Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

DOTCOM saga - updates

<< < (36/39) > >>

tomos:
I can see both sides above.

Getting political below I suppose, so I'll stick it in a spoiler:

SpoilerI often wonder about the idea that we couldnt say it or do it, because they would have done this or that or the other. Before/in case you take this as an attack on your post Iain: this struck me strongest in the last years in the way that Obama didnt stand up to the banks when he was first elected.

There is so much in this world that is done or not done because of fear. I'm not naive enough to think that we or our governments should be fearless - but currently it's the opposite that's happening. I'm heading into basement territory if I'm not there already, so I'll shut up.

IainB:
Yes, you are quite right, I feel sure. But there is a difference between a politician caving in and reneging on his election promises because it is politically expedient to do so, and confronting a bully who is about to punch your lights out and do you some serious injury.
Something done out of fear is generally likely to be corrosive and destructive of the self and of one's self-respect - but there's a lot of it about. Like RC churchgoers, for example, who go to confessional because - well, if they don't, they believe they will be damned, because God loves you and is your friend and wants you to confess and pray for forgiveness, or something.
But there's a difference between a fear of a threat of something imagined like that and a threat of something more existential and that is really very likely to happen. Lange knew from New Zealand's economic history (e.g., why it even has a role in the EU CM in the first place) that the economic excommunication threatened by the French was not an empty threat but something that they could and probably would pull off if they lost patience with him, and he couldn't take that risk. It would have been politically reckless and could have led to economic suicide. So he caved in. No option really.
Similarly, for example, where you live under Islamic Sharia law, apostasy is a sin against Allah and is punishable by death. You know it's going to happen, so you don't do it. You stay in the Islamic faith. Allah is your friend.

So, imagine having this friend in the shape of the US, who is a bit like Allah in that you had better do as he wants, or else.
We would all be wise to be very, very afraid of such a friend.

I don't suppose that those police/SAS/GCSB personnel who screwed up or committed perjury in the Dotcom case did so because they were basically stupid or dishonest. I suspect they more than likely had high professional standards and integrity and were likely very good at their jobs. But you can really act out of character and make all kinds of professional mistakes if you come under unbearable pressure from a powerful friend to do something that you know is intrinsically wrong.

40hz:
confronting a bully who is about to punch your lights out and do you some serious injury.
-IainB (December 07, 2013, 08:39 PM)
--- End quote ---

A polite exaggeration?

What exactly is the US threatening? To send in the drones? Order a cruise missile strike? Put "boots on the ground" and demonstrate some "shock and awe" to the Kiwis? Stand by idly and allow China to invade the The South Island and cart its population off for forced labor?

I hardly think so.

The US is not omnipotent. Not by a long shot.

So, imagine having this friend in the shape of the US, who is a bit like Allah in that you had better do as he wants, or else.
--- End quote ---

If that's a euphemism for "being bought" or saying the powers that be in NZ have "sold out" however, isn't that an entirely different story?

Because I can agree NZ's current government sold itself and it's people out on this one. Possibly with the best of intentions. But certainly for all the wrong reasons. And definitely with the lamest excuse if "arm twisting" on the part of the Obama administration is the best it could come up with.

I guess I'm a bit old-school when it comes to something like this. To wit: there are always reasons why somebody may - or may not - do something. And of those reasons, some may very well be "very good reasons."

But at the end of the day, all that really matters is what was - or wasn't - done. That's the diamond in the equation. The reasons given are merely its price tag.
 :)

IainB:
Yes, of course I am exaggerating.
And I think you are quite right where you say:
..But at the end of the day, all that really matters is what was - or wasn't - done. ...
-40hz (December 07, 2013, 11:09 PM)
--- End quote ---
From an NZ perspective, in the Dotcom case, the judgement was clear that there has been illegal action by the State - the police/SAS and GCSB - and it certainly looks like the police committed perjury. Oops.
We are all interested to know when and how  these matters will be properly addressed by the judiciary.
(Sounds of crickets chirping.)

IainB:
Well, no new developments in the fiasco, but apparently Dotcom was planning a big party to set up an NZ Political party, as reported in an NZ Herald report (below). But the party was called off, for apparently important reasons - see below. Note the bits I have emboldened towards the end.
We shall see whether he can pull it off.
(Copied below sans embedded hyperlinks/images.)
Irked Dotcom takes a swipe at Key
By Jonathan Milne
5:30 AM Sunday Jan 19, 2014

Party plans are on hold, but mogul keen to lead NZ in internet economy
The launch of the Internet Party has been postponed until Feb 20. Photo / Getty Images

Internet mogul Kim Dotcom has bitterly criticised Prime Minister John Key, after he was forced to postpone the launch of his political party and cancel a birthday party for more than 10,000 guests.

In an exclusive interview, Dotcom told the Herald on Sunday of his plans for the huge birthday party set for tomorrow night.

More than 25,000 people had registered for tickets (though the venue, Auckland's Vector Arena, has capacity for only 12,000). "The Party Party was to be a four-hour show leading up to my 40th birthday," he said, "starting with a 30-minute live set to perform six songs from my upcoming GoodTimes album.

"At midnight I would have celebrated my 40th birthday with a full Vector Arena. We asked everyone to dress in white for the laser and light show, including black lights which would have made everybody glow in the dark."

Now Dotcom will launch his album and his new music download site, Baboom, tomorrow, as planned, with an extensive advertising campaign on radio and on the back of more than 100 buses.

But the launch of the Internet Party - his tilt at political power - has been postponed until February 20.

His birthday party has been cancelled. "I was sick to my stomach for two days. I could not eat or sleep. It feels so bad to let so many people down. I decided to have no birthday party at all this year. Instead we are going to celebrate the birthday of our son, Kimmo, at the beach. We share the same birthday and he will be 5 years old on January 21."

The Electoral Commission had warned Dotcom that throwing a free party for thousands of New Zealanders might constitute "treating" - essentially buying - people's votes. "If I continued with the event I would lose the Internet Party. If I cancelled the event I would disappoint 25,000 Kiwis who registered for tickets. The political party and the future of New Zealand is more important to me than one night of fun."

Dotcom said that instead of pouring the Internet Party's resources into winning one seat, as Act, United Future and the Conservatives had done, his party would try to break the 5 per cent threshold to guarantee him at least seven MPs.

"We ask voters for a chance to impress them. I know how to make New Zealand a leader in the internet economy which will lead to more jobs and prosperity."

Labour leader David Cunliffe was cautious about the prospect of a Labour-Dotcom coalition. "I think there's a wide range of people I can work with," he said. "I wouldn't rule it out but I'm not ruling it in either."

Key has already dismissed Dotcom's party. Dotcom hit back yesterday: "John Key and his partners have lost the connection with the people and their original purpose. I would never have gone into politics if it wasn't for the abuse that I have experienced. I have been a victim of numerous unlawful actions by both the New Zealand and US Governments. There's something seriously wrong with a government that engages in this kind of activity to please another government.

"When the Internet Party makes it into Parliament, the NSA Five Eyes spy network will lose one eye. We intend re-evaluating the relationship between New Zealand and the US Government."

- Herald on Sunday

--- End quote ---

Some people (not me, you understand) might say that any government of a country or group, such as NZ or the EU, that tries to unFriend/unLike the US will pay for it dearly - and they would know it - so it's an economic/political suicide that's not going to happen, but I couldn't possibly comment.
Interesting times.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page