There's more than talk to all this at the moment. This week's Listener editorial takes a well-informed looked at two developments:. First, the delivery to government of the Land and Water Forum's third and final report on water standards -- and the Environment Minister Amy Adams' subsequent sidelining of the forum in favour of "a seemingly secret group of officials
That's a really interesting comment- particularly considering the previous Environment Minister Nick Smith appeared to be hugely supportive of the forum, at least in public and in interviews. I was unaware of that development with regards to Amy Adams.
To be fair, ECan was dysfunctional, especially on water issues. Something needed to be done.
It's now a matter of public record (thanks to one of earlier MfE "document dumps" after the sacking of the ECan Councillors back in 2010) that way back in 2006 and again in 2007 and 2008, ECan chairman Kerry Burke and chief executive Bryan Jenkins consistently asked the (then-Labour) Government for special legislative powers to help them deal with the oncoming "gold rush" of water consent applications- such as the ability to declare "moratoriums" on at-risk catchments and a more specific national policy framework to work from (i.e. actual rules and limits that all RCs could use as a baseline). It really was a mess-at both a regional and national level.
Thanks to the ECan Act, the appointed commissioners have the ability to declare moratoriums on "at-risk" catchments.
However- and here's the kicker- no one has the right to appeal any of the appointed ECan commissioners' decisions to Environment Court. You can only appeal on points of law, which is much, much more limited in scope. They are literally extraordinary powers.
And then when PA System came along, the discussions became broader and noisier and funnier and more controversial and social and different and exciting and always educational. So much discussion!
Noisy, funny, controversial, social, different, exciting, educational - says it all and says it for me. Congratulations RB and all.
Indeed, and as someone who reads more than posts, I'm often impressed by the quality of writing here. Long may it continue- and here's to meeting more of you in person.
yeah I did on page one along with the maddow link…what do people have me blocked or something?
Of course not :) I guess my rhetorical phrasing of the "did anyone else notice" was a little on the nose. :)
On another note, I suspect the next few months of "bargaining" will provide ample fodder for the Daily Show...whether or not that's a good thing depends on the actual outcome....
Some context is that in "gold star" science you usually want to be 95 or 99 percent certain. Nate went with 92%, but he is more of a poker player I suspect.
Funnily enough, Silver's admitted he's used his skills in poker player to clean up in online and "friendly" tournaments. He once joked that he became interested in politics when various states started outlawing online poker so he began writing to Congressmen about it :)
Meanwhile, it looks like first of the Obama/House Republicans face-offs has already started.. I would expect Obama not to budge as easily as he done in the past.
Yeah, that Daily Show episode was great, but has anyone else noticed how different Stewart's tone has been towards Fox over the last few years. During the GWB years, he focused on the failings of the administration and the Fox clips were used as comedy gravy, but now there's a clear sense of outright contempt for how Fox operates. Simply put, I don't know how "funny" he finds them anymore. And yet somehow, he's funniest to watch when he's at his angriest!
That said, as good as this aftermath was, I do think the 2008 wrap-up was more exciting, if only because there was a palpable sense of relief coupled with a sense of "okay, now we have something new to work with", and the fact they used far more of the rest of the team. Stewart, as good a front-man as he is, often needs his crew (e.g.Oliver,Mandvi, Wyatt Cenac , the recent edition of Jessica Williams etc) to really drive the point home.
I really I wish I liked what Rachael Maddow's show does, but most of the time she grates on me- the fact her "guest correspondents" are usually just pundits who agree with her doesn't help, nor does the sense that I don't know how much journalism the show does in relation to merely commenting on things already covered. I already have the Daily Show for that-- and to give Stewart his due, his range of guests are pretty broad.
I mean, not unexpected, but … does anybody there have anything resembling self-awareness?
Jon Stewart was in his element on the Daily Show last night. It's got to the stage where he's no longer making fun of the Fox Network, he stoops to outright contempt. I could link to the whole episode, but his quick sketch on punditry here is a good taster:
If you read The Economist regularly enough to take its fundamentally classical liberal editorial pulse, it’s hardly surprising that it has a lot of issues with the Obama Administration’s economic and trade policies. And even on “social issues” it’s often more to the left than Obama is. Don’t forget The Economist came out for marriage equality looong before it was trendy. :)
Oh, of course. Editorially, you're never going to be too surprised by The Economist (although it's also argued for a much stronger approach to tackling global warming/climate change than either candidate proffered), but fortunately its reputation is built on the basics of good journalism and good writing. And good design too. I love their covers
That’s the approach the congressional Republicans decided to take, and I guess you could argue it worked for them in the 2010 mid-terms, and at least didn’t cost them the House today. But I don’t think it’s unreasonable to demand they OWN IT.
Yes, and you wonder how long they can continue to do that and still hold onto their seats.
As an aside, it's instructive comparing Obama's keynote 2004 DNC speech to, say, his 2012 presidential acceptance speech. There are a lot of similarities in tone, it has to be said, but damn, Obama 2004 looks a good 16 years younger than Obama 2012, not eight. I guess what they say about the aging effect on presidents is true.
And there's a bigger picture problem here for the GOP. As I've often said, Richard Nixon and the Ronald Reagan who actually served as Governor of California would be ideologically unacceptable to the current debased Tea Bagger/theo-con Republican Party. And don't even delude yourself that Eisenhower or Teddy Roosevelt would have got past the New Hampshire primary.
Just out of curiosity, Craig, have you read the Economist's rather terse endorsement for Obama, published last week? (Although it's not surprising the endorsement is terse, given the Economist's fiscal slant) It's an interesting piece, touching upon some of the concerns you raise above, while their US correspondent covers it in more detail here.
What’s going to happen in the next 4-8 years etc when the percentage of white population/voters drops further and the minorities vote increases? Republicans have got some serious decisions to make if they want to get their fair share of bums on the big seat in the oval office.
Yeah, James Carville talked about just that on CNN. He expects a massive internal struggle over the next 2-3 years for the Republicans, which (as he sees it) will have to lead to the severing of the Tea Party wing if they're ever going to be electable at a presidential level again.