Public Address - Hard News (Home)

A depressing day in court | Apr 13, 2007 10:30

Well, horsewhip mum of Timaru, that Joan of Arc of parental discipline, put-upon victim of the child-stealing state, etc, etc, is back in court - accused, along with her husband, of assaulting another son. You can read the particularly depressing account given in court here.

I await with interest the response of the people who have consistently depicted this woman as a hero, given that she seems incapable of running a household that is safe for chlidren. Perhaps there could be an apology for Child, Youth and Family, but I'm not holding my breath.

The extraordinary thing is that yesterday, this clip appeared on YouTube. It features the same mother (her face obscured) calling on New Zealanders to resist the repeal of Section 59, claiming "even though I have been acquitted, CYFS still say I am a violent abuser, even though I've been acquitted. They paint me as being an angry woman who beat her child. I wasn't angry, I didn't beat him, the discipline was completely controlled."

What kind of denial do you have to be in, when you make a video statement like this and have it released on the same day as a court appearance where you know there will be an account given that you and your husband punched, slapped, kicked in the kidneys and hogtied your teenage son, who was prevented from calling his birth father for help and escaped only by running in front of a passing car?

Fortunately, there was a witness this time. And in light of that fact, Dave Crampton will surely want to revisit the version of the same incident he faithfully relayed from the parents last year, which differs markedly from the account given in court. It is well past time to stop believing anything these people say about their actions towards their "brat" children.

If this woman had not been acquitted under Section 59, then perhaps she and the hubby wouldn't have had the chance to become involved in this latest sorry incident. As a campaigner for Section 59, she makes a compelling argument against it.

---

Seeing as everyone else is touting it, I invite you, rather belatedly, to vote for Public Address in the 2007 People's Choice NetGuide Web Awards. You'll have to hurry, because votes close on Sunday. I think we'd be contenders in (obviously) best blog site and, for Public Address System, the "best new site or relaunch" category. You could also drop us in Best Media Site if you were of a mind to. Ta.
--

I happened to be in at Radio Live yesterday when a group representing private equity investors came in for a look-around. That Canwest's New Zealand assets are likely to be sold to such investors isn't a secret - Brent Impey has made it clear to staff that that's the likely path. But I gather this tour group was only one of several to pass through. It must be like being a tenant in a house that's on the market.

Still, that's clearly better than being one of those dispatched from TVNZ yesterday. Although Bill Ralston's expression of outrage is a little ironic, given that the early months of his tenure are chiefly remembered for the wielding of the chainsaw.

Ralston today bemoaned the destruction of "a good quality public broadcaster who gives you a news and current affairs service that you can believe and trust," but I'm not sure it's wise to go too far championing the credibility, and behind-the-camera skills, of a programme like Sunday, which has recently, and justifiably, fallen afoul of the Broadcasting Standards Authority for unfathomable efforts like this. I feel sorry for the people who've lost their jobs, but I'm holding on the panic reaction for now.

Elsewhere: a fascinating LA Times poll round puts Hilary Clinton ahead of Barack Obama among likely Democrat voters (and among black voters), but well behind Giuliani and only just ahead of McCain in head-to-head choices amongst all voters. But Obama beats all other candidates in head to heads amongst all voters!

No surprise corner: No Right Turn is better informed than the Herald editorial writers on the status of climate change policy.

New on TVNZ ondemand, a 1985 documentary looking back at 25 years of New Zealand television.

New Bill Bailey stand-up video.

Because you haven't seen it for a while, Sid Vicious performing 'My Way'.

And, finally, RIP Kurt Vonnegut: here's the video of his Daily Show appearance.

(177 responses)
Digg this Scoopit!

No Friends of Science | Apr 12, 2007 08:25

Is Augie Auer the most oafish lobby group spokesman in the country? Lately, he makes Garth McVicar look like Steven Price. For Tuesday's Herald online story on the IPCC predictions for Australia and New Zealand, he had yet another feeble potshot at NIWA's Jim Salinger:

"Jim Salinger has come out and said in drier places, it will get drier.

"In wetter places, it will get wetter.

"Well that's a real no brainer, isn't it?"

Whatever you say, Augie.

The story also quotes him describing the involvement of MetService as "questionable". I'm sure it's very disappointing, given his recent attempt to reframe the entire climate debate in terms of the MetService-NIWA cold war, but they're not that stupid at MetService. Here's the new MetService statement on likely impact of climate change in the Pacific, which predicts sea-level rises, fisheries depletion, water shortages and increased intensity of tropical cyclones.

What a bummer for Augie. The Climate Science Coalition's other media man, Brian Leyland, seems better placed to offer comment, given that he publishes fairly regularly as an energy consultant, but Jeanette Fitzsimons still had him for dinner on Campbell Live this week. His folksy analogies about Gallileo and continental drift weren't convincing.

Still, someone's convinced, judging by the Herald's Your Views section on climate change:

Once again the Government spin Doctors are doing what they are paid to do with a lot of unsubstantiated garbage about climate change. When are the people going to wake up and see that this scare mongering is for the benefit of the politicians that put them in the job in the 1st place. I would rather listen to the experts that are not paid by Government Agencies, as they seem to know what they are talking about. Once again Political Correctness Gone Mad.
---
Lets concentrate on how we can make NZ a better place, we were in the small numbers years ago as one of the best places to live now all we talk about is the Government, climate change, what the Maoris want, smacking kids. See what I mean in that last sentence we talk and focus on non-relevant subjects. Come on NZ lets work together and put our country back in the top ten!
---
Of course there is Global Warming or if you want to be politically correct Climate Change - it has been around since the earth was created. The best phrase for it is 'Nature Taking its Course' and no amount of posturing by Scientists and Politicians will have any effect on it.
---
The astonishing leap from carbon emissions to global warming is alarming. And if the dramatic effects of Carbon emissions have this effect on NZ why aren't countries with populations many many times that of NZ not underwater already?
---
I find it funny that not one expert has mentioned or raised the thought that land masses are moving. Some areas are getting warmer and some are getting colder. What ever happened to common sense? I guess chicken little will always be with us. (the sky is falling!) and chicken little is good ole Al Gore.
---
Persons who believe that the objectors to the climate hysteria have got no science behind them need to search Google for videos under "global warming catastrophe cancelled". It is an eyeopener regarding the warming propaganda, and the $multibillion "warming" industry.

Actually, that one warrants a response. The Catastrophe Cancelled video is the work of Friends of Science, a Canadian group that nicely anonymises its oil-industry funding via an unauthorised cabal at Calgary University that had to be ordered to stop using the university's coat of arms on the video.

The voluminous Sourcewatch article has more, including the latest from Calgary University authorities approached for comment on a claim by the foundation that collects the cash for Friends of Science that it merely passes the money raised on to the university to spend:

"The University of Calgary does not provide funding for Friends of Science. There is no University of Calgary trust fund for Friends of Science. We do not endorse its work or its findings ... The University of Calgary does not have a position on climate change, nor would it. As an independent, non-partisan research institution, the U of C insists on maintaining its neutrality.

"The fundamental principle is academic freedom ... In this case, a group of scientists holds a particular viewpoint and have advanced it publicly, with funding support from the external community. The fact that one of the scientists [i.e. political science professor Barry Cooper] is a faculty member here cannot be taken to conclude that the U of C supports that individual's research. The University of Calgary does not dictate to its professors the kind of research they will or will not do."

So, basically, Friends of Science is whoring the University of Calgary's good name via a political science professor? You may also recall that Friends of Science roadshow star Dr Tim Ball had similar issues with the University of Winnipeg. If this sort of thing passes the sniff test for you, you should try a decongestant.

The Canadian experience was admirably backgrounded late last year by Charles Montgomery in the Toronto Globe and Mail. The story is well worth reading. The Climate Science Coalition would be more like Friends of Science if they had a few more social skills and retired oilmen were thicker on the ground. One play the Climate Science Coalition has taken from Friends of Science is to attack the public climate science agencies: Environment Canada, in their case.

But the irony, as No Right Turn points out, is that we're reaching something very like political consensus on the issue in New Zealand, with National nagging Labour for dragging its heels on policy.

Read NRT for policy stuff: I'm just here to call more obvious examples of bullshit. Yes, there are scientists who reject anthropogenic global warming: there are relatively few of them, and among the smaller number who are genuinely qualified, it's generally the geologists who take issue.

Bear in mind that our only two expert meterological organisations are both participating in the IPCC process and taking its conclusions very seriously, as are the science academies of the G8 nations, and the prospect of walking the plank with groups who have no such stature -- and whose allegations of vested interests and political motives look like a projection --- seems palpably reckless.

(185 responses)
Digg this Scoopit!

The Civility Code | Apr 11, 2007 10:41

I'm occasionally asked, in my paid role as interpreter of such things, whether, given the ghastly things that get written in blogs (or, more likely, in blog comments) a bloggers' code of conduct would be a good idea. I reply that, while it would be nice if there weren't so many creepy emotional retards spewing bile at people who are smarter than them, the response to such a code would likely be: you can't tell us what to do!.

Well, Tim O'Reilly and Jimmy Wales have proposed a bloggers' code of conduct - voluntary, but with badges - and you can hardly hear yourself think for people screaming you can't tell us what to do!

The initiative has emerged from the sorry experience of Kathy Sierra, a gifted tech commentator and blogger who very publicly withdrew from the sphere in the face of an escalating sequence of sexually abusive and threatening posts, then pictures, posted in comments on her blog and others. She was terrified, and she had a right to be. How far does it have to go beyond creepy people making sexual hate pictures before it's "rational" for a well-known woman to be scared?

Not everyone agreed. The subsequent debate has been polarising, as evidenced by this thread on the normally very sane OneGoodMove, in which one commenter declared Sierra an "attention whore" and the whiff of misogyny got pretty strong at times.

Much of the indignation directed against Sierra was founded on the idea that she had unfairly accused blog owner Chris Locke (a co-author of The Cluetrain Manifesto of being behind some of the nastiest stuff, an implication that drew an angry response from Locke himself. It does seem clear enough that Locke himself was not one of the abusers.

But ironically, Locke was even more of a drama queen than he accused Sierra of being. After meankids, the group blog site where the original comments were posted was taken down by its founders (ie: Locke and his friends), even worse material appeared on a replacement site, unclebobisms, that Locke established to take its place. So: "I nuked the entire site rather than censor any individual."

Pardon? What sort of a dipshit can't bring himself to remove clearly offensive and sexually threatening comments (because that would be "censorship") but makes great play of canning the entire site?

Anyway, Locke and Sierra made up, and the digirati's battle lines were withdrawn, but role reversal - abuser plays victim - isn't uncommon in such blogosphere battles. Turning back to Sierra's sign-off post, check out this comment from "Joey", who actually did author one of the nastier comments:

My guess is that she doesn't like Chris Locke and thought "Joey" was him. I assure you, Joey is not Chris Locke but I am not prepared to say who I am here (on this board) with 300 people ready to *KILL ME*. You folks are over the edge here and *I* am the one scared now. Nice work, Kathy, turning criticism of your book into this mess. Very good.

While it might help my case, I will not post any private email because at this point, if she's really called some law enforcement, they are my a portion of my proof of innocence.

I am contacting a lawyer (to find out if there is even a way to verify if charges are filed) in the morning and asking anyone reading this to kindly stop spreading misinformation. At this point, I'm the one who feels the need to protect myself. I beg you. What's going on here is wrong. Please use your own critical minds.

I don't know why Kathy's using me as an excuse for not attending her meeting. I am not the one who emailed her and she took what I said out of context. Period.

Again, I wish you all peace. But please stop making or believing false claims.

"Joey" also claims he was never referring to Sierra in the first place, but to some hitherto unknown personcalled "Kat". But as others make clear, "Joey"'s actual contribution was the comment "The only thing Kathy Sierra has to offer me is a noose in her neck size," in response to a jolly little photo someone else posted of Sierra's head and a noose. Lame-assed denial is pretty common in these circles too.

And so, the upshot is the code of conduct. Others have pointed out that it's more like a comments policy than a bloggers' code.

We celebrate the blogosphere because it embraces frank and open conversation. But frankness does not have to mean lack of civility. We present this Blogger Code of Conduct in hopes that it helps create a culture that encourages both personal expression and constructive conversation.

1. We take responsibility for our own words and for the comments we allow on our blog.

We are committed to the "Civility Enforced" standard: we will not post unacceptable content, and we'll delete comments that contain it.
We define unacceptable content as anything included or linked to that:
- is being used to abuse, harass, stalk, or threaten others
- is libelous, knowingly false, ad-hominem, or misrepresents another person,
- infringes upon a copyright or trademark
- violates an obligation of confidentiality
- violates the privacy of others

We define and determine what is "unacceptable content" on a case-by-case basis, and our definitions are not limited to this list. If we delete a comment or link, we will say so and explain why. [We reserve the right to change these standards at any time with no notice.]

2. We won't say anything online that we wouldn't say in person.

3. We connect privately before we respond publicly.

When we encounter conflicts and misrepresentation in the blogosphere, we make every effort to talk privately and directly to the person(s) involved--or find an intermediary who can do so--before we publish any posts or comments about the issue.

4. When we believe someone is unfairly attacking another, we take action.

When someone who is publishing comments or blog postings that are offensive, we'll tell them so (privately, if possible--see above) and ask them to publicly make amends.

If those published comments could be construed as a threat, and the perpetrator doesn't withdraw them and apologize, we will cooperate with law enforcement to protect the target of the threat.

5. We do not allow anonymous comments.

We require commenters to supply a valid email address before they can post, though we allow commenters to identify themselves with an alias, rather than their real name.

6. We ignore the trolls.

We prefer not to respond to nasty comments about us or our blog, as long as they don't veer into abuse or libel. We believe that feeding the trolls only encourages them--"Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, but the pig likes it." Ignoring public attacks is often the best way to contain them.

My first reaction was to the conflation of harassment and stalking and trademark infringement? WTF? Do these things really belong together?

Blog comments would certainly be different if people had to speak the words they write to someone's face. The internet offers the opportunity to vent without obvious consequence: as successive waves of adopters discovered from the mid-90s, it's wise to pause for reflection before hitting "send" on that inflammatory email.

But hell, I write in ways that I wouldn't necessarily speak to someone I didn't know well. I avoid personal abuse, but I would be somewhat hampered by social convention in attacking the argument of someone in the same room as me.

Much of this is not particularly new. There were flame wars long before I started arguing online in 1994. People still inflate themselves online. A strong prose style still means mana.

Yes, I've had the hate mail, and I have been called many unpleasant things, usually by people who lack the gumption to say so under their own names (I have also discovered that most such people change their tone even after the fairly abstracted personal contact of an email reply). A flame war might be fun now and then, but mostly, it's just tedious. I generally only get angry when someone brings my family into it.

But it is different for women. You don't have to look far in the blogosphere to find latent misogyny getting overt. My impression is that women blogging can be subject to a kind of abuse I'll never have to bother with. The same thing can deter women from even commenting: and what you lose from women not feeling comfortable participating in blog discussions ought to be pretty obvious.

I'm genuinely proud of the environment we have on Public Address System, and the way people can argue strongly about ideas without falling into the gutter. I think it's a combination of the example set and the kind of people who were following our writing long before the forums started up. And should that fail - which it very rarely does - I reserve the right to intervene, to delete or censor posts, or strike off user accounts. Without apology. It's my site and I know what kind of environment I want it to be. I'm just not sure I need to sign up to a highly procedural "code of conduct" to assert that right.

(371 responses)
Digg this Scoopit!

Dancing is good for the soul ... | Apr 10, 2007 09:55

Keith's dispatch from Sri Lanka is the main event today, so I'll keep it brief. The Public Address Radio podcast items are up in numbers now, and they include a look at Christchurch's (probably) legal substance culture and Craig Ranapia's debut as a radio commentator. If you wish to subscribe to the podcast, the feed is here. Let us know what you think.

The Christchurch piece turned out to be quite timely, what with 60 Minutes running a story about the party pill issue that revolved around the near-death of a young man in Greymouth. The item was pretty good, although, inevitably, the producers found it necessary to play down the fact that the young man also took illegal drugs to keep their party pill angle afloat.

And there would have been a few youngsters on party pills amongst the unpretentious crowd at the Soulwax/2ManyDJs gig at the St James on Saturday night. The promoters got a bit panicky on Thursday about having only 500 pre-sales, and flicked out a few comps, which led to me and my compadres Andy 'n' Daz venturing out for a dance.

I liked Soulwax more than I thought I would and I liked them even more in their 2ManyDJs guise. The latter dropped in quite a few classic house music references for us oldsters - a bit of Todd Terry here, the intro to 'Your Love' there - before satisfying the kids with some indie-crowd-pleasing mash-ups. We ducked out for a breather and by the time we came back about a third of the crowd was actually onstage, where they remained for the duration.

Their take on Nirvana's 'Lithium' brought the house down (little bit of cellphone video here if you're curious, plus one captured earlier in the orchestra pit) - as you might expect from the crew who, as The Flying Dewaele Brothers, created the brilliant mash-up of Destiny's Child and Nirvana that was 'Smells Like Booty' - but the final number just sounded like they were playing a Smashing Pumpkins record and a dance record at the same time. Can't moan, though: dancing is good for the soul, even when it hurts your back a bit.

(5 responses)
Digg this Scoopit!