Posts by Craig Ranapia
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Shep:
All I've heard Bomber say - and he repeated it in the PA Radio interview - is that in view when you pick up a gun, and start frothing about killing your political enemies, you've pretty comprehensively FUBAR'd any moral or political authority you ever had. And speaking from the right, I couldn't agree more - especially when you're faced with the more, shall we say, excitable on-line elements of the activist right.
Heh. I do believe that's exactly the problem the National party has with it. Unpaid participatory campaigns might hit trouble on the whole "tax cuts for the rich urgently needed" bandwagon. Especially if said rich have to put their name to it, quite a few "mainstream" kiwis don't seem to like following the demands of their betters for some reason. 8]
Really? Every campaign season since 1990 I've done a great deal of 'unpaid participatory' campaigning. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if every political party had to (notionally) pay their volunteers minimum wage and have it count as an electioneering expense our campaigns would be measured in hours.
No god, no queen, no lord, no master.
But plenty of folks on all sides of the political spectrum who think the peasants are dozy fuckwits who must be protected from doubleplusungoodthinkk, because they're far too stupid and easily manipulated to make up their own minds... I wonder what it says about a healthy, functional democracy when so many folks in political, media and activist circles have a fundamental contempt for the hoi polloi.
-
Bomber if you side with Garth McVicar you're no longer part of the Social Justice Movement.
Gee, does he have to give back his decoder ring and stop using the secret handshakes? Seriously, Shep, if anything is harming the credibility of the 'Social Justice Movement' it's this kind of wing-nuttery. And while my points of agreement with Bomber could be counted on a closed fist, the shit he's been subjected to is downright creepy and has the dubious distinction of making the more fetid right-wingnuts who make Kiwiblog such an unpleasant experience look positively sedate.
-
Messy, but it does seem reasonably legit on Labour's part. And in the decision, the inaccuracy complaint is upheld because the broadcast number of times Maori Party voted with National was lower than the real number!
Here's where it's deceptive, Jimmy - both National and the Maori Party voted against the Foreshore & Seabed Bill, but for entirely different reasons. In the end, it would be every bit as deceptive as the Maori Party running an advert noting that Labour has 'voted with National' tens of thousands of times - if you count committee votes, uncontentious procedural motions and so forth. Here's Spin101 - the best lie is a pearl of deception wrapped around a grain of truth.
-
Ugh, I hate having to fisk myself...
I'd also note there's a rather disturbing trend in the United States recently for bloggers to become mouthpieces for various campaigns (both covertly, overtly and once they've been outed). Both Republicans and Democrats (and various nominees for their respective Presidential nominations) appear to be quite vigourously courting -- or co-opting if you want to be less generous -- political bloggers. And the line between supportive commentary and sock puppet hackery seems rather fine.
[Text I forgot to paste in is bolded.]
-
Anonymous comments on blogs are the publication by an individual, on a non-commercial basis, on the Internet of his or her personal political views (being the kind of publication commonly known as a comment on a blog.
And this might not be directly pertinent to discussion of the Bill, but what about anon-i-bloggers? At least, I know David Farrar and Russell Brown; even have their home addresses and phone numbers tucked away in my address book. What about Idiot/Savant, the pseudonymous chaps at The Standard and Kiwiblogblog and their equivalents on the right?
I'd also note there's a rather disturbing trend for bloggers to become mouthpieces for various campaigns (both covertly, overtly and once they've been outed). On one level, it might take some of the toxicity out of the political blogisphere if some folks couldn't piss on others from behind a pseudonym, but I can see it all getting rather messy.
-
(I couldn't broadcast an anti-ACT radio ad without declaration and therefore shouldn't be able to holler the same ad all over Queen St)
Taking your hypothetical a step further, Gareth, take a look atthis BSA decision.
Now, that advert may have been properly declared up the wazoo, but the real issue for me is that it was, at best, seriously misleading if not outright deceptive. I don't know, perhaps I'm a little more worried about folks just telling lies than jumping at Exclusive Brethren under the bed, and foreign bagmen in the closet.
-
Of course, HART was more of an issues based advocacy and as such would not have been covered under this bill at all...
Well, Gareth, I can point you to a few people who were active in the anti-Tour movement who felt that it was part of a larger project to turf Piggy the Fascist and his Tory litter out. I'd say good luck drawing a hard and fast line there... but I guess we can just leave the courts to figure it out.
-
Personally, I don't see what is wrong with election year being fought between registered political parties who have candidates up for election and policies for voters to look at and mull over.
Indeed, Tom, and I'm sure Muldoon would have loved an legislative instrument to keep the anti-Tour movement firmly muzzled (or at least tied up challenging the EFB in the courts). I believe 1981 was an election year, and HART was not a registered political party fielding a full slate of candidates.
Still, Tom, thanks for unintentionally outing yourself - your real agenda is stopping forms of speech you find electorally inconvenient. Which may be many things, but it is no species of principled support.
-
Though if $50,000 is correct, then I'll take over organising his marches for him. I could do it for a quarter of that no problem, and keep the difference. *sells soul*
Now that's an idea... Matthews & Ranapia, Rent-A-Rabble 4 Less (This Week Only, Bonus Fly Buy Points!)
Still, I guess if (as seems probable) that the restrictions are going to last the whole of election year, I'd love to be running a PR/lobbying shop. Because it sure looks like getting 'free media' (access to friendly and uncritical journos, columnists who will push your spin on an issue etc.) is going to be even more critical - and the best spin wins.
Yeah, I've been trying to form my thoughts around this: I like I'd appreciate the ability to know a bit more about these groups.
To play the devil's advocate for a moment, isn't a shit idea a shit idea who matter who is 'behind it', or how slick and well-financed the spin effort is? IMO, the best remedy to bad speech is more - and better speech - not trying to shut it down. Perhaps I'm a naive old whoopsie, but I actually have a little more faith in the good nature and bullshit detection skills of the peasantry that most politicians.
-
Rich wrote:
However after hearing the news report on the march with some mad woman going on about how this was the "end of democracy in NZ", I was re-convinced that this bill was a Good Thing.
Just as I'm equally convinced that the EFB is a very bad thing indeed when people who should know better (yes, I'm looking at you I/S) start frothing about how opponents only care about leaving rich plutocrats free to 'buy elections'. If nothing else, it makes me wonder how the Hell we ended up with MMP if voters are such a pack of stupid drones...
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 … 1235 Older→ First