Posts by Steve Parks
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I'm sure that's the gist of it, Graeme. But it ain't rational to react like that, and I suspect more people are reacting that way at the moment - thanks in part to 'The Mood', as Russell titled this column, and thanks in part to successful spin to the effect that everything Labour does is interfereing, nannying... bossy!
At my work a colleague actually explained her support of the truckers action with: "because enough is enough!" It just remained for someone to yell out: "won't somebody think of the children!!"
Good gravy, The Simpsons is on enough, isn't it? This is the stuff of cartoon satire.
-
This is going a-way back, but it’s such a good example of how a combination of ‘mood’ and spin are causing some to be more irrational than usual this election:
Kerry Weston wrote:
It doesn't mean everyone thinks trucks shouldn't pay their fair whack. it was the blind, bossy push to impose another tax right when everyone's feeling the pinch that ticked everyone off.
Hunh??
1 - What does everyone "feeling the pinch" have to do with expecting truckers to pay their fair share for road use? If, as you seem to agree, most people believe that truckies should pay their ‘fair whack’, why would they be more against moves to make that so now while times are though for them (that is, for the ‘everyone’ from whom the burden would be shifted)?
2 - “blind, bossy…” Well, I guess all taxes are bossy, in the sense that the government always imposes them; you don’t get much “here’s a tax - pay it if you feel like it,” legislation. But other than the fact that, as usual, the state will insist that tax be paid, I don’t see how this is an example of especial bossiness.
I’m even more baffled by “blind”. Sounds like a meaningless dig to me.
So what we’re left with is this ‘new’ tax - which isn’t even really a new tax - that’s not blind or bossy in any meaningful way, and is essentially fair even according to you (trucks should “pay their fair share”). Yet you and “everyone” somehow seem to have a problem with it?
-
no such provision exists to excuse the assault of anyone else
Well - there's also passengers on aircraft and on ships (whose pilots and masters are entitled to use reasonable force to maintain discipline).
And everyone in the country (because police officers are entitled to use reasonable force to effect an arrest).
etc.
Yet there are also other situations whereby an assault has technically taken place, and for which there is no special provision for a defence (as is the case with smacking now that section 59 has been repealed).
Yet society still functions just fine, with the sort of understanding of justice slarty was referring to, I guess.
Does the crimes act have a section allowing for the assaults that technically take place often in contact sports? Running at someone and tackling them to the ground is an assault, right?
-
Oh apologies, I didn't realise this blog was only for like minded liberals
Yeah, because Craig and Russell have been real like minded on this topic.
-
Bob
I think if John Key resigned at leader of the National Party, then the news that Bill English (deputy leader) would be in the running for leader should be non-news.
You don't think people should know that?
I guess we have a different idea about what should be reported.
I'm not going to argue some of the coverage yesterday was not overheated.
But that's nowhere near the same as saying Goff's comments should not have been reported, and reported prominently.
That's only partly because of their content. The significance was that someone with as many miles on the clock as Goff was saying them at all.By definition the comments were reported - they were made in an interview on Alt TV. But the comments themselves, in context, didn't come close to justifying the way the rest of the media covered (created, really) the story.
-
Russell
Nice point from Gordon Campbell on Scoop:
Whenever the media whines in future about politicians refusing to answer their questions, Phil Goff’s interview on Alt TV is a perfect example of what can happen when they do : a beat-up of monumental proportions, not even remotely supported by what was said.
Hey, I made that point first, right here on PA System! I bet Gordon just saw my post and ran with it.
-
Sofie
And I thought your new word was well thought out.Will look forward to adopting it if you don't mind?
Go for it. I'm all about the sharing.
-
Heh. I like my typo: "nedia". They can be needy for stories...
-
These things are as much a construction of the media themselves than of politics, a fact that journalists are duty-bound to ignore. Hence, Tracy Watkins intones this morning that the comments are "likely to spark damaging leadership speculation." But where? Oh, right: in the news media.
Too right. This fits in as yet another example of what I've been ranting about a bit here recently: The nedia effectively making up their stories - in politics, especially.
Also, is it any wonder that politicians are usually evasive (as John Key was this morning on Breakfast) when dealing with most of the MSM?
-
This may be the latest response to a topic (since the previous last post) so far on PA. But what the hey, here's the gist of what I wrote to Anjum/stargazer in relation to Obama's expedient response to rumours that he swore an oath on the Quran:
Anjum wrote: "you get the sense that he is a little ashamed of his past and would rather de-emphasise it."
I don't entirely agree, at least with the first part. He is in a difficult position. As a previous commentator on Stargazer suggests, it's possible the US just isn't ready for a black president. I was talking with some American acquaintances recently and they think he has no show of winning, because there are just too many 'middle Americans' whom could not abide a black leading their country. So I think he needs to be cut a little slack on this sort of thing. I don't think he's ashamed of his past, but he doesn't, during an election, want to emphasise aspects of his past and private life that may play into the hands of those that would focus on and overstate them for easy political gain.
I prefer his understandable "de-emphasis" to Hillary's rebranding herself a down home beer-swilling boar shooting hog-tying good ol' girl. I half expect her to start finishing her speeches with "Yee-Ha!"