Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: You know what ..., in reply to webweaver,
How am I any better than my enemy if I treat him in the same brutal fashion that he treats me? Shouldn’t we, as Craig says, be trying to be better than that?
I doubt very much that they wanted him to die in the capture. They would have wanted to torture information out of him, at the very least, and then conduct a show trial, after which punishment could be dispensed in the whatever way they liked. He would surely have known this and long ago resolved never to be taken alive.
It is Medieval, for sure. There is only a thin veneer of civilization over all of us.
-
Hard News: Any excuse for a party, in reply to Simon Grigg,
A thousand years of being told that your family is royalty because they were somehow destined to be by right - or worse - by god (a belief which played a part in Charles losing his head), can likely mould a family psyche.
I don't think the ones in the last few hundred years have been quite so crazed. They're surely aware of their impotence, their endless duties, and the constant harassment by paparazzi. Their mates wouldn't have any of that crap.
-
Is there any real justification for prolonged American military presence in Afghanistan now?
-
Hard News: Any excuse for a party, in reply to Simon Grigg,
I think you missed the key one: destiny.
No, that was number 1:
1. Through force of habit and upbringing, they actually believe they serve a public purpose.Are you sure about that? I know she can't abdicate with the approval of every state she 'rules' but I wasn't aware that HM's government could demand abdication.
Not sure of the exact details, but if an act of parliament is required to force the monarch's abdication, then that makes it entirely within the power of the ruling party. The PM, being the monarch's closest adviser would most likely demand that the monarch take the course most likely to preserve the monarchy itself. Which is why they don't ever make outspoken statements against the government on important matters.
That's my take anyway - it's not all written down clearly somewhere, because the monarchy realized after James II that their time had come and they were actually hanging on only by the grace of remaining popular, and not falling out with the actual power brokers. Perhaps some nutbar monarch might one day like to put it to the test. I expect a predicable outcome, with the people siding with the elected parliament, and the monarch being replaced. Possibly their entire family, if they pushed it too hard. I doubt there would be any deaths, but the precedent is rather murky.
-
Hard News: Any excuse for a party, in reply to Simon Grigg,
The last comes from the still extant and not insubstantial royal prerogative, which also still includes the right to declare war!
I think the PM has the right to demand her abdication immediately. So I'm pretty sure this power to declare war ends up being more of an obligation, whether the monarch agrees with the war or not.
What I don't actually get about the monarchy is why they bother. If I was stinking rich, I'd probably prefer to just be a private citizen. Then I could actually use my money to influence politics, if that was my interest. It would be a suckful job being a famous royal, full of responsibility without power, constant scrutiny, obsessive paparazzi, tightly constrained timetables, etc.
I can only see a few reasons why they don't self-disband:
1. Through force of habit and upbringing, they actually believe they serve a public purpose.
2. They don't know any other life. Seems weak to me, surely they are personal friends with many aristocrats who have a much better life. But perhaps those aristocrats don't rub their faces in it.
3. There is a thrill in celebrity, quite aside from the thrill of power. In this, since the new entrants to royalty actually choose the life, they must be the kind of people who at least hold some belief that it would be grand.
4. They're not allowed. This strikes me as the most likely reason of all. They're so powerless they can't even disband their own institution. The best any particular royal could hope for is abdication. -
Interesting micro analysis Graeme, but I'd personally have just said outright that I very much doubt that Hone is about the money in this case, because he's risking losing it all. He's a guy with a strong sense of his importance to Maori, a natural rebel, and he doesn't like cosying up to National. That's pretty much a good enough explanation, right?
-
Hard News: Any excuse for a party, in reply to Rich Lock,
It's actually quite refreshing to see that on PAS, the indifference/hysteria split
I like to think I'm neither hysterical nor indifferent about this one. If I had to pick which I'm closest to, of course it's indifferent. If it's a stink wedding, I'm sure I'll change channels or put on a DVD. I was thinking to MySky it and interlace it with episodes of Dexter.
-
Hard News: Any excuse for a party, in reply to Lilith __,
Only the English could find dingers romantic.
-
Cracker: RIght On., in reply to 3410,
Could be - an electorate with a proud history of voting in ex-leaders of the National party, no matter how old and doddery they've become, or how much of a cock they were when they held the country in their iron fist for nearly a decade.
-
Cracker: RIght On., in reply to Alex Coleman,
I'm curious why Brash is saying Epsom is no longer a priority. Either he rates himself beyond all evidence as capable of overcoming ACTs scandalous image (despite his own rather scandalous one), and pushing them beyond the threshold. Or he's got something else up his sleeve. Where's he going to stand if Banks is in Epsom? Wellington Central perhaps?
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 600 601 602 603 604 … 1066 Older→ First