Random Play: The Key’s under the Matt
66 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
Yeah, that McCarten column was curiously pissy, wasn't it?
The guys at The Standard are a similar mode -- feigning outrage over Key's supposed transgressions and blunders. They need to chill out: I expect there will be things to get decently outraged before too long.
-
As my seven year old daughter commented yesterday:
Hermione: "So is John Key the Prime Minister now?"
[She quite liked Helen Clark, but as she was the only PM she's ever known and mum and dad did too, that's not a surprise.]
Me: "Yes."
Hermione: "Well, nothing much has really changed, has it."
Indeed. Not yet anyway.
-
"Well, nothing much has really changed, has it."
And that of course is why we really have the so called "honeymoon "
Either nothing much happens or so much happens that the media spend all their time saying "geez look at all this change"
Sorry folks, but that how we run things here
Of course it helps that by the time past Governments have got organised it was that really silly season, post christmas news drought -
<i>They need to chill out: I expect there will be things to get decently outraged before too long.</i>
There always is. :) And what exactly was Key supposed to usefully add to comment around events in Mumbai - apart from "buggery shit"? As far as I'm aware, MFAT and the High Commission were doing their jobs.
-
Things may not have changed yet.
But here's Jeanette on how they're about to.
http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/11/30/nz-red-faced-over-climate-change/
And for those who suspect bloggers are immune to talkback bullshit, check out the trolls the Greens have to endure.
-
Also, Graham's post reminds me of another great word for 2008. From over the ditch:
"Sorry".
-
I spent five minutes reading the McCarten piece.
Pretty much a waste of time.
He seems deluded about the amount of substantial (as opposed to superficial) difference Obama will make, especially considering what a big-business driven, military-industrial complex bolstering, anti-Palestinian, Serbia-bombing, Russian oligarch-installing regime Clinton's was for eight years. And Obama has chosen the SAME team (with some Cheney-esque nasties, like Rahm Emanuel, thrown in for good measure). That's real change for you.The only part I thought McCarten had vaguely right was his assessment of "turbo capitalism as practised by corporate America". A corrupt sham? Yes. But Obama is just the new friendly face sponsored by Wall St. to tell the world that Business as Usual can continue after a slight interruption.
The evidence I've seen suggests that the USA, as a viable entity, is on its last legs and will barely make it through to the end of Obama's first term. Beyond that, all bets are off, as far as I can tell.
McCarten seemed pretty smart and capable back in the early days of New Labour in the late 80s. Sadly, he ends up pumping out these pulp opinion pieces for the Sunday papers. All a bit tired, is my impression.
-
Curiously on topic, I just have share this piece of gold -
Anne Coulter has had her jaw wired shut...
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedishrag/2008/11/oh-dear-page-si.html
-
talkback radio which, whether we bloggers like it or nor, is still a good way to get the pulse of what many people are saying and thinking
I do hope not. That would mean that "many people" are bigoted, ignorant morons with speech impediments. Not that there's anything wrong with having speech issues or mental disability
-
If you want actual bad shit that National is doing:
- Bringing in legislation under urgency and without consultation to try and jail people on suspicion.
- Delaying the ETS, while other countries move ahead and are already taking countermeasures against recalcitrant nations that deny global warming. Like taxing air fares.
- Looking at giving the Air Force back their jet fighters as a future christmas present. Jet fighters that arer obsolete and have no armament, at that.
-
I do hope not. That would mean that "many people" are bigoted, ignorant morons with speech impediments. Not that there's anything wrong with having speech issues or mental disability
Probably not - People like venting - but not carrying it any further - and - like blog commentators, a majority are repeat offenders - it would be the same as claiming that based on the commentariat here, "many people" are of the humanist, liberal and thoughtful persuasion -ith typograpical issues. of course
-
I am convinced talkback radio can act as a Neizchean abyss for people who spend a lot of time listening to it in their cars or trucks as a way to pass the time. Listening to the racist and fascist ravings of Leighton Smith and co over a period can slowly brainwash you.
-
Looking at giving the Air Force back their jet fighters as a future christmas present. Jet fighters that arer obsolete and have no armament, at that.
Whilst I don't agree (or totally disagree to be honest) with this decision, they ain't jet fighters by any stretch, they're trainers. NZ hasn't had jet fighters since the Vampires were retired in 1971. The Skyhawks were ground attack aircraft and these MB339s are able to used for the same, albeit mostly as weapons trainers. Used for that they are not obsolete, whereas the Skyhawks were (as were the junk Shipley was buying to replace them with).
I do think it's unfortunate that NZDF lost it's fast jet training ability, a skill which has some application beyond combat.
-
I was thinking about JK's trip the other day - I can (sort of) understand the trip to Peru, though it did seem a bit off to push his govt on GG before the votes were all counted just so he could go - seeing him on TV in his poncho I couldn't see the point other than that he just wanted to be there with the big boys - it's not like the heads of states at those things do anything other than sign off on what their functionaries have already agreed - in the end it just seemed a bit vain.
I didn't realise he was also going to London as well until it showed up in the press - that part kind of reminded me of a previous age, perhaps Holyoake going off to pay his respects to queen and other country - it just seemed so quaint, something from the newsreels at the movies in my childhood (just after we'd all stood up for the queen - remember when we all used to do that, until enough of those my age just didn't and they stopped showing that film of Liz on a horse to avoid fights).
I'm glad he made that comment about a Republic though - bet it pissed of a certain portion on the Nats though
-
"...I do think it's unfortunate that NZDF lost it's fast jet training ability, a skill which has some application beyond combat..."
The role of the New Zealand Air Force is to defend New Zealand, not act as a very expensive taxpayer funded training institution for international air lines. The A-4's were useless in joint operations in, say, Afghanistan because our Allies have more modern and better equipped aircraft that can do the job more accurately. Since there is no remotely realistic threat to our home islands either, the A-4 attack jets we had had no conceivable combat application. They consumed a disproportionate chuck of the operational budget in fuel, parts and wages to keep flying. The cost of buying fast jets that were sufficiently modern and capable of combat operations was deemed to expensive for the limited range of uses they would have.
That is the end of the matter.
-
That is the end of the matter.
I pretty much agree with your post, but this sentence somehow makes me feel chastened by proxy. Wrap those toys up in plastic and put them away! I want to see that runway clean for a change! And don't give me that face...
-
@Sam F - Oops! I am just used to dealing with the blood thirsty armchair admirals and keyboard commandos of the kiwiblog sewer, who see the fast jet issue as a direct attack on the size of their dicks.
-
Ah, something the jets could be used for!
-
A good supply of short-range guided missiles could do the same task as jet fighters for a fraction of the cost. The biggest problem with that? There's less of an adrenalin rush launching guided missiles.
-
Since there is no remotely realistic threat to our home islands either, the A-4 attack jets we had had no conceivable combat application.
Also, anyone better armed than Qantas would knock them out of the sky no problem.
-
Of course, all Mr Mapp said was: a defence white paper due to be completed next year would "provide a process to consider whether it is desirable to retain some level of jet training capability"
And the NZPA somehow turned that into a THE JETS MIGHT COME BACK story. Which, while much snazzier than "Mapp gives meaningless response to question" (come one, a "provide a process to consider whether it is desirable" is about as weak as the English language provides for) is hardly reason for the headline given...
-
If we are to assume the history of weapons in the electronic age is really the history of the rise of the robot weapon, then manned jet aircraft have a future that doesn't extend beyond the next 30-50 years anyway.
-
It'd be nice to have some proper naval vessels to fire such rockets from. You know, those normal ones every other navy seems to prefer, that are built with a low centre of gravity, and without two big holes in the side to lose boats and sailors out of?
-
Since there is no remotely realistic threat to our home islands either, the A-4 attack jets we had had no conceivable combat application. They consumed a disproportionate chuck of the operational budget in fuel, parts and wages to keep flying. The cost of buying fast jets that were sufficiently modern and capable of combat operations was deemed to expensive for the limited range of uses they would have.
Tom where did I advocate keeping the A-4s? I didn't which really nullifies the rest of your post (BTW which I completely agree with that's irrelevant). As to MB339s, if they are removed from the A-4 / Combat wing cost structure and used at a low level they are relatively in-expensive.
The defence forces provide a vast range of training for a whole raft of other industries, including international airlines without the MB339s and at substantially greater cost to the tax payer than the trainers cost on a year in year out basis. Shall we kill that too?
If we want to have an efficient airforce, or an airforce at all, we need to at least offer the basic competency in modern equipment and the Mb339s are the minimum we have to do that. They also offer a cost effective quick response to maritime situations that NZ no longer has. We have no aircraft, apart from lumbering old commercial 757s that we can quickly send to an offshore situation (6 x 40 year old P3Ks, no matter how rebuild can't begin to cover it) at vastly higher cost than a small lightly armed jet.
They also provide a cheap level of attack training and target practice training for the navy and Army who do get into shooting situations. Right now they have none of that.
-
Delaying the ETS, while other countries move ahead and are already taking countermeasures against recalcitrant nations that deny global warming. Like taxing air fares.
Good on the Brits for appliying a "carbon tax" to international air travel. We should do the same.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.