Poneke has a forthright post this morning about the news that the MeNZB vaccination campaign is being drawn to a close. The epidemic is over, and there is a desire to make way for Prevenar, an infant vaccine that can prevent pneumonia, ear infections, septicemia and pneumococcal meningitis.
The post notes a blog post I made in 2004 about our experience with the vaccination campaign (there was a follow-up the next day) and says: "Russell is neither anti-science nor anti-vaccination, so it would be interesting to hear in hindsight if he feels he was fooled by the anti-MeNZB campaign when he wrote that article."
Well, no. And if you read that post and various things I've written about the people involved in the anti-vaccine campaign I think that's evident. But as I explained in a reply on Poneke, I remain of the view that the official consumer information about adverse reactions -- as suffered repeatedly by our son -- was superficial to a very unhelpful degree.
Meanwhile, I'll do Audrey Young the credit of thinking that she didn't have any context for the notes from the Labour congress at the centre of her story yesterday.
The story about "confidential strategy notes" in which delegates were advised to distribute pamphlets on KiwiSaver produced by the Inland Revenue Department and on Working for Families produced by Work and Income" and "also advised to tell voters when handing out the pamphlets that National voted against both measures," could have led a reader to think that such behaviour was actually part of a party strategy.
But, as Young acknowledges this morning, One News reported last night that the suggestion came from a delegate on the floor and Mike Williams -- the fool -- uttered words to the effect that it was a damned good idea. The Prime Minister has been obliged to wade in and Williams has, once again, put his foot in it quite badly.
Update: I've just noticed that Audrey has explained in a comment on yesterday's thread that "My story this morning was based on notes taken by a participant in the closed workshop run by Mike Williams, not by any notes he distributed." The story could have been clearer, I think.
There's an interesting thread about the new Roy Morgan poll on The Standard, especially one comment about sample sizes in a multi-party environment. Given the way crazy way the Greens' support jumps around in some polls (Morgan has it tripling since its last poll), I do wonder.
I've also been meaning to mention The Standard's Interview the Leaders feature. Regular readers will know The Standard can be clatteringly partisan, but this is a good initiative. Jim Anderton and Jeanette Fitzsimons have answered questions so far, and the editors say they'll have Helen Clark's answers to readers' questions by next Monday. They're currently soliciting questions for Rodney Hide.
Meanwhile, the US primary mess trundles on. I must say, the Clinton campaign's assault on Obama over his reported comments at a private meeting about why small-town Americans were "bitter" about the government sets a new bar for disingenuousness, especially when Clinton went so far as to reinvent herself as a huntin', shootin' pro-gun country gal, in contrast to Obama's "elitism". The shame of it is that it's entirely destructive in a way that the same attack would not have been coming from a Republican.
I think Josh Marshall gets it right:
And seeing Hillary go on about how Obama has contempt for folks in small town America, how he's elitist, well ... no, it's not because I think she's either. I never have. But after seeing her hit unfairly with just the same stuff for years, it just encapsulates the last three-plus months of her campaign which I can only describe as a furious descent into nonsense and self-parody. Part of it makes me want to cry. But at this point all I can really do is laugh.
Meanwhile, Hilary took a stage and declared that when she last actually fired a gun or went to church was "not a relevant question". Obama, after initially declining to return fire at his fellow Democrat (he bagged McCain, with whom Clinton has been double-teaming him, immediately), was very funny when he did respond.
Salon has a lengthy article by Rebecca Traister about how the cultish "Obama boys" don't like Hillary Clinton because, well, they're sexist. There's no doubt there is creeping misogyny threaded through the political sphere. But I don't think that's the main reason so many Democrat voters are turned off Clinton. I think it's more that she's seen as a hypocrite and a political brute who's damaging her own party. That would be it.