Politics

I hear that Labour are considering Phil Goff as the new leader of the parliamentary party. I guess that seals 6 years for the National-ACT coalition, then.

…so perhaps I don’t understand the finer points of running for political office in New Zealand; I cannot help but feel that a guy who was promoted as a potential minister of finance at the last election on the basis of his expertise in high-finance ought, perhaps, to leave that in the background now that he’s trying to be PM.

Because, honestly, I cannot understand how now is the time to be bragging about a background in the part of the financial industry most associated with the current economic woes.

Unless, I suppose, you’re admiring the wisdom of making a quick $60 million and then bailing for a nice secure public service job before the shit hits the fan.

And it’s true, he’s spent his entire life shuffling from one low-paying government job to another. Well, except those years he spent in prison. Typical! And between you and me, he’s not very articulate. Oh, he may have some street smarts, but he’s not what you call an educated man. He freely admits he’s ignorant about the economy. And apparently the only thing his white running mate knows how to do is crank out one baby after another. And now of course, her teenage daughter is pregnant out of wedlock. Because she learns it at home! But that doesn’t mean we should assume all white people are like that, just because so many of them are. I believe there is hope. I believe even the …stupidest, greediest, laziest whites can break the cycle of dependence like this November when we finally move George Bush out of public housing.

Sometimes, just sometimes, political comedy just works.

So, let me get this straight. When people in New Zealand complain they are having trouble affording food, the collective response from farmers is, “We aren’t a charity, let the market decide.”

So why am I expect to sympathise when potential workers say the same thing.

Exploited, my arse.

You may or may not be familiar with the term, which is used by some economists and social scientists to describe (amongst other things) what happens when people are able to vote themselves wealth at the expense of previous or future generations (for example, John Key’s suggestion to Baby Boomers that they can have tax cuts and massive infrastructure spending by voting up debt for their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren to pay off; the last time we did this was the Muldoon years).

This rather madcap proposal would appear to take the notion to whole new heights; “give Granny your kidney, son, and you can have a sweetie.”

…with less than a year to go to an election you announce that your preferred strategy for the future of New Zealand is wage cuts for all!

Something I’ve noticed in the endless discussions about Americans torturing people is that someone will, sooner or later, bring up a from an authoritative-looking source (say a former secret police type) explaining that torture isn’t very effective at gaining useful information.

This usually touches off a storm of indignation. From, oddly enough, some of the people who don’t like torture. They will often be very, very upset that the practicality is discussed because, the argument goes, torture simply shouldn’t be countenanced irrespective of whether it’s effective.

I find this an odd perspective. Surely “is this effective” is the first question to ask, not one to mark off-limits. If torture is an effective intelligence-gathering tool, well, then we have a moral quandry to deal with, and we need to consider all those wonderful ticking time bomb questions and so on.

But if we establish that torture doesn’t even have the effect of getting good quality information, well, then, we don’t have any further moral argument, since at that point, the only people interested in torture must either be lamentably ill-informed, or psychopathic sadists.

I may not be able to avoid buying shit made in China, unless I want to, say, never wear clothing again.

But since Suzuki manufacture in Burma, this is why ny next motorbike won’t be a Suzuki.

Sure, they go together, but how often do they appear in mayoral candidates.

Pride in one’s stupidity is a contemptible trait.

So, if I’m reading this silly legislation correctly, can I have everyone who spent a portion of last year alleging that Peter Davis is gay, and his marriage to Helen Clark is a sham, fined $200?

Things No Right Turn probably didn’t mean me to think about.