Posts by SteveH
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Much like Battlestar Galactica, in fact. Manned carrier-battles with projectile weapons in space? 1942 in space = Stupid.
Yeah, that bugged me a fair bit too. OTOH, the Adama Maneuver = Awesome!
-
Yeah, my bad. I thought maybe invading peoples countries, locking people up in countries that don't adhere to the west's concept of basic human rights just to torture them, imposing their concept of "Democracy" (read corporate larceny) on countries trying to escape the fear of death squads run by tyrants in the pay of multinational greed heads?
None of which the US has generally done to their own citizens or their allies. So if we're looking to be dictated to by a superpower I'll take the one that at least mostly looks after it's own citizens, thanks.
I can't believe you're seriously suggesting that China has a better recent human rights record than the US. I doubt we'd feel safe even having this debate in public in China.
-
if we have to bow to some big guy I would rather bow to tha age old wisdom of China than the rabid rightiousness of America.
Really? This discussion is taking place because the Chinese government (allegedly) hacked the gmail accounts of political activists yet you think they'd be better overlords than the US?
-
As you say, I'm not of the view that "he deserved it", but I can think of many, many people for whom I feel greater sympathy. I'm slightly surprised at the rush to such great sympathy here. He's an extraordinarily wealthy man with excellent PR advice.
I'm sure that excellent PR advice was that a squeaky clean image was going to earn him the most money. Should he have turned down Nike's $40M on the basis that they were going to make him out to be a better man than he was? Seems like an unreasonable expectation to me.
But I agree about the sympathy. I have only slightly more sympathy for Tiger than I have for Bill Clinton, which is to say basically none. I just don't think it deserves the coverage it's getting. The image angle doesn't seem particularly newsworthy to me, and well "elite sports star turns out to be arsehole", it's hardly novel.
The possibility that his behaviour was literally pathological is actually something that gives me pause.
And that possibility is the about the only part of the story that I think is of more than momentary interest.
-
So I don't agree that it's simply and purely a celebrity gossip story that all right-thinking people should ignore. There's enough money involved to make it interesting.
Russell, I agree that there is valid interest, but I find the volume of coverage depressing (though sadly all too common with this sort of story). You said in another post that it was more about laughing at him than tearing him down - so is the joke so good that we need a new story every time a new woman is identified? Or even every time one of them opens her mouth?
I also have a bit of a problem with the idea that "Tiger Woods has cultivated this wholesome image so he deserves it" (not that you've taken that position as such). Did he actually write that webpage blurb you posted? Obviously someone has cultivated that image but I suspect that it has had a lot more input from the people around him than from the man himself (and not necessary just PR people - I'm sure his father would have been involved, for example). Was he supposed to say "wait on, I'm actually serially unfaithful and maybe addicted to sex, perhaps you should mention that on the website"? I guess I'm struggling to see how exactly he was supposed to stop that image being developed. I suppose he should have got caught in some less extreme immoral circumstances earlier on?
Anyway I don't like this idea that seems to be coming from some quarters that the real "crime" was that he his public image wasn't a realistic portrayal of the private man, as if the implicit lies to public are somehow worse than the actual lies to his wife. I think that position is worse than simply judging him on his lack of fidelity. Surely at this point in the evolution of our society we're fully aware that public images are just images, and that they may bear little resemblance to reality?
-
Quite a big chunk of Woods' income has come from the sale of his image, as opposed to his excellence in playing golf.
I've never seen him as a big family man. To me the image was always just that he was extremely good at golf (though I admit I tend to avoid seeing most advertising). I wonder how many people really thought of him as a role model for all aspects of their life, rather than someone to be admired for his achievements in his sport.
-
But this is all small beer. Sir Jean-Luc? Make it so!
Wil Weaton's response to that was "we'll have to call him Sir Old Baldy"
-
I just wish Colin would nail one of those friggin' awful Australian mynahs that have begun to wake us up with their squabbling again. Their next trick will be to shit figs all over the deck.
Those mynahs aren't Australian, they're from India (and the surrounding countries). They're an even bigger pest in Australia than they are here. They tend to be a bit too smart for most cats to catch unfortunately.
Still, he's never got near a native bird -- although I did once have to remove a live kingfisher from his possession.
He's never caught a silvereye? They're about the easiest bird there is for cats to catch.
-
Was it 'the entertainer' or the judge who made a gagging order?
The judge of course. Defendants don't get to make orders, and even if they did they certainly wouldn't have the strength of law behind them.
-
No - my position is that "celebrities" should wear the same consequences for their actions regardless of whether they are celebrities.
It seems blatantly obvious to me that there is no way that celebrities wear the same consequences when the media get involved. So who gets to decide whether the media attention would be out of proportion to the offense? I say it should be the courts. The Herald (and I guess the rest of the media) think they should decide. I think that your belief that the public should decide is unworkable and unfair since it amounts to a trail by public opinion.