Posts by Bart Janssen
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Briefing, blaming, backing down, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
Being told you’d voted for Peters or Dunne might galvanise them into voting next time.
That's just mean.
-
Hard News: Briefing, blaming, backing down, in reply to David Chittenden,
I find it hard to believe that we let them get away with it …
These are the "them" that you just assured me were actually decent dedicated people? Or is it just the environment of The House that stimulates that behaviour?
-
Hard News: Briefing, blaming, backing down, in reply to merc,
The right not to vote as well.
heh and in the book I read the response was that if you didn't vote you couldn't be a citizen (and vice versa). That meant some benefits of citizenship would be denied.
Not sure where I stand on that idea but it's a good thing to think about as an exercise in understanding what citizenship is and means for different people.
As for Jury duty, I agree with you. But it shouldn't be dangerous, unrewarding or in any way difficult. It really is one of the few times an individual can be involved in the justice system. We really should want to do it. That many (rightly?) don't is not great for a society that depends on a justice system.
-
Hard News: Briefing, blaming, backing down, in reply to Sacha,
but I don’t know what would work well
That is a problem. Democracy is a terrible system just better than the other options. Same for peer review, which sucks but is better than anything else that has been tried.
Seriously, I don't think the problem is entirely with the democracy part. I think that the problems stem from the lack of interest by the public. If the public don't want to be informed voters then the system falls down and appears to devolve into a marketing exercise as seen in the US or the last election here.
It's easy to blame the media but it's hardly their fault if any in depth discussion results in people changing channel. Most people simply aren't interested in the details and the media and politicians both respond to that disinterest.
A book I read once stated there are two things every citizen must do, 1) vote, and 2) do jury duty. The logic being those are the two places where individual citizens can influence society directly. But most folks don't want to do either.
So how do you engender genuine interest by the public in choosing the best people to spend their taxes?
Perhaps if such interest had been shown last year folks might have realised that this govt intended all along to reduce teacher numbers.
-
Hard News: Briefing, blaming, backing down, in reply to John Armstrong,
I just don’t know if the ‘they are all hopeless’ narrative is all that productive.
Fair cop. But I was responding to the desire that political discussions were as nuanced and considered as they are here. I certainly accept there are some talented and dedicated politicians however what we see of them suggests those that end up in the public eye are less able at such discussions and more skilled in other (less admirable) areas.
That may be because they succeed in politics more or it may also be that those types (stereotypes?) make for better sound bites in the media.
I still believe that the method of selection doesn't necessarily select the best people for the job.
-
For some of the work we do, taking photos of branching plants, this would be a really useful tool.
-
Hard News: Briefing, blaming, backing down, in reply to Sacha,
How do we do that though? I’ve never seen it play out that way.
I mean we select for people who can look/sound good to the RSA meeting and the local Lions and the local PTA and the local womens group and the local League club and the local business association and the party branch office and the two guys who are best mates of the pres ...
Doesn't take much thought to realise all those groups have utterly different agendas and hence politicians need to sound/look different each time. And in each place there is a chance of running into hecklers and folks who just hate whatever party you stand for just because and the better you deal with those the more people you win over in the room.
It's not a nice process to go through and I certainly couldn't do it (far too likely to say what I actually believe). And it does not seem to select for people who, when they are in parliament, are good at the kind of analysis and discussion we see here. And who also are able to admit when they are wrong and change position, which to be fair is a really hard thing for most folks to do so maybe that's asking a bit much.
-
Hard News: How to make more awesome use…, in reply to Hebe,
Actors Equity membership
Oh great ... exclusive rights to the centre of the bed is NOT enough!!!!!!!
-
Hard News: How to make more awesome use…, in reply to Lilith __,
Signed Colin photos for subscribers. That’d do it.
+1
-
Hard News: Briefing, blaming, backing down, in reply to slarty,
Imagine if our parliament were so erudite, intelligent and plain polite.
You'd have to figure out a different way of selecting politicians. We select for people who can shout down hecklers in public meetings and who can appeal to the lowest common denominator. We select political game players and are then disappointed when all they can do well is play games.