Posts
As a talkback host I am often in a position to spar with people over topics, it’s probably a weakness that I enjoy it a little too much as on occasions I may lose the context of a conversation, or the importance of an issue, to 'win' the argument.
I am growing as a person and a talkback host and think this is an area that I can, and have worked on. I am a bit of a stickler for facts and accuracy; I don’t like sweeping statements and regularly call-out someone using them. This isn’t to say that I am not guilty of that same ‘sin’ at times, I am sure we all are.
In the last 24 hours I have had occasion to think through this ‘win at all cost’ mentality over an interesting email I received.
It’s headed up “FW: Islam Mass Marriage of girls aged 6-10yrs” in which the claim is made that 450 Muslim men, supported by Hamas, in Gaza married girls aged between 6 and 10. Have a look here to get the guts of the email.
I get dozens of these types of emails from friends, family members and listeners, and always approach them with caution as I have found in the past that not many of them are completely accurate. This email stood out to me as a hoax just simply from a logical point of view, Hamas is a terrorist organisation, a well oil, well organised (albeit democratically elected) terrorist organisation, so I found it hard to believe that they would put themselves in front of the world showing them supporting paedophiles. It makes no sense.
I started to search the interweb to see if I could either disprove…or indeed prove the claims of the email.
What I found is that this email, or versions of it, have been circulating the globe for over a year, there are hundreds of website references and one must assume that hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people have read them, many will have forwarded it on, or sent links to the claims. So many people out there believe this story to be true, but forwarding on someone else’s email, or putting all the information onto your blog doesn’t mean it’s true, it just means you buy it.
I still wanted to know whether it was true or not.
The sad part of this story is that the truth was revealed within about 5 minutes or looking…the story is a hoax.
You can look here which may not be the most reliable/official place to find inaccuracies, but it’s out there.
If you want more you can go to websites like this one that put the original story up, then retracted if after they realised it was a hoax, again though not an ‘official’ source.
How about this one, a Jerusalem publication, it doesn’t either confirm or deny the claim, but one would think if any area of the world was going to want to give Hamas a black eye it would be in Jerusalem, if the story about child brides were true, then this is the exact kind of publication to support it.
The most accurate way to see if there were indeed child brides or not, is independent eyewitness testimony. Tim Marshall is an English reporter for Sky News, he was there at the ceremony and when he saw the ‘Christian’ world starting to spread this disgusting rumour he started getting onto the websites posting things like this...(this is one of his posts)
“Hi. I was there. The girls are relatives, nieces etc. Dressed up having fun. Brides were in the audience. It’s always like this. Hamas does enough terrible things without anyone having to make up nonsense about child brides…
I was there at the Wedding ceremony. We filmed the event. These young girls are NOT the brides. The brides are among the 5,000 or so audience. Where is your proof they are child brides. It is a cultural thing among the conservative Gazans to do things this way. It is grossly unfair to portray ordinary Gazan men in this way. Hamas does enough terrible things to write about without having to resort to making things up. The girls are having fun dressing up. Its been like that for years.”
You can real a full post from him here.
It’s more important to be truthful and accurate than to win the fight every time. Sometimes the right thing to do is get a proverbial black eye, be a little embarrassed, but retract and set the record straight.
For Christians out there, who has believed this lie, and then passed it on as fact, you are implicit in this deception. The Christ you serve isn’t into deception, He is into truth.
If you read this post, or Tim Marshall’s, or others out there…and you still believe it to be 450 child brides getting married then there is no evidence that can be put before you to convince you otherwise.
Christians out there, please love the Muslims…that your job…that’s your God mandated job, not to judge them, not to try to ‘win the argument at all costs’, not to put them in their place, not to defend your faith by bringing theirs down…none of that…just love them.
There are also real issues that we need to be concerned about in the world, Hamas is actually one of them, as is child prostitution and paedophilia, but you cannot beat evil…by being involved in evil things. You cannot win against lies…by lying, whether the lie is intentional as the originators of this email must be, or unintentional by forwarding on something you believed to be true.
I also want to make clear that this 'rant' is not aimed at the actual Child Bride email, or anyone person who has sent it on, but at the idea of how important truth is, how important it is to be a purveyor of truth whenever possible. It’s more important to be accurate and truthful, than to win every battle.
When you get the next chance to score one for Jesus by taking a group down a peg or two, whether it be valid or not, just ask if you think this is this going to bring the ‘one’ closer to the God you know, or will it give the ‘ninety nine’ something to snigger about?
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Friday, October 29, 2010
Barack Obama on 'The Daily Show with Jon Stewart'
Part One
Part Two
Part Three
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Barack Obama Pt. 1 | ||||
| ||||
Part Two
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Barack Obama Pt. 2 | ||||
| ||||
Part Three
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Barack Obama Pt. 3 | ||||
| ||||
Friday, October 8, 2010
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Paul Henry handled this poorly...TVNZ handled it worse!
Right from the outset I want to make it clear that I like Paul Henry, I like his irreverent style, I rate him as a broadcaster and from the couple of times I have met him he seems like a nice bloke.
That, however, does not take away from the reprehensible theme behind what Mr. Henry said yesterday. Questioning Sir Anand Satyanand's place of origin, and lets be honest, colour...then relating it to being a 'real New Zealander' isn't anything other than racism.
'Are you going to choose a New Zealander who looks and sounds like a New Zealander this time?' asked Henry yesterday morning. So a man of Indian ancestry, who was born in this country, was educated in this country and has spent his whole life serving the people of New Zealand doesn't 'looks and sounds like a New Zealander' to Paul Henry...so what does?
One can only assume that when he refers to Pakeha and Maori people, I wonder how that makes the hundreds of thousands of people in New Zealand feel who don't comfortably fit into that definition of a 'real New Zealander'
In the last half hour Paul Henry has been suspended by TVNZ, for two weeks, without pay. This has been done after this morning's on air apology, so some would ask the question why?
Yesterday soon after the comment Paul Henry told to Stuff.co.nz when asked why he thought Sir Anand did not look and sound like a New Zealander he responded: 'As I say, the comments that I made were perfectly clear, and I have no particular interest in discussing them any further.'
Then in the afternoon there was a press release by TVNZ which quoted Henry apologising for 'any offense I may have caused.'
Then for some unknown reason, they issued another press release that said 'The audience tell us over and over again that one of the things they love about Paul Henry is that he’s prepared to say the things we quietly think but are scared to say out loud. The question of John Key is the same, we want the answer but are too scared to ask.'
So back to the issue of why he was suspended today.
Paul Henry stuffed up yesterday, it's more than talking about a lady with a moustache, or a singer being a little retarded, it's a cast iron example of racism...whether intentional or not...on our public owned broadcaster. It is unacceptable and should have dealt with yesterday. I agree with Janet Wilson who blogged this morning 'The essence of crisis media management is that, when you are in the wrong confess and repent, admit it fully, apologize sincerely and honestly, and you will generally achieve a measure of redemption.'
So why was he suspended today?
To an extent Paul Henry is now suffering even more than he should of because of TVNZ's poor handling of this situation, at 9.10am yesterday morning, whether he liked it or not there should have been a full, sincere and final apology from Paul Henry issued from TVNZ. TVNZ should have issued an unreserved apology of their own and distanced themselves from the comments, yesterday TVNZ backed Paul Henry's sytle...and now Henry is suffering because of it.
If Paul Henry and TVNZ had thrown themselves at the feet of the public yesterday, and asked for forgiveness I don't think he'd be suspended today, but when you have a rouge broadcaster, and you employ him, in part, for the controversy that comes with him (it rates!) then you also have to have good practices in place when the rouge goes too far. It seems TVNZ didn't have this...maybe now they do.
That, however, does not take away from the reprehensible theme behind what Mr. Henry said yesterday. Questioning Sir Anand Satyanand's place of origin, and lets be honest, colour...then relating it to being a 'real New Zealander' isn't anything other than racism.
'Are you going to choose a New Zealander who looks and sounds like a New Zealander this time?' asked Henry yesterday morning. So a man of Indian ancestry, who was born in this country, was educated in this country and has spent his whole life serving the people of New Zealand doesn't 'looks and sounds like a New Zealander' to Paul Henry...so what does?
One can only assume that when he refers to Pakeha and Maori people, I wonder how that makes the hundreds of thousands of people in New Zealand feel who don't comfortably fit into that definition of a 'real New Zealander'
In the last half hour Paul Henry has been suspended by TVNZ, for two weeks, without pay. This has been done after this morning's on air apology, so some would ask the question why?
Yesterday soon after the comment Paul Henry told to Stuff.co.nz when asked why he thought Sir Anand did not look and sound like a New Zealander he responded: 'As I say, the comments that I made were perfectly clear, and I have no particular interest in discussing them any further.'
Then in the afternoon there was a press release by TVNZ which quoted Henry apologising for 'any offense I may have caused.'
Then for some unknown reason, they issued another press release that said 'The audience tell us over and over again that one of the things they love about Paul Henry is that he’s prepared to say the things we quietly think but are scared to say out loud. The question of John Key is the same, we want the answer but are too scared to ask.'
So back to the issue of why he was suspended today.
Paul Henry stuffed up yesterday, it's more than talking about a lady with a moustache, or a singer being a little retarded, it's a cast iron example of racism...whether intentional or not...on our public owned broadcaster. It is unacceptable and should have dealt with yesterday. I agree with Janet Wilson who blogged this morning 'The essence of crisis media management is that, when you are in the wrong confess and repent, admit it fully, apologize sincerely and honestly, and you will generally achieve a measure of redemption.'
So why was he suspended today?
To an extent Paul Henry is now suffering even more than he should of because of TVNZ's poor handling of this situation, at 9.10am yesterday morning, whether he liked it or not there should have been a full, sincere and final apology from Paul Henry issued from TVNZ. TVNZ should have issued an unreserved apology of their own and distanced themselves from the comments, yesterday TVNZ backed Paul Henry's sytle...and now Henry is suffering because of it.
If Paul Henry and TVNZ had thrown themselves at the feet of the public yesterday, and asked for forgiveness I don't think he'd be suspended today, but when you have a rouge broadcaster, and you employ him, in part, for the controversy that comes with him (it rates!) then you also have to have good practices in place when the rouge goes too far. It seems TVNZ didn't have this...maybe now they do.
Monday, October 4, 2010
David Cunliffe and Steven Joyce on GST increase and more
Conversation on GST from Sunday Sunday, 3rd October.
Labour Finance Spokeman David Cunliffe spoke first on the 'new' idea of taking GST off healthy food.
Associate Finance Minister Steven Joyce then spoke on why the GST increase and more...
Labour Finance Spokeman David Cunliffe spoke first on the 'new' idea of taking GST off healthy food.
Discover Simple, Private Sharing at Drop.io
Associate Finance Minister Steven Joyce then spoke on why the GST increase and more...
Discover Simple, Private Sharing at Drop.io
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
GST up, PAYE down...who wins?
We are being told repetitively that 'most will be better off' when GST goes up on Friday, and the tax cuts come in. This is an accurate statement if you are looking at if one will have more or less in their hand at the end of the week...but if you look at the fairness of the amount you will get you might find another story within this story.
You can use this website to estimate your own finances and to see if you will be better off or not http://www.taxguide.govt.nz/
The people who won't be better off are those that don't pay tax. An example is someone studying living off a student loan, they don't pay tax, hence no tax cut and therefore the extra GST will need to be absorbed within their current budget. Those of us paying income tax, for the most part, will be better off.
My questions are, is the system fair, and, who is the biggest winner in all this?
Well lets have a look at a few scenarios.
If you earn $20,000 you will be better off by $2.16 per week, or 0.56%. On $20,000 you'll end up after GST goes up, and the tax cuts come in, being better off by 0.56%, However the more you earn, the better off you become. We don't work this out by how much extra money you see, but by how much better off you are as a percentage. For $20k you're better off by 0.56%. Below are some more breakdowns.
If you earn $20k, you are $2.16 better off per week or 0.56%
If you earn $40k you are $8.65 better off per week or 1.12%
If you earn $60k you are $15.04 better off per week or 1.3%
If you earn $80k you are $24.92 better off per week or 1.62%
If you earn $100k you are $38.85 better off per week or 2.02%
If you earn $200k you are $108.51 better off per week or 2.8%
As you can see, the more you earn, the better off you will be when it comes to a percentage breakdown. This seems to me to be the definition of 'tax cuts for the rich'. Surely the fair result is if we were all better off on a more equal footing, not as in the amount, but the percentage.
If we did use the 2.8% better off mark the the $200,000 earner receives, this is what the amounts would look like.
If you earn $20k, you’d be better off $10.77 per week @ 2.8%
If you earn $40k you’d be better off $21.54 per week @ 2.8%
If you earn $60k you’d be better off $32.31 per week @ 2.8%
If you earn $80k you’d be better off $43.08 per week @ 2.8%
If you earn $100k you’d be better off $53.85 per week @ 2.8%
I assume that the reason we are not seeing this size cuts is that the country cannot afford to lose that much tax revenue, but why give the biggest benefits to those in society who are better off.
Either the government should make the percentage fairer. or if there was going to be a skew then surely it would be better to give a bigger percentage to those who need it more...at the bottom.
You can use this website to estimate your own finances and to see if you will be better off or not http://www.taxguide.govt.nz/
The people who won't be better off are those that don't pay tax. An example is someone studying living off a student loan, they don't pay tax, hence no tax cut and therefore the extra GST will need to be absorbed within their current budget. Those of us paying income tax, for the most part, will be better off.
My questions are, is the system fair, and, who is the biggest winner in all this?
Well lets have a look at a few scenarios.
If you earn $20,000 you will be better off by $2.16 per week, or 0.56%. On $20,000 you'll end up after GST goes up, and the tax cuts come in, being better off by 0.56%, However the more you earn, the better off you become. We don't work this out by how much extra money you see, but by how much better off you are as a percentage. For $20k you're better off by 0.56%. Below are some more breakdowns.
If you earn $20k, you are $2.16 better off per week or 0.56%
If you earn $40k you are $8.65 better off per week or 1.12%
If you earn $60k you are $15.04 better off per week or 1.3%
If you earn $80k you are $24.92 better off per week or 1.62%
If you earn $100k you are $38.85 better off per week or 2.02%
If you earn $200k you are $108.51 better off per week or 2.8%
As you can see, the more you earn, the better off you will be when it comes to a percentage breakdown. This seems to me to be the definition of 'tax cuts for the rich'. Surely the fair result is if we were all better off on a more equal footing, not as in the amount, but the percentage.
If we did use the 2.8% better off mark the the $200,000 earner receives, this is what the amounts would look like.
If you earn $20k, you’d be better off $10.77 per week @ 2.8%
If you earn $40k you’d be better off $21.54 per week @ 2.8%
If you earn $60k you’d be better off $32.31 per week @ 2.8%
If you earn $80k you’d be better off $43.08 per week @ 2.8%
If you earn $100k you’d be better off $53.85 per week @ 2.8%
I assume that the reason we are not seeing this size cuts is that the country cannot afford to lose that much tax revenue, but why give the biggest benefits to those in society who are better off.
Either the government should make the percentage fairer. or if there was going to be a skew then surely it would be better to give a bigger percentage to those who need it more...at the bottom.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Flight of the Conchords on The Simpsons
This Sunday was the beginning of the new Simpsons season in America. Episode one of season 22 features oue very own Flight of the Conchods. The episode is called Elementary School Musical where Bret and Jermaine play "two free-spirited, artsy camp counsellors.",
Also featured in the episode are Lea Michele, Corey Monteith, and Amber Riley from television show Glee.
Below is the full episode, enjoy.
Also featured in the episode are Lea Michele, Corey Monteith, and Amber Riley from television show Glee.
Below is the full episode, enjoy.
Friday, September 17, 2010
It get's worse for Rodney Hide
Larry Williams has just finished an interview with Rodney Hide, in the interview Larry asked Mr. Hide if he was actually the target, not David Garret. Hide said "No" and also stated clearly that he would not be stepping down from the leadership role.
The most surprising part of the interview was Mr. Hide revealing that he didn't know that the offensive act committed by Mr. Garret was suppressed. Which means that Rodney Hide not only knew of this horrific act, but didn't think he had to keep it secret.
See if Hide thought it was suppressed, he'd have to keep it secret, as it's a court order. However if he didn't realise that it was suppressed, which means Rodney Hide chose to keep it secret.
In his own mind (which many think is where Rodders lives permanently) Rodney Hide had the opportunity and ability to release this information to the people of NZ...and chose not to.
The ACT party is done, they only way they could hope to be re-elected is if Hide was to step down...however even then, they'll only get in on Epsom, and we all hope and pray that the good citizens of Epsom release NZ of this virus of party in about 14 months.
The most surprising part of the interview was Mr. Hide revealing that he didn't know that the offensive act committed by Mr. Garret was suppressed. Which means that Rodney Hide not only knew of this horrific act, but didn't think he had to keep it secret.
See if Hide thought it was suppressed, he'd have to keep it secret, as it's a court order. However if he didn't realise that it was suppressed, which means Rodney Hide chose to keep it secret.
In his own mind (which many think is where Rodders lives permanently) Rodney Hide had the opportunity and ability to release this information to the people of NZ...and chose not to.
The ACT party is done, they only way they could hope to be re-elected is if Hide was to step down...however even then, they'll only get in on Epsom, and we all hope and pray that the good citizens of Epsom release NZ of this virus of party in about 14 months.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)