Posts by Creon Upton
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
"This receives Maskelyne's careful Smirk. He fancies it a Smile, but 'tis an Attitude of the Mouth only,-- the eyes do not engage in it, being off upon business of their own. The impression is of unrelenting wariness."
(TP, M&D, p. 117)
-
True enough, Islander, true enough. Funny how we (or I at least) need reminding now and then.
Joy, huh?
I'll keep my eye out.
-
Hard News: You know what ..., in reply to richard,
richard,
You miss the point re freedom of expression. Yes, it is limited under law.
However, when the chief censor decides not to restrict something controversial, that decision affirms and strengthens the general principle, and deepens our understanding of it, and helps us to grow in our relationship with it. (And of course gives ammunition and perspective to those who oppose it.)
And I was making an analogy between that phenomenon and the upholding of the rule of law even in a situation where we're most inclined not to care about it -- not an unreasonable analogy I think.
As for your postulated scenarios re the death in question, well, neither of us will ever know (and I for one don't care) about who had guns and who didn't and who hid behind the tv.
My point was simply that if you're the US military taking on a house, if you really want to keep the occupants alive, you probably can. And if you're the US military and you really believe in the honour of the rule of law, doing so would be a priority, regardless of who those occupants were.
And I think it's worth asking the question whether it was a priority?
And maybe it was, and maybe it was simply unavoidable, like you say, to shoot to kill.
Who knows.
But what most people seem to be saying is "Who cares?" It seems to me that we should care -- just a little bit anyway.
Well, whatever: I've stopped caring myself, so to quote the nearly-indefatigable Simon Grigg: I'm out.
Cheers.
-
Busytown: What was lost, in reply to Rob Stowell,
The symbolism of the twin towers falling was profound
Yeah, it was. But more than that, it generated a whole symbolic world, a whole order of meaning-making that -- though obviously intimately associated with "real world" (and appalling) events -- was somehow always detached from them in a way, allowing them to go on, because the language never became real, remained the language of, well, sentiment and Hollywood basically.
Bush vs bin Laden, Bush in his flak suit, "terror", WMDs, caves, operatives, stars and stripes, training camps, infidels, enhanced interrogation, etc etc.
And I don't mean there's no truth to those things -- but that the truth, the reality, (whatever you will) lies somewhere so distant from this metalanguage that it could never be accessed through that language.
And reading Jolisa's piece was so refreshing for me, having come from those other threads where there's so much earnest talk about "reality" when I feel like there is no possible apprehension of such reality that is not utterly predetermined by the language of what seems like some abandoned, early script of Wag the Dog.
Cos I think that when you're dealing in symbolic language it can only have real meaning at a very private level I guess.
And while you're right that hopefully this can bring back some sanity to the world, it does upset me that it's happened without any abandonment of the symbolic narrative -- the shoot-out, the Dead Enemy, God bless those Navy SEALS, and God Bless America, etc etc. Cos we just couldn't bear the tedium of an actual trial, of disclosure, of truth -- of actual humanity in all its flavours and contradictions and uncertainties and absurdities.
So (and I've really surprised myself at my level of interest) I've felt a kind of double-sadness: there's the sadness and grief that finally comes when a painful thing finally passes; but there's also a sadness at seeing how the world remains so swept up in a symbolic discourse that it allows itself to cheer when it should be sad; to gloat when it should be quiet; to pontificate when it should reflect; to view a single, pathetic death as a victory for righteousness when we are all so very very far from being righteous.
-
If it were politically advantageous in this particular theatre for the man (and his companions) to be taken alive; and especially if the command from the very top had been, unequivocally, "take him alive unless there's really no other way" -- then I'm pretty sure that a far greater effort than was made in reality would have been made toward that end.
(There are some suppositions underlying my musings here, but frankly, let s/he who is without sin on that particular count cast the first stone.)
So if it's accepted that any greater effort could have been made to keep those people alive, the unavoidable reality is that mentions of extra-judicial execution by pesky pedants like I/S are quite relevant. Keeping people alive, respect for law, due process -- these are supposed to be bottom lines for those who exercise power in what the UN likes to call "civilised nations".
It's a bit like the old free-speech conundrum: the principle's really only tested -- and affirmed -- when the matter in question is one where huge numbers of people, all invoking quite sound-seeming sentiments, believe that they are justified in forsaking it.
Only the right to life and the right to a fair trial are a bit further up the hierarchy of rights than the right to freedom of expression.
This site is largely populated by thinking people who basically believe in the fundamentals -- rule of law, so forth. It behooves you, I believe, to consider not only that this is a situation where (as is always the case) an exception to the fundamentals should not be made on the basis of convenience or public mood or righteousness or anything else -- but also that if we truly believe in what we say then this is the very situation where we should prove that we do.
Surely?
Y'know, for the kids. So that perhaps they will come to understand what we are -- and what we're not. (Or at least what we aspire to be -- and what we don't.)
"We", by the way, refers I guess to participants in liberal, western democracies.
Thanks to everyone for such thoughtful and thought-provoking and unhysterical comments -- especially Craig R and others, who have I think already said (and probably said more clearly) what I've tried to say above.
I read through these threads last night (couldn't sleep) and was really struck by how smart, articulate, informed, reasonable, and sometimes even witty this collection of opinionators is.
-
Beautiful writing Jolisa.
And I can tell you why too. This thing is symbolic, and you treat it as such, unwaveringly. It’s futile trying to make it be about, or mean, anything beyond that.
And the only thing to feel is sad.
-
I got one text from Blair saying they were fine but the house was "rooted", but then nothing, so maybe he ran out of money/power for phone.
I drove around a fair bit today checking on some unaccounted-for folks and taking them drinking water and bits of food.
A lot of the roads on the east side are fucked, but it's worth doing I think cos a lot of people are pretty isolated and might not be a priority for a while (but I haven't actually heard much official so I don't know what the central planners are doing). Folks are ok, but this thing's not going away any time soon and support is needed.
Anyway, if you're able, I think it's worth making the effort to get to people.
Also a lot really need fuel for cars because they can't go anywhere and can't risk trying to refuel and getting stuck. So they're staying in munted houses.
So yeah, I might be going against the official word here, but my experience tells me if you know people in there and have a fairly sturdy vehicle and can fill it with lots of water (we used large plastic rubbish bins with lids in the back of a truck), maybe some food, some fuel in a jerry can - then maybe think about getting some relief to some people.
It kind of seems minor given the scale, but folks today were appreciative.
I'll be doing the same tomorrow, so if you know of anyone who needs anything or checking up on or whatever:
021 238 4183
-
Let’s see tomorrow what we can do for the Hay-Haywoods.
I'm just outside ChCh, have good-seeming water that seems to not be running dry, and plan to distribute it, or whatever else I possess that's useful, tomorrow to anyone I can who's in need.
I don't do facebook or anything, so this is a good way for me to get this out.
-
near the epicentre on Saturday morning the force of the earthquake was 1.25 times the force of gravity.
Now that might explain how my father, in Hororata, was literally thrown out of his bed.
I was laughing so hard at that image that I somehow completely failed to take the event at all seriously. (Aside from that one blow to his dignity, his only other loss was a toppled bottle of wine.)
No matter what else I heard about states of emergency and so forth, that initial comedy set the tone for me.
And hopefully that goes some way to explaining why David and Jen didn't even get a concerned text from me -- let alone pikelets, cups of tea, or a bed -- until three days after the event. I feel quite bad about that.
(But they can expect some conciliatory muffins to enjoy soon in their newly green-lighted house.)
-
Spooky knew a lovely Sarah Holt in chch
She was a Hoult, however, so perhaps we can believe there was no libellous intent on the author's part.
(Besides, I can't helping feeling that "Bennett" was the surname David was grasping for here....)
Ironically, though, the non-fictional Sarah did leave me in the lurch one night back in 1991, making off with a law student I believe it was. Her boyfriend of the time (not me) was none too pleased, tho I don't think he took to hard liquor as a result; perhaps he went for an especially long run.
I can't tell you how pleased I am that someone got that!
You regard your readership as an ignorant lot, David?
As Kyle points out, we can at least watch movies. (Howevermuch the presence of ol' Fishsticks Paltrow might tend to militate against that particular choice of data acquisition.)
Anyway, a fine story, Dr Controversy. Keep them coming.