Posts by WH
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Mark,
The problem is not that the private sector is unable to deliver social services, or that companies are not responsible citizens. In fact, much private provision of social services is entirely worthwhile, private schools and private health insurance being two prominent examples.
However, problems can arise when governments, on ideological rather than pragmatic grounds, poorly re-model government provision along allegedly economic lines. If not carefully thought out, the cure can be worse than the disease.
http://www.eastonbh.ac.nz/?p=626
http://www.eastonbh.ac.nz/?p=406
http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20061211100757-98364.pdf -
I grew up in Helen's electorate, not too far away from MAGS. Our neighbours were burgled so often they copied us and got a dog. We had a huge Alsation/Rottweiler cross. I loved that dog. Our family were all very upset when it died <sniff>
Key's speech somehow managed to be both banal and dangerous in a David Cameron sort of way. I just don't believe National has recently acquired a passion for the underprivileged. Imagine how great the privatisation of social service provision and employment law reform will be for the poor and working class. Not many.
I suspect I'm more centrist than some others here, but at least the left actually gives a shit about something other than free markets.
-
Thanks for that link Russell.
I agree with Sharples in that our previous work for the dole scheme does not make all efforts to help people out of welfare with incentives and assistance inevitable failures.
If done with thought and care (incorporating the efforts of people such as Bronwyn and avoiding the punitive elements introduced to the debate by National and Act) ideas of this kind can be made to work.
That said, Labour has had great success reducing our unemployment rate and I'm generally happy with that. I've have been on the dole only once, and only then for a few weeks (between university and the start date of my first full time job); but WINZ offered to buy me a suit and give me interview training - although I couldn't in good conscience accept I appreciated the thinking behind the offer.
-
http://www.democrats.org/a/p/president_clint.html
Pita Sharples wouldn't be the first to want to change the status quo on welfare policy.
-
I think Stephen, in his own charming way, is trying to say that:
a) The US government supports, and has in the past supported, regimes and people that do not adhere to liberal democratic principles;
b) It is bitterly ironic that during the Cold War the US trained, funded and armed the very people they are now trying to destroy;
c) the relative importance of radical Islam is being exaggerated in order that the US may achieve domestic and foreign policy objectives unrelated to the threat posed by radical Islam.While I prefer to reconcile these three propositions with the idea that the US is, on the whole, a positive force in the world, Stephen prefers to believe that the whole radical Islam thing is a CIA conspiracy undertaken on behalf of that whole military industrial complex thingy. Its about here that he loses me I'm afraid.
To be honest I'm just waiting for him to call me stupid and ignorant again. Count me firmly in the corner of the Great Satan.
-
Mostly agree with your personnel Reece, but think Fleming should open and captain the side. And I'd have Kyle Mills at 9 instead of Franklin or Patel, depending on conditions. I'm no fan of Bracewell, but it looks as if we are playing something approaching our best team at the moment. Our bowling actually looks very good.
We really have to find a better way of testing our 2nd XI (particularly our batsmen) against international quality opponents. I guess this used to be done with tour games but its the only way to figure out who should really be playing in the national team.
-
Stephen,
I agree that the US essentially supported anyone that opposed the Soviets and that some of this support, in retrospect, looks foolish and in some instances was demonstrably unjust. Not Khmer Rouge/Cultural Revolution bad, but South American/middle eastern dictator bad.
In fact radical Islam was not unintended at all.
The US backed Saddam after the Iranian Revolution. The Soviets armed the middle eastern states prior to '67 and '73, the US armed Israel. The US supported the South Vietnamese, the Soviets armed the North Vietnamese; it seems to me that Afghanistan simply formed part of a wider pattern.
However you seem to be arguing that the US - and by this you presumably mean then Democratic President Bill Clinton - deliberately fostered the radical Islamic movement in order to provide it with a bogeyman to feed its military-industrial complex.
And when the Cold War was "won", they of course needed a new bogeyman to replace "communism". Needed something to scare the Western populace into supporting even more massive military, internal security and intelligence expenditures. And voila! We have "radical Islamic terrorism" right on cue. How...convenient.
I'm not even saying that you are totally wrong. I'm just saying your narrative is simplistic and a little cynical.
-
Stephen,
Anyone who believes that this "war on terror" bullshit has got anything to do with religion or defending liberal values is either stupid or wilfully ignorant.
Don't you think this is an exaggeration?
All sorts of high-tech weaponry and training was provided to attack the Soviets supporting the Afghan govt. fom 1979 to 1989, by Carter, Reagan and Bush Sen. Hey, don't you remember Reagan's "freedom fighter" mujahadeen? good ol' boys just trying to kick some commie ass!
Frankly, even if I grant you this, so what if the Taliban and radical Islam are an unintended consequence of the Cold War? I think you'll find that there were a number of proxy wars during that period, and that both sides armed their client states. Are you saying that the Cold War wasn't, on balance, worth fighting? I know some Eastern Europeans who might see it differently.
Your characterisation of the US as power hungry, greedy and imperialistic is one-dimensional IMO, and even where it is true, isn't it trite to point out that nation states aggressively pursue their strategic interests? I'm curious to know: which horse were you backing? Or am I being unfair?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy -
Danyl,
I'm not resiling from my criticism of radical Islam, but I figure not all of the 1,300,000,000 Muslims on our planet can be entirely bad.
While I'm sure the CIA Factbook serves a hidden and nefarious purpose, it can also be used to show that Che is, like, totally outnumbered:
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/xx.html
Christians 33.03% (of which Roman Catholics 17.33%, Protestants 5.8%, Orthodox 3.42%, Anglicans 1.23%), Muslims 20.12%, Hindus 13.34%, Buddhists 5.89%, Sikhs 0.39%, Jews 0.23%, other religions 12.61%, non-religious 12.03%, atheists 2.36% (2004 est.)
-
Anjum,
First of all, thank you for taking the time to respond.
My position is a little more subtle than I have space to explain here, but if I am to convincingly defend what is right with Islam to others I need the latitude to condemn what I believe to be wrong with it. I believe this approach is more likely to succeed in fostering good will in bad times than one that seeks to romanticise our differences.
This discussion is undoubtedly complicated by the developmental gap between the West and the developing world, and the racial prejudice and intolerance that you allude to (neither of which I have raised) and your points are well made.