Anyone who follows the news and isn't completely unaware will know that Labour's not doing so well in the polls. The commentariat are predicting that the upcoming election will make Little Big Horn look like a stalemate, and that Labour will be obliterated.
When you're down in politics there's never any shortage of people lining up to boot you in the head. The party is regularly lambasted
by elements of the media and blogosphere and is described as being "out of touch". According to Bryce Edwards, Labour suffers from "arrogant
assumptions of their own correctness", and its leaders and activists just refuse to believe there is a problem.
In the meantime, every
single mistake that a party member, activist or MP makes is seized upon
by National's attack dog bloggers David Farrar and Cameron Slater, and
this reinforces in the minds of some in the blogosphere who are cleverer
than they are wise, that the party's leadership are arrogant, out-of-date and incompetent.
Anyone who dares take issue with this assessment is shouted down. "Look at the polls! Look at the polls!" is the cry.
Well thank you, but we can all see the polls. I'm not about to do what some of my fellow Labour supporters have and try to argue that the polls aren't representative of what people's voting intentions are. Even if there is a bias towards the right-wing in polling methodologies (as some people have claimed), that would not explain the size of the gap between Labour and National.
The important question is why this gap exists, not whether it exists.
As a Labour supporter, I bristle at accusations that the party is out of touch. I'm still quite new to the party, having only joined two or three months ago, but I have already met quite a lot of folk within the party, including MPs, and including (albeit briefly) Phil Goff.
I haven't seen too much evidence of arrogance and rampant egos on display, either within the leadership or its activist base, so the claims by some in the commentariat about this supposed attitude problem are hard to take seriously. What I have seen is a group of people who don't like the direction the country is taking and are committed to changing things.
It's absurd to fault activists of any party because they happen to believe the wisdom of their party's policies, even if the public don't seem convinced, and because they maintain a belief that the public will eventually come around to their way of thinking. Isn't that what activists have always done?
What activists in every party do is fight to convince people of the
wisdom of their party's policies. So when the activist's party isn't
doing well it's pretty obvious that the activist (who believes
passionately in what their party stands for) will shake his/her head and
ask him/herself "when will the public finally wake up?" Is that arrogant
and out of touch? Hardly. If that's arrogant then every ACT, Green, NZ
First and Maori Party activist is arrogant.
It's also rich of commentators to claim that Labour folk are out of touch because they don't listen to what newspaper editors and columnists are saying about them. They do listen, but what they also do is listen to what people outside the "beltway" (if I can be forgiven for using that tired phrase) are saying. Labour has a strong tradition of activism and community involvement. For a committed Labour activist or MP just about every weekend in the months leading up to the election will involve doorknocking. Talking to random strangers about what the party is doing. Getting direct and unedited feedback from ordinary people about what they think. This grassroots stuff is something that the Nats have never been able to match. It's actually pretty damn hard to be out of touch when you're talking to voters every day.
So claims that somehow the Labour Party hierarchy have lost touch because they aren't reading the editorials and newspaper columns are hard to take seriously.
But I'm not about to suggest nothing is wrong, and that mistakes have not been made by the party. There's been too much carelessness about minor stuff, like making sure party promotional materials have the right authorisation statements, and making sure IT systems are secure. Most people I speak to in my electorate don't seem to give a stuff about any of that sort of thing, but for the all-knowing commentators who bestride the news media and blogosphere these things are convincing evidence of incompetence or, worse, corruption. Labour's difficulties are enhanced by the fact that if someone in the party so much as sneezes the fact will be reported to Cameron Slater and David Farrar within minutes.
I think there's a problem of perception around Labour and its competence, but I don't think there is any substance to the perception. It's not helped by the said Slater and Farrar being so dedicated to dishing the dirt, while the closest alternatives the left has (The Standard, Tumeke, No Right Turn), spend as much time and energy attacking others on the left for being class enemies or traitors as they do the right. Also, whatever else you might like to say about David Farrar, he is a clever operator, and he never attacks his own party on anything substantial. Farrar makes his blogosphere rivals on the left look like chumps.
So the perception that Labour lacks competence is driven to a large degree by the bloggers and political columnists who also happen (by some majority) to be right-leaning. This perception no doubt affects the polls.
The other factor weighing against Labour is John Key. Labour has been unable to come to terms with the Key phenomenon, and Key has cemented himself as National's most valuable asset.
Labour's approach to dealing with this phenomenon during the the first couple of years of National's rule was to attack John Key for being out of touch, dishonest and greedy. It didn't work. Only the most one-eyed Labour supporter would fail to acknowledge that
Labour's strategy of targetting John Key in this way has backfired badly. A few of National's weaker members (e.g. Richard Worth, Pansy Wong) have fallen away, but the Key brand has remained undamaged, and much of the fire directed towards Key has ended up coming back to hit Labour. The polls no doubt in part reflect this.
So far Key has been equal to every accusation thrown at him. The man has an almost-unpoliticianlike ability to get away with his stuff-ups.
Key has messed up as many times as Phil Goff, and yet Key can just grin sheepishly and walk away from
his mistakes. Others, such as Phil Goff, have to live with their mistakes and are constantly reminded of them.
So I would argue that John Key is the main reason for National's ascendancy in the polls. People like him. People trust him. And yet we know from a some of the polling that most people don't like National's asset sales plan or its attacks on Kiwisaver. People are also generally favourably disposed towards Labour's capital gains tax plan. They like Labour's policies. They just prefer John Key.
This is hard for many of us on the left to stomach, because we can't quite work out what Key stands for, and why he's so beloved of the masses. Some people on the left just give in to the assumption that because Key is rich he must be evil, but if anything the fact Key has amassed such wealth while remaining so "ordinary" is what makes him likeable for many people. Attacking John Key for being a "rich prick" is not going to win Labour many votes.
So what's the answer? I don't actually know. But I'm pretty sure that the problem isn't one of Labour being arrogant or out of touch, and I don't think it's Labour's policies that are the problem. People seem to like them. Is it a leadership problem? Perhaps, inasmuch as they don't appear to have a John Key equivalent anywhere in their caucus. But is Phil Goff the problem, and would putting someone new in as leader make a difference? I doubt it, and anyway it's probably too late to do anything about the leadership this close to the election.
I sense that Labour needs to be smarter about how it communicates with the voters, but I can't quite put my finger on what Labour isn't doing right. Clearly something isn't quite right, if the masses aren't showing the party their support.
And there's not a lot to be done about the Key phenomenon, other than chip away at his government's credibility. Unless Labour has evidence that Key has been stealing money, attacking nuns or eating babies, Labour's probably best to focus on his government's performance, or lack of it, rather than Key himself. Key's lustre will fade in time, because the public tend to tire of their
politicians, and most PMs end up leaving office because the
public reject them. Not too many PMs get to leave on
their own terms.
A win in November is a tough ask for Labour. Tough but not impossible. If one in ten National voters move over to Labour during the next four months the result could be very different. I accept that's no easy ask, but stranger things have happened in politics. A close contest in November, even if Labour loses, could set the party up for a return in 2014.
So even if Labour goes down in November, there's everything to fight for.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Friday, July 29, 2011
Greens Say No To Debating With Crank
The Greens have (to their immense credit) refused to engage in debate with climate change crank Lord Monckton. The problem with constantly engaging in dialogue with crackpots is that it allows people to believe there's a "debate" about the science. There is no real debate about whether climate change is happening, unless you happen to believe that all the climate scientists, with all their training, research and knowledge, are either idiots or are corrupt.
The Greens' refusal to engage with crackpots appears to have upset ACT leader Don Brash. It has certainly upset Lindsay Perigo, because this press release certainly has a whiff of the Perigo in it. In other words, it's intemperate, colourful, and ever so slightly bonkers. A bit like Lord Monckton.
The Greens' refusal to engage with crackpots appears to have upset ACT leader Don Brash. It has certainly upset Lindsay Perigo, because this press release certainly has a whiff of the Perigo in it. In other words, it's intemperate, colourful, and ever so slightly bonkers. A bit like Lord Monckton.
The Richer List
So the richlisters appear to have done okay for themselves this year. According to the NBR the wealthiest 151 individuals and families now have a combined wealth of $45.2 billion. That is an increase of $7 billion from last year.
I often wonder how robust the NBR's methodology is, or whether it's just guesswork. But assuming there is some validity in the result then it raises interesting questions. Why has the combined wealth of this top group increased by about 20% when economic growth has been largely stagnant?
I don't have a grudge against the super-wealthy, and there are plenty of people on the list who deserve every cent they have made. This is not an envy-post, and I don't consider myself a socialist or someone who particularly despises the capitalist system. I think capitalism's pretty swell, so long as the worst aspects of free market behaviour are moderated and controlled by sensible government regulation, and so long as we continue to look after those who need help.
But I also happen to believe that a society where the gap between rich and poor grows larger by the day is not a healthy one. While the book The Spirit Level is not without its flaws (apart from anything else it is an unspeakably dry and dull read), it shows pretty clearly that nations with larger inequalities between the richest and poorest also fare worst when it comes to health, education, crime and other social indicators. Interestingly, what The Spirit Level also shows is that these negative indicators affect all groups in the unequal society, not just the poor.
If the NBR's methodology is sound then it means that the gap between richest and poorest is unquestioningly growing. Could it be the large tax cuts John Key gave many of them? The fact that when it comes to regulation we're largely the "Wild West"? Or is some other combination of factors at play?
Or are the result flawed?
I often wonder how robust the NBR's methodology is, or whether it's just guesswork. But assuming there is some validity in the result then it raises interesting questions. Why has the combined wealth of this top group increased by about 20% when economic growth has been largely stagnant?
I don't have a grudge against the super-wealthy, and there are plenty of people on the list who deserve every cent they have made. This is not an envy-post, and I don't consider myself a socialist or someone who particularly despises the capitalist system. I think capitalism's pretty swell, so long as the worst aspects of free market behaviour are moderated and controlled by sensible government regulation, and so long as we continue to look after those who need help.
But I also happen to believe that a society where the gap between rich and poor grows larger by the day is not a healthy one. While the book The Spirit Level is not without its flaws (apart from anything else it is an unspeakably dry and dull read), it shows pretty clearly that nations with larger inequalities between the richest and poorest also fare worst when it comes to health, education, crime and other social indicators. Interestingly, what The Spirit Level also shows is that these negative indicators affect all groups in the unequal society, not just the poor.
If the NBR's methodology is sound then it means that the gap between richest and poorest is unquestioningly growing. Could it be the large tax cuts John Key gave many of them? The fact that when it comes to regulation we're largely the "Wild West"? Or is some other combination of factors at play?
Or are the result flawed?
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Plenty Of Reasons For Labour SupportersTo Be Cheerful
I've made no secret of my Labour affiliations, but I maintain that my analysis on this blog is fiercely independent and impartial. I hate all right leaning parties equally.
So I've been looking at the numbers in the latest polls, and I've come to the conclusion that all is not lost for Labour. Here are some interesting facts:
So I've been looking at the numbers in the latest polls, and I've come to the conclusion that all is not lost for Labour. Here are some interesting facts:
- In the last Fairfax poll Labour scored around 28% support. That's a good start. With a mere 22% gain in the next couple of months Labour will be in a position to rule alone. The good news is that Labour's already halfway there!
- Having a huge majority in the polls isn't always what it's cracked up to be. In the recent North Korean elections everyone who voted cast their ballot in favour of Party-approved candidates, and look what a basketcase that country is. So in a way you could argue that the lower Labour's polling goes, the more credible the party becomes. That's certainly what I intend to argue.
- Don't be fooled by the lousy polling. As a loyal party man I'm convinced that this is part of the genius of Labour's plan. When we finally strike they won't expect it.
- Winning isn't everything anyway, right? A silver medal's still a good result.
- Elections are all about the quality of the votes, rather than the quantity. National may be on track to secure a large victory, but those 50-odd percent of votes are rubbish votes, while Labour's 28-30% are pure quality. And scarcity always drives up the importance and value of something. On that basis, Labour's few votes are worth much more than National's, which are as common as muck.
- The sun will still rise on November 27. Even if it is a Tory sun.
- John Key won't be around forever. He will eventually die. One day. Probably at the age of 95, after a reign lasting decades, and he'll be so venerated that they'll build a giant pyramid in his honour, and mourners will be so devastated that they'll pour petrol upon themselves and set themselves on fire. Auckland will have been renamed St John's in his honour. So maybe we just need to wait for a little bit.
- They don't call the party Labour for nothing. It's supposed to be hard work, dummy!
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Baby-Eating Nats Tumble To Election Defeat
Saturday 26 November 2011 - The Labour Party, led by Phil Goff, tonight completed a crushing victory over the National Party in the General Election.
With over 98% of the votes counted, Labour were ahead of National in the party vote by over 22%, and were set to capture around 54% of the vote.
Prime Minister Judith Collins rang Phil Goff shortly after 9pm tonight to concede defeat.
"I wish you well," Ms Collins told Mr Goff. "But you can be sure we will be an active opposition, and that we'll be nipping at your heels 24 hours a day, seven days a week."
While pundits had predicted the easy victory, Labour Party supporters who had been in despair only four months earlier were still struggling to come to terms with the win.
As recently as July this year political polls showed that Labour was in the doldrums. A Fairfax poll taken in mid-July, after Labour's tax package was announced, showed the party with only 29% of the vote.
Those moves prompted soul-searching within Labour, but Labour's big opportunity came in September, when photographs of then Prime Minister John Key surfaced on the internet.
In the photograph Mr Key appeared to be eating a baby. In one picture Mr Key was shown gnawing on what appeared to be the arm of a small child.
Mr Key denounced the images as obvious fakes, and his staff pointed out that the images showed obvious signs of being photoshopped.
Deputy Prime Minister Bill English also pointed to previous posts on Imperator Fish, the website where the images first appeared, as evidence to support his claim of photo doctoring. In a post written just after the July Fairfax poll the enigmatic but talented blogger behind the award-winning site stated that the only thing that would save Labour from electoral defeat would be if John Key were caught eating a baby.
In spite of Mr Key's protestations, the calls for him to step down grew louder, until in late October Key and his deputy, Bill English, were forced to resign.
Even with the elevation of a popular and hardline new leader, it was too much for many National supporters to cope with. Labour's election slogan "We won't eat any babies" was devastatingly successful, and support for National collapsed overnight.
Phil Goff has promised that his first move as Prime Minister, after appointing his cabinet, will be to hold a full public enquiry into the baby-eating allegations. It is understood that a number of baby-eating allegation have been made against other National MPs on various reputable and non-partisan websites, such as The Standard and Tumeke.
Meanwhile, ACT leader Dr Don Brash has already denounced the proposed enquiry, claiming it to be a witch-hunt against decent law-abiding baby-eaters by "interfering nanny state do-gooders".
"The non-baby eaters are once again getting preferential treatment," said Dr Brash. "Frankly, er, I'm appalled."
With over 98% of the votes counted, Labour were ahead of National in the party vote by over 22%, and were set to capture around 54% of the vote.
Prime Minister Judith Collins rang Phil Goff shortly after 9pm tonight to concede defeat.
"I wish you well," Ms Collins told Mr Goff. "But you can be sure we will be an active opposition, and that we'll be nipping at your heels 24 hours a day, seven days a week."
While pundits had predicted the easy victory, Labour Party supporters who had been in despair only four months earlier were still struggling to come to terms with the win.
As recently as July this year political polls showed that Labour was in the doldrums. A Fairfax poll taken in mid-July, after Labour's tax package was announced, showed the party with only 29% of the vote.
Those moves prompted soul-searching within Labour, but Labour's big opportunity came in September, when photographs of then Prime Minister John Key surfaced on the internet.
In the photograph Mr Key appeared to be eating a baby. In one picture Mr Key was shown gnawing on what appeared to be the arm of a small child.
Deputy Prime Minister Bill English also pointed to previous posts on Imperator Fish, the website where the images first appeared, as evidence to support his claim of photo doctoring. In a post written just after the July Fairfax poll the enigmatic but talented blogger behind the award-winning site stated that the only thing that would save Labour from electoral defeat would be if John Key were caught eating a baby.
In spite of Mr Key's protestations, the calls for him to step down grew louder, until in late October Key and his deputy, Bill English, were forced to resign.
Phil Goff has promised that his first move as Prime Minister, after appointing his cabinet, will be to hold a full public enquiry into the baby-eating allegations. It is understood that a number of baby-eating allegation have been made against other National MPs on various reputable and non-partisan websites, such as The Standard and Tumeke.
Meanwhile, ACT leader Dr Don Brash has already denounced the proposed enquiry, claiming it to be a witch-hunt against decent law-abiding baby-eaters by "interfering nanny state do-gooders".
"The non-baby eaters are once again getting preferential treatment," said Dr Brash. "Frankly, er, I'm appalled."
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
What If They Won't Sign The NDA?
This is the second of two articles I wrote recently about
confidentiality issues. I published the first, entitled "What Should Be In The NDA?" yesterday.
You have a beautifully drafted NDA in hand, and you go to meet a potential business partner.
“Please sign this agreement before I tell you about my amazing new invention,” you say to the other person after exchanging business cards.
They show you the door.
What could you have done better?
Anticipating no
Some people just will not sign NDAs. Refusing to sign an NDA does not necessarily make the other person untrustworthy or unsuitable to do business with. Some people have good reasons for refusing to sign an NDA.
Big technology companies
Many companies have strict protocols in place forbidding the signing of NDAs by them. Typically they will be companies engaged in large amounts of R&D, or will be companies that receive a lot of unsolicited invention ideas from other people.
The “we don’t sign” policy is designed to protect the company in case the company is already involved with something similar to what might be disclosed to it. With particularly large companies the person receiving the idea solicitation may not even know what other divisions of the business are doing. It can be very difficult for a company to prove that it has not misused someone’s confidential information, where it turns out that the company’s own developments are similar or identical to those covered by someone’s NDA.
Investors and VCs
If you ask a venture capitalist to sign an NDA they will probably show you the door. VCs and angel investors see hundreds of new ideas, so expecting them to keep everything they are told confidential just isn’t feasible.
Leave your NDA at home when you go to see the VC, or don’t make the trip at all.
Others
Asking your lawyer or patent attorney to sign an NDA is also a waste of time. They have professional obligations to you as their client that are much more stringent than anything an NDA could contain.
Government agencies and embassies also do not usually sign NDAs.
And beware of the potential partner who believes that being asked to sign an NDA is a sign of mistrust. They may be insulted if you put an NDA in front of them.
What do I do now?
What do you do when the person you want to talk to won’t agree to keep your secret? Do you cancel the meeting?
In some cases the answer will be yes.
But what if the person refusing to sign is the only viable business partner for you?
If you really want to talk to that person then consider whether it is possible to give the other person a general overview of your great idea without giving the entire game away, and without disclosing anything critical. Consider whether you can explain to the person what your idea is and how it works, without giving up too much information.
If the other person is sufficiently excited by your summary, they may be prepared to sign an NDA if it means getting to learn more about how your idea will work.
Don’t wreck your patent position
If you disclose a patentable invention to someone without first getting an NDA signed, you risk destroying any prospect of subsequently getting patent protection.
In some cases you can destroy your patent position even if you do get an NDA signed, because in many countries offering to sell or license a patentable invention will be regarded as prior use of the invention and will invalidate any subsequent patent for it.
It is critical, then, that you talk to your IP adviser before you disclose anything that may be patentable.
Often the best thing to do when someone won’t sign the NDA but you really need to disclose your invention, is file a provisional patent application for the invention before you disclose. A provisional application is a first step towards getting full patent protection, and it can be filed before you have worked out all of the details of your invention.
If you file a provisional application you still need to be careful, because anything you say that is not included within the application will not be protected.
Once you have filed a provisional application you will have 12 months in which to file a complete specification describing the invention in full. You can use that 12 month period to talk to potential investors and business partners, and to refine your invention. If it turns out that your idea just won’t fly you can choose to abandon the application before the deadline, or just let it lapse.
Dealing with someone who refuses to sign your NDA can be challenging. But it does not always mean you risk destroying your idea’s value if you proceed with disclosure. Consider whether you can limit the disclosure so that only general information is provided to the other person. And talk to your IP adviser about whether filing a patent application will protect your idea.
You have a beautifully drafted NDA in hand, and you go to meet a potential business partner.
“Please sign this agreement before I tell you about my amazing new invention,” you say to the other person after exchanging business cards.
They show you the door.
What could you have done better?
Anticipating no
Some people just will not sign NDAs. Refusing to sign an NDA does not necessarily make the other person untrustworthy or unsuitable to do business with. Some people have good reasons for refusing to sign an NDA.
Big technology companies
Many companies have strict protocols in place forbidding the signing of NDAs by them. Typically they will be companies engaged in large amounts of R&D, or will be companies that receive a lot of unsolicited invention ideas from other people.
The “we don’t sign” policy is designed to protect the company in case the company is already involved with something similar to what might be disclosed to it. With particularly large companies the person receiving the idea solicitation may not even know what other divisions of the business are doing. It can be very difficult for a company to prove that it has not misused someone’s confidential information, where it turns out that the company’s own developments are similar or identical to those covered by someone’s NDA.
Investors and VCs
If you ask a venture capitalist to sign an NDA they will probably show you the door. VCs and angel investors see hundreds of new ideas, so expecting them to keep everything they are told confidential just isn’t feasible.
Leave your NDA at home when you go to see the VC, or don’t make the trip at all.
Others
Asking your lawyer or patent attorney to sign an NDA is also a waste of time. They have professional obligations to you as their client that are much more stringent than anything an NDA could contain.
Government agencies and embassies also do not usually sign NDAs.
And beware of the potential partner who believes that being asked to sign an NDA is a sign of mistrust. They may be insulted if you put an NDA in front of them.
What do I do now?
What do you do when the person you want to talk to won’t agree to keep your secret? Do you cancel the meeting?
In some cases the answer will be yes.
But what if the person refusing to sign is the only viable business partner for you?
If you really want to talk to that person then consider whether it is possible to give the other person a general overview of your great idea without giving the entire game away, and without disclosing anything critical. Consider whether you can explain to the person what your idea is and how it works, without giving up too much information.
If the other person is sufficiently excited by your summary, they may be prepared to sign an NDA if it means getting to learn more about how your idea will work.
Don’t wreck your patent position
If you disclose a patentable invention to someone without first getting an NDA signed, you risk destroying any prospect of subsequently getting patent protection.
In some cases you can destroy your patent position even if you do get an NDA signed, because in many countries offering to sell or license a patentable invention will be regarded as prior use of the invention and will invalidate any subsequent patent for it.
It is critical, then, that you talk to your IP adviser before you disclose anything that may be patentable.
Often the best thing to do when someone won’t sign the NDA but you really need to disclose your invention, is file a provisional patent application for the invention before you disclose. A provisional application is a first step towards getting full patent protection, and it can be filed before you have worked out all of the details of your invention.
If you file a provisional application you still need to be careful, because anything you say that is not included within the application will not be protected.
Once you have filed a provisional application you will have 12 months in which to file a complete specification describing the invention in full. You can use that 12 month period to talk to potential investors and business partners, and to refine your invention. If it turns out that your idea just won’t fly you can choose to abandon the application before the deadline, or just let it lapse.
Dealing with someone who refuses to sign your NDA can be challenging. But it does not always mean you risk destroying your idea’s value if you proceed with disclosure. Consider whether you can limit the disclosure so that only general information is provided to the other person. And talk to your IP adviser about whether filing a patent application will protect your idea.
Right Thinking: Feeding Time
I cannot believe nobody has spotted the opportunity.
The Herald has been running a campaign focusing on poor and needy children with not enough to eat. The fact that people are going hungry is an inconvenient blot on our nation's reputation, and with the World Cup at hand we need to take urgent action to deal with this problem. We wouldn't want any of those gin-soaked IRB delegates thinking we were anything other than a pavlova paradise, now, would we?
Enter the solution. Whangarei's Zion Wildlife Gardens is in danger of being shut down permanently. One of the problems facing the park is the difficulty in housing and feeding the wild cats. An adult lion when in a hungry mood can get through a power of red meat.
My proposal to combine wildlife parks with foodbanks will bring much-needed competition to the welfare industry. Some pantywaist do-gooders may struggle with the kill-or-be-killed ethos behind the concept, but if people really are desperate enough for food they'll find a way to disable the lions. Of course, we won't make it too easy for them, because the park needs to be self-funded, and the millions of TV viewers who will pay to watch the reality show we make about the park will want to see an even fight. So it will be sticks and spears versus teeth and claws, and may the hungriest animal win.
I hope you like the idea, because everyone else I've mentioned it to raves about it. I bailed up a young fellow on the bus this morning and told him my plan, and he told me it was "quite simply the most appalling, murderous and indescribably callous thing I've ever heard". I was put off at first, but then I remembered a magazine article I'd read somewhere about how young people often use words in an unconventional manner. So, for example, calling something or someone "bad" often means they think the thing or person is good or sexually attractive.
Thus it's pretty clear that "murderous" and "callous" will be the words hip young folk use to describe acts of humanitarianism. It makes me feel good knowing my ideas are ready to be embraced by the younger generation with such enthusiasm.
So if the idea of feeding young people to the lions has the approval of the victims, what exactly is the holdup?
How Well Does He Burn?
I may not be the most unbiased commentator, but I am trying to objectively see David Farrar's current attacks on Phil Goff as anything other than shrill and pathetic.
Farrar has been accusing Goff of incompetence and dishonesty because Goff claims he did not receive a briefing on the SIS Israeli spy investigation. Farrar's "evidence" is pretty feeble. Apparently SIS director Warren Tucker may have "flicked the issue past him", so in Farrarland that means either Goff was fully briefed, or is to blame for not asking more questions of Tucker.
But we don't know what Goff was told, or whether Tucker even mentioned the word "Israel" in this "briefing". It's quite possible that Goff didn't have any reason to think anything was up, and the nature of the briefing (if any) may not have given him any reason to enquire further.
Farrar is constructing an argument that Goff is incompetent and untrustworthy based on the content of a conversation Farrar was not privy to.
Let us just consider the other possibility: that Phil Goff is telling the truth and didn't know anything about the SIS investigation. Given that the only people who know the truth are Goff and Tucker, and maybe a couple of advisers, and that the only person at the meeting who has so far spoken publicly says he was not told details of the investigation, how exactly does Farrar's smear stand up to close scrutiny?
Farrar also adopts an all-too-common smear tactic that involves putting words in his opponent's mouth. Specifically, Farrar claims Goff has accused John Key of lying and that Goff has attacked the integrity and independence of the SIS. No he hasn't. All he's done is say "I was not briefed".
The sort of evidence produced by Farrar may have been enough 500 years ago to burn Goff as a witch, but it's hardly proof of anything.
But as if that's not feeble enough, today David Farrar is attacking Goff because he used "he" instead of "she" to describe a 2008 Labour election candidate.
Good God, are we really going to wage an election campaign over who has the greater verbal precision? If that's the case then I'm not sure John Key will be the favourite to win.
Please, please, let there soon be some meaty policy to discuss, because if this sort of petty nastiness is what we can expect more of leading up to November, I might just take a long holiday somewhere else.
Farrar has been accusing Goff of incompetence and dishonesty because Goff claims he did not receive a briefing on the SIS Israeli spy investigation. Farrar's "evidence" is pretty feeble. Apparently SIS director Warren Tucker may have "flicked the issue past him", so in Farrarland that means either Goff was fully briefed, or is to blame for not asking more questions of Tucker.
But we don't know what Goff was told, or whether Tucker even mentioned the word "Israel" in this "briefing". It's quite possible that Goff didn't have any reason to think anything was up, and the nature of the briefing (if any) may not have given him any reason to enquire further.
Farrar is constructing an argument that Goff is incompetent and untrustworthy based on the content of a conversation Farrar was not privy to.
Let us just consider the other possibility: that Phil Goff is telling the truth and didn't know anything about the SIS investigation. Given that the only people who know the truth are Goff and Tucker, and maybe a couple of advisers, and that the only person at the meeting who has so far spoken publicly says he was not told details of the investigation, how exactly does Farrar's smear stand up to close scrutiny?
Farrar also adopts an all-too-common smear tactic that involves putting words in his opponent's mouth. Specifically, Farrar claims Goff has accused John Key of lying and that Goff has attacked the integrity and independence of the SIS. No he hasn't. All he's done is say "I was not briefed".
The sort of evidence produced by Farrar may have been enough 500 years ago to burn Goff as a witch, but it's hardly proof of anything.
But as if that's not feeble enough, today David Farrar is attacking Goff because he used "he" instead of "she" to describe a 2008 Labour election candidate.
Good God, are we really going to wage an election campaign over who has the greater verbal precision? If that's the case then I'm not sure John Key will be the favourite to win.
Please, please, let there soon be some meaty policy to discuss, because if this sort of petty nastiness is what we can expect more of leading up to November, I might just take a long holiday somewhere else.
"If you just smile"
I remain hopeful that Cathy Odgers (aka Cactus Kate) gets a high ranking when ACT announces its party list.
I look forward to hearing her talking in town halls around the country, telling the masses that its all their fault they don't have enough food or can't pay the rent, and that they should just be like the poor in Thailand.
According to Odgers the poor in Thailand are cheerful and industrious, even though every day is a struggle for them, while the many street urchins are cheeky but cunning.
I have always wondered why we don't aspire to be more like Thailand. Thailand fares much better than many nations in the region, but it's still not an easy place to be poor. It's also a politically unstable country with an unfree press with major social problems, where many people are so desperately poor that hundreds of thousands of them are driven into prostitution. But the important thing is that they keep smiling at the tourists!
It's pretty easy for a Westerner to go to a dirt-poor country, stay in a nice hotel, flash their money around and remark on how poor but happy the locals are. You can live like a king in some of these places, because everything's so dirt cheap. You see the sights, buy the souvenirs, and return to your comfortable life.
Then, once you are home, you wonder why the poor in your country aren't scrounging for cash on the streets, harassing tourists or selling trinkets on the roadside. Instead, they just sit at home smoking P and whining.
It doesn't matter that most poor people don't sit at home whining or smoking P, but instead just get on and try to do best for themselves and their families. It's all about perception, and the inability of the observer to understand what living in real poverty means. Some poor people are lazy or are drug addicts, therefore it is assumed that everyone in poverty is the same. Never mind that lazy drug-addicted rich people also exist in large numbers. This kind of thinking is laziness of an intellectual kind.
That is why I want Odgers to win a high ranking. I want nothing more than for her contempt for the poor to be exposed to a wide audience. Let's see how it goes down with the voters. I think I can guess.
I look forward to hearing her talking in town halls around the country, telling the masses that its all their fault they don't have enough food or can't pay the rent, and that they should just be like the poor in Thailand.
According to Odgers the poor in Thailand are cheerful and industrious, even though every day is a struggle for them, while the many street urchins are cheeky but cunning.
I have always wondered why we don't aspire to be more like Thailand. Thailand fares much better than many nations in the region, but it's still not an easy place to be poor. It's also a politically unstable country with an unfree press with major social problems, where many people are so desperately poor that hundreds of thousands of them are driven into prostitution. But the important thing is that they keep smiling at the tourists!
It's pretty easy for a Westerner to go to a dirt-poor country, stay in a nice hotel, flash their money around and remark on how poor but happy the locals are. You can live like a king in some of these places, because everything's so dirt cheap. You see the sights, buy the souvenirs, and return to your comfortable life.
Then, once you are home, you wonder why the poor in your country aren't scrounging for cash on the streets, harassing tourists or selling trinkets on the roadside. Instead, they just sit at home smoking P and whining.
It doesn't matter that most poor people don't sit at home whining or smoking P, but instead just get on and try to do best for themselves and their families. It's all about perception, and the inability of the observer to understand what living in real poverty means. Some poor people are lazy or are drug addicts, therefore it is assumed that everyone in poverty is the same. Never mind that lazy drug-addicted rich people also exist in large numbers. This kind of thinking is laziness of an intellectual kind.
That is why I want Odgers to win a high ranking. I want nothing more than for her contempt for the poor to be exposed to a wide audience. Let's see how it goes down with the voters. I think I can guess.
Monday, July 25, 2011
What Should Be In The NDA?
This is the first of two articles I wrote recently about confidentiality issues. I'll publish the second, entitled "What if they won't sign the NDA?" in the next day or so.
Because I work with a lot of inventors and innovative companies, I get to see lot of new stuff before it hits the market.
But there’s nothing I hate more than seeing a good idea go to waste because someone couldn’t keep a secret.
In many cases the decision whether to develop or commercialise a new product or invention will rest on the strength of the IP protection available.
But to put yourself in a good position to get strong IP protection you often need to be good at keeping secrets. For example, you cannot patent something that the world already knows about.
The more people who know your secret the harder it will be to keep. However, it can be difficult to develop and bring to market a new product or service without telling a lot of people. For example, you may have a great idea for a new product, but you might need to show your idea to a designer so they can build a prototype. The idea may require a lot of capital to become a reality, so you may need to disclose it to potential investors. Perhaps you need to engage someone smart to do further research and development work on the idea.
One of the best ways to discourage someone from telling your secret to others is to have them sign a confidentiality agreement, or non-disclosure agreement (NDA).
But beware of the “standard form” NDA, because not all agreements are the same. It pays to check the fine-print.
What is “confidential information”?
Under a typical NDA the person receiving information (receiver) agrees not to use or disclose the confidential information of the other person (discloser), other than for a specific purpose.
The definition of “confidential information” in the document is critical. A good definition will state clearly what is to be regarded as confidential, and what is not.
So what information of the discloser should be treated as confidential? There are two man schools of thought.
One approach is to state generally in the contract the nature of the information to be disclosed, so that the receiver isn’t bound to keep secret anything “off topic” the discloser tells them. This approach works best when you are the receiver, because it limits the extent of your confidentiality obligations.
The other approach is to provide in the NDA that everything the discloser tells the receiver is to be treated as confidential, unless a specific exception applies. This approach is preferable where you are the discloser, because it casts the confidentiality net widely.
Whichever approach you take, you should also ensure the contract lists the exceptions to confidentiality. You cannot expect the receiver to keep secret information that is already in the public domain or already known to the receiver, and the law courts will not generally enforce an obligation not to use or disclose such information.
The most common exceptions to confidentiality are:
You should check that the definition of “confidential information” in the NDA covers information disclosed in any form or manner, and not just written information.
It is common for receiving companies to insist on using their own form of NDA. But this can be a trap for the discloser if they fail to check what they are signing. Receiver-friendly NDAs will often say that information not disclosed in writing must be reduced to writing by the discloser within a certain period after disclosure (e.g. 30 days), otherwise it will no longer be regarded as confidential information. This is a particularly nasty provision that, if unnoticed, can render information disclosed orally non-confidential.
What is the confidentiality period?
You should make sure that the NDA states clearly when the receiver’s confidentiality obligations begin. If you only get the NDA signed after you have disclosed important information, make sure the contract protects those earlier disclosures.
The NDA should also specify how long the receiver’s obligations of confidentiality last. Do they continue until the information is no longer a secret? Or do the obligations expire after an agreed period of time? If the NDA allows a party to terminate on notice to the other party, make sure the obligations of confidentiality continue in force over what has already been disclosed.
The NDA should also require the receiver to return or destroy the information upon termination.
What else should be in the NDA?
An obligation not to disclose to anyone else may not be practical when you’re dealing with a large organisation, and when a number of people within that organisation may need to see the information. A well-drafted NDA will usually allow for some limited disclosure by the receiver to employees and officers on a “need to know” basis, and on terms of confidentiality.
It is often also a good idea to require the receiver to adhere to certain handling procedures when dealing with the information. For example, limiting the receiver’s right to store the information electronically, and requiring the receiver to maintain good internal security.
One of the biggest dangers in disclosing something new is the risk that the receiver will run with your idea themselves. For that reason it is often a good idea to provide in the NDA that if the receiver makes any improvements based on your idea, you will own any IP rights that arise from the improvements.
NDAs are often only a couple of pages long, or even shorter. It can be tempting to think that the NDA you have been asked to sign is just “standard”, because many contain onerous terms, or lack many important protections. Read the NDA carefully, and get legal advice if you do not understand it.
Because I work with a lot of inventors and innovative companies, I get to see lot of new stuff before it hits the market.
But there’s nothing I hate more than seeing a good idea go to waste because someone couldn’t keep a secret.
In many cases the decision whether to develop or commercialise a new product or invention will rest on the strength of the IP protection available.
But to put yourself in a good position to get strong IP protection you often need to be good at keeping secrets. For example, you cannot patent something that the world already knows about.
The more people who know your secret the harder it will be to keep. However, it can be difficult to develop and bring to market a new product or service without telling a lot of people. For example, you may have a great idea for a new product, but you might need to show your idea to a designer so they can build a prototype. The idea may require a lot of capital to become a reality, so you may need to disclose it to potential investors. Perhaps you need to engage someone smart to do further research and development work on the idea.
One of the best ways to discourage someone from telling your secret to others is to have them sign a confidentiality agreement, or non-disclosure agreement (NDA).
But beware of the “standard form” NDA, because not all agreements are the same. It pays to check the fine-print.
What is “confidential information”?
Under a typical NDA the person receiving information (receiver) agrees not to use or disclose the confidential information of the other person (discloser), other than for a specific purpose.
The definition of “confidential information” in the document is critical. A good definition will state clearly what is to be regarded as confidential, and what is not.
So what information of the discloser should be treated as confidential? There are two man schools of thought.
One approach is to state generally in the contract the nature of the information to be disclosed, so that the receiver isn’t bound to keep secret anything “off topic” the discloser tells them. This approach works best when you are the receiver, because it limits the extent of your confidentiality obligations.
The other approach is to provide in the NDA that everything the discloser tells the receiver is to be treated as confidential, unless a specific exception applies. This approach is preferable where you are the discloser, because it casts the confidentiality net widely.
Whichever approach you take, you should also ensure the contract lists the exceptions to confidentiality. You cannot expect the receiver to keep secret information that is already in the public domain or already known to the receiver, and the law courts will not generally enforce an obligation not to use or disclose such information.
The most common exceptions to confidentiality are:
- the information is already in the public domain
- the receiver already knows the information
- the receiver is able to get the information from a third party who is not under obligations of confidentiality
- the receiver is under a legal obligation to disclose the information.
You should check that the definition of “confidential information” in the NDA covers information disclosed in any form or manner, and not just written information.
It is common for receiving companies to insist on using their own form of NDA. But this can be a trap for the discloser if they fail to check what they are signing. Receiver-friendly NDAs will often say that information not disclosed in writing must be reduced to writing by the discloser within a certain period after disclosure (e.g. 30 days), otherwise it will no longer be regarded as confidential information. This is a particularly nasty provision that, if unnoticed, can render information disclosed orally non-confidential.
What is the confidentiality period?
You should make sure that the NDA states clearly when the receiver’s confidentiality obligations begin. If you only get the NDA signed after you have disclosed important information, make sure the contract protects those earlier disclosures.
The NDA should also specify how long the receiver’s obligations of confidentiality last. Do they continue until the information is no longer a secret? Or do the obligations expire after an agreed period of time? If the NDA allows a party to terminate on notice to the other party, make sure the obligations of confidentiality continue in force over what has already been disclosed.
The NDA should also require the receiver to return or destroy the information upon termination.
What else should be in the NDA?
An obligation not to disclose to anyone else may not be practical when you’re dealing with a large organisation, and when a number of people within that organisation may need to see the information. A well-drafted NDA will usually allow for some limited disclosure by the receiver to employees and officers on a “need to know” basis, and on terms of confidentiality.
It is often also a good idea to require the receiver to adhere to certain handling procedures when dealing with the information. For example, limiting the receiver’s right to store the information electronically, and requiring the receiver to maintain good internal security.
One of the biggest dangers in disclosing something new is the risk that the receiver will run with your idea themselves. For that reason it is often a good idea to provide in the NDA that if the receiver makes any improvements based on your idea, you will own any IP rights that arise from the improvements.
NDAs are often only a couple of pages long, or even shorter. It can be tempting to think that the NDA you have been asked to sign is just “standard”, because many contain onerous terms, or lack many important protections. Read the NDA carefully, and get legal advice if you do not understand it.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
These Are My Rules
In which I set out the principles I will rigidly enforce when I am your Lord and Master
Godwinning a blogpost thread, other than for ironic or humorous purposes, will be a criminal offence. You may disagree strongly with your opponents, but admit it, the chances of their being actual Nazis are quite slim.
People will be able to accept the idea that the leaders of the political parties they don't like are not actually evil. They may be bumbling incompetents, they may be intellectually lazy, and they may be too focused on looking after "their own" (potentially good reasons to get rid of them), but it's unlikely that they actively revel in the misery of others or are criminally dishonest.
When our leaders appear on the world stage we will remember that they are representing us all. We will encourage them to do well. We need them to do well.
Bloggers who screw up on the internet and make a hash of things will be able to say sorry. Being occasionally wrong about something isn't a sign of weakness. It just proves we're not all robots.
Mainstream politicians will not engage extremist bloggers who work for the other team. Ignoring extremists is always better than challenging them to a bike race.
People will awaken to the realisation that bloggers who always, always, criticise the other side (whether left or right) are boring. The other side will occasionally get things right, as you well know.
Some of the people who inhabit the extremes of the blogosphere will get the interventions they need. We have seen from Norway what can happen when an angry nutter with deranged views gets hold of weaponry. What I have read of the perpetrator reminds me of the views of many a Kiwiblog commenter. Not to be outdone, there are as many deranged idiots on The Standard.
People will be required to follow a range of sources from across the media and blogosphere in order to be informed on any particular matter. Anyone who admits to getting all their news from either Whaleoil or Tumeke will be institutionalised.
Politicians who cultivate hatred towards religions, races or ethnic groups will be rewarded with 24 strikes of the rattan cane.
Bomber Bradbury will relax a little and learn to love.
Blogger.com's spellchecker will not think the word "blogger" is a typo.
People won't be afraid to tell me when I'm being a dick on my blog. But please be polite about it.
My blog will be funnier, less partisan, less nasty and more informative.
As the person who made all these rules, I will be allowed to break them all.
Godwinning a blogpost thread, other than for ironic or humorous purposes, will be a criminal offence. You may disagree strongly with your opponents, but admit it, the chances of their being actual Nazis are quite slim.
People will be able to accept the idea that the leaders of the political parties they don't like are not actually evil. They may be bumbling incompetents, they may be intellectually lazy, and they may be too focused on looking after "their own" (potentially good reasons to get rid of them), but it's unlikely that they actively revel in the misery of others or are criminally dishonest.
When our leaders appear on the world stage we will remember that they are representing us all. We will encourage them to do well. We need them to do well.
Bloggers who screw up on the internet and make a hash of things will be able to say sorry. Being occasionally wrong about something isn't a sign of weakness. It just proves we're not all robots.
Mainstream politicians will not engage extremist bloggers who work for the other team. Ignoring extremists is always better than challenging them to a bike race.
People will awaken to the realisation that bloggers who always, always, criticise the other side (whether left or right) are boring. The other side will occasionally get things right, as you well know.
Some of the people who inhabit the extremes of the blogosphere will get the interventions they need. We have seen from Norway what can happen when an angry nutter with deranged views gets hold of weaponry. What I have read of the perpetrator reminds me of the views of many a Kiwiblog commenter. Not to be outdone, there are as many deranged idiots on The Standard.
People will be required to follow a range of sources from across the media and blogosphere in order to be informed on any particular matter. Anyone who admits to getting all their news from either Whaleoil or Tumeke will be institutionalised.
Politicians who cultivate hatred towards religions, races or ethnic groups will be rewarded with 24 strikes of the rattan cane.
Bomber Bradbury will relax a little and learn to love.
Blogger.com's spellchecker will not think the word "blogger" is a typo.
People won't be afraid to tell me when I'm being a dick on my blog. But please be polite about it.
My blog will be funnier, less partisan, less nasty and more informative.
As the person who made all these rules, I will be allowed to break them all.
Is Latest Horizon Poll Credible?
The Sunday Star Times has a story about the latest Horizon poll, which shows that, while the Nats are comfortably ahead of Labour, the difference between the left and right is small.
This is good news for the left for sure, even if the polling methodology Horizon uses suggests that the results may not be as credible as those of the polls that use phone polling.
From what I can tell anyone can register to vote on the Horizon political poll, so it would be quite easy for a small group of committed activists to influence poll results. I'm not saying that has happened, but it is noticeable the trend in the Horizon Poll is for the left parties to register higher support than in the other regular polls (TV3, TVNZ, Roy Morgan). The other regular polls indicate that the gap between left and right is still quite big.
Phone polling has its own problems, because a lot of people with limited means don't have landlines, and this may skew some results towards the right parties. But whether this is a major factor or not isn't clear.
It's also pretty obvious that the two TV polls are the only ones that count, at least in the minds of the mainstream commentariat. A day after the Roy Morgan poll came out showing a lift in support for Labour and the Greens, I was still hearing people on the radio talking about how damning of Labour's tax package the TVNZ poll was.
All of this suggests that, while polls are useful measures of where public support for political parties resides at any given time, we should be wary of taking too much from them.
This is good news for the left for sure, even if the polling methodology Horizon uses suggests that the results may not be as credible as those of the polls that use phone polling.
From what I can tell anyone can register to vote on the Horizon political poll, so it would be quite easy for a small group of committed activists to influence poll results. I'm not saying that has happened, but it is noticeable the trend in the Horizon Poll is for the left parties to register higher support than in the other regular polls (TV3, TVNZ, Roy Morgan). The other regular polls indicate that the gap between left and right is still quite big.
Phone polling has its own problems, because a lot of people with limited means don't have landlines, and this may skew some results towards the right parties. But whether this is a major factor or not isn't clear.
It's also pretty obvious that the two TV polls are the only ones that count, at least in the minds of the mainstream commentariat. A day after the Roy Morgan poll came out showing a lift in support for Labour and the Greens, I was still hearing people on the radio talking about how damning of Labour's tax package the TVNZ poll was.
All of this suggests that, while polls are useful measures of where public support for political parties resides at any given time, we should be wary of taking too much from them.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Please, God, Give Me Back The Last Ten Minutes Of My Life
Have just read this post and its comment thread.
Mistake.
If Gandhi returned to Earth and proclaimed 10,000 years of peace and enlightenment, I'm sure they'd be still be furiously feuding in the blogosphere over who was the biggest Nazi.
Mistake.
If Gandhi returned to Earth and proclaimed 10,000 years of peace and enlightenment, I'm sure they'd be still be furiously feuding in the blogosphere over who was the biggest Nazi.
Friday, July 22, 2011
Share A Hot Tub With That Lot?
I see that the Sensible Sentencing Trust's Garth McVicar has again lashed out at offenders being given name suppression.
And while in the particular case McVicar is concerned about I struggle to understand why the offender got suppression, every time I hear McVicar railing against suppression laws I can think of only one word.
Hypocrite.
Surely the public also had the right to know what McVicar's friend David Garrett was doing with the identities of dead children.
McVicar is also part of a new site, the Justice Hot Tub, where together with Stephen Franks, Gil Elliot and Greg King he opines on the justice system. In my personal opinion the site design looks ugly, the colour-scheme doesn't work and the font is all wrong. But worst of all, even metaphorically getting into a hot tub with the likes of McVicar and Franks is likely to fill many a sleeping head with horrid nightmares. I don't have anything against the other two fellows, but I'm just not much of a "get into a hot tub with a bunch of other men" sort of guy.
And while in the particular case McVicar is concerned about I struggle to understand why the offender got suppression, every time I hear McVicar railing against suppression laws I can think of only one word.
Hypocrite.
Surely the public also had the right to know what McVicar's friend David Garrett was doing with the identities of dead children.
McVicar is also part of a new site, the Justice Hot Tub, where together with Stephen Franks, Gil Elliot and Greg King he opines on the justice system. In my personal opinion the site design looks ugly, the colour-scheme doesn't work and the font is all wrong. But worst of all, even metaphorically getting into a hot tub with the likes of McVicar and Franks is likely to fill many a sleeping head with horrid nightmares. I don't have anything against the other two fellows, but I'm just not much of a "get into a hot tub with a bunch of other men" sort of guy.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
More Not News Stories
Rebecca Stevenson at Stuff reports:
Forgetting to file the annual return until you get a stern reminder is so common as to be completely unremarkable.
If Ali Williams got a parking ticket it would be more newsworthy.
A drinks marketing company owned by All Blacks Dan Carter, Richie McCaw and Ali Williams has filed its annual report after the Companies Office threatened to strike it off the register.This is not news. An annual return is just a routine document that every company must file. If you don't see the email the Companies Office sends you, or you simply forget about it, they send you a couple of reminders. The reminders tell you that if you don't file they'll strike the company off the register.
For Everyone, the company behind the trio's water and flavoured milk brands Water for Everyone and For Everyone Fresh Flavoured Milk, had been warned it would be removed from the register if its annual return, due in June, was not filed.
The Companies Office register shows Williams filed the documents with the office last night.
Forgetting to file the annual return until you get a stern reminder is so common as to be completely unremarkable.
If Ali Williams got a parking ticket it would be more newsworthy.
Small Beer On The Radler Case
I don't have a view one way or the other on the DB "Radler" debate, and as to whether the mark should have been registered. I can see arguments on both sides.
I'm not convinced that IPONZ got the decision wrong. They can only make decisions on the evidence put to them. It's entirely possible that the evidence put to IPONZ by SOBA and its lawyers just wasn't up to scratch.
But some of the media commentary by the "experts" is interesting, to say the least.
Take this article in the Herald yesterday:
I'm not convinced that IPONZ got the decision wrong. They can only make decisions on the evidence put to them. It's entirely possible that the evidence put to IPONZ by SOBA and its lawyers just wasn't up to scratch.
But some of the media commentary by the "experts" is interesting, to say the least.
Take this article in the Herald yesterday:
But intellectual property consultant Theodore Doucas in Wellington, said the decision in favour of DB Breweries - on the grounds radler was not known as a descriptive term in New Zealand in 2004 - was out of touch with reality.It continues:
Doucas said radler was a generic term for a style of low-alcohol beer, such as "lager" and "pilsner".
"Radler is a style of beer and a common term all over the world," said Doucas.Terrible, terrible, terrible. How could such a monstrous thing occur? But wait a minute. Something is wrong with this analysis. My colleague John Hackett explains in this blogpost:
"It seems to the average person that unless you have massively deep pockets in New Zealand, there is no way to challenge this type of injustice. In Australia there is provision for the Registrar of Trade Marks to intervene where it is clearly in the public interest - we should have the same here in New Zealand," Doucas said.
The real test of distinctiveness for a trademark was not whether a mark is being used in New Zealand but the likelihood of use in New Zealand.
"You cannot give somebody a monopoly like this and then think it's good for business," he said.
"This is bad for New Zealand, bad for business and bad for the consumer because it stifles competition."
Theodore Doucas started up his trade mark consultancy business in November 2007.Mr Doucas appears to be suffering from catastrophic memory loss, so I'm sure you'll join me in sending him best wishes for a speedy recovery.
Prior to setting up in private practice as a trade mark lawyer, Mr Doucas was, between April 2001 and December 2007, Manager of Trade Marks, and then Assistant Commissioner of Patents, Trade Marks and Designs at the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ).
DB applied to register RADLER as a trade mark on 2 September 2003.
The RADLER mark was eventually registered on 8 June 2004.
The reason it took nine months to achieve registration was that the RADLER trade mark application was initially objected to by the IPONZ examining staff on the grounds it was not distinctive (it was the name for a European style of beer).
Submissions were filed by the lawyers acting for DB. Eventually, Mr Doucas, in his role as Assistant Commissioner, accepted the application and then in June 2004 signed-off its registration.
Clearly, Mr Doucas was in charge of operations in the trade marks section of IPONZ at the time, and yet he now comes out strongly saying that the name was generic; the decision was out of touch with reality; and that giving people a monopoly in such a term is bad for business.
Sorry, Mr Doucas, you can’t have it both ways.
Party Deals No Big Deal
All this deal-making going on between political parties may look a bit shabby, but it’s just part of the MMP environment we live in.
I wrote a post yesterday questioning whether it was a good idea for ACT and the Nats to be doing these deals, because they would only encourage Labour and the Greens to do the same.
But I missed the fact that Labour and the Greens have been doing these sorts of deals already. So what’s sauce for the goose...
I think the reason why so many people think the Epsom deal between National and ACT stinks is because ACT is so widely despised. ACT has only itself to blame for this. Politically its brand is about as compelling as Enron’s, and it’s a wonder why any sensible person would have anything to do with them.
On the other hand, people should not allow their contempt for ACT to mask the fact that deals over seats are being done all over the place. Even if the stakes in Epsom are higher than elsewhere.
So while I may be no friend of ACT and would dearly love to see the party drown in its own vomit, we live in a democracy, and if people want an ACT MP then that’s their choice. Parties can do all the deals they want, but nobody can be forced to vote for an electorate candidate they don’t like.
All that is left, then, is to wonder whether Vote For Change, which has strong ties with ACT and National, will use the Epsom deal to illustrate how MMP is all bad.
I wrote a post yesterday questioning whether it was a good idea for ACT and the Nats to be doing these deals, because they would only encourage Labour and the Greens to do the same.
But I missed the fact that Labour and the Greens have been doing these sorts of deals already. So what’s sauce for the goose...
I think the reason why so many people think the Epsom deal between National and ACT stinks is because ACT is so widely despised. ACT has only itself to blame for this. Politically its brand is about as compelling as Enron’s, and it’s a wonder why any sensible person would have anything to do with them.
On the other hand, people should not allow their contempt for ACT to mask the fact that deals over seats are being done all over the place. Even if the stakes in Epsom are higher than elsewhere.
So while I may be no friend of ACT and would dearly love to see the party drown in its own vomit, we live in a democracy, and if people want an ACT MP then that’s their choice. Parties can do all the deals they want, but nobody can be forced to vote for an electorate candidate they don’t like.
All that is left, then, is to wonder whether Vote For Change, which has strong ties with ACT and National, will use the Epsom deal to illustrate how MMP is all bad.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Latest Roy Morgan: Labour and Greens Up, Nats Down
Since we on the left were all in despair a few days ago over the TVNZ poll, it's only fair that I should mention the latest Roy Morgan poll. It still shows a sizeable gap between the left and right, but the gap has closed by five points. Another couple of months of that and it's game on.
The poll was conducted in the period leading up to Labour's tax announcement. Does the fact that the numbers have gone up show that the voters actually like the policy? Remember how earlier in the week the Nats and their tame bloggers were crowing about how the TVNZ poll was a thumbs-down for the tax plan?
Polls come and polls go. This one's better news, and it will make those in Labour who were in despair at the TVNZ poll feel someone more heartened. But let's not get carried away. The gap's still large.
The poll was conducted in the period leading up to Labour's tax announcement. Does the fact that the numbers have gone up show that the voters actually like the policy? Remember how earlier in the week the Nats and their tame bloggers were crowing about how the TVNZ poll was a thumbs-down for the tax plan?
Polls come and polls go. This one's better news, and it will make those in Labour who were in despair at the TVNZ poll feel someone more heartened. But let's not get carried away. The gap's still large.
The Night I Met Rupert Murdoch
I haven't written anything about the phone hacking scandal, but now seems like a good time to mention that I've actually met Rupert Murdoch. In fact I had a good long discussion with him.
Surprised? Well admittedly it happened in the dream I had last night, and a weird dream it was too. But I figure it must mean something. Perhaps Murdoch's been hacking into my dreams and is trying to send me a message. Yes, that's it.
Let me tell you about it. I was out driving in the Camry when the front left tyre went. Fortuitously I was outside a tyre shop when it happened, so I drove in and asked the old guy in charge to sort it out. It turned out that the old guy was Rupert Murdoch.
Eighty year old billionaires shouldn't be working in tyre shops, even those in disgrace. And yet he seemed to be in his element. The skills Murdoch exhibited as he whipped the tyre off, repaired the puncture and put the tyre back on was something to see. And despite the shitstorm overwhelming him he was happy to chat about his media empire and the way he had ruthlessly built it up.
So I won't hear a bad word spoken about Rupert Murdoch, even with all the terrible things he and his minions may have done. Anyone who at the age of 80 can flip a tyre off, fix it and put it back on in record time gets a free pass from me.
Surprised? Well admittedly it happened in the dream I had last night, and a weird dream it was too. But I figure it must mean something. Perhaps Murdoch's been hacking into my dreams and is trying to send me a message. Yes, that's it.
Let me tell you about it. I was out driving in the Camry when the front left tyre went. Fortuitously I was outside a tyre shop when it happened, so I drove in and asked the old guy in charge to sort it out. It turned out that the old guy was Rupert Murdoch.
Eighty year old billionaires shouldn't be working in tyre shops, even those in disgrace. And yet he seemed to be in his element. The skills Murdoch exhibited as he whipped the tyre off, repaired the puncture and put the tyre back on was something to see. And despite the shitstorm overwhelming him he was happy to chat about his media empire and the way he had ruthlessly built it up.
So I won't hear a bad word spoken about Rupert Murdoch, even with all the terrible things he and his minions may have done. Anyone who at the age of 80 can flip a tyre off, fix it and put it back on in record time gets a free pass from me.
Questions For Mossad
Why were so many alleged Mossad agents in Chrstchurch at the time of the February earthquake?
Was Christchurch the victim of an Israeli seismic bomb?
Even though I have not a shred of evidence that this is what happened, or that such a technology even exists, clearly the answer is yes.
And how much does Gerry Brownlee know? Is he a secret Israeli operative too?
Was David Farrar behind the entire operation? Is that even his real name?
And what exactly is Rupert Murdoch's connection to all of this?
Was Christchurch the victim of an Israeli seismic bomb?
Even though I have not a shred of evidence that this is what happened, or that such a technology even exists, clearly the answer is yes.
And how much does Gerry Brownlee know? Is he a secret Israeli operative too?
Was David Farrar behind the entire operation? Is that even his real name?
And what exactly is Rupert Murdoch's connection to all of this?
Game On
It looks like ACT and the Nats are considering a deal so that in some key marginal electorates the right’s candidate vote goes to the National candidate.
ACT leader Don Brash has indicated that ACT may not push for the electorate vote in marginal electorates like New Plymouth and Waimakariri.
It seems to be further evidence that Don Brash is at heart a National man, who only took over ACT because he saw an opportunity to drag National further to the right.
An accommodation has also been reached in Epsom between National and ACT to ensure that, barring a major backlash by Epsom voters, John Banks will win the seat for ACT.
Labour is talking about selecting a strong candidate to contest the Epsom seat, but I would have thought Labour’s best bet was to tell people on the left to give their electorate vote to the National candidate. On current polling I really don’t fancy Labour’s chances of winning there, even if the right vote ends up split between National and ACT.
Brash may also be thinking that if he can game the system so blatantly in this way then the MMP system he so dislikes will be thoroughly discredited. It’s ironic that without an MMP system Brash may never have had a parliamentary career, and that if November’s election were being held under a first-past-the-post system Brash would certainly not be an MP by the end of it.
But if the left also wants to create havoc, then there’s nothing stopping Labour and the Greens from reach a wide-ranging accommodation such as the one Brash proposes.
For example, if the Green Party candidate for Ohariu told people to give their electorate vote to Charles Chauvel, the future would start looking bleak for Peter Dunne.
A deal between Labour and the Greens would also almost certainly deliver Auckland Central back to Labour. Nikki Kaye’s majority is 1497, and the Green Party candidate in 2008 got over 4500 votes.
In my own electorate, Te Atatu, which some regard as being potentially a marginal one (with Chris Carter moving on and with all the grief that went with that), the endorsement of Labour’s Phil Twyford by the Green candidate could be enough to secure the seat for Labour and potentially end Tau Henare’s career. I’m assuming Henare will get a fairly low list ranking, judging from his performances this parliamentary term (on the other hand, any party that can have Paul Quinn as one of its MPs probably isn’t that bothered by mediocrity).
And, of course, if Brash thinks giving the ACT vote to the National candidates in New Plymouth and Waimakariri is a good idea, there’s no reason why Green voters in those same electorates couldn’t do something similar with Labour (although I note the Greens didn’t run a candidate in New Plymouth in 2008. I’m not sure if they will this year).
So trying to game the system could end up biting National.
(Update: I'm told the Greens candidate in Ohariu has already told voters in the electorate to give their candidate vote to Chauvel. This kind of dealmaking may be more widespread than I thought)
ACT leader Don Brash has indicated that ACT may not push for the electorate vote in marginal electorates like New Plymouth and Waimakariri.
It seems to be further evidence that Don Brash is at heart a National man, who only took over ACT because he saw an opportunity to drag National further to the right.
An accommodation has also been reached in Epsom between National and ACT to ensure that, barring a major backlash by Epsom voters, John Banks will win the seat for ACT.
Labour is talking about selecting a strong candidate to contest the Epsom seat, but I would have thought Labour’s best bet was to tell people on the left to give their electorate vote to the National candidate. On current polling I really don’t fancy Labour’s chances of winning there, even if the right vote ends up split between National and ACT.
Brash may also be thinking that if he can game the system so blatantly in this way then the MMP system he so dislikes will be thoroughly discredited. It’s ironic that without an MMP system Brash may never have had a parliamentary career, and that if November’s election were being held under a first-past-the-post system Brash would certainly not be an MP by the end of it.
But if the left also wants to create havoc, then there’s nothing stopping Labour and the Greens from reach a wide-ranging accommodation such as the one Brash proposes.
For example, if the Green Party candidate for Ohariu told people to give their electorate vote to Charles Chauvel, the future would start looking bleak for Peter Dunne.
A deal between Labour and the Greens would also almost certainly deliver Auckland Central back to Labour. Nikki Kaye’s majority is 1497, and the Green Party candidate in 2008 got over 4500 votes.
In my own electorate, Te Atatu, which some regard as being potentially a marginal one (with Chris Carter moving on and with all the grief that went with that), the endorsement of Labour’s Phil Twyford by the Green candidate could be enough to secure the seat for Labour and potentially end Tau Henare’s career. I’m assuming Henare will get a fairly low list ranking, judging from his performances this parliamentary term (on the other hand, any party that can have Paul Quinn as one of its MPs probably isn’t that bothered by mediocrity).
And, of course, if Brash thinks giving the ACT vote to the National candidates in New Plymouth and Waimakariri is a good idea, there’s no reason why Green voters in those same electorates couldn’t do something similar with Labour (although I note the Greens didn’t run a candidate in New Plymouth in 2008. I’m not sure if they will this year).
So trying to game the system could end up biting National.
(Update: I'm told the Greens candidate in Ohariu has already told voters in the electorate to give their candidate vote to Chauvel. This kind of dealmaking may be more widespread than I thought)
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Have A Go Yourself
Ever faithful servant of the dark side David Farrar dutifully reports on a competition for the best anti-MMP advert being run by Peter Shirtcliffe's retirement hobby, Vote for Change.
I may submit this.
I may submit this.
Monday, July 18, 2011
It's Probably Not The Tax Thing
So Labour's support collapsed in the latest political poll because of the capital gains tax announcement.
That's the current wisdom being touted by the so-called experts.
Those who dare to differ are being called denialists, unable to face the cold hard truth about the harsh poll.
Even though the same poll that saw Labour's support slump to 27% showed 47% of those polled supported a CGT.
Polls paint a particular picture on a particular day. A range of polls can show a trend. The trend has been bad for Labour, and anyone who suggests otherwise is fooling themselves. But whereas polls may have something useful to say, much of the punditry around polling is idiotic noise.
(Hat Tip: Dim Post)
That's the current wisdom being touted by the so-called experts.
Those who dare to differ are being called denialists, unable to face the cold hard truth about the harsh poll.
Even though the same poll that saw Labour's support slump to 27% showed 47% of those polled supported a CGT.
Polls paint a particular picture on a particular day. A range of polls can show a trend. The trend has been bad for Labour, and anyone who suggests otherwise is fooling themselves. But whereas polls may have something useful to say, much of the punditry around polling is idiotic noise.
(Hat Tip: Dim Post)
Richard Worth Appointment: The Reaction Worldwide
The news that former National Party MP Richard Worth has been appointed honorary consul of Monaco has sent shockwaves throughout the world.
The unexpected announcement knocked the phone-hacking scandal off the front pages of all the UK’s main dailies, and the British Prime Minister David Cameron called an urgent cabinet meeting to discuss the developing story.
In Canada the news prompted a constitutional crisis, with a no-confidence vote in the House of Commons succeeding against the government of Stephen Harper, after several Conservative MPs crossed the floor to vote with the opposition.
Meanwhile, US President Barack Obama called for calm.
“We will have a better picture of this situation within the next few days,” said President Obama.
“Now, more than ever, we need people to stay calm. We need folks to stay home, make sure they’ve got plenty of food and bottled water, and wait for further information.”
But Obama’s pleas appear to have fallen on deaf ears. In cities throughout the world large crowds have been gathering.
In London’s Trafalgar Square several thousand people have assembled, waving placards and demanding action.
And in Moscow an initially peaceful gathering in the town centre turned violent when police tried to contain the crowd. Police have confirmed that three police officers were killed in the riot that ensued, together with at least a dozen protesters.
Mr Worth’s appointment has also had a profound effect on the uprising in Libya.
Reuters have reported that Muammar Gaddafi and the leaders of the main opposition groups have agreed to the formation of a national unity government, in order to deal with the chaos likely to arise as a result of the appointment
On Wall Street the Dow Jones plunged almost 8% at the news of the appointment, but markets in Europe and Japan were more cautious.
Financial analysts say the move will create uncertainty in financial markets for a few days, but say it is too early to tell whether the appointment will have serious effects.
In New Zealand, where the situation first erupted, officials do not appear to have a situation under control. Officials spoken to did not appear to know who Mr Worth was.
And even though weeks have passed since Mr Worth was made honorary consul, Prime Minister John Key claimed he had not been aware of the appointment.
Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Milton Keynes, Dr Erich von Ribbentrop, wrote in the Times on Sunday that Mr Key’s reaction was typical of someone suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
Key’s treatment would involve massive amounts of therapy and medication, said Dr Ribbentrop.
In New Zealand house prices remained unaffected.
The unexpected announcement knocked the phone-hacking scandal off the front pages of all the UK’s main dailies, and the British Prime Minister David Cameron called an urgent cabinet meeting to discuss the developing story.
In Canada the news prompted a constitutional crisis, with a no-confidence vote in the House of Commons succeeding against the government of Stephen Harper, after several Conservative MPs crossed the floor to vote with the opposition.
Meanwhile, US President Barack Obama called for calm.
“We will have a better picture of this situation within the next few days,” said President Obama.
“Now, more than ever, we need people to stay calm. We need folks to stay home, make sure they’ve got plenty of food and bottled water, and wait for further information.”
But Obama’s pleas appear to have fallen on deaf ears. In cities throughout the world large crowds have been gathering.
In London’s Trafalgar Square several thousand people have assembled, waving placards and demanding action.
And in Moscow an initially peaceful gathering in the town centre turned violent when police tried to contain the crowd. Police have confirmed that three police officers were killed in the riot that ensued, together with at least a dozen protesters.
Mr Worth’s appointment has also had a profound effect on the uprising in Libya.
Reuters have reported that Muammar Gaddafi and the leaders of the main opposition groups have agreed to the formation of a national unity government, in order to deal with the chaos likely to arise as a result of the appointment
On Wall Street the Dow Jones plunged almost 8% at the news of the appointment, but markets in Europe and Japan were more cautious.
Financial analysts say the move will create uncertainty in financial markets for a few days, but say it is too early to tell whether the appointment will have serious effects.
In New Zealand, where the situation first erupted, officials do not appear to have a situation under control. Officials spoken to did not appear to know who Mr Worth was.
And even though weeks have passed since Mr Worth was made honorary consul, Prime Minister John Key claimed he had not been aware of the appointment.
Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Milton Keynes, Dr Erich von Ribbentrop, wrote in the Times on Sunday that Mr Key’s reaction was typical of someone suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
Key’s treatment would involve massive amounts of therapy and medication, said Dr Ribbentrop.
In New Zealand house prices remained unaffected.
Hollow Men II? Not Quite
I know I'm probably another partisan hack, but I could not help but comment on this report by The Herald's Claire Trevett on a scandal that is anything but.
DEMOCRACY UNDER ATTACK!
I'm picking Mallard didn't send a message to stop, because he had no reason to.
What's remarkable about this story is not that Slater made a big deal over nothing (that's his entire blogging career largely summed up), but that the Herald made a story out of something so inconsequential. This is just standard political party organising. They all do it. And there's nothing wrong with any of it.
Labour's Trevor Mallard has been left with a slightly red face after a blogger obtained an email Mr Mallard sent to party campaigners on how to sell the party's new tax policy.Shock horror! Politician encourages activists to promote party policy! And tells them not to get bogged down in detail when trying to explain tax policy to the punters!
In the email posted on Cam Slater's Whaleoil blog, Mr Mallard said the key thing was not to get "dragged down into the detail on the [capital gains tax]. The public don't care and we get boring."
DEMOCRACY UNDER ATTACK!
It was used as ammunition by National yesterday, with associate finance minister Steven Joyce issuing a statement claiming Labour's new policy would add $18.5 billion to debt.Joyce could just as easily be talking about his own figures. Figures which the boy puppet gleefully published, despite their being deeply flawed.
Mr Joyce added it was no wonder Mr Mallard was urging his colleagues not to start explaining the detail: "The fact is they don't stand up to any scrutiny."
Labour tightened its internet security recently after Mr Slater obtained information in databases on the party website which were not well protected.It's pretty easy for someone to forward an email. It won't be necessary for Labour to call in the CSI Computer Crimes Division.
Mr Mallard said yesterday he was not excessively concerned about how Mr Slater - a right-wing blogger - got the email. He said it was sent from a different computer system, was distributed widely and he expected Mr Slater was simply forwarded it at some point.
The email was sent last Friday and also warned Labour campaigners they would face "hiccups" including a TVNZ poll released last night. He said that poll was taken before the details of the policy were released, adding "we want to keep the momentum going as much as is possible".Activists encouraged to tweet, given talking points and imagery to use, and told not to worry about the upcoming political poll. WARNING! LABOUR IS RECRUITING A ROBOT ARMY! HIDE YOUR CHILDREN!
Mr Mallard said to use social media to spread the word and attached an "avatar" - a picture to put on their Facebook and Twitter profiles - to use with "Own our Future" on it.
Mr Mallard also suggested "lines" and told them to re-tweet supportive comments from commentators.
There was a series of tweets on Saturday by Labour MPs claiming to have met people enraptured with the capital gains tax.OMG! LABOUR CANDIDATES USE SOCIAL MEDIA!
Kris Faafoi said "plenty of positive interest in CGT at the bar at Norths Rugby Club!" and Moana Mackey reported: "I can confidently say that thanks to Labour's tax plan if an election were held tonight in Countdown Gisborne we would be Government."
Others included conversations with a taxi driver to Jacinda Ardern meeting a man with five houses "who gave me a long list of reasons why he supports a CGT".
The tweets were fairly silent on the matter yesterday - after the blog went up - but Mr Mallard denied he had sent out a message to halt them.Why would Mallard suddenly tell activists and candidates not to promote Labour policy? In fact the tweets didn't stop yesterday, because I received a number of tweets similar to the one's printed by the Herald.
I'm picking Mallard didn't send a message to stop, because he had no reason to.
What's remarkable about this story is not that Slater made a big deal over nothing (that's his entire blogging career largely summed up), but that the Herald made a story out of something so inconsequential. This is just standard political party organising. They all do it. And there's nothing wrong with any of it.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Invincible!
I actually don't know why the poll is so dire. But I'm reluctant to put it all down to Labour's tax announcement. The poll closed the day before Labour's official policy release, and while the policy was being discussed for days before in the press, I'm not sure how much of it will have been noticed by the average voter.
And if the CGT has voters fleeing Labour, why is it that many of them seem to be leaving Labour for the Greens? The poll seems to indicate that most of the loss to Labour is being picked up by the Greens. That's not ideal from Labour's point of view, but if you have to lose votes to someone it's better that it's a party you intend to work with.
Still, the poll's a bit of a kick in the head for those of us out there doorknocking or delivering pamphlets, but it just means the party activists will have to work even harder.
You certainly meet some different folk when you go doorknocking. Most people are nice, even the people who vote for the Evil Ones. And you never do know what to expect when someone opens the door. A little old lady I spoke to today at one house was incensed by Labour's tax package and spent the next ten minutes berating me about the evils of Maori and Polynesian people. I had not until that moment considered the racial implications of the new tax policy, but I suspect that if I had been selling vacuum cleaners the old dear would have delivered much the same speech to me. I'd have got angry if she hadn't seemed like such a sad and lonely old woman.
But the good thing about knocking on doors is you get the chance to talk to a range of people from all walks of life. It's a good innoculation against the bombast and sneering that passes for political debate in many sections of the blogosphere. So the doorknocking will continue.
I wouldn't throw in the towel just yet over one poll, because only a couple of polls ago Labour was polling in the mid-30s. And I'd wait until the next couple of polls before judging whether what effect Labour's tax package has had.
This is not head-in-sand stuff. It's obvious that the poll isn't good news. But throwing in the towel won't help either, and one day (whether it's after this election or next), Labour will be back in government. So the fight will go on.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Pinocchio was always getting up to mischief, and his unpredictable antics would often drive his patient master crazy. But in one thing he was constant and unswerving: he wanted above all other things to be a real boy.
Pinocchio spent his days at his master's house, helping in his workshop. There wasn't much more a puppet could do. The people of the village had heard about the strange wooden talking creature and were afraid of him, so Geppetto would not let Pinocchio venture into town on his own, in case the villagers tried to hurt him.
Because of this Pinocchio grew lonely. He longed to have friends who would not judge him by his appearances. Now, more than ever, Pinocchio longed to be a real boy.
Geppetto saw how sad his beloved puppet was becoming. He did not know what to do until one day he had an idea.
"We shall get a computer," said Geppetto to Pinocchio. "On the internet you will have many friends."
Geppetto told the puppet that he should set up a blogsite, so he could tell the world what he was thinking and how he was feeling.
"But you must promise to always tell people the truth," Geppetto warned him.
Pinocchio didn't much like the idea of telling the truth. He was a wilful, naughty little puppet, and the thing he loved most of all was to play tricks on people.
So one day, while Geppetto was having his afternoon nap, the little puppet ran away.
After walking for many hours, Pinocchio came to a dark and enchanted wood. He was afraid at first to enter the wood, but he summoned up his courage and followed a little path he found that led through the trees. The puppet didn't know exactly where he was going, but the thing he wanted most of all was an adventure.
The fox and cat were pleased to see him, and they offered him some of their jam sandwiches. The told Pinocchio that they were looking for followers to join their merry band of mischief-makers, and they asked the puppet if he would like to join them.
In the morning Pinocchio asked the fox and cat whether they would mind if he checked his emails and his blog.
The fox and cat smiled at each other and expressed delight that the little puppet was such a whizz on the computer. They asked Pinocchio why he had run away, and he explained to them that the thing he wanted most of all was to be a real boy. He would never achieve his dream while he remained cooped up in his master's workshop.
"You'll never become a real boy if you write such tired stuff," said the fox, winking slyly to the cat as he stared at what Pinocchio was blogging. "Nobody wants to know how a wooden puppet is feeling. You must write about more important matters. The economy, politics and the like."
"But I know nothing about these matters," said Pinocchio.
"Then," suggested the fox, "Just write what I tell you. You will get the hang of it in no time. "
And so the puppet sat down and wrote a long blogpost, just as the fox instructed him. Pinocchio didn't understand much of what he wrote, but even he could tell that some of it was full of naughtiness and mischief.
This pleased Pinocchio terribly. "Can I stay here?" he asked the cat and the fox.
"Certainly
you may," the cat purred.
And
so Pinocchio made his home with the fox and the cat.
Every day Pinocchio would login on their computer and every day they would tell him what to write on his blog. Soon he began to understand more about the naughty and sneaky things the fox and cat asked him to write. Before long he was able to write naughty and sneaky things without needing their help at all. The fox and cat were greatly pleased with their new lodger.
Pretty soon all the people of the land began to follow Pinocchio's blog. The little puppet felt a lot of pressure about what to write, but thankfully whenever he began to struggle for material the fox and cat were always happy to help out.
The
blogsite became so popular that now Pinocchio was being invited to talk
on the radio and to write newspaper columns. Pinocchio sometimes didn't know
what to say or write, but the fox and cat were never far away whenever he struggled.
However, there was one problem with all this punditry Pinocchio was engaged in. Whenever he told a lie or a half-truth his nose would grow a little longer, and the more lies and half-truths he told the longer his nose became. Pinocchio was a wilful and cheeky little puppet, and he could not help but write naughty and misleading things.
This
became something of a problem for the puppet, because his nose kept getting longer and longer. Soon his nose
was so long that he could barely turn his head without knocking over furniture
or breaking a window.
One day a group of people that the fox and cat didn't like very much said a whole lot of very clever things about money. Pinocchio read what the people said and thought that some of it was quite sensible. Pinocchio remembered that he had written something once on his blog suggesting the very same thing.
But the fox and cat summoned Pinocchio and told him that he must speak up against these people.
Every day Pinocchio would login on their computer and every day they would tell him what to write on his blog. Soon he began to understand more about the naughty and sneaky things the fox and cat asked him to write. Before long he was able to write naughty and sneaky things without needing their help at all. The fox and cat were greatly pleased with their new lodger.
Pretty soon all the people of the land began to follow Pinocchio's blog. The little puppet felt a lot of pressure about what to write, but thankfully whenever he began to struggle for material the fox and cat were always happy to help out.
However, there was one problem with all this punditry Pinocchio was engaged in. Whenever he told a lie or a half-truth his nose would grow a little longer, and the more lies and half-truths he told the longer his nose became. Pinocchio was a wilful and cheeky little puppet, and he could not help but write naughty and misleading things.
One day a group of people that the fox and cat didn't like very much said a whole lot of very clever things about money. Pinocchio read what the people said and thought that some of it was quite sensible. Pinocchio remembered that he had written something once on his blog suggesting the very same thing.
But the fox and cat summoned Pinocchio and told him that he must speak up against these people.
"We do not like what they say," hissed the cat. "You are now the most popular blogger in the land. You must write that these people speak bad things."
"But
a lot of what they say is true," Pinocchio replied. He was now beginning
to worry about the length of his nose. How much longer could he allow it to grow?
The fox
gave the puppet a table of numbers and told him to post it on his blog. Pinocchio could see
from the table that it was filled with nonsense. He grinned hugely at the
thought of getting up to more mischief, and soon forgot all about his nose.
Pinocchio posted the table of numbers on his blog, feeling certain that he
would fool everyone and have a jolly good laugh at the same time.
Just
then, without warning, his head lurched forward and he squealed in pain. His
nose was growing again! But this time instead of growing just a fraction more,
like it did every time he posted something mischievous and untrue, it kept getting longer and longer, and longer! The end of his nose burst through the wall of the house of the fox and cat, flew through the hedge and disappeared into the forest. Pinocchio's nose did not stop growing until the tip reached the village square over a mile away.
The people of the village were alarmed to see a giant wooden nose bisecting their town, and they began to gather in the village square to discuss the matter. Some people said it was all the doing of the dastardly cat and no-good fox who lived in the wood. Others said it was time to go and burn down the house of those troublesome animals. Before long a mob of villagers had gathered with firebrands and pitchforks. They followed Pinocchio's nose until they reached the house of the fox and cat.
Meanwhile, Pinocchio began to cry and sob at the ridiculous sight of his nose growing longer and longer, and now he regretted all of the silly things he had written. The cat and fox did not appear alarmed and told Pinocchio not to worry, because a puppet with a nose as long as Pinocchio's was bound to attract only positive attention and popularity. But the little puppet was no longer fooled and complained that all he had ever wanted was to be a real boy, and that all this internet nonsense had left him looking like a fool.
The fox and cat grew very cross and resolved to punish Pinocchio, but before they could do so there was a crashing noise outside the house. The cat sniffed and said "I
smell smoke!"
The
house was on fire! The cat and fox bolted out the door, right into the arms of
the furious villagers, who dashed their brains out with heavy clubs and and
hung their bodies up on meathooks.
The village folk then turned their attention towards Pinocchio, but instead of feeling pity for the poor puppet with the long nose they felt only hatred and anger. The villagers made a huge bonfire and then grabbed Pinocchio roughly, dragging the wooden puppet out of the house and towards the flames.
"Stop this at once!" a voice cried. It was Geppetto, the kindly old man who had given life to Pinocchio.
The puppet wept with joy to hear his master's voice. "I am saved!" he cried. He turned to see his master, who was pushing people aside to get closer to the puppet.
"You may continue!" Geppetto told the villagers, "I can see now." The old was at the very front of the mob.
Pinocchio's timbers were so full of rot and disease that he went up like a fireball the moment he was flung onto the bonfire.
"This is the worst storybook ending ever!" were Pinocchio's last words as the flames consumed him.
The village folk then turned their attention towards Pinocchio, but instead of feeling pity for the poor puppet with the long nose they felt only hatred and anger. The villagers made a huge bonfire and then grabbed Pinocchio roughly, dragging the wooden puppet out of the house and towards the flames.
"Stop this at once!" a voice cried. It was Geppetto, the kindly old man who had given life to Pinocchio.
The puppet wept with joy to hear his master's voice. "I am saved!" he cried. He turned to see his master, who was pushing people aside to get closer to the puppet.
"You may continue!" Geppetto told the villagers, "I can see now." The old was at the very front of the mob.
Pinocchio's timbers were so full of rot and disease that he went up like a fireball the moment he was flung onto the bonfire.
"This is the worst storybook ending ever!" were Pinocchio's last words as the flames consumed him.
THE
END
Friday, July 15, 2011
Helping You Leave The Country Faster
For those of you who are so horrified of Labour’s tax plans that they’re thinking of emigrating, allow me to assist.
Air New Zealand and Qantas will get you to a lot of places. Just make sure you have your credit card handy when you go online.
Click here for a reliable taxi company to get you to the airport if you’re in Auckland, or here if you’re in Wellington.
You’ll also need a good shipping company to handle all your belongings. Here and here are a couple of suggestions.
You’ll be wanting to go to an OECD country that doesn’t have capital gains taxes. So here is a link to immigration information for Turkey. You could also try Switzerland, but I suspect that unless you’re totally loaded and already have millions stashed there, they won’t want you.
If you decide to settle in Turkey you’ll be needing this book. I’m told Turkish isn’t the hardest language in the world to learn, but you’d better start practising now.
There’s a sizeable Christian population in Turkey, but if you really want to get ahead there and rise to the top of the heap (I know how ambitious you are) I recommend you convert to Islam. Take a Koran to read on the plane.
You may find that people adopt an unsympathetic manner when you tell them you’re off because you’ve had enough of being looted by the government. There’s only one way you can be sure there won't not a dry eye in the airport as you depart. Throw a few tear gas cannisters in the airport departure area*.
Unfortunately, I can’t help you with that.
* Disclaimer: no, really, don't do that.
Air New Zealand and Qantas will get you to a lot of places. Just make sure you have your credit card handy when you go online.
Click here for a reliable taxi company to get you to the airport if you’re in Auckland, or here if you’re in Wellington.
You’ll also need a good shipping company to handle all your belongings. Here and here are a couple of suggestions.
You’ll be wanting to go to an OECD country that doesn’t have capital gains taxes. So here is a link to immigration information for Turkey. You could also try Switzerland, but I suspect that unless you’re totally loaded and already have millions stashed there, they won’t want you.
If you decide to settle in Turkey you’ll be needing this book. I’m told Turkish isn’t the hardest language in the world to learn, but you’d better start practising now.
There’s a sizeable Christian population in Turkey, but if you really want to get ahead there and rise to the top of the heap (I know how ambitious you are) I recommend you convert to Islam. Take a Koran to read on the plane.
You may find that people adopt an unsympathetic manner when you tell them you’re off because you’ve had enough of being looted by the government. There’s only one way you can be sure there won't not a dry eye in the airport as you depart. Throw a few tear gas cannisters in the airport departure area*.
Unfortunately, I can’t help you with that.
* Disclaimer: no, really, don't do that.
Most People Better Off Under Tax Changes
In the wake of Labour's tax announcement, people are lining up to whine about how terrible the increase in the top tax rate will be if Labour wins the election.
We're being told that people forced to pay more tax will move to Australia ... where they will pay even more tax.
We may also ask the question why these same people didn't move to Australia during the last Labour government, when the amount of income tax people on high incomes paid was even greater than it will be under the next Labour government.
Nobody likes paying tax, but sensible people accept that without a tax system we wouldn't have roads, public hospitals and other important community amenities.
The same people whining about the increase in the top tax rate will still be better off than they were a few years ago, when the top tax rate kicked in at $70,000. So they really should stop complaining.
It is also important to realise that not everyone who will pay more tax is complaining, or even thinks it is a bad thing. Many people who earn top dollar are more than happy to pay their fair share.
Moreover, those negatively affected represent only about 2% of the population. The vast majority of wage and salary earners will in fact be better off under the tax policy, thanks to the $5000 tax-free threshold.
We're being told that people forced to pay more tax will move to Australia ... where they will pay even more tax.
We may also ask the question why these same people didn't move to Australia during the last Labour government, when the amount of income tax people on high incomes paid was even greater than it will be under the next Labour government.
Nobody likes paying tax, but sensible people accept that without a tax system we wouldn't have roads, public hospitals and other important community amenities.
The same people whining about the increase in the top tax rate will still be better off than they were a few years ago, when the top tax rate kicked in at $70,000. So they really should stop complaining.
It is also important to realise that not everyone who will pay more tax is complaining, or even thinks it is a bad thing. Many people who earn top dollar are more than happy to pay their fair share.
Moreover, those negatively affected represent only about 2% of the population. The vast majority of wage and salary earners will in fact be better off under the tax policy, thanks to the $5000 tax-free threshold.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Why Capital Gains Taxes Will Kill Us All
John Key has told the nation that a capital gains tax would be a dagger through the heart, would destroy the economy, and would send us screaming backwards. But he’s only telling part of the story.
But it’s much, much worse than that. Here are some other facts John Key should have told you.
But it’s much, much worse than that. Here are some other facts John Key should have told you.
Australia has a capital gains tax. Australia was also once a penal colony. Is that the kind of future we want for our kids?
Countries like the US and UK have capital gains taxes too. They also have nuclear weapons. We’re a committed nuclear-free country, so how would that even work?
The CGT has been hanging out in the wrong crowd. It’s had numerous run-ins with the police and is on a fast spiral downwards. It’s only a matter of time before it ends up either dead or in prison. Some future, huh?
It’s a little known fact that Jesus was crucified because he opposed the imposition of capital gains taxes by the Roman governor Pontius Pilate. Jesus famously said, “What shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses value from the sale of his property?” (Sharon, 6.2), and “blessed are those who buy and sell real estate, for they shall receive untold tax-free wealth” (Hamiltonians, 14.7-9). Pilate nailed him up for his fiscal heroism.
Capital gains taxes caused the Christchurch earthquakes. This is more of a hunch than an established fact, but just remember in two years time when I’m proven right that I called it first.
Consider this statement.
Adolf Hitler lived in Berlin, the German capital. He gained power in the 1930s. The taxes imposed by his regime were used to rebuild and rearm the German war machine to the detriment of many other areas of the economy. This continued for many years, until the Nazis finally lost power in 1945.Do you find that as chilling as I do?
The CGT is going to break into your house and murder you in your sleep, before rummaging through your drawers and stealing all your underwear. How do I know this? Well even if I can’t be absolutely certain, are you willing to take the risk that I might be right?Still think John Key is scaremongering?
 |
| The 90% of New Zealanders who don't trade shares or own a second property suddenly wake up to the horror of a capital gains tax |
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
The Macaque Monkey And The Copyright Conundrum
You may have seen some photos recently published in papers around the world. A black macacque monkey snatched a camera and took some delightful self-portraits.
But as the excellent 1709 Blog reveals, the photographs have got copyright experts excited. Why? Because it's not entirely clear who owns the copyright in the photographs. Does the monkey? The camera's owner? Does anyone?
The matter is complicated by the fact that it's not clear which country's copyright laws apply. It is possible that Indonesian copyright law applies, because the photos were created in Indonesia. However, UK law may apply, as the camera owner is British, as is the company now claiming ownership. Issues of which country's copyright law applies can get quite complicated in these sorts of situations.
But it's pretty clear that Ms Monkey misses out, because monkeys aren't "persons", so can't hold copyright.
The camera owner, David Slater, didn't create the image, nor did he pose the picture or set the camera up. All the work was done by the monkey. Surely, then, neither Slater nor anyone else claiming to derive title from him can legitimately say they own the copyright.
It appears that Slater transferred whatever rights he did have in the images (arguably none!) to Caters News Agency, perhaps in the hope that the legal principle known as nemo dat quod non habet ("no-one can give what they don't have") might somehow not apply in this case. Caters has since issued a takedown request to Techdirt over that site's use of the images, even though Caters appeared unable to explain on what basis it can claim to own any copyright. Caters' reasoning appears to be "well someone must own the copyright, and it's not you, so either way you can't use the images". That ignores the rather obvious problem that if you don't own the copyright in a work you don't get to complain how someone else uses the work.
There's also a whole pile of fair use arguments Techdirt could use under US copyright law if Caters really got serious and decided to litigate. I would love it if Caters did sue, if only to see how a court tried to handle the whole ownership issue.
It seems likely that in fact nobody owns the copyright and that the photos are in the public domain. Certainly in respect of UK law, that is the conclusion of the 1709 Blog author.
This fact emboldens me to publish the cutest of the pics.
But as the excellent 1709 Blog reveals, the photographs have got copyright experts excited. Why? Because it's not entirely clear who owns the copyright in the photographs. Does the monkey? The camera's owner? Does anyone?
The matter is complicated by the fact that it's not clear which country's copyright laws apply. It is possible that Indonesian copyright law applies, because the photos were created in Indonesia. However, UK law may apply, as the camera owner is British, as is the company now claiming ownership. Issues of which country's copyright law applies can get quite complicated in these sorts of situations.
But it's pretty clear that Ms Monkey misses out, because monkeys aren't "persons", so can't hold copyright.
The camera owner, David Slater, didn't create the image, nor did he pose the picture or set the camera up. All the work was done by the monkey. Surely, then, neither Slater nor anyone else claiming to derive title from him can legitimately say they own the copyright.
It appears that Slater transferred whatever rights he did have in the images (arguably none!) to Caters News Agency, perhaps in the hope that the legal principle known as nemo dat quod non habet ("no-one can give what they don't have") might somehow not apply in this case. Caters has since issued a takedown request to Techdirt over that site's use of the images, even though Caters appeared unable to explain on what basis it can claim to own any copyright. Caters' reasoning appears to be "well someone must own the copyright, and it's not you, so either way you can't use the images". That ignores the rather obvious problem that if you don't own the copyright in a work you don't get to complain how someone else uses the work.
There's also a whole pile of fair use arguments Techdirt could use under US copyright law if Caters really got serious and decided to litigate. I would love it if Caters did sue, if only to see how a court tried to handle the whole ownership issue.
It seems likely that in fact nobody owns the copyright and that the photos are in the public domain. Certainly in respect of UK law, that is the conclusion of the 1709 Blog author.
This fact emboldens me to publish the cutest of the pics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)