An interesting take on why to vote. I've always used a simpler notion, though where I originally got it from, I no longer remember:
There might not be anything (or anyone) you want to vote for, but there is sure to be someone or thing you want to vote against!
This report reinforces your experience several times over Garth:
Apple's Role in Japan during the Tohoku Earthquake
Carry on Hari Hari
I smell a Stainless Steel Rat!
No rat here - he's the latecomer, not us!
Talk about identity confusion!
The plot thickens: "Harry Harrison's son Harry Harry Harrison's son Harry Harrison"? Who even needs identity fraud in your family?
And you only get one guess as to what my youngest son's third name is :-) Seriously though, we are very strongly traditionalist and conservative in my family :-) At least when it comes to identity anyway!
LOL so you're really "Harry Harrison's son's son Harry"? I can see why you pick Henry!
Yes, but its worse Harry's son's second name was Henry too!
As far as the hypothesis goes though, I'm coming at it from a child/moral development point of view - harsh treatment as a child leading to a failure to progress in moral/ethical development as fast as others - so pulling a 15 year old's stunt aged 26 for example.
So soft treatment in adulthood, and reflection on it, might gradually lead to a more mature moral/ethical outlook and behaviour. But given David Garrett's relatively recent abusive behaviour cited above and on public record, I'd say a period out of public sight and some introspection is way overdue!
Or having little experience of soft treatment at all Ben? "A good whacking never did me any harm" point of view perhaps.
off topic - Harry was my Grandad :-)
Rather than concentrate on David Garrett's illegal behaviour, I'd like to float a hypothesis about his (and other politicians who stridently promote anti crime policies and laws) lawmaking behaviour. That is, that the reason he is so anti crime is his view of himself and his own behaviour. In other words that he measures all the rest of us by his own low standards of ethical and moral conduct, and in retrospect believes it is necessary to harshly legislate to threaten people like him in order to deter them from committing offences.
The vast majority of people are not morally and ethically incompetent and act with respect towards others. They therefore do not need the laws that a very small vocal minority like David Garrett and his Sensible Sentencing Trust colleagues do. Perhaps if more people were treated with compassion by the legal system (and the lawmakers in particular) the way he was, we would have a great deal less crime in our community!
Or perhaps you could take the view that the police actually fired only two shots in the course of the whole, extremely dangerous situation in which a madman was firing dozens of rounds from military rifles.
But surely, a good part of the point here is that he was not a "madman" tempting as it may be for everyone to try and characterise him as such after the event. Dinah's point about Morning Report is a good one, I thought they were desperately trying to characterise him as out of the ordinary, when the people they spoke to didn't see him as such.
Post event diagnosis glosses over the likelihood that there are many many people in our society (mainly but not exclusively men) who react with violence to things that they perceive as threats. There are many people who through momentary misjudgment dig themselves a hole they can't get out of. Sounds like the Police did a stunning job of trying to help him back out of it, but to no avail.
So the iconic 20th century kiwi male, the "rugged individualist," the "Man Alone" doesn't transplant too well to the 21st suburban environment. From what I've heard from friends family and neighbours on the radio, he was a "typical kiwi bloke." A bit laconic, minding his own business, fit and phsyically capable, one of the million or so gun owners in the country.
Might make us a bit more cautious in repurposing some of the other 20th century kiwi myths for the 21st eh?
"I thought this was one of the more convincing acquittals of recent times."
I'd agree with that, but it is not so much the outcome for the individual that I am getting at, but a publicly expressed dissatisfaction with the process producing a verdict and an outcome just as it is designed to do.
The rules produce those results, and if, at the end of the day, no one is found guilty for the twins murder, or a compassionate man is sentenced for having done something that many of us might also have done in his circumstances, then that is the consequence of the system that we have. Something that we might perhaps have the good grace to accept, or even, as I think we should, celebrate.
Not everything has the neat ending that we might wish for, and in a democratic society messiness is the price we pay for fairness and transparency. If we are going to change the rules, let us do so in an evenhanded way, and not, as the Sensible Sentencing Trust does, forgive the middle aged man who kills a tagger, while calling for tougher sentences on young people who kill each other.