Hard News: Electrickery
144 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
Picking the church of an Afro-centric liberation theologist hasn't exactly panned out brilliantly for him politically this year, has it?
But it wouldn't have done him any harm when he was starting off his political career in the poorer neighbourhoods of Chicago and I doubt he would have been at that time considered his membership in the light of a possible future bid for the presidency.
I would say political calculation comes into it for an activist of this age.
That's a bit too harsh. I think his membership went hand in hand with his political aspirations - I don't believe he would have joined had he not believed in the sort of spiritual guidance the church provided and that guidance fitted with his early politics. (I wouldn't rely on Hitchens on anything to do with religion - or the Clintons).
-
Note too that the Rev Wright is now 'retired' as head pastor of TUCC, this happened in February this year- right after Super Tuesday is my guess.
Hitchens comments are not about Clinton which are my own views, but not having a copy of Audacity myself , Ill take his word on what it contains.
Remember too that good judgement doesnt come with calculated judgement as Obamas choice of home loan finacier much much more recently shows
-
Hitchens actually gives the page numbers from Audacity of Hope to support the shallowness of his beliefs
I'd believe Hitchens' opinions on Obama right after I started believing that the Rolling Stones were better than the Beatles. (That's never, Stones fans.) I read that piece earlier today and thought that it contained a thoroughly meanspirited characterisation of a speech that was anything but. I can't wait to read the actual pages of The Audacity of Hope and see how Hitchens has managed to cherrypick his way to an argument for 'shallowness'.
Besides, you guys can't have it both ways: he's either 'shallow', in which case he doesn't believe anything, including what Wright says (so: awesome! What are we worried about?); or he's deeply involved in the church, in which case he's closely tied to Wright (so: bad. But hang on, it's not 'shallow', which therefore makes it: awesome!). Which is it?
-
Hitchens comments are not about Clinton which are my own views, but not having a copy of Audacity myself , Ill take his word on what it contains.
I'd prefer to read it for myself and I doubt it is how Hitchens portrays things (my reference to the Clintons was just an aside about how deranged he's always been about them. Seems to be catchy though).
-
"and yet even with this supposed sham Christianity he is able to be compassionate, humble and humanitarian, and understand being your brother's keeper."
Great point. He sure acts like a christian whose read the christ bits quite closely, and that's more than most christian politicians.
"Obama has basically very little religious beliefs and attends church to advance his political career."
It's not implausible.We may be facing a new horizon with a female or black president but there's not going to be an atheist president for a long,long time.
As pauls post points out he's giving christianity a good name by at least trying to practise a bit of the old jesus philosophy.As long as he plans rather than prays for victory
surely he gets a pass. It's the U.S.in 2008. He's trying to float the idea of democracy there. -
Besides, you guys can't have it both ways: he's either 'shallow', in which case he doesn't believe anything, including what Wright says (so: awesome! What are we worried about?); or he's deeply involved in the church, in which case he's closely tied to Wright (so: bad. But hang on, it's not 'shallow', which therefore makes it: awesome!). Which is it?
Deep down, he's really shallow?
-
Russell, I've had a very similar customer experience recently. Have just been back in NZ for 3 weeks catching up with family, friends etc and Mum had decided she wanted a freeview box to enjoy. She's always had crap reception (rubbish desktop aerial) so it seemed like a good idea. I'm living in the uk and have experience with the freeview here - good boxes (although they use scart technology for the connections), cheap (£30 for a good one) and you can buy a good uhf booster aerial that can sit on top of yer telly for £20. All in all a good package at a reasonable price that's easy to install.
We did a quick recce through a few chain stores and it turned out that Dick Smiths had the cheapest package, and probably the most knowledgeable staff, although that wasn't saying much. What I wasn't impressed with was the primitiveness of the set top boxes in terms of usability, and the fact that we were told we'd need a satellite dish to set it up.
We were then told that it's really easy to install, and that we should take the satellite package they had on offer. The guy I was talking to looked a lot like he didn't want to be there at all and was doing an amazing impression of sullenness.
Bearing in mind that I have no idea how to set up a satellite dish, let alone align it and my mother (who's 72) even less idea, very stupidly we bought the package and took it home. And yes, we had no idea how to set it up. The instructions were more than technical to say the least. That said, a friend who is a builder installed the dish - however, the alignment will have to be professionally done.
Which brings me in a very roundabout way to my point - the number I eventually found to call for help led to a very professional outfit who import the zinwell boxes and also are able to set them up - CHEAPER THAN DICK SMITH! The proviso is they don't advertise unfortunately.
What I'm disturbed about is that this technology is being sold aimed at a consumer level when it is clearly above that. I definitely made a mistake in saying " yes we'll take it", but the service at Dick Smiths was pretty poor and even worse at other stores. It's far too technical for the average punter to attempt, and as I say the technology does seem quite primitive and over priced. I realise this should improve though......but even so, feel completely underdone.
-
According to Barbara Ehrenreich. Who I wouldn't trust.
You keep saying that, Neil. You said it about Parenti on Tibet, whose essay is full of citations and borne out by most, if not all accounts of the period. Why trust when you can verify?
Ehrenreich's column is really based on the 2007 Mother Jones story story. Harpers also had a story in 2003. As fictional as it sound, The Family really exists. It even has a Wikipedia page.
Perhaps it's all wholesome, but it seems to be as much about backroom politics as it is about Bibles.
-
I'd believe Hitchens' opinions on Obama right after I started believing that the Rolling Stones were better than the Beatles. (That's never, Stones fans.)
But Macs are still better than PCs, right?
-
well I thought I was reasonably tech literate until I went out to find an Easter bargain on a widescreen. Couldn't even find an assistant at Noel Leeming (perhaps this is a good thing) and Lance at Harvey Norman led me a merry dance re: plasma vs lcd - I really don't want to know what he "has at home". Looking at 37" I just need a nudge one way or the other. Consumer was no use - they test merely half a dozen models in a flooded field. My real question is freeview - terrestial or satellite? The freeview site is no help. With cost (of a dish) not a question, which is better? I know I'll get a consistent signal from Satellite? is this enough? Am I missing out? In this, the year of Freeview, HD and a crisp image, it is remarkable how little information is available to the hungry consumer...
-
and, I watched the Obama speech, while simultaneously reading it (not easy for a mono-tasker) and I thought it was a cunning pre-emptory piece. I wondered whether there might be anything to learn for us from his message that there was guilt on both sides... (at the risk of extradition, when was the last time you heard Maori express guilt about anything?). While it won't rate oratorically against anything Kennedy or King said, it's message may outlast and lie deeper.
-
Hitchens actually gives the page numbers from Audacity of Hope to support the shallowness of his beliefs
Steve: I have enormous respect for Hitchens -- even had to laugh when I floated to the top of the library request list for 'The Portable Atheist' on Holy Thursday. (An absolutely fascinating anthology of 'essential texts for the But I think Hitchens would be the first to admit that he regards all religious belief as a contemptible and cynical fraud perpetuated on the outright psychotic (in the strictest sense of the word). I certainly share his contempt for theocratic politics of any stripe, and most healthy scepticism towards all forms of rhetorical 'uplift'. (Which to my mind goes a long way towards explaining his affection for writers like Evelyn Waugh, Philip Larkin, Kingsley Amis and Anthony Powell who, on the political tip, he couldn't find more uncongenial.)
But I do have the dreadful suspicion he's coming to the text with a thesis firmly in mind.
Hillarys faith was at least consistent as she was strong church goer from College onwards
Steve: Again, I really find that mind-bendingly naive and borderline offensive. For reasons I don't really want to go into, I've been through periods of spiritual crisis where I haven't attended church, receive the sacraments or had any kind of spiritual life at all. I have a sneaking suspicion, a certain Graham Capill had me beat hands down on that front. But I'm not in prison for the sexual abuse of young women.
Perhaps we shouldn't equate the number of times you put your bum in a pew with any kind of moral virtue.
And with all due respect, Neil, I was being sarcastic. While I'd say many things against Hillary Clinton, I don't think she's naive enough agree to a sit-down with the editorial board of a newspaper owned by Richard Mellon Scaife -- and let herself be photographed with the original VRW Conspirator himself -- and he terribly surprised that Jeremiah Wright came up. She's just not that kind of stupid.
Hey, she wants plausible deniability to keep this story going. Fine -- but excuse me if I agree with Josh Marshall (who is hardly a hysterical Clinton-hater) that it's cringe inducing watching her being quite this disingenuous about how - and where - she decided to get on the Wright bandwagon.
And would Labour supporters tell me that they wouldn't have a little 'ick' moment if Helen Clark was photographed having an amiable chin-wag with Ian Wishart, as part of an Investigate puff piece?
-
WH,
That was a strong speech by Obama. He started stiffly, but as the faux MLK vowels dropped away, and as he eased into a more professorial tone, he became more compelling.
It must have been difficult to craft a speech that simultaneously placated disaffected African Americans and reassured white voters. His point that white voters tend to reject claims that they are beneficiaries of (or are morally responsible for) histories of injustice was very interesting - even while he rightly demanded that society address the inequalities that those histories of injustice have produced.
As Don Christie said, some aspects of this speech will have application in the New Zealand context. We are still working out a response to the facts of historical injustice and the inequalities they have created. In my opinion, we ought to argue from the morality of the present - by talking about what can justly be demanded from those are being called upon to change and by talking about what each individual in our society can justly expect both from the state and from other citizens. I thought Obama´s speech moved the argument forward in this respect.
Re religion; it seems that many American politicians feel compelled to feign belief for electoral reasons. Its not surprising that voters prefer candidates who claim to share their values, but having inauthenticity of this kind built into your political system probably isn´t a good thing. On the other hand, religion can be a genuine and powerful motivation for those who want to make the world a better place. Its difficult to go beyond people´s public pronouncements on their religious beliefs, so campaign policy provides a much safer means of evaluating candidates.
In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.
Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren’t always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.
Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze – a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns – this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.
-
You keep saying that, Neil.
Parenti is a far left ideologue who has always preferred left wing authoritarian regimes over democracies. He would not be my first port of call for dispassionate historical analysis.
As for Barbara Ehrenreich, her piece is a pack of lies loosely based on the more accurate Mother Jones piece. She's a Clinton hater and her piece was a hatchet job.
Both you and Craig have used this piece to slime Clinton which is exactly that sort of thing that Obama was calling for people not to do - not to make hasty and mean judgements about what are often complicated intersections of the personal, religious and political.
I've gone in to bat for Obama here over the Wright issue in an attempt to try and move a little beyond petty political tribalism. I would appreciate it if criticisms of Hillary were based on issues and not on the netroots style of innuendo and dishonesty.
I mean, what do you think about the difference between Obama and Clinton's performance-based pay policies in schools?
-
well I thought I was reasonably tech literate until I went out to find an Easter bargain on a widescreen. Couldn't even find an assistant at Noel Leeming
Naturally ...
and Lance at Harvey Norman led me a merry dance re: plasma vs lcd - I really don't want to know what he "has at home". Looking at 37" I just need a nudge one way or the other. Consumer was no use - they test merely half a dozen models in a flooded field.
There's really little to choose between LCD and plasma these days. Physically speaking, LCDs are a lot lighter and don't run nearly as hot. We did internet research decided on the best Bravia available at 32" (the D Series -- at 37" you get the choice to shell out for the X Series) and found the best price on that (by miles) at the Appliance Shed outlet store, where, amid the clutter, the service was swift and attentive.
I'm hardly an expert, but review summaries like this seem to mention Samsung and Sony most often for LCD screens.
Whatever you get, you'll have to fiddlewith the picture setting and turn down the garish colours. These sets are all tweaked to look good in the showroom, which isn't the same as looking good in your lounge.
My real question is freeview - terrestial or satellite? The freeview site is no help. With cost (of a dish) not a question, which is better? I know I'll get a consistent signal from Satellite? is this enough? Am I missing out? In this, the year of Freeview, HD and a crisp image, it is remarkable how little information is available to the hungry consumer...
If you can get it, terrestrial, absolutely. You'll miss out on HD otherwise.
Picture quality from our media rack is as follows:
1. Freeview HD (even when it's not in HD)
2. Freeview Satellite
3. Sky DigitalThere are more transmitters for the digital service than for the existing analog one, so even in Wellington, there's a reasonable chance you'll get it. The small indoor aerials work well too.
-
While I'd say many things against Hillary Clinton, I don't think she's naive enough agree to a sit-down with the editorial board of a newspaper owned by Richard Mellon Scaife...
more guilt by association - what was it that Obama was saying again? So, do you have any substantive criticism of Clinton on policy?
Scaife is a prominant media figure in Pittsburgh which is in Pennsylvania where there is about to be a primary. The guy owns one the major local newspapers - the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. It woulds be highly surprising if she didn't meet him. And on the basis of Obama's speech to you think he would or would not do the same?
-
Parenti is a far left ideologue who has always preferred left wing authoritarian regimes over democracies. He would not be my first port of call for dispassionate historical analysis.
I went looking in the first place because I recalled being shocked by the brief descriptions of punishment in Seven Years in Tibet when I read it years ago. I realised I was hardly likely to agree with Parenti on much, but there are many sources (including those cited by Parenti) that back up the idea that into the 1950s, Tibet was controlled by a religious feudal elite who practiced great cruelty on ordinary people.
As for Barbara Ehrenreich, her piece is a pack of lies loosely based on the more accurate Mother Jones piece. She's a Clinton hater and her piece was a hatchet job.
Which is why I went and found the Mother Jones story and the Harpers one. Steve's contention was that she had no religious associations beyond the mainline Methodist church. It's clear that she does. And I think I'm entitled to feel uncomfortable with The Family.
-
This 'sincerity' thing is between a person and their deity, surely?
I dunno if it's all that strait forward. If it was that simple there wouldn't be ceremonial religious acts such as going to church, dressed in best on sunday
Well, if we're going to go biblical here, there's quite a bit in Matthews gospel where Jesus says to beware of people who make too big a thing about their church attendance.
Can't remember the exact references now (Craig will probably know) but I tend to think some of the best arguments against organised religion can be found in Matthew, and they come from JC Himself.
Re: Clinton v. Obama though... I think focusing on the religion thing is missing the wood for the trees. Clinton does have a bit of a track record for being less than fulsome with the truth. The 'sniper fire' thing this week is a good example.
We all know these people are going to lie or at least twist the truth into eye-watering shapes.
But someone who lies when they don't have to - and Clinton didn't need to come out with that whopper - is particularly bad news.
Having said that I hope Clinton gets the nomination, because in McCain the Republicans have, almost by accident, picked someone electable and who might actually be a good president.
-
I'd believe Hitchens' opinions on Obama right after I started believing that the Rolling Stones were better than the Beatles. (That's never, Stones fans.)
What about in 2008? On the one hand, there's Keef. On the other, there's Sir Paul McCartney and his amazing orange barnet.
-
in McCain the Republicans have, almost by accident, picked someone electable and who might actually be a good president.
Unless you're pro-choice. Or pro-condom. Or pro-sanity.
But Macs are still better than PCs, right?
Erm. I've had a trouble-free Dell-based love affair for about eight years now, so I have no horse in this race. I'm sure Macs are just lovely and superior in every way, for people who care about that sort of thing. <now backing slowly away from the geeks, so that I do not anger them> :)
-
Whatever you get, you'll have to fiddlewith the picture setting and turn down the garish colours. These sets are all tweaked to look good in the showroom, which isn't the same as looking good in your lounge.
I firmly recommend getting your hands on one of the calibration DVDs used to do this - makes an extraordinary difference...
-
I've been watching downloaded TV shows on a big flat PC screen for several years now, so I'm having trouble getting excited about HD from the local broadcasters. They play the US content 6 months late and the UK content can be years late...and both can be at midnight.
I watched Obama's speech after hearing Chris Trotter raving about it on NatRad on Thursday afternoon last week. At just over 37 minutes, it was a significant commitment of time to a Youtube vid. I usually bail out by 2 minutes unless it's extraordinary. Life is too short. Obama's speech IS extraordinary. M and I watched every minute of it. Compared to Clinton's formulaic and transparently manipulative media and issue management, it was a huge breath of fresh air in an American political atmosphere distinguished by stale old air generated by the same-old, same-old.
As for Wright, pointing out the role US foreign policy played in a arriving at 9/11 is simple obvious common sense. No one outside the US could have any issues with that part of his comments. Actions have consequences.
-
What about in 2008? On the one hand, there's Keef. On the other, there's Sir Paul McCartney and his amazing orange barnet.
Well, now it's an unfair comparison, because one band is still working and the other isn't. Plus the Two-tles have a higher unreplaced-member death toll: Brian Jones vs John *and* George.
It has to be admitted that Keef is currently miles cooler than Paul, because he has a higher 'I seriously don't give a fuck' quotient. Paul is insanely dorky, *and* he's a complete burnout pot casualty. Poor silly old Paul. (He still writes a good choon, though.)
-
Russell: without getting too technical could you advise us how we can add Freeview to a Sky digital setup, as I can't get much sense out of the folk at Freeview. Otherwise I will have to peer through the lounge windows of complete strangers, to see TVNZ7!
To get historical (musically speaking): I have always thought that The Pretty Things and The Kinks were more interesting than either the Beatles or the Stones. The Beatles were steered by McCartney into thoroughly middle-brow/fluff territory and the Stones have become over-stayers. But I don't want to start a fight!
-
It has to be admitted that Keef is currently miles cooler than Paul, because he has a higher 'I seriously don't give a fuck' quotient. Paul is insanely dorky, *and* he's a complete burnout pot casualty. Poor silly old Paul. (He still writes a good choon, though.)
I can't ever see 'Keef' as cool. His skin is falling off his face in threads, and he falls out of trees and hits his head like a 5 year old. And he never could play his instrument with much talent.
And Paul just beat back some money-grubbing woman I understand. He's been busy.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.