Posts by st ephen
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
At a street market in Sydney I picked up a copy of Discovering New Zealand (1970, McGraw-Hill), where I discovered that
"In some ways they find it difficult to adapt themselves to accepted patterns of behaviour".No, they weren't talking about rugby league players...
-
...presumably people will be equally intimidated by gatherings of people wearing colours.
Apparently people are intimidated by teenagers in malls wearing hoodies. Or by teenagers full stop.
I remember moving to a North Island town where I lived and worked near the local Mob house. It was plenty intimidating the first time I had them queuing up behind me in the dairy. But I figured that nobody who (a) queues, and (b) buys iceblocks for their kids on a hot day can be all bad, so I started acknowledging them with the universal "eyebrow flash" greeting when our paths crossed. Quite empowering for a skinny white kid, although of course that was in the mellower pre-P days...
-
"Her fellow contestants have made the most offensive othering comments about her."
Maybe not all?
"I just feel sorry for Caster. It's the responsibility of South Africa and the IAAF and I think it is a situation that probably could have been avoided. At the ceremony, I was happy to congratulate her and give her a hug." Jenny Meadows, UK. -
Who exactly said that Green's bedside manner was uncommonly good? How many women he treated said that, was the data anonymised, and what was the statistical validity?
Yeah OK. It was mentioned by Bryder in the Kim Hill interview, but I don't think you'll find the data you're looking for in her book. I'm sure he could be as patronising as any man of his generation, and apparently a proportion of his patients didn't have a problem with this and were happy to come forward in support.
-
It seems pretty clear what happened, it’s just that – like the MSM – we prefer to see things in black and white.
The feminists got into government and set about remedying centuries of appalling behaviour towards women (in particular) by the medical profession. Hilary is right in that the details of the particular 'test case' (there was no ‘experiment’, Green’s bedside manner was uncommonly good by the standards of the day, the approach taken wasn’t out of step with the rest of the world etc) are hardly important. There was a greater good at stake, and as Danielle said, the Establishment never rolls over without somebody pushing hard. Harsh for Green and his family, but we’re all benefiting now (even if we could arguably be benefiting even more had it not been for all the misinformation).No surprise then that someone like Kim Hill would be a bit defensive. And no surprise that revisionists on either side of the political spectrum seek to pick open these scabs whenever they occur, while the other side is determined to keep them covered up until society has internalised the issue and moved on.
-
I've often wondered why it is that when celebs or newly rich do-gooders decide to pump a bit of their money into a charity, they invariably set up their own from scratch. I thought it was just an ego thing, but the revelation that you can keep 80% of the money collected from dopey punters as "operating expenses" suggests that they just know a good business deal when they see one.
-
Paul is self-conscious; John is self-indulgent
Cue Sir Paul:
"Hang on! It were me that turned John onto self-indulgence in the first place!" -
Who put the Rat in Chris Rattue?
Stephen Jones. The theory is that if you repeat the same one-note hyperbole for long enough you'll become some sort of Rugby Guru, reaping the windfall of syndicated columns and after-dinner speaking engagements.
The reality is that Jones had some sort of talent to begin with. -
Don't make me get out the Italian stereotype bingo card, 'kay?
How could you, what with your arms waving around like that and all...
-
The latest Listener (yeah, yeah, I know - their Letters to the Editor read like Kiwiblog comments these days) features several case studies where the provocation defense was successfully used. Looks like a lottery (although as Craig points out, you can tilt the odds by careful victim selection).
Juries don't care much about case law and the legal niceties of the provocation defense. This is presumably the point of using lay people, as homophobic as they may be. But don't feel safe if you're straight - plenty of people have a chip on their shoulders about people with "paper qualifications" and would readily classify many of the posters to this site alongside Weatherstone as insufferably arrogant arseholes.