Posts by Steve Withers
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Having grown up in a family with a strong medical background, I early on came to regard all surgery as butchery, saved only by the body's ability to half-arsed almost heal itself....often.....and decided then that any surgery for me would be because I would die otherwise. I do not have tattoos for the same reason. The human body can't be improved by human intervention other than a good hair cut, brushing ones teeth, a decent diet and regular exercise. This decision was made long before there was anyone to discuss vasectomy with, never mind contemplate needing one.
We had the discussion. Neither of us had any surgery. No chemicals or pills were employed. We have two kids...and no more.
-
I've bought the book. Looking forward to reading it. My own take on WikiLeaks is better with it than without......and I don't judge the organisation by the (flawed personality) of one man - even if he leads it. The ethic of public information being made public is generally a good one. I'm not sure I buy into the "if you name this person SOMEONE ELSE will kill them" argument. That can be used and abused in a million ways and at the end of the day the only person responsible for killing someone is the person who gives the order for the execution and / or the people who do the killing. US politicians have been holding their own soldiers hostage for years to cover up and suppress the nasty things they have been up to that they don't want people to talk about.....lest they be held accountable. Not by the courts....but but by the survivors of those they killed illegally.....As you can see....this moral and ethic morass gets messy very fast.
I've also been fascinated that the clear evidence of war crimes by US personnel has not lead to a single charge being laid.
I've donated a fair bit of money (for me) to WikiLeaks and Julian Assange. There is no one else out there doing so much good for so many.......and yes, there are risks. But so far......well worth having been taken.
-
STV can be very proportional (Ireland) or not remotely proportional, depending on how many are elected from each electorate / district. If you want a proportional outcome, you'd elect at least 7, using a preferential ballot, from each electorate. If you don't, you elect just one using a preferential ballot - like the Aussie's do in (most of) their Lower Houses. You can further perturb the outcomes in STV by gerrymandering the electorate boundaries and messing with the numbers to be elected. One could argue this has been done in Porirua to some extent....with some wards electing only 2 councilors while others elect more....and bearing in mind where the boundaries are.
I prefer MMP for the simple reason it cannot be gerrymandered. Sure, you can swing the outcome in local seats, but the national party vote share is the national party vote share....end of story.
-
Elections are about choosing people to represent us in the legislature, not about "winners" and "losers". People obsessed with sporting outcomes should stay focused on rugby and horse racing. Such thinking is completely inappropriate in a representative democratic context.
If a majority in parliament is composed of a majority of MPs elected by a majority of voters (the usual outcome under MMP, unlike First past the Post) then that is all well and good. I don't care if every singe one of them is a member of a different party, provided they were duly elected by people who want them there to represent them.
The bottom line is they represent - collectively - the majority of voters when they come together to form a government.
The idea that a party with 40% of the vote is somehow entitled to govern despite the obvious fact that 60% of the voters didn't vote for them is frankly bizarre...and reveals an inappropriate sense of entitlement they votes they got do not support.
So what if they are the largest minority....and the majority don't want to govern with them.
Big deal. Do better next time. Stop whining....and stop blaming the voting system that produces results consistent with the wished of voters as to who they want to represent them.
If they are in parliament, they are all winners......as they got enough votes to be elected - singly in local seats or collectively in the national list vote. . .
-
The other story that hasn't had much coverage from NZ's mainstream media is peak oil. I had to find out about the August 2010 IEA report via email lists and twitter. That report confirmed peak oil has already happened and it was 2005....even while Don Brash's National Party and their media clients and supporters were laughing at the Greens for talking about it. Irony. This will have a much bigger impact on us than climate change in the years ahead. As for media generally, why does the government appear to be so hostile to the only major media (TZNZ and RNZ) still in NZ ownership? The rest are owned by foreign billionaires, one way or another.....and we're fed their political preferences by the editors they hire.
-
OnPoint: Pay Attention, in reply to Ross Mason,
Ross Mason: Awesome.
-
I agree, Keith. These cables help us see how much our usual media do not tell us....despite posts from people who claim all this was obvious anyway....As you say, we now have the opportunity to see our reality more clearly and with greater resolution....and they will shape the way we see our world and ourselves as citizens and voters.
Personally, I'd like to see the cables that went the OTHER way....to round out the picture. One diplomat's petulant, paranoid leader might be another diplomat's heroic leader....and they may both be right.
-
I'm having trouble seeing what the problem is. The NBR has information that could be useful to the investigation. No sources are at risk.
The comments I've heard from several journalists amount to churlishness over the SFO "stealing" their work.....completely losing sight of any obligation on themselves as citizens to assist in an investigation where - as far as I can tell - journlistic ethics aren't even in play.
Sorry. I don't see any "standing up" here. I see people who could help the SFO better understand what's going on being unco-operative.
There is no source being protected here.....no whistle-blower. Nothing to protect.
-
DeepRed said: "And if it's anything to go by, APN doesn't even have the editorial interference of Rupert Murdoch or Conrad Black."
Tony O'Reilly heads APN. He has made his views clear in speeches.
Was it Murdoch or Robert Maxwell who said: "You don't need to tell an editor what to write provided you've hired the right editor."
"Interfence" usually peaks on the day the person is appointed....and only a mis-behaving editor needs an attitude-adjustment after that. That would be very rare. They would usually just be "promoted" and replaced...then laid off quietly later or given special projects.
New Zealand's "freedom of the press": Any foreign media mogul is free to publish whatever they like in their daily newspapers and on their TV and radio networks.
The rest of us get to read it.All we own is TVNZ and RNZ...and they are both under attack from the current government. Makes you wonder what nation "National" refers to....
-
Stephen Judd said: "It isn't sexism to bet that spouses influence each other more than randomly assorted couples, but common sense."
They may well do that. It would be understandable if they did. To what extent does Murray McCully influence Jane Clifton, for example (assuming they are still together - I may be out of touch)? But at the same time, it may not be true at all....and judging one spouse by the actions or views of the other would be both unfair and wrong.
I have views my wife doesn't share. I'd be mortified if her employer was going to hold her accountable for what I do and say...or vice versa. It would be most unfair...to her and to me.