Posts by mark taslov
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Most popular headlines on Stuff as it read before lunch
Michael Jackson dead
Farrah Fawcett dies
Jeff Goldblum alive -
I was just pointing out that South Africa didn't have what most people would consider to be democracy until the 1990s.
Retrospectively stating that South Africa wasn't a democracy for the 50 odd years of people were voting in Apartheid governments is selective and revisionist. It was an inhumane democracy.
By the same token the same could be said that New Zealand wasn't a 'true' democracy until 19 September 1893
or 1919 when women could stand for parliament?
Either way there in lies the conundrum
Because I'd say with utmost confidence that New Zealand has been a __flawed__democracy since the first election in 1853. However you can take your logic as far as necessary Kyle.
Isn't applying the logic that only the most democratic or least discriminatory democracy (ie. the end product) can define what constitutes a democratic system inherently undemocratic?
Would you give creedence to assertions from citizens of East Timor, Indonesia, North Korea, the Seychelles and Sudan (16 years old), Austria, Brazil, Cuba, Nicaragua (17 years of age) that New Zealand is not a democracy because of discriminatory legislation denying anyone under the age of 18 the right to vote?
-
..by that I'm referring to Gitmo, The response in New Orleans, and Directive 51
Like I said Mark, I'm over it and in my opinon we should politely agree to disagree.
Strange that you should find politeness an acceptable course this late in the piece. peace Rich.
-
I was just pointing out that South Africa didn't have what most people would consider to be democracy until the 1990s.
That's convenient, maybe the same will be said about the tainted Bush terms in in 50 years.
-
ok, RIP Michael Jackson.
-
sorry, that whole portion under 'bullshit' is was not supposed to be included in the post. If any moderator could delete it, I'd be much obliged.
-
Well who knows Rich, as Winston Churchill said to Leo Amery, Secretary of State for India.
* hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.
attributed to Churchill as a remark, in an entry for September 1942 in Leo Amery : Diaries (1988), edited John Barnes and David Nicholson, p. 832
Coupled with the fact in my initial post I clearly said
Democracy is not the worst form of government compared to Nazism and there are better, lest we forget the tribesman of the Kalahari presented in the Gods must be Crazy
I can't for the life of me figure out why you then continued asking me for examples. Is it that you don't like the Kalahari bushmen? You don't see them as developed enough for their Consensus system to be described as a form of government? It's too primitive for you?
Traditionally the San were an egalitarian society.[14] Although they did have hereditary chiefs, the chiefs' authority was limited and the bushmen instead made decisions among themselves, by consensus, [15] and the status of women was relatively equal[1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalahari_bushmen
I can't for the life of me see how that is any worse than democracy.
But that example just flew over your head Rich Lock.
how about constitutional monarchy of Monaco or perhaps the absolute elective monarchy of The Vatican housing the Holy See, the oldest active continuous diplomatic service in the world, dating back to at least AD 325.
Has democracy never been worse than any of these systems? Isn't it simply the case that it's not the system but those who maintain the system that decide if it is better or worse. Isn't this just a glorified Mac/PC (each to their own) debate and I'm saying they all have their moments and your maintaining that PC is best by attacking the Chinese communist party because you hate them.
I hate the ruling Communist party of China. There is a difference - a big difference - between a people and those who rule them. I am quite able to make that distinction.
Isn't this human capacity to hate the unknown precisely the biggest weakness in and yet the crucial pivot of democracy? Was Hitler's election a high point in our collective history? Would the antisemitism of the Nazi's have survived in a consensus system? Or was the mandate provided by democracy the catalyst for what followed? Would the same path have been traveled had Germany retained it's monarchy?
a big difference - between a people and those who rule them. I am quite able to make that distinction.
Strangely, what? Maybe you should write to President Hu's wife and tell her the differences between her and her husband are insurmountable. Essentially Rich you sound like you have led a privileged life. You have never known the darkness that haunts the nether regions of our own democracy. I guess perhaps you have never been unemployed and starving in New Zealand and had to resort to visiting the food bank for a four day ration of stale weetbix. or anything like that, so you consider your "freedom to say whatever the fuck I like about the government, as loudly as I care to, to whoever I choose" an essential measure of the value of your government. You seem to neglect to consider that this is a luxury of the privileged classes, and furthermore that there are as I write New Zealand citizens without homes, without food, for whom saying whatever the fuck they like wherever they like to whoever they like will earn them a night in the cells. I don't judge a system by it's greatest attribute but by its weakest link.
you smelly bastard.
What's with the abuse Giovanni?
in South Africa we saw democracy at it's worst.
Kyle
I really do despair.
In 1948, the National Party was elected to power. It intensified the implementation of racial segregation begun under Dutch and British colonial rule, and subsequent South African governments since the Union was formed. The Nationalist Government systematised existing segregationist laws, classifying all peoples into three races, developing rights and limitations for each, such as pass laws and residential restrictions. The white minority controlled the vastly larger black majority. The system of segregation became known collectively as apartheid.
and that's better that the consensus system of the Kalahri bushmen?
bullshit.
o In conversation to Leo Amery, Secretary of State for India. This quotation is widely cited as written in "a letter to Leo Amery" (e.g. "Jolly Good Fellows and Their Nasty Ways" by Vinay Lal in Times of India (15 January 2007)) but it is actually attributed to Churchill as a remark, in an entry for September 1942 in Leo Amery : Diaries (1988), edited John Barnes and David Nicholson, p. 832:During my talk with Winston he burst out with: "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion."
Never, ever, not even for one nanosecond, would I consider that a good idea. For me, and I suspect the majority of people on this site, that idea is anathema.You can't seem to even begin to understand why (in the same way as I can't begin to understand why you would suggest it) which is why I think the gulf of understanding between us is unbridgeable.
So this is where I'll leave this particular argument.
I would however like to clear up a small misunderstanding.
You have said that I 'hate the Chinese'.
No.
I hate the ruling Communist party of China. There is a difference - a big difference - between a people and those who rule them. I am quite able to make that distinction.
-
I enjoyed the exchange of comments with the mayor, clearly both good sports. A really nice story.
-
Does every foreign rugby tour have to end with a police investigation into team antics in a hotel room?
So Tom hit the nail on the head.
Bastareaud walking into his hotel with two other players and two women, TV One reported.
Doesn't sound like an isolated incident to me Mr. Key. This could do wonders to New Zealand's build up for the world cup though.
-
Personally from that wikipedia link on the previous page I'd favour something along the lines of the German/Greek/recently introduced Japanese method with judges and laymen together as a feasible alternative.