Posts by Brickley Paiste
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
you seem to be confusing your populace's a bit there
My populace's what?
So you are saying that WWII soldiers got a welfare state as a reward?
Yes
Obama is not george w, he's not billy clinton, he's not bush the elder
Oh, I reckon he's all of those with a good dose of Reagan. Gun control? Increase minimum wage? Insist of public option for health care? Cut military spending? Send more children off to kill children in Afghanistan? Wait, cut that last one.
He's trying to walk 260 million odd people into this century.
Lucky them.
but yes winning elections is a prerequsite for good governing.
It's a prerequisite for taking executive power. I guarantee he won't change jack shit and by the end of his last term he'll be as hated and compromised as every other president.
If a majority of the public really wanted better journalism, wouldn't we have it?
Yes, but they don't so we don't. Most people don't care. Most people don't read or talk about things other than what is on TV.
If anything, welfare today is far more widely spread and administered according to need
Too bad we can't say the same about incomes. If that is so it is probably because back then you could work and have enough money to live a reasonably comfortable life. Now you can clean office buildings all night after working at a call centre all day.
CUs weren't apologised for in Goff's speech. But they weren't cited as an achievement either.
Nice point. An apology by omission.
-
Well he did get elected and he got elected out of camp nowhere.
Which is unfortunately what most politicians are now good at: elections. To bad that they suck at governing. Obama is good on TV. He talks in sweeping phrases even if he's talking about nothing important. People believed in his brand the way those behind the Iron Curtain believed in Brand USA in the early 1980s. Obama is conservative punk -- which he had to be to get elected in the first place.
I was under the impression that Kedgley agreed that folated bread be made available for those who needed it but not for wholesale addition?
Eh? That's like putting fluoride -- another dialectic in NZ...thought that one died out in the 60s everywhere else -- only into people's water that have a history of tooth decay. What works is putting it into all bread. At least that's what those up themselves scientific folks try to make us think through their socialist mind control, Leighton.
-
Goff needs to get Obamafied and start using information as a weapon.
But it's not even working for Obama particularly well. He's trying to Sinatra his way to health care reform because he knows he can't talk facts. People don't give a shit. Information no longer as any value if most people watch 4-5hrs of bad TV a day and think Close Up is the news.
I blame the death of WWII vets. They came back as victims of foreign policy decisions and the welfare state was born. When they started to retire the welfare state was destroyed. Not that they're dead or dying rational discourse or logic is being equally shown the door.
-
There will always be whack jobs who froth and make no sense all over the political spectrum. And some issues have their time.
But the idea that you can't gain reasonable popular support in NZ for policies that all the evidence backs up as being good policies, shows you're not doing your job well.
See, I think that's wrong. I think what is shows is that most people are ill-informed idiots who like to be spoon-fed conclusions.
Climate change is still at the level of dialectic in this country! And between whom is it playing out? Ian Wishart and that idiot Morgan with the huge mustache and the bad voice. Our PM gets to "question the science" and get away with it.
Everyone gets away with everything: Noelle McCarthy, Lockwood Smith, Cheeky Darky, Tony Veitch (but not Clint whathisname) , Clint Rickards, Doug Howlett smashing cars, etc.
-
Personally, I find the idea that no idea should be discussed if there is a possibility it might whip up well-organised moral hysteria pretty depressing.
I don't think this is well organised moral hysteria. I think it's how most people in our country think.
Look at our immunisation rates, domestic violence, child health stats, rates of organ donation, etc.
And that's the problem with Goff's speech. He can't use derision, satire or irony because it just doesn't wash. We don't get derision, satire or irony in our political discourse because no one likes it. So he has to take them seriously.
It's just the way things are. In other countries, intelligent people get to say intelligent things and have them taken seriously. NZ is more like a riot in Springfield: someone sees Groundskeeper Willy running down the street with a pitchfork and within seconds the whole town is on his side but no one is quite sure why.
-
Tracey made a really interesting proposition on last week's show: that for all its failings, the Obama strategy seems aimed at avoiding the fate of the failed Clinton attempt at reform. Hillary Clinton foisted a bill on Congress, which got antsy and tore it apart. It failed. Obama has let Congress fail first, and then come with his plan.
That proposition is received knowledge and was made most eloquently here back in June.
-
Here's the citation:
EASTON V HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION And Ors HC WN CIV 2009-485-726 [13 July 2009]
-
Off topic but this might relate to Russell's "It's Not OK" stuff....
Just reading a case in which some fucktard from the Father's Coalition tried to judicially review BNZ's sponsorship of a campaign against domestic violence as unlawful discrimination against men under the Bill of Rights and Human Rights Acts.
His worry was that the ads made it seem as if only men were guilty of violence against children.
At para [12], the Court kindly points out that:
It is immediately apparent that para 28 of the amended statement of claim is an unfortunate jumble of legal concepts.
That is judge-talk for "you are a fucktard".
The Court then grants the strike-out application with gusto concluding at paras [26]-[27]:
I conclude that the Bank of New Zealand’s decision at issue is not susceptible to judicial review either under the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 or at common law. I reach that conclusion on the basis of the present amended statement of claim. But I reach the same conclusion in relation to any amended pleading which would incorporate the substance of the plaintiff's claim as he has described it to the Court.
I would add that, even if the decision were amenable to judicial review, the court would almost certainly decline to grant any relief to the plaintiff. The decision has been made, the advertisement has been published and there is no evidence that a re-run of the advertisement is contemplated. This court does not assume jurisdiction in cases which can have no practical effect.
That means "fuck off and don't come back and stop wasting my time you fucktard".
The best part is at para [30]:
[Counsel for BNZ] sought costs on a 2B basis against the plaintiff if the application [for strike out] was successful. The plaintiff informed the Court that he has no resources and is in receipt of an unemployment benefit.
Nevertheless, the Bank of New Zealand has been put to the time and trouble of resisting the claim against it which has been found to be untenable. In the circumstances, the plaintiff must face the usual consequences. I order that he [ie the fucktard] pay to the second respondent [BNZ] the costs of the strike out application on a 2B basis along with any disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.
Rarely do I cheer for a bank in legal proceedings but, but but. That is going to be a hefty costs bill.
Dura lex sed lex you fucking hateful fucktard.
-
The one who must be obeyed says I have admit that the Farmers Market was not an unmitigated disaster and that I know full well that Mike Hosking lost his quixotic legal proceedings.
Now I just have to figure out how to install Net Nanny or one of those thingies.
Mea culpa lo siento on s'excuse.
-
Holy dude. What a conversation!
Sigh ... and here's me thinking the sight of lots of families and kids playing on the playground in the sunshine was nice. Never mind.
I didn't say it wasn't! I was there with my partner and the human evidence of our own pelvic affiliation! Don't get me wrong. What I didn't like was the parade of wankers with big sunglasses and expensive buggies who didn't seem to care that the market was an unmitigated failure.
In the same vein, I was yelling vocally at anyone Saturday night at the game who in the last 5 minutes were cheering "Go Warriors!". Go Warriors? Aren't you paying attention here?!?!
Honestly Brickley, do you do any other flavour than withering?
Sometimes but not in here. What's the point of getting out of bed if it isn't to kick over a few sand castles? I thought a journalist of all people would share such an outlook. Forsooth! Fie!
Staying with the kiddy theme, I have added to the original blog post above a picture of the mothers who brought their brats to what was supposed to be a serious market, along with their ghastly offspring.
Like I said, I had my own there! I'm glad my own little one is not in the picture or I'd go Mike Hosking on your ass. Just kidding. Sort of.
Yes the initial "40 yo first time parent" comment was a troll
I wasn't being a troll. That is who was in attendance. I usually try to avoid them. I didn't think they would all be there. I also thought there would be good at the so-called Farmers' Market so perhaps their presence was brought into sharper focus due to my annoyance.