Iverson with three or four fantastic alley-oops and a great dunk. 15 assists for AI but 2 for 20 in the first 3 quarters, then 13 points (of 20) in the fourth. Great highlights.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Iverson vs Kobe (2001)
This is a great video of the 2001 NBA Finals. Two of the best shooting guards in the game going up against each other. Iverson the MVP, versus Kobe Bryant who is just a little younger than me. Excellent footage of the battle.
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Living a productive life & Capote's In Cold Blood
What a day! It's around 6 in the afternoon, and I've been lounging in bed all day. I've done absolutely nothing since waking up except lie in my cot fooling around on the internet. I joined up to Bebo, and made up a 'how well do you know me' style quiz. I've been looking at various stuff on YouTube as well, such as clips from Apocalypse Now and some basketball. The only drawback is that I've had nothing to eat except a couple of yoghurts and a lump of bread. I'm just after getting dressed this minute, and now I think I'll go across to the shop and buy some ice-cream. I know, I know, I'm an inspiration to you all...
Yesterday I added a book to my 2007 list of books: Truman Capote's In Cold Blood. Earlier this summer I blogged up a list of all the books I read in 2005, with the 2006 list to follow at some point. I'll publish the 2007 list at some stage next year. It's one of those books I've been meaning to read for a long time. I wanted to read it before I saw that film about Capote that came out recently, so I must rent that out one of these days now that I'm finished. Anyway, the book is a novelised account of a real-life multiple murder that happened in 1959. The novel begins shortly before the murder and ends with the evetual death of the two perpetrators, Perry Smith and Dick Hickock. It reminded me of Steinbeck a little, although I'm not sure if that was due to the setting or the writing. Probably a little of both.
Apparently Capote was fascinated by the crime, and he certainly brings the events he's relating to vivid life. He paints an evocative picture of US society and does a great job of getting right inside the skins of each of the characters, even those who are only present for a handful of pages of the book. He also manages to successfully tread a fine line between having some empathy with the killers (particularly Perry Smith), and also emphasising the sheer nastiness and pointlessness of the crime. He manages to draw the events in a way that draws attention to all the contradictions and contingencies of the human experience, so that, for example, it's possible to see Smith as representing all points along a spectrum from cold-hearted, brutal psychopathy to likeable, sympathetic vulnerability.
I believe that Mr. Capote was gay. One thing that I wondered as I read the book was whether Smith and Hickock themselves had some manner of homosexual relationship. They seem to behave like a couple quite a bit, and Hickock has a tendency to call Smith 'honey' when he talks to him. But maybe that was just his way of talking. The book contained a reference to Smith being hassled by 'queers' in the armed forces, all right, but I don't think there were any other overt references to homosexuality. But I wondered if there was a latent current going on there. I'm not for a second suggesting that just because Capote was gay himself, this was all he was able to write about (or think about), or that he was projecting his own sexual identity onto these real-life characters. I just thought that this might have been an undercurrent in the book. I'll probably look into it myself on the interweb at some point.
You wouldn't think I've a thesis to write with all this blogging, novel-reading, internet-browsing, in bed-lying and quiz-making-upping, but I actually have to write 15-20,000 coherent words about International Relations by 6th September. It's a serious struggle. I do put a lot of time into it, and I've a reasonable amount of work done, but I've been finding it extremely slow going. I haven't yet been able to get into any kind of flow with my writing as yet. So far, I've only come up with around 2,000 usable words, and it was an ordeal to squeeze every single one of those out onto the page.
Nonetheless, I actually feel reasonably good about the whole thing. I have a couple of essays that I wrote during the year that I intend to plunder for more wordage, and I'm sticking with my mantra: there's plenty of time... Even though it's almost time to start counting down to the deadline in days instead of weeks... Aaaarghhh...
Plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time...
Philip Seymour Hoffman as Truman Capote
Yesterday I added a book to my 2007 list of books: Truman Capote's In Cold Blood. Earlier this summer I blogged up a list of all the books I read in 2005, with the 2006 list to follow at some point. I'll publish the 2007 list at some stage next year. It's one of those books I've been meaning to read for a long time. I wanted to read it before I saw that film about Capote that came out recently, so I must rent that out one of these days now that I'm finished. Anyway, the book is a novelised account of a real-life multiple murder that happened in 1959. The novel begins shortly before the murder and ends with the evetual death of the two perpetrators, Perry Smith and Dick Hickock. It reminded me of Steinbeck a little, although I'm not sure if that was due to the setting or the writing. Probably a little of both.
Apparently Capote was fascinated by the crime, and he certainly brings the events he's relating to vivid life. He paints an evocative picture of US society and does a great job of getting right inside the skins of each of the characters, even those who are only present for a handful of pages of the book. He also manages to successfully tread a fine line between having some empathy with the killers (particularly Perry Smith), and also emphasising the sheer nastiness and pointlessness of the crime. He manages to draw the events in a way that draws attention to all the contradictions and contingencies of the human experience, so that, for example, it's possible to see Smith as representing all points along a spectrum from cold-hearted, brutal psychopathy to likeable, sympathetic vulnerability.
Killers Perry Smith (top) and Richard Hickock
I believe that Mr. Capote was gay. One thing that I wondered as I read the book was whether Smith and Hickock themselves had some manner of homosexual relationship. They seem to behave like a couple quite a bit, and Hickock has a tendency to call Smith 'honey' when he talks to him. But maybe that was just his way of talking. The book contained a reference to Smith being hassled by 'queers' in the armed forces, all right, but I don't think there were any other overt references to homosexuality. But I wondered if there was a latent current going on there. I'm not for a second suggesting that just because Capote was gay himself, this was all he was able to write about (or think about), or that he was projecting his own sexual identity onto these real-life characters. I just thought that this might have been an undercurrent in the book. I'll probably look into it myself on the interweb at some point.
You wouldn't think I've a thesis to write with all this blogging, novel-reading, internet-browsing, in bed-lying and quiz-making-upping, but I actually have to write 15-20,000 coherent words about International Relations by 6th September. It's a serious struggle. I do put a lot of time into it, and I've a reasonable amount of work done, but I've been finding it extremely slow going. I haven't yet been able to get into any kind of flow with my writing as yet. So far, I've only come up with around 2,000 usable words, and it was an ordeal to squeeze every single one of those out onto the page.
Nonetheless, I actually feel reasonably good about the whole thing. I have a couple of essays that I wrote during the year that I intend to plunder for more wordage, and I'm sticking with my mantra: there's plenty of time... Even though it's almost time to start counting down to the deadline in days instead of weeks... Aaaarghhh...
Plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time plenty of time...
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Some of the best news I've heard all year
After 16 weeks in detention, the BBC's Gaza correspondent Alan Johnston has been released from detention by his kidnappers. The journalist was released as a result of negotiations between the Palestinian Hamas, who are in control of the Gaza Strip, and his captors, another Palestinian Islamist movement called 'the Army of Islam'.
In my view, Hamas form the bulk of the legitimate government of Palestine (although there is no Palestinian state). They had a decisive victory in elections in January 2006. The EU declared these elections to be free and fair. Hamas went on to form a national unity government with Fatah in March 2007.
However, despite all of this, the so-called 'international community' has refused to deal with Hamas. The EU, the US, and Israel all favour Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah, who was the Palestinian President, and have marginalised Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas, who was the Palestinian Prime Minister. The political system in Palestine is semi-presidentialism, whereby power is divided between a president and a prime minister who is answerable to a parliamentary assembly. A friend and fellow blogger is writing his thesis on semi-presidentialism in Palestine.
In any case, this fragile set-up between Hamas and Fatah continued for a while despite the fact that many powerful external actors would only speak to Fatah's Mahmoud Abbas, instead of dealing with the government as a whole. Indeed, Israel attempted to blow up Hamas members of government in the Gaza Strip at every opportunity. Eventually, relations between these partners in the Palestinian government have broken down.
The current situation is that, following fighting between Hamas and Fatah, Hamas have now taken control of the Gaza Strip and Fatah are in control of the West Bank. As can be seen from the map, both territories are entirely separate (although the map does not show the extent to which Israel has encroached into the West Bank so that it has now shrunk significantly in size). Mahmoud Abbas has declared that Haniyeh is dismissed as Prime Minister, but Haniyeh and his Hamas colleagues have refused to accept this. But there is an evident consensus throughout much of the mainstream media and the major actors of the international political establishment that it is Fatah who are legitimate. Abbas is still recognised as the Palestinian President, whereas Haniyeh is described as a terrorist.
This is the background to Johnston's release. Having taken over Gaza, Hamas are probably hoping that they will gain some credit for freeing Johnston. But they surely realise that the situation is unlikely to change to any significant extent. The main external players with regard to the issue of Palestine are known as the quartet: the US, the EU, the UN and Russia. Although Russia has made some attempts to gain more recognition for the Hamas government, the other three legs of the quartet are steadfastly anti-Hamas. This amounts to backing up Israel's position.
As I said, for me Hamas are the legitimate representatives of the Palestinians. Despite the fact that I have plenty of problems with the group, I reckon that the only practical, rational course of action to any man, woman or child in the occupied Palestinian territories (particularly in Gaza) is to support Hamas. But I reckon that Hamas will continue to be isolated, despite a BBC report suggesting that there may be the potential for a change in attitudes to Hamas - but then, I tend to be pretty pessimistic about these things.
The Army of Islam group that had been holding Johnston is also one of the groups responsible for the kidnap of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in June 2006. It was following Shalit's kidnapping that Israel intensified its targeting of Hamas - an Israeli helicopter fired two rockets into the home of Ismail Haniyeh a week later. The fate of this young soldier is a key issue for Israel. It is awful to think of the 19 year old soldier - who was injured during the kidnapping - being held by kidnappers for over a year. However, at least he was a military target, whereas Alan Johnston is a civilian. Meanwhile, about 800 Palestinians are being held in Israeli 'administrative detention' - in other words, being held without being charged with any crime.
Certainly the Israel state considers itself at war with Hamas - in yet another of its frequent extrajudicial executions, Israel killed at least six Hamas members the night after Johnston's release. Yet one of its three stated reasons for refusing to deal with Hamas is that Hamas refuses to renounce violence. The mind boggles...
Free at last
In my view, Hamas form the bulk of the legitimate government of Palestine (although there is no Palestinian state). They had a decisive victory in elections in January 2006. The EU declared these elections to be free and fair. Hamas went on to form a national unity government with Fatah in March 2007.
However, despite all of this, the so-called 'international community' has refused to deal with Hamas. The EU, the US, and Israel all favour Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah, who was the Palestinian President, and have marginalised Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas, who was the Palestinian Prime Minister. The political system in Palestine is semi-presidentialism, whereby power is divided between a president and a prime minister who is answerable to a parliamentary assembly. A friend and fellow blogger is writing his thesis on semi-presidentialism in Palestine.
In any case, this fragile set-up between Hamas and Fatah continued for a while despite the fact that many powerful external actors would only speak to Fatah's Mahmoud Abbas, instead of dealing with the government as a whole. Indeed, Israel attempted to blow up Hamas members of government in the Gaza Strip at every opportunity. Eventually, relations between these partners in the Palestinian government have broken down.
Hamas politician Khalil al-Hayya
Israel bombed his home, killing his wife and six of his family
The current situation is that, following fighting between Hamas and Fatah, Hamas have now taken control of the Gaza Strip and Fatah are in control of the West Bank. As can be seen from the map, both territories are entirely separate (although the map does not show the extent to which Israel has encroached into the West Bank so that it has now shrunk significantly in size). Mahmoud Abbas has declared that Haniyeh is dismissed as Prime Minister, but Haniyeh and his Hamas colleagues have refused to accept this. But there is an evident consensus throughout much of the mainstream media and the major actors of the international political establishment that it is Fatah who are legitimate. Abbas is still recognised as the Palestinian President, whereas Haniyeh is described as a terrorist.
This is the background to Johnston's release. Having taken over Gaza, Hamas are probably hoping that they will gain some credit for freeing Johnston. But they surely realise that the situation is unlikely to change to any significant extent. The main external players with regard to the issue of Palestine are known as the quartet: the US, the EU, the UN and Russia. Although Russia has made some attempts to gain more recognition for the Hamas government, the other three legs of the quartet are steadfastly anti-Hamas. This amounts to backing up Israel's position.
As I said, for me Hamas are the legitimate representatives of the Palestinians. Despite the fact that I have plenty of problems with the group, I reckon that the only practical, rational course of action to any man, woman or child in the occupied Palestinian territories (particularly in Gaza) is to support Hamas. But I reckon that Hamas will continue to be isolated, despite a BBC report suggesting that there may be the potential for a change in attitudes to Hamas - but then, I tend to be pretty pessimistic about these things.
The Army of Islam group that had been holding Johnston is also one of the groups responsible for the kidnap of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in June 2006. It was following Shalit's kidnapping that Israel intensified its targeting of Hamas - an Israeli helicopter fired two rockets into the home of Ismail Haniyeh a week later. The fate of this young soldier is a key issue for Israel. It is awful to think of the 19 year old soldier - who was injured during the kidnapping - being held by kidnappers for over a year. However, at least he was a military target, whereas Alan Johnston is a civilian. Meanwhile, about 800 Palestinians are being held in Israeli 'administrative detention' - in other words, being held without being charged with any crime.
The young Israeli hostage Gilad Shalit
Certainly the Israel state considers itself at war with Hamas - in yet another of its frequent extrajudicial executions, Israel killed at least six Hamas members the night after Johnston's release. Yet one of its three stated reasons for refusing to deal with Hamas is that Hamas refuses to renounce violence. The mind boggles...
Sunday, July 01, 2007
Sunday, June 24, 2007
The joys and risks of poker
I had a few of my team-mates from the Division 4 team of St. Declan’s basketball club round for poker last Friday night. As well as the intrinsic joys of gambling, drinking, smoking cigars, and verbally abusing each other, the night was also a fundraiser for the club, with half of the money going to our permanently indebted treasury department.
I used to be involved in a regular poker game a while back, but we used to play 5 card draw. Friday night was No Limit Texas Hold-Em, which is an entirely different animal. It’s a lot more expensive to play each hand as there are more rounds of betting, and you can go ‘All-in’ at any time, pushing all of your chips into the pot. I decided it was a good idea to do this on the second hand of the night, with a full house. So I went ahead and lashed all €40 into the pot. Unfortunately, a certain team-mate who will never be forgiven had four 2s and called my bet in a hot second. So I was the first to crash out after 12 minutes of play.
Luckily there was an option to buy in a second time, so I had the opportunity to stay in the game and squander more money. I managed to outlast two people (out of 7 of us) before I went bust for good. Not much of an achievement, but I’ll get them next time...
I really enjoyed the game and I'm itching for another one. The following night I called over to a friend's gaff, and we called in on a neighbour of his and interrupted a poker session. There were about 8 lads sitting around a purpose built table, with little drink holders and chip holders and a green felt tabletop. It all looked very inviting, I must say.
I've set up an internet account, and I play a little online Hold 'Em every so often. I'd like to play a few more live games though. I have mixed results playing on the internet - I usually buy into a table for around €30, and I have often doubled my money. But my problem is that if I start losing, I compound it by keeping playing (and losing), instead of quitting and living to play another day. On Sunday night I stayed up till all hours, blowing €70 in the process.
I thoroughly enjoy the poker but it remains to be seen whether this little hobby is going to be in my own interest or not. It could so easily go horribly wrong... But fuck the begrudgers. I could become an expert and turn pro - and bid farewell to the Monday to Wednesday* grind...
By the way, a few times (usually with alcohol involved), I played a crazy variant of poker apparently called 'Indian poker'. It's mad stuff altogether. You whip a card quickly from the top of the deck, and hold it facing forwards atop your own forehead. You can see everyone else's card, but not your own. You then make bets on who has the highest card, basing your reaction on the expression on your opponent's face, I suppose. In my experience, it's generally difficult to judge their expression as s/he tends to be convulsed in laughter. It's good craic, but not one for the purists...
* the joys of worksharing... Heh, heh...
I used to be involved in a regular poker game a while back, but we used to play 5 card draw. Friday night was No Limit Texas Hold-Em, which is an entirely different animal. It’s a lot more expensive to play each hand as there are more rounds of betting, and you can go ‘All-in’ at any time, pushing all of your chips into the pot. I decided it was a good idea to do this on the second hand of the night, with a full house. So I went ahead and lashed all €40 into the pot. Unfortunately, a certain team-mate who will never be forgiven had four 2s and called my bet in a hot second. So I was the first to crash out after 12 minutes of play.
Luckily there was an option to buy in a second time, so I had the opportunity to stay in the game and squander more money. I managed to outlast two people (out of 7 of us) before I went bust for good. Not much of an achievement, but I’ll get them next time...
I really enjoyed the game and I'm itching for another one. The following night I called over to a friend's gaff, and we called in on a neighbour of his and interrupted a poker session. There were about 8 lads sitting around a purpose built table, with little drink holders and chip holders and a green felt tabletop. It all looked very inviting, I must say.
I've set up an internet account, and I play a little online Hold 'Em every so often. I'd like to play a few more live games though. I have mixed results playing on the internet - I usually buy into a table for around €30, and I have often doubled my money. But my problem is that if I start losing, I compound it by keeping playing (and losing), instead of quitting and living to play another day. On Sunday night I stayed up till all hours, blowing €70 in the process.
I thoroughly enjoy the poker but it remains to be seen whether this little hobby is going to be in my own interest or not. It could so easily go horribly wrong... But fuck the begrudgers. I could become an expert and turn pro - and bid farewell to the Monday to Wednesday* grind...
By the way, a few times (usually with alcohol involved), I played a crazy variant of poker apparently called 'Indian poker'. It's mad stuff altogether. You whip a card quickly from the top of the deck, and hold it facing forwards atop your own forehead. You can see everyone else's card, but not your own. You then make bets on who has the highest card, basing your reaction on the expression on your opponent's face, I suppose. In my experience, it's generally difficult to judge their expression as s/he tends to be convulsed in laughter. It's good craic, but not one for the purists...
* the joys of worksharing... Heh, heh...
Saturday, June 16, 2007
The CIA and Shannon airport
My friend Ian has noted that it is disturbing how little media attention is on the current extraordinary rendition case being heard in Italy. Extraordinary rendition is the process whereby the CIA kidnaps people, and detains them extrajudicially. These people are often subject to torture. It really is that stark. The US is having people abducted from the streets of EU constitutional democracies without the knowledge of the domestic governments, and subsequently tortured.
I just want to note an Irish connection in this issue. Last summer, the Council of Europe rapporteur, Dick Marty, included Ireland's Shannon airport in a map of "secret detentions and unlawful inter-state transfers". The Irish government response is basically to say that they trust the Americans and everything will be grand. Irish Foreign Affairs minister Dermot Ahern accepted the assurances of Condoleeza Rice that Shannon was not used as a transit point for the CIA's abductees.
In February of this year, the European Parliament rejected Dermot Ahern's position and called for a Dáil inquiry into Ireland's role in instances of extraordinary rendition. In 2005, Amnesty International reported that 800 secret CIA flights had used European airspace, and noted evidence about specific flights in which Shannon airport was used as a stopover.
I just want to note an Irish connection in this issue. Last summer, the Council of Europe rapporteur, Dick Marty, included Ireland's Shannon airport in a map of "secret detentions and unlawful inter-state transfers". The Irish government response is basically to say that they trust the Americans and everything will be grand. Irish Foreign Affairs minister Dermot Ahern accepted the assurances of Condoleeza Rice that Shannon was not used as a transit point for the CIA's abductees.
In February of this year, the European Parliament rejected Dermot Ahern's position and called for a Dáil inquiry into Ireland's role in instances of extraordinary rendition. In 2005, Amnesty International reported that 800 secret CIA flights had used European airspace, and noted evidence about specific flights in which Shannon airport was used as a stopover.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)