Posts by WH
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
A lower number, but the country and its people have a chance of a decent future now
Meh. Its hard to have a future if you're dead, I suppose.
The most telling thing against the occupation is the sheer number of Americans who predicted that it could cause Iraq to implode. Add to that the large number of military officers and government/ex-Administration officials who have publicly stated their view that the post-invasion planning was inadequate and that the execution of the occupation has been incompetent. Its a list far too long and star-studded to recount here.
I'm not going to argue statistics with you, but in other news, Bush has about 12 months left in office. The Wapo recently noted that he has stopped going to church. May G*d have mercy on his soul.
-
Does anyone have the inside story about Mark Burton?
-
Fair enough, Craig. I think we would probably agree that violence is a real problem in our communities. I certainly would not presume to comment on your own experience.
However, I would say that not all violence is equal and that blame is contextual. Trev has not made a career enhancing move, but whatever his other faults may be, he is not a monster. I am uncomfortable discussing him in the same context as serious family abuse. I think it is unfair to Trev to make such a comparison.
Especially when the latest Herald-Digipoll on the same page as the story you've quoted, might well suggest Labour and NZ First have good reason to engage in a little cynical politicking of their own
Yep, although I think the comments made are broadly speaking in line with what one would expect from the respective parts of the political spectrum. Peters has always worked within the mainline political system, the Maori Party represents some strands of the tino-rangatiratanga movement, and Labour is trying to fix the wedge between its working class and liberal constituencies.
-
Where did Sue Bradford come into it? I wasn't aware she'd made any statement on it.
She hasn't to my knowledge, to be fair, I was trying to get a left/right and gender balance for my list... :) Feel free to disregard.
-
As someone pointed out earlier, noone is suggesting that Mallard was right to hit Henare, its that most people would say that what he did was at the inappropriate/bad rather than devastatingly serious end of the spectrum. Like how noone cared that Air New Zealand was flying Aussie troops to Iraq.
Trev may be an easy target but I think its easy to lose perspective amongst the breathless and holier than thou tone taken during such discussions. For instance, comparing the weight of comment here to that on that other thread...
"I find it absolutely extraordinary that the Maori Party on the one hand is demanding police prosecute Trevor Mallard for assault and on the other is claiming people, who at the very least have illicitly used firearms, constructed molotov cocktails and trained themselves in how to use napalm, should not be charged," Clark said.
Tariana Turia and Sue Bradford are joining my personal idiot list of Maurice Williamson and Roger Kerr.
-
I'd wager that a significant proportion of the population think more of Mallard now than they did before. Admittedly he is starting from a low base. I always thought Mallard was a muppet, but now I sorta feel bad for the guy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/16/newsid_4098000/4098929.stm
-
Is the act of planning a terrorist act done with the intention of inducing terror or compelling government action? Arguably not – a terrorist act, lets say the assassination of a politician to secure a legislative change – is obviously done with the intention of compelling government action or inducing terror, but is practising the attempt or planning the attempt also done with that intention? How can the secret amassing of terrorist weapons or the creation of plans compel or induce anything?
It would be regrettable if a judge was to interpret the TSA so as to render its planning and attempts provisions inoperative. It would be assinine to have a law that required police to wait until an actual attack (as opposed to a s.25 "terrorist act") was carried out before successfully prosecuting.
Not that there necessarily are any terrorism-related offences in this case, of course. Best to wait and see I think. But for the avoidance of doubt... planning to kill people is not okay.
-
Jumping the shark... what about jumping the gun?
What is interesting is the way in which everyone projects their favourite causes and bogeymen onto the largely blank cavass.
-
The tone taken by public officials has been more cautious than the tone prevailing in the media. It would be nice to have more information before being invited to reach conclusions, but I guess news doesn't just sell itself.
This is a neat way of selling two weeks' worth of newspapers. In the first week you print the most dramatic versions of the story that are fit for print, in the second you skewer the hype the first week created and blame the police and government for the resulting hysteria. Wizard.
-
We are just playing in puddles after all this misery and rugger obsession this week.
Fair enough. I was referring to the cunning of Tze Ming's post, rather than the entertaining comments. Peace out.