Posts by Russell Brown
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Don't think it's been mentioned yet -- apologies if I'm wrong on that -- but last night's Sunday's Rankin segment is up on TVNZ.
Holy shit. I didn't realise it was quite that hardcore. Janet MacIntyre reads Rankin this statement from Margo McAuley's sister in Ireland:
"In relation to Ms Christine Rankin and Mr Kim Macintyre, my opinion will forever be marked with heartbreak and anger. Kim Macintyre was married to my sister Margo and they'd been together for approximately 10 years. At the time of Margo's tragic and totally unnecessary death, Mr Kim Macintyre and Ms Christine Rankin were in a relationship. Mr Macintyre and Ms Rankin had in fact met approximately two years previously. I cannot say how long the relationship had been going on. On the day prior to Margo's death, Mr Macintyre informed Margo that he was leaving her to be with Ms Christine Rankin."
Rankin then reads her own statement denying any affair, and declines to answer further questions, including one about twin suicide notes left for her and Kim. I actually felt sorry for her until she started blaming it all on a left-wing conspriracy.
-
As for Clark, I know that I've harped on this before, but I can't help feeling that her failure to fully employ Tim Barnett's talent shows something of her timidity in these matters.
Eh? She made Chris Carter Minister of Education, promoted Maryan Street to Cabinet after only two years in office, and employed Heather Simpson and Grant Robertson as her key advisers. I really don't think timidity over his sexual orientation can be blamed for Barnett's failure to progress further.
-
Oh, I don't think they're the same. But I do think that a lot of the time we see an over-simplified picture of the Left that doesn't include, say, the Labour voters of South Auckland or the West Coast or Sydenham, the socially-conservative Left. Hence my taking issue with Gio's comment, which is where I came in.
Oh, for sure. With Chris Trotter et al it all relates to the unbelievably tedious argument between class struggle and identity politics. But it is worth noting that predictions that South Auckland churchgoers would turn on labour over civil unions proved to be 100% wrong.
-
Much like the organisation Sharron Cole (who I think its fair to say you had no issues with) is now working for
Not really!
You slightly munged the link (I've fixed it now) so I went to the home page and searched for "divorce". The first result was this:
How can we make loving and moral sense of the gap between practice and current teaching? To what extent does it reflect a credibility gap? Does it necessarily follow that 'departure' implies 'disagreement'? How can we hold on to our ideals without giving the message that those who, for good reasons and in good conscience, may not be able to reach those ideals are second-rate Catholics? Is it really the case that so many 'good' Catholics have gone so badly awry? While it is possible that all such Catholics are morally wrong, is it not also possible that the current mismatch between official church teaching and the convictions and practices of many members points to some weakness in that teaching? Surely there is a requirement for us all, while accepting the basic assumptions upon which Catholic sexual ethics rests, to reexamine our interpretation of the God-given mystery that is human sexuality? And surely there is a responsibility for us to re-examine the current formulations of our understanding, not to mention the unhelpful ways in which we do and don't communicate it?
These questions affect all Catholics - cohabiting, single, married, divorced, heterosexual, homosexual, fertile, infertile, parents and grandparents. Surely we have the maturity to talk about such things? The current sexual crisis demands we do so for the sake of a truly human civilisation.
I don't think that seriously compares with the nasty and deceptive assault on non-standard families on the website of Rankin's old firm.
And neither does the article you did link to, introducing Coles:
There she helped build up relationships with a wide range of family-oriented entities. Being a keen family person herself with a loving, 34-year marriage with husband, Richard, and four adult children, she’s a strong believer in a happy and supportive marriage being a great place for children. But the key question for the Families Commission remains how best to support families where there are not two parents who love and support each other and are prepared to extend that love to the children with the appropriate boundaries and training in place.
Night and day, in fact.
-
I'd be very surprised if the National-Labour numbers weren't slightly skewed by the obstacle of 'crossing the floor' - a pressure which is present even on a conscience vote.
I think that's a bit charitable. The pressure stemmed more from National's developing links at the time with the Christian conservative network, which was strongly cultivated in the general election that followed.
The same pressure led to Brash's about-face on the civil union bills -- for which he was decent enough to express regret in his valedictory speech. (He also gracefully apologised for his notorious letter to the Dean of Christchurch Cathedral about Clark's attitude to religion and marriage: "While I didn't personally write the letter, I did sign it, and take full responsibility for it. Given all the circumstances, that was not one of my most brilliant letters.")
No one should hold their breath for Murray McCully to get an attack of ethics of course. It was McCully who targeted a youth safe-sex ad that briefly featured a same-sex couple:
And all manner of protections from discrimination against gays now exist in the law of the land. But this ad goes way further than that. Cynics suggest that its subliminal message is clearly that homosexuality is officially endorsed by the Government of the land (which has gone to the trouble of buying the ad) as one of the lifestyle options to be carefully considered by young people. Above all else, the ad will simply cause offence to many people. The ad is being pushed hardest on TV2, where the largest audience of young people is to be found.
The Sisterhood will no doubt defend the advertisement on the basis that it delivers a health message. But they could easily have done that without graphic depictions of sexual encounters of any kind. And they certainly did not need to spend taxpayers' cash rarking up the very un-gay folks at the worldwide headquarters.
The "graphic depiction" of a "sexual encounter" was the exchange of a brief smile and a kiss. I have no idea what McCully really thinks about homosexuality, but I assume he's still willing to try and make political capital out of it if the occasion demands.
My earliest encounters with Craig were of someone who was repeatedly lambasted for Voting National While Gay, as if someone's sexual orientation should entirely determine their political opinions, and not, say, your views on economics.
Amen to that. I was cheered by Pansy Wong's short-lived "Pansy's Pansies" for just that reason. It's a shame the idea was kind of shut down.
I dunno, maybe it's because Craig and I have both been inside parties and realised that, hey, sometimes you can fight really hard and still lose, and people are going to assume that you support all your party's policies, which is just never going to happen in a world where we don't all have our very own individual political parties.
I share your respect for Craig, big time. But I do think there has been a real-world gap between the parties on inclusiveness, which is where the conversation started.
(In a different vein, I really respect the fact that Grant Robertson is out and gay in a way that does not preclude him being obsessively knowledgeable about the history of Otago rugby.)
FWIW, I don't do political party stuff, but I made an exception and agreed to speak to a Rainbow Labour breakfast during the civil unions furore. I said: "The only good argument against civil unions is the argument for same-sex marriage," and I don't think anyone in the room disagreed.
I also said "So apparently it's not oppression if you're outnumbered," but you had to hear the rest of the joke to get why that was funny ...
-
I'ld like to add to my last that I do agree with Rankins critique of Catholicism
Yeah, but then a few months later, the organisation she headed flew in Theodore Daylrymple to hold forth on how the plebs shouldn't be allowed to divorce.
Even now, the information page of the trust's website consists largely of citations of cherry-picked studies on the "ugly" nature of "cohabiting" and single-parent families and the superiority of "two-genetic-parent" households.
The only influence on child welfare it canvasses is marital status. It is brutally excluding and it unabashedly demonises non-standard families.
And the person who was until very recently its CEO complained about being excluded as a divorcee?
It drives me nuts .
But I'll shut up now ...
-
I agree. If Rankin hadn't been so opinionated we'd probably all be saying she had lots of useful life experience to offer.
Indeed, perhaps we would. But in my view it went beyond "opinionated". The For the Sake of Our Children Trust rhetoric was so explicitly censurious, and at recently as last week, Rankin was still telling people whether they were proper families or not. It seriously annoys me.
-
Well, that I'm not impressed by the insinuation that I'm being a partisan hypocrite.
No, I meant what are you alleging about Helen Clark?
-
That will no doubt surprise many in Labour.
Heh.
-
FWIW, I can't see myself posting on it, but I think this is going into a tailspin. National MPs are running for cover (as evidenced by Simon Power's comments on Q+A) and the focus will go on Rankin's statement.
I'm actually feeling sorry for Paula Bennett. Tracey Watkins today on Bennett:
As some of her more senior colleagues rush to distance themselves from the appointment, she is copping some of the blame for apparently failing to brief them that there were issues in Ms Rankin's life that were likely to blow up if she joined the Families Commission. She failed the basic political test of keeping friends close and enemies closer, meanwhile; despite an early heads-up that UnitedFuture leader Peter Dunne was against Ms Rankin, she failed to keep him in the loop, which only stoked the row. He wasted no time wading into the appointment as divisive and controversial.
And Watkins' news story:
The Dominion Post has been contacted by friends of Margo McAuley, who were angered by Ms Rankin's appointment as a families commissioner. One said Ms McAuley had a wide circle of friends, who had until now chosen to treat the matter as private. But Ms Rankin's decision last week to publicly defend her appointment by claiming a passion for New Zealand families was "disrespectful".
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 1617 1618 1619 1620 1621 … 2279 Older→ First