Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Paul, perhaps I'm wrong and all the hoodies are just fighting evil in their own way, making sure they don't get caught by all the Death Eaters that pose as average Kiwis?
-
LOL Shep. I wonder when the cloak is going to make a comeback. Would be perfect for gangstas, you could hide your sub machine gun under there.
Personally I've got nothing against a hooded garment as a highly practical choice for a variable climate. But I am quite suspicious of people who feel the need to actually walk around with the hood up, a hat on, wearing sunglasses, when it's not sunny or raining. Much as I would be of someone choosing to wear a scarf around their face or a motorbike helmet when they were not riding their bike. Or flitting from shadow to shadow.
I don't think that the effect is lost on the wearers either, that they are ignorant of that effect. They do it for that reason, for the effect that it has on people, which is mostly one of intimidation. I find that hard to admire as a fashion choice.
-
Kyle, I haven't talked about the minutiae of NZ politics anywhere in there, which is what the 'it' referred to. And I'm not going to. But I will stop talking about stopping talking about it, right about.....now.
-
And I suggest that that the differences between the two main parties with regard to public assets, public spending, the funding of schools, workers rights, taxation and social reform have been marked compared to what goes on in other Western democracies.
Doesn't seem that marked to me. Almost every asset, public expenditure, reform and tax stays in place from one government to the next. The proportions change a bit. Once, a long time ago, we had an asset fire sale, which actually seemed like a good idea to both parties, both then, and now.
Since we are a very small Western Democracy with a proportionally large public sector, a change in government will have more an effect than a much larger nation with an enormous private sector. But because a lot of change happened doesn't mean that the difference between the choices was big. It's just that the pissly differences magnify a lot. That magnification actually necessitates that the differences be small.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking our system. I think it's good that it doesn't change much, a sign of stability, which is a sign of general contentment. I'm just commenting on our perfectly normal tendency to magnify the enormity of minuscule changes in our lives, to feel that we are choosing between a vast range of things when in reality we are not. The very fact you chose to limit the discussion to Western Democracies is symptomatic of that - as if that was the only choice. Of course it is not. If you were only to take away the word 'Western' from that limitation then the farcically small difference I'm talking about would be thrown into relief, let alone if you actually allowed the concept of a different form of government.
All I'm jaded about is talking about it. To me it seems that the country is in good enough hands, no matter what government is in. Most of the decisions made in Government are not made by the 120 odd actors who take their roles in the soap that we love to talk about. Most of the radical changes that actually happen in society don't have their origins in government at all, they are the result of ideas created by teams of experts and the actions of millions of people. I am not advocating any other form of government. Indeed, if you understand me at all, you'll realize I'm saying such advocation is mostly pointless anyway. I'd be kidding myself if I thought I was even able to influence you, despite having spent some time engaging you one to one, much less any of the dozen or so people that might actually read what I'm saying, or any of the thousands who would glance at it without even reading. I rate the most likely effect would be that everyone who agrees with me will continue to do so, and those who disagree will quite possibly feel even stronger disagreement afterwards, since the tone of what I'm saying seems negative.
-
Look, this isn't student politics or fantasy government.
Just as well!
To the extent that the politics of a country is influenced by its elected legislators, these are things that make a material difference in people's lives and in the character of our communities.
To the extent that it's influenced by my opinion on the matter, it makes no material difference whatsoever. As for the difference effected by even a radical change in government, like I said before, you'd have to be a kiwi to even notice. And it would most likely be the material differences that already existed and community wide changes in the character that caused the political change, not the other way around. The surfer doesn't control the wave, they just ride it, and look good or bad depending on their skill.
-
So I'm not sure the abundance of choice served us that well.
Yup, if the Italians really wanted a blend of vanilla, fruit and nuts then a bunch of judges saying they have to have mint one year, and then hokey pokey the next is going to cause strife, for sure.
I'm not saying NZers are wrong for their narrow palette choice. It shows they know what they like, however much it bores the crap out of me. All I'm saying is it's hard for me to really get into discussing the differences.
Having said all that, I would quibble with the 1% gap between Labour and National that you suggest.
Quantifying the range of choice is difficult since it's not clear that the range it fits within is actually finite. If I move a foot to the left is that 1%? It is if there's 100 feet that I could move between, but if it's a thousand miles then that movement is unnoticeable. If the range is infinite, then any movement which is itself not infinite at all is proportionally a zero move.
I won't even attempt to define the range of choice we have in politics, my observation is only confined by the parties that actually managed to get any representation at all. You can see pretty clearly that if the Green Party or the Act Party actually managed to win an election outright, that the way they do things would be radically different, and within that (still quite small) range, the difference between Labour and National does seem to me to be about 1%. Set across the range of political systems in the world today, it's even less than that.
So when you say that NZ would be a very different place if National had governed, I suggest that only a NZer would even notice the difference.
-
Oh, yes I forgot. Yay fruit..Booo nuts.
-
Jeremy, I'm not sure if my jadedness came through clearly enough. We 'need' every kind of ice cream, but we've got vanilla with nuts and vanilla with fruits filling 80% of the shelf space. Which either means we really like vanilla, or we're too lazy to choose anything else. I'm leaning towards the latter, that real choice is simply an expensive boutique decision of little relevance. I'll still eat Big Bikkies dipped in extra chocolate sauce one day, and nutty caramel the next, but I'm beginning to not see any point in trying to expand anyone else's palette.
-
National vs Labour...
Capitalism vs Socialism
Small taxes vs Big expenditure
Business vs Social
Good Promises vs Drab Detail
etc vs etc...but only by a 1% margin
We could have a grand coalition in this country and not notice the difference. It's just a hangover from FPP that we even bother having Labour and National.
I seriously thought, even hoped, that after Bill English National was finished, and it could nicely split into the various interest groups that it targets. So there would be a nice big Farmer's Party, a Business Party (maybe split into big and small business), an urban social conservative party etc. And Labour would do the same, breaking into an actual socialist party, a socially liberal party, one or more immigrant parties, a maori party etc. Then as voters we'd get more choice, a slightly more targeted selection.
But actually it turns out NZers just couldn't give a shit about politics enough for that, and they'd rather just line up behind the old supertribes so they could choose Maccers or Burger King. The competition rages around the most cunning combo design because even a la carte is too hard.
-
Since the stuff between Hobbit and LOTR are not written in long novel form, they can do anything. We know the basic plotlines that link the books, but they can make up an entirely new story if they want.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 941 942 943 944 945 … 1066 Older→ First