Posts by B Jones
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Alea jacta est.
-
There is actually a reasonable argument to be made in support of a natural law that not even parliament can override - the old "what about a duly passed law that mandated the killing of all blue eyed babies?" hypothetical. But that's not what UT's saying. The evidence in support of that argument is scarce - power ultimately stems from the barrel of a gun - but there's some in international law, in concepts like fundamental human rights.
The Anglo Saxon origins of the word oath and the works of 18th century legal writers aren't helpful in demonstrating this. -
Some references from after slavery was abolished and women got the vote would be more persuasive. The Tom Bennion and NZ Parliament links don't work.
-
I could give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're talking about grundnorm etc, but I read that link, and it's up there with Ken Ring and David Icke. I guess if there's alternative history and science, there's alternative legal theory.
-
Up Front: Oh, God, in reply to UglyTruth,
The legislation is not effective because there is more to sovereignty than political supremacy, and the NZ parliament doesn't meet the criteria.
Is this a Maori sovereignty argument? Because it looks like that's the logical conclusion, but people arguing that usually use a lot less carthago delenda est and a lot more rangatiratanga.
-
On the subject of atheists enjoying Christmas, I'd like to add this:
White wine in the sunIt's also nice in that it's clearly Southern Hemisphere without being kitsch kiwiana or aussiana.
-
It's a bit apocalyptic, but this is nicely put:
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity. -
It's not even politics, it's pure us vs them, which has a long and dishonourable history. Person x is on the other team (whether that's within the nats or outside) and is therefore scum and not worthy of any respect whatsoever.
One hateful team pretty much inevitably gives rise to its opposite, and it's hard not to respond to it all by picking up a pitchfork and wading in. Hager's done a masterful job of keeping a tone of measured disapproval throughout the book. I think he's right in that the whole thing poisons the well, and makes politics only possible for those with the spoons to engage on that level, turning off the majority of us who don't think calling people c****s etc is acceptable political discourse. But how else do you shut it down? I don't have an answer.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
The chapter links in my kindle version don't work, which makes it hard to jump around within the text. But that being said, knowing a little bit about how publication works, it's a good thing that it's available at all so soon after the paper version is out. There's lots of tinkering to do between final copy and e-publication, and indexing it properly takes a reasonable second place to making it available quickly.
-
The whole thing puts the Whaleoil attacks on Tania Billingsley in a different context, doesn't it?