. The system depends on restriction of choice to ensure its stability. That is not too far fetched a connection is it? I have doubts when going out on a limb.
The system has its prime beneficiaries, who have a stake in the longevity of the system. Altering the system restructures its hierarchy of beneficiaries. Perhaps in simple terms, freedom of choice for women favours some men and women more than others. The people who it does not favour do not wish to give up their place in the hierarchy of beneficiaries of their system. They may have the liberty to define what they are progressively being denied as hurt.
The men and women who see change as beneficial may however, not define hurt as widely. It helps does it not?
Sigh. It makes sense to me. The rest is just a notion of whose definition has a better claim to being the norm. We have our processes for determining this.
Perhaps it is my belief that were such methods of appropriating benefits open to the individuals screaming harassment, moral policing and the like, they would have used them. Urban India showed scant regard for the law when they caught the terrorist. How dare he affect our pleasant bubble of security they cried. If it wasn't for a reasonably entrenched human rights ideal among the legal fraternity he'd have been hung by now. And not very legally.
All it takes, is for you to care enough about what you lose.
Perhaps it is merely a question of degree. We exclude from public and private life a great many things, do we not? Can we really, idealogically trumpet the notion of choice, when, in my opinion we would do the same to some who flouted our notions of acceptable behaviour (and we do have them)? Is there virtue in simply being more accepting rather than just accepting?
Oh dear. I don't know. I wish people would tell me.
At its heart is no more than people identifying an issue that will bring them notoreity (there's no such thing as bad publicity). Without this underlying discontent there will be none to follow you. There are some you may use to create it, but it must be there somehow before you lead.
On offer is the freedom to be truly free. To have the system be subject to you.
I personally feel a sense of sickness when I see this. I always do when I see stories of harassment, power and control. I wonder how easily those men could be me. Because the ideas thrown at them resonate with the ideas thrown at me. But having looked long and hard, I don't feel apologetic. I don't believe I did anything nobody else would have done. I don't believe I'm a monster.
My roars of survival, my claims to humanity may have made me a right wing fundamentalist.
Perspective comes first. Rationale comes second.
I'm the kind who'd be more annoyed at the NCW report, and fantasize about alleging incompetence of its authors with no more than a cold stare.
I'm also the kind who'd play intellectual parcheesi, trying to sort out a coherent rationale for the physical assault of teenaged girls in a pub.
I think I managed to find one too. Only I don't much care for it. But its tempting to argue it. I have automatic responses to
Those girls weren't hurting anyone.
Actually they are. There is a general underestimation of the manner in which a way of life threatens other ways of life. Free choice does not exist isolated of its effect on its surroundings. Such is not possible. By choosing to live a certain way, whether intended or not, an example is created, which in turn illustrates a choice that may be made. It creates an expansion of choices, directly attacking restrictions on choices, which are one of the pillars of the 'system' for lack of a better term. The system depends on restriction of choice to ensure its stability. That is not too far fetched a connection is it? I have doubts when going out on a limb.
The system has its prime beneficiaries, who have a stake in the longevity of the system. Altering the system restructures its hierarchy of beneficiaries. Perhaps in simple terms, freedom of choice for women favours some men and women more than others. The people who it does not favour do not wish to give up their place in the hierarchy of beneficiaries of their system. They may have the liberty to define what they are progressively being denied as hurt.
The men and women who see change as beneficial may however, not define hurt as widely. It helps does it not?
Sigh. It makes sense to me. The rest is just a notion of whose definition has a better claim to being the norm. We have our processes for determining this.
Perhaps it is my belief that were such methods of appropriating benefits open to the individuals screaming harassment, moral policing and the like, they would have used them. Urban India showed scant regard for the law when they caught the terrorist. How dare he affect our pleasant bubble of security they cried. If it wasn't for a reasonably entrenched human rights ideal among the legal fraternity he'd have been hung by now. And not very legally.
All it takes, is for you to care enough about what you lose.
Perhaps it is merely a question of degree. We exclude from public and private life a great many things, do we not? Can we really, idealogically trumpet the notion of choice, when, in my opinion we would do the same to some who flouted our notions of acceptable behaviour (and we do have them)? Is there virtue in simply being more accepting rather than just accepting?
Oh dear. I don't know. I wish people would tell me.
At its heart is no more than people identifying an issue that will bring them notoreity (there's no such thing as bad publicity). Without this underlying discontent there will be none to follow you. There are some you may use to create it, but it must be there somehow before you lead.
On offer is the freedom to be truly free. To have the system be subject to you.
I personally feel a sense of sickness when I see this. I always do when I see stories of harassment, power and control. I wonder how easily those men could be me. Because the ideas thrown at them resonate with the ideas thrown at me. But having looked long and hard, I don't feel apologetic. I don't believe I did anything nobody else would have done. I don't believe I'm a monster.
My roars of survival, my claims to humanity may have made me a right wing fundamentalist.
Perspective comes first. Rationale comes second.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Just so you know
It was...
Boy: What would you SAY if I told you I liked you?
Girl: (Blink, blink, stares. Goggles, even): Ummmm....
Boy: (raises eyebrows...then turns away and goes back to work)
Boy: Yes?
Girl: Well, I've received the information. But, I need time...
Boy: Oh no biggie, take all the time you want... (I mean, its not like I have a thousand women waiting for me. I'd like to, though. In a "You missed the window of opportunity, woman" kind of way)
I'd just like you to know that you broke my heart that day. Let it slip from the sidewalk into the gutter, while you were busy assessing me. You needed time. Bleh.
Boy: What would you SAY if I told you I liked you?
Girl: (Blink, blink, stares. Goggles, even): Ummmm....
Boy: (raises eyebrows...then turns away and goes back to work)
Boy: Yes?
Girl: Well, I've received the information. But, I need time...
Boy: Oh no biggie, take all the time you want... (I mean, its not like I have a thousand women waiting for me. I'd like to, though. In a "You missed the window of opportunity, woman" kind of way)
I'd just like you to know that you broke my heart that day. Let it slip from the sidewalk into the gutter, while you were busy assessing me. You needed time. Bleh.
Monday, February 09, 2009
Why I continue reading the Guardian
but politics is not about intellectual coherence. It's about articulating raw responses such as fear, hope, desire, particularly at a time like now
Boo
I just didn't feel like keeping that last post up top.
Sometimes I'm too melodramatic even for me. It annoys.
Bleh.
I'm all redfaced now. Note to self. Never start something with Ophelia. It gives instant eewwness.
Sometimes I'm too melodramatic even for me. It annoys.
Bleh.
I'm all redfaced now. Note to self. Never start something with Ophelia. It gives instant eewwness.
Friday, February 06, 2009
Imagine
Ophelia didn't die. She just told Hamlet to take a walk and married another man. That would have been fun.
Othello never said a word to Desdemona. All he got was a letter, and the news that she had decided to remarry. Would have been a short play. But a good one.
Bah. Years of angst. A ridiculous blog that sometimes feels dedicated to hate. A reality that screams in my face, painting me a villain. A reality that makes me detest the people and the place that made the biggest impact in my life. Ensuring, that I will never live normally ever.
And you DARE to suggest I would CHOOSE to live like this. That this existence pleases me. That the pain of the memory is my choice, and I could neuter if I felt like it.
Dear sweet lord. Keep your ridiculous assumptions to yourself. If you haven't the imagination to understand that somebody like me might exist, and I won't fit it into one of YOUR ridiculous theories, you really should keep it to yourself.
Othello never said a word to Desdemona. All he got was a letter, and the news that she had decided to remarry. Would have been a short play. But a good one.
Bah. Years of angst. A ridiculous blog that sometimes feels dedicated to hate. A reality that screams in my face, painting me a villain. A reality that makes me detest the people and the place that made the biggest impact in my life. Ensuring, that I will never live normally ever.
And you DARE to suggest I would CHOOSE to live like this. That this existence pleases me. That the pain of the memory is my choice, and I could neuter if I felt like it.
Dear sweet lord. Keep your ridiculous assumptions to yourself. If you haven't the imagination to understand that somebody like me might exist, and I won't fit it into one of YOUR ridiculous theories, you really should keep it to yourself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
