|
FYI for those that didn't know, Rosemary McLeod is Vernon Small's cross-dressing alter ego. She is supposed to be satirical, so she has that creepy fascination with other people's private parts as well as her well worn schtick about pubescent girls at Catholic schools.
dusty fucked around with this message at 06:00 on Feb 23, 2012 |
#
?
Feb 23, 2012 05:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:23 |
|
|
dusty posted:FYI for those that didn't know, Rosemary McLeod is Vernon Small's cross-dressing alter ego. She is supposed to be satirical, so she has that creepy fascination with other people's private parts as well as her well worn schtick about pubescent girls at Catholic schools. Ugh....what? Anyway good to see that she got torn out in the comments. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2012 06:14
|
|
|
Brain In A Jar posted:/ Rosemary McLeod seems to be going for some sort of lifetime achievement award in having terrible opinions: first she feigned confusion over why people might find golliwogs offensive, then she wrote a pointlessly spiteful article about Blanket Man and how he was treated, and her last hit before today's bullshit was a weird attack on sex workers. (A friend of mine wrote a pretty good response to that last one).
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2012 07:24
|
|
|
My reaction to Rosemary McLeod has been pretty much the same as to the Freep thread. Trying to analyse such horrible opinions was interesting for a time, but there's only so much bile and spite that you can read before saying gently caress this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2012 09:36
|
|
|
What in the gently caress warranted the Auckland Council wasting $200,000 on legal fees regarding Occupy Aotea Square? $14,000 to repair some grass? These fuckers need to be fired.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2012 06:14
|
|
|
A bigger council-bill makes the 'hippies' look worse? E. After reading Stuff this morning and seeing the major headline, I wrote to the editor with some suggestions for future Sonny Bill Williams articles: 'Sonny Bill Williams likes coffee with "milk but no sugar"' 'Sonny "ill" Williams in emergency-room dash' 'Sonny Bill toilet-roll shocker! "I roll it under, not over"' 'SBW goes "to bed at night, and gets up in the morning"' Pretty weak but it's the best I could do. I know I won't get a reply from him but it makes me feel a bit better:) Project M.A.M.I.L. fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Feb 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2012 18:29
|
|
|
Midget Fist posted:A bigger council-bill makes the 'hippies' look worse? As if Penny Bright wasn't doing enough in that regard.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 00:24
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:What in the gently caress warranted the Auckland Council wasting $200,000 on legal fees regarding Occupy Aotea Square? $14,000 to repair some grass? These fuckers need to be fired. Why is occupation needed in our liberal democracy?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 02:35
|
|
|
Midget Fist posted:A bigger council-bill makes the 'hippies' look worse? What was the major headline? Also, seriously, enough with these type of headlines: Dictator 'outraged' at Oscar 'ban' Obama: 'new beginning' for Yemen Reagan shooter wants to be known for 'something else' Parents have paid up '$1bn in school fees' Christchurch cathedral repair 'up to $100m'
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 02:48
|
|
|
dusty posted:I'm kind of the mind that "occupation" per se isn't a legitimate form a of protest. Protest is AOK; bring all the signs, loudhailers, inflatable rats you can muster. Stick it to the man as hard as you like, you just gotta arrive at the venue at 6am with the other early bird commuters. God forbid New Zealand progressives do something original, other than railing against the hazily-understood demon of Rogernomics, a sort of catch-all phrase for everything bad in the world?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 03:20
|
|
|
dusty posted:I'm kind of the mind that "occupation" per se isn't a legitimate form a of protest. Protest is AOK; bring all the signs, loudhailers, inflatable rats you can muster. Stick it to the man as hard as you like, you just gotta arrive at the venue at 6am with the other early bird commuters. Perhaps you could give an actual reason for occupation not being a valid form of protest?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 04:44
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:Perhaps you could give an actual reason for occupation not being a valid form of protest? Perhaps you could try posting something of actual value rather than demands for answers to which you inevitably reply with  personified when the other poster inevitably falls into your masterful rhetorical trap?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 04:58
|
|
|
I'm not surprised that justification is seen as some sort of rhetorical trap to a borderline incoherent reactionary.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 05:36
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:Perhaps you could give an actual reason for occupation not being a valid form of protest? I feel like "protest" requires somebody getting stuffed eg. blocking a road stuffs the commuters or peaceful protest that gets the protesters stuffed like hunger strikes. I know that's a stupid criteria but it at least draws attention to what's being protested. So far occupy has been largely ignored because nothing much is happening. Most of the people it's aimed at will never even SEE the protests. My problem with it isn't the aim or the people doing it or whatever, my problem is that it's being done in a clearly (here anyway) ineffective way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 08:21
|
|
|
Two Finger posted:What was the major headline? Something like 'SBW "King hit" with promoter' and there was a cheesy composite image of his face and Don King's face, hahah how clever. It's Clint Brown levels of pun genius right there. I've emailed them before about their headlines, notice they use the word 'slammed' a lot? Teachers slam pay cut, police slam claims, newspaper slams reports etc. I got a reply that they try to keep a look out for it but what can you do? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 08:24
|
|
|
Midget Fist posted:Something like 'SBW "King hit" with promoter' and there was a cheesy composite image of his face and Don King's face, hahah how clever. It's Clint Brown levels of pun genius right there. I just want to make sure I am understanding you correctly - are they admitting that they don't actually check anything they publish?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 08:40
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:I'm not surprised that justification is seen as some sort of rhetorical trap to a borderline incoherent reactionary. A noble sentiment coming from the twit calling for the "firing" of the Auckland Council. poo poo, maybe we could replace them with Commissioners instead - that sounds like a great idea and definitely not something that National would do! But since I didn't unquestioningly support a ridiculous carbon-copy of an American political movement that seemed about as authentic as John Key's smile I guess I'm a "reactionary". Oh well. Nude Bog Lurker fucked around with this message at 09:28 on Feb 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 09:25
|
|
|
In case anyone cares, the reason there are quotation marks in the headlines is because those words are usually pulled from quotes within the story, or used by the newspaper to indicate it is reporting the comments of someone else - not an editorial line. FWIW. Agreed that 'slammed' is somewhat tiresome. Particularly when it isn't actually slammed at all, but a mild-manner retort. I.e: a sub-editing tool to make political stories seem infinitely more exciting than they actually are.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 09:41
|
|
|
dusty posted:I'm kind of the mind that "occupation" per se isn't a legitimate form a of protest. Protest is AOK; bring all the signs, loudhailers, inflatable rats you can muster. Stick it to the man as hard as you like, you just gotta arrive at the venue at 6am with the other early bird commuters. I can't say how effective it is in NZ or Auckland, but occupation was initially necessary, wherever Occupy movements sprung up, in order to establish an ongoing movement. Remember that it followed 20 straight years or more of increasing first world apathy: the last protests of this sort would have been the battle of Seattle in 1999 and worldwide protests against the WTO and the Iraq war and so on in 2003 which involved large numbers of people but flared up against very specific events and therefore for very short time frames, and consequently struggled to get their point across in/against an almost totally hostile media. Occupation was needed to establish that this is not just a few smelly hippies crying about jobs who will go away if we ignore them, which is what the media initially tried to discount it as. There were/are a lot of people who were open to and agreed with many of the concerns of the Occupy Movement who were operating under a kind of defeatist mindset on account of the last 20 years of marginalisation of protesters, protest movements, and mainstream ignorance and apathy, and having an enduring movement, visible in the occupations, helped people to realise that it wasn't crazy to be concerned about these things and further totally changed the discourse around them. There are a lot of people who are not happy with the way things are in a way that was previously inarticulate and the occupations helped voice that inarticulate rage, and focus it properly on the cause of it. It is telling that the original movement was Occupy Wall Street and not Occupy the US Capitol or White House. And democracy everywhere is a piece of poo poo scam. That's another reason. All that said, I don't think continuing the Occupations is going to help much at this stage. They need to take their momentum and transmute it into some other action. Edit: Trouble Man posted:A noble sentiment coming from the twit calling for the "firing" of the Auckland Council. poo poo, maybe we could replace them with Commissioners instead - that sounds like a great idea and definitely not something that National would do! I think what he's actually trying to say is could you make a point? Edit 2: And actually, could you have a more Kiwi way of discounting the Occupy movement? "IT'S PART OF A PROTEST MOVEMENT THAT BEGAN IN NEW YORK! That discounts all their points!  " Never mind the fact that people in 1000 other cities around the world copied the occupy format and shared their views, NZ protest must be TOTALLY ORIGINAL or it is not valid.
Pozzo fucked around with this message at 10:01 on Feb 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 09:48
|
|
|
Trouble Man posted:A noble sentiment coming from the twit calling for the "firing" of the Auckland Council. poo poo, maybe we could replace them with Commissioners instead - that sounds like a great idea and definitely not something that National would do! I guess you're being sarcastic but since it's hard to tell; National has already fired all of Environment Canterbury, an elected body of representatives, because they disagreed with the decisions they were making. If the wind was blowing in a slightly different direction and more people supported Occupy you can bet they would sack or at least oppose the Auckland Council; National is an extremely populist government that will seemingly do almost anything to remain popular. quote:And actually, could you have a more Kiwi way of discounting the Occupy movement? "IT'S PART OF A PROTEST MOVEMENT THAT BEGAN IN NEW YORK! That discounts all their points! " Never mind the fact that people in 1000 other cities around the world copied the occupy format and shared their views, NZ protest must be TOTALLY ORIGINAL or it is not valid. I thought this exact same thing. Occupy Chch is still going strong, I saw them yesterday, not that I'm a direct supporter or anything but I do agree with what they're trying to do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 10:16
|
|
|
I didn't really see the point in the Occupy movement coming here (as we have no financial district or anywhere else that they could symbolically occupy for the same reasons as they were at/near Wall Street. I guess I kind of expect whatever you're occupying to have something remotely to do with your protest ala Bastion Point, or more recently: http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/media/photo/moutoa-gardens-protest That's not to say that there aren't major issues that don't justify a social equity movement in New Zealand, but they'd be far more effectively portrayed through a more organic protest group than the same old faces taking taking an established overseas brand and just running it into the ground.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 10:35
|
|
|
Pararoid posted:I guess you're being sarcastic but since it's hard to tell; National has already fired all of Environment Canterbury, an elected body of representatives, because they disagreed with the decisions they were making. ECan were fired because they were unable to make any decisions and for gross underperformance, according the Ministry report - i.e they were only able to process 29% of resource consent applications within statutory timeframes, and 18 years after the relevant legislation was passed, there was still no regional planning framework. Stakeholders engaged with ECan (including other local authorities) were almost universally negative in their views toward ECan. Here's the Ministry for the Environment report, the Exec Summary is a pretty good summary: http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/rma/investigation-performance-environment-canterbury/ I don't think a Nat govt would sack the Auckland City Council if more people supported Occupy, the current situation with Christchurch City Council which is grossly unpopular but the Government is largely staying out of it seems to put paid to that idea.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 10:38
|
|
|
miss_chaos posted:ECan were fired because they were unable to make any decisions and for gross underperformance, according the Ministry report - i.e they were only able to process 29% of resource consent applications within statutory timeframes, and 18 years after the relevant legislation was passed, there was still no regional planning framework. Stakeholders engaged with ECan (including other local authorities) were almost universally negative in their views toward ECan. Here's the Ministry for the Environment report, the Exec Summary is a pretty good summary: http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/rma/investigation-performance-environment-canterbury/ No really, they were sacked because they were going to turn down a whole lot of high water pollution expansions from farmers in the area. The people elected were forced in stalling for time which eventually gave the government an opening to get rid of them. It's a pretty sad state of affairs that we still haven't had an election. Also being unpopular in Chch does not equal being unpopular in Auckland. It was just a hypothetical anyway. In the Ecan case keeping the farmer lobby happy is going to trump what is most likely seen as a few malcontents who won't like it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 10:54
|
|
|
Great to see Labour is getting on the front foot early with a huge issue that is facing the nation, and more importantly Labour's last firm demographic of voters: the Foreign Affairs restructure. Yes, this will definitely drive up Labour's vote in the heartland where it is most needed. And just when they were getting traction on the Government's slippery asset sales footing, they oscillate wildly into another niche issue that the people they need to be convincing don't actually care about. Won't someone think of the Warsaw embassy?! Seriously: the economy, asset sales, smart answers on state spending and welfare reform. That is what Labour needs to focus on. Save the bellyaching for stuff that matters to Kiwis: like frontline healthcare resources etc. As much as David Shearer says he doesn't want to get confrontational and partisan, he is in Opposition and that is how the Government is held to account. Labour desperately needs to set out what it stands for, because right now no one really knows. Focusing on how New Zealand's international image will be irrevocably damaged (it won't) by an New Zealand receptionist shipped out from Wellington who is replaced by an equally capable one who lives in that country without the need for a NZ-paid home and living expenses is NOT an issue Labour needs to be focusing on. Although obvs Robertson is MP for Wellington Central so he has to but still. http://blog.labour.org.nz/2012/02/26/mfat-privatisation-and-the-end-of-diplomacy/ miss_chaos fucked around with this message at 11:02 on Feb 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 10:58
|
|
|
Trouble Man posted:But since I didn't unquestioningly support a ridiculous carbon-copy of an American political movement that seemed about as authentic as John Key's smile I guess I'm a "reactionary". Oh well. Your casual dismissal of the protests from a position of comfort reads like a dismissal of the ideals behind it and is reactionary by definition.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 11:01
|
|
|
I dropped past Wellington a few times to soak up the mauri a few times. I believe strongly that we must nurture valid political expression, and I'm comfortable we limit it: genital mutilation. I don't think the Occupy localles could make a case for a continuing a legitimate occupation in places like Aotea when it's down to only the hardened veterens and the genuinely unwell. Occupy must show credible engagement to be taken seriously. In our local context I thought they overstayed their priviledge to our common grounds. And especially as arguably, many of the bigger and more genuine problems of the UK and US don't apply. So for Ratios and Tendancy - Occupy London? Great. Occupy Aotea? Not so much.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 11:14
|
|
|
miss_chaos posted:In case anyone cares, the reason there are quotation marks in the headlines is because those words are usually pulled from quotes within the story, or used by the newspaper to indicate it is reporting the comments of someone else - not an editorial line. FWIW. As to the editing remark, the implication was that they check to make sure things like 'slammed' aren't used too much, but it happens and is not a big deal. I can't find the actual email. I get the feeling they don't care too much, they didn't reply to my request that they use 'Afghan' instead of 'Afghani" to describe the people of Afghanistan. The actual point of the last one was how blatant the distracting 'bread and circus' type articles about SBW and his ilk are, and that not only are they awfully written but they do nothing to lift awareness of actual national issues (which of course may be their intent.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 19:13
|
|
|
miss_chaos posted:Great to see Labour is getting on the front foot early with a huge issue that is facing the nation, and more importantly Labour's last firm demographic of voters: the Foreign Affairs restructure. Yes, this will definitely drive up Labour's vote in the heartland where it is most needed. And just when they were getting traction on the Government's slippery asset sales footing, they oscillate wildly into another niche issue that the people they need to be convincing don't actually care about. Won't someone think of the Warsaw embassy?! It's super-frustrating, and you're exactly right. If people are made aware of how health cuts and public service then maybe they'll start doing something about it. Same with the fracking issue, the problem being that not many people are even aware of fracking and its effects and Labour is too busy talking about other stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 19:19
|
|
|
The thing is National puts through their cuts in slightly deceptive ways and no one seems to notice. For example, National changed the structure of the retirement funding for government employees. Previously there was a completely separate budget that it came out of that paid for the additional retirement benefits of all government agencies. They cut it entirely and made it so each department had to fund their own. This has the effect of forcing massive cuts everywhere, from health, education, IRD etc. But they get to say that they haven't reduced the health budget.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 19:35
|
|
|
A new bunch of strikes and lockouts going on this week. http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/6482943/Thousands-set-for-week-of-industrial-action Interesting to see that the Port of Auckland claims that the action so far has cost $1 billion in lost trade. I wonder how much it would have cost if they had just listened to their workers and not been absolute cocks...
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 19:47
|
|
|
door.jar posted:The thing is National puts through their cuts in slightly deceptive ways and no one seems to notice. I haven't heard anything about this, so I'm willing to bet it's not "massive cuts everywhere" to frontline services. There's a difference between massive cuts and fiscally neutral restructuring in terms of telling that story. God know the media are looking for examples, maybe you should email that to them with some hard numbers. Foreign Affairs and Trade is the last Gliding On-style public dept, having had some engagement with them in previous jobs I'm surprised it took so long. Many of the embassies literally pay someone who exclusively makes tea/coffee for diplomatic staff. Make your own loving tea! Why do they relocate general admin staff? Is getting a standard recruitment company to hire staff with MFAT input rather than having several dozen internal HR people do it. Every other public department does it. There's a lot of room to cut at Foreign Affairs without affecting our international image, and anyone who thinks NZ's international image is affected by shutting our esteemed Stockholm embassy needs their head read. Sweden and Poland are hardly major trading partners. It's simply not an issue worth fighting. In fact when I was in the public service there was a lot of whinging behind the scenes that MFAT was living it up with a cushy job for life while everyone else was making cutbacks. Why do they need SO MANY communications people in New Zealand when their focus is building NZ trade overseas? I don't even know.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 00:19
|
|
|
The best thing NZ could do to further its image internationally is to burn the london embassy to the ground. Ugliest building in the city, gently caress that place.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 04:08
|
|
|
BeanTaco posted:The best thing NZ could do to further its image internationally is to burn the london embassy to the ground. That was one of the first things my cousin showed me when I stayed with him in London, drat it's ghastly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 04:28
|
|
|
Labour are doing an organisational review and are asking for public input. http://www.labour.org.nz/yoursay
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 04:38
|
|
|
miss_chaos posted:I haven't heard anything about this, so I'm willing to bet it's not "massive cuts everywhere" to frontline services. There's a difference between massive cuts and fiscally neutral restructuring in terms of telling that story. God know the media are looking for examples, maybe you should email that to them with some hard numbers. It's drat near impossible to find references for this kind of thing without wading through pages and pages of budget documents. But here's a quick quote from an article about the May 2011 budget: http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/budget-2011/5026383/Public-sector-asked-to-save-980m quote:The rest of the savings, about $640 million, will be needed when central funding ends for workplace savings schemes. Note that this effective reduction in operating budgets is on top of cuts that were supposed to be aimed at "back office spending and administration". And here's some anecdotal evidence, one of my friends works for W&I and according to him there are 16 vacancies in their operations division (who manage processes, call centre operations/scheduling, quality procedures etc.) which are currently unadvertised. Some of these have been vacant for 2 years now. And the call centre itself (undeniably "frontline" staff) are not replacing their staff as they leave reducing numbers while their wait times increase to new records week by week.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 06:31
|
|
|
I'm not sure $640 million spread across 100+ state sector agencies can be classed as "massive cuts everywhere" in every department. It works out to an average of around $5m-ish per department stretched over three years, some with budgets of several billion a piece, if my reading of the figures is correct. Looks like TVNZ's story on MFAT prioritising the upgrade of the swimming pool at a diplomat's compound, while public servants in other departments are facing the chop, is pretty symptomatic of how that department has been operating. It looks like a change of culture has been a long time coming at MFAT. Which makes it even more confusing why Labour has Grant Robertson publicly bemoaning any restructuring at all while Goff comes out all THIS IS TERRIBLE BAD VERY BAD. Definitely not confusing the public on an issue of little-to-no electoral consequence, but hey, it's Labour 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2012 08:46
|
|
|
Now this should be interesting. As noted on Dim Post:John Armstrong posted:In little over two weeks, Shearer will deliver a major positioning speech which will give a much clearer picture of the direction in which he intends taking Labour. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10788499 If the indications that Shearer is going to move the party significantly to the right in a way that Goff was unable to due to internal pressure, I am looking forward to the internal machinations that follow  That said, Labour is getting nowhere on really huge issues that actually affect people like welfare reforms and it very much needs to rethink its lines of attack. The reality is, many of National's policies are popular with the people Labour is seeking to woo. It's simply not working to oppose everything on the basis that the Government made the change. Labour would do well to say "we accept there's need for change in welfare/government spending/whatever, but here's how we would do it" rather than screaming privatization from the rooftops at every opportunity no matter how tenuously related, and wonder why no one listens anymore. I'll be interested to see what Shearer has to say.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2012 09:07
|
|
|
quote:I'm not sure $640 million spread across 100+ state sector agencies can be classed as "massive cuts everywhere" in every department. It works out to an average of around $5m-ish per department stretched over three years, some with budgets of several billion a piece, if my reading of the figures is correct. That $640million is divorced from any context - pointing at a solitary big figure from the comfort of your armchair cant tell you if it's gently caress all, loving lots, or far too loving much.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2012 09:13
|
|
|
miss_chaos posted:Now this should be interesting. As noted on Dim Post: It's only in hindsight we can say Clark was strongly 3rd wave neoliberal orthodox as she held wages and benefit levels stagnant for a decade, and tinkered with government wage subsidies via WFF. Key is in much the same place on the spectrum - he has left in place the entirety of the last Labour government's spending promises, with lashings of tax cuts and privatisation around the edges (whanau ora, assett sales). Goff can be judged as trying to swing left belatedly by abandoning the reserve bank act, review of the ERA, first $5k taxfree et al. Who the gently caress knows what Shearer thinks? Certainly not this Labour member. quote:That said, Labour is getting nowhere on really huge issues that actually affect people like welfare reforms and it very much needs to rethink its lines of attack. The reality is, many of National's policies are popular with the people Labour is seeking to woo. It's simply not working to oppose everything on the basis that the Government made the change. Labour is better off figuring out just what the gently caress it stands for. It's not going to the polls for another 3 years after all. The problem with Labour is it doesn't have a clear vision, and the public has noticed. It's not clear why Labour exists anymore - every single member I've met is to the left of the party. Clark muddled through without trying to talk about her vision: her entire electoral appeal was built around the fact she wasn't Jenny Shipley/Ruth Richardson/Don Brash. In hindsight: at least the debt was paid down. But she left the majority of people worse off. dusty fucked around with this message at 09:40 on Feb 28, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2012 09:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:23 |
|
|
dusty posted:Clark muddled through without trying to talk about her vision: her entire electoral appeal was built around the fact she wasn't Jenny Shipley/Ruth Richardson/Don Brash. In hindsight: at least the debt was paid down. But she left the majority of people worse off. But the knowledge economy! Interest free loans! Totally makes up for the debt and minimal assistance you get while studying! Or something! Honestly I'm not going to give a gently caress what anyone promises about paying back student loans quicker, university students need at least twice what they get in allowances just to make rent and be able to eat. gently caress anyone who wants to keep perpetuating the status quo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2012 10:55
|
|