But also I think there is an element of, “if I can judge this person as weak/defective/wrong/selfish/whatever then I can kid myself that I could never be in that state of mind myself”.
With a side order of guilt that "I didn't do more because I didn't know"
Julie Burchill has written a column inspired by Charlotte Dawson’s death.
Blurgh. Though there is one point I agree with: " if you feel loved in your personal life, and sure of your beliefs in your public life — which I do, in spades — it’s hard to be hurt by the abuse of strangers."
That surety is very rare, especially for those of us visited by the black dog.
just thought I’d post this piece I wrote about living with depression and being suicidal.
So many echos. I still marvel that I hit 53 this year. If there's one thing I could say to the never-depressed: don't try something that will help us all; try to help each of us individually, because we all do it differently, will all be helped differently or not, regardless of your good intentions.
The analogy for depression I’ve used often is riding a bicycle with skewed handlebars. You can ride in a straight line, but every yard requires a conscious effort to aim out of the gutter. Give up for a moment and that’s where you end up. Thankfully I’ve never seriously contemplated suicide, but I can understand that those who have committed suicide gave up not because of their depression in one instant, but because of their exhaustion with continually fighting against that skew.
Love this! Okay to quote it in a different group I'm part of?
Without meaning to offend, those people who dismiss twitter as a useless toy for children are doing it wrong.
Yes, indeed. "The tools are broken!" just means one hasn't learned to use them.
it's clear that a number of those people don't think it's bullying, because they are *right*.
In a fricking nutshell.
Anyway, why is the guy so revered?
Not so much that he's revered, but that the campaign against him has been so sordid and wasteful of resources that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Auckland resident Rick Splinter has had his request for speaking rights at the Governing Body meeting of 27 February 2014 declined.
Maybe he'll form a group...
Upright citizens, though, Ian
That would depend on the number of legs...
So, taken in context, Patrick is quite right, the TPP would not add a new category of legal risk for New Zealand; it would simply extend an existing mechanism further
The mechanisms in place do not allow US corporations, where most of the multi-nationals are based, to sue the New Zealand government because we do not have an FTA permitting that with the US. Australia's FTA with the US does not permit it either but, as has been mentioned earlier, their agreement with Hong Kong does, so Phillip Morris registered their office in Hong Kong to take advantage of that. We face the same risk, yes, but it's not a trivial task for a multi-national to do this (and I doubt that any of them want to be a registered Chinese company in order to sue NZ). So it is fair to say that NZ does not realistically face this issue from US corporations at the moment.
New Zealand leads the way in including broad public interest exceptions in its FTA investment chapters"
How is this relevant to the TPP where NZ is not even a heavyweight in the discussions? NAFTA, the US-Korea FTA, and other US-driven agreements all do include clauses that over-ride public interest in favour of the US corporations. Australia managed to resist the investment tribunal provisions, but reports indicate it was a pretty messy battle. If an international treaty is made that includes such clauses, and the NZ government signs it, we will not be able exempt our public interest. Indeed, we will be forced to recast our legislation to comply with it.
when one is publicly correcting errors, one should be scrupulous and fair with one’s own facts.
Pot, kettle, black, sir.