Every time I hear Rod Oram talk he comes across as wise and knowledgeable. He's a business journalist and newspaper columnist, but he appears to have an intelligent opinion on everything. For example, this morning he sounded more like a town planning expert as he critiqued the new Christchurch CBD plan on Kathryn Ryan's Nine to Noon Show.
It's clear that Rod Oram knows everything. There is no subject on which he is not the leading expert.
I hope Rod Oram never decides to give legal advice in my area of practice, because if I were to draft the most complex and clever patent licence agreement, including royalty stacking provisions, multiple fields of use and multiple territories, Rod Oram would probably demolish the whole thing in five minutes.
Rod Oram might be the solution to the Black Caps' shaky batting top order. If he's not prepared to put his body on the line, he'll certainly have the coaching nous to sort our boys out.
Rod Oram should be banned from Sky City, because he would beat the house every time.
Marriage problems? Talk to Rod, because he probably knows what you need to do to fix them. Or, if your problems are bedroom ones, Rod Oram can fix those too.
Always make sure Rod Oram is in your quiz team, and not your opponent's.
When Rod Oram finishes with opining on other important and weighty matters, he'll probably knock off the cure for cancer in an afternoon.
There would be no war, famine or poverty if people put Rod Oram in charge of things. CERA, the civil service, central government, the UN and the Church, for starters.
Rod Oram knows the moustache is about to come back into fashion. He's ahead of the crowd on that issue too.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Monday, July 30, 2012
Generous Donors Open Wallets For Struggling Broadcaster
Paul Henry says he feels “humbled”, after a series of charity events raised thousands of dollars for the struggling broadcaster.
News that the Ten Network in Australia was considering axing his low-rating Breakfast show, has led to messages of sympathy and support for Mr Henry from all around the world.
Although Henry’s job is safe for now, industry insiders say his breakfast TV career across the ditch is ultimately doomed.
The show’s ratings are an unmitigated disaster, and rumours of tensions between Henry and his co-hosts refuse to go away.
Friends of Mr Henry are concerned that although his salary package is vastly larger than the average broadcaster’s wage, the cancellation of his Breakfast show would force him to scale back on plans to acquire further inner city villas, expensive cars, and fine wine.
Both ASB Bank and ANZ came to the party as soon as Henry’s troubles were made public. ANZ has opened a bank account for donations, and ASB has established the Paul Henry Trust to help Henry’s family pay their private school fees and other day-to-day bills.
Henry’s plight has touched many hearts around the world, with many moved by his efforts to raise awareness of issues of race and tolerance.
Indian community group leaders were quick to seek donations from their members when they heard of his difficulties, and in India where the broadcaster is a household name there were street collections for him. One collection among the beggars of Kolkata raised several thousand rupees.
Paul Henry took time out of his busy day today to tell reporters how flattered he was to be the subject of so much generosity.
“I can honestly say I feel completely humbled,” said Mr Henry. “It doesn’t happen all that often.”
Many prominent community leaders have spoken up in support of the broadcaster.
“Henry has given so much to both New Zealand and Australia,” said Paul Henry Trust chairwoman, Stephanie Mills.
“His contribution to the national discourse on issues of tolerance, understanding and enlightenment has been immense, and we wish him well. Who could possibly derive any sort of pleasure at the destruction of such a prominent broadcasting career?”
News that the Ten Network in Australia was considering axing his low-rating Breakfast show, has led to messages of sympathy and support for Mr Henry from all around the world.
Although Henry’s job is safe for now, industry insiders say his breakfast TV career across the ditch is ultimately doomed.
The show’s ratings are an unmitigated disaster, and rumours of tensions between Henry and his co-hosts refuse to go away.
Friends of Mr Henry are concerned that although his salary package is vastly larger than the average broadcaster’s wage, the cancellation of his Breakfast show would force him to scale back on plans to acquire further inner city villas, expensive cars, and fine wine.
Both ASB Bank and ANZ came to the party as soon as Henry’s troubles were made public. ANZ has opened a bank account for donations, and ASB has established the Paul Henry Trust to help Henry’s family pay their private school fees and other day-to-day bills.
Henry’s plight has touched many hearts around the world, with many moved by his efforts to raise awareness of issues of race and tolerance.
Indian community group leaders were quick to seek donations from their members when they heard of his difficulties, and in India where the broadcaster is a household name there were street collections for him. One collection among the beggars of Kolkata raised several thousand rupees.
Paul Henry took time out of his busy day today to tell reporters how flattered he was to be the subject of so much generosity.
“I can honestly say I feel completely humbled,” said Mr Henry. “It doesn’t happen all that often.”
Many prominent community leaders have spoken up in support of the broadcaster.
“Henry has given so much to both New Zealand and Australia,” said Paul Henry Trust chairwoman, Stephanie Mills.
“His contribution to the national discourse on issues of tolerance, understanding and enlightenment has been immense, and we wish him well. Who could possibly derive any sort of pleasure at the destruction of such a prominent broadcasting career?”
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Family First Supports Marriage Equality
Another controversy put to rest, thanks to my diligent efforts.
Family First has issued a snapshot listing 21 reasons why marriage matters.
For example:
Family First has issued a snapshot listing 21 reasons why marriage matters.
For example:
- Married men earn more money than do single men with similar education and job histories.
- Married people, especially married men, have longer life expectancies than do otherwise similar singles.
- Marriage is associated with better health and lower rates of injury, illness, and disability for both men and women.
So the more people that marry the better!
Even if we put aside those of the 21 reasons that apply only to children (and if we let gay couples adopt, many of those reasons would be valid), Family First's own arguments show that any marriage is better than no marriage.
Even if we put aside those of the 21 reasons that apply only to children (and if we let gay couples adopt, many of those reasons would be valid), Family First's own arguments show that any marriage is better than no marriage.
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Hamilton 2024: Our Olympics Bid
One City…One Event… One Opportunity.
The iconic Waikato River weaves its way dreamily through this picturesque city of gardens and chlamydia, and visitors often remark that they would almost certainly dive into its waters, were it not for the dairy run-off making the river too polluted for swimming.
 |
| The stunning view from Garden Place |
A lively fast-food scene means there will always be something available to athletes training late and wanting that late night pie or burger fix.
There are a number of 24 hour service stations throughout the city, making Hamilton one of the most convenient spots for officials to get their late night cigarettes.
The city is well-served with a range of public toilet options, or, if you’re about your business and get caught short, try urinating all over the footpath or on the nearest wall. The locals really won’t mind: they’re used to it.
We have some lovely gardens, some statues, and a few bridges. If you are a nature lover we also have a range of trees. Olympic athletes looking to unwind will enjoy a relaxing walk along the river, while those looking to party won’t be disappointed. Hamilton has some of the best bars and restaurants in the Waikato region, and if you can avoid the pools of urine and vomit on the footpaths, Victoria Street is the place to be on a Saturday night.
The city streets are safer than they have ever been, after a crackdown on alcohol-related stabbings, and we are optimistic that the award to Hamilton of the 2024 Olympics would engender a sense of civic pride and self-worth among our menfolk, and reduce the high levels of violence against local women.
We are ready
The Hamilton 2024 bid is so compelling, because we already have most of the necessary facilities and infrastructure.
 |
| The majestic Waikato Stadium |
- Waikato Stadium already fits 25,000 people. With the some temporary seating we can boost the capacity of the ground to 30,000.
- Hamilton’s warm summer climate means we will not need to build an expensive indoor pool complex. We will just rope off part of Hamilton Lake and clear the weed and algae away.
- Although not a traditional running track, the rugby turf on Waikato stadium has been the venue for some top performances, with speedy wingers enjoying what the ground has to offer. The ground does not usually cut up too much, unless there has been rain or a recent rugby game. Athletes will just need to remember to wear sprigs.
- We have pencil-booked a community hall for the gymnastics, badminton and table tennis.
- There are some public tennis courts available for use, if we can’t arrange access to the courts of one of the local clubs.
- The Waikato region has some of the best fencers in the world, thanks to our lush green pastures and soft soils. We have no shortage of land for fencing!
- We already have an athletes’ games village all but ready to go. We just need to evict the university students from their halls of residence. It will also mean fumigating every room and scrubbing the semen stains from all the mattresses, but it will still be cheaper than building a whole new village.
- Our bus service is quite good. Usually if your bus doesn’t come you just need to wait half an hour for the next one. Or call a taxi.
- We have roads too!
We make no secret of the fact that some smaller sports may have to be axed, such as canoeing, cycling, archery, basketball, hockey, weightlifting, pentathlon, triathlon, shooting, handball, wrestling, football, and track and field, but 2024 would be the perfect year to introduce some new sports. This could be the year sheep-shearing finally achieves the international popularity it deserves.
We are a tourism centre
Hamilton is one of New Zealand’s most popular tourist destinations, and is well set up to accommodate visitors. We have over nine hundred motel and hotel beds, and our efforts to stamp out noxious diseases are well advanced.
We love adventure
Tourists tell us they come to Hamilton because of its reputation as the adventure capital of the lower part of the upper North Island.
Whether it’s avoiding having a broken bottle rubbed into your face, or taking a gamble with catching a sexually-transmitted disease, every kind of daredevil activity is catered for in Hamilton.
We love our sport
Granting Hamilton Olympic hosting rights makes sense, because Hamiltonians love their sport. Boxing and other fighting disciplines are well catered for in Hamilton, with impromptu fights breaking out every few minutes in the city streets on a Friday or Saturday night. Street racing is a favourite pastime, as is the sport of throwing bottles as passers-by.
But rugby is the real passion in these parts. Most Chiefs games are at least half-full, and if we schedule Olympic events in the Waikato Stadium immediately after big rugby matches, we believe a good number of the crowd will stay to watch.
Listen to the people
We know we’re the greatest little city in the Waikato region, and we’re probably somewhere in the top 20 nationwide.
But don’t take our word for it. Here’s what others are saying.
“The Hamilton Information Centre was quite useful.” Jurgen Hoffman, Hamburg, Germany
“Our motel room was comfortable, and the toilets were clean. The gardens are very pretty, and although we stayed only one night and had to leave early in the morning, I would like to have stayed for another hour or so.” Bevan McLean, Leeds, United Kingdom
“It’s a pity the art gallery was closed when we visited, because it looked like it might have been worth a visit.” Maria Derutti, Melbourne, Australia
"Good roads” David Zamburger, Chicago, United States
“I have travelled all around the world, and seen dozens of different cities, and I can honestly say that Hamilton was one of them.” Lee Figwater, Capetown, South Africa
Hamilton will be the only place to be in 2024
Why would you want to be anywhere other than in your seat at the Waikato Stadium as the 2024 Olympics opening ceremony begins, and as Cold Chisel’s Forever Now blasts over the stadium sound system?
We don’t want to spoil the mystery and wonder that is an opening ceremony, but we can confirm that we have already booked the New Zealand Army Band, two bagpipe bands, the cheerleaders, the Feelers, and the hot dog van.
We are ready to party!
2024 WILL BE THE YEAR OF THE TRON!
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Same-Sex Marriage Bill Threat To Civilisation
Authorities and financial institutions are preparing for trouble, after a bill seeking to legalise same-sex marriage was drawn from Parliament's Members Bill Ballot.
Early indications that the bill will have sufficient support to pass into law have led to panic on the financial markets, as financial institutions anticipate a flood of people trying desperately to close their bank accounts or cash in their investments.
The price of an ounce of gold has already risen by 20%, as investors look for safe places to put their money.
This panic is being fuelled by the certainty that making it legal for some people who love each other to get married will result in the downfall of civilisation, as people who are already engaging in homosexual activity continue to do so.
Even more worrying to authorities is the certainty that allowing gay people to have the same rights as heterosexual people will open the floodgates to demands by others determined to marry.
The government has contingency plans under way to deal with any potential trouble, in case the loosening of marriage laws encourages people to abandon all morality and self-restraint and attempt to form marital relationships with everyone and everything within their line of sight, including their siblings, family pets, the dead, trees, and letterboxes.
The possibility that motorists will attempt to marry their vehicles as soon as they hear news that the bill has passed into law, has traffic authorities deeply concerned about potential gridlock on key arterial routes.
The police have commenced training of a dedicated unit to deal with the likelihood of large groups spontaneously forming and demanding to enter into three-way or five-way marriages with their children or pet hamsters.
Civil Defence are recommending that people check their disaster survival kits, as the downfall of civilisation is likely to be preceded by power outages and interruptions to some essential services.
Experts are also concerned that the passing of legislation giving people in long-term loving relationships equal rights to heterosexual couples, will cause tremendous damage to those who make your business their business.
"We should not underestimate the potential psychological harm to someone who thinks it is of critical importance to determine who you can marry," said clinical psychologist Dr Marian Werbliech.
Church groups have also denounced the gay marriage bill, arguing that the Bible defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.
The Bible also requires the stoning to death of any woman who is found not to be a virgin on her wedding night, but it remains unclear whether church groups will use this occasion to also advocate the killing of non-virgins, as their Bible requires them to.
Update: A leaked memo purporting to be from the lobby group SHAG (Sinister Homosexual Agenda Group) appears to confirm that the gay movement's plans go well beyond securing same-sex marriage rights.
Early indications that the bill will have sufficient support to pass into law have led to panic on the financial markets, as financial institutions anticipate a flood of people trying desperately to close their bank accounts or cash in their investments.
The price of an ounce of gold has already risen by 20%, as investors look for safe places to put their money.
This panic is being fuelled by the certainty that making it legal for some people who love each other to get married will result in the downfall of civilisation, as people who are already engaging in homosexual activity continue to do so.
Even more worrying to authorities is the certainty that allowing gay people to have the same rights as heterosexual people will open the floodgates to demands by others determined to marry.
The government has contingency plans under way to deal with any potential trouble, in case the loosening of marriage laws encourages people to abandon all morality and self-restraint and attempt to form marital relationships with everyone and everything within their line of sight, including their siblings, family pets, the dead, trees, and letterboxes.
The possibility that motorists will attempt to marry their vehicles as soon as they hear news that the bill has passed into law, has traffic authorities deeply concerned about potential gridlock on key arterial routes.
The police have commenced training of a dedicated unit to deal with the likelihood of large groups spontaneously forming and demanding to enter into three-way or five-way marriages with their children or pet hamsters.
Civil Defence are recommending that people check their disaster survival kits, as the downfall of civilisation is likely to be preceded by power outages and interruptions to some essential services.
Experts are also concerned that the passing of legislation giving people in long-term loving relationships equal rights to heterosexual couples, will cause tremendous damage to those who make your business their business.
"We should not underestimate the potential psychological harm to someone who thinks it is of critical importance to determine who you can marry," said clinical psychologist Dr Marian Werbliech.
"These subjects are likely to become confused and distressed if their prejudices are questioned. This confusion typically manifests itself in a denunciation by the sufferer of all forms of social engineering, which at its essence is an expression of profound self-doubt, since our current marriage laws are the very epitome of social engineering.
"This debilitating condition typically renders the sufferer unable to form rational conversations around certain trigger subjects, such as gay marriage."
Church groups have also denounced the gay marriage bill, arguing that the Bible defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.
The Bible also requires the stoning to death of any woman who is found not to be a virgin on her wedding night, but it remains unclear whether church groups will use this occasion to also advocate the killing of non-virgins, as their Bible requires them to.
Update: A leaked memo purporting to be from the lobby group SHAG (Sinister Homosexual Agenda Group) appears to confirm that the gay movement's plans go well beyond securing same-sex marriage rights.
The memo reveals plans for homosexuality to become mandatory in our secondary schools, an all-gay navy and police force, marriage with family pets to be legalised, and the national anthem God Defend New Zealand to be replaced with an Abba medley.
A spokesperson from SHAG was unavailable for comment, due to all of the organisation's members being occupied in a mass orgy of such depravity that mere words cannot do justice to the horror.
A spokesperson from SHAG was unavailable for comment, due to all of the organisation's members being occupied in a mass orgy of such depravity that mere words cannot do justice to the horror.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
What's He Up To?
Only a few weeks ago he was the enemy, a despicable monster who had turned his back on the people of New Zealand.
Now he’s being portrayed as a hero, ensuring that two progressive pieces of legislation will go to a second reading in Parliament.
Peter Dunne may be up to something. He claims he has been consistent and clear at all times about his voting intentions, but that’s just the sort of trickery a villain like Dunne would resort to when cornered. It may be the truth, but bad guys have no business being truthful. Otherwise, how would we know who the bad guys were?
I suspect Dunne, being a cunning and evil stooge of this National government, has spotted some secret flaws with the paid parental leave and “Monday-isation” bills, and is intending to use them to deprive the hard-working people of New Zealand of their hard-earned assets and liberties. It could be a clause that the lawyers forgot to take out, or maybe something written in really small font, but you can be sure it will result in catastrophe and misery for the nation. Because Peter Dunne’s a bad guy. Remember?
Alternatively, he’s been misrepresented and misunderstood, and maybe does have some kind of social conscience, however misguided his views on asset sales may seem to most people.
But, no, that can’t be right. I don’t like my villains to have consciences.
Now he’s being portrayed as a hero, ensuring that two progressive pieces of legislation will go to a second reading in Parliament.
Peter Dunne may be up to something. He claims he has been consistent and clear at all times about his voting intentions, but that’s just the sort of trickery a villain like Dunne would resort to when cornered. It may be the truth, but bad guys have no business being truthful. Otherwise, how would we know who the bad guys were?
I suspect Dunne, being a cunning and evil stooge of this National government, has spotted some secret flaws with the paid parental leave and “Monday-isation” bills, and is intending to use them to deprive the hard-working people of New Zealand of their hard-earned assets and liberties. It could be a clause that the lawyers forgot to take out, or maybe something written in really small font, but you can be sure it will result in catastrophe and misery for the nation. Because Peter Dunne’s a bad guy. Remember?
Alternatively, he’s been misrepresented and misunderstood, and maybe does have some kind of social conscience, however misguided his views on asset sales may seem to most people.
But, no, that can’t be right. I don’t like my villains to have consciences.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Playing The Man
There are so many reasons to dislike Brownlee without resorting to cheap-shots about his weight, and I'm not actually going to make any fat jokes, because the very thought of using someone's weight as a weapon against them fills me with dismay.
But I can't control what my followers decide to post in the comments thread following this blogpost.
So now's your chance to play the man, not the ball. Fill me with some dismay, people!
Monday, July 23, 2012
Make It A Day To Remember
The internet is filled with disagreeable people. People whose opinions I have difficulty respecting, because those opinions are so offensive to reason.
However, I've always tried to engage sensibly with those views I disagree with. I have always believed that changing minds through intelligent discourse is more productive than shouting at people.
And yet the internet continues to be swamped with people who just don't get it. My calm and reasonable approach to resolving disagreements doesn't seem to be making a dent in the number of people who are misguided and deluded.
However, I've always tried to engage sensibly with those views I disagree with. I have always believed that changing minds through intelligent discourse is more productive than shouting at people.
And yet the internet continues to be swamped with people who just don't get it. My calm and reasonable approach to resolving disagreements doesn't seem to be making a dent in the number of people who are misguided and deluded.
So I must be doing something wrong.
We all have our particular prejudices, biases and aversions, many of which are irrational, not to mention damaging. But they are what make us who we are. I have lived with my particular bundle of prejudices for many years, and the task of analysing and questioning this collection of feelings and inclinations has left me feeling confused and uncertain. Being cognisant of one's irrational likes and dislikes has not made me a millionaire or a TV star, so I can only conclude that all this education has been so much humbug.
Maybe if we all just shouted a bit more, and reasoned a bit less, we'd drown out the noise of people attempting to make sound evidence-based arguments, and life would go back to being much simpler. It has to be worth a go.
So from now on I'm going to compare everyone I disagree with to Hitler.
It's a small step, but my hope is that others will follow my example. I know there is already a brave but small group out there on the internet dedicated to finding analogies to Hitler in everything their enemies do or say, but these brave people need more recognition if their good work is not to go to waste. That's why I propose we dedicate a special day in our calendar to mark their efforts.
We all have our particular prejudices, biases and aversions, many of which are irrational, not to mention damaging. But they are what make us who we are. I have lived with my particular bundle of prejudices for many years, and the task of analysing and questioning this collection of feelings and inclinations has left me feeling confused and uncertain. Being cognisant of one's irrational likes and dislikes has not made me a millionaire or a TV star, so I can only conclude that all this education has been so much humbug.
Maybe if we all just shouted a bit more, and reasoned a bit less, we'd drown out the noise of people attempting to make sound evidence-based arguments, and life would go back to being much simpler. It has to be worth a go.
So from now on I'm going to compare everyone I disagree with to Hitler.
It's a small step, but my hope is that others will follow my example. I know there is already a brave but small group out there on the internet dedicated to finding analogies to Hitler in everything their enemies do or say, but these brave people need more recognition if their good work is not to go to waste. That's why I propose we dedicate a special day in our calendar to mark their efforts.
Please join with me in celebrating the first International Comparing People I Disagree With To Hitler Day.
Whose Planet Is This?
I see that Bill English has been talking about Planet Labour. It sounds like a terrible place. Imagine a place with a stagnant economy; led by a government that is anti-growth, doesn't have any plan, and is not prepared to make the tough decisions needed to ensure the future prosperity of its people; where most people struggle to get ahead; and where those who aspire for better things are probably thinking of leaving.
What a nightmare. If only it weren't real.
So tell me, how can Planet Labour be any worse?
What a nightmare. If only it weren't real.
So tell me, how can Planet Labour be any worse?
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Apiata Decides To Spend Less Time Killing People
Victoria Cross holder Willie Apiata today confirmed he would take a break from the SAS in order to focus on not killing people.
Apiata will work with the youth charity High Wire, an Auckland outdoor pursuits organisation that helps at-risk children and does not kill people.
His role will involve mentoring children, teaching them life skills, and not killing anyone.
Apiata's military career spanned 23 years, and although he was trained to kill people from very early in his career, it was only during his SAS career that he became an expert in the killing of other people.
It is believed that Apiata has a partner and young child. While Apiata could have pursued a high paying role in hotspots like Iraq, it is understood that he wants to spend more time with his family and less time killing people.
A source on the celebrity speaking circuit said that Apiata's reputation for killing people meant he could command lucrative appearance fees at corporate functions.
However, such a career seems unlikely for a man who prefers to let his bullets do the talking.
Apiata will remain a reserve member of the SAS, but will be available for active service in the event more people need to be killed.
Apiata will work with the youth charity High Wire, an Auckland outdoor pursuits organisation that helps at-risk children and does not kill people.
His role will involve mentoring children, teaching them life skills, and not killing anyone.
Apiata's military career spanned 23 years, and although he was trained to kill people from very early in his career, it was only during his SAS career that he became an expert in the killing of other people.
It is believed that Apiata has a partner and young child. While Apiata could have pursued a high paying role in hotspots like Iraq, it is understood that he wants to spend more time with his family and less time killing people.
A source on the celebrity speaking circuit said that Apiata's reputation for killing people meant he could command lucrative appearance fees at corporate functions.
However, such a career seems unlikely for a man who prefers to let his bullets do the talking.
Apiata will remain a reserve member of the SAS, but will be available for active service in the event more people need to be killed.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Treasury Report To Prime Minister On Meteorite Activities
This report has been prepared for the purposes of verifying the Prime Minister's statement on Tuesday 17 July 2012 that it was unlikely a meteorite would hit the earth that afternoon.
Having comprehensively reviewed a number of economics journals that we agree with, we can find no evidence that a meteorite struck the Earth on the afternoon of Tuesday 17 July 2012.
We did not review any of the information provided by NASA or other scientific bodies interested in the study of meteorological activity, in order to ensure our economic modelling was not polluted with unnecessary and inconvenient facts.
There is no lack of commentary on matters relating to meteorites, but unfortunately most commentators lack training in the science of economics. Ironically, many of these commentators describe themselves as "scientists". A number of these "scientists" have claimed that the vast majority of meteorites are minuscule, and that it would be almost impossible to detect the average meteorite strike. If this were true, it would render our predictions all but worthless.
However, none of these commentators have had papers published in reputable, peer-reviewed economics journals. We have accordingly disregarded all of this commentary in favour of more robust economic models.
It is our considered view that the possibility of a future meteorite strike cannot be discounted, and that the Government's moves to push ahead with the implementation of economic reforms will reduce the barriers to entry for most heavenly objects.
This should not be grounds for concern, because a massive meteorite strike could provide the government with growth opportunities currently unavailable as a result of the prevailing political climate. A devastating strike in a particularly depressed part of the country, such as South Auckland, would lead to a strengthening in the Government's financial position.
Our data tells us that the residents of those hard-hit areas, homeless and desperate for food and clothing and for the money to bury their dead, would behave as rational actors and find market-based solutions to the various difficulties faced by them, rather than rely on the assistance of the state, which would struggle to provide a response. The resultant behavioural shifts, from communities traditionally reliant on government largesse, would lead to reductions in welfare expenditure.
The potential benefits to the economy from a large meteorite strike outweigh some of the negative aspects of a sudden localised occurrence, such as the potential for widespread collateral damage. It is for that reason that the government should investigate the feasibility of dropping large boulders onto depressed communities from great heights. It may be possible to convert the Air Force's existing inventory of Orion and Hercules aircraft into efficient rock-droppers, and a feasibility study should be undertaken as a matter of high priority, using the most expensive international consultants available.
Having comprehensively reviewed a number of economics journals that we agree with, we can find no evidence that a meteorite struck the Earth on the afternoon of Tuesday 17 July 2012.
We did not review any of the information provided by NASA or other scientific bodies interested in the study of meteorological activity, in order to ensure our economic modelling was not polluted with unnecessary and inconvenient facts.
There is no lack of commentary on matters relating to meteorites, but unfortunately most commentators lack training in the science of economics. Ironically, many of these commentators describe themselves as "scientists". A number of these "scientists" have claimed that the vast majority of meteorites are minuscule, and that it would be almost impossible to detect the average meteorite strike. If this were true, it would render our predictions all but worthless.
However, none of these commentators have had papers published in reputable, peer-reviewed economics journals. We have accordingly disregarded all of this commentary in favour of more robust economic models.
It is our considered view that the possibility of a future meteorite strike cannot be discounted, and that the Government's moves to push ahead with the implementation of economic reforms will reduce the barriers to entry for most heavenly objects.
This should not be grounds for concern, because a massive meteorite strike could provide the government with growth opportunities currently unavailable as a result of the prevailing political climate. A devastating strike in a particularly depressed part of the country, such as South Auckland, would lead to a strengthening in the Government's financial position.
Our data tells us that the residents of those hard-hit areas, homeless and desperate for food and clothing and for the money to bury their dead, would behave as rational actors and find market-based solutions to the various difficulties faced by them, rather than rely on the assistance of the state, which would struggle to provide a response. The resultant behavioural shifts, from communities traditionally reliant on government largesse, would lead to reductions in welfare expenditure.
The potential benefits to the economy from a large meteorite strike outweigh some of the negative aspects of a sudden localised occurrence, such as the potential for widespread collateral damage. It is for that reason that the government should investigate the feasibility of dropping large boulders onto depressed communities from great heights. It may be possible to convert the Air Force's existing inventory of Orion and Hercules aircraft into efficient rock-droppers, and a feasibility study should be undertaken as a matter of high priority, using the most expensive international consultants available.
Monday, July 16, 2012
Judge To Rule On The Fate Of Humanity
It would be awesome if we could all get behind the New Zealand Climate Education Trust in its legal battle against NIWA. The Trust is trying to use this case as a means of proving that man-made climate change isn't occurring.
Just imagine if the judge turns around and slaps NIWA. We'll be a step closer to proving climate change is a hoax perpetuated by scientists.
While a court ruling would hurt numerous scientific careers, spare a thought for the people of Tuvalu. Without the right ruling from the judge their entire nation's likely to disappear!
If the judge abolishes climate change, we'll all be able to breathe easier. And boy, will we celebrate! I've already got the car tyres stacked up in the back yard ready to ignite. I reckon they'll burn real well if we throw a fewwitches scientists on top.
Just imagine if the judge turns around and slaps NIWA. We'll be a step closer to proving climate change is a hoax perpetuated by scientists.
While a court ruling would hurt numerous scientific careers, spare a thought for the people of Tuvalu. Without the right ruling from the judge their entire nation's likely to disappear!
If the judge abolishes climate change, we'll all be able to breathe easier. And boy, will we celebrate! I've already got the car tyres stacked up in the back yard ready to ignite. I reckon they'll burn real well if we throw a few
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Crowdsourcing Justice: A New Pilot Project
The Justice Ministry has announced a trial of new technologies to make the justice system more accessible and accountable to the public.
Beginning on 1 August, proceedings in the High Court in Wellington will be streamed live on a dedicated website, and online viewers will be able to interact with trial participants in different ways.
The pilot project will run for three months.
Project facilitator Damien Everett said the aim of the pilot was to deliver a more open and accountable system, where case outcomes were better reflective of community norms and standards.
Mr Everett said the project also had the potential to reduce operational costs within the court system.
Under the pilot project trials will be streamed live on a dedicated website, with trial results being determined by way of vote. Civil cases will be decided by a simple majority of votes, while a criminal conviction will require at least 60% of the votes cast to be in favour of a "guilty" verdict. The higher threshold for criminal trials reflects the need for verdicts to be based on guilt "beyond reasonable doubt".
The pilot will allow votes to be cast at any time during a trial, and voters will not need to wait until all of the evidence in a case has been heard. Officials are confident that this feature will satisfy the current demand by the public to decide the guilt or innocence of a defendant without hearing more than a fraction of the evidence.
Viewers will also be able to participate in sentencing for criminal matters, and the award of damages and other remedies in civil trials.
Mr Everett said a lot of work had been done to ensure the pilot project was a success.
"We've pumped a lot of money into getting the right user interfaces, in order to optimise the customer experience," said Mr Everett.
"We have also developed a Facebook app, and apps for the iPhone and iPad, to encourage public participation."
Voting will be open to anyone aged 18 or over, and viewers will be allowed to vote as often as they like.
A small fee will be charged per vote. Mr Everett said the charge was necessary to cover the costs of the pilot project.
"If people text their votes there will be a ninety-nine cent charge via their telecommunications service provider," said Mr Everett.
"We don't want to discourage public participation, but we don't think a small charge will deter people from taking part."
The pilot project will also involve the trial of a new interactive technology called the "poke".
Previous court hearings, particularly criminal trials, have long suffered from the inability of the public to take their outrage out on the trial participants, such as witnesses, the lawyers, and the defendant.
Under the new technology the decision by a viewer to "poke" one of the trial participants will result in a specially trained court official jabbing the person concerned in the chest with their forefinger, while berating them using a choice of lines selected by the viewer. The lines include "you piece of scum, shooting's too good for you," "I don't know how you can sleep at night defending that filth," and "this is all a beat-up by the pigs against an innocent man. Shame on you!"
The site will also run a live commentary feed, allowing those watching a trial to comment on what they are seeing.
The project will be run and managed by Julie Christie's television production company Eyeworks. Christie's production credits include the shows Missing Pieces, New Zealand's Hottest Home Baker, and Are You Smarter Than a 10 Year Old? The venue for trials during the pilot project will remain the Wellington High Court building, but a full rollout of the project would see the criminal trials of celebrities and good looking young people take place in exotic holiday locations, or in the kitchens of award-winning restaurants.
One of the biggest issues with the pilot is its cost. In the last budget $2.4 million was allocated to the project, but a full rollout across the country would cost between $5-10 million per year. However, the cost savings overall are likely to be considerable, as jurors will no longer need to be paid, fed, or put up in hotels.
Additionally, revenues from selling advertising space are likely to result in the site making a healthy profit.
The Justice Ministry has said that the project will be reviewed by the end of the year, and a decision will be made in February whether to roll the initiative out across the rest of the country.
The pilot project is controversial, and many lawyers and community justice groups are outraged at the plans.
"Justice is not a popularity contest, nor is it a beauty parade," said top barrister Tabatha Wilde, QC.
"The only thing that matters is the evidence, not whether the public like someone."
But Gary McCrikery of the First Family Sentencing Trust, has labelled such comments as "elitist" and "undemocratic."
"We're delighted the government is finally listening to the people," said Mr McCrikery.
"We welcome any moves to open up the justice system to scrutiny, and to encourage the public to participate in trials.
"We agree that justice should be blind, but why can't it be deaf and dumb as well?"
Beginning on 1 August, proceedings in the High Court in Wellington will be streamed live on a dedicated website, and online viewers will be able to interact with trial participants in different ways.
The pilot project will run for three months.
Project facilitator Damien Everett said the aim of the pilot was to deliver a more open and accountable system, where case outcomes were better reflective of community norms and standards.
Mr Everett said the project also had the potential to reduce operational costs within the court system.
Under the pilot project trials will be streamed live on a dedicated website, with trial results being determined by way of vote. Civil cases will be decided by a simple majority of votes, while a criminal conviction will require at least 60% of the votes cast to be in favour of a "guilty" verdict. The higher threshold for criminal trials reflects the need for verdicts to be based on guilt "beyond reasonable doubt".
The pilot will allow votes to be cast at any time during a trial, and voters will not need to wait until all of the evidence in a case has been heard. Officials are confident that this feature will satisfy the current demand by the public to decide the guilt or innocence of a defendant without hearing more than a fraction of the evidence.
Viewers will also be able to participate in sentencing for criminal matters, and the award of damages and other remedies in civil trials.
Mr Everett said a lot of work had been done to ensure the pilot project was a success.
"We've pumped a lot of money into getting the right user interfaces, in order to optimise the customer experience," said Mr Everett.
"We have also developed a Facebook app, and apps for the iPhone and iPad, to encourage public participation."
Voting will be open to anyone aged 18 or over, and viewers will be allowed to vote as often as they like.
A small fee will be charged per vote. Mr Everett said the charge was necessary to cover the costs of the pilot project.
"If people text their votes there will be a ninety-nine cent charge via their telecommunications service provider," said Mr Everett.
"We don't want to discourage public participation, but we don't think a small charge will deter people from taking part."
The pilot project will also involve the trial of a new interactive technology called the "poke".
Previous court hearings, particularly criminal trials, have long suffered from the inability of the public to take their outrage out on the trial participants, such as witnesses, the lawyers, and the defendant.
Under the new technology the decision by a viewer to "poke" one of the trial participants will result in a specially trained court official jabbing the person concerned in the chest with their forefinger, while berating them using a choice of lines selected by the viewer. The lines include "you piece of scum, shooting's too good for you," "I don't know how you can sleep at night defending that filth," and "this is all a beat-up by the pigs against an innocent man. Shame on you!"
The site will also run a live commentary feed, allowing those watching a trial to comment on what they are seeing.
The project will be run and managed by Julie Christie's television production company Eyeworks. Christie's production credits include the shows Missing Pieces, New Zealand's Hottest Home Baker, and Are You Smarter Than a 10 Year Old? The venue for trials during the pilot project will remain the Wellington High Court building, but a full rollout of the project would see the criminal trials of celebrities and good looking young people take place in exotic holiday locations, or in the kitchens of award-winning restaurants.
One of the biggest issues with the pilot is its cost. In the last budget $2.4 million was allocated to the project, but a full rollout across the country would cost between $5-10 million per year. However, the cost savings overall are likely to be considerable, as jurors will no longer need to be paid, fed, or put up in hotels.
Additionally, revenues from selling advertising space are likely to result in the site making a healthy profit.
The Justice Ministry has said that the project will be reviewed by the end of the year, and a decision will be made in February whether to roll the initiative out across the rest of the country.
The pilot project is controversial, and many lawyers and community justice groups are outraged at the plans.
"Justice is not a popularity contest, nor is it a beauty parade," said top barrister Tabatha Wilde, QC.
"The only thing that matters is the evidence, not whether the public like someone."
But Gary McCrikery of the First Family Sentencing Trust, has labelled such comments as "elitist" and "undemocratic."
"We're delighted the government is finally listening to the people," said Mr McCrikery.
"We welcome any moves to open up the justice system to scrutiny, and to encourage the public to participate in trials.
"We agree that justice should be blind, but why can't it be deaf and dumb as well?"
Uncle Ernie: They'll Never Get My Water
When I heard those Maoris wanted all the water I was surprised. I began to wonder what on earth they were up to, and what they wanted to do with it. Anyway, how can anyone claim to own the water? It would be like claiming ownership of a cloud or the air we breathe, or the soil beneath our feet. Who ever heard of such a thing?
And if we give them rights to water, what next? Did you know that more than sixty percent of the human body is water? Imagine if these Maoris demanded their water back. They'd be at your door with their water tanks and their tubes and what-not, and you'd have no choice but to hand over your precious bodily fluids. They could threaten you with legal action if you refused.
They wouldn't actually want the water swirling around in our bodies, because I expect it gets a bit dirty, but they could use the threat of extraction to force us to do anything they wanted. We'd become their slaves. So it's pretty clear to me that white slavery is their real agenda.
I've nothing against slavery in distant lands, because it helps to keep the prices of some of our important consumer products low, but if you think for as moment that I would allow slavery in my own country, well you have another thing coming.
So it's time we fought back. I'm planning to get the typewriter out, and to write a series of letters to various newspaper editors and MPs, in the hope that we can put a stop to this nonsense. I may be getting on in years, but it's never too late to get politically active. I'm going to launch a campaign called "LET'S HAVE NO MORE OF THIS NONSENSE, THEN", which I expect will be hard hitting. With powerful slogans like "I DON'T MUCH LIKE THIS", "YOU WOULDN'T READ ABOUT IT", and "DEAR OH DEAR, THAT'S NOT AT ALL WHAT WE WANT", I expect I'll have the public rallying behind my cause in no time.
But I need you help. Here's what you can do to get active and join my cause:
- My typewriter is on a shelf in my bedroom wardrobe, and I can't get it down. Would you mind popping around and giving me a hand? My back's no good, and the doctor says I'm not to put any strain on it.
- If you're coming this way, would you mind stopping at the supermarket and picking up some milk? Dark blue top, thanks.
- Any political movement like this relies on the generosity of donors. Can you spare twenty dollars? You see, I'll need to photocopy some pamphlets, and I know the local chemist has a photocopy machine. And would you mind dropping me up there when you're done getting the milk and helping me to get the typewriter down? There's a good chap.
Are you with me?
Friday, July 13, 2012
We Must Take The Young
I haven't been blogging over the last few days, ironically because I was at an internet conference.
If you were on Twitter this week you'll probably have grown tired of the #nethui hashtag, unless you were also at the NetHui conference. I don 't really want to talk much about the event, since that's being done by others much better than I could.
But from a political perspective there were a couple of interesting points for me (actually there were plenty of legal issues discussed that cross into the political, like the TPPA, but we'll but those aside for the time being).
The first point I want to make is one about politicians, and how they interact with attendees at these sorts of events. On Thursday the conference heard keynote speeches from Steven Joyce and David Shearer. While there were some sharp contrasts between the two (Joyce spoke about nothing in particular but did so well, and Shearer talked about "big picture" stuff but without much focus and with at best a "workmanlike" delivery), they were united in thinking that the internet was a good idea. Thanks for your contribution, guys.
I know it's too much to expect a minister or party leader to announce a bold new policy initiative in every speech, but the audience of 500 or so smart people in the tech field might have expected a slightly more nuanced message than "yeah, isn't the internet a great thing?"
I also appreciate that it's too early for Labour to be putting out too much specific policy, because that's not usually what opposition parties do this far out from an election. But Labour's communications must be focused, relevant, and on-message. David Shearer may not be a gifted orator (although he is slowly improving), but an average speaker who has something to say and who is on point can still be effective.
I'm reasonably upbeat about Labour's election prospects in 2014, because the polls are showing a slow but steady trend in favour of the centre-left, and at present National has few solid coalition prospects. The political vampire that is ACT looks almost certain to suffer final eradication come 2014, Peter Dunne's future is anything but certain, and the Maori Party is held together by a couple of personalities who must be thinking about retirement.
So a Labour-Green government in 2014 is looking like a better than even chance, based on where things stand at present. But does that mean Labour doesn't need to worry about its sometimes inconsistent messaging, and its leader's penchant for rambling speeches about innovation and the "knowledge economy"?
I would argue that it isn't enough just to win in 2014. If Labour wants a genuine mandate to undertake reforms such as those David Cunliffe has been advocating, it needs to win well. Ideally that means a Labour-Greens coalition, not slowed or blocked by the conservative tendencies of a Peter Dunne or a Winston Peters. To achieve this Labour needs to win back those voters who stayed at home in 2008 and 2011. That means appealing to all the young people who just don't care about politics, and giving them a reason to care.
And this is really the second point that the NetHui conference made me think about. In one of today's barcamp sessions one participant raised the possibility of online voting in local elections, as a means of possibly encouraging more people to vote. The issue turned to a discussion about voter engagement generally, in relation to both local and general elections, and the view around the room was that technological changes had the potential to make it easier for younger people to participate.
I'm not against electronic voting in principle (assuming various security and privacy issues can be addressed adequately), but to me it felt as if some participants thought the current voting method was a major turn off for people. However, I think this underestimates the widespread lack of engagement by the young in relation to our political processes. It's popular for those who are politically engaged to point the finger at the apathy and self-indulgence of Gen-Y'ers, but I don't buy this. Why should young people vote for politicians who continue to display indifference, if not outright hostility, towards them?
If I were 18 and allowed to vote for the first time, I would really struggle to find a reason to vote for either Labour or National, and I would probably either vote for the Greens or stay home altogether. Both National and Labour have done little to foster the youth vote, or to make themselves relevant to the young. National seems to regard our young as a burden rather than our future, while Labour fails to practice what it preaches. Where are the young people in Labour's leadership?
When Labour published its party list for the 2011 election, it awarded lowly rankings to most of its rising young stars, while at the same time securing for the next three years many of those MPs from the "old Labour" that voters rejected in 2008. The evidence suggests that at least some of the longest-serving of those MPs have become institutionalised, and no, I won't name names, and I am not inviting people to speculate as to whom I am referring.
Some folk at the barcamp session I went to suggested that a mandatory voting system was a potential answer, as if forcing young people to the ballot box would somehow make them more engaged. I'm not a fan of compulsion when it comes to democracy, because choosing not to vote is as much a rational decision as voting for a particular party or candidate. Focusing on things like mandatory voting just avoids having to deal with the real reasons why people don't vote. If people aren't voting it's probably because what's been put in front of them gives them no reason to bother. Forcing people to vote when they would prefer not to doesn't solve the disengagement problem.
Labour has always talked about being the party of the workers, the poor, the struggling, and the have-nots. In Labour's mind it is a progressive party that has the future of the country and its people at heart, and that National are content to just continue doing much the same thing as before. This should in theory attract the young to Labour, but the young are not getting the message. I don't want to get into issues about whether it's a packaging issue, or whether the problem is in the substance of Labour's policy platform, but a problem exists.
I don't claim to have all of the answers. In any case, I'm just an opinionated blogger who has been a member of the Labour Party for only a year. I wish I could call myself young, but a rather major milestone looms for me, so I won't claim to know what those young 'uns want out of their politicians. The only people who know are the young. They need to be recruited, and they need to be promoted, and they need to be consulted at every level of decision-making within the party. Alternatively, we just keep doing the same things we've been doing for years, and see if that turns out any different.
If you were on Twitter this week you'll probably have grown tired of the #nethui hashtag, unless you were also at the NetHui conference. I don 't really want to talk much about the event, since that's being done by others much better than I could.
But from a political perspective there were a couple of interesting points for me (actually there were plenty of legal issues discussed that cross into the political, like the TPPA, but we'll but those aside for the time being).
The first point I want to make is one about politicians, and how they interact with attendees at these sorts of events. On Thursday the conference heard keynote speeches from Steven Joyce and David Shearer. While there were some sharp contrasts between the two (Joyce spoke about nothing in particular but did so well, and Shearer talked about "big picture" stuff but without much focus and with at best a "workmanlike" delivery), they were united in thinking that the internet was a good idea. Thanks for your contribution, guys.
I know it's too much to expect a minister or party leader to announce a bold new policy initiative in every speech, but the audience of 500 or so smart people in the tech field might have expected a slightly more nuanced message than "yeah, isn't the internet a great thing?"
I also appreciate that it's too early for Labour to be putting out too much specific policy, because that's not usually what opposition parties do this far out from an election. But Labour's communications must be focused, relevant, and on-message. David Shearer may not be a gifted orator (although he is slowly improving), but an average speaker who has something to say and who is on point can still be effective.
I'm reasonably upbeat about Labour's election prospects in 2014, because the polls are showing a slow but steady trend in favour of the centre-left, and at present National has few solid coalition prospects. The political vampire that is ACT looks almost certain to suffer final eradication come 2014, Peter Dunne's future is anything but certain, and the Maori Party is held together by a couple of personalities who must be thinking about retirement.
So a Labour-Green government in 2014 is looking like a better than even chance, based on where things stand at present. But does that mean Labour doesn't need to worry about its sometimes inconsistent messaging, and its leader's penchant for rambling speeches about innovation and the "knowledge economy"?
I would argue that it isn't enough just to win in 2014. If Labour wants a genuine mandate to undertake reforms such as those David Cunliffe has been advocating, it needs to win well. Ideally that means a Labour-Greens coalition, not slowed or blocked by the conservative tendencies of a Peter Dunne or a Winston Peters. To achieve this Labour needs to win back those voters who stayed at home in 2008 and 2011. That means appealing to all the young people who just don't care about politics, and giving them a reason to care.
And this is really the second point that the NetHui conference made me think about. In one of today's barcamp sessions one participant raised the possibility of online voting in local elections, as a means of possibly encouraging more people to vote. The issue turned to a discussion about voter engagement generally, in relation to both local and general elections, and the view around the room was that technological changes had the potential to make it easier for younger people to participate.
I'm not against electronic voting in principle (assuming various security and privacy issues can be addressed adequately), but to me it felt as if some participants thought the current voting method was a major turn off for people. However, I think this underestimates the widespread lack of engagement by the young in relation to our political processes. It's popular for those who are politically engaged to point the finger at the apathy and self-indulgence of Gen-Y'ers, but I don't buy this. Why should young people vote for politicians who continue to display indifference, if not outright hostility, towards them?
If I were 18 and allowed to vote for the first time, I would really struggle to find a reason to vote for either Labour or National, and I would probably either vote for the Greens or stay home altogether. Both National and Labour have done little to foster the youth vote, or to make themselves relevant to the young. National seems to regard our young as a burden rather than our future, while Labour fails to practice what it preaches. Where are the young people in Labour's leadership?
When Labour published its party list for the 2011 election, it awarded lowly rankings to most of its rising young stars, while at the same time securing for the next three years many of those MPs from the "old Labour" that voters rejected in 2008. The evidence suggests that at least some of the longest-serving of those MPs have become institutionalised, and no, I won't name names, and I am not inviting people to speculate as to whom I am referring.
Some folk at the barcamp session I went to suggested that a mandatory voting system was a potential answer, as if forcing young people to the ballot box would somehow make them more engaged. I'm not a fan of compulsion when it comes to democracy, because choosing not to vote is as much a rational decision as voting for a particular party or candidate. Focusing on things like mandatory voting just avoids having to deal with the real reasons why people don't vote. If people aren't voting it's probably because what's been put in front of them gives them no reason to bother. Forcing people to vote when they would prefer not to doesn't solve the disengagement problem.
Labour has always talked about being the party of the workers, the poor, the struggling, and the have-nots. In Labour's mind it is a progressive party that has the future of the country and its people at heart, and that National are content to just continue doing much the same thing as before. This should in theory attract the young to Labour, but the young are not getting the message. I don't want to get into issues about whether it's a packaging issue, or whether the problem is in the substance of Labour's policy platform, but a problem exists.
I don't claim to have all of the answers. In any case, I'm just an opinionated blogger who has been a member of the Labour Party for only a year. I wish I could call myself young, but a rather major milestone looms for me, so I won't claim to know what those young 'uns want out of their politicians. The only people who know are the young. They need to be recruited, and they need to be promoted, and they need to be consulted at every level of decision-making within the party. Alternatively, we just keep doing the same things we've been doing for years, and see if that turns out any different.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
NetHui 2012
I will be spending the next few days at the NetHui conference, work commitments permitting. It's a chance to talk to interesting people, engage in debate over important topics, and shamelessly tout for business.
If you're going to the event then feel free to say hello or berate me for my incorrect opinions.
Who else among my disciples and enemies is going?
If you're going to the event then feel free to say hello or berate me for my incorrect opinions.
Who else among my disciples and enemies is going?
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Imperator Fish Economics: A Capital Plan
Most sensible economists* understand that when you're in a downturn the thing you must do as a country is spend, spend, spend.
New Zealand doesn't have a public debt crisis, whatever the politicians may be telling us. We have a major issue with levels of private debt, so there's room for the government to adopt a sensible spending programme aimed at boosting jobs and getting money moving around the economy again.
Some of our nation's largest infrastructure projects occurred as a reaction to the Great Depression. That catastrophic event led to the buildings of roads, bridges, and thousands of state houses, as the Labour government of the day took steps to get things moving again.
Let's also not forget that we were helped along a bit by World War Two. There were jobs for everyone, and Britain needed our produce.
But what worked then may not work now. We need a bold initiative that will inspire the public, transform our economy, and turn us into an international high tech centre of excellence.
We should also be capitalising on the strengths we already have. Some people might think we do cows and sheep and not much else, but they would be wrong. We're famous for our boat-building, and have become the go-to place for super-yachts.
So it makes perfect sense for us to build a battleship fleet.
Think of the benefits. The enormity of the exercise would ensure thousands and thousands of people would have jobs for years to come. We would need to train up an army of engineers, and those people would go on after the fleet was built to better and brighter things. Like building an aircraft carrier battle force.
If we commissioned say four of these capital ship behemoths, we would ensure that shipyards all around the country were suddenly buzzing. The money paid to the workers would circulate around the entire town, meaning everyone from the local car dealer to the brothel owner would get a slice of the action.
And, boy, what a sense of national pride we would feel as this massive battle fleet steamed into port.
Putting aside questions about the military usefulness of such a force, I can think of no finer sight that an armada of beautiful and terrifying battleships anchored off Rangitoto, pointing their massive 18 inch guns menacingly into the commercial heart of our nation's largest city.
But what's this? I sense some doubt in my readers. You think the plan's a wonderful one, but still you have some reservations. However, I have already anticipated your concerns, so let me put your mind at rest.
We can't afford such a colossal expense: Well the expense sure would be colossal, but nothing good comes cheap. We'll have to raise taxes a bit to cover the cost, but I don't expect the top tax rate would go up to more than seventy five cents in the dollar. The cold hard fact is if we want cool stuff we have to be prepared to pay for it. Who wouldn't want battleships?
This is the wrong kind of stimulus: Nonsense. Just nonsense. Your argument is so laughable that I refuse to address it.
The people won't support such a vast project: They probably said that about the Great Pyramids too.
But the Egyptian Pharaohs had armies of slaves. You can't possibly compare these projects: But I just did. What are you going to do about it? Nothing, because this is my blog and you will play by my rules. Around here I'm the Pharaoh.
The nation will go bankrupt: Then we'll just print more money, dumbass!
These ships would be huge white elephants, rather than useful military instruments, and by the way, fool, don't you know your military history? Because the last world war showed how truly obsolete these types of ships were: The problem with elephants, even white ones, is they shit everywhere, and are liable to trample people to death without warning. Unlike the average battleship. In fact, why would anyone in their right mind compare a giant ruler of the waves with a mere land mammal? You call me a fool? Well you're the fool now. As for the ships being militarily obsolete, that's just defeatism. Where's your fighting spirit? Don't you love your country?
Don't miss next week's edition of Imperator Fish Economics: A Plan To Invade Poland
* Translation: those economists I agree with.
New Zealand doesn't have a public debt crisis, whatever the politicians may be telling us. We have a major issue with levels of private debt, so there's room for the government to adopt a sensible spending programme aimed at boosting jobs and getting money moving around the economy again.
Some of our nation's largest infrastructure projects occurred as a reaction to the Great Depression. That catastrophic event led to the buildings of roads, bridges, and thousands of state houses, as the Labour government of the day took steps to get things moving again.
Let's also not forget that we were helped along a bit by World War Two. There were jobs for everyone, and Britain needed our produce.
But what worked then may not work now. We need a bold initiative that will inspire the public, transform our economy, and turn us into an international high tech centre of excellence.
We should also be capitalising on the strengths we already have. Some people might think we do cows and sheep and not much else, but they would be wrong. We're famous for our boat-building, and have become the go-to place for super-yachts.
So it makes perfect sense for us to build a battleship fleet.
 |
| HMS Nelson, named after some sailor guy, was one of Britain's most powerful warships during World War Two. It had really, really big guns |
If we commissioned say four of these capital ship behemoths, we would ensure that shipyards all around the country were suddenly buzzing. The money paid to the workers would circulate around the entire town, meaning everyone from the local car dealer to the brothel owner would get a slice of the action.
And, boy, what a sense of national pride we would feel as this massive battle fleet steamed into port.
 |
| The German ship Bismarck was one of the most fearsome battleships ever built. It was sunk by the British in disagreeable circumstances |
But what's this? I sense some doubt in my readers. You think the plan's a wonderful one, but still you have some reservations. However, I have already anticipated your concerns, so let me put your mind at rest.
We can't afford such a colossal expense: Well the expense sure would be colossal, but nothing good comes cheap. We'll have to raise taxes a bit to cover the cost, but I don't expect the top tax rate would go up to more than seventy five cents in the dollar. The cold hard fact is if we want cool stuff we have to be prepared to pay for it. Who wouldn't want battleships?
This is the wrong kind of stimulus: Nonsense. Just nonsense. Your argument is so laughable that I refuse to address it.
The people won't support such a vast project: They probably said that about the Great Pyramids too.
But the Egyptian Pharaohs had armies of slaves. You can't possibly compare these projects: But I just did. What are you going to do about it? Nothing, because this is my blog and you will play by my rules. Around here I'm the Pharaoh.
The nation will go bankrupt: Then we'll just print more money, dumbass!
These ships would be huge white elephants, rather than useful military instruments, and by the way, fool, don't you know your military history? Because the last world war showed how truly obsolete these types of ships were: The problem with elephants, even white ones, is they shit everywhere, and are liable to trample people to death without warning. Unlike the average battleship. In fact, why would anyone in their right mind compare a giant ruler of the waves with a mere land mammal? You call me a fool? Well you're the fool now. As for the ships being militarily obsolete, that's just defeatism. Where's your fighting spirit? Don't you love your country?
 |
| A depiction of the Japanese ship Yamato. The two Yamato class battleships were the largest and heaviest ever built. They were destroyed by the Americans. Their huge size made them easy targets for US aircraft, who wouldn't play fair. |
* Translation: those economists I agree with.
Monday, July 9, 2012
The New Look Herald: Can We Hope For Better?
So the NZ Herald is going all tabloid. I can't say I will notice. It's been months since I bought a newspaper of any description, since I prefer to do my news reading online, where there is a greater choice of product.
I used to get the Herald delivered, and it did come in handy for wrapping stuff or dealing with particularly icky messes. But the papers would just end up cluttering the house until recycling day. I don't miss the hard copy version.
APN is promising that the new look Herald will have a reinforced focus on investigative journalism. If that happens I'll be pleased, but I'll also be surprised. Let's hope that those new Herald investigative journos investigate more than just the Twitter accounts of minor celebrities.
The paper is also promising more columnists, which could be an opportunity to get a bit more diversity into the opinion pages. However, I fear we may just end up with even more opinion from ageing white male curmudgeons.
I can understand the desire to change things, because the newspaper game is a tough one. The print media industry is slowly dying, and no large newspaper has yet worked out a profitable business model for the online delivery of news.
But will this move do anything more than delay the end? Let's hope the changes lead to something better, rather than a renewed focus on trivia and trash.
It's fashionable to attack the traditional news media, and Lord knows I've been guilty of it on numerous occasions. But I don't want the Herald to fail: I just don't want to pay for my daily news. That probably makes me part of the problem.
I used to get the Herald delivered, and it did come in handy for wrapping stuff or dealing with particularly icky messes. But the papers would just end up cluttering the house until recycling day. I don't miss the hard copy version.
APN is promising that the new look Herald will have a reinforced focus on investigative journalism. If that happens I'll be pleased, but I'll also be surprised. Let's hope that those new Herald investigative journos investigate more than just the Twitter accounts of minor celebrities.
The paper is also promising more columnists, which could be an opportunity to get a bit more diversity into the opinion pages. However, I fear we may just end up with even more opinion from ageing white male curmudgeons.
I can understand the desire to change things, because the newspaper game is a tough one. The print media industry is slowly dying, and no large newspaper has yet worked out a profitable business model for the online delivery of news.
But will this move do anything more than delay the end? Let's hope the changes lead to something better, rather than a renewed focus on trivia and trash.
It's fashionable to attack the traditional news media, and Lord knows I've been guilty of it on numerous occasions. But I don't want the Herald to fail: I just don't want to pay for my daily news. That probably makes me part of the problem.
How Should We Fund Our Political Parties?
One of the weaknesses of our democratic system is that it gives people the opportunity to buy political influence.
I don't mean to suggest that some people are "buying" politicians, in the sense of writing cheques in return for express promises from politicians. We don't usually know the motivations behind large political donations. But it's reasonable to assume that companies existing solely to make profit aren't giving cash out of feelings of altruism. We should not be naive enough to think that donors don't want something in return for their money, even if what they want is never expressed openly.
It's obvious that parties promoting certain types of policies will be supported by those organisations and individuals who stand to benefit by those policies. So unions give money to Labour, rich cranks donate to ACT, and corporates and wealthy individuals are more likely to give to National.
But despite all of these things being obvious, we still retain the capacity to be surprised whenever a story emerges showing that a party or politician is acting in a way that might potentially benefit a donor.
The Clayton Cosgrove donation scandal (one is tempted to use the term "beat-up" rather than "scandal") illustrates this point. There is no evidence that the donor, Independent Fisheries Limited, pressured Cosgrove into pursuing any sort of property development legislative change, and yet it's likely that IFL donated to Cosgrove because it saw some benefit in doing so. Perhaps the company's owners thought Cosgrove was sensitive generally to the concerns of land-owners in the Christchurch area, and paid the money in the hope he would be re-elected. This is really no different to a company giving National cash because the Nats are "business-friendly".
In the perfect world politicians would not accept cash from anyone, because the risk of undue influence is always present where parties are funded by donations. But what choice does a party have under our current system? Cake stalls and sausage sizzles will only take a political party so far.
But this post is not intended to be a defence of Clayton Cosgrove. Unless more details emerge about the IFL donation the story seems doomed to disappear in a few days. That a politician pursued policies that appeared to favour someone who donated to his party is hardly a scoop.
There is an obvious solution to the donation problem. Full state-funding of political parties would cost only a few million dollars per year, but it would do away with much of the suspicion that surrounds politicians, and would go some way towards restoring the public's trust in our political system. We would of course need to have a robust debate over the make-up of any funding system, to ensure it was fair and didn't entrench the power of the main parties, and we would need to accept that any system we implemented would be imperfect and would need ongoing refinement.
Those groups who currently have influence would probably object to such a system, but that's precisely why we should be looking at this seriously.
Such a system would be difficult to sell to the public, but it would be worth the effort if it helped to clean up our political system.
Sunday, July 8, 2012
Why Haven't You Bought Yet?
Good news, people! The housing crisis in Auckland is over. It turns out that we can all afford to buy houses in New Zealand's biggest city.
Those of you cowering with your children in a freezing cold garage somewhere need no longer despair. You may be unemployed, and you may not be able to afford to pay the rent or to feed the kids, and you may have been turned away by Housing New Zealand because your crisis, as awful as it may seem to you, is not the worst they have seen, but you can get yourself on the property ladder. How does a nice little do-up bungalow sound? A tidy unit in a good school zone?
So what's holding you back? Oh, I know, you're wondering if the guest post by a real estate agent on Brian Edwards' blog amounts to a personal endorsement by the great man. It's an important point, because Edwards remains one of the most trusted men in New Zealand. Everyone else may have sold out, like Fair Go and Kevin Milne, but not Brian.
I am often asked by people if I will allow them to guest-post on my site, but the answer is always no. Even if I allowed guest posts I would certainly never allow someone to post a piece that I regarded as foolish, inaccurate or offensive. However, other bloggers may apply much looser criteria when deciding who can post on their site.
But none of that matters, because every moment you spend tormenting yourself over whether the Great Man has given his seal of approval could otherwise be used to find that ideal house. Don't let some extended family living in a damp one-room sleepout in Massey get it first.
Those of you cowering with your children in a freezing cold garage somewhere need no longer despair. You may be unemployed, and you may not be able to afford to pay the rent or to feed the kids, and you may have been turned away by Housing New Zealand because your crisis, as awful as it may seem to you, is not the worst they have seen, but you can get yourself on the property ladder. How does a nice little do-up bungalow sound? A tidy unit in a good school zone?
So what's holding you back? Oh, I know, you're wondering if the guest post by a real estate agent on Brian Edwards' blog amounts to a personal endorsement by the great man. It's an important point, because Edwards remains one of the most trusted men in New Zealand. Everyone else may have sold out, like Fair Go and Kevin Milne, but not Brian.
I am often asked by people if I will allow them to guest-post on my site, but the answer is always no. Even if I allowed guest posts I would certainly never allow someone to post a piece that I regarded as foolish, inaccurate or offensive. However, other bloggers may apply much looser criteria when deciding who can post on their site.
But none of that matters, because every moment you spend tormenting yourself over whether the Great Man has given his seal of approval could otherwise be used to find that ideal house. Don't let some extended family living in a damp one-room sleepout in Massey get it first.
Saturday, July 7, 2012
My First Newspaper Column
I’ve been blogging on and off for about three years. It’s been fun, but I’m sure you’ll agree it’s time to take things to the next level.
I think it’s time I had a newspaper column. Don’t you?
So newspaper editors, just to prove how good I could be for you, I’ve set out below a sample of my work. I realise I’ve missed the deadline for the next round of Sunday papers (and I would make an awesome Sunday paper columnist!), but feel free to use this material in next week’s edition.
My column:
It’s about choice, run by a crowd of unionists and teachers, pragmatism, time to get tough, we face some hard decisions, no free lunch, taxpayer dollars, parents should have the choice, unionists stuck in a 1970s timewarp, hard work never killed anyone, we simply can’t afford it, I wouldn’t run a business that way, bureaucrats out of touch, some of my best friends, steady as she goes, treaty grievance industry, DPB deadbeats, fiscally responsible measures, Maori criminals, lazy self-interested teachers, tree huggers, rent-a-crowd protesters, making the tough calls, culture of entitlement amongst the young, climate change con, welfare babies, no self-discipline, blame the parents, ivory towers, politically correct, anything goes, I’m not against it but what about the kids? gravy train, unrealistic expectations, breeding machines, socialists, always someone else’s fault, John Key understands the gravity of the situation we face, writing blank cheques, extravagant lifestyles funded by the taxpayer, sterilisation, don’t trust scientists, standards, laziness, what will they come up with next? they only have themselves to blame, plenty of jobs for those willing to work, when I was younger, it would cripple businesses, we’re too soft, liberal handwringers, the Bible had something interesting to say about that too, Labour’s out of touch, I always follow my gut instinct, and I hate teachers, and science has never interested me, and evidence is such a long word.
I think it’s time I had a newspaper column. Don’t you?
So newspaper editors, just to prove how good I could be for you, I’ve set out below a sample of my work. I realise I’ve missed the deadline for the next round of Sunday papers (and I would make an awesome Sunday paper columnist!), but feel free to use this material in next week’s edition.
My column:
It’s about choice, run by a crowd of unionists and teachers, pragmatism, time to get tough, we face some hard decisions, no free lunch, taxpayer dollars, parents should have the choice, unionists stuck in a 1970s timewarp, hard work never killed anyone, we simply can’t afford it, I wouldn’t run a business that way, bureaucrats out of touch, some of my best friends, steady as she goes, treaty grievance industry, DPB deadbeats, fiscally responsible measures, Maori criminals, lazy self-interested teachers, tree huggers, rent-a-crowd protesters, making the tough calls, culture of entitlement amongst the young, climate change con, welfare babies, no self-discipline, blame the parents, ivory towers, politically correct, anything goes, I’m not against it but what about the kids? gravy train, unrealistic expectations, breeding machines, socialists, always someone else’s fault, John Key understands the gravity of the situation we face, writing blank cheques, extravagant lifestyles funded by the taxpayer, sterilisation, don’t trust scientists, standards, laziness, what will they come up with next? they only have themselves to blame, plenty of jobs for those willing to work, when I was younger, it would cripple businesses, we’re too soft, liberal handwringers, the Bible had something interesting to say about that too, Labour’s out of touch, I always follow my gut instinct, and I hate teachers, and science has never interested me, and evidence is such a long word.
Friday, July 6, 2012
Government Officials Push For Copyright Reform
Tom Pullar-Strecker reports on Stuff that Government officials are keen to liberalise our copyright laws.
This is according to an official briefing given to ICT Minister Amy Adams, released under the Official Information Act.
Well good luck with that. Our government seems determined to do a trade deal with the US at almost any cost, a deal that would inevitably result in New Zealand toughening up its copyright laws for the benefit of the US entertainment industry.
It seems that, while officials understand the importance of balancing the rights of content creators with the need to encourage innovation, ICT Minister Amy Adams appears keen to put any review of our copyright laws on the back-burner. From a trade perspective it is easy to understand why, because moves to modernise our copyright laws would probably impact on any chances of a trade deal being struck with the US.
But the fact remains that copyright does need to modernise. A legal system that makes unlawful ordinary, everyday web behaviour is a legal system that needs to change.
I don’t have any particular faith that a modernisation of copyright laws will occur soon, regardless of who forms the next government. It’s easy for opposition parties to decry our outdated copyright laws, but governments have to balance such concerns with the need to stay onside with trade partners. The last Labour government was directly responsible for the section 92A debacle, so, while Labour’s Clare Curran may appear to strongly favour copyright reform, I’d put my money on it being business as usual after 2014.
Change will occur, but I doubt New Zealand will be in the vanguard of copyright reform while Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations continue.
This is according to an official briefing given to ICT Minister Amy Adams, released under the Official Information Act.
Well good luck with that. Our government seems determined to do a trade deal with the US at almost any cost, a deal that would inevitably result in New Zealand toughening up its copyright laws for the benefit of the US entertainment industry.
It seems that, while officials understand the importance of balancing the rights of content creators with the need to encourage innovation, ICT Minister Amy Adams appears keen to put any review of our copyright laws on the back-burner. From a trade perspective it is easy to understand why, because moves to modernise our copyright laws would probably impact on any chances of a trade deal being struck with the US.
But the fact remains that copyright does need to modernise. A legal system that makes unlawful ordinary, everyday web behaviour is a legal system that needs to change.
I don’t have any particular faith that a modernisation of copyright laws will occur soon, regardless of who forms the next government. It’s easy for opposition parties to decry our outdated copyright laws, but governments have to balance such concerns with the need to stay onside with trade partners. The last Labour government was directly responsible for the section 92A debacle, so, while Labour’s Clare Curran may appear to strongly favour copyright reform, I’d put my money on it being business as usual after 2014.
Change will occur, but I doubt New Zealand will be in the vanguard of copyright reform while Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations continue.
Thursday, July 5, 2012
The Macdonald Trial: Did The System Work?
It’s difficult to go anywhere near the news media or internet without stumbling across masses of misinformation about our criminal justice system.
I don’t really mind that some people think a killer got off. Only one person really knows if that’s true (or two people, if Macdonald wasn't the killer!), assuming he hasn’t confessed his sins to his priest or therapist. So anyone who opines on whether or not Macdonald did the deed is just blowing hot air and should be ignored.
I was critical of the Crown’s decision to prosecute on the basis of what appears like flimsy evidence, but I don’t have an opinion on whether Macdonald got away with murder. He may have. However, the jury got it right. The fact of the matter is that juries can only decide on someone’s guilt on the basis of the evidence put in front of them.
In that respect the Crown failed. Macdonald was acquitted, not because he didn’t kill Scott Guy, but because the Crown couldn’t prove that he did.
One apparent controversy regarding this case is the fact that Ewen Macdonald didn’t take the stand in his own defence. This seems to have irked Wellington writer David Stevenson* to such an extent that he’s written a column in the Herald today on how he thinks the legal system is failing us.
I don’t for a moment think our system is perfect, and we all know of instances where someone has been subjected to a gross injustice via the court system. But however imperfect our system is, it beats most of the alternatives. Our system has evolved over centuries, and it will continue to evolve. What we don’t need are sweeping changes being introduced without much thought for the consequences.
Take the right to silence. David Stevenson thinks it should be abolished.
Stevenson blames the legal aid system on the fact that some people have the nerve to defend themselves:
It’s even more absurd when you consider the vast resources available to the police and Crown. The prosecution in a major trial will typically have a large team of lawyers and experts, and police witnesses eager to nail the accused. Against this army the accused will typically have a small team, perhaps only one lawyer, and may be left at the end of the trial financially crippled.
A common tactic used by police (as any criminal defence lawyer will tell you) is to overcharge an accused person, in the hope that they’ll cop to a lesser plea. Another tactic they sometime use is to pursue a weak case right up to the very day of hearing, before suddenly dropping the case. They do this in the hope that the pressure (emotional and financial) on the accused will force a guilty plea.
And what will the average defendant have to counter this all? Probably a lawyer funded through legal aid, but a lawyer who’s already overworked and underpaid, and who can’t afford to spend too much time on preparation.
This is why we need to maintain the right to silence and the presumption of innocence. The playing field is not an even one, and it never has been. With the resources of state law enforcement agencies growing and becoming more sophisticated, and with more and more surveillance rights and special powers being granted by Parliament to law enforcement agencies, the right for a person accused of a crime to say nothing is more important than ever.
Stevenson suggests a number of other reforms, that he claims if implemented would reduce the number of trials. Presumably this would be because the scales would be tipped so unfairly in favour of the prosecution that accused persons would plead guilty at an early stage. That would be a good thing if everyone charged with an offence was guilty, but that is not the case at all.
It's obvious that the not guilty verdict will not bring "closure" to the family of the dead man. That's regrettable, but our system isn't designed to do that. It's designed to determine whether there is enough evidence to hold a person accused of a crime guilty. I almost sense from Stevenson's argument that he thinks Macdonald should have gone down for the crime, regardless of the lack of evidence directly tying him to the killing, just to make the Guy family feel better.
And one final comment on the Macdonald verdict. I’m fairly confident that the jury’s decision would have been the same even if they had all read Hamlet.
And the next person who quotes King Lear will be very, very sorry indeed.
* Is the writer of the opinion piece this David Stevenson? I honestly don't know. I suppose it's a common enough name. Does anyone know if they are the same person?
I don’t really mind that some people think a killer got off. Only one person really knows if that’s true (or two people, if Macdonald wasn't the killer!), assuming he hasn’t confessed his sins to his priest or therapist. So anyone who opines on whether or not Macdonald did the deed is just blowing hot air and should be ignored.
I was critical of the Crown’s decision to prosecute on the basis of what appears like flimsy evidence, but I don’t have an opinion on whether Macdonald got away with murder. He may have. However, the jury got it right. The fact of the matter is that juries can only decide on someone’s guilt on the basis of the evidence put in front of them.
In that respect the Crown failed. Macdonald was acquitted, not because he didn’t kill Scott Guy, but because the Crown couldn’t prove that he did.
One apparent controversy regarding this case is the fact that Ewen Macdonald didn’t take the stand in his own defence. This seems to have irked Wellington writer David Stevenson* to such an extent that he’s written a column in the Herald today on how he thinks the legal system is failing us.
I don’t for a moment think our system is perfect, and we all know of instances where someone has been subjected to a gross injustice via the court system. But however imperfect our system is, it beats most of the alternatives. Our system has evolved over centuries, and it will continue to evolve. What we don’t need are sweeping changes being introduced without much thought for the consequences.
Take the right to silence. David Stevenson thinks it should be abolished.
… (according to Halsbury's Laws of England) it evolved more than 200 years ago because the legal establishment felt that the uneducated criminal classes should be protected, as a matter of fairness, from incriminating themselves.The right to silence is not some archaic legal principle that has no value in today’s legal system. The right is inextricably linked to the presumption of innocence. If we believe in the presumption of innocence, then it is for the agencies of the state to prove a person’s wrongdoing. If we are now to say that accused people must take the stand, we are really saying we think they are guilty and that it is for the accused to prove otherwise. That is effectively a presumption of guilt.
Can a law designed to protect uneducated ancient Britons from themselves have any place in today's educated society where personal accountability is required in all other aspects of life?
Stevenson blames the legal aid system on the fact that some people have the nerve to defend themselves:
The dysfunctional role that legal aid can now play in criminal trials also deserves scrutiny. Legal aid was introduced to ensure that those facing criminal charges had access to legal advice and representation.But that’s absurd. Legal aid has been cut to the bone, and the pay structure is such that there are now perverse incentives for lawyers to encourage their clients to plead guilty.
Again, because a criminal trial is not held to establish the truth but sets out to establish whether the prosecution can prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, legal aid often gets used (perfectly legally and properly under the present defective system) to fund evidence to cast doubt on the prosecution case.
It’s even more absurd when you consider the vast resources available to the police and Crown. The prosecution in a major trial will typically have a large team of lawyers and experts, and police witnesses eager to nail the accused. Against this army the accused will typically have a small team, perhaps only one lawyer, and may be left at the end of the trial financially crippled.
A common tactic used by police (as any criminal defence lawyer will tell you) is to overcharge an accused person, in the hope that they’ll cop to a lesser plea. Another tactic they sometime use is to pursue a weak case right up to the very day of hearing, before suddenly dropping the case. They do this in the hope that the pressure (emotional and financial) on the accused will force a guilty plea.
And what will the average defendant have to counter this all? Probably a lawyer funded through legal aid, but a lawyer who’s already overworked and underpaid, and who can’t afford to spend too much time on preparation.
This is why we need to maintain the right to silence and the presumption of innocence. The playing field is not an even one, and it never has been. With the resources of state law enforcement agencies growing and becoming more sophisticated, and with more and more surveillance rights and special powers being granted by Parliament to law enforcement agencies, the right for a person accused of a crime to say nothing is more important than ever.
Stevenson suggests a number of other reforms, that he claims if implemented would reduce the number of trials. Presumably this would be because the scales would be tipped so unfairly in favour of the prosecution that accused persons would plead guilty at an early stage. That would be a good thing if everyone charged with an offence was guilty, but that is not the case at all.
It's obvious that the not guilty verdict will not bring "closure" to the family of the dead man. That's regrettable, but our system isn't designed to do that. It's designed to determine whether there is enough evidence to hold a person accused of a crime guilty. I almost sense from Stevenson's argument that he thinks Macdonald should have gone down for the crime, regardless of the lack of evidence directly tying him to the killing, just to make the Guy family feel better.
And one final comment on the Macdonald verdict. I’m fairly confident that the jury’s decision would have been the same even if they had all read Hamlet.
And the next person who quotes King Lear will be very, very sorry indeed.
* Is the writer of the opinion piece this David Stevenson? I honestly don't know. I suppose it's a common enough name. Does anyone know if they are the same person?
The Higgs Boson: How The Politicians Reacted
Russel Norman, Green Party
This is the worst news imaginable. The Green Party are absolutely opposed to the reckless smashing up of so many particles. Isn’t it time we learned to live in harmony with our environment, rather than try to smash up subatomic bits of it? We are calling on this government to announce an immediate moratorium on any further particle destruction.
Winston Peters, New Zealand First
This arrogant government has done nothing to protect us from the risk of Higgs boson particles making it to New Zealand. These particles represent a very real threat to our sovereignty, and we are already being swamped with particles that don’t understand our unique Kiwi way of life. But John Key and all his moneymen backers don’t care about any of that. Do you know how much public money has been wasted on this ridiculous flight of fancy?
John Banks, Act Party
This. Is. An. Outrageous. Waste. Of . Public. Money.
Peter Dunne, United Future
We are cautiously optimistic that the Higgs boson announcement represents a sensible step forward for ordinary New Zealanders. However, we should not be afraid to make bold decisions, so long as we proceed with extreme caution. This is a victory for common-sense.
David Shearer, Labour Party
John Key promised to close the Higgs boson gap, but on his government’s watch New Zealand has slipped further and further behind. This announcement shows that John Key’s government only cares about the privileged few. Billions and billions of dollars are being spent on just a handful of lucky subatomic particles, but a Labour government would look after all Higgs bosons.
Hone Harawira, Mana Party
I’m not interested in your white man’s particle.
John Key, National Party
This demonstrates the value of a stable and sensible government committed to paying down debt and getting the books back into the black. The latest Treasury projections indicate that we can expect steady growth in the Higgs boson sector, but all this could be lost if we don’t remain focused on the task at hand.
Tariana Turia, Maori Party
We don’t have a firm position on the Higgs boson, so we’ll be consulting with our members in a series of huis around the country, before doing whatever National tell us.
This is the worst news imaginable. The Green Party are absolutely opposed to the reckless smashing up of so many particles. Isn’t it time we learned to live in harmony with our environment, rather than try to smash up subatomic bits of it? We are calling on this government to announce an immediate moratorium on any further particle destruction.
Winston Peters, New Zealand First
This arrogant government has done nothing to protect us from the risk of Higgs boson particles making it to New Zealand. These particles represent a very real threat to our sovereignty, and we are already being swamped with particles that don’t understand our unique Kiwi way of life. But John Key and all his moneymen backers don’t care about any of that. Do you know how much public money has been wasted on this ridiculous flight of fancy?
John Banks, Act Party
This. Is. An. Outrageous. Waste. Of . Public. Money.
Peter Dunne, United Future
We are cautiously optimistic that the Higgs boson announcement represents a sensible step forward for ordinary New Zealanders. However, we should not be afraid to make bold decisions, so long as we proceed with extreme caution. This is a victory for common-sense.
David Shearer, Labour Party
John Key promised to close the Higgs boson gap, but on his government’s watch New Zealand has slipped further and further behind. This announcement shows that John Key’s government only cares about the privileged few. Billions and billions of dollars are being spent on just a handful of lucky subatomic particles, but a Labour government would look after all Higgs bosons.
Hone Harawira, Mana Party
I’m not interested in your white man’s particle.
John Key, National Party
This demonstrates the value of a stable and sensible government committed to paying down debt and getting the books back into the black. The latest Treasury projections indicate that we can expect steady growth in the Higgs boson sector, but all this could be lost if we don’t remain focused on the task at hand.
Tariana Turia, Maori Party
We don’t have a firm position on the Higgs boson, so we’ll be consulting with our members in a series of huis around the country, before doing whatever National tell us.
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
Harry Hindenberg: A Minor Legal Problem
As a successful and experienced lawyer, I’m always pleased to see a fellow practitioner get the acclaim he deserves for doing a good job. I don’t know Greg King personally, but he cast quite a spell over the jury during the Macdonald trial, and if I was in the dock for something serious I’d be on the phone to him straight away.
Except that he hasn’t answered any of my calls. It’s probably better that way, because I know how much lawyers like him charge and I’m probably better off defending myself.
No, my readers, do not concern yourselves over my affairs. It’s a trivial matter concerning some complicated financial transactions that one of my close friends from Kyrgyzstan got me involved in. Who knew that the Serious Fraud Office had so much time on their hands? Don’t they have more serious crimes to investigate? Perhaps it’s better that they don’t, because if they ever find out where I invested the money from the Davidson Estate I will be in serious shit. I use the word “invest” advisedly, though I personally think the two million dollars spent over three years on high class prostitutes, cocaine and fast cars will prove to have been a valuable investment in my well-being.
Anyway, it’s only money. They’re always printing more of the stuff.
This business with the SFO should straighten itself out soon enough, as soon as my mate from Kyrgyzstan turns up to the hearing. It’s all over nothing anyway. All I did was help him set up about 500 shell companies, a service for which he remunerated me handsomely using suitcases full of cash left underneath park benches at agreed times and locations. I put half the money into various investments (no, real ones!), and kept half for myself.
The SFO tell me that they think the money is dirty, but I’ve tried to explain to them that most of my biggest clients pay their bills that way. These good folk don’t want the complication of dealing with banks and other financial institutions. A man who pays his bills in wads of hundred dollar notes is bound to be judged harshly by his peers, who will jump to the most ridiculous conclusions about where the money came from. What I offer is complete privacy and a helpful non-judgemental service. It’s not my role to determine the rights or wrongs of my clients; I’m here to represent them to the best of my abilities. If it turns out that the money I’m handling is dirty cash obtained through drug deals, gun-running, child slavery and international crime then I’ll pretend to be as surprised as everyone else when it comes time to explain myself.
I reckon I’ll beat this rap, just like the last three, even though I’m starting to wonder whether my mate from Kyrgyzstan will bother to show up. I’ve never actually met the guy, but his emails to me assured me he was legit. So why hasn't he shown up at my offices like I asked him to?
The SFO are now telling me there’s this law that says I have to verify the identity of people if they pay me large amounts in cash. Who knew? Do these people think I have time in my busy day job to read the law? Anyway, it’s a minor technicality, and the whole thing’s a joke. I’m a lawyer who believes that a man’s word is his bond. If someone emails me from out of the blue promising me huge amounts of cash if only I will just help him to get money out of his dodgy third world country in a hurry, then why shouldn’t I take him at his word? Has it come to the point where we can’t even trust the word of a total stranger in a foreign country notorious for various scams? Sometimes I wonder what our society has come to.
The last time they tried to take me down they failed, so for the SFO this might be getting personal. The first time they tried me they were laughed out of court, mainly because I hid the most crucial evidence in a shoebox in my ceiling cavity, and because the star witness for the prosecution recanted just before going into the witness box. Of course, I wouldn’t know anything about that, although I may have need to call on the people who helped me out of that tight spot if this current matter continues to escalate.
So don’t concern yourself over my fate, because I expect to be around for a while yet. Despite numerous attempts by the authorities and the Law Society to sully my good name I remain in practice. If there’s any little thing I can do for you or your business associates please don’t forget to call me. Confidentiality is assured, and my prices are very reasonable, at first, until you get in so deep with me that you’re hopelessly trapped. I’m also very good at solving the little legal problems that my clients experience from time to time, because unlike most other lawyers I don’t get bogged down in the little stuff, like the law and ethics. But remember my motto: cash is king. My terms are strictly money up-front, in hard currency. And while you’re there, ask me about my latest business venture. I may just have the perfect car for you!
The Scottish Verdict And Some Other Alternatives
The acquittal of Ewen Macdonald on Tuesday has reignited debate over whether we should adopt the “Scottish Verdict” as part of our criminal justice system.
I’m not a fan of Scottish innovations generally, particularly the kilt or the bagpipe. The sound of a highland bagpipe band can be most stirring, but when played badly the bagpipe is positively damaging to the health of those it is inflicted upon. If I am ever to face trial for murder, as Ewen Macdonald did, it will be because I went on a stabbing frenzy after enduring the searing noise of a lone bagpiping busker.
But the Scottish jury system deserves some consideration. Under Scottish law the jury has the power to deliver a “not proven” verdict, which is an acquittal but one which recognises that the jury were not convinced of the accused’s innocence.
Personally, I’d be in favour of giving juries more discretion to deliver verdicts that better fit their perception of the accused. However, I don’t see why we should have to limit ourselves to three verdicts like the Scottish do: guilty, not guilty and not proven. We can do better than that.
Let’s look at some possible additions to the current two options available to juries.
Guilty as sin
Criteria: Under this verdict, the accused is so utterly, absurdly guilty that his or her continuing maintenance of innocence is an affront to all decent people.
Effect: The effect of this verdict is that no appeal is allowed, and the accused’s lawyer is also to be tarred and feathered in a public place for allowing this insult to the justice system to continue in such a grotesque manner.
Quite guilty
Criteria: Maybe the evidence isn’t quite all there, but we all know the bastard did it. Quite possibly the evidence is actually weak, but the guy’s body language shows he did it. Plus, the guy won’t even take the stand to testify in his own defence, which everyone knows means he’s a guilty son of a bitch, and don’t give me any of those legal niceties about the right to silence.
Effect: Like a guilty verdict, but journalists, writers and former All Blacks will be permitted to make hay writing books about the case, and proclaiming the guilt or innocence of the person concerned.
Guilty because I don’t like him/her
Criteria: For nailing someone the jury dislikes for no rational reason, such as the colour of their skin, their sexual preference, or their religion. For use when the evidence is weak but the accused must be punished for some offence they have caused to the jury.
Effect: Like the Quite Guilty verdict, except that the accused is automatically entitled to one retrial in front of a more civilised group of jurors.
Not guilty but a villainous piece of work
Criteria: Where the evidence doesn’t warrant a conviction, but where the jury aren’t convinced the accused is innocent of the crime, because the accused is such a nasty character.
Effect: The same as an acquittal, except that the accused is to be taken to a public place, stripped down, and flogged before the news media.
Not guilty but there’s a stink about this chap that I don't like and I won’t have him in my club
Criteria: Similar to Not Guilty but a Villainous Piece of Work, except that the accused is not quite as repulsive or loathsome.
Effect: Like an acquittal, but the accused is barred from joining any golf clubs, church choirs, sports teams, or Rotary clubs for five years from the date of the verdict. The acquitted subject is also to be spoken about in whispers whenever the accused is amongst friends and work colleagues.
Not guilty and a pillar of the community
Criteria: Where the accused is white, middle-aged and wealthy.
Effect: An acquittal. The acquitted person writes a book detailing his experiences in prison awaiting trial, the most harrowing of which involved having to use 2-ply toiletpaper.
Not guilty due to being innocent, but with reservations
Criteria: For use where it’s clear that the accused didn’t commit the crime, but where some moral flaw on the part of the accused (e.g. he/she is an ACT MP or likes UB40) prevents the jury from being overly sympathetic.
Effect: An acquittal and a declaration that the accused is innocent, but the accused still leaves the court with his/her head hanging in shame.
Not guilty due to being innocent, should never have been tried, has been the victim of a monstrous witch-hunt by the police and Crown, and is just like Jesus
Criteria: For use whenever a celebrity is on trial.
Effect: An acquittal, except that the accused must accept as many hugs, marriage proposals and autograph requests as the jury may demand.
I’m not a fan of Scottish innovations generally, particularly the kilt or the bagpipe. The sound of a highland bagpipe band can be most stirring, but when played badly the bagpipe is positively damaging to the health of those it is inflicted upon. If I am ever to face trial for murder, as Ewen Macdonald did, it will be because I went on a stabbing frenzy after enduring the searing noise of a lone bagpiping busker.
But the Scottish jury system deserves some consideration. Under Scottish law the jury has the power to deliver a “not proven” verdict, which is an acquittal but one which recognises that the jury were not convinced of the accused’s innocence.
Personally, I’d be in favour of giving juries more discretion to deliver verdicts that better fit their perception of the accused. However, I don’t see why we should have to limit ourselves to three verdicts like the Scottish do: guilty, not guilty and not proven. We can do better than that.
Let’s look at some possible additions to the current two options available to juries.
Guilty as sin
Criteria: Under this verdict, the accused is so utterly, absurdly guilty that his or her continuing maintenance of innocence is an affront to all decent people.
Effect: The effect of this verdict is that no appeal is allowed, and the accused’s lawyer is also to be tarred and feathered in a public place for allowing this insult to the justice system to continue in such a grotesque manner.
Quite guilty
Criteria: Maybe the evidence isn’t quite all there, but we all know the bastard did it. Quite possibly the evidence is actually weak, but the guy’s body language shows he did it. Plus, the guy won’t even take the stand to testify in his own defence, which everyone knows means he’s a guilty son of a bitch, and don’t give me any of those legal niceties about the right to silence.
Effect: Like a guilty verdict, but journalists, writers and former All Blacks will be permitted to make hay writing books about the case, and proclaiming the guilt or innocence of the person concerned.
Guilty because I don’t like him/her
Criteria: For nailing someone the jury dislikes for no rational reason, such as the colour of their skin, their sexual preference, or their religion. For use when the evidence is weak but the accused must be punished for some offence they have caused to the jury.
Effect: Like the Quite Guilty verdict, except that the accused is automatically entitled to one retrial in front of a more civilised group of jurors.
Not guilty but a villainous piece of work
Criteria: Where the evidence doesn’t warrant a conviction, but where the jury aren’t convinced the accused is innocent of the crime, because the accused is such a nasty character.
Effect: The same as an acquittal, except that the accused is to be taken to a public place, stripped down, and flogged before the news media.
Not guilty but there’s a stink about this chap that I don't like and I won’t have him in my club
Criteria: Similar to Not Guilty but a Villainous Piece of Work, except that the accused is not quite as repulsive or loathsome.
Effect: Like an acquittal, but the accused is barred from joining any golf clubs, church choirs, sports teams, or Rotary clubs for five years from the date of the verdict. The acquitted subject is also to be spoken about in whispers whenever the accused is amongst friends and work colleagues.
Not guilty and a pillar of the community
Criteria: Where the accused is white, middle-aged and wealthy.
Effect: An acquittal. The acquitted person writes a book detailing his experiences in prison awaiting trial, the most harrowing of which involved having to use 2-ply toiletpaper.
Not guilty due to being innocent, but with reservations
Criteria: For use where it’s clear that the accused didn’t commit the crime, but where some moral flaw on the part of the accused (e.g. he/she is an ACT MP or likes UB40) prevents the jury from being overly sympathetic.
Effect: An acquittal and a declaration that the accused is innocent, but the accused still leaves the court with his/her head hanging in shame.
Not guilty due to being innocent, should never have been tried, has been the victim of a monstrous witch-hunt by the police and Crown, and is just like Jesus
Criteria: For use whenever a celebrity is on trial.
Effect: An acquittal, except that the accused must accept as many hugs, marriage proposals and autograph requests as the jury may demand.
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
The Ewen Macdonald Trial: A Hopeless Crown Case
I wrote the bulk of this post last week, when it became clear that Ewen Macdonald would be acquitted. I followed the case closely, but it was difficult not to. What caught my attention was not the sight of the Guy and Macdonald women crying in front of the camera every night, but the astonishing fact that the Crown didn't appear to have any strong evidence.
However, the sub judice rule meant I wasn't able to publicly comment until now.
It's commonplace for the police and Crown to get an ear-bashing whenever the accused person in a high profile case is acquitted. Sometimes it's deserved, but sometimes the jury just surprises everyone.
In the case of Ewen Macdonald the system has worked. The Crown put up a shoddy case full of holes and inconsistencies, but the jury weren't fooled.
The evidence put up against Macdonald was weak. It's all very well establishing a motive for murder, but motive isn't enough. The crucial evidence supposedly linking Macdonald to the crime scene was a pair of boots the accused was supposed to own. Boots that were never found. Boots that may have been chucked out years ago. Boots that left prints possibly too large to be those of Macdonald's.
Nobody should be fooled into thinking that the verdict suddenly makes Macdonald a saint, or some harmless salt-of-the-earth cockie. His earlier behaviour towards the Guys was appalling and inexcusable and deeply disturbing, and many people will remain convinced that a murderer has walked free. We'll never know whether Macdonald killed Scott Guy, unless there's an "If I Did It" book in the pipeline or a deathbed confession. I suspect Macdonald won't get the superstar treatment David Bain got when he was acquitted.
Some people will say the system has failed the Guy family, but those people should not blame the court system. They ought to blame the police and Crown for bringing a case that was always going to end in an acquittal and more pain for the Guy family.
However, the sub judice rule meant I wasn't able to publicly comment until now.
It's commonplace for the police and Crown to get an ear-bashing whenever the accused person in a high profile case is acquitted. Sometimes it's deserved, but sometimes the jury just surprises everyone.
In the case of Ewen Macdonald the system has worked. The Crown put up a shoddy case full of holes and inconsistencies, but the jury weren't fooled.
The evidence put up against Macdonald was weak. It's all very well establishing a motive for murder, but motive isn't enough. The crucial evidence supposedly linking Macdonald to the crime scene was a pair of boots the accused was supposed to own. Boots that were never found. Boots that may have been chucked out years ago. Boots that left prints possibly too large to be those of Macdonald's.
Nobody should be fooled into thinking that the verdict suddenly makes Macdonald a saint, or some harmless salt-of-the-earth cockie. His earlier behaviour towards the Guys was appalling and inexcusable and deeply disturbing, and many people will remain convinced that a murderer has walked free. We'll never know whether Macdonald killed Scott Guy, unless there's an "If I Did It" book in the pipeline or a deathbed confession. I suspect Macdonald won't get the superstar treatment David Bain got when he was acquitted.
Some people will say the system has failed the Guy family, but those people should not blame the court system. They ought to blame the police and Crown for bringing a case that was always going to end in an acquittal and more pain for the Guy family.
Monday, July 2, 2012
Environmentalists Are Not The Problem, Mr Groser
It's behind an NBR paywall, but I'm told this is how Trade Minister Tim Groser described the threat to our "100% Pure" image.
We're not the most polluted country in the world, but nor are we clean. We should aspire to be a country where the physical environment we live in is nurtured and cherished, rather than being treated as a dumping ground.
If our clean green image is so important, why isn't the government Groser is a part of doing more to protect it? Groser's attack on environmentalists is a clumsy attempt to divert attention from the government's failures.
Nobody living in a democracy should be talking about "internal enemies", but if we must identify those responsible for the failure of our "100% Pure" brand, let's start with the polluters, not those who are trying to improve the environment.
“Our enemies who are internal, will find one cow in one stream and feed it back to environmental activists in the developed world to be used to try to exclude New Zealand’s products and services in the ludicrous belief this will somehow help New Zealand.”
The 100% pure brand was used to market the New Zealand tourism experience and it has been deliberately manipulated in this space,” Mr Groser says.The "100% Pure" brand might be a good one for the tourism folk, but we don't live up to the promise. The brand trades on New Zealand's reputation for being an unspoilt paradise, but it's a reputation we don't deserve. Our streams and waterways are dirty, our agricultural emissions are growing, and we subsidise our biggest polluters. There is also no sense of urgency within central government about the threat to our clean green image.
We're not the most polluted country in the world, but nor are we clean. We should aspire to be a country where the physical environment we live in is nurtured and cherished, rather than being treated as a dumping ground.
If our clean green image is so important, why isn't the government Groser is a part of doing more to protect it? Groser's attack on environmentalists is a clumsy attempt to divert attention from the government's failures.
Nobody living in a democracy should be talking about "internal enemies", but if we must identify those responsible for the failure of our "100% Pure" brand, let's start with the polluters, not those who are trying to improve the environment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)