I think the Big Dance thing is great, I always have a good time at tango al fresco (looks like great weather for it too, and a picnic) and usually at Spitalfields, which has a more Dome-ish vibe. At Spitalfields the floor is *usually* concrete, it might not be on this occasion. In case it is, wear suitable street shoes and take care of your knees. Tango en el Cielo pointed out to me in a lesson that in this kind of situation it's OK to surreptitiously walk around pivots instead, you end up in logically the same place and your partner probably won't know. It's better than pivoting on concrete, which has certainly done me some damage before.
But I'm going to miss it all this weekend because I'm away on holiday, I'll be back next week. It's a pity, but it just happened to be the same weekend.
Couple of totally off-topic things which will interest some of my readers:
The power of asking really small, really big questions, one by one - a miniature masterclass from renowned trial attorney David Boies. Hat tip Felix Salmon again, I have no idea how he reads and writes so much in a day.
It's notable that the reason this works is that it doesn't seem like an option for the witnesses to say "no, America is not about equality, or if it is I don't think it should be", which is almost certainly their actual view, but they can't really say that, for reasons which I find very interesting to consider.
Other topics to keep the mind ticking over: I have sometimes been puzzled by articles arguing that the right way to regulate banks is to make their problematic activities less profitable, while apparently accepting the position that the problem with the activities is that they are dangerously loss-making. So are the activities profitable, or not? The question is elegantly resolved in this interview with Professor William K. Black, the white-collar criminologist (only the first half-minute - after the jazz - is in Icelandic, the interview itself is in English). Unfortunately that link, which isn't working for me today, may not be permanent. They refer briefly to Professor Black's previous appearance on Silfur Egils the year before, which is on YouTube and covers more or less the same ground, though less elegantly: Part 1,
part 2.
This stuff makes me cross. Bunch of shameless thieves.
Friday, 9 July 2010
Out of Office Message
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
"It's notable that the reason this works is that it doesn't seem like an option for the witnesses to say "no, America is not about equality, or if it is I don't think it should be", which is almost certainly their actual view, but they can't really say that, for reasons which I find very interesting to consider."
I don't have a better workable solution, but this is something I fundamentally dislike about the American and English judicial system ie you can control the questions and as I understand it, restrict / direct the answers. Magicians often do this, but that's for entertainment. I feel that anything important enough to be taken to a court of law shouldn't come down to a "game" where the skill of the lawyer plays a more determining factor than the truth and justice of the matter - and indeed I find the number of frankly farcical outcomes I've seen reported rather worrying. I also feel that the person being asked questions should be allowed as much time as they need to reflect and to consider their answers and indeed point out if they feel the question is itself unreasonable, rather than depending on the relevant lawyer to do so. (NB this is a general dislike, as opposed to the specific example given).
Getting truth and justice takes skill whatever the method, since it's always in someone's interest to conceal or avoid them. But there are various options for layout and procedure.
Post a Comment