Posts by Pharmachick
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hi to all,
rather than a huge number of posts I'll send a general one.
Firstly, I did not make an argument that this is about how much Mr Hager makes (oops, I'm also very sorry about the perpetuated spelling mistake of his last name). My argument was that a section of the Crimes Act specifically states that penalties change at 30K proceeds - so yes, I hope he has pod legal advice. I actually wish him every good luck in making money as an author, because its hard to do - particularly in the NZ marketplace. I certainly have no $ envy for that. I am, however; sincerely unsure that Mr Hager has the moral high ground in receiving hacked/stolen e-mails etc. I just don't like the idea of criminal acts precipitating debate (yes, I now call me naive, and yes… I'm also aware of Watergate etc, I just don't want to see my country going down that road - although it maybe too late).
Secondly, I believe that some of this is *very* relevant. Such as the attempt to discredit the SFO etc. Wow, just wow and probably unbecoming. But IMHO details of who talks to whom over private e-mail, including the inevitable bragging about "take downs" or "gunning for" needs to be taken with a grain of salt. It sounds like a political equivalent of Rugby Club talk after a few ;-)
Yes, again - you have pointed out that I was incorrect … its not every three years. But I *do* wonder why Mr. Hager does this consistently just before an election (when he does it). Argument pro: precise timing, most relevant, protects the public. Argument con: publicity seeking and [maybe] a bit self-aggrandising as "defender of the public" [self appointed]. Truly I dunno, but also truthfully, I lean to the latter (with a healthy dose of the former).
Also, I don't think I'd look great in one of those giant chicken suits - being only 5' tall - although I'm sure you'd get a good laugh Rob =D
-
Speaker: On the upland road, in reply to Russell Brown,
I think the bar for public interest has to be very high Russel. While I'm maybe buying that some of this is in the public interest, some of it was really salacious piffle. I also don't like that Mr. Hagar apparently only received e-mails etc about one party. I think there's a lot of stinky stuff on all sides and that very few of our current crop of pollies cover themselves in decency (let alone glory).
I agree that the Brash e-mails were "leaked" by a third party. There is some glorious hair splitting in "leaking" not being "theft".
Mr Hagar may not get rich (although my reading of the crimes act says that if the proceeds of this book exceed 30K he had better be able to prove public interest or he may well be toast). I think Prof Geddis was quoting a couple of sections that the hacker definitely breached earlier, whether or not Mr. Hagar is also criminally responsible is a matter for the courts/crown prosecutor to decide.
Also, an argument can be made that Hagar targets both sides (Key, Brash and Clark) and makes no money so he's even handed and fighting the good fight. I simply don't trust his motivations pulling this stuff out just before elections every 3 years. It is divisive and sends the electorate down sensationalist channels when we should be talking about policy and about moving NZ forward. Oh yes, and Mr Hagar is a novelist, not a journalist, when he publishes books. There's already been one precedent before the courts that says book writers don't have the protections of their sources in the way that journalists do. Again this will probably be a precedent setting case if it heads to court.
Perhaps as Kiwis we need to be asking if we want this attack stuff at all - not just Whaleoil blogs etc, but Mr. Hagar's particular brand of politics as well. So many people I know on all sides of the spectrum have gone beyond angry and they're just tired of it all now.
-
Speaker: On the upland road, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
I agree Craig. I think this post is really excellent and an eloquent attempt to put into words things a lot of us feel. However, I personally just cannot get past the fact that these e-mails were illegally hacked/stolen. Everyone lost the high ground when the hacker resorted to crime to make a point. And Mr. Hagar resorted to benefiting from the proceeds of a crime - and he's done it before to Don Brash and to Helen Clark. EVERYONE needs to do better, including the author of the politics book.
-
Hard News: UPDATED: Media Take: Election…, in reply to Greg Dawson,
yes Greg, my definition of a "foreign millionaire" is "born overseas". As I stated, clearly, in my post - we also have enough problems with out homegrown millionaires and influence peddlers.
-
Wow, powerful and beautiful. Thank you for sharing.
-
Hard News: UPDATED: Media Take: Election…, in reply to Tom Semmens,
Hi Tom Semmens, I'm truly sorry that I got you mixed up with Tom Scott the lyricist/singer yesterday.
I do take your point about attacks on democracy. Personally, I'm not partisan right or left but I sincerely worry about how this election is going. Maybe I'm earning my tinfoil hat for this, but I can't help but be very worried about the influence of foreign millionaires on our internal politics. All that being said, we have a lot of problems with our own wealthy and/or connected people trying to influence politics. It is great that people can still debate these things though in a civilized manner!
-
Hard News: UPDATED: Media Take: Election…, in reply to Kumara Republic,
Yes, I can see that Deep Red. And there are many, many examples of "shock" tactics like this from the past. It is interesting that a lot of the guys from NWA now admit that some of the lyrics were wrong, although they still hold fast tot he protests they were making. I suppose with age comes … (well, wrinkles actually ;-) )
-
Hard News: UPDATED: Media Take: Election…, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
I agree with you Craig. Its disturbing. I couldn't care less if this band is left, right or whatever, they've made a grave error of judgement with such violent tripe. I really wish they would come out and admit it was wrong.
-
Hard News: UPDATED: Media Take: Election…, in reply to Tinakori,
**[Stands up and applauds]*******
Tinakori:
No.It would be no more acceptable nor better.
Thank you for pointing out my mistake as well as highlighting the rest of these horrid attitudes.
After all, it's not 1912 (is it?)?
-
Hard News: UPDATED: Media Take: Election…, in reply to Russell Brown,
Oh, whoops, I am sorry. Can I fix it?