Miscellany

Mar. 30th, 2009 02:57 pm
raven: [hello my name is] and a silhouette image of a raven (misc - liberal)
[personal profile] raven
It's really nice to be home. I didn't have the quietest of weekends, really; I was at Amicus training again on Saturday, and that was kind of sort of exhausting. Practical, not theory, so lots of running around with my hands in my pockets trying to make myself as good an investigator as possible, i.e., not very good. The funny thing is, I find, is that the other side of the law - the private sector side, the type of law done by the large impressive firms with the large impressive training contracts - is so... sleek, so glossy, so very talkative. You have to get in the habit of talking and dressing sharply. It's wearing. Whereas, for this sort of thing, you dress, talk and think forgettable. Clean jeans and brushed hair, a notepad any colour but yellow, and you sit and you listen. Your client is on trial for his life, but... well, right now he's not going anywhere. I really enjoyed the change. That said, I don't know if I could really do this work: do it for real with real people and be all things to them, a good lawyer, but a good listener and someone who can get people to tell me, not the right things, but the real things.

That bothers me about law as I see it, here - it's all telling you what you want to hear. I tell interviewers what they want to hear, they tell me what they think I should hear, and none of it bears any resemblance to reality. That might be a problem endemic in the law itself - it's interesting, of course, that the Law, this great amorphous thing I spend every waking hour on these days, isn't a thing about how things are, but it's something that people do. We've written about it so much that we've made it exist. And there's no doubt that electric chairs do exist. That's a real sense you get, actually: that the judicial system induces this twilight state, so people taken away to spend forty years in prison are still thinking, where am I, what's going on, there's been some mistake, this isn't real.

The saddest part was the bit on Atkins v Virginia, a 2002 case where the Supreme Court established that it is unconstitutional to execute someone with "mental retardation", undefined. I find it horrifying that this is actually a point at issue, but there you are. Lots of people have been executed who have had the mental age of nine-year-olds. And it's still perfectly possible to execute someone with the mental age of an eleven-year-old, or a nine-year-old on a good day. It puts investigators in the awful position of going to see the person's community, their their teachers and their elderly mother, and ask things like, was he a bit slow? Was he incapable of washing himself, and will you talk about it on a stand in front of hundreds of strangers?

Yeah. It's not good for your view on humanity, this sort of thing. On Saturday night I went out gloomily and was cheered by a nice dinner in Soho with [livejournal.com profile] sebastienne and [livejournal.com profile] jacinthsong and [livejournal.com profile] deathbyshinies and [livejournal.com profile] liminreid, which was cheering but, as I said, I couldn't go dancing afterwards because the Sunday the clocks go forward was the one Sunday in the year I had to be up at seven am. And go to another day of lectures and workshops and try interviewing people myself, which I have to say I did spectacularly not well at all, and then run across the city to get a train up north, which was eerily quiet, and lacking in announcements and indeed people, and didn't stop, and gave me this muted feeling that I might be on the Caldonian Sleeper or the first train into the Twilight Zone.

That said, I did wake up at seven this morning, have a momentary panic as to where I was, realise that a) it was my own bed and b) the alarm clock belonged to someone else, and roll over and go back to sleep. I shall have to be careful. I am NOT ON HOLIDAY. This cannot be emphasised enough. Not on holiday. Yes.

...and here I am, feeling a little like an unspoken sentence. Notes and queries:

-[livejournal.com profile] deathbyshinies has started a Secret Histories Project. As she puts it, it is a blog devoted to "little random tidbits of historical fact that make you sit up and go 'BLOODY HELL, WHY DID NOBODY EVER TELL ME ABOUT THAT!'" (Examples already mentioned: Alan Turing's homosexuality; the fact there were South Asian people living in Britain before 1700 (I was never told this at school); Helen Keller's socialist and feminist activism.) Definitely worth looking at.

-A brief unrelated rant, also. Why is there a sudden resurgence, recently, of the "it's only natural" argument? I keep seeing this: polamory is natural, wanting to have children is natural. I really thought that the blogosphere had finally got over this one, but apparently not. Okay, internets. Saying something is "natural" is an argumentative faux-pas of the worst order. Because, to begin with, you're implying that polyamory or childbearing or whatever are worthy of respect only because they are some inalienable feature about how people are. You're devaluaing people's choices pertaining to either of those things. Sure, childbearing is natural. So is living in trees, so is killing people who don't agree with you. Natural does not equate to good, and for good reason. People choose to have kids - it's the choice that's worthy of preservation and respect, not the entirely fallacious biological imperative behind the choice.

And as for polyamory being "natural" - maybe it is natural for people to want multiple relationships, I don't know, and maybe monogamy is a stifling yoke upon the natural impetus of society blah blah whatever (I remain to be convinced of that last one, I must say). But it's worthy of respect, surely, whatever its provenance? It's worthy of respect if it's the way people have always lived or if it was invented out of whole cloth by L. Ron Hubbard in 1971. I'm just boggled that people still think this is a smart tack to take. I suppose it's the gay-gene for the twenty-first century. My god it's hard to be a liberal.

Okay, I'm going to stop yelling now. To finish: the clocks went forward and I was very upset. There is now more light in the evenings, and I am less upset. Thus, I leave you with the Spring Arrangements Bill. [livejournal.com profile] shimgray can recite it on command. This fills me with joy.

on 2009-03-30 03:11 pm (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] biascut.livejournal.com
Yes yes yes to your brief unrelated rant! Someone elsewhere on my f'list just posted the following from the Daily Mail comments:

Its very natural to have a family (the most natural thing in the world except plants)

which leads me to want to construct a huge diagram ranking everything in the world in order of naturalness, with plants at the top and Wham bars at the bottom.

on 2009-03-30 03:14 pm (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] casirafics.livejournal.com
That would be an excellent list. (Memo to letter-writer: it's natural to breed. Families are a societal construct. Headdesk.)

Personally, I'm of the mind at the moment that an 8-5 job is inherently unnatural and therefore I reject it utterly. ...sigh.

on 2009-03-30 03:26 pm (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] hathy-col.livejournal.com
Please please please tell me that you're still hopefully going to be floating around the North-West at some juncture between the dates of 8th-12th April? Because I will be in the North-West by then (I can't make it down any earlier and can't leave any later) and it would be ever so good to actually meet up in the place we actually have in common. Yes.

'Natural' is a big pile of nonsense. I've not seen arguments about polyamory being natural, except in Hollyoaks. And, you know, smallpox is natural, I don't really want to catch it!

on 2009-03-30 03:27 pm (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] marymac.livejournal.com
You can add the lecture apparently happening tomorrow in cognition and Culture, Why do intelligent people do unnatural things? to the list.

I am not going to go and heckle. I am not.

on 2009-03-30 03:30 pm (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] biascut.livejournal.com
I really really think you should!

(Have I ever told you that it freaks me out whenever I see your name, because mary mac is actually my name? I am m@rykm@c everywhere but livejournal, and every time I see your name I have a moment where I think I've secretly created a livejournal account and am using it without telling myself!)

on 2009-03-30 03:42 pm (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] marymac.livejournal.com
But, my supervisor would look very disappointed if I did. And then we'd get The Talk about us all being One Big Happy Department now again.

No, but its awesome! Mostly I end up being something else because someone else got in there first. I have no idea how I managed it on LJ.

Using an account without telling yourself would also be kind of cool, but I think mostly worrisome...

on 2009-03-30 04:04 pm (UTC)
ext_20950: (aphorisms)
Posted by [identity profile] jacinthsong.livejournal.com
'Not natural, in my view, sah. Not in favor of unnatural things.'
Vetinari looked perplexed.
'You mean, you eat your meat raw and sleep in a tree?'

No, no I don't have anything intelligent to say.

on 2009-03-30 04:21 pm (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] subservient-son.livejournal.com
I guess sleep deprivation and pretty womens meant you didn't notice me at the dinner, *listens to the emo-song and rails against world that represses him*.

Just joking. Obviously it was great to see you; and from your post it sounds like criminal, not corporate, is the way forward.

on 2009-03-30 04:26 pm (UTC)
ext_20950: (inigo montoya)
Posted by [identity profile] jacinthsong.livejournal.com
And you know what, you misspelt Siân's LJ name. Basically, Iona, you are a gigantic vortex of LJ-namechecking fail. I am glad you are an unnatural shortarse stripey-cardiganed freak with an enormous eunuch cat who freaks out at the possibility of kids, becuase the world needs NOTHING less than your misspelling genes being passed on to the next generation.

*hearts*

On serious note: christ, I somehow missed the bit about "mental retardation" when I initially read this post, and just...ow. Damn you for messing up my entirely unfair prejudices against lawyers as heartless mercenaries.

on 2009-03-30 04:54 pm (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] forthwritten.livejournal.com
I think I'd want to dispute that. There is no way that rainbow drops and popping candy are more natural than Wham bars.

But yes. Lots of things, like arsenic and septicaemia and infant mortality are natural, but I don't think anyone would say that makes them desirable.

on 2009-03-30 05:18 pm (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] loneraven.livejournal.com
Dude! Blue WKD is more unnatural than Wham bars!

on 2009-03-30 06:26 pm (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] amchau.livejournal.com
This. I have on occassion been tempted to leave post-it notes in the sort of health food store which advertises everything as Natural and Wonderful reading, "Deadly nightshade is natural, but would you eat it?"

on 2009-03-30 06:34 pm (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] biascut.livejournal.com
But it's so stretchy! My scale of natural is more freaked out by weird textures than weird colours!

on 2009-03-30 06:58 pm (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] forthwritten.livejournal.com
I propose mixing blue WKD, Wham bars and popping candy into a gloriously wrong mixture. Then drinking/eating it. Who's with me?

on 2009-03-30 07:05 pm (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] magic-doors.livejournal.com
As an only very tangentially related point: one of the things that pisses me off most about hippy culture generally and the pagan element in particular is its overwhelming desire to divide everything in the world into natural and unnatural. IT MAKES NO SENSE. And one day, I will write a long and whiny blog post about it.

on 2009-03-30 07:34 pm (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] loneraven.livejournal.com
YES. YES I AM. Can you believe it? We will be in the same place at the same time! Oh, hurrah.

on 2009-03-30 07:35 pm (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] loneraven.livejournal.com
Awww, honey, I'm sorry! It was lovely to see you. And yes, criminal law is pretty much made of win.

on 2009-03-30 07:36 pm (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] loneraven.livejournal.com
How are they defining "natural", though? That sounds problematic.

on 2009-03-30 07:39 pm (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] loneraven.livejournal.com
<3! clearly, what the world needs even less is small yarmulkéd stripy-tights-wearing children trooping through the world two by two.

(Defence attorneys are paid less than minimum wage! I cannot even.)

on 2009-03-30 07:42 pm (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] magic-doors.livejournal.com
While not everyone does so, and I don't want to tar them all with the same brush, I read and hear a lot of people who seem at base to think that everything created by humans or involing their agency in any way after c.1000 CE is 'unnatural'. They're not really looking at how its defined, and it is problematic. It's not all like that; some, I particularly that to do with the treatment of farm animals. But I'm always bemused at those pagans who think there's somehow more immanent pantheistic deity in the middle of a wood than in central Oxford. But, apparently there is. Because cities and technology are evil and unnatural.

on 2009-03-30 07:43 pm (UTC)
tau_sigma: (balloons)
Posted by [personal profile] tau_sigma
Saying something is 'natural' is a terrible argument...

...it is about the best cohesive argument I can come up with for breastfeeding in public, which is shocking. And, because it's a feeble argument, it never works, and people say 'well, urinating is natural, but you wouldn't do that in public would you?!' To which I think my answer of 'yes, but breastfeeding is perfectly sanitary and hygenic' is actually perfectly decent, but, um. You are literate and coherant, Iona: why is breastfeeding in public ok? It frustrates me that I can make no good arguments for it, despite generally feeling that people mostly have problems with it because of the over-sexualisation of certain female body parts.

The Spring Arrangements Bill is wonderful.

on 2009-03-30 08:12 pm (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] loneraven.livejournal.com
I would argue that we don't normally stop people from doing things in public unless they harm other people, or they're seen as sexual. Breastfeeding doesn't harm people - it is, as you say, perfectly sanitary and hygienic. Which suggests it's being seen as sexual, which is really a problem: because either it says that a baby breastfeeding is a sexual act (ewwwww), or that a woman's body is a sexual object regardless of context, which strikes me as oh-fuck-no on many levels. Do you think that works? I'm not sure...

on 2009-03-30 09:20 pm (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] marymac.livejournal.com
Um. Does watching in horror count as 'with you'?

on 2009-03-30 09:28 pm (UTC)
tau_sigma: (Default)
Posted by [personal profile] tau_sigma
THAT. That is, at least, a large part of it. I've considered this several times, and just could not get any further than an instinctual 'urinating in public is not ok, breast feeding is'.

You are a genius, Iona. Or, you know, I was just struggling with putting ideas into words and conscious thought, but yes. Thank you!

on 2009-03-30 09:29 pm (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] pinkdormouse.livejournal.com
Secret Histories Project sounds awesome. Thanks for the link.

on 2009-03-30 09:39 pm (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] deathbyshinies.livejournal.com
I bet the boys end up wearing the stripy tights and the girls end up wearing the yarmulkes, and that they swap back and forth when nobody's looking.

I have decided that I am going to buy them terrible, terrible candy and toys that make a lot of noise. Yes.

on 2009-03-31 08:30 am (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] gamesiplay.livejournal.com
Everything you have to say about public defense is fascinating; I know basically nothing about it in practice, and you have such a cogent way of getting to the heart of what it means.

Examples already mentioned: Alan Turing's homosexuality;

I was going to say, in outraged shock, SCHOOLS DON'T TEACH THAT TURING WAS GAY? until I stopped and considered: (a) of course they don't, why is that a surprise, and (b) okay, no, one play (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_the_Code) does not common knowledge make.

Finally: Iona, can we start a support group for people whose passionate academic/career interests frequently tempt them to write off the entire human race? Because really. I'm having this experience too, of wanting to spend all my time immersed in the early '80s... until I come up for air, out of the rarefied deeps of pure intellectual pleasure, and realize that oh, hey, I am MORALLY OUTRAGED and HATE EVERYONE.

on 2009-03-31 09:12 am (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] biascut.livejournal.com
I also just go with a practical element. Either breastfeeding in public is OK, or breastfeeding women are unable to leave the house for six months or more, and that is Not Cool.

on 2009-03-31 09:13 am (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] biascut.livejournal.com
Your reverse psychology is working to convince me that natural things ARE better!

on 2009-03-31 11:50 am (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] loneraven.livejournal.com
Or that talking to Kat is bad for your physical and mental health...

on 2009-03-31 12:00 pm (UTC)
Posted by [identity profile] loneraven.livejournal.com
You're very welcome!

February 2026

S M T W T F S
12345 67
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Feb. 11th, 2026 01:47 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios