Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Star Wars had it wrong!

Many of us watched the Star War movies and were possibly excited by the full-on action that the films were famous for. We may even remember the space-version dog fights that still have pilots as the main focus. The stories were about people as much as they were about 'events.' The advent of drones in the 21st Century (and a little before) has possibly changed the face of warfare.  The USA has been using drones in Afghanistan and elsewhere for quite some time and there has been much criticism about the deahts of civillians as a result of the strikes on possible insurgents. We see today that the USA has gone one step further with the launch of an even more advanced drone; one that is capable of even more destruction to those who oppose American policies. The USA justifies the new drones as 'saving the lives of pilots' and that is possibly correct, but it also brings to question, just where we are going? Is warfare going to become even more 'impersonal?' Will this new trend mean that someone in an airbase in part of rural USA going to be conducting the war, just like in some Sci-Fi movie? Well it looks like that is exactly the scenario that we are facing. We can be sure that other nations will be watching and trying to emulate the USA example. The trend will not stop with drones and the technology will rapidly change and move to other unimaginable weapons, all controlled from afar. God knows what we are unleashing. Warfare has always been revolting in the detahs it causes, but with these new weapons, the one thing that had a controlling factor was that epople were at the 'frontline.' Then again, the wars of the past do not stand out as anything but destructive and nearly always it is the ordinary people who suffer, be they the 'canon fodder' at the front lines or the civillians who pay the ultimate price, on all sides. Wars are not going to suddnely disappear; it is the method by which they are conducted that will change!

Maybe Air New Zealand needs a clause that 'reserves the right to----etc.

The report in the New Zealand Heralth this morning that a female passenger stubbornly refused to give up her 'elite' seat to a dissabled passenger show us that there are still people out there with no understanding or empahty for those less fortunate. It would should have been a simple matter of human decency for the woamn who was desribed as a 40ish blond' to simply move to the seat that was offered just a short distance away. What made matters worse was the fact that she was accompanied by two teenagers. What message did her behaviour give to those children? Do they now accpet as 'normal,' her slefish behaviour or were they maybe a little embarrased by the selfish actions of thier parent? Does this incident mean that Air Zealand need to have a clause in the 'condiotns of flight' that clearly states that in certain instances, passnegers may be 'required' to move at the requests of airline staff. This in itself is rather sad that such changes are actually necessary. I guess we have always had selfish people and no doubt we are going to hear from this woman who will come up with an excuse that puts her side. It will need to be be one 'big heartfelt' piece of reasoning to convince me that her actions were justified. In the meantime she has taught her kids that it is all about ME ME ME!