Posts by Carolyn Skelton
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
No, I'm sure you didn't hear wrong, Julie. The term 'honey traps" has been used a bit when discussing the alleged rape/sexual assault on some rugby forums. It's a term borrowed from spy thrillers I think.
Even worse on those forums is the use of the term, 'roasting' and 'spit roasting', as in: "The s**g who was spit roasted". I've obviously led a sheltered life. I had to google the term to find out what it means. It could be applied to a male as much as a female, I think, but it sounds demeaning and objectifying IMO.
FletcherB, there was at least one other woman referred to. According to that reliable source "Angel Barbie", as reported in equally reliable "news"papers, one of the England team "scored" with a 46 year old woman. Her occupation wasn't stated. Her sole identifying feature is her age.
-
I am curious as to the accuracy of the reports that the alleged victim’s boyfriend encouraged her to go to the police.
I have been reading some of the online rugby forums, and have been amazed at how quickly the “lying slut’s jealous boyfriend made allegations of rape” has become the dominant version circulating online and in some sections of the media. (Though a version that has been contested by some rugby fans who refused to rush to judgement either way).
As far as I’m aware, it was The Daily Mail that first published the story that it was the boyfriend who went to the police. I haven’t seen or heard anything about a boyfriend in the statements made by the police. They have stressed that it was the 18 year old alleged victim that made the allegation.
Is this yet another case of a newspaper publishing an unfounded report, with other media repeating it without checking its validity?
-
On the GLBT issues discussed on the previous page of this thread:
I am in contact with a few US lesbian feminists, most of whom are pretty critical of both Obama and Clinton. They tend to say neither would fix the broken state of US politics, as they are both backed by powerful corporate and/or militaristic interests that dominate the current system. These lesbian feminists further to the left than either of the leading Dem presidential candidates. Some decided to vote for Obama, some Clinton, (most because it came down to a choice between these 2), but many prefer Kucinich, many others prefer Edwards, and 1 or 2 prefer the Greens.
I was looking out for Clinton and Obama's positions on GLBT issues. As I saw it, Clinton made stronger statements in support of GLBT issues, and earlier than Obama. I know Bill backed down on GLBT issues under conservative pressures during his presidency. But, would Obama be any different? I can't see how he can both unite opposing forces and make a strong stand on potentially divisive issues like some GLBT ones. As HRC says, differences won't go away after a president is chosen and many issues require negotiation.
On her website it's stated that Clinton is for repeal of Don't ask don't tell. I've also read many criticisms of Obama for shifting his positions on several similar issues depending on his audience and the context.
-
Thanks for the link, Craig. Obama does speak well and with a sharpness and intelligence that, should he become president, would be a welcome change after 8 years of GWB. However, like a couple of posters here, he does leave me a bit cold – the charisma thing slightly misses me. He doesn’t seem to me to speak with the passion and personal commitment of a young Clinton (what a disappointment as president) or Jesse Jackson (maybe he stood at the wrong time!). In some ways Obama reminds me of Tony Blair when he started out in politics, good speaker, the media likes him, talks about uniting right and left. Or maybe I’ve just got cynical as I’ve got older.
In the video clip Obama’s life story was interesting, but a pity he felt the need to frame it within the US dream, much like all the candidates in Democrat primary TV debates – a bit of a turn-off. And then in the 2004 vid, Obama contradicted his espousal of the US dream, by focussing on the struggles of poor black people, who somehow hadn’t accessed that dream. Though I liked the social justice points Obama was making on those issues.
I know he’s perceived to have charisma, Bob, but that alone doesn’t explain to me his rise in the party (probably doesn’t explain JFK’s rise totally either). IMO, these primaries are focusing too much on personalities, charisma-factors, perceptions of momentum etc, rather than policies and agendas. For instance, how was it decided that Obama was to speak for Kerrry’s campaign?
I really was asking to know more about who is backing Obama. We know a lot about some of Hillary Clinton’s very dubious backers. All I know about Obama is that he’s backed by Goldman Sachs, and some other corporates. After 8 years of a US president fronting for a pretty nasty bunch of neo-cons, I want to know more about Obama’s team. (Thanks Russell and Alex for the extra info). Has Obama had enough experience at the hard edge of national politics not to be pressured by powerful supporting interest groups? As you say, Bob, charisma or x-factor doesn’t necessarily make a good president. But, from what I see so far, I’d rather back Obama than Winstone Peters.
While a Clinton/Obama ticket seems attractive, it seems to me it’s not a question of whether they’d be willing to work together, but if their powerful backers and supporters would be willing to work together.
-
Just de-lurking here, because, this blog that I always like to read for measured analysis and opinions, seems to be resembling the mainstream US media tendency to be Obama cheerleaders, and Clinton detractors - it's starting to feel like a bandwagon effect. IMO, there's not that much between them in policies, tho Obama seems slightly more to the right than Clinton. And I wonder how either could be making such a strong showing in the primaries without some strong institutional backing, financial and otherwise.
In fact, it puzzles me how Obama has had such a relatively quick rise within the Democrat party, without having achieved anything much of note as a senator. Maybe someone can enlighten me on this?
Webweaver said:
for Obama to have inspired such a large number of people to donate to his campaign - even in small amounts - indicates that he's inspiring more ordinary people than Hillary is. And a vote is a vote at the voting booth - whether you've donated $100,000 to Hillary, or $20 to Obama.
While it's true that Obama has had a lot of smaller donations, the conclusion above don't seem to fit with the voting trends. Clinton actually has had more "ordinary" lower income people voting for her in the primaries, than Obama, who seems to appeal to higher income Americans and those with a lot more formal education. So this means many HRC supporters probably don't have as much small change to spare that large numbers of Obama supporters have.
Maybe someone knows something concrete about Obama's more substantial backers? I've read online that he has had some quite significant corporate sponsorship. Apparently he gets more support from bankers, and Clinton more from the military. But I also heard from a US contact, who is no fan of Clinton or Obama, that Obama has had some pretty shady and dubious backers for a while now. Does anyone here have evidence for or against this?
But whatever the financial facts are, I can't see either Clinton or Obama making a significant change to the corporate stranglehold on US politics - though either of them would be a bit better than the Republicans, especially better than GWB.
Or is someone here able to convince me otherwise?
-
Russell said:
"So it looks like the bill will go forward with a provision that would outlaw using your PVR or VCR to record much of the schedule on TV One and TV2."
So that means that those of us who do not have broadband access to the net, would only be able to watch TV progs as they're being broadcast???!!! No time-shifting and no possibility of using the ondemand service?
-
On the argument that Bradford's Bill will criminalise parents, and that any law that isn't always going to be enforced is a bad law: compare this with the law on assault. Isn't the legal definition of assault something along the lines of any exertion of force on another person/adult? But how often is this enforced to the letter of the law?
I don't think the tackling of rugby players is such a great analogy because of the consensual element. I think the bit of biff that happens very often on the paddock is a better example. We don't see the police rushing out onto the paddock every time a player thumps another one, or even pushes another one aside in anger after the whistle has blown. Does the law on assault then criminalise most rubgy players?
And does it criminalise everyone who has gently pushed aside a friend, partner or other acquaintance in anger or jest?
And I also see that on Bradford's bill according to the NZ Herald online this morning:
"If the bill became law, parents would be able to use physical force only to restrain their children from hurting themselves and other people, from being disruptive or to stop them committing a crime."
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10425374 -
Danyl Mclauchlan said:
I REALLY can't see English - or even Brian Connell - deciding to spill their guts to Nicky Hagar.
Yes, in the Kathryn Ryan interview yesterday Hager explicitly said that Bill English was NOT one of the people who gave him information for the book.