Posts by WH
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
James,
Danyl was right when he said:
It is controversial when you selectively fire a bunch of AG's who are either investigating members of your party or have refused White House requests to investigate democrats. It's really controversial when you defend your decision by claiming you sacked them for performance reasons and it transpires that they were some of the highest rated AG's in the country.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-usattys19mar19,0,2790807.story?track=ntothtml
The corruption/competence issue worked very well for the Dems in 2006 so it makes sense for them to keep pushing that issue at every chance
This is not the mere political gimmick that you imply it is. Good governance involves more than just political theatre - the congressional and senatorial oversight committees exist for a purpose. I would have thought that few would remain unpersuaded of the need for better oversight of the current US Executive.
In the political and economic climate of 2000 against a candidate like Bush, Gore should have won easily. That he didn't shows what a lousy candidate he is, and a lot of Dems cant and wont forget that.
Bush would kill for Clinton's 2nd term approval ratings, but 2000 was a different time - "honour and integrity back to the White House" and "compassionate conservative" were still benign aspirations of a nice but dimwitted candidate. A lot of moderate people just thought it was time for a change, but I'd say most of them are regretting that now.
-
Gore is talking about the decision to invade Iraq here, but he might as well have been talking about the result of the 2000 election.
I'm convinced that one of the reasons that we didn't have a better public debate before the [Iraq war] started is because so many of the impressions that the majority of the country had back then turn out to have been completely wrong. Leaving aside for the moment the question of how these false impressions got into the public's mind, it might be healthy to take a hard look at the ones we now know were wrong and clear the air so that we can better see exactly where we are now and what changes might need to be made.
-
This is a great photo - the accompanying story is quite good too
I hope the Democrats don't let the Obama/Clinton rivalry get out of hand.
Before I developed an interest in US politics, I assumed that the unflattering media opinion of Al Gore had some basis in fact. By chance more than anything, I started reading Gore's speeches, or downloading them from Moveon.org, and I was surprised to find that they were pretty good. Seven years later, events have largely rehabilitated Gore's public image.
In theory, the media provide a forum for public deliberation, but I am pretty sceptical about the mass media's role in politics. I hope our collective narrative of the Democratic primaries isn't reduced to the lowest common denominator.
-
I think the point is, that's looking like changing here in the near future. While it's not being done explicitly, this is a debate about whether or not children have that right, and if the bill passes (in its mangled current incarnation) then it wouldn't be unreasonable to argue that in NZ, children now have that right.
That may be the argument you are making, but its certainly not what either Bradford or Clark are telling the public:
"But today she said her stance had not changed. [PM Helen Clark] still did not support a smacking ban and did not believe that was what Ms Bradford's bill would achieve."
IMO we should separate what we might think about smacking from whether we can validly make the entire country do what Riddley wants.
-
I think Kate has made an important point - ultimately the need to upskill our parents is at the heart of this.
So if we conclude that children have the right not to be hit, then hitting children is not a right extended to anyone through belief or religion.
True. But its also true that most societies (including a majority in our own society) have concluded that parental discipline (including reasonable physical discipline) is not a breach of a child's rights. Simply asserting that this right exists will only get you so far.
Implicit in your discussion is the claim that smacking for the purpose of instilling self-discipline is harmful to children - that banning smacking would yield our society benefits. But as we established earlier, there is no evidence for this.
By way of concluding my contribution here, I would just say that I respect your position. I'm just annoyed that the bill's supporters are so willing to enforce their minority view on the parents who don't share it.
-
It's a bill before parliament, so its the government doing the telling. There are lots of laws on the books telling people who to, or how not to, raise their children. This is nothing new.
Kyle, what I am saying is that the special obligations inherent in the parent/child relationship require special treatment in law. You will be well aware that, internationally speaking, smacking is not considered to be a breach of a child's legal and moral right not to be assaulted.
That point to one side, what I have really questioned is the political legitimacy of this bill being passed by Parliament. I, like the majority of New Zealanders, do not believe that the supporters of this bill have made the moral case for the legal prohibition it contains. I also wonder whether the bill is inconsistent with Article 18 of the ICCPR.
In my view it is an unfortunate accident that the Government has the numbers to pass this bill against the wishes and reasoned objections of so many citizens. You might disagree.
Cheers,
Weston -
Weston, does that sound ridiculous to you? Hyperbole perhaps? Go back 150 years in time and follow that debate.
Yes, but 150 years into the future, dairy products will be outlawed as the bovine holocaust they clearly are.
I know this because I am a progressive, and sense these things more keenly than other people.
-
There's a lot of debate about the research in this area, and most people recognise that there hasn't been enough research to say definitively what the harm to children is.
So clear evidence of harm then?
The debate should be about whether children have the right not to be hit, or if that is a right denied to them because of their age.
Another way to frame the debate would be to ask whether people who believe smacking is wrong can tell everyone else how to raise their children. The relationship between parent and child is sui generis IMO.
I happen to think soy products are an affront to human dignity. The only person who I would dream about imposing this belief on is Sue Bradford.
-
Riddley,
I think that, in this case, using the party whip to pass a law that 70% of the voting population oppose counts as bad politics. Even on your theory of representative democracy. You may disagree.
As for your lesson on the tyranny of the majority - why don't you have a look at Article 18(1) and (4) of the ICCPR. I'm touched by your concern for the vulnerable, selective though it might be.
-
The bill is illiberal: there is no evidence that mild smacking is harmful to children and there are no liberal grounds for prohibiting it.
The bill is undemocratic: most of our community does not believe that mild smacking should be made illegal.
I'm not even clear that the balance of legal or moral argument supports the bill - calling this "progressive" is an orwellian detraction from the meaning and force of the term.
I do not believe that our Parliament should feel entitled to pass this law in these circumstances. One can always rely on Sue Bradford to find a wedge issue for her own side of the political spectrum.