Posts by Paul Williams
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
OnPoint: Everything has changed until 2014, in reply to Che Tibby,
considering they're on a hiding to nothing at the next election, *now* is the time to air this stuff.
Che, I tend to agree and I understand there is a lot of policy work under way. I'd like to see policies that take a longer view than just this cycle/election but I appreciate there's also a need to present well against the government.
One of the things I respect in Australia policy at the moment is the coherence around federal Treasury's intergenerational report which is focused on challenges forecast to 2040. Almost all federal policy thinking links directly back to this one way or another and more explicitly addresses the anticipated demographic and resource challenges.
-
OnPoint: Everything has changed until 2014, in reply to Bart Janssen,
The other philosophy is that by taxing everyone according to their ability to contribute you can use that money to proved benefits to society that are worthwhile.
Sorry, a short post to respond to just one element of your very thoughtful long post. Have you seen this cartoon variation on the classic Marx?
-
Fears of being overrun by rugby fans might need to be balanced against the prospect that they'll also be Australians. The AUD is very strong at the moment and I know a good number of Aussies heading your way.
-
Hard News: Getting dressed for the party, in reply to Glenn Pearce,
Some of the people on that list are really nice, and even worthy ambassadors
I'm certain that's true, I met Bernice Mene once, a number of years ago, and she's charming. It's the lame PR that's the issue.
-
Hard News: Getting dressed for the party, in reply to 3410,
*Facepalm*.
Yup, that's pretty cliched PR.
-
If 1981 Part II erupts, Henry and Lhaws have laid the foundations for it.
In a PC wet liberal kind of way, you know, can connect more than a few dots, I earnestly believe this is true. There was commentary to this effect after the Giffords shooting about Palin's 'targets' etc. Lhaws is a spokesperson for intolerants - intolerants hardly in need of motivation.
-
Hard News: The Wall and the Paper, in reply to Russell Brown,
Russell said:
Yes, there’s a Laws column, although they’ve bumped it out of the lead spot with a guest column from a Canterbury school principal.
I finally got a chance to see Media7. I think you were entirely right to call Kemenys out for his evasiveness and to insist that, at least, he read the opinions opposite his own editorial. Unfortunately, I was left with the opinion that, as awkward as he was, he wasn't concerned enough to change his approach in any meaningful way. As he said, plenty of people write in saying that Lhaws is the sane one.
Sacha said:
It’s bullying, impure and simple – and taking away his megaphone is a fair and reasonable response just like removing someone’s baseball bat is.
I see it as simply as this which is why I'm interested in the complaints. Surely he's transgressed, surely? If the Press Council at least don't find that, I'd worry about the content of the standards. More likely though, the punishment will be inadequate.
-
Hard News: The Wall and the Paper, in reply to Sacha,
But there are already established grounds (and channels) for complaint without testing a new one which might take some time to work through.
You mean the Press Council? Sure enough, but they've got no standing to consider criminal matters. Perhaps that is a bridge too far however.
-
Hard News: The Wall and the Paper, in reply to Danyl Mclauchlan,
My impression from the interview is that the decision to fire Laws would be well above Kemeys' pay grade.
If Danyl's right about this, can we at least dispense with the title "Editor" as it is a term that implies a set of skills and responsibilities clearly not part of Kemey's performance.
Sacha said:
Not without the paper meeting their obligations as a responsible publisher. There is no license to say whatever you like about groups of people without facing consequences.
Which is why Rex's complaint, even if it doesn't succeed, is important. I'm all for boycotting, but I'd also like to the legal issues to be explored.
-
As noted, I believe you could have a nice drink with Karl du Fresne and reach amicable conclusions on some subset of the worlds' problems without fear of violence. Fran O'Sullivan we've all bagged at one time or another, but she's not unreasonable per se, just starting from a very different set of political axioms.
You're right Stephen, there are decent writers from other perspectives and, I imagine, these people are influential. Still, and isn't this where we started, the celebrity journalists promoted to front page are generally hysterics.
It's the first time that's the hardest.
Yeah, the electorate does appear to have a odd tolerance for fools. You apear to have to be a complete nut to get unelected.