Sunday, March 28, 2010

Recently I had a read of Jeremy Clarkson's book "The World According to Clarkson". Every thing he said was very, very amusing, but complete rubbish. Nothing I read was really true or relevant, he mostly spent the time being mean to politicians (though many deserve it), and celebrity's in the most hilarious way, but without a really good point.
I once read (in a Readers Digest): "Get a someone laughing, and then you can tell them anything"
Although you want a column (or in my case a blog) to be funny and easy to read, it is pointless unless you get a good point across. I want what I write about to have some type of purpose, not whether the Brits or the Russians look better in speedos.
Yesterday I had a chat with James Brunskill, whom I consider my Blogging mentor and is my only reader, he was talking about a podcast he had heard by somebody or somebody else who said that basically columnists usually end up just raving about whatever had happened to have happened to them that day, and finding one way or another to blame Facebook or the Internet for it. But what is a column\blog apart from a little rave? In the movie "You've got mail" the lead character is writing something on the Internet where she ponders life, she then continues to say: "I don't really want an answer. I just want to send this cosmic question out into the void."
I would like to think a column is more than just a rave into a cosmic void, a column should be a opinion put carefully into writing, showing the reader your idea of things, but without forcing them into believing it. It should raise a good question about society and life. Whether or not it answers this question depends on the subject. But, in the end, it is just someone having a little rave. I looked up the meaning of rave in the dictionary, and I picked out a few of my favorite results; to talk or write with extravagant enthusiasm, an extravagantly enthusiastic appraisal or review of something, Relating to or being an extravagantly enthusiastic opinion or review.
A column is a review of something, currently I'm reviewing columns, and a review requires an opinion. And if your not passionate about writing, or what your writing about, then don't bother. To me a rant or a rave is enthusiastically, and passionately stating your opinion. And that will always be a good read, whether or not the reader agrees with you. Whether or not what you have written will be meaningful or true depends on what the rant was about. This rant, helped me understand what it is I'm doing (or should be doing) with this blog. And it will help me in the future, if this rough, smacked together blog ever becomes refined, and maybe turns into a column. I will always try to bring something new and fresh to the reader. Which shouldn't be to hard, I've lots of strong opinions.

Dan B

Thursday, March 18, 2010

The Waihopai Terrorists.

About a year ago, three men, Otaki schoolteacher Adrian Leason, Auckland Catholic priest Peter Murnane and Hokianga farmer Sam Land, broke into the Waihopai spy base and cut down the domes that were protecting a reviver dish, set up to intercept international satellite communication. Within the last week, all of these men were acquitted of their charge and set free. No punishment whatsoever, after attacking a spy base! Surely it's a matter of National Security.

The three men claimed that what they were doing was a lawful protest, and that they believed that doing it would save lives in Iraq. It probably would save lives in Iraq, terrorists lives. Al Qaeda and the Teleban, who, by the way, are fighting some of our SAS troops. The more terrorists alive the more NZ/USA troops die. It is that simple, I consider what these men did, not to be a protest but an act of terrorism. I guess it would be hard to charge them with terrorism since there is no evidence that anyone was killed or injured as a result of their actions, But they should have at very least been fined enough to repair the dome.

This also made me wonder, is the idea of having twelve members of the public choosing who gos to prison, and who stays home, really a good idea? These twelve people let these men get away with a sever breach of national security. Maybe we need a new system, maybe focused completely around a trained judge?

But maybe not. I suppose that the prosecution and the defendant both get a good chance show the jury the law and help them decide on the right verdict. But is it really different from manipulation?

I don't really know, but what I do know is this: If you trespass on Government Property, and damage their Anti-Terrorism equipment, you should be charged, or fined, something.

Dan B