Posts by Steve Parks
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Have I told you lately how amazing you are?
Aww, shucks.
-
Any predictions about the words of 2009?
Maybe something along the lines of "cautious optimism", or something like that to do with tenuous recovery. Or maybe that's more 2010.
-
I wouldn't be too upset if Three quietly cancelled Sunriseand put the money and resources into saving Three News and Campbell Live from terminal brain death,
Yeah, as I asked on me blog recently, what happened to Campbell Live? I'm sure it was good once.
And that reporter (who's name slips my mind), she's capable of much better. Didn't she once produce Mediawatch on National Radio?
'When Incestuous Breast Implants Go Bad'.
But... that would be awesome!!
-
..."awesome"? Apparently visitors to NZ can't get over how often we say it and how multi-purpose it is. It's a word I've come to hate, personally.
I used to use it quite a lot, but strictly in an ironic kind of way. In the sense that the thing I'd be calling awesome was cheesy or ridiculous or somehow almost admirably absurd.
You know, like if they ever made a cereal that was called Credit Crunch, that would be awesome.
Personally, I have a real dislike of the phrase (very common in corporations these days) "going forward". I don't know exactly what it is about it, but it is certainly not awesome, not in any sense.
-
I think Oliver Driver is very talented, if maddening at times, and that he's making a good fist of the Sunrise gig when not many people thought he would.
Seconded.
-
oops, trying to be too clever: attempting to encourage such a civil society, I mean.
-
Still, isn't it rather funny how a few months ago most people around here were clapping their hands with glee at the secret taping of people at a cocktail party whose politics you didn't like at all?
Well, I recall specifically saying that things like wire taps, bugging a person's home etc (ya know, the illegal stuff) would be wrong. But what the Nat secret taper did was not illegal, in terms of recording a conversation you're involved in. How ethically dubious it is to do so is another question, but that depends on the circumstances. For example, it might be justified if you were attempting to encourage...
... a civil society without confidence that our legislators, civil servants, judiciary and law enforcement are as virtuous as Caesar's wife. And those who fail to be scrupulous in their observance of the rule of law cannot be tolerated.
-
OK... I think it was Harold Macmillan who said "We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts."
True, but I think there's a difference in falling down "for the divine right of experts" and just giving due consideration to their advice when considering policy changes, especially when the policy change is not really urgent.
-
Oops. "...touched on the same point..."
-
Or as Russell said: "Even if National has a mandate for its policy, it doesn't have a mandate to rush it through without scrutiny."
and Jason toched on the same point also.