76th day o'the Tens!
(I wish I'd never spoke to Dali in my dream, he's got some serious issues)
Just to reiterate what commentator Charles Davies is saying about the BBC cuts. At first, horrified that Youth Programming would be lost is the ideal compromise if BBC need to cut expenditures to resist a Murdoch-monopoly. We wouldn't want to complicate Public Service Broadcasting with interference from News Corp. should they buckle under financial constraints.
All hail, Alem! L'regle d'Poete et l'loi.
In preparation for trying these hands as a poet in the West Bank the most interesting mediator of a deity will present herself there, for sure. Mutaqqah-at (or, as known to Ishmael) is the untranslatable. What else but music? If you can imagine your conversation as a Piano Roll, a complex series of geomantic dots-and-lines would fall before your eyes, punctuated by the Arabic Script of Alif, Laam, Miim - the three mystical letters that have baffled scholars since the beginning. What is great about Muhammad is that because his writings are over 800 years old, there's no copyright. Imagine the delight of copywright with this insight!
Why a deity? Alif, Laam, Miim when translated from Arabic to Hebrew means exactly that! Very marketable ©Elijah Nathaniel James (see date on this blog post... MINE, MINE, MINE,
aLL mINE!
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
On Venables...
75th day o'the Tens
Best England manager of the time. FA, literally, fuck all without the figurehead. The way he got Beckham & Gascoigne linking up was the most exciting field display since Sir Bobby (Terry being a close second to).
As journalists we are faced with a crisis of conscience, in the first instance a moral dilemma of what we can present and whether its presentation serves the Public Interest. Then we have to ask ourselves the question, in such an intimate manner that it feels invasive, that to entertain another's evil has a knock-on effect of contrition. It is an assumption of guilt, not in reference to our own morality as opinion-formers, but for the crime itself. *He must have no conscience!* if the allegations against Jon Venables prove to be founded. They must first pass through the Courts of Law unhindered before the Public Sphere is allowed to form its judgment but my heart goes out to those privelaged few journalists who may already know the particular truth.
Do we face a crisis of conscience in the presence of one who may not?
I sincerely hope so since once the proceedings are conclusive the judgment will be transferred to a Collective Moral Conscience (the general public).
Union members may be divided by two extremes of which my colleagues share. The most obvious is retribution. "Chop his balls off" - a view that is held by our left shoulder angel and one that is countered by our right side, which says: "would you chop off the hand of a thief?" Surely it begs the question: what is being robbed in this instance?
The accused has a right to life afforded by the European Convention of Human Rights, a right to life guaranteed by anonymity, but if the accused forfeits these rights then the Public Sphere has the right to retribution of which I am of accord. For to make it a moral dilemma would amount to the countenancing of the most heinous of crimes but to rush a judgment, especially one sensationalised by The Spectacle, was-to-be prejudice. Hence the reason Jack Straw defends the law.
And so, retribution was-to-be the likely opinion forming in the Public Sphere (especially in light of The Sun newspaper's revelations) yet this prejudice is contradicted by the crisis of conscience that must be at least felt by those who already know the truth should they experience it in their endeavour to be objective. When it becomes a matter of collective responsibility and the admission to what a human being is capable of, played out in front of our eyes, we all fall victim to a conscience crisis.
The judge will bring down the hammer before a jury deciding the fate of one but the argument that will ensue ensures the fate of all.
Best England manager of the time. FA, literally, fuck all without the figurehead. The way he got Beckham & Gascoigne linking up was the most exciting field display since Sir Bobby (Terry being a close second to).
As journalists we are faced with a crisis of conscience, in the first instance a moral dilemma of what we can present and whether its presentation serves the Public Interest. Then we have to ask ourselves the question, in such an intimate manner that it feels invasive, that to entertain another's evil has a knock-on effect of contrition. It is an assumption of guilt, not in reference to our own morality as opinion-formers, but for the crime itself. *He must have no conscience!* if the allegations against Jon Venables prove to be founded. They must first pass through the Courts of Law unhindered before the Public Sphere is allowed to form its judgment but my heart goes out to those privelaged few journalists who may already know the particular truth.
Do we face a crisis of conscience in the presence of one who may not?
I sincerely hope so since once the proceedings are conclusive the judgment will be transferred to a Collective Moral Conscience (the general public).
Union members may be divided by two extremes of which my colleagues share. The most obvious is retribution. "Chop his balls off" - a view that is held by our left shoulder angel and one that is countered by our right side, which says: "would you chop off the hand of a thief?" Surely it begs the question: what is being robbed in this instance?
The accused has a right to life afforded by the European Convention of Human Rights, a right to life guaranteed by anonymity, but if the accused forfeits these rights then the Public Sphere has the right to retribution of which I am of accord. For to make it a moral dilemma would amount to the countenancing of the most heinous of crimes but to rush a judgment, especially one sensationalised by The Spectacle, was-to-be prejudice. Hence the reason Jack Straw defends the law.
And so, retribution was-to-be the likely opinion forming in the Public Sphere (especially in light of The Sun newspaper's revelations) yet this prejudice is contradicted by the crisis of conscience that must be at least felt by those who already know the truth should they experience it in their endeavour to be objective. When it becomes a matter of collective responsibility and the admission to what a human being is capable of, played out in front of our eyes, we all fall victim to a conscience crisis.
The judge will bring down the hammer before a jury deciding the fate of one but the argument that will ensue ensures the fate of all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)