Thursday, December 27, 2007

Reviewtime: Undeclared - The Complete Series


What is wrong with television executives? Especially in the States. These guys are supposed to be trained in business, marketing and a little bit in the entertainment business. And yet a great many shows have been hobbled by poor programming and promotion - only to be cancelled because there was no apparent audience according to the "ratings."

Have these guys just never actually looked at the possibility that showing a programme inconsistently and out of order could be at fault, and not the show itself?

Think I'm talking about Firefly? No. I'm talking about Judd Apatow's follow-up series from Freaks and Geeks - Undeclared.

Hampered by many of the same clumsy and unprofessional mistakes caused by programming, Undeclared - like it's spiritual predecessor, Freaks and Geeks - made TIME's top ten television shows of 2001. It was universally acclaimed and hit a chord with its audience.

That is, when they were able to catch it. The show was shown at odd occasions, and often out of sequence. A pivotal episode never screened, and generally everything was done to ensure that it would die in ratings limbo.

Which is a shame. Because it is a DAMN good series. Thanks to my brother providing me with the complete DVD set for Christmas, I have had the chance to once again see why Judd Apatow and his friends are some of the funniest and coolest people in America.

Undeclared takes place in a modern day campus where freshman Steven Karp has started his life at College. (Or as we in the Antipodes like to call them, University.)

Finding himself sharing a dorm suite with a sarcastic business type, a flaky music major and a suave British acting major - ex-geek Steven sets about befriending his room mates in the hopes of a new start.

And that's pretty much the initial set-up for this comedy. Much like Freaks and Geeks, the series is about the characters. Each episode follows from the last, but focuses more on the people and how they related to each other.

Unlike Freaks, Undeclared is a half-hour format and is purely a comedy. This means that the jokes often come hard and fast. But in true Apatow fashion, each character has layers to their personality - even the most comical ones.

The result is a remarkably honest and familiar telling of life in University. Even though it is set in America, I found several episodes mirrored my own University experiences - the excitement, nervousness and horror. The characters are hilarious, while managing to be likeable. Even the arch-nemesis figures are painted with depth and believability. They are not simple people to hate, there is a likable side to them.

Featuring many Freaks and Geeks alumni, the show proves how Apatow has the wisdom and eye for picking people who he isn't afraid to let loose. Like Freaks and Geeks, Undeclared's true genius comes from the rare synchronicty of all the people working on the project - not just one man.

A great crew, talented and eager cast who never seem to try to upstage each other - but rather give everyone room to shine... it was a delight to watch this show. And a shame to know that it never got continued.

I've studied how polling works, and you simply cannot rely so heavily on ratings alone. Fox's exec should have been asking why the ratings were low. If no programming gaffs had been made, then they may have had a case. But any idiot should know that a series being shown out of sequence loses its audience. Most choosing to wait for re-runs, by which point the series is usually canned.

I do wonder how Undeclared would have done if it had been allowed to run in sequence as intended...

If you haven't seen it yet - GET IT! This is pure gold. And if you loved Freaks, you ought to love Undeclared too.

Conan

Currently Reading:
Currently Playing: Exalted: Nexus of the Sun
Mood: Buzzing from lots of Undeclared!

Thursday, December 06, 2007

Reviewtime: Mass Effect


Introduction

An ancient threat returns. One final hope emerges.

How many times have we heard that or something similar? The usual theme of computer RPGs arises again in Mass Effect, a game that manages to plunder every sci-fi cliche under the sun and produce a truly compelling and enjoyable gaming experience. However it is not without faults.

Mass Effect enjoys quite a pedigree. Designed by Bioware, it draws upon the design themes of their two previous hit RPGs, Knights of the Old Republic (KOTOR) and Jade Empire. Many of the people associated with the development of these games have also been involved in Mass Effect's development, so it should be no surprise that it is a sort of evolution of these two games.

Story

Derivative to the point of robbing every space opera and sci-fi since the early 70s for ideas, Mass Effect still manages to make a compelling and vibrant universe from its pillaged resources.

The main plot itself is very much a celebration of all things space opera, with homages and sly asides abounding. After discovering an ancient alien observation post on Mars, humanity unlocked the technology required to travel to the stars. They end up discovering a millennia old galactic civilisaton that has an uneasy peace. As the young race in the galaxy, humanity is struggling to gain political advantage within this civilisation.

Along comes Saren, a Spectre - a sort of James Bond meets the Texas Rangers-type agent for the Council that rules over this galactic peace. He has gone rogue and allied himself with a long lost race of sentient machines. You, as human Commander (insert name here) Shepard quickly learns that Saren is up to something far greater than it initially appears, and thus begins a quest to stop Saren - at any costs.

Naturally there is more to the story. Players choose Shepard's gender and appearance, then his/her history and known psychological profile. This is important to note because the story changes based on how these permutations link together. Often they are subtle changes, but sometimes there are some big twists.

Every NPC you meet will react to you based on these choices, and some quests are only available to certain histories. The rationale behind Shepard's main quest, and how s/he can react towards Saren during a face off are also dictated by these seemingly simple decisions.

For example, taking a Spacer character ends up involving Shepard in a conversation with his family via commlink when a particular NPC shows up and claims to know his mother.

Choose Colonist, however, and this never happens. Instead, it is revealed that your character survived a brutal raid, and Shepard has to face the horrors of what happened there when s/he meets another survivor from the same raid, who was tortured and abused by alien slavers.

This is where Mass Effect's story shines - your decisions have many, often subtle, effects on the flow of the story. While mechanically there seem to be only one or two directions, the permutations are much wider - effected by which characters from your squad of six accompany you, what your past history is, and what choices you made over the course of the game. This kind of story development is amazing.

Gameplay

KOTOR and Jade Empire both involved the player creating a character, often based off a template, and then wandering around locations talking with Non-Player Characters (NPCs) and getting into the occasional fight. Not much has changed with this formula, but Mass Effect does provide a few twists.

Drawing more on the idea of having active combat over turn-based, most of the fighting is similar to a third person shooter, with some clear inspiration from recent gaming hit, Gears of War.

You gain experience from fights, completing quests and achieving various other little victories. When your character gains enough experience, s/he levels up, allowing you to allocate talent points to each character's various abilities. While it initially appears that talent points don't have a major effect on your shooting ability - they end up improving the chance of hitting an enemy rather than firing wild, and provide special abilities that can be utilised by hitting the right bumper.



Combat can be fast and furious, and firefights are often over quicker than in many shooter games. While it is possible to button-mash your way through most fights, the combat system is designed more around creating a personal style of combat rather than figuring out the "winning" combination. After three playthroughs, I have had three very different combat play experiences. Take something like a Soldier or Vanguard, you are often running ahead of your squad firing wildly at your enemies while occasionally stopping to call up special abilities to help finish them off.

Play as an Adept and you find yourself hanging back in the fight, constantly attacking with mysterious biotic powers which have opponents flying around the battlefield crashing into each other. Take engineer and you hack into Synthetic opponents to cause them to go on a rampage attacking other enemies, or neurally shocking organic opponents to knock them out - leaving them vulnerable for your squad mates to pick off.

But this is not without flaws. Squad control is virtually non-existent, and often the squad member's AI is woefully inadequate. The number of times you or another squad member is caught in friendly fire because the third member of your party didn't think to walk *around* friendly targets before opening fire happens often enough to be a little annoying.

Sometimes squadmates will randomly draw weapons they are not skilled in rather than using the preferred weapon, causing you to hit the left bumper, pause the game and reselect the proper weapon.

Yet the enemy AI is pretty good. Enemies take cover, they co-ordinate attacks and for the most part show a great deal of smarts. However some do just charge into melee against oncoming gunfire. *sigh*

Another great aspect of the game is the addition of the conversation wheel. Unlike previous Bioware games, where you had a drop down menu of dialogue to choose from whenever talking with major NPCs; Mass Effect has a wheel with six "slots" for dialogue. Usually a short precis of what you intend is presented, then when you select it Shepard will speak his/her own dialogue that captures the intent.

For example, you select "I don't trust you" and Shepard might say "That is all well and good, but your actions aren't exactly matching with what you are claiming to me at the moment." Or, depending on where on the wheel the slot is (there are fixed "types" of intent) Shep might say "That's crap. I'm keeping my eye on you."

The other beauty is that because the wheel keeps choices to the point, it pops up mid conversation, allowing you to select an option without seriously breaking up the flow of conversation - making for a much more cinematic feel to the dialogue sequences. The choice of giving the PC a voice and actions means that you genuinely feel like you are part of a great sci-fi film.

But again there are little flaws. The wheel is not utilised enough in the way it was intended. There are occasions where it simply is just another way of conversing with characters. Also, there are times where you only have two or three options, which boil down to "be nice, be neutral, be an a**hole." But when the wheel is fully utilised in conversation, you get some genuinely memorable sequences - such as the conversations with Wrex; the face off with Saren; a dramatic decision making segment on the world of Virmire.

It is at these points that Mass Effect elevates itself above its normal gameplay and really shows what kind of game the developers truly had in mind when creating it. It's just a shame that large parts of the game don't reach this level.


Visuals

Visually, Mass Effect is one of the most amazing games on the market. Many of the story locations are truly memorable and stunning to see, and the detailing on the characters is second to none.

This game sometimes shows exactly what a next-gen console is capable of. But it isn't without some gripes.

Firstly, many of the minor NPCs suffer from what I call "Oblivion-syndrome." Apart from some very rare examples, the world is full of ugly human males that look like the hillbillys from Deliverance. Women tend to be attractive, although they too suffer from a number of weird drag-queen like characters.

HAIR. I know it is hard to do natural looking hair, and when you have this many NPCs wandering around you can't afford to be too fancy. But some characters look like they have plastic molds of hair slapped on their heads like some dire space version of Polly Pocket! While some characters, like Ashley and your Female Shepard, are fine - a lot of women look ridiculous. In particular there are two sisters you talk to in a casino sequence who look like they are naturally bald and have some weird red hat slapped on their heads.

Having said that - the aliens are all uniformly impressive. The amount of detail on the Salarians, Turians and Krogan in particular are brilliant. While they initially might look similar, you soon notice that each character has differences. Different Salarians have different skull shapes, the Turians all have different head spines and tattoos.

And the detail of scales, slime and even alien irises are impressive. Which brings me to another great feature of the visuals - the eyes. This is likely the first game I have seen where the characters have eyes that seem to show a depth, a reality to them. This carries over to the impressive detail of movement. Eyes "track" and "scan" like real people. Nobody stares all the time like some fish, their eyes move around rapidly and in short random fashion - like real eyes. Facial expressions change, the eyes shift naturally when characters talk rather than just have a randomly moving mouth.

This is most evident in Krogan squadmate Wrex - whose complex facial movements are stunning to behold. He looks almost alive and real. That is something that Bioware can be truly proud of how they have managed to do this.

Negatives

However there is a down side to all this brilliance. By trying to have too much, Mass Effect ends up almost having too little. Odd decisions, a buggy graphics engine, a main plot that's too short and repetitive sidequests that are too long help to drag this game down.

During development the story goes that Bioware realised that they didn't have all the resources to be able to do everything that they wanted with the game. It was decided that rather than cut an entire element out of the game, each area took a cut, the reasoning being that they could have everything they wanted and build up from there in later developments - but to be able to meet all promises and show what they had in mind.

Unfortunately this ends up making a game that is full of different elements, but master of none. Squad control was virtually removed in favour of an anemic system that doesn't quite work anymore. The side worlds that you can visit - of which there are dozens - are all the same world with different textures and slightly different mountain layout. The Mako - a vehicle you drive around in sidequests - is not upgradeable, which is frustrating when opponents do scale with your level.

Graphically, the game suffers from the worst framerate issues I have ever seen in a console game. Frame rate stutters to a near standstill just by moving the camera around too quickly at random points. Texture load up happens mid scene - and in some cases doesn't load up until the sequence is nearly over.

There are random loading times as the game streams info off the disc and this happens at virtually random points in the game.

In the aim to have some 50+ sidequests, most end up being simply collect missions with no pay off - a tour around the galaxy to find text boxes.

The codex, an intergalactic tome of information accessible from the menu, has vast swathes of spoken dialogue that repeats what is already written on the screen. I found myself wondering why this was kept - as the spoken dialogue would have used data and resources that could have been better put to use elsewhere.

Some of the writing is atrocious. While the main story is brilliant and full of great moments, it does suffer from some ill-planned sequences. One level - Noveria - is weak as it ends its sequence with a bit of an anticlimactic departure with no real denouement.

One of the areas most let down is the inter-relationships of your team. Jade Empire excelled at creating the illusion that the various characters were interacting and talking. Being able to stop and talk with characters at any point in the game allowed the player to develop and foster believeable friendships - and often there are moments where the characters talk to each other about their lives. Most popular was the romance subplots - where players could interact with romanceable characters and build a lasting relationship that was referred to during the game.

Mass Effect has seriously taken a step back in this regard. Characters only quip when riding elevators in one location of the game - one world, where you rarely use elevators either. Also, these dialogue moments are in a lower range so any loud sound effects nearly drown the characters out.

Characters rarely talk to each other at any other point. On only a few occasions near the end of the game does this change. Worst though is that most of the romances in Mass Effect feel like they were written by a thirteen year old sitting in his maths class. The dialogue is often stilted and unnatural. Where Jade Empire made the player interact and build a relationship with the romanceable characters, Mass Effect virtually starts with "I would like to shag you sometime" and kind of stays on that tangent.

The only exception I noticed was the Female Shepard and Kaiden romance, where Kaiden takes time to build a rapport with your character.

All this leads to a rather tasteful, but seemingly pointless, sex scene near the end of the game. It's kind of sad that the pay off for building a relationship is just to get to see some blurred out butt and a potential "blink-and-you'll miss it" nipple shot.

Worst yet, the relationship does not exist outside of its limited storyline segments. Whenever you are on location or talking to the character outside of your ship - it's as if the relationship does not exist. Again, I found Jade Empire handled this much more effectively.

My final comment is about the choices of romanceable characters. It has been stated that Bioware chose to only have three characters so that they could focus all their attention on making those characters interesting and do the romances justice. I would say that Bioware can comfortably say... mission aborted. While the characters have some depth, their storylines are clumsily handled. Furthermore, Bioware have limited the range of romances available. Sorry to all you gay guys out there. The military don't mind lesbian sex with alien women, but normal male-male fraternisation is a no-no. Bioware are likely unaware of the fact that by not having a male-male option in a supposedly "mature" R13 game - even one that is as tame as Jade Empire's - they are saying something about gay relationships by not saying anything.

I will discuss this further at the end of the review, as I don't feel it is something that should effect the overall score - considering a great many players will be heterosexual.

Positives

So that's a lot of negative commentary about the game. Yet with even all these little faults, Mass Effect is an amazing game. When it gets the forumla right, it does so amazingly.

Despite the graphical issues, these happen only occasionally, and for most of the game it's pure graphic gold. The expressive faces, the lush locations and stunning cut-scenes (all done with in-engine graphics) are awe inspiring.

The storyline is engaging and suitably dramatic. The game's conclusion is simply one of the most satisfying finales I have played in a long time, and keeps the player involved with the outcome right up to the final frame. Despite claims of not many big choices, it is clear after three runs through the game that your decisions throughout the game have a number of subtle and interesting effects on the direction the story takes - and this keeps on going to the last frame.

The fact that the game saves your character and choices suggests that these decisions will also carry over to the next game! I'm keen to see how that works out.

Most of the characters are very interesting, and you really make a connection to a lot of them. While they don't quite have the engaging appeal of Jade Empire's classics (who can ever forget Henpecked Hou, Sagacious Zu and Black Whirlwind...) there are some great characters on show here.

Summing up

While Mass Effect has bugs and issues - it is still one of the best games of the year. It has laid a foundation that Bioware can build up from. With the promise of regular downloadable content for the game there is room to improve where the game has faults. What is there is impressive, and I suspect that as the amount of additional game content is created, the game has room to become closer to the vision that Bioware wants the game to be.

In a way its imperfections help to show what makes Mass Effect so great. It is a stunning achievement of a game that breaks the mold for RPGs and manages to be engaging and enjoyable despite its flaws. Even with my various gripes, it still is a game I want to just keep playing over and over. I haven't even covered all the aspects of the game. This is an epic game that ultimately is worth the price of admission. Warts and all.

A Note about Romances

I want to bring this up as an aside more than a direct critique. As a gay gamer, I find that it is a rough life finding satisfying computer games with romances in them. A lot of developers don't seem to grasp how media can affect the way people perceive themselves.

When you create a sandbox game with customisability - particularly a game like Mass Effect which wants you to out yourself in the shoes of the character and tell your own story through your actions and choices - there is a certain message being sent to gamers with the choices allowed.

By denying players the opportunity to romance a male character, there is a sense of disconnect for a gay gamer. It sends the message that it is not okay to want to romance a male character.

This negative message is further reinforced by allowing a lesbian love affair. Claiming "she's an alien who is asexual" loses its validity when said asexual alien is rendered as a beautiful woman with clear female traits, and refers to herself as female.

I don't think Bioware did this maliciously, but it is a serious concern. Jade Empire had a gay romance, and there was very little hoo-hah from the "moral" crowd against it. The precedent has been set. To not include a gay romance in a supposedly mature game is a step backwards, in my opinion.

Bioware is limiting players and is implying (even in unintentionally) that it does not approve of male-male relationships.

Some would argue that market forces dictate. But given that the gay market is a multi-billion dollar a year industry - and that there are a marked number of "gaymers" out there - it seems bad business sense to not try and tap into that market.

To argue that conservative gamers would boycott the game loses effectiveness when one looks at The Sims. It is a huge money spinner that not only has gay relationships, but gay marriage and simulated gay sex! And it isn't even R-rated. The PS2, PSP, PC and Mac versions allow for gay relationships. Only the DS version is non-gay friendly. But then it also doesn't have any sexual connotations at all.

So I feel the need to express my disappointment in Bioware's failure to show support for a market that they initially won over with games like Jade Empire - which allowed gay relationships.

For me, this was a big let down that genuinely spoiled my enjoyment of the game. It is not sufficient to argue "that's the way the world is." As a producer of media, and making the claim that I can make the story I want, Bioware has failed me.

To that end, Mass Effect is not supportive of gay gamers - and that is a shame.

Saturday, November 17, 2007

Politics and Perceptions

I find it sometimes amazing the capacity of some people to convince themselves that they couldn't possibly be wrong, as if all things in the universe have a defined black or white position. Often the world is made up of a mixture of all things.
What am I going on about?
Well it is the highly predictable, but still somewhat sad, response to the Dom Post's revelations last Wednesday.
Now part of this is based on how you choose to interact with your media. If you are like me, you take it as a cue rather than the full story. The media can only provide someone's point of view - either the person being interviewed or the journalist reporting the incident.
What we got from the Dominion Post last Wednesday is enough proof that the police were right to act in regards to the actions of certain individuals in the Ureweras. We did not get proof that the accused were terrorists, but that they were clearly involved in some disturbing activities that they have been less than honest about.
It did not prove that the Tuhoe are behind some conspiracy, nor did it prove that these guys were genuinely capable of following up the threats mentioned in the quotes provided.
What it did prove was that there wasn't some conspiracy to shut down activists - but it did suggest that those being investigated were using such communities to make contacts.
Yet now we are hearing from the people who were protesting against the suppressed 'evidence' decrying that the Dom Post has acted appallingly for revealing it. I'm sorry, can you say that again?
Now I do think that the Dom Post has potentially acted in contempt of court - that evidence being revealed, particularly in such an anonymous manner (which is probably how Fairfax will get around the contempt of court charges) will work against the accused getting a fair trial.
But I have no pity for the kind of person who tries to argue such BS as claiming the comments were taken out of context. It is abundantly clear that there was a sizeable history of these kinds of conversations amongst a group of people who were then meeting and partaking in military-style training with illegal weapons.
How much context do you need? I'm curious to know exactly how such comments could be taken in context with the greater picture provided by surveillance - and be called innocent. It's a hard sell. One I don't buy.
These guys were clearly involved in something illegal. They probably weren't terrorists, but they were up to something stupid and they were naive to think that the police wouldn't get involved with the kind of theatrics some of their members were getting up to.
Remember, the investigation began after one of these yahoos made threatening moves towards the Prime Minister - which eventually lead Police to find out about the rest of their activities.
If it was some sort of elaborate set-up to expose flaws in our legal system, then these guys are idiots. New Zealanders, in general, don't appreciate being led on a merry chase. Given that the racial hot buttons have been pressed as well, that will only further work against these guys. They have been exposed as racially motivated and acting against a nation that has been working hard to try to resolve racial issues.

I fail to see how 'kill some pakehas' could lead to anything other than an increase in racist sentiments. It is no different than National Front spouting some bullshit ethnic cleansing drivel about Maori.
Let's get that clear. The evidence presented gives more than enough for police to get warrants. Comparing it to the US invading Iraq is also a false analogy. Iraq was a sovereign nation. As much as the Tuhoe want sovereignty, they are a part of New Zealand's legal system and if there are idiotic anarchists acting illegally in their midst, the police are required to investigate and act.
Why aren't these people getting angry at Tame Iti and friends for being such boneheaded idiots as to reap such a response from the police.
As for not finding any weapons of mass destruction - a cache of illegal semi-automatics, molotov cocktails and an IRA training manual are exactly the kind of things that the warrants were in aid of finding.
Yet having found that they bet on the wrong horse, those people who stepped up too soon to decry foul are now seeming to be working just as hard and vocally to cover their tracks.
This is why I find it is important to wait for evidence. Without it, you are making pure speculation and risk serious backlash if you are wrong.
This saga is far from over. I suspect you will find that some of the 17 accused will be found innocent - from what I read in the paper, it seems to me that not all of them are behind this little posse. But I will not be surprised if there are a couple more twists in this tale.
I do think that Jamie Lockett and Tame Iti need to be taken down a rung or two. They are clearly arrogant men who are too smart for their own good. But terrorists? I'm not so sure. I think the SG took the right course of action...
Which clumsily seagues me into my second topic of the day - Polls.
In the current polls National lost ground between September and November. Labour is now on the way back to preferred party, with Helen Clark pipping John Key at the post by a mere 2-3 percent as preferred Prime Minister.
Currently the Maori Party holds the king-maker role if there were to be an election tomorrow. Current events would suggest that they would lean towards National over Labour, as Labour has been more than a little antagonistic towards them. But also, given the rather shameless politicking they have been doing recently - and which has kind of left them with egg on their faces - it is likely that neither National nor Labour would be willing to negotiate a favourable deal.

What could that mean for government?
Well let's face facts. Labour is more likely to be able to broker a successful deal. Helen Clark has a long and successful history of being able to make deals with parties to create a government. She has managed to keep the Greens on side even while offending them on several occasions. She is likely to be able to get NZ First on side again, and United Future's Peter Dunne will likely recognise that Helen is more likely to win over the Maori Party than John could - thus leaning over to her again. Regardless of what he would like to claim.

Why do I think this? Because National still has failed to understand how MMP works. They still think that government is theirs if they hold a majority. Any allies would soon find National wanting them to fall in line. Labour's policies take their allies in mind, and they know how to broker deals that get them the policies that they really want while also accepting their partner's perspective. I just can't see John Key having the kind of statesmanship to successfully pull this off. Most noticeably, if the Maori Party sign on with him, they will find that once government is sworn in, they will be helpless against a juggernaut party that will only be out to keep things at status quo.
It is still to close to call, but I predict a minority Labour party successfully brokering a complex (and likely confusing to onlookers) government and National will again be left sitting in opposition. John Key is not a true leader - he's not as wishy washy as Don Brash, but he is kind of bland. I predict we will see Bill English returning for the election after next. Bold, I know, but he has now learnt from his experiences and is well placed to oust John Key if National loses the next election.

Helen Clark is wise enough to let all the chest thumping and carry on happen now - she sees the long game and knows that it is better to act when people are holding their voting slips. The public is fickle, and if you get them when they are on your side - all the better. It's a technique that has helped them out in the past, I don't see them playing National's game now.
Laters!
Conan
Currently Reading: What they don't teach you in Film School.
Currently Playing: Ptolus
Mood: Interested in how things are developing

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Police State New Zealand? I don't think so...

Who says there is no solidarity in the media? No doubt spurred on by the drama unfolding with TV3, The Dominion Post decided to publish the suppressed evidence regarding the "Terrorist" Raids - to ensure that the public can come to their own decisions.

Now I'm not so sure this was a wise action as it may possibly jeopardise the fairness of the approaching trials of those involved. However, what is done is done. At least by taking this action TV3 and the Dom Post have inadvertently (or maybe deliberately) proven something about this case - that we do not live in a true police state.

Why do I say this? Because in a true police state, the suppression of this information would have been vital - the Police would have stopped the presses, people would have been arrested (and possible tortured) to find out who leaked this information.

What are the NZ police doing? Investigating. There may be legal action taken against TV3 and Fairfax Media - but it will likely amount to a telling off and a serious fine that either company can probably afford to take on the chin in return for great press and sales.

I also agree with the reasoning offered by the Editor of the Dom Post when he says:

The Police have been accused of over-reacting, and of being racist. Supporters
of those accused have argued there is nothing to justify the operation the
police mounted, that notions of domestic terrorism are as insubstantial as the
Urewera mist, and those arrested are the victims of some sort of vendetta. They
argue that those the police arrested are blameless. Their claims have not been
tested in any meaningful way till now

The bold is my own. While I figure that these were a bunch of wannabe yahoos playing at building a militia - it does sound from the evidence revealed that police did act accordingly. Some very disturbing conversations have been revealed, and they happened over a long enough time to need to be taken seriously. This wasn't a bunch of guys playing a game with the police or clowning around on the phone.

These sound like angry guys who were saying things with a degree of conviction. I do feel that they probably would have wimped out when push came to shove - but on the face of the evidence, there is no way of knowing. Police had probable cause, and good reason to act. I've seen armed offenders get called out for [i]less[/i] without any complaint from anyone. It also adds a chilling aspect to the organised protests for me - that certain people hoped to take advantage of the raids to still stir up the same kind of division of people.

I do worry that after the publication of this information, the trial may now turn against the accused simply through public opinion. But, in a way, it needed to come out. Now let's see what happens to those who challenged the suppression orders - that will reveal much more about how in danger our civil liberties are...

Conan

Currently Reading:
Currently Playing: Exalted: Nexus of the Sun
Mood: Concerned, and also relieved that some of this information is out in the open.

Monday, November 05, 2007

Reviewtime: SKATE


In the console gaming world there has really only been one name for skateboarding - Tony Hawk. The endless parade of button-mashing gaming has been the pinnacle of the genre, if not the only existing product.

Now, as Tony Hawk's line of skating games is beginning to groan under the weight of mediocre game play - EA has burst out with a new type of skating game. Gone is the idea of skating gaming as a kind of arcady unrealistic experience. SKATE wants you to genuinely learn to appreciate the sport.

This is primarily done via the Flickit system - where Tony Hawk requires a Mortal Kombat style left, left, circle, circle, square combo to succeed at a trick, SKATE uses skill with the analog sticks.

Your avatar in the game never statistically improves, you - the player - do. This is a game where you freestyle your lines in any way that you can to perform realistic tricks and lines while exploring the vast city of San Vanelona (a fictional city that combines aspects of several famous cities of the world.)

After a very clever movie at that sets up why your character is such a newbie on the scene, you are literally dumped in the Skate Park of the San Van suburbs at the top of the hills, and given a short tutorial to accustom you with the controls. Then you are literally let loose on the city.


This game isn't about winning any goal. It primarily is about enjoying skating for the sake of it. There are challenges to keep things interesting, and the basic idea is that you will strive to get onto the cover of one of two famous skate magazines (or both if you so choose.) Each photo shoot you end up doing unlocks more challenges and come cool hidden locations - but you could happily play the game for ages without ever taking up a challenge.

What impressed me about the challenges is that they are never released before you are ready to take them on. The game is well balanced towards challenging your skills and getting you to learn the system without ever becoming too frustrating.

By no means is the game easy, but it is well balanced to keep things interesting for hours. I literally lost a day to this game, as it is very relaxing and challenging at the same time.

What is also impressive is the ability to take photos and footage of your tricks then load them up to the internet. All the pictures on this post are of my character performing various stunts.

SKATE's system is so fluid and intuitive, you seamlessly move from one trick to another - never having to look at the controller to pull of a trick. The controls aren't perfect - some tricks are too similar in movement, and I had a bitch of a time working on a Nollie 360 Flip, and constantly getting a Nollie Pop Shuvit 180.

But with a game that looks this gorgeous, and with so many challenges, I was always able to skate away and try something else for fun.

I can highly recommend SKATE to anyone who wants to play a game that is entertaining and fun.

Love and Huggles

Conan

Currently Reading:
Currently Playing:
Mood: Loving SKATE!

Saturday, November 03, 2007

Protests and Assaults

*sigh* After a week of all manner of opinions being voiced, I have found my personal opinion towards modern day activists hardening. Less and less people who claim to fight for the cause of freedom really seem to understand why they should fight for it, nor what it is that they are actually fighting for.

It, of course, doesn't help when both sides of a debate seem to be heading fast into silly hats territory. Consider today's Labour Conference. A "staggering" crowd of 150 protesters stood outside expressing their rights to freedom of expression. That is a good thing. While I don't agree with these people who are knee-jerk protesting against a mythic police state, they do have the right to protest if they feel a wrong has been committed.

But there are limits to freedoms - and this is something that these protesters don't understand. Furthermore, they seem to miss the irony that most of the people they are protesting against are supporting their calls to repeal certain laws that are on the table.

However, it doesn't help that a Labour Delegate assaulted one of the protesters. That is plain stupid. I don't care how infuriated they are making you, it only serves their purposes to assault them.

Conversely, freedom of expression does not allow you to jump on people's vehicles or spit in the faces of police. Nor does freedom of expression give you the right to push past police lines and verbally assault delegates.

So shame on all those protesters who have failed to learn the lesson that peaceful protest is and always has been a far more effective method of protest. Look at the support and coverage the Buddhist Monks of Myanmar created by simply walking. They live in a true police state - where Junta military open fired on peaceful protestors. These were not people jumping on cars or spitting at military. They were simply staying in a place and sternly refusing to be aggressive.

The police in New Zealand do not, to my knowledge, open fire on protesters. The other stage of peaceful protest is to peacefully go to jail if arrested. You can sit and refuse to move - your freedom of expression allows that. If you genuinely believe in your cause, then you will allow yourself to be arrested to make your point.

Kicking and screaming, threatening and harassing police for doing their jobs will not help. In this country, if you peacefully go with the police you are more likely to learn that some of them support your cause.

That is effective activism.

As Service Workers' Union representative, Jill Ovens, said -

"But I don't support advocating the use of violence because it just turns people against our cause."

There is a lot of truth in that statement. All the pollings show that an overwhelming majority of New Zealanders feel either that the police did not over-react, or that it is still too early to tell. If activists genuinely want support for their view they need to make sure that they have convincing evidence and the sympathy of the local New Zealander.

Because protests only succeed if the average person gains sympathy. The public does not respond well to acts of violence and show-boating. People like Ghandi became so influential because they used reason and peaceful methods. There is power in being calm and understanding.

That is why a large number of New Zealanders are simply writing activist protests off as hippy foolishness or irrational over-reaction.

Images of protesters being dragged off kicking and screaming simply builds sympathy for the police, not the protester.

Most New Zealanders also know that the Urewera 17 are not political prisoners. The fact of the matter is that many of them have been caught red-handed with illegal weaponry. Nobody has successfully disputed that yet. Joe Average New Zealander doesn't care about race or politics or even the terrorism laws. What average NZer is asking is the pertinant question that activists are ignoring - why do they need those weapons? It's not for pig hunting - there are plenty of legal weapons you can use for that. How does training with semi-automatics and military grade weapons exactly count as a legitimate retreat?

These are the questions going to be raised in court. In normal circumstances the police would be pushing for simple illegal weapons charges. What has effected these people is that Jamie Lockett and friends seem to have stupidly said that they are going to declare war on New Zealand. Now that may have been said in jest or as a joke on the police in the event that Lockett figured out his phone had been tapped. (A theory I find hard to believe after seeing his interview prior to his bail being revoked. In that interview he did not mention anything of the sort and was protesting that he had no idea that the police had been so involved, and he all but admitted to having said those comments in the heat of the moment.)

The problem is that because of those kind of threats being made, the police are bound by law to then seek a terrorism conviction. This is not a political issue - it seems to me to be a case of simple out and out stupidity. And maybe it is some overcomplex ruse to expose a fault in the current laws - but if so, that is a naive and utterly idiotic way to go about it.

Successful protest is about fighting corruption and faulty laws with reasoning and open honesty. Not show tricks and denial. And most certainly not through violent aggressive behaviour.

The more I see the activist reaction to this, the more I despair at the utter clumsiness and showboat stupidity of these protests. They are doing activist causes more harm than good. Those people hoping for another springbok flare-up are living in a perverse dream. New Zealand culture has moved away from that. We are more aware of the growing violence in our country - and we want to stop it. Violent actions - both from delegates and protesters alike are making the rest of us want to not have a bar to do with any of them.

I feel that's a shame. Because New Zealanders need to get into politics. They need to be passionate about this country - but they also need to be able to be reasonable about it too. I find most New Zealanders are reasonable people. They aren't all rednecked conservatives, nor are they tree-loving hippies.

We live in a mostly egalitarian society that is struggling to live up to its perceived dream of a beautiful and friendly nation that looks out for everyone in it. Unfortunately, a lot of conservatives and activists are not sharing that dream - being more interested in forwarding agendas for the good of a core interest group while trying to claim it is for the good of the country.

These people who are resorting to violent and aggressive actions are not doing themselves any favours.

Conan

Currently Reading: Sidereals
Currently Playing: Soon... sooon....
Mood: Not impressed.

Thursday, November 01, 2007

Reshuffling the hordes, Farms in the Wind and other Politics...

It certainly has been a busy time for those who have been following NZ politics. What with every overlooked party piping up regarding the recent raids and Trevor's little bust up with Tau Henare in the corridors of parliament - it would be enough to keep anyone busy with rumour and speculation. So is it any wonder that Helen Clark's new Cabinet reshuffle has been a cautious and down-played affair.

There are some interesting decisions - Making Minister of Police also Minister of Justice, which is an indicator to the forces that the Government is wanting to clean house regarding procedures and structures.

Mallard's clearly been put in his place, but gets to keep his job - which I think is a wise action. Too many people are baying for blood over a schoolboy scuffle. It's a bit sad, really. As usual the desire to punish has nothing to do with the event and everything to do with self-serving politics. Mallard has clearly been given a warning, and this has been set up for him to fail or succeed. Labour has had a history of giving MPs another chance - but there is the classic sense of "screw up again and you're out."

All in all, Labour is making a clear statement that they are focusing on policy not politics. The choices have been people who have shown ability and skill doing their jobs rather than picking scraps in the chamber. Which is something I have come to expect from Labour's leadership.

In other news there I was interested in the constant struggle for the development of renewable energy. It is interesting that so many people are against the use of fossil fuels to provide electricity, but then will fight any attempt at developing renewable energy sources. New Zealand is in a fairly unique position in that we have plenty of wind and water - two of the greatest sources for renewable energy that don't rely on nuclear power.

Yet, while most NZers want a clean green country, they want it to happen 'elsewhere' in the country. Now I haven't done all the research into the pros and cons of Wind Farms, but I do know for a fact that our power demands are rising, and the current sources are strained. The father of a friend of mine worked in the main research panel into the future of NZ's power, and it was decided about five years ago that unless new sources were found soon, Nuclear Stations in NZ would become an inevitability.

The Government has fought that decision, and experts have come from overseas and suggested all manner of potential solutions. We, as a country, need to face up to the fact that some sacrifices will have to be made. I, personally, don't see windmill turbines as particularly ugly - especially when compared to the smaller but nastier looking nuclear plants.

I may just do some more research into this to see what else I can learn and find out.

Finally, a note on NZ's increasing violence. A recent study found that violence in the classroom was indicative of the drop in values throughout the country. This has been attributed to the collapse of a number of families. I do find this a concern about the number of people who are teaching their children that violence is alright and the suggestion has been made for schools to pick up the slack.

I'm not really sure what can be done. The collapse of values is something that happens at home. It isn't the government or our laws that effect values - it's how we as individuals choose to interact with each other. I have noticed a definite decline in respect and common courtesy amongst New Zealanders. This idea that you must be tough and self-sufficient is a breeding ground for ill-will. There is a distinct lack of understanding how to deal with things.

But I'm still trying to figure out how you would get through to these people...

Conan

Currently Reading: Sidereals
Currently Playing: Nothing at the moment
Mood: Concerned for the future of our nation...

Monday, October 29, 2007

Winston Peters, Militants, Racism and the Maori Party

Well Winnie is up to it again - claiming to be above political showboating by being a political showboat. As many had predicted, the recent police raids have set off a storm of political huffing and puffing across the country.
The thing is that while the Maori party is trying to decry racist actions on behalf of the police and government, the evidence on the ground is rather light. It seems to be a case of trying to pre-empt any backlash that may arise.
What they haven't counted on is Winston Peter's ability to spot the political hot topics that mainstream New Zealand is concerned about and then exploit it to gain their support. Darn it if he hasn't hit upon a formula and knows how to use it.
Some of what he has said has a certain agreeability to it - and his Maori heritage wont be hurting his cause either. Here is Winston standing before White Middle Class New Zealand saying "look, I learnt to join the group and be a New Zealander first. I understand you."
His party may look dire in the polls - but this is not uncommon for NZ First. What the Maori Party needs to learn is to play the MMP game the way Winston does. He's a survivor and knows how to negotiate to keep in parliament.
Personally, I find him an odious man - but I do think that he's got it right. This is not about racism, but rather it is about generating a new kind of racism.
What I don't agree with is his view that there shouldn't be a Maori Party. I feel that Maori have genuine issues culturally and historically, and we live in a country where certain promises were made by the founders of our nation. The Maori need to have someone who represents their concerns in parliament. But they need leaders who will negotiate and talk. Not stand up and threaten or demand. The Maori Party could benefit from finding some allies to help build a future for Maori that is inclusive with the rest of the country.
Winston is no stranger to playing the racism game in politics - if Pita and Turia think they can win by taking on his comments, then they seriously have underestimated his understanding of politics. Their current statements are feeding seperatist thinking and worrying a large number of New Zealanders. Winston Peters knows this and is willing to manipulate it to get his party back in the spotlight.
Rather than targetting the police, Winston Peters or Government - maybe they need to look at how Tame Iti and friends have damaged Maori Mana. Regardless of their guilt, Tame Iti and his friends actions were stupid enough to stir up a hornets nest of trouble that has lowered views of Maori activists and environmentalists across the country. Hell, more people marched for Destiny Chruch's anti Civil Union protests than for the Urewera 17.
That should be concerning. Most New Zealanders want resolution, regardless of race. For that to happen, we all need to stop going to the knee-jerk reactions and start thinking about how to help each other and compromise. The Maori Party is in the position to start the move to reconciliation - but for that to happen they need to stop trying to play the racism argument at every opportunity, and start thinking about how Maori interests can unify with the rest of the nation rather than work against it.
This can be aided by working to educate NON-Maori in Maori culture. Learning to communicate why such issues as the Foreshore and Seabed aren't necessarily a threat to non-Maori. Show how money from treaty settlements have helped Iwi become a part of the nation - for example, my boss is involved with several groups that have wisely invested money to generate Maori owned and operated businesses that benefit both Iwi and the country.
Conan

Currently Reading: Promethean: The Created
Currently Playing: Nothing yet.
Mood: Worried about the state of the country...

Saturday, October 27, 2007

Civil Rights Defence - Manipulating Political Capital

Today I saw the small gathering of activists in Midland Park, as they warmed up to protest against the arrest of the Urewera 17. In an interesting karmic twist, the weather in Wellington did not seem to approve of their gathering.

Groups marched all over the country as part of a unified plan set up by such groups as Civil Rights Defence. Which is an interesting example of how a fringe group of activists continue to spread misinformation to rally global support. This is a manipulation of sympathies and political capital. It is interesting to note their messages of support - there is no place for dissent with their view, no attempt to reasonably debate the issue at hand. Most concerning is how they have deliberately misrepresented events so that genuine groups overseas will voice support without having any true information about proceedings.

It sickens me to see educated people who claim to be looking out for our civil rights acting in what seems to me to be a very self-serving agenda. Very few of the people I have seen support the Urewera 17 have come across as genuinely concerned about the rights of New Zealanders - they all seem to be more concerned with looking like they care about the rights of New Zealanders.

They tend to be of that set of people who become vegetarian and eco-friendly so that they can lord it all over everyone else about how morally superior they are. It's kind of perverse.

Worst still, they are making wild speculations based on police actions over twenty years ago. Not forgetting that the people in charge now are different people, and that the laws of the land have changed to prevent such events happening again. But then activism is rarely reasonable. It's passion and belief that makes people become activists.

The problem is when you don't really have a cause to fight for. Most of these people have had to rely on amnesty international causes to support - writing stern letters and essays.

Now they have something they can stand up for - it seems to me that nobody cares whether the Urewera 17 are actually guilty or not. They have been wanting to blame someone for something - yay! Now the police are picking on activists. It's Pol Pott! It's Nazism! It's Police State!

But wait. The police weren't targetting activists in general. Nobody has stopped these protests or tried to break them up. Nobody burnt any activist literature or closed down any sites.

Now Myanmar - that's a police state where they shut down access to the internet across the country, imprisoned anyone who protested and abducted people in the middle of the night for no reason. Nobody is allowed to voice an opposing opinion.

Let's get this very clear. We do not live in a police state. Our civil rights are firmly entrenched in law. Even now the government is not 100% comfortable with the proposed anti-terror laws and they are doing what is expected of them - measuring up how important it is to place them into law or not. There have been plenty of opportunities to speak on it, and many have.

The police did not commit these arrests on some flimsy charge. If they had, the courts would have thrown out the cases and the Urewera 17 wouldn't be in jail. Unless you buy into some BS conspiracy theory. The reality that Civil Rights Defence needs to grow up and face is that the Urewera 17 may just actually be guilty as sin. They should wait to see if the courts deem them guilty, which the Police must prove. The 17 don't have to prove their innocence, just defend themselves against any proof that the police present.

Given the stupidly flimsy excuses that Jamie Lockett has spouted, I'm very curious to know what the police evidence is. The fact that it is so sensitive to the cases that judges have deemed that it must remain suppressed until the cases go to trial gives me reason enough to believe that it is likely to be very damning evidence.

Activism has its place in society - we do need people to watch out for tyrants and liars. But when those people become such manipulative, emotive liars themselves - it is a bad day for this country. Until Police start arresting protesters, shooting into crowds of innocents and shutting down sites that question their actions - then Civil Rights Defence is living a lie.

These people were arrested for legitimate reasons. They broke the law. The fact that they were hiding in activist groups does not equate to the police deliberately seeking to quiet activism. Given that these groups had not been particularly vocal in the last year or so, hell most of us were unaware of them until the raids, suggests to me it had nothing to do with the groups and everything to do with the individuals arrested.

But then I'm passionate about being reasonable and rational. And about thinking of others and not my own selfish need for moral validation - which I feel some of these people are quite guilty of.

Conan

Currently Reading: Sidereals
Currently Playing: naught
Mood: Not impressed with some activist groups hysterical hyperbole.

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Reviewtime: Freaks and Geeks

If you ever thought that Firefly was an example of poor programme planning on the part of a network, you then have missed out on an even better series - Freaks and Geeks - which managed to garner the title of one of TIME magazine's best television series ever, and yet was cancelled after eighteen episodes.



Part of the problem lies in the series being slot into the lost zone of late evening/night screening. Why? Who knows. But due to perceived low interest in the series it was canned. Which is probably a good thing, because without that happening Judd Apatow and Seth Rogan might never had made the brilliant 40 Year Old Virgin or Knocked Up (which remains the funniest film of 2007 in my humble opinion.)

What makes Freaks and Geeks so cool? Well, much the same elements that make Knocked Up so brilliant a film. Judd Apatow is the rare producer/director/writer who knows that a quality show is not made by one man, but by a whole group of talented people with a passion for the series. Rather than cast big names in the series, he pushed to get unknowns who actually fitted the roles. He got writers, directors and crew who were professional and creative.

This and his talent for finding the humour in everyday life guarantees that this is a consistently funny show. Freaks and Geeks doesn't try to win you over with its humour, the gags come fast and out of the blue - letting you either get it or miss it. Humour lies in realistic set ups, nothing is implausible - even when dealing with the more eccentric characters of the world.

Stand-out performances from every cast member along with wry editing and shot construction make the whole series just one memorable moment after the next.



Set in the early eighties, it tells the story of two groups of friends as seen through the eyes of Lindsay and her younger brother, Sam. Lindsay has grown tired of her academic lifestyle, and following her grandmother's death she tries to strike out and make her own way in life rather than follow the path laid out for her by her family. In doing so she befriends the "Freaks" of the school. The dope-heads and drop-outs. Despite her intelligence and success at school, she finds a common bond with them.

Sam, on the other hand, finds himself labelled a Geek along with his two friends Neal and Bill (two of the geekiest guys you could ever meet...) However he is madly in love with one of the school cheerleaders, Cindy.

Each episode gently follows from the last, cleverly setting up jokes that sometimes pay-off only two or three episodes down the track - while having a sympathetic and real approach to each character. Despite the initial stereotypical characters, we soon learn that they have a lot of depth to them. As Henley, my brother, pointed out - each episode looks at cliches of the high-school milieu and then takes it somewhere you didn't expect it to go.

Brilliant. Watch it. Love it.

Love and Huggles

Conan

Currently Reading: Sidereals
Currently Playing: Nothing
Mood: Loving the geeks...

Saturday, October 20, 2007

Evidence, not Hysteria

Well my ill-temper over this Urewera issue continues to hang around. I find it interesting that most of the people who have seen the evidence have remained convinced that the police handled things correctly, and that they have chosen to keep this evidence and reasoning from the public until trials are convened.

This is a serious thing to choose to do, and it isn't something that the courts do lightly. The media is stirring up a shit-storm about race relations (always a favourite when news is light) but absolutely no evidence has come to light to prove this.

Police have arrested people from a number of different backgrounds and ethnicities. Their links lie in fringe political, activist and environmentalist groups - but all that shows is that they have figured that such groups are good to hide in and can harbour potential candidates for their causes - whatever they may be.

This isn't necessarily a terrorist cause either - if you were wanting to start a Maori Sovereignty activism group, these are the kinds of people who are likely to be sympathetic to your cause.

However, no evidence suggests that this is a concerted police conspiracy. The reason for this is because the courts are not behooven to the police and given the highly political nature of the situation would have only chosen to keep things quiet due to some compelling and concerning evidence. To ensure that these people get a fair and just trial, that evidence needs to be kept as clear from contamination of opinion as possible - meaning that if the media were to print it prematurely, jury's could be swayed into a biased position.

But certain activist and political groups don't seem to care for facts - they are only interested in decrying racism and police-state tactics. Bollocks.

This hysteria has spread across the globe now thanks to groups like the "civil movement of Aotearoa" on facebook. Indigenous people are not being bullied or having their rights removed - most Maori realise this too. A particular group who have had a history of antagonism and self-serving protest under the false guise of "solidarity" have stepped up again and tried to blame the government, police and anyone else they can of some truly outrageous claims that betray a serious lack of understanding about how justice works in this country.

Nobody has thought to blame those who have been arrested of being so stupid as to cause the police to raid the community through their own illegal and self-serving actions. Nobody has stopped to give Tame Iti a well-deserved dressing down for potentially bringing danger to the Tuhoe through his irresponsible and selfish actions.

No - the police take action based on the information they have gathered about Tame Iti and friend's activities, which the local community were not fully aware of. But it is the police who are held to blame.

This hysteria has to stop. It is irrational and neither helps those who have been arrested nor anyone in the country. It is shameful to accuse anyone of racial prejudice especially when many of the people arrested were of a mixture of ethnic backgrounds. So much so that it makes all the wild tales coming out of the area as a little exaggerated by people who want us to sympathise with them against the big bad police.

But the evidence simply does not support these stories. That's the blunt truth of the matter. As was pointed out by an excellent column in the Dominion Post on Friday, violent protest against the state of New Zealand is somewhat insincere when there has never been a Bloody Sunday like repression of the people.

When I consider that my current employer is a Maori businessman who successfully heads several Maori community boards and companies which all generate considerable wealth for their people. Who has a university education and can do whatever he pleases. How the man who co-owned the business with him was also a highly successful Maori businessman whose daughter has excellent university education and is researching and studying Te Reo as a living and growing language - I find the accusations of a state repressing indigenous people as a little hard to swallow.

Things aren't perfect - but they have been getting better, and the government has for the last decade been working tirelessly to help improve relations. Most Maori know this, and they work hard to be a part of New Zealand as well as teach New Zealand what it is to be Maori. They are the people who spearhead the future of Maori culture in a positive light.

They understand that we're all in this together and only by learning to understand each other can we move forward - not by making outrageous demands or hiding behind ethnicity. These people haven't allowed themselves to have a hysterical hatred of society, but rather have chosen to stand up and be proud of their heritage and to share it with society. To work with other people to benefit their families and culture as well as the greater New Zealand.

And they are the people who in cases as this one, believe that one should wait to see what the evidence is before harping off at the government or police or anyone else.

It may turn out that the Police did over-react. But it might also turn out that there really was a militia being trained to serve an anarchistic goal that each group was intending to exploit.

Until the evidence is revealed, we should wait and see - not decry foul play. It has been a week. As has been pointed out by others - in a true Police State, these people would just disappear. But they haven't. We know where they are, we know that they will be charged with further cases soon, and we know that their cases will be before the courts in short time.

Until there is evidence, I refuse to accept that this is some conspiracy or politically motivated white-wash. There is more historical evidence that suggests there is good reason for these people to be put through the process. They had illegal firearms. There were witnesses who were threatened by armed militia. We now know that the SIS were involved. I believe there is enough evidence to suggest that this needs to go to court and be tested.

And I believe that given the seriousness of the crimes, the police were right in acting swiftly and efficiently. If a few windows got smashed - that is a reasonable price to pay instead of risking a potential gunfight, or loose anarchists with an axe to grind.

Conan

Currently Reading: Lunars 2nd Ed
Currently Playing: Nothing
Mood: Still short of a suitable icon for how grumpy these people are making me.

Friday, October 19, 2007

Rumour Versus Fact: Trying to make sense of it...

No doubt you've noticed my developing discourse on the recent events in the Ureweras. I worry that sometimes it sounds like I'm joining the us-and-them brigade of mentality - but rather I am angry at the recent opportunistic strikes being taken around this event.

I saw on Yahoo.co.nz today a comment about studies have shown that people often believe rumour over fact. Something I have seen in action personally on occasion. It is easier to get all worked up over some juicy story than the solid facts, even when faced with irrefutable evidence.
It is worth noting that in regards to Tame Iti, Jamie Lockett and the other fifteen or so people arrested by the police - we have not seen the facts yet. The courts are still going over them, and to ensure that these people get a fair trial the evidence needs to be kept secret until the process has been completed.
Yet there are many who are resorting to rumour and hearsay to justify some need to be offended. I'm sick of how the police have been a constant punching bag for people, and how in many occasions people have started kicking before the evidence is even presented.
Currently there are protests about two issues - one is the alleged boarding of a bus of children going to their Kohanga reo by armed police. The other is the general conduct of the police apparently to target the maori community when they locked down the area.
There has been a weeping bus driver talking about fearing for his life and thinking that he would be shot just like that guy with the hammer, children apparently traumatised by the experience and parents angry that the kids weren't allowed through the blockade.
Wait a minute.
Firstly, the shooting in Christchurch involved a man who was acting in an aggressive manner - and because a lot of the same people had said no to Tasers, the policeman in that situation had very little recourse to do to protect his life from a man hopped up on party pills.
Secondly, the police have said they never boarded the bus. Which brings to light a curious question - how much of this bus incident is hysteria? No doubt there were armed police present - they were dealing with a group who had threatened hunters on a legitimate outing and then exploded a napalm-like weapon in an apparent training camp.
What these people seem to have overlooked is that the Police had no idea how this group of people would react. What would have happened if Tame Iti's friends had been planning to make a message out of the raid and set off explosives or started a shoot-out?
Those children were sent home to protect them from harm and apparently that warrants a hikoi to complain that they should have been sent into a potentially explosive situation that actually could have ended up with the death of a bus full of innocents.
There was no knowing at the time. I suspect it wouldn't have exploded into something violent - Tame Iti et al strike me as naive, self-centered dickheads rather than real terrorists. But nobody could say for certain - and it is better to err on the side of caution than risk lives.
But nobody protesting at the Whakatane Hikoi seems to care about that. They have made a lifestyle of abusing and resisting the police solely based on a self-fulfilling prophecy. By creating a conflict, they promote conflict. I find much of the behaviour being reported before any facts or evidence has come out is shameful. It angers me how readily these people leap up and decry such things. And now, if Tame Iti is revealed to have been a genuine threat - it will be a conspiracy of the crown, not the truth as far as these people are concerned.

Conan

Currently Reading:
Currently Playing: Exalted: Nexus of the Sun
Mood: Still short an appropriate image.

Thursday, October 18, 2007

Pita Sharples, SHAME ON YOU!

Normally I like to give people a chance to mull over my posts before I put up the next one, but this recent declaration from "Dr" Pita Sharples has infuriated me.

This action has violated the trust that has been developing between Maori and Pakeha and sets our race relations back 100 years.

Now I am a strong supporter of the idea of a Maori political party, it is exactly why we have MMP, so that all groups can have representation. Maori need to have a strong voice in New Zealand Government so that their issues can be heard and properly debated and considered. Just as any group in NZ deserves.

But I have found Pita Sharples constantly takes advantage of nearly any opportunity to raise spectres of mistrust and hate. I do not believe that he speaks for the majority of Maori, and I am angry that this latest claim to Australian members of a conference was merely a political stunt on his behalf.

Let's get something clear here, "Dr" Sharples - the police arrested people of varying ethnicities and who had a variety of agendas. It has been the media that has fixated onto the terrorist camps issue - I find it interesting that as the story has developed, there has been a fixation on the Maori aspect.

But in revisiting the news stories - what we are dealing with are radical activists who have taken advantage of legitimate political groups. These idiots had a variety of agendas - none of which were for the benefit of NZ - and they were naive enough to believe that talking about war and anarchy wouldn't draw police attention. The police acted because these guys threatened members of the public - then set off weaponry that is meant to be restricted in this country.

The police moved in because of that.

The only reason race relations could be pushed back is if people like Dr Sharples remained so thin-skinned and self-absorbed as to not look at all the evidence before shooting their mouths off and stirring up sentiment amongst Maori.

Why couldn't he wait until he had all the information? How, exactly, is making such a broad claim - notably from overseas as well, Dr Sharples has not been in the country during these events - exactly helping heal relations?

This strikes me as looking for an excuse to be offended. I feel that Dr Sharples political career has hinged on being the angry ethnic politician. Time to get a new tune, Pita. Because it is getting old, and you are not helping anyone. I'd be interested in going back through previous "announcements" from Pita Sharples - because I suspect you would find he has said the same thing in the past at every opportunity he could.

Grrrr. He should be ashamed, because it's statements like these that create unease and promote racism. Let's hear about positive action from people who have the facts and know what's going on - not the wild accusations of a man who isn't even fully informed of the facts.

Conan

Currently Reading: Sidereals
Currently Playing: Nothing at the moment
Mood: I don't even have a menchi picture that best represents how insulted and angry I am about this one...

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Freedom, Rights and Justice - What comes after you win?

Something that many people struggle with is the understanding of what a Right is compared to a Liberty. Libertarians, ironically, are the worst at failing to know the difference.

In light of the expanding Urewera camps saga, I have found myself thinking more and more about how poorly people understand these things. Not only that, but how those who wish to change "the System" often have this utopian ideal that once they have "won freedom from tyranny" everything is just going to fall into place.

Well first, let's talk about rights and liberties, then I'll talk about the faulty thinking involved with "when we win" mentality.

Rights are not the same as liberties - and yet many people declare liberties as rights.

A right is something that people are obligated to ensure you have. Right to freedom of speech, for example, is the right to say what you want without censorship. However it does not protect you from recrimination. This right obliges people to give you a forum within which to speak your piece. But once you have said your piece, they have no obligation to agree with you. Nor do they have an obligation to react favourably.

What the right is doing is granting that others must accept your liberty to speak your mind.

Liberties are freedoms. They are things you are free to do, but nobody is obligated to give them to you. Using the above example, you are free as a Nationalist to walk into a Jewish/Pacific Island community and mouth off about how you don't like said ethnicity. However, they can choose to beat the living snot out of you for offending them. Freedom of Speech does not protect you from people if you offend them.

That is why we have laws that help police freedom of speech. Those laws that prevent people from spreading hate speech exist to find a safe equilibrium between freedom of speech and freedom to live a life without discrimination.

See, liberties can conflict - which is when rights have to be looked at and considered. It is reasonable to suggest that said racist nationalist is abusing his right.

As the old saying goes, just because you can doesn't mean you should...

My favourite little bugbear is how smokers say "I have a right to smoke." Actually - you don't. You have a liberty that allows you to smoke. But non-smokers do have a right to object to smoking in their presence, and as a smoker you have an obligation to respect that right.

But moving to the meat of the discussion... the story seems to go that Tame Iti and Jamie Lockett were planning an IRA-style war on NZ. Tame Iti's goal is to see Tuhoe become an autonomous nationhood separate from the rest of the country.

Why? Because it would appear that the Tuhoe did not sign the treaty and do not feel that they are part of this nation. Yet for over a century they have been drawing benefits from this nation.

Now I've studied the treaty and the issues surrounding it. I feel that the Crown's clumsy and confused handling of the Maori have had disastrous effects on their culture which are still being felt.

But I also feel that it is time to look forward, not back. I feel that many activists do use the past as an excuse to avoid facing the future - that they act out claiming lofty goals, but really habouring more self-serving actions.

Here's a question for not only those who feel that Tuhoe deserve their own nation, but to more radical groups such as the Islamist terrorists who fight to convert the world - what happens when you win?

Much like George Bush's ill-planned invasion of Iraq, what happens after it is over? Has anyone thought about how they plan to build a nation? Thoughts of how manageable a world-wide Islamic rule could really be, given that evidence has shown time and again that homogenous rulerships collapse.

Going to the Tuhoe, how much land would become Tuhoe land? How would it be managed? How would the economy be kept alive? Who would rule? Where is the money coming from and going? What kind of exchange rate would you expect to have, seeing as you most certainly would not have NZ currency, and it is highly likely that most nations will not trade with you.

What kind of exports would you be able to genuinely ask for? How much land is likely to be manageable if you end up in a genuine war?

Look at Ireland and the IRA - that was a disaster. Why on earth would anyone want to pursue such a course? The IRA and Britain fought for decades, and the reason peace is coming isn't because everyone is getting what they want - it's because everyone has realised conflict wasn't solving anything, both sides were just so tired of the violence and horror.

The people were tired of the violence and horror.

Why would you even entertain the idea of bringing such a thing to this country. New Zealand isn't perfect, but until now it has enjoyed a degree of safety from such thinking. We, as a nation, probably felt that nobody would be so silly. Even with our shocking falling education rates, most New Zealanders are more informed than many nations.

New Zealand has enough problems with gangs, drinking and violence. We have an issue with people who want to blame the government and police. Listen to how people are accusing the Police and Government of trampling on civil liberties. But as has already been pointed out, if Tame Iti's associates had been genuine - if a Napalm bomb or other attacks actually eventuated - then we would have heard many of the same groups complaining about why didn't Police act sooner.

The reality is that we must all take responsibility for our actions, and face up to the consequences when challenging the state. In NZ, we enjoy a lot of freedoms - and our justice system is better than many other nations. It is not beholden to the Police, and we have a lot of law in place to prevent the police from abusing their position as protectors of those freedoms we value.

I genuinely believe that New Zealand needs to find a new identity. That we, as a nation, need to gain pride in ourselves and our country. Not through the All Blacks, or any such over-hyped nonsense. But in the little things that make New Zealand such a special place to live.

We need to talk to each other without getting angry - we need to respect each other and come to realise that New Zealand is not a western nation, not an eastern nation, not a Pacific nation even. It has the ability to strike out on its own as a meeting place for all nations. We have a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic population, and we should take pride in that. Our country has been treated as a microcosm for years by companies wanting to test what the pick up of certain technologies would be like - let's now do that for politics.

Let's show the world that you can have different religions, cultural heritages and different lifestyles and still form a vibrant and supportive community. The foundations are already there. Put out the invitations - and let's make this country something we can be proud of again.

Love and Huggles

Conan

Currently Reading: Sidereals
Currently Playing: Nothing
Mood: Wanting to live in a better New Zealand...

Monday, October 15, 2007

Local Politics and Terrorists

What a day for news it was today! First I was planning on a review of Freaks and Geeks, but then I saw the results of the local body elections and felt I needed to talk about that, and then Tame Iti and friends end up creating more of a furor. What a day.

So the review can wait, let's turn to the news.

Local Elections - Poor Turn Out

It seems to me that the results of the latest elections are subtly showing the growing divide within New Zealand society. The swing to the Right spectrum is likely related to a variety of issues. For Auckland, Hubbard was just hopeless. He was clumsy and incapable of handling the city - people were willing to take back the much reviled John Banks rather than put up with another term of Hubbard's inept handling of the council.

But there was a record low turn of of voters, and many people in the position of organising these things are scratching their heads as to how to fix this.

I suspect it has to do (in part) with the dropping number of homeowners. See, people who rent don't pay rates and often don't consider local politics as affecting them as much. Which is patently silly, but a sentiment I have heard from a number of people.

With the recent housing boom, the people who have been buying up properties have been largely people of a reasonably high income bracket, who have conservative views and are aiming to get into the property investment business. These people will be paying rates on their homes, and so will be worrying about the increasing rates (ironically missing the fact that most rate increases are often tied to increased house prices, but go figure...) and so they will usually vote conservatively because Right-wing candidates love to tell those who are investing lots of money that they will not have to pay as much for the returns they are getting at the expense of others. (Did you spot the bias?)

What needs to be done is firstly educating those who aren't voting that just because they don't directly pay rates doesn't mean that local government doesn't effect them. Rents are also tied to rates- as landlords increase rents when rates go up. Your rent pays your rates.

Furthermore, local body government effects much of your city's appearance, how its businesses operate, how clean your streets are...

As an example - in Wellington water rates are part and parcel of council rates. In Auckland you have to pay them on top of these rates. In Wellington you have to pay for rubbish collection seperately. In Auckland, everyone has a wheelie bin.

Auckland has an inorganics collection regularly throughout the year - when all your crap furniture and other non-biodegradable trash can be put out on the street for collection.

As far as I am aware, Wellington has no such thing.

These elements are all part of local governance. If you genuinely have pride for your city, you need to vote - because the council has considerable influence over how your city develops. While Kerry Prendergast has a rumoured history of nepotism, she has also had the shrewd mind to support the creative and artistic endeavours of Wellington - it is something that makes Wellington's character unique.

In contrast, John Bank's mayoralty was focused on business and economics - and as such Auckland suffered a distinct lack of cultural identity - one I would argue is still a problem as Hubbard did very little to rectify the problem.

If you didn't vote, I don't want to hear a single complaint about the Mayor of your city - choosing not to vote is just plain silly. We spout out support for democracy, the least you can do is exercise that democratic freedom. By voting you are showing interest in the society you live in - be it for selfish reasons or altruistic, you are still taking part. By refusing to vote you aren't making a statement - you are shirking responsibility, because no vote is pretty much supporting the person who gets into power. By choosing not to vote you are saying that you are fine with whoever gets in.

Apathy does not free you from responsibility.

Which brings me to the next topic...

NZ Terrorism?

What the hell? I am shocked, appalled and mystified by the revelation that there were military-style training camps that were being run by radicals. Not so much that such a camp existed - given the freedoms we have in this country, it wouldn't surprise me to know that a bunch of rural folks had a little semi-survivalist type commune - but rather that there are people with a more serious goal in mind.

See, semi-survivalist types tend to keep to themselves. They aren't preparing to take a fight to the people, they are preparing to protect themselves when the perceived collapse of society comes to their doors.

But Tame Iti and his crowd seem to have been preparing for a variety of agendas that the NZ Police felt were of genuine risk to the public. Now I have heard the BS stories before of conspiracy and police-state NZ. But the reality, from knowing many police (and having once been on the wrong side of the law as a teen) is that they do not act unless it is a genuine risk. Despite some of the bad press recently, the NZ Police are more often effective and professional in their handling of things.

If they felt there was risk, I believe there genuinely was something to be concerned about. Even if these guys weren't really planning to follow-through with their agendas, but were acting out on their crazy schemes to a point - they were idiots for going so far as to raise concern.

Let's get something straight folks. New Zealand is not an oppressed nation. We have a remarkable number of freedoms that so many people take for granted - choosing to gripe about the most inanely silly issues.

Sure, Maori are still not fully treated with the respect that their culture deserves, but in the 30 or so years I have been in NZ, I have seen amazing changes in the way Maori have been treated and there doesn't seem to be any evidence to suggest this progress is going to stop.

I certainly don't feel that Tame Iti has any foundation or moral authority to take such violent and divisive actions. His antics have done more to harm Maori as a people than help.

For Maori culture to survive, it needs to change - not be preserved. Shocking as that may sound, a culture lives by growing and changing. Maori culture needs to be cultivated and nourished. It needs to be allowed to grow and become part of the greater NZ culture. It needs to be treated as something that is changing and developing - not held in stasis from a time in the long distant past.

The success stories in NZ are from groups who have seen this and recognised it. I want to see more people like the woman who got on the bus the other day and asked the driver (in Te Reo) if he was a native speaker, to which he replied he could speak somewhat - and they proceeded to have a conversation in Te Reo. (Which has made me think I should find the time to learn it myself.)

What are attacks on "crown" lands going to achieve? Terrorist attacks on NZ parliament and perceived locations of imperial oppressors would show nothing. It would create a climate of fear and recrimination. Groups like the National Front would begin to fill their ranks with angry young people, gangs would grow even more prominent than they have as of late - this country would cease to be the NZ we love and would become more violent than it is now.

There would be no gain.

But most of all, what is there about our country that deserves such a reaction? We live in a country that has a growing multicultural population. We have the opportunity to embrace that. Yes, we may have to let go of some cultural conventions - society would need to make some changes - but those changes are happening already.

Contrary to anti-globalists views, those changes are not a european hegemony - they are something more primal. New Zealand's social views are often at odds with other European nations. What many NZers don't realise is that over the last thirty years we have become a more pacific/asian nation when it comes to cultural views. And this isn't because of increasing numbers of immigrants - although they have helped this development. This view is very subtly showing up in traditionally European families.

NZers, as a people, tend to be community focused. They tend to be well versed in the cultural habits of several ethnic backgrounds - many NZers have a mix of Maori, European and sometimes Asian societal habits.

Most NZers have experienced a hangi, been involved with the Chinese New Year, understand basic Maori sayings and believe in the idea of family being more than the nuclear unit.

It isn't a comfortable acceptance, but rather a subtle unnoticed effect.

And it is something to embrace and grow from. Collectivist societies such as the Pacific nations and many asian cultures can teach those of us from a European Individualist ideology much about how to look at society in the big picture - while we Individualists can teach collectivist nations about how to not overlook the individual elements within our society.

Maybe I'm proposing that we stop worrying about the past and embrace New Zealand culture as our primary identity - and that part of that identity is to take pride of the various cultures we come from. For those with Samoan heritage to proudly show their culture while embracing NZ as well. For those with Irish roots to embrace their Irish heritage while reveling in a culture where they can learn about other people and the stories they can teach.

This nation's identity should be founded on working to come together - not to be selfish but to show that working together we can create a society where your ethnic culture isn't a difference to separate you from the rest of the country but rather an aspect of our society as a whole. Not an easy task. But an admirable one to aim for. Ultimately people need to stop being afraid of change. We were once a nation unafraid of change - we were willing to do things before anyone else. We should be again - for it is part of human nature to grow and change.

The fear of change is a threat that only prevents us from reaching the happiness we desire. Buddhism and Taoism can both teach us how to face change in different ways. Maori tradition can teach us much of learning to respect each other and the land. We are a nation that is still looking for an identity - but acts of violence will not aid us, they will only continue to push us apart. We need to be coming together.

Love and Huggles

Conan

Currently Reading: Sidereals
Currently Playing: Niente
Mood: Hoping to find a new way