Somehow we, all of us, need to change. This isn't the only story like this. That there is even one story like this is a mark of shame for all of us in this country. That there are likely many more like this should be a national scandal. It is a catastrophic failure of our society.
Why is this not an election issue? Why are there not blue or red or green billboards around town proclaiming the intent to be "rape-free by 2020"?
Power companies have imposed a moratorium on new solar connections and want to impose a fee on people with solar installations of around $120 a year. In Arizona the PowerCos tried to impose a $50 per month “penalty” on solar powered houses
This is just the free market system at the stupid extreme. It makes perfect sense for the power company to try and increase its profits - that includes using political pressure to hamstring competitors. It isn't evil as such just "good business" - bearing in mind that's all they've ever learned.
Stepping back and considering the good of society as a whole is an utterly alien concept and very very hard for them to grasp.
So while it's worthwhile recognising the sillyness of their actions, heaping scorn on them is not worthwhile.
Ministers do a lot more than their parliamentary duties.
Of course they do. But key amongst all those duties is - being responsible for the successes and failures of their ministries. It's a bitch but if you accept the job and the salary then you accept the risk with the reward ... except most of this current bunch (and the previous lot weren't much different) are only willing to accept responsibility for success ... failure is always someone else's fault.
can we please put some heat on the authorities who are supposed to keep us safe
But but but but John Key is such a nice man - sigh.
What really Fs me off about the politician's behaviour is that they are very quick to explain how hard they work and the tremendous weight of responsibility on their shoulders and all the very very hard work they have to do to prepare for the couple of weeks a year they spend in Wtgn sitting in the house or sitting on committees etc etc etc.
But the moment they are asked to take responsibility for the departments they are responsible for leading and managing it turns out it was always somebody else job to be responsible.
I'm really not sure what the point of your posting is. I could simply dismiss it as standard trolling but I kind of feel like you have a real point you are trying to make.
From your first post it seems as though you feel allowing the victim of an alleged assault an opportunity to speak on TV is of no value or interest to anyone in NZ. In this you are wrong - it was of interest to many including me.
Personally I'd rather hear from the alleged victim than from John Key and Murry McCully who spent the entire time trying to assign blame for a cock-up anywhere but on their on desks. But that's just me, oh and a significant audience on TV.
Whatever your point is/was you should understand that your dismissal of rape culture in New Zealand is a pretty nice example of rape culture in New Zealand, thanks for that.
I guess I'm getting old. I actually remember when newspapers tried to be non-partisan. I also remember when editorials were reasoned, logical, well thought out essays.
The genuinely disgusting, yes at time physically revolting, diatribes that get into newspapers as editorials today makes me wonder what on earth is the point. Even if the only point is to sell papers at what depth do the writers of this stuff begin to feel ashamed.
And saying that makes me feel old - things used to be better yadda yadda yadda.
And in this instance a young, pretty, woman (who would've thought a woman would be the target of rape, let alone a young, pretty one) actually articulates an opinion and the neanderthal at the SST decides the appropriate response is to tell her to shut the F up. "Go back into the corner like a good little girl and let the adults, sorry scratch that, let the middle aged white men in suits decide your fate ..."
Yeah I'm old and grumpy and I'd love to see the person who wrote that have to stand in front of an audience of rape victims and defend their essay (although to be honest that might do the victims more harm so maybe not such a good idea). Wouldn't that be a fun episode of Media Take.
I tend to agree with you Hebe.
I do think Craig has a strong point about the misuse of the word. But the context and direction that the thread has taken suggest that continuing the discussion can only do harm.
I would love to be wrong. But there are (at least) two very strong emotional pressures at play in this thread and they are not making for a productive discussion.
The frustrating thing about Cunliffe's education announcement was that it ignored the central problem.
Almost everyone believes education is worth improving.
Almost everyone agrees that reducing class sizes AND improving teacher quality are BOTH worthwhile.
Nobody is willing to say we need more money to do those things. More money for education comes from one of two places, first slice the taxation pie differently. You could raise the superannuation age to 70, that would have a huge impact but no politician is willing to do that and sadly we continue to vote into power politicians instead of leaders.
And of course the second option, the one followed by all those countries in Europe we are so fond of benchmarking ourselves against and aspiring towards, raise taxes. Simply put we, the public of New Zealand, and especially we the wealthier public, need to pay more into the pool of money that we want to be spent on education. But again no politician will suggest that because sadly we continue to vote into power politicians instead of leaders.
Eh? Those guys always wear helmets.
Usually very expensive helmets that have no additional protection but do cost a lot more and have prettier paint jobs.
I did quite like the helmet with the mohawk built in :)
I could go on and on but this is not the forum and I have other fish to fry.
True, but, your arguments are based on entirely reasonable theory. What I and others are saying is that for reasons that are not clear, the observation is that the helmet law is counterproductive with respect to cycle/car accidents. You can spend all day and all night arguing why, but the why is irrelevant, maybe fun but irrelevant.
What is relevant is the evidence from other countries shows that having no helmet law (while still strongly recommending helmets) results in a lower rate of accidents.
Do what works.
Don’t do what should work but doesn’t work.
Later you can figure out why it works and optimise that.