Jan. 13th, 2005

jack: (Default)
Background: http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,2763,1389624,00.html
The "native and colonial" themed party, held at the country mansion of the Olympic showjumper Richard Meade, who is the father of a friend of princes William and Harry, was attended by 250 people. Prince William dressed as a big cat in a leopardskin leotard with matching tail and paws.
I'm not sure that a "Natives and Colonials" party can be attended by a British Royal without being untactful. What the hell should he have worn?

What disturbs me most is that most people seem to ignore his intent in dressing like this. Was it:

1. "I'm a Nazi! I crush teh J3wlords! Now I can wear my ph34rSOME costume in public at last MWAHAHA!"?
2. "By dressing as a Nazi to a Colonials party I draw a parallel between the Nazi conquering of Europe and the British conquering of 1/4 of the globe."?
3. "I look cool in uniform. Woo!"
4. "I'm offensive. Don't send me to sandhurst"

I'd be inclined to guess (3). Note (2) has several potential facets. Is it saying that Nazism was good? That collonialism was bad? That imperfect analogies are too hasty? That the press are easy to troll?

But it seems worrisome that in the articles I've read, no-one cares which. I admit it was poorly thought out -- whether it SHOULD or not, it was GOING to cause this shitstorm. For which he deserves a smack, perhaps.

Some people do feel still, reasonably, very stongly about Nazis. And other still support them. (Free tip, people: if you want to shock, Nazis. If you want support, anything else.) Often people are offended on behalf of other people (eg. renaming an American Football team called 'Braves' -- no-one could find any local Native Americans who weren't pleased by the name, but they still changed to avoid offense.), which is the bug hallmark of manufactured crises -- this is genuine. It would have been tactful to avoid it.

BUT IT WAS A FANCY DRESS PARTY! YOU EXPECT BAD TASTE!

But:
"What Harry did was both stupid and evil. The time has come for him to make a public apology. It is about common decency, of respect to the people who fought the Nazis, to the families of those who were killed by the Nazis and to people who suffered during the Holocaust."
Evil? If he was deliberately aligning himself with the Nazis, yes. If he just --if recklessly-- wore a uniform, no. But no-one seems to care, let alone know, which it was.
jack: (Default)
News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4172165.stm
Background: http://skepdic.com/polygrap.html

Well, it's not *inherently* a bad idea. Just because something doesn't work as a lie detector doesn't mean it couldn't be used helpfully in treatment of 'released' sex offenders. Any knowledge of someone's mind could help a councilor, provided it's not used to decide rights for parole, etc.

It even makes sense to use it against accused in some cases (if someone agrees to the procedure, ask "did you burgle house x" for many x, and if the spikes are where the burglaries were with the suspect having no plausible innocent way of knowing which, and the policeman no way, then that's indicitive. For something conclusive, you'd need a spike on a different house, and then go there and find it'd been burgled.)

But does anyone else have a voice in their head shouting REMEMBER NINETEEN EIGHTY FUCKING FOUR IT'S THE THIN END OF THE WEDGE?

One argument is that if you believe a lie detector works, then it's going to work a lot better, as you'll be nervous when you're lying. But since the facts are freely available on the internet, it's a bit late to bolt that stable door, neh?

Active Recent Entries