Posts by Rich Lock
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Poor Debs doesn't understand
I think you could probably have just stopped there.
I do feel (very slightly) bad when I mock the Conester, because it feels like giving a hefty kicking to a yappy puppy*. Also, my mother taught me not to mock the afflicted.
But she's more or less inviting it on herself with her latest column:
Freedom of speech is not really freedom if it means you can only say things which are tasteful and respectful and don't offend anyone. I think New Zealand just became a much more oppressive country after the Henry incident.
What Henry said might have been ill-considered, but it was a lesser evil than every citizen having to calibrate what they say to fit in with the prevailing ethos. Oh, I know we all do this to some extent - it is part of just rubbing along with other people.
Or, to precis - please feel free to tell me what you think of me to my face, no matter how insulting it is. Because otherwise, the communists have won.
*For the dog lovers out there, this isn't actually something I have any first-hand knowledge of, 'k?
-
I'd recommend you see Kick-Ass some time
I recommend it, too. but that's because it's one of the best films I've seen in a long time, and it made me laugh like a drain.
-
Oh yes. Especially when the ribs start creaking.....
-
Like some evil, neverending game of whack-a-twatcock, as soon as you smack one down, another pops back up somewhere else.
We need bigger hammers.
-
Now you have the Daily Telegraph in Britain declaring New Zealand at centre of another race row
Well, the Daily Telegraph can STFU and put it's own house in order before pointing the finger.
When I was over in the UK in July, they ran an unpleasant anti-gypsy story which they spun out over several days, including an editorial in support of the free speech of a man who thought it was perfectly acceptable to write to his local council asking for 'those dirty gyppo scum' to be moved off land near his house.
Now, defending free speech is one thing, but writing an editorial badly stating that he was a victim and that there was nothing wrong with what he said is quite another.
Can't find the article online, but the results of this google search are quite depressingly informative of The Telegraphs mentaility.
-
Keeping it "Indian":
I recently watched Chris Rock's documentary 'Good Hair'. While the whole thing was pretty jaw-dropping, the sequences on hair weaves were something else....
In short, lots of Indian Hindu women shave their heads as a sign of devotion, and the hair is then sold to the US to make hair weaves for black women, at around $4,000 a pop. From this article:
Human hair is India’s No. 1 export; thieves cut off the hair of unsuspecting women and sell it on the black market.
Dunno about 'no. 1 export', but still.
Anyhoo, as you were.
-
You think? Check out today's 'race row' story about the fair-haired, fair-skinned Miss IndiaNZ winner. Her father is Fijian-Indian, her mother is reported to be... a New Zealander.
If I were a betting man, I'd put money on the Herald being fed a patsy story by blondie's PR reps, who saw a golden (sorry) opportunity to get their client a nice big wedge of free exposure off the back of the Henry saga.
The Herald, having abdicated any sort of moral responsibility since ages ago, and also not actually wanting to do anything that might involve work, effort or thinking, was more than happy to swallow what was handed to them on a plate, and give the scandal of the week a new spin on the front page.
Who had heard of blondie before this? No-one.
And who knows about her now?
-
First they came for Russell, and I did not speak up because I don’t own an iPad . . .
Made me LOL.
And while we're talking about Red Ken:
He ran for mayor of London in 2000, and won, primarily because he was an 'up yours, tony' candidate (similar to the 'anyone but banks' vote here).
Despite supposedly being a baby-eating hardcore marxist, he was also pragmatic enough to appoint the very highly respected but politically opposite Robert R. Kiley, as his transport commissioner. From Wiki:
Kiley, who was given a $4m four-year contract was regarded as a strange bedfellow for "Red" Ken Livingstone - the former firebrand socialist elected London's first mayor in 2000. Indeed they themselves described their working relationship as "a CIA activist working for an unreconstructed Trotskyite". However, Livingstone's and Kiley's views on London transport have proved very similar. Both were vehemently opposed to the government's plans for public-private partnerships (PPP) in running of the tube. Kiley was sacked as chairman of London Regional Transport in July 2001 and repeated clashes with his boss, Transport Secretary Stephen Byers.
Remaining as Commissioner of Transport for London, he and Livingstone took the government to court in trying to prevent PPP. They failed and in January 2003 three separate private companies took control of maintaining various tube lines. In July 2003 powers for running the rest of the Tube network, including manning and maintaining the stations, was transferred to Transport for London and London Regional Transport became defunct. Kiley welcomed the opportunity to take greater control over the running over the tube but warned that he felt he would be hampered by PPP:
And what was the result of the PPP? From Wiki:
One of the key points of conflict between Livingstone and the Labour Party had been the proposed Public-Private Partnership (PPP) deal for the London Underground. Livingstone had run in 2000 on a policy of financing the improvements to Tube infrastructure by a public bond issue, which had been done in the case of the New York City Subway. However the Mayor did not have power in this area at the time as the Underground operated independently of Transport for London. The PPP deal went ahead against his wishes in July 2002, but it did not diminish Livingstone's desire to re-join Labour. Metronet, one of the winners of the contract for PPP, subsequently went into administration in July 2007. It was subsequently bailed out by the UK Government at a cost of £2 billion.
Now, for 10 points, can anyone point out to me the possible lessons for Auckland there?
-
Islander, I'm a bit bemused by the aggro vibes you're giving off.
I made an observation (and that's all it was), that I thought civil ceremonies would find it hard to gain traction against church ceremonies, because the church does ritual and ceremony better.
Several people, including you, noted that in New Zealand, the landscape and climate lend themselves vey well to outdoor ceremonies, and it's very easy to organise a good, classy epic civil ceremony. I think (and I thought I'd made clear) that that was something I'd overlooked, having a UK background, and I'm happy to stand corrected.
However, I noted (and still think) that in the UK, it's a different story, and for a variety of reasons, and it's actually very difficult to organise a good ritualistic civil ceremony. Not impossible, but certainly more difficult than here.
That's just an observation, coming from a reasonably informed background. I'm English. I grew up there, I spent 32 years of my life there. I know the landscape and the climate pretty well (including the Orkneys, btw), I know the people, and Iknow the bureaucratic institutions and their peculiarities.
So if I want to make frankly idiotic comments about my country, I will, mmmkay?
-
Islander, I was talking about the UK
Do you live permanantly under shelter?
Most people in the UK do, yes. Except during that 1/2 hr or so of sunshine which usually ocurrs sometime between the beginning of June and the end of August. When this happens everyone in the entire country goes a bit crazy and exposes far more flabby, luminous flesh than you really need to be thinking about right now. Before crawling back inot their burrows until the following year.