John Banks says Catherine Isaac is qualified to oversee the trial of Charter Schools because the ACT list candidate "loves education", and spent six years on a school board of trustees.
I love cricket, and I spent several years playing the game in my youth. Should I take over John Wright's job when he retires?
I am also a fan of the All Blacks, and have played a bit of club rugby in New Zealand and England. Clearly I can do just as good a job as Steve Hansen.
I've also watched quite a few films over the years, and I did a film appreciation paper at University, so Sir Peter might as well hand over The Hobbit directing duties right now.
And I'm a big fan of education. I spent several years in various schools and universities, so I would also like a role in setting up these Charter Schools. Give me a call, John.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
This Should Not Have Surprised Anyone
The Maori Party is threatening to walk out of government, over National’s plans to exempt partially-sold SOEs from section 9 of the State Owned Enterprises Act 1986.
It sounds as if the section, or a provision similar to the section, may yet survive as a result of yesterday’s threats by the Maori Party co-leaders Turia and Sharples to walk out.
Yesterday John Key claimed that the section, which says:
It’s not clear whether Key was dissembling or just badly-advised on this point. It is certainly easy to see why the government would want to remove from the ambit of section 9 the state assets to be partially-sold. Any limitation on the activities of a business has the potential to impact on its market value, and the government will be aiming to get a good price for the shares to be sold.
The most surprising thing is not that John Key was palpably and egregiously incorrect, but that the Maori Party leaders let it get to this point before throwing a tantrum. How is it that something as fundamental as section 9 of the SOE Act was never discussed when the Maori Party were negotiating their support arrangements with National?
Why did nobody in the Maori Party think to ask John Key about National’s intentions regarding section 9? Anyone with even the most basic knowledge of Maori-Crown legal interactions over the last 30 years ought to have been able to figure out that the provision would create issues that needed to be addressed.
So why do Sharples and Turia now appear shocked at National’s “surprise” move? Does nobody advise them? Any first year law student could probably have warned them about the section 9 problem.
And what exactly do Sharples and Turia want? From some of the confusing and contradictory waffle emitted by Sharples yesterday, it seems he may be expecting section 9 to be expanded to cover private shareholders of the partially-sold SOEs. If that is indeed what Sharples expects from National (and I cannot be certain what Sharples expects, as I suspect he is making it up as he goes along, having never turned his mind to the issue until now), then anyone with the remotest understanding of our nation’s political history would have been able to figure out that such a move would be a bit controversial to say the least.
So why weren’t these things discussed? I am tempted to look for some ulterior motive behind the reaction by Sharples and Turia, some strategic reason why the Maori Party may be trying to distance itself from John Key’s government.
But I keep coming back to what I think is really behind this whole shambles: incompetence and ineptitude. In its dealings with Hone Harawira to date the Maori Party has proved adept at making the worst possible decisions, and this fiasco merely continues a trend of bad decision-making, disorganisation and poor leadership. Supporters of the Maori Party really ought to be asking Pita Sharples and Tariana Turia some tough questions about their performance, because over this issue it has been embarrassing.
It sounds as if the section, or a provision similar to the section, may yet survive as a result of yesterday’s threats by the Maori Party co-leaders Turia and Sharples to walk out.
Yesterday John Key claimed that the section, which says:
Nothing in this Act shall permit the Crown to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangiwas “largely symbolic”, but this is demonstrably false. The well known and important case New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney General [1987] 1 NZLR 641 considered the section, and as a result of that case the government of the day amended the SOE Act. If section 9 was a mere symbol then why was that action considered necessary?
It’s not clear whether Key was dissembling or just badly-advised on this point. It is certainly easy to see why the government would want to remove from the ambit of section 9 the state assets to be partially-sold. Any limitation on the activities of a business has the potential to impact on its market value, and the government will be aiming to get a good price for the shares to be sold.
The most surprising thing is not that John Key was palpably and egregiously incorrect, but that the Maori Party leaders let it get to this point before throwing a tantrum. How is it that something as fundamental as section 9 of the SOE Act was never discussed when the Maori Party were negotiating their support arrangements with National?
Why did nobody in the Maori Party think to ask John Key about National’s intentions regarding section 9? Anyone with even the most basic knowledge of Maori-Crown legal interactions over the last 30 years ought to have been able to figure out that the provision would create issues that needed to be addressed.
So why do Sharples and Turia now appear shocked at National’s “surprise” move? Does nobody advise them? Any first year law student could probably have warned them about the section 9 problem.
And what exactly do Sharples and Turia want? From some of the confusing and contradictory waffle emitted by Sharples yesterday, it seems he may be expecting section 9 to be expanded to cover private shareholders of the partially-sold SOEs. If that is indeed what Sharples expects from National (and I cannot be certain what Sharples expects, as I suspect he is making it up as he goes along, having never turned his mind to the issue until now), then anyone with the remotest understanding of our nation’s political history would have been able to figure out that such a move would be a bit controversial to say the least.
So why weren’t these things discussed? I am tempted to look for some ulterior motive behind the reaction by Sharples and Turia, some strategic reason why the Maori Party may be trying to distance itself from John Key’s government.
But I keep coming back to what I think is really behind this whole shambles: incompetence and ineptitude. In its dealings with Hone Harawira to date the Maori Party has proved adept at making the worst possible decisions, and this fiasco merely continues a trend of bad decision-making, disorganisation and poor leadership. Supporters of the Maori Party really ought to be asking Pita Sharples and Tariana Turia some tough questions about their performance, because over this issue it has been embarrassing.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Shock As Labour Discovers David Farrar Is Not The PM
Labour Party MPs are said to be red-faced, after discovering that prominent blogger David Farrar is not the Prime Minister of New Zealand.
Mr Farrar has been the target of numerous attacks by Labour Party MPs over the last couple of years.
A source inside Labour has confirmed that party officials identified Farrar as the leader of the country shortly after the 2008 election, despite being given evidence to the contrary. Rumours that John Key was the actual leader of the National Party as well as the Prime Minister of New Zealand were dismissed at the time as mere speculation.
But this morning, in a shock announcement, Mr Key revealed that he is in fact the Prime Minister, and that David Farrar is merely an enthusiastic National Party member with a popular blog, a couple of newspaper columns, and only moderate political influence.
Commentators have observed that Labour’s obsession with David Farrar has been a distraction that has turned off many left-leaning voters.
Labour MP Trevor Mallard admitted today that the party had made an “embarrassing but understandable error” over the identity of the Prime Minister.
However, he was unrepentant over Labour's policy of giving free publicity to David Farrar by attacking everything the commentator writes or says.
Mr Mallard also vowed to keep piling the pressure onto Mr Farrar.
"He’s not fit to hold office. He’s certainly not fit to be in Cabinet,” said Mr Mallard.
“When Parliament reopens we’ll be piling the heat on David Farrar, and holding him to account. This Farrar-led government has been a disaster for New Zealand.”
Mr Farrar has been the target of numerous attacks by Labour Party MPs over the last couple of years.
A source inside Labour has confirmed that party officials identified Farrar as the leader of the country shortly after the 2008 election, despite being given evidence to the contrary. Rumours that John Key was the actual leader of the National Party as well as the Prime Minister of New Zealand were dismissed at the time as mere speculation.
But this morning, in a shock announcement, Mr Key revealed that he is in fact the Prime Minister, and that David Farrar is merely an enthusiastic National Party member with a popular blog, a couple of newspaper columns, and only moderate political influence.
Commentators have observed that Labour’s obsession with David Farrar has been a distraction that has turned off many left-leaning voters.
Labour MP Trevor Mallard admitted today that the party had made an “embarrassing but understandable error” over the identity of the Prime Minister.
However, he was unrepentant over Labour's policy of giving free publicity to David Farrar by attacking everything the commentator writes or says.
Mr Mallard also vowed to keep piling the pressure onto Mr Farrar.
"He’s not fit to hold office. He’s certainly not fit to be in Cabinet,” said Mr Mallard.
“When Parliament reopens we’ll be piling the heat on David Farrar, and holding him to account. This Farrar-led government has been a disaster for New Zealand.”
Spears Into The Sea
This morning’s New Zealand Herald editorial wades into the Megaupload case, opining that copyright laws need to be respected and enforced.
However, the Herald’s analysis strikes me as too simplistic. it doesn’t take a genius to work out that with the increasing prevalence of digital technologies in our daily lives, traditional copyright protection models have become outdated. Is the answer really just to enforce the existing laws more aggressively and expect people to stop infringing?
The rise of the internet, and the ease with which electronic material can be replicated and shared, make it more difficult for owners of content to assert and enforce copyright. How does a content owner effectively enforce their rights when thousands of people can copy that content with just the click of a button?
In the pre-internet age, the potential for mass distribution of infringing material was limited, and most copying was on a small scale. Large-scale infringers were fewer, and the traditional models of enforcement (cease and desist letters, injunctions, damages etc) were often effective in dealing to the problem.
But in today’s filesharing age, illegal content can be downloaded in an instant. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people are happily sharing content created by others, in a way that violates copyright laws.
Responses to the challenge created by mass filesharing have been varied. Some industry groups argue that the law is the law, copyright infringement is theft, and people need to simply stop the illegal copying and distribution of other people’s content. At the other end of the spectrum are those who believe that everything should be available for free on the internet. In between are those who are happy with some form of copyright protection for creators and copyright owners, but think current copyright laws are outdated and overly restrictive.
Irrespective of where people stand, what seems clear is that mass copyright infringement will not go away soon. The Megaupload crackdown may look like a big deal, but such enforcement actions alone are unlikely to reduce the scale of the infringement problem. The actions taken by US authorities look more like Canute commanding the tides to halt; or the Roman emperor Caligula’s war against Poseidon, when he marched his army to the beach and commanded his men to throw spears into the sea.
What’s the answer? I have no idea. If I knew how to solve the copyright dilemma I’d be the richest person in New Zealand. However, it seems that a lot of people who infringe do so because the content they want is not available at a price they are prepared to pay. A lot of people have expressed frustration at not being able to access their favourite TV shows, because the official sites often prohibit downloading from particular countries or regions. In other cases users are prepared to pay something for the material, but believe the price being charged is too high. In such cases it could be argued that the biggest problem lies with traditional distribution models simply failing to adapt to meet consumer expectations.
None of this is an effort to excuse what is in the end illegal behaviour, nor is it an attack on traditional forms of enforcement. I should make it clear that I have no issue with individuals or corporations wanting to enforce their rights in content. But if copyright owners want to reduce the volume of infringements taking place, they must also understand the reasons why people choose to illegally download content. It is not enough just to enforce existing laws.
If people will continue to smoke or drive too fast, despite the very real and proven dangers to their well-being, should we really be surprised that people ignore the calls not to illegally fileshare? Especially when the technology to do so is readily available, when the chances of infringers being caught are small, and when the actual harm caused by an infringing act is difficult to quantify.
The enforcement of existing copyright laws alone will not hold back the rising tide of filesharing. The Herald’s editorial offers nothing useful to the copyright debate.
More disturbing than the global breach of copyright alleged in the charges is the belief among many users of such sites that the net is, or should be, a copyright-free zone.I usually try to steer clear of the debate over copyright and its future. Because in my day job I deal with a range of people in the IP world, from creators and exploiters to potential infringers, I have the benefit of seeing the debate from a number of different perspectives.
The ability to share and exchange enjoyable material is one of the most attractive and commonly used features of the internet. Just about everyone joins in the free distribution of something everyday. When we click on a link or forward an email, we seldom pause to wonder whether the originator of the material has a property right.
Common sense should tell everyone the originator needs a copyright to be able to sustain the creation of such material but common sense appears to elude some of the internet's enthusiasts. They regard pay-walls as an impediment to virtual democracy and a challenge to their technical agility. Yet the wealth we now witness at Coatesville suggests they are not evading all tolls on their traffic.
It may be argued that sites such as Megaupload provide a service that any originator of material could provide. The issue may be the price they can charge if they face none of the costs of original creation. It seems internet users are happy to send movies, music and other works they possess to a "cyberlocker" for faster transmission to their friends. Once the cyberlocker has the material it can be made universally available for a small fee.
As the home of Hollywood, popular music and indeed, the world's leading software creators, the United States has more "intellectual property" to defend than most places. But countries such as ours should be unequivocal in their support of efforts to police global copyright.
Internet breaches should not be confused with parallel importing, which this country permits. Parallel importing is made possible when suppliers discriminate between countries and charge some a lower rate.
The internet is an instant global supply; it cannot discriminate between national markets.
The internet needs to protect intellectual property somehow. Unauthorised distributors of underpriced work can prosper only at the expense, and eventual death, of their golden goose.
However, the Herald’s analysis strikes me as too simplistic. it doesn’t take a genius to work out that with the increasing prevalence of digital technologies in our daily lives, traditional copyright protection models have become outdated. Is the answer really just to enforce the existing laws more aggressively and expect people to stop infringing?
The rise of the internet, and the ease with which electronic material can be replicated and shared, make it more difficult for owners of content to assert and enforce copyright. How does a content owner effectively enforce their rights when thousands of people can copy that content with just the click of a button?
In the pre-internet age, the potential for mass distribution of infringing material was limited, and most copying was on a small scale. Large-scale infringers were fewer, and the traditional models of enforcement (cease and desist letters, injunctions, damages etc) were often effective in dealing to the problem.
But in today’s filesharing age, illegal content can be downloaded in an instant. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people are happily sharing content created by others, in a way that violates copyright laws.
Responses to the challenge created by mass filesharing have been varied. Some industry groups argue that the law is the law, copyright infringement is theft, and people need to simply stop the illegal copying and distribution of other people’s content. At the other end of the spectrum are those who believe that everything should be available for free on the internet. In between are those who are happy with some form of copyright protection for creators and copyright owners, but think current copyright laws are outdated and overly restrictive.
Irrespective of where people stand, what seems clear is that mass copyright infringement will not go away soon. The Megaupload crackdown may look like a big deal, but such enforcement actions alone are unlikely to reduce the scale of the infringement problem. The actions taken by US authorities look more like Canute commanding the tides to halt; or the Roman emperor Caligula’s war against Poseidon, when he marched his army to the beach and commanded his men to throw spears into the sea.
What’s the answer? I have no idea. If I knew how to solve the copyright dilemma I’d be the richest person in New Zealand. However, it seems that a lot of people who infringe do so because the content they want is not available at a price they are prepared to pay. A lot of people have expressed frustration at not being able to access their favourite TV shows, because the official sites often prohibit downloading from particular countries or regions. In other cases users are prepared to pay something for the material, but believe the price being charged is too high. In such cases it could be argued that the biggest problem lies with traditional distribution models simply failing to adapt to meet consumer expectations.
None of this is an effort to excuse what is in the end illegal behaviour, nor is it an attack on traditional forms of enforcement. I should make it clear that I have no issue with individuals or corporations wanting to enforce their rights in content. But if copyright owners want to reduce the volume of infringements taking place, they must also understand the reasons why people choose to illegally download content. It is not enough just to enforce existing laws.
If people will continue to smoke or drive too fast, despite the very real and proven dangers to their well-being, should we really be surprised that people ignore the calls not to illegally fileshare? Especially when the technology to do so is readily available, when the chances of infringers being caught are small, and when the actual harm caused by an infringing act is difficult to quantify.
The enforcement of existing copyright laws alone will not hold back the rising tide of filesharing. The Herald’s editorial offers nothing useful to the copyright debate.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Please Rate This Post Between 1-10 For Offensiveness
Robert Mugabe has spent decades beating down the people of Zimbabwe, but he still hasn't won, and opposition to his rule remains strong.
And yet the Black Caps destroyed Mugabe's beloved Zimbabwe's cricket team in less than three days.
Zimbabwean opposition, get your shit together!
And yet the Black Caps destroyed Mugabe's beloved Zimbabwe's cricket team in less than three days.
Zimbabwean opposition, get your shit together!
Not Petty
In order to prove conclusively that I'm not vindictive or petty, and that I don't hold grudges, I am reposting a piece I published in June 2011.
In a shock announcement, radio and TV host and blogger Martyn “Bomber” Bradbury has announced he has run out of opinions.
Bradbury is well known for expressing strong opinions on just about every topic. Bradbury regularly uses his radio and TV appearances to castigate right-wing politicians, and to push his strongly leftist views on multiple issues.
But on Friday morning Bradbury was rushed to hospital after experiencing a sudden opinion failure.
Speaking from his hospital bed, Bradbury explained what happened.
“I was in the midst of typing a scathing blogpost eviscerating John Key’s evil National government for the steaming pile of dog-turd it has become, and explaining why we needed a Mana Party world government, when suddenly my hands dropped from the keyboard and I felt an overwhelming sense of numbness.
“I knew something was wrong, because I felt this sudden release, as if all the seething righteous indignation was being voided from my body. That’s when I called 111.”
There is little doubt that the experience has changed Bradbury immeasurably. When shown a photograph of the Prime Minister, Bradbury said “he’s got a nice smile.”
And when asked what he thought about the Business Roundtable, Bradbury visibly shrugged, saying “I’m sure they’re a decent bunch of blokes.”
Doctors say there is no cure, and treatment options are limited. Bradbury’s condition, known as Opinion Deficit Syndrome, is seldom fatal but is difficult to treat.
But sufferers of the disease can be managed back into the community, and can lead fulfilling lives.
Dr Sinead Erbeck of Auckland University Medical School said that the best treatment for Opinion Deficit Syndrome was an opinion transplant.
“The medical literature shows that the most effective course of treatment is for the patient to be encouraged to take the opinions of others and adopt them as if they are their own," said Dr Erbeck.
“The risk of opinion rejection can be extremely high in the early days of the operation. However, given time, patients can look forward to a full recovery and a rewarding new career as a politician, PR consultant or lawyer.”
Bradbury said he had not thought much about a career outside opinion-based broadcasting.
“I never thought I’d feel this creeping sense of numbness, of nothingness. It’s like someone has taken my soul.
“Public relations, you say?”
Medical Shock As Bomber Bradbury Runs Out Of Opinions
Bradbury is well known for expressing strong opinions on just about every topic. Bradbury regularly uses his radio and TV appearances to castigate right-wing politicians, and to push his strongly leftist views on multiple issues.
But on Friday morning Bradbury was rushed to hospital after experiencing a sudden opinion failure.
Speaking from his hospital bed, Bradbury explained what happened.
“I was in the midst of typing a scathing blogpost eviscerating John Key’s evil National government for the steaming pile of dog-turd it has become, and explaining why we needed a Mana Party world government, when suddenly my hands dropped from the keyboard and I felt an overwhelming sense of numbness.
“I knew something was wrong, because I felt this sudden release, as if all the seething righteous indignation was being voided from my body. That’s when I called 111.”
There is little doubt that the experience has changed Bradbury immeasurably. When shown a photograph of the Prime Minister, Bradbury said “he’s got a nice smile.”
And when asked what he thought about the Business Roundtable, Bradbury visibly shrugged, saying “I’m sure they’re a decent bunch of blokes.”
Doctors say there is no cure, and treatment options are limited. Bradbury’s condition, known as Opinion Deficit Syndrome, is seldom fatal but is difficult to treat.
But sufferers of the disease can be managed back into the community, and can lead fulfilling lives.
Dr Sinead Erbeck of Auckland University Medical School said that the best treatment for Opinion Deficit Syndrome was an opinion transplant.
“The medical literature shows that the most effective course of treatment is for the patient to be encouraged to take the opinions of others and adopt them as if they are their own," said Dr Erbeck.
“The risk of opinion rejection can be extremely high in the early days of the operation. However, given time, patients can look forward to a full recovery and a rewarding new career as a politician, PR consultant or lawyer.”
Bradbury said he had not thought much about a career outside opinion-based broadcasting.
“I never thought I’d feel this creeping sense of numbness, of nothingness. It’s like someone has taken my soul.
“Public relations, you say?”
Friday, January 27, 2012
He May Be Half-Right
Bomber Bradbury writes:
But I do wonder how someone as hectoring and opinionated as Bomber can describe The Standard as having a "sanctimonious whiney tone" without a hint of irony.
Terrible news that 'The Standard' has terminal cancer. I don't read 'The Standard' much, so appreciate I am coming to this issue late, but it is terribly sad that they now have the tedious and dreadfully dull Imperator Fish as a regular columnist in their attempt at a broadening humor that will appeal beyond their fetish with Farrar and Slater (for the record Farrar and Slater are supposed to be mocked, not taken seriously).I don't make a habit of feuding with other bloggers, and Bomber is perfectly entitled to consider me "dreadfully dull" (and if you met me in real life you would probably concur).
Why The Standard thinks it needs more of a sanctimonious whiney tone by bringing on Imperator Fish is anyone's guess, next they'll be appointing Tim Watkins as Editor and anyone who wrote for The Listener post Findlay McDonald.
Eeeew.
The Standard will be sadly missed.
But I do wonder how someone as hectoring and opinionated as Bomber can describe The Standard as having a "sanctimonious whiney tone" without a hint of irony.
Sonny Bill Has No Plans To Sleep With You
The stock market dipped sharply in trading today, after no stories appeared in any of the major newspapers about Sonny Bill Williams for almost two hours.
There were some signs of a rally early in the afternoon, as traders took a punt that one of the television current affairs shows would run a story about the sportsman before the end of the day.
But the rally was short-lived, after it was revealed TVNZ’s current affair show Close Up would run stories about transgender traffic wardens and the affordability of methamphetamine for many struggling families, and after TV3’s rival show Campbell Live announced plans to run a 30 minute promotion on its latest talent-reality-survivor-traffic-accident show.
The NZX 50 closed down 421 points, as traders abandoned previously solid stocks and threw their money into safer investments such as gold, overseas bonds and disposable diapers. Media stocks took a particular hammering. The absence of any reports today on who Sonny Bill Williams had coffee with, is sleeping with, or is about to use as a punching bag, led to intense anxiety across financial markets, and speculation that the dearth of Sonny Bill stories would drive a number of media organisations into insolvency.
Late this afternoon New Zealand Herald editor Shayne Currie issued an apology to readers for his newspaper’s lapse.
“I can assure you that we take very seriously our responsibility to readers to provide the very best in news and current affairs,” said Mr Currie.
“On this occasion there has been a regrettable lapse. However, we have reviewed our internal systems and can assure the public that, as well as providing the very best in shark news, the New Zealand Herald will from this day forward provide wall to wall coverage of everything Sonny Bill says, does or excretes.”
Mr Currie said he could not talk any more about the lapse, as it was now an “employment issue” for the staff-members concerned.
Update: Fears that international markets might plummet overnight eased, as it became clearer that Sonny Bill Williams is unlikely to contest the US Presidential contest for the Republican Party.
Pundits have been speculating on whether a latecomer would join the Republican nomination race, but an expert in US electoral law said Sonny Bill would not be eligible to become President.
“Sonny Bill wasn’t born in the US, so he can’t stand for the highest office without a constitutional amendment,” said Dr John Wainburger of the Washington Freedom Institute.
“In any event, Republican voters would never support a Muslim candidate. Even one as hot as Sonny Bill. Don’t tell my wife I said this, but I’ve seen pictures of the guy with his shirt off, so please tell him that if he ever decides to try out an alternative lifestyle I would be happy to, er, put him through his paces.”
There were some signs of a rally early in the afternoon, as traders took a punt that one of the television current affairs shows would run a story about the sportsman before the end of the day.
But the rally was short-lived, after it was revealed TVNZ’s current affair show Close Up would run stories about transgender traffic wardens and the affordability of methamphetamine for many struggling families, and after TV3’s rival show Campbell Live announced plans to run a 30 minute promotion on its latest talent-reality-survivor-traffic-accident show.
The NZX 50 closed down 421 points, as traders abandoned previously solid stocks and threw their money into safer investments such as gold, overseas bonds and disposable diapers. Media stocks took a particular hammering. The absence of any reports today on who Sonny Bill Williams had coffee with, is sleeping with, or is about to use as a punching bag, led to intense anxiety across financial markets, and speculation that the dearth of Sonny Bill stories would drive a number of media organisations into insolvency.
Late this afternoon New Zealand Herald editor Shayne Currie issued an apology to readers for his newspaper’s lapse.
“I can assure you that we take very seriously our responsibility to readers to provide the very best in news and current affairs,” said Mr Currie.
“On this occasion there has been a regrettable lapse. However, we have reviewed our internal systems and can assure the public that, as well as providing the very best in shark news, the New Zealand Herald will from this day forward provide wall to wall coverage of everything Sonny Bill says, does or excretes.”
Mr Currie said he could not talk any more about the lapse, as it was now an “employment issue” for the staff-members concerned.
 |
| It is believed that Sonny Bill William's management team is not at this time considering the remilitarisation of the Rhineland by their star. |
Pundits have been speculating on whether a latecomer would join the Republican nomination race, but an expert in US electoral law said Sonny Bill would not be eligible to become President.
“Sonny Bill wasn’t born in the US, so he can’t stand for the highest office without a constitutional amendment,” said Dr John Wainburger of the Washington Freedom Institute.
“In any event, Republican voters would never support a Muslim candidate. Even one as hot as Sonny Bill. Don’t tell my wife I said this, but I’ve seen pictures of the guy with his shirt off, so please tell him that if he ever decides to try out an alternative lifestyle I would be happy to, er, put him through his paces.”
A Prediction
I'm usually wary of making economic predictions, but here's one I am happy to make.
We will not have a budget surplus in 2014/5.
Here's another prediction: over the next 12 months Treasury growth forecasts will continue to trend downwards, and Bill English will continue to blame every government failure on what is going on overseas.
If this government is so powerless to influence the course of our own economy, why did Key and English so boldly pronounce a return to surplus in 2014/5?
We will not have a budget surplus in 2014/5.
Here's another prediction: over the next 12 months Treasury growth forecasts will continue to trend downwards, and Bill English will continue to blame every government failure on what is going on overseas.
If this government is so powerless to influence the course of our own economy, why did Key and English so boldly pronounce a return to surplus in 2014/5?
Thursday, January 26, 2012
President Newt?
Spare a thought for our US friends. Their economy may be a powerhouse (even if at present it is staggering a bit), but when it comes to "government of the people, by the people, for the people", they are little better than animals.
That one of the current group of Republican crazies running for office may become President in a year or so is difficult to imagine. Yet it remains a possibility. It would be like Don Brash becoming PM here. Oh, wait, that almost happened...
Previously the Republican nomination race was regarded as being a non-contest. Mitt Romney was supposed to have it sorted and was a sure thing. However, Newt Gingrich's victory in South Carolina has upset most predictions and given the former House Speaker huge momentum. There are plenty of reasons why voters ought to dislike Romney, not the least being his evasiveness when queried over tax matters and his insistence that being a cut-throat businessman would make him a good leader of the nation.
But the thing his Republican rivals seem most fixated on is the fact he's a Mormon. Go figure.
Maybe hardcore Republicans are wired differently. That might explain their inability to see what seems to be in plain view. Take Newt Gingrich as an example. He's now being billed as a "conservative revolutionary", as if the two concepts aren't contradictory, and the "grassroots" candidate. But Gingrich is as Establishment as they come, having been Republican House Speaker (before being dumped after an ethics scandal), and he's been a Washington insider for the better part of 30 years.
That ethics scandal would be enough to send most politicians into permanent disgrace, but not Gingrich. Nor does it seem to matter that during the period when he was attacking Bill Clinton over the Lewinsky affair he was himself engaged in an adulterous affair. I guess some people can forgive any sort of dishonesty and hypocrisy in a candidate, so long as he's not a Mormon.
Right now it would be easy to dismiss the entire Republican Party as a joke, and assume that Barack Obama will clean the floor come November. This would be a mistake. How many of us were convinced that the village idiot by the name of George W. Bush would never be elected, or re-elected?
The Republicans have a got shot at winning because, for all his grand eloquence, for all his stirring oratory, Barack Obama has been a colossal disappointment. He promised change and a new approach, but has delivered precious little. Washington is run by corporate lobbyists, and the House representatives who make the laws spend most of their time either campaigning for office or fundraising. The two-yearly electoral cycle contributes to corporate capture of the political system and makes it difficult for politicians to enact policies harmful to big business.
This is why the Democrats blew the once-in-a-generation opportunity they had in 2008 to reform the entire system. They controlled the House and Senate, and their man was in the White House. But the Democrat Party are so compromised by corporate lobbyists and so divided that they couldn't organise a brawl in a Mongrel Mob vs Black Power rugby league game.
So why would people vote for the party that promised change and delivered more of the same? They may as well give their vote to that other party of snake-oil salespeople. Or just stay home and not vote at all.
There's plenty of time to go, and maybe the Republican nominee will turn out to be the campaign trainwreck we all expect him to be. But I'm not willing to put my money on an Obama victory, and I can well imagine that come this time next year they'll be inaugurating President Mitt. Or President Newt.
That one of the current group of Republican crazies running for office may become President in a year or so is difficult to imagine. Yet it remains a possibility. It would be like Don Brash becoming PM here. Oh, wait, that almost happened...
 |
| Copyright Gage Skidmore, 2012 |
But the thing his Republican rivals seem most fixated on is the fact he's a Mormon. Go figure.
Maybe hardcore Republicans are wired differently. That might explain their inability to see what seems to be in plain view. Take Newt Gingrich as an example. He's now being billed as a "conservative revolutionary", as if the two concepts aren't contradictory, and the "grassroots" candidate. But Gingrich is as Establishment as they come, having been Republican House Speaker (before being dumped after an ethics scandal), and he's been a Washington insider for the better part of 30 years.
That ethics scandal would be enough to send most politicians into permanent disgrace, but not Gingrich. Nor does it seem to matter that during the period when he was attacking Bill Clinton over the Lewinsky affair he was himself engaged in an adulterous affair. I guess some people can forgive any sort of dishonesty and hypocrisy in a candidate, so long as he's not a Mormon.
Right now it would be easy to dismiss the entire Republican Party as a joke, and assume that Barack Obama will clean the floor come November. This would be a mistake. How many of us were convinced that the village idiot by the name of George W. Bush would never be elected, or re-elected?
The Republicans have a got shot at winning because, for all his grand eloquence, for all his stirring oratory, Barack Obama has been a colossal disappointment. He promised change and a new approach, but has delivered precious little. Washington is run by corporate lobbyists, and the House representatives who make the laws spend most of their time either campaigning for office or fundraising. The two-yearly electoral cycle contributes to corporate capture of the political system and makes it difficult for politicians to enact policies harmful to big business.
This is why the Democrats blew the once-in-a-generation opportunity they had in 2008 to reform the entire system. They controlled the House and Senate, and their man was in the White House. But the Democrat Party are so compromised by corporate lobbyists and so divided that they couldn't organise a brawl in a Mongrel Mob vs Black Power rugby league game.
So why would people vote for the party that promised change and delivered more of the same? They may as well give their vote to that other party of snake-oil salespeople. Or just stay home and not vote at all.
There's plenty of time to go, and maybe the Republican nominee will turn out to be the campaign trainwreck we all expect him to be. But I'm not willing to put my money on an Obama victory, and I can well imagine that come this time next year they'll be inaugurating President Mitt. Or President Newt.
Buying Our Land
David Shearer brings many things to the role as Labour leader, but one thing he doesn't bring is baggage.
Shearer has been in Parliament for less than three years, and has never been a Government MP. So attacks by John Key on Labour's record in office, like this one, ought to bounce right off him.
With the Crafar Farms sale Shearer has found an issue that resonates with the public. Many people fear we are in danger of losing our best productive assets to overseas buyers.
But it isn't enough for Shearer just to grandstand. Labour needs to set out clearly what sorts of foreign investment and foreign capital are wanted, and what sorts we can do without.
New Zealand businesses are often starved of capital, and foreign investment can help fund their growth. Overseas companies will also often have expertise and networks that can help New Zealand businesses to expand. So we should be wary about any campaign generally against foreign ownership or investment.
What we need to encourage is the right sort of investment.
But what exactly is the right sort? For example, do we insist on retaining land ownership as part of any deal? Do we exclude strategic assets of national importance from any foreign investment? If so, what do we regard as "strategic assets"? Power companies? Telcos?
If we look back at what took place with the sale of government assets in the 1980s and 1990s, we can see that some of those sales (often at bargain-basement prices and to foreign companies) offered little to New Zealand and were manifestly bad deals. The Government is at risk of repeating those same mistakes with its asset-sale programme, and in all likelihood a large number of the shares to be sold in our state-owned assets will end up in the hands of overseas companies.
New Zealand's overseas investment laws are quite liberal, and most foreign investment doesn't require any sort of approval. The Overseas Investment Act 2005 currently provides that the purchase by overseas persons of certain categories of land (referred to in the Act as “sensitive land”) needs the consent of the Overseas Investment Office. Farmland is generally subject to the consent process. Some investments in New Zealand businesses also need consent, generally being those where 25% or more ownership or control is being taken and where the value of the transaction is over $100 million.
The rules about the sorts of transactions requiring consent are reasonably clear, but it might be time to have a debate about whether they are too permissive, and whether they strike the right balance.
We should also recognise that wherever we set the bar, any consent process will involve a good deal of subjective analysis by OIO officials. The criteria by which applications are to be assessed are set out in the Act and its regulations. The process requires applicants to establish, among other things, that they have good character, business experience and acumen; and that there will be a benefit to New Zealand from the investment. There seems a good deal of scope for questionable investments to be signed off, because one person's incompetent rogue will be another's upstanding and experienced businessman.
Even if the OIO recommends the acceptance of an application, the relevant Minister/s can always turn it down, although they risk a judicial review by an aggrieved applicant if there are not good grounds for their decision.
I'm not entirely sure that we could ever design a system that avoided the need for officials or ministers to exercise judgement, but it may be possible to design clearer legislative and regulatory guidelines.
I don't profess to have a magical solution, and I'm not sure what the right balance is between protecting our economic sovereignty and encouraging overseas investment. But it feels wrong to see large sections of good farmland going to overseas companies. How is selling our land going to benefit us in the long term? We have only a finite supply of the stuff. As Mark Twain famously said, they're not making it anymore.
What would you do?
Shearer has been in Parliament for less than three years, and has never been a Government MP. So attacks by John Key on Labour's record in office, like this one, ought to bounce right off him.
With the Crafar Farms sale Shearer has found an issue that resonates with the public. Many people fear we are in danger of losing our best productive assets to overseas buyers.
But it isn't enough for Shearer just to grandstand. Labour needs to set out clearly what sorts of foreign investment and foreign capital are wanted, and what sorts we can do without.
New Zealand businesses are often starved of capital, and foreign investment can help fund their growth. Overseas companies will also often have expertise and networks that can help New Zealand businesses to expand. So we should be wary about any campaign generally against foreign ownership or investment.
What we need to encourage is the right sort of investment.
But what exactly is the right sort? For example, do we insist on retaining land ownership as part of any deal? Do we exclude strategic assets of national importance from any foreign investment? If so, what do we regard as "strategic assets"? Power companies? Telcos?
If we look back at what took place with the sale of government assets in the 1980s and 1990s, we can see that some of those sales (often at bargain-basement prices and to foreign companies) offered little to New Zealand and were manifestly bad deals. The Government is at risk of repeating those same mistakes with its asset-sale programme, and in all likelihood a large number of the shares to be sold in our state-owned assets will end up in the hands of overseas companies.
New Zealand's overseas investment laws are quite liberal, and most foreign investment doesn't require any sort of approval. The Overseas Investment Act 2005 currently provides that the purchase by overseas persons of certain categories of land (referred to in the Act as “sensitive land”) needs the consent of the Overseas Investment Office. Farmland is generally subject to the consent process. Some investments in New Zealand businesses also need consent, generally being those where 25% or more ownership or control is being taken and where the value of the transaction is over $100 million.
The rules about the sorts of transactions requiring consent are reasonably clear, but it might be time to have a debate about whether they are too permissive, and whether they strike the right balance.
We should also recognise that wherever we set the bar, any consent process will involve a good deal of subjective analysis by OIO officials. The criteria by which applications are to be assessed are set out in the Act and its regulations. The process requires applicants to establish, among other things, that they have good character, business experience and acumen; and that there will be a benefit to New Zealand from the investment. There seems a good deal of scope for questionable investments to be signed off, because one person's incompetent rogue will be another's upstanding and experienced businessman.
Even if the OIO recommends the acceptance of an application, the relevant Minister/s can always turn it down, although they risk a judicial review by an aggrieved applicant if there are not good grounds for their decision.
I'm not entirely sure that we could ever design a system that avoided the need for officials or ministers to exercise judgement, but it may be possible to design clearer legislative and regulatory guidelines.
I don't profess to have a magical solution, and I'm not sure what the right balance is between protecting our economic sovereignty and encouraging overseas investment. But it feels wrong to see large sections of good farmland going to overseas companies. How is selling our land going to benefit us in the long term? We have only a finite supply of the stuff. As Mark Twain famously said, they're not making it anymore.
What would you do?
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Am I Underselling Myself?
Debbie Mayo-Smith has a regular column in the Herald. and she offers tips on business performance. She describes herself as an “international speaker and bestselling author”. Additionally, her website boldly states:
I confess to having never read any of Mayo-Smith’s books, but then maybe that’s the reason why my life is collapsing around my ears. I sit here in the relaxed comfort of my happy existence, casually churning out blogposts for amusement, safe in the knowledge that there will be enough money to feed the kids and pay the mortgage. This complacency is crippling me, when I should be sending you unsolicited text messages or cold-calling you while you are eating dinner.
I am deeply impressed by the ability of Mayo-Smith to talk up her attributes. You may call it hyperbole, or something even less flattering, but it’s a style that works for some. Personally I find such forms of self-promotion as appealing as being scratched to death by a feral cat, and I make it a personal mission to run a mile from anyone in the business world who describes themselves as a “bestselling author”. This style of “positive self-esteem” is what we expect from US evangelists or motivational speakers, and it’s something we don’t see that often in New Zealand unless we’re trapped in a room being sold Amway.
Does it work, and do people buy this sort of thing? I’ve no idea. I can only report on my own feelings about such over-the-top self-promotion.
But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t work, and maybe it's time I "blew my own trumpet" a bit more loudly. You may have noticed a new look to my blog, but I’m also thinking of adding the following under the blog title:
If you want significant improvements in business performance from minimum effort or cost, you must get Debbie Mayo-Smith now.Note the imperative. Have you called her yet? Have you? Have you? Do it! Do it now!
From New York to Borneo, Perth to London, she’s one of the most sought after inspirational, motivational, practical results oriented 'How-to' speakers.Borneo, no less! Perhaps she was there up-skilling the native Dayak people on their telemarketing techniques, and inspiring them to better manage their email in-boxes.
I confess to having never read any of Mayo-Smith’s books, but then maybe that’s the reason why my life is collapsing around my ears. I sit here in the relaxed comfort of my happy existence, casually churning out blogposts for amusement, safe in the knowledge that there will be enough money to feed the kids and pay the mortgage. This complacency is crippling me, when I should be sending you unsolicited text messages or cold-calling you while you are eating dinner.
I am deeply impressed by the ability of Mayo-Smith to talk up her attributes. You may call it hyperbole, or something even less flattering, but it’s a style that works for some. Personally I find such forms of self-promotion as appealing as being scratched to death by a feral cat, and I make it a personal mission to run a mile from anyone in the business world who describes themselves as a “bestselling author”. This style of “positive self-esteem” is what we expect from US evangelists or motivational speakers, and it’s something we don’t see that often in New Zealand unless we’re trapped in a room being sold Amway.
Does it work, and do people buy this sort of thing? I’ve no idea. I can only report on my own feelings about such over-the-top self-promotion.
But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t work, and maybe it's time I "blew my own trumpet" a bit more loudly. You may have noticed a new look to my blog, but I’m also thinking of adding the following under the blog title:
A powerful blogger and radio star who moves in spheres of influence and whose finger is always on the national pulse, Scott’s work will astound and overwhelm you, leaving you gasping for air and needing fresh underwear. Scott knows all the secrets, is never wrong about anything, and is a very handsome and well-dressed man who is so highly-regarded by the ladies that he has to literally run from one sold-out speaking engagement to the next to avoid being mobbed by beautiful women. If they ever get around to writing a sequel to the Bible Scott will be its main character. If you are not reading Scott’s blog or listening to his wisdom on the radio then you are a failure, a profound failure who deserves scorn, if not to be killed outright for the good of humanity, you worthless scum!. You must, must, must, read Scott’s work!What do you think? Am I still holding too much back?
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Nats Must Act Urgently To Save Us From The Sun
In the Herald they’re reporting that the sun is bombarding us with radiation from the biggest solar storm in more than six years.
Six years! And what is John Key’s government doing about this crisis? I'll tell you. They’ve all buggered off to Ratana to kowtow to the locals there, even as the radiation from the sun bombards each and every one of us!
Still, it’s just what I’d expect from this radiation-friendly government. Forget the whole anti-nuclear policy that Key claims to now support. The Nats have always been lukewarm on keeping us safe from the effects of radiation, and this just provides further evidence.
If you think “so what, nothing much happened to us when this last occurred in 2005”, then you’re woefully wrong, and your profound ignorance should be placed on a pedestal so that generations of children to come may see it and be amused.
So you think 2005 wasn’t bad? Think again!
So the question I want answered, and that we should all be asking, is this:
John Key, what is your government doing to blot out the sun?
Six years! And what is John Key’s government doing about this crisis? I'll tell you. They’ve all buggered off to Ratana to kowtow to the locals there, even as the radiation from the sun bombards each and every one of us!
Still, it’s just what I’d expect from this radiation-friendly government. Forget the whole anti-nuclear policy that Key claims to now support. The Nats have always been lukewarm on keeping us safe from the effects of radiation, and this just provides further evidence.
If you think “so what, nothing much happened to us when this last occurred in 2005”, then you’re woefully wrong, and your profound ignorance should be placed on a pedestal so that generations of children to come may see it and be amused.
So you think 2005 wasn’t bad? Think again!
- George Bush was inaugurated for his second term as President of the US
- Hurricane Katrina struck
- An earthquake in Kashmir killed tens of thousands
- Ronnie Barker died
- The Backstreet Boys re-formed.
So the question I want answered, and that we should all be asking, is this:
John Key, what is your government doing to blot out the sun?
Monday, January 23, 2012
Police Defend Bloody Kindergarten Raid
A police raid at a kindergarten this morning has led to several deaths and multiple arrests.
Police and Armed Offender units raided the Meriwether Community Kindergarten just after morning tea, but the raid turned violent when some of the children put up a fight.
Authorities raided the heavily fortified compound following a report that a toddler was refusing to go to the naughty-corner and was behaving aggressively towards kindergarten staff.
Police spokesperson Detective Inspector Steve Fink said police had been forced to present their weapons when some of the children began to cry and refused to put down their toys.
Officers opened fire when a toddler charged at police holding what appeared to be a tub of paste.
“Police had only a few seconds to assess the risk,” said Mr Fink. “They were concerned that the paste substance might be some sort of chemical weapon, so they were left with no choice but to shoot.
“When this action failed to calm the situation in the compound, police were left with no choice but to neutralise the other persons present.”
Initial reports that up to 22 people were killed have since been corrected, with the death toll believed to stand at only eleven children and three teachers.
The raid was part of a wider operation by law enforcement officials around the world against the Kindergarten Conspiracy. Police were accompanied on the raid by liaison personnel from the FBI, after an earlier tip-off that massive and systematic copyright violations were taking place at the centre.
Police say the raid had been planned for next Monday to coincide with Little Johnny’s birthday. However, Little Johnny’s tantrum this morning forced authorities to launch the assault earlier.
Mr Fink confirmed that police found an assortment of weapons, drugs and other items of interest during the assault on the compound.
“We found large quantities of Pamol in a locked cupboard in a back room, and we also located asthma drug paraphernalia in the kindergarten bag of one of the suspects.
“We also unearthed a cache of knives and guns. This weapons stash included numerous plastic playdough knives and a staple gun.
“A playdough knife can be extremely dangerous, particularly if it is being used as a flotation device on the high seas instead of a lifejacket. If these knives had found themselves on the black market we could have seen a major spike in playdough-related drownings.”
Mr Fink also confirmed that pirated material had been found at the site, including a number of crudely drawn crayon pictures of well-known cartoon characters, and a painting of a cat that looked suspiciously like Garfield.
Mr Fink said there had been a number of problems at the Community Kindergarten since its opening in 2006. These included tantrums, the pulling of hair, and numerous toileting issues.
“It was a volatile situation, where officers were being asked to enter a very challenging environment, where literally anything could have happened,” said Detective Inspector Fink.
Some witnesses have claimed that the actions of police were brutal and unnecessary, but Association of Police Officers President Craig O’Donnell has congratulated the police for their professionalism in difficult circumstances.
“The reports I’ve heard suggest that there was a real threat to the officers involved,” said Mr O’Donnell.
“Of course any loss of life is regrettable, but there will be a full and proper internal review conducted by police on themselves, during which any issues can be sorted out.
Mr O’Donnell dismissed eyewitness claims that police had brutally massacred a room full of children.
“Now, sure, with the benefit of hindsight and following a full review it might turn out that some other form of intervention would have been more appropriate than gunning down all those children. But officers have to make decisions in an instant. They are human and they get it wrong sometimes.
“But I’m absolutely confident the review will establish that, based on the facts known to officers at the time, the decision to shoot first was a reasonable one.”
“The public can be confident there is no tougher critic of police conduct that the police. Apart from the courts. And a bunch of other people and organisations for whom I have such contempt that I will not speak their names.”
Police and Armed Offender units raided the Meriwether Community Kindergarten just after morning tea, but the raid turned violent when some of the children put up a fight.
Authorities raided the heavily fortified compound following a report that a toddler was refusing to go to the naughty-corner and was behaving aggressively towards kindergarten staff.
Police spokesperson Detective Inspector Steve Fink said police had been forced to present their weapons when some of the children began to cry and refused to put down their toys.
Officers opened fire when a toddler charged at police holding what appeared to be a tub of paste.
“Police had only a few seconds to assess the risk,” said Mr Fink. “They were concerned that the paste substance might be some sort of chemical weapon, so they were left with no choice but to shoot.
“When this action failed to calm the situation in the compound, police were left with no choice but to neutralise the other persons present.”
Initial reports that up to 22 people were killed have since been corrected, with the death toll believed to stand at only eleven children and three teachers.
The raid was part of a wider operation by law enforcement officials around the world against the Kindergarten Conspiracy. Police were accompanied on the raid by liaison personnel from the FBI, after an earlier tip-off that massive and systematic copyright violations were taking place at the centre.
Police say the raid had been planned for next Monday to coincide with Little Johnny’s birthday. However, Little Johnny’s tantrum this morning forced authorities to launch the assault earlier.
Mr Fink confirmed that police found an assortment of weapons, drugs and other items of interest during the assault on the compound.
“We found large quantities of Pamol in a locked cupboard in a back room, and we also located asthma drug paraphernalia in the kindergarten bag of one of the suspects.
“We also unearthed a cache of knives and guns. This weapons stash included numerous plastic playdough knives and a staple gun.
“A playdough knife can be extremely dangerous, particularly if it is being used as a flotation device on the high seas instead of a lifejacket. If these knives had found themselves on the black market we could have seen a major spike in playdough-related drownings.”
Mr Fink also confirmed that pirated material had been found at the site, including a number of crudely drawn crayon pictures of well-known cartoon characters, and a painting of a cat that looked suspiciously like Garfield.
Mr Fink said there had been a number of problems at the Community Kindergarten since its opening in 2006. These included tantrums, the pulling of hair, and numerous toileting issues.
“It was a volatile situation, where officers were being asked to enter a very challenging environment, where literally anything could have happened,” said Detective Inspector Fink.
Some witnesses have claimed that the actions of police were brutal and unnecessary, but Association of Police Officers President Craig O’Donnell has congratulated the police for their professionalism in difficult circumstances.
“The reports I’ve heard suggest that there was a real threat to the officers involved,” said Mr O’Donnell.
“Of course any loss of life is regrettable, but there will be a full and proper internal review conducted by police on themselves, during which any issues can be sorted out.
Mr O’Donnell dismissed eyewitness claims that police had brutally massacred a room full of children.
“Now, sure, with the benefit of hindsight and following a full review it might turn out that some other form of intervention would have been more appropriate than gunning down all those children. But officers have to make decisions in an instant. They are human and they get it wrong sometimes.
“But I’m absolutely confident the review will establish that, based on the facts known to officers at the time, the decision to shoot first was a reasonable one.”
“The public can be confident there is no tougher critic of police conduct that the police. Apart from the courts. And a bunch of other people and organisations for whom I have such contempt that I will not speak their names.”
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Red Alert: The Best Is Yet To David Farrar
The Labour Party has admitted receiving a donation to its coffers from the National Party.
National Party President Peter Goodfellow confirmed the donation yesterday. He said it was a contribution towards the costs of running Labour’s blogsite Red Alert.
“They are doing great work, and we want that to continue,” said Mr Goodfellow.
Labour Party MPs Trevor Mallard and Clare Curran, who run the Red Alert site for the party, admitted today that the donation had caught them off-guard.
“We were somewhat surprised to receive the money,” said Trevor Mallard. “Even if it turns out that the person behind it was David Farrar.”
“But Red Alert runs on a shoestring, so any offer of help is welcome. Even if it came from David Farrar.”
Clare Curran said she thought National’s donation was politically motivated, but confirmed Labour would still accept the money.
“No doubt they are thinking that if they offer us this money to keep blogging we’ll shut the site down. It’s such a typical Tory trick it must have been masterminded by David Farrar.
“Well guess what? We’re one step ahead of the game. We’ll take their money and we’ll use it to make Red Alert even louder and noisier than ever. We won’t be silenced by the enemies of democracy. Whether it’s the Greens, National, or David Farrar.”
Mr Mallard said he was looking forward to getting heavily into blogging this year.
“We’ve all had some time off and are refreshed, and we’re ready to take the battle to David Farrar.
“We want to focus on the issues that are important to ordinary New Zealanders. Jobs, the economy, and David Farrar.”
“Red Alert is the perfect vehicle to enable Labour to engage with an important demographic: the internet savvy, and David Farrar.”
Ms Curran said she was not perturbed by what many in the media and blogosphere referred to as social media own-goals from Mallard and herself.
“I’m sure most people are mature enough to see through the nonsense pedalled by the Tory media and their stooges. David Farrar,” said Ms Curran.
“We are not interested in all that negativity. We want to start a dialogue with ordinary New Zealanders about the things that matter. And David Farrar.
“Starting next week we’re going to be posting about all the things that David Farrar is wrong about. Then when we’ve done that we want to start an open discussion on all the reasons why David Farrar is an enemy of democracy. We’re hoping that by the end of it we’ll have so destroyed David Farrar’s reputation that nobody will ever again take seriously anything said or written by David Farrar.”
Trevor Mallard said he expected big things from the Labour blogsite in 2012.
“We want Labour to hit the ground running in 2012, and to push National hard. Red Alert is going to be a potent weapon in that fight. That’s why we’re going to do our own thing and not worry about what others in the media and blogosphere have to say about us. David Farrar.”
National Party President Peter Goodfellow confirmed the donation yesterday. He said it was a contribution towards the costs of running Labour’s blogsite Red Alert.
“They are doing great work, and we want that to continue,” said Mr Goodfellow.
Labour Party MPs Trevor Mallard and Clare Curran, who run the Red Alert site for the party, admitted today that the donation had caught them off-guard.
“We were somewhat surprised to receive the money,” said Trevor Mallard. “Even if it turns out that the person behind it was David Farrar.”
“But Red Alert runs on a shoestring, so any offer of help is welcome. Even if it came from David Farrar.”
Clare Curran said she thought National’s donation was politically motivated, but confirmed Labour would still accept the money.
“No doubt they are thinking that if they offer us this money to keep blogging we’ll shut the site down. It’s such a typical Tory trick it must have been masterminded by David Farrar.
“Well guess what? We’re one step ahead of the game. We’ll take their money and we’ll use it to make Red Alert even louder and noisier than ever. We won’t be silenced by the enemies of democracy. Whether it’s the Greens, National, or David Farrar.”
Mr Mallard said he was looking forward to getting heavily into blogging this year.
“We’ve all had some time off and are refreshed, and we’re ready to take the battle to David Farrar.
“We want to focus on the issues that are important to ordinary New Zealanders. Jobs, the economy, and David Farrar.”
“Red Alert is the perfect vehicle to enable Labour to engage with an important demographic: the internet savvy, and David Farrar.”
Ms Curran said she was not perturbed by what many in the media and blogosphere referred to as social media own-goals from Mallard and herself.
“I’m sure most people are mature enough to see through the nonsense pedalled by the Tory media and their stooges. David Farrar,” said Ms Curran.
“We are not interested in all that negativity. We want to start a dialogue with ordinary New Zealanders about the things that matter. And David Farrar.
“Starting next week we’re going to be posting about all the things that David Farrar is wrong about. Then when we’ve done that we want to start an open discussion on all the reasons why David Farrar is an enemy of democracy. We’re hoping that by the end of it we’ll have so destroyed David Farrar’s reputation that nobody will ever again take seriously anything said or written by David Farrar.”
Trevor Mallard said he expected big things from the Labour blogsite in 2012.
“We want Labour to hit the ground running in 2012, and to push National hard. Red Alert is going to be a potent weapon in that fight. That’s why we’re going to do our own thing and not worry about what others in the media and blogosphere have to say about us. David Farrar.”
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
This Week
I am on a blogging holiday. Just in case you were wondering.
Update: Well I guess that didn't work.
Update: Well I guess that didn't work.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Imagine A World...
... in which people who don't vote Labour and will never vote Labour stop giving David Shearer advice on what Labour should do.
Or in which people who do vote Labour but appear convinced that the answer to Labour's problems is to repeat the same mistakes decide to spend more time in the garden rather than write columns and blogposts on what Labour should do.
Heaven forfend that we should allow David Shearer five minutes to make his own decisions.
Or in which people who do vote Labour but appear convinced that the answer to Labour's problems is to repeat the same mistakes decide to spend more time in the garden rather than write columns and blogposts on what Labour should do.
Heaven forfend that we should allow David Shearer five minutes to make his own decisions.
Friday, January 13, 2012
2011: The Legal Year In Review (Not)
Now that 2011 is done and dusted let's review the legal year.
Okay, I'm bored just thinking about that. Let's instead examine what the craziest lawsuits of 2011 were.
How about the college student who sued a hooker for $US1.8 million, because she didn't spend enough time with him? He claimed she left half an hour early, so he demanded his $275 back, plus $1.8 million because the "tragic event" had left him "disturbed". When he originally complained to cops he was almost arrested for prostitution offences.
Or the North Carolina couple who sued an airline for US$100,000, claiming that they saw cockroaches on a flight. They claimed the sight of cockroaches crawling out of an air vent "caused great distress," and forced them to throw away clothing in their luggage for fear of roach contamination.
What about the moviegoer who sued the studio that distributed the movie Drive, because the movie had "very little driving"?
Or the kidnapper who sued his victims when they ran away. Kansas man Jesse Dimmick claimed that when a couple accepted his knife-point offer to hide in their house from the police in return for cash, they formed an oral contract with him, which he claimed they breached by running away when he slept.
Or the black woman who sued the police after they arrested her, cuffed her, put her in their car, and forced her to listen to conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh making derogatory comments about black people.
Or the woman who sued Walmart for overcharging her by two cents. She won and was awarded $100 in damages and $80 in costs.
Or the kids who sued their mother because she did outrageous things, like demanding they be home by midnight, sending them greeting cards without presents, failing to set up sufficient college funds for them, and (outrage!) daring to change her own name after her second marriage. Surprise surprise, their attorney was the woman's ex-husband and their father. Somewhat less surprising, their case was chucked out.
Or the man who sued his wedding photographer because the photographer failed to capture some of the important moments of the wedding. That's not the weird bit. The weird bit is the plaintiff demanded $48,000 to enable him to recreate the wedding and have the event re-shot by another photographer, even though the couple had by then divorced and his wife had returned to Latvia, and the plaintiff didn't even know where she lived.
Or the woman who sued the estate of a man killed by a train, claiming the man's flying body parts injured her.
Yes, 2011 was a very good year for US litigation lawyers.
(h/t Findlaw's Legally Weird blog)
Okay, I'm bored just thinking about that. Let's instead examine what the craziest lawsuits of 2011 were.
How about the college student who sued a hooker for $US1.8 million, because she didn't spend enough time with him? He claimed she left half an hour early, so he demanded his $275 back, plus $1.8 million because the "tragic event" had left him "disturbed". When he originally complained to cops he was almost arrested for prostitution offences.
Or the North Carolina couple who sued an airline for US$100,000, claiming that they saw cockroaches on a flight. They claimed the sight of cockroaches crawling out of an air vent "caused great distress," and forced them to throw away clothing in their luggage for fear of roach contamination.
What about the moviegoer who sued the studio that distributed the movie Drive, because the movie had "very little driving"?
Or the kidnapper who sued his victims when they ran away. Kansas man Jesse Dimmick claimed that when a couple accepted his knife-point offer to hide in their house from the police in return for cash, they formed an oral contract with him, which he claimed they breached by running away when he slept.
Or the black woman who sued the police after they arrested her, cuffed her, put her in their car, and forced her to listen to conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh making derogatory comments about black people.
Or the woman who sued Walmart for overcharging her by two cents. She won and was awarded $100 in damages and $80 in costs.
Or the kids who sued their mother because she did outrageous things, like demanding they be home by midnight, sending them greeting cards without presents, failing to set up sufficient college funds for them, and (outrage!) daring to change her own name after her second marriage. Surprise surprise, their attorney was the woman's ex-husband and their father. Somewhat less surprising, their case was chucked out.
Or the man who sued his wedding photographer because the photographer failed to capture some of the important moments of the wedding. That's not the weird bit. The weird bit is the plaintiff demanded $48,000 to enable him to recreate the wedding and have the event re-shot by another photographer, even though the couple had by then divorced and his wife had returned to Latvia, and the plaintiff didn't even know where she lived.
Or the woman who sued the estate of a man killed by a train, claiming the man's flying body parts injured her.
Yes, 2011 was a very good year for US litigation lawyers.
(h/t Findlaw's Legally Weird blog)
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Looking Forward To That Blogging Money
Apparently some bloggers are getting paid big money to go feral on opponents of big business. Big money.
I'm not talking a can of coke and a $5 McDonalds voucher either, although I probably would turn class traitor for a free Big Mac.
So if $10,000-$20,000* is the going rate for turning blog tricks, as one esteemed blogger has claimed, how do I get me some?
Where do I apply for this money? Does big business use a recruitment agency for dirty bloggers? Do I have to send my CV somewhere? Somebody help me out here!
Wait, what was that? You think I'm not up to it? Is my style of blogging not offensive enough for you? I can be offensive. And I can say awful things about the left, truly awful things that would raise the hair on the back of your neck, but only if there's money in it.
If you don't believe me then allow me to demonstrate:
* Plus or excluding GST? My accountant needs to know.
I'm not talking a can of coke and a $5 McDonalds voucher either, although I probably would turn class traitor for a free Big Mac.
So if $10,000-$20,000* is the going rate for turning blog tricks, as one esteemed blogger has claimed, how do I get me some?
Where do I apply for this money? Does big business use a recruitment agency for dirty bloggers? Do I have to send my CV somewhere? Somebody help me out here!
Wait, what was that? You think I'm not up to it? Is my style of blogging not offensive enough for you? I can be offensive. And I can say awful things about the left, truly awful things that would raise the hair on the back of your neck, but only if there's money in it.
If you don't believe me then allow me to demonstrate:
Gee, that union should moderate some of its demands!
David Shearer is a fine man, but on reflection I prefer John Key's charm, charisma and grace.
I am mildly disappointed with Labour's current performance.All good? When does the first payment arrive? And will it come in a brown paper bag? That would be awesome.
* Plus or excluding GST? My accountant needs to know.
Monday, January 9, 2012
McCaw, Carter Supreme Winners At Literature Awards
All Blacks captain Richie McCaw was given the supreme award at the Steinlager New Zealand Literature Awards last night.
McCaw’s epic book, Richie, won the main award, the Literature Cup, as well as picking up a number of other prizes.
The win takes the All Blacks back to the top of the world literature rankings and completes a strong 12 months for the world champions.
Speaking to the packed crowd at Wellington's Westpac Stadium, McCaw gave a moving and eloquent speech that reduced many to tears.
“Yeah, nah, I’m rapt,” said McCaw, as he held aloft the Cup. “This is for all you fans who stuck by the team.
“It was a bloody tough contest, and I wasn’t sure if we’d pull it off till the very end, but we stuck in there and gave it everything.
“Thanks very much, and cheers.”
The win backs up McCaw’s Best Actor award at last month’s Rexona New Zealand Film Awards. McCaw took the top acting honour for his role in the short film Adidas Haka Advert.
Last night's judging panel included some of New Zealand’s top literature players, both present and past.
Awards chairman Murray Mexted said the calibre of the award entries this year was outstanding.
“Mate, there were some top efforts all round. All credit to these guys,” said Mr Mexted.
In a break from tradition a special Lifetime Literature Achievement award was presented to Colin Meads.
Organisers of the event had signalled they would present a special award to someone who had excelled in the field of literature over many years, and who had put New Zealand on the map.
In the end Mr Meads edged out stern competition from C K Stead, Patricia Grace and Keri Hulme to take the prize.
“Bloody good stuff,” said Mr Meads.
Other winners on the night were the All Black Cory Jane for his monumental work Twitter Stream, and his teammate Dan Carter who took the top poetry medal for the short poem Responding to Journalist Questions at All Blacks Press Conference.
Carter's work, which includes such memorable lines as “yeah, nah, I’m pretty gutted about the injury, but, you know, I guess that’s life and I’ve just got to move on”, has been described by some commentators as a modern masterpiece.
“Mate, the clever allegorical use of the ‘yeah, nah’ phrase in almost every line of the poem provides a thumping and powerful rhythmic effect throughout the work, reminding us at the same time of the eternal contradiction between what is and what is not, and leaving the reader with a sense of dilemma and confusion, challenging in a profound and powerful way modern hegemonic modes of discourse and dialogue, while highlighting the internal intellectual and spiritual crisis raging within the writer,” said chief poetry judge Peter Leitch, better known as The Mad Butcher.
"Mate, I almost cried like a girl when I read it."
Others have praised the fluency of Carter's work.
“Carter has always had a powerful left boot, but what stood out to me was some of his crisp passing through the backline, and those telling breaks late in the game as the opposition began to tire,” said commentator Grant Nisbett.
Patron of the event, Prime Minister John Key, has dismissed claims by some in the arts world that McCaw and Carter lack any literary ability and are undeserving winners.
“Okay, so Richie McCaw may not be Shakespeare, but who can even remember a single line Shakespeare ever wrote?” said Mr Key.
“And how many points did Shakespeare ever score in international rugby?”
McCaw’s epic book, Richie, won the main award, the Literature Cup, as well as picking up a number of other prizes.
The win takes the All Blacks back to the top of the world literature rankings and completes a strong 12 months for the world champions.
Speaking to the packed crowd at Wellington's Westpac Stadium, McCaw gave a moving and eloquent speech that reduced many to tears.
“Yeah, nah, I’m rapt,” said McCaw, as he held aloft the Cup. “This is for all you fans who stuck by the team.
“It was a bloody tough contest, and I wasn’t sure if we’d pull it off till the very end, but we stuck in there and gave it everything.
“Thanks very much, and cheers.”
The win backs up McCaw’s Best Actor award at last month’s Rexona New Zealand Film Awards. McCaw took the top acting honour for his role in the short film Adidas Haka Advert.
Last night's judging panel included some of New Zealand’s top literature players, both present and past.
Awards chairman Murray Mexted said the calibre of the award entries this year was outstanding.
“Mate, there were some top efforts all round. All credit to these guys,” said Mr Mexted.
In a break from tradition a special Lifetime Literature Achievement award was presented to Colin Meads.
Organisers of the event had signalled they would present a special award to someone who had excelled in the field of literature over many years, and who had put New Zealand on the map.
In the end Mr Meads edged out stern competition from C K Stead, Patricia Grace and Keri Hulme to take the prize.
“Bloody good stuff,” said Mr Meads.
Other winners on the night were the All Black Cory Jane for his monumental work Twitter Stream, and his teammate Dan Carter who took the top poetry medal for the short poem Responding to Journalist Questions at All Blacks Press Conference.
Carter's work, which includes such memorable lines as “yeah, nah, I’m pretty gutted about the injury, but, you know, I guess that’s life and I’ve just got to move on”, has been described by some commentators as a modern masterpiece.
“Mate, the clever allegorical use of the ‘yeah, nah’ phrase in almost every line of the poem provides a thumping and powerful rhythmic effect throughout the work, reminding us at the same time of the eternal contradiction between what is and what is not, and leaving the reader with a sense of dilemma and confusion, challenging in a profound and powerful way modern hegemonic modes of discourse and dialogue, while highlighting the internal intellectual and spiritual crisis raging within the writer,” said chief poetry judge Peter Leitch, better known as The Mad Butcher.
"Mate, I almost cried like a girl when I read it."
Others have praised the fluency of Carter's work.
“Carter has always had a powerful left boot, but what stood out to me was some of his crisp passing through the backline, and those telling breaks late in the game as the opposition began to tire,” said commentator Grant Nisbett.
Patron of the event, Prime Minister John Key, has dismissed claims by some in the arts world that McCaw and Carter lack any literary ability and are undeserving winners.
“Okay, so Richie McCaw may not be Shakespeare, but who can even remember a single line Shakespeare ever wrote?” said Mr Key.
“And how many points did Shakespeare ever score in international rugby?”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)