Posts by Sam F
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Don't know about you, but I've been hearing "aspirational" and "politics" squishing up together for a long time.
No, it probably is my limited memories of politics showing through. Red face on this end :/
-
Looking at it now I worded my post poorly. I doubt the phrase was actually taken from that article - what I meant was that it was a stock description of John Key's politics used by John Key himself, and thus it was a bit jarring to see such similar wording in the editorial.
-
I don't quite follow. Unless you mean phrases from Shakespeare's works that have become stock phrases over the centuries. Am I missing something?
-
Actually having had the time to think about this properly, what I should have said is:
Given the stuff that a 14-year-old can just walk into a theatre and watch these days, how can McCroskie expect us to move towards his family-friendly utopia if we can't actually monitor kids' reactions? It's a bit rich of him to talk about scientific method in this respect. I think he'd just prefer an R18 for all non-Christian films, allowing movies like Mel Gibson's Jesus snuff to spread the gospel uninhibited.
-
"Munter" is great. But what happened to "dag"?
-
It was chocker with twaddle like "The politics of envy have been replaced by the politics of aspiration".
This caught my eye too - although in itself needn't necessarily refer to the new government (it could simply be referring to a growing culture of enterprise over many years), it's lifted directly from Key's own words during the campaign:
"So, what do you say when you hear Michael Cullen call this place a trophy home?" I ask.
"Michael Cullen spends too much time on the politics of envy and not enough on the politics of aspiration," he replies. So there.
The authorship of the editorial is almost beside the point. Surely they can't have serendipitously chanced upon exactly the same words? Regardless of the virtues of the new government it just seems kind of icky to me.
-
it was time to simply look at it in terms of overall human diversity
An excellent idea...
Seconded. With specific reference to physical disability, can one talk of a mobility spectrum? If there is one, all of us occupy varying points on it at various times during our lives, and it might thus be a useful way to realise that these are issues for society as a whole, not just those who society/the media might easily identify as "the disabled".
Hope I am making a little bit of sense - just thinking out loud as it were.
-
McCroskie is a numbskull. That is all.
-
Rofflenui / Roflnui
Excuse my jumping in, but I prefer the first. "Roflnui" sounds a bit too clipped - "rofflenui" sounds somehow meatier, like a laugh you could really wrap your mouth around. It's only two extra letters after all.
Enough said, what does Keri think?
-
I guess part of the point is that the flash doesn't harm the shot of something that it fails to illuminate, but it might illuminate close things a whole lot better...so why not?
Problem being that any camera with a light meter sort of takes the average of the pretty faraway stuff and the blazing bright nearby stuff, and thus the view is wrecked.