Posts by Kyle Matthews
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Today's cartoon from Mike Moreu sums up this morning for me, after listening to one of the mothers of one of the kids that made it out on the drive in.
-
And if Hager obtained them illegitimately, he's hardly going to fess up himself and throw his credibility (and livelihood) down the crapper, is he?
Nicky Hager has built his career on getting people to trust him and give him information that he puts in his books, and researching publicly available information. He didn't steal the material for any of his other books, and he's said the same thing about all books - people thought this information should be made public, they gave it to me and I've done so.
Nicky Hager is never going to tell the public who gave him the documents, it would wreck his career. It's not unreasonable, particularly given that the police have said that they weren't stolen via hacking, which is what he's been saying all along, that he's telling the truth and someone indeed did print them off and give them to him.
-
I say this only in the interests of Wishart not making a complete dick of himself, again.
Did it work? No?
-
Heh... OTOH, I don't really think HARDEN UP, YOU BLEATING SOOKY-BITCHES is going to be an election-winning campaign slogan. :)
I dunno. There's probably at least a fair few votes in "get hard or go home" and other locker room slogans.
-
Curious thing about the DomPost: they have no labels on their plentiful right wing columnists, but when it comes to Chris Trotter, he is carefully labelled "From the Left".
"From the left" isn't a label, it's the title of the column, which I presume he came up with. He's not exactly shy about his political angle, indeed it's gotten him plenty of work as a commentator/media whatever/columnist etc. Just his brand.
-
What new laws would they wished for? Bag and person checks for everyone who works in parliament?
I presumed that the new laws wouldn't alter this case at all, but were simply things that they discovered while investigating the case. Incidental so to speak.
-
By contrast, I find it increasingly difficult to take anything Hillary says at face value. The latest attempt to depict herself as just a poor, rural white person at heart, not to mention more American than Obama, is risible.
Jon Stewart was all over her last night. When he interviewed her live a few weeks ago, I thought he might have been a bit pro her, but he's been clearly pro-Obama since the reverend speech. The impression she tried to convey of being a gun-toting church going redneck, followed up by her support for banning guns, and her refusal to say when she last went to church or fired a gun. That's free gold for The Daily Show.
The contrast between the actual transcript in context, and the way that the talking heads in the American media slammed it. Quite different.
I never minded people looking at my while I was feeding. I DID mind people staring. In the same way, I don't mind people looking at my breasts when I'm NOT feeding, but I do mind them staring. (Breasts are ace, and can be very distracting. I understand this.) If I'm having a conversation with someone, I'd prefer they looked at my face, whether or not I'm breast-feeding.
I don't think I felt comfortable with it until I had my own child. With no younger siblings, breasts were really only sexual things until I became a Dad (and then I had very little to do with them at all). I suspect there's a lot of young men out there whose first thought is "OMG that woman is showing me her tits!" rather than "oh, that's woman is feeding her baby, I'll look away politely, or at her face".
As Russell says, us boys will grow up, it just might take us a decade or so longer.
-
On the other hand I often choose to watch the sport to actually see the winning strokes at the Masters or the way the tries happened even though I know the out come of the game.
I normally try and catch the sports news as well, and cook dinner during the early part of the news. It's the only part that makes sense to be delivered in the above way - a nice round up of stuff that's not really that important, few highlights, good patriotic nationalism.
-
A superb communicator, he was the first Democratic President to be re-elected since FDR, which was, like, back in the day.
Well that's not such a great achievement. Truman and LBJ won second terms, but didn't stand for election in the first term, so don't count as 're-elects'. Truman pulled out after one primary, and LBJ famously announced that he would not seek another term, so neither went for re-election.
So it's a competition between Clinton and Carter, who are the only other post-war Democrats to sit in the Whitehouse.
-
Yes, there will be say 2% (50% uptake of a 4% contribution?) less room in the budget for paying top-line salary increases to retain or attract staff but the market is tight enough that if you say to an employee "I've stopped your pay rise because of Kiwisaver" they'll wander off somewhere else that is willing to pay the extra for them.
Shouldn't be 2%. The tax offset for the employer contribution should take care of a reasonable amount of their costs.