The Intercept has now started international fundraising for Nicky’s legal costs. International story now.
She's So Rad have taken a track from Kimbra's 90s-inspired album and wound it back to the 80s.
Careful, the artist again known as Prince might be calling his lawyers for pinching his ideas. ;)
Arrggh. We’ve been here before and it’s a non-story – unless, of course, we’re going to start scrutinising the travel of government ministers (and their entourages) to National Party fundraisers. Which we’re not.
This is actually quite depressing.
On that note, Frank Macskasy's complaint in August regarding the Donghua Liu affair wasn't upheld. On the bottom it says, "John Roughan took no part in the consideration of this complaint.". Probably conflict of interest abstention.
I think the Anglosphere has gotten rather complacent
Probably even to the point of the fiddling-while-Rome-burns sort of complacent.
In HK they still know how to protest. Whereas in many of the advanced Anglosphere economies, it seems to have become a mild case of boiled frog-ism: "So what if people are throwing molotovs and there are soldiers marching in the streets? Nothing else matters as long as my house price remains high. Unless of course, someone wants to build a mosque down the road."
Without referring back to the letter of the law, who defines what a terrorist organisation is? What about 'state sponsored terrorism'? Does that count? Is that also defined – or is there a neat exclusion clause for nation states?
And I have something to ask 'Natman': is Anders Behring Breivik a gunman, a terrorist, or a patriot?
I must admit the revelation on nat radio this morning that Slater (spit) et al are in the process of starting their own agency sort of sent a shiver down my spine - it's an obvious ploy to try and control the press just a little bit more and to make the Nat's message the only one that many people hear
Sounds like what Breitbart has done in the States.
If I go to Syria to fight for the Assad regime, and kill ISIS fighters, am I a terrorist?
Who here saw Matthew VanDyke's "Point and Shoot" at the NZFF?
I think the key test is how much weight the 'believer' gives to verifiable facts. Refusing to face unpleasant facts is the psychological starting point of many a conspiracy theory. For example, many people were unhappy with the outcome of the New Zealand elections, and could not believe that so many people had voted for the Key government. Their conclusion (unsubstantiated by any evidence) was that the result must have been due to electoral fraud or some such jack-up.
I'm certainly not one of them; I'm of the view it was a perfect storm of factors.
On the flipside, there are also the conspiracy theories of the 'beneficiaries with SKY dishes and BMWs', which is basically the NZ version of the American 'welfare queen'. And those who throw the term 'PC gone mad' are themselves rooted in conspiracy theorism of the McCarthyist kind.
It wouldn't surprise me if most of these people also happen to believe in the Eurabia dystopia, which is basically a reheated Cold War Domino Theory - Pamela <cough> Geller is probably its most infamous figurehead.
others have to taken to the internet to declare him guilty of "receiving stolen property"
But where the criticism of the book isn't simply in bad faith, it's often hapless, as Roughan's column is. Nicky Hager isn't perfect. But it seems fair to say he really does deserve better critics.
Said critics are effectively saying, "it's not illegal when President Nixon is doing it."