Michael Jackson's music has made me and millions of others happy over decades; indeed, over half a century. Whatever else is or isn't true, I know for a fact I will be poorer for not hearing his music.
But apart from my bias, some questions:
How is this new phenomenon of retrospective 'catalogue cleansing' to be administered?
With or without criminal conviction?
Based on what type of crime and determined by whom?
Forever? For how long?
Before or only after the offending occurred?
And what about associated composers and musicians who will suffer from royalty loss? Will they be compensated?
Wednesday, March 06, 2019
Tuesday, March 05, 2019
Should Jacinda tie the knot?
Interesting conclusion to a thoughtful column about the forthcoming "well-being budget" that essentially argues people should be making their own well-being choices with personalised saving accounts instead of the government deciding what is and isn't worth spending on:
It has been proven repeatedly that marriage is generally good for people. But all we need there is some acknowledgement, not government interference to boost it.
The point made by the writer sees the PM hoisted by her own philosophical petard, nanny-statism.
My well-being is my business. Butt out Jacinda.
Marriage, for example, has a large positive effect on wellbeing. So should our Prime Minister be cajoled into it? Citizens must be the ultimate decision-maker.Nice one.
It has been proven repeatedly that marriage is generally good for people. But all we need there is some acknowledgement, not government interference to boost it.
The point made by the writer sees the PM hoisted by her own philosophical petard, nanny-statism.
My well-being is my business. Butt out Jacinda.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)