Posts by rodgerd
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
, never mind the cost of mobile data usage on Vodafone New Zealand,
Also note that the info released thus far says that to get better than bog-standard GSM requires a WiFi network. No EDGE, no GPRS. Which will make the web browsing experience somewhat suboptimal in most of NZ.
-
The New Testament God is distant, but also non-partisan; you did not have to be Jewish to believe in him, which is one reason why Christianity became so successful.
Frankly, that's the worst part of the shift from the narrow religion of Judaism to the religion of Christianity. The universality of Christianity is precisely the reason so many Christians feel free to bother other people, where "bothering" can include "invading and massacring" - even other Christians (cf Cathars, sacking of Constantinople).
The small-o orthodox Jewish position holds that the God of Israel is only concerned with his people. If you aren't Jewish, and aren't preventing Jews from practising their faith, you aren't of any particular interest to Jews; the Egyptians weren't punished for following the "wrong gods", just for intefering with Moses and the Jews.
Judaism is a lot more compatible with a secular society than faiths that make absolutist claims about universal truths, such as Christianity or Islam.
-
Simon, that's repcisely the sort of thing that would arguably become illegal under copyright circumvention.
I'd be interested to see opinion from more legally minded bods on whether there's scope for DMCA takedown abuse in this legislation.
-
<QUOTE>A bit worried about the "oh it's all too hard for the NZers" line. I think we can lay off those who identify as ethnic "New Zealanders" when the white-dominated media lays off the "Asians".</QUOTE>
Yes, well, that's why it's hilarious that a blogger who gets so upset about the over-genrealisation of "Asians" and the oibnoxious inability of people to pay attention to what a fairly disparate group of people want to be called gets her panties into such a wad about the idea that people might not want to be called "Europeans" when they are nothing of the sort.
-
Well, Russell, if Key had said what you suggest, it takes precisely zero imagination to pick the soundbite he'd be hit over the head with for the rest of his life: "...yes, I was pro-Tour." 'Cause we all know anyone was was pro-Tour was then, is now, and ever shall be a drooling racist don't we?
Step away from the strawman, Craig. It'll give you hayfever.
-
I'd have been quite happy for Key to have said "Well, I was 20 years old, living in the halls of residence, drinking beer and enjoying rugby, so, yes, I was pro-Tour. But history shows I was wrong."
Or fashioned a "I was pro-tour because I believe it's not the government's place to interfere in the lawful travel of people who aren't a threat to the state", or "I believe in law and order, and the protesters were breaking the law", or any of the responses I've seen from pro-Tour types that are more sophisticated than "I was pro-Tour because it helped Muldoon get in on the redneck racist, anti-city vote", or the people who were the racist, anti-city vote.
-
Well, Jeremy, it might get them elected, but the proof would be in the pudding. Key's voting record suggests he and I have very different visions of an inclusive society.
-
Incidentally, on the spin front, Michael Basset was on NatRad this morning claiming Hager forged his evidence, although he declined to identify which evidence was forged. That could get... interesting.
(As is the way so many Nation-defending bloggers are on-message with that spin, eh, Craig. NZ politics gets more depressingly like the States every day...)
-
U2 only have one good song? I don't much like U2, and I'd cheerfully argue that. Sunday Bloody Sunday, for starters (written, one notes, at a time when it was decidedly not the done thing for Irish artists to be putting too much energy into suggesting that the Glorious Struggle wasn't that flash).
The thing I find interesting that no-one seems to mention is how much of what's emerged as being supported by facts were things Trevor Mallard alluded to before, during, and after the election (dodgy US nutters advising Don, money from abroad, the affair, and so on). Has Mallard got unusually good sources, or was this stuff common knowledge and Mallard the only one with a big enough mouth to blab about it?
And if it was common knowledge down the Beehive end of town, what the fuck are the Gallery reporters doing? Oh, that's right, in the words of NatRad's chief political reporter, they think Don Brash is too nice a chap to report negative stories about him.
-
but I have to agree with RNZ political editor Brent Edwards
Is that the same Brent Edwards who, when the whole Brash affair came out went on NatRad and explained how he didn't like doing negative stories about Brash because he's such a nice man?
Let's just say at that point I lost any interest in the opinions of NatRad's gallery reporters, since they are obviously now taxpayer funded cheeleaders, rather than actual reporters.
and it remains to be seen whether this is (to coin a phrase) going to be one of those 'Beltway issues' we hear so much about.
Ahh, of course. Libel about David Benson-Pope: critical to the national interest. Evidence that suggests working journalists are also acting as party political hacks without declaring the conflict of interest: beltway issues. Auditor-General retrospectively declares election spending improper: most corrupt government in NZ history. Massive campaign to flout NZ election law to the tune of millions of dollars: beltway issue.