Friday, January 29, 2010
Next time you're in Wellsford
Next time you're driving through Wellsford to get somewhere interesting - stop for a minute to throw a brick through the window of the Home and Garden store.
Better still, just shoot the owner in his fucking face.
Better still, just shoot the owner in his fucking face.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Man Assaults Beaver
Friday, January 22, 2010
Publishing SAS photographs
The first reaction of desk jockeys like Herald assistant editor John Roughan and Dominion Post editor Bernadette Courtney to government criticism of their decision to publish photographs of SAS members in Afghanistan is: "But how can mere photos place them in any more danger than they are already?"
The answer is in the long hair and beards, rather than the standard issue short back 'n sides, with optional moustache.
Special forces soldiers often grow their hair out in combat zones like this so that when they are engaged in covert op's (i.e., not in uniform) they don't look so much like soldiers and can blend in better.
Apiata without the uniform could almost pass for Taliban and therefore infiltrate easier. (Equally, he could pass as that guy from "300").
Now that his photo has been widely publicized, including on the web, his ability to blend in is compromised, and thus so is his safety and that of the NZ mission.
The answer is in the long hair and beards, rather than the standard issue short back 'n sides, with optional moustache.
Special forces soldiers often grow their hair out in combat zones like this so that when they are engaged in covert op's (i.e., not in uniform) they don't look so much like soldiers and can blend in better.
Apiata without the uniform could almost pass for Taliban and therefore infiltrate easier. (Equally, he could pass as that guy from "300").
Now that his photo has been widely publicized, including on the web, his ability to blend in is compromised, and thus so is his safety and that of the NZ mission.
Labels: 300, I wouldn't mess with that muthafucka, media, SAS
Thursday, January 21, 2010
From Bobert's Cairo Dictionary
From my current days on the streets of Cairo I offer the novice traveler the following vocabulary:
Tout: a person who solicits business, employment, support, or the like, importunately
Importunately: urgent or persistent solicitation, sometimes annoyingly so.
If it is possible to make it down a city a block without running into a tout acting importunately, then I'm all ears.
Tout: a person who solicits business, employment, support, or the like, importunately
Importunately: urgent or persistent solicitation, sometimes annoyingly so.
If it is possible to make it down a city a block without running into a tout acting importunately, then I'm all ears.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Media sycophancy knows no bounds
The fine tradition of New Zealand's sniffing at the royal pantaloons continues, I see. Led by the media, which blushes at the merest glance from William Wales Windsor or whatever his name his, before reaching for yet another handful of superlatives from the nearest thesaurus.
Other than wearing a woolen cardigan at a BBQ, and being hit in the bollocks by a rugby ball, he's basically just walked around and chatted amiably to people who want to talk to him. Hardly rocket science. Hardly a meaningful contribution to governance of the nation. And due in no way to any achievements on his part, but rather to the pure chance of being born an heir of Betty Windsor - English aristocrat and lifelong state beneficiary.
The Herald waxed lyrical about his crowd-pulling power at the opening of the Supreme Court. An example of "the royal magic", putting paid to "any suggestions the royal family had lost their allure," it gushed, meaninglessly.
The same article went on to note that just 3-4000 were in attendance. That'd be about 2% of the 180,000 residents of Wellington City, or at best 1% of the 400,000 residents of the Wellington Region. Stunning. Moreover, as the story also acknowledges, a substantial proportion of said thronging mass was made up of PSA members, and Republicans, there to protest. Yet we're led to believe the nation practically stood still.
Today, the Herald looks back wistfully on a visit from the "good guy" who - it is noted with approval - continually upstaged the Prime Minister. You know, the guy with a democratic mandate to actually lead the country, someone who is actually a New Zealander and makes decisions that actually affect New Zealanders, for better or worse. And he even lives here now.
If you want to know what's fundamentally wrong with Royalty, here's your answer - Key was apparently happy to be reduced to a lowly presence, and in the best National Party tradition enjoyed some good bowing and scraping in front of an aristocrat:
Fuck that makes me sick. Be a man, John!
Thankfully, the Herald's front-page BS was counter-balanced by a suitably ascerbic contribution from Brian Rudman, who said what needed to be said:
Other than wearing a woolen cardigan at a BBQ, and being hit in the bollocks by a rugby ball, he's basically just walked around and chatted amiably to people who want to talk to him. Hardly rocket science. Hardly a meaningful contribution to governance of the nation. And due in no way to any achievements on his part, but rather to the pure chance of being born an heir of Betty Windsor - English aristocrat and lifelong state beneficiary.
The Herald waxed lyrical about his crowd-pulling power at the opening of the Supreme Court. An example of "the royal magic", putting paid to "any suggestions the royal family had lost their allure," it gushed, meaninglessly.
The same article went on to note that just 3-4000 were in attendance. That'd be about 2% of the 180,000 residents of Wellington City, or at best 1% of the 400,000 residents of the Wellington Region. Stunning. Moreover, as the story also acknowledges, a substantial proportion of said thronging mass was made up of PSA members, and Republicans, there to protest. Yet we're led to believe the nation practically stood still.
Today, the Herald looks back wistfully on a visit from the "good guy" who - it is noted with approval - continually upstaged the Prime Minister. You know, the guy with a democratic mandate to actually lead the country, someone who is actually a New Zealander and makes decisions that actually affect New Zealanders, for better or worse. And he even lives here now.
If you want to know what's fundamentally wrong with Royalty, here's your answer - Key was apparently happy to be reduced to a lowly presence, and in the best National Party tradition enjoyed some good bowing and scraping in front of an aristocrat:
While Prince William has been the headline act, for Mr Key the prince's visit has meant two days of playing second fiddle.
He was barely noticed by many and had to put up with photographers and the public calling to him to move aside to give them a clear view of the Prince.
He took such treatment in good humour, saying he had no problems with such lowly status while in the presence of royalty.
Fuck that makes me sick. Be a man, John!
Thankfully, the Herald's front-page BS was counter-balanced by a suitably ascerbic contribution from Brian Rudman, who said what needed to be said:
...to see the Governor-General, the Prime Minister and the All Black captain go all giggly over the weekend in the presence of a 27-year-old trainee helicopter pilot because he happens to be the first-born male child of the Queen's first-born male child, was rather demeaning for all involved - including those of us watching the 6pm news.
Labels: betty windsor, lickspittle herald watch, republic, william wales windsor
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
NO NO
BBQ'ing in a collar is an automatic disqualification. And wearing a woolen cardigan is just plain dangerous. Try that in West Auckland you're gone!
Labels: BBQ rules
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Outing the outer
For anyone who has ever wondered where South Park gets its ideas for its brilliantly stereotypical characters from.
I give you:
...
...
I give you:
...
...
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Nation to McCully: get fucked
$100m of public money to spruce up an old fucking wharf that smells of fish guts and seagull shit? No thanks.
New Zealanders are more than capable of creating their own "parties central" in homes, pubs, and so on, in order to watch such heavily hyped match-ups along the lines of Namibia vs Tonga and Georgia vs Wales and the inevitable France vs Australia final.
New Zealanders are more than capable of creating their own "parties central" in homes, pubs, and so on, in order to watch such heavily hyped match-ups along the lines of Namibia vs Tonga and Georgia vs Wales and the inevitable France vs Australia final.
Labels: party central
Friday, January 08, 2010
Today's Puzzle
Thursday, January 07, 2010
Weather Watch
Here at bloggingitreal no weather escapes our attention.
With all the bitching from England here's an update from Korea...
With all the bitching from England here's an update from Korea...
Korea recorded its lowest temperatures since 2001, Wednesday, in a cold spell that is expected to continue until next week. The Korea Meteorological Administration (KMA) said it expects Seoul to record minus 14 degrees Celsius Thursday.I fondly remember being in Seoul in the early 00's when it reached -18 degrees and we had 25cm of snow. Unfortunately I can't recall being contacted by the Herald or any footage being shown on the NZ news.
According to the KMA, Chulwon in Gwangwon Province, saw the lowest temperature of -26.3 degrees Celsius as morning lows in the capital fell to -13.3 degrees.
The temperature was also the lowest in Seoul since February 2006 when it recorded -14.1 degrees.
The KMA expects the cold weather will continue through the weekend and forecast that temperatures will drop further.
Morning lows in other regions also showed the worst cold snap after nine years; Jecheon, -25.8 degrees; Daegwanryeong, -22.3 degrees; Chungju -21.4 degrees; Suwon -18.6 degrees.
Labels: cold in winter, hard nipples, herald, snow
Cry me a river
"Rebecca Gissing is battling temperatures of minus 3C in frozen Manchester and logs on to Facebook to see photos of her family back home in New Zealand looking tanned and having barbecues on the beach," whines The Herald. It's currently -19.7 here in Edmonton, and it's been continuously below -10 for at least a week. And this is pretty mild compared to last year.
Labels: herald, weather, whiny bitches
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
Gone, but not forgotten
Once ya go Black ya Never Go Back
Monday, January 04, 2010
And This Is Why the SCG Pitch Is Good
Fuck flat pieces of shit.
Roebuck hits it on the head:
On a related note what's with this ridiculous situation we have in NZ now where play starts at 11am is a joke. That 30 minutes from 10:30 to 11am used to be a real chance for the bowlers each day to snare a wicket. Now they kickoff at 11am so that we have the added shit at the end of the day worrying about bad light and meaning that if any play is lost during the day there is fuck all chance of making it up.
One step forward, two steps back.
Admittedly in world cricket at the moment we are lacking a few bowling stars with the retirement of McGrath and Warne amongst lesser others but for Johnson to be the highest wicket taker comfortably in 2009 with an average of around 28.5 ahead of others in the 30s and 40s says it all. You would never, fucking ever in decades have had the highest test wicket takers in a season average that high. The top wicket takers should be averaging in the low 20s and the top 10 bowlers in a season should all be under 30.
The ICC need to step in and do something about this because ODI cricket and 20/20 were invented so the batsmen could show their blades, test cricket should see wickets tumbling and batsmen having to show some guts to make runs, not 4.5 runs an over day after day as teams rack up 500+ barely breaking a sweat. Excusing NZ that is. We couldn't break 500 in an entire match if we were playing the Parnell womens under 15s.
Roebuck hits it on the head:
Of course modern batsmen are sooks. Of course, they run the game. Of course it was ridiculous to cancel the contest in Delhi: 93 for 5 is supposed to be a crisis? In the years of drying pitches, it was a promising position. And in those days batsmen did not wear helmets. For decades they wore spiky little gloves. Garry Sobers did not bother with a thigh pad. Were any groundsmen sacked during the recent run-feast posing as a Test series between India and Sri Lanka? Were those featherbeds okay? The message to curators is clear: prepare shirtfronts or pay the penalty. Protect the batsmen. Frustrate the bowlers.If I had to go out and open the batting on quite literally grass pitches that were covered in dew at 9am on pitches that sloped so bad they made Lords look flatter than a pancake (like the one at Sturges Park in Otahuhu which had a raised hump at one end) then test batsmen can harden the fuck up and expect the ball to do something now and then.
On a related note what's with this ridiculous situation we have in NZ now where play starts at 11am is a joke. That 30 minutes from 10:30 to 11am used to be a real chance for the bowlers each day to snare a wicket. Now they kickoff at 11am so that we have the added shit at the end of the day worrying about bad light and meaning that if any play is lost during the day there is fuck all chance of making it up.
One step forward, two steps back.
Admittedly in world cricket at the moment we are lacking a few bowling stars with the retirement of McGrath and Warne amongst lesser others but for Johnson to be the highest wicket taker comfortably in 2009 with an average of around 28.5 ahead of others in the 30s and 40s says it all. You would never, fucking ever in decades have had the highest test wicket takers in a season average that high. The top wicket takers should be averaging in the low 20s and the top 10 bowlers in a season should all be under 30.
The ICC need to step in and do something about this because ODI cricket and 20/20 were invented so the batsmen could show their blades, test cricket should see wickets tumbling and batsmen having to show some guts to make runs, not 4.5 runs an over day after day as teams rack up 500+ barely breaking a sweat. Excusing NZ that is. We couldn't break 500 in an entire match if we were playing the Parnell womens under 15s.
Labels: cricket, nz cricket, poofters
Sunday, January 03, 2010
Silly Names #1
Why is Speights new low carb beer called "Traverse"?
Traversing is a form of climbing, requiring a large amount of energy. So shouldn't the beer have "twice the carbs of other beers", not "less than half the carbs of regular beers"?
You can trust me to notice the important things.
Traversing is a form of climbing, requiring a large amount of energy. So shouldn't the beer have "twice the carbs of other beers", not "less than half the carbs of regular beers"?
You can trust me to notice the important things.
Labels: beer, carbs, wanky beer names
More sympathy
As part of our ongoing series offering free financial advice, a couple of stories have caught my eye lately. One case is particularly deserving of sympathy, and the other at least merits serious consideration for contesting a point of principle, but you really have to question the budgeting going on here:
Case 1: A young mother stricken with cancer finds Work & Income unwilling or unable to help her out with the costs of clothing her child. A fucking terrible situation you wouldn't wish on anyone ... but exacerbated by a pre-existing grant from said government agency of $920 "for a fridge and a washing machine." Hmm, I was in the top income tax bracket in Auckland and couldn't afford a new fridge or washing machine after I'd bought a house. So I got them off Trademe for $110 and $75 respectively. And the washing machine is still working fine four years later (touch wood). If working people can't afford new white-ware (not that I was complaining), how can non-working ones expect it? Honestly, there's nothing wrong with second-hand goods - that's what Trademe is for. Find a relative with a van, truck or SUV and you can pick them up for free. By all means the taxpayer should advance the money for secondhand goods, but I see no need for new ones.
Case 2: A beneficiary battles Work and Income through an internal appeals process, and then the courts, over two years regarding a $50 jumper and a $140 pair of shoes, arguing that the cost shouldn't be met through a repayable grant. I admire the balls on the guy, and I see the point of principle he's arguing. But ... later in the article "Act MP Dr Muriel Newman" [sic - that would be long-time former ACT MP Muriel Newman (or perhaps they're actually quoting current ACT MP Heather Roy), these right wing women are all the same eh?] is quoted as saying "People can go to an op shop and get a pair of shoes for $5 and he's definitely chosen not to take that path." And as much as it pains me to say it, she's quite right.
There's plenty of times when I've been working and had to forego luxuries like new clothes, new shoes, and new white-ware. I also had dial-up internet and no cell phone for years. It didn't occur to me to complain about it (much), although I did complain bitterly about having to drink cheap beer.
Case 1: A young mother stricken with cancer finds Work & Income unwilling or unable to help her out with the costs of clothing her child. A fucking terrible situation you wouldn't wish on anyone ... but exacerbated by a pre-existing grant from said government agency of $920 "for a fridge and a washing machine." Hmm, I was in the top income tax bracket in Auckland and couldn't afford a new fridge or washing machine after I'd bought a house. So I got them off Trademe for $110 and $75 respectively. And the washing machine is still working fine four years later (touch wood). If working people can't afford new white-ware (not that I was complaining), how can non-working ones expect it? Honestly, there's nothing wrong with second-hand goods - that's what Trademe is for. Find a relative with a van, truck or SUV and you can pick them up for free. By all means the taxpayer should advance the money for secondhand goods, but I see no need for new ones.
Case 2: A beneficiary battles Work and Income through an internal appeals process, and then the courts, over two years regarding a $50 jumper and a $140 pair of shoes, arguing that the cost shouldn't be met through a repayable grant. I admire the balls on the guy, and I see the point of principle he's arguing. But ... later in the article "Act MP Dr Muriel Newman" [sic - that would be long-time former ACT MP Muriel Newman (or perhaps they're actually quoting current ACT MP Heather Roy), these right wing women are all the same eh?] is quoted as saying "People can go to an op shop and get a pair of shoes for $5 and he's definitely chosen not to take that path." And as much as it pains me to say it, she's quite right.
There's plenty of times when I've been working and had to forego luxuries like new clothes, new shoes, and new white-ware. I also had dial-up internet and no cell phone for years. It didn't occur to me to complain about it (much), although I did complain bitterly about having to drink cheap beer.
Labels: beer, free financial advice
