Recent Posts...
Page 107 of 323
Archive
Ins and outs | Oct 13, 2005 12:19
Looks like we might have a government, and pretty much on schedule: even if it does turn out to be at the cost of a superannuation windfall that might just be affordable now but certainly won't when the baby-boomers start clocking off.
For all that some of us fume about Winston Peters, he can (unlike last time around) guarantee his own party's discipline. If anyone is to spit the dummy in New Zealand First, it will be the leader himself. Whatever Labour and Green supporters might think about buddying up with Winston, it is likely to be a stable arrangement.
Notice that she was to be surplus to requirements was presumably what moved Tariana Turia to call a meeting with National to propose, apparently, a National-Act-UF-NZF-Maori coalition, which might have been highly amusing, but not exactly the kind of government you'd bet money on.
That didn't stop good old Barry Soper from speculating wildly on its prospects yesterday, first with a story noting the meeting and declaring that the "only problem" with such a coalition was "National's hard-line one-rule-for-all position." Er, yes. Quite.
By day's end, Newstalk was claiming, on the basis of comments from Pita Sharples, that the Maori Party might be prepared to give up on changes to the foreshore and seabed legislation and entrenchment of the Maori seats in order to go into coalition with National. I can only assume Sharples was quoted out of context. If he wasn't, that was not so much a negotiating position as a suicide note.
News finally breaks that some members of the National Party caucus are not best pleased with Murray McCully and would like to see him out of his present strategic role. Film at 11 yawns DPF, pointing out that McCully's demise has been predicted at regular intervals since 1993.
I'm not so sure. Brian Connell and Lockwood Smith (now there's an odd couple) are not the only National MPs keen to see the back of McCully. Certainly, as Idiot/Savant points out in the comments for DPF's post (which make very good reading), he has " the political survival skills of a cockroach," but there's always a first, or rather, last, time.
My understanding is that John Key has now been anointed as the ideal "McCully candidate" (that is, underdone and under direction) - Murray's not the most loyal of soldiers - but I would think that Key is intelligent enough to un-anoint himself if circumstances demand. Pass the popcorn anyway.
And just when you despaired of a windbag conservative opinion-former ever being nailed for parroting Maxim Institute talking points, this email was circulated to editorial staff of The Press yesterday:
From: Paul Thompson (CPL)
Sent: Wednesday, 12 October 2005 11:17 a.m.
To: * CPL - All Editorial
Subject: NOTE TO STAFFYou will see in tomorrow's paper an editor's note advising that Alexis Stuart will no longer be writing her fortnightly column for The Press, because of concern that has been raised about the originality of some of her material in her most recent column.
I wanted you all to be aware of this in advance of reading about it in the paper.
The concern was raised by a correspondent who noticed identical wording in part of Stuart's column to that in an article written by the Maxim Institute's director, Bruce Logan, who is also her father. I immediately made inquiries of Alexis seeking an explanation. She blamed it on a misunderstanding, arising from her seeking her father's advice on the column. While I have always been fully aware of her relationship to Logan and the Maxim Institute, there was a clear expectation that her columns were honestly and independently formed, but that has proved in this instance to not be the case.
My unhappiness about this was heightened by the fact that all contributors to The Press were written to last year to be advised of the newspaper's concern about the risk of plagiarism and writers "borrowing" material from other unattributed sources.
I am extremely disappointed by this episode and expect some reaction, both from other news organisations and from readers. I have considered my response to the original complaint at length and am convinced that the decision to cease the paper's relationship with Stuart is the right course, given the potential for damage to our credibility.
Paul.
Given the routine nastiness of Stuart's columns, and the irritating non-originality of Maxim's various editorial drones, I'm not inclined to feel a jot of sympathy.
Staying with boneheaded right-wing talking points, Mike Beggs recommended this dispatch from the DDT Wars in Australia. Fascinating.
The telecommunications regulatory framework might seem to grind very slowly - because it does - but today's headline Internet faster, cheaper by Xmas, shows that it does eventually produce results. The story talks about 7.6Mbit/s DSL download speeds, but in a way the most significant thing is that the evil and unjustifiable 128Kbit/s cap on upload speed will finally go. NB: It appears that I'm wrong on the upload issue. If so, I'm flabbergasted that this is the case. It is STUPID AND UNACCEPTABLE.
And yes, it was a video iPod after all. But a USB interface? WTF? Are they trying to make it difficult? On the face of it, yes. It's quite remarkable that iTunes Store customers will be able to download day-after episodes of Lost and Desperate Housewives. But obviously the networks aren't quite ready for an iPod that connects to your your actual television. On the other hand, the new iMac G5 makes it really easy to use your Mac as your TV and play your iTunes downloads that way. I'd sure like one of them Apples …
Snot Fare | Oct 12, 2005 09:52
Lyndon Hood notices National MP Shane Ardern's take on the Didymo "rock snot" river infestations. It was the gummint's fault, because it failed to "kill" the first two rivers where the algae was found. ("This stuff can be killed, but unfortunately they have to kill the river for a few years to do it. But surely it would have been better to sacrifice one or two rivers than let it spread through the South Island.")
Lyndon could find no evidence that temporarily "killing" rivers is practical, or even possible. Neither can I. The Biosecurity NZ FAQ says "We know of no systematic attempts to eradicate invasive blooms of Didymo overseas."
The comments on the issue on Frogblog seem to bear this out. It seems as if Ardern simply made it up. Can you imagine the government declaring it was going to dam or poison two major rivers on the basis of no evidence at all? Frog also points out that those crazy old Greens were sounding the alarm about this last year.
Speaking of the Greens, check out yesterday's bunfight on Kiwiblog over Roger Kerr's little essay on why he doesn't like the Greens. Kerr - apropos of bugger-all - picked up a popular right-wing talking point: that the Green movement is responsible for "millions of deaths" from malaraia in developing countries through its efforts to have DDT banned. (Actually DDT was banned by the US Environmental Protection Agency in 1972, and is included in the Stockholm Convention list of persistent environmental pollutants to be phased out. The convention was ratified here by the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill. The Greens voted for that. So did National.)
Kerr claims there is "massive evidence" that DDT is in fact harmless to humans and wildlife. Actually, there isn't: three studies in the last four years have raised real concerns that environmental exposure to DDT causes reproductive health problems, including early pregnancy losses. But the WHO (and Greenpeace for that matter) has backed the use of DDT for mosquito control in Africa (generally as an indoor spray), as the lesser of two evils. (Our Stockholm Convention law makes similar provision for "emergency" use of DDT and other toxins.)
The problem with widespread use of DDT, even in that context, is that mosquito populations develop resistance to it. Returning to its use as an agricultural pesticide would be something akin to madness. Roger Kerr would do well to check his facts before he sounds off next time, lest he further embarrass himself. Anyway, there are competing links galore in the Kiwiblog thread. Just don't be alarmed by the angry right-wing bloggers. Although being amused is fine.
You know, it's not so much that the War on Terror is costing American taxpayers $7 billion a month - security has a price tag, right? - as that $6 billion of that monthly figure is being spent trying to hold the line in Iraq.
I'll leave you to come to your own conclusions about that.
OneGoodMove has quite a good - and very lively - discussion on religion from Bill Maher's Real Time, with Maher and Salman Rushdie playing devil's advocates to Andrew Sullivan and Ben Affleck.
A couple of reader comments on yesterday's stuff about the Maori Party and the foreshore and seabed issue. Benita Kape said:
Good on Atareta. Her speaking it like it is is just what is needed, now not later. Sure Tariana did what was needed and formed THE Maori Party. She was never the one who would be able to hold it together. It is not that at this particular point they looked an unstable party, it was at the very moment that Tariana said she wanted the hui. We need a substantial leader beside Peter Sharples and that would be Atareta. That would keep both Brash and the Labour Party honest and we would have a Maori Party that would go in to the fray far, far stronger than with Tariana at the helm. Tariana will have to realise that now is not her moment. She has in fact squandered it when in essence you ask your people to re-vote by going through this particular hui process. Once they were voted in, they knew where the people had voted. What an interesting precedent we are now setting with the hui. Atareta may not want leadership but whatever happens she is brutally honest and to use her words no gal for 'the glad -eye' approach. She trusts her people within the voting system and knows what they want and what they have asked of her. Hone Harawira certainly does.
And Anthony Trenwith saw an opportunity to revisit the F&S amid the coalition horse-tranding:
The problem with the F&S Act is simply that it was rushed (and not to mention wholly unnecessary) legislation brought about by a kneejerk reaction on the part of the government to Don Brash's own speech at Orewa. If Clark, or more appropriately, Margaret Wilson; has actually taken the time to read the Ngati Apa decision they would have had a better understanding of the situation and would have been able to engage in intelligent and rational debate with Brash. In fact, given that Brash himself probably hadn't read the decision either, they would have been able to make their point more effectively than they did. Instead, caught on the back foot, they decided to rush through a divisive and badly drafted piece of legislation in response to a perceived threat that existed only in their own imaginations. As Jim Evans pointed out last year, these are, after all, two highly intelligent people, who have access to legal advisers. We expect leadership from them. What they have given us is not good enough.
Very little has changed since then. The Maori Party was established out of the wake of the unrest arising from what Maori rightly perceived as a gross injustice - the government legislating away the fruits of their victory in the Court of Appeal. Yet if that is the one thing that binds its individual members together, one has to ask what will happen should then ever achieve their goal?
If Labour had any sense, they would agree to be "open to discussions" on amending (if not totally repealing) the F&S Act. A little constructive dialogue can go a long way. If the Maori Party had any sense, they would make it clear that they were willing to work contructively to achieve an equitable compromise on the issue without going so far as to sell out, or pay any price. Finally, if National had any sense, they'd recognise that the hardline approach on race-relations, while not without some merit, is ultimately injurious to the country as a whole and needs to be watered down. Bill English's recognition of, and appreciation for diversity of ethnicities and cultures is a clear sign of the appropriate direction.
Whether the hardliners in all of the parties will (ever) understand or appreciate the need for these changes remains to be seen. Yet, at the same time, it's important not to loose sight of the fact that New Zealand's track record in race relations isn't actually half bad, and there is the real possiblity of distinct progress towards complete reconcilation between Maori and Pakeha allowing all of New Zealand to move forward together. Whether or not this happens is of course entirely dependent on the people in Parliament.
I tend to agree. If National really is offering abolition as a coalition sweetie, it could hardly hurt Labour to promise a review.
Some geek stuff: Slashdot posters get techno-stiffies over the new kit commissioned by Weta Digital.
Very interesting post from Ben Metcalfe on the BBC News website's "dirty little secret" - that the vast majority of the 10,000 comments it fields every day don't get read, let alone published. But they're doing something about it: going to a Slashdot-style moderation system. Huzzah!
Synthetic Thoughts is bitching about not getting a link from my current Listener column on the issue of copyright in forward TV listings. Dude, I thought you wanted to stay under cover …
While we're at it, here's my story on business and blogging for Unlimited magazine.
Xeni from Boing Boing writes about how Yahoo gave up the identity of a Chinese journalist to stay cool with the regime. Yahoo gets to keep on doing business in China, the journalist is in jail for 10 years.
And you still have a chance to make your stand on press freedom in New Zealand by bidding for the exclusive and historic signed copy of the injuncted issue of Salient on Trade Me.
Wheezy | Oct 11, 2005 10:02
I don't think this is what the Maori Party wanted before its first group of MPs are even seated. Its third-ranked list candidate Atareta Poananga has blasted its consultative hui process, describing it and co-leader Tariana Turia's glad-eye approach to National as "political suicide". Turia yesterday declared herself and her fellow MPs to have been given carte blanche to make coalition decisions by the hui, but Te Tai Tokerau candidate Hone Harawira said that was not the case at all, and hui in his electorate and Tainui had been trenchantly opposed to an accommodation with National, no matter what policy concessions were offered. They have contrived in short order to look like an unstable party.
When I interviewed him a couple of weeks ago, new Labour MP Shane Jones expressed the view - as, indeed, he has all along - that the foreshore and seabed issue had taken on an emotional charge that overwhelmed its practical significance. Would a promise from National - as claimed by Richard Prebble in the Herald on Sunday - to abolish the seabed and foreshore legislation in favour of some unspecified alternative really make up for the abolition of Te Puni Kokiri, the Maori Land Court and the Maori electorates? And the alteration of the school curriculum to remove emphasis on the Treaty? Or would National drop those policies too? In which case: WTF?
Adam Gifford explores this territory to useful effect in his new Nga Korero o te Wa blog, suggesting a return to the roots of the dispute: the Marlborough District Council's shabby and unfair behaviour in allocating (or, rather, consistently failing to allocate) aquaculture rights to local iwi. In the comments, Tim Selwyn points out that "the F&S Act is the genesis of the party" and proposes that we're seeing a good-cop-bad-cop strategy. I think that's overly charitable.
Meanwhile, Turia managed to have another go at her former party in, of all things, a speech to the National Maori Asthma Conference, crediting leaving Labour with clearing up her asthma.
David Farrar's analysis of the 2005 election results, originally compiled for internal National party use, has been liberated and published on the Act website (PDF). It's excellent.
This is worth a look. Mary Mapes, the CBS producer who conducted the investigation that became Rathergate, has written a book about it: Truth and Duty: The Press, the President, and the Privilege of Power. According to Cursor.org, the book was removed from the catalogue of Amazon.com, but is still listed on Amazon's Canadian site, where it appears with the book's first chapter.
It's useful to read, finally, a little of Mapes' own account of how the story was put together - and what happened after the right-wing attack machine turned on it. Was the memo a fake after all? As things stand, you'd have to say yes, but that doesn't make Mapes' story any less interesting.
Another behind-the-curtains media story (hat-tip No Right Turn) is Irish RTE reporter Carole Coleman's account of an interview she conducted with George W. Bush that subsequently became somewhat controversial. As an interviewer, she did everything right. But the behaviour of the President's media handlers? Yucky.
Question: Would a sensible response to soaring oil prices be to try and radically increase petrol production; delay, undermine or abolish existing air quality and emissions regulations; cap fines for price gouging; freeze development of cleaner fuels; and generally hand a great big slab of pork to the oil industry?
No? Well, that's the gist of the Gasoline for America's Security Act of 2005, which squeaked through the US House in highly questionable circumstances this week, with some Republican legislators voting with their arms forced up their backs. The National Environmental Trust summarises "the worst of the worst" of the bill, while conservative Republican Congressman Tom Cole puts the case in favour ("If we expect gasoline to remain affordable, we must build additional refinery capacity").
The strange thing is that US oil producers have been closing refineries for the last 15 years - citing excess refining capacity - and, according to a report by Democratic Senator Ron Wyden in 2001, doing so specifically to create scarcity:
The record shows – supported by documents I have obtained – that there is more to the story. Specifically, the documents suggest that major oil companies pursued efforts to curtail refinery capacity as a strategy for improving profit margins; that competing oil companies worked together to subvert supply; that refinery closures inhibited supply; and that oil companies are reaping record profits, yet may benefit from a proposed national energy policy that would offer financial incentives to expand refinery capacity.
Worked out quite nicely for them, didn't it?
So, is it a video iPod this week, then? Probably not, but that's not stopping everyone speculating like crazy.
Signal to Noise | Oct 10, 2005 10:33
Well, damn: I missed the scoop. At the Music Awards on Wednesday night, I bumped into the original Westie Girl, Jan Hellriegel, who had shortly before accosted the mayor and asked him to guarantee the survival of the speedway at Western Springs. Don't you worry, he said, that's all sorted out. And it is: sort of. The speedway promoters will stage fewer meets every year, but will be able to exceed the 85 decibel limit agreed in the district plans 10 years ago, and will be allowed to reach 90 decibels at 60% of those events.
Hopefully, the promoters will actually attempt to meet the new limits. For all the scorn poured on the whining neighbours, I found it difficult to accept that the promoters should not only get a free pass after ignoring their own agreement, but be able to stage louder and more frequent meets as the years passed. The thing is, as Brian Rudman points out today (in a column I would have linked to but can't because it is "premium content"), the cost of an inquiry into the "best practicable options" for solving the noise problem in the long term will fall squarely on ratepayers. The residents will also get $5000 for their own noise consultant, and may yet wind up with ratepayer-funded double-glazing (anyone inclined to snort at this would do well to ponder how they'd feel if they had all their windows shut on a summer Saturday evening and still couldn't hear the television).
The Herald editorial (yes, "premium content" again) also pronounces, not unkindly, on Dick Hubbard's first year in mayoral office, and concludes that he needs to demonstrate "action" to match his "vision". In so doing, it tends to perpetuate the idea that John Banks, the ultimate small dog, actually did a lot as distinct from making a lot of noise. I suspect Aucklanders are quite enjoying picking up the paper and not reading another story about another preposterous mayoral utterance. I don't think that's the same thing as Auckland "looking and feeling a little dull."
Meanwhile, Aaron Bhatnagar has a letter in the paper expressing his disappointment that Hubbard has failed to share "council responsibilities in a fair, generous fashion", by re-allocating the responsibilities of the indisposed Bruce Hucker to members of the minority Citizens and Ratepayers group, rather than Hucker's own camp. Oh, honestly, Aaron. Given the winner-take-all attitude towards the division of responsibilities pursued by the CitRat council under Banks, that's staggeringly rich.
As you may have noticed, I wrestle a little with the religious beliefs of others. It is my instinct and my intent to be tolerant. I'm much more comfortable with religion in the context of, as Nandor put it when we spoke last week, "the search for the divine", than I am when it is marshalled behind social strictures and the frankly irrational (the airtime given to proponents of "creative design" lately is making me nervous). After all, a burgeoning sense of the spirit has led David Dobbyn to make the best album of his career this year. But can I reconcile the grandeur and complexity of the universe with the desire to personify its inspiration in an oily man like Brian Tamaki? No, dear readers, I can not. If you want a metaphor, it's the difference between Dave's album (or, say, the works of Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, Johnny Cash or Bob Marley) and banal and annoying "Christian rock".
Which is by way of introduction to the observation that perhaps too much has been made of the reported statement by George W. Bush that God told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. But I think that those of us who believe a mandate should extend up from the people rather than down from Heaven have a right to be hostile on this one. Because if it's considered alright for George to act on the advice of his special friend, then it's rather more difficult to condemn Osama Bin Laden for claiming justification for what he does in the name of his God. Isn't it?
The Daily Telegraph has an excellent interview with Sheila Ravenscroft, the widow of John Peel. I was lucky enough to meet them both several years ago, and I greatly enjoyed this story. She and their children have completed the autobiography he was writing when he died, which contains the story of his being raped at an exclusive English boarding school, which was characterised by an appalling atmosphere of sexual abuse.
As is the case almost everywhere now, there were bloggers in the zone of the South Asian earthquake. Imran Malik, an American study medicine in Pakistan, has been covering the quake and its aftermath. He also has an indie rock thing going on with The Fatsumas. Meanwhile, the keeper of a Koran blog saw a warning from upstairs.
Some video: Bill Maher's most recent 'New Rules' is a cracker. I laughed out loud. Maher also interviewed Ann Coulter about the right-wing outrage at Bush's bizarre appointment of Harriet Miers to the US Supreme Court ("But where were you when he nominated Mike Brown and every other loser that he put in a high position?" Maher asks. "Why is this suddenly an issue?"). And Jon Stewart went on Letterman. That last one is a 12MB QuickTime 7-only file, but you can watch it on plain old television at 10.55pm tonight on Prime.
Page 107 of 323
Archive