Posts by Che Tibby
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hey you. Stop piddling on the lamppost! Yes, everyone is looking at you now! Yes you look like a dick! Thank you.
more like: MUAHAHAHAHAAHA.... tiny, <sigh> YouTube will love this one... fark! is this thing on! <crackle>
-
The average person can be caught on CCTV 300 times a day. An innovation about to be piloted in 20 areas is talking cameras, enabling anyone misbehaving to be told off by a loudspeaker.
i'll never be able to urinate in a public place again </stagefright>
-
I've been thinking about this: in this case, the medium and the community are the same thing
same. it's strange how the medium conveys a sense of closeness you normally only get in direct conversation. i also have this tendency to feel closer to bloggers i meet in the RW because we've shared thinking, or just outright argued.
that's the nature of the internet i guess. the familiarity it generates, and the ability of people like sophie to lift us out of the mire of at times meaningless conversation into the rarified air of genuine openness.
-
I just think we routinely expect our health professionals to win V.C's.
indeed. the key difference between finn and the friend 'greg' i refer to above is that greg got the right kind of help when he needed it most.
and there was more to that help than blind courage and good luck.
-
i got to know finn a little thru two means. we (along with Hadyn, another regular commenter here) did last years 48 hours together. his musical score was genius.
i later hit him up about writing music for some other projects (which never really got off the ground.)
strangely, and coincidentally in a wellington way, his partner and he came to view a flat i was moving out of last february. it wasn't until the 48 hours that we all realised we'd already met!
i took a shine to finn almost immediately because he reminded me so much of another character, the inspiration for this, which i consider my most humorous post to club politique.
"greg" and finn not only looked similar, time has revealled they have face exactly the same challenges.
and i think i'm just plain angry that a young man like finn can fall thru the cracks the way he has.
-
But Che, you're forgetting: Public Address is a hotbed of unemployed/unemployable leftists who wouldn't know a thing about creating jobs if it came along and bit them in the bum. With its large and non-metaphorical teeth. If I wanted to get a job from Real Productive People I'd obviously be hanging out on Kiwiblog...
goodbye finn, hardly knew you. wish it could have been otherwise.
-
@shep. afaik landcorp land was sequestered under the company during the privatisation days.
@kyle. i think we're talking in circles. but, because this is making me exercise parts of the brain i thought were dormant, here we go...
the language and airwaves one is difficult. i didn't agree with it until the reasoning was explained. it goes something like:
1. english is the majority langauge, and because you hear it every day in the media it reinforces it as the national language.
2. te reo is also a national language, but isn't heard every day, and is therefore at risk.
3. providing a media channel to allow te reo speakers and learners to hear (and therefore practise) their language is a 'good thing'.
4. this puts te reo on an equal footing to english.so you would argue there that providing the maori broadcasting channel (in this case a guaranteed maori radio spectrum) is not giving maori more rights, but ensuring that the right to speak your own language isn't assimilated away.
i always thought it was a difficult argument (and like i say, there's bound to be someone who understands and can state it better).
once again, it's not about a bigger share of the pie. it's about better enjoyment of something you should already have.
-
If that isn't given to them by article 3, and isn't a right of any non-Maori subject of the crown, then surely it must be 'more'?
yeah, i'm still not sure about "more".
if someone owns property, they have a right to unmolested enjoyment of that property. you could say that is "more" rights that you have, because they have something you don't. but it's not "more", it's just their rights.
so maori have rights to "their fisheries", "their forests". this doesn't take anything from you, it just recognises that they have.
again, rights aren't zero-sum. me having, for example, a right to free speech on my part doesn't mean you have less right to one. it's not a pie we're dividing up, it's this airey-fairey defence of what we each own.
-
we'd be better bringing a lawyer of some sort into this discussion, but i'm pretty sure than a offer and guarantee of enjoyment of the rights you already enjoy, and also the rights guaranteed as a subject of the crown doesn't mean "more rights than the current subjects of the crown".
article two only extends the right to continuing enjoyment of the rights in that article. article three offers the additional rights of a subject of the crown. they're quite distinct.
but a subject of the crown not enjoying the article two rights doesn't mean they have fewer rights. it just means that they can't remove the rights of maori to their language, property, treasures etc.
as an example. i have dual new zealand and australian citizenship. this means i can enjoy the rights of both jurisdictions. but if you don't have australian citizenship it doesn't mean you're worse off than me.
-
heh. i used to cycle from mt eden to auckland uni when i lived there.
there's nothing like a extremely tall, helmetless and skinny wannabe hippy in a swandri barrelling down rush-hour symonds street at 30km/hr to remind all the bus passengers of their own mortality.
had some mighty close calls around that time.
loved it.