I heard this in Bill Clinton’s interview with Jon Stewart 20 Sept 2012 talking about finding solutions for economic challenges.
‘The problem with any ideology is it gives you the answer before you look at the evidence. So you have to mould the evidence to get the answer that you’ve already decided you got to have. It doesn’t work that way …’
— Bill Clinton
True.
– P
via AllThingsD (click)
Trust Steve Braunias …
Pressure? Who me? (image: 3News)
The secret diary of … Planet Key (click)
In which Braunias delivers a poke of (well-deserved?) ridicule and indignity to the Prime Minister’s ‘Planet Key’ clanger.
I wonder if Mr Key or his advisors sense yet how complete the appearance of tone-deafness was in his juxtaposing a ‘Nirvana’ of abundant golf courses (no toilets) with ‘nasty party’ policies like welfare cuts/crackdowns, school closures mergers and, of course, asset sales.
Combined with his determined ‘Keyvasive action‘ Mr Key’s failure to acknowledge that his minister John Banks’ has, er, truthfulness issues … well, do you think they make him look out of touch?
Of course, I could be reading this completely wrong, and it may be the nation continues to hold the prime minister in a warm and undying embrace of popular approval. But that’s not how it works.
Mr Key is being seen as cynical … and no longer the ‘anti-politician politician’. (Was he ever, really?)
Look at these damning comments from John Armstrong’s NZ Herald column today … Backed into a corner, so come out joking
Coalition partners Banks & Key in happier times. (pic: Mark Mitchell NZ Herald)
For now, Key is lumbered with Banks by virtue of needing his vote to secure a majority on legislation where National does not have the backing of the Maori Party.
But this is now a one-sided relationship. Banks is now permanently indebted to Key for retaining him as a minister when by any reasonable test he has failed to meet the high ethical standards expected of someone in such a position.
Act’s leverage – minute as it already was – has been heavily discounted accordingly.
Banks is now essentially an irrelevance. His only other options are to resign his ministerial warrant and go to Parliament’s backbenches, where he could choose to vote against the Government on some measures – something which would lead to even more scorn being heaped upon him.
Alternatively, he could resign from Parliament. No one would bet against that happening.
But the more immediate question is how much damage Banks’ remaining a minister is doing to Key’s reputation.
Damage to a reputation. Yes, as Claire Trevett rather memorably said:
Having withdrawn all his own credit from the ATM of credibility, Banks is now relying on Key’s. The reason Key has given Banks his pin number is that the PM’s eye is on the bigger picture, just as it was with that rather demeaning cup of tea: stability of Government.
It may well be said that Mr Key understands his words and actions are diminishing his reputation. And he may have calculated that as acceptable (what choice does he have?) for the sake of big issues … but it seems to me his clumsily-delivered, actually-not-all-that-funny-prime-minister, ‘Planet Key’ nonsense smacks of, well, a certain contempt.*
That just strikes me as a waste of Brand-Key’s political capital and further, it risks corroding the famous teflon coating.
– P
*Same with his “Maori have more positions on water than Lady Gaga has outfits” ‘joke’. Gauche.
Gawd, I loved The West Wing … this ‘star-studded’ campaign ad for Bridget Mary McCormack
uses the members of the ensemble and some of Sorkin’s visual ‘vocabulary’ (including cliché e.g. ‘walk and talk’) combined with what I’ve for so long thought of as ‘Mad About You’ whip-snappy dialogue and, mannered lecture-ettes.
That I have such affection for these characters clearly makes me a humanist lefty … I guess.
– P
thanks to @ohsarahrose …
I don’t even care if it’s a political ad. This West Wing reunion is wonderful youtu.be/v52FLMOPSig also: Alison Janney is a major babe.
— Wanda Woodward (@ohsarahrose) September 20, 2012
Talk to Old People (pic: Cate Owen)
One of the nice things about Twitter — or better put: one of the nice things about following certain people on Twitter is that they can easily share ‘fings’ they see or come across or think about … and easily pass them on to you.
This, from @CateOwen, touched me today…
Saw this graffiti on the way to work this morning. twitter.com/CateOwen/statu…
— Cate Owen (@CateOwen) September 20, 2012
Cate may not have been the ‘artist’, but sharing it in such a low-friction way, has been A Good Thing for me today.
Nice.
– P
PS Did you notice the ‘A’ and the ‘K’ ?
Beautiful and deadly. And putting a psychological layer between a soldier and his lethal 'work'.
Drone warfare’s deadly civilian toll: a very personal view by James Jeffrey writing in The Guardian.
Political theorist Hannah Arendt described the history of warfare in the 20th century as the growing incapacity of the army to fulfil its basic function: defending the civilian population. My experiences in Afghanistan brought this issue to a head, leaving me unable to avoid the realization that my role as a soldier had changed, in Arendt’s words, from “that of protector into that of a belated and essentially futile avenger”. Our collective actions in Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11 were, and remain, futile vengeance – with drones the latest technological advance to empower that flawed strategy.
Drones are becoming the preferred instruments of vengeance, and their core purpose is analogous to the changing relationship between civil society and warfare, in which the latter is conducted remotely and at a safe distance so that implementing death and murder becomes increasingly palatable.
Another worthwhile article is this from Ron Rosenbaum at Slate Ban Drone-Porn War Crimes where he argues that ‘Killing “criminals” with drones is a war crime and ‘Death by joystick is immoral and illegal’.
I think the technological ‘elegant solution’ of killing by remote control is taking us places in ethics and morality that we haven’t been before. I remember Robert McNamara in his film ‘The Fog of War’ talking about the terrible disproportionate carpet bombing of Europe and Japan that the US carried out in WW2, saying if they lost the war they’d be seen as war criminals. Sobering.
Certainly, these drones give their owners (the US and sub-licensee UK, according to James Jeffrey above) an ability to be judge-jury-executioner in a secret war in undeclared places (Predator drones used in Somalia? Did you know?).
It’s one thing for people like ME to question this. Given the recent and impending deployment of people I care deeply about to the war zone in Afghanistan, crikey, I would much rather a robot went. And if that robot could be be remote-controlled from Virginia, or Germany or RAF Waddington Lincolnshire rather than Kandahar … all the better.
These lethal drones are growth industry — a new branch of the arms race. More are in production in the US and, naturally, being copied by Chinese and Israeli companies for sale to markets the US won’t supply.
Whatever, the premise: ‘If a weapon can be made, it will be made. If it is made, it will be used’ applies.
And the ethics catches up later, if at all.
– P
Germany is building its own unmanned fleet: The Bundeswehr’s New Drone – German Air Force Unveils Powerful Spy Plane (Der Spiegel)
Fabulous!
More importantly is this take from Linda Jack…
As a Lib Dem party member who has called for Nick Clegg to apologise for us breaking our pledge on tuition fees, my first reaction last night was to welcome his public mea culpa. But listening carefully to what he had actually said, it became clear he was making the wrong apology. As Julia Hartley-Brewer pointed out on Twitter last night, “Nick Clegg’s apology for breaking tuition fees pledge is like a husband saying ‘sorry for my affair, next time I won’t vow to be faithful’“. What students, voters and members were angry about wasn’t us making the pledge in the first place, it was us breaking it.
Nick Clegg apologised for the wrong thing — The Guardian
Monarchists might object to a symbol of British royalty being used as a doormat. I think it's apt, in a way. (pic: Peter Aranyi)
From Julian Assange is charged, there is no doubt about it — Göran Rudling.
On numerous occasions we have heard Julian Assange say that he is not charged with any crime. For English speaking people that means Julian Assange will be detained by three Swedish courts without a charge. I can understand why so many English speaking people question Sweden’s legal system since it is unlawful to detain a person without a charge. In fact, this is also true even so in Sweden. The reason Julian Assange can claim that he is not charged with a crime is due to a simple but important error in translation. In this post I will give a proper translation so everybody will understand the legal situation in order to fully understand that Julian Assange is, in fact, charged.
Worth a read.
– P
I’ve got no criticism of this, just noting that as a voter registered in the Pakuranga electorate I received this political advertising from Colin Craig’s Conservative Party a day or two ago.
It targets local National MP Maurice Williamson personally, by name and photo, with a quote of Maurice comparing gay marriage to marrying your dog (and joking he’s OK with it: “… as long as you keep your dog off my front lawn I don’t care.”)
So reading between the lines, Colin Craig is spending a promotional budget now, feeling the ‘gay marriage’ (Marriage Equality) Bill gives him some traction. Interesting.
Click to enlarge
It’s been a while since we discussed Colin Craig’s Conservative Party. Remember Conservatives have more fun?
– P
“We wouldn’t have toilets on Planet Key”
— Prime Minister John Key at Question Time.
Arrogance like this looks bad. It erodes respect. Mr Key is going to have to jettison this, or be defined by it.
Do you see it differently? Let me know.
– P
Some good thinking and writing (same thing) about developments in the US Election.
Jonathan Chait The Real Romney Captured on Tape Turns Out to Be a Sneering Plutocrat
Josh Barro Today, Mitt Romney Lost the Election
New York Times editorial Mitt Romney, Class Warrior (via @tmurphyNZH)
Peggy Noonan Time for an Intervention
Jon Stewart Tears Apart Romney’s Assertions About The ‘Dependent’ 47 Percent via Mediaite
Pop any other good ones in comments, please.
The Honourable John Banks 18 Sept 2012 — pic: TV3 (click for video)
See TV3: Banks accused of lying about donations in which Mr Banks delivers an impromptu statement to the news media.
By coincidence, this was today’s Word of the Day from Anu Garg … appearing in my in-box at 4:12 this afternoon. MENDACITY.
Anu Garg's Word of the Day 18 Sept 2012
– P
See also: TV3 — Parliament fired up over Banks donations
Santorum pic: Jason Reed / Reuters | Chaplin pic via forgetthetalkies.com
Former presidential candidate Rick Santorum attacked the media and “smart people” for not being on the side of conservatives in a speech to the Values Voter Summit on Saturday.
“We will never have the media on our side, ever, in this country,” Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator, told the audience at the Omni Shoreham hotel. “We will never have the elite, smart people on our side.“
Check the context: Rick Santorum: Conservatives Will Never Have “Smart People On Our Side” (Buzzfeed)
Um, what about poormastery?
And this:
“When it comes to conservatism libertarian types can say, oh, well you know, we don’t want to talk about social issues,” Santorum said. “Without the church and the family, there is no conservative movement, there is no basic values of America.“
Wow. Talk about black and white! (But we’ve come to extreme talk from Rick Santorum.)
UPDATE: Here’s video of Rick Santorum making the comments … He sounds far more reasonable, don’t you think?
His premise, that smart, elite people somehow don’t hold to family values is untenable in my opinion. In his mouth, ‘family values’ is code for something else. As for his claim that ‘They believe they should have the power to tell you what to do’ … well, that seems like projection.
– P
John Key delivered a good performance on TVNZ’s Q&A current affairs programme this morning — UNTIL he was asked about John Banks.*
You can watch the interview here at TVNZ on demand (17 mins)
And here is the audio of the 3 minute section where interviewer Shane Taurima asked about Mr Key’s standards for his ministers (mp3 file here)
“Prime Minister, is lying a sackable offence for members of your cabinet?”
Not so impressive. [Update: transcript available here at NBR.]
Mr Key’s obvious and dutifully repeated spin/talking point (“politically motivated attacks”) about interest in whether his cabinet minister John Banks lied in April & May this year about his knowledge of Kim Dotcom’s ‘anonymous’ donations to the ‘Team Banksie’ failed 2012 Auckland mayoral campaign seems shallow and unconvincing.
John Banks is a problem. Matthew Hooton says it’s not going away.
Remember this? He’s a married man! (John Banks talks to Radio LIVE’s Frances Cook 27 April 2012)
– P
* Even so, Mr Key’s demonstration of interview technique was much better than David Shearer’s which followed.
