Posts by DCBCauchi
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Occupy: Don't call it a protest, in reply to Matthew Poole,
Not sure how I feel about this.
Unsurprised? The Dunedin cops are hard-arses, dull but hard. I remember in the early 90s how they were after a student protest got violent. They got it violent. After they took the numbers off their uniforms before the charge.
Then they patrolled the town like they owned it for quite some time, jumping on anything and everything, no matter where you went or what you were doing. Only criterion was how you looked.
Dunedin. Back in the day, the underground events were timed for big rugby events. Rozzers too busy for harassment. And far too unimaginative. No doubt what attracted them to the job in the first place.
Soldiers, police, revolutionaries. Young, dumb, and full of come. Wind them up and point them in the right direction. That's how the generals think.
-
Cracker: On the trail, pt 1., in reply to Danielle,
Pondering my own inadequacies
Yeah well, we all do that! Much better done while relaxing with a pleasant view I reckon.
-
Cracker: On the trail, pt 1., in reply to George Darroch,
Meanwhile, the current mob are promising to halve benefits. I haven’t had time to catch which conditions they’re ascribing – no doubt aimed at some bunch who are seen to be morally degenerate – but given how little you have to survive on currently (the level National set things at and Labour maintained), it’s pretty sick.
I reckon that’s an election loser right there. Everyone knows someone who’ll be affected, and anyone who cares to can remember the rhetoric around ‘community mental health care’ and its effect on homeless numbers and petty (and even non-petty) crime.
And if you know someone who works for the Department of Social Warfare on the frontline, or has to deal with those who do, they will tell you all about it.
Then there’s the Nats’ competent handling of various crises, for the clear benefit of a certain group of people.
But that doesn’t answer the most important question: who should I vote for?
I reckon possibly the Radical Maori Party, if anyone. That’s the closest to representing me any political voice comes, but it’s not very close.
And I really, really don’t think anyone who wants to be a politician should be let anywhere near political power.
Where's my no confidence vote eh!?
-
Legal Beagle: Up to 11, in reply to 3410,
No. I didn’t say that none of the three quotes contain any usage of the past tense, but that all three comments are indicative, either explicitly or implicitly, of the present tense, specifically “Not this time” in the first, ” they’re no longer strong enough” in the third, and, in the second, the implicit “I have been a strong supporter [but no longer am].
This looks awfully to me like reading too much into too little.
Textual criticism, by which I mean deciding what is really meant from written words, is difficult. No-one seems to know how to do it any more. All they do is project their own biases instead.
I blame the educational system.
-
Cracker: On the trail, pt 1., in reply to Danielle,
(In all seriousness, if I couldn’t afford to travel much, I’d probably spend a lot of time catching up on every single great film of the twentieth century. Paddle about on some local beaches. Hang out with some peeps, both related and unrelated. Cook nice things. Try to remember how to read novels. You know, inexpensive bourgie behaviour.)
How do you spend your time now? Your spare time after paying bills and looking after children? (I'm guessing.)
-
Cracker: On the trail, pt 1., in reply to Sacha,
Or should I say, his handlers did.
I also caught Hekia Parata on the news, trying out methods to stop us worrying about broken gas lines and dangerously under-maintained infrastructure. Someone should demand a refund from her media trainer. A woeful performance I thought, particularly the clumsy grimaces that I think were meant to be wry grins.
Tsk tsk.
If you presented that as a performance at an art school crit, you’d be savaged. A lesson in what not to do.
To the pollies: Actions speak louder than words. You've destroyed any trust or respect you once might have had, through shameless cynical self-interest. People are watching, and they're sick of being served up bullshit. Really sick of it.
-
Cracker: On the trail, pt 1., in reply to linger,
… Or is this actually an unhelpful way to view all of NZ’s politicians?
It can be helpful to be unhelpful!
-
Cracker: On the trail, pt 1., in reply to Patrick Reynolds,
DCB yes and no. Pre this election campaign I’d agree, but by throwing Lab out we got them to listen, greens not only real opposition now: Assets/Tax/Youth/Transport/Afganistan/Pharmac./ACC/Aid/Telly … all big differences now
Yeah, but did we get Labour to listen? Or to tell better lies?
I'm reminded of worthy attempts to treat psychopaths with counselling. Instead of giving them empathy, it taught them how to fake empathy and become better psychopaths.
Fool me once, fool me twice. But fool me three times?
-
As for a grand coalition, the politicians certainly seem to be able to work together when it's a matter on voting on their own pay and benefits, or how transparent and accountable they should be.
The people they appoint to run our publicly funded organisations take their lead as to what acceptable accountability is likewise.
It will be interesting to see what the politicians demonstrate after the election. Who do they really represent?
As for the idea that a particular group of issues 'belongs' to a particular side, I watched a little bit of that so-called leader's so-called debate. It was very unedifying. Squabbling children. If they're the 'leaders' what must the rabble be like!?!
And where were the other political party leaders? Surely they had something relevant to contribute to that discussion we might have wanted to hear. My guess is that John and Phil acted as one in their refusal to participate if the 'minor' parties were included.
This is a very important election indeed. It tells us whether there is any hope for our political system at all – or whether it is irretrievably broken. The Westminster system.
-
Cracker: On the trail, pt 1., in reply to Patrick Reynolds,
DCB one has content the other only form…. [yes, as in criminal]
I do not agree at all. Both have a small amount of content and a whole lot of form. Slightly different compositions, but those differences are superficial. The structure is the same.
And we're talking graffiti, not murals.