your screens tonight with a brand-new TV interview show.
And instead of the usual grey interviewees that populate every other
interview programme, Perigo will instead be interviewing tall poppies.
Achievers. People with a passion. People with something to say and the
time in which to say it.
Tonight he interviews special guest Dr. Ron Smith from Waikato
University--who ponders his own philosophical education, and gives his
thoughts about post-tsunami Japan and its damaged nuclear reactors, and
the situation in Libya with that "Mad Dog of the Middle East," Qaddafi.
Join them at 7.30 on Stratos TV, Sky 89.
7 comments:
Noticed on Monday's Stratos @9pm Michael Sandel of Harvard "Justice: What is the right thing to do?". Was explaining the libertarian position rather well - based on Nozick and Locke. Only about 10 of 1000 university students believed that their life was their own to live.
Will be interested to see Danger Man (Perigo) on Stratos.
Peter
Peter, the Sandel Harvard Justice series is on TV 7 on Monday night (I don't think it's on Stratos - might be though, I haven't looked).
And yes, the Libertarian lecture was pretty good - Sandel great, the students frightening. Unfortunately the latter represent that pernicious socialism that dominates Western society, and is not so slowly, anymore, choking the last of liberty out of it.
The stratos website states the channel is not available on UHF (Terrestrial) Freeview. This is incorrect.
Just re-tuned my receivers and Stratos IS available on UHF Freeview.
Pity I did not realize that yesterday as I missed the show.
I would love TO see a NZ version of "Glenn Beck"...without the bad bits naturally.An in depth info show that attempts to inform the viewers about whats happening.Currently NZ tv treats its viewers like morons who can't think.
James, I love to see a Glen Beck type program host by a christian (same as Mr Beck).
There is a good discussion about Perigo's show here:
Perigo! Dangerously boring
The comment from Oswald Bastable is something I have raised on this blog about 3 years ago. The weights that the Libz assign to the issues they want to campaign on is the same for small unimportant ones and the big important ones, therefore Libz will not get traction in convincing voters on what they stand for.
I understand that this is a principle stand for the Libz, but it is pointless to do that when people have blocked their ears from listening because it is old tired messages.
Why not rank policies as high to low, then concentrate more on those highly ranked ones. Give less time to issues like smoking dope, etc,... I believe that if the Libz can manage to influence voters on big issues, then small unimportant ones will also get traction in the minds of the voters as a natural consequence.
Here is a good analogy. I usually see some preachers standing along
Queen St on a friday or saturday night at some corners preaching about Jesus. One observational fact I have made. There not a single person that stops to listen, perhaps except me, as I usually stopped by not to hear about Jesus, but to make a scientific observation of why no one stops to listen. I conclude that the main reason is that the preachers (they're different ones everytime) are pretty useless in presenting their messages. The preachers may as well go to the bush or some forests somewhere and preach to the trees because in the forests, there's humans there to listen. In the city, there are humans but not one wants to listen either. So, doing it in the forests and the city exactly leads to the same results, but preaching in the forests, saves people in the city from the annoying loudspeakers of preachers.
There is a good discussion about Perigo's show here on this blog post:
"Perigo! Dangerously boring goblin"
The comment from Oswald Bastable is something I have raised on this blog about 3 years ago. The weights that the Libz assign to the issues they want to campaign on is the same for small unimportant ones and the big important ones, therefore Libz will not get traction in convincing voters on what they stand for.
I understand that this is a principle stand for the Libz, but it is pointless to do that when people have blocked their ears from listening because it is old tired messages.
Why not rank policies as high to low, then concentrate more on those highly ranked ones. Give less time to issues like smoking dope, etc,... I believe that if the Libz can manage to influence voters on big issues, then small unimportant ones will also get traction in the minds of the voters as a natural consequence.
Here is a good analogy. I usually see some preachers standing along
Queen St on a friday or saturday night at some corners preaching about Jesus. One observational fact I have made. There not a single person that stops to listen, perhaps except me, as I usually stopped by not to hear about Jesus, but to make a scientific observation of why no one stops to listen. I conclude that the main reason is that the preachers (they're different ones everytime) are pretty useless in presenting their messages.
The preachers may as well go to the bush or some forests somewhere and preach to the trees because in the forests, there's humans there to listen. In the city, there are humans but not one wants to listen either. So, doing it in the forests and the city exactly leads to the same results, but preaching in the forests, saves people in the city from the annoying loudspeakers of preachers.
Post a Comment