So I've been reading the transcripts from the recent Prop 8 and DOMA Supreme Court Of The United States hearings that have been happening over the last two days. I'll highlight other gems in future, but this one particularly stood out:
Counsel for BLAG (i.e. the pro-DOMA side) arguing the merits in the DOMA case: "...No State loses any benefits by recognizing same-sex marriage. Things stay the same. What they don't do is they don't sort of open up an additional class of beneficiaries under their State law for -- that get additional Federal benefits. But things stay the same..."
Justice Ginsburg: "They're not -- they're not a question of additional benefits. I mean, they touch every aspect of life. Your partner is sick. Social Security. I mean, it's pervasive. It's not as though, well, there's this little Federal sphere and it's only a tax question. It's -- it's -- as Justice Kennedy said, 1100 statutes, and it affects every area of life. And so he was really diminishing what the State has said is marriage. You're saying, no, State said two kinds of marriage; the full marriage, and then this sort of skim milk marriage."
YES. Justice Ginsburg TOTALLY gets it. It's not asking to be granted additional benefits, it's asking for recognition of equal rights and benefits already existent.
Showing posts with label Prop 8. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Prop 8. Show all posts
Thursday, 28 March 2013
Wednesday, 27 January 2010
Mmmmm Pendulumy....
Have been catching up on 4 days of the Prop 8 trial. The defence have been making their case, with a mere 2 expert witnesses, though the qualifier 'expert' is debatable, and indeed has been the subject of much scrutiny by the plaintiff's counsel and the court. Both witnesses have been subjected to voir dire (what you do when you don't think an expert is an expert, or evidence counts as evidence), which happened to none of the plaintiff's witnesses. Boies has been completely destroying the first of the defence's witnesses, by using the man's own words against him. When testifying in court, you really really shouldn't make opposing statements within 5 minutes of each other.
Now considering this is a trial about the constitutionality of proposition 8, where the cases largely come down to whether prop 8 harms a minority or repealling it would harm society more, and whether the vote of yes on prop 8 was motivated by prejudices, especially religious ones, the 'expert' clearly doesn't know even the basics:
B: You know Catholic Church’s opinion on homosexuality?
M: Uh…
The second witness, whilst a bit more collected than the first, doesnt fare much better under cross:
Boies. You know that same sex couples are raising children?
DB: Of course!
Boies: Hundreds of thousands?
DB: I don’t know.
Boies: Did you attempt to find out how many?
DB: Yes.
Boies: Approximately how many?
DB: I don’t know.
Hmmm, clearly he didn't attempt that hard then. This is the problem with the former generation, they don't appreciate how wikipedia can answer any question when you need to do last minute research.
Also, please go read Blackenhorn's testimony. In direct he is against same-sex marriage, and tentatively for DPs as a compromise, in cross, he is for (note, not even, concedes, he offers the view freely), same sex marriage. Oh dear.... Personally I think this says it all, bear in mind the guy is testifying in a court of law as an expert witness on a matter of federal import here:
DB: It never occurred to me that everything I would say regarding my views had to be documented...
Blackenhorn just comes across as petulant in all of this, he's constantly avoiding saying a definitive 'yes', 'no', or 'i don't know' to Boies questions, no matter how many times the man rephrases them, and constantly tries to attack the definition of terms in the questioning. Finally, Boies gets the following out of him:
DB: ...I can’t answer these yes or no. I do know the answers and I can’t answer when you ask that way.
The trial has now substantially finished. Closing arguements have been postponed until the judge has had time to review the quite frankly massive volume of evidence submitted by both sides, and so we're stuck waiting till February 26th to see any further developments on this. This translates as a return to my normal ramblings for the next month or so.
In other news, I finally caught up on everything that was getting ahead of me, but that's only because my body crashed from 1900 last night through to 1300 today, thus missing all my lectures and tutorials -_- Goddammit.
Mood: Meh. That is all.
Music: http://open.spotify.com/user/jorgamond/playlist/7firS9s8mwBaQr02IBP1GO
Now considering this is a trial about the constitutionality of proposition 8, where the cases largely come down to whether prop 8 harms a minority or repealling it would harm society more, and whether the vote of yes on prop 8 was motivated by prejudices, especially religious ones, the 'expert' clearly doesn't know even the basics:
B: You know Catholic Church’s opinion on homosexuality?
M: Uh…
The second witness, whilst a bit more collected than the first, doesnt fare much better under cross:
Boies. You know that same sex couples are raising children?
DB: Of course!
Boies: Hundreds of thousands?
DB: I don’t know.
Boies: Did you attempt to find out how many?
DB: Yes.
Boies: Approximately how many?
DB: I don’t know.
Hmmm, clearly he didn't attempt that hard then. This is the problem with the former generation, they don't appreciate how wikipedia can answer any question when you need to do last minute research.
Also, please go read Blackenhorn's testimony. In direct he is against same-sex marriage, and tentatively for DPs as a compromise, in cross, he is for (note, not even, concedes, he offers the view freely), same sex marriage. Oh dear.... Personally I think this says it all, bear in mind the guy is testifying in a court of law as an expert witness on a matter of federal import here:
DB: It never occurred to me that everything I would say regarding my views had to be documented...
Blackenhorn just comes across as petulant in all of this, he's constantly avoiding saying a definitive 'yes', 'no', or 'i don't know' to Boies questions, no matter how many times the man rephrases them, and constantly tries to attack the definition of terms in the questioning. Finally, Boies gets the following out of him:
DB: ...I can’t answer these yes or no. I do know the answers and I can’t answer when you ask that way.
The trial has now substantially finished. Closing arguements have been postponed until the judge has had time to review the quite frankly massive volume of evidence submitted by both sides, and so we're stuck waiting till February 26th to see any further developments on this. This translates as a return to my normal ramblings for the next month or so.
In other news, I finally caught up on everything that was getting ahead of me, but that's only because my body crashed from 1900 last night through to 1300 today, thus missing all my lectures and tutorials -_- Goddammit.
Mood: Meh. That is all.
Music: http://open.spotify.com/user/jorgamond/playlist/7firS9s8mwBaQr02IBP1GO
Friday, 22 January 2010
His patience is wearing thin....
and then haven't even started their round of witnesses yet!
"Judge: ... When might we take a break?
N: The questions about sexual orientation go to our theory of the case so I’ll keep questioning the witness.
Judge: That’s fine, but when might it be a good time to take break?
N: I’d be happy to do that whenever the court wishes.
Judge: Very well, then. Why don’t we do it now?"
Chris is most likely very confused by all this. For a week now I've been deeply interested, and willing to discuss at length, a case which is intensely and inherently political, and I've even blogged about it. Normally I abhor any discussion of politics. Don't get me wrong, I'm not apolitical, I have very strong views, but I have no interest in discussing them. Every discussion either seems to come to a clash of ideologies with each person trying to convince the other of how great their view is, or all parties spend the time acting incredulous at the actions of politicians, whilst fully conceding they shouldn't be surprised. I imagine this is along a similar vein to why some people hate talking to others about religion, they find the discussion dull, tedious, and endlessly repetitive. For me on the other hand, I am phenomenally interested in the anthrolopology, mythology, evolution, personal need, cultutral need, presentation, connection to society, reasons for, and generally everything of religious beliefs, I find them fascinating to discuss with people and find the common ground and the areas where we differ, even with the evangelicals and the scientologists. I just hate doing the same about politics. Except occasionally, usually in gay rights issues, or things in the US (so double points to the Prop 8 trial, really) to be honest, where I follow the developments closely and analyze it endlessly. Like I say, Chris must be very confused, but he's enjoying the rare opportunity to have these discussions with me, usually if he tries I get very frustrated and angry.
"Judge: ... When might we take a break?
N: The questions about sexual orientation go to our theory of the case so I’ll keep questioning the witness.
Judge: That’s fine, but when might it be a good time to take break?
N: I’d be happy to do that whenever the court wishes.
Judge: Very well, then. Why don’t we do it now?"
Chris is most likely very confused by all this. For a week now I've been deeply interested, and willing to discuss at length, a case which is intensely and inherently political, and I've even blogged about it. Normally I abhor any discussion of politics. Don't get me wrong, I'm not apolitical, I have very strong views, but I have no interest in discussing them. Every discussion either seems to come to a clash of ideologies with each person trying to convince the other of how great their view is, or all parties spend the time acting incredulous at the actions of politicians, whilst fully conceding they shouldn't be surprised. I imagine this is along a similar vein to why some people hate talking to others about religion, they find the discussion dull, tedious, and endlessly repetitive. For me on the other hand, I am phenomenally interested in the anthrolopology, mythology, evolution, personal need, cultutral need, presentation, connection to society, reasons for, and generally everything of religious beliefs, I find them fascinating to discuss with people and find the common ground and the areas where we differ, even with the evangelicals and the scientologists. I just hate doing the same about politics. Except occasionally, usually in gay rights issues, or things in the US (so double points to the Prop 8 trial, really) to be honest, where I follow the developments closely and analyze it endlessly. Like I say, Chris must be very confused, but he's enjoying the rare opportunity to have these discussions with me, usually if he tries I get very frustrated and angry.
This guy argues worse than me
Epic fail here on a part of the adverse witness. Boies is counsel for the plaintiffs, Tam was originally a defence counsel, but dropped out, but has been called back by the plaintiffs as a witness. Boies takes a few short exchanges to pretty much destroy him. This is after the courtroom has become deathly silent, after Tam has testified that he believes homosexuality leads to paedophilia and the gay agenda is legalize same-sex marriages, then prostitution, then sex with children.
"T: Homosexuals are not minority.
B: How many are there?
T: I am a minority. Minority is based on skin color.
B: How many are there?
T: 2-4% of population.
B: So they are a minority?
T: yes."
Okay so I know this Tam guy is an idiot, but even still, reading the things that he's saying under oath in a court of law, rather than ranting in some book or at some evangelical convention, is pretty harrowing:
"B: ...if same sex marriage passes it will lead to incest, pedophilia and polygamy. Do you agree with that?
T: Yes."
"B: Your paper says that after Netherlands legalized SS marriage, Netheralands legalized incest and polygamy. Do you believe that?
T: Same sex marriage may not have led to legalization of incest and polygamy, but it happened.
B: Who told you that?
T: I found it on the Internet.."
Thankfully, Boies shows him up again:
"T: I believe if marriage is beyond a man and a woman that any person can come to ask for marriage for incest and polygamy. If this is a civil right what would stop anyone from using marriage.
B: Can two siblings become DPs? Can man and girl of young age become DP?
T: No.
B: DPs exclude people of certain age and relationship.
T: Right.
B: You know that?
T: Yes.
B: So you see that DP does not lead to incest.
T: Yes. Oh I see your logic.
B: Yeah, logic."
"T: Homosexuals are not minority.
B: How many are there?
T: I am a minority. Minority is based on skin color.
B: How many are there?
T: 2-4% of population.
B: So they are a minority?
T: yes."
Okay so I know this Tam guy is an idiot, but even still, reading the things that he's saying under oath in a court of law, rather than ranting in some book or at some evangelical convention, is pretty harrowing:
"B: ...if same sex marriage passes it will lead to incest, pedophilia and polygamy. Do you agree with that?
T: Yes."
"B: Your paper says that after Netherlands legalized SS marriage, Netheralands legalized incest and polygamy. Do you believe that?
T: Same sex marriage may not have led to legalization of incest and polygamy, but it happened.
B: Who told you that?
T: I found it on the Internet.."
Thankfully, Boies shows him up again:
"T: I believe if marriage is beyond a man and a woman that any person can come to ask for marriage for incest and polygamy. If this is a civil right what would stop anyone from using marriage.
B: Can two siblings become DPs? Can man and girl of young age become DP?
T: No.
B: DPs exclude people of certain age and relationship.
T: Right.
B: You know that?
T: Yes.
B: So you see that DP does not lead to incest.
T: Yes. Oh I see your logic.
B: Yeah, logic."
Thursday, 21 January 2010
It's not paranoia if they're really out to get you.
I mentioned in some depth in a previous post how I was following the federal prop 8 challenge that's currently ongoing. If you are in the least bit legally/politcally/americanly interested, I highly recommend reading the transcripts over at http://prop8trialtracker.com/ You could not make this shit up if you tried people. Turns out the right wing conspiracy does exist. Today's proceedings concerned some emails between the LDS church (that's mormons, to the untrained), and the original Yes on 8 Campaign. The following comes from an email between the two parties:
"With respect to Prop. 8 campaign, key talking points will come from campaign, but cautious, strategic, not to take the lead so as to provide plausible deniability or respectable distance so as not to show that church is directly involved..."
Scary stuff. Understandably, the defence tried their damned hardest to prevent this email being admitted to the evidence. They objected to just about everything going, the witness, what he was going to testify about, the line of questioning, the admission of the evidence, whether it could even be considered evidence in the first place and then pretty much every question that followed. The judge was not impressed.
However, the judge is clearly not without a sense of humour. He gets the quote of the day (which isn't even finished in the US), for the following:
"Mr. Boutrous, there are two suggestions. One is Mr. Thompson’s suggestion for lunch. The other is from this attorney."
Lunch won out on that one...
I'm hoping I've finally worked out how to make links clickable on this thing, which should make it easier for you to follow my random thoughts, and probably makes you more inclined to as it takes less effort.
In other news, I'm considering joining twitter. Not cause I want to tell people 140 characters about me on a regular basis, this is why facebook became twitterbook. But there's a lot of people on twitter I'd like to follow and it would make life a lot easier.
And now to go make more tea and carry on hacking into the US Army's kit technical data sheets for my lab project tomorrow.
Mood: Too much to do, not enough time, too little blogging....
Music: http://open.spotify.com/user/jorgamond/playlist/5fC5PJM4KDueXEFfzOAlN3
"With respect to Prop. 8 campaign, key talking points will come from campaign, but cautious, strategic, not to take the lead so as to provide plausible deniability or respectable distance so as not to show that church is directly involved..."
Scary stuff. Understandably, the defence tried their damned hardest to prevent this email being admitted to the evidence. They objected to just about everything going, the witness, what he was going to testify about, the line of questioning, the admission of the evidence, whether it could even be considered evidence in the first place and then pretty much every question that followed. The judge was not impressed.
However, the judge is clearly not without a sense of humour. He gets the quote of the day (which isn't even finished in the US), for the following:
"Mr. Boutrous, there are two suggestions. One is Mr. Thompson’s suggestion for lunch. The other is from this attorney."
Lunch won out on that one...
I'm hoping I've finally worked out how to make links clickable on this thing, which should make it easier for you to follow my random thoughts, and probably makes you more inclined to as it takes less effort.
In other news, I'm considering joining twitter. Not cause I want to tell people 140 characters about me on a regular basis, this is why facebook became twitterbook. But there's a lot of people on twitter I'd like to follow and it would make life a lot easier.
And now to go make more tea and carry on hacking into the US Army's kit technical data sheets for my lab project tomorrow.
Mood: Too much to do, not enough time, too little blogging....
Music: http://open.spotify.com/user/jorgamond/playlist/5fC5PJM4KDueXEFfzOAlN3
Friday, 15 January 2010
Chris' law aspirations remind me I actually find law interesting. Damn him
Penny Arcade is awesome for those who don't know, though like so many webcomics, there is a certain geek quota prerequisite, however I think you'll all appreciate this gem from them:
"I could only read twenty-six lines of it, by the way - Paradise Lost, I mean - before I was overcome by it, literally short of breath. I'm not using the term "literally" to mean "figuratively," either, as is so often the case. I felt as though a spectral Milton were choking me from beyond the grave. I hope to one day write something so manifold and intricate that it will asphyxiate a person hundreds of years hence."
I'm following the us federal court trial against california's prop 8. It's pretty interesting. For those who don't know, this is yet another attempt to define proposition 8 (banning gay marriage) as unconstituntional, and thus invalid, as it unfairly discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. Now clearly, anyone with half a brain can read the relevant clause of the constitutions, and the text of the legislature and see that one countermands the other, but this is law, and you have to play the game.
All previous trials on this matter, all the way up to the california supreme court, have thus far failed. This new trial is now an attempt to get it heard at the US supreme court, taking it to the highest possible level. There are several reasons why this case is especially interesting. Firstly, is the plaintiff's counsel; one who defended gore, and one who (more successfully) defended bush in the 2000 election issue over florida's electoral college votes. the bush guy is a well known right winger, and so the whole issue is being billed as 'the conservative case for gay marriage' not all of then are evangelist nutters thank god. Secondly, whilst this case is focused on the constitutionality of proposition 8, and california alone, a ruling on it would be a federal one, and so potentially has far reaching implications for the medium term future of gay marriage fights all over the US.
The case has two main issues - firstly, convicing the court that this is something they should involve themselves in, and rule on even after the issue has gone through both a state ballot (for us english, it went through the equivalent of a referendum - direct democracy decides) and the california supreme court. Secondly, that the text of proposition 8 is discriminatory and unconstitutional, and thus is invalid.
It's the first one that's the really big issue. Personally, I don't expect the supreme court to come back with any ruling yea or naywise, I expect them to come back saying its not our concern, as do many others. THis is for a number of reasons. Firstly, to give a ruling, as I said earlier, would set a precedent that could be used in court battles all over the US, and thus would implicitly send a definitive for or against sentiment from the US Government. Secondly, it's easier for them not to rule on it, they know it's a messy business, they don't want to incur all the flak that would result from the impending fallout on both sides from either decision. Thirdly, giving a decision of any sort, would have a severe impact on DOMA (defence of marriage act - aka the don't ask don't tell policy and other such things), itself a matter that the us supreme court is reluctant to face. If they come back in favour of the plaintiffs in this case, there would be little basis for them arguing any support of DOMA, or indeed any reason why they could avoid ruling on any DOMA case that came to court. If they find in favour of the plaintiffs, it sends a clear message that DOMA will be expected to be around for a fair while, and the Obama administration has stated it wants to see the end of DOMA, they're effectively just waiting for the right time to do it, cause war and economy is too much of a hassle at the moment.
Whatever happens, it's an interesting case to watch unfold. Everyone involved is acutely intelligent, and knows how to phrase their questions, and how to construct their answers. It's a very complex card game, where it's all down to scoring the odd point off your opponent here and there through clever intrigues and methods of formulating your argument. The chief judge, to his credit, spends most of his time telling the defendants to stop pissing about and get on with it. Though there are some less stellar moments of intelligence, as shown by the following:
"Defending counsel: Do you agree that one of the reasons of marriage is that (hopefully) fewer children will be born out of wedlock?
Expert witness: Well, by definition. Because “wedlock” means “out of marriage.”
Defending counsel cross examination fail
For further and a more detailed following of the trial, and an analysis of the strategies, see http://prop8trialtracker.com/ They're transcribing live, so bear with them, as aside from the efforts of people like this, the courtroom proceedings have otherwise been closed to the general public.
In vaguely related news, the world would be a much better place if every daily news show, and especially political ones, were like The Rachel Maddow Show. I would swap Alanis Morissette for her as god anyday. See the following clip covered in her show, where pat robertson blames the haiti earthquake on their claiming of freedom from slavery. I especially like that he says 'true story' to it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPyyXQN8cG0&feature=player_embedded
Off to pick up the Lycan from the station. VAMPIRE GLEE!
"I could only read twenty-six lines of it, by the way - Paradise Lost, I mean - before I was overcome by it, literally short of breath. I'm not using the term "literally" to mean "figuratively," either, as is so often the case. I felt as though a spectral Milton were choking me from beyond the grave. I hope to one day write something so manifold and intricate that it will asphyxiate a person hundreds of years hence."
I'm following the us federal court trial against california's prop 8. It's pretty interesting. For those who don't know, this is yet another attempt to define proposition 8 (banning gay marriage) as unconstituntional, and thus invalid, as it unfairly discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. Now clearly, anyone with half a brain can read the relevant clause of the constitutions, and the text of the legislature and see that one countermands the other, but this is law, and you have to play the game.
All previous trials on this matter, all the way up to the california supreme court, have thus far failed. This new trial is now an attempt to get it heard at the US supreme court, taking it to the highest possible level. There are several reasons why this case is especially interesting. Firstly, is the plaintiff's counsel; one who defended gore, and one who (more successfully) defended bush in the 2000 election issue over florida's electoral college votes. the bush guy is a well known right winger, and so the whole issue is being billed as 'the conservative case for gay marriage' not all of then are evangelist nutters thank god. Secondly, whilst this case is focused on the constitutionality of proposition 8, and california alone, a ruling on it would be a federal one, and so potentially has far reaching implications for the medium term future of gay marriage fights all over the US.
The case has two main issues - firstly, convicing the court that this is something they should involve themselves in, and rule on even after the issue has gone through both a state ballot (for us english, it went through the equivalent of a referendum - direct democracy decides) and the california supreme court. Secondly, that the text of proposition 8 is discriminatory and unconstitutional, and thus is invalid.
It's the first one that's the really big issue. Personally, I don't expect the supreme court to come back with any ruling yea or naywise, I expect them to come back saying its not our concern, as do many others. THis is for a number of reasons. Firstly, to give a ruling, as I said earlier, would set a precedent that could be used in court battles all over the US, and thus would implicitly send a definitive for or against sentiment from the US Government. Secondly, it's easier for them not to rule on it, they know it's a messy business, they don't want to incur all the flak that would result from the impending fallout on both sides from either decision. Thirdly, giving a decision of any sort, would have a severe impact on DOMA (defence of marriage act - aka the don't ask don't tell policy and other such things), itself a matter that the us supreme court is reluctant to face. If they come back in favour of the plaintiffs in this case, there would be little basis for them arguing any support of DOMA, or indeed any reason why they could avoid ruling on any DOMA case that came to court. If they find in favour of the plaintiffs, it sends a clear message that DOMA will be expected to be around for a fair while, and the Obama administration has stated it wants to see the end of DOMA, they're effectively just waiting for the right time to do it, cause war and economy is too much of a hassle at the moment.
Whatever happens, it's an interesting case to watch unfold. Everyone involved is acutely intelligent, and knows how to phrase their questions, and how to construct their answers. It's a very complex card game, where it's all down to scoring the odd point off your opponent here and there through clever intrigues and methods of formulating your argument. The chief judge, to his credit, spends most of his time telling the defendants to stop pissing about and get on with it. Though there are some less stellar moments of intelligence, as shown by the following:
"Defending counsel: Do you agree that one of the reasons of marriage is that (hopefully) fewer children will be born out of wedlock?
Expert witness: Well, by definition. Because “wedlock” means “out of marriage.”
Defending counsel cross examination fail
For further and a more detailed following of the trial, and an analysis of the strategies, see http://prop8trialtracker.com/ They're transcribing live, so bear with them, as aside from the efforts of people like this, the courtroom proceedings have otherwise been closed to the general public.
In vaguely related news, the world would be a much better place if every daily news show, and especially political ones, were like The Rachel Maddow Show. I would swap Alanis Morissette for her as god anyday. See the following clip covered in her show, where pat robertson blames the haiti earthquake on their claiming of freedom from slavery. I especially like that he says 'true story' to it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPyyXQN8cG0&feature=player_embedded
Off to pick up the Lycan from the station. VAMPIRE GLEE!
Wednesday, 13 January 2010
The definition of terror...
... is writing a letter that is going to be sent to Chris Carey, Michael Crawford, Simon Hornblower, Michael Silk, Mary Beard, Pat Easterling, Robin Lane Fox, Oliver Taplin, Paul Cartledge, Simon Goldhill, and a few Sirs and Dames for good measure, among a whole host of 200 odd others.
For those of you not in the know, I just rattled off possibly the most intimidating collection of classics professors ever assembled in history. And I'm asking them to give me 30 seconds of their precious, precious time to bother to read my letter, which asks them to give a good 3 hours of their time, not including travel, to come watch our pithy production of 2 plays from greek tragedy, which they will know infintely more about than any of the people who have been involved in the production, and will most likely involve Simon Goldhill mouthing the Greek to the actors by rote for the entire performance, despite the fact we're doing ours in translation anyway.
And this letter is coming from the boy who already has a black mark against his name, for turning up to an oxbridge sixth form classics day without a booking, next to one girl in fishnet tights, and another with a hipflask sticking out of her front pocket. When my academic career plummets just as surely as Icarus did to his aquatic demise, and UCL reissue my degree at a 3rd, if they even grant me that high a mark after a mysterious 'adminstrative error', pity me and know that this way lay madness, pain, and dooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooom. I shall print the letter on purple paper just to leave no possible margin for error. And if anybody knows where I can get gold embossed envelopes it would be greatly appreciated.
For those of you not in the know, I just rattled off possibly the most intimidating collection of classics professors ever assembled in history. And I'm asking them to give me 30 seconds of their precious, precious time to bother to read my letter, which asks them to give a good 3 hours of their time, not including travel, to come watch our pithy production of 2 plays from greek tragedy, which they will know infintely more about than any of the people who have been involved in the production, and will most likely involve Simon Goldhill mouthing the Greek to the actors by rote for the entire performance, despite the fact we're doing ours in translation anyway.
And this letter is coming from the boy who already has a black mark against his name, for turning up to an oxbridge sixth form classics day without a booking, next to one girl in fishnet tights, and another with a hipflask sticking out of her front pocket. When my academic career plummets just as surely as Icarus did to his aquatic demise, and UCL reissue my degree at a 3rd, if they even grant me that high a mark after a mysterious 'adminstrative error', pity me and know that this way lay madness, pain, and dooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooom. I shall print the letter on purple paper just to leave no possible margin for error. And if anybody knows where I can get gold embossed envelopes it would be greatly appreciated.
Wednesday, 6 January 2010
The Theory....
I've had this theory for a long time. That nobody's world is ever bigger than 5 people. 6 degrees of separation probably works off a similar idea. Your 5 people change throughout your life obviously, and sometimes even on a day to day basis, but these are the people closest to you, the ones you tell all your secrets, the ones who if they ever got together, would probably know everything there is to know about you, the ones who support you and keep you going.
When you're a child, your parents are two of them, as you grow up, it becomes friends from school, later your boss, or a partner of some sort might feature. Some of them will be there for a day, and then disappear off again for a few months, some are more or less permenant fixtures.
Currently my world consists of the boyfriend - Chris, a friend named Joel, one of his boys called Seany, another friend called Lisa, and my best and oldest friend called Jamie, who has his birthday sometime around now.
Think of a friend you know really well, you can apply it to them, it might not be the people they talk to or see most, hell I haven't seen Jme in ages, but there's usually not more than 5 of them. Even where couples are concerned, its usually the case that someone is closer with one than the other, because they knew them first, or because they have more in common.
As my 5 people change throughout the year, I'll try and let you know, you might find it interesting.
Music http://open.spotify.com/user/jorgamond/playlist/1MR6CjRCd1bceiiKCQWh5i
Mood: much the same as before, with a bit of depression mixed in.
When you're a child, your parents are two of them, as you grow up, it becomes friends from school, later your boss, or a partner of some sort might feature. Some of them will be there for a day, and then disappear off again for a few months, some are more or less permenant fixtures.
Currently my world consists of the boyfriend - Chris, a friend named Joel, one of his boys called Seany, another friend called Lisa, and my best and oldest friend called Jamie, who has his birthday sometime around now.
Think of a friend you know really well, you can apply it to them, it might not be the people they talk to or see most, hell I haven't seen Jme in ages, but there's usually not more than 5 of them. Even where couples are concerned, its usually the case that someone is closer with one than the other, because they knew them first, or because they have more in common.
As my 5 people change throughout the year, I'll try and let you know, you might find it interesting.
Music http://open.spotify.com/user/jorgamond/playlist/1MR6CjRCd1bceiiKCQWh5i
Mood: much the same as before, with a bit of depression mixed in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)