Hard News: The Spiral of Events
198 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 Newer→ Last
-
Who was Pancho Villa then? See, I've been so impressed with Craig's literary recall, i took it as fact. :)
Can this help you Kerry? Gotta keep your eye on Mr Ranapia:-)
-
Hasta La Victoria Siempre !!!
Forever until Victory!!! Labour! -
Then there's that vile urine-colored beer that's supposed to be accompanied by a slice of lemon,
And that's only because you guys don't know how to drink Tequila, that beer was even necessary. ;-)
-
I'm a bit late to this party.
On the issue of Mr Trotter and his ridiculous metaphor, followed by an even more ridiculous attack on__ The Hand Mirror__, as Craig has already retold, I find it intriguing that he was called on his inappropriate rape analogy by David Farrar, by Russell Brown and commenters here, and by the ex-expat at THM, and which did he chose to attack? That's right, the ladies. No mention whatsoever of any men levelling criticism at him for the exact same thing, it's all about us "faux feminists" and our third wave attitude of entitlement. To which I would have liked to restrict myself to responding "whatever" and rolling my eyes, but instead I wasted a fair amount of this afternoon's limited spare time to rebutt him. I'm not sure it was worth it...
Thanks to whoever mentioned that Voltaire quote (sorry it is over the page now), I love that!
And to the rest of the PA Women's XV (surely more than XV these days?) I send gratitude for your contributions to this thread, as wanky as that sounds, cos it was nice to read your thoughts tonight, and you, and our male allies, made me feel significantly less grumpy.
-
JLM,
Thank you so much, Julie, it was time spent spinning straw into gold. Wonderful comments too.
I'm too shy to be one of the women's XV but I'm cheering you on from the sidelines.
-
Who was Pancho Villa then? See, I've been so impressed with Craig's literary recall, i took it as fact. :)
Can this help you Kerry? Gotta keep your eye on Mr Ranapia:-)
Thanks, Sofie :) I looked him up on wiki and wondered if he inspired Zorro (my hero) but no. I do enjoy Arturo Perez Reverte though
[{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arturo_P%C3%A9rez-Reverte}]Hope that link worked (wiki), his Queen of the South and Dumas -inspired novels are great.
-
On the issue of Mr Trotter and his ridiculous metaphor, followed by an even more ridiculous attack on The Hand Mirror, as Craig has already retold, I find it intriguing that he was called on his inappropriate rape analogy by David Farrar, by Russell Brown and commenters here, and by the ex-expat at THM, and which did he chose to attack? That's right, the ladies. No mention whatsoever of any men levelling criticism at him for the exact same thing, it's all about us "faux feminists" and our third wave attitude of entitlement
I wondered about this too. Either Chris Trotter has not read this discussion, or if he has read this, he has neither comprehended the two different criticisms nor correctly identified who is doing the criticising.
The criticism of Trotter's choice of phrase was made by men, and they expressed surprise at Trotter comparing the media frenzy over Winston Peters's refusal to answer questions to "a gang rape".
Far from believing rape victims are always women, I have met many men and boys who have been raped and sexually assaulted. The two women I know who have been raped have never talked to me about their experience, but I have spoken at length with the male victims I knew.
I didn't voice an objection to Chris Trotter's phrase, though I do understand why Russell Brown, David Farrar and the expat THM did. It was a really inaccurate interpretation of what was happening to Winston Peters.
The phrase to which I objected was about "Jenny Shipley spreading her legs..." and the problem I have with that phrase is that the sex act when performed by a woman is meant to describe a lack of power. Yet when a man is powerless, we use imagery that refers to his inability to perform the act; we say he is "impotent" or "dickless".
I pointed out that it speaks volumes about the sexual attitudes of the person who refers to exactly the same act to describe a woman as powerless or a man as powerful.
Do you think those descriptions back in the day of Blair bending over for Bush (with the implications of sodomy) are men-hating?
Well obviously these are intended to be homophobic, but as I stated above, my main objection to this sort of metaphor is that it's usually inaccurate.
If you know anything about sexual behaviour, you will realise that the fascination with anal sex is a more commonly held by heterosexual males than any other group in society - including homosexual males.
Anal sex is rarely of any interest to women, as they do not have a prostate gland to be stimulated by the act. Homosexual men do enjoy anal sex, but no more than heterosexual men; homosexual men are usually more enthusiastic about oral-genital sex.
If you talk to either the rent boys who service the customers or the clinicians who specialise in sexual health, they will tell you that the men most excited by anal sex are 1) straight, or passing and 2) married. My rent-boy friends told me that their customers were almost exclusively living as straight men (or they'd just cruise a club) and that straight men were more likely to want to be the receptive rather than the active partner in anal sex.
This is what I always think when anyone talks in terms of sexual imagery - and I am reminded of a line in a movie, uttered by a jaded teenager talking about the kind of guy with latent homosexual urges who is always joking about anal sex, being careful about dropping the soap in a communal shower and so on - and she points out, quite accurately, that "straight guys don't spend a lot of time thinking about naked wet guys".
-
The comment seemed rather... unnecessary... to me as well, but was it as stridently anti-female as has been so aggressively argued here?
One hopes she doesn't go like Jenny Shipley, spreading her legs for anyone who could promise another month, another week, another day in power.
While it is unnecessarily sexualised, it doesn't seem to be that different to "Jim Bolger, getting it out for anyone..." beyond the "physics" of sex from each gender.
I don't look to condone unthinking sexual discrimination and certainly recognise it occurs regularly, but this felt more like unthinking sexualisation, rather than discriminatory?
The concepts around power would have been the same regardless of sex - is it not just unfortunate coincidence that the author was 1) discussing the willful abbrogation of power and decency for politics, 2) chose to use crude sexual metaphors to do it and 3) the topic at hand happened to involve a female PM yet he gender was not relevant.If the issue was that the sexual metaphor wouldn't have been used at all if the PM being referenced was male, then I think that's a fair cop.
Note: this whole thing is probably that damnable Devils Advocate in me combining with an entirely unresearched interest in the concepts of male/female power positioning in language. I fear the 1st XV may be about to school me here... I would say "be gentle" but that's probably a little too loaded a comment!! =)
-
right, where were we? A person who loves all life will search out a proper environment for the starfish, and then gently reintroduce them. Because there are starfish & starfish
I see sort of ecological and environmental sensibility as being important in three different ways: first the recognition that we are participants in an ecosystem rather than consumers of resources is clearly one of the most relevant we face these in these days of heightened environmental alarm.
Second, there is the spiritual aspect of respecting all other forms of life, even if you have to kill them. It's common among many cultures to apologise to the prey when hunting and thank it and its species for all it provides during the butchering. These beliefs are accompanied by a belief that taking this bounty for granted as a hunter or wasting resources in any way will cause shortages of resources in the long run. To me, raised as an atheist, this makes a whole lot more sense than most religions.
The third way this environmental/ecological sensibility is important is related to one's own mental health. The Buddhist point of view that this attitude of respect and compassion for all "sentient beings" is more important to the person observing the niceties as it is for the species one is wishing well is being backed up by what we are learning about mental health and our role in a wider society.
Buddhists - and more recently evolutionary biologists and neurologists - hold the view that being inured and indifferent to suffering of an insignificant species will engender an attitude of brutality when dealing with other larger species - including our own.
Plainly put, if you go around pulling the wings off flies, killing small animals and being sadistic and if this brings you pleasure, you will be less likely to be a happy or accepted member of your society.Buddhists, primitive cultures, evolutionary biologists and neurologists are all for killing whatever it is you wish to eat or wish to eliminate from your life, but they would all argue that an attitude of glee at causing the death or enjoyment of evidence of suffering will ultimately damage the person indulging in what they would deem emotionally misguided attitudes as much as it will harm the smaller members of their environment.
God, I'll never recover from writing essays, it's scars one's style. It made me hopeless writing for any magazine that wasn't a medical journal.
-
Meanwhile, are we expected to take seriously Clark's expanding allegations that the SFO or Crown Law or someone 'tipped off' John Key about the Peters Investigation, or is it a textbook weapon of mass distraction the media have swallowed like hungry guppies?
And dare I say it, "Obamagate" and Duncan Garner's attempt to find something sinister in Key meeting Lord Ashcroft (a senior member of the Conservatives paying a courtesy call -- outrageous!) on Three News tonight is looking ever so slightly contrived.
By the way, folks, the actual Financial Times story is here, and I think the response from Clark and Cullen was just disproportionate enough to be silly. While it may rile up the Tory faithful, I wouldn't be that outraged if Helen Clark said that, in some ways, she's a little bit like Margaret Thatcher or Hillary Clinton. When Key starts comparing himself to Jesus, then I panic.
-
Craig, firstly there is no "Obamagate", just people taking the mickey out of Key's remark. If he can't handle that, he'd better get out while he can.
As for Ashcroft's "courtesy call", you do protest just a little too much. He has donated to the Tories in Australia and Britain, and it's hardly unreasonable to want to know if he's done the same here. When a politician says he has "no plans" to do something, any self-respecting reporter's antennae should be twitching.
John Key didn't just happen to find this appointment in his diary, as he suggested on 3 News. Ashcroft is a big noise, and Key the ex-Londoner would know that better than most. Now, Ashcroft may have had good reason to keep away from the cameras, but shyness wouldn't be one: the same man was more than happy to talk to the media about his reward for the missing medals.
At the very least, Key has reminded us of the rationale for the Electoral Finance Act - the one that he has pedged to scrap. He points out in the 3 News story that the EFA limits what Ashcroft can donate (thought not through Trusts, as we all know). Nice irony there.
-
As for Ashcroft's "courtesy call", you do protest just a little too much.
No, Simon, I thought it was rather pathetic watching Duncan Garner fishing for a scandal that just isn't there -- which he's done to both National and Labour in the past.
He has donated to the Tories in Australia and Britain, and it's hardly unreasonable to want to know if he's done the same here.
And if you have any evidence that Lord Ashcroft -- who is a foreign national, and as I understand current electoral finance law cannot make any kind of donation to any political party in this country -- and the National Party are planning to break electoral finance laws, put up or shut up.
Key said no. Ashcroft said no. Garner looked like a prize prick in a nunnery. Just another suck day in Bullshit City.
-
You have confirmed my final point, Craig.
Key said: "it wouldn't be possible for him to give anyway - he's an offshore entity."
Key is opposed to that law, and has pedged to repeal it.
-
Or even pledged.
-
Key is opposed to that law, and has pedged to repeal it.
Yes, Simon. And also pledged to replace it with a serious campaign finance law.
Meanwhile, Lord Ashcroft isn't just a nasty foreign "rich prick" who has (shock horror!) donated large sums of his own money to political parties elsewhere. He's also a Deputy Chairman of the Conservative and Unionist Party of Great Britian and Northern Ireland, as well as Treasurer of the International Democratic Union (which is an group of center-right parties from around the world, including the NZ National Party). Clark meets people in similar positions dozens of times a year - and doesn't always make a public event or media photo op of it. Big fucking whoop.
Still, you've made my point that in a crisis any weapon of mass media distraction will do - no matter how feeble.
-
Clark organised that story? And put it top of the bulletin? Damn, she's good.
-
Clark organised that story? And put it top of the bulletin? Damn, she's good.
Which is why you should leave the shamless bullshit misdirection to the professionals, Simon. She is good at it.
If Garner manages to find any evidence that Lord Ashcroft and Key are colluding to breech campaign finance laws that's genuinely newsworthy. What was deemed the most important political story of the day on Three News tonight is not.
-
Which is why you should leave the shamless bullshit misdirection to the professionals, Simon.
Craig, the story was raised by you, at 6.24 above. If you're going to define "bullshit misdirection" as "responding to a comment by Craig Ranapia", then find me guilty. It's a shame you so often feel this need to impute motives to others, rather than accept they might, maybe, see things differently, and just feel like saying so.
-
Misdirection is saying the SFO leaked the Win Peters charges to Key and then when pressed for proof say maybe not the SFO but someone in the Police or Justice Department.
Speaking of the Police ... Howard Broad asks Parliament for 'direction' (unprecedented) on his 'draft' plan to introduce Tasers one day and then (after Labour has used debate on that to tie up the House and delay debate on Win Peters) decides the next day that yes he will introduce Tasers. So why would Labour think someone in the Police is leaking to National? The traditional Kiwi sense of Fair Play?
-
Craig, the story was raised by you, at 6.24 above. If you're going to define "bullshit misdirection" as "responding to a comment by Craig Ranapia"...
Simon: Like everyone else around here, I have a reasonable expectation of being quoted or paraphrased accurately and fairly. I don't think anyone could reasonable say I alleged (and am quoting you directly here) "Clark organised that story".
She's certainly directly responsible for making utterly unfounded - and very serious -- allegations against the SFO (in the first instance) that have been extended to Crown Law and the Police. She should either put up or shut up.
As for Three's news judgement -- well, I don't think faux indignation over a rather anodyne quote from Key in the Financial Times and a typical Duncan Garner attempt to inflate a wet sparkler into a political bomb shell (a type of story Labour and Clark have been on the receiving end of themselves) had roughly the same news value as Britney Spears' commando-style ve-jay-jay.
-
John Key meeting Lord Ashcroft.... mildly interesting and completely in keeping with both men's roles, as Craig suggests...
So, why did it get headline billing? Because Key tried to play tricks....
Duncan Garner, "John, have you just had a meeting with Lord Ascroft?"
John Key, "I beleive someone from the party met with him."
DG, "Was that someone, in fact you?"
JK, "Erm,,,,, Yes, it was"
Why did John try and squirm out of it? He should have front footed it. "Yes I did, and it was completley above board, he's the head of the blah blah blah...." It would have been a complete non-story.It was news because of JK's response.... (still shouldnt have been headline news, but.)
*** (the above "transcript" is from my memory. I dont claim perfect recall, but I do beliive it is a fair representation)
-
So, why did it get headline billing? Because Key tried to play tricks....
I kind of agree with you, Fletch. Given Duncan's track record, I'd have just said "I know your game, and you're going to have to play with yourself." Or the Reader's Digest version - "Fuck off, Double Wide, and do some research into Lord Ashcroft's position in the Conservative Party." (Noticed that my political career is about as likely as Russell Crowe making a good album?)
But with all due (and sincere) respect, the "It was news because of JK's response" rationale is a wee bit too circular and self-serving to be credible.
And I've got to wonder whether Three's Spencer Trust "exclusive" was a little more important thank stalking Lord Ashcroft. Then again, that was another story where the steak didn't measure up to the sizzle but in a different way.
-
pledged to replace it with a serious campaign finance law.
Out of genuine interest Craig - can you point me towards anything on this? Policy would be grand but even just something about the key points he thinks need addressing?
Because I'd like to see that happen myself.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.