Posts by Petra
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Back in Hamilton in the mid-90’s, I used to ride my old bike everywhere, ‘cos my old mini was broken most of the time. Zoe was about 18 months old, and loved sitting in her special bike seat on the back. Slowing up to a red light on Claudelands St, some twat got so close he brushed my leg and we almost toppled off on to the grass verge (at the speed we’d slowed to, I was able to drop my leg and keep us unsteadily upright). The driver couldn’t give a flying burrito about me or my wee tot’s safety at all. Didn’t even look back to see if I was swearing loudly at him, let alone see if we were alright.
Never had those issues cycling in London, Germany or Holland. Even in London(!) people cared about you on the busy city road.
And gotta agree, Hayden – it’s another nasty side of NZ’s many cultural issues. For some reason, many NZers think they’re just freakin’ awesome compared to non-Kiwis. But they are not. Not by a long shot. grrr, now I’ve made myself all angry…
We’d better have a song to pick ourselves up from the curb with:
-
Yesterday, I wrote on my Facebook page:
Tragically, a young man accidentally - well, carelessly actually - shoots a young woman in the face, killing her. He has pleaded guilty to manslaughter, is overwhelmed with grief, will serve time, and the charge of manslaughter will hopefully make other careless hunters think before pulling the trigger.
But far more common is the careless use of a vehicle - that can (and does) kill, just like a gun can - and the careless drivers seem to be out and out belligerent with regard to the safety of cyclists.
I think they should be charged with attempted murder if they run them off the road, manslaughter for causing death if they are clearly at fault, and grievous bodily harm with an offensive weapon if they injure. And murder if they run them off the road in a fit of road rage, resulting in death.
As a friend who visited here from the UK once said to me: NZers are some of the nicest people in the world...until they get behind the wheel of a car, and then they go all Jekyll and Hyde and become some of the ugliest people in the world.
Thank you for your post, Greg. I'm sharing it.
-
Hard News: Moving targets, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
re American right wing lies.
“We’ve gone beyond Stephen Colbert’s’ truthiness’ into a ‘truth-be-damned’ environment; what Rick Perlstein described in the Daily Beast as a “mendocracy. As in, rule by liars.”.”
“The scary thing is, these kinds of rumors have a way of taking root in the popular consciousness […] While some of them are garden-variety lunacy, a surprising number are lies that were fed to Americans by our leaders on the far-Right. This demonstrates that media-fed lies can easily become ingrained in the collective memory if they’re not countered quickly and surely.”
Thanks goodness for TinyURL!
-
Hard News: Moving targets, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
Ok, that's a relief. If you're not getting it either, then I know it's not just me being a brainless bint. Whew!
When I worked for Yellow Pages, we absolutely creamed our targets one year. Up until then, bonuses paid on selling over target were not capped. A number of us ended up with almost doubled salaries that year. The following year, Yellow Pages put a cap on bonuses. It wasn't retroactive, and I didn't have to pay back the previous year's bonus. Being employed before they capped the bonus did not exempt me from the new system of capping - it just meant that I couldn't get quite as much for overshooting my target in the future, that is all.
And that's the way it should be for perks for pre-1999 ex-MP's. They still get their milk, they just don't get the cream. Like the rest of us (some of whom even miss out on a little milk, thanks to the past policies of those who continue to lap all the cream). Fuckers.
-
Ok, so I’m now aware that the RA definitely doesn’t set the perks; the Speaker does.
What I still don’t get is how stopping pre-1999 ex-MP’s from receiving those perks is retroactively cutting their salaries and making them pay something back.
I’m not trying to be difficult here – I really am woefully ignorant of Parliamentary law and procedures and whatnot, and I am just not getting it (though I do want to).
-
Hard News: Moving targets, in reply to nzlemming,
You, Sir, have no shame!
But I’ll share this with you, anyway. I’m good like that.
-
Maybe it’s just late and my brain is tired, but I’m confused.
If the RA is changed so as to disallow pre-1999 ex-MP’s from continuing to claim travel perks from, say, this day forward, how is that retroactively cutting salaries? And what are they having to pay back? Because all I can see, is that something that they used to have is stopped at some arbitrary future date – maybe April 1st 2011, or something. It’s just cut off, it’s not retroactive, and nothing to “pay back”.
What am I missing here?
-
Given all the electrical and electronic crap they install, I would be surprised if the families could pay the power bill, let alone keep up with any rates/land taxes.
*sigh* Like H&A, it's a show my daughter enjoys - even brings tears to her eyes - and my sis is a fan too. They think I'm a cold, hard bitch 'cos I don't like it; while I think they're idiots for buying into it. Tch!
-
Hard News: Moving targets, in reply to chris,
Opposition parties will probably be more annoyed, I think, as it takes the wind out of their sails. National shouldn't be too upset, as it helps them gain and retain favour in lieu of re-election. Interesting.
-
Hard News: Moving targets, in reply to chris,
Great news!
On both counts. :)
Though it could go a little further in the second link, re pre-1999 PM perks, I think.