Kubrick

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

Re: review

Postby Sweejak » Mon Dec 05, 2005 2:49 pm

I certainly lean more towards this take from Kreider's essay:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The slice of that world he tried to show us in his last--and, he believed, his best--work, the capital of the global American empire at the end of the American Century, is one in which the wealthy, powerful, and privileged use the rest of us like throwaway products, covering up their crimes with pretty pictures, shiny surfaces, and murder, ultimately dooming their own children to lives of servitude and whoredom. The feel-good ending intimates, in Kubrick's very last word on this (or any) subject, that the Harfords' daughter is, just as they've resigned themselves to being, fucked.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Then this one from sci-fi radio drama "Shadow On The Sun" which was found in Kubrick's boxes.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>"There's been so much killing - friend against friend, neighbour against neighbour, but we all know nobody on this earth is to blame, Mrs Brighton. We've all had the compulsions. We'll just have to forgive each other our trespasses. I'll do my part. I'll grant a general amnesty - wipe the slate clean. Then perhaps we can begin to live again, as ordinary decent human beings, and forget the horror of the past few months."<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I think Gorightly's MK angle is still all there but only as a undercurrent.<br> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Sweejak
 
Posts: 3250
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 7:40 pm
Location: Border Region 5
Blog: View Blog (0)

obsessiveness

Postby Pants Elk » Mon Dec 05, 2005 3:14 pm

If you have the DVD, stop-frame on the newspaper article Cruise reads about the hooker's overdose; it mentions the police wanting to interview "two men" who were seen with her - a hidden yet explicit reference to the two men who were ween with Nick Nightingale, and another confirmation that she was murdered ... <p></p><i></i>
Pants Elk
 
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:04 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

EWS Masks

Postby JimNelson » Mon Dec 05, 2005 3:38 pm

Speaking of convergences (was someone doing that?): a friend sent me a photo of a new statue just installed at the Sarasota marina: two exact duplicates of the golden mask, sitting side by side.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
JimNelson
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 10:13 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Conspiracy

Postby Pants Elk » Mon Dec 05, 2005 4:27 pm

Eyes Wide Shut<br>Ears Wide Shut<br>Kubrick confounds the critics—and their critics—with a best-of-breed film. The trick is figuring out the breed. A Metaphilm exclusive.<br><br>::: Loen Weber<br><br>A friend recently recounted how she settled in one night to watch the DVD of Stanley Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut and, no matter how hard she tried, couldn’t get the sound to work.<br><br>So she watched the entire movie without the soundtrack.<br><br>“It was absolutely stunning, visually,” she said. “Did I miss anything?”<br><br>“Oh, just a word or two,” I replied.<br><br>When interviewed in the documentary Stanley Kubrick: A Life In Pictures, Nicole Kidman reportedly volunteered, “So I said, ‘Stanley, what’s this film about?’ and he just turned and looked away, in that way he does.”<br><br>One wonders . . . did Nicole also act the movie with the soundtrack turned off?<br>What is this film about?<br><br>Although I’m sure I missed many reviews, I had to give up after reading scores of them. All the fascination and speculation that poured forth was getting nowhere. It seemed that each “theory” only made an apparently complex situation more complicated still—or oversimplified to the point of pointlessness. Indeed, one memoirist famously summarized the entire situation by declaring that in this film, Kubrick “has virtually no ideas at all.” One wonders to whom he was actually referring.<br><br>Kidman before dropping her dressFrom the first time I saw the opening sequence—Nicole dropping her dress and standing naked (rear-wise)—it struck me that Kubrick was up to something here. Maybe I’ve spent too much time with Marshall McLuhan and his use of the Gestalt psychological terms of “figure” and “ground,” but the thought was persistent: Her red-headed ass is the movie’s figure. But where’s the ground?<br><br>According to the Gestalt approach, our psychology disposes us to be distracted by what is termed the “figures” in our lives. The “ground” of our experience is subliminal—integrating our senses, establishing our place in our environment—but is not fully accessible to us in our conscious “conceptual” life. McLuhan favored a “perceptual” approach and he credited artists with a greater capacity to remind us of that which is commonly just outside our conscious grasp. Kubrick was quite familiar with McLuhan and his role as a critic; he conducted a private screening for McLuhan and claimed to have made 2001: A Space Odyssey for him.<br><br>So, in search of the “ground” of Kubrick’s experience, I decided to ask some of the people who knew him well. I got a very simple (albeit still open-ended) answer.<br><br>“What is this movie about?” I asked.<br><br>“Darned if any of us know, but one thing’s for sure, it’s the best whatever-kind-of-movie that anyone ever made. Kubrick always set out to make the best of the breed. Figure out what kind of movie it was and you’ll be on the right track,” was the reply.<br>Best of breed<br><br>Good. New question—Just what kind of movie is Eyes Wide Shut?<br><br>Noir? War? Adaptation? Seduction? Black Comedy? Sci-Fi? Psychological Thriller? Historical Drama? Horror? Vietnam?<br><br>It’s clearly none of these. In fact, as many critics have noted, EWS is arguably not a very good movie at all. This is particularly so if you don’t know what kind of movie it is.<br><br>So, if the actors and those who knew Kubrick well aren’t clear, and the reviewers seem to flop around in their own analysis, what kind of movie is this? Why does everyone seem to be so thoroughly in the dark?<br><br>Then it hit me. Conspiracy.<br><br>Aha!<br><br>Eyes Wide Shut is simply the best conspiracy movie ever made . . . or such was Kubrick’s intent.<br><br>Whatever Kubrick’s own beliefs might have been on conspiracies (certainly a topic with which he was well versed), this movie is itself a conspiracy. Against the audience. Against the cast. And, against the critics. This is a movie that is designed to be distracting and confusing. Frustrated and exhausted, even the most dogged Stanley-phile would eventually have to give up—by design. And it worked.<br><br>How about the screenplay? What does it say? Are there any clues to help solve this mystery?<br><br>In this case, it’s the title that tells all. Eyes Wide Shut must refer to something that is right in front of us in plain sight but—like Poe’s “Purloined Letter”—something that we cannot “see.”<br>What is the movie’s ‘secret’?<br><br>Let’s start with the movie’s carefully chosen solitary clue, the password—“Fidelio.”<br><br>Could Kubrick have been referring to the Beethoven opera? After all, it was the piano player who passed it along. But the password wasn’t selected by a musician, it was selected by Kubrick.<br><br>Perhaps studying the libretto of the opera—filled with deceit and imprisonment and valor and rebellion against tyranny—will help us. Perhaps, but with its setting in Spain and its early nineteenth-century political motifs, it could prove to be just another distraction.<br><br>Are there any other meanings of “Fidelio” that might more directly tie into our theory of the genre of Eyes Wide Shut? What do “Fidelio” and “conspiracy” have in common? It was time to ask some conspiracy buffs.<br><br>Eureka! Fidelio is the magazine of the Lyndon LaRouche organization—probably the most famous of the “intellectual” conspiracy-inspired movements of recent history. Still being published, Fidelio: Journal of Poetry, Science and Statecraft was founded in the early 1990s by the Schiller Institute, based in Washington, D.C., where LaRouche and his associates are based. But does this magazine tie into the movie?<br>Charting its own course<br><br>As has been noted, Eyes Wide Shut contains many specific departures from its supposed literary “source text”—Arthur Schnitzler’s Traumnovelle. Case in point is the fact that the original password to the orgy was “Denmark.” Is it possible, then, that Schnitzler’s 1926 novella, set in fin-de-siècle Vienna, is just another distraction? Just another figure intended to obscure the movie’s ground? By selecting “Fidelio,” was Kubrick telling us to discard the Schnitzler text?<br><br>Cloaks and MasksAnother departure—which I haven’t seen mentioned in the critical literature—is the complete shift in costuming for this orgy. In the novella, the costumes are bright and multi-colored. Dionysian. Baroque, if you will—even harlequin. In the movie the costumes (when worn) are simple and ominous—black capes—with those masks. Indeed, Kubrick forces us to focus our attention on this aspect through the entire costume shop sequence in Eyes Wide Shut—presuming we can “see,” that is.<br><br>There’s more. The movie adds a crucial figure, a man dressed in red who utterly rules the scene in the Long Island mansion. With the apparent power of life-and-death, he confronts Tom Cruise’s character, Bill, and demands—the password!<br><br>As if that wasn’t enough, he tricks the apparently clueless interloper with the notion that there are actually two passwords—again drawing our attention to the critical significance of “Fidelio,” the one and only clue.<br><br>If our ears are open to hear the word, that is.<br>Unmask that film<br><br>Who is this man in red? Why are the masks so familiar?<br><br>MasksHave you ever been to Venice? Many years ago I attended a conference out on the Lido and stayed just off St. Mark’s. One afternoon, I wandered deep into the neighborhoods, over many bridges and eventually found myself at a Venetian mask shop. I bought three. The one I got for myself depicts a Norse myth in which the hoof-prints of the God-mounted steed sprout into fairy draped mushrooms. It hangs over my desk to this day. The other two were for my children. They are exactly like the masks in the movie. Indeed, many of the masks in the movie were made in Venice.<br><br>Might the history of Venice have something to do with the conspiracy around which this film is constructed? Could the man in red be a “pope” (or a cardinal)? Could the conflict between the Vatican and Venice somehow be depicted in the film?<br><br>While the LaRouche group’s magazine covers many subjects, its treatment of Venice bears their particular signature. According to those who follow the more elaborate and long-term historically oriented conspiracy constructs, one of the most far-reaching schemes is one associated with LaRouche that identifies Venice as the primary “conduit” for the attempted destruction of the West by the East over many past millennia.<br>Schemes<br><br>This schema apparently holds that a world-shaping conflict between East and West—beginning at least as early as Alexander the Great’s avenging of his father’s death by the Persians—continues to this day. Persia (modern-day Iran) and its close neighbor Media (modern-day Kurdistan)—or for that matter Babylonia (modern-day Iraq)—continue to be of up-to-date significance, but it is the role of Venice as the dominant Mediterranean power for much of the period from the fall of Rome until the fifteenth century (as well as its longstanding role contra Rome) that has greatly absorbed contributors to LaRouche’s Fidelio.<br><br>In the Summer 1995 issue of the magazine, Webster Tarpley’s “Venice’s War Against Western Civilization” appears as the lead article. I will leave it to the reader to reconstruct the details of this fascinating exposition, but it is probably worth noting that the widely reported “conflict” between LaRouche and the British Royal Family traces some of its genealogy to the role played by Venice (along with, most likely, LaRouche’s own anti-monarchist and millenarian Quaker roots).<br><br>In brief, it appears that as military expeditions against Venice by various groups of opponents (Florence, Rome, and the like) became more and more threatening, and as the value of controlling the Constantinople-based Mediterranean trade-routes collapsed, the powers that were “Venice” hoisted their sails and moved on . . . largely relocating to London and Amsterdam. Those of you who have followed the writings of the LaRouche coterie will probably recognize that the presumed follow-on to this earlier migration establishes the next stop after London as New York City. In this reading of history, then, London (and New York) actually are Venice—transposed through the centuries.<br>Making the connection<br><br>Could Kubrick have simply been making a conspiracy movie about a world-controlling cabal based in New York that self-consciously (okay, ritually) traced its origins back to Venice? Is much of what appears in Eyes Wide Shut an elaborate distraction from the retelling of what is perhaps the grandest and boldest conspiracy theory of the modern era? Is there any significance to the fact that the European premiere of Eyes Wide Shut was held in Venice?<br><br>Stanley Kubrick has been confirmed as a long-time subscriber to the magazine Fidelio. He even had some conversations with some of the magazine’s authors. Perhaps not surprisingly, there are other overlaps between the “political” subjects Kubrick treats and those discussed by LaRouche and his associates.<br><br>As LaRouche himself wrote in 1995, the “inventor” of the Atom Bomb, Leo Szilard—a figure who has been written about disparagingly and frequently in various LaRouche publications—was commonly known as “Dr. Strangelove.” LaRouche associates are also responsible for extensively documenting various “brainwashing” experiments carried out by the British (which remain largely undocumented elsewhere, unlike such U.S. counterparts as MK-ULTRA). It has recently been revealed that much of the source material for A Clockwork Orange was obtained by Anthony Burgess from British Intelligence and was based on these experiments.<br><br>As an American ex-pat living in Britain and reputedly a voracious reader of history, Kubrick might very well have been fascinated with the bold sweep of the Persia-to-Venice-to-London-to-New York conspiracy-that-rules-the-world storyline. What a great movie that would make!<br><br>Perhaps we should watch Eyes Wide Shut again. This time be sure to have the dialogue turned on and pay close attention to what is recorded there.<br><br>Watch the movie—with your ears wide open. <p></p><i></i>
Pants Elk
 
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:04 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Lyndon Larouche

Postby Pants Elk » Mon Dec 05, 2005 4:34 pm

I would have boldfaced the mentions of his name in the above post if I'd had the smarts ... anyone else as surprised as I am to see his name turning up in an EWS thread? Or have I missed something? <p></p><i></i>
Pants Elk
 
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:04 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Still gallery

Postby Sweejak » Mon Dec 05, 2005 4:38 pm

Still gallery, requires a sign-up<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.american-buddha.com/eyeswide.toc.htm">www.american-buddha.com/eyeswide.toc.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Sweejak
 
Posts: 3250
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 7:40 pm
Location: Border Region 5
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Lyndon Larouche

Postby Col Quisp » Mon Dec 05, 2005 5:01 pm

Great info on these connections. Who woulda thunk it? Now I'll have to watch the film again. Fascinating!<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Col Quisp
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 2:52 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Lyndon Larouche

Postby Sweejak » Mon Dec 05, 2005 5:14 pm

Damn, another layer.<br>I guess I'm not surprised with the LaRouche reference. After all Kubrick must have been well versed in MK subjects.<br><br>I'm wondering how much of Kubrick's process was subliminal, unconsciously weaving all the detail he had accumulated in those boxes. What would he have done with all that Napoleon detail he had stashed in the blue room. Did he keep notes, make Venn diagrams or just notes in the margins? Maybe something like this guy?<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2004-10-28/art_reviews.php">www.nowtoronto.com/issues...eviews.php</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Isn't this what makes some paintings and other artworks pre-cognitive as if to predict the future or at least capture the essentials of a certain milieu... an osmosis flowing from the left to the right hemisphere, and even the artist will later discover connections he had no idea were there.<br><br>============ <br>Edit.. OT, Mark Lombardi "When the news of Mark's death arrived, all of us thought that he was murdered."<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.globalcomplexity.org/Death%20by%20Association.htm">www.globalcomplexity.org/...iation.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=sweejak@rigorousintuition>Sweejak</A> at: 12/5/05 2:24 pm<br></i>
User avatar
Sweejak
 
Posts: 3250
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 7:40 pm
Location: Border Region 5
Blog: View Blog (0)

Fidelio

Postby Qutb » Mon Dec 05, 2005 6:08 pm

Wow! Thanks, Pants Elk. I, too, have to watch EWS again after reading that. <p></p><i></i>
Qutb
 
Posts: 1203
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 2:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fidelio

Postby Dreams End » Mon Dec 05, 2005 7:34 pm

This from the official website:<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>"Fidelio" comes from the Latin root "fidelis," meaning "faithful," which ties in to one of the major themes of the film: Can husbands and wives be truly faithful to each other?<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://kubrickfilms.warnerbros.com/mainmenu/mainmenu.html">kubrickfilms.warnerbros.c...nmenu.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I found the Loen Weber article to be a little....odd. <br><br>First off, there is only one article ever written by Weber that has made it onto the internet. And you've just read it. And here's all he says about himself:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Loen Weber is a media ecologist who has spent much of his life in the Midwest, the Northeast, and on the West Coast. His interests include the ear, the eye, the skin, noses, tongues, fingers, hair, and most other sense organs. He strongly suspects that H. G. Wells’s Invisible Man refers to another place and another time when television was once important.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Well, I post here under a pseudonym, so can't blame him for that, I suppose. Though the name "Loen" appears nowhere on google. But for someone who only "just" heard of Larouche, he sure seems awful familiar with Larouche's materials. For example:<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>In brief, it appears that as military expeditions against Venice by various groups of opponents (Florence, Rome, and the like) became more and more threatening, and as the value of controlling the Constantinople-based Mediterranean trade-routes collapsed, the powers that were “Venice” hoisted their sails and moved on . . . largely relocating to London and Amsterdam. Those of you who have followed the writings of the LaRouche coterie will probably recognize that the presumed follow-on to this earlier migration establishes the next stop after London as New York City. In this reading of history, then, London (and New York) actually are Venice—transposed through the centuries.<br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>The only people likely familiar with that level of detail would certainly be the Larouche followers themselves. I don't know that you can get all that without subscribing to Fidelio and EIR. (And, I'll simply admit that, these summaries of his views, which I've seen a few times, still leaving me scratching my head. I simply cannot follow the lines of reasoning in this very elaborate conspiracy metahistory.)<br><br>Then the article says this:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Stanley Kubrick has been confirmed as a long-time subscriber to the magazine Fidelio. He even had some conversations with some of the magazine’s authors.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>News to me. Wonder how Mr. or Ms. Weber knows this? <br><br>I have a completely unsubstantiated theory, and that is that the person who posted this article is actually Lonnie Wolf. Same initials. Last name a sly dig at Max Weber, perhaps, who defined "cult" in a way that might make Mr. Larouche uncomfortable? Who knows. Just a theory, but all that "inside baseball" on Larouche's writings and even communications between Larouch authors and Kubrik seemed a bit TOO inside to me. <br><br>I will say, however, that I don't find this article being pushed on any Larouche site...or really, anywhere else, so it could just be a bit of a lark.<br><br>What IS interesting, however, is that Nicole and Tom, as has been pointed out, are Scientologists. Nicole, in the film, is obsessed with a "Naval officer". And, L. Ron was a naval officer.<br><br>And there's the "rainbow." According to this ex-scientologist, "over the rainbow" was someplace where Hubbard was:<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>Randy Baxter and Molly Baxter also worked in the Info Bureau however Molly took Nancy Reitze's position of the Flag Guardian when Nancy went "over the rainbow" (some secret place where LRH was.)<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.lermanet.com/garyweber/">www.lermanet.com/garyweber/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>another reference here:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Here is where I have to finish. Conditions at Flag and Hemet ("Over the Rainbow"<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START ;) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> are even worse, truly nightmarish, but I have never personally been there so I can't write with much authority. But I will try to do what I can from spoken and written accounts, in my next issue.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/cos/mpoulter/scum/worm_ins.html">www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/co...m_ins.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

Thinking the Unthinkable

Postby JimNelson » Mon Dec 05, 2005 8:08 pm

PantsElk, I always thought Dr. Strangelove was Herman Kahn. Quoting from Krusch.com: <br><br> "Kahn was one of the earliest employees at the RAND corporation, which had been set by by Gen. "Hap" Arnold to study nuclear war. According to THE WIZARDS OF ARMAGEDDON by Fred Kaplan, Kahn was notable for developing the linguistic trick of referring to potential casualties with the "only" word, as in "only two million kiled." Alluding almost casually to 'only' two million dead was part of the image Kahn was fashioning himself, the living portrait of the ultimate defense intellectual, cool and fearless, asking the questions everyone else ignored, thinking about the unthinkable." Indeed, his book ON THERMONUCLEAR WAR (1960), SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN reviewed it as "a moral tract on mass murder; how to plan it, how to commit it, how to get away with it, how to justify it."<br><br>The case FOR Kahn: Dr. Strangelove himself refers to a study he commissioned from the "Bland Corporation," a clear play on Kahn's old haunts. The similarity to Kahn's own ideas in Strangelove's pronouncements -- including the mine-shaft and ten-females-to-each-male stuff -- is uncannily similar to Kahn's brand of futurism. And since Kahn was the most famous nuclear war theorist at the time, Kubrick must have been thinking of his work."<br><br>Fantastic post, though.<br> <p></p><i></i>
JimNelson
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 10:13 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Thinking the Unthinkable

Postby Gouda » Mon Dec 05, 2005 8:15 pm

Kahn, Szilard, Aquino...they love nukes. Doctors Strangelove. <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Gouda
 
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:53 am
Location: a circular mould
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Thinking the Unthinkable

Postby Qutb » Mon Dec 05, 2005 8:44 pm

Dr Strangelove is also said to be modelled on someone called Wohlstetter, who's by the way got a conference room at the American Enterprise Institute named after him (he was Wolfowitz's mentor). <p></p><i></i>
Qutb
 
Posts: 1203
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 2:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

re:counterforce

Postby hanshan » Mon Dec 05, 2005 9:01 pm

<br><br><br>This is a stunning analysis <br>of what happens when policy wonks are<br>turned loose w/ an unlimited budget to <br>wargame nuclear war:<br><br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0804718849/qid=1133822553/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/103-0239978-4279807?s=books&v=glance&n=283155" target="top">The Wizards of Armageddon</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> <br><br>by Fred M. Kaplan <br><br><br><br>from the review by Robert Crawford:<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Fred Kaplan has done something very hard to achieve: portray a bunch of, well, nerds with sympathy and humor, explaining their trains of logic and their conclusions in readable prose. It is hard because most of them were micro-economists who lived in a world of utility functions, game theory, and loops of mathematical logic - just the kind of stuff that puts many off (like me) of "public policy" as an academic field that is dominated by economists who are little more than self-important if intelligent twits - with no practical wisdom whatsoever. <br>However, this group was important because they were trying to encapsulate nuclear weapons into their rationalist methodologies. Kaplan's book is the ideal companion to Freeman's Evolution of Nuclear Strategy, which is so dry by comparison and yet covers the strategy better. It is a fun read, though a bit overwhelming to get through as there were SO MANY of them. (There was an added interest for me, as I knew some of these characters as a student and was unimpressed with them as thinkers while respecting their impact on public policy.)<br><br>Whoever thought that microeconomists following their threads of logic could have had such an enormous influence on military strategy. I never would have! If I understood it, what they did was link military considerations into a mathematical methodology that could be studied and discussed and that offered conclusions - or predictions - if (tortuously) followed to their end. This helped military planers get a handle on these issues and (perhaps) to think more clearly. <br><br>Much of quality of this book is due to the fact that Kaplan is a really good reporter and not an academic who is just shuffling papers. He got out and talked to a lot of these guys, though none of them appear as particularly sympathetic characters to me. Amazingly, he used this book as his PhD disseration at MIT in poli-sci. You gotta respect him as a writer.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br><br>... <p></p><i></i>
hanshan
 
Posts: 1584
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 5:04 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Larouche - in shock

Postby morganwolf » Mon Dec 05, 2005 9:54 pm

Well, shit twice and fall backward. You blew my mind with this post, Pants Elk!<br><br>Layers and layers and more layers.<br><br>I have to laugh at the critics who thought "poor" Stanley was losing his mind at the end. That the film was 'simply about jealousy' or 'about nothing'. My ass.<br><br>Kubrick rules! <p></p><i></i>
morganwolf
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 8:41 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to Data And Research

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests