The Standard Week: September 5 – 12

31 comments on “The Standard Week: September 5 – 12 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Pascal's bookie 1

   12 September 2008 at 9:22 pm

   In international news this week:

   The Pakistani gov’t has said that it won’t stand for US troops crossing the border from Afghanistan, which is the new plan.

   In Afghanistan, the US has overturned a previous report that concluded a US strike had only killed Taliban, and they will be re-investigating. The locals had claimed as many as 90 civilians, including many elderly and children had been killed. The US report was overturned after photo’s and testimony. Locals were going to start digging up the bodies to prove they weren’t lying. The initial US report was done by, you’ll love this, Oliver North. Bastards never die, they just reanimate the corpses apparently.

   In South America, the United States of America’s ambassadors to Venezuela and Bolivia have bee given their marching orders and are heading home, as a diplomatic dispute festers. Bolivia is accusing the US of formenting a coup, and Chavez is doing what one would expect. The Russians currently have two strategic bombers in Venezuela on a training mission.

   In North Korea, no one is sure whether the funny looking wee man that runs the place is still breathing. Nor is there much of a consensus about what it would mean for the impoverished nuclear armed military dictatorship if he has, in fact, seen his last.

   Lehman Brothers, another banking giant, is in the poo.

   The big news from the US election, of course, was whether or not Obama was calling the GOP VP candidate a pig. He didn’t, but the Republicans pretended he did, so the press talked about it for a few days, there not being anything important going on.
2. lprent 2

   12 September 2008 at 9:40 pm

   Hey PB: I like that. I haven’t had time to even look at the Economist site (my usual offshore news site). That’s post level……

   captcha: spite Princes
   ummm….
3. Bill 3

   12 September 2008 at 9:44 pm

   And add?

   “Russia’s naval fleet is welcome here,” Chávez said on his weekly broadcast program. “If it’s possible, we’ll stage an exercise in our Caribbean waters.” Russian naval vessels, including a nuclear cruiser, are due to call on Venezuelan ports in late November or December, Chávez said.

   “Go ahead and squeal, Yankees,” he said, taunting the Bush White House.

   http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/18789

   and Palin ain’t no pig…”Palin is a radical right-wing fundamentalist Christian who would love to create a theocracy. She believes we are living in the “end times’ which will result in a bloody inferno from which only true Christians will be saved. Palin recently attended a service in her Wasilla Bible Church run by David Brickner, who runs Jews for Jesus, a group the Anti-Defamation League criticizes for its “aggressive and deceptive’ proselytizing of Jews. Those who don’t accept Jesus as their savior will burn in Hell, according to Palin’s brand of theology.”

   http://www.counterpunch.org/cohn09112008.html
4. T-Rex 4

   12 September 2008 at 10:18 pm

   F*cking Sarah Palin.

   I read a moment ago that apparently optometrists in the US are reporting a significant spike in sales of her style of glasses. Dear GOD americans, would you please GET A F*CKING CLUE!

   Apologies to the plainly significant number of you who do, in fact, already have a clue – I’m sure you can empathise with my frustration.

   Well “straight talking, no nonsense” is already an established meme among the Republicans… how much you wanna bet that “She seems like the kind of person who I could trust to pick my kids up after hockey and have a coffee with” is going to be the next “Kind of person you could have a beer with”.

   PICK THE SMART GUYS! FOR THE LOVE OF CHRIST, PICK THE SMART GUYS.

   —

   Pretty tragic the way Afghanistan is turning out. Keep working on it people. Schools and hospitals, roads and bridges, and be careful who you decide to bomb. It’ll get there. Maybe. Except for when Israel attacks Iran and the whole area goes to crap, again.
5. r0b 5

   12 September 2008 at 10:34 pm

   Hey PB – I know how you feel…
   http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=2173#comment-60299
6. Killinginthenameof 6

   12 September 2008 at 10:37 pm

   You can kind of tell how terrible she is for the job. On kiwiblog, within a day of her announcement (maybe even within hours?) redbaiter came out all guns blazing to defend her, before she had even been criticized in the NZ blog-sphere. He was obviously willing to put aside the fact that shes a women(i was very surprised he did that even), the end truly justifies the means in his depraved world, desperate to win at all costs, he knew well before any one here had looked into her with any great deal what a weak candidate and token choice she is. Sad really. She really is the personification of Robinsods earlier guest post.
7. Pascal's bookie 7

   12 September 2008 at 10:52 pm

   Thanks Lynn.

   Sarah Palin. Bloody hell. The Alaskan state legislature had to pass a law forbidding police from charging victims for forensic rape kits. That’s right. They had to pass a law saying that nowhere in Alaska should rape victims have to pay the costs of collecting vital forensic evidence.

   The one town that was doing this was the one that had Palin as Mayor. She clocked up shitloads of debt building a bloody stadium for a town about a fifth the size of Wanganui, and the rape kits were costing the town between 5 and 12 thousand dollars a year.

   Though at least her general fucking unpreparedness has some benefits.

   In her big interview today she came right out and said that war with Russia was a possibility, given her support for expanding NATO. The journo was kinda taken aback, asking something along the lines of whether the US should really get into a shooting war with Russia about Georgia or wherever.

   This is refreshing because the NATO expansion debate, (which Obama has been disappointing on) has missed this rather salient point entirely, as politicians have pretended that signing a defensive treaty with definite obligations is just some sort of Brand Freedom gimmick that couldn’t possibly mean anything in the real world.

   Help me jebus
8. Pascal's bookie 8

   12 September 2008 at 10:56 pm

   ooh r0b, you did links. And had lesserer typo’s.

   In my defence, I’m lazy.
9. burt 9

   12 September 2008 at 11:09 pm

   Steve P.

   I watched some of Helen Clark’s delivery of her ‘Election time’ message. The denigration of National and discussion about trust was not very entertaining but it is what it is.

   However what caught my attention the most was Helen Clark in the context of National & Labour and voting saying there is really only two choices. So if the PM is saying the choices are National or Labour (only two) then either the PM has no grasp of MMP or the PM is desperately wanting an FPP style election. Perhaps you could shed some light on the perception the PM seems to want to portrait that we only have an FPP choice to make?
10. ak 10

    12 September 2008 at 11:21 pm

    Hey look, enough already on the false modesty, huge congratulations Standardistas on your plug in the press – well deserved and long overdue. Corr…..PM announces the election day and first question’s not oh, I dunno, “what’s your plan for our country” (or something equally insipid} – but “did The Standard know first?”

    Jeeeeez! Either youse fullas are hugely influential or the mainstream press is on a downward spiral and will be experiencing reduced circulations and laying off staff etc anytime.

    Oh……

    Go youse good good things! (ps loved Hels on TV1 tonight – jeez what a lucky country we are to have someone so intelligent and competent as a leader, what a contrast – so clear, relaxed and capable as opposed to the desperate car-salesman-out-of-his-depth that followed )
11. T-Rex 11

    12 September 2008 at 11:25 pm

    The two choices are National LED or Labour LED burt, as anyone looking at the polls can plainly see.

    Or, as those of us who care about policy rather than parties tend to see it: Left or Right. Good or Bad. Potential or capitulation. Smart or Stupid. Not to say that I don’t have grave doubts about the intellect of some of the left’s politicians, but at least their dumbness is in pursuit of generally good policy. Even the smart people on the right (with the possible exception of Key, who doesn’t actually have opinions and is just a windsock for public sentiment) secretly favour stupid policies. Which I guess makes them either a) smart but selfish or b) stupid. Which is to say: stupid or stupid.

    Don’t be naive, and don’t pretend Clark is.
12. T-Rex 12

    12 September 2008 at 11:26 pm

    Seconded AK.

    Nice work guys 🙂
13. T-Rex 13

    12 September 2008 at 11:34 pm

    PB – Worrying about little things like rape is for elitist academics who went to ‘College’ and understand ‘The Economy’ – people who are out of touch and don’t care about the issues faced by regular americans. Has the average american been raped? No. Exactly. Straight talking war hero hockey mums have no time for such fringe nonsense – not when there are stadiums to be built!
14. Dean 14

    13 September 2008 at 1:12 am

    “Or, as those of us who care about policy rather than parties tend to see it: Left or Right. Good or Bad. Potential or capitulation. Smart or Stupid. Not to say that I don’t have grave doubts about the intellect of some of the left’s politicians, but at least their dumbness is in pursuit of generally good policy.”

    Quickly! The sky will fall if National hold the treasury benches! I’m suprised you left out baby eating.
15. T-Rex 15

    13 September 2008 at 1:30 am

    “I’m suprised you left out baby eating.”

    Could you cite a source for that Dean? I didn’t know it was National policy. Then again, I haven’t checked my local cafe table yet, it’s probably sitting there waiting to be picked up.

    The sky won’t fall, it’ll just get a little darker. Literally as well as figuratively. And like most sorts of pollution, it’s bioaccumulative.
16. higherstandard 16

    13 September 2008 at 7:55 am

    T-Rex

    “Or, as those of us who care about policy rather than parties tend to see it: Left or Right. Good or Bad. Potential or capitulation. Smart or Stupid. Not to say that I don?t have grave doubts about the intellect of some of the left?s politicians, but at least their dumbness is in pursuit of generally good policy. Even the smart people on the right (with the possible exception of Key, who doesn?t actually have opinions and is just a windsock for public sentiment) secretly favour stupid policies. Which I guess makes them either a) smart but selfish or b) stupid. Which is to say: stupid or stupid.”

    Having read your comments over a number of months I’m surprised by this black and white (rather provincial view) of the two major parties in my opinion the left and right monikers are somewhat outdated and to suggest that all “left” or “right” type policies are appropriate in each and every setting is naive.

    In my opinion their are issues and problems in NZ which need more aggressive intervention in the terms of what some might call nanny statetism while others require less intervention by the state.

    The left is right and right is bad argument (or vice versa) has only served to have the population form into two opposing teams every few years and then not hold politicians to account in between times. Just look at this site as an example apart from the occasional notable post from Bill and Tane everything else is National is the font of all evil and Labour is the opposite.
17. higherstandard 17

    13 September 2008 at 7:56 am

    But more importantly the weathers lovely and I’m off out for a bike ride
18. T-rex 18

    13 September 2008 at 8:59 am

    Good man – I will do the same when the sun comes up.

    Don’t take it literally – I meant it much more in a philosophical sense than policy, and there are vast swathes of left leaning philosophy I’m strongly opposed to (‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his need’ being the most fundamental – what a croc). It just seems that the left at least is more likely (though by no means guaranteed) to work with a planning horizon a little beyond a quarterly reporting cycle, which is one of my major qualifiers for “not being a dumbass”. I’d question some of his spending, but I think Cullens general fiscal policy over the last 6 years at least has been exceptional. I really doubt I’d be saying the same of Key right now had National won last time.

    You’re right, objectively it’s nothing LIKE that cut and dried. But come election time you have to pick a side – can’t choose weighting factors for input to governance (except inasmuch as you CAN with MMP), and on balance I think that, right now, the left is facing closer to what I’d term ‘the right direction’ that the right is. That’s before I even start to CONSIDER personalities, at which point it becomes a no brainer.
19. Draco TB 19

    13 September 2008 at 10:10 am

    HS:

    In my opinion their are issues and problems in NZ which need more aggressive intervention in the terms of what some might call nanny statetism while others require less intervention by the state.

    I agree but I happen to think that we’re more likely to get that intervention where and when we need it from a Labour led government. What I expect from National is that everything would get thrown to privatisation and, when that doesn’t work, they’ll throw in major amounts of subsidies to try and make it work. Just as they seem to be doing with Telecom(munications).

    T-Rex:

    ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his need’ being the most fundamental – what a croc

    Whoa, you don’t believe in having a free-market?
20. randal 20

    13 September 2008 at 10:40 am

    has mccain paid chavez to kick up a kerfuffle so he and palin can save the U.S.A.
21. monkey-boy 21

    13 September 2008 at 10:44 am

    Who saw the Herald poll:
    Who would you vote for” poll. At 9.15am, with 5843 “votes” it stood at

    National – 3615 votes – 62%
    Labour – 1186 votes – 20%
    Act – 336 votes – 6%
    Greens – 319 votes – 6%

    I thought you’d all be interested since your ‘road to damascus’ about the veracity of polls after the last Morgan one.
22. burt 22

    13 September 2008 at 10:50 am

    T-Rex pretty much represents the way the major parties like us to see the election. It’s a choice between National & Labour. Them pesky small parties are just annoying little bastards that you shouldn’t vote for because “Big party 1” and “Big part 2” offer you two very slightly different variants of One Size Fits All.

    What a fucking joke, the major parties want FPP back, the “Two Ticks Labour” and “Two Ticks National” campaigns show just how anti fair democratic representation the major parties are.

    Only a complete idiot would think that either National or Labour want to have a strong minor party in coalition with them.

    Sack the self serving major parties, vote for a govt that represents the people rather than a govt that represents itself foremost. NZ will not have a parliament that represents the best interest of NZ until such time as the major parties are shrunk to less than 40 seats each. Party vote for a minor party, elect a self serving major party MP into your electorate if you must but vote in strong minor parties and make parliament answerable to you – rather than letting them be self serving and answerable only to themselves.
23. randal 23

    13 September 2008 at 11:23 am

    meanwhile I am waiting for a chicken in every pot and a good 5c cigar…yadda yadda yadda.
24. gobsmacked 24

    13 September 2008 at 11:32 am

    Monkey-Boy

    Have a think about the online games you call a “poll”. ACT are at 6%. No real poll – based on even half-way scientific sampling – has ever shown ACT to be anywhere near 6% in all of the surveys taken in 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005 …

    Their recent (real) poll ratings have been around 1-2%. So this online game (non-poll) multplies ACT support by 3-4 times. They have six times more support than the Maori Party. Whereas in the real world, they are consistently less popular than the Maori Party.

    Now extrapolate from that, and you will get some idea of how meaningless these online games are. The same is true of every one of those Herald/Stuff non-polls. They will tell you that New Zealanders want zero taxes, the death penalty for wearing a hoodie, and to tear up the Treaty.

    Fortunately, in the REAL election, the busy, the poor, the old, the female, and the just plain normal, ignored by your non-poll, will be casting their votes. And all the online propaganda games can’t change that wonderful fact.
25. forgetaboutthelastone 25

    13 September 2008 at 11:36 am

    monkey-boy:

    Didn’t you read the fine print?

    “nzherald.co.nz polls don’t claim to be scientific and reflect the opinions of only those internet users who have chosen to participate.”
26. Killinginthenameof 26

    13 September 2008 at 1:09 pm

    monkey-boy
    “September 13, 2008 at 10:44 am

    Who saw the Herald poll:
    Who would you vote for’ poll. At 9.15am, with 5843 “votes’ it stood at”

    Thats not a proper poll, its self selecting, that’s not how they normally do their polling, but i suspect they know that, it kind of follows on from their “do you trust opinion polls” poll from last week. I guess you could say that it shows the political leanings of their customers compared to that of the rest of the country, and gives some suggestion towards the amount they bias their reporting to meet the expectations and beliefs of their customers.
27. Pascal's bookie 27

    13 September 2008 at 2:04 pm

    burt, I’ve only given one of the major parties my list vote once, so I can sympathise with your views. I think that part of the problem is that people vote for the two big parties because that’s what they want to vote for.

    I really don’t think it is the big parties fault. Most people are risk averse, and so will vote for small ‘c’ conservative parties over radical ones. The effect of this is that you get two main parties each based around the centre and leaning to either the left or the right. The rest of the electorate, that will support more radical parties, splits their vote amoungst the more ideological parties depending on the direction their radicalism favours.

    The other way it can pan out is for there to be one centrist party, with two larger more left and right wing parties to grab the radicals, each taking their turn of coalescing with the luke warm nothings in the middle. This is what Dunne tried to get going.

    I actually prefer the first scenario, because the ideological parties are actually more free to stick to their guns. They are also more likely to get votes, because people know that they will not be the major party in the gov’t. People that sort of want to go in a ACT or Green direction, but are not sure, are way more likely to vote for them if they know that they will only be an influence, rather that a determining force in their own right.
28. Pascal's bookie 28

    13 September 2008 at 2:13 pm

    The only thing funnier than online polls are those polls where you have to txt your reply in to a TV show, for a $1.50.

    I caught the end of one show where the gasbag host, (I can’t remember who) had Bob Jones on. The ‘poll’ result came in and it disagreed with what Jones had been saying, so the host puffed himself up and said something about how maybe these results told us something about Bob Jones.

    Jones gave the sap his best Arts Graduate elitist smirk, and said words to the effect that the only thing a self selecting poll like that told us was that the host’s viewers were self declared idiots, who we shouldn’t pay any attention to.

    Laughed? I nearly shat.
29. monkey-boy 29

    13 September 2008 at 3:15 pm

    If you had, it would have been the crowning moment of actual humour to an otherwise lame joke.
30. Pascal's bookie 30

    13 September 2008 at 3:50 pm

    Do you actually think these ‘polls’ mean something MB? Really?

    What do you think we can learn from these ‘polls’.

    What is the sample? It’s not ‘NZers’, it’s not even ‘Herald readers’. All we know is that National got 3615 votes. We don’t even know if that is 3615 people. Unless we know what the sample that came from looks like, we haven’t learned anything more than National got 3615 votes.

    It is absolutely useless. The sampling methodology for polling isn’t just a little added feature that gives it a little bit more credibility. It is what gives a poll any credibility at all. When they say they are ‘unscientific’ they are not saying that the poll has some non scientific validity, they are saying that it is a gimmick. A device for a website or program to have some interaction with it’s viewers, and that is all.

    It’s about as credible as a horoscope.

    Which is fine if that’s what pushes your fun buttons, but it’s not real MB. It’s at the most, a bit of fun.
31. randal 31

    13 September 2008 at 4:30 pm

    at the least it is a dirty pit of politicing from the infantilised crew of pseudo-journalists at the Herald!

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS