Posts by Craig Ranapia
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Well, your view is not an uncommon one, and MPs have themselves to blame for that in part. But how much of that perspective has been shaped by the fact that almost the only time Parliament is actually news is when bad clowns playact? Do you pay attention at any other time?
Well, that's a chicken and egg argument isn't it? I'm all for putting the boot into the Press Gallery, when a kicking is due but I also have some sympathy with the counter argument that they've got to work with what they've got, and there's a lot of "playacting" (and outright sleaze being peddled around the Gallery off the record) that will never see the light of day.
-
The result is that the television news cannot be relied upon to provide worthwhile coverage of what happens in Parliament
Well, Weston, with all due disrespect to the great and the good, I think I'm capable of deciding for myself what constitutes 'worthwhile coverage' of politics, and adjusting my viewing/reading accordingly. The only "reality" I'm seeing here is precious and thin-skinned politicians (and I'm not the first to point out the self-parody of Michael Cullen getting Miss Manners on anyone's arse), who don't like being laughed at. And to he honest, I'm more than a little creeped out my the patronising elitism on display from some media commentators (such as Phil Wallington, Finlay McDonald and Tom Frewen) who seem to think the peasants are really far too thick to make up their own minds about the quality, or otherwise, of what they see.
-
No, I am not without sympathy for our MPs. The New Zealand news media's coverage of Parliament is often superficial. A sleeping-MP gotcha will lead the news while important legislative events go unexplained.
Well, I'd only extend my sympathy up to a point, Lord Copper. If political coverage has become dumbed down (and I'd agree it has), then you've got ask whether politicians and their hired spin doctors aren't exactly unwilling victims. Sorry, but there were one or two small pieces of legislation that came into effect on Saturday. Breathless media coverage of a Labour Party rally more suited to the social pages than a serious news bulletin -- and which I doubt the media had to crash -- was exactly an intelligent or substantive hook.
-
Graeme:
If anyone is ever mad enough to hand me a ministerial warrant, you're my spin doctor. (I have one immortal soul, bit tatty around the edges but a renovator's dream.) :) As I said above, I think Maharey would have saved himself a lot of trouble if they'd written the policy before the press release, because the semantic two-step doesn't really seem to be working.
-
How do you view Nelson Mandela?
Well, in many ways an enormously admirable man. The ANC? More of curate's egg.
-
No no. As Maharey was at pains to point out all week - National was promising something about childcare. Labour was promising quality early child education. Not babysitters, but actual learning, etc.
No no no, Graeme. Perhaps someone could take pains to point out to Mr. Maharey that when you start throwing around the f-word, it helps if you're quite clear on the difference between something being heavily subsidised and free.
And, FYI, if you ever find yourself working in the childcare sector don't ever patronise the caregivers as glorified babysitters. There are more pleasant ways to get torn a new arsehole.
-
Don't all terrorists have at their core a legitimate grievence that history will eventually pove them right (if not rightous as we now celebrate the ANC)?
Michael: I'm not sure what you mean by that (unless you intended to write 'illegitimate conviction' instead of 'legitimate grievance'), but I suspect the short answer is no.
-
Didn't Labour promise 20 hours free healthcare?
20 hours free childcare a week, but if Steve is going to get all Clintonian about what the meaning of 'free' is then it would be graceless to quibble with you. And memo to John Key: This is why you write the policy (and figure out how it's going to work) before the campaign talking points. It all comes back to bite you in the arse sooner or later.
-
If you were aiming for the gay community you'd want to be bombing this.
Well, frankly if I was an Islamic fundamentalist I wouldn't really give a shit if I wiped out a load of sodomites, immodest whores flaunting themselves while jiggling to dance music to tempt men into sin, or infidels going to Meopause The Musical. The West End of London is a cesspool of depravity.
The problem is more that we have a generation that is much more fundamentalist and zealous than their parents or grandparents, who simply wanted a new life. There's been some interesting stuff written about this.
Indeed, Russell, and don't you think you've gone a long way to answering your own question? Ten years ago, Hanif Kureishi wrote the screenplay (based on his own short story) to lMy Son, The Fanatic, which could do with a (wide) re-release.
Despire their seemingly irreconcilable opposition, father and son Parvez (Om Puri) and Farid (Akbar Kurtha) have more in common than otherwise. Both are uncomfortable with their native cultures (Pakistani in Parvez's case, British in Farid's), both are swayed by the malign influence of foreign father-figures (the sleazy German businessman Schitz; the Islamic holy man whom Farid invites into the family home), and both seek solace in a form of spiritual communion - in Parvez's case, his worship of the prostitute Bettina (Rachel Griffiths) from afar, his much-vaunted "respect for women" preventing him from making the first move.
But where they differ is their attitude towards integrating with their surroundings. Here, Kureishi inverts the usual stereotype by presenting father Parvez as the liberal (though he retains traditional views on children respecting their parents) while Farid seeks to cleanse the town of immorality. His stated reason for turning to religion is out of his disgust at the way modern life derives from "empty accountancy", whether expressed through consumerism or prostitution (Schitz has interests in both professions), and although the film is largely seen through Parvez's increasingly bewildered eyes, Kureishi ensures that Farid's position is given a fair hearing.
Ultimately, both Parvez and Farid are clinging on to imaginary utopias. Parvez has a vision of a tolerant Britain which is undermined by experience (most directly by the club comedian singling him out for racist abuse), while Farid similarly dreams of an equally imaginary Pakistan, where pure Islamic values hold sway. Their inability to reconcile their ideas both with each other and with the outside world (and with wife/mother Minoo, unwillingly trapped between the warring pair) gives the film an authentically tragic edge. Like director Udayan Prasad's earlier Brothers In Trouble (1995), the ending is tantalisingly open - but unlike that film, there's little sign that it's especially upbeat.
And that's ultimately the appeal of any fundamentalist ideology, isn't it -- be it religious, political, cultural or some toxic cocktail of all the above? When the world is a big, frightful place - thinking and feeling is not only scary, it often feels utterly impotent. Better to let someone else do you thinking for you, especially when they're telling you exactly who to blame for everything that's wrong in your life.
Of course, fundamentalism is much more attractive when (ironically enough) you've never had to live with the reality of your utopia. And then, from the other end, it's fair comment to ask just how open and tolerance can an open society be of people who want nothing less than it's utter destruction? Don't know if I've got a soundbite for that either, but I think it's an argument Gordon Brown (and everyone else) better start taking seriously.
-
dc_red wrote:
Err, yes, I think it would actually. However, the question of how NZers would react, generally, to these sorts of events is a relatively open one.
Well, I guess you're right - after all, back in 1985 the DGSE planted bombs on a boat in Auckland Harbour timed to go off in the middle of the night, not a CBD office building at the morning rush hour. Only one man was killed, so I guess that would fit any definition of trivial and relatively unsucessful.
Generally, that's the extent of state-sponsored terrorism in this country in my lifetime.
Having said that, dc_red, I suggest you have a listen to my post-ANZAC Day PA Radio piece on the despicable treatment of Professor George von Zedlitz and other New Zealanders of German descent during the First World War.
All I'm saying is that before we get our smug on with too much gay abandon, it might help if we were 1) just clear that we've never had anything even remotely in the vicinity of the WTC attacks or the railway bombing happen here, and, 2) New Zealand is very far from inhospitable ground for war fever.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 … 1235 Older→ First