Posts by Caleb D'Anvers
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
They should remember that they tarnish the memory of Ngata and Pomare when they run this populist 'abolish the Maori seats' nonsense.
It's an interesting point. Who now remembers that some of the most prominent Maori political figures of the past once sat on the Reform and United Party benches?
What irritates me most about National's rhetoric is trollish stuff like this:
"I want to see an inclusive, tolerant society, where every New Zealander is equal before the law.
with its smarmy little implication that Maori have more political rights at the moment than anyone else. There's just a total lack of understanding about what the Treaty was, and on what basis Pakeha law in this country actually rests upon. It wasn't a Treaty of Session, no matter what the British drafters thought, and Maori signatories clearly didn't regard it as one. Certainly, the Maori text doesn't confer session.
-
This is an area in which National has actually been transparent, and consistently advocated a relatively unambiguous policy based on a clear principle... I fail to see how this is either cavalier or arrogant.
Well, dissolving a political consensus that's been in place for over 140 years is a pretty radical act, especially for a party that represents itself as being conservative. Sure, the Maori seats were originally a way of minimizing Maori political representation, but they grew into an accepted institution -- a settled compromise that both peoples could live with. I don't see how unilaterally trashing an institution like that -- especially considering the, uh, historical events it grew out of -- could be anything but cavalier and arrogant.
But then, given the apparently blissful ignorance of those events that Key displayed last week, perhaps this degree of recklessness is unsurprising.
-
I thought they'd hedged and qualified that one up the wazoo. Is it still live?
From the National Party website:
The National Party Caucus today moved to confirm its position on the future of the Maori seats, which involves tying their abolition to the settlement of historic Treaty claims.
"The Caucus today confirmed that the Maori seats will be abolished, which we anticipate will take place around the time of settlement of historic Treaty claims," says National Party Leader John Key.
"Around the time of the last settlement - which we anticipate will be in 2014 - National will begin a constitutional process to abolish the seats. The reason for such a process is that this is a major change of interest to all New Zealanders.
"National will also ensure more resources are available to help speed up the claims settlement process.
"I want to see an inclusive, tolerant society, where every New Zealander is equal before the law.
"National thinks there's no place for ethnically-based electoral systems in 21st Century New Zealand," says Mr Key.
-
But seriously, Craig, what's that got to do with anything? Labour isn't the DNC, any more than National is the Rethuglicans. I mean, this isn't even Look! Labour does it too! -- It's Look! Another supposedly Left-wing candidate somewhere in the world ran an attack ad!
And the connection between this and the issue at hand is...?
-
The logical corollary would be things where we are absolutely dire by international standards that nobody complains about, but I can't think of an example off the top of my head.
Housing quality? Journalistic standards? Cricket?
-
Well, in the 'ideal world', serious academic papers are submitted to a lengthy process of peer-review before they are considered worthy of publication. If they manage to survive that, then and only then are they considered for publication - they are generally considered to be prima facie 'good science' - no-one has been able to knock them over (yet).
And even that might not help a scholar as hapless as Clydesdale. I've just finished reading his (peer-reviewed) article on the Beatles: 'Creativity and Competition: The Beatles', Creativity Research Journal 18, no. 2 (2006): 129-39. There are three basic errors in the abstract alone. The rest of it is chock-full of typos, predication errors, and jaw-droppingly naive and simplistic analysis.
His thesis seems to be that competition has been unfairly criticized by 'feminists' and '19th century [sic] Marxists' (129). To silence these nay-sayers, he argues, all we need to do is observe how competition and external economic rewards can combine to produce 'world-class art', namely The Beatles. Clydesdale's stunning tour de force culminates in this lucid and elegantly expressed conclusion:
The Beatles were both intrinsically motivated by their love of music and extrinsically motivated. External rewards such as getting on the A side, getting high in charts, fame, and surpassing their heroes were clear incentives for them, although some of them may have been more influenced by any particular reward than others [huh?]. The structure of the reward system may play a large part in the cooperation–competition dichotomy. Although they competed, the incentive structure was one in which most rewards were shared....
It is also significant that the nature of the extrinsic motivation shaped the nature of the creative output during the White Album period, with George Martin linking their high-quantity/low-quality to the desire to complete their record contract. Clearly, extrinsic rewards can shape either the innovative or prolific nature of creativity. In the case of The Beatles, competition-based incentives, such as outperforming the competition, enhanced innovation. Competition continuously raised the benchmark of what is required to be the best or most successful. When combined with the team dynamics, competition resulted in world class innovation and creativity. (138)
The grace with which Clydesdale expresses himself! The originality of his thoughts and observations! And let's not even mention the startlingly innovative way he has with the English definite article!
I can't wait to read his piece on European explorers. Columbus and Henry the Navigator were entrepreneurs, dammit. Entrepreneurs! There's some rigorous and hard-hitting historical analysis right there! My suspicions that Commerce faculties in this country have trouble attracting quality staff have not exactly been allayed.
-
Apologies to those who have already seen this, but:
Booker Prize-Winner Keri Hulme in Cancelling Listener Subscription Shockah!
-
Thanks for that Critic link -- an interesting read, to say the least.
-
It's always struck me as one of socialism's great problems is the association with Chardonnay. If Riesling had an ideology, that would be something to fight for.
I agree, although I think socialism should dissociate itself entirely from the white varietals, just to be sure. What we need instead is some good, honest malbec or sauvignon socialism.
-
Perhaps it's too early for this, but has anyone written a sustained account of what's been happening at the Listener under the most recent editor, and why? I mean, it's not just about cost-cutting, is it?