Posts by Marcelo Rodriguez Ferrere
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Nine to Noon is best when Lynn Freeman's hosting it, she's just more listenable than Kathryn Ryan for me.
I agree entirely - I hope Lynn Freeman moves onto a more regular weekday spot in the near future. Both she and Maggie Barry have a much better style than Kathryn - it's a treat on public holidays when they hold the fort.
-
Ah yes, but Sean Plunket is starting to regress a bit into his old 'Too Much Coffee Too Early In The Morning Man' persona, which is a shame.
Best Plunket moment, circa 2003:
SEAN: Mr Peters, please answer the question!
WINSTON: I've just about had enough of you, Plunket! Don't think I don't know things about you, Plunket. Nasty things. Don't think I won't tell...[cut-off]
SEAN: Looks like Mr Peter had to go...
Gold. Can't imagine Geoff or Todd Niall doing that. Bring on the espresso, I say.
-
Call me 23 going on 40, but I think RNZ National is the best thing since sliced bread. I rate the news as the best in any medium, and concur with Russell on the new shows such as 'This Way Up' and old favourites like 'Mediawatch' - they're really very good. I'd add 'At the Movies' at 1.00 p.m. on Sunday - sardonic, in a word.
I think Sunday Morning is still worth listening to - if only for the nice snippets from Dougal Stevenson (!) and 'Insight'. My only lament is the loss of Tom Frewen and Max Cryer for coverage of Parliament and etymology respectively.
Right - perhaps you'd better make that 23 going on 80...
-
Beat me to the count, there Philip! That'll teach me for trying to be clever with the hyperlinking.
-
Perhaps it's too early for this, but has anyone written a sustained account of what's been happening at the Listener under the most recent editor, and why? I mean, it's not just about cost-cutting, is it?
It's funny you say that. It feels like everyone talks about the standards of The Listener and slippage thereof, but noone has ever written about it. With one exception. The University of Otago's student magazine, Critic, recently featured a very good article on the issue. It's worth a read.
-
Mr Hood, you are a scholar and a gentleman. I'm off to Bar Edward right now - I had a hunch they'd stock some, but never in my wildest dreams did I think they'd stock the Stout! Even Eureka in Dunedin doesn't do that...
-
Pray tell, what are these places you speak of? Jolt that memory back into action! I would expect the Malthouse or Bar Edward has it, but I haven't checked
-
David, you're preaching to the choir!. Now, just set up your own pub that meets your five criteria and we'll be away laughing...
As an ex-Dunedin resident, I can confirm that Emerson's on tap is becoming more and more commonplace. Eureka, Inch Bar and Tonic on Princes Street all have a good range of Emerson's, as well as a once-a-week special where they use a traditional hand-pump to pour it. Of course, all three bars fail the five criteria - Eureka and Inch Bar for decor and Tonic for sports television.
Though I know it's not in keeping with the Southerly nature of the bloh, I have been searching for weeks to find somewhere in Wellington that pulls a halfway decent pint (e.g. something a little more innovative than Monteiths or Macs, both of are starting to bore me) and found it last night: Southern Cross on Abel Smith St has both Emerson's Pilsener and Bookbinder on tap.
-
Oarsome addition to OurTube, Russell! Phil Judd at his best... keep 'em coming!
-
For me the debate is: of those affected how big is the impact of those that fall into 1)?
The answer is simple: the impact will be neglible, but more importantly, it is deserved.
As both Harre and Conway pointed out, New Zealand has had steady and high economic growth in the last five years, yet many workers have yet to receive an adequate dividend from this growth.
They are not getting it because they are suddenly adding more value, so they must be getting it from someone else.
I guess I take issue with this assumption. Workers have added value in the past five years, and now they are getting their dues. Harre pointed out that businesses will never be benevolent to the extent of raising wages for workers (as deserved) themselves, so that is why the Government ought to step in.
So, businesses deserve to shoulder this burden: they owe it to their workers. If some businesses fall into categories 2 - 4, then as Harre pointed out, then they shouldn't be in business in the first place. Workers should be valued as much as other costs of production. Businesses would never skimp on electricity or rent or managers' salaries, so why should they be allowed to skimp on workers' wages?