Space Waltz - Space Waltz, 1975
Tuesday, 10 July 2012
Out On The Streets
Out and about, around town last night I found a well lit tree, and a headless mannequin in a doorway behind the cordon. These are for you, Cr Guyton.
Space Waltz - Space Waltz, 1975
Space Waltz - Space Waltz, 1975
The Best
The Herald has covered the reaction on the more serious political blogs to three Labour MPs wearing vests to a meeting.
Much sharper and better connected minds, including Danyl McLaughlin, Jane Clifton and Lew Stoddard have all has their say. I think they've over analysed the situation, it is my opinion that what Messrs Shearer, Robertson and Lees-Galloway have done is (sorry, I can't resist) simply the vest.
Tina Turner - Foreign Affair, 1989
Much sharper and better connected minds, including Danyl McLaughlin, Jane Clifton and Lew Stoddard have all has their say. I think they've over analysed the situation, it is my opinion that what Messrs Shearer, Robertson and Lees-Galloway have done is (sorry, I can't resist) simply the vest.
Tina Turner - Foreign Affair, 1989
Undone
mickeysavage has an excellent post on the claim being put to the Waitangi Tribunal regarding the ownership of water.
The political aspects of the claim fascinate me.
Mr Key's claim that no one owns water is one that will strike a chord with many, because that's what we've been taught. To some extent that is supported by English common law, though the Americans take a somewhat different approach. The "no one owns water" idea was batted about on The Standard today, with prompt replies of "how come I pay Watercare for it?" and "it costs money at the garage/cafe/supermarket." The argument is flawed in that the sellers will tell us the payment is for dams/pipes/pumps/maintenance or bottles/bottling plants/transport/marketing, while the water itself is free. It's difficult to argue with, because in the case of dams/pipes/pumps/maintenance especially, the convenience they provide is enormous.
It seems that we may have been mislead. While New Zealand law is based on English common law, this is not England. It is quite possible that someone does own water.
Oh yeah here we go again, shaking.
The conflicting statements from the Prime Minister today, as reported in the Herald:
If he'd stopped before the "but" he'd be on some mighty solid ground. Explaining that the government is not bound by Waitangi Tribunal rulings at such an early stage is a threat, because the principle that the government is not bound by the Waitangi Tribunal is well established, everyone who has had some involvement is aware of the fact. And however many times he says otherwise, it's not good faith to threaten someone.
National have not found their way out of the mire they created when they proposed asset sales. It looks increasingly likely that they will have to either put the process on-hold or draft legislation as brutal as Labour's hated Foreshore & Seabed Act.
Stellar* - Mix, 1999
The political aspects of the claim fascinate me.
Mr Key's claim that no one owns water is one that will strike a chord with many, because that's what we've been taught. To some extent that is supported by English common law, though the Americans take a somewhat different approach. The "no one owns water" idea was batted about on The Standard today, with prompt replies of "how come I pay Watercare for it?" and "it costs money at the garage/cafe/supermarket." The argument is flawed in that the sellers will tell us the payment is for dams/pipes/pumps/maintenance or bottles/bottling plants/transport/marketing, while the water itself is free. It's difficult to argue with, because in the case of dams/pipes/pumps/maintenance especially, the convenience they provide is enormous.
It seems that we may have been mislead. While New Zealand law is based on English common law, this is not England. It is quite possible that someone does own water.
Oh yeah here we go again, shaking.
The conflicting statements from the Prime Minister today, as reported in the Herald:
But speaking to reporters in Hamilton this afternoon, Mr Key said he had never suggested he wouldn't listen to the Tribunal's findings.
"I've said we'll take on board what they're saying but..."
is totally at odds with
"...the Government's not bound the Waitangi Tribunal findings, and neither have any successive Governments been bound by their findings, nor are we bound to give a response."We're going through a process, we'll be interested to see what the Waitangi Tribunal says, we're acting in good faith. We take the tribunal very seriously but that doesn't mean we're bound it, and that's the law in New Zealand."
If he'd stopped before the "but" he'd be on some mighty solid ground. Explaining that the government is not bound by Waitangi Tribunal rulings at such an early stage is a threat, because the principle that the government is not bound by the Waitangi Tribunal is well established, everyone who has had some involvement is aware of the fact. And however many times he says otherwise, it's not good faith to threaten someone.
National have not found their way out of the mire they created when they proposed asset sales. It looks increasingly likely that they will have to either put the process on-hold or draft legislation as brutal as Labour's hated Foreshore & Seabed Act.
Stellar* - Mix, 1999
A Head With Wings
Out and about the centre of town today I came across this topiary stag on Cashel Street.
It's the first time I've been right into the centre of town since February. With the reduced cordon, the cathedral is an outstretched arm away, it's just out of reach.
I've not looked at the new plan to save the cathedral in detail, but it really struck me that most of the structure is still standing.
The comments I made on thepoliticalscientist.org where I supported the diocese's decision to proceed with demolition of the cathedral may have to be revised, pending further information.
Morphine - Cure For Pain, 1993
Monday, 9 July 2012
Vicarious
After Robert Guyton alerted me to them, I went to see the bulls in the middle of Christchurch.
They are captivating. Life size, and spooky in the evening light.
So I captured them myself, on a memory card. It says so much about the changes that have happened in Christchurch that bulls on pianos in an empty lot seems like a good idea.
The first photo I took is of the interior of a building on the corner of Lichfield and Madras. It didn't seem that red at the time I took the photo, and the white glow through the windows facing Madras Street was not apparent at all. It amazes me what cameras see. There is a car in the fifth photo, and all the camera caught was the headlights.
Strawpeople - Vicarious, 1996
They are captivating. Life size, and spooky in the evening light.
So I captured them myself, on a memory card. It says so much about the changes that have happened in Christchurch that bulls on pianos in an empty lot seems like a good idea.
The first photo I took is of the interior of a building on the corner of Lichfield and Madras. It didn't seem that red at the time I took the photo, and the white glow through the windows facing Madras Street was not apparent at all. It amazes me what cameras see. There is a car in the fifth photo, and all the camera caught was the headlights.
Strawpeople - Vicarious, 1996
Gouge Away
Photos one to five by the Armchair Critic 9 July 2012. Photo six is a screenshot of the area, taken as a screenshot from the Google Maps website.
Pixies - Doolittle, 1989
Strange World
The BSA have decided that what Michael Laws breached good taste and was offensive.
After the teapot tape saga first broke Laws called the Herald on Sunday journalists "mad" and said that if he had a gun he would shoot them. He also asked why no one else had done so yet. And he followed this up by saying they should be poisoned.
One of the four members of the BSA dissented and said that what Laws said was acceptable. There must be a very high threshold for incitements to commit violent acts against a specific and identified group of individuals to be acceptable. When Laws said:
it's more than the use of violent metaphors or analogies. It's a direct call to arms.
A principle of justice is that the response should be proportional to the events causing the response. Calling for journalists to be shot dead is totally out of proportion to the fuss over the teapot tapes. If anything the journalists in question were insufficiently bold and should have incurred more of Laws' wrath by publishing. However the BSA's response is also out of proportion to the magnitude of the breach of broadcasting standards. The chosen punishment is the proverbial wet bus ticket, but without the water. And without the bus ticket. Their course of action, in this case, raises some serious questions about the suitability of the members of the authority.
Iron Maiden - Iron Maiden, 1981
UPDATE - Yay, Brian Rudman agrees with me. He says:
After the teapot tape saga first broke Laws called the Herald on Sunday journalists "mad" and said that if he had a gun he would shoot them. He also asked why no one else had done so yet. And he followed this up by saying they should be poisoned.
One of the four members of the BSA dissented and said that what Laws said was acceptable. There must be a very high threshold for incitements to commit violent acts against a specific and identified group of individuals to be acceptable. When Laws said:
"...[I have] no idea why somebody just hasn't taken a shotgun there and cleaned out the entire news room."
or
"This is the reason why, if you see a rabid journalist, you shoot them straight away, and then the infection doesn't spread.
it's more than the use of violent metaphors or analogies. It's a direct call to arms.
A principle of justice is that the response should be proportional to the events causing the response. Calling for journalists to be shot dead is totally out of proportion to the fuss over the teapot tapes. If anything the journalists in question were insufficiently bold and should have incurred more of Laws' wrath by publishing. However the BSA's response is also out of proportion to the magnitude of the breach of broadcasting standards. The chosen punishment is the proverbial wet bus ticket, but without the water. And without the bus ticket. Their course of action, in this case, raises some serious questions about the suitability of the members of the authority.
Iron Maiden - Iron Maiden, 1981
UPDATE - Yay, Brian Rudman agrees with me. He says:
"The Broadcasting Standards Authority made an ass of itself this week, slapping Mr Laws with a wet bus ticket for breaching radio's "good taste and decency" standards..."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)