Hard News: Quantum Faster
379 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 16 Newer→ Last
-
It would be frankly irrational for the government to not let Kordia go ahead.
To echo Mark, you've just used the words "irrational" and "government" in the same sentence, along with an implication that politicians would never act in anything less than the most rational of ways.
-
David Garrett is a complete arsehole. And that is about all that can be said of the man's actions.
Mind you, it has been fun watching all the various libertarian ACToids out there slowly wake up and realise their party has been subject to a Bolshevik takeover by the Sensible Sentencing Trust.
Delicious irony for Labour supporters who had to deal with the wreckage of neo-liberal palace coup in their party.
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
-
For want of anywhere else to post this, it's going to be a long three years with David Garrett, isn't it?
I'm glad you posted it, because it saves me taking the conversation in that direction.
Garrett's behaviour justifies perfectly the opinion that so many people have of politicians. Regardless of what he thinks of Helen personally, it's an amazing achievement to go from PM of a nation that's a pimple on the arse-end of the world to number three at the UN.
Of course he probably wants to see the UN scrapped and all foreign aid terminated, so I can understand his reluctance to acknowledge the magnitude of this appointment. -
'For want of anywhere else to post this, it's going to be a long three years with David Garrett, isn't it?'
Probably both ACT and the 'sensible' element of SST are now wondering if it was such a good idea levering the little turd into Parliament
-
Mind you, it has been fun watching all the various libertarian ACToids out there slowly wake up and realise their party has been subject to a Bolshevik takeover by the Sensible Sentencing Trust.
Links? I want to see the proof that ACToids are actually capable of such a degree of introspection.
-
David Garrett is a complete arsehole. And that is about all that can be said of the man's actions.
What a publicity hound! I guess he's keen to corner the class clown position absented by the departure of others? It amazes me how some MPs so desparately covert coverage that they'll try anthing even if it means they're typecast as oafs. Still, if all you've got is the capacity to be a prat...
-
it's going to be a long three years with David Garrett, isn't it?
I was thinking about this yesteday. It does seem a little churlish, but I think a valid comparison is with people who can't get over Bush.
There are people who believe Bush violated the Constitution and broke the law, was corrupt etc. A lot of them aren't shutting up, they want investigations and recriminations. It's a rational position - they believe what Bush did was so bad, that there has to be some consequence beyond just being out of office, because without some consequence, no-one will realise that it was wrong, that it shouldn't happen, and then someone may try to do something similar again.
If someone feels the same way about Clark - Presidents shouldn't sack US Attorneys, PMs shouldn't sack Police Commissioners, etc. - it might be uncomfortable for those who've taken over her office (as calls for prosecutions of Bush are uncomfortable for the Obama administration), but I don't think they should shut up.
If Garrett refused to stand because of some honest disagreement over policy, that's a little immature; but if it's over what those people whom you might refer to as wingnuts view as unforgivable corruption, then it's the proper thing to do, even if it won't make him popular. -
I was thinking about this yesteday. It does seem a little churlish, but I think a valid comparison is with people who can't get over Bush.
No it's not. That's a ludicrous false equivalence.
-
No it's not. That's a ludicrous false equivalence.
I think you're both right: if you think that Helen Clark is as bad as Bush, that makes you a turd, but if it means you honestly chose not to stand as she bowed out of parliament out of that conviction, then you're being principled as opposed to a calculated seeker of publicity.
Shall we say he's a principled turd, then?
-
That's a ludicrous false equivalence.
Just to be clear, I hope you've noted that I'm not comparing Clark with Bush, but people who can't get over Clark with people who can't get over Bush.
-
but if it's over what those people whom you might refer to as wingnuts view as unforgivable corruption, then it's the proper thing to do, even if it won't make him popular.
"Mr Garrett told NewstalkZB it would have been hypocritical for him to do so, given he had little time for Helen Clark and what she stood for."
That speaks to a disagreement with her policies, not her actions. It also comes across as infantile and petty, not as principled. Many of the other Members in that Chamber have vocalised their opinions on Helen's past behaviour, and characterised her as corrupt, but they still rose above their partisan perspectives to applaud what is probably the highest office that will ever be attained by a New Zealander, unless she happens to become a future Secretary General of the UN. She didn't get the post through whatever "corrupt" actions she may have taken while PM, she got it through being a singularly impressive politician with enormous international credibility and experience.
-
If Garrett refused to stand because of some honest disagreement over policy, that's a little immature; but if it's over what those people whom you might refer to as wingnuts view as unforgivable corruption, then it's the proper thing to do, even if it won't make him popular.
I think you rather dignify his position. Judging by the report from Newstalk ZB, where he uttered the words, he hasn't thought it through that much:
Mr Garrett says that would have been a gesture of respect, which he does not have.
Indeed. I'd wager he enjoys very little respect.
To be charitable, he's only just arrived, and perhaps has had no chance to develop the respect other party leaders expressed for Clark. Tariana Turia, for example, was able to set aside actual grievances (as opposed to the kind of cranial buzzing noise that seems to constitute thought for Garrett) and express such respect -- principally for Clark's formidable work ethic.
-
probably the highest office that will ever be attained by a New Zealander, unless she happens to become a future Secretary General of the UN.
I hadn't thought of it that way, but I suspect you're right.
-
The irony of Garrett “not wanting to show respect” is that one of the biggest gripes his ilk had with Clark as PM was that she wore trousers when meeting the Queen.
Quelle horreur at that lack of respect...
-
Just to be clear, I hope you've noted that I'm not comparing Clark with Bush, but people who can't get over Clark with people who can't get over Bush.
Well I guess I've still got a quibble. I think elected officials deserve a measure of respect, if not for the person, then for the office and responsibilities they discharge. Though I'd not likely vote for them, I'd not begrudge Bolger, Upton, McClay or McKinnon their dues as they ascended international offices. For a NZ parliamentarian to grandstand as Garret's done is just chulish. His claimed justification is a contrivance; recall this is the bloke who suggested repealing the Bill of Rights if it slowed the progress of the three strikes law, claiming to be a man of any principal just isn't credible.
-
Good grief. It gets worse.
The video from Parliament shows Garrett ostentatiously unfurling and reading a newspaper behind Peter Dunne while Dunne pays tribute to Clark. One can only presume he's doing so deliberately behind he knows he'll be in shot.
What a disgraceful little man.
-
the kind of cranial buzzing noise that seems to constitute thought for Garrett
Heh.
Re the Highest Office - wouldn't Moore have that as DG of the WTO?
Not to belittle in anyway a pretty amazing posting like this. And I really don't put it past her to make SecGen either, you somewhat get the feeling that she's now just starting a new phase of political life (she's only mid50s at a guess?) -
Re the Highest Office - wouldn't Moore have that as DG of the WTO?
No, Clark's office is higher. She's what, third in the UN chain of command? Fourth? At any rate higher than director of the WTF. (Not a typo. To me it will always be the World Trade Fuck.)
-
What a disgraceful little man.
Yup. This parliament's Bob Clarkson's been found early?
Key impressed, again, with what appeared to be genuine respect.
-
At any rate higher than director of the WTF.
How are we measuring "higher"?
-
How are we measuring "higher"?
I kind of asked myself that too, but there must be some sort of understood hierarchy in these things, seeing as it was pointed out so often during the process (perhaps it was the anti Moore lobby, though).
-
Re the Highest Office - wouldn't Moore have that as DG of the WTO?
Seriously, Mike Moore was job sharing that position. Which I'm sure applies a 0.5 multiplier to his 'highest' rating.
-
Yup. This parliament's Bob Clarkson's been found early?
What is it about Bob Clarkson that makes you think he should be and David Garrett belong in the same category?
Bob found out early on that Parliament really wasn't the place for him, he had a colourful vernacular, but in short he was a good honest kiwi bloke (but one who was a teetotaller). He had political disagreements with others in the House, but had a good relationship with Nándor Tánczos etc. etc.
-
The person I feel sorry for over the Garrett actions is Heather Roy.
That would go against all her principles.
-
I'm not looking to turn this into a Clark-Moore pissing contest (they manage that between themselves quite nicely).
Was simply thikning that being the head (and no idea about job sharing, there is only one DG?) of one of the "big three" could "outrank" being number three in the "big one". Although certainly the UNDP budget, goals and overall intent is grander.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.