Hard News: The witless on the pitiless
282 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 12 Newer→ Last
-
I see Hone’s comments and those of Dr Walker as akin to what happened in 1945 when the Irish government (which was neutral throughout WW2) sent formal notices of condolences to the German embassy following Hitler’s death.
In terms of diplomatic protocol doing so was perfectly unreasonable but in the context of Hitler’s life and what was already common knowledge about the death camps it was an unforgiveably crass move. So too with Hone’s comments however respectful he thought he was being. Bin Laden was a mass murderer full stop and I agree with Russell’s key point that Bin Laden would have had little truck with Māori culture.
Oops that should read was perfectly reasonable
-
Terry Baucher, in reply to
The New Yorker article is well worth a read incidentally, thanks Simon.
-
Ross Mason, in reply to
The equivalence is that both parties went out of their way to kill something. There is a good probability that both parties had god on their side. Both get rewarded.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Isn’t that what Hone himself did, ammended and apologised? ;)
That did occur to me. But it took him two goes, and I was more graceful ;-)
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
And some could suggest more intelligent ;) even.
-
webweaver, in reply to
But surely the absolutely vital difference is that the Navy SEALs are members of the US military and, as such, are bound by rules of engagement, the rule of law and (if at war) the Geneva Convention (plus I'm sure a bunch of other things). The suicide bombers... are not.
That's a huge difference! It should mean that the SEALs can't just rock up and blow someone away if they feel like it - as representatives of the US military they are (or should be) absolutely obligated to play by the rules - whoever their target is, and whatever it is he's accused of.
-
Che Tibby, in reply to
i think you mean "bound" by the rules of engagement.
-
i think you mean “bound” by the rules of engagement.
I think you mean "bound" by "their" rules of engagement.
-
Simon Grigg, in reply to
It should mean that the SEALs can't just rock up and blow someone away if they feel like it
And of course, doing so runs counter to a proud US military history of never using extra-legal means to an end.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
So I’m not sure you can go as far as telling people they can’t spell their own language.
Of course we/they can, we're imperialist overlords after all it's our responsibility to tell other people how to do things
-
Yes, yes, yes and yes. Exactly. Which is why I am - how shall I put this? - cynical in the extreme about US claims to hold any kind of moral high-ground in this regard. Because as far as I'm concerned, they don't.
-
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1105/S00096/noam-chomsky-my-reaction-to-osama-bin-ladens-death.htm
Don't know if anyone has linked to Chomsky's article.
-
Isn’t that what Hone himself did, ammended and apologised? ;)
As my Nan had frequent cause to say to me: "The apology is all very nice, dear. Next time, have nothing to apologise for." She also used to say God gave us two eyes, two ears and only one mouth and they should be used in the same proportions.
-
HORansome, in reply to
It's not a case of two words being spelt identically but pronounced differently; the macron is a character and thus the words are pronounced differently because they are spelt differently.
-
absolutely obligated to play by the rules -
Rules??? What rules??? Isn't that the point of asymetric warfare? There are no rules.
911 was one of the most brilliantly executed operations of this asymetric "war". There was no way the US was going to pull the guy in and put him on trial. Where would that be? I could really see them handing him over to the World Court, yeah right.
Look how much trouble they are having with gitmo. You can see why even Obama didn't want to close the place down because the guys who allegedly spilled the beans were/are still in there. I wonder if they will get a free ticket "home" now???
The moral dillema he had was whether the info they got by the time he was elected was worth throwing away. You are the POTUS, would/could you make a/the moral decision?
I don't envy Obama at all. He's now gorn. Dead and eaten by the sharks. So be it. Now lets start thinking about quietening the world down now that he is gone. I suspect it will quieten down a tad but what with the Arab Spring (April or October???) on the rise all sorts of things might happen. We wait....
But the US will get to keep the oil. QED.
-
I should point out that my hardline on the macron comes from associating with linguists and teachers of Te Reo.
-
Islander, in reply to
+1 indeed-
-
recordari, in reply to
I should point out that my hardline on the macron comes from associating with linguists and teachers of Te Reo.
Alles klar!
-
As my Nan had frequent cause to say to me: “The apology is all very nice, dear. Next time, have nothing to apologise for.
And??? Did we listen Craig?:)
No we didn't. Mine used to say "It is better to close ones mouth and appear stoopid, than open it and remove all doubt.
The Dog feeding aside ,(she is content now).Have we not seen a person(Hone now, not the dog) who,(often) shoots off at the mouth and has to explain himself because he only understands that shouting gets attention, and as the media have portrayed this week via TMP comments( re his mum), that is just how his family roll. I will suggest that he had chosen to use Maori TV as he is used to, and TVNZ as he is being taught to.
Still, the man is learning to aplogise, and he now has a few others at the helm to teach him further, I guess.Yes, yes, yes and yes.
I do hear you webweaver. It's the hypocrazy of Democrazy that goes round and round. :)
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
Also, a small, but important point; you keep misspelling "Māori." The macron is not optional.
Ṯẖāṉḵ ȳȱū Māṯẖēw Ī sẖāḻḻ ṯṝȳ ṯȱ ūsē ā Mācṝȱṉ wẖēṝēvēṝ Ī cāṉ.
-
you say smorgasbord - I say smörgåsbord.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
I should point out that my hardline on the macron comes from associating with linguists and teachers of Te Reo.
And fair enough too. Personally I'm less bent about macrons and enraged by media outlets whose pale pink editors think annual visits to Waitangi and Ratana and having the usual unrepresentative (but amusingly incendiary) rentaquote brown-necks on tap count for serious coverage of Maori society and politics.
Different strokes for different folks...
-
Maori Language Act 1987 (sic)
-
Since we seem to have a few people knowledgeable about Te Reo here, can I have a bit of an explanation about the semantic differences between "pakeha" or (pākehā)and "tauiwi"?
My understanding of the meaning of "tauiwi" was that it meant "foreigner", in the sense that you're fresh off the boat and do not belong to the country. At all. "Pākehā, in my understanding, refers to European-descended New Zealanders.
To give it context, I've felt somewhat insulted in the past to be addressed as "tauiwi" when the majority of my family have been in NZ since the 1840s - I certainly would not consider myself to be a recent immigrant or foreigner or "alien", as the Americans quaintly put it.
However, if it is a neutral way to say "non-Māori", I'll moderate my irritation. Although I have to say that the very few instances where I've personally been labelled as "tauiwi" did not seem to be neutral in context (but then again, any word can be turned into an insult given the right tone of voice).
Anyway, not wanting to start another bun fight on the wider issues, but I am interested in the shadings of these words from the perspective of a speaker of Te Reo.
-
HORansome, in reply to
I think you'll find I agree with you on that, Craig; that's why my initial comment to Russell was about how I felt the first line of this post painted a picture of te ao Māori that was generalised and unwarranted. The failure to use macrons was of secondary importance.
I should also like to add, in my role as a teacher of critical thinking, that pointing at other places and people who don't use macrons or are inconsistent in their marking of the long vowels of te reo Māori isn't an argument, nor justification, for not marking said vowels. Unless, of course, that person can give a good reason as to why, say, they can ignore the findings and guidance of the relevant authorities (such as the Māori Language Commission, for example).
Rant over.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.