Posts by WH
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
-
It is one thing to be declare yourself a conservative, its another thing entirely to declare yourself a Bush Republican. At some point loyalty to the cause has to give way to the weight of the evidence.
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/powell-calls-un-speech-a-blot-on-his/20050908231709990004
-
In a free society people are allowed to make accusations (except libel etc.) and people are allowed to rebut them, by attacking the credibility of the accuser if appropriate.
What people are not allowed to do in a free society is lie under oath and deliberately obstruct federal investigations. If you have a problem with the perjury laws I suggest you take it up with the US Congress. You might want to consider what (and who) Libby was lying to protect.
I have a problem with your suggestion that it is acceptable to use elaborate deception in order to advance political objectives. The Libby case references misrepresentations that led the US government into its biggest foreign policy crisis since Vietnam. It a tragic metaphor for an Administration that prefers the advancement of its own arrogant preconceptions and f*ckwit ideology to the truth.
Noone who really cares about the US can just sit there and watch this sh*t happen with such a blase attitude.
-
We are even less allowed to see the way in which the decisions as to what to vote are made, the whipping, the threats, the negotiations, the endless board meetings, the focus groups etc.
Good point. I guess what I'd say is this:
Parliament is made of people with divergent political beliefs, so it is inevitable that a certain amount of wacky chaos is going to ensue in the "debating chamber". However, this weakness of Parliament is also its strength - the same divergences that render Parliament so frustrating also mean that its makeup reflects society in some broad and proportionally representative sense.
To borrow from Jeremy Waldron, politics exists because we need a legitimate means of resolving intra-societal disagreement - not because we need an institution to rubber stamp outcomes that we already know to be right.
I'm not saying that Parliament represents some sort of political nirvana, but I don't believe that current imperatives encourage the media to show the legislative processs in its full complexity. Not everything about our political process deserves our contempt.
The Alll Blacks really need to pull finger.
Totally.
-
Well, Weston, with all due disrespect to the great and the good, I think I'm capable of deciding for myself what constitutes 'worthwhile coverage' of politics, and adjusting my viewing/reading accordingly
If what I said strikes you as patronising elitism, I guess I'm guilty. Its all about who will guard the guardians, mate.
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2005/3953/
For Political background and analysis of events in New Zealand ‘Free-to-air’ TV (42%) is the most important source of information, followed by Newspapers (24%), Radio (12%) and Internet (9%).
-
I think there are a few unpleasant realities that tend to explain these restrictions, whether or not they are a good idea.
The first reality is that television news coverage is brief and of a low quality. "One News gives you a full report" often translates as 5 or 10 seconds of context-free soundbites.
The second reality is the conflict is news, wheras quiet deliberation and collaboration are not. The result is that Ron Mark goes out on digital high-rotation while more worthy legislative developments do not receive media attention.
The third is that news companies have a profit motive, which means they are attracted to matters of broader public fascination, such as Paris Hilton, rather than matters of actual public interest, such as Parliament.
The result is that the television news cannot be relied upon to provide worthwhile coverage of what happens in Parliament.
-
http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince17.htm
COMING now to the other qualities mentioned above, I say that every prince ought to desire to be considered clement and not cruel. Nevertheless he ought to take care not to misuse this clemency.
Nevertheless he ought to be slow to believe and to act, nor should he himself show fear, but proceed in a temperate manner with prudence and humanity, so that too much confidence may not make him incautious and too much distrust render him intolerable.
Hmm.
-
Our only consolation is that his name will forever be synonymous with ignorance and incompetence.
-
Left & Right have played their parts in the past. I fear the problem is still one of Black vs White.
I'm just saying the LCAS report seemed well written and holistic/comprehensive, and I'm not inclined to dismiss it unless I've seen good reason to. If the problem is as serious as is being claimed, what intervention would we like to see? I think most people would like to see the situation improve, but any progress is going to be slow and hard won I suspect.
Howard's national emergency is a political one.
That may be true, and perhaps I am being naive. But would you rather have this issue on the agenda or off it? Good article btw.
-
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21986091-5000117,00.html
Aboriginal people have been crying out for action on this front for many years. They have been calling on bi-partisan support and action across the political spectrum. Finally, we have a Federal Government with the principled support of the Federal Opposition giving the issue the "designated, urgent national significance" it deserves.
It is good to know that so many people have sympathy for the plight of the Aboriginal people, and are familiar with the histories of their oppression. I suppose my own focus is on exploring solutions to current problems.
Who knows, maybe Labor will win the next election.