Posts by Steve Parks
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I was referring to the way one comment by Marie Davis's mother was reported, and linking it to the 'Suicide Girls' beat-up. You're right, she wasn't screaming about it at all, but it became a banner headline. That's what disturbs me.
Fair enough. I agree with that.
-
Oops.
And she was exactly screeming about it...
Should read: "And she wasn't...
-
On the subject of violence, and people's perceptions of it over time, here's a good talk from Steven Pinker.
See, things aren't so bad. Science says.
-
I'd rather that than watch the bereaved screaming for someone, anyone to blame.
God can cop this one, given there doesn't seem to be any conceivable way to blame it on Bebo.Emma, I may be misunderstanding you, as there isn’t much context to judge your comment, and if so I apologise in advance. But that does sound a bit insensitive. You’re referring to Marie Davis’ mother’s concerns over Bebo? Well, shit, she’s just lost her daughter (who, at the time of the comments, was missing with foul play the likely reason). And she was exactly screeming about it (from what I read, which was not exhaustive). Her concerns aren’t totally silly; surely it’s fair enough to worry that some young people – especially young girls – can be a it blase about the amount of personal information they put on these sort of sites, isn’t it?
But I don't think we should take much notice. If a tragedy like that happens to you, it'll colour your views and remove any chance of a rational response. If my family were eaten by tigers escaping from a zoo, I'd want all dangerous wild animals banned.
Are Steve Irwin’s family anti-stingrays now? Anyway, I don’t entirely agree. One of the things we should (rationally) consider when assessing how to punish violent offenders is how their actions affect the victims and their family/friends. I certainly think the victims of crime should have a say in the way society deals with crime.
I'd go completely the opposite way to the SST by making jail sentences open only to violent crime and the most heinous dishonesty.
I broadly agree with you there, though.
-
I was at an Equity meeting where Miranda Harcourt made a speech while breastfeeding her new baby. Would've been rude not to stare.
Dan,
I thought you were joining Al Qaeda? Staring at breasts will be out for you, buddy. Hard to breast feed in a Burqa.
-
I don’t see the point of the legislation.
Neither can I except in so far as it explicitly removes a right, which is slightly more far reaching than 'contracting out of the right'. I guess it's aimed at workplaces which haven't yet bothered with a code of conduct, so their right to spy is ambiguous. Now it isn't.Yeah, you’re right. It’s really dodgy legislation, the more I think of it.
-
Sometimes diddums does actually neatly convey the point. It's sneering, sure. Which is all some bleating sooky points deserve.
Well, sorry Ben but I won't be saying "diddums" if infantile crap like this is going to be on the agenda at the National Party conference in a few months,Did these people not realise there were cameras there? Most of the stuff people are criticising Labour for, including the purported "interfering in people's lives", hasn't bothered me much. But this would almost make me vote for someone else.
I want to vote for the party with the best policies, I really do. And I'm a bit of a nerd myself sometimes, I really am. But holy crap, can I vote for these dorks...?
-
Long post warning, so much to comment on!
Tom said: a lesbo-anarcho-pinko-brown evil alliance governing the land!!
Even just to be able to tell overseas visitors that NZ is run by a lesbo-anarcho-pinko-brown evil alliance would justify voting left. Awesome.
Simon: Paul W - it's a story because the media say so. Last night on TV3 Duncan Garner said that National were - in his own words - "quite rightly" attacking Labour on this. If that's professional journalism, I'm a kakapo.Paul: Audrey Young's disclosure that it was notes from a workshop, not notes distributed at a workshop totally changes the nature of her story.
Amen. As I said on Poneke’s blog, there seems to be an increasing occurrence of stories the media are basically just making up. The situation is similar to the O’Sullivan “FTA/’bullshit’” story. It starts out seeming like a legit story, then once the step-backs and clarifications are in, the objective reader is left wondering why this was a major lead story, or a story at all. But the damage is done.
Ben: <threadjack>Was anyone else who has worked in Australia scratching their heads about this?
Putting aside the dubious link between the "new" right to spy on employee's email and security against hacking, I do have to wonder if this right is nothing more than formalization of the existing situation anyway.Seems to be a formalisation of the situation that exists - at least in NZ. Was I reading the article right? Employers can “spy” on employees who use their computer systems to send emails etc. So? What’s the issue?
My employer does that (if they want). It’s all above board – employees are well aware that the employer can do so. It’s agreed (in the contract or Code of Conduct, I think, I’ll have to check) by the employee. The employer is under no obligation so provide Internet access to us, but they do. So at work, I’m able to surf the net at lunchtime from my work computer, if I want. I can check my Hotmail emails or post here, for example. I do so knowing “they” just might be watching. I conduct myself accordingly. No biggie. I don’t see the point of the legislation.
Danielle: (I don't know how to embed, because I am lame)
I’m lamest; I don’t really know what “embedding” means. It’s all just cut & paste to me.
-
I'd take a close look at the byline on the original _Herald__story. Both Fran O'Sullivan and Audrey Young have taken what we shall politely call 'severe exception' to being accused of making shit up by politicians in the past. We shall see whether they cast any light on precisely what "context" Goff was getting shitty.
Sure, and I’m not sure whether to believe Goff’s explanation, but the distinction he’s making is in itself not just semantics. If his version (essentially that he spoke rudely of FTA criticism in general) is true, this is specious journalism. Where’s the news here? “Goff Gaff: Trade Minister reveals he disagrees with critics of FTA”. No, wait... we knew that already. Maybe: “Goff Shock: Minister occasionally swears in informal situations”.
If the Herald wants to stand by its claim that Goff's criticism was directed at Peters, then they have a story. But I followed your link and, reading between the disclaimers, it doesn’t seem so.
-
Meanwhile, Goff seems to be developing a rather bad case of sematic split ends of his own:
Trade Negotiations Minister Phil Goff has denied reports he said it was "bullshit" that Foreign Minister Winston Peters could criticise the Government's free trade agreement with China.
A spokesperson for Mr Goff said he had branded criticism of the China free trade deal as "bullshit", but his comments were not directed at New Zealand First leader Winston Peters.Huh? How's that "semantics", Craig?
Based even on what you wrote here, Goff’s making a perfectly reasonable distinction. From reading the Stuff article earlier today I got the impression (backed up by the first paragraph above) that they were saying Goff had said Winston should not have been able to criticise the Govt on this. From memory, that’s how the article portrayed it; Goff was purportedly saying the arrangement whereby Winston could criticise such a deal was bullshit. Whereas it appears Goff simply made a general statement that critics of the FTA were wrong. Those are two distinct things – it’s not just semantics.