Ok, so I'm too knackered for philosophising, hence the lazy video post. 'Tis muchly amusing though, so you have to give me kudos for that!
Thursday, 27 December 2007
Wednesday, 26 December 2007
A life more ordinary...
I want a small life. An ordinary life. A comfortable life.
That wasn't always so. I once wanted to achieve 'amazing' things. I was going to be... a noble prize winner; a celebrated human rights lawyer; the next John Pilger; or the leader of the socialist revolution. I was going to change and save the world.
Not so anymore. Perhaps it is just a symptom of getting older, growing up. Perhaps it is that so very crucial realisation that the world does not pivot around me and my will. Perhaps it is simply valuing myself enough to know that you don't have to do astounding things in order to be astounding. Regardless of the process it simply seems now that the small things are those that really matter. The seemingly inconsequential is all important. I might not change the whole world, but I can change and enrich my little part of it. I can recycle my rubbish, shop ethically, impact positively on those I cross paths with and add value to the lives of those I love... I can make my little arena a better placer, a richer place. To me, today, the life more ordinary is what is truly amazing. This is my definition of a 'successful' life.
In this context the eternal struggle to excel, to succeed, to achieve has become somewhat alien to me. I am driven, I am motivated, but I no longer reach for the (nearly always) unreachable. Yet so many others do. There is a constant need to be... better, richer, nicer, more respected, more well known, more celebrated, more 'successful'. Whilst these certainly aren't unmerited goals I feel more and more that they detract from what really matters. In striving for the life less ordinary it is so easy to let all the beauty and magic of the life you already have pass you by.
So, I want a small life. A nice place to live, a job I enjoy, the companionship of cats and of the people I love. I'd like to get married, wear a pretty dress and have children whom I will teach to value themselves and the world around them. I'd like grandchildren who visit at Christmas and I'd like to tell them stories of the world as it once was, and of my ordinary yet amazing life. I'd like to die with the satisfaction that my life was well lived in, that it was rich and meaningful, and that I made myself and other people happy. What more could anyone desire?
"Life is what happens to you when you're making other plans." (Betty Talmadge)
Postscript: I still wouldn't mind being 'the next John Pilger' and of course, when I eventually get there, my post-doctoral expostulations will be groundbreaking and change the academic landscape irrevocably.
That wasn't always so. I once wanted to achieve 'amazing' things. I was going to be... a noble prize winner; a celebrated human rights lawyer; the next John Pilger; or the leader of the socialist revolution. I was going to change and save the world.
Not so anymore. Perhaps it is just a symptom of getting older, growing up. Perhaps it is that so very crucial realisation that the world does not pivot around me and my will. Perhaps it is simply valuing myself enough to know that you don't have to do astounding things in order to be astounding. Regardless of the process it simply seems now that the small things are those that really matter. The seemingly inconsequential is all important. I might not change the whole world, but I can change and enrich my little part of it. I can recycle my rubbish, shop ethically, impact positively on those I cross paths with and add value to the lives of those I love... I can make my little arena a better placer, a richer place. To me, today, the life more ordinary is what is truly amazing. This is my definition of a 'successful' life.
In this context the eternal struggle to excel, to succeed, to achieve has become somewhat alien to me. I am driven, I am motivated, but I no longer reach for the (nearly always) unreachable. Yet so many others do. There is a constant need to be... better, richer, nicer, more respected, more well known, more celebrated, more 'successful'. Whilst these certainly aren't unmerited goals I feel more and more that they detract from what really matters. In striving for the life less ordinary it is so easy to let all the beauty and magic of the life you already have pass you by.
So, I want a small life. A nice place to live, a job I enjoy, the companionship of cats and of the people I love. I'd like to get married, wear a pretty dress and have children whom I will teach to value themselves and the world around them. I'd like grandchildren who visit at Christmas and I'd like to tell them stories of the world as it once was, and of my ordinary yet amazing life. I'd like to die with the satisfaction that my life was well lived in, that it was rich and meaningful, and that I made myself and other people happy. What more could anyone desire?
"Life is what happens to you when you're making other plans." (Betty Talmadge)
Postscript: I still wouldn't mind being 'the next John Pilger' and of course, when I eventually get there, my post-doctoral expostulations will be groundbreaking and change the academic landscape irrevocably.
Sunday, 23 December 2007
The obligatory football post...
The Blues are not so blue in Europe. Nice draw. Liverpool and Arsenal face Inter Milan and AC Milan respectively, Manchester United have it tough with Lyon and poor old Celtic will need to overcome Barcelona. Meanwhile, Chelsea will be happily squaring up against Greek side Olympiacos. It really couldn't be any more perfect if I'd designed it myself.Injuries aside, I have high hopes for the Blues this season. Whilst I continue to mourn the departure of Jose 'the special one' Mourinho, the team has been enjoying a rejuvenated performance of late and it appears that Avram Grant might not be so bad after all.
In truth, Mourinho (love him as I do) never managed to cut it in Europe. His focus was domestic, where we excelled, but always with the slightly bitter pill of defeat in Europe and an unjustly empty space in the trophy cabinet.
Surely this has to be our year?
George Carlin - Religion is bullshit.
I love George Carlin... a pure rational genius of a man. This clip really hits the nail on the head.
Lest we forget...
The British media has of late been filled with stories of the British withdrawal from Basra and the handover of power to the Iraqis. A long overdue and very much welcome move. However, the inference of a 'job well done' bothers me immensely.
So, lest we forget...
3897 American military deaths (as confirmed by US DoD)
174 British military deaths
approx. another 130 deaths of other coalition forces
The 'coalition of the willing' don't count Iraqi deaths... ("We don't do body counts" - General Tommy Franks, US Central Command), but thankfully Iraq Body Count does as good a job as it can - their database of war/occupation caused deaths currently sits at around the 80,000 mark.
So... that's approx 84,000 deaths in total... not including 'insurgents' or non-Iraqi civilians.
84,000 individuals are dead.
Why?
Our governments told us that Saddam Hussein had WMDs that he could deploy within 45 minutes. So, despite the outspoken opposition of the chief weapons inspector and the resistance of the general public (60% of the British public opposed the invasion of Iraq on the eve the war broke out) they took us to war without a UN mandate in order to protect us and the international community as a whole.
We now know that that was a lie. There were no WMDs to find. There was no imminent threat. Rather there was, at best, dodgy intelligence and incompetent politicians, or, at worst, a deliberate attempt to deceive the public in order to validate a war that was motivated by factors we can merely speculate about (which I will do later in this post).
How about 'regime change'? After all, that Saddam was a nasty bit of work wasn't he? Well yes, I'd be inclined to agree. BUT, BUT, BUT... Under international law it is simply ILLEGAL to invade a sovereign state in order to secure regime change.
In fact, under international law there are only three justifications for war:
1. Self-defence in the face of actual or imminent attack (even the WMDs story doesn't qualify as this - whilst preventative strike is justified, pre-emption is not - there has to be real and tangible danger)
2. Defence of others - this is harder to define, but generally is accepted that human rights abuses per say isn't adequate justification... evidence of widespread, large-scale, systematic human rights violations is imperative (think genocide).
3. Law-enforcement - quelling an aggressor (as with the first Gulf War).
At this point I would like to clarify my position. I am not a pacifist. I am not opposed to war. In fact, whilst peace is always preferable, I believe that under certain circumstances war is not just the only option, but the best option. For example, should we have gone to war against Fascist Germany in 1939? Categorically YES (imho). That was a justified and necessary war. Should we have gone to war against Iraq in 2003? Categorically NO.
Let me explain a little further. I have stated that I'm not a pacifist. So, what am I? Well, the most apt description would be to say that I subscribe to 'Just War Theory', which explains why I'm talking about international law...
Just war theory is embodied within current international law via what Walzer terms ‘the legalist paradigm’ – that is an acceptance of the existence of an international society of independent states, which possess rights to political sovereignty and territorial integrity. Within this system non-intervention and peace are the norms and aggression is thus a crime. Therefore, war is (as I have already outlined above) only justified when it occurs in response to aggression against ourselves or our allies.
Additionally, there are a number of conditions that are applied to the pursuit of war... ‘just cause’, ‘right intention’, ‘proper authority’, ‘last resort’, ‘likelihood of success’, ‘proportionality’ and ‘discrimination’. I could go through them one by one, but this is getting long enough all ready. In brief, some of them are criteria that must be fulfilled before embarking on war and some of them are criteria which apply to the conduct of war - the current war/occupation in Iraq fails on a number of counts... once again leading to the inevitable conclusion that this is an illegal and unjust occupation.
I want to dwell a little on just one of those criteria listed above - that of 'right intention'. It means exactly what it says - that in order to justify a war the intention must be right, ie: the intention must primarily be centred around quelling the aggressor and restoring order/the status-quo.
Here's where the speculation comes in... I genuinely don't believe that there was anything 'right' or justified about the intentions of the coalition of the killing...
ok... so some people argue that the human rights abuses in Iraq and the liberation of the Iraqi people was the primary motivation/justification for war... perhaps that could be classified as 'a right intention'... protection of a people against an aggressive leader... I accept that that can be a justification for war. What I don't accept is that that is what George W. Bush was thinking when he decided to put those 84,000 lives on the line...
If he was...
Why did the international community (inc. the USA) try their hardest to avoid intervening in Rwanda in 1994? Nearly 1 million people were slaughtered in a 100 day period (a faster rate of killing than the Holocaust) and the international community refused to define it as genocide... because they knew they would then have an obligation to intervene and they didn't want to.
What about Afghanistan under the Taliban (before 9/11)... Bush didn't want regime change there... despite the public executions, torture and widespread abuses against women... in fact, he had the Taliban come visit him in Texas. (I have other thoughts on Afghanistan, but I know it's a sensitive issue, so I'm going to leave that alone for now)
Why isn't the international community intervening in Darfur? I don't pretend to be an expert on African politics and I don't fully understand the situation there... but I do know that it's a damn site worse that Iraq under Saddam.
Why? Why? Why?
Because they had nothing to gain?
Because those nations didn't occupy strategic political/economic/military territories in the Middle East?
Because they weren't rich in natural resources?
Because they have NO OIL??????????????????
(got there eventually... you all knew what was coming didn't you?)
So, the sum of my speculation is this...
84,000 people have died for oil.
What kind of world do you want to live in?
Not one where tens of thousands of people die for oil that's for sure...
I'm going to leave you with the words of Rose Gentle (mother of Fusilier Gordon Gentle, killed in Basra on 28 June 2004):
"Soldiers in Iraq have told me they don't want to be there. They want to come home. They have told us to step up our campaign of resistance to this government's war policies. We must act now, bring the troops home and end this illegal occupation."
Thanks for reading.
So, lest we forget...
3897 American military deaths (as confirmed by US DoD)
174 British military deaths
approx. another 130 deaths of other coalition forces
The 'coalition of the willing' don't count Iraqi deaths... ("We don't do body counts" - General Tommy Franks, US Central Command), but thankfully Iraq Body Count does as good a job as it can - their database of war/occupation caused deaths currently sits at around the 80,000 mark.
So... that's approx 84,000 deaths in total... not including 'insurgents' or non-Iraqi civilians.
84,000 individuals are dead.
Why?
Our governments told us that Saddam Hussein had WMDs that he could deploy within 45 minutes. So, despite the outspoken opposition of the chief weapons inspector and the resistance of the general public (60% of the British public opposed the invasion of Iraq on the eve the war broke out) they took us to war without a UN mandate in order to protect us and the international community as a whole.
We now know that that was a lie. There were no WMDs to find. There was no imminent threat. Rather there was, at best, dodgy intelligence and incompetent politicians, or, at worst, a deliberate attempt to deceive the public in order to validate a war that was motivated by factors we can merely speculate about (which I will do later in this post).
How about 'regime change'? After all, that Saddam was a nasty bit of work wasn't he? Well yes, I'd be inclined to agree. BUT, BUT, BUT... Under international law it is simply ILLEGAL to invade a sovereign state in order to secure regime change.
In fact, under international law there are only three justifications for war:
1. Self-defence in the face of actual or imminent attack (even the WMDs story doesn't qualify as this - whilst preventative strike is justified, pre-emption is not - there has to be real and tangible danger)
2. Defence of others - this is harder to define, but generally is accepted that human rights abuses per say isn't adequate justification... evidence of widespread, large-scale, systematic human rights violations is imperative (think genocide).
3. Law-enforcement - quelling an aggressor (as with the first Gulf War).
At this point I would like to clarify my position. I am not a pacifist. I am not opposed to war. In fact, whilst peace is always preferable, I believe that under certain circumstances war is not just the only option, but the best option. For example, should we have gone to war against Fascist Germany in 1939? Categorically YES (imho). That was a justified and necessary war. Should we have gone to war against Iraq in 2003? Categorically NO.
Let me explain a little further. I have stated that I'm not a pacifist. So, what am I? Well, the most apt description would be to say that I subscribe to 'Just War Theory', which explains why I'm talking about international law...
Just war theory is embodied within current international law via what Walzer terms ‘the legalist paradigm’ – that is an acceptance of the existence of an international society of independent states, which possess rights to political sovereignty and territorial integrity. Within this system non-intervention and peace are the norms and aggression is thus a crime. Therefore, war is (as I have already outlined above) only justified when it occurs in response to aggression against ourselves or our allies.
Additionally, there are a number of conditions that are applied to the pursuit of war... ‘just cause’, ‘right intention’, ‘proper authority’, ‘last resort’, ‘likelihood of success’, ‘proportionality’ and ‘discrimination’. I could go through them one by one, but this is getting long enough all ready. In brief, some of them are criteria that must be fulfilled before embarking on war and some of them are criteria which apply to the conduct of war - the current war/occupation in Iraq fails on a number of counts... once again leading to the inevitable conclusion that this is an illegal and unjust occupation.
I want to dwell a little on just one of those criteria listed above - that of 'right intention'. It means exactly what it says - that in order to justify a war the intention must be right, ie: the intention must primarily be centred around quelling the aggressor and restoring order/the status-quo.
Here's where the speculation comes in... I genuinely don't believe that there was anything 'right' or justified about the intentions of the coalition of the killing...
ok... so some people argue that the human rights abuses in Iraq and the liberation of the Iraqi people was the primary motivation/justification for war... perhaps that could be classified as 'a right intention'... protection of a people against an aggressive leader... I accept that that can be a justification for war. What I don't accept is that that is what George W. Bush was thinking when he decided to put those 84,000 lives on the line...
If he was...
Why did the international community (inc. the USA) try their hardest to avoid intervening in Rwanda in 1994? Nearly 1 million people were slaughtered in a 100 day period (a faster rate of killing than the Holocaust) and the international community refused to define it as genocide... because they knew they would then have an obligation to intervene and they didn't want to.
What about Afghanistan under the Taliban (before 9/11)... Bush didn't want regime change there... despite the public executions, torture and widespread abuses against women... in fact, he had the Taliban come visit him in Texas. (I have other thoughts on Afghanistan, but I know it's a sensitive issue, so I'm going to leave that alone for now)
Why isn't the international community intervening in Darfur? I don't pretend to be an expert on African politics and I don't fully understand the situation there... but I do know that it's a damn site worse that Iraq under Saddam.
Why? Why? Why?
Because they had nothing to gain?
Because those nations didn't occupy strategic political/economic/military territories in the Middle East?
Because they weren't rich in natural resources?
Because they have NO OIL??????????????????
(got there eventually... you all knew what was coming didn't you?)
So, the sum of my speculation is this...
84,000 people have died for oil.
What kind of world do you want to live in?
Not one where tens of thousands of people die for oil that's for sure...
I'm going to leave you with the words of Rose Gentle (mother of Fusilier Gordon Gentle, killed in Basra on 28 June 2004):
"Soldiers in Iraq have told me they don't want to be there. They want to come home. They have told us to step up our campaign of resistance to this government's war policies. We must act now, bring the troops home and end this illegal occupation."
Thanks for reading.
Friday, 14 December 2007
101 Things... (a glimpse of the view from here)
- My name is Kate Elizabeth Watson - Kate after my mum (Catherine), Elizabeth after my paternal grandmother, and Watson because... well it is my father's surname.
- My friends call me Katieboo, or variations thereof. Somehow it fits.
- I wasn't breathing when I was born.
- My mum had to borrow a dressing gown and slippers of another lady in her ward in order to visit me in intensive care.
- I later went to school with this lady's daughter (who was born on the same day as me).
- I didn't like her because when we were 6 years old she tried to say that the beautiful butterfly painting I did was hers.
- I think far too much.
- I feel far too much.
- Everybody tells me this.
- I wouldn't have it any other way... it's what makes me 'me'.
- I have more self-awareness than anyone I know. I would go as far to say that I have more self-awareness than most people achieve in a life-time.
- I came to acquire this the very, very hard way.
- The most important people in my life are my immediate family... I treasure them above all things.
- I am the kind of person who likes to have a few close friends and lots of acquaintances (I have never understood how those two are always presented as being mutually exclusive).
- Of my close friends only one of them is under the age of 30.
- I have always enjoyed the company of people who are older than me.
- On a superficial level I get on better with guys than with girls.
- Girls puzzle me... I don't understand the fascination with shoes.
- Unless we are talking about my sexy red heels... then I understand.
- I really need to get a new pair of sexy red heels as I have worn my existing pair into the ground.
- I wear glasses.
- I often spend half an hour searching for my glasses only to find that I am already wearing them.
- I am meant to wear prescription sunglasses when it is bright outside... this is because I have "early onset cataracts".
- I am the youngest person I know with cataracts.
- I suffer from a sleep condition called ‘Excessive Daytime Sleepiness’ (also known as ‘Hypersomnia’).
- This causes me to fall asleep on long journeys.
- It also means that when I wake up in the morning I feel like most people feel at the end of a long day... I am also semi-delirious and unable to function for at least 30 minutes.
- I take a prescribed form of amphetamine to counteract the effects of this condition.
- I also suffer from sporadic insomnia and am very much a night-time person.
- I have "an essential tremor" - this means that my hands shake ever so slightly on a pretty much constant basis.
- I sometimes struggle to open screw top bottles/jars because I have muscle weakness in my wrists.
- I get chronic cramp in my feet and hands.
- I have to have annual diabetes tests and ECGs.
- #23-#33 are because I have a genetic condition called Myotonic Dystrophy. These means that my 19th Chromosome is mutated.
- I can't be bothered to say anything more about that... it pisses me off, so I choose not to think about it – Wikipedia it if you want.
- I am a hopeless optimist.
- I have boundless faith in the human race and I think we possess an innate sense of ethics.
- We make wrong choices a lot of the time, but that is not the point.
- I don't believe in the concept of innate evil.
- In fact I don't believe that human beings can 'be' evil... they are just capable of evil actions.
- I prefer the word 'bad' to 'evil' as it is less emotionally loaded.
- I think that 'good' and 'bad' are objective concepts.
- I admire faith, but object to organised religion.
- Lots of people claim that religion causes wars... I disagree.
- I think unequal power dispersal (and resultant power struggle) causes war... religions (at least those of the monotheistic character) form a convenient excuse.
- I was born a socialist.
- I will die a socialist.
- However, I lean towards social democracy as a practical and workable alternative to collectivism.
- This causes some socialists to despise me... there is a section in the left that is highly scornful of 'reformists'.
- Other socialists piss me off.
- I used to be an active member of the Labour Party, but resigned in 2001. I have no current plans to rejoin.
- My dad has been the most important influence in my life in terms of forming my political beliefs.
- The person I argue most about politics with is my dad... I find this ironic.
- I know what it is like to have to go without because their isn't much money.
- But I have never lived on the poverty line (as subjective a measure of poverty as that is).
- I worry about cultural poverty and social exclusion in modern-day Britain.
- I sometimes think I'd like to go into politics... but the thought never lingers for very long.
- I don't eat red meat and only rarely eat white meat.
- I do eat fish. Lots of them.
- My favourite word is nice - because, well, it is just a nice word (l0l)... however, I overuse it massively.
- My second favourite word is 'pithy'.
- I have two cats who live with my parents (they stayed there when I moved out of home three and a half years ago as cats are territorial and it felt unfair to move them).
- I have two other (much younger) cats who live with me.
- They are my babies... I cannot put into words how much I love them.
- I am shy... but I also have a lot to say.
- I have a degree in Politics & Social Policy
- I am currently in my final year of a part-time Master’s Degree in Contemporary History & Politics.
- I have developed a genuine academic interest in the historical formation of national and cultural identities, including the politics of contested identities.
- Is a sexual position that I have never particularly enjoyed.
- I am proud of my achievements in life.
- I always wanted to be an artist and live in Cornwall by the sea.
- But I'm not very good at art.
- Now I want to be an academic and have a dusty study full of books.
- I think that books are beautiful things.
- One of my favourite books is The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald. I own 3 copies.
- The best book ever written (in my humble opinion) is ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’ by Harper Lee. I own 1 very battered and well read copy.
- My friends say that I have a split personality.
- This is because I am 'clever and stuff'... but also have 'dumb blonde' tendencies.
- I try to convince myself that this is part of my charm... 'try' being the operative word.
- I am utterly and completely terrified of jellyfish.
- I have eaten jellyfish satay... this was one of the most distressing incidents in my entire life.
- Just thinking about jellyfish makes me feel physically sick... all translucent and wobbly... disgusting creatures.
- I am also scared of flying, although I suspect this is largely psychosomatic.
- I don’t let it stop me... 33 individual flights and counting.
- I am starting to feel quite bad about my carbon footprint and am resolved to use alternative methods to travel within Europe.
- My fear of flying is really a fear of falling. I become obsessively convinced that the plane is going to fall out of the sky. Banking and turbulence are particularly worrying. I really don’t like falling.
- I like abseiling because the rope is taught (i.e. no falling potential).
- Conversely, I loathe rock climbing because the rope is slack (i.e. too much falling potential).
- I am going to do a skydive in aid of the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign in the spring. I believe this will involve jumping out of a plane and then falling for quite some distance.
- I am stupid, crazy and daft.
- My favourite animal is the giraffe. They are kooky and fun.
- Unlike giraffes I am somewhat short (5ft4in).
- I am ridiculously romantic. When I fall in love I do so passionately.
- However, I do not believe in true love.
- People find this apparent contradiction difficult to understand.
- To me it is simple. The concept of ‘one true love’ is scary... What if you never meet? Or fuck it up? Or don’t realise you are each other’s destiny at the opportune time? Thoroughly depressing concept I say.
- I actually think that love is a social construct. ‘Falling in love’ is about the right people, at the right time, in the right place. Staying in love is about a whole lot more and then some.
- This doesn’t make love any less special or amazing... in fact I tend to think it makes it more so.
- I really don’t like Condoleezza Rice.
- I really do like myself.
- Things is more than enough.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)