Posts by simon g
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I watched the whole debate (God help me) and clearly Pence did win ... but he won against Trump. Republicans who want a conservative must have been torn between hope and despair: hope that they can recover after Trump, despair that they ended up with him.
The real Republican battle now is between two contrasting labels: the "traitors" who didn't back the nominee, and the "clean hands", untainted by his defeat. Pence did a good job of straddling the two, ready to jump after the election. A refined, smarter Clinton-hate can work for them (alas).
As for Kaine, he was mostly annoying. Needs to read "1066 and all that": "Wrong and Romantic" versus "Right and Repulsive". Substance is great, but this is television, in Reagan country. Facts, schmacts.
-
We've got so used to Trump's bluster that the jaw barely drops any more.
But to put it in perspective, and trying to be as detached and fair as I can, if that level of incoherent performance was produced by a 1% party in NZ (say, Peter Dunne or one of the ACT leaders) we'd say "no wonder his crowd are at 1%".
I honestly can't think of anyone who's done worse in a NZ election debate. Brendan Horan?
-
I am uncomfortable with writing anything on this discussion, because the very title (“dummkopfs”) is an awesome QED on culture wars and the rise of Trumpism.
The rise, maybe. But the destination - no.
There's a fundamental distinction between starting out wanting to vote Trump, and ending up actually doing so. Yes, I get why people are feeling powerless and angry. The fertile ground has been well traversed, and we can all blame our culprit of choice (the feeble Democrats, the media, globalism, dormant bigotry, etc).
So it isn't hard to see why a demagogue has initial appeal. But this is way more than a Brexit referendum (obfuscating, distracting, confusing). It's way longer in time, it's way clearer in focus. It's not confusing at all. Simply, there is no longer any excuse for not knowing who Donald Trump is. Sure, many voters - not only in the USA - pay little attention to politics, it's a minority sport. But it's now reached the point where it's only possible not to know by wilfully avoiding the truth. Not the truth bent by the "liberal media", but the original source, the horse's mouth. Free and unfiltered, whenever we want to hear it.
So I have no time for Trump's voters. Not now. Empathising with rage is a long way short of curing the rage with a gun - as if there were no other possible option. If they choose to elect him they can never say they didn't know what they were doing, that he - or they - were simply misunderstood. They know now, they will know in November, and if they get what they deserve, then to hell with them. That's not "elitist", that's two plus bloody two.
-
Many of the comments on this Stuff piece make for unpleasant reading, but they also illustrate why the rugby authorities have acted as they have. In short, they believe they know their audience:
As with all matters of spin (political, corporate, etc), the "shut down, move on" tactic relies on public/media attention waning, and then the backlash ("bor-ing!"). It's morally stunted, but all too often it works.
-
I have a vague memory of Auckland or the Blues having some connection or appeal alongside Women's Refuge in the 1990's. Google hasn't helped, as it was back in the Lost Time before t'internet.
-
And then there's the misleading (or just stupid) generic photograph. Story about bad weather in Auckland ("it's been windy!") illustrated by file photo of hurricane in Florida, that kind of thing. "Women's pay lags behind", says ... er, a sexy model in a suit?
-
Is "hoverbait" a thing yet? Because that's what it's become for me.
After frequent disappointment, eventually you learn that a headline like "Woman eats fish who ate her husband" (invented, but all too indicative) is not likely to originate in Whakatane. So before clicking you hover over the headline, and "world" or "life/style" alerts you. Somebody in Russia or El Salvador did something strange, apparently. On Stuff it's easier, the headline is there too, sometimes under "oddstuff", another disincentive to read further. Tip: always hover on "Outrage". It usually isn't.
Anyway, the point is - gradually I learn not to be fooled, and so now there are fewer clicks from me. I agree that there is still solid journalism in the Herald, and I've found myself reading a story in the print edition (in a cafe, say) and then going back to look for it online, once I know it's there. But most days I'm not in the cafe. So - no clicks.
(Actually I'd quite like to read the fish story now ...)
-
Here is the media conference (edited extracts) by Supt. Chambers immediately after the shooting, a year ago:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/national/news/video.cfm?c_id=1503075&gal_cid=1503075&gallery_id=152969
It's worth noting the differences between the story then and now. Cerven is described as "an armed offender", which he was not. The AOS was not called. The fact that Cerven himself called the police was reported widely a year ago - it is being glossed over now. And as per my first comment on this thread, the police refused to say whether he was armed, simply because they knew (after the shooting) that he had not been. That violates the most basic principles of integrity and accountability.
Apart from the story of one avoidable fatality, the focus should be on the policy currently followed by police. If the officers were acting in accordance with that policy, then it needs to be reviewed, before the next tragedy. (If they were not, there should be consequences).
-
So the report is out. Headline exonerates, but the details don’t:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11702509
TLDR: police got it tragically wrong, but IPCA can’t bring itself (himself) to say so, despite the evidence, because then there would be consequences. Shame.
There is no Slovakian constituency in NZ, no media voices raised on David’s behalf, so nobody will be keeping this story going. It will be forgotten by tomorrow. It should not be.
(ETA: fundamental point here - which was always apparent, and is now confirmed - is that there was NOT a risk to the public. The police arrived, and there was a perceived risk to them).
-
Further to the earlier discussion about Stuff's random approach to comments, this seems a very strange choice:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/83536051/tramper-missing-presumed-dead-on-routeburn-track
It's as if they no longer care about any distinction between uninformed opinions and actual news. Sure, everyone can have a reckon about the All Blacks or the government, but an ongoing investigation into a death? Why? At best it's pointless, at worst ... well, you can see the problems without me spelling them out in a public forum. Terrible judgement.