Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: That Buzzing Sound

767 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 18 19 20 21 22 31 Newer→ Last

  • Simon Telfer,

    Just watched Sunday. Surely her appointment has to be withdrawn now?

    This saga is getting a Veitchness feel to it.

    Auckland • Since Feb 2009 • 16 posts Report Reply

  • simon g,

    Surely her appointment has to be withdrawn now?

    As she was reading her prepared statement, I thought she was going to step down. She could have moved on from her explanation to say something like "because I am passionate about children I do not want to be the centre of attention, the distraction from what really matters", etc. It looked like she was going to make a dignified exit, and fight her corner as a private citizen.

    But of course I misunderstand her. She is the cause, and the cause is good, ergo she cannot be the problem.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1330 posts Report Reply

  • Just thinking,

    I agree with simon g that this has all the compelling horror of a road smash.

    Bringing personal lives on to TV is ugly. It was ugly when Rankin talked of Helen Clark as 'Childless' and talks of specific tragedies rather than general policies to improve things. And it's ugly now to hear on 60minutes of suicide notes protesting an affair (of 2yrs) that Rankin denies, only to marry the widower 6months later.
    Road smash all right, I know it's wrong and I can stop but commenting on it.

    As for her professional position. She ruled herself out of contention years ago and these personal revelations shouldn't impact on this error of judgement by Bennett in giving her this role.

    Two options as I see it.
    a)Rankin should stay for the minimum term and Bennett should go.
    b) pay Rankin her years worth at $50K to stay away and then let her sue if she feels she can win one dollar more.

    Putaringamotu • Since Apr 2009 • 1158 posts Report Reply

  • Simon Telfer,

    I never got a sense during the statement that she was going to step aside - and the ratcheting up in intensity of her last response showed her in true character.

    Auckland • Since Feb 2009 • 16 posts Report Reply

  • Christopher Dempsey,

    No, but at least I think you got the little irony that you and Fiona had and still have a genuine choice about whether to marry or not, that David and I sure don't have ... something I don't think some others quite got their heads around. Sorry for the semi-threadjack.

    Lemme add to that. My brother, widowed, has a choice to either get married or civil unionised. I don't have that choice at all. Discriminatory? Absolutely. My brother's sexuality gives him that choice and denies me the same choice.

    Parnell / Tamaki-Auckland… • Since Sep 2008 • 659 posts Report Reply

  • giovanni tiso,

    My brother's sexuality gives him that choice and denies me the same choice.

    Sorry... could you elaborate?

    Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7473 posts Report Reply

  • Christopher Dempsey,

    He's straight and I'm a fag. Simple. He has a choice because of his sexuality, and I should have clarified - I don't have that choice because of my sexuality.

    Parnell / Tamaki-Auckland… • Since Sep 2008 • 659 posts Report Reply

  • Just thinking,

    It might be worth remebering Rankin talked of this suicide as a 'choice'.

    Putaringamotu • Since Apr 2009 • 1158 posts Report Reply

  • giovanni tiso,

    It kind of sounded to me for a minute there like his sexuality was doing the denying. Although I suppose if nobody was hetero than that particular discrimination would end. Still, I wouldn't single out your brother...

    Thanks for the clarification. I speak for the daft.

    Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7473 posts Report Reply

  • Christopher Dempsey,

    although, on the other hand, an arguement could be made for that his sexuality does actually deny me that choice. Heterosexuality, patricarchy, white men's homophobia, drag queens and all that. But that's another day, and another thread....

    Parnell / Tamaki-Auckland… • Since Sep 2008 • 659 posts Report Reply

  • simon g,

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1330 posts Report Reply

  • Islander,

    Christopher D - try being an asexual, mate: we dont exist as far as legislation is concerned. I am a member of a large, loving - and largely matriarchal - family group. In all legal documents, I am asked to disclose my sexuality - and there is NO box that says - gender/neuter.
    So I am - perforce- to declare myself as
    'female.'
    I know -& love- many lovely, loving females.
    I really aint one of 'em.
    But I am a good human being-

    Big O, Mahitahi, Te Wahi … • Since Feb 2007 • 5643 posts Report Reply

  • Kumara Republic,

    Craig, Stephen J: you're right, Rev Capill is in a class of his own with the kiddy-fiddling case. The point was, he's the most obvious example of pontificating about "family values", who then proceeds to be hoist on his own petard.

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 5430 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    Just watched Sunday. Surely her appointment has to be withdrawn now?

    This saga is getting a Veitchness feel to it.

    That's right, Simon: Who exactly did Rankin beat up again? And, as I've said up-thread, if you really want to trot out the neo-Victorian narrative of the succubus seducing a poor hapless man and driving a virtuous woman to suicide, well... we're going to have some issues. Big fricking issues.

    But of course I misunderstand her. She is the cause, and the cause is good, ergo she cannot be the problem.

    Actually, Simon, I'd just have said that her marriage isn't a problem, it isn't an asset, it's actually nobody's fucking business. And, for me, that applies to people I loathe as much as you obviously loathe Rankin.

    But hey, since folks keep mentioning Helen Clark -- perhaps she should have retired from public life so the salacious and vile tittle-tattle about her marriage and sexual orientation didn't "become the issue"? Bullshit.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Christopher Dempsey,

    Islander -

    I hear ya, and it's our lot in life to be fated to lead the 'straight', the 'narrow' and the 'moral' out of the darkness (where, goodness, many have (legal) err, interests shall we say) into the good life and light.

    And that's a whole other lifetime.

    Sigh.

    Parnell / Tamaki-Auckland… • Since Sep 2008 • 659 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    It might be worth remebering Rankin talked of this suicide as a 'choice'.

    Well, yes... and how exactly is that inaccurate?

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    But hey, since folks keep mentioning Helen Clark -- perhaps she should have retired from public life so the salacious and vile tittle-tattle about her marriage and sexual orientation didn't "become the issue"?

    And I'm bloody glad she didn't, and only left office when she lost an election. You know something, there are some people today who might like to consider what they've achieved by making Rankin look the class act and wronged party here. I believe that's what is known in sporting circles as an own goal.

    And having cast an eye-watering (but mercifully brief) look over the right-wingnut sewer, there's plenty of folks who think Rankin is a skank who need to be thrown under the nearest bus. Now. With friends like that...

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Keir Leslie,

    Well, yes... and how exactly is that inaccurate?

    Well, (as you know Bob) in traditional Catholic theology, suicide is often not a choice in the `exercise of free will' sense; it is the result of an illness, and no more a choice than coughing is a choice if you have the cold, etc. This is quite a sensible position I feel.

    Also, even if true, (and that's kind of doubtful) it is pretty damn tactless, no?

    Mind, this whole story is ugly and disgusting, and Rankin shouldn't resign because of it. She should resign because she can't do the job. (Still, let's be honest Rankin isn't looking like a class act; she's looking better than the media, which is basically as simple as not jumping in mud and shouting obscenities at passers-by.)

    Since Jul 2008 • 1452 posts Report Reply

  • simon g,

    Craig

    I do not believe, and have not said, that Rankin's marriage is a problem. I think Rankin is a problem.

    When Rankin's appointment was announced, I had no idea of any of this personal stuff. Had never heard of it. To me, she was the WINZ woman, who had kept popping up on TV since then, irritating the hell out of me. I thought she was a stupid appointment, and I still do. Am I politically biased? Guilty. But that's your lot.

    But Rankin is successfully pushing the line that if you're agin her, it's because of the tabloid muck-raking. That is her self-absorption, her victim status.

    The idea that people just might not think much of her even if she'd had blissful monogamy with her high school sweetheart doesn't seem to have crossed her mind.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1330 posts Report Reply

  • dave crampton,

    Simon,
    I have met Rankin, although that doesn't mean much I know, I am aware of some of her work. Of course you're politically biased, not knowing some of the other stuff she does and has done. But really, rather than stating that Rankin is a problem, without even evaluating whether she can do the job or not, surely you would agree that the tabloid journalism of today - as I outline on my blog - is unacceptable, given that you have said Rankins marriage is not the problem. If so, why don't you criticise that with equal measure?

    welli • Since Jan 2007 • 144 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    Actually, Simon, I'd just have said that her marriage isn't a problem, it isn't an asset, it's actually nobody's fucking business.

    It would be cool if she were to say the same about other peoples' relationships.

    But I fear this really has turned into a mess with legs.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22834 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    It would be cool if she were to say the same about other peoples' relationships.

    I can't even begin to articulate how tired and distasteful that's getting, Russell. But what did MacIntyre do to you or anyone else to deserve having his private life splashed all over the media?

    But Rankin is successfully pushing the line that if you're agin her, it's because of the tabloid muck-raking. That is her self-absorption, her victim status.

    Jesus, Simon, she's responsible for the non-existent news judgment of two turd-rate Sunday newspapers? She may well be self-absorbed, but the rationalization going on here is getting ridiculous.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • dave crampton,

    It would be cool if she were to say the same about other peoples' relationships

    And not cool if she didn't? C'mon.

    She should resign because she can't do the job

    How do you know that Keir ? She hasn't even started it yet. You tend to put commas and full stops in the wrong places, but that doesn't mean you should stop writing comments.

    welli • Since Jan 2007 • 144 posts Report Reply

  • Jeremy Eade,

    This family shit was a big winner for the initial flame of United Future .The family is a very poorly supported insitution. A vote winner.

    If we are going to recognise the family as an area of governmental concern and there is a tonne of science out there that encourages that notion we should put amazing people in this role .Running the slow hardcore beauracracy of the dole doesn't nessarily make you a strong advocate of the family. She is a poor appopintment to this role in that she doesn't seem to be any kind of expert on this rather new and developing science of how to make happy family cities .

    auckland • Since Mar 2008 • 1112 posts Report Reply

  • Keir Leslie,

    How do you know that Keir ? She hasn't even started it yet. You tend to put commas and full stops in the wrong places, but that doesn't mean you should stop writing comments.

    One certainly overuses semicolons (and one knows damn fine what intellectual sin that's revealing of!), yet one is reasonably sure that, while one's commas and full stops may not always be perfect, one has never managed to stuff them up so awfully awfully badly as to be unreadable, although no doubt quite badly enough that one should not want, say, to apply for a job as proof-reader or copy-editor on the basis of these comments, whereas Rankin has managed to bugger up previous jobs that --- one assumes --- are acting as her qualifications for this one, has managed to say offensively racist things about child abuse, has positions on what the family, that famously nebulous concept, is, that one, and one is sure, many other New Zealanders, find deeply abhorrent and would appear to be unable to move on from a culture of extravagance and brash offensiveness even when it is brought to her attention, while one should argue that one has managed to place in the preceding words, arguably legally, half-a-dozen commas delimiting some rather nastily nested clauses, several apostrophes, two em-- and en-- dashes and a pair of parenthesis (although sadly for readability not yet a single .)

    (To put it less Wolfsonianly, I don't stuff up that badly and I don't use these writings as a claim to be employed copy-editing. Rankin has screwed up badly and that would appear to be her qualifications for being a Families Commissioner. Also, if I can't judge her ability until after she has started I am truly going to have some difficulty hiring people if ever I have to. How will I be able to spot the incompetents beforehand? They haven't started yet.)

    Since Jul 2008 • 1452 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 18 19 20 21 22 31 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.