Posts by Steve Parks

  • Hard News: Everybody has one, in reply to chris,

    Yeah. I mean, who would have imagined that directly aligning yourself with someone that even some on the left were wary of, or outright critical of, and who has a personal gripe with PM, might undermine your message? Definitely hindsight required.

    To be fair, put yourself in their shoes and see if you would come up with the same conclusions.

    I wouldn’t have.

    When Steve is on record as of August 25th 2014:

    “Given the announcement re Assange, I may have to resile from my ‘genuinely considering voting for IMP’".

    I don't know about you, but I don't put myself in Greenwald's shoes before considering who I'm going to vote for. (Also, someone purportedly changing their position from a year ago isn't "revisionist".)

    Wellington • Since May 2007 • 1162 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: Everybody has one, in reply to chris,

    There would have been some but that’s a fairly select grouping Steve. I imagine it would not include those who had already bought into the PM’s line on Hager as “left wing conspiracy theorist” following the release of Dirty Politics – a work that sold all of 10,000 copies plus an additional 1000 e-book sales. It would likely also have bypassed many of Hosking’s monkey withholders.

    The point is Greenwald’s reporting didn’t have to be lost in the “jello wrestling bout” between Key and Dotcom. He had information that was independent of that. But any chance of the public perceiving him as an independent journalist (albeit with a “left wing” bias perhaps) with interesting and valuable information on the NZ situation was lost once he was so clearly associated with Dotcom. It gave ammunition to Hosking et al, but more generally he became seen by many as part of a petty dispute between Dotcom and Key. It tainted the whole manner in which Greenwald was received.

    Wellington • Since May 2007 • 1162 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: Everybody has one, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,

    To be fair, put yourself in their shoes and see if you would come up with the same conclusions.

    I wouldn't have.

    That Greenwald saw this and wanted to help , may have been about that and nothing to do with “his career”.

    I'm not suggesting that Greenwald supported Dotcom because he thought it would advance his career or some such; I'm saying it wasn't a great judgment call. Rightly or not, it lessened his credibility with a certain portion of his audience in NZ. And it didn't seem to help Dotcom much anyway.

    Wellington • Since May 2007 • 1162 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: Everybody has one, in reply to David MacGregor,

    Likewise Greenwald’s reporting was lost in the jello wrestling bout between Key and Dotcom.

    To be fair, Greenwald did bring that result on himself, to some degree. His close alignment with Dotcom wasn't the best judgment call of his career.

    Wellington • Since May 2007 • 1162 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: How about that cricket, eh?, in reply to Russell Brown,

    Some people seem to object very strongly to to the one-more-playe- in-the-circle thing, but it actually incentivises the taking of wickets as the best way to keep the runs down, which seems like a good thing.

    Yes, and McCullum seems to understand the new rules very well. We may not win the World Cup, as strategy is only one factor and won't guarantee a victory, but McCullum has been the best captain of the tournament. And yes the new rules are a good thing; after all, how entertaining has this World Cup been?

    Wellington • Since May 2007 • 1162 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: How about that cricket, eh?, in reply to steven crawford,

    I could understand the part when the referees where checking to see if the ball had hit the camera wire. Is it not actualy a catch, if the ball touches an obstacle, without exception? what if the ball hits the Tellevision drone?

    It did strike me as strange in that if the ball had clipped the wire it would only have been a more difficult catch to take. But I can see a rationale for for ruling it a "dead ball", as Steve H indicated would likely be the case.

    Wellington • Since May 2007 • 1162 posts Report Reply

  • Speaker: Compulsory voting and election turnout, in reply to Chris Waugh,

    Can’t we just be pragmatic about this too?

    That’s precisely what I was trying to do.

    No, I meant about some prisoners not being able to vote. Your challenge to me was “where do we draw the line?”

    Well, why not at a certain length of sentence, or certain types of convictions , or some combination of both?

    It’s arbitrary, yes, but it has a rationale, and that rationale is pragmatism…

    Wellington • Since May 2007 • 1162 posts Report Reply

  • Speaker: Compulsory voting and election turnout, in reply to Chris Waugh,

    Like what? Where do we draw the line?

    Where do we draw the line in terms of voting age? Can't we just be pragmatic about this too?

    Wellington • Since May 2007 • 1162 posts Report Reply

  • Speaker: Compulsory voting and election turnout, in reply to Chris Waugh,

    Chris, about go to bed (i.e. fall asleep at keyboard), but short answer for now - do you think Anders Breivik should be able to vote?

    Wellington • Since May 2007 • 1162 posts Report Reply

  • Speaker: Compulsory voting and election turnout, in reply to Moz,

    "Why 16, and why only prisoners rather than all disqualified persons?”

    The idea of lowering the voting age to 16 was in the news recentishly, and then there’s the Scotland referendum on independence, in which 16-year-olds could vote.

    I think we should lower the voting age – as I said above, this is their society too. And many 16 and 17 year olds are as capable of making informed decisions as many people older than that, and 16 seems like a reasonable goal.

    However, if you think that the voting age should be lowered, you need to pick an age that has a hope of getting wide acceptance. So 16 seems pragmatic – let’s try for 16 for now.

    As to the second part of your question: again, prisoner voting rights (or lack of) have been in the news recently; I’m lazy.

    So who are the people currently not allowed to vote that you think should be able to?

    Wellington • Since May 2007 • 1162 posts Report Reply

Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 116 Older→ First