Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: The Mood

256 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 5 6 7 8 9 11 Newer→ Last

  • WH,

    @ Craig: Peace out to the max, but you are getting some far out crazy feedback about your writing style. Obviously you can write whatever and however you want, but maybe peeps are saying that they feel that awesome-level communication is not always happening. I'm not player hating, just saying.

    Since Nov 2006 • 794 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Williams,

    You can hold Farrar or Slater entirely to account for their actions (whether I agree with you or not), but I'd say think very carefully about exactly what you mean by that bland word "associates".

    You've picked your words carefully, I'll do likewise. David is very keen to cultivate an image as that of a bipartisan expert. I think that merits a serious challenge but clearly he's no "winger".

    Currently though, he's more than a little worked up about the "associates" of the 8wire and Standard mobs. Fair enough (not that he doesn't retread National Research Unit advice regularly) but why enable, indirectly and directly, Slater? Surely he realises it works against his more high-minded ambitions? The only reason that makes sense to me is that he wants Slater (and redbaiter et al) to be the oaf so that he does have to.

    Sydney • Since Nov 2006 • 2273 posts Report Reply

  • andrew llewellyn,

    Might try watching from the get-go on C4...

    <cough> vanity </cough>

    Since Nov 2006 • 2075 posts Report Reply

  • andrew llewellyn,

    The only reason that makes sense to me

    Hmmph. Once more with feeling - another reason makes sense to me:


    <cough> vanity </cough>

    Since Nov 2006 • 2075 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Williams,

    Andrew, I don't quite get it?

    Anyway, I don't mean to turn this into a thread about kiwiblog, I've done my thing about that and appreciate that others don't see it in quite the same way I do (plus, if anyone asked me to bag-out my mates in public, I'd decline, even if I had private misgivings).

    Sydney • Since Nov 2006 • 2273 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    David is very keen to cultivate an image as that of a bipartisan expert.

    I don't think David pretends to be anything of the kind, but hell... he actually gives the evil Liarbore Dykeocracy credit when he thinks its due, which admittedly isn't that often. That's a bad thing? :)

    Currently though, he's more than a little worked up about the "associates" of the 8wire and Standard mobs. Fair enough (not that he doesn't retread National Research Unit advice regularly)

    Well, the problem I have with 8wire is best put by Idiot/Savant here:

    it's also a blatant attempt to evade the Electoral Finance Act. The site and its editor are both outside New Zealand, which makes the point moot in a practical sense, but according to their self-justifying statement, they have "decided, for reasons of equity, to behave consistently with the Act in any case". The problem is that both of the exemptions they cite look decidedly dodgy - it all looks a bit slick and well funded to be "non-commercial", while their declaration that they are "ready to ensure the election of an LPG Government" blows their appeal to the media exemption out of the water. Many people, I think, will be concerned whether those videos are really being produced outside New Zealand - and National will no doubt seek to counter them by claiming they are really being hatched in the Beehive. By allowing that, they're undermining their cause, and the credibility of fair controls to prevent the rich from buying elections.

    Partisan hackery is one thing, but dishonest partisan hacks who are (perhaps) being used by political parties to get around campaign finance rules? That should worry everyone.

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

  • Paul Williams,

    Partisan hackery is one thing, but dishonest partisan hacks who are (perhaps) being used by political parties to get around campaign finance rules? That should worry everyone.

    Craig, I await the no8 response to I/S's criticism. I suspect, but don't know, that it'll deal with many of his/your concerns.

    Sydney • Since Nov 2006 • 2273 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    Craig, I await the no8 response to I/S's criticism. I suspect, but don't know, that it'll deal with many of his/your concerns.

    Well, I hope so. The folks behind the last iteration of this, KeepLeftNZ, weren't open at all. And, to be be perfectly cynical about it, all they to do was keep their cover until election day.

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

  • Don Christie,

    Craig, I presume you have mis-posted a link. The only quote I can find from I/S in that thread is:

    Hey, I explore obscure bills that will pass too - and some of those are things people should really be paying attention to.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1645 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    Bugger bugger poo poo wee, Don. You're quite right, that should have pointed to http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2008/07/new-kiwi-blog.html

    Tabbed browsing, bloody wonderful as long as you're paying attention. :)

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

  • Don Christie,

    Ah, found it here

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1645 posts Report Reply

  • Don Christie,

    I must say, 08Wire, apart from the clever name it's a dog of a site. I with Lance Wiggs on that.

    Doesn't add much value to the political debate either.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1645 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole,

    If the election carries on this theme, I'ld be happy.

    MPs call for improved ambulance services

    Fat chance. There's mud to be flung and shit to be stirred. Can't see National being too keen on getting in behind a policy that'd require tens-of-millions more dollars being pumped into health, and sure as hell the money's not going to come by getting people to take out private health insurance. The bureaucracy isn't that fat!
    I notice that there wasn't a single attributed comment from a National MP in that story, despite the fact that at least one will be on that committee (can't be arsed going to check the exact composition).

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    I notice that there wasn't a single attributed comment from a National MP in that story, despite the fact that at least one will be on that committee (can't be arsed going to check the exact composition).

    Well, to be fair, Matthew a select committee report is just that and it would be rather good form to at least the Government formulate a response before jumping all over it (or not, as the case may be). It's certainly one issue where a careful and deliberate process would not only be good public policy -- and have some positive outcomes, one hopes -- but very smart politics. "Improved ambulance services" is one of those Mom and Apple Pie issues (who the hell would be against that), but how you get there will inevitably be costly, complex and needs to have some meaningful consensus that is going to last beyond the current electoral cycle.

    I must say, 08Wire, apart from the clever name it's a dog of a site. I with Lance Wiggs on that.

    Ewww, we're agreeing Don. :) Putting aside the content, the design is like being stabbed in the eyes with a box of crayons. I guess my definition of good web design is identical to Potter Stewart's famous definition of pron: I can't define it, but I know it when I see it. :)

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

  • Rich of Observationz,

    Regarding 08wire, it isn't a "loophole" that they're able to do what they like overseas. It's the simple fact that NZ law applies (mostly) only in NZ.

    And so it should. Governments shouldn't go claiming extraterritorial jurisdiction, except with very serious things like war crimes, and then preferably by international consensus.

    We wouldn't like it if China or Saudi Arabia tried to stop somebody blogging from here on their poltics, would we? (Well maybe some people...)

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 5550 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole,

    We wouldn't like it if China or Saudi Arabia tried to stop somebody blogging from here on their poltics, would we?

    There was a strong suspicion at the time that the Craccum thefts were "encouraged" by diplomatic figures from China, which is pretty close to the same thing.
    I dunno whether it's true or not. When it comes to Falun Gong, nearly anything is believable, but there's also so much bullshit that it's hard to tell the difference.

    Certainly the Chinese don't like letting people in other countries exercise their rights to protest *coughbusescough*.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    We wouldn't like it if China or Saudi Arabia tried to stop somebody blogging from here on their poltics, would we? (Well maybe some people...)

    Fair point, Rich, and I'd agree with you. OTOH, I don't think we'd be very impressed if the Chinese or Saudi governments were covertly funding or resourcing local blogs to attack local critics of their (appalling) human rights records. Illegal -- not as far as I know. Ethically dubious, to put it mildly -- hella, yes!

    And, as I/S pointed out 08wire itself claims to have ""decided, for reasons of equity, to behave consistently with the [Election Finance] Act in any case". And I think it's fair to ask whether the exemptions they claim stand up to scrutiny; like I/S, I'm not convinced they do, but it would be an entirely moot point if a valid promoter statement was added.

    I'd also suggest that there are legitimate concerns -- and no obvious solutions -- to, say, an offshore blogger deliberately breeching name suppression in a high profile rape case.

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

  • Steve Parks,

    This is going a-way back, but it’s such a good example of how a combination of ‘mood’ and spin are causing some to be more irrational than usual this election:

    Kerry Weston wrote:

    It doesn't mean everyone thinks trucks shouldn't pay their fair whack. it was the blind, bossy push to impose another tax right when everyone's feeling the pinch that ticked everyone off.

    Hunh??

    1 - What does everyone "feeling the pinch" have to do with expecting truckers to pay their fair share for road use? If, as you seem to agree, most people believe that truckies should pay their ‘fair whack’, why would they be more against moves to make that so now while times are though for them (that is, for the ‘everyone’ from whom the burden would be shifted)?

    2 - “blind, bossy…” Well, I guess all taxes are bossy, in the sense that the government always imposes them; you don’t get much “here’s a tax - pay it if you feel like it,” legislation. But other than the fact that, as usual, the state will insist that tax be paid, I don’t see how this is an example of especial bossiness.

    I’m even more baffled by “blind”. Sounds like a meaningless dig to me.

    So what we’re left with is this ‘new’ tax - which isn’t even really a new tax - that’s not blind or bossy in any meaningful way, and is essentially fair even according to you (trucks should “pay their fair share”). Yet you and “everyone” somehow seem to have a problem with it?

    Wellington • Since May 2007 • 1164 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler,

    1 - What does everyone "feeling the pinch" have to do with expecting truckers to pay their fair share for road use?

    It goes something like "truckers are protesting against a rise in government charges because they are feeling the pinch. I too am feeling the pinch. Therefore I support truckers who are protesting at feeling the pinch."

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3205 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Parks,

    I'm sure that's the gist of it, Graeme. But it ain't rational to react like that, and I suspect more people are reacting that way at the moment - thanks in part to 'The Mood', as Russell titled this column, and thanks in part to successful spin to the effect that everything Labour does is interfereing, nannying... bossy!

    At my work a colleague actually explained her support of the truckers action with: "because enough is enough!" It just remained for someone to yell out: "won't somebody think of the children!!"

    Good gravy, The Simpsons is on enough, isn't it? This is the stuff of cartoon satire.

    Wellington • Since May 2007 • 1164 posts Report Reply

  • Aaron Dick,

    George Darroch
    Posted at 7:49PM on 7 Jul 08.

    The anti-smacking bill should be scrapped, and replaced with the repeal of section 59 act .

    Oh thank goodness someone said this.

    After Drinking Liberally last week, I was talking to a mate of mine and he was talking about how he had heard there had been no prosecutions under the anti-smacking law. The implication was that the law was pointless as it had no effect.

    And my answer was that of course there were no prosecutions, because they didn't introduce a law that outlawed smacking. What they did was remove a clause that allowed a defense for assault if you were discipling your children.

    I think it would be worth refusing to say "anti-smacking bill" ever again and using the repeal of Section 59 instead. Trying to reverse the tide of received wisdom anyway.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 14 posts Report Reply

  • A S,

    1 - What does everyone "feeling the pinch" have to do with expecting truckers to pay their fair share for road use? If, as you seem to agree, most people believe that truckies should pay their ‘fair whack’, why would they be more against moves to make that so now while times are though for them (that is, for the ‘everyone’ from whom the burden would be shifted)?

    Perhaps people realise perfectly well that truckies "paying their share" actually means the general populace paying more for everything via increased prices.

    A cynical member of the public might observe that the tax money not spent "subsidising" truckies is unlikely to be returned to the taxpayers that now have to pay the cost of truckies "paying their share", as well as paying the original "subsidy" that will no doubt now be spent elsewhere.

    A logical view point if times are tough might in fact be to say, lets subsidise them on this, because that way at least we aren't any further out of pocket than we are at present.

    The populace aren't that dense. There isn't much in it for them except for increased prices. Not really a great selling point.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2007 • 269 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    Speaking of misogyny in blogland, a frequent Kiwiblog commenter who calls himself "goodgod" has outed himself as a seriously nasty individual.

    His comments on the Tony Veitch case:

    The last time I heard of someone I knew that gave their wife a good kicking, he found her in bed with another man. The bloke got a kicking too. Betrayal of that magnitude sends some people over the edge. There’s always a reason for a kicking, even if you’re a P addict. Who was this “lovely sporting girl”? At the moment, the media are portraying it as Veitch coming home to happy innocent blameless sporty girl, going up to the bedroom and saying” Hi honey!” and then he starts kicking. Utter Rubbish.

    It is not good enough to just sit back with a popular liberal outlook muttering to yourself “It doesn’t matter what she did, it doesn’t matter what she was, it doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter…” In good journalism, examination of the facts must not take a back seat to preconcieved ideology.

    Tell the whole story and let the reader decide. If you’re going to invent gasps of horror on one person, set them on the other too. Tell us if she was a slut or a shrew and not just that Vietch was is an abusive mental case. Tell us why she was kicked. I’m not awarding her a title of innocence victim as a default or immunity from examination without hearing the whole story first.

    I hope that man lives alone.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22825 posts Report Reply

  • Mark Thomas,

    A logical view point if times are tough might in fact be to say, lets subsidise them on this, because that way at least we aren't any further out of pocket than we are at present.

    alternatively, you could say that the things that damage roads (heavy trucks) should pay for their upkeep. At least when road taxes cause prices to go up, the prices are an indicator of the cost of road transport. Subsidies would have hidden that cost.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 317 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler,

    I was talking to a mate of mine and he was talking about how he had heard there had been no prosecutions under the anti-smacking law. The implication was that the law was pointless as it had no effect.

    And my answer was that of course there were no prosecutions, because they didn't introduce a law that outlawed smacking. What they did was remove.

    No.

    They did introduce a law that outlawed smacking. Smacking your children was legal before the passage of Sue Bradford's bill, and illegal following its passage. If that does not count as outlawing smacking then words have lost all meaning.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3205 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 5 6 7 8 9 11 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.