- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sunday, October 03, 2010

The Nation and Q+A review

Average Audience numbers September: Q+A 103 230 - The Panel 53 100, this waters down the advances The Panel have made in their audience numbers since Sean took over.

The Nation
There's a hint of a major interview next week, it's either gonna be Garrett or Carter. Or maybe the mole inside the leaks behind the ACT Party implosion?

Craig Parker and Jennifer Ward-Lealand are on defending the Actors Union and the entire thing is so reasonable it highlights what a tantrum Sir Peter threw.

Noelle and David Beatson are on the panel, their view is that it's a big offshore union stoush vs massive film studio and that we are merely Mexicans with cell phones. All the work Peter Jackson has done for his entire career to bring work to NZ because we have quality film making means nothing because it's all about cheapness. What an empty legacy.

Geddis is on arguing why the vast powers were given to fix Canterbury were so draconian. Bob Parker is on, there isn't really anything he can add seeing as Brownlee refused to front - isn't that extraordinary? Parliament give Gerry all the power of a king, and the king refuses to front to the media.

He's King Gerry the 8th he is he is, he's King Gerry the 8th.

Piece on Big Red the new ACT Party MP, she isn't nearly as interesting as one would hope.

Walters Art award story could have been interesting.

Wilson is great in the business section, but I imagine it is ratings death, this section needs to be re-jigged, global economics is fascinating right now, interview more economists rather than traders who have a vested interest in selling their picks would make this a lot more interesting.

Political Scientist Dr Jennifer Curtin of Auckland University is joined by Ron Mark and Helen Kelly on the panel.

Ron notes Banks will lose, Jennifer points out that ACT imploding shouldn't be blamed on MMP and Helen notes the vast increase in inequality these tax cuts will cause is the news story that was missed by the msm this week.

Guyon is to get stuck into Tony Ryall over his knee capping of the public service. The spin lie used by National is that the public knee capping is removing back office to front line blah blah blah. It's just bullshit spin, Ryall can't explain why sacking 2000 people in a recession works. Guyon notes that the wage budgets are actually going up while sacking people. Ryall is smooth, he's using bio-security cut backs as a positive, he is dancing away from why so many more public relations people are being hired.

Guyon should be fighting Ryall on the broader issues - this is a recession, people are hurting, they need their public services more now than ever before - getting stuck into the details allows Ryall to showcase his wide knowledge of the portfolio (he's pretty good at it).

Guyon uses stats to attack our lack of specialists as proof the system doesn't work, we should be bonding all med students.

Ryall is very good at selling his slash and burn program as a positive for NZ, the man knows how to sell snake oil as jesus juice.

Helen points out that the bloated public service Ryall kept blaming Labour on were in fact rebuilding the public service from the slash and burn National did during their time in power. Ron Mark was a strong supporter of the public service, how interesting. Jennifer points out that any more cuts in public services will actually start impacting negatively on the service the public get (she noted less than 31 000 would be the tipping point).

Paul says we don't have the money to pay for these services yet we have just had hundreds of millions handed out in tax cuts, so let's not put up with any of that shit shall we?

Paul talks to journalist James Fergusson about who the Taliban are (seeing as we are fighting them we should try and understand who they are surely?) James hilariously points out that the Taliban came to power because of the utter lawlessness America left Afghanistan in after playing their global game of chess against the Soviet Union.


James then goes onto make the point that the West blew a chance of peace with the Taliban by refusing to understand their cultural dynamics of being hosts.

James points out that they were a stabilizing impact, despite their appalling human rights record, which is a similar story with the Islamic Union in Somalia. The Wests inability to distinguish between Taliban and Al Queda is one problem, the Wests inability to distinguish Mislim from terrorist is another problem.

James claims that we HAVE to have dialogue which is the reality as there is no military solution in Afghanistan. Despite John Key's optimism that the NZ forces can stabilize and remove the threat of terrorism.


Only a liar, a person with extremely low intelligence or someone with no imagination would claim that we can win in Afghanistan vie military force.

The panel climb in and all agree that the war in Afghanistan without dialogue is pointless. Helen points out how Israel impacts the wider issues there in the Middle East, and that skeptics would note this has never been about 'democracy' and has always been about oil. Ron Mark points out that we in the West kept propping up these dictators and we need to change that.

Everyone pointed out that the Supercity result will be massive.


At 3/10/10 12:01 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"James hilariously points out that the Taliban came to power because of the utter lawlessness America left Afghanistan in after playing their global game of chess against the Soviet Union. "

What's hilarious is that is the historical revisionism and ignorance that passes for serious comment these days.

Should America have invaded Afghanistan directly after the soviet withdrawal to prevent the taliban from taking over the country and using in as a sanctuary for terrorist groups?

Is he totally ignorant that the taliban were pawns of Pakistan to create strategic depth to secure their country from possible invasion by india?

What's he saying exactly that the US should have done?

That god I didn't waste my time watching this show if this is indicative if the quality of commentators.

At 3/10/10 2:48 pm, Anonymous shirleyboy said...

Bomber can you explain what you mean with the 'Mexicans with cellphones' metaphor that you & others are using- I dont get it. Ur figurative language can be a bit glib at times ese. Just returned from Isaan, Thailand where everyone has gotta cellphone thanks to Thaksins canny policy of giving them away free...

At 3/10/10 3:03 pm, Blogger Bomber said...

The term refers to NZ being seen as a cheap labour market one technological step up from Mexico.

At 3/10/10 3:49 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Can you provide evidence as to what an Actor would earn on a weekly basis compared to the rest of us?

At 3/10/10 5:15 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't forget to factor in the wage they earn as waiters and cafe workers when they are 'between projects'.

Really we shouldn't be giving a fuck about the film industry. If they can't operate in NZ without taxbreaks then they can take their filmsets to Albania or wherever.

Maybe it's for the best that all these 'creative' get real jobs.

At 3/10/10 8:50 pm, Anonymous AAMC said...

"Mexican's with cellphones"or "white Mexicans" is a term given to US (New Zealanders) in the film industry, by the American production companies, directors, producers, Cinematographers, who come here to enjoy out cheap, English speaking, latte pouring labor. It's their term, not ours!

At 3/10/10 9:11 pm, Anonymous AAMC said...

Perhaps you should have watched and you would have noted that James was a knowledgeable commentator who had spent a considerable amount of time in Afghanistan and who's book looks very interesting.

Is it Historical revisionism to contemplate that America's funding of the Mujihideen or Ronald Regan's "Freedom Fighters" after whom he named a space shuttle was not necessarily the nail in the coffin that we have been sold it to be. In fact was it the implosion of Soviet politics and economics and their withdrawal from Afghanistan was really a reaction to this rather than a defeat at the hands of Regan's boys. Were the American's funding these extremists in fear of an illusion?

No he was not ignorant to the Pakistani roots of the Taliban and he was an apologist for no party, but someone who acknowledged that you cannot occupy a country and expect a viable outcome without understanding those who you occupy and not being prepared to talk to them. Afghanistan is a tribal land and the concept of centralized Western style governance is not part of their culture or their history.

The whole situation is an ongoing nightmare going back to the Brits and I'm sure many centuries before that. Afghanistan suffers from the fate of Geography.

For another influence in the Geopolitics of the region and America's desire to be there look to the 'Shanghai Cooperation Organisation', an agreement signed in 2001. Interesting timing really.

My suggestion is the American s stop pursuing their Imperialist objective, because in an increasingly multi-polar world they will not be endlessly tolerated. As recently seen with Chinese war games in the Yellow Sea in the spot of proposed American and South Korean exercises.



Post a Comment

<< Home