Hard News: Any excuse for a party
197 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 Newer→ Last
-
Sacha, in reply to
Charles and Camilla
the cause of that tear-wipe in the replayed footage of his wedding to young Di
-
Email
So anyway, it all wound up with me and my crazy-assed friends dancing to some funky tunes on the deck at 2.30am, which probably did not impress the neighbours. Sorry neighbours. We just had to boogie.
Ah yes....that damned aloo gobE...goes straight to your feet.
-
Danielle, in reply to
So... what exactly did Key say on the BBC about Kate?
I may have been slightly distracted by waves of powerful retching, but it was something like ".... and of course Kate's a very attractive young lady <smirk>..."
-
Sacha, in reply to
a very attractive young lady
..like that Liz Hurley..
-
recordari, in reply to
Email
a very attractive young lady
..like that Liz Hurley..
Are you saying they're not?
<mightbebaiting> ;-)
-
Steve Parks, in reply to
Email Web
Please, please reassure me that there will be other people here NOT watching. Just when I thought PAS might be a royal wedding-free zone.
I wasn’t intending to watch it myself, but after the Breakers game I switched over to 3 for a “quick look” that ended up lasting till the end of coverage. From a production and staging point of view it was very well done. The pageantry made for good spectacle, they made the most of a huge range of camera angles, and the Abbey looked great, as did London in general. And those crowd scenes were quite impressive.
I was only interested the visuals, so I had the whole thing on mute. I put Active 88.6FM on (techno/dance music), drank beer and followed the twitter feed. That’s the way to watch a royal wedding. Just slightly surreal.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
Email
I do wonder why it's taken me so long to cook aloo gobi. I made it for the first time yesterday and it wound up being the best dish of the lot. Simple and seriously delicious. The only way to eat cauliflower, imho.
Aloo Gobi is very tasty. But I have wondered how ultra tasty it might be without the cauliflower. :-)
-
Lea Barker, in reply to
Craig might particularly like this exchange from PBS Newshour on Friday night between the host and two regular pundits:
JEFFREY BROWN: But what is it about royalty, and particularly British royalty, that grabs so many people, so many Americans?
JEFFREY BROWN: Didn't we throw them off...
DAVID BROOKS: Well, yes. That was a mistake, maybe.
(LAUGHTER)
JEFFREY BROWN: OK.
DAVID BROOKS: No. I mean, there are a couple of things.
First of all, this is a wedding of really good-looking, really rich people with great real estate. And so people tend to like those things.
(LAUGHTER)
MARK SHIELDS: Donald Trump's next nuptials.
DAVID BROOKS: Yes. No, he wouldn't have had a gown that nice.
(LAUGHTER)
The full transcript is here: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june11/shieldsbrooks_04-29.html. New Zealand even gets a mention in respect of President Obama's birth certificate.
-
As for NZ becoming a republic, Russell--try living in one for a decade and you'll soon change your mind. There is absolutely nothing good to be said for a form of government that separates a powerful executive (president/governor and cabinet) from the legislature. Far better to have a parliamentary democracy in which ministers, including the prime minister, have to answer for their actions to the people's representatives on a daily basis.
Oddly, most people I've broached this topic with in the US favour the US system precisely because you can't get rid of a president/governor once they've been elected, except by the extreme measure of impeachment/recall (or assassination if you want to be really extreme). People here think that makes for stable government and that parliamentary democracies are inherently unstable.
Give me a hereditary monarch with extremely limited powers any day over an elected one with real power and no-one to answer to. Even if the chief executive is voted out after four years, they can do a lot of damage in the meantime.
-
Lea Barker, in reply to
Here is a link that works:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june11/shieldsbrooks_04-29.html -
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
I can see the argument there, but I'd rather do without a head of state who has to meet a religious qualification -- imposed by a foreign Parliament three hundred years ago -- that would not only be unjust but illegal to impose on our government.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Far better to have a parliamentary democracy in which ministers, including the prime minister, have to answer for their actions to the people's representatives on a daily basis.
That's not the opposite of a republic. Changing the nominal head of state doesn't have to mean going the US route. We could - and should - create something that reflects this nation's people and ways and histories.
-
Email Web
Anyone else think that Key going on about his 'greenstone suit' sounded like he was shilling for a client?
then there's this
-
Email Web
It's a fact that not only have all of Elisabeth Windsor's children's marriages ended in divorce
Uh, Edward and Sophie?
And Charles and Camilla.
Which is good role modeling stuff. I was able to explain to my daughter how life isn't a fairy tale. And that Prince Charles first marriage to the boys mother, lady Diana didn't work out, so they separated. And that this was the healthy and appropriate thing for all concerned.
-
Adzze, in reply to
To the kitsch I add this work of genius.
Bahaha - and I particularly enjoyed the ornate detailing.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Far better to have a parliamentary democracy in which ministers, including the prime minister, have to answer for their actions to the people's representatives on a daily basis.
We'd be a Parliamentary republic with a mostly ceremonial head of state, like Ireland is.
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
Email
There is no reason why an NZ republic should separate a powerful executive (president/governor and cabinet) from the legislature
In fact, only a minority of republics (such as the USA and France) do this.
Most republics have a titular president with limited powers, with the head of government being the parliamentary majority leader (Ireland, Germany, India, etc) or combine the roles of PM and head of state (South Africa).
-
Email Web
Lea, Russell's answered the question as I would have. The US republic is a particular arrangement and separates the legislature from the executive in a unique way. We'd not have to, or want to, follow their approach... which is federalist too. My preference for a republic is to simply replace the Governor General with a domestically appointed head of state with largely the same, ceremonial powers (I'll leave others to talk about the "reserve powers" if they so wish).
There is an issue of how they are appointed of course. Debate over this - appointed by all of parliament or by through a separate election - was partly what derailed the 1999 Australia referendum
-
I rarely agree with Nick Cohen but this time I'll go along with him:
When the 18th century English dissenter Richard Price, friend of Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, warned that fawning before royalty produced "idolatry as gross and stupid as that of the ancient heathens," he aptly titled his denunciation "A Discourse on the Love of Our Country."....
........The trouble with monarchy, however, is that, by definition, no one can stop the Prince from becoming King Charles III, because the British are not allowed to vote for their head of state. Charles Windsor constantly interferes in politics and promotes every variety of reactionary superstition and new-age quackery. He sounded like the leader of a messianic cult when he announced in a recent book, "I would be failing in my duty to future generations and to the Earth itself if I did not attempt to ... indicate possible ways we can heal the world." Yet whatever his personal failings, he will be King because he was born to the right mother.
-
I believe New Zealand’s future can only be as a republic.
….thereby nullifying the Treaty of Waitangi. Bridge burning equipment on standby.
As for NZ becoming a republic, Russell–try living in one for a decade and you’ll soon change your mind…..Give me a hereditary monarch with extremely limited powers any day over an elected one with real power and no-one to answer to. Even if the chief executive is voted out after four years, they can do a lot of damage in the meantime.
Ditto. That kiss(es) was a beautiful scene. I think social/ political investment in that moment benefits us as people and as a nation.
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
Email
I already explained why it did't affect the Treaty upthread at:
http://publicaddress.net/system/topic/3006/?p=211115#post211115Or see the Republican Movement's explanation here.
-
chris, in reply to
Make no mistake, it affects the Treaty Rich of Obsevationz. Currently the original signatory (the British) still have a stake in the agreement, removing them entirely will certainly alter the dynamic of the relationship between the parties.
Why would you fire your Guardian Angel?
-
Islander, in reply to
Email
I love the way you think you know better than other people here chris – and I’m saying that as patron of the (A)NZ Republican Movement.
Just go check out the Statute of Westminister eh?
Or, possibly, give some sites/references that might support your view?Especially the part that 'the British' still 'have a stake in the agreement'?
-
Email Web
Chris, becoming a republic doesn't necessarily disrupt any obligations under the Treaty, it might transfer them but the reality is that the UK offers no real contribution beyond access to higher courts... oh hang on...
-
chris, in reply to
I don’t think I know better than anyone here Islander. Perhaps I’m wrong, I simply worry that over 37% of New Zealanders want the treaty removed from New Zealand law, that if this number were to increase significantly, then the Governor General and the British system itself could be the last recourse of mediation in such an instance.
Perhaps it’s naive of me, but I see Britain as a last line of insurance against gross mismanagement of New Zealand for the price of minimal political interference. As evidenced rightly or wrongly in the case of David Bain.
is that the UK offers no real contribution beyond access to higher courts… oh hang on…
You’re speaking my language Paul.
Post your response…
You may also create an account or retrieve your password.