Recognising culture war as … ‘War’. Not pretty.

Posted in 18 April 2013
13 Comments »

Bonaparte
The same sex marriage bill [Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill] passed in the NZ Parliament last night, to much jubliation from its supporters. Like many others, I watched the debate with members of my family live on Parliament TV. It was history in the making.

Lew Stoddart, blogging at Kiwipolitico today (see: Recognising the enemy) quoted from Green MP Kevin Hague’s third reading speech wherein Hague described the vitriol and tactics deployed by some opponents of earlier homosexual law reform and this latest ‘marriage equality’ bill (soon to be legislation).

In a quietly-passionate speech (video here) Hague breaks it down to “[opponents of the bill] believe that we gay and lesbian people are morally inferior. They don’t want to include us as as full participants in New Zealand society.” (about 5’00 in the video) Lew offers his own analysis (please read it), parts of which line up so neatly with my own dismay at hatred-of-the-other/outsider views I thought I’d cherry-pick him (emphasis in original):

Kevin Hague’s measured words and calm delivery obscure a stark and clear-sighted analysis: This is war. The enemy does not regard us as human, and they never will, so we must defeat them utterly. When it comes to GLBTI people, adherents to this creed of brimstone will be satisfied with nothing less than extermination and erasure: they are an existential threat. Although it is often couched in those terms, beneath the veneer theirs is not a rational objection founded in philosophy or pragmatism, in science or honest assessment of tradition; it is simply fear and hatred that burns like the fires they preach. This is not confined to the religious sphere — variants of the brimstone creed exist within secular society, and across a broad ideological spectrum, but they share extremism in common. Much of the discourse around marriage equality, and much of the discourse around related matters, rests on ignoring, minimising or mocking those who stand up for the brimstone creed, but the brilliance of Kevin’s analysis is that he meets them — and it — kanohi ki te kanohi, staring it in the face and recognising it for what it is.

Let me be clear: I supported that proposed legislation and have been pleased by my local MP Maurice Williamson’s outspokenness on the issue. I made a point of discussing it with him in person and encouraged Maurice in his stand (not that I detected he needed any confirmation from me). I also largely agree with Lew in his analysis of the ‘battles ahead’ (read his blog post). And I’m not being argumentative for the sake of it, I promise.

That said, something does not sit right in me with Lew’s declaration of war: We must ‘defeat them utterly’:
Continue reading →

Politics
,

John Key addresses Parliament on his earlier misleading statement about Ian Fletcher’s appointment

Posted in 17 April 2013
16 Comments »

Here’s the NZ prime minister John Key delivering a ‘personal explanation’ to Parliament yesterday for his misleading answer to a question about the appointment of his school friend Ian Fletcher to the job of Director of the Government Communications Security Bureau, GCSB.

Well, that puts that matter to rest, doesn’t it? Ya think? (What do you make of the body language?)

– P

See also (related posts):
• John Key is getting a reputation as a liar (PM’s ‘unfolding’ disclosures about his involvement in Fletcher appointment as GCSB head.)
• John Key toughens up? “Forearmed is forewarned (sic), I’m going to change.” (John Key on answering questions, and accusing the media of deliberate imbalance.)
• Apropos the ‘reputation as a liar’ thing for John Key (Questions raised about integrity of PM and government.)

Politics
, ,

Sue Bradford on recent developments in the area of protest and state surveillance

Posted in 17 April 2013
1 Comment »
Waihopai-Valley-Google-Maps

Waihopai spy station, Marlborough. Part of the GCSB which despite legislation prohibiting it from spying on New Zealand citizens or permanent residents has been doing exactly that on behalf of the Police and the Security Intelligence Service.

Left wing activist and former Green politician Sue Bradford posted an article at Pundit which I’ve just seen. She shares several valuable insights. I recommend you read it.

A bad week for left activist paranoia

by Sue Bradford writing at pundit.co.nz

Army to gain new powers over protesters; GCSB spies on New Zealanders; new single government data hub planned… Is Aotearoa en route to Orwell’s 1984?

I’ve made a lifelong habit of trying to stay out of the discourse on spying and security issues.

Since my earliest involvement in radical left activity in the late 1960s, I’ve been put off by those amongst us who seem to spend more energy on police and security issues than focusing on our collective kaupapa and actions.

Not that there isn’t a place for expert analysis.  I’ve always been grateful to people  like Barry Wilson, Nicky Hager, Murray Horton and Keith Locke – and others – for undertaking the research, keeping a close eye on what the bastards are up to and doing something about it on a regular basis.

However, I think it’s a specialty. For the majority of us to spend our precious activist time in a paranoid whirl can be personally, organisationally and politically destructive.

Although, I hasten to add, there are times when paranoia is totally justified. You only have to look at the public record in relation to the state’s actions around the Urewera raids and arrests, or the Rob Gilchrist infiltration saga, to get a glimpse of the secret and not-so-secret surveillance state in action.

Any radical left activist organisation which doesn’t take into account the potential – and actuality – of  state surveillance in various forms isn’t doing its job properly.  But on the whole, I think we just need to be aware of the possibilities, stay calm, and take appropriate action when needed.

However, developments over the past week are starting to shatter any sense of composure on my part. …

Read on at pundit.co.nz

Politics
,

Evoking the spectre of external threat to justify spying on your citizens

Posted in 16 April 2013
6 Comments »
Under fire in the press? Look! Behind you! What's that over there? A threat to national security? Time for (distr)action!

Under fire in the press? Look! Behind you! What’s that over there? A threat to national security? Time for (distr)action!

The NZ prime minister has evoked ‘Reds under the bed’ style threats to national security to justify extending the already broad powers of the nation’s spy agencies, and aiding co-operation between them.

Read the paragraph below and tell me it’s not redolent of the vacuous and deceitful ‘sexed-up dossier’ that Tony Blair used to justify the UK’s involvement in the US invasion of Iraq.

Prime Minister John Key defended the function of the Government Communications Security Bureau today saying cyber attacks relating to weapons of mass destruction were intercepted by the agency.

“There has been a disturbing escalation of cyber activities beyond simply exfiltrating data to actually altering data and systems – there have been covert attempts to acquire New Zealand science and technology for programmes relating to weapons of mass destruction or weapons delivery systems,” Mr Key said.

While defending the agency’s functions, Mr Key announced sweeping changes to GCSB’s powers, saying failure to do so would leave New Zealand’s national security open to threat.
— NZ Herald: Sweeping changes to GCSB’s powers – PM

“Weapons of mass destruction” no less!

Convenient how a ‘cyber attacks’ bogeyman has emerged to distract from the illegal actions of the GCSB. From the looks of it, our snoops and spies are lining up to get ‘sweeping’ powers … as a reward for their non-compliance with the few restrictions that apply from existing legislation.

Like the police and their use of illegal covert surveillance prior to the Urewera so-called ‘terror raids’, the GCSB has repeatedly broken the law, so … let’s change the law. Say, what?

– P

Politics
, , ,

The power of labels (even in crossword clues)

Posted in 14 April 2013
17 Comments »

image based on one at evolver.gm (click)

Yesterday, in my typically discursive fashion, in ‘Uncertainty vs certainty. Growing out of old beliefs‘. I reflected on same-sex marriage law reform (or ‘marriage equality’). I wrote that as our thinking matures and we make friends with uncertainty, matters can seem to move beyond what we’re told is true and, for a time, believe to be true.

I also suggested that despite appearances, such ‘moral’ issues can be less a matter of ‘liberal’ vs ‘conservative’ than we might think, and that our allegience to such labels/tribes/modes of thought can also prove to be flexible — in a positive way.

Today my RSS feed contained an interesting article from NewsHounds.us (tagline:‘We watch Fox so you don’t have to!’): ‘Fox & Friends Host Another Outraged Conservative Parent‘ about a debate that arose in an American school about the crossword puzzle clues given to a class of year 8 students…

The ‘controversy’ involves the definition of ‘conservative’ used for Civics class crossword puzzle for 8th graders in a Wisconsin school district. While ‘liberalism’ is defined as “the political belief of equality and personal freedom for everyone, often changing the current system to increase government protection of civil liberties,” conservatism is classified as “the political belief of preserving traditional moral values by restricting personal freedoms and encouraging prosperity through economic freedom.”

Now, I acknowledge that in the USA, such partisan ‘debate’ (cough) is often a duel at twenty paces with fully-loaded propagandas, but, you know what?

Those seem pretty reasonable potted definitions to me.

What do you think?

– P

Big Questions

Very cool Macbeth school production poster

Posted in 14 April 2013
No Comments »

How cool is this?:

20130414-074034.jpg

Shepard Fairey’s Obama HOPE poster spawned a style, almost a language … the controversy over his deceit about source materials notwithstanding.

– P

Via my friend Dagmar.

Encouragement

Uncertainty vs certainty. Growing out of old beliefs.

Posted in 13 April 2013
6 Comments »
That's an equal symbol. Based on the logo for the Human Rights Campaign (click)

That’s an equal sign. Based on the logo for the Human Rights Campaign (click)

“Doubt is uncomfortable, certainty is ridiculous.”
— attributed to Voltaire

It can be useful and enlightening now and then to try seeing the world (or an issue, at least) from someone else’s point of view — a bit like taking a car for the proverbial “spin ’round the block to see how she handles”.

Donald Rumsfeld’s famous and usually mocked distinction: ‘known unknowns’ vs ‘unknown unknowns’ actually has value. There are things you don’t know you don’t know. Ignorance isn’t always bliss, depending on what the ‘unknown’ factors are.

And combined with that realisation, should be this one: “There are things I used to believe, that I don’t believe anymore.”

I spotted this wonderful chart in a book review by the priceless and wonderful Maria Popova of Brainpickings.org.
Take  a moment to peruse it …

Image from 'Lost Cat: A True Story of Love, Desperation, and GPS Technology' by Caroline Paul, illustrated by Wendy MacNaughton. (click for link to review by Maria Popova)

Image from ‘Lost Cat: A True Story of Love, Desperation, and GPS Technology’ by Caroline Paul, illustrated by Wendy MacNaughton. (click for link to review by Maria Popova)

It’s like that y’all. (Especially the ‘things you wish you’d never found out about’.)

I remember a few years back, chatting with my brother-in-law (as we washed up after dinner like the sensitive new age guys we are) and he paraphrased the adage: “If you’re not a liberal in your twenties you’ve got no heart, but if you’re not a conservative in your forties you’ve got no brain.” (Ha!)

Why do so many of us (me included, wretch that I am) resist the idea that we might have to change our minds about some Big Things — even our values or worldview.

I got to thinkin’ about that earlier this week after a commenter here asked me to reveal my “chosen belief system and how does it manifest itself?” To which I would say (1) How long have you got? and (2) At this moment, you mean? Continue reading →

Big Questions - Politics
,

Avoiding clichés like the plague

Posted in 12 April 2013
5 Comments »

The NZ Listener‘s Toby Manhire makes an important announcement regarding the writer’s hazard: Occupational Overuse Syndrome (which I try to avoid — in fact, I wouldn’t touch it with a ten-foot barge pole — despite being (ahem) cited in the article. 😉

Click to read at the NZ Listener website

Click to read ‘John Key’s honeymoon is over, and over again’ at the NZ Listener website

– P

Read John Key’s honeymoon is over, and over again by Toby Manhire.

(Apologies to William Safire, of course.)

Humour - Media issues - Writing/Publishing

Proposed merger of the GCSB and the SIS?

Posted in 10 April 2013
3 Comments »
spyvsspy-shoes-grn

In politics, it’s always worth asking how things would be if the shoe were on the other foot.

‘OUTRAGE’ is an overused word, bit it fits in this instance. The GCSB has laws banning operations to engage in surveillance of NZ’ers or those who have been granted permanent residence. They have been doing so for years, as part of ‘agency assistance’ to the Security Intelligence Service.

One of the ‘balancing’ questions I ask myself now and then, when confronted with a political debate, is: How would people be reacting if this proposed ‘reform’ (recognizing that’s a loaded word) was being promulgated by the party now in Opposition?

The revelations of long-term legal dubious activity by NZ’s spy agencies … and the prime minister’s announced intention to amend the laws and oversight relating to the state security apparatus … would, I think, provoke even MORE shrieking if they were occurring under a left-wing government. I could be wrong about that.

Gordon Campbell’s article “On the GCSB practice of spying on New Zealanders is worth a read.

[PM John’] Key’s plans to legalise GCSB spying on New Zealanders amounts to a virtual merger of the SIS and GCSB – and as yet, Key has offered no details about what he thinks “ proper oversight” would entail. It should not be his call. Agencies should not get to choose their own watchdog, and how long its chain should be. Parliament should be debating, and deciding, such matters – although of course, it would almost certainly do so along party lines.

The Fletcher affair has created a further, disturbing dimension. The very public dissent by former military chief /former GCSB boss Sir Bruce Ferguson over the relevance of a military background for the top GCSB job can be taken as an indirect signal of what is going on here. Namely, the cleaning out of the former military old guard at the GCSB, and the installation of a “change manager” in Ian Fletcher who has personal links to the PM. This amounts to a concentration of the security services, bringing them more closely in line with the PM’s policy agendas.

That centralisation of secret power and surveillance activities should be a worrisome trend for anyone concerned about civil liberties. The security services are not supposed to be at the beck and call of the government of the day. Fletcher –as the former head of what used to be the British Patents Office – has particular expertise in copyright law. Beyond the obvious relevance to the Dotcom case, copyright issues are also a prime feature of the Trans Pacific Partnership trade talks, and have been a focus of the protests being mounted against the TPP, worldwide – partly because of the implications that the extension of patents have for Pharmac.

Can it be entirely accidental that the new head of the GCSB brings extensive experience in such matters to his new job – whilst having no experience whatever in the GCSB’s traditional role of monitoring foreign (usually military) developments in the region that might pose a threat to New Zealand’s national security. Anyone involved in the campaign against the TPP would now seem ripe for surveillance, as part of the “agency support” to the Police and SIS in their monitoring of those critical of the government’s TPP agenda. …

Read Gordon Campbell’s article here at scoop.co.nz

Politics

Marilyn Monroe ‘selfie’

Posted in 10 April 2013
No Comments »

marilyn_monroe_selfie-630x400

Hey, I know it’s faked. And based on this:

Monro with wineglass

But it still makes me smile.

– P

via the unfortunately-named macgasm.net reporting an equally unfortunate outage in Apple’s iMessage system, which I use every day:

Apple-Status

Update: Three hours later, iCloud is all back in working order.

(Dedicated to S-R & L McQ.)

 

Humour

Our heroes are personal

Posted in 9 April 2013
20 Comments »

Here are Judith Collins’ comments marking the death, at 87, of Margaret Thatcher. Good on her for laying out her thoughts and beliefs like this. Yes, some might see them as polarised and polarising. But they’re worth a read and convey an insight.

Judith_Collins-obit of Margaret Thatcher-frame

Today, my facebook page will be devoted to Margaret Thatcher.
I well remember when she became the Prime Minister of Britain. She was the first and, to date, only woman UK Prime Minister.
It is easy to listen to the carping and vile names given her by the hard left and forget what condition Britain was in when she took over. They had 3 day working weeks, massive strikes led by USSR aligned Trade Unions, a country on the brink of collapse and torn apart by weak appeasement leadership and by malignant home-grown forces that sought to take the UK into the Soviet sphere of influence.
Her party had failed to inspire as it sought to work with the very people whose goal was the overthrow of the UK democratic system.
She dealt to, not with, the IRA. She brought a backbone to her Party not seen since Churchill.
She was highly intelligent. She was brave. She was formidable. Her work ethic was unsurpassed. She was a wife and a doting mother and grandmother. She was, despite all her achievements, an outsider.
Some years ago, I had dinner with Milton and Rose Friedman. I asked them which of all the leaders people they had worked with, they most admired. Milton Friedman was quick to say that Margaret Thatcher was the most inspirational of all.
She had the greatest hurdles to overcome and she achieved the most.
Baroness Thatcher, Rest in Peace. We have lost an icon.
— Judith Collins writing on Facebook

Let me say this: It takes guts to stand for election — to stick your head above the parapet of cosy anonymity and say ‘Vote for me. Follow me’. Both these women’s lives, Thatcher’s and Collins’s, demonstrate that courage, whether I (or anyone else) agree with their point of view or not.

This piece of vintage crack political punditry from Deborah Coddington circa 2006 Judith Collins – National Party leader in waiting? put them, Thatcher and Collins, unambiguously in the same frame:

But someone has to succeed Brash before the next election, and in the game of eeny-meeny between pretenders Gerry Brownlee, John Key, Bill English and Simon Power, the most obvious successor is being overlooked.

Continue reading →

Encouragement - Politics

tl;dr … and an old joke from Cactus Kate

Posted in 8 April 2013
No Comments »
tldr-fl

Based on an image at fairfaxunderground.com (click)

If you don’t already know, this pithy abbreviation tl;dr means ‘too long; didn’t read’. It’s sometimes used as a bitchy little put-down of someone else’s writing.

Lawyer Timothy Tostais describes (PDF here) how the call to shorten (dumb down?) legal advice brings risks …

TLDR may not be a new issue for lawyers in offering written advice. But it is a growing one. Our clients are asking us to effectively “tweet” advice because they believe that is all that they need or can tolerate. I believe that I write clearly and concisely. I look for ways to shorten my words, sentences and paragraphs. However, when I am advising on a complex issue, the nature of which I anticipate the client may not fully comprehend, I am wary of giving the “two-sentence answer” that is more often being asked of me.

Why? First, in arriving at my advice, I have to make assumptions based on how the issue was communicated and the facts presented. My two-sentence answer changes profoundly if my assumptions are incorrect, or the facts are incomplete or erroneous. If the client is not fully apprised of those limitations, risk of error arises. In effect, a two- sentence answer shifts both the responsibility for and the risk of outcome to the advisor, by means of the TLDR expedient.

Second, my advice is always contextual. It is about a specific set of circumstances at a specific moment in time. It is not a rule for general application. Stripping away the context, which is inevitable in the TLDR mode of communication, makes the advice more “rule-like” or universal in appearance, if not intent. If so understood, the risk of misapplication of that advice increases substantially.

Third, my clients don’t want me around all the time. I understand that. But the compressed advice actually makes the clients’ continued need for my services even greater. …

But here’s tech writer Andy Ihnatko’s ‘translation’, which, for me, seems much closer to the mark. Continue reading →

Humour
,

Good on the NZ Herald for this

Posted in 8 April 2013
3 Comments »

I appreciate the NZ Herald‘s use of an EXPLICIT CONTENT WARNING flag on a court story with graphic details.
NZ Herald explicit warnng

Very sensible. Gives readers fair warning … and choice.

Bravo.

– P

Media issues - Writing/Publishing
,

Apropos the ‘reputation as a liar’ thing for John Key

Posted in 8 April 2013
15 Comments »

More on the issue of the public perception (reputation) of the NZ prime minister and his veracity, here’s Otago University’s Bryce Edwards’ take on it, from TV3’s Frontline this morning:

Bryce Edwards suggests the honeymoon is over — TV3 Firstline (click)

Bryce Edwards suggests the PM’s honeymoon is over — TV3 Firstline (click)

“As usual with these scandals, it’s not the so-called ‘crime’ in the first place… it’s the cover-up. It’s how the politician handles things, and he’s handled it appallingly, and the consensus seems to be that he’s lied in Parliament and he’s lied to the media – at least, he hasn’t told the truth.
“The public don’t like that. The public don’t like their Prime Minister to be a liar.” [emphasis added]

— Read Dan Satherley’s transcript/article John Key: The honeymoon ‘is over’ and watch the video on demand at 3news.co.nz

Pretty bracing stuff. But is Bryce right that ‘the honeymoon is over’? He could be. Dunno.

Mr Key’s charm (not meant as a pejorative term) has held him high for a long time. Persistently high. As I’ve said many times before, John Key does a hell of a lot right as a politician. The temptation for those of the left wing persuasion is to urgently, feverishly read the tea leaves (ha) for any sign of a cooling of the warm public support the National Party leader has enjoyed for so long.

Confirmation bias?

The seductive urge to see the world as you want it to be, not as it is, has led to people for years asking various forms of the question ‘Has John Key reached his use-by date?’ — while his opinion poll support remains rusted to the dial.

Toby Manhire_ Perma-relaxed PM starting to come unstuck - Opinion - NZ Herald News

I still remember the opening of an excellent Toby Manhire column (for the removal of doubt: by excellent, I mean I agreed with him) Perma-relaxed PM starting to come unstuck:

Liar, liar, pants on fire. That’s the sound of the Labour Party – or several of its MPs at least – taking on John Key and co over the latest eruption of scandal from the giant Kim Dotcom pinata.
The Prime Minister’s claim not to have heard of Dotcom until the day before the testosterone-splattered Coatesville raid in January may look puzzling. His claim to have learned only the other day of GCSB surveillance activity is eyebrow-raising, too.
But does that make him a liar? I don’t see that it does. If you have evidence for mendacity, let’s see it, and – bingo – Key will be gravely politically wounded, perhaps mortally. Otherwise, shut up with the liar wolf cries. It just leaves you looking like a bunch of schoolyard mud-slingers.
“The problem is that they can’t join the dots enough,” said Key in the House this week. He was swatting away questions on the John Banks donations controversy (another gift from the Dotcom pinata), but he might easily have been analysing his opponents’ strategic shortcomings.
Because the dots are pretty joinable, if you think about it. A large part of the appeal of National and its jocular leader, Barbecue John, has been the contrast with what came before. … [emphasis added]

Now, have things moved on for ‘Barbecue John’ and his Labour Opposition from there? Well, yes, that seems indisputable. Continue reading →

Politics
,

The dark side of social media

Posted in 7 April 2013
10 Comments »
Excellent! (Click for link to Cartoons by Jim.)

Excellent! (Click for link to Cartoons by Jim.)

Someone called me a troll yesterday.

Well, he worked up to it. First I was said to “have clear troll like tendencies”, then later, as we discussed my criticisms of how he operates some more, out it came: “You are a troll”.

Mm-bokay. (Suffice to say, that’s not how I see what I do.)

Which reminded me I’d seen this cartoon by Jim satirising troll-speak as part of a promotion for an Auckland Social Media Club event “When Communities Go Bad” …

Join us for a journey into the dark side of social media as we take a look at how community managers and moderators deal with trolling, anonymous commenting and just general nasty stuff in the online world.

Our panel will feature expert guests from online news sources, major commercial Facebook communities and more, all sharing their war stories and tips on what to do when you find a troll under the bridge.

Roll in our now-regular Shiny New Thing segment and generously sponsored refreshments and, as always, you’re sure to “drink something cold, meet someone new and learn something useful!”

Panellists will share their war stories and insights into what works when the hecklers get hairy: …
Full details here

Honestly, they had me at ‘free beer’ (kidding!)

But it was funny, when I signed up to go, to get this:

Pretty low threshold for proving my existence. Whatever happened to "I think. Therefore I am?"

Pretty low threshold for proving my existence. Whatever happened to “I think. Therefore I am?”

See you there, perhaps?

– P

PS: Considering my condemner is responsible for some of the “general nasty stuff in the online world” (at least locally) we may run into each other again.

Humour - Media issues
,
 Page 40 of 132  First  ... « Previous 38  39  40  41  42 Next » ...  Last