Posts by Kracklite
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Sorry to be a bore, but to go on...
I used as a favourite example the shooting down of an Iranian airliner by the USS Vincennes and the shooting down of KAL 007 by the Soviet air force. In both cases, those in charge of the weapons had been trained only to deal with real targets, not civilians (this was in the depths of the Cold War, remember)... and so that's what they saw. In the case of the Iranian airliner, the Aegis-equipped cruiser crews were repreatedly drilled in dealing with armed attack and on a radar screen, an armed F-14 makes as big a blip as an Airbus (the basic principle of stealth is that actual size and radar image are not the same thing) while in the case of the Soviets, the US had been sending RC-135 electronic recon planes into Soviet airpsace for years (the RC-135 is based on the Boeing 707, a plane not radically dissimilar to a 747 on radar). People saw what they expected to see, and reacted accordingly.
Those are clear examples, but psychologist have plenty of others to refer to. I suggest Rita Carter's Consciousness as an acsessible guide.
My own impression is that the expectation of terrorism was a significant factor in the whole sorry saga and that skewed the tactics and the subsequent justification.
-
of CONVERSATIONS - not actions -
And, BTW, a film, The Conversation should be required viewing here. The phrase, "He'd kill us if he had the chance", is utterly crucial in the plot, and it's not even a punctuation mark ("Eats, shoots and leaves), but something even more subtle that makes all the difference. Recommended. Have a look and think about it.
The really creepy thing is that trial by media/leak can really screw things up, even when "all" of the "facts" are known. Having taught for a few years a paper on the psychology of perception and having been interested in the topic for years, I am deeply suspicious of even the most "incontovertible" evidence, especially that gleaned from surveilance and then transcribed - and I don't even have to be a poststructuralist (even if I've been told that it comes far too naturally). I agree with RB's recent post that we need a proper enquiry if a fair trial is no longer possible, the supposed evidence needs to be examined, taken apart and scrutinised in detail.
And somehow, I'm too cynical to think that that will happen now - too may inquiries have been too carefully limited in their terms of reference. Since I'm in the mood, here's an old Chinese proverb: "Who defines the terms wins the argument". That's why we are supposed to have courts and cross-examination and suppression of evidence.
-
I've still got half the season three box of Battlestar Galactica to get though...
Sorry, no luck, but the courtroom drama's pretty good at the end. If it's any consolation, I hear Baltar continues to get his end off in season four and you might see some of that, probably with lots of sociopathic self-justification, but not tax policy.
-
Wow, that's messed up.
Yep. The scary thing about Dr Strangelove is that the characters were based on real people. I get the impression that Edward Teller, Strangelove's model (along with Werner von Braun), loved nukes so much that he sprinkled them on his corn flakes.
And to scare you a bit more, Project Orion
I'm probably getting wayyyy off topic now.
-
Clearly, I/S, you are unused to debating doctrinaire libertarians. They are never wrong or inconsistent, even when they are both.
I never met a Randroid that would pass the Turing Test.
-
whose idea of excellent architecture is a pile of ruins.
Woo-hoo, I get to pull a Godwin. Albert Speer, understanding the full operatic arc of rise and fall that Hitler had planned for the Third Reich, actually selected building materials on the basis of the ruins that they would make so as to inspire far future generations. "Ruin value" is what he called this theory/criterion. Okay, I'm not really comparing anyone to a Nazi, just making an incidental observation - but does it count?
Only at the cost of also taking out Courtney Place and the cafes of Cuba St. Which is rather too high a price to pay.
In the words of General Turgidson, "I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed!" There's a distinct Strangelovean element in architecture; I'm not sure if megalomania is just an occupational hazard or a requirement.
Have a look at this example of extreme civil engineering.
-
engorged by the rage of a million disappointed Republicans
Crikey. He must be huuuge.Heh. I had an architecture professor who took a very physical approach to studio criticism - he'd demolish models in front of shocked students, saying, "It doesn't need this... or this... or this..." and usually end with some little stick and shred and an triumphant "See? here is your idea."
I often joked that if someone wanted an alternative to Godzilla, it should be a gigantic mutant architectural critic wandering through a city wrecking buildings with good reason.
Personally I've always felt that Te Papa could be greatly improved with a surprisingly small quantity of plutonium.
-
Well, if we want to play around with software generated phrases, look no further than the Elizabethan Curse Generator and the Surrealist Compliment Generator.
"The sisters of St. Cathode ask that you cover yourself with filaments and take pains to make yourself fully incandescent this evening."
-
Has either of them called anyone on the Left a faggott??
Come to think of it, it's Rosemary McLeod and Karl DuFresne are the columnists who have trouble with gays.
-
*Sigh* Driven by a sort of morbid curiosity, I skimmed (I had to - it's sink or skim) Kerre Woodham's column on the Hikoi in the Herald.
Is Woodham in competition with Coddington to be New Zealand's answer to Ann Coulter? This, only slightly paraphrased is what she had to say:
"irrelevant... professional protestors... disaffected losers... minority... we should send in dieticians, dentists and physiotherapists instead of police... the media shouldn't report on these people..."
And of course it was written as if on behalf of the public and relayed what her friends had said (with whom she bravely remonstrated of course) and it was all really a very obvious show of that great, wise sock puppet that all bigots bring out - "It might not be nice to hear this, but that's what eveyone's thinking."
That and Tom Scott's caricatures of pug-nosed microcephalics...
OK, I think that some radicals are potentially dangerous - if apparently inept - but there's something much, much uglier crawling out from under some damp stones.
Oh, and IO, it goes back to Juvenal: panem et circensesent - bread and circuses. He's the fellow who gave us that absolutely essential question: quis custodiet ipsos custodes. There's no need to translate that, is there?