Hard News: Things To Do
194 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 Newer→ Last
-
A S: I'ld tie it a bit closer to the storming of the Bastille and the abuses of power Waihopai & the Bastille represent.
Curiously America played a role in both.
During the reign of Louis XVI, France faced a major financial crisis, triggered by the cost of intervening in the American War of Independence, and exacerbated by an unequal system of taxation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storming_of_the_Bastille
How's that! Circle complete back to taxation.
-
A S,
Shep, I think the Bastille comparison is drawing a fairly, massively long bow.
At the end of the day, we don't know a huge amount of what Waihopai represents, aside from what a few people, who don't know for certain either, wrote at some point. The people who do know what it actually does, aren't telling as far as I can see.
I'm struggle to see how Waihopai represents an abuse of power anymore than AirNZ owing and flying planes made by boeing (boeing makes all those funky guided bomb kits for the USAF after all, and they have a much more tangible and terminal impact than a big dish in a paddock somewhere).
-
A S: People do what they can and this is a big statement. Not to mention a total failure of security. They had time to make a shrine to peace before getting picked up.
And burning down schools wasn't a huge leap, just trying to keep up with you there :p
-
any one that says the ploughshares could have got their point across as effectively in other ways is wrong
This logic is a bit screwy, isn't it?
If I thought the education system was bad, would I be justified in burning down a school? Or if I had concerns about the health system, would I be justified setting a couple of wards ablaze?
oh nonono. sorry, i spat that comment out in a bit of a hurry. its possible I could have been clearer. Im not sure why you think I am advocating some kind of terrorism though...
putting aside the fact that i see your burning schools and hospitals comparison as a HUGE leap beyond inconveniencing a satelite dish operation....
I heard a snippet of Bill English on Bfm this morning, filling in for the regular John Key bit. He stated that the group could have got the same message out to the public without resorting to such tactics. When in fact there has been quite a lot of noise around Echelon over the years, most with no way near as much cut through.
I didnt mean to justify their actions. But it seems likely to have been slightly more strategicly cunning than the standard piket etc, in that the government is going to either have to discuss certain aspects of the echelon operations or look guilty in their silence.
so to restate my logic: they got the best possible publicity, a lot more than any others have on the same topic recently. could they have achieved such results any other way? with out hurting people or inconveniencing the public? nope.
-
A S,
I understand your perspective samuel, I guess that I just can't get my head around the motivation to damage things we don't like in order to get attention.
On the huge leap thing, I would have said that in looking at it dispassionately, there isn't really much difference between events at Waihopai and the burning school/hopital e.g's.
In all cases:
1. Someone decides that they have an issue with a state institution,
2. They unilaterally decide to attack/damage that institution because of the issue they have, and carry out their intent.The motivation, action and result in all three examples is the same. The end result is damaged things that the public has to pay to fix. Generally that cost has to be met by reducing spending somewhere else.
-
When I hear The Rt Hon CLarker saying it was senseless because of the cost to the taxpayer, all that comes to mind is $26M and a broken sailboat. It's nothing like burning down a school. It's like cutting through a school trampoline.
-
that's 26 pops at a waihope balloon.....
-
A S,
When I hear The Rt Hon CLarker saying it was senseless because of the cost to the taxpayer, all that comes to mind is $26M and a broken sailboat. It's nothing like burning down a school. It's like cutting through a school trampoline.
So destroying resources on the basis of personal belief that the rest of the country will have to pay to fix is fine? That is what it boils down to.
$1m buys a sh!tlo@d of trampolines, and hip operations, and cataract ops, and special education services, and refugee resettlement work, or disability allowance. Doesn't it?
-
still only 1/26 of what kiwis forked out for 5 years ago for a losing sailboat.
-
-
I understand your perspective samuel, I guess that I just can't get my head around the motivation to damage things we don't like in order to get attention.
we agree on that A.S. I personally never would consider such an action. Breaking in and plastering a big red target on it would have been a lot more classy, and would have gotten the publicity too. However it would have been a lot less likely to work. I understand they didnt expect their plan to pop bubble to work anyway....
On the huge leap thing, I would have said that in looking at it dispassionately, there isn't really much difference between events at Waihopai and the burning school/hopital e.g's.
they are public spaces. big difference.
they also involve the young and the sick. and would include the possible presence of non-involved people. where as everyone inside the Echelon base is involved in the project. Plus they rendered the dish unusable [yes, via vandalism] but they didnt blow it up, or burn it to the ground. It is a much more focused message than that.their actions do not make me consider them people to fear. Whereas any fool burning a school [and it happens, normally as mindless vandalisim] immediately gets tagged by me as probably cowardly, stupid, irrational, scary, selfish.
And yes, the cost is a concern, the funding of the base is obviously secret and complex, one would hope that whoever benefits from its actions would be responsible for maintaining its security properly and covering any costs that arise due to it's controversial nature. We may never really know.
-
still only 1/26 of what kiwis forked out for 5 years ago for a losing sailboat.
I can't stand the America's Cup BUT that money was spent as an enormous advertising gimmick for tourism in NZ. They hoped to win so we'd have it here and thus earning us more money but even the failed effort last year was supposed to have been worth it financially.
I just wish we would spend 26 million buying the Kangaroos to play for us in the league next week.
-
I hear what you're saying about the hopes of retaining the cup tourism, but wouldn't that money have been better spent schmoozing the owners of the competitor yachts, so that when those private companies won they'd hold it here anyway?
seriously, if the government has that much money to throw around on sport. and longshort tourism, what's $1m for a giant condom, and furthermore, whoever quoted that price saw the government coming, why not let NZ companies bid for the rights to mend the holes?
whole thing reeks of croneyism. I'm sure I could find a company here who'd fix those holes for the half the price the government is gonna force the tax payer to pay.
-
Every time this child poverty figure is promoted I grimace.
"New Zealand came third-worst in the developed world in a Unicef survey of child poverty around the year 2000, with a quarter of all children then living in families earning less than 60 per cent of the median income."
I don't doubt that poverty exists in NZ. But this measure is plain ridiculous.
Median = the income of the 50th percentile.
So a country with a really skewed income distribution (ie: 80% of people earn the minimum wage, 10% earn nothing, 10% earn heaps), would perform better than a country with an even income spread
I find this quite extraordinary too - the measurement is not to do with how much money these children have to live on, but on income disparity in a country.
I don't doubt that there are families finding it very hard to get by in this country, but that stat explicitly means that the economy could have grown in leaps and bounds over the last 5 years, with the poorest families seeing income percentage growth as much as anyone else, and yet the "child poverty" statistic wouldn't move. Which doesn't really seem right to me.Income disparity is certainly something that needs to be discussed, and I understand that Unicef use that measure because of the huge range of incomes and costs of living across nations, but to then bandy about comments around child poverty not getting any better (when in fact poor families could have seen significant growth in family income) seems a bit extreme... Indeed if the child poverty ratio drifts only slightly down in a period of strong national economic growth, that could imply a serious lift in living standards for the poorest (not only part of the rising tide like everyone else, but taking a bigger chunk of that rise as well)
-
still only 1/26 of what kiwis forked out for 5 years ago for a losing sailboat
That was spent by our elected representatives. We can vote them out. Nobody elected these activists to spend our money. Nor can we vote them out.
Also, riddle me this; what if this led to an intelligence failure, that resulted in an ambush, that cost ANZAC lives in Afghanistan? How peaceful would the sickles be then?
-
Malcolm - now that's a leap.
It's not like it's the first time anyone jumped the fence there. No damage was done to the infrastructure itself. They just popped a balloon that is there to provide weather protection.
Result - if it was anywhere else in NZ it might get wet, but it's Marlborough and so that's not gonna happen.
Security is their responsibility & it is obviously seriously lacking, as no real damage was done they've actually helped bring to light how lax those boys and girls at Waihopai are.
This was all a symbolic display that has achieved its goal.
If you are worried about the safety of NZ Troops in Afghanistan why not pressure your MP to get our troops in armoured cars etc rather than a Hi-Lux?
-
A S,
Shep,
It isn't such a leap really. Media reports were that the dish was out of action as a result of the attack.
In terms of the security at Waihopai, are you suggesting they should have had armed guards with shoot on sight instructions?
$1m damage, nothing to worry about? I suspect most people would disagree with you on that one.
-
A S,
$1m - The obvious answer to that is moth balls, pull the plug and then no more problem.
And this $1M for a plastic rain coat, really? I'll do the contract for 1/2 that.
All that was needed was a roving patrol in fog when the CCTV is out of action.
It might be cold and dark outside, but if you can't see you better off your ass and take a walk, a flashlight, radio and themos of coffee would do the job.
-
Good grief this spawned a fscked thread.
Boo hoo, rich folk suffering away and only getting the freedom and power of money to show for it. Protesters inconveniencing the people they're protesting against. It's all Cats and Dogs, isn't it.
Don't like local poverty? Bump the bloody benefits, and bump the minimum wage. It's not at all complicated. Universal benefit FTW.
-
Shep, the whole logic of the 9/11 attacks was that the entire US economy and society was complicit in the exploitation of the Semitic, Arabic and Persian peoples. Thus, an attack on the "innocent" was justified, because by their actions they were complicit in exploitation and death. If you buy that line of reasoning, attack on infrastructure and civilian populations can be seen a legitimate part of a war, as they were in WWII.
Consequently, in a shooting war, one of the first targets is the command and control structure. If they could, enemies of the US (or Nato) would strike at places like Waihopai as a priority target.
So I see this as a direct attack on the military-industrial complex of the west. A violent attack. Was it justified? That's a different question.
Was it 'peaceful'? Not on your nellie.
By making this attack, the attackers were choosing sides. Why didn't they attack a fundamentalist church instead? After all, George Bush quoted scripture as he invaded Iraq. That was more important to him that intelligence - in fact, if he had listened to the intelligence, he wouldn't have attacked at all. They should have taken their sickles to the bible.
-
Malcolm this was symbolism and these guys are pacifists.
I would like to distinguish between violence upon an object, and violence upon a person, as being two very different things. let us remember that they caused no harm to the infrastructure itself.
It was direct non-violent action. I conceed we will not agree on this point.
You've tied them to killing our troops in Afghanistan and now drawn a parrallel with the 9/11 hijackers, both are preposterous.
It's their actions and aims that they should be judged on, not their inspiration. As such religion isn't the issue.
I might say various members of this group (although not these guys) have bailed me up in the past about where I've worked and what I've done. I believe our military are essentially doing good.
Waihopai however is not part of 'our' defense and is not supposed to monitor NZ communications. Therefore I have an issue with it.
-
As you note Shep, we must agree to disagree.
By the logic you cite, it seems to me that the 9/11 attacks were a horrifying and unprovoked surprise attack on innocent civilians. Certainly, voting for a political party and filling up your car seems less offensive than attacking a military installation.
To me, that raises the question what the US should have done in response to 9/11. My view: Invaded Afghanistan, deposed the Taleban and eliminated Al Quaeda as an effective force. And left Iraq completely alone. I'm intrigued whether those who attacked the spy dishes would also have supported the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan? I assume they would not have supported the 9/11 attacks ... ?
These are not intended as trick questions. My very real concern is that it all too easy to duck the hard issues by hiding behind a veil of pacifism. It turns out that a belief in non-violence doesn't protect you from the 9/11, Madrid, London and Bali bombers. Let alone the other plots that have been frustrated.
So should we just turn the other cheek? If not, how can we justify interfering with our defence? These vandals have not turned the other cheek, yet they expect us to, I think?
It seems very self centred to me - an attempt to feel better about a local issue, and damn the global consequences.
Hmmn. That sounds familiar.
-
It's their actions and aims that they should be judged on, not their inspiration. As such religion isn't the issue
Oh, and I must point out that you seem to be defending their actions and aims based on their inspiration. I am quite happy to judge them on their actions and aims:
- Actions: significant vandalism with reckless disregard for the consequences.
- Aim: disarmanent.I'm sorry, but the Waihopai dishes weren't armaments. They can only be regarded as armaments by reference to the broader arguments I introduced earlier.
-
Much as i enjoy a good satire, I don't condone or support these attacks. Unlike yourself I'm not happy to put myself in the position of judge. These people with their sickles,highlighted major deficiencies in domestic intelligence in the protection our country and assets.
They showed up the arrogant naivety of a government under who's watch we've seen a planejacking,(due to a falling through of cracks in the mental health system), the detention and unkiwi beating in custody of alleged terrorists; and the subsequent failure of anti-terror legislation to do what it was designed to do. We've found New Zealand superannuation was paying it's way via weapons' production. We've learnt first hand what a good tasering does to the urinary tract, and now, this attack - on a vital intelligence gathering resource: That you even surmise, may be essential in the protection of our servicemen and women overseas.
This is stuff we needed to know. People need to know if the Government is or isn't pulling it's weight in protecting our assets, and this is clearly not the case.
Now the tax payer must pay $1million dollars +
Did the government adequately insure this strategic resource? From that figure it would seem not. as AS mentioned on the previous, this money could be used to pay for:
...hip operations, and cataract ops, and special education services, and refugee resettlement work, or disability allowance...
I'm not clear if the government has followed the traditional British model of not insuring public buildings or if they have been paying premiums towards a questionable insurance coverage, which still requires the payment of a $1M deductible towards the reparation of damage to this obviously very expensive bubble.
Either way, why they didn't adequately protect and defend this obvious target, which seems peculiar when they wasted a good deal of money last year debating the specifics of laws to detain terrorists, laws to curb freedom of political expression, (and this year) laws to clarify the illegality of making mix tapes for your mates- is beyond me.
I hate to say it, but his seems to be ever so slightly shit management of the country. So no point getting het up about the protagonists when by all reports it took nothing more than child's play to incur over $1million dollars in damage, that's coming out of NZers' salaries.
Didn't Russell set the ball rolling, outlining methods to help alleviate poverty for low income workers? Did Sue not say:
in wellington it is cheaper to buy Tow 1 liter bottles of milk than one 2 liter bottle
Hasn't Mexicali upped the price for Taco Tuesdays $6?
Hasn't Hell Pizza changed their "BBQ pork ribs" to half the amount for $1 extra?
Is flat-rate internet really a sham?(I never even heard of nonflat-rate till reading Hard News blog)
Haven't New Zealander's been promised tax cuts next year, every year of this Labour government?
can these dots not be joined Malcolm?
In a successful business, these ploughshares,are what we callConsultants
, and what they have done is show up these government mugs (with excellent media training) as doing a slightly lesser job than their egos would possibly care to admit to. Once again.
You can vote them in, but no, you can't vote them out.
Introducing civil unions and nothing else good is not IMHO a legacy to be proud of.
-
should read 'Tuesdays to $6'.....
Post your response…
This topic is closed.