Hard News: Quantum Faster
379 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 16 Newer→ Last
-
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.
That's a little inaccurate. The usual term is a think four years. Moore got a three-year term, and was followed by Supachai Panitchpakdi who also got a three-year term.
How are we measuring "higher"?
Yeah. Where does President of the UN General Assembly fit on the list? Or President of the UN Security Council? Leslie Munro held both those positions.
And looking somewhat outside the UN - how about Judge of the International Court of Justice?
-
They're all impressive achievements.
-
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".
Given that the WTO arose from the ashes of the ITO, and the ITO was intended to be a part of the UN, one would consider that the UN "outranks" the WTO. There're also the respective focuses, with the WTO being much narrower in its purview than the UN.
It's a somewhat theoretical argument, given that they're both supranational bodies that accredit ambassadors, but I think most would consider the UN to be of much greater international import than the WTO.
-
It's a somewhat theoretical argument, given that they're both supranational bodies that accredit ambassadors, but I think most would consider the UN to be of much greater international import than the WTO.
Undoubtedly, but we're not comparing the UN with the WTO, we're comparing the UNDP with the WTO.
-
Anyhoo, the awesome news is that we regularly punch well up the international tables huh
-
Anyhoo, the awesome news is that we regularly punch well up the international tables huh
I have sworn to punch anybody whom I catch using that expression. How soon can you get to Wellington, and which side of the head are you least fond of?
-
Tomorrow; the left rear quarter
-
(Which of the many cliches were you referring to btw?)
-
(Which of the many cliches were you referring to btw?)
The "punching above" as a manifestation of national pride. Since every nation on earth uses that expression, is there any place that punches in fact below its weight?
-
Since every nation on earth uses that expression, is there any place that punches in fact below its weight?
I fail to see how consistent use of the expression has anything to do with the "performing in a higher grade of boxing than your weight allows" nature of it.
However I accept the awfulness of the phrase and am currently booking my flight. -
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.
Ok, I take that back. I guess my point was that Clarkson seemed to think his job was to be a clown. Perhaps I'm being unkind, I'll plead the ignorance of distance.
Please substitute Clarkson for Michael Laws... I give fair warning but, I'll not roll over so easily on the Laws comparison..
-
Please substitute Clarkson for Michael Laws... I give fair warning but, I'll not roll over so easily on the Laws comparison..
I insist we call him Michael Lhaws from now on.
-
With a silent "f" for - well, you know..
-
I insist we call him Michael Lhaws from now on.
That is evil, and needs to be spread more widely around New Zealand.
I tip my hat sir.
-
Surely, the highest attainment on earth, by a New Zealander was when Sir Ed got to the top of that hill in Nepal?
-
I insist we call him Michael Lhaws from now on.
Good one! Should we also refer to Lindsay Pherigo, if he is still hiding out there?
I have been alerted to a bit of a stoush going on over at Karl du Fresne's blog with Karl displaying a right old bilious dose of anti-intellectualism.
-
Is it that tired routine where he tries to make comedy out of "inpenetrable" academic writing? Never gets old, that one.
-
I have been alerted to a bit of a stoush going on over at Karl du Fresne's blog with Karl displaying a right old bilious dose of anti-intellectualism.
A right old dhick, to be sure. Thanks for the link.
-
Wow. Check out Garrett on last night's Backbenches.
He started an unprompted shouting match with a young guy in the audience (and even continued it later on), had to be told to calm down by Sue Kedgley, and appeared to be drinking quite a lot.
When he declares he "won't stoop to that level of ad hominem argument" (in response to a question from Wallace, the young guy says he thinks Garrett is a "right-wing prick"), it's oddly reminiscent of his conduct in a discussion here.
He really lacks the minimum standards we'd expect from from someone supposed to be representing the public.
Why doesn't anyone confront Rodney Hide about his MP?
-
Wow. Check out Garrett on last night's Backbenches.
NZ viewers only... will it appear anywhere else?
-
will it appear anywhere else?
Hopefully not, for the sake of our international reputation. What we need is more of that nice Mr Key reassuring lenders that the 90s are alive and well (ta, DPF).
-
Links? I want to see the proof that ACToids are actually capable of such a degree of introspection.
Ic an tell you Lindsay Mitchell did not like the 'change the bill or rights' thing. But she and her commenters generally seem quite pleased with the not-standing-for-Clark.
-
last night's Backbenches.
That car crushing discussion is the most absurd farce I've seen.
-
Is it that tired routine where he tries to make comedy out of "inpenetrable" academic writing? Never gets old, that one.
The du Fresne post is here and the paper in question is here.
Unlike du Fresne, I did read the paper, and even tried to get beyond my active distaste for the kind of writing it represents (so many unnecessary words, such a burning desire to aggrandise ideas with more words lest they seem too simple). And I still disagree with it.
The paper's argument is that journalism training courses should teach far more critical theory and (by implication) fewer practical skills.
The author defines 'theory' as "reading - or at least distilling - the insights of critically engaged thinkers like Marx, Foucault, Bourdieu, Laclau, Fairclough, etc. and, what in a more precise disciplinary context is variously signified as ‘journalism studies’, ‘critical communication studies’, ‘media studies’, ‘cultural studies’ and ‘critical political economy’ scholarship."
We even get a mention:
These hegemonic limits were exemplified by the configuration of the discussion panel on a recent broadcast of the Media7 programme, which was billed as an examination ‘of the often uneasy relationship between journalism and academe’. None of the three members of the panel offered what could be called a distinct academic perspective on New Zealand journalism. Two members represented the more liminal figure of the practitioner-academic and both were, or had been, institutionally located outside the University system. The third member of the panel was a working journalist.
Consequently, in the spirit of Trotter’s column and Du Fresne’s review, the general tone of the discussion was – to quote from the promotional blurb – structured by the question: ‘does modern journalism education emphasise theory over practical skills?’ (Media7 Blog, 2008). My point is not to suggest that industry-centric perspectives are illegitimate or irrelevant. However, it is to highlight the deeply ideological nature of a discussion on a programme that, ironically, self-regards itself as a reflexive media space. And by ideology here I have in mind the concrete theoretical account formulated by Laclau (2005), who describes an ideological representation as a ‘particular’ discourse misrecognizing itself as the ‘universal’ one.
Short version of the author's argument: unless you think like us and worship our ideological gods, it doesn't count as thinking. The experience of the "practitioner" is to be especially distrusted. Talk about misrecognising one's particular discourse as a universal one, eh?
-
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...
Craig R pointed out on another forum that Maggie Thatcher, too, wore trousers in front of the Queen.
Russ:
He started an unprompted shouting match with a young guy in the audience (and even continued it later on), had to be told to calm down by Sue Kedgley, and appeared to be drinking quite a lot.
Looks like Gharrett's drinking episode on Eye To Eye wasn't an isolated incident. Chlarkson seemed to come across as funny in an Inspector Sledge Hammer way. Gharrett has no such saving grace, and makes Chlarkson look like Georgina Beyer.
Michael Lhaws... LOL. I also recall John Bhanks referring to a large Northland town as "Wangarei" on radio a few years back.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.