Ha! I know I pointed, affectionately, to our PM skiting about his recent ‘pull aside’ with President Obama (see: ‘Regular bloke’ John Key … skites).
Look what some clever dick has put together.
It must be true, I saw it on the interwebs… Obama skating:
Awesome!
– P
(via Tim Carmody)
Yeah, I know these ‘White Pride’ types have been around for awhile, and will always be with us, but it still strikes me when I’m reminded about them, and sample their thinking … in today’s Sunday Star Times at the stuff.co.nz website…
Joining Right Wing Resistance on the streets were also stalwarts to the white nationalist movement – Blood and Honour, National Front, Southland Skinheads and Independent Skinheads.
“We have seen it in other countries,” said former Christchurch Central MP Brendon Burns. “Fanned in the right direction, with the right economic and social circumstances, it can take hold. Obviously Christchurch is going through its most difficult time yet.” …[Kyle] Chapman said Right Wing Resistance was about creating a place where people could be taken care of. It was about “fighting that politically-correct crap“. It was about fighting dodgy politicians lying to New Zealanders. It was about a warning.
“As long as the politicians keep going like that, groups like us are going to keep growing, and they are going to grow more militant.”
That “fighting that politically-correct crap” complaint and justification for militancy isn’t just a neo-Nazi/skinhead thing — it’s echoed in right wing propaganda on a ‘milder’ end of the scale too. Look at firebrand Andrew Breitbart’s sad tale of persecution, misery and woe which he (rather gleefully, it seems to me) used as a basis for declaring “War!” on … well, on who exactly, really? The left wing liberal elite old media? The left? Who?
While emoting outrage about a homogenous ‘the left’ which [allegedly] uses ‘divide and conquer’ tactics and demeaning people, Andrew Breitbart seems to me to do exactly what he accuses them of. (Doesn’t he?) Then promises ‘War!’ with such a delighted twinkle in his eye. Take a look: (contains swearing)
Could Andrew Breitbart be said to be pugnacious for its own sake, perhaps? Maybe. See how he angrily abused protesters just a few weeks before he died of a heart attack. Who is demeaning whom?
I said earlier, as part of another conversation:
The term ‘politically correct’ comes in for a lot of stick and self-described ‘firebrands’ like Andrew Breitbart (or ‘haters’ some might call them) have tried to make ‘tolerance’ a bad thing. Screaming about ‘liberal media’ trying to ‘silence them’, they set out to destroy people’s lives by holding up the very same ‘politically correct’ banner and protesting others’ right to hold an opinion that doesn’t match theirs.
In the warm glow of debate I’ve seen right wingers chastising left wingers for uttering supposedly politically incorrect sentiments. I remember a conversation I was on the edge of with ACT’s Cathy Odgers and others where she objected to a comment about the colonial-era confiscation of Maori land (viz: ‘raping and pillaging land is historical fact’). Cathy countered with ‘depends entirely on ur perspective doesn’t it? And U can’t “rape” land. Demeans the word rape…’
Sigh.
Isn’t that ‘demeans the word rape’ a precious example of PC? I think so. Or it could just be a smokescreen to duck behind when the argument isn’t going your way. I’ve observed the same sensitivity pops up, in Cathy’s case, with mentions of suicide and depression (and rightly so).
My point is: it ain’t just left wingers who reach for the ‘You can’t say that!’ button of political correctness, despite the claims of cultural strangulation by ‘PC’.
It’s worth reading the whole article on Christchurch’s ‘white power’ scene.
– P
PS: Andrew Breitbart doesn’t need my assistance to publicize his hate-filled rants against whatever it was that he perceived as “the left”. From the self-serving hogwash like this:
“We didn’t declare war on the Left. They declared war on us.”
(Yeah, right.) To:
The new media is taking over where the old media failed. Yes, they failed, my friends. Yes, they failed.
This type of psycho-babble is pure nonsense. It is frequently trotted out by haters to justify all sorts of nasty aggression against those in their ‘out-groups’.
Fear can play tricks on our minds … and justify hate.
It’s as I discussed when we looked at the science of fear: political operators can – and do – use their hallucinations about how ‘corrupt’ their opponents are imagined to be to justify their own oh-so-real corrupt actions and tactics.
I don’t mean to harp on about Richard Nixon, but he’s a good example of someone creating an ‘enemies list’ then doing despicable things to people on that list …. because they were on the list.
From Mashable, number 1 on their list of things you could buy if you won the lottery … Made me chuckle.
1. Personal Killer Whale Submarine
Price: $100,000
What does it do?: If you won the lottery, why not jump into a 17-foot watercraft that resembles a killer whale? The submarine can travel underwater at 25 miles per hour or hydroplane on the water’s surface at 50 mph. The watercraft fits two people who can enjoy the watery view through the glass top or by watching an LCD screen that captures the rear view.
Full list here: 8 Crazy Gadgets to Buy If You Win Mega Millions by Brian Anthony Hernandez Mashable.com
– P
Scratch this one down to idle curiosity:
I’m seeing Simon Lusk‘s name bandied about in Parliament, in the media and on the interwebs. He’s a fairly low-key chap, apparently, who works as some sort of campaign manager/political careers advisor/ninja for various ‘players’ (or wannabe players) on the right of politics in New Zealand.
A blogger at The Standard James Henderson, in a post titled Beached as bro accuses Simon Lusk of being the brains behind right-wing attack poodle/volunteer PR organ Cameron Slater’s um, … behind his, er, … behind Cameron’s … um, gee, … his recent attention-grabbing (is that the right term?) even suggesting the two are co-writers of Cameron’s blog, but I’m not so sure about that.
Here’s his (Simon Lusk’s) home page (text quoted below):
‘This site has been established as Simon {Lusk} wishes to remove any chance that his anonymity becomes the focus of a campaign.’ Hmm, but the whole website is PASSWORD PROTECTED at present. Why?
I must say, I heartily approve of Simon Lusk’s marketing posture: “Hello, I’m simply selective Simon, I act for candidates on the political right, I’m proud of my work but very discreet about it. Oh, and I’m in demand and may just be too busy huntin’ & fishin’ to be bothered.” Noice. In other words: ‘You want me? You may not be able to have me!’ Playing hard to get is an old ploy, but still great marketing.
“PROTECTED: This post is password protected. Enter the password to view any comments.”
Click to try for yourself.
This web site outlines Simon Lusk’s approach to political campaigning, the services he offers and why he is selective about which aspiring politicians he chooses to take on as clients.
Simon acts for centre right candidates in both general and local body elections, for lobby groups and for referenda campaign organisations.
This site has been established as Simon wishes to remove any chance that his anonymity becomes the focus of a campaign. He is proud of the campaigns he has been involved in, and the professionalism he brings to campaigning. He chooses to remain out of the public eye because he believes campaign managers should be behind the scenes and that being in the media does not win votes for clients.
Simon has limited time to campaign due to commercial engagements, and his fishing and shooting commitments.
Now, the only trouble is, you need a PASSWORD to visit any pages on Simon Lusk’s information website (including the ‘Contact’ page). So, let me see if I follow the strategy: (1) Set up a website to ‘remove any chance that […] anonymity becomes the focus of a campaign’ … and (2) Make the whole site password protected? Hmm.
—
According to the NZ Herald, Nicky Hager’s book The Hollow Men points to Simon Lusk so: Continue reading →
Following up on our conversation about differing measures of openness to ideas, depending on self-identification as ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’ …
Study tracks how conservatives lost their faith in science
How do liberals and conservatives differ in their attitudes toward science? Statistics indicate that conservatives’ confidence in science as an institution has declined dramatically since 1974.
An analysis of 36 years’ worth of polling data indicates that confidence in science as an institution has steadily declined among Americans who consider themselves conservatives, while confidence levels have been at steadier levels for other ideological groups.
The study, published in the April issue of the American Sociological Review, provides fresh ammunition for those who complain that conservative views on issues such as climate change are at odds with the scientific consensus.
“You can see this distrust in science among conservatives reflected in the current Republican primary campaign,” Gordon Gauchat, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s Sheps Center for Health Services Research, said in a news release from the American Sociological Association.
“When people want to define themselves as conservatives relative to moderates and liberals, you often hear them raising questions about the validity of global warming and evolution, and talking about how ‘intellectual elites’ and scientists don’t necessarily have the whole truth.” … > continued at msnbc
Yeah, I hear quite bright people who pugnaciously claim ‘the jury is still out on climate change’ not from any scientific standpoint but from the standpoint of that scientists are corrupt/cowed/idiots/gullible/godless.
Ideology, in other words.
– P
via John Gruber Daring Fireball
From the Business Herald this morning, good ol’ Scott Adams. [chuckle]
Yeah, it’s a private joke. But funny at a number of levels.
– P
Every now and then John Key does something to remind us that he’s a regular(ish) kiwi bloke.
Feeding the masses, Kinleith 25 Nov 2011 Pic: Patrick Gower via Twitter (click to enlarge)
I remember TV3’s Patrick Gower tweeted a pic of the National Party leader on the campaign trail — offering pizza to members of the media stuck on his campaign bus the day before last year’s general election.
Waiting for my coffee at our local café this afternoon, I idly flicked through the NZ Herald and read that the prime minister had tweeted a photo of himself with US President Obama. (See Key Tweet home pal Obama [sic].) Oh, neh, I thought. Surely not!
Well, shucks, folks. It appears to be true. Bwhahahaha. (Blush.)
Now, to be fair, I don’t know that the PM actually tweets himself or whether he has one of his helpers like the effervescent Sarah Boyle do the donkey work … but to quote McPhail and Gadsby: ‘Jeez, Wayne!’
Q: Do you think Obama tweeted a picture of the two of them? It seems unlikely.
How adorable.
– P
Some respectful discussion today here about open-mindedness and degrees of perception.
And so, this — flicked into my tweetstream this afternoon — seems appropriate …
We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are. — The Talmud
Police explained the delay in reaching a conclusion saying "it took time to talk to those involved, particularly members of public who were in the cafe" But no investigator has spoken to me ... and I was standing right there. (pic: stuff.co.nz)
So, it’s been announced the cameraman who recorded the pre-election ‘cup of tea’ between John Key and John Banks in November last year won’t be prosecuted. Stuff.co.nz reported:
Police will not lay charges over the “teapot tape” saga and say freelance cameraman Bradley Ambrose has received a warning. Assistant Police Commissioner Malcolm Burgess held a press conference this afternoon and said police had resolved the case. While he only received a warning, Ambrose’s actions were illegal, Burgess said.
Illegal? Oh really? That’s an opinion, surely? Perhaps a qualified one, but an opinion not tested in court, I’d say. Unlike the ‘organised criminal group’ charges which fell over last week.
“We were satisfied on this occasion that there was [prima facie evidence]. But police decided there was not sufficient public interest in the matter going to court, he said. “I reached the view that a prosecution was not required in this instance.”
Not sufficient public interest? Oh. I see.
In the view of police investigators, the recording was “most likely” on purpose, but at the least “reckless”. Burgess said he would still advise media organisations not to play the tape
Oh, so the police ‘advise’ media organisations not to play the tape? Why? Is that another ‘shot across the bows’ of the news media? So, there’s insufficient ‘public interest’ in prosecuting the guy who recorded it! Why would there be more ‘public interest’ in prosecuting media outlets who distribute it?
Asked why the inquiry took so long, Burgess said it took time to talk to those involved, particularly members of public who were in the cafe.
That’s intriguing. They spoke to the public? Funny thing: I was there, in the cafe (see blue circle in the frame from Fairfax video) … and, although I think I can credibly be called an eye witness, I haven’t been approached by anyone investigating the case to discuss what I observed happen that afternoon — and I was standing right at the table.
Is it possible a sense of constitutional decorum seeped into the police investigation? Such that they decided not to interview the journos there? Or, having issued ‘advice’ and search warrants to news media organizations in the lead-up to the general election (and creating headlines around the world thereby) did the police perhaps think better of inviting the qualified witnesses available in for a quiet chat … over a cup of tea?
– P
Update: Good thinking on the issues from Andrew Geddis and Russell Brown.
A wonderful book review in the NY Times ‘Why Won’t They Listen?’ sheds some light on the ‘my tribe is better than yours’ bias we discuss here from time to time.
Reviewing The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt, William Saletan describes how we acquire preferences for social values (liberal v conservative) over time, based on our upbringing and environment.
We may attempt to write off other people’s values as bigoted and reactionary, but really, it’s worth taking a step back and trying to see the ‘good’ they’re based on. (‘Empathy’, as I keep harping on about, although the word doesn’t appear in Saletan’s review.) As he explains, a predisposition to espouse support for morality, authority, sanctity as values can start with a ‘taste’ as we’re brought up.
The worldviews Haidt discusses may differ from yours. They don’t start with the individual. They start with the group or the cosmic order. They exalt families, armies and communities. They assume that people should be treated differently according to social role or status — elders should be honored, subordinates should be protected. They suppress forms of self-expression that might weaken the social fabric. They assume interdependence, not autonomy. They prize order, not equality.
These moral systems aren’t ignorant or backward. Haidt argues that they’re common in history and across the globe because they fit human nature. He compares them to cuisines. We acquire morality the same way we acquire food preferences: we start with what we’re given. If it tastes good, we stick with it. If it doesn’t, we reject it. People accept God, authority and karma because these ideas suit their moral taste buds. Haidt points to research showing that people punish cheaters, accept many hierarchies and don’t support equal distribution of benefits when contributions are unequal.
You don’t have to go abroad to see these ideas. You can find them in the Republican Party. Social conservatives see welfare and feminism as threats to responsibility and family stability. The Tea Party hates redistribution because it interferes with letting people reap what they earn. Faith, patriotism, valor, chastity, law and order — these Republican themes touch all six moral foundations, whereas Democrats, in Haidt’s analysis, focus almost entirely on care and fighting oppression. This is Haidt’s startling message to the left: When it comes to morality, conservatives are more broad-minded than liberals. They serve a more varied diet.
OK, yeah, much as I don’t like being put in a monolithic pigeon hole (‘the left’) he has a point.
It’s more than that. We all (liberals and conservatives) each tend to defend our positions by arguing with an often quickly rendered cliché version of ‘the other side’. We look for, perceive and remember data which we interpret as ‘evidence’ (‘proof’ even) that our existing ideas and values are the ‘correct’ ones. It’s the problem with paradigms, in other words, as we have discussed here before.
I’ve always said no ‘side’ is better or worse than the other at getting off their point of view. We’re equally quick to judge each other as inferior. Haidt disagrees:
The hardest part, Haidt finds, is getting liberals to open their minds. Anecdotally, he reports that when he talks about authority, loyalty and sanctity, many people in the audience spurn these ideas as the seeds of racism, sexism and homophobia. And in a survey of 2,000 Americans, Haidt found that self-described liberals, especially those who called themselves “very liberal,” were worse at predicting the moral judgments of moderates and conservatives than moderates and conservatives were at predicting the moral judgments of liberals. Liberals don’t understand conservative values. And they can’t recognize this failing, because they’re so convinced of their rationality, open-mindedness and enlightenment.
Haidt isn’t just scolding liberals, however. He sees the left and right as yin and yang, each contributing insights to which the other should listen. In his view, for instance, liberals can teach conservatives to recognize and constrain predation by entrenched interests. Haidt believes in the power of reason, but the reasoning has to be interactive. It has to be other people’s reason engaging yours. We’re lousy at challenging our own beliefs, but we’re good at challenging each other’s. Haidt compares us to neurons in a giant brain, capable of “producing good reasoning as an emergent property of the social system.”
That, “We’re lousy at challenging our own beliefs, but we’re good at challenging each other’s” is a key statement. (Which is only to say it reinforces my already-held model of the world!)
In my experience, despite the [alleged] broadmindedness of conservatives, an attempted discussion about policy or morality, even a questioning of some assertions, can very quickly lead some personality types to retreat to their mental bunker, spewing.
I haven’t read Haidt’s book yet but I will.
In the meantime, read the illuminating review here at NY Times.
– P
Sign on the ferry back from camp yesterday. When I read ‘body parts’ I think ‘dismembered’. Am I wrong?
– P
Update: You know, like chicken pieces.
Tom Scott — as sharp as ever …
Yeah, it does sound implausible. But has the prosecution actually PROVED anything else? Because that's the test, y'all.
It’s a funny thing, the justice system. I worked at the Supreme Court when Arthur Allan Thomas was going through an ill-fated appeal of his 1971 wrongful convictions for murder. A scientist named Jim Sprott conclusively discredited the police ‘evidence’ that a shell casing they said they miraculously ‘found’ in a flower bed linked Thomas to the Crewe murders.
Sprott showed the shell casing had never been manufactured with slugs of the type found in Harvey & Jeanette’s bodies. So the police, Thomas’s defence implied, must have manufactured their evidence. (I could have said ‘planted it in the garden’, but that would be a terrible pun.) Nevertheless, Thomas’s appeal was still dismissed and he and his family had to wait until a Royal Commission exonerated him and he was released in 1979. How’s that for justice?
I don’t know what the hell was going on in the Ureweras, but to make it a crime, you have to prove it was.
– P
(Thanks to Jacqueline Sperling for highlighting Tom’s cartoon.)
Wow. I’m still catching up on things that popped up while I was away and largely offline this week.
Read this analysis from the nothing-if-not-polarising Bryan Gould in the NZ Herald: Tougher approach hints this term is Key’s last …
What is now clear is that the goal of the first term was simply to win the 2011 election. The key to achieving that goal was to be the Prime Minister’s personal popularity – particularly with the politically uncommitted.
That goal having been achieved, a quite different goal has now been identified. A Prime Minister who was criticised in his first term for being lightweight and not making a difference seems now to have set himself the task of making his mark and leaving a political legacy.
The second term, it seems, will be used to push through an agenda of change which may commend itself less – or not at all – to the uncommitted, but which will deliver to the Prime Minister’s own closest supporters much of what they elected him to do.
That’s been my impression too. What I earlier called ‘The Punch and Judy Show‘ of the Key/Joyce (Joyce/Key?) government had been characterized by, for the most part, deft political management (i.e. extreme sensitivity to public opinion and maintaining Key’s likability quotient) in the first term — with the odd slip.
But that was then, this is now. Things are different, majority of one notwithstanding.
Gould correctly (in my view) fingers the driver: rewards for the ruling party’s supporting constituency. Many of National’s more hard core supporters tolerated the ‘incrementalism’ of the first term for just the reasons Bill English and Lockwood Smith spelt out on the clandestine recordings at a National Party conference: So as not to alarm the populace/frighten the horses … while they prepared to gently, then not so gently ease in the ‘reforms’ with or without public support.
Political parties, whether tories or socialists, exist for the purpose of benefitting their constituencies … by whatever means are at their disposal. That’s democracy folks.
– P
This caught my eye in today’s NZ Herald piece Govt turns its back on terror law about the woeful state (sarcasm) of our country’s botched me-too Terrorism Suppression Act.
pic: u-s-history.com (click)
[Former justice minister] Mr Power, now a banker, said yesterday he could not recall why he allowed the review of the act to be dropped. He had made a decision when he left politics last November not to comment about events that occurred while he was in Government.
The most significant ‘I can’t recall’ why I acted/didn’t act as I did was in my view Ronald Reagan on the Iran-Contra scandal. A ‘patriot’ by the name of Oliver North working for Reagan secretly arranged illegal US arms sales (i.e. in defiance of an arms embargo) to ‘sworn enemy’ Iran — now being described by hawks in the US as ‘America’s Number One Enemy’ — then funneled funds to Contra rebels in Nicaragua to oppose the ‘Marxist’ Sandanista regime.
Reagan repeatedly testified he ‘didn’t recall’, ‘didn’t know’ and ‘couldn’t recollect’ details of these extraordinary events. (See NY Times: Excerpts From Reagan’s Testimony on the Iran-Contra Affair)
He was probably in the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease.
What’s Simon Power’s excuse?
– P
