Posts by Steve Parks
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Paul Henry's comments are racist.
Yep, and clearly so, in case I wasn't clear on that.
-
"Was PH being racist?" (or words to that effect) and the "no" vote outnumbered the "yeses". It made me depressed.
Other non-scientific polls (Herald, Stuff) have indicated between 33 to 40% think Henry did nothing wrong, but most people think he did. I think there could be an overlap, with a group of people thinking what he said was wrong, but not willing to say it was racist, because they may feel like that is too harsh. That is, if Campbell Live's question was changed to "Was PH wrong to say what he did?" it may well have been over 50% 'Yes'.
There'll be a group of people who don't support what he said this time, but still want to like Henry's on air persona and to support him. They'll therefore rationalise what he said so that it was 'wrong', but somehow not actually racist. This allows them to accept his apology and go back to watching him in two weeks time.
-
Firstly, she thinks Henry is sorry. Seriously?
Secondly, she thinks he didn't mean to offend anyone. Again, seriously?
For me, that takes quite a lot of the shine off her resignation offer.
Yeah, me too. (Especially the second.) Maybe she does know Henry and finds him to be misunderstood or what have you, but this isn't the time to say it publicly.
I agree with Matthew Poole though, that it seems unlikely the email statement and leaking was an attempt to take the heat of Henry (or if it was, it was incompetent).
-
Andi Brotherston has admited a "horrendous error of judgement" and offered to resign. If only Henry was as professional.
I was harsh earlier about that original response, but I think this is a genuine apology and actually a genuine error in judgment under pressure.
(Here's the original email in full.)
I'm also starting to feel slightly sorry for Paul Henry, who is looking a pathetic figure at the moment. But then I remember how he's not exactly one for letting up, and how his supporters have been telling his critics to "harden the phuck up" etc. (See Ben Gracewood's blog for examples.)
-
The moment Paul Henry has a go at white, rich business men then perhaps I'll believe his excuse about "saying what others are afraid to say."
It was TVNZ’s spokesperson who said something along those lines, and I consider that early response from TVNZ to be at least as bad as Henry’s comments. It was insidious and vile, and cynically played to the “PC gone mad” audience.
Key would have had to think on his feet (heaven forfend that our PM be able to do that)...
As Kyle suggested, not every PM can be expected to be as quick witted and clever in live debate as David Lange. I’m willing to believe that Key was genuinely taken-aback at the time. Henry’s comments were totally out of right field.
-
There's one aspect I am on the side of the EA, namely that the government should stay out or keep neutral. Gerry Brownlee should shut the fuck up. Him telling the union to "sort it out" is just pointless bluster that doesn't help.
Also, am I missing something, or is this article getting people confused:
"NZ Actors Equity organiser Frances Walsh told NZPA." ??(Edit: never mind, I guess she just has the same name as PJ's partner.)
-
I got called a "local film industry baron".
Bit of a insult, for a King.
-
[Russell]: Oh for goodness sake, Islander. You claimed that Jackson never helps anyone in the industry but himself.
Russell - read what I said again
What Islander said:
And we dont see him as actually *helping* ANZ films/film projects. Just his own.
This is what was shown to be incorrect. I'm not sure why you weren’t a bit more reasonable in backing down, at least in part, Islander. You can still have criticism of PJ, while acknowledging that your original claim was wrong.
-
Jackson's Miramar studio complex has gone up in flames, several engines in attendance, according to RNZ news.
RNZ was wrong, then. It was a studio in Kilbirnie.
-
Yeah, good interview. Thanks for the link - I had missed that one.
I don’t agree with all of Baggini’s concerns, but I think he made some good points in both the interview with Dennett and the original article (especially later in the piece).*As for Baggini’s professed ignorance, I really doubt reading the books the ‘four horsemen’ wrote would make much difference to his case. I’m sure he’s familiar with most of the arguments for the non-existence of God that Dawkins covers in his book, for example. It really is more about the public statements and general approach they have taken.
I watched a documentary by Dawkins awhile back and agreed with pretty much all of it, but I felt he (and the other “New Atheists”) is too concerned with proving theism wrong. I don’t think that that’s so important. I don’t really care if someone chooses to believe in God. I’d rather focus on getting moderate theists to agree that creationism should not be taught in schools (at least as science), church and state should be separate, and yes, that governments should “make any religious organisation liable for all appropriate taxes”. I agree with Dennett that the confrontational “pail of cold water in the face” approach of Hitchens may have the effect of galvanising atheist support, but that’s the only advantage I can see.* I only just read the reply from George Williamson at Fritanke.no. He makes some good points, but mostly in the areas in which I already disagreed with Baggini , or was ambivalent. And he bungles his argument in the end in an astonishing admission, after several hundred words, that he has “little to say” about Baggini’s key concern.