(NZ Herald – click)
I watched a good tribute to Mr Horomia on Native Affairs last night. I guess it’ll be on their website soon. A shout out to Morgan Godfery who honoured him.
Sincere condolences to Mr Horomia’s whanau and those many who loved him and grieve his passing now.
– P
The road monster needs feeding again, oh woe, what will we do? For 50 years, Aucklanders have been trying to pacify this particular taniwha. We’ve criss-crossed the isthmus, with strip after strip of tarmac in his honour. But it’s never enough. Give me more, he growls, or I’ll bring your city to a grinding halt.
from an article by Brian Rudman ‘$59 billion plan enough to give you road rage‘ in today’s NZ Herald.
Roading budget as rapacious supernatural beast. Whether you agree with his arguments or not, Rudman strikes just the right tone: saying it’s time our planners shook free of their fervent religious belief and unceasing-roading-expansion-as=article-of-faith …
We should confess the road taniwha is an over-fed failure and that after 50 years of favouritism, it’s time to look elsewhere for solutions to our transport woes. The obvious alternative is to redirect our favours and priorities and cash towards fast-tracking Auckland’s promised modern integrated public transport system. Spoil it rotten to make up for decades of neglect. But stay within budget.
Yeah.
– P
(Photo by Greg Bowker NZ Herald – click to read ‘Key hit by Dotcom ‘brain fade’ article 4 Oct 2012)
Interesting discussion on Radio NZ’s political panel with Kathryn Ryan this morning.
I heard it in the car and thought I heard spin doctor Matthew Hooton suggest John Key’s ‘recall problems’ and his trail of repeated failures to ‘come clean’ has seen him lose the trust of the Press Gallery — trust he’d built up over time, like most prime ministers.
“The Prime Minister is now in a situation where the Press Gallery will no longer take his word for things the way they used to.”
“It’s gone,” I heard him say, referring to political reporters even believing the Prime Minister’s ‘very words at press conferences and so forth‘. Matthew Hooton said that breakdown resulted from Mr Key’s progressive revelations (what I called ‘the dance of a thousand veils’) and the fact that he had not actually ‘come clean’ when he said he had.
Listen to the relevant 3’30” clip below. (You can listen to the whole Nine to Noon politics discussion With Hooton and Mike Williams here at Radio NZ’s website.)
Continue reading →
Nice tone.
– P
Nicky Hager’s book is available as an e-book (PDF) at his website: nickyhager.info (click)
Journalist and author Nicky Hager (The Hollow Men, Secrets and Lies, Other People’s Wars, Secret Power — last mentioned on The Paepae here) knows a thing or two about the state security/surveillance apparatus … and leaks.
He was recently interviewed for a spot on Radio NZ’s Mediawatch (14 Apr 2013) on the subject of the leaked information from various government departments and a huge story he contributed to about international tax havens — worth a listen, seriously.
I generally listen to Mediawatch as a podcast, usually while I’m out walking. This morning’s walk included the monthy ‘Mediawatch Extra’, which is the show’s response to feedback and a chance for the Mediawatch crew to shoot the breeze about aspects of the media’s performance, including their own. It’s always entertaining, always good. Today host Colin Peacock introduced another clip of their Nicky Hager interview recorded but not broadcast as part of the 14 April show.
Given the on-going train wreck of the GCSB illegal spying, the NZ prime minister’s changing story about his links to and contact with Ian Fletcher, and Mr Key’s role in the appointment of his old friend to the job of top government spy, it made sense to ask Nicky Hager for his expert view of the rolling scandal and revelations … and John Key’s political management.
Here’s the clip of Nicky Hager interviewed by Radio NZ Mediawatch’s Colin Peacock and Jeremy Rose … Continue reading →
Oh boy! An intelligence test for Twitter users.
Satire, surely? Please don’t click on something like this … and if you do — don’t be SO STUPID as to put your credentials in. Doh!
Is it a spoof? (Answer: here.)
– P
Thanks to Nic Wise @fastchicken
pic: hqwallpapers (click)
If you’re a regular reader, you’ll know I have people I care about in the military, and some who’ve very recently served in Afghanistan. Most are back, physically safe. (We’ve talked before about the psychic scars, the rapid sobering of youth that’s perceptible in them.) Some are training and liable for further deployment or orders. Time will tell.
Even supply train and logistics ops in those conditions can be dangerous. Stuff happens. I try not to be a worry wort, but as I shared here, the tension when I knew people I love were in harm’s way was potent.
It’s easy to take a theoretical negative-in-all-circumstances view of war, or to offer equally reflexive support for a vaporous Nationalism. The camaraderie forged by conflict against an enemy that shoots back, facing threat with your mates, is real. I don’t underestimate it, nor dishonour it.
Most people aren’t vets and have no experience of armed conflict or even service in uniform. Yet we frequently see discussion about increasing public support for commemorations like Anzac Day — honouring mythical heroism and real sacrifice. What causes that? I recommend an article The changing meaning of Anzac Day by Scott Hamilton. It’ll make you think.*
For today, I offer my condolences to those who have lost loved ones or had them come home wounded in body or spirit.
For the record, from my point of view, there’s no way Anzac Day is a candidate for our ‘National Day’, despite some half-baked agitation for such a concept. We have a National Day already: Waitangi Day.
I think the right wing besotted emphasis on commemorating militarism and Anzac Day (and the left’s unease or bewilderment at it) is an example of Jonathan Haidt’s model of moral taste buds in action:
Continue reading →
No point in hiding from this stuff: (warning: some salty language)
In the wake of all the errors made in covering the Boston Marathon bombings, someone decided to show what it really takes to be a news reporter. — @evmoneyTV
He’s wrong about the pay.
– P
From the fabulous www.newscastic.com via Mathew Ingram
Click to read Andrea Vance’s story at stuff.co.nz
I remember writing a post before the last General Election, Hansard can be a real bitch, eh Mr Key? wherein I sympathised with noticed the difficulty some politicians seem to have remembering what they themselves said and how awkward that can be for them when they’re questioned about it in any detail.
It’s not easy.
Reporting a release of cabinet papers about NZ prime minister John Key’s appointment of his old friend Ian Fletcher as head of the secret surveillance agency GCSB, Fairfax’s intrepid Andrea Vance covers the key issues well (read: Key met spy candidate for breakfast)
Prime Minister John Key had breakfast with Ian Fletcher just days after he selected a panel to interview candidates for the country’s top spy job.
The pair ate together at Auckland’s Stamford Plaza Hotel on June 17, 2011. Key says the vacancy, as head of the Government Communications Security Bureau, was not discussed.
Three days earlier, Key had signed off on an interview panel for the job, which included then Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet boss Maarten Wevers. Fletcher was the only person to be interviewed for the post, after a shortlist of four other candidates was rejected. …… The documents include a Cabinet paper from August 2011 which recommends Fletcher’s appointment. It makes no reference to Key’s childhood acquaintance with Fletcher. The pair attended the same Christchurch school and their mothers were best friends.
A spokeswoman for Key says he “briefed Cabinet orally about his knowing Fletcher”.
Robertson said the relationship should have been disclosed in the Cabinet paper.
“He also fails to mention that he called Ian Fletcher. It is a continuation of his economy with the truth when it comes to this appointment process,” he said.
Key has played down his links to Fletcher, saying they did not have contact for a number of years. …
Here’s how the NZ Herald reported Opposition spokesman Grant Robertson taking the PM at his word … see No mention of Key recommendation in papers on GCSB appointment:
Labour deputy leader Grant Robertson said tonight that he took Mr Key’s word for it that he made the personal disclosure to the Cabinet.
But he believed it should have been stated in the paper Mr Key took to the Cabinet recommending Mr Fletcher – and that it should have been recorded in the Cabinet minute, which makes no mention of it.
“I think John Key should have put in the paper that he knew Ian Fletcher. That would have been the right thing to do.”
Nor did the paper mention that Mr Key had personally alerted Mr Fletcher to the job and it should have, Mr Robertson said.
Andrea Vance also complied an up to date list of Mr Key’s changing recollections and disclosures thus:
HOW KEY’S STORY CHANGED
“His appointment was made by the state services commissioner.” – John Key, March 27.
“I wouldn’t go that far. I haven’t seen the guy in a long time.” – Key, March 27, when asked if Fletcher was a friend.
Continue reading →
Nothing funny about this. Dorks.
– P
Criticism of Welsh opera crossover singer Katherine Jenkins — whom I last mentioned (respectfully) here: Using your marketing ‘assets’ — makes Daily Mail columnist Jan Moir look petty and shabby.
Apparently the beautiful and talented Ms Jenkins used her participation in the recent London Marathon (impressed yet?) to raise £25,000 for a cancer charity. Ms Moir accused the singer of ‘stealing the limelight’ and, it seems to me, wrote an article slamming her, mainly for looking good. Perhaps Ms Moir doesn’t understand how celebrity fundraising works these days?
She had lashings of pink lip gloss, sooty false eyelashes and sweeping, coal black eyeliner. Not to mention a perfect silvery manicure, those ever-tanned limbs, her blonde hair pulled back into an immaculate ponytail and raisin-sized diamonds in her ears. At points during the race she would pop on a pair of £200 Prada sunglasses just to add to her athletic mystique
Whatever, here is Ms Jenkins’ rather wonderful Twittered response:
Jan (Moir), I wish you love & happiness in your life. I adore & support other women and I only wish you could do the same. I ran on Sunday in memory of my father & to raise money (£25,000) for an excellent charity (@macmillancancer) who helped him when he was dying. Yes, I twittered about it but I did so to share my progress & day with those kind people on twitter who had supported & sponsored me. I ran in sunglasses because it was sunny. I tied my hair back in a pony tail because I expected to sweat. As if you had some insider knowledge you wrote I was wearing eye shadow, eye liner& lip gloss. Wrong again – none of the above – I had Vaseline on my lips, handed to us by St Johns Ambulance on our way round the route. You can knock me all you like but you cannot take away from me what I know I accomplished last weekend. Next time you run a marathon Jan, I will be the first to sponsor you, because I know how much guts, hard work & determination it takes.
Class.
– P
PS I’m on my second pair of Vuarnet sunglasses. (I lost my first pair after five plus years when we capsized a dinghy in the surf coming back from checking the crayfish pots down at the beach.) They’re expensive, but they’re optically superior — they actually relax my eyes. I totally understand why Ms Jenkins would choose quality eyewear.
Via a retweet by Toby Manhire @toby_etc
Native Affairs — Mihingarangi Forbes questioned a gaggle of politicians about important issues on Maori TV last night (click to view)
I watched Maori TV’s Native Affairs again last night: their first live debate for 2013 with politicians from all parties (except Peter Dunne) discussing a wide range of issues. I really enjoyed it. (You can see it here at the Maori TV website. I recommend you do.)
I described Maori TV as “this country’s last best hope for public (television) broadcasting” in my brief encomium to Native Affairs‘ new host Mihingarangi Forbes.
Last night’s debate was a good thing. It was valuable programming, taken at the pace of current affairs shows of old. These days it seems a lot of NZ commercial television (with exceptions) is too focussed on short attention span wham-bam-whizzo to devote an hour of prime time programming (outside an election year) to illuminating political discussion of important issues.
Hats off to Maori TV. Really good broadcasting.
I saw a comment from the NZ Herald‘s TV reviewer John Drinnan to the effect that many in the media seem ‘smitten’ with Native Affairs. Yeah, I think he’s right. And justifiably so.
UPDATE: Here’s John’s comment:
@jodiihaka @chipmatthews @n8tvaffairs @mihi_forbes me no reviewer – (tho column drifts that way) – most media types smitten w @n8vaffairs
— John Drinnan (@Zagzigger) March 12, 2013
– P
Just shows you how good my pronunciation of “Maori” is … hahaha
At the end of the debate (go and watch it) Maori TV promoted a documentary this coming Wednesday featuring veteran journalist/foreign correspondent Jon Stephenson reporting on NZ’s military involvement in Afghanistan. It looks unmissable … so I told my iPhone to remind me to watch Maori TV … the response shows my Australian-accent-based Siri doesn’t quite understand Te Reo, huh? 🙂
I saw this interchange on Twitter today (that doesn’t make it ‘news’) and agreed with the conclusions. Having myself just said to a commenter here:
It’s foolish to judge a ‘side’ by its extremists, as I’m sure you agree.
A beehive staffer I follow on Twitter reported her Minister received an
“Email from the NZ Catholic Bishops distancing themselves from the Catholic Action Group who sent terrible emails against #marriageequality”
This exchange, sparked by Richard Dawkins condemning The New Statesman for publishing an article by a muslim, fits. (Apologies for the salty language, but it makes a point.):
Having now cited Twitter twice in one blog post, I’m off to have a serious talk to myself (i.e. a walk and a swim).
– P
I’ve just watched this fantastic BBC 4 documentary David Bowie and the story of Ziggy Stardust (below) about Bowie’s emergence as a global pop star and, more importantly, cultural sensation and groundbreaker.
I had all his albums. (On vinyl. Not an exaggeration.)
I recall feeling anxious for him when I saw how skeletal he looked on the cover of 1974’s David Live — still one of my favorite live performance albums all these years later. Genius.
Here’s the opening track: 1984
David Bowie ‘1984’ from David Live.
When I think back, my and my contemporaries’ fervent admiration for Bowie as a writer, musician and performer, and our accompanying acceptance of his sexuality (gay/bi/whatever) opened a path for the social changes we’ve seen — most recently the same-sex marriage/’marriage equality’ legislation passed this week.
Lamenting Christian commentators and activists like Ian Wishart (who I saw today on The Nation grumbling darkly about ‘dishonest’ media coverage and a cynical ‘gay propaganda strategy’ which he thinks has ‘brainwashed’ the world to accept gay ‘lifestyles’ by concealing or de-emphasising the ‘lifestyle’ part, as if we’re all stupid) can say what they like. But on the other hand, it’s good that he labelled the argument a ‘culture wars issue’. Yes, we agree about that, but our conclusions as a result may be different.
Icons like David Bowie courageously expressing themselves, and (yes, for sure) shockingly pushing boundaries/frightening the horses in the 1970s — when ‘poofter-bashing’ was still disgracefully commonplace — were part of that shift to our cultural foundations. He was routinely called an ‘abomination’ by Christians at the time. Which really grated with me.
Personally, I think acceptance of ‘the other’ follows exposure to ‘the other’, and locating our empathy for our fellow human beings. It doesn’t mean you become them, but stop ignorantly hating them.
This is a brilliant documentary. I laughed out loud at some of it, and winced with nostalgia at other bits. If you’re a fan, or even just interested in how influential Bowie was, it’s worth an hour of your time.
Take a look: Continue reading →
Steven Joyce in a calmer moment.
Wow. I heard and saw some response from NZ government figures to the joint Labour/Green announcement of policy concerned with electricity market reform. Ministers Steven Joyce and Simon Bridges apparently couldn’t wait to slam the policy vociferously, taking the opportunity of ‘stand-ups’ in Parliament’s hallways to foam at the mouth issue a comment.
Having paid no attention to the policy announcement myself before I saw their responses, I was struck by their vehemence. They both looked rattled.
But today, I was even more surprised to read the hysterical attack politics contained in Mr Joyce’s overwrought ministerial media release, issued through beehive.govt.nz.
Read it (full text below) and ask yourself: Who is it that has really ‘lost the plot’ (emphasis added):
Opposition loses the plot on economy
Labour and the Greens have jumped the shark with a half-baked Soviet Union-style nationalisation “plan” for electricity in New Zealand, Economic Development Minister Steven Joyce says.
“This is truly wacky and desperate stuff obviously made up in the last minute in the Koru Lounge between comrades Norman and Shearer,” Mr Joyce says.
“Their crazy idea to have both a single national purchaser of electricity and to exempt Government-owned companies from both company tax and dividends would effectively demolish private investment in the electricity industry overnight. It would also raise real questions as to why any individual or company would want to invest in businesses in New Zealand.
“Even the idea of it is economic vandalism of the highest order, with the timing designed to try and disrupt the mixed-ownership company floats. What we are seeing here is a desperate Opposition that is prepared to sacrifice economic development in New Zealand on the altar of political opportunism.
“The sad truth is that Labour has no idea how to operate a competitive market that keeps downward pressure on prices. Labour made a number of reforms to the electricity market in the early 2000s and the result was power prices rising 72 per cent over nine years.
“This Government’s reforms have halved price increases while maintaining investment in generation and transmission. Labour’s suggestion today is no more than a belated apology for their mismanagement, with a back-to-the-70s solution that would only make things worse.
“You seriously have to question the quality of economic advice the Labour Party is getting. They really need to get a lot more serious if they are ever to be considered fit to manage the New Zealand economy.”
That’s some serious spin, Mr Joyce — but there might just be a little too much helium in that balloon. Perhaps Mr Joyce is a frustrated blogger? Or simply spending too much time in the echo chamber?
For reference, here is Mr Joyce’s official biography, detailing his own economic policy experience and other expertise: Continue reading →
