Posts by Creon Upton
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
If nothing else, the "terrorism raids" have, amazingly, raised my respect for Plunket hugely. He's been really good.
Don't know if he's quite got the tv look though, has he? Bring back Anita McNaught I say.
-
Coming in late here, when things seem to be descending happily into absurdity (and thank god for that). With no intention of reading back through nineteen pages, all I've got to say is:
Yes, Craig's observation is nice and very true. What was it? Secular religion. It's a really unfortunate, sad phenomenon.
But I'll indulge mine momentarily and address yours, Rogerd, when you characterise (and I'm not going to get this exactly right, so don't pedantically pull me up, ok) the leftish side in this argument as arguing against the rule of law and subjecting the police to trial by media.
That's simply not true. Sure, plenty of stupid people everywhere say plenty of stupid things, but there has been no shortage of reasonable argument on all sides. And just as most people have all along agreed that crazies with guns should probably be restrained, you'd have to be crazy yourself not to concede that the police handled this like, well, crazies with guns. (And then you'd only have to be a little bit left of not-crazy to note a few things about power, history, willful ignorance, appalling arrogance, manipulation of public prejudice....)
And your claim along the lines of "what are they going to say now that we see this evidence" is also a little odd. There's nothing that was revealed today that wasn't already, more or less, leaked. And it doesn't suggest anything revelatory. Playing revolutionary, playing with guns, maybe one or two people crazy enough to actually try something. (And the prime candidate there being, correct me, a white guy who refers to Maoris as "cocksuckers"? That's almost too laughable.)
And I personally reckon those juicy snippets sound a lot more sinister in print than the actual recordings would. It's bullshit talk; you can almost smell the stink of pot and stale beer as you read it.
As I said on day one, I reckon it was a better North & South story than anything else.
And yet it is kind of fascinating how, despite the fact that we all knew this stuff anyway (John Key, Bush, training camps, "war on NZ" etc), actually seeing the words in print sends us mad with talk. (I was busy all day thinking, "Ooh, I wonder what's happening on Public Address.")
I don't know, I just think there's this kind of prurience about drama and "event" that has been preyed on here, to the detriment of reasonable reflection. (And, of course, because I'm me, I think that unreasonable, hyperbolic reflection is more evident in people suckered into seriously using the word "terrorism" than in others using the word "stormtrooper" -- at least the latter know they're being metaphorical.)
And this sad lack of any real action is what I'll conclude on. Hager points out that the terrorist cops had jobs but no jobs to do (and, yeah, god, there's nothing worse than having a job and nothing to do); a lot of angry young activist types don't have enough worthwhile causes to fight; the call-centre-fodder public are desperate for anything that looks like CSI but is actually real; and journos and others good at manipulating language like to have something to really exercise their vocabularies over.
Pretty much explains all this hysteria.
I'll concentrate on the activists, because this thing does explain why so many of them seem like such dicks (a conversation going on around page 18). These groups (and my experience with them is limited but not inconsequential) are anarchistic in their philosophies and that, combined with the fact that none of their causes are really, genuinely, immediately pressing, means that a lot of bullshit goes on and a lot of narcissistic fuckwits dominate proceedings. Because amongst anarchists you're not allowed to say, "hey, you're a moron, shut the fuck up." Or, in the democratic way, quietly vote them out of position. Rather, you end up with big-mouthed fools talking a lot, contradicting themselves, trying to appeal to everyone, and, most of all, avoiding doing any work.
But, you see, if there were anything real to do, besides saving snails and protesting the latest act of government/corporate illiberalism (worthy enough actions, but not, you know, self-immolation material), these domineering anarcho-narcissists would simply end up with a sly bullet in the head and the revolution could continue.
Ah, romantic, yes, but so much more exciting than board rooms, chambers, banks, and internet chat.
-
Well, I said I wouldn't, but I will. But only because there was something I forgot to add: I liked the Weber quote a few pages back. Agree entirely with Max. Unfortunately many others, on all sides of the fences, don't.
But, while I'm here:
Rob: "enough evidence"? Yeah, I thought about this. But, as I suggested, they wouldn't need to wait until they were in the middle of something, but significantly (evidence-wise) closer, I would have thought. (Like if there was a text message indicating such and such and then someone's car was found heading to such and such with a bootload of explosives, that'd be pretty good evidence. But I'm no lawyer.) I very much doubt (pure speculation) that there'll be anything proved terrorism-wise, and with that premise I'd aver that if there was a chance otherwise in the offing the cops wouldn't have passed it up.
And I meant "politically" in a slightly more broad sense. Just, you know, stirring up distrust of radicals, extremists etc and building up our sense of comfort in the arms of the law.
Ben: "Time will tell"? Frankly, I doubt it.
Deborah: I was not being fatuously postmodern: I was referring to the specifics of this business, not the chemical formula of water. My point being that speculation based on limited information with an emotive topic necessarily stirs up a distracting number of ideologically inflected reflections.
And I'm not condoning violence, but you need to at least acknowledge that if one's viewpoint is fundamentally opposed to the underlying political structures of the institutions you cite, well, one will likely look to other avenues. That's just how it is. It might be "wrong". Many things are wrong.
This is the problem with a wonderfully multi-cultural society (I'm being facetious - or something): not everyone buys into the dominant ideology. And history runs its course. And as I started out saying yesterday, I'm deeply discomfited by the growing belief that such history can and should be held in check by force. It can't, and it shouldn't.
Russell called me a romantic for it. Fair enough. But I for one find the idea of bureacratised, mediatised, uninformed stasis (underwritten by state power) rather appalling.
Maybe, you know, history could be held in check - by a bit of common decency. But that's a forlorn goddam hope.
-
Online pugilism really isn't my thing. But I was foolish enough to start....
So, first, let it be said: All this arguing involves ideologies informing interpretations about the “real” when nobody actually knows anything much real. No wonder things get confused.
(And no wonder people fall back on their knee-jerk ideological perspectives. But, on that conversation: it seems to me that the radical defense of the status quo can be just as small-minded and viscious as any form of left/right extremism. And, yes, lots of activists are full of themselves. Just as lots of mechanics are full of themselves. And lots of doctors are full of themselves. Ego. We all got one.)
OK.
Russell asks: “at what point *should* the acquisition of weapons accompanied by rhetoric about making war and a degree of organisation become of interest to the police? Should police even carry out surveillance of such activities or just leave everyone to get on with it?”
This is a real-world question. Yes, so the police have a certain mandate that would encourage them to follow such activities. And seize weapons or whatever if they perceived a genuine threat. Fine. I don’t really care (ideologically), but fine.
But in this instance, my ideologically driven point of view: They don’t need to try to glorify such mundane cop-work as “chasing up terrorists,” and when they do, this is clearly politically motivated. (See James George's post – which, incidentally, struck me as a fairly rational account of things, hardly the mad ranting that some here are characterising it as. Not saying I agree with every word, though.)
As for my “ludicrous yardstick.” The point I was making is that there is no terrorism going on here. If there were, we’d know about it. Like, the hunters might be dead, not scared. Like, Bomber wouldn’t be allowed into the dumb-arse meeting and, if he were allowed in and then told all, um, he’d be dead too. Or at least regretting his big mouthed ways. Rather than receiving terse missives from cretins who take themselves too seriously.
You see, there’s quite a big difference between saying things and doing things.
And, seriously, if the cops were really onto something big (with all the information they apparently have) they'd make damn sure they caught the guys as close to red handed as possible. (See James' post for the logic here.)
Ok, so Russell and Bart point out that my "Romantic" view might involve people being hurt and killed. Now we’re really getting into ideological territory. So, excuse me, but, well, yes, hurt and killing is what happens when people get violent. And that does happen sometimes.
I guess I just think that running a slight risk of being injured is one of the costs of privilege.
Because really pissed off (and understandably pissed off) people are the necessary products of power.
And shoring up that power in an attempt to militate against the risk of being injured, and thereby pissing people off even more, is stupid and counterproductive.
And using that power to attempt to bully and intimidate pissed off people is just plain nasty.
But thankfully nobody seems pissed off enough to get violent quite yet.
And if the police genuinely believed they were….(see above).
That's all I got. Ridicule and mock. I don't mind. But I won't respond.
-
Russel Brown asks: "Can you honestly tell me you'd rather not know about any of the above and it's all some people's private business?"
Um, yes, I can.
At least, I'd rather not know about in it this way.
If a journalist did a story, maybe, I might read it.
But if it really mattered to me - like there was a revolution happening in the streets - I would probably find out by checking to see what all the noise was about.
But I'd have to be quick because, well, unless I'm really naive, I kind of think that some weapons bought on a trademe and a few backyard chemistry experiments would probably not hold out too long against the state.
And I'd certainly rather live in a world where history was allowed to run its course than where faceless bureaucrats, bourgeois apologists, mindless cops, and politicians were deciding on my behalf what elements of history are better repressed before they occur.
Where we never actually get to know whether they would have occured or not, so the intelligence of the above is never actually tested.
It takes a hell of a lot for a group of people to actually do something significant - ie violent in this case - in respect of their ideals. And it's healthy for us as a society to know whether or not that point has actually been reached, or whether there's simply a lot of rhetoric going on and a few tree stumps are being blown up (a subject for journalists).
Otherwise, this kind of low-rent, politicised behaviour from our 'law enforcement' is merely adding slow-burning fuel to the smoulder (if you will).
-
Well, it makes it a more interesting thing probably. So maybe people who like to think while they're masturbating enjoy it.
And there must be a fairly wide range of porn viewers out there. There's certainly a wide range of masturbators.
But something interesting Benny said was that, as he does the packaging and posting of his independent films, he knows that a very good proportion of his customers are women. I think he said about thirty percent, which he assured me is way higher than in the regular porn market.
-
Yeah, David, you're soooo dumb. (Insert smiley face.)
Generally, the impression I got was that porn was something people chose to do and wanted to do, for a variety of reasons.
But at the same time there are some who enjoy it more than others and some who maybe don't really enjoy it too much and possibly regret their career choice. Um, much like you'd find with a bunch of doctors or teachers or journalists or whatever.
I don't think Benny described himself as an artist or his work as art. But (leaving aside the endless qualifications we could make on the subject) the way he thinks about his work struck me as pretty much how an artist thinks.
And, yes, Jeremy, your point is acknowledged here and was part of our conversation - Benny referred to how annoying it was that he'd be doing something cool and then have to interrupt it with a whole lot of sex. But in part that's the crux of his "artistic" challenge. He's attempting to incorporate the pornography (and the freedoms it allows, along with the restrictions it dicates) within a new kind of genre that is far more than simply porn. But which is also erotic etc and which is most definitely a celebration of the possibilities of sex as a public thing, if you know what I mean.
Another real issue for him in terms of market viability is that because he actually cares about how his stuff looks and sounds etc, it costs him a lot more to make than the average cut-price porn.
So that sounds like a kind of artistic sacrifice as well.
I could go on a bit, but I'll leave it for now.
-
Certainly no offense was meant. Regrets if any was taken.
I'm delighted that my rather cheap generalisations (made in the spirit of light humour) are inconsistent with reality.