Public Address | System (Home)

Posted at 7:53AM on 23 Oct 08. Permalink.

I suspect the Chinese and Babylonians might disagree about printing and indoor plumbing resp.

I'd like to add:

Balding Overweight Company Director
Knows where the check book is, can sop up spilt gin

Posted at 8:04AM on 23 Oct 08. Permalink.

I suspect the Chinese and Babylonians might disagree about printing and indoor plumbing resp.

I'm sure they would. As, no doubt, would many nimble, dexterous and small handed Polynesians about recent observations made of them.

A friend who was on a Latin American trade mission with Dr Smith in 1999 just rang with his recollection of ten long and discouraging days on the road with the Minister. The low point, he said, was hearing the Minster declare to an audience in Argentina: "if you come to our country, bring your cheque book, because we have plenty of land to sell."

Posted at 8:18AM on 23 Oct 08. Permalink.

Perhaps Dr Smith was just confused after talking to the vineyard owners who might have said they were hiring 4yr olds to pick the fruit because they have small hands but it was a hassle training them to use the toilet.

Posted at 8:32AM on 23 Oct 08. Permalink.

How about another Caucasian Social Stereotype:

The Editorial "Racist" of Convenience -- Because racially-charged invective from Rosemary McLeod, Paul Holmes, Deborah Coddington, Michael Laws, Chris Trotter, Matthew Hooten is just different.

Posted at 8:38AM on 23 Oct 08. Permalink.

BTW, I don't believe Lockwood Smith is a racist, just stupid. Which is a sacking offence in itself, AFAIC.

My point is that anyone who is willing to give Coddinton or Laws a platform (and presumably pay for the privilege) just isn't on the moral high ground here.

Posted at 8:41AM on 23 Oct 08. Permalink.

BTW, I don't believe Lockwood Smith is a racist, just stupid. Which is a sacking offence in itself, AFAIC.

New Sacking Policy Pushes Unemployment Rate to 35%.

Posted at 8:45AM on 23 Oct 08. Permalink.

BTW, I don't believe Lockwood Smith is a racist, just stupid. Which is a sacking offence in itself, AFAIC.

New Sacking Policy Pushes Unemployment Rate to 35%.

It'd be a lot higher if it only applied to politicians.

Posted at 8:49AM on 23 Oct 08. Permalink.

New Sacking Policy Pushes Unemployment Rate to 35%.

I prefer to frame it as reducing bureaucracy begins at home - or the Cabinet Room, at any rate. Sadly, there are practical and legal problems with forcing MPs to submit to routine workplace drug, alcohol and IQ tests.

Posted at 9:29AM on 23 Oct 08. Permalink.

you mean like prying them out of Belamy's?

Posted at 10:07AM on 23 Oct 08. Permalink.

Authorative Quiz-master
Having a very knowing grin to show that "I know the answer and you kids don't, so eat that!"

Posted at 10:57AM on 23 Oct 08. Permalink.

Hey, and their kids have small hands and would make excellent cheap labourers.

Posted at 5:36PM on 23 Oct 08. Permalink.

Caucasians make such good politicians.

They have these big mouths for putting their foot in.

Plus their refined ability to generalise, trivialise and stereotype fils provincial reporters notebooks with such career making twaddle.

Posted at 6:43PM on 23 Oct 08. Permalink.

generalise, trivialise and stereotype fils provincial reporters

as opposed to generalise, trivialise and stereotype senior editor

Posted at 8:45PM on 23 Oct 08. Permalink.

. . out there in Steinbeck country, the hot lettuce valley, owned in the main by smart second-generation hillbillies who got out of Appalachia while the getting was good, and who now pay other, less-smart hillbillies to supervise the work of Mexican braceros, whose natural fitness for stoop labor has been explained by the ubiquitous Senator Murphy: "They're built low to the ground," he said, "so it's easier for them to stoop."

Hunter S. Thompson: Hell's Angels, 1967

More about Lockwood's tap-dancing - and arguably more talented - predecessor here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Murphy

Posted at 9:44PM on 23 Oct 08. Permalink.

(Jon peers around to see why the line for defamation is and trying to find a way to put his thoughts coherently & positively...coz I'm not a hater and don't enjoy disrespect)

Something just doesn't quite sit right for me with Dr Smith. I can't quite determine what it is. I've just had a look at the wikipedia page and the national party pages about him and in both cases I felt it was more about what those pages didn't say, than did. He's not coming across as particularly human, nor genuine....perhaps a bit stronger than that.

There is also an element of Peter Pan/Cliff Richard'ness about him...and I don't mean regarding his sexualtiy, which is as relevant as...anything you'd find in the mainstream media today, though it is NOT newsworthy and judging people because of their sexuality/race/... is actually sad for those that do it...smallminded f%&$#$s! (Which reminds me about an excellent part of a documentary Louis Theroux did called Louis and the Nazis in which Louie asks the the white supremacist whose BBQ he is attending, whether hypothetically he would have a problem if he (Louis) was a Jew....I believe Louis considers himself COE, though has a Jewish dad...but guess you could argue it either way. The link to vid itself seems to change a bit else I'd link directly to it...it is SO worth the effort view)

But leaping back to Lockwood...the subject of this thread...uh I think.

What I did however find most disturbing was the quiz show was called "W3" and now I'm finding myself haunted by the mental image of his smiling face, whenever I see a URL beginning "www". Though this says more about me than Dr Smith.

Posted at 11:47PM on 23 Oct 08. Permalink.

He's not coming across as particularly human, nor genuine . . .

Raymond Chandler once described the actor Alan Ladd as a boy's idea of a tough guy. Ironically that was before Shane, the 1953 western where Ladd plays exactly that role, the hero of a small boy named Joey. Somewhere in the arrested-development end of the National party there seem to still be a few who see Dr. Smith's (__Warning, warning Will Robinson__ ) bizarre and gaffe-prone android aspect as some kind of political asset - a kid's idea of a politician.

Posted at 12:54AM on 24 Oct 08. Permalink.

a kid's idea of a politician

When you put it that way, there is perhaps the odour of Regan wafting around....

and that's pre-incontinence pants for all you weirdos who are getting your kicks from people writing about watersports on the web out there....Yes we know who you are and we're noting you IP and MAC addresses as you pause to read this very long sentence (just need that last block of digits....what do you mean they're using a proxy and you need me to keep typing so you can get the details from the proxy based in Romania)...so there.

Posted at 5:42AM on 24 Oct 08. Permalink.

What I did however find most disturbing was the quiz show was called "W3" and now I'm finding myself haunted by the mental image of his smiling face, whenever I see a URL beginning "www". Though this says more about me than Dr Smith.

Wasn't W3 Selwyn Toogood? And It's Academic Lockwood Smith?

Posted at 6:59AM on 24 Oct 08. Permalink.

Dr O.P. Sehgal and his friend Mr S.K. Yadav

Dr Smith and his mates

Posted at 7:18AM on 24 Oct 08. Permalink.

jon_knox wrote:

I believe Louis considers himself COE, though has a Jewish dad...

At the risk of losing a potential book buyer.... Paul Theroux (Louis's father) is Catholic actually -- and so were both his parents, as I recall. You've confused your religions that secretly conspire to rule the world, Jon!

I don't mean regarding his sexualtiy, which is as relevant as...anything you'd find in the mainstream media today, though it is NOT newsworthy and judging people because of their sexuality/race/... is actually sad for those that do it...smallminded f%&$#$s!

I personally don't believe that Dr Smith is gay (that would be a level of hypocrisy beyond even him). If he was, however, I think it would be definitely relevant is his case. He was one of the loathsome MPs who voted against the Homosexual Law Reform Bill in 1986.

Posted at 7:33AM on 24 Oct 08. Permalink.

I personally don't believe that Dr Smith is gay (that would be a level of hypocrisy beyond even him). If he was, however, I think it would be definitely relevant is his case. He was one of the loathsome MPs who voted against the Homosexual Law Reform Bill in 1986.

Well, David, is it also "relevant" that (if the gossip I've heard is true) that several deeply closeted MPs voted in favour of the Homosexual Law Reform Bill? After all, there is that homosexual agenda I keep hearing so much about, but nobody's ever got around to posting me a copy.

Posted at 7:47AM on 24 Oct 08. Permalink.

is that homosexual agenda I keep hearing so much about, but nobody's ever got around to posting me a copy.

Deny, deny, DENY....You're probably part of it too. Can't trust anyone.

In the absence of real thing, just make one up and pass it around as the genuine article. As Juha always says, never let the facts get in the way...

When's RB gonna get music linked into these posts?....I have a totally original version of the theme from the X-files on an accordion that would be timely.

Posted at 9:03AM on 24 Oct 08. Permalink.

I think you're throwing me a red herring on the secret agenda, matey!

My point is this..

It's one thing to be too ignorant and/or stupid to understand human rights -- and to go on record as having voted in accordance with your ignorance and/or stupidity. But it's a whole extra layer of nastiness to understand with full knowledge that you're depriving people of their rights (and quite possibly their liberty) and vote for it anyway.

If anyone standing for public office fell into that category then I think it would be pretty relevant knowledge for voters...

That said, I've obviously never been in such a position myself. Perhaps our hypothetical MP would worry that the bill would fail, and that he'd make a nice high-profile case to show that the police were flexing their muscles. It might be very hard to have the courage of your convictions under such circumstances. I dare say I should be less judgemental about this sort of human failing.

Walking, as I do, twice daily past the memorial to murdered homosexuals in Berlin (which notes that the post-war German government publicly recanted the Nazis beliefs about Jewish people, but they kept on with the declared Nazi attitude to homosexuals until the 1950s) I feel deeply depressed that some NZ MPs were voting with the Nazis -- as it were -- until 1984. And, indeed, are still working as MPs.

And on that happy note, I'm off to bed...

Posted at 9:15AM on 24 Oct 08. Permalink.

I feel deeply depressed that some NZ MPs were voting with the Nazis -- as it were -- until 1984.

Wow, you drove a tractor through that one. Allow me to cushion the blow for you, thusly: isn't the Haider story a stunner? That leaves the Pope alone on top of the list of self-hating hypocrites I'd like outed as soon as possible.

Posted at 9:41AM on 24 Oct 08. Permalink.

Sorry Herr Haywood, I'm still calling kuhscheiße on that rationale for outing. Winston Peters voted against the Homosexual Law Reform Bill, and that's the least of the reasons why I wouldn't cross the road to piss on him if his head was on fire. The gential configuration of whoever is silly enough to gave group sex with Winston, Winston's ego, Winston's sense of entitlement, Winston's sociopathic disregard for truth, and Winston's overweening psychosis is neither here nor there.

Posted at 11:11AM on 24 Oct 08. Permalink.

the post-war German government publicly recanted the Nazis beliefs about Jewish people, but they kept on with the declared Nazi attitude to homosexuals until the 1950s

And does anyone have a date when they relinquished eugenics? We remember the state victimisation of jews, gays and even gypsies - but forget the hundreds of thousands of disabled Germans who were also rounded up and slaughtered in service of race purity.

Posted at 11:17AM on 24 Oct 08. Permalink.

And on that happy note

Dunno about anyone else, but I'm kinda proud that I lived in an age when same sex relationships were given legal recognition. However many thousand years of humans, dunno how many hundreds of years of government & (ok relative few of) democracy and the changd occurred in our watch (not that my role in this was much beyond voting). I think that there are improvements still to be made, but it's far from depressing. Chin-up David. (Shadow of large political change looms large)...Oh sh-ivers.

Posted at 11:21AM on 24 Oct 08. Permalink.

Dunno about anyone else, but I'm kinda proud that I lived in an age when same sex relationships were given legal recognition. However many thousand years of humans, dunno how many hundreds of years of government & (ok relative few of) democracy and the changd occurred in our watch

Actually, the Greeks and the Romans were fine with it, and that's just two cultures I happen to know about it. I'm sure they would have been/are plenty others.

Posted at 11:28AM on 24 Oct 08. Permalink.

Actually, the Greeks and the Romans were fine with it

Yes, but they had that whole molesting the slave boy thing going on.

Posted at 11:32AM on 24 Oct 08. Permalink.

the Greeks and the Romans were fine with it

Actually I read the Symposium a long time ago and had forgotten about it...Kinda figured that it sounded like they were just seeking to justify it back then, rather than to say, you don't need to justify it....we're cool with that...which is how I see the current view.

Anyway time for bed here too.