Posts by Idiot Savant
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Call me a crank if you must, but I'd just like the public service to be just that -- and observe a pretty basic (if not flawless, but that's a whole other can of worms) mechanism for public scrutiny and accountability.
So do I. And in my experience of using the OIA, it generally does.
-
I get the feeling that Krugman's commentary at the moment is being skewed by his links with the Clintons. He seems unduly cranky.
You'd be cranky to if someone was saying you had non-existent children working for the Clinton campaign.
I think its more that Obama has been poking one of his pet issues - the "bankruptcy" of social security - and just won't accept that he's utterly, utterly wrong.
-
And good job he does, Russell. When was the last time you lodged a request under the Official Information Act and the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act?
Last Wednesday - and I had a full response back within 24 hours.
I don't think its hyperbole to say far too much of the public sector is way too adroit at dragging their feed or redacting documents into gibberish on entirely spurious grounds.
Speaking as a regular OIA user, IMHO it is hyperbole. Yes, I've had problems with departments dragging their feet. But by far the most common response from central government is a full release of information. Redactions are usually few and far between, unless I'm seeking legal advice, foreign policy or budget info, all of which there are good and understandable reasons for withholding. And if I feel a request has not been processed properly, I can always complain to the Ombudsmen, who will look into it and make sure the public interest has been properly balanced.
-
But having said that, I can't really say Idiot/Savant's little essay in Argumentum ad Nazium is any more impressive.
I stand by it. Whale Oil is acting exactly like the thugs in the National Front, and it needs to be pointed out. As for National, as I said to you last night, when a party has a deliberate policy of encouraging its lunatic fringe in order to "whip up the base", I think they deserve a certain amount of condemnation when the natural consequences happen.
As for why, I suggest reading Dave Neiwert's Rush, Newspeak and Fascism, about what this sort of pandering to extremists has done in the US.
-
My problem with both our present cat and the previous one is not the eating of the live cicadas so much as the wandering around the house with the live beastie still chirping away in the cat's mouth while it looks for an unsuspecting room to release it in to have a lovely "guilt-free' play…
One cat I know used to use the bathtub to play circus maximus with captured mice.
Naturally, the "lions" always won.
-
I think you'll find it's Kalahari bushmen, not k/calamari; the latter being a seafood.
Or an African tribe who have been corrupted by Great Cthulhu.
-
This is getting ridiculous. Could the Herald possibly get someone with some credibility to write on this issue?
How would they tell?
-
My main point is, surely, being shot isnt actually an accident.... it was done on purpose.... and initial responsibility of costs should fall on the shooter....
Presumably, said gang member doesnt actually have the funds available.... but when the person responsible cant pay, thats when "the state" intervenes....
This isn't the US. We have a criminal justice system to punish people who shoot people, and a no-fault accident insurance scheme to help (some of) their victims, without having to tithe 50% to the lawyers. The major flaw in the system is that the coverage is not comprehensive enough.
-
This would all be a good point if what happened today (yesterday) was an election, not a primary.
It's a good point for primaries as well. I agree that parties can pick their leaders however the hell they want to, but if you wan't to claim the mantle of democracy, you have to meet basic democratic standards.
I don't necessarily think that we should have primaries or caucuses or anything similar, but the US system of choosing presidential candidates is an attempt to be a lot more democratic than the NZ method, where the Prime Minister is in effect chosen by the caucus.
That's because, by definition, the Prime Minister is the person who commands the support of the House (i.e. a majority in a confidence vote), and like any other Minister, must be a Member of Parliament (except for a very short period after an election). Westminster systems don't have full seperation of powers, but instead draw the executive from the legislature.
I should also point out that a Prime Minister isn't a President, and especially not a US-style executive President. Constitutionally, they're princeps, not dominus - first among equals, not an elected king.
-
If the rest choose not to vote, that is an equally democratic choice.
Given the timing and limited duration of the caucus - a two-hour window on a weeknight - I don't think it is entirely a matter of "choice".
Seriously, if a country held an "election" where the poll was inconveniently timed and open for a very short window of time, they'd be laughed out of town. It's a basic tenet of democracy that the polsl should be accessible. Iowa's aren't.