Posts by Heather Gaye
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Briefing, blaming, backing down, in reply to John Armstrong,
I just don't know if the 'they are all hopeless' narrative is all that productive. It certainly doesn't do much to promote political engagement, which, IMHO, is one of the more serious issues in contemporary politics.
What really bugs me is the assumption that "career politicians" are a bad thing. I think there's a lot to be said for the skillset of someone that has a lot of experience in student / union / community representation. Ditto the opposite - businessmen may be good at running businesses, but a Prime Minister really needs a completely different mindset (and mission statement) than a CEO.
-
Hard News: The Editorial Image, in reply to Scott Chris,
greater statistical propensity to bear children outside of a stable relationship or become infected with STDs freer access to contraception is simply pragmatic social policy.
I recently read that the demographics on young single mothers is skewed in part by the fact that rich white girls are much more likely to get abortions.
This government's interests are in demonising a particular group in the eyes of the population, making them out to be lazy and incontinent - that a beneficiary's situation is not just one of their own device, but wilfully so. The government isn't cutting any costs by providing contraception to a needful demographic - they're cutting costs by justifying benefit cuts across the board, down the road.
-
Very timely. I've been curious about this - when the law was still being discussed, the admin fee was framed in terms that *explicitly* included preventing fishing expeditions, and examples expressed were rights holders trying it on with entire bands of IP addresses without any evidence. Then the law was introduced, and all that talk went away, and the admin fee turned purely into a practical step to prevent undue administrative costs to ISPs. Fair enough, but then rumours started circulating about rights holders thinking of ways to circumvent the fee.
So, was the original intent of the admin for the good of the consumers as well as ISPs? I'd assume that if it was even in part about protecting consumers, that any discussion about circumventing the fee would be moot.
Also, regarding rights holders doing the processing - Vodafone has a considerable amount of information on me that I'd be super-unhappy about them exposing to some random third party looking for excuses to fine me. I trust no ISP would entertain that notion (at least not overnight)?
Finally, regarding the lack of notices that have been sent: how difficult/costly is it for rights holders to actually track infringement? Regarding the music industry in particular, I've had some interesting conversations with people that've worked for major labels in NZ about cost/benefit comparisons of producing kiwi artists (expensive) vs importing american stuff (cheap). Given that kiwi output (even the really popular stuff) isn't really viewed as particularly profitable, would it be reasonable to assume the price of setting up this kind of system (or paying an outsourcer) would be too high to justify the potential reward? It'd make sense to me that the only infringements are being sent regarding artists that are already inside a monitoring framework.
Basically I'm wondering if NZ is too small a copyright infringement market to bother with. -
I think this is a Lockwood issue. Also, a fuckwit issue. They’re closely related issues.
Bahahaha, Lockwit!
Frankly, I’m feeling pretty positive about this whole debacle. The point of parliament incorporating an ever-more-diverse group of people is to ensure that ever-more-diverse groups of people get better representation and services.
I’ve learned a lot from conversations with Sacha, & his contributions to PA: he has a very advanced understanding of the disabled in NZ as individuals, and a (very diverse) community, and a demographic. Over time I’ve learned quite a bit about the kind of problems they face, and specifically that there still needs to be a paradigm-shift across the whole of the population to improve their quality of life. Mojo’s mere existence in parliament might well (or may have already) put this discussion front and centre, particularly in relation to abled-privilege.
-
Up Front: A Real Character, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
Right… I think I understand what you’re getting at, & it’s a fair call. I found AHS immediately engaging, on a visceral level, so yeah… he obviously found the right button, for me at least. I’d ignored the torture-porn aspect, from a philosophical standpoint. FWIW despite all the characters being generally abhorrent, I still like the women. Except Hayden.
I watch Glee as an interesting nostalgia trip into my 14-year-old psyche, I can’t stand Nip/Tuck, and haven’t seen any of his other stuff.
-
Although that can run into a kind of dodgy place where having a mental illness is presented as only OK because it gives you Special Powers, as opposed to being part of a range of human existence.
That’s a fair point, but no, Homeland doesn’t go there. I could rephrase by saying that the mental illness is as much a part of her as the skills that make her good at her job – no judgement or novelty, just.. it is what it is.
I might want to revisit this when American Horror Story starts, but it’s embarrasing watch Connie Britten.
Craig: I hear you, to an extent – there’s a heavy dose of earth-mother in her character that I find incredibly cloying, but the whole point of the show is that everyone’s fucked up, so I didn’t have any problem with the depictions of men vs women.
& I never got the impression that anyone was punished for being sexual, per se (well, some of the men maybe). In fact, I was quite impressed that they had a scene involving a vibrator that made it seem like the most normal thing in the world for a woman to have handy.
Unless you’re zooming right out to most general – in the show the themes of sex and violence go hand in hand, & to remedy that you’d basically need to write a whole different show. I’d be quite happy about a show with the same premise and less… bad sex (?), but I can’t see any conservative moral tirade in the show. I can understand that the sexual content – and in particular the use of sex as a weapon – wouldn’t be to everyone’s taste.
What I really liked about AHS was that my opinion of the characters changed over the course of the series (and sometimes changed back). Some characters I remained quite conflicted about. I think it’s the sign of a good show that I can have a debate with friends where we all vehemently disagree about which characters we like & which we hate.
-
I’d actually argue that what’s far more important to a work than whether it has “a strong female character” is whether it has a range of female characters – filling a variety of different plot and life roles.
I’m pretty happy about a lot of the american TV series I’ve been watching. Fringe, American Horror Story & V all have ensemble casts in which different depictions of men & women take equal standing with regards to character – they’re not all necessarily all strong all the time, or even likeable, but they’re interesting and complicated, with good and bad traits, and that applies as much to both sexes. Even Homeland – rather than foisting a mental illness onto a character gratuitously to pep up the plot, it’s managed to convey that her major weakness is inextricably linked with her extraordinary skill.
I think railing against Starbuck is a bit hopeless for this reason – although the BSG cast is weighted towards men, the women are all pretty diverse and well-developed.
There are a stack of TV shows I haven’t seen that I know have similar ensemble casts – I expect the trend would be the same (except, perhaps, for Dexter. Even then, *every* character in that show seems to be pretty one-dimensional)? I’m enjoying a lot of TV shows now for their more sophisticated explorations of people and relationships (even the sci-fi shows), so it would make sense that these kind of shows are more open to depicting women as well-rounded human beings.
-
I’ve heard fragments of her Blue Jeans song before & I liked it, but I was surprised it wasn’t a cover. Kind of reminds me of hearing a Kate Bush song, or a Minnie Riperton song for the first time.
Not sold on her style at all, and in those live performances she looks like she’s working really really hard on being an ingenue.
ETA... also, the lyrical virtuosity of Madonna.
-
Hard News: #BDOMemories, in reply to Rich Lock,
Depends how much of a nostalgist you are. If his album was any more influenced by the 1980's, I'd expect to see Michael J Fox driving past in a DeLorean every time I (or rather, my wife) sticks it on.
I have no problem with 80s influences. I'm made out of them.
-
Hard News: #BDOMemories, in reply to Morgan Nichol,
I’ve found the whole #BDOMemories exercise to be quite revealing, I simply don’t remember most of the shows I saw. In many cases I only remember one act from a given year, to tell me if I was even there or not.
Yeah, this. I remember snippets of acts I was particularly excited about seeing, and I remember enjoying myself, and I remember a couple of duds, and a couple of surprises, but generally all I really have left is… the vibe. It’s the vibe of the thing.
Also, I totally would’ve been there front and centre this year if Prince had been headlining.