Posts by Caleb D'Anvers
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Or economists, even.
-
But English's most intriguing admission was that he had appointed former Treasury boss Graham Scott - and a panel of economists - to work on a new economic strategy.
Econonists. Oh, great . ITE, that's a bit like hearing that the politburo have engaged a crack team of Marxist-Leninist theoreticians to work out the best response to the collapse of the Berlin Wall.
-
Pfffft, egg heads. Who needs them to develop an economy?
Exactly. Looking at National's budget priorities, I can't help seeing a big employment ad: WANTED: gib fixers, roading contractors, and prison wardens. It's not a terribly inspiring prospect, is it? Then again, considering the rest of National's stated bugbears -- crime, the brain-drain, and boy racers -- you at least have to give them credit for coherence, if not an understanding of cause-effect relationships.
-
we have indeed entered the age of the internet, where every man worth his weight in informedness is free to judge the available evidence for himself.
Oh dear. I think we're well and truly at the point where Here Comes Everybody segues inevitably into The Cult of the Amateur .
-
Indeed. And one could, genuinely and on religious grounds (Noah, Ham, etc) object to being forced not to discriminate on racial grounds.
Yeah, but even that would be opening up a nice big can of worms. The Dutch Reformed Church in apartheid South Africa were once forced to admit that no less a figure than Moses had married a descendant of Ham, and that there was thus biblical precedent for mixed marriages.
-
With Thomas, it's the egregious unitarist indoctrination of juveniles, with their plastic brains and unquestioning acceptance of a omnipotent patriarch that I find disturbing.
Totally. But it's not quite as distressing as the blatantly authoritarian Little Golden Book Tootle , which stressed the paramount importance of 'staying on the rails no matter what!'
-
Isn't the most pertinent question one of 'were those who recommended and appointed Ms Rankin aware of her recent circumstances?' And if they were, why did they continue to see her appointment as appropriate? Why favour Rankin when there are so many other worthy candidates? How could they possibly think this wouldn't blow up?
Yes. Both here and in Foreign Affairs there's the sense of advice and professional expertise within the public service being ignored or disregarded in favour of what seem like blatantly political appointees. Which is not good in a supposedly independent public service.
I sometimes get the sense that some on the Right simply don't 'get' the concept of a neutral, professionalized bureaucracy. It's almost like they're living in a pre-modern world, where these kinds of offices are merely 'places' and sinecures to be filled with friends, family, and political allies.
-
Dude! I never trusted that little bugger. And now there's a whole generation out there who've been remotely programmed by Gunn and his shadowy, control-freak cabal to do their evil bidding. That's why Gen Y is so shiny and glassy-eyed. The Bilderbergs, The Son of a Gunn Show , mind control, and the Pleiadies, man: it's all related . Like, totally. Dude.
-
And, as it is all related, is this the most obnoxious article yet from Laws?
Man, is there some kind of sinister Dancing with the Stars conspiracy afoot in this country, or what?
-
Oh, and as I said Labour and the Greens are perfectly entitled to waste as much time as they can filibustering with meaningless amendments.
Right, so paid parental leave and preventing the stealth-privatization of Auckland's assets are 'meaningless' pieces of filibustering, then? Always nice to know where you stand on the issues, Craig.