Posts by Craig Ranapia
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
But theres just one little point that the Herald neglects to point out, and I cant help but think it might be at least one of, (if not the major) reason they are making such a song and dance...
A "spending cap" of any sort, on campaigners of any flavour will tend to act as an "income cap" for people who make hordings, pamphlets, and.... oh, Newspapers! What a coincidence!
FletcherB: Really? If you're going to run that line, then I guess it's fair to note that the sole daily newspaper in New Zealand's larges tmedia would do very well out of the mooted government department exemption. If this is motivated by financial self-interest, APN really sucks at it.
And, 'toms' (I assume you are the person who posts on Kiwiblog under that handle), you're another chap who really shouldn't doing the Miss Manners routine. Your constant claims of bad faith on the part of your opponents isn't only tiresome, but it's just the kind of wing-nuttery you love to affect some great disdain for while you indulge in it.
-
And in the interests of balance, I guess I should draw PAS readers' attention to this rather odd counterblast from Colin Espiner.
Some interesting stuff in there, but I don't think this drive-by was particularly helpful:
Um, right then. Readers of this Auckland newspaper know not to turn to this organ for balanced, unbiased coverage on this particular topic.
So, I guess the readers of a certain Christchurch newspaper (which just happens to be owned by a direct competitor of the proprietor of the Herald, FWIW) can expect its political editor to be a little less opinionated in his bloggage, commentary and analysis? Can we also expect The Press and its Fairfax stable mates to stop running editorials and op-ed columnists?
With all due respect, criticism and dialogue is a good and healthy thing. I just wonder if the Fairfax Group (both here and in Australia) really has the moral high ground when it comes to... well, editorially riding a moral high horse?
-
Ironically, the response to the Herald's poll on the question "Is New Zealand becoming a less free and democratic country?" -- linked to in a fit of overkill from the editorial and the news stories -- suggested that the public wasn't quite as frenzied as the editors. By late afternoon, about three quarters of the 7000-odd respondents to the poll were saying "No."
'The public'? Oh, you mean a self-selecting sample in a poll where it's possble to vote multiple times? (I know it's possible because I did it.) While I take your point, as far as it goes, perhaps the one you should be making is that these things are only useful for their entertainment value - and developing carpal tunnel if you're stupid enough to do otherwise - whether or not you find the outcomes ideologically congenial.
-
Thanks! I'm struck down with flu today...
cough...
-
And was I the only person who had a giggle at this item:
Police are putting TV3 under scrutiny over some of the information it has broadcast since last month's anti-terror raids.
A preliminary investigation has begun into whether the network has any documents relating to Operation Eight - the surveillance programme which culminated in the swoops in which 17 people were arrested.
Detectives want to know if any information TV3 has may be in breach of court suppression orders, or has been obtained illegally. A court order is preventing the channel revealing any of the information, and lawyer Peter Williams is also demanding the channel be forced to reveal its sources.
It follows TV3's claim it has received leaked information detailing some of the evidence police obtained through bugging and other surveillance on the camps in the Ureweras. The information is not admissible in court, now no charges are being laid under the Terrorism Suppression Act.
The head of the police inquiry, Detective Superintendent Andy Lovelock, says the investigation is just getting underway and he will not be making any comment.
Is anyone asking the obvious follow-up: Because it sure seems beyond credibility that Police haven't been (selectively) leaking like the proverbial sieve. I'm not running the infantile 'but Mummy, they did it first, everybody is doing it, so its OK' lline. Three quarters of the problem in this case is there's a lot of people pushing their own agendas, and very little hard fact in the public domain. But the problem with running a shadow culture of spin and counter-spin is that, sooner or later, what goes around comes around.
-
I presume it was a response to the showing of 'Out of the Blue' the night before.
Saw it on theatrical release, and it's no dis to anyone involved that I couldn't really face a second showing. However, the person who put together the horrible promos (I've seen trailers for torture pOrn like Saw that were more tasteful and understated) deserves to be taken out the bag and (figuratively) given a good slap.
-
If you read about Barrie, you discover that he had an absolute horror of a childhood
And that gets the prize for understatement of the week. Alison Lurie wrote a fascinating book called Don't Tell The Grown-Ups, which argued (pretty convincingly to my mind) that there's thick strain in classic kid-lit of seriously fucked up people sneaking in enormously subversive undertones under the sentimental uplift. Even Edith Nesbit's The Railway Children (a book I adore) is sad and more than a little desperate.
-
I laughed out loud when Ron Mark snarked that Keith Locke had supported the rise of the Khmer Rouge and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. It was completely irrelevant and completely relevant all at the same time.
To take a really low blow, perhaps I can snark that when Keith Locke entered Parliament his (to me repulsive) political views were an open book. Mr. Mark's form as (to be blunt) a convicted statutory rapist? (And please note the emphasis on statutory, folks.) Not so much...
-
WH:
I suggest you go to the library, and find a copy of Dame Rebecca West's The Meaning of Treason. I think she put it quite beautifully when she wrote these words:
Since the traitor's offense is that he conspires against the liberty of his fellow countrymen to choose their way of life, we ally ourselves with him if we try to circumvent him by imposing restrictions on the liberty of the individual, when all that is needed is the conscientious enforcement of the precautions commonly taken against theft. If we do not observe these precautions the cause may be lost because it was fought too hard. Our task is equivalent to walking on a tightrope over an abyss. But history proves that if a man has a talent, it is for tightrope walking.
I know this gets dismissed as wet pussy liberal bullshit, but perhaps it's also worth thinking about the notion that we're the beneficiaries of centuries of social, political and cultural evolution where people's fates are supposedly no longer decided by Star Chambers, feudal lords or homicidal mobs.
-
I found myself transliterating whole swards of Peter Pan as I read it trying to edit out the sexism and racism (which to be fair I didn't remember from my childhood)
Hum... try giving your kids a little credit, and if the book is such an offensive swamp of misogynistic racism why the hell are you reading it to them in the first place? The one thing that shocks me about Barrie - as opposed to the Disney-fied bowdlerizations that are more commonly available - is how infantile his work is, how 'growing up' is seen as little more than a living death; the 'real' world is, at best, indifferent and cruel or outright malicious.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 … 1235 Older→ First