Public Address - Hard News (Home)

Fridayed | Nov 19, 2004 13:06

I have a tendency to overcommit, which is why I spent this morning finishing a slightly-past-deadline Wide Area News column for the Listener (on the clever Cunliffes and IdolBlog), and why the sun is passing over the yard-arm as I begin today's post.

It's also why I'm scratching to put together a fully reasoned assessment of the Foreshore and Seabed legislation seen though Parliament last night. The end of the process, and the short notice on the last-minute amendments that prompted Nanaia Mahuta to change her mind and vote for the bill, may not have been the best of looks in a constitutional sense, but I can understand why the government chose to get a hurry on. Summer is almost upon us, and to enter a second summer with the foreshore question yet unanswered would have been political folly.

For now, the political damage has been very ably limited: just one MP lost, and she was heading for her new movement sooner or later. There will be protest campaigns (but hopefully not much of what Damian sweetly summed up as interpretive vandalism), but the of the law's merits will come when it is actually used by claimants.

I note that Jim Evans, who wrote a useful analysis for us earlier in the year, is saying that the bar for successful actions has been set so high that only a few will succeed. The provision for the government to negotiate issues of title separately as part of Treaty claims - which is presumably what allowed for Mahuta's change of mind - may be particularly important.

So Act gets goes to a court it opposed and gets a result under a law it ridiculed. Oh, the irony … It must be said that the party's pitch for the Asian vote appeared to bear no fruit at the last election, but with the reasonable and articulate Kenneth Wang in the House, perhaps it will be different this time.

Anthony Trenwith commented on Trevor and the Supremes:

There can be no suggestion that even if the appointment process was merit-based the outcome would very likely remain the same. The appointees collectively comprise a bench of exceptional talent and skill in the law.

Since its establishment the Supreme Court has sought to carve out its own unique identity - more than just a carbon copy of the Court of Appeal. This is what lies at the heart of the so-called friction on the judiciary's side. All courts jealously guard their independence, unfortunately the Supreme Court's efforts to emphasise its independence (including shortcomings) have simply led to unwarranted acrimony.

On the Politicians' side, the acrimony is the result of nothing more than political posturing by largely uninformed MPs seeking the spotlight when it suits. Mallard's comments are a perfect example, as is Stephen Franks' supposed outrage at the comments.

Mallard was (presumably) not saying that the current members of the Court did not deserving of their appointments. However, it can obviously be read that way. This is simply the latest addition to a continuing series of degradations that must not be allowed to continue if the judiciary is to remain a politics-free zone.

Everyone else seems to think so too.

Do be sure to watch Frontseat on TV One on Sunday, because there's an item by Jeremy Hansen on blogging. They've talked to BizGirl, Deborah Hill Cone and Leo Koziol of Naked in Nuhaka, as well as Public Address, with interviews and thrilling lawn bowls action from our recent Great Blend event.

Hey, according to AC Nielsen, the number three web publisher for "seniors" in New Zealand is … us. Nice!

Press freedom corner: the wingnuts at the Free Republic and the frankly creepy Little Green Footballs blog have been declaring what punishment the NBC cameraman who filmed the US marine shooting a wounded prisoner in the head in Fallujah this week should suffer, most of it revolving around killing him. Anti-war.com has a handy roundup of vicious loonies so you don't have to dirty your mind by actually visiting their websites.

Peter McLennan (who I quoted but rudely forgot to link to yesterday) has some good music stuff at Weapons of Mass Distraction today, including a link to the D4's new single, 'Sake Bomb', over at the lovely Cheese on Toast site (be warned, it jumps right in when the page loads). It's been recorded in both English and Japanese versions. Very clever move, that.

Right, that's it. I'm going to get some sun. Or perhaps see about replacing the family basketball backboard, which, amazingly, was broken by a gust of wind earlier this week. Shooting hoops is a meditative and centring thing and I need it back. Have a good weekend. I might be catching up with our man in Australia, Che Tibby, later on, but I don't think I'm going to make it along to the P Money show at Studio tonight, or to Mr Scruff tomorrow night. It'd be nice - but sitting down and having a glass of wine and a yarn under our el-cheapo new patio heater tonight sounds pretty nice too …

Digg this Scoopit!

Whatever, Trevor | Nov 18, 2004 12:10

What, exactly, was Trevor Mallard thinking when he told a group of businesspeople that it was a pity the Supreme Court had not been appointed on merit? Did he think it wouldn't get out - which would be naïve - or did he intend it to get out - which would be alarmingly stupid?

I had some sympathy for Mallard recently when he declared that Tariana Turia thought it was alright for 13-year-olds to get pregnant (so long as they're Maori), because, well, that pretty much was what she said - and even after the story blew up she still refused to "cast any judgement whether 13 year old girls should or should not get pregnant."

But this latest escalation of the silly and destructive spat between senior ministers and the judiciary helps no one. As David Farrar is saying: "This is just such an incredibly stupid thing for a Minister to do. It is highly insulting to the Court - both as an institution, and individual Judges. It also confirms that his Government does not appoint on merit, by his own words. Just when we thought things could not get worse, Trevor makes sure they do."

Thanks to Karl for pointing me to Krankiboy's helpful and amusing digest of the We're Not Sorry site (is anybody else going to werenotsorry.com and getting a placeholder from a domain name speculator?), which, of course, was created in answer to the Sorry Everybody site (where they're obviously not too retarded to hang onto their domain name …). Clearly, xenophobia goes with the not-being-sorry thing, but what is it with these people and their guns?

There is a view abroad that the media focuses only bad news from Iraq; that too little is said about political progress and freedoms gained. This view is advanced in the long-running Good News from Iraq feature on the Chrenkoff blog, and in Iraq the Model, which is associated with Friends of Democracy.

These do offer an important balance to the picture - and what Friends of Democracy is doing is really quite inspiring. But when the Wall Street Journal and Instapundit trumpet these news sources and condemn the rest of the media for focusing on the violence, they wilfully misunderstand what news is. It's great that someone's funding an Arabic blogging tool but to imply that somehow the Red Cross's estimate that 800 civilians have died in a few days in Fallujah (given anonymously "for fear of U.S. military reprisal"), and the execution of an Margaret Hassan and the abduction of 60 newly-trained Iraqi policemen, shouldn't be the headline news is an act of denial. And I suspect that more Iraqis will be feeling the way Riverbend is than simply clocking up a few hundred dead civilians as the price of democracy.

No Right Turn has been arguing with Sock Thief about the distinctions in death.

Editor & Publisher has an interesting comment piece on the various ways the scenes at Fallujah have been rendered by the media.

Creationism to be taught in schools in a county in Wisconsin; textbooks slapped with stickers questioning evolution in Georgia (a judge has in a federal lawsuit). A Boston Globe story suggested that this is only the start.

Much more on the march of the Christian mullahs at Theocracy Watch.

Digg this Scoopit!

Have a go if you're hard enough ... | Nov 17, 2004 10:27

I can't help but think that the National Party's refusal to participate in the government's constitutional review indicates a fatal lack of confidence.

Even if everything Don Brash said about the review yesterday is true - that it is a political move aimed at defusing the Treaty issue in advance of next year's election - the review is entirely legitimate, and National is the Parliamentary Opposition. It's the Opposition's job to participate in major select committee inquiries. And the man National is dismissing as a lapdog chair, Peter Dunne, is also its most viable coalition partner.

What National appears to be saying is that the only circumstance in which it can meet Labour's challenge is if Labour is lying prone and defenceless and doing nothing to address questions about the Treaty. Brash, having declared that we need to have the debate, doesn't want to have the debate. I think this will prove to be a mistake.

Meanwhile, City Vision appears to have done exactly what I thought it shouldn't do with its mandate on the Auckland City Council: aped the last shower of CitRats by playing power games and stating as a fait accompli policies that it did not explicitly campaign on. Destabilising the mayor is stupid too. If Bruce Hucker doesn't want to be a one-term wonder he would be well advised to behave with some more grace. Announcing a wish-list is one thing, but setting out a viable and fair policy programme should be a matter of discussion. Hucker might want to bear in mind the line on the City Vision website that reads: "Good leaders take people with them."

Nanaia Mahuta might change her stance and vote for the foreshore and seabed bill on the basis of a flock of late amendments? With the likes of New Zealand First's Dail Jones fronting up to endorse the legislation, a Mahuta rethink from the other side of the argument would be just like a bloody great big Christmas present for Labour, wouldn't it?

Peter McLennan drew my attention to the following dirt-digging questions from Deborah Coddington, asked in the House and noted in the OnFilm mailing list. Answers are apparently due to be provided this Friday:

*16586 (2004). Deborah Coddington to the Minister of Broadcasting: Does he know of any Television New Zealand policy regarding checking with previous employers on the possibility of T.V.N.Z. managers, producers, commissioners of programmes or executives being dismissed from previous employment due to alleged financial mismanagement or dishonesty; if yes, what is the policy?

* 16587 (2004). Deborah Coddington to the Minister of Broadcasting: Has he received any reports of any senior personnel currently employed at Television New Zealand (T.V.N.Z.) being dismissed from previous employment due to alleged financial mismanagement or dishonesty; if yes, on what date did he receive those reports, to whom did they relate, and what action, if any, did he take?

* 16604 (2004). Deborah Coddington to the Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage: Is she aware of any recent changes to feature film production financing guidelines being considered by the New Zealand Film Commission; if yes, what are these changes?

* 16605 (2004). Deborah Coddington to the Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage: Has she received any reports or advice regarding the New Zealand Film Commission considering applications for funding for documentary films; if yes, on what date and what was the nature of these reports or advice?

With respect to last week's posts about dark fibre and infrastructure, someone calling themselves "Osama" offered the following comment:

Dude, Canada had a glut of dark fibre following the tech boom. Canarie got a whole lot so cheap even their eyes watered. There is a glut in Central Auckland - even in Grey Lynn (Telstra) but ARENA doesn't have the same windfall of below-cost fibre to benefit from. Sorry.

Good point, but it really serves to underline the merit of the Canadian government's terribly-politically-incorrect broadband strategy. They regulated pricing on the basis of capital expenditure, so the telcos and cable companies had to build out to increase their revenue. Installed fibre is not a bad thing of which to have a glut, is it?

As the Fallujah offensive starts to go septic, and violence erupts in a string of other cities, Juan Cole has commentary and background here and here. And Dahr Jamail's story Dogs Eating Bodies in the Streets of Fallujah is getting a lot of mileage.

With the place smashed into rubble, the question would now seem to be whether there is still a viable city for 300,000 people to return to. Will they become internal refugees? On past form, you'd have to guess there isn't a plan to fix it.

Raed has a variety of urban warfare pictures from around Iraq.

Slashdot has a thread on the claimed discovery of Atlantis.

Adam Bogacki directed me this excellent analysis by J.K. Galbraith of operational problems with the US elections this month. He believes that attempts at voter suppression worked in at least some places - and his proposed solution is to abolish election day.

And, finally, it was nice to know that so many people appreciated yesterday's post about Dorothy. Her family is pleased too.

Digg this Scoopit!

Friends of Dorothy | Nov 16, 2004 09:59

Dorothy G. Dean of Bluff has died, but not, she would have expected, gone to Heaven. I was saddened last night to hear that my favourite correspondent, a 74 year-old, self-described "liberal, staunch Labour feminist sceptic atheist" had suddenly passed away. I had thought that if and when I ever got to Bluff I would pay her a visit, but time has done us both out of that.

Dorothy never seemed to have enough time for everything, what with "grandmotherly duties", voluntary work, keeping up with the world's news ("my personal obsession … what is happening EVERYWHERE") via the Internet, and emailing me, Linda Clark, Chris Laidlaw and Kim Hill.

I made a point of mentioning her in my speech at last month's Great Blend event: "What a great thing that is," I said, "to use your retirement time actively engaging with the media." I hope I'm as sharp as Dorothy if I get to be as rich in years as she did.

Dorothy is survived by three sons, a daughter and a husband who was a delight and a trial to her. She arrived here from Britain more than 50 years ago and trained and worked as a nurse for many years. She was a member of the New Zealand Association of Rationalists and Humanists and the Friends of Charles Darwin. She loved Six Feet Under, Monty Python and the New Scientist. Her name will appear in the forthcoming pro-civil unions newspaper ad.

She wrote her emails like a teenager - hectic, lively - about the Hutton report ("I am beside myself with rage at the sorry display by that ivory tower dwelling old fart"); John Campbell ("He's turned into a bighead and I am sorry"); Mediacow ("It is impossible to seriously consider the views of anon bloggers and he/she should front up"); her beloved National Radio ("To hell with Denis Dutton, and John Isles"); Nick Smith ("Didn't the 'caregiver' have any rights?"); Chris Trotter ("Can't make him out either"); Brian Edwards ("always was something of an egoist but never bland. Wit is a rare commodity and he has that"); the passing of Michael King ("he provided a gentle balm to the spirits of those of us wounded by the apparent gross racism of New Zealand society as evidenced by the response to the Brash speech (not the NZ I love!)"); Deborah Coddington ("Please please do not listen to Deborah whatsit for one second"); Bush, Blair and war ("I too roll into a ball of despair that people continue to believe lies, effing lies (in case your computer tosses out THAT WORD)"); and the role of women in the world:

It's like some men HAVE to believe that women are of less value than men. ALL the main religions have that as a basic tenent. I have three terrific sons (and a ditto daughter) and that's where males have it over women. It's hard to be a man hater when your xy child has YOUR x. And you've birthed and nurtured the little human. Once your child, always your child.

Dorothy gobbled up media: even last month, when she was "in the Te Anau basin, surrounded by the wonderful snow-covered mountains. Farm, grandchildren, pet-sitting while parents gallivant," she was online, keeping up. But most of all, she loved her National Radio. As she emailed to me once when the chatter had turned to youth radio:

For heavens sake. Please just leave Nat Rad alone. At least until I die. I'll let you know, okay?

If someone from Linda Clark's show reads this before noon, would it be possible to give Dorothy a mention? She'd have loved that. She was just a retired nurse from Bluff. But not all great New Zealanders are famous.

Digg this Scoopit!