I agree with your analysis Steve. The transnational corporations Adidas and AIG are prime examples of how these corporations have a great influence on the spread and flow of information to the masses.
If such dominant flows were not in place I don't believe that John Key and the media would portray the All Blacks as 'more important' world leaders than other New Zealand sport teams.
An argument quite separate from their successes on the field.

You have a valid point – that the purpose of this outlet is to form discussions. My perspective aligns perfectly with Lucy’s above perspective.

Are you able to directly answer my questions linger? That is what I seek by participating in this online discussion.

* the spark in debate, especially on the public address forum, has bought me to question –

*what do you do to help when they get here?

It is all very good to say you “want” NZ Govt to help more refugees,

* but once they arrive do you do anything?
*Do you do anything to assist the government and NGO’s to integrate these strangers into a ‘foreign’ society?

It takes a village to raise a child, right? Well walk the talk you talk! You do know these are human lives, so its not an instant fix. It takes a lifetime to build a life!

* But do you dedicate any of yours to helping theirs?

While it might not be obvious to those who complain that the importance of this sport is being blown completely out of proportion, there are deeper political objectives underlying NZ Rugby that other sports don’t hold to.
I don’t believe that John Key cashes in on the successful “identity” of the All Blacks (NZRU representatives) just because they win. I believe that Key’s alignment with the All Blacks is another result of transnational corporations (Adidas) and the concentrated media ownership of Rupert Murdoch.
In 1995 Rupert Murdoch’s News Limited signed a 10-year $550 million deal with the New Zealand, Australian and South African rugby unions. Don’t you think this is a major contribution to how the All Blacks are portrayed to the public? This would have created a huge spike in the transnational marketing of the NZ AB’s as a team to “watch” not to mention the “head to head” history of NZ, Australia and South Africa.
Perhaps without this concentrated media ownership, the saturation of ‘Black outs’ in your headlines might have been less invading, and John Key might not be magnified as ‘branding himself’ off Rugby?
This global pedestal and the successes of the All Blacks are potentially one of the biggest contributions to NZ’s global position (politically). This is a ‘game’ where every ‘nation’ is classed as its own. Each nation is striving to be the best at the ‘game’ but it’s meaning and ability to be seen as the best consists of so much more.

While it might not be obvious to those who complain that the importance of this sport is being blown completely out of proportion, there are deeper political objectives underlying NZ Rugby that other sports don’t hold to.

I don’t believe that John Key cashes in on the successful “identity” of the All Blacks (NZRU representatives) just because they win. I believe that Key’s alignment with the All Blacks is another result of transnational corporations (Adidas) and the concentrated media ownership of Rupert Murdoch.

In 1995 Rupert Murdoch’s News Limited signed a 10-year $550 million deal with the New Zealand, Australian and South African rugby unions. Don’t you think this is a major contribution to how the All Blacks are portrayed to the public? This would have created a huge spike in the transnational marketing of the NZ AB’s as a team to “watch” not to mention the “head to head” history of NZ, Australia and South Africa.

Perhaps without this concentrated media ownership, the saturation of ‘Black outs’ in your headlines might have been less invading, and John Key might not be magnified as ‘branding himself’ off Rugby?

This global pedestal and the successes of the All Blacks are potentially one of the biggest contributions to NZ’s global position (politically). This is a ‘game’ where every ‘nation’ is classed as its own. Each nation is striving to be the best at the ‘game’ but it’s meaning and ability to be seen as the best consists of so much more.

Why are you all so uptight about wanting refugees when you won’t help them when they get here?

The recent emergences of New Zealanders in plea of allowing more refugees into New Zealand show most of you are missing the point.

The footage shown by the media has been heart breaking, especially the emphasis on child suffrage.

However the spark in debate, especially on the public address forum, has bought me to question – what do you do to help when they get here?

It is all very good to say you “want” NZ Govt to help more refugees, but once they arrive do you do anything? Do you do anything to assist the government and NGO’s to integrate these strangers into a ‘foreign’ society?

It takes a village to raise a child, right? Well walk the talk you talk! You do know these are human lives, so its not an instant fix. It takes a lifetime to build a life! But do you dedicate any of yours to helping theirs?

Sure the NGO’s and supporting organisations are pressing for more to come here but how can you say that too when you are not doing the work!?!

Not one blog on here explains how much effort you have made towards supporting the refugees that we HAVE accepted.

You rely on the government to do all of the work, but hey… they have done something. Have you?

The government has accepted up to 600 more than we HAVE to.

You all think you are so humanitarian by saying you want more in NZ! But I guarantee even less of you have thoughtfully dropped any aid into the organisations who assist migrant refugees.

Maybe with the 750 refugees arriving over the next two years, people could stop playing keyboard warrior and actually do some work.

Once you get some insight into the hard work it takes to assist these new communities THEN you can argue that NZ needs more.