Posts by James W

  • OnPoint: Sunlight Resistance,

    Nixon had to resign because of the cover-up, not the crime. Key's genius is he never had to cover anything up – he fully admits to people in his administration dealing with people who hacked into the Labour website, even comparing it to something the All Blacks would do to the Wallabies. That's the difference.

    Since Jul 2008 • 125 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: We can do better than this,

    As I read today's Herald piece on Slater using the former prostitute to dig dirt on public figures, I wondered how much power Slater would instantly lose if we all stopped giving a shit who was sleeping with whom. After all, the reason he's been able to wield so much power over people (including, it seems, journalists and politicians) is because the public eats up the gossip and "scandal" he provides. We need to stop providing a market for this crap. Which isn't to downplay the revelations of Dirty Politics or the people involved, who absolutely need to be held accountable.

    Since Jul 2008 • 125 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: The crybaby philosopher,

    Maybe we should use Paul Henry's definition of what a New Zealander looks like.

    Since Jul 2008 • 125 posts Report Reply

  • Up Front: Dropping the A-Bomb,

    Preventing unwanted pregnancies, and dealing with them once they’ve happened, are two quite separate things

    Man, can we display this as a disclaimer before every abortion debate? It seems to be entirely ignored. You can be against killing babies but for making abortion not as farcical and painful as it is now.

    Since Jul 2008 • 125 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: What rules are these?,

    There's lots of things the public might have an interest in that the media chooses not to include in its publications – porn, perhaps (I'm still waiting on the Herald on Sunday to start featuring Page 3 girls). Less savoury things. Editors make decisions all the time about what not cover. I think this whole "well Woman's Day sells!" argument is just an excuse not to think about it too hard. Why is it this issue – celebrities having no privacy whatsoever – that we all just abdicate any responsibility for? Maybe something to do with resentment?

    Also, I'd wager the reason the SST isn't going after shots of Judith Collins has precisely nothing to do with her "illness" and everything to do with being shit scared of her and her (governing) party.

    Since Jul 2008 • 125 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: The sphere of influence,

    Now Judith Collins has called the press liars, I hope the press has the guts to call her the same.

    Since Jul 2008 • 125 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: What Hekia Parata actually said,

    Parata is like a walking cliché regurgitator. I actually groaned out loud when she said she could "unpack" those three dollars.

    I've read it twice and I still don't know what her answer was. Is this how she got so far in her career? No one understands her so they assume she must know what she's talking about?

    Since Jul 2008 • 125 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: Poor Choices, in reply to Nik Dirga,

    The media isn't allowed to say it's suicide.

    Sections 71 to 73 of the Coroners Act 2006 restrict the publishing of details relating to suicides in New Zealand, unless the permission of a Coroner is first obtained. Permission may only be granted if publication is unlikely to be detrimental to public safety.

    The Law Commission is currently reviewing it.

    Since Jul 2008 • 125 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: Making it up on smacking, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,

    Your understanding of the law around assaults on animals is mistaken.

    Sorry, all I read was "everything else you said was correct but I can't ever admit I'm wrong."

    Since Jul 2008 • 125 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: Making it up on smacking,

    The problem with this "debate" is it's constantly framed as "good parents who give little Johnny a smack on the bum will go to jail." What we have is two forms of smacking: the aforementioned, which is antiquated and ineffective, but probably not going to cause serious harm to the child. And then we have the abuse that involves using a hose or piece of wood to thrash a child that pretty much every reasonable person would agree is harmful.

    The problem? You can't legislate for one and not the other. Or rather, we tried, and the result was this murky "reasonable force" law that allowed the latter group to get off thanks to a jury of their peers. And so in an effort to stop the latter, we must legislate for both groups, and leave it up to police discretion to decide what gets prosecuted. I'm happy with that outcome. If the debate was framed this way, I dare say most of the country would be too.

    Since Jul 2008 • 125 posts Report Reply

Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 13 Older→ First