Posts by Russell Brown
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Aren't they essentially the same thing, differentiated mainly by the ammunition used?
Popular in US survivalist circles, in part because below a certain calibre they don't qualify as firearms.
Wouldn't seem to be much good for hunting, though.
-
I'm going to join Robyn in a jumping up and down with excitement, but about things that will soon all be revealed, but have something to do with the Second Annual Wellingtonista Awards...
Oh yes. Wellingtonista and Public Address both have a pending announcement on that puppy ...
-
And I see Russell Brown consulted/quoted nearly as much as the sensible sentencing trust or some Union source... and I quite like that :)
The keys to being quoted a lot in the media are as follows:
(a) Be available, always
(b) Fire out press releases (or, second-best write a blog) on a roughly daily basis.
(c) Have your issue be "hot". Or, if not, be prepared to hold forth on any old thing, regardless of whether you really know what you're on about.
(d) Be good talent: ie, offer bold quotes that'll give the story an angle, whether the angle is valid or not.
Bob McCroskie of Family First is a master of this stuff. I keep half expecting him to come out with a Family First perspective on telecommunications reform ...
-
I'd personally like to call for a moratorium on the use of the words "stormtrooper" and "ninja" with respect to the police.
It's getting silly and, in the case of "stormtrooper" verges on the offensive. And I'm sure the old bloke in Ruatoki was treated somewhat insensitively by the police, but was it really "like what the Nazis did to the Jews"? No it bloody wasn't.
I'm inclining towards the view (a) that the police over-reacted in some key respects, but (b) it's past time that some of the advocates for the other side stopped ignoring the elephant in the room, especially evidence of the stockpiling of weapons, and draw an emphatic distinction between dissent and arming-up.
The intercept evidence doesn't amount to proof of terrorism, but I strongly suspect it would not incline me to think well of several of those involved.
-
A damn sight more healthy and dynamic than the feral rat-bastardry that seems to be part and parcel of state-funding of political parties and political campaigns. I'm just the kind of person who needs to meditate for a couple of hours before going to a party, and a week to recover. DPF is a wee bit more sociable.
Aw Craig ... you were a hero at my birthday party. Then again, I guess the kitchen at most parties isn't crammed with people vigorously discussing theology ...
-
Where is the supporting quote for "It [the Herald] sees no problem in very wealthy individuals being able to anonymously pursue their interests by funnelling millions of dollars through secret party trusts that are opaque to the public."
Anonymous donations were not addressed in the Herald editorial, nor were they addressed in Labour's draft bill (well they were initially, then Labour pulled that part).
And I was fairly appalled when they did pull it -- it should have been the key feature of the bill -- but it seems that it will be back in the redrafted version. I'd feel differently if it wasn't.
But 'cmon Dave: I gave the quote. The Herald editorial's attitude to big anonymous money was basically c'est la vie.
-
Graeme, I confess, I was working off the HRC's own summary, which says the following:
The Commission suggested that to satisfy the potential infringement on the freedom of expression and the rights of citizens to participate in elections that a new or redrafted bill:
- Retain the present regulatory period
- Reword the definition of "election advertisement" to clearly focus on advertising relating to an election
- Reconsider the scheme to regulate third parties
- Redefine the meaning of a third party to ensure that young people are not excluded from political debate.I misread the "retain" part as referring to the present bill, rather than the present rules. Will fix now.
-
i was really interested in the comments by laila harre yesterday on radio nz regarding the provision of about $0.5 million effectively free advertising for the sensible sentencing trust by the herald. i suspect i'm paraphrasing rather badly. does anyone have more information about this?
I only half heard that too. My attention had wandered while Matthew Hooten was raving about fascist states. But if it's true, it's the sort of thing that needs to be declared. The SST is hardly apolitical.
It strikes me that this is an extension of the paper's pledge card campaign, and that it wants to own the issue in much the same way. By contrast, the Herald downplayed the Hollow Men story (the 2005 summing-up editorial dismissed Nicky Hager as a "muckraker"). So that's where they're at. But this kind of chest-beating, invective and fact-tweaking is, at least, undignified.
-
Well looky-looky. I've buggered off for a few days traveling about and having fun and I come back to this; a genuine, respectful and intelligent debate. I frick'n love this blog Russell. There's no other space I'm aware of where a debate of this quality and dynamic could occur. Fair play to you sir and to each any every contributor.
Thanks! I'm struck down with flu today, and thus not much up for debating ...
Hey, apropos nothing in particular I'm well chuffed my mate Grant Robertson's now odds on to get the chance to represent Welly Central.
He's a cert now, surely. I'm really pleased for him. Do his guest blogs here on important matters of cricket and rugby qualify him as the first Public Address candidate for Parliament?
-
"Yet what the evidence overwhelming shows us is that whole communities were not involved. In the evidence, the number of people saying things which may be described as violently anti-social numbers five."
Which kinda tallies with the perception that a number of the 17 were very unlucky to be dragged into it.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 … 2279 Older→ First