The Golfball and Sickle

56 comments on “The Golfball and Sickle ”

• Comments are now closed

1. insider 1

   30 April 2008 at 12:46 pm

   Brilliant stunt. They are just weather shields for satellite dishes. You often see them over radar arrays as well.
2. Matthew Pilott 2

   30 April 2008 at 12:51 pm

   Insider – they also prevent people from seeing exactly where they’re pointed, which is an operational benefit. I’m not sure which is the primary and which is the secondary purpose, off the top’o’me noggin.
3. roger nome 3

   30 April 2008 at 12:55 pm

   Cool piece of activism. One comforting thing is that the echelon program that these structures are part of is becoming more and more irrelevant. i.e. they only intercept air-borne communications, whereas more and more information is being passed through fiber-optics, which a would be eavesdropper needs to physically tap into in order to monitor.

   It’s all in James Bamford’s most recent book:

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Pretext_for_War
4. Brett Dale 4

   30 April 2008 at 1:14 pm

   Only someone from the left would find vandalism funny. I wonder what Nandor would say if a Anti Cannabis group, went on his property and pulled out his plants, or what would the left say if a group of Americans, did something similar to protest North Korea.

   This has totally blown up in the left’s face. Here was this huge spy base, they have been telling us, the big bad Americans are doing all sorts of bad things, but yet they were still able to climb the wall and get in.

   Don’t you think, if this was important to the USA, these guys would of got no where near it. Basically these protesters have proved that the States were right all along, they are doing legitimate activity.

   This is just the typical, chip on your shoulder, Anti American BS that the left gets off on.

   You guys need to grow up.
5. Santi 5

   30 April 2008 at 1:14 pm

   Steve Pierson, Professor of English, said “A brilliant piece of activism…. All without any real harm done and no violence.”

   Don’t you know the meaning of private property?

   Would you condone animal-right activists entering farms to set animals free? Where do you stop in your support of “activism”?

   Shame on you.
6. Inventory2 6

   30 April 2008 at 1:15 pm

   Cool piece of activism or outright criminality? I guess that the Courts will be the judge of that.
7. Felix 7

   30 April 2008 at 1:20 pm

   Santi:

   “private property”

   Please expand.
8. roger nome 8

   30 April 2008 at 1:22 pm

   “Cool piece of activism or outright criminality?”

   Yes look at all the destroyed property, littering the surround ground. And the massacred bodies of the spy-base staff splayed throughout the grizzly scene. Won’t someone think of the US empire? Someone must bring these barbarians to justice!
9. MikeE 9

   30 April 2008 at 1:24 pm

   Criminal act of Vandalism.

   I don’t agree in certain governmnet departments existing, and you don’t see me letting off bombs under them (though I did find that scene in V for Vendetta particularily heart warming).

   Then again, it is a foreign government essentially spying on us…

   I’m of two minds on this one.
10. Ben R 10

    30 April 2008 at 1:29 pm

    I would have thought that following the bomb attacks in London, Madrid & Bali and threatened attacks in Australia, people would appreciate efforts to intercept terrorist communications?

    Having the spy base doesn’t mean we endorse every aspect of US foreign policy. Personally, I agree that the invasion of Iraq was a disaster, but I still think we need to try and prevent terrorist attacks. As Salman Rushdie says:

    It’s one thing to criticise the way in which the American government is behaving, or the British government, and I have a lot of criticisms of that in fact, nothing but criticisms,’ he says now. “But it’s another thing to fail to see that an enemy actually exists and is extremely serious about what he wishes to do.’ http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=1002

    [yeah because these spy bases and all those American fighter jets have been so useful against backpack bombers. No-one denies there are terrorists, that doesn’t automatically mean Waihopai is needed. SP]
11. Steve Pierson 11

    30 April 2008 at 1:30 pm

    To state the obivous for our rightwing friends – not all vandalism is good, it depends on the reason, and breaking the law is not good but sometimes it is worth it in a just cause.

    santi. This is a side point but private property is not invoilable, ownership is not an absolute right of use. I do support the release of animals held in inhuman conditions. As to where I stop supporting activism – well, i don’t support people coming and peeing on the wall of your house becuase they don’t like you – so I guess the point is somewhere between that: freeing animals that are being treated inhumanely= good, peeing on your house because you’re not liked = bad.

    Remember, it’s you who are the extremist, the absolutist here. To me, there can be circumstances when breaching the law is ok if the cause is good and the payoff with the damage caused. It depends on individual circumstances. You believe any violation of private property is automaitcally wrong.
12. Scribe 12

    30 April 2008 at 1:36 pm

    Steve,

    How about ransacking an abortion clinic?

    As you say: not all vandalism is good, it depends on the reason, and breaking the law is not good but sometimes it is worth it in a just cause.

    Who makes the decision on whether the vandalism or law-breaking is “good”?
13. higherstandard 13

    30 April 2008 at 1:40 pm

    Good on the Prime Minister for calling it like it is.

    “Obviously it’s just imposing a cost on the taxpayer having to rebuild. That’s why I describe it as a senseless act of criminal vandalism”.
14. Steve Pierson 14

    30 April 2008 at 1:41 pm

    Like all politics, Scribe, it’s a matter of debate. It should be based on principle and reasoned argument and obviously reasonable people can sometimes disagree.

    But you would agree that in some cases activism that breaks the law is OK – like when anti EFA marchers (all ten of them) march with placards that don’t carry name and address. You think that’s ok don’t you?
15. higherstandard 15

    30 April 2008 at 1:46 pm

    SP

    Is it against the law when anti EFA marchers (all ten of them) march with placards that don’t carry name and address ?

    If so the law’s more of an ass than I suspected. Regardless I don’t see how this relates to the vandalism and associated cost to the taxpayer as highlighted in this post.
16. Brett Dale 16

    30 April 2008 at 1:52 pm

    Steve:

    So what you are saying here is, Vandalism is good, just as long if you believe in the political statement they are making.

    I have to disagree with that. Protest all you want, but what they did was wrong.
17. Benodic 17

    30 April 2008 at 1:57 pm

    Don’t you know the meaning of private property?

    Quick, someone tell Rosa Parks.
18. Matthew Pilott 18

    30 April 2008 at 1:58 pm

    Brett Dale, since we’re into some ignorant stereotyping, do you get off on extraordinary rendition to countries that torture, CIA-endorsed waterboarding, or the overthrow of democratic governments for fascist pro-US dictators?

    Sorry, but who needs to grow up?
19. Macky 19

    30 April 2008 at 2:02 pm

    Brett

    should we always obey the law mindlessly?

    because you seem to have the second part of that down pat

    [Macky, play nice. SP]
20. Ben R 20

    30 April 2008 at 2:03 pm

    “yeah because these spy bases and all those American fighter jets have been so useful against backpack bombers. No-one denies there are terrorists, that doesn’t automatically mean Waihopai is needed. SP”

    That overlooks the number of plots that have been foiled in Europe through intelligence sharing & intercepting communications.

    I don’t know that you’d describe ‘The Ploughshares’ as ordinary people either? They said they carried out their attack in the name of the “Prince of Peace”. They sound more like religious zealots.
21. vto 21

    30 April 2008 at 2:11 pm

    It’s a fine line between stability and anarchy. Just as well we have the state with its big bovver boots to get stuck in and do some bashing with when they are needed to control people. Eh Mr Pierson.
22. Matthew Pilott 22

    30 April 2008 at 2:27 pm

    Hey vto – you alluded to this on another thread – so what’s the alternative to ‘da 5-0’s if you don’t like state influence, out of interest?
23. vto 23

    30 April 2008 at 2:50 pm

    Ha ha my Pilott, excuse my rough manner but I was just trying to expose some hypocrisy (that is larger than political parties). Namely, that it is ok for the state to put the boot into that state-person relationship but not so for the person in the person-person relationship.

    I don’t have a complete answer developed in my head, but together with my earlier postage, what I am getting at is that today the physical approach as a means of dispute resolution is forgotten. Which ignores the vast majority of human history (and surely we are not so arrogant to think we do things better today than in the past).

    Its a big topic, and off-topic so I’ll stop there (btw, I’m not for the bash). But that’s what I was getting at. Some hypocrisy, and some forgotten history. And some stirring.
24. Felix 24

    30 April 2008 at 2:52 pm

    Short memories indeed.

    The most serious terrorist attack we’ve had here in living memory, the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior claimed one innocent life and caused irreparable damage to private property.

    One of the creepier aspects of this horrible event was that the U.S. (and other) intelligence agencies had been forewarned and chose not to tell us.

    With friends like these…
25. vto 25

    30 April 2008 at 3:04 pm

    That should have been ‘mr pilott’ not ‘my pilott’
26. Brett Dale 26

    30 April 2008 at 3:04 pm

    Like I said, you can protest all you like, but if you are going to support this type of vandalism against one country, you have to support it against other countries also.

    You cant pick and choose because of your own political beliefs.

    Can you imagine if a American immigrant living in New Zealand did this to an Arab Embassy, you will all be up in arms.
27. Felix 27

    30 April 2008 at 3:45 pm

    Brett, I can support anything I like based on my political (or any other) beliefs.

    I believe the the damage to the echelon spy station was politically relevant, mostly harmless and a bit theatrically amusing.

    What I can’t do is expect you to support anything based on my beliefs. And that’s ok with me.
28. Steve Pierson 28

    30 April 2008 at 3:45 pm

    Um. I can and do pick which causes to support based on my political beliefs. that’s what having political beliefs is all about.

    Try and get this straight in your head – the principle I’m arguing is not ‘all vandalism is good’. It is ‘sometimes a breach of the law can be justified for political reasons’ – in this case a minor breach for what I see as a good cause.
29. Robinsod 29

    30 April 2008 at 3:55 pm

    You cant pick and choose because of your own political beliefs.

    You fu**kn moron.
30. Sam Dixon 30

    30 April 2008 at 3:57 pm

    from stuff:

    “neighbours of the base woke up this morning to a different skyline. The odd passer-by stopped to stare, and one by one the base’s neighbours pulled blinds or wandered out on to their lawns to realise the landscape was slightly altered.

    Sarah Rolston did not hear anything last night and said the sight of the balls from her front lawn this morning was “hilarious”.

    One neighbour who asked not to be named said “Dolly Parton is a bit lopsided at the moment.”

    – seem like the righties are a bit at odds with the locals down there
31. Brett Dale 31

    30 April 2008 at 5:14 pm

    Steve

    In saying “sometimes a breach of the law can be justified for political reason”

    then you would totally support someone from the right doing something similar in a form protest.
32. higherstandard 32

    30 April 2008 at 5:20 pm

    SP

    Try and get this straight in your head … in this case a minor breach for what I see as a good cause.

    What is this good cause Steve, perhaps you’d like to inform me and the rest of NZ so we can share in your delight that the public will be footing the bill for the repairs of this vandalism.
33. Occasional Observer 33

    1 May 2008 at 5:11 am

    Yeah, what a momentous, heroic achievement, by standing up against the State like this. A million dollars of taxpayers’ money down the tubes.

    I look forward to the Standard praising a bomb attack against the Greytown WINZ office. Hell, with falling property prices, that can’t be worth more than a million dollars. Or how about an arson attack against a school? Or let some prisoners take the axe to a few cell blocks.

    Yeah, that’s what we’d like to see.

    [lprent: I’m sure that it is harder on your brain to deal with individuals, try anyway. Address the gripe to the poster]
34. Felix 34

    1 May 2008 at 7:11 am

    No Brett, but you possibly would.

    Why is this so hard for you?
35. higherstandard 35

    1 May 2008 at 7:27 am

    That’s great Brett so you’ll be stumping up with the million dollars in repairs then !
36. Santi 36

    1 May 2008 at 8:40 am

    “..in this case a minor breach for what I see as a good cause.”

    A pathetic admission by Steve Pierson.

    It can hardly be a minor breach? You appear to condone trespassing and damaging provate property.

    A good cause? What about the bombing of anti-abortion clinics by religious fundamentalists? The attacks by the anti-whaling campaigners? Anti-globalisation mobs attacking American businesses?

    What’s a good cause to you?
37. Steve Pierson 37

    1 May 2008 at 9:15 am

    ” Brett Dale
    April 30, 2008 at 5:14 pm Edit
    Steve

    In saying “sometimes a breach of the law can be justified for political reason’

    then you would totally support someone from the right doing something similar in a form protest.”

    – you’re still confused Brett. It would always depend on what the protest was and what it was against. My position that this was a great piece of activism that achieved it’s purpose, a purpose I find laudable, does not mean that I support any action in any political cause.

    Honestly, it’s like you can’t read.
38. Brett Dale 38

    1 May 2008 at 10:07 am

    Steve:

    My point being, is you have condone vandalism only because the people who committed this crime sit on the same fence as you, thats it in a nut shell.

    Like I said, you should have the right to protest all you like, but to commit a crime and cost the tax payer hundreds of thousands of dollars is wrong.
39. Tane 39

    1 May 2008 at 10:17 am

    Brett, the idea that a protest is immoral if it damages property is absurd. It’s the same mentality that led Dick Cheney to label Nelson Mandela a terrorist.

    Do you think Nelson Mandela is a terrorist?
40. Steve Pierson 40

    1 May 2008 at 10:27 am

    Brett. I condone direct action, even if it might break the law, if I think the cause is worthy and the damage done is proportionate and ethical.
41. Matthew Pilott 41

    1 May 2008 at 10:33 am

    vto – you may have been in moderation, because I missed your reply yesterday. As for “my Pilott” I almost crashed a plane once so I wouldn’t suggest it 🙂

    Going off topic to yours – as I see it, we have gone past lynch mobs, vigilante justice and codified our laws, vesting power exclusively in the state to enact them. So yes, it is an unequal relationship between the state and the people – that does not make it unjust!

    In other news:

    I heard that the cost of repairing the cover may be up to $1m. Now this is very out of line with my normal thinking, but I have a solution – a Private-Public Partnership.

    Before you think I’ve gone all Tory, hear me out.

    The government contracts Durex to fashion a new cover for the receiver dish. With their expertise, a project such as this should be easy. Now, the domes are virtually a tourist attraction, and well photographed. So, to recoup the $1m it will cost Durex to make the ‘cover’, they get prime, white-background advertising space on the side of the new dome!

    Waihopai – brought to you by Durex – keeping NZ safe for over 50 years
42. Tane 42

    1 May 2008 at 10:39 am

    MP – brilliant.
43. Richard Hurst 43

    1 May 2008 at 10:41 am

    “All without any real harm done….”

    Well lets see, all three will get a criminal conviction- which will follow them around ever time they apply for a job. I understand one of them had several already, so that’s certainly no help to him.
    But hey, who care’s about them? its “cool” right Roger?

    Then there is the cost to the taxpayer of just under million dollars to replace the cover as pointed out and to fix the fences.
    Then there is the extra security costs in staff time and the cost of an investigation into the events of that night, police time and court costs including legal aid.

    But hey, no real harm and its ‘cool’. Yeah, right.
44. Matthew Pilott 44

    1 May 2008 at 11:04 am

    Richard Hurst – that’ve done NZ an invaluable service. What if they were terrorists trying to blow the facility up? These heroes have demonstrated security deficiencies that could have resulted in the loss of the entire facility. $1 million – peanuts compared to the whole facility, and the lives, that could have been lost.

    Without their courage, our sensitive GCSB facilities could all be at risk. I think you should be a little more thankful.
45. Richard Hurst 45

    1 May 2008 at 11:29 am

    Oh, it was a public service…oh well in that case free beer and medals all round I should think!
    Funny, the actual group of sad nutters behind the whole thing aren’t saying it was done to help improve security there. I also note they happily sent a 24 years old young man with a long list of past convictions
    ( sadly none politically inspired) instead of going themselves. Wow that shows a lot of courage doesn’t it? The word exploitation springs to mind
46. Matthew Pilott 46

    1 May 2008 at 11:36 am

    ’twas a pisstake, Richard, but if you were being charitable you could call it a felix culpa…

    This 24 year old – you’re saying he wasn’t part of the organisation? And that he was coerced somehow into going? And that there were presumably some evil puppet-masters pulling his strings?

    What’s the typical age for being an adult these days? I know it’s 30 for hobbits, but this was Waihopai, not Matamata.
47. Occasional Observer 47

    1 May 2008 at 4:26 pm

    lprent:

    I was addressing my comment to all of the people who lauded this piece of mindless vandalism.

    To date, not a single member of the Standard’s regular posters has condemned the action. Many of the Standard’s posters and left-wing commenters have applauded it.

    Yes, it is hard to see that this is the individual position of a single commenter when so many of the Standard’s supporters evidently support the view that attacking a state-owned facility is appropriate, and not a single Standard supporter opposes it.

    You’re acting like a pissant little net-bully, lprent. Could your attempt at censorship possibly be even more vacuous? Just because you have a point of view, doesn’t mean anybody is interested in reading it.

    [lprent: So? They comment on what they choose to. I haven’t seen a post on the crappy weather in Auckland today either. It is of concern to me – I have to drive through it]
48. vto 48

    1 May 2008 at 8:24 pm

    Hey Someone Else’s Pilott, who said anything about ‘lynch mobs and vigilante justice’?
49. Matthew Pilott 49

    1 May 2008 at 11:51 pm

    I was making a vague attempt to describe a time before civilisation had codified law and vested power of law to the state…
50. Occasional Observer 50

    2 May 2008 at 12:00 am

    lprent:

    For some reason you fail to make a distinction between events of nature–i.e., the weather–and the Standard’s key supporters, backed by the Standard’s posters, supporting a wanton act of vandalism against a taxpayer-owned facility.

    Your argument is so stupid, yet again, you get zero for effort. Stick to the geeky stuff, Lynn, if you’re not going to step up to the plate and come up with a decent argument.

    The fact is that Steve Pierson crossed the line with this post. Even Helen Clark–former peace activist and anti-American par excellence–has condemned this vandalism.

    [lprent: So? I wasn’t commenting on the post (in fact I haven’t read it).

    I was gently noting that you addressed the site as if it had a mind of its own and wrote the post – it didn’t.

    You then tried to tell the posters what they should write about. Hey, you are a guest on the site, normally valued, but not if you try to act as if you own the place. We’ve all seen adolescents acting up before (it is dreadfully boring). Act like one and you’ll be treated like one.

    If you want to control what is written on a blog – then start your own one and do it there.

    If you want to comment here, address the person – not the damn machine. Suggest to the posters what they should write about – don’t tell them. Tear holes in their thesis and assumptions, but don’t tear into them personally. It really isn’t that hard, and it is more effective. Do the negatives and I will as well and I’ve a much better toolkit.

    When you address the site, you address me and will get replied to by me. I’m perfectly willing to stick to the “geeky stuff”, and thats what I’d like to do. However I run the outside bounds of the site as one of my geeky roles. I could simply express some of my more nasty geek traits. It is a liberating experience, but takes time away from the important things in life – like code. So I prefer to just eliminate the problem.

    Would you like me to start on you? This is your last mild warning]
51. Matthew Pilott 51

    2 May 2008 at 12:10 am

    I thought it was a funny gesture, when the costs were announced as minimal. Like patching up a bike tyre, I thought. I like to see things with enough ‘grey’ to allow a sense of proportionality to colour my judgement of an event. When I heard that it was $1m damage my thoughts changed rather dramatically and to the negative, but perhaps it was naive of me to expect something like that to cost bugger-all.

    This was, of course, the story at the time Steve posted the entry, OO, and why people generally supported it as a funny thing, or effective activim. If you’re being honest, you’ll note that Steve actually said “… All without any real harm done and no violence.
    ”

    This is no longer the case, but you have come in to this thread a day or two late.

    I suppose you could demand a retraction or update, but that’s just being a touch precious in my books. As is “steve pierson crossed the line“. You came in a bit late to make that call.
52. lprent 52

    2 May 2008 at 1:07 am

    Ummm I just read the post and the comments.

    I’m with Helen on this, it is a very expensive prank. I can think of better things to spend the money on than providing a story for the news media to feed on.

    I’m not happy with people breaking into sites that probably have armed guards either. There is just too high a probability of someone getting hurt.

    As was commented above, it was useful for showing up a security hole. As was also commented, there is nothing to stop people from carrying out illegal acts – it is a matter for their own judgement.

    However they have to accept the consequences. In this case I hope that the book is thrown at them -they deliberately caused damage.
53. higherstandard 53

    2 May 2008 at 8:08 am

    Gosh Matthew

    Very considered took you 12 hours to conclude it was costly vandalism enough time to mull it over.

    Guess that’s the difference between the profession I’m in having to make sometimes fairly rapid decisions on the merits of something and your own good profession.

    While I support anyone and everyones right to peaceful protest can I politely ask on behalf of the NZ taxpayer that Steve admits that protests such as this and the associated cost of the vandalism is unacceptable.
54. Matthew Pilott 54

    2 May 2008 at 9:35 am

    Sorry HS, I didn’t realise I was on a stopwatch, or I would have posted that coment far earlier. I didn’t actually ‘conclude’ as suc, I went with what I read in the media. I’ll let you in on a little secret – as soon as I heard that it wasn’t a small repair bill (and more like a mil), I decided that they’d gone too far – but here’s the rub – I didn’t rush straight to this thread to post the comment!

    Somewhat less-than-sincere apologies,

    Matthew
55. Brett Dale 55

    2 May 2008 at 8:24 pm

    Tane:

    Actually technically Nelson Mandela was a Terrorist, he supported bombing government departments.

    Ghandai use to make adolescent girls sleep with him to see if he would be tempted, so he was a bit of a sicko.

    The Dali Lama follows a belief, that Slavery is okay.

    But I bet the severe liberal education system wont teach this. Still they all did so much good for the world, I guess we can forgive them.

    I just find it, nuts that you can compare what these protesters did to what Ghandai did and his battle against the British.

Links to post

1. Charter Jets: posted on 18 May 2008 at 11:02 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS