Posts by Isaac Freeman
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
When I was living in Auckland I was fascinated by the cavalier attitude drivers had to opening car doors into traffic. Given how narrow many of the major roads are (compared with Christchurch) I'd have thought people would be more careful regardless of cyclists, lest their doors be swiped by passing cars. My theory is that people learn to subconsciously listen for approaching cars, and time their door-opening more carefully than they realise. Which doesn't work for relatively quiet bicycles.
On the other hand, Auckland drivers were – in my anecdotal experience –remarkably relaxed about sharing the lane when I demonstrated an intention to occupy it. This usually causes Christchurch drivers to tootle their horns with vigour. I figure Auckland drivers are trained to let people in by motorway driving. Christchurch drivers seem to be generally hazy about what a motorway even is.
Over the years I've got increasingly relaxed about occupying the lane while cycling whenever I judge that there's no room for anybody to safely pass me. I used Tamaki Drive only a couple of times during my time in Auckland, but at that bottleneck I'd make sure I was far enough out to be clear that passing me wasn't an option.
Which is not to blame the cyclist. Getting in the way of cars runs against our normal instincts for safety and politeness, and I understand perfectly why most people are reluctant to do it. But I've had many more unpleasant incidents on the road when I was too timid than when I was too bold.
-
My two girls, Hatstand and Tui.
Yes, Hatstand. No more late-night silly-names-for-the-new-kitten competitions for me.
-
I'd not seen it before. Beautiful work.
-
All fine here in Ilam. Power still on. Family reporting in and all fine so far.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
I’d actually argue that people of faith are the very people who should be most invested in Church (and synagogue and mosque and temple) and State keeping a wary but civil separation.
Yes, agreed. I'm comfortable with Labour's involvement in Interfaith as a party, but I'm unclear on how that would remain a good thing in government. Thus far, our main interaction has been via the Human Rights Commission, which seems a sensible arrangement to me.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
What the frig is “Inter-Faith Dialogue”?
We normally just call it "Interfaith", but I can see why people might like a noun. It is basically what it sounds like: people from different religions talking to each other. To what end is often the topic, but the overall objective is usually to demonstrate that people from different religions don't actually hate each other, so just talking can be an end in itself.
From a partisan perspective, I believe many in Labour are keen to strengthen ties with religious groups. There's a long history of engagement between churches and Labour, but the loudest voices at the moment are extremely conservative. So I'm sure Labour would like to promote progressive and liberal voices among the religious, and being involved in interfaith groups is a pretty good signifier.
Here in Christchurch, the local Interfaith Society was largely brought together by Rafaa Antoun, who worked on Tim Barnett's electorate staff. Tim gave us lots of help getting started. Nicky Wagner (National) and Kennedy Graham (Green) have also been very supportive.
What a Ministerial portfolio for Interfaith Dialogue would entail, I'm not so sure. One of the main achievements (backed heavily by the Labour government) thus far as been the 2007 <a href="http://www.hrc.co.nz/race-relations/te-ngira-the-nz-diversity-action-programme/statement-on-religious-diversity">Statement on Religious Diversity</a>. I would imagine one of the goals for further work might be to get Interfaith groups to the point where we can respond quickly in the media with reasonably authoritative statements on current events. We're fairly good at speaking out against religious intolerance, but I'm sure Labour would like us to comment on issues of poverty and equality too. Work in progress.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Russell Brown,
I’ve been briskly informed in this thread about what’s incumbent on me – not that I have any idea how I might go about much of it.
It's easy to say "someone should do X" as a vague idealised notion and forget that it can come across as a demand to the person who would actually have to do X.
For my part, Russell, I would very much like it if you could provide us all with unicorns to ride around on. I think this is a very strong proposal, and I can't see any reason not to just go ahead with it. There really is no downside.
I will name my unicorn Princess Glitterbelle.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Deborah,
On “Don’t be a dick about it”. I like your reframing of it, Russell, as “show good grace to each other”. The latter emphasises reciprocity, but the former doesn’t. The former is one group of people telling another group of people how to behave, and it comes from a position of power.
I've always though "Don't be a dick" is something you're supposed to tell yourself, with the implication that you're basically a decent person and can moderate your own speech. But "Show good grace" is a positive version.
Neither scales. The larger the group, the greater the chance you'll hit a situation where someone is deliberately trolling, is psychologically incapable of detecting that they're being a dick, or (as seems to have been the case here) came across as a dick to someone else by pure accident and with no ill intention. "Show good grace" is a good moral principle for everyone, but you can't legislate morality.
I suspect that thinking about the power to effect change, and the power to withstand government intervention, and the power to access government services (very broadly understood), might be a more useful way to analyse class structure in New Zealand
This seems to get to the heart of why "Left" is a controversial word. If it's defined by not having the power to effect change, then it would seem that the Labour Party can only be Left when they're in opposition. By definition, if they attain the power to effect change through legislation, they're no longer Left.
I'm not being facetious here (OK, not entirely) – I think for many people, the primary political instinct is only to subvert the dominant paradigm. It's all about power, and anyone who has power is automatically suspect. For others (and this is my own bias), power is politically neutral: it's what you do with it that matters.
I prefer the latter position: I think people are innocent until proven guilty, even if they have power. But I'll grant that this means I'll always be slower to recognise problems, and I can respect people who are more suspicious than I am.
I think that there is something that people here might turn their minds to over the next few weeks, and that is the extent to which PAS is a bit of a closed shop at times, and if you don’t hold the same views as the main grouping here, then it can be difficult.
I've been a frequent PA reader for many years. I went to a Great Blend once. I know a few people personally, and I'm not new to online forums. I've never been shy with my opinions, and as a thirty-something educated male hetero Pakeha I don't exactly struggle to have my views heard. Even so, I've seldom posted until the last couple of weeks, and might not have continued if someone hadn't foolishly told me my contribution was a good one (thanks Hebe).
My own reluctance to get involved didn't stem from a difference of political views, as mine aren't particularly unusual here. I think it was more that PAS seemed to have a bunch of people who are used to seeing politics from the inside, and I'm not there.
Eventually I twigged that I can contribute on matters of abstract principle. I can't tell you much of anything about how David Shearer differs from David Cunliffe, but I can opine about whether there's any such thing as Left or Right.That might not be everyone's way in. Perhaps there are other people out there who aren't so privileged and blindly confident as to barge into an existing thread, but would participate on more general questions like "what is Class?" or "are Greens Left?"
And yes, this comment has been self-censored. There’s a lot I’m not saying, because it won’t progress things at all, and it will only hurt people. However, one thing I must not self-censor is this: I do think that a fair amount of the opprobrium that was directed at Gio was unfair.
For my part, I haven't understood any of it. Perhaps it went past me, but I didn't notice anybody being particularly rude to anybody. I'd assumed there was some offline history I wasn't aware of, and which was probably none of my business.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to BenWilson,
Is it brave because I take personal risks that are just foolish on the internet, or because I fight quite hard against peer pressure and write about controversial things, risking to seem a fool in this forum? Or something else?
Mostly it's because of that one time you rode a motorcycle over a swimming pool full of electric eels to save a school of orphans from Godzilla. Don't think we've forgotten.
-
I've always thought that munted differs from broken not so much in the suddenness as in the pointlessness of repair. It's much like a write-off but with more emotional intensity.
