Posts by Steve Parks
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
-
OnPoint: Transcription of new Rick Perry…, in reply to Lucy Stewart,
Very large majorities of Americans support raising taxes on the rich (along with The Economist, Fortune, and other well-known bastions of left-wing thinking.)
Can pretty much add Standard & Poors.
-
As Victoria University law lecturer Dean Knight said to News Talk ZB:
"We’ve got one of the two partners who have collaborated to create a shambles running around loudly now to say that they’re cleaning up the mess.”
Mr Knight suspects that any good faith that may have existed between the Government and the council will almost certainly have evaporated by Mr McCully’s move.
Brown seems to be doing his best to maintain the relationship. It would be interesting to hear what he and Sneddon would say about the Govt’s handling of the RWC if they could be completely candid.
Also, I’ve been harping on about this already, so one more time. McCully said when the story broke:
Some of my critics have been suggesting I should take responsibility, well I am. I am stepping in to a space that the Government has not previously occupied,” McCully said.
I think what his critics were asking for more was that he accept responsibility. Admit mistakes were made, including by him, and apologise.The way he announced this “take over” was the opposite.
Contrast with Len Brown, who was clear on Campbell Live that it was joint responsibility between government and council for both glory and gaffs.
Edit: "...share equal responsibility for the glory and the grief" was the exact quote.
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to Stephen Judd,
* if we must simplify politics to geometry, I prefer the two dimensions of economic and social rather than the single Left vs Right.
It is better, yes, but still flawed*. Economics is, of course, social.
Relatedly, I never quite understood the “conscience vote”, which, if allowed, is usually “moral” in nature. As if lowering taxes on the rich (or not) isn’t a moral issue.
* Edit: Not that it stopped me having a go…
-
Hard News: Angry and thrilled about Arie, in reply to bmk,
Another possible solution would be a ‘Go to first unread post’ that many other forums use.
bmk,
Agreed, would love that feature. Also, wrt the date/time thing, why not just have both on screen? There’s plenty of room beside the “a day ago” bit to add “at 8.54 pm 11 July” or whatever.
...digression ends.
-
Muse: That Book, The Ban That Isn't,…, in reply to bmk,
Indeed, I think there’s a good argument to say some library should buy it (because libraries are repositories).
Exactly. I remember being surprised when browsing my local library’s history section to find several David Irving books there. But then I thought a library should stock books like that which won’t be sold in regular book stores.
Yeah, I’ll be mighty disappointed if Wellington City Library doesn’t end up choosing to stock Wishart's lastest. It’ll be obvious that a decision not to stock it was the result of the very things the principles of the Library Information Association say not to take account of: “… information and resources should not be excluded because of the opinions expressed, who the author is, or on the grounds of political, social, moral or other views of the author”.
(Not that I have any interest in reading it myself.)
-
Muse: Emotion Pictures, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
…four and a half hour Mysteries of Lisbon sound like great fun.
Four and a half hours!
But yes, it does sound good. Will have to check that out.As for von Trier, I hated Dancer in the Dark, but I suppose I should give his films another shot. Melancholia seems like as good a film as any to try.
-
...Naipaul’s sadistic abuse of his first wife and various mistresses.
I hadn't heard of that until I read this at The Dim-Post.
Carnal pleasure meant violence — in fact it was inextricable from beating Margaret up, degrading her in bed, turning the great man’s penis into an object of worship.
Combine that with his myopic views on women writers, and it's clear Naipaul has serious issues with women.
-
Hard News: Bishop Brian: It's worse than…, in reply to Kyle Matthews,
Oh, so you're saying it was the 'time and place' at the meeting, if they were going to express disagreement? Then I agree, and misunderstood your earlier point. Metiria Turei's proposed approach is the one I would have respected.
But I doubt the MPs' reticence in the mainstream media was because they were worried about hypocrisy. They were worried about votes.
-
Hard News: Bishop Brian: It's worse than…, in reply to Kyle Matthews,
I can understand why they wouldn’t do that either. To me it would be rude to accept an invitation to a church or something else, speak one thing while there, and then walk outside and say another thing to the cameras.
Why would they be in that position? What “thing” would they have said to their hosts that would then be contradicted by stating (in this case) their position on homosexuality etc to Campbell Live or the stuff reporter?
Also, there is nothing rude about accepting an invite to something like this, and disagreeing with some of the positions your hosts hold. I’d say being completely obsequious is the rude behaviour – you’re patronising your hosts, not respecting them.