Posts by Eddie Clark
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Oh FFS, I/S.
I'm not being intellectually dishonest, unless pointing out a massive generalisation that you make is intellectual dishonesty. You said:
Which is what happens when you invite only rich business-owners to these sorts of things: complete obliviousness to how it looks from the other end.
ONLY. Not most. ONLY. You seem to object to the domination by business interests, and I to some extent agree with you there. But you stated, unambiguously, that there was a problem with having ONLY big business. Not most. You've shifted position, and that's fine, but don't call me intellectually dishonest to cover that up.
Also, you highlight one passage in that herald article, while ignoring the fact that 1/3 are from elsewhere. 1/3 isn't a majority, but it isn't insignificant. Also, there are a good number more people in a union that those who work for businesses.
Look, I love reading your blog, and my politics are broadly leftward. But the contemptuous tone you almost univerally use for anyone who owns a business (I don't) or who earns more than 20 bucks an hour (I do, by a fair bit) really, really grates sometimes. And I think it does blind you sometimes. (I feel similarly about Glenn Greenwald, as a mildly related point)
-
I/S:
Rich business-owners like (list from Beehive website):
Jeremy Baker
Industry Training FederationLen Brown
Manukau CityDr Rod Carr (SGL)
University of CanterburyAndrew Casidy
Finsec [Financial sector union]Leith Comer
Te Puni KōkiriPeter Conway (SGL)
New Zealand Council of Trade UnionsJohn Forbes
Opotiki District CouncilDave Eastlake
NZ Meat Workers UnionAndrew Little
EPMU [and newly elected Labour party president]Dr Ngatata Love
Wellington Tenths TrustThere are others, but I'll stop there. Sometimes your reflexive hatred of private enterprise blinds you.
-
-
...although I'm sure JK will publish an edited speech on beehive.govt.nz at some point in the very near future.
-
Blake - see discussion of Chatham House rule above - you're not allowed to attribute comments.
-
Re the Chatham House rule:
Graeme, you know very well that 'affiliation' in that context means what organisation the speaker is from. Or, at the very least, information that allows the person to be identified. Given that at least half of the participants are 'prominent right wingers' its not much of an identifying trait.
-
Almost, but not quite what you were looking for. Still, it is spectacularly awful. It'd go well with the decor in "Madison".
-
Excellent post, Emma.
Re the house. Two things stuck out to me.
1) Poo coloured marble bathroom? Excuse me??
2) How do big game hunter, italian renaissance, and especially the country distressed kitchen go together??? Was it designed by 4 different designers who never talked to each other?? -
Thanks, Megan. Sorry I missed the gig (I managed to go to the Paramount box office 3 times and find it closed each time).
-
I do not think people should be called rude cunts under any circumstances. Personal abuse, apart from anything else, usually indicates that one's case is not strong.
And/or indicates that it's a post from Craig Ranapia, who has a... unique sense of etiquette. (Said with tongue firmly in cheek, Craig)