Hard News: So far from trivial
1076 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 25 26 27 28 29 … 44 Newer→ Last
-
But the more I look into this, the more National's offering looks like one big fucking dog whistle, and the less I mind the Standard having a crack. Somebody needed to.
And I don't object to The Standard "having a crack" -- hell, I'd think there was something wrong with the laws of nature if that particular corner of the blogisphere ever missed on opportunity to slag off the Tories, fairly or not. But the timing and the, as you put it, 'Standard-speak' tone was off. Hell, when a police officer is killed in the line of duty even Greg O'Connor can tone it down a bit from his usually apocalyptic 'you're with us, or against us' line. (Though I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone proves me wrong -- my expectations of the man are that low.)
I just think there are some occasions where even the most partisan should just chill, because the issue is going to be there where the public temperature is a few degrees lower.
-
. . . one big fucking dog whistle
"Mums and dads" coming from any politician is inherently patronising and condescending. "Everyday parents" is creepily reminiscent of 2005's "mainstream".
-
I think the Standard is right to have a go at this one too. But Maia is right, as is Craig - they shouldn't be trading on the pain suffered by the woman who was assaulted by Tony Veitch to make their point.
-
"Mums and dads" coming from any politician is inherently patronising and condescending. "Everyday parents" is creepily reminiscent of 2005's "mainstream"
Joe: Damn skippy. I'd actually like all political parties to just STFU with "we're standing up for hardworking families [as opposed to the barren and lazy, I guess] and those other bastards... well, draw your own conclusions". I'm so fraking sorry that the better half and I haven't quite got the hang of parthenogenesis, but we are trying to stop being so bloody useless -- biology be damned! :)
-
just as an aside, how do these gravatar thingies work?
-
Hey Sasha,
Thank you so much for posting the link to the Radio NZ stuff. That is a real man doing some serious fronting up. Even by just posting that link you are doing a good thing.
-
Ta, Kowhai. The contrast between the genuine honesty in that radio interview and the superficial whining we've seen with Veitch so far really made an impact on me. Hard to do..
-
There but for the grace of God? There but for more people than I can name who do bless me with unconditional love than includes undiluted reality and zero tolerance for self-delusion and self-justification.
That really hits the nail on the head eh.
It is not about having no mercy but about saying "It's Not OK" in the most loving way early on in the piece to people in our community BEFORE it degenerates into serious violence.
-
Yeah respect to those who genuinely turn their lives around.
-
It is not about having no mercy but about saying "It's Not OK" in the most loving way early on in the piece to people in our community BEFORE it degenerates into serious violence.
And me. I have far less of an opinion about how anything Veitch has done should be punished, than that it should be accounted. It just has to be.
-
And me. I have far less of an opinion about how anything Veitch has done should be punished, than that it should be accounted. It just has to be.
Whereas it appears Holmes is already talking about his rehabilitation...
-
And commentator Irene Gardiner says on Breakfast telly that it's unfair how everyone's being mean to lil TVNZ (vid stream, 7 mins):
http://images.tvnz.co.nz/tvnz_video/windows/one_news/bf_media_140708_128k.asx -
Although she may be out of step with the Board:
Veitch an embarrassment says chair
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/1318360/1905293 -
And everyone is into this phrase of the week:
Peters lashes out denying donation
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/1318360/1905853 -
And more editorial independence on CloseUp tonight (vid stream, 7 mins):
http://images.tvnz.co.nz/tvnz_video/windows/one_news/cu_veitch_140708_128k.asx -
34 pages? I can see I should have come back earlier.
Look. It is human nature for people to do things like this, we are trying to change that, move on.
We are only discussing this because the prat was a "celebrity", he is still a prat."Well, if nothing else son, at least I can serve as a bad example"
Bad Dad, 1965 -
The latest issue of NZ Womens Weekly apparently has an article on Tony Veitch. (Already.) The online readers poll asks if he should be given a second chance - 53% say 'yes!', 46% 'no way!', and 6% 'maybe'. (Doesn't say what numbers are involved.) I find that strangely disturbing. I wonder if readers of the print version have a different perspective. Or if they would feel differently if Tony Veitch was a big hulk of a man i.e. more physically threatening to look at. Or, here's a thought, is the online version read mainly by men?
-
Steve, we're aiming for 35 to break Robbery's heart..
-
53% say 'yes!', 46% 'no way!', and 6% 'maybe'.
Which adds up to 105%.
Please explain.
-
Deborah, it's the Women's Weekly - so voters are allowed to have a buck each way if they really can't decide between mean and misunderstood.
-
Which adds up to 105%.
Please explain.
" just call it sport"
-
<quote<Which adds up to 105%.
Please explain.</quote>
Ya want 110%?
Just call it SPORT! -
I like Sofie's explanation.
-
I Meant
Which adds up to 105%.
Please explain.
Ya want 110%?
Just call it SPORT! -
Typical - the bloke stuffs up the quoting, exaggerates the size and uses louder letters. :)
Post your response…
This topic is closed.