Posts by chris
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Up Front: Stand for... Something, in reply to ,
Personally I don’t think the flag needs to be changed at this time, but if I’d staked my reputation on campaigning change for change’s sake and was prepared to offer a selection of marked departures that’s an area I’d pursue, all by the by though, I’m more mystified that these options don’t have the same dimensions. I’m interested in your opinion, what’s important to flag design?
-
Up Front: Stand for... Something, in reply to Alfie,
I’m underwhelmed.
I naively assumed they would keep at least one Gordon Walter’s inspired option, or anything at all for those who might wish to vote for something recognizably referencing New Zealand’s rich visual arts tradition.
-
$26,000,000.00
-
Up Front: Stand for... Something, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
I think Rich McCaw put it best himself:
"Someone said to me, and probably quite right, you end up going from most people enjoying what you do to probably half the country. So you cut your supporters in half. That’s probably not a good idea."
…. Probably not.
-
a certain portion of his audience in NZ
There would have been some but that’s a fairly select grouping Steve. I imagine it would not include those who had already bought into the PM’s line on Hager as “left wing conspiracy theorist” following the release of Dirty Politics – a work that sold all of 10,000 copies plus an additional 1000 e-book sales. It would likely also have bypassed many of Hosking’s monkey withholders. It was never going to be pretty, whether he was one of “Dotcom’s henchmen” or just another “left wing conspiracy theorist” he’d have still left the country covered in the kill machine’s muck or possibly never have arrived – the revelations would have garnered a few headlines in the locals before being drenched with tommy-k. At the end of the day, given the implications of the revelations, personalities aside, as little more than the messenger, Greenwald’s reputation, his credibility amongst the incredulous, should be the least of our concerns. But it isn’t.
-
Hard News: Everybody has one, in reply to Steve Parks,
Likewise Greenwald’s reporting was lost in the jello wrestling bout between Key and Dotcom
Inside New Zealand certainly.
The passiveness of was lost can be taken out of context to ignore the agents of obfuscation that wittingly or unwittingly contributed to minimising the importance of the core issues:
So we spy on Pacific Nations.
Here’s my guess, they already knew that.
Here’s my other guess, we already knew that.
One more guess…I doubt many give a ‘monkeys’. One of the great lessons of the election campaign was that when it comes to spying and dirty deeds in politics, Nicky Hager and his conspiracy mates made no difference whatsoever.
Kim Dotcom and his grandiose promises amounted to nothing. The ‘Moment Of Truth’ was the moment of humiliation for them.
As David said just a few lines previous:
media establishment colluded either wilfully or by default with the government to fill the air with chaff that bounced the signal around until all that was left was the noise
-
Hard News: Everybody has one, in reply to Sacha,
-
Hard News: Everybody has one, in reply to Hilary Stace,
It is sad that we will never see stories about Pike River, Health and Safety legislation or Christchurch earthquake issues on the light-weight Story
Or possibly that we will, if one of those issues again scales the heights of peak talkback. We may or may not hear from an actual victim, we’ll be shocked by compilation of news headline soundbites, they’ll speak to a commissioner and the last interview will be of the relevant minister who may even admit that the system is broken and be given ample opportunity to outline their vision and proposed solutions. Back in the studio Duncan may sound skeptical to these proposals but he’ll come round in the matter of a couple of sentences as he restates them aloud in his own voice, deciding that these changes are “huge”. The 7 minute segment will conclude with an update that the specific case in question will now be investigated so we can all walk off into the sunset holding hands and singing Kumbaya.
-
Polity: Meet the middle, in reply to BenWilson,
Can you elaborate?
In no way shape or form.
I think the only way that could be false would be if Labour was on or to the right of the center.
I’ve just been rereading through the 2015 budget thread, some good musings there. 2011 sure seems a very long time ago now. Anyway thanks for your patient responses Ben, they are very much appreciated as always.
with the data you get how each respondent answered each question, so you can look at the correlation between questions, clustering into groups, etc.
I look forward to seeing what you come up with. As far as data driven discussions go, not much has been provided for the average reader thus far.
-
Polity: Meet the middle, in reply to BenWilson,
I guess what I was trying to gauge is whether some statistical imperative is being employed as far as you are aware? Which is probably a foolish question, excuse my ignorance.
What I really want to know is how far right or left of center Labour’s policies are and whether compiling the preferences from one of the questionnaires might be helpful in clarifying Labour’s policy position in relation to this policy center and in determining whether a shift towards center would entail moving left or right, if at all.
The overriding assumption throughout this discussion from all sides, including the post you just linked me to seems to be that a centering of Labour must entail it moving right. I can’t see much in the way of solid data being presented here to affirm that other than Labour traditionally equals left, people assume that to be the case, and they lost some elections.
