Posts by WH
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I thought the "Bacon is not a paedophile" analogy drawn was harsh but apt in this respect: the impression and associations created by the article are misleading and in this case apparently unsupported by any demonstrable facts. There was no attempt to find the truth, simply a repetition of unsubstantiated allegations and the corresponding denials. The net effect is to give front page credence to non-information.
Climate change all in Gore's head, rumours suggest.
-
People are losing faith in the currency of politics.
To paraphrase Hannah Arendt, politics exists because each of us have different ideas of how the world should be. It seems to me that a lot of ordinary people's frustration with politics arises from the fact that other people don't share their sense of how things should play out, which they often percieve as being "obvious" or "common sense". It might be said that politicians were not always well respected before the introduction of the EFB, but the task of harnessing divergent conceptions of the obvious into a single proposal is difficult and requires compromise. In this sense politics is a particularly complex and frustrating form of group decision making.
The EFB has constitutional implications. It touches on one of the major fault lines of the left-right economic dichotomy that organises our political spectrum, so its hardly surprising that it elicits strong reaction from people who are interested in politics.
How should we organise discussion in the public sphere? We would all agree that ideas should be carefully considered and that proposals should be chosen on merit. New Zealand is not particularly well served by its media (or the personalities therein) in this respect IMO. The public relies on its opinion leaders to digest complex information, exercise good judgment on its behalf, and help them form their own opinions. Most people don't have the time, the inclination or the knowledge required to read or understand bills that are put before Parliament. The media function as our intermediaries, and when they don't do their job properly, the public's understanding suffers.
The amount of time that josie public can or will devote to political issues is finite. For this reason, among others, effective mass-market communication can and does effect public opinion. However mass market communication campaigns are expensive. Most people would recognise that the marketplace of ideas should not be dominated by those with the greatest ability to pay. At the very least, the public should be able to identify the forces that seek to influence public decision making.
-
What's unintuitive about that?
The exploitation is not unintuitive, its the voting pattern that results. The question is why do people from poor states (who would benefit from Democratic economic policies) vote for anti-government-services Republicans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What's_the_Matter_with_Kansas%3F
-
It is sometimes claimed out that modern Republican dominance is unintuitive and is built on the careful exploitation of cultural issues such as religion, race, crime, immigration. et cetera. This is the "What is the Matter with Kansas" thesis. There are two ways to go about unpacking this. The first is to attack Republican supporters as bigots, using the play to the base approach used by GWB. The second is to broaden the Democrats appeal to centrist voters, building bridges across ideological and subcultural lines, the DLC approach.
To be honest I'm just sitting here chilling with my special cookies.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/5842.html
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2007/10/5806_the_democrats_best-case_senate_scenario_filibuster-proof_majority.html
http://wizbangblue.com/2007/09/21/filibusterproof-senate-majority-within-reach-for-democrats.php
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/04/60.html -
Seriously?
[insert some joke about smoking odd things]I don't find that especially funny, Graeme. Do you actually know what you are talking about?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20477656/
WASHINGTON - The last Democratic president to enjoy a filibuster-proof Senate majority was Jimmy Carter 30 years ago.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster
The term first came into use in the United States Senate, where Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless a supermajority of three-fifths of the Senate (60 Senators, if all 100 seats are filled) brings debate to a close by invoking cloture.[1] -
Although I was personally hoping that Al Gore would run, I think that both Hillary and Obama would be good Presidents. It will be interesting to see who the winner picks as their VP.
The strategic issues facing the Democrats can be picked up at a glance with a quick visit to http://www.electoral-vote.com/
It was encouraging to see the Democrats make progress in some traditionally red states in the mid-terms - surely obtaining filbuster and veto proof majorities must be long term objectives. As the sea of red suggests, this means connecting with people outside the traditional Democratic bastions, and finding a way to build bridges with people with views like Huckabee. If Huckabee does not get the nomination, immigration looms as the wedge issue of 2008.
-
Bart - completely agree about the backline
-
I wonder why people started putting campaign promises on pieces of card in the first place.
Transcript: John Key on the TV One Breakfast show. 3 October 2007
PRESENTER: Alright, very quickly, there was a lot of talk over the previous week about SOEs...
KEY: Yeah and I think look, that was portrayed the wrong way and taken completely out of proportion. When I was the, the [sic] Finance spokesman, and I hold the same view now, New Zealand does not need to rush in and sell assets. We ... firstly, ah we don't have a debt crisis as we had in the 80s and 90s, and in fact net debt's positive in New Zealand, ah those things make a lot of money now. They didn't make money in the old days, SOEs lost money.
PRESENTER: So, so [sic] what is your policy?
KEY: Well our point is simply this ah, last time we had a very, very timid policy of saying we might sell a quarter of ah, Solid Energy and some farms on Landcorp. Now, we're listening to the public, we're happy to have that debate, we know they don't want to ah sell assets and we understand that, in fact...
PRESENTER: So what is your policy?
KEY: Well we'll declare that in 2008, going into the election.
PRESENTER: So you don't have a policy.
KEY: No, we, we [sic] are in the process of putting together policy.
"Read my lips: there will be no [taxes(US)/surtax(NZ)]" comes to mind. The campaign finance/third party parallel campaign experience of other countries is completely irrelevant. Except the United Kingdom's experience with anonymous donations, which Craig mentioned the other day.
-
Is it really the case that the previous four coaches of the All Blacks were losers who needed to "take responsibility" by resigning or being fired? If Graham Henry has a problem he ain't exactly suffering alone... Some New Zealand sports fans could do with an attitude adjustment IMO. I wish Murray Deaker would be fired, and I never get my way, so why should you?
Agree about Bracewell (not that New Zealand is as good at cricket as it is at rugby). That last Chappell-Hadlee was pretty spesh though...
Graeme/Craig,
I'm not sure that I have read what Trotter said in August, so I can't comment on it. However, for lack of a better case in point:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth -
Deans was/would have been/will be a good All Blacks coach, but its past time the quadrennial bloodletting was made to stop. As you might expect, listening to sports talkback this weekend was really disappointing. Special mention to Doug Golightly and his embittered offsider: you have no idea how nasty, smallminded and rude you come across as being.
Craig, that isn't exactly what Trotter's piece said.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4315598a1861.htmlThough the overwhelming majority of the 5000-6000 participants in last Saturday's demonstration would indignantly reject the idea, they were not marching in defence of any recognisably democratic principle at all, but to defend the aristocratic principle: the right of a small, self-perpetuating minority to use the power conferred upon it by the possession of great wealth to negate the rights and aspirations of the majority.
The conservative ideology, which inspired the "Kill the Bill" movement, is profoundly anti- democratic. Historically, it has resisted every attempt to expand the realm of freedom. It opposed the abolition of slavery and rejected the extension of the franchise – up to and including women's suffrage. It never accepted the right of workers to combine in trade unions, and fought the creation of the welfare state. Conservatives have argued strongly against both racial and sexual equality. Their ideal society is characterised by privilege, hierarchy, discrimination and deference: rule by the few – not by the many.
[...]
The Electoral Finance Bill, by threatening to starve the conservative elites of the funds they need to ensure that popular deference to wealth and privilege remains ingrained in the electorate, constitutes a direct threat – not to democracy, but to its polar opposite, Economic Royalism – the aristocratic ambitions of those whom President Theodore Roosevelt described as "malefactors of great wealth".
It's not a great bill, I grant you this, but the principle at the heart of electoral law reform is an important one. We are not the only country to be concerned about the distortions that wealth can have on the democratic process.