Posts by WH
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Which is a roundabout way of saying that the pike joke wasn't altogether a joke, I suppose.
It's one thing to talk about the history of world religions and the way in which their (possibly anachronistic) ideologies affect modern society. It's another to tell a specific Catholic who is going to great lengths to be sensitive that you think it would be better if they were some kind of fish. Which is a long way of saying that it seems a touch harsh, and I can't imagine it would be okay if the roles were reversed?
As long as everyone is polite and civilised and above all nice in their manner, you can say quite vicious and nasty things.
That's true. There is no getting around the basic contradictions between very different belief systems, and the need to have laws that mediate those differences fairly.
-
**Why do you think I'm such a strong advocate of pikes?**
Bigotry and hatred are big words to throw around, I think.
-
Fukuyama recently appeared on Newsnight with Polly Toynbee and Lord Lawson to discuss the relative historical importance of 1979 (the beginning of the Thatcher/Reagan period) and 1989 (the fall of communism). It would be fair to say that Fukuyama was the most knowledgeable, articulate and interesting guest.
The fact that education is a lifelong process encourages a certain humility about other people's mistakes. The social and political aspects of the exchange of ideas seems to get in the way of that sometimes.
Brooks recently wrote about closing achievement gaps in Harlem's schools.
-
I believe it is possible to articulate a position on social justice from a right perspective - that's what we miss when the voices of old-style conservatives are drowned out by the brash neo-lib extreme.
However, a bigot is a bigot. Fortunately, Bennett seems too decent to go down the same road.
Yeah, apparently "rising star" is a pretty broad term. Saying that makes me feel mean, I don't want to write her off as a basically indecent person, I just want her to learn and grow and stuff.
David Brooks is good at the moment?
-
The acknowledgement that some of our communities are disadvantaged presents an opportunity of a sort.
Sure, it's easy to be cynical about our newsmagnet Minister for Social Development when she tells the Salvation Army:
Give a man a kumara and you feed him for a day. Teach him how grow a garden full of kai and you feed him for a lifetime.
but I'm sure that she has a passion for social justice and that her heart is in the right place. I suppose that to some extent the state can't replace the rewarding relationships, the arohas if you will, that shape our lives in positive ways and help to give them meaning.
I hope that Craig will one day articulate his vision for social justice on these pages.
-
I think a lot of Aucklanders would accept that South Auckland has its share of problems. But Melissa's comments hint at unattractively old school, is-what-it-is, us and them attitude to social development. You need to build a big wall, see.
Not cool for a Mt Albert candidate, I would have thought. I delivered flyers for Helen before I fled the country in search of a better life. Tze Ming and I are practically neighbours.
-
Who knew that the ring road had such vast crime fighting potential. It's like a giant concrete circle of trust.
Anyone can divide Mt Albert and South Auckland, but you have to be really good at maths to integrate them. tadah psssh
-
John Armstrong compares Paula Bennett's decision to appoint Christine Rankin to the Families Commission to Helen Clark's use of Geoffrey Palmer on the Law Commission.
That seems fairly charitable. Paula is no Helen, Rankin is no Palmer, and the Families Commission is no Law Commission.
I'm all about the austerity today. In three years New Zealand will be nothing but a mosquito infested lake and some pylons.
-
There is officially nothing that irritates me more than the idea that this is a media beat up. It isn't. The WHO for one is not in the business of spreading panic in order to help newspaper sales.
It's often said that it's only a matter of time before a global pandemic strikes, and I don't doubt that the WHO was right to follow its global pandemic procedures. We can nevertheless separate the threat from the ways in which media coverage of that threat is disproportionate, inadequate and irritating.
It would seem that there is a low probability that this particular virus will wreak devastation of the kind called to mind by the term 'global pandemic'. As CNN's Sanjay Gupta has noted, 36,000 Americans die of flu related illnesses every year. The Times has noted that the media driven overreaction to the last US swine flu outbreak ended up killing more people than it saved.
It's easy enough to locate this within well known critiques, but people aren't well served by (or particularly want) media coverage that is systematically exaggerated.
-
Oooh - I found the full version, bearing in mind that SSN samples and loops it. Doesn't it make you feel alive?