Hard News: Electrickery
144 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
But Macs are still better than PCs, right?
Only in so far as Euro cars are better than Jap. If you're rich enough.
-
Hey Russell - Jeremiah Wright going off with the Goddamn America thing just reminded me of Chuck D from say 20 years ago. Nothing new there, really.
-
The Beatles were steered by McCartney into thoroughly middle-brow/fluff territory
I disagree: being melodic doesn't necessarily make one 'middlebrow' or 'fluff'. McCartney's work on the White Album, during the 'I'm the Boss of All of You Now Brian's Dead' Beatles period, is really amazing: 'Blackbird', 'Mother Nature's Son', 'Back in the USSR' (it's a Beach Boys parody! But also a political statement! But also a badass rockin' song, with lyrical puns!), 'I Will' (which is so amazing, and so understated, that it hurts me)... he's just not a guy whose Beatles work you can dismiss out of hand as 'fluff'.
(Of course, I've also been known to defend solo McCartney, and Wings, so you might want to ignore me. Not 'Rockestra' or anything, but I'll give some props to 'Junk' [so, so pretty] and 'Band on the Run'.)
The Kinks *are* really underrated, admittedly. I love them.
I can't ever see 'Keef' as cool. His skin is falling off his face in threads, and he falls out of trees and hits his head like a 5 year old.
Yeah, but he'll never come running onto a concert stage in Texas waving a giant American flag, as Paul did at the show I attended in 2002. Pandering twat.
-
more guilt by association - what was it that Obama was saying again?
Neil: Domestically, anyone who returns a call from Ian Wishart is going to have their judgement put in the 'dubious' column by me. That's not 'guilt by association' but 'why?'. AFAIK, Investigate is pretty successful, and widely read (especially by MSM hacks who can't be arsed doing real investigative journalism) but I still wouldn't wipe my arse with it. And it would be totally fair comment to raise an eyebrow at Clark being photographed with someone she'd previously described as a lying scumbag.
And on the basis of Obama's speech to you think he would or would not do the same?
I think if Obama was in the same room as Scafie, and Michelle Obama was calling into the Rush Limbaugh Show the day before the Penn primary (as Bill Clinton did just before Texas), Clintonistas and the political blogisphere would be all over it. And deservedly so.
-
The Beatles were steered by McCartney into thoroughly middle-brow/fluff territory
Perhaps, but at least it was good fluff. I'd take that over crappy highbrow any day.
-
Pandering twat.
If you change that from an adjective to a verb, the sentence changes its entire meaning...
-
The Beatles were steered by McCartney into thoroughly middle-brow/fluff territory
Um, which songs? Yellow Submarine?
I think you might be judging them with 40 years hindsight. Most of the Beatles music was pretty innovative for its time and laid a path which was then, it is true, trodden by a lot of insipid fluffy pop.
However, McCartney has never produced anything decent since he left the Beatles. Maybe this had something to do with his mythical death in 1966. (In the same way that Sting never created anything good after he was kidnapped from the Police's rehearsal room in 1982 and replaced by Bad Sting).
-
And I think I'm entitled to feel uncomfortable with The Family.
That's fair enough but Clinton's religious views are mainstream Methodist. The Barbara Ehrenreich piece was an ugly and dishonest attempt at guilt by association which was exactly the thing Obama was asking people not to do in his speech about him and Wright.
Steve's contention was that she had no religious associations beyond the mainline Methodist church. It's clear that she does.
And Obama has "associations" with Wright. But we know he does not share his crazier ideas andt does at the same recognise some good in what he has achieved. Maybe we could apply this level of analysis more broadly.
-
I think if Obama was in the same room as Scafie, and Michelle Obama was calling into the Rush Limbaugh Show the day before the Penn primary (as Bill Clinton did just before Texas), Clintonistas and the political blogisphere would be all over it.
Maybe some would, I wouldn't. Given Obama's speech talked about reaching out to alienated white voters I wouldn't be in the least surprised if he took his message to elements of the conservtive media.
You also ignore the context of Clinton's meeting with Scaife.
-
McCartney has never produced anything decent since he left the Beatles.
<splutter!!> Oh, forget it. :)
-
I can't ever see 'Keef' as cool. His skin is falling off his face in threads, and he falls out of trees and hits his head like a 5 year old. And he never could play his instrument with much talent.
See. What's not to like?
-
McCartney has never produced anything decent since he left the Beatles.
<splutter!!> Oh, forget it. :)
Arf. Poor old Paul. If only he'd been shot dead in 1990, or 1980, or maybe 1975.
-
Despite the tribal hostility in the intranets about Obama and Hillary supporters there's some good news - most Dems don't want either Obama or Clinton to drop out right now. Suggesting a more reasoned attitude among many voters about the contest.
And more importantly for the long term -
But the Democratic race may be producing an even more valuable asset for the fall, particularly when compared with Republican John McCain's campaign. By the time this race is over, Clinton and Obama will have competed in almost every state (Michigan and Florida being two potentially costly exceptions). The Democratic candidates have been forced to organize these states in the winter and spring. They have identified and trained legions of organizers. They will know which of their state coordinators are the best, and many of those staffers will already be familiar with some battleground states for the fall.
That, too, is a contrast with past races. When nomination battles end quickly, candidates begin the general-election campaign having had little direct experience with many states critical to winning the presidency. They have spent little time campaigning in those states, and their teams have to start almost from scratch.
-
Despite the tribal hostility in the intranets about Obama and Hillary supporters
And isn't it fascinating to see large chunks of the Obama/Hilary cults declare that they'll vote for McCain if their rival democrat wins the nomination even though both democratic nominees hold almost identical policy views.
It supports a theory I've had for a while, that many people support politicians and parties the same way they support their local sports team: its a totally non-rational tribal mentality that leads people to vote directly against their own self-interest so long as 'their team' wins.
And I have to admit I'm guilty of it myself - I would have been significantly better off personally if National won the last election but voted with my left-wing tribal loyalties instead.
-
Totally agree with you Steven. …and let’s face it the wellbeing of your fellow citizen or lack of it will directly impact the quality of your city so there is a huge level of self interest there to.
" I've had for a while, that many people support politicians and parties the same way they support their local sports team"
I think that theory is even more apt when you apply it to MSM political punditry. Some commentators seem so mesmerised by the process that they start being obsessed by political tactics and forget that at the end of the day we are actually trying to improve the outlook of a hell of a lot of people, voting or non-voting. The politicians are the means to an end , they’re not actually the show, we are. I think msnbc's chris mathews is a perfect example of a sports like approach to politics..
-
It supports a theory I've had for a while...
it's disturbing. We can't help but identify with a larger group. But it's like Russian dolls. We're all members of different groups - the boundaries of which are often arbitrary and which one we identify with depends on who our perceived opponents are.
yeah, and its very hard not to do it even when you know its happening.
But tribal loyalty will almost always trump reason - no matter how liberal you are. That's why I don't mind the bear pit that is representational politics. It's going to happen, it's just a matter of keeping the violence to being just verbal.
-
"But tribal loyalty will almost always trump reason - no matter how liberal you are."
But what if your not a liberal? What if you are a rational? If liberalism results in irrationality then its pointless for a rational voter. No satisfaction so to speak. anyway, tribes are for television shows,we're all in little mafias now.
Are you the Neil Morrison from electoral Pakuranga fame?
-
However, McCartney has never produced anything decent since he left the Beatles.
I have a problem with this sentence .....
-
Simon, thank god you're here. The McCartney peeps are apparently thin on the ground.
(Also, how could I have forgotten to sing the praises of 'Every Night'? Or 'Jet'?)
-
The Beatles and the Stones were two fantastic pop bands who made music in an environment which one day we should repeat. How about tomorrow?
and special mention to Keith .Bill Hicks has the "Why we should all love Keith sermon." It's not quoteable.
-
You also ignore the context of Clinton's meeting with Scaife.
Neil:
Let's get into context, there are ten newspapers published at least twice weekly serving the metropolitan Pittsburgh metro region alone. The Tribune Review titles are neither dominant in the market or particularly well regarded. But you're rather disingenuously ignoring the oft repeated contempt both Clintons had for the man.
For heaven's sake, even I'd describe the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review as editorially hard-right. And I'm someone who avidly reads National Review, the Weekly Standard and the Daily Torygraph.
But I think I'm going to let this go -- I do get that in your opinion I'm utterly irrational, hypocritical and so forth. I do think their respective records and policies on gay right are substantively different, but again that gets dismissed.
And one more fairly substantive difference: I do hope President Clinton is going to be a little more careful about any further multiple 'mis-speakings' about landing under non-existent sniper fire, or resume padding while accusing your opponent of being a foreign policy lightweight who has a problem telling the truth. She may find foreign media and leaders a little less willing to laugh at a glib one-liner about 'being human'.
And Obama has "associations" with Wright. But we know he does not share his crazier ideas andt does at the same recognise some good in what he has achieved. Maybe we could apply this level of analysis more broadly.
And while Clinton is all over the media piously intoning that "Wright wouldn't be my pastor", it's a little rich to cry foul when scrutiny goes onto her own religious associates. I don't really give the proverbial two-penny toss if she's attending some cranky prayer circle, but you don't get to have it both ways Neil. And neither does she.
-
Bill Hicks is my jeremiah wright. I'll never be president.
-
And isn't it fascinating to see large chunks of the Obama/Hilary cults declare that they'll vote for McCain if their rival democrat wins the nomination even though both democratic nominees hold almost identical policy views.
No weirder than watching the Limbaugh/Coulter/Hannity Axis of Stupid going on their 'McCain's so not a real conservative, I'd rather vote for the Demon-Bitch Clinton' jihad. As the United States has this tiresome convention called the secret ballot, they're perfectly entitled to vote for whoever they want for whatever reason (or not at all, come to that). But I can't unpick the chain of reasoning where McCain is a commie in drag.
And, Danyl, like Neil could you try being a little less condescending? I don't think people who have strong, partisan political views really deserve to be sneered at as 'cultists'. If through some utterly FUBAR chain of events Winston Peters had ended up leading National, I'd not only have resigned my membership but voted Labour as an expression of contempt for the man. You may call that cultic behaviour. I call it common decency.
-
What's the charges against Winston Craig?
-
What's the charges against Winston Craig?
Apart from being a pathological liar whose opportunistic xenophobia would be funny if it wasn't quite so sinister and destructive? Nothing at all - he's a top bloke.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.