Posts by kw
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Kereru are pretty common round the Dunedin green belt. Got home to Opoho one dusk and opened the door to my flat to have one fly in my face - it had broken through my (shut) bedroom window, bounced off the wall (tiny room), unhurt, and been flapping its way round my tiny flat crapping itself until got home. I grew up with a vampire budgie and don't like the flying beaky things so a friend came and rescued both me and it.
I still give kereru a wide berth. Home invaders.
-
Toby Manhire's Spinoff interview with the mayor of Christmas Island here is interesting...
-
Hard News: A cog in the Mediaworks machine, in reply to Deborah,
Spot the South Islander, but does anyone outside Auckland know who half the NZers (as opposed to international names) she writes about are? The few times I've recognised somebody, I didn't care either. So while she might be influential or whatever in the bubble of central/affluent Auckland, if this influence is overstated nationally, the exercise could turn out to be more egg on the face of Mediaworks.
-
A few weeks ago, I was surveyed by NZME about their presenters. The format allowed me to identify which of their people I liked and why, and then who I didn't like and why. So I got to comment on the reason I really like John Campbell (even if he is a bit too Labrador for me) and really dislike Mike Hosking.
May I just say, it was__ fun__(and I didn't even use rude words). Interesting that they were still asking - this was maybe a week or two after the announcement of the review.
As for TV3: I watch The Nation and The Good Wife - ie nowhere near PrimeTime. Sometimes Seven Days, and probably Westside Story. But that's me done. I'll switch back to TV1 news (despite the excruciating weather gurning and for the rest watch Prime mostly (yeah, I'm getting old).
It beggars belief that they won't admit that the reason people weren't staying on to watch their heinous 7.30pm shows was because those shows were gruesome. And how long will they persevere with Henry despite his ratings?
I am looking forward to the QB honours list with unabashed cynicism.
-
I look forward to Rodney's diatribe next week being about the refusal of some councillors to let go of their vendetta against Brown and constant seizing on small stupid things.
Meanwhile, just to further cheapen the whole thing but t's pretty hard to take any of it seriously, my favourite detail was the iron. I'm really pleased to know that there's equipment on hand for the mayor to look respectably pressed - but does he do his own emergency ironing or is that a job for a minder? (Insert appropriate emoticon.) Really, the Herald and the TU missed a trick here, there's always tomorrow.
-
Legal Beagle: Gerry Brownlee is…, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
Ah, but they'll say it's a living language. Or that we should be tolerant of typos. Both of which are true, but if you're paid to write for a living, you should know that there is no such word as layed, and apostrophes should come as easily as breathing, likewise the two-second check before you press send. (Quickly checks for typos and other bad language!) Stuff and Radio NZ are both quite sloppy on this when they put material up quickly - live blogging etc. And the examples you use are so bad you could almost think they were trying to be funny at the expense of pedants.
-
Hard News: UPDATED: Media Take: Election…, in reply to kw,
(Should probably clarify that last post's line about the timing was a paraphrase, not a direct quote btw) The other thing that made me smile was the admiration for the way the PM was such a staunch supporter, always so happy to be seen to be supporting the team. Yes,' um, okay' sums it up nicely.
-
Hard News: UPDATED: Media Take: Election…, in reply to izogi,
Thank you, that was enlightening. Also kind of hilarious. 'It never occurred to us it would come out so close to an election...' Bless their fuzzy woolly socks.
-
Hard News: UPDATED: Media Take: Election…, in reply to Russell Brown,
Did anyone ask Rugby News why they thought it was a good idea, which is what I seem to recall was Key's explanation? I refuse to pick the thing up to see what their explanation was, because I'm not their audience (not an atheist, an indifferent), so it would be clickbait, but still, it did seem rather an off the wall decision.
As for the alleged McCaw message, and the one that Matthew Beveridge quoted from Dan Carter last week - it's yet another reinforcement of the polarisation of this government. In the blue corner, rugby players, golf, beer. But last year's bigger international NZ success stories were Lorde and Eleanor Catton, and Catton's stood up for the Greens and Lorde told the Young Nats they weren't her cup of tea, if what I read in the SST was correct.
And on the subject of McCaw, is John Key going to get another PM's 'election free hour' this year to talk about his cat and TV programming and interview blokes who like him?
-
Hard News: The crybaby philosopher, in reply to tussock,
Yup, last time all the Nats got out of Act was half a seat and a policy laundering mechanism. And this time, if Epsom voters do as requested, they might still get nothing more than David Seymour. Arguably, if they got Whyte, they'd be even worse off, because he does seem to be a fairly loose cannon.
But ultimately it's not up to Epsom if Jamie Whyte gets in. It's up to all of us, because coattailing is a provision that's very easy for voters to reject. It may very well be one reason Act only got one seat last time, because their party vote share was abysmal. Last election - I am nerdy enough to have looked this up - Act's highest party vote count was in Epsom, and it was still under four figures. In the Maori seats - they will probably be pleased to know their disdain is mutual - their vote share ranged from 46 down to 23 for a princely total of 230 votes across 7 seats. They didn't get over 100 votes in any of the South Auckland seats, and hardly did better in the South Island. Andrew might have some thoughts about that, but my perspective is that they just don't try hard enough. This is true about most of the minor parties, who don't bother us much down here. (This is also true of National, and don't think I'm complaining.)
Because the party's so small, Voting for Act on the party side of the ballot this year is really simply a vote for Jamie Whyte. Would you bet on that working for them?