Posts by Craig Ranapia
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Honeymoons are supposed to involve sweet-talk, aren't they?
Perhaps, but let's hope he waits a decent interval before graduating to some of the other stuff newlywed are supposed to get up to. :)
-
Wow, so Mr. Slack is shocked and horrified that Mr. Key is a quick study at the "flowers pretty, kittens nice' school of political speech-making. OK, so what were we all expecting here? Seriously - the 2008 manifesto, a Mark Latham-like fit of psychotic candour about what a pack of arseholes the National caucus is, a fatuous non-apoligetic apology for the Punic Wars?
-
Kyle Matthews wrote:
Woah! I want some of the drugs that Craig is on. He put 'critical acuity' and 'mainstream media' in the same sentence!*sigh* Well, if you're a manic-depressive with high blood pressure and tediously regular migraines you may well be. (Some Swiss drug company is doing very well out of me, thanks.)
While I have my criticisms of the MSM I tend to credit them more to laziness, lack of resources and experience, or the simple possibility that the real problem with hack is that they're also human beings rather than co-option into some vast left- or right-wing conspiracy. In a perverse way, I wish I had the temperament to buy into the conspirasist view of politics, just as I wish my faith could setting into the comforting grip of religious fundamentalism. It must be so nice to be on the side of the righteous, with the rest of the word either infidels or heretics. Lack of certainty is such a bitch.
-
James Dolman wrote:
Do you also put your fingers in your ears and chant "na, na, na" when anyone mentions it?No, James, but I suspect you don't get the serious point behind Sudney Smith's tart witticism, "I never read a book before reviewing it; it prejudices a man so."
-
Don Christie wrote:
It does seem to me that a considerable segement of naysayers (with some honourable exceptions) were more concerned about giving Mallard and Clark a slap in the face than with what would be good for Auckland and NZ.Yes, Don, just as I think a 'considerable segment' of yay sayers were exactly the people who were screaming blue murder when previous right-dominated Auckland City councils were *ahem* playing fast and loose with the resource consent process for reasons they thought were "good for Auckland and NZ". FFS, I'm no cheerleader for the ARC - or the painfully petty bureaucrats who infest local bodies like maggots on a corpse - but how about granting the mere possibility that just because you don't agree with their decision, doesn't mean it wasn't a lawful and legitimate one made in good faith.
to paraphrase Dr. Cullen: They won, you lost, eat that.
And here's one more thing to consider: Every Aucklander on the electoral roll gets a chance to elect their representatives on the Auckland Regional Council. (That over half couldn't be bothered last time, is a whole other can of worms for another post). And by any reasonable measure, it's silly assert that the current membership of the ARC is dominated by frothing-right wingers obsessed with doing the dirty on Helengrad. The same cannot be said about the NZRFU Board, and unless I'm very much mistaken there was no public consultation or mandate sought about the bid for the 2011 RWC.
-
Russell Brown wrote:
Aw, c'mon Craig. It wasn't petulant, it was salient. There was endless reporting of the holes in the waterfront proposal and very little about the problem with Eden Park.Weill, not wanting to get into a furious comparison of column inches I guess the proposal you've been told to sign off on in two weeks or go get fucked is bound to get some attention. I just find it rather amusing to listen to some of the more OTT waterfront advocates who are now fiscal neo-conservatives. :)
And more:
I'm already noticing points where he bridges gaps with possibly unwarranted speculation, and I'm wondering how many lurid ways he'll find to describe economic liberalism - but it's still a fascinating and important story.And while I'm not going to comment on a book I haven't read (and won't for a long time, if at all), I look forward to any such "speculation" being critically tested and examined by the very media outlets who I think it's fair comment to say haven't done so this far. Being a muckraker with an agenda is one thing - and not a class without precedent or honour in the history of journalism - but let's see if the 'mainstream media' is going to treat Hager's work with the same critical acuity they'd apply to a politician.
-
Okay, no more waterfront stadium - so everyone can stop pretending there isn't a major problem with the Eden Park plan: it's nearly a quarter of a billion dollars shy of being paid for
As opposed to the waterfront stadium where nobody had a clue how far shy it was of being paid for and the MO boiled down to 'trust us, and we'll sort out the budget later'? Sorry, Russell, but let's leave the badly repressed petulence to Trevor Mallard.
-
Span wrote:
As Hagar uses credible sources, and a great deal of direct quotation, it is difficult to argue that Hagar's conclusions are not credible.LOL... I'd suggest you put on a pair of rubber gloves and flick through one of Ann Coulter's tomes one time - or if you're feeling particularly masochistic, read Deborah Lipstadt's patient demolition of David Irving's outright deceptive mis-use of 'credible sources' and 'direct quotation' in the service of Holocaust denial.
Now before the usual suspect start foaming, whatever I think of Hagar (and that's not much) I'm NOT putting him on the same level as David Irving. Just that there's no direct corelation between the number of quotation marks and citations ina text and whether the conclusions are credible, especially when (like Coulter) you've got a political barrow to push.
Span, I don't think you're someone who's ever been shy about expressing an opinion. Could you put your hand on your heart and say you never disagreed with any policy, disliked any of your colleagues, or found the leadership and strategic direction a distasteful compromise of what you considered fundamental principles? Because I wouldn't; and I don't think anyone in the Labour Party can either if they have the slightest grain of self-respect or intellectual honesty.
-
Daryl wrote:
I guess it's natural for National Party apologists to try and take the debate in this direction. What else can they do?And I guess it's natural you'd rather accuse me of arguing in bad faith, than actually engage with what I wrote. Sorry if the truth hurt, but you've admitted yourself there's something incredible about Hagar's own public statements about his sources - and my guess is that you don't want to ask the obvious questions, because it's politically inconvenient to do so. While it might not affect the accuracy or otherwise of the book, it certainly doesn't help Hagar's credibility if he's flat out lied about the source of these e-mails does it?
Fine, Daryl, but please don't accuse me of being a National Party sock puppet. I am actually capable of coming to my own opinions, and my low opinion of anonymous sourcing is well on the record. It's a basic matter of media (and academic) ethics that you source material and statements so readers can judge for themselves whether those sources are genuinely disinterested parties or perhaps prosecuting some hidden agenda of their own.
-
I think this is unlikely. I also doubt that the 'six principled conservatives' who Mr Hagar claims collaborated with him have or had any seniority in the party.
Well, Daryl, I even have my doubts the 'Tory Six' even exist, because muckrakers have never, every told porky pies about their sources have they? (Let's think about Andrew Morton's sin-sational bigraphy of Diana - where it turned out he flat out lied about the extent of her co-operation. And am I the only oerson who found a little of the gloss going off the Watergate legend, when Mark Feld 'outed' himself and his own rather tawdry history with the Hoover-era FBI, and his anger at being passed over by the Nixon Administration for director, came out?)
Of course, there's one obvious way to put me in my place: Hagar's sources come forward and explain exactly how they obtained these e-mails. If they did so lawfullyand lelgitimately, then surely there is no need to hide their identities? Why shouldn't the public be able to assress the agendas and motivattion of his sources - as well as their own integrity - for themselves?
And given the nature of the claims he makes in this book, wouldn't Hagar welcome a change to prove how open and free of hidden agendas he is?
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 … 1235 Older→ First