...but I didnt let the extended frosty silence from the entitled spoil the pleasures of complimentary socks, proper cutlery and fresh fruit...and so much space ...sigh.
I was an IT journalist during the dot-com boom. I got flown places business-class most of the time.
I liked the lounges: being able to arrive three or four hours early outbound at Hong Kong airport and relax in a comfortable booth with the latest available edition of the The Guardian and as much high-quality food and drink as I required ...
Given that that period followed directly on from my unemployed-meets-working-poor-with-family era, it was pretty amazing.
Those days are long gone now, of course ...
David, it might be some consolation that the people who own the brilliant Richmond Road Cafe are soon to open a new place at the north end of Takapuna Beach.
Doesn't look like it'll be for kiddies though ...
When the line was being put in around the turn of the 20th Century, the engineers employed by the Liberal government costed putting a camber on the line, to enable trains to travel faster around bends in the track. The cost of bedding this in proved too expensive, so the track was laid flat, limiting New Zealand rail speeds ever since.
An infrastructure classic.
Remind me why we shouldn't start installing fibre for that other network?
Sure, just as I'm sure there are any number of ageist, racist religious bigots out there who would have found my (49 year-old Maori Protestant) father and (27 year old white Catholic) mother's marriage icky on multiple fronts. The Marriage Act has nothing to say about it, and shouldn't do so.
Fair enough. I should make clear that my preference would have been for same-sex marriage. I'm just not that exercised about the difference.
(Although my darling is, in a negative sense -- she has no interest in marriage, but was countenancing a CU on principle during the whole legislative furore.)
But -- serious question, not a wind-up -- isn't your other problem that the church in which you have placed your faith wouldn't facilitate or bless a same-sex marriage, no matter what the law said?
So as usual at Mangere yesterday I glanced at my ticket (seat 9D) and just waited to be among the last called. When I got on I realised I was actually among the first beckoned: those who need assistance, have children or a rilly rilly rich and ride in comfort.
Oh damn. I really wanted to apply for one of those grants, but because of a certainly weekly broadcast commitment, I can't go anywhere for more than a couple of days this year. I mean, I'm not complaining, but ...
I had coffee with an old buddy that was into copious amounts of hallucinogenic drugs and also some amphetamines thru-out his teens. He was back in New Zealand to attend the university graduation ceremony, and officially collect his PHD. He is a star gazer.
The brilliant Carl Sagan was also a dedicated chemical explorer. Perhaps it goes with the territory.
I'd pay fifteen bucks for that steak and feel happy. At thirty, I feel like someone's having a laugh.
Thirty bucks for a middle-market steak and chips? They're having a laff.
I think the right societal compromise is NOT civil unions - it ought to be marriage for everyone - I understand there are some people for whom there are religious issue and I think we should allow them to refuse to marry people in their churches if their religion has a problem - but they shouldn't be allowed to tell other people what to do in their churches (or whereever)
My darling and I celebrate 20 years of unmarried bliss this year. And as someone who hasn't felt the need for marriage, I'm prepared to accept that many people do think that "marriage" is strictly between a man and a woman. Whatever. The key thing to me is the ability to have a relationship formally recognised, and I'm not that bothered about what it's called. And anyway, who doesn't call a civil union ceremony a wedding these days anyway?
The only sound argument against civil unions is the argument for gay marriage; I have no problem with that. I just don't feel that strongly about marriage as to regard civil unions as the "back of the bus".
As for the argument that "it makes more sense for the government to subsidise a public enterprise than a private one", would you care to expand on that?
The government bought back the network from Toll, which made it clear it could not and would not make the investment necessary to keep the tracks in good order. Toll seemed to further be of the view that it couldn't maintain services on a purely commercial basis, and would need subsidies. Cullen figured that it made more sense for the taxpayer to support a business owned by the taxpayer, rather than hand money to Australian shareholders.