Posts by Kim_Wright
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Totally agree George but look out for the screams of "nanny state PC gone mad" if there's any kind of regulation or disincentive from the govt regarding people's right to fill the suburban streets with their SUVs
not to mention the resistance to increased density housing and metropolitan urban limits
and the current govt's utter contempt for walkers, cyclists and public transport - we need support to get out of our cars (via infrastructure) and somehow I don't think Stephen Joyce is the man to see that happen
-
As Phil Scadden points out in his recent analysis ofenergy use (not just electricity all energy) in New Zealand it's not the elecricity we use that's the problem; it's all about our vehicle addictions. By far the majority of our energy consumption is fuel and we can't fix that with windfarms as beautiful as they are.
-
Breaking the law is a personal choice we all have but breaking it when someone else could end up wearing the punishment is a different kettle of fish
Whether you agree with the law is not the point - no-one has the right to break the law on behalf of someone else (well maybe assisted euthanasia but that's a whole other debate), especially when they have specifically asked people to be respectful and not break this particular law
Just because other people are doing it overseas is not a good reason to shoot your mouth off - they're doing it so you should too Russell, c'mon how lame is that for an argument, about as lame as you be our case law guinea pig Russell and I'll stay hidden behind my oh-so-rebellious persona
-
Me, I'm more in favour of celebrity supression
But I see the whole discussion around this issue as part of a wider trend; how depressingly big and important court news is on TV and in newspapers these days... cheaper to have a reporter stake out a court room all day for titbits than engage in investigative journalism about shit that really matters?
-
Don't fight it Haydyn, zombie domination is inevitable
-
I was doing my morning get ready stuff so I didn't hear if during the morning report interviews Rob Pope or Warren Young was sepcificically asked about the "intend to charge" elements of the new powers.... seems to me this is the most concerning part of the whole shebang; that the "innocent until proven guilty" premis has gone right down the dunny.
Did anyone hear either of them elaborate on how "intend to charge" would be interpreted, what gaurantees there would be to destroy DNA and other surveillance evidence if charges are dropped/people are found innocent etc?
-
There has already been a succesful sugar defence as made famous in California Uber Alles by the Dead Kennedys and more recently brought to mind again in the film Milk
-
I notice a few people have been comparing a 1m tsunami wave with regular large tides... tsunami waves travel dangerously fast and even the small ones can cause strange currents, eddies and fast flows when they hit coastal landforms so it is prudent to warn for small waves and stay ourt of the water and low-lying areas (up to a point of course it's not going to createhuge run-ups).
You can't really use the "we get bigger storm tides than that" argument when it comes to these types of phenomena..... it's showing a bit more on the geonet gauges now so looks like intial wave arrival times were a bit out.
It also pays to remember that tsunami are a series of waves not one wave and the first wave is not always the biggest....
-
I think the most disturbing thing in the results is the high level of support for the death penalty.... 43% is a lot of people agreeing the death penalty is morally acceptable
And polygamy really takes a hit, but unlike affairs of married people it's not a breach of any contract, just a lifestyle choice between consenting adults. I'm unmarried (but partnered) and have no desire to be in a marriage or civil union but I do see it a binding contract - especially if you put that forsake all others but in so can see that affairs are considered by many to be wrong, but polygamy, 2nd most morally wrong? really?
oh just saw they later refined polygamy to mean a man with more than one wife.... that's a pretty narrow view, I would have thought it meant any relationship that has three or more members regardless of sex
-
Wonder what the comments were on those blogs when HC's office was attacked with an axe... maybe that was pre-blogging days. I suspect the comments would have had a somewhat different flavour, or am I being uncharitable?
Regardless, setting fire to someone's office is a pretty dumb way to make a political statement, hardly likely to increase your support base.....
Ok - completely off topic but I just have to share the joy