Posts by Paul Williams
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Uggh, having read the thread, I've no desire to read the various media commentaries.
What was Bennett thinking? More importantly, what'll she do now? She approved this appointment and needs to either defend her nominee or recall her. Bennett will have known the risks nominating Rankin and must have thought through a response to the possibility (probability) of a strong negative reaction. Leaving Rankin to face rabid commentators on her own is pathetic.
-
Ok, Ok, back to work to make a Frankenmato - well I would but I need to figure out the "benefit to New Zealand" and confirm "end user support" first but just as soon as I've done that... oh and filled out the safety impact form... oops I need to enter the project into SAP... and fill out the projected budget sheets for the next 5 years ... and sort out the development of human resources ... er what was I doing again...
Bart, do you think that all universities and research institutions are as careful about their transgenic research as you are? I have to say, I'm not entirely convinced. I say this, however, as a person who'd rather have carefully controlled research than a straight-out ban (oh and this isn't a gotcha set-up, it's a genuine question).
-
Australia is better.
Sorry, that was my point. Australian capital cities have far better public transport. Sydney's is far from faultless, but it immeasurably superior to Auckland's. The train network is particularly good if you live in the "inner-west" of Sydney where stations are perhaps only 1 - 2 kms apart and trains run at least every 15 minutes through generous peak-hours.
-
What major cities use trains anyway?
Which brings me back to Sydney, or Melbourne for that matter, and the observation that despite all the BS about slowing net PLT departures west, the government's not prepared to do the really tough stuff necessary.
-
Surely they've also contributed one or two useful ideas as well. Penicillin is generally regarded as being quite useful, for example. And still don't know how those reflective cats eyes at the Royal Oak roundabout know to flash when someone's about to use the pedestrian crossing. That's just freakin' amazing.
Hot soup, LOL... messy...
-
The Speaker has again rejected a request for an urgent appeal on the tunnel. Hughes has pointed out that the Government has avoided scrutiny on the decision, which was announced immediately after Question Time had ended, by the timing of its announcement. It precludes an urgent debate and the House will go into urgency, avoiding another Question Time. It's a remarkably arrogant move. Remarkable.
-
Yeah, but they already had their votes. Whereas they've just likely just lost some from sane people.
Possibly, but they might also consolidate and extend their votes with Evangelical Christian voters by seeming to wrest back control of the otherwise evil Commission? If that wasn't their intention, you'd be right in thinking it was just stupid. Odd though, as Russell and others have noted, that Rankin's their pin-up girl.
-
I'm always a couple of hours late to the damn discussion...
But, however we might not enjoy being lectured by Rankin in this context, it would be perilous to say that it should preclude her from the post. There are much better arguments than that -- most notably that Rankin and her trust set themselves against all the genuine child welfare agencies in the country by advocating strongly for the "right" to hit your children. It is genuinely difficult to see how she could work effectively with organisations like Barnado's given her comments about them in the past.
Russell, I appreciate and fully agree this carefully worded explanation of her unsuitability. Separately, I do wonder if National won't benefit somewhat from her appointment ~ with a different political cohort who see her as a real moderate in a sea of femo-nazis.
-
In general, I agree, Paul. In this case though I believe Rankin's marital status compared with her pronouncements over the past few years about the good old nucular family are fair game. TV news had some footage of her stridently slagging Helen Clark for not having had children, so she's obviously not averse to dishing it out.
I understand that Sacha. I think she's a hypocrite and I find her piousness hard to take and they're all valid reasons to criticise her appointment. My concern is that it's simply "scarlet women, thrice-divorced" that rings through and that discredits anyone who's marriage has ended; not fair.
-
Christine Rankin as the head of the Families Commission? Given she is on her fourth marriage she must be perfect for the job having had so many families.
I don't particularly like what Rankin's about or stands for. I think she was a poor public servant and has hardly done much since to redeem herself since. It's these reasons why I query her appointment to the Commission. That said, I don't think her personal life ought to be a factor in her suitability for public offices. I realise this is the "Families" Commission, but families continue even when parents split. It appears that three marriages justifies some criticism? Would two be ok? What number is acceptable and why? Is not having been married a disqualification?