Posts by Keith Ng
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Great work Keith, and well worth paying something for. I'm with Ian on the alternative payment options though...
Noted! Will see what I can do.
-
OnPoint: Association of Community…, in reply to James W,
Just as an aside, I found it difficult to settle on an amount to donate.
Fair enough, actually. I've actually done a lot of thinking about how I'd like this particular kind crowdfunding to work. Will blog about it next week.
-
OnPoint: Association of Community…, in reply to Phil Lyth,
Graeme, you should have been a logician. The sort who says, Yes, there appears to be at least one cow which appears on the side we can see to be black in these lighting conditions.
Actually, I think you need an epistemologist for that.
-
OnPoint: Association of Community…, in reply to Carrick Graham,
Keith, it never ceases to amaze me that you’re so “outraged” by the fact that retailers – yes real people who actually work in a dairy or small convenience store, actually want to have their views heard.
Are you suggesting that ACR’s press releases come from “people who actually work in a dairy”? Does Green write them? Does Gibson call up Inwood and say “oh hey Glenn, why don’t you write a press release linking excise increases with organised crime?”? Does Dipal go through the court decisions, or does she go through the Canadian studies?
Maybe they genuinely agree with the ACR’s positions. Maybe they’re paid, in one form or another, to agree. Who knows? But it doesn’t change the fact that the words coming out their mouths are written by Inwood & Co, as part of Imperial Tobacco’s strategy.
You’ve just fallen for the spin that it’s some cunning plot by the tobacco industry.
Yes. That cunning ploy by Tony Meirs to trick me into thinking that Imperial Tobacco is funding the ACR. I totally fell for that ruse.
And I suppose the Alliance of Australian Retailers, the TRA, and all the other virtually identical groups spouting identical lines across the world, that's just coincidence, right?
But why should we be surprised when you’ve never bothered to look critically at the half-truths and sometime blatant fudging of science by public health researchers who hold themselves to be beyond criticism and take a holier than thou approach.
If you did, then you’d be able to write a post that would really have you seething.
Sure, I think that the dodgy figures used by some of these groups is harmful in the same way that the shit ACR makes up is, in that it’s all pissing into our collective pool of knowledge. But it’s the deliberate way in which Big T tries to hide its footprint – a fairly elaborate system of lies – which gets my goat, and gets them this special treatment.
-
OnPoint: Association of Community…, in reply to James W,
Thanks for your hard work, Keith.
And thank *you*! Not having to completely forgo income to do this stuff would be nice - and hopefully means that I can do more of it.
-
OnPoint: Association of Community…, in reply to Juha Saarinen,
And, I'm not your friend.
And I never said you were a journalist. *BOOM*
-
Just thought I’d say sorry to Bart or Keith if they found any of the debate unpleasant.
Not a problem. Given the kinds of things I wrote in the post, it's only fair I get as good as I give. I simply don't like venturing out into the pure politics stuff, where there are no facts, only scuttlebutt and opinions.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to martinb,
"I'm not anti-Cunliffe perse, It's just that he is the robotic anti-christ who would spell dooooooom for everyone"
Note the past-tense that I used. I didn't start out as anti-Cunliffe, but - quite obviously - I am now.
-
Unfortunately, this piece comes over as a piece of Farrar-esque spin. There’s nothing wrong in writing a piece supporting your preferred leadership candidate, but why not just write something which honestly and openly espouses the virtues of the candidate, instead of this kind of pretty insubstantial innuendo?
Because this isn't about Shearer's virtues - or even about Cunliffe's vices. This post is about whether the caucus can reach beyond naked personal ambition.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to giovanni tiso,
That’s another thing I don’t get about this post: if Cunliffe has really been scheming for a whole term (while Parker/Shearer haven’t) and is so complicit with the way the list punished new talent in order to preserve voting blocks in caucus, how come his block was so far behind Shearer’s at the starting line, and the former leader and deputy leader – who surely are most responsible about the list selection process – lined up behind his opponent?
I'm not saying that Cunliffe was responsible for the list selection - obviously, he wasn't. I'm saying the same kind of cultural problems which leads to a crappy list also leads to the kind of caucus that would prioritise self-promotion over the good of the party.
As to how Cunliffe can do so much manoeuvring and still come out behind Shearer, that's because a lot of people really don't like Cunliffe. The whole "is he a dick? Or is he just smart? Is he the kind of dick Labour needs? Is he too much of a dick?" argument is one that I don't want to start.