Posts by Darel Hall
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Old men dream of youth
One lives to pass glory on
This blossom buds yet -
DL went well last night - maybe 70 - 80 people at the Goodbye Blue Monday bar in the Lanes. Good questions, mostly people were interested in asking about foreign affairs issues (Zimbabwe, Israel/Palestine).
Rodney Hide is not out of the question as a speaker because the key point is not that the speaker is left but who does the broadly left audience want to hear from in this more relaxed environment.
Next up Therese Arseneau and we're still working on Kennedy Graham on the politics of water. Maybe then an articulate speaker from the right? Maybe Neil Miller?
I'm also working on an "open mike" event where anyone (left, right, satanic cow, whatever) with a political view gets five minutes to speak.
Always open for ideas: darelhall@xtra.co.nz
-
It brings back such memories.
-
It's not the shouty aspect of the ACT billboards that causes me to hum "mmmmmm", they are billboards after all; it's the spelling. This is undoubtedly casting stones in glasshouses territory. However to misspell in big bold letters on printed billboards one policy you think will ruin the world (emmisions) may be regarded as a misfortune; to misspell both (tolerence) looks like carelessness ...
-
On the spelling front, we are regaled in CHCH with massive and multiple ACT billboards stating “ZERO TOLERENCE FOR CRIME!” and “THE EMMISIONS TRADING SCHEME WILL RUIN N.Z.”
-
For me the tagger issue is not about a desire for people to express themselves. It is a desire to be noticed in a world that values being noticed. Creating alternatives may be useful and there are examples showing how public paint art reduces tagging (you know pictures of stuff, people perhaps even abstract art rather than stylized words which is psuedo tagging – and no, a McCahon comparison isn’t valid). Living in Christchurch and Wellington I also believe that is what I saw.
For the tagged and those living in tagged areas, which is most of us, I think it is about a further erosion of power to control our environment in the last part we meant to be able to control – our home. That is why I feel so strongly about tagging and “boy racer” noise. Not so strongly as to be deranged, but happy that an effort is being made and hopeful that a more comprehensive effort including diverting behaviour opportunities is next.
The “don’t demonise the young” line reacts to the outlier commentators and causes the argument to fly around what I hope, believe, and think is the bulk of the people who want action a fair bit short of a war.
-
Milly is right. SIT is a polytechnic, not a university. Never has been and has never stated it wants to be.
The Performance Based Research Fund and research incentives for tertiary education are not the issue for SIT from the different perspectives of the major protagonists: SIT (and friends of SIT), the Minister, and the Tertiary Education Commission.
-
Long time reader, first time contributor here.
It seems to me there are strategies from the drink driving campaign to apply to antisocial driving. By antisocial driving I mean people that treat the roads as their own personal drag strips, rally courses or cross country challenges.
Firstly it needs to be about the behaviour not the age. There are plenty of antisocial drivers above any arbitrary age people could care to name.
Secondly, turning to younger people, the behaviour modelling of parents is important. If they treat the roads as if they own them then a) its antisocial and b) don’t their kids get the idea that this is OK behaviour?
With the drink driving campaign friends, family and work mates are invited to believe that drunk/drink driving is wrong and to say so. If these influencers don’t believe and don’t behave like it with regards to antisocial driving then behaviour change isn’t going to happen any time soon. “Friends don’t let friends drive like idiots” or something more catchy perhaps?
Fourthly, in the drink driving area where there is an accident where alcohol is indicated authorities target the last licensed premise. Many flaws in this approach, but with enough data it gives a fair indication of problem places, at least so far as licensed premises go. So what about the “host responsibility” of those that sell the car parts that help create antisocial driving (thinking more speed and noise here, not sure how this could apply to 4WD urban cross country drivers). In the drink driving area the targeting is of course linked to an alleged illegal behaviour (eg serving an intoxicated person). The key point is that the environment matters.
I tend to think more enforcement rather than more rules would be helpful. It appears the Police believe they have the powers needed, but do they have the resources (people in particular)? Perhaps a test for Councils would be to shift some enforcement resource from less important (parking enforcement?) to more important areas (antisocial driving)? Sharing enforcement should be part of the mix in the discussion.
Some thoughts.