dgraywatson
Joined Aug 2005
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews64
dgraywatson's rating
The issue of reparations for slavery relating to the forced transportation from Africa and eventual enslavement in the Americas from the 17thC, followed by discrimination - the aftermath of slavery, comes up in politics often in the United states and Great Britain, but it seems to get more traction even as more time lapses. On examination Britain's experience is very different to the United states, yet the calls for reparations are very much enmeshed in both countries politics. Yet the principle of reparations to off spring of people that were enslaved centuries ago or discriminated against in the late 19thC and early 20thC needs to be examined for what it really means. In many respects its not just about the distribution of money which is what reparations mean, but there is something greater at stake which can't be ignored. In this case the argument will center on the clash of the moral and ethical question within a legal and historical perspective rather than the political, and also how the financial framework would be agreed upon for distribution. That in itself is complicated, but I'll leave others to make the case of the difficulties that would create.
From an historical perspective the first question that has to be asked is why does the transportation of slaves from Africa from the early 1600's to the early 1800's stand out as requiring attention than any other awful event from the past? Slavery was not new in the 17thC; indeed slavery was a practice that had been going on for thousands of years. In fact, in the Americas slavery had been practiced for a long time but the attraction of slaves from Africa had a distinct advantage. Not being able to speak the language and being racially different made escape impossible. Unlike other slaves from Central and South America who escaped they were able to find friendly tribes or find their way home. African slaves stood out, they couldn't get home, and local indigenous people would be unlikely to offer help. This was also the model used in the British colonies in the Caribbean and the settlements North America.
The legal transportation of Africans to the USA was outlawed in 1808 and slavery was forbidden in all British possessions and territories by 1833. After the American civil war came to an end in 1865 all slavery in the USA was abolished. So, we'd have people that never owned slaves underwriting reparations for people that were never slaves, on the basis of an historical injustice that dates back as far as 350 years ago to, the eventual abolition of slavery in the USA which was nearly 160 years ago. This would come under heavy legal scrutiny, and would almost certainly be challenged in the courts. However there is another legal obstacle that will clash with the morality of reparations.
After the Nuremburg trials in 1947 it was agreed upon that the notion of "collective guilt" and moreover the consequences of "collective punishment " is wrong and that legislation should enacted that can provide legal protection for the individual and for groups of people through race, ethnicity, religion and nationality, is one of the most fundamental principles in human rights. This has been incorporated into the UN charter of human rights, Geneva conventions as well as international law. But I'd go further and argue that a modern government have no legal authority to declare or impose collective guilt and ultimately punishment on its population for something that happened hundreds of years ago. Governments should not violate the social contract between the individual and the state which under pins social democracy and accountable government.
The biggest obstacle would be that the state trying to impose or declaring a moral obligation on the people for things that happened that they had no control over. Bearing in mind we are talking about decades and centuries ago when the world was very far away from behaving like the modern social and liberal democracies that we know of today, would in essence be collective punishment. Because some people can't come to terms with the historical past they shouldn't be allowed to force collective atonement on innocent people.
Political leaders and senior officials have no right to speak on behalf of everybody for things in the past that they personally are ashamed of and then declare that people have to face up to it, feel a sense of guilt and then be forced to pay compensation. Just because white on black slavery is now seen as the gold standard of historical injustices is no reason to violate these legal understandings and basic principles of human rights.
From an historical perspective the first question that has to be asked is why does the transportation of slaves from Africa from the early 1600's to the early 1800's stand out as requiring attention than any other awful event from the past? Slavery was not new in the 17thC; indeed slavery was a practice that had been going on for thousands of years. In fact, in the Americas slavery had been practiced for a long time but the attraction of slaves from Africa had a distinct advantage. Not being able to speak the language and being racially different made escape impossible. Unlike other slaves from Central and South America who escaped they were able to find friendly tribes or find their way home. African slaves stood out, they couldn't get home, and local indigenous people would be unlikely to offer help. This was also the model used in the British colonies in the Caribbean and the settlements North America.
The legal transportation of Africans to the USA was outlawed in 1808 and slavery was forbidden in all British possessions and territories by 1833. After the American civil war came to an end in 1865 all slavery in the USA was abolished. So, we'd have people that never owned slaves underwriting reparations for people that were never slaves, on the basis of an historical injustice that dates back as far as 350 years ago to, the eventual abolition of slavery in the USA which was nearly 160 years ago. This would come under heavy legal scrutiny, and would almost certainly be challenged in the courts. However there is another legal obstacle that will clash with the morality of reparations.
After the Nuremburg trials in 1947 it was agreed upon that the notion of "collective guilt" and moreover the consequences of "collective punishment " is wrong and that legislation should enacted that can provide legal protection for the individual and for groups of people through race, ethnicity, religion and nationality, is one of the most fundamental principles in human rights. This has been incorporated into the UN charter of human rights, Geneva conventions as well as international law. But I'd go further and argue that a modern government have no legal authority to declare or impose collective guilt and ultimately punishment on its population for something that happened hundreds of years ago. Governments should not violate the social contract between the individual and the state which under pins social democracy and accountable government.
The biggest obstacle would be that the state trying to impose or declaring a moral obligation on the people for things that happened that they had no control over. Bearing in mind we are talking about decades and centuries ago when the world was very far away from behaving like the modern social and liberal democracies that we know of today, would in essence be collective punishment. Because some people can't come to terms with the historical past they shouldn't be allowed to force collective atonement on innocent people.
Political leaders and senior officials have no right to speak on behalf of everybody for things in the past that they personally are ashamed of and then declare that people have to face up to it, feel a sense of guilt and then be forced to pay compensation. Just because white on black slavery is now seen as the gold standard of historical injustices is no reason to violate these legal understandings and basic principles of human rights.
We are being mooned again by NASA, a mission in 2027, fifty-five years after the last Apollo mission left the lunar surface in 1972. Twenty years ago George W Bush in a State of the Union declared that the space programs goal was ultimately a mission to Mars, but before that a return to the moon by 2010 was the immediate priority. Since then, other than some unmanned landers and probes, but we haven't been back. As we moved into the second decade of the 21stC and the Shuttle program was wound down, there was a greater emphasis for the moon, nevertheless, NASA has been spinning wheels for 20 years talking about going back as the missions always get cancelled or shelved.
However, with the Artemis program, the new mission statement was for an eventual landing in penciled in for 2020. The plan was to send four astronauts to orbit the moon which would be a 10 day long trip and followed up with a second mission which would then land two astronauts on the lunar surface for a specified period of time and then return to the orbiter. This whole expedition could last as long as 30 days in total. Yet it's 2025 and the moon landing has now been pushed back to 2027 and looking at it on balance, it's a fair bet that the mission to the moon will probably be delayed yet again due to budget cuts or for some unforeseen technical difficulty.
The Artemis program is certainly more ambitious than the Apollo missions as over the long term there is to be a permanent space and docking station orbiting the moon "Gateway" which would be used to receive incoming ships and launch landers to the moons surface. As we move into the 2030's, another even longer term plan involves a moon base with a nuclear power station providing it's energy. As things currently stand the four crew members that have been earmarked for the mission are three Americans and a Canadian.
In going forward the astronauts that will be part of any Artemis mission will be closely scrutinized by certain parts of the media and political class. With identity politics currently a top priority, all of the personnel chosen will have to tick off the boxes of the various identity blocks that take preference over experience and qualifications. All the crew were of the Apollo missions were men, so there will be a determination to fast track others to make up for that imbalance. There was a good reason for that, the Apollo missions were extremely dangerous and not a joy ride or some routine scientific mission. In many respects Apollo in reality were were military missions, using technology that would be considered primative and wouldn't even be considered safe today. This was why Air Force and Navy pilots who would be prepared to risk their lives were preferred over scientists. Although many of them had academic qualifications ie aeronautical degrees and phd's, they were all carefully vetted for suitability for the Apollo program. The astronauts were all risking their lives on a hazardous expedition to the moon, it wasn't a sure thing at all. All the missions were operating with technology that was at the very edge of it's ability, for example the explosion in the Service Module during Apollo 13 ended up turning it into a desperate mission to save the crew. With a combination of the efforts on the ground at Mission Control and the skill of the astronauts on board were able to get them safely back to Earth. It was all a close run thing which was noted in Jim Lovell's memoirs who was the commander of that mission (who just died at age 97).
That all being left aside, the aspiration of having a nuclear power station being put together by robots and astronauts, would nevertheless be a huge physical and technical undertaking. It's unlikely that uranium will be extracted from the earth and then transferred to the moon on a NASA rocket, for obvious reasons that would be a non-starter. That would mean that the Uranium would have to be mined on the moon. One can't imagine this being done on a unilateral basis from one country, unless they were prepared to ignore the 1967 International treaty governing the moon. It's not for the USA to either take anything from the moon nor to give it away and it's hard to see environmentalists on Earth not having something to say over the notion of mining for uranium there. They certainly aren't going let the USA or an international coalition to embark on that without a fight.
There will be a big emphasis on scientific discovery and exploration, but its difficult to believe that commercial activities would be put on the back burner for too long. One suspects that over the long term that NASA will have to make some concessions to accommodate space tourism which would be masquerading as a scientific mission, or a combined mission. The moon will definitely be a place where rockets and space ships will be able to travel to with relative ease in the future.
Yet as early air travel found the hard way, there was the occasional mishap with air planes falling out of the sky. It's likely that trips into space or to the moon might face some technical problems from time to time or else a disaster once in a while. Even if all the kinks are ironed out it will always be an overarching concern in the long run, if you don't believe me, ask the crew and passengers of the Titanic submersible in 2023.
Elon Musk seems to have lost interest in the moon and is focusing on his long term plan to go to Mars. Mars is a massive endeavor and even if qualified astronauts volunteer to go on a mission there are huge obstacles to over come on getting there. As far as the moon is concerned it's the only place humans can travel to and I can't see that changing for a long time, it's the only place we can get their quickly with the least risks. I'd like to see a feasibly study of what would the likely failure rate of some of these missions.
Although for what reason other than the obvious explanation of exploration and science - it's not clear why a permeant base on the lunar surface needs to be established. The moon is dead, there is no life on it and there is no life anywhere else in our solar system - at least intelligent life. Commercial interests will ultimately take priority over science and the bottom line this is all going to be decided on the basis of financial priorities by the parties involved in this. If the money is available, they'll move forward , but if it isn't, don't be surprised if the time line for Artemis is stretched out well beyond what they've planned.
However, with the Artemis program, the new mission statement was for an eventual landing in penciled in for 2020. The plan was to send four astronauts to orbit the moon which would be a 10 day long trip and followed up with a second mission which would then land two astronauts on the lunar surface for a specified period of time and then return to the orbiter. This whole expedition could last as long as 30 days in total. Yet it's 2025 and the moon landing has now been pushed back to 2027 and looking at it on balance, it's a fair bet that the mission to the moon will probably be delayed yet again due to budget cuts or for some unforeseen technical difficulty.
The Artemis program is certainly more ambitious than the Apollo missions as over the long term there is to be a permanent space and docking station orbiting the moon "Gateway" which would be used to receive incoming ships and launch landers to the moons surface. As we move into the 2030's, another even longer term plan involves a moon base with a nuclear power station providing it's energy. As things currently stand the four crew members that have been earmarked for the mission are three Americans and a Canadian.
In going forward the astronauts that will be part of any Artemis mission will be closely scrutinized by certain parts of the media and political class. With identity politics currently a top priority, all of the personnel chosen will have to tick off the boxes of the various identity blocks that take preference over experience and qualifications. All the crew were of the Apollo missions were men, so there will be a determination to fast track others to make up for that imbalance. There was a good reason for that, the Apollo missions were extremely dangerous and not a joy ride or some routine scientific mission. In many respects Apollo in reality were were military missions, using technology that would be considered primative and wouldn't even be considered safe today. This was why Air Force and Navy pilots who would be prepared to risk their lives were preferred over scientists. Although many of them had academic qualifications ie aeronautical degrees and phd's, they were all carefully vetted for suitability for the Apollo program. The astronauts were all risking their lives on a hazardous expedition to the moon, it wasn't a sure thing at all. All the missions were operating with technology that was at the very edge of it's ability, for example the explosion in the Service Module during Apollo 13 ended up turning it into a desperate mission to save the crew. With a combination of the efforts on the ground at Mission Control and the skill of the astronauts on board were able to get them safely back to Earth. It was all a close run thing which was noted in Jim Lovell's memoirs who was the commander of that mission (who just died at age 97).
That all being left aside, the aspiration of having a nuclear power station being put together by robots and astronauts, would nevertheless be a huge physical and technical undertaking. It's unlikely that uranium will be extracted from the earth and then transferred to the moon on a NASA rocket, for obvious reasons that would be a non-starter. That would mean that the Uranium would have to be mined on the moon. One can't imagine this being done on a unilateral basis from one country, unless they were prepared to ignore the 1967 International treaty governing the moon. It's not for the USA to either take anything from the moon nor to give it away and it's hard to see environmentalists on Earth not having something to say over the notion of mining for uranium there. They certainly aren't going let the USA or an international coalition to embark on that without a fight.
There will be a big emphasis on scientific discovery and exploration, but its difficult to believe that commercial activities would be put on the back burner for too long. One suspects that over the long term that NASA will have to make some concessions to accommodate space tourism which would be masquerading as a scientific mission, or a combined mission. The moon will definitely be a place where rockets and space ships will be able to travel to with relative ease in the future.
Yet as early air travel found the hard way, there was the occasional mishap with air planes falling out of the sky. It's likely that trips into space or to the moon might face some technical problems from time to time or else a disaster once in a while. Even if all the kinks are ironed out it will always be an overarching concern in the long run, if you don't believe me, ask the crew and passengers of the Titanic submersible in 2023.
Elon Musk seems to have lost interest in the moon and is focusing on his long term plan to go to Mars. Mars is a massive endeavor and even if qualified astronauts volunteer to go on a mission there are huge obstacles to over come on getting there. As far as the moon is concerned it's the only place humans can travel to and I can't see that changing for a long time, it's the only place we can get their quickly with the least risks. I'd like to see a feasibly study of what would the likely failure rate of some of these missions.
Although for what reason other than the obvious explanation of exploration and science - it's not clear why a permeant base on the lunar surface needs to be established. The moon is dead, there is no life on it and there is no life anywhere else in our solar system - at least intelligent life. Commercial interests will ultimately take priority over science and the bottom line this is all going to be decided on the basis of financial priorities by the parties involved in this. If the money is available, they'll move forward , but if it isn't, don't be surprised if the time line for Artemis is stretched out well beyond what they've planned.
Ian Botham was England's best cricketer between 1977-1992, and it might be fair to say that he was probably the best cricketer in the world too. Being in the game an "all rounder", somebody who could bat and bowl as well as being a skilled slip fielder, he had all the attributes for that claim. The only black mark against him was his tenure as England captain, where over twelve tests he didn't win one and suffered a drop in form, as his batting and bowling averages took a tumble. Botham had actually made is test debut against the Australians in 1977 and had toured their with England two years previously, so he was familiar with the Australian players and their abilities. However, what was noticeable in the test series in 1980 against the West Indies, is how much weight he'd gained, living up to the nickname "Beefy". This clearly had an effect on his game, but managed to shed some pounds over the winter and came into the summer series against Australia in better shape. After being well beaten in the first test and a lack luster draw in the second test with Botham getting a "pair" in that test, decided to step down as captain sensing that the patience of the selectors was coming to an end and didn't want to suffer the indignity of being fired. It had been a disappointing 18 months, but out of posterity over his previous impressive record playing for England, kept his place in the team. That would be a crucial decision because they concluded that unburdened by the responsibility as captain his from might return. This proved to be the case, as Ian Botham's form returned right out the gate batting to a reasonable 50 in the first innings of the 3rd test, but all his England's colleagues struggled to get into double figures. England being forced to go into bat again, proved to be as difficult as it's meant to be, with another England collapse pending and the humiliating prospect of losing on the forth day loomed very large. Botham went to the crease and slogged his way to 146 not out, as he and two or three tail enders scored a total of 356 runs were finally bowled out on the morning of the fifth day and left Australia needing 132 runs to win the test and take a 2-0 lead in the series. A 132 runs was tricky on the last day with the wicket breaking up after five days, but in reality it wasn't a talk order, it all should have been a routine shoe in. Indeed when it was 50 for no loss it looked like a forgone conclusion, but Australia underwent a transformation that is unprecedented in the history of International cricket. There was a complete collapse as Australia crashed to 111 all out, 18 runs short of victory.
The 4th test although not as dramatic as the third followed a similar pattern as Australia needed 151 on the last day but were bowled out for 121, again another batting collapse. Ian Botham didn't have the best test with the bat but made amends with the ball and took 5 wickets for 1 run in Australia's second innings. In the fifth test England got a reasonable 230 in the first innings and Australia were bowled out for 140 and managed to avoid the follow on. In England's second innings they scored 404 runs with Ian Botham racking up 114 and this left Australia needed 505 runs to win the test match on the fourth day on a good batting wicket. Despite two century's from the Australian batsmen they were bowled out for 404 , 100 runs short and England won.
In the 6th and final test Botham didn't have such a good test with the bat but took 9 wickets overall in both innings and was helped out by batsmen Geoff Boycott, Allan Knot and Mike Gatting, both sides finishing the test series with a draw. It's not just one of English crickets most memorable events but you could easily make the case that it was an amazing and inspiring sporting comeback. To be facing a 0-2 deficit after three tests and then win out 3-1 was an incredible turnaround. With the third test almost lost to England a remarkable 149 not out by Ian Botham in the second innings and Bob Willis 8 wickets for 43 runs an incredible spell in one of the greatest performances by an English fast bowler in a test match. A lot of credit has to go to captain Mike Brearley, who never being the most proficient opening batsmen never the less made it up with great leadership skills and the ability to motivate his players and bring out the best in them at the right time. The indispensable player through out was Ian Botham who either with the bat or the ball, either delivering it or catching it (8 slip catches in the last three tests) was the difference between both teams over the test series. He always seemed to make the crucial play's when the team needed him.
Ian Botham himself was barely into his 5th year of test cricket, whether this was his finest hour, well that's a subjective opinion. He would continue to play for England for well over another 10 years and he had many memorable and impressive performances. By the mid 1980's encouraged by his manager the eccentric and bizarrely dressed Tim Hudson, he took a bit of a physical transformation, growing his hair out and dying it blond. Perhaps taking a leaf out of Jeff Thompsons blonde locks it was part of him marketing himself not just as a cricketer, but as promoting his celebrity status. Botham got into trouble for insulting Pakistan saying after coming back early from that tour with dysentery, that is a place "you should send your mother in-law for two weeks all expenses paid". Of course that was a joke, but as usual certain paranoid people didn't find it funny and he was accused of being racist and insulting to women. Which was a stupid claim because despite being offered a lot of money to play in South Africa during apartheid, he refused to go. Never the less Botham was an integral part of sporting achievement for England's cricket team through out that period, a credit to the sport, a great player and a proud Englishman.
The 4th test although not as dramatic as the third followed a similar pattern as Australia needed 151 on the last day but were bowled out for 121, again another batting collapse. Ian Botham didn't have the best test with the bat but made amends with the ball and took 5 wickets for 1 run in Australia's second innings. In the fifth test England got a reasonable 230 in the first innings and Australia were bowled out for 140 and managed to avoid the follow on. In England's second innings they scored 404 runs with Ian Botham racking up 114 and this left Australia needed 505 runs to win the test match on the fourth day on a good batting wicket. Despite two century's from the Australian batsmen they were bowled out for 404 , 100 runs short and England won.
In the 6th and final test Botham didn't have such a good test with the bat but took 9 wickets overall in both innings and was helped out by batsmen Geoff Boycott, Allan Knot and Mike Gatting, both sides finishing the test series with a draw. It's not just one of English crickets most memorable events but you could easily make the case that it was an amazing and inspiring sporting comeback. To be facing a 0-2 deficit after three tests and then win out 3-1 was an incredible turnaround. With the third test almost lost to England a remarkable 149 not out by Ian Botham in the second innings and Bob Willis 8 wickets for 43 runs an incredible spell in one of the greatest performances by an English fast bowler in a test match. A lot of credit has to go to captain Mike Brearley, who never being the most proficient opening batsmen never the less made it up with great leadership skills and the ability to motivate his players and bring out the best in them at the right time. The indispensable player through out was Ian Botham who either with the bat or the ball, either delivering it or catching it (8 slip catches in the last three tests) was the difference between both teams over the test series. He always seemed to make the crucial play's when the team needed him.
Ian Botham himself was barely into his 5th year of test cricket, whether this was his finest hour, well that's a subjective opinion. He would continue to play for England for well over another 10 years and he had many memorable and impressive performances. By the mid 1980's encouraged by his manager the eccentric and bizarrely dressed Tim Hudson, he took a bit of a physical transformation, growing his hair out and dying it blond. Perhaps taking a leaf out of Jeff Thompsons blonde locks it was part of him marketing himself not just as a cricketer, but as promoting his celebrity status. Botham got into trouble for insulting Pakistan saying after coming back early from that tour with dysentery, that is a place "you should send your mother in-law for two weeks all expenses paid". Of course that was a joke, but as usual certain paranoid people didn't find it funny and he was accused of being racist and insulting to women. Which was a stupid claim because despite being offered a lot of money to play in South Africa during apartheid, he refused to go. Never the less Botham was an integral part of sporting achievement for England's cricket team through out that period, a credit to the sport, a great player and a proud Englishman.