Posts by Lucy Telfar Barnard

Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First

  • Hard News: Villainy and engagement,

    It's alright Danielle, we know you're neither a prole nor an idiot, so you're allowed to watch reality TV/talent shows (particularly if it means I don't have to...). I once had a weakness for the various "Next Top Model"s, though not for some years now. And I used to like the home renovation shows, before the ratio of interior design to useless "challenges" and product placement tipped too far. And when I think about it... I watched the first, NZ, Popstars. And probably the first Australian and UK versions too. But never Survivor, nor American Idol/Country X has Talent/The X-factor, nor Big Brother. So maybe it's a case of "pick your reality poison"?

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 433 posts Report Reply

  • Legal Beagle: Update on the Former MP's…,

    Indeed. Another nice example of the line attributed to Margaret Mead: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Good job Phil Lyth; Graeme Edgeler; all those who wrote to a politician to query their position on the matter (that's so I get to thank myself!); and the Greens.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 433 posts Report Reply

  • Legal Beagle: MPs to vote on raising…,

    No, you haven't misunderstood anything. That does appear to be exactly what she's claiming, which is why it's such total poppycock. I wonder if that's what they've told the Greens and NZ First when they were convincing them to vote for it?

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 433 posts Report Reply

  • Legal Beagle: MPs to vote on raising…,

    The story’s been picked up by the Herald. Less than impressed to see my local MP (Annette King) backing it.
    *wanders off to see just how long she’s been in parliament*
    …and of course, as anticipated, she’s been there since before 1999, so of course she’s arguing for it.
    Her claim that “"They benchmarked it to China Air or something, which was dearer than Air New Zealand, actually. If it had been benchmarked to Air New Zealand the allowance would have been cheaper” sounds like the usual load of poppycock one expects from self-interested politicians.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 433 posts Report Reply

  • OnPoint: Leviathan, in reply to Lawrence Serewicz,

    My only comment, Lawrence, was that your first paragraph's segments referring to "Western Christendom" and what Christ would or wouldn't do, made me extremely dubious about where the rest of it was going to go.

    For anyone else who might be tempted, as I was, to read no further, I will say that that's the only specifically religious reference in there, so if you find general discussion of dead philosophers interesting, read further without fear.

    I am not one of those people, so I couldn't tell whether the rest of the piece was simplistic, or whether I was just prejudiced after the Christ bit, or whether I just found it dull because I find most of that sort of thing (though not Keith Ng's piece, fortunately) duller than gluten-free dairy-free pizza.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 433 posts Report Reply

  • OnPoint: Leviathan, in reply to Idiot Savant,

    I'll vote for any party which goes after our spies with a red-hot castration tool.

    All the spies I know personally are women, so that shouldn't bother them in the slightest.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 433 posts Report Reply

  • Legal Beagle: The Northland by-election;…,

    I do get your point on the fact we can't choose candidates' places on that list. I've been present for an election in Peru where people could write in the name of a preferred candidate to bump that candidate up the list; and seen other places where you get to rank the whole list if you like.

    The difficulty with that approach is that when you cast your party vote you're not really sure what you're voting for. You might think you're voting for a Party party that has Tigger and Ernie from Sesame St, and other characters who really know how to party, only to discover that thanks for other Party party voters' preferences, you've ended up with Eeyore and Burt, who really don't know how to party at all. If you'd known you were going to get them, you wouldn't have voted for the Party party at all.

    The solution for ensuring the list is how you want it is meant to be to involve yourself with the party of your choice before the election: join a party, contribute, and have your say (if the party allows it) in who should rank where on the list - or change the party's system if they don't allow it. That way you get input, and people get to know who they're voting for.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 433 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: Haphazardly to war, in reply to Bart Janssen,

    That's a good point. Mind you, is the decision to go to war ever made quickly these days?

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 433 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: Haphazardly to war,

    There are posters discussing whether or not we should go into Iraq. That is a good discussion, and one we should have. But there's an equally important discussion, which we're perhaps moving into now, which is: "how do we as a nation decide whether we will participate in any given military action"?

    I'm pretty sure the answer shouldn't be "let's just leave it up to the PM." And that's what's really getting my goat right now.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 433 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: When the fast track seems a…, in reply to nzlemming,

    That's awesome!

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 433 posts Report Reply

Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 44 Older→ First