Hard News: Things To Do
202 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 Newer→ Last
-
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.
-
Email
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'.....
-
Email
Is it just me, or has UNITYblog changed appearance in the last little while?
I thought it was originally the official blog of Socialist Worker-New Zealand, not just "hosted [by SW-NZ] in the interests of broad left unity".
-
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?
Schools do useful things, the covers on the dishes are actually just cosmetic.
I've been to the Waihopai base, as part of an Anti Bases Campaign protest. This would have to be the biggest spotlight that has been put on them in years and years of turning up and protesting at the bases by a number of committed activists. Absolutely it's been effective at getting their message across.
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.
Actually the primary purpose of the 'golf balls' is to cover the dishes as having them visible and out in the open is just bad marketing - it's bad form to remind the general population that there are big dishes there spying on them. There's no need for dishes such as these to have weather cover, and in lots of places they don't have any covers. From memory when Waihopai was first built, there was no cover, it was added a couple of years later on the one dish they had then.
The dish would have been turned off for a period because it had a kevlar dome collapse on it. If it didn't have the stupid dome they wouldn't have had to turn it off - the activists wouldn't have been likely to be able to do anything to the actual dish.
-
However, from where I'm sitting, it's looking pretty good. The bottoms fallen out of the real-estate pyramid scheme. Meaning, rather than farming affluent wannabe lords of the two acer block, the farmers might resume food production as the better economic use of land. And as David, the former energy engineer and forklift driver, said in another thread, New Zealand produces food with reasonable imported energy efficiency, compared to some of our major trading partners.
I don't see that helping much. NZ getting ahead in the cost of producing food is going to be great for farmers, but if food is still really expensive in the rest of the world, then it'll be much better for our farmers to export it and earn a heap more, than sell it domestically and earn less. It's my understanding that this is why we're paying a lot for milk products these days - not that milk is drastically more expensive to make in NZ, just that it's high internationally, and we buy NZ milk in competition with that international market.
-
No its not. GST is a regressive tax that has a far greater proportional impact on low income households than higher income households. Sorry Russell, you have got that side of the argument totally arse about face.
I get... annoyed isn't the right word - frustrated... by the description of GST as a regressive tax.
GST is probably regressive to your income, but it's not an income tax. It's a sales tax of a sort. It's a flat tax relative to what it's a tax on, which is spending.
Yes poor income earners probably pay a higher proportion of their income on GST on food. But I bet the proportion is even more pronounced on petrol tax, no one seems to be arguing for that to be removed to alleviate child poverty. Car registration? Rates are probably regressive for some lower income earners.
(Catching up on posts after a week in Rarotonga)
-
A S,
Schools do useful things, the covers on the dishes are actually just cosmetic.
So just because someone deems that something isn't useful, its fine to destroy it? That really is screwy.
Funnily enough, it just goes to reinforce my original argument there is no acceptable reason to destroy something in this country merely because a minority dislike it.
If the majority consider that something should be done, we live in a democratic society, so there is an opportunity every three years to work towards this.
I was also somewhat horrified to read an earlier post (not by you though Kyle) that implied that destroying schools was bad because children might be there, but it was ok to attack a base because those who were there knew what they were doing....
WTF?! So someone, who was recruited by the govt of this country, who probably quite rightly consider that they are working for the best interests of our country, perhaps out a sense of duty or need to serve the public, and yet it is ok to target them? I just don't buy that argument at all.
The other extreme of that argument is that it is ok to crush dissenting voices by violent means because they knew what they were doing. Does anyone really want to go down that path?
-
AS - First things first - please quote rather than bring your own strawmen to the conversation, (a bit Wishartesque in style).
As far as I can see you were the pyro who brought the burning of schools into the converstaion and any ref from there on was in response to your stawman.
I have met Mr McMasters who just won the Viet Nam vets a consession on Agent Orange because he kept the maps of Kiwi deployment and the spray zones.
The "Trust us" line doesn't work, if it ever did.
It's pretty clear anyone paid to be at Waihopai wasn't working and to that there can be no arguement. Especially inlight of the Pine Gap 4 told them about it in Jan08 with the dates!
I don't think anyone is arguing about the legality of the actions taken & those who committed it are prepared to pay a price for their actions.
You will note it is not seen by the Police in such shrill tones as put forward by yourself & Malcolm, responsible for Kiwi deaths in Afghanistan or like burning schools - no-one is having any of that.
It was a break-in and popping of a balloon.
-
Repairing waihope kevla dome $1M
Processing three saboteurs $1000
Reading about it in New Idea $3Wall surrounding Bamiyan Buddha destroyed by NZ forces...
Priceless.
-
A S
you got this :
I was also somewhat horrified to read an earlier post (not by you though Kyle) that implied that destroying schools was bad because children might be there, but it was ok to attack a base because those who were there knew what they were doing....
from this?
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.good call with the Wishart comparison Shep. i can hear the twilight zone music too.....
-
A S,
Shep.
Let's recap.
earlier post from Samuel.
any one that says the ploughshares could have got their point across as effectively in other ways is wrong.
Then we have my statement questioning this.
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?
Samuel came back with
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 then replied to this with
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.
Samuel and I continued to discuss in a similar vein, then Malcolm chipped in at that point
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?
Then you chipped in with reply to Malcolm
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.
...At that point, I thought this wasn't quite accurate, so I chipped in with
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.
Then you replied with
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.
etc. etc. etc.
In reading back over this, to your strawman accusation, I say Bullshit. You might not agree with my argument, I sure as hell don't agree with yours, but lets try not to degenerate into the written equivalent of throwing stones shall we.
I did indeed draw a parallel between waihopai and other state assets. I maintain that this is a valid parallel. Destroying something, even if it belongs to the state, just because you disagree with it, or because you want to make a point is just screwy, not to mention criminal.
Show me something in my statements that isn't a valid point to bring to the debate.
Actually Samuel, the bit horrified me the most was this
and would include the possible presence of non-involved people. where as everyone inside the Echelon base is involved in the project.
Wouldn't you agree that from this statement you could indeed draw such a conclusion?
Hate to say, I've never read anything by Wishart, so I'm uncertain if that is a compliment or an insult. In terms of the twilight zone, though, let's not get into that debate, it really doesn't get us anywhere, and the accusation of conspiracy theory nutjobs really does go two ways on this.
Cheers
A S
-
Sorry I was wrong.
Mr McMasters is Mr Masters. I always want to prefix his name for some reason.
-
A S.
good effort with the response. I could have expected more bite after I baited with the twighlight zone ref.
Wouldn't you agree that from this statement you could indeed draw such a conclusion?
nope. not even when taken out of context like that.
anyway,i think the guts of this matter is that gaining as much of the right kind of publicity is key to any public protest being effective.Unlike you I choose to see a difference between the violent and the passive in these situations. And I also differ with you in that I see the Waihopai action as sitting rather comfortably within the passive set.
And I think we are gonna hafta agree to disagree on this one.
-
why not fight to the death?
-
__Schools do useful things, the covers on the dishes are actually just cosmetic.__
So just because someone deems that something isn't useful, its fine to destroy it? That really is screwy.
Well whether or not it's fine to destroy something, would depend on the individual and the object. Personally I'd be very happy if Waihopai got knocked over in a big storm, or was torn down by enraged activists. I wouldn't want anyone who worked there hurt in that action however. I'm sure I'd be in the minority though.
But it's not a difficult conclusion to draw that you would get a different reaction to the statements:
1. I hate the health system so I'm going to blow up a hospital.
2. I hate Waihopai, so I'm going to blow up the spy dishes.from a lot of NZers. Even if they opposed both actions (which I'm sure most NZers would), we assign different values to different things, and it would be a far more whacked out activist that would try to take out a hospital, even if it was (for some reason) empty of staff and patients.
No doubt the activists will be convicted and fined, in much the same way that a person who got made the choice to get drunk and go around breaking stuff.
-
Ploughshares are pacifists. That the use of their symbol was seen as violent was a miss reading of their symbolism.
It was all symbolisim with no actual damage done, or intended to be done, to the essential infrastructure. -
Shep, Kyle,
So let's get this right. It's okay to destroy things you morally disagree with, provided you are willing to take the consequences of your actions, and don't intend to hurt people? Have I got that right?
I don't see how any kind of society could function with that kind of violent anarchism. It seems to justify everything. After all, people always believe themselves justified in their actions. It reminds me of Professor Paz in Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", who described himself as a rational anarchist. However, he followed his anarchist logic to its conclusion, and was prepared to kill if he thought he ought to . After all, once you demonize somebody as part of an oppressive clique, any action against them becomes justified. Doesn't it? How far can property damage and reckless disregard be taken?
The inevitable suspicion is that you only intend such rules to apply to people you like. I wonder how you would feel about people using the same tactics, but to opposite political ends?
-
So let's get this right. It's okay to destroy things you morally disagree with, provided you are willing to take the consequences of your actions, and don't intend to hurt people? Have I got that right?
Well if you look http://www.publicaddress.net/system/topic,958,onpoint_children_come_first_except_when_walls_come_first.sm?i=0#forum-replies">here, then you'll see a fair few PAS posters arguing that people should be able to grafitti all over public and private property.
But no, that's not what I said. What I said is that you'll get a different reaction to damaging or destroying things that you morally disagree with, depending on what that thing is.
Mike Smith is the obvious example. By taking a chainsaw to an exotic tree at the top of one tree hill, a fair proportion of NZers got really pissed at him. If he'd taken the chainsaw to a native tree at the bottom of the hill, most people wouldn't have given a shit, and just thought he was an idiot with a chainsaw.
I don't think there are always moral absolutes, but there are often moral spectrums, and everyone fits on them somewhere. Not many people would agree with popping the balloon around Waihopai. A few more might agree with disabling a tank that was in Iraq. What if the tank was in Burma and about to go find some monks last year? The tanks in Tiannenman Square killing student protestors? At some point almost everyone agrees that destroying property, particularly government property is OK.
Under law it's not OK to do a lot of things. Destroy property is one, smoke pot is another. That doesn't mean if you do it and get caught you're not going to get some sympathy from people who agree with you.
-
Malcolm - It's not OK, that is why there are consequences, but I do respect them for making a stand.
And Kyle brings out the classic symbolic actions of Mike King (an embarressment to all Maori forresters) when he attempted (& failed) to cut a tree down. Involking the history of cutting down flag poles by Hone Heke.
I do see these as legitimate forms of protest.
After being let go on bail they gave a clear statement they weren't wanting to attack the infrastructure as that is NZs role to take. They merely wanted to highlingt Waihopai, which they did.
Post your response…
You may also create an account or retrieve your password.