Posts by Craig Ranapia
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Up Front: It's Complicated, in reply to Lucy Stewart,
The one thing we could agree on, sort of, was that American media often uses the age of consent - always 18 on TV, despite its variance between states - in a creepy way, creating a fantasy of illegal sex.
And, frankly, as far as Glee is concerned I'd put that a fair way down the list of sex and sexuality-related issues Ryan Murphy should be dealing with in therapy rather than on television.
-
Hard News: A Golden Age for the Arts?, in reply to Keir Leslie,
Keir:
As I said, please feel free to disagree with Hamish. He's not always right (who is?), and when he gets it wrong he doesn't fart about, but it was not only unbecoming, but downright foolhardy, for Claire Curran to be quite that patronizing. And the guy's been pretty consistent with his disdain for government attitudes towards the arts since Holyoake was in short pants, so I'm not sure the charges of self-serving hypocrisy are just.
And it's truly grand Labour is working on a platform. I just hope this time next year, I'm going to be chewing over some policy that's a little lighter on the sounds and sweet airs that will be actioned in the fullness of time when fiscal conditions permit and contain a few more hard, fully-costed commitments they can be held to.
Or put another way: I'm not going to give Grant any passes I'm long done extending to Finlayson.
-
Hard News: A Golden Age for the Arts?, in reply to Russell Brown,
Here’s the Finlayson Twitter account if people want to catch up. To be honest, it doesn’t help his case at all
Not at all. Then again, I could really have done without Claire Curran wagging her finger at Hamish Keith – who, agree with him or not, does actually know his arse from him elbow and has been around long enough that this is a dangerous subject to condescend on. Yeah, I expect Oppositions to oppose but, frankly, Labour’s art policy last go around was long on platitudinous waffle and short on substance. I expect a bit more at this point from a Government-in-waiting that another spokesman holding a listening tour so folks can say it all one more time.
-
Notes & Queries: In The Face of Global…, in reply to Kumara Republic,
The White House did get trashed in the movies pre-9/11 – but by aliens rather than terrorists.
True - and one piece of really loaded (but successful) 9/11 related imagery was the final shot of season one of Fringe, where Olivia "crosses over" to an alternate Earth for the first time...
-
Notes & Queries: In The Face of Global…, in reply to Lilith __,
Personally I find the WTC Halloween-costumes shocking, but isn’t that the whole point of Halloween?
Sure - but I'd still like to know what genius at New Line signed off on the license for Kids-sized Freddy Kruger costumes. Didn't anyone stop and ask themselves "Kids dressing up as a fictional child-molesting serial killer. Just a teeny-tad on the tasteless side, perchance"?
-
Notes & Queries: In The Face of Global…, in reply to Bart Janssen,
Can you, or should you, try and maintain the ongoing sense of horror?
Good question. I think we’ve reached the spoiler statute of limitations on Star Trek Into Darkness but erring on the side of caution… I suspect the opening sequence that climaxes with a suicide bombing in the middle of 23rd century London would have been sent back with “are you people high?” rewrite order even five years ago. And I don’t think I’m the only person whose eyebrows went up in a Spock-ian manner at the sight of not one but two movies released in recent months where terrorists lay waste to the White House and environs. Ten years ago, that would have been considered unthinkably tasteless.
-
Golly. I'll never eat cake, or Lego bricks, again.
-
Hard News: SpinCity, in reply to Kumara Republic,
Mai Chen subsequently called bullshit on the liability clause, saying compensation can only happen with 75% Parliamentary entrenchment.
And she may be right, but I wish National Radio would find a "constitutional expert" whose name isn't above the door of a firm of lawyers with a long roster of public sector clients and a sideline in "government relations" (i.e. lobbying).
-
Legal Beagle: $420,259.33, in reply to Rob Stowell,
And that, presumably, is somewhat at the heart of the non-prosecution: it’s been lax- and now, whoever gets charged first will scream blue murder about prosecutorial ‘discretion’ and partisanship.
Reality check: That would have happened anyway if National and Labour had found themselves in court after an already close and bitter general election, but at least they would have been required to answer for themselves in an open court. It would certainly have been more in the public interest than some of the *cough* injudicious and sometimes downright defamatory conspiracy theories going round from all sides.
-
Legal Beagle: $420,259.33, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
The "donor" in question had finished his innings. Dead people aren't usually scared of a lot, really.
And it doesn't strike me as particularly sinister that someone who, I understand, has been a Labour Party supporter and donor for decades might leave 'em some dosh in his will. Which makes it all the more difficult to understand why they didn't just err on the side of caution, put in a call to the Electoral Commission and prepare a return with it classed as a donation just in case. Whether it was turned out to be legal or not, why the hell risk the trouble?
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 133 134 135 136 137 … 1235 Older→ First