Hard News: Campaigns
131 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
If they detach from the group to do it, respect their privacy, if they don't, respect their 'still being a personness'.
This about sums up the way I approached the situation when I was was working part-time and caring for my youngest while my wife was part-time back at work. My experience is that most new mums are happy unless something has happened to make them feel otherwise, in which case they'd detach and I'd respond in the way Emma described, and most experienced mums don't give a proverbial.
-
I'm finding the commentary on Shakesville more balanced than most. It has bloggers who are pro-Clinton, and bloggers who are pro-Obama, and they seem to be able to maintain a civilised discourse without resulting to dubious epithets about their non-preferred candidate.
For example, Jeff Fecke has a great piece on the "bitter" issue, which puts the quote in context, and points out that Obama was, well, right! But a few day or two later he also pointed out that Clinton shouldn't be forced out.
Kate Harding has written an excellent piece pointing out that Obama is not a progressive, and another one worrying about the way his religion is affecting some of what he says.
I've only been reading it for a week or so, so I don't know how they handled the Clinton:I-was-shot-at-in-Bosnia debacle.
-
Lyndon: yes, the A-G must inform Parliament of inconsistencies. But you and I both know that lawyers can differ in their opinions, especially when they're paid by different people. I'm concerned about the BORA advice Crown Law issued on the EFA (it glossed to lightly over some things), but I don't think it got the fundamental balancing wrong (remember: the right to participate in free and fair elections which are not bought by the rich is also protected by the BORA), and I don't think it was so wholly dishonest as to mean that the A-G didn't do their job properly. And I'd be quite surprised if a court found otherwise.
-
I'd actually be interested to see if the legal action challenging the A-G's report gets that far. Because it's probably part of the "proceedings of Parliament" and the 1689 Bill of Rights (which *is* enforceable) put those beyond challenge in the courts.
That's a disadvantage of our system, of course. In other countries (US and Europe) a claimed conflict in legislation can be litigated through the whole court system. Here, it's down to a five page report from a few government lawyers. (I'm not sure if Parliament could vote to reject a report, but it seems pointless when they could just defeat a Bill).
But if anyone knows otherwise?
-
I-was-shot-at-in-Bosnia debacle.
Over-dramatising for effect is how I read that.
MyDD is another Dem site which is reasonably even handed.
TalkLeft are pro-Clinton and generally keep things civilised.
Taylor Marsh is pro-Clinton and can go too far at times.
-
It's not just creeping - it's blatant. Feministing has an on-going Hillary sexism watch - some of the things on it are appallingly misogynist.
And as I've said before, I think there's some blatant dog-whistling to racism and anti-Muslim paranoia coming from Clinton supporters and the GOP. And that's actually worse than being a bigot, in my book.
Having said that, do I think anyone critical of Obama is ipso facto a racist? Don't be bloody silly.
And as for the Audrey Young National Socialist tool meme... oh, please.
-
The Fairfax media backed Howard in Australia and they back the Nats here.
I'm going to call double bullshit on that, Steve -- because it's just not true.
-
Rich: I agree that the 1689 BORA probably puts it beyond reach. But that's not what makes the difference between us and the US. That's down to constitutional rather than legislative supremacy; legislation must conform to the strict rules of the constitution (and most importantly, a little extra bit called, funnily enough, "the Bill of Rights") or else be invalid.
Wheras here, parliament can do what it wants, how it wants, and no-one can stop them. The limit of inquiry is whether parliament actually did it or not.
-
<quote>__The Fairfax media backed Howard in Australia and they back the Nats here.__
I'm going to call double bullshit on that, Steve -- because it's just not true.</blockquote>
We'll, it's probably fair to say no media backed Howard this last election but I don't think it's an unreasonable comment for the previous elections - Fairfax and News in fact.
-
I agree that the 1689 BORA probably puts it beyond reach.
There's a reasonable argument it doesn't.
Just because something is protected by Parliamentary Privilege doesn't mean it cannot be judicially reviewed.
For example, Winston Peters judicially reviewed the Winebox Inquiry - the report of which was published on the order of the House of Representatives, and is protected by Parliamentary Privilege (just as an Attorney-General's report is).
Moreover, article 9 of the BOR 1688 cannot be used as a shield for the executive (they've tried it in relation to OIA-like stuff and been told to bug off) etc. This might be a Parliamentary proceeding, but I'd argue it isn't.
-
doh! mixed coding...
-
A superb communicator, he was the first Democratic President to be re-elected since FDR, which was, like, back in the day.
Well that's not such a great achievement. Truman and LBJ won second terms, but didn't stand for election in the first term, so don't count as 're-elects'. Truman pulled out after one primary, and LBJ famously announced that he would not seek another term, so neither went for re-election.
So it's a competition between Clinton and Carter, who are the only other post-war Democrats to sit in the Whitehouse.
-
We'll, it's probably fair to say no media backed Howard this last election but I don't think it's an unreasonable comment for the previous elections - Fairfax and News in fact.
Right, so Fairfax and Rupert Murdoch were the tame bitches of John Howard... except when they weren't. What is the emoticon for 'my eyes are rolling like a Jaffa rolling down the starwell of the Empire State Building"?
Reminds me of the meme that Rupert Murdoch was instructing his newspapers to take a stridently pro-Iraq War editorial line. The problem was, that when Russell actually bothered looking at the edtitorials on the subject run by Murdoch-owned papers in New Zealand... someone obviously didn't get the memo from their corporate overlord.
-
Long post warning, so much to comment on!
Tom said: a lesbo-anarcho-pinko-brown evil alliance governing the land!!
Even just to be able to tell overseas visitors that NZ is run by a lesbo-anarcho-pinko-brown evil alliance would justify voting left. Awesome.
Simon: Paul W - it's a story because the media say so. Last night on TV3 Duncan Garner said that National were - in his own words - "quite rightly" attacking Labour on this. If that's professional journalism, I'm a kakapo.Paul: Audrey Young's disclosure that it was notes from a workshop, not notes distributed at a workshop totally changes the nature of her story.
Amen. As I said on Poneke’s blog, there seems to be an increasing occurrence of stories the media are basically just making up. The situation is similar to the O’Sullivan “FTA/’bullshit’” story. It starts out seeming like a legit story, then once the step-backs and clarifications are in, the objective reader is left wondering why this was a major lead story, or a story at all. But the damage is done.
Ben: <threadjack>Was anyone else who has worked in Australia scratching their heads about this?
Putting aside the dubious link between the "new" right to spy on employee's email and security against hacking, I do have to wonder if this right is nothing more than formalization of the existing situation anyway.Seems to be a formalisation of the situation that exists - at least in NZ. Was I reading the article right? Employers can “spy” on employees who use their computer systems to send emails etc. So? What’s the issue?
My employer does that (if they want). It’s all above board – employees are well aware that the employer can do so. It’s agreed (in the contract or Code of Conduct, I think, I’ll have to check) by the employee. The employer is under no obligation so provide Internet access to us, but they do. So at work, I’m able to surf the net at lunchtime from my work computer, if I want. I can check my Hotmail emails or post here, for example. I do so knowing “they” just might be watching. I conduct myself accordingly. No biggie. I don’t see the point of the legislation.
Danielle: (I don't know how to embed, because I am lame)
I’m lamest; I don’t really know what “embedding” means. It’s all just cut & paste to me.
-
Right, so Fairfax and Rupert Murdoch were the tame bitches of John Howard... except when they weren't. What is the emoticon for 'my eyes are rolling like a Jaffa rolling down the starwell of the Empire State Building"?
Craig, I don't imagine either were the bitches of anyone but you're being a little naive if you think that Fairfax and News don't have interests in the election. Last election, a major issue of particular interest to them both was cross-media ownership and they both ran very favourable editorials about the Coalition's reforms in this, and many other, areas. My memory is that they were also incredibly critical of Latham and pretty much endorsed Howard.
On the issue of pro-war editorials, there are a number of very well known writers for the Australia in particular who were stridently pro-war; Janet Albrechtsen is one, Andrew Bolt another however I don't for one minute think Murdoch, David Kirk or James Packer dictate verbatim the editorials. That is quite ridiculous.
Here's a great quote from News Corp CEO, John Hartigan who gave the annual Andrew Olle lecture last year (it's a superb speech, well worth a read)
Before I go any further let me deal with the elephant in the room - Rupert Murdoch. I'll be damned by some of you if I do, and damned by the rest of you if I don't.
So let me share my perspective from more than 35 years at News - 35 years as a reporter an editor, an editorial director and now as chairman and chief executive.
Is Rupert Murdoch an assiduous reader of our newspapers? Absolutely.
Does he tell us what he thinks? He sure does.
If he's not happy are we left guessing? No way!
Is he passionate about journalism? Yes, and thank God for that.
Does he issue blanket instructions on how to cover politics or major business stories or what to write? No, he doesn't.
I read our newspapers every day. I look at the coverage of politics across the group, the tone and treatment of stories, the leaders, the views of our columnists and our contributors.
There is no evidence of a blanket order from the top. Because there simply isn't one.
But then he would say that wouldn't he :> (I don't know how to do emoticons either).
-
From Alas, a Blog, from someone who is voting Obama, and will post pro-Obama arguments in a day or two.
Top Ten Bad Pro-Obama Arguments
1) Clinton is just plain selfish for not dropping out of the race! It shows she has bad character.
2) Racism has benefited Clinton this election, totally unlike sexism benefiting Obama, which has never happened and if it ever did happen didn’t matter.
3) Clinton is eeeevviiiil.
4) Obama will run center but govern left.
5) Obama is the next JFK!
6) Obama is the messiah. Worship him, foolish mortals, or your very soul is lost.
7) Hilary is only where she is because of her husband.
8) Hillary is a horrible role model because she stayed with Bill after Monicagate.
9) Hilary has shrill laughter. She reminds me of my hectoring mother. She’s a woman, and woman things disturb me.
10) The math proves Hillary can’t win, so no one should vote for her.
-
The youtube Clinton clip on Alas, a Blog is great -
http://www.youtube.com/v/kcdnlNZg2iM&hl=en
I imagine there's similar Obama clips out there. The power of a clever editor.
-
Those Alas posts are pretty good. I did come across this reason for voting Obama in the comments:
Now I’m voting for Obama because I always wanted a pony and this one does nothing but shoot rainbows out of his butt.
Which, I think, trumps everything.
-
And on Shakesville, 10 bad reasons for voting for Clinton from a Clinton supporter.
-
steve
I don’t see the point of the legislation.
Neither can I except in so far as it explicitly removes a right, which is slightly more far reaching than 'contracting out of the right'. I guess it's aimed at workplaces which haven't yet bothered with a code of conduct, so their right to spy is ambiguous. Now it isn't. Hooray.
Emma & Paul
If they detach from the group to do it, respect their privacy, if they don't, respect their 'still being a personness'.
It's not the respecting I'm asking about. That is given. It's the 'what does that mean' bit - what is respectful and what isn't? In some cases I get more of an impression that I'm the one that's meant to detach (which I do).
It doesn't put me off my lunch to see a baby getting their lunch. I take a lot of interest in babies eating, which is part of the problem - I guess I'm not meant to take an interest in babies eating that way.
-
Now I’m voting for Obama because I always wanted a pony and this one does nothing but shoot rainbows out of his butt.
Which, I think, trumps everything.
Heh. I think you'll find this is where rainbows come from. So that must be an Obamacorn.
It's the 'what does that mean' bit - what is respectful and what isn't? In some cases I get more of an impression that I'm the one that's meant to detach (which I do).
It doesn't put me off my lunch to see a baby getting their lunch. I take a lot of interest in babies eating, which is part of the problem - I guess I'm not meant to take an interest in babies eating that way.
To be honest, I can really only speak for myself. I never minded people looking at my while I was feeding. I DID mind people staring. In the same way, I don't mind people looking at my breasts when I'm NOT feeding, but I do mind them staring. (Breasts are ace, and can be very distracting. I understand this.) If I'm having a conversation with someone, I'd prefer they looked at my face, whether or not I'm breast-feeding.
I've become more sensitised to the issue since both Facebook and Livejournal banned women from displaying photos of themselves breast-feeding, because it was "obscene". I think I'd be more likely to wonder if someone was being disapproving these days.
-
I guess "evil" is a little strong ... but I deeply disapprove of what she's doing. Her marginal chance of victory effectively relies on destroying her fellow Democrat (she really can't win by getting more pledged delegates), and for that small chance of a prize she's prepared to stand alongside McCain and hand him ammo for November.
The impact on the party if she pulls it off hardly bears thinking about. Obama has been able to tap into the most liberal and politicised generation of twentysomethings in decade -- he's getting them to the polls. He probably promises the biggest turnout of black American voters ever. If he's knifed, those people will walk away from the process.
But more than that, I like and appreciate the fact that Obama speaks in joined-up sentences, and expresses ideas. I'm not so keen on his faith or her protectionist rhetoric, but he strikes me as a genuinely superior candidate,
By contrast, I find it increasingly difficult to take anything Hillary says at face value. The latest attempt to depict herself as just a poor, rural white person at heart, not to mention more American than Obama, is risible.
But, interestingly, the latest polls suggest "bitter" has backfired: the LA Times polling has her only five points up in Pennsylvania and the same distance behind in Indiana.
And there's this:
In Pennsylvania, the flap seems to have marginally helped Obama more than hurt him: 24% said his handling of the issue made them think more highly of him; 15% said it made them think less highly of him; 58% said it made no difference in their views.
The Scotsman had a story this week saying that Al Gore and Jimmy Carter are poised to declare for Obama. Carter would be no surprise -- he's made his feelings clear in interviews -- but the pair of them stepping forward would pretty much end it.
-
To be honest, I can really only speak for myself. I never minded people looking at my while I was feeding. I DID mind people staring. In the same way, I don't mind people looking at my breasts when I'm NOT feeding, but I do mind them staring. (Breasts are ace, and can be very distracting. I understand this.) If I'm having a conversation with someone, I'd prefer they looked at my face, whether or not I'm breast-feeding.
I think it's probably just a modern social skill for everyone involved -- and part of that is not staring; or looking a breast-feeding woman in the eye like you would talking to anyone. Once you get that, it's no big deal.
-
It doesn't put me off my lunch to see a baby getting their lunch. I take a lot of interest in babies eating, which is part of the problem - I guess I'm not meant to take an interest in babies eating that way.
Indeed. I have enormous sympathy for any woman who is going through enough shit without being treated like a freak because her newborn doesn't run on AAA batteries and have an off switch. But you know something, can I not be written off as a matriphobic, child-hating bastard because I find it just a little startling when a complete stranger exposes her breast in my line of sight while I'm eating lunch in a public place.
-
If I'm having a conversation with someone, I'd prefer they looked at my face, whether or not I'm breast-feeding.
Maybe people find it hard to believe I'm actually looking at the baby.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.