Posts by Joe Wylie
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hate rodents.
What even rabbit?
Taxonomically, rabbits haven't been rodents for around a century . They're lagomorphs, an order of critters that are about as far removed from rodents on the evolutionary tree as we humans are.
-
I bet bacon - and ham, and pork chops, with apple sauce, not to mention the crispy crackling - taste just as good as they did all those many, many years ago, when I last ate them. If I'm ever tempted I'm reminded of that vision of George Bernard Shaw, where all of the animals one didn't eat march in spirit, in black tie, in one's funeral procession. Over time it adds up to rather a lot.
Anway, that's just me. Good on Mike King.
-
For sprinting fascism conducted with indecent haste, they're sure taking their time about it.
So it's not a conspiracy, it's just another fuckup.
-
Suharto notoriously used Javanese spiritual beliefs to anoint himself as some sort of divine leader. To this day a large part of rural Indonesia still believes he had magical powers derived from Kebatinan. A mixture of that, Islam, a strong fist, massive underfunding of education and Western support kept him in power and control. He both increased and decreased the voice of Islam in Indonesia at various times when appropriate and played to widespread Javanese beliefs in traditional mysticism as methods of control.
It wasn't just the Javanese who were in thrall to Suharto's supposed mystic powers. The old kleptocrat was given to spending the night in the volcanic Guwa Ratu cave on Central Java's Dieng Plateau, believed by many to be the Island's spiritual heart, where he claimed to commune with the deity Semar. That's where he took Gough Whitlam for a special session during the Australian PM's 1974 visit, casually slamming the steel gate in the face of his chauffeur who tried to follow.
Shortly after the invasion of East Timor took place, with Whitlam's - and presumably Semar's - blessing. Suharto certainly exerted a powerful influence on Australian Labor PMs. At the time of his fall Paul Keating broke the silence he'd maintained since his defeat by Howard to declare that his good friend was a "constitutionalist" who could be relied on to do the right thing.
-
Barnett was a great guy, hard-working and personable. We (Chch's chardonnay socialists) miss him.
Along with an elderly relative or three, for whom Barnett was probably their first contact with an upfront, intelligent and articulate gay guy.
I just took issue with Joe's guess that his sexuality precluded him from higher honours, because the evidence doesn't suggest that.
That wasn't the point I was attempting. It was Barnett's very public linking of his sexuality with his politics, e.g. civil unions, that made him so singular. I don't know whether Clark had much instinct for the electoral mood on such matters, but to me there's a distinct impression that she erred on the side of caution while Tim took it for the team.
-
Eh? She made Chris Carter Minister of Education, promoted Maryan Street to Cabinet after only two years in office, and employed Heather Simpson and Grant Robertson as her key advisers. I really don't think timidity over his sexual orientation can be blamed for Barnett's failure to progress further.
None of the aforementioned went anywhere near as far as Barnett in advancing genuinely progessive social legislation. And to the electorate at large, prime ministerial advisers are hardly controversial figures. You can't be seriously suggesting that appointing any of the above to took an exceptional degree of political courage. Barnett was a lighning rod for social bigots, as evidenced by the unspeakably vile comments on his short-lived blog.
-
Barnett was never given a ministerial role. Plenty of demonstrably lesser talents were. Barnett's courage in winning over the bigoted on a one-to-one basis through his sheer good nature and reasonableness - and there are plenty of those in Chch Central - was phenomenal. A pity he's gone, just as he appeared to be getting the hang of what makes this place tick. On the other hand, maybe that's why he stepped down.
-
The same pressure led to Brash's about-face on the civil union bills -- for which he was decent enough to express regret in his valedictory speech. (He also gracefully apologised for his notorious letter to the Dean of Christchurch Cathedral about Clark's attitude to religion and marriage: "While I didn't personally write the letter, I did sign it, and take full responsibility for it. Given all the circumstances, that was not one of my most brilliant letters.")
Thanks for the reminder. As for McCully, at the end of the 80s he attempted to gain milage by questioning the funding of women's rugby, but quickly backed off after being roundly howled down. Unlike Brash he's shown himself to be thoroughly negative throughout his political career, with a bottom-feeder's compulsion to equate bigotry with the true mood of the electorate.
As for Clark, I know that I've harped on this before, but I can't help feeling that her failure to fully employ Tim Barnett's talent shows something of her timidity in these matters.
-
I still wouldn't mind half an example of Clark taking a high moral tone that would justify a charge of hipocrisy in the area of family life and sexual orientation . . .
Something in the order of Brash's "mainstream"? OK, I realise that he was simply mouthing what he'd been told to say, but that was the point where I realised that the poor old duffer really didn't know any better.
-
People seem to like being nosy with regards famous people or in our country at least . . .
I guess that's a universal, tho there seem to be regional peculiarities. In Australia, for example, admen (usually blokes) are household names, e.g. Mo & Jo, Siimon Reynolds, John Singleton. Never heard of them? Lucky you. Here in NZ we seem to have a thing for superstar civil servants.