Mixed Doubles, Single Malt
Tuesday, 4 October 2005 08:44 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
byslantedlightWas so shattered when I got home last night that I grabbed a single malt and settled down with Mixed Doubles, which I haven't seen for a while but is one of my faves. And despite planning to watch it just for watching, I found myself getting out lists - Bodie calls Doyle "Ray" once - Bodie has borrowed a shirt from Doyle - etc etc! Guess this means I'm sinking in deeper... at least the water's warm!
AND I ordered more zines yesterday too... I'm desperately wanting Roses and Lavender 5, mind, and I can't see it anywhere about. Its the one apparently with another Elizabeth O'Shea fic - which is, of course, why I want it.
Well, there are the nine o clock bells. I feel a nasty kind of working-pumpkin-ness coming on...
AND I ordered more zines yesterday too... I'm desperately wanting Roses and Lavender 5, mind, and I can't see it anywhere about. Its the one apparently with another Elizabeth O'Shea fic - which is, of course, why I want it.
Well, there are the nine o clock bells. I feel a nasty kind of working-pumpkin-ness coming on...
no subject
Date: Tuesday, 4 October 2005 10:53 pm (UTC)You should get yourself a copy of 'Professional Insight' - it's full of stuff like this!
no subject
Date: Wednesday, 5 October 2005 10:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: Wednesday, 5 October 2005 10:48 pm (UTC)I think you're probably thinking of 'The Complete Professionals' which does go for pretty eye-opening sums on ebay sometimes, although occasionally you'll get a cheaper copy if you're lucky.
'Professional Insight' is a publication that was compiled by fans of the show and is full of all sorts of info and trivia that obsessives...I mean fans...like us love. It's still available from the publisher - if you want any more details email me and I'll be happy to point you in the right direction!
no subject
Date: Wednesday, 5 October 2005 09:53 pm (UTC)The panther. William Andrew Phillip Bodie. Here were masks beneath masks, a changeability that far overreached his partner's mercurial shifts of temperament. Layers upon layers of personality, all wielded together with fire and brimstone, tested in the molten steel of the African jungle, tried by the most demanding sections of the British military. A capability to kill? Yes and yes again, with the dispassionate ruthlessness of the professional soldier. A machine built and trained to move at the snap of finger or the shout of an order. But where, then, was the man beneath the mercenary? I'd felt the heat of his body against mine, tasted his sweat, fell asleep to the steady beat of his heart. But that didn't tell me about the man beneath the surface - the human being who thought and questioned, felt and loved, hurt and wondered. The gentle protectiveness shown to me earlier suggested that he existed...but how much of that was real? How much of any of this was real? I didn't know anymore
no subject
Date: Wednesday, 5 October 2005 10:32 pm (UTC)hope you don't mind me
I love that you have done this - feel free to "chat" anytime, that's why I think I'm gonna like having an LJ!
Here were masks beneath masks, a changeability that far overreached his partner's mercurial shifts of temperament.
Oh yes, this is exactly what we were saying, isn't it?! Although I still reckon that there may be more to Doyle too - he can be remarkably violent for someone with such an apparently strong moral code/conscience. If he's as obvious as he looks, then how does he reconcile the two things to himself?
Is that fic online somewhere? I couldn't find it at Circuit, altho' I'll hunt properly after work (!) But it sounds gen maybe? I'd like to read the rest of it after this little taster!
no subject
Date: Thursday, 6 October 2005 07:17 pm (UTC)P.S.
Date: Thursday, 6 October 2005 07:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: Saturday, 8 October 2005 09:58 am (UTC)All Elizabeth O'Shea's other Pros fics (as far as I know) are on the Circuit Archive. She has, when I've written to her in the past, suggested that she might at some point in the future write more ... maybe if she gets enough "encouragement" (read: begging? poking with sharp stick?) she will! *g*
no subject
Date: Sunday, 9 October 2005 02:11 am (UTC)Was wondering about that actually, who and how the old stories get typed up for Circuit etc. You know, if I can help at all, I type 90+wpm, and am always ecstatic... I mean, prepared to read more b/d :) Of course the catch is that I'm over in Alaska at the moment...
no subject
Date: Sunday, 9 October 2005 02:19 am (UTC)Welcome to the jungle
Date: Sunday, 9 October 2005 09:26 pm (UTC)Re: Welcome to the jungle
Date: Sunday, 9 October 2005 11:25 pm (UTC)Thanks alot for the rec! I'm always totally thrown when I start reading a story that isn't from either of the Boy's viewpoint, and I don't like Geraldine Mather, but I really enjoyed "Welcome to the Jungle". I still didn't like Mather by the end of it, but Lyon managed to make me feel involved with her despite this, which is a pretty good skill I think.
And look what she does to Doyle! Or at least, Mather's view of Doyle. He's the one that she's most afraid of, even though she knows they've both killed countless times. Just because Bodie was the first one to rescue her, and cuddle her? Cos we know Doyle will do that too, right - in fact he was the one who opened my car door, and extended his hand to help me out while Bodie ignores her and marches off? But she goes for Bodie's onion-y layers, and casts poor Ray as the thug!
Oh dear, I could go on (even more!)... But what do you think?!
I s'pose this gets a bit into what I gather was an old debate on (?)Proslit - if you met 'em in real life, would you actually like either of them..?
Re: Welcome to the jungle
Date: Tuesday, 11 October 2005 10:14 pm (UTC)And Geraldine Mather? Don't like her AT ALL. One of the worst types of people: an intolerant liberal of which there are so many. She was prejudged and contemptuous of Bodie and Doyle even before they walked into the hearing. Good actress though. Yes, I thought 'Jungle' was well written, fast moving and completely drew me in. I think the 3rd point of view is often a refreshing, subtle take on Bodie and Doyle's relationship and definitely has a place in Pros literature. Cheers, pb
Re: Welcome to the jungle
Date: Thursday, 13 October 2005 12:28 am (UTC)To be honest I'm not sure why I indulge that one, maybe because I have some kind of faith that it wouldn't really happen, except that of course it does, apparently condoned if not supported by hmg. *sigh* Never quite that easy, is it?
By the same light, I also find myself wondering about the bloke who did the actual shooting on the tube... what latitude would we give him, if he were B or D? Isn't he B or D?
Hmmn - is this getting a bit heavy for an LJ comment?!
Re: Welcome to the jungle
Date: Thursday, 13 October 2005 07:35 pm (UTC)I think I disliked Mather because she was prejudging Bodie and Doyle as people and the whole situation they were involved in. Assuming automatically they were guilty, bad people because of the jobs they did. Much like people stereotyping all policemen as bad people: they are just as prejudiced as they claim the police to be. But at the same time, they are unable to offer to come up with any remedies for dealing with the ills of society. It's the old, old, onion, how do liberals deal with illiberal problems?
Yes, the case of the Brazilian chap was absolutely tragic. Really terrible. Maybe caused as much by human error as bad policy. And he/she probably was a Bodie or Doyle. But when I first heard there was a question mark over this man's death my heart sank almost as much for the reason that this would be a serious (and unwanted) distraction from dealing with terrorism almost as much as this poor man's execution. Sorry I've gone way off the point, there! Hope you're feeling much better now. Cheers, (pb)
Re: Welcome to the jungle
Date: Thursday, 13 October 2005 08:09 pm (UTC)Re: Welcome to the jungle
Date: Thursday, 13 October 2005 08:36 pm (UTC)That's exactly why I disliked Mather too - assumptions, preconceptions, stereotypes and prejudice. And Lyon didn't let her off the hook about that either, did she (to get back to something approaching the original thread for a second!) - would have been very tempting to show us how worthy she was really, since she was the "heroine" of the piece. But no.
*immediately veers off again, with unrepentent joy* I'm not sure it really comes down to liberal/illiberal though, its not as simple as that, is it? (Besides, I never quite understand those terms, is that cos I'm a Brit?) And I get the impression that Doyle is a card-carrying Labour-voter (Labour-back-then I mean, not this version - or, well, maybe the Libs come to think of it, he is a bit idealistic...), although I don't suppose for one minute that Bodie would be! And yet Doyle does the job he does... (ooh, we may also have caught up on the layers thread!)
Yes I agree, I'm not sure anything's ever caused purely by bad policy, after all its humans who act on the policies, its up to us to judge situations. But the trouble with being human is that its just that - human. Whoever it was who did the shooting is really just you or me with a different job and different responsibilities... Can't believe I assumed "bloke" btw, that's so not me, but doesn't it show how the media gets to you even in little ways...
Oh, and don't get me started on the whole "terrorism" thing... or well, maybe just briefly. I found it very interesting to rediscover Pros - who were surely waging one of the original media "wars on terror" - in these particular times. Having seen my Manchester, among many other places, blown up, I didn't need reminding that none of it is new, but I wanted to go out and wave it to the world, and use it to remind certain other people...
Re: Welcome to the jungle
Date: Thursday, 13 October 2005 08:40 pm (UTC)Re: Welcome to the jungle
Date: Thursday, 13 October 2005 09:15 pm (UTC)And Lyon didn't let her off the hook about that either, did she (to get back to something approaching the original thread for a second!) - would have been very tempting to show us how worthy she was really, since she was the "heroine" of the piece. But no.
***Good point.
iberal/illiberal though, its not as simple as that, is it? (Besides, I never quite understand those terms, is that cos I'm a Brit?)
***well I'm a brit too and I agree that I don't think it is simple. Achieving a balance of interests in society (because I believe that's really what politics (generally) amounts to in modern society)is the hardest thing *to* achieve. Especially in a multi-cultural society. But I think a lot of issues can be deconstructed to the age old question of how liberal, 'reasonable' people confront people with different versions of reason without succumbing to the tactics they deplore i.e. illiberal tactics.
And I get the impression that Doyle is a card-carrying Labour-voter (Labour-back-then I mean, not this version - or, well, maybe the Libs come to think of it, he is a bit idealistic...), although I don't suppose for one minute that Bodie would be! And yet Doyle does the job he does... (ooh, we may also have caught up on the layers thread!)
****I think Bodie has his own ideals, which may not be those of the traditional left-of-centre, but are nevertheless ideals. Yes, I'd say Doyle was Labour, certainly not Conservative, maybe he wouldn't have voted at all? Too idealistic. Or maybe, like many people who think a lot or too much, no party *could* suit his ideals completely. Bodie's voting intentions are an interesting thought. I think Bodie, like Doyle but in a different way, could be another person who could survive without governmental help/interference as much as possible. I think Doyle and Bodie could have survived in Martin Shaw's Scottish croft for a long time. They're true individuals. Anarchists even? There's a thin line between acting *above* the law and acting without it. Boom, boom. Discuss. You've got three hours.
Yes I agree, I'm not sure anything's ever caused purely by bad policy, after all its humans who act on the policies, its up to us to judge situations. But the trouble with being human is that its just that - human. Whoever it was who did the shooting is really just you or me with a different job and different responsibilities...
***I agree. There but for the grace of god and all that.
Just rereading another story today which features our beloved Geraldine Mather: 'Another turn of the Rack' by the classic Pros writer, Meg Lewtan. It's on the Pros CD but I think I could email it to you if you haven't got it. Let me know. Cheers for now pb.
Re: Welcome to the jungle
Date: Friday, 14 October 2005 12:47 am (UTC)ooh, I know, aint the internet grand?!
****I think Bodie has his own ideals, which may not be those of the traditional left-of-centre, but are nevertheless ideals.
Ye-es, he must presumably have some ideals to do the job he does without being simply a mercenary. And presumably he could be much better paid in Africa etc for that. I find it alot more obscure what Bodie's ideals are though - a quiet life for everyone? I somehow can't see him voting at all, he's probably a touch too cynical about it all for that.
maybe Doyle wouldn't have voted at all?
Ooh, not sure about that. I can imagine him spending long long hours in the pub trying to convince Bodie that he should vote, that it'll never get better unless everyone makes an effort, etc etc. He seems to hold onto the "real" - hmmn - more conventional? - world a little bit more tightly than Bodie, who seems more the pure anarchist type to me. Doyle's flats always seem homey, but Bodie's... (although I'm still researching this one - darn it, back to the eps.. ; ) And Doyle's attempt (hah - alleged, I'm not convinced!) with Anne Holly to settle down, whereas even Cowley taunts Bodie that he never will.
They're true individuals. Anarchists even? There's a thin line between acting *above* the law and acting without it.
Yeah, definitely I'd say. I wonder how it would come out if they didn't do the jobs they did... And of course not all laws are good ones - being made by humans and all that. All Cowley's murky breaking the "bad" rules thing - we all pick and choose, I reckon, that's why guns are so dangerous... wait, squirling into some deep hole here, not sure where I'm going... Oh I know, perhaps because CI5 do act both above the law and without it... Cowley's smallprint lets 'em. Controlled anarchy? No, wait, must ponder that some more before I start making even less sense, and going backwards! It was that three hour deadline got to me... ; )
I think Doyle and Bodie could have survived in Martin Shaw's Scottish croft for a long time.
Oh dear, I feel a fic coming on!! Maybe they'll both wear wellies! I 'spect they would if they had to, but I'm not sure they'd choose it, given any other druthers at all! They're both pretty city - they seem to potter off to the country at the weekend, like good citylads do, but I've not noticed either of them yearning for it... and Bodie came back from Africa...
And finally - I've just ordered the Pros CD, though I guess I'll have to wait a bit. Be interesting to see another aspect of Mather, its true! I haven't read any Meg Lewtan yet - I'm not a big AU fan to be honest, at least not so far, and I gather that's what she mostly does? I've read a couple of sort-of-AUs that have amused me, but they tend to be twistings of the real world, rather than complete AUs. But if she's done some "proper" stuff too (what do you call it?) then I'll give her a go!
no subject
Date: Friday, 14 October 2005 07:35 pm (UTC)> Ye-es, he must presumably have some ideals to do
> the job he does without being simply a mercenary.
And presumably he could be much better paid in
> Africa etc for that. I find it alot more obscure
> what Bodie's ideals are though - a quiet life
for everyone?
****I can think of a couple a bit more admirable than
that: loyalty, friendship, bravery (putting someone
elses's needs above his own)...and I think you're
probably right, he wouldn't bother to vote.
> Ooh, not sure about that. I can imagine him
> spending long long hours in the pub trying to
convince Bodie that he should vote, that it'll never
> get better unless everyone makes an effort, etc
> etc. He seems to hold onto the "real" - hmmn -
more conventional? - world a little bit more
> tightly than Bodie,
***Yes, I agree on that if Doyle was voting in the
sixties and seventies but god knows what he'd vote if
confronted by New Labour. I think he could do
disillusioned quite easily. That's why I wonder if
he'd bother to vote at all because he might think
there was no choice on offer between New Labour and
Conservative.
>
> I think Doyle and Bodie could have survived in
> Martin Shaw's Scottish croft for a long time.
>
> Oh dear, I feel a fic coming on!!
**** oh goodie!
They're both pretty city -
***I don't know.... Bodie seems to enjoy activities
which would be at home in the country: 'a good day's
shooting'; motorbikes; but also pubs and restaurants.
So he enjoys both town and country, maybe that's why
he's hard to categorise.
>
***I know sweet F.A. about LJ but I'll try and attach
this story to you. It's a long one (said the
actress). Cheers,pb
_____________________
no subject
Date: Friday, 14 October 2005 08:30 pm (UTC)bum. As they say. Perhaps I can give you my email, down here in the caginess of the 22nd reply, where no one else will be looking... no, it actually is slantedlight - use-that-at-thingy-obviously - hotmail -and-the-dot-thing-too com. Me, paranoid? Nosirree...
****I can think of a couple a bit more admirable than that: loyalty, friendship, bravery (putting someone elses's needs above his own)...
Of course! You're right, those areideals, aren't they. And at least as admirable as the so-called "higher" ones for society.
but god knows what he'd vote if confronted by New Labour
yes, well, and so say all of us... *sigh*
no subject
Date: Friday, 14 October 2005 09:54 pm (UTC){{****I can think of a couple a bit more admirable than that: loyalty, friendship, bravery (putting someone elses's needs above his own)...
Of course! You're right, those are ideals, aren't they. And at least as admirable as the so-called "higher" ones for society.}}
This has made me think - always a dangerous time. As I read this I thought what are 'higher' than the ideals which help people to fight to protect our country i.e. loyalty, bravery etc.? You could argue that these are the highest ideals to pursue. Maybe. BUT, just now, watching BBC2 Newnight I saw an item about Iran, George Bush and John Bolton (US Ambassador to the UN). The reporter mentioned Bush's 'loyalty' to Bolton. On it's own his loyalty is a fine characteristic, but in this context it could mean such a f**k up for the rest of the world. So, I guess what I'm saying is that perhaps you're right not to automatically rate this as one of the highest virtues. (Maybe you weren't doing that, don't know). It's interesting though. pb
no subject
Date: Friday, 14 October 2005 10:25 pm (UTC)A loyal friend, bravely defending someone from attack? Sounds great. But what if that someone was a known murderer? Still okay perhaps - surely attack is wrong no matter who its against. Except that's not true either, it depends on the motives. Its the police attacking, to try and arrest a murderer, and the friend is also a murderer..? They might do it again? So is the loyalty, the bravery, still commendable? Well, actually perhaps it is, we just might see it as misplaced. I suppose maybe that's what I meant by "higher" ideals. So now we have murk and levels! Yes, your example - Bush being loyal to Bolton: no problem on a personal level, but if it were at the expense of other people, the world, then no longer a good thing. I suppose everything has to be placed in context to make any sense of it at all... and then its only our own sense it'll ever make.
You made me think tho' (well, clearly after all this!) when you described those as Bodie's ideals - they're actually things that I place very highly too, well certainly loyalty and friendship, but I've never consciously thought of them as ideals. I suppose I thought they were too basic somehow for that. Except that they could be lost on more than a personal level too - a totalitarian government that forces a choice between loyalty to friends and a person's own life, for example. When people live in fear of having friends for the choices they would have to make. Perhaps this is exactly what Bodie fights for...
no subject
Date: Saturday, 15 October 2005 03:19 pm (UTC)****Yeah, it’s all so bloody difficult though isn’t it? That’s why governing is almost an impossible task: whose interests? Whose rights? Blah Blah. Blah.
You made me think tho' (well, clearly after all this!) when you described those as Bodie's ideals - they're actually things that I place very highly too, well certainly loyalty and friendship, but I've never consciously thought of them as ideals. I suppose I thought they were too basic somehow for that.
***Yes I suppose these things shouldn’t have to be something that you consciously strive for because they’re automatic, they just *are*, like getting up in the morning, not killing your parents, not kicking the dog. So ingrained that you don’t *have* to consider them. (And, I know, that in itself is a value-loaded statement). But more and more, listening to the news, radio talk-ins, etc. I’m discovering people for whom these ideals are not ingrained, not an automatic part of their existence, not even present in their lives.. In short, I suppose we don’t all share common values. Like the right to life: for some people this isn’t the most important of goals to strive for but is subordinated to something else (not always sure what though). And then there are governments for whom peace is an ideal, at whatever cost, and I’m thinking of somewhere like Sweden where warfare just isn’t part of their political culture or vocabulary.. And what a different landscape they have compared to somewhere like the UK where, in warfare, historically and repeatedly human life has been sacrificed for the cause of something ‘higher’.
Except that they could be lost on more than a personal level too - a totalitarian government that forces a choice between loyalty to friends and a person's own life, for example. When people live in fear of having friends for the choices they would have to make. Perhaps this is exactly what Bodie fights for..
****Yes. I’d like to think that Bodie was a better person than someone like Winston Smith and wouldn’t have capitulated. It’s funny how the concept of loyalty to the state/nation sounds more chilling (to me) than loyalty to one’s queen and country.
***So if you weren’t thinking of things like loyalty and friendship as ideals what would you consider to be an ideal I wonder? And do you mean at a personal or more collective level? (And I’m sure you’ve sussed the fact that I’m just thinking aloud here, don’t really know what I mean, but writing things down really does help to concentrate the mind).
no subject
Date: Saturday, 15 October 2005 06:13 pm (UTC)Actually, this kind of makes sense to me - the queen has a face, whether we're ever likely to meet her, and despite the fact that we are highly unlikely to ever have this sort of chat with her (!) She is a real person. If she did something bad we could knock her down and nick her tiara. And the country - well. Its where we grew up, its the air we breathe, its... its us in some undefinable way. You are where you are, maybe. Whereas the concept of state, or nation is far more abstract, nothing to grasp there. And in fact that is scary, because that concept is whatever we make of it, and since its not us directly making it, but some faceless "other" its arguably natural to feel threatened by that...
And then I get into the whole other realm of - well, if what I just said about country is true, then why aren't I snug at home in Australia, instead of living in Alaska, and missing England?! Because despite growing up in Aus, I don't imagine ever going back there to live - well, never say never, but still. And after 20 years of clutching it to me, I've finally started to consider trading in my passport for a Brit one, cos that is what I feel I am. Even though I'm not choosing to be there right now! So how does all that work when you're making loyalties etc?
***So if you weren’t thinking of things like loyalty and friendship as ideals what would you consider to be an ideal I wonder? And do you mean at a personal or more collective level?
Gosh. Such a question. *thinks very hard, then rubs head* If I tried to make a list I'd be bound to miss something out and feel bad, so perhaps something boiled down... I suppose my ideal is the freedom for everyone to do what they would like, or need to do, without hurting others in this freedom, and at the same time having the security of knowing that should they fall on bad times they will not be allowed to hurt or die on their own. And I suppose that is why its an ideal - because you can't have such freedom without people being hurt, because there will always be people to whom hurting is what they would like or need to do, and then we get the police, and CI5 involved, and back we are to our real world. Perhaps I don't see loyalty or friendship as ideals because they are more attainable. Even misguided, you can be loyal, or a friend to someone no matter what.
Is that a personal or collective level? Do they necessarily separate? I want the freedom that I described, but to have it truly then everyone has to have it. If I had it on my own it would be power, instead of freedom. Which I suppose is some other people's ideal... Unless you're going to go hide out in the bush and live off the land, there really isn't any way of excluding the collective from our ideals, is there?
(And I’m sure you’ve sussed the fact that I’m just thinking aloud here, don’t really know what I mean, but writing things down really does help to concentrate the mind).
Yes, me too. And its nice to bounce as well. Let me know when you get bored!
no subject
Date: Saturday, 15 October 2005 09:19 pm (UTC)Actually, this kind of makes sense to me - the queen has a face, whether we're ever likely to meet her, and despite the fact that we are highly unlikely to ever have this sort of chat with her (!) She is a real person. ….Whereas the concept of state, or nation is far more abstract, nothing to grasp there. And in fact that is scary, because that concept is whatever we make of it, and since its not us directly making it, but some faceless "other" its arguably natural to feel threatened by that...
***Yes, that's all true. Plus the fact that for me (and probably you), the Queen is familiar, safe territory, what we know. And for me the concept of 'the state' carries with it connotations such as: state tyranny; state terror French Revolution-style; state apparatus; citizenship vs. loyal subjects of the crown; Kafka; etc. All alien concepts.
And then I get into the whole other realm of - well, if what I just said about country is true, then why aren't I snug at home in Australia, instead of living in Alaska, and missing England?!
****Maybe because 'home' always seems more appealing when you're thousands of miles away?
***So if you weren’t thinking of things like loyalty and friendship as ideals what would you consider to be an ideal I wonder? And do you mean at a personal or more collective level?
Gosh. Such a question. *thinks very hard, then rubs head* If I tried to make a list I'd be bound to miss something out and feel bad, so perhaps something boiled down... I suppose my ideal is the freedom for everyone to do what they would like, or need to do, without hurting others in this freedom, and at the same time having the security of knowing that should they fall on bad times they will not be allowed to hurt or die on their own.
***And the Rule of Law? I don't think you can ever hope to attain the goals of democracy and (relative) freedom unless you're living within the framework of a non-corrupt, law abiding society.
Is that a personal or collective level? Do they necessarily separate?
I want the freedom that I described, but to have it truly then everyone has to have it. If I had it on my own it would be power, instead of freedom. Which I suppose is some other people's ideal... Unless you're going to go hide out in the bush and live off the land, there really isn't any way of excluding the collective from our ideals, is there?
****I think I meant state, corporate or groups when talking about 'collective' as opposed to an individual freedom.. i.e. freedoms of big business, pressure groups, trade unions, governments, etc. as opposed to individual freedom . For example, the balance of freedoms between the right of the (individual) commuter to reach his destination vs. the right of transport workers to strike and possibly interrupt the commuter’s journey.
(And I’m sure you’ve sussed the fact that I’m just thinking aloud here, don’t really know what I mean, but writing things down really does help to concentrate the mind).
Yes, me too. And its nice to bounce as well. Let me know when you get bored!
*****Bored??? If I want ‘bored’ I’ll try one of the lists!
no subject
Date: Sunday, 16 October 2005 06:31 pm (UTC)Ah - assuming that democracy is a goal..! Is that the only way to create a relatively free society? (Your starter for 10... ; )
And how much law is too much law? Do we really need laws at all, or is that something that we tell ourselves - or someone else tells us? After all, people break those rules in the pursuit of "higher" purpose all the time: speeding to get a pregnant woman to hospital, stealing to feed rather than to enjoy, killing one to avoid killing dozens. And, the majority of people who break the law for "lower" purpose - their own pleasure/greed etc - would act the same way, whether there was a law in place or not. So why do we need laws? Are us middlings too forgetful to look after each other along the way? We're told that if we didn't have these rules, then it would be anarchy, people behaving as animals - survive or don't, your luck depending on what other animals you run into. Maybe the ability to make laws is what raises us "above" other animals. Or maybe its the ability to follow them - nah, that's sheep come to think of it. If there were no laws in the first place, then wouldn't we all be free? No, because we wouldn't be free to forage without the fear that someone else would take it away from us. Maybe it's freedom from fear that's the goal then... And maybe that's why it's clear that we do need a rule of law - every society has evolved one, naturally, independently, of some kind... Its just figuring out the best rules to include to keep the balance between freedom to act and freedom from fear. And after over a thousand years we're still trying to figure that out. 'spose that means we won't solve it in this blog!
For example, the balance of freedoms between the right of the (individual) commuter to reach his destination vs. the right of transport workers to strike and possibly interrupt the commuter’s journey.
Ye-es... I think people are a force of nature as much as any storm or snow or leaves on the lines. And as an individual person there is a certain amount of ebb and flow that must be done in order to survive the world without breaking. And those transport workers, after all, are responding to another organization still higher up the chain of power - perhaps no organization should be allowed to treat others in a way that will cause them to impede the flow of commuter traffic!
Well, apparently I have essay-like tendencies even when its not required..!
no subject
Date: Sunday, 16 October 2005 08:41 pm (UTC)Ah - assuming that democracy is a goal..! Is that the only way to create a relatively free society? (Your starter for 10... ; )
*****Probably, in advanced, western, industrialised, societies. Representative democracy, at any rate. And I fear that the concept of a 'relatively free society' in a modern context usually only extends to economic freedoms, which, to someone like me with little talent and drive, usually only represents the 'freedom' to go hungry, to be homeless, to be without healthcare, to have a lifetime of anxiety. I don't feel that's any kind of freedom and would probably fare better under the constraints of somewhere like Stalinist Russia where everyone had a job, knew their place etc. A far more preferable place, for most people, than Putin's Russia.
And how much law is too much law? Do we really need laws at all, or is that something that we tell ourselves - or someone else tells us? ... people break those rules in the pursuit of "higher" purpose all the time: speeding to get a pregnant woman to hospital, stealing to feed rather than to enjoy, killing one to avoid killing dozens. And, the majority of people who break the law for "lower" purpose - their own pleasure/greed etc - would act the same way, whether there was a law in place or not. So why do we need laws? Are us middlings too forgetful to look after each other along the way? We're told that if we didn't have these rules, then it would be anarchy, people behaving as animals - survive or don't, your luck depending on what other animals you run into. Maybe the ability to make laws is what raises us "above" other animals. Or maybe its the ability to follow them - nah, that's sheep come to think of it. If there were no laws in the first place, then wouldn't we all be free? No, because we wouldn't be free to forage without the fear that someone else would take it away from us. Maybe it's freedom from fear that's the goal then... And maybe that's why it's clear that we do need a rule of law - every society has evolved one, naturally, independently, of some kind... Its just figuring out the best rules to include to keep the balance between freedom to act and freedom from fear. And after over a thousand years we're still trying to figure that out. 'spose that means we won't solve it in this blog!
***I think you've answered your own questions there. "its just figuring out the best rules to include to keep the balance between freedom to act and freedom from fear" - that's what I said earlier: politics is a balance of interests, nothing more, nothing less. I've seen anarchy and I really don't like that it, I think it's the worst form of tyranny and a life lived in continual fear has no attracttion for me. I'm a child of the welfare state, and I welcome and accept the social contract of the state guaranteeing so much to me, in exchange for me abiding by its rules. I don't have the bravery or energy for anarchy, where the weakest really are left to go to the wall. It really *is* a jungle out there: earthquakes, tsunamis, civil wars, famines, corrupt governments. To obey a few laws/rules seems fair exchange for benevolent, state protection. And if the state begins to act in a non-benevolent way, then we have a revolution and do away with it. Create another state. It's not impossible. No more impossible than leaving the EU. Discuss.
no subject
Date: Sunday, 16 October 2005 10:29 pm (UTC)lol! Right then...
somewhere like Stalinist Russia where everyone had a job, knew their place etc. A far more preferable place,
Yes, this is just it, isn't it. Nice and safe there, as long as you're *good* and don't say anything naughty...
I think you've answered your own questions there.
lol - I have a habit of doing that if you leave me to rabbit long enough! And especially if that comes after a 3am-night's worth of ficcing...
I've seen anarchy and I really don't like it, I think it's the worst form of tyranny
Gosh, where, if you don't mind my asking?
I'm not a supporter of anarchy either, by any means, the only "worse" thing I can imagine is the complete opposite, imprisonment. And having lived over here for a while, and having to deal with the so-called medical system here I am an even bigger supporter of the NHS/welfare state than when I left. No matter what else, the comfort of being unquestioningly looked after when I broke my arm in the UK was worth every little law I ever had to obey over there, and every penny I've paid in tax and NI - especially compared to the worry and uncertainty of the same experience (other arm!) over here, even long after my arm had healed!
I don't have the bravery or energy for anarchy, where the weakest really are left to go to the wall
I certainly don't believe in the "strongest survives" ideal either - its strong only in one sense, and ultimately can't do anyone any good. What's the use in being strong and alive, if that's all you are..?
It really *is* a jungle out there: earthquakes, tsunamis, civil wars, famines, corrupt governments
True. And there seems to have been alot of that going on lately. Nice to be protected from it. But I don't want to be too protected, I suppose - and I can say that only because I am of course.
That's what I love about Alaska actually, the jungle is right here all around me, and perhaps that's nice and easy to see. To know what you're fighting. You really do have to be alert to it all, to the world. And at the same time, I do have my cosy cabin...
Have you seen a series called "Northern Exposure"? There's an ep where one of the characters is finally caught, having been stealing people's radios for weeks. The year before, in springtime, he stole hairdryers, the year before.. etc. When asked why he did it, he says: Wildness, Ed! Wildness. We're running out of it, man. Even up here in Alaska, people need to be reminded that the world is unsafe and unpredictable. And at the drop of a hat, they could lose everything, man. Just like that. You couldn't predict that. I do it to remind them that chaos is out there and he's lurking beyond the horizon. That's why. Well, that and . . . sometimes, Ed, sometimes, you just gotta do something bad just to know you're alive.
But we shouldn't forget that for everything we have, we are only cushioned, not immune...
then we have a revolution and do away with it
ah, revolution *blinks owlishly at pictures of Blair and Bush, and then shakes head*. Its true, I do think that this is the best system we've got at the moment (note the idealistic streak of "at the moment"!). After a little more research, I might throw in proportional representation, and compulsory voting, as "we" have over in Australia. But I will back the British system over many, many others. And its easy to forget sometimes that its taken thousands of people, trialing and testing it - some with their lives - to get it this close to perfect. Its not just someone's whim that we have these specific rules, not as it would be in a different sort of government, our parents parents parents were involved in the making and forging of them. Just as we are involved in the same process now of course.
Um, sorry sir, what was the question?!
no subject
Date: Monday, 17 October 2005 03:13 pm (UTC)Gosh, where, if you don't mind my asking?
****Well, my local Sainsburys on a Saturday morning. No, really, certain areas within Iraq; certain areas within Afghanistan; Chechnia; and civil wars in parts of Africa have rendered those areas virtually ungovernable. On a more local level, riots in places such as Brixton, Tottenham, Liverpool and Bristol led to a temporary breakdown of law and order in some parts and to a more permanent, no-go situation in others.. And that’s just in recent times. What about periods in the Spanish Civil War, revolutionary and post-revolutionary Russia? [Well what about them?] . Those times were pretty anarchic and had periods where people were ‘a law unto themselves’.
I'm not a supporter of anarchy either, by any means, the only "worse" thing I can imagine is the complete opposite, imprisonment
***Well with anarchy, I suppose *anyone* could imprison anyone else. If they were stronger. That‘s why we have the rule of law, don't we? [I'm beginning to doubt my own name now].
[Sorry, got to split this post].
no subject
Date: Monday, 17 October 2005 03:18 pm (UTC)And having lived over here for a while, and having to deal with the so-called medical system here I am an even bigger supporter of the NHS/welfare state than when I left. No matter what else, the comfort of being unquestioningly looked after when I broke my arm in the UK was worth every little law I ever had to obey over there, and every penny I've paid in tax and NI - especially compared to the worry and uncertainty of the same experience (other arm!) over here, even long after my arm had healed!
****I agree. I worship the NHS and feel that’s one of the things to be proud of in the UK. It just doesn’t seem civilized that you are allowed to get ill and die if you haven’t got any money. [And please don't ask me to define 'civilisation' - I know it when I see it].
I don't have the bravery or energy for anarchy, where the weakest really are left to go to the wall
I certainly don't believe in the "strongest survives" ideal either - its strong only in one sense, and ultimately can't do anyone any good. What's the use in being strong and alive, if that's all you are..?
***Better than being weak and dead, I suppose?
Have you seen a series called "Northern Exposure"? There's an ep where one of the characters is finally caught, having been stealing people's radios for weeks. The year before, in springtime, he stole hairdryers, the year before.. etc. When asked why he did it, he says: Wildness, Ed! Wildness. We're running out of it, man. Even up here in Alaska, people need to be reminded that the world is unsafe and unpredictable. And at the drop of a hat, they could lose everything, man. Just like that. You couldn't predict that. I do it to remind them that chaos is out there and he's lurking beyond the horizon. That's why. Well, that and . . . sometimes, Ed, sometimes, you just gotta do something bad just to know you're alive.
****No, I haven’t seen this series. Sounds interesting. And it’s true, you never know what you’re capable of and who you really are until you’ve been tested or have experience of many different things.
But we shouldn't forget that for everything we have, we are only cushioned, not immune...
****Good observation. May I use that please (and claim it as my own?).
ah, revolution *blinks owlishly at pictures of Blair and Bush, and then shakes head*.
****Have you got them hanging in your cabin? (Their picture, that is). How *sweet*….. and there’s me thinking that you lean towards anarcho-syndicalism…
Its true, I do think that this is the best system we've got at the moment (note the idealistic streak of "at the moment"!). After a little more research, I might throw in proportional representation, and compulsory voting, as "we" have over in Australia
****I don’t think I could be bothered with PR and I can’t see the average, apolitical Brit working out the pros and cons of lots of people when half of them don’t even know who the PM is. Never saw the point of compulsory voting either. Unless there is a very definite choice between the parties. If there isn’t, like here in the UK, then if no party represents your interests what’s the point of being made to vote for parties you don’t support? Unless (I’ve got this very wrong) and there’s a box for people who don’t support any party that’s on offer. A sort of abstention vote. I could understand that.
Um, sorry sir, what was the question?
****One lump or two? I think I'd better lie down now.
no subject
Date: Tuesday, 18 October 2005 06:14 am (UTC)***Better than being weak and dead, I suppose?
I'd like to think not actually, but since I'm pretty sure I'd cave before me first toenail was ripped out you're probably right...
****No, I haven’t seen this series. Sounds interesting.
In that case I totally have to -wait, do I "pimp" on LJ?! - "Northern Exposure" to you. The first two seasons are out now on dvd, with the 3rd coming soon, and there've been various eps on vid for a while too. It's about a New York dr who is forced to go and live in a quirky little community in rural rural Alaska, and its brilliant. Very funny, and full of bits to make you think. Plus the lovely John Corbett all young and skinny as the dj Chris-in-the-morning. 'course it depends what you like (!) but I highly recommend it. If you'd like a copy I could get one to you - drop me an email!
But we shouldn't forget that for everything we have, we are only cushioned, not immune...
****Good observation. May I use that please (and claim it as my own?).
erm... sure! Although note all profits to be shared equally. You know, if you take over the world with it or anything... ; )
****Have you got them hanging in your cabin? (Their picture, that is)
No. Unfortunately they were both burned onto my retinas in the shock of the last elections...
Never saw the point of compulsory voting either
Ah yes, except that it means everyone has to register a choice. And yes, there is a way to register a protest against all the candidates - its called a "donkey vote", and you basically mess up your ballot paper somehow, tick all the boxes instead of numbering or something. But that's what I like about it. Instead of assuming that the people who didn't vote are lazy rather than disenfranchised, they're all taken into consideration by the process. I agree, there wouldn't be any point at all if you were forced to choose from a bunch of hideous candidates. And exactly what is done with the information when its there I have no idea, but I like that its there. Here (ie everywhere without it!) no one's got a clue...
Yeah, I can see that people in Brit couldn't be bothered with prop rep. But I'm also not sure that's really an excuse if it is a fairer system. I have to say I'd far rather have had to suss out 25 candidates on a paper than have had Thatcher back for her last term... and I'm not all that sure it doesn't hold true about Blair, except - alternatives, what alternatives? But I expect you'd have to make it compulsory if you brought in prop rep, or even fewer people would turn out!
Right. And on that note... I could really do with a dose of the lads...!
no subject
Date: Tuesday, 18 October 2005 08:37 pm (UTC)*****That's very kind of you, but I think I'm really a one-fandom person and I don't give *that* fandom enough time, but thank you so much for the offer.
Yeah, I can see that people in Brit couldn't be bothered with prop rep. But I'm also not sure that's really an excuse if it is a fairer system. I have to say I'd far rather have had to suss out 25 candidates on a paper than have had Thatcher back for her last term...
****I agree, from my point of view, but judging humankind by all the people I've known, i.e. from my own personal experience, which is really the only method I can judge people by, a long list of candidates would be totally irrelevant as they don't even bother to read the bits of political election pamphlets we get through the door now, let alone if they're was even more information to disseminate. I really think most people in the UK just aren't that political. If they're warm, have a roof over their heads and low taxes that's all they seem to care about. Fair enough, I suppose.
Mind you, although my family are Scots, my main experience is with Londoners who are a breed apart. Maybe the rest of the UK is more political, but going by the post election breakdown in voting results and patterns of voting I don't think the rest of the country is that politically active either. Again, I don't blame them. It's hard enough just getting through the normal rigours of a working week without having to go out and be political active as well. Ba boom...
no subject
Date: Wednesday, 19 October 2005 02:28 am (UTC)Yes I am too, I think. I never really think of NX (Northern Exposure) as a fandom - but then I didn't think of Pros like that either until I was told by the internet that that's what this is! Technically perhaps NX is, because I like it alot and will re-watch it over and again as a kind of comfort food. And for years and years I've had movies and series like that, and I still go back to most of them occasionally. But is that the "fandom" bit? OR is the fandom bit the bit where you get involved, like I have with Pros, and want to take it further than just passive enjoyment? I really do have the urge with Pros to read stories about what might have happened at other times in their lives, and to write that myself too. Cos if its the latter, then I'd have to say I think I'm currently a one-fandom girl too. Who knows, it may change, and since all my other "obsessions" (I called them) gradually weakened, maybe this will too... Or maybe I'll just start gathering them up now that I've made a start..!
as they don't even bother to read the bits of political election pamphlets we get through the door now, let alone...
Yes, I think you're right. And I suppose this is where my own idealisms shine through! I'm actually mad that I can't vote over here while I live here, rather than relieved I don't have to - but I'm certainly not politically "active" at all. Which I suppose is why its my idealism and not my mission...
no subject
Date: Wednesday, 19 October 2005 10:10 pm (UTC)Saw above that you're just about to watch DIAG. If you don't like the rest of the series this episode alone should make up for it. One of my all-time favourites. 'The eniga that's Bodie': he can switch from anger to kindness once he's assured of Doyle's fate.
I've never bothered to define 'fandom', but I suppose an involvement like reading stories, speaking to other fans, going to cons, vs. mere passive enjoyment is as good a definition as any other. I think it fits.
no subject
Date: Wednesday, 19 October 2005 10:21 pm (UTC)Yes, I think we may just have to work on a thread nearer the top of the LJ!! Do "reply" to anything up there, even if you're not really replying to it!!
I do love these icons, though, or whatever they're called (these silhouette/profile thingies next to me here. And the blueness - great. Very stylish).
Aren't they just great?
Saw above that you're just about to watch DIAG.
Yes, I love this one too. Looking forward to tonight! And actually I'm all curious to watch the rest of the season too, with these new eyes that I seem to have put in... I never noticed anything different about it before, until I noticed if you see what I mean...
no subject
Date: Thursday, 20 October 2005 07:21 pm (UTC)****Thank you! Although I've always been a behind-the-scenes sort of person.
I do love these icons, though, or whatever they're called (these silhouette/profile thingies next to me here. And the blueness - great. Very stylish).
Aren't they just great? [info]enednoviel is just so amazing to do this for me! such nice people you meet here at LJ... : )
***You do. I've often heard people say that the best friends they've ever had were from fandom.
Saw above that you're just about to watch DIAG.
Yes, I love this one too. Looking forward to tonight! And actually I'm all curious to watch the rest of the season too,
with these new eyes that I seem to have put in...
I never noticed anything different about it before, until I noticed if you see what I mean...
****That's what everyone says when they fall in love.....with Bodie and Doyle!
****You must have seen Hunter/Hunted? If you watch it with the sound turned down their flirtatiousness seems almost out of control...
no subject
Date: Thursday, 20 October 2005 10:03 pm (UTC)Hunter Hunted is one of my faves of course. Interesting idea about the sound, I must give that a go..! And maybe I shouldn't say this outloud, but the photo of Lew giving Martin a great big kiss on the cheek (one of the wallpapers at CI5 addict) - well, MS looks so happy!! Always makes me wonder... which since its up as my wallpaper, is alot!