Posts by Shay Lambert
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Blue heeler? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_heeler
High energy levels and active minds but naturally cautious, and grow more so as they age. When feeling threatened, and/or uncomfortable, it will usually resort to aggressiveness
-
I wonder what Spot is up to now that Richard Hammond has taken his job. Which makes sense, since Hammond looks a lot like an over-excitable fox terrier.
-
I thought we were too often slow to the breakdown, or we were knocked off the ball at the breakdown.
Yep, that's where the rot started. And I don't think "not enough mongrel in the pack" is the problem - Richie,Thorn and Hore are no cream puffs. They just weren't working as a well oiled machine where everyone knew their job and they could hit the rucks and mauls with the necessary aggression. Uncertainty undermines aggression.
And the lone reed snaps in the wind.
Wax on, wax off.
-
Now there's a campaign celebrities could front:
"Please give generously to IPENZ so they can afford the high priced PR good-for-nothing doctors have been taking for granted for nearly a century"
-
New Zealand Kennel Club we approve
Great. So now I'm inbred with bad hips.
-
Shay, you're tuned in. I think the other side to a dog-whistle is that dogs are surprised that humans can't hear it.
Woof.
I'm in touch with my inner canine.
-
attempting to engage with the political process, and he's saying "Shut up and go away, because you don't know anything.
Quite right. Like I said further up the thread, PM slagging off citizen in public for disagreeing with his policy = bad look.
Actor has opinion on subject not directly related to acting = so what.
If I wasn't already convinced on the topic of climate change, bumper sticker arguments and a campaign fronted by actors certainly wouldn't change my opinion. Judging by Kong's comments I'm not alone.
-
a lifetime's experience in researching climate change to front their campaign, nobody would no who the hell they were.
-
There's definitely a dog-whistle aspect to it, which many of us aren't tuned to hear.
Hang on a minute - people are quite justified in being skeptical of a celebrity's opinion on a topic in which that they are obviously not a recognised expert. Just the same as we should be completely dismissive of some robber-baron flown over by the Business Roundtable to lecture us on the evils of the welfare system.
The sad part is that if Greenpeace used a scientist with
-
how does one effectively value the politicians
By voting for them. Or not, as the case may be.
Let me put it another way - how do we decide how much to pay them when no-one thinks politicians do anything of value.
indexing to the salaries of a particular sector, or to the median income
But improving the national median, or salaries of a certain sector, are not necessarily an indication of how well an MP is doing the job they were employed to do - politicians are voted in by an electorate first an foremost to serve that electorate's interests.
Coming up with some sort of performance pay system based on that would have bizarre results too - imagine if because the Business Roundtable and the suburb of Epsom never had it better - Rodney Hide would be the highest paid person in parliament while the rest of us went down the shitter...
Most of us will feel ripped off no matter what they get paid and how their pay is set. Let's hold them to account, and whack them on the snout when they get too far into the trough, but my original point still stands - it's still a sideshow, shooting fish in a barrel, and more to do with the media taking aim at easy targets than any greater good.