Posts by Tim Hannah
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
" Say, what is 'Pacifics Triple Star' anyway?
North, South and Stewart"
Always figured 'quadruple' didn't scan and the sly old dog was betting that no one would listen to the lyrics.
-
Or his principle is that the Government shouldn't interfere in NZer's family lives. And he doesn't want to be a member of a political party that doesn't hold to that principle.
If that were true then he should resign from politics altogether. All parties want to (and do) interfere in NZer's family lives, just not in the same way.
His 'principle' in this case is that family lives should only be interfered with in ways that he supports.
-
NI, there is a large difference between 'entanglement' and entanglement, surely.
-
James, I recall you mentioning no one being hurt in Abu Ghraib. Did you ever address the criticism of that statement? Or doesn't it suit your 'frank and honest' stance? Would it make any difference if the perpetrators were Muslim?
You're flat wrong, and failure to acknowledge that begins to make it seem deliberate. Deliberate falsehood?
-
I think you misunderstood. What we had here was some people pointing out that the homophobic, misogynist fundamentalists in Iraq are a bad thing. That's not the same as supporting and allying with them, which is what Cohen's thesis would seem to predict and what James suggested was happening.
-
It seems that those who pride themselves on being tolerant are so tolerant that they will tolerate extraordinary intolerance, all in the name of tolerance, of course!! And the rest of us are just supposed to go "Okay, that's cool, what a good idea!” Maybe not.
Dude, when you're tolerating homicide and claiming that it didn't hurt anyone, you're sort of undercutting your argument.
-
To be honest, I think my secular modernism is under more direct threat from the religious fundamentalists of America than it is from Islamists. The Islamists' derangement might be considerably greater, but I don't think they have the power to change the society with which I identify. The other lot just might.
Fully agree with that. But Cohen's point is that it's selfish of us to look at it that way. Our democratic rights are far less under attack than, for example, those of women in Saudi Arabia, and yet confronted by the dreadful George Bush, we've forgotten our internationalism.
Who is this we?
To give Bush due credit, following 9/11 the US did put pressure on Saudi Arabia and Egypt, amongst others, to democratise a little - it was s'posed to reduce terrorism. And some small progress was made. Then, of course, he invaded Iraq which led pretty directly to a strengthening of the hand of Middle Eastern autocracies (bar one) and weakened the hand of those working for the democratic rights of, for example, women in Saudi Arabia.
I'm not sure how the left can be directly faulted for limiting democratic change in Saudi Arabia, unless it's by not preventing the Iraqi bloodbath.
-
Apologies if there's a double posting...
Most vague is where such force is for the purpose of "performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting," as long as it is not "for the purpose of correction". Good, that's so much clearer.
My understanding is - and I think the Select Committee report linked to in the main post makes is fairly clear - is that this legalises using force to pick up your child and take them home when a refusal to buy them sweets at the checkout counter has reduced them to a screaming heap. It allows you to make them swallow that godawful medicine. It lets you chuck the filthy little demon in the shower before grandma comes to dinner.
This is important because Section 59, as it currently stands, only provides a defence if you use reasonable force on your child for the purpose of correction. If you just want to get sling the little darling under your arm and take them home, there is currently no defence (shock, horror, every parent is currently a criminal, um, maybe).
So yeah, not entirely clear, but no less clear than it is currently. As a parent, I'll be no more worried about possible arrest if this law is passed than I am now.