Posts by Terence Wood
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
"as a pro-lifer, I cannot support an organization that is opposed to the death penalty"
and I'm glad there's no one left in the office to hear my spluttering. That is genius!
I moved to Australia in early 2001 after having lived in England, New York and Portugal for the previous 5 years, and was shocked at just how explicitly racist, and staunchly xenophobic, many white Australians were (only Portugal came close). All the while I consoled myself with the belief that New Zealand couldn't be that bad.
But then I moved home to discover Winston in full flight and teenagers being repatriated to a life of abuse in Sri Lanka, and I really had to reconsider.
In the end I decided that some of the apparent difference was simply the bluntness of Australian discourse. Things do seem to bee worn on one's sleeve so much more there. And there are some wonderful activists in Australia doing their best to act as a countervailing force. And they go about it with a bluntness equivalent to their opposite numbers - and which would probably seem out of place to most New Zealanders.
However, even taking this into account, Australia still seemed worse. People really had no compunction expounding their racist world view only minutes after having met. And my pale(ish) skin really did become a passport - there were several times was on the receiving end (as a perceived co-conspirator) of tirades against foreigners. Like I wasn't one????
As a total off topic thing - I'm just listening to Pet Sounds. Did anyone else out there know that the Frank Black song "Hang on to Your Ego" was a cover? Of the Beach Boys song "I know there's an Answer"?
-
About 10 years ago I traveled to Indonesia surfing. I can recall reading, before I left, a small news item about a man who had been arrested in Palmerston North after breaking into a sex store and stealing a sex toy (his get away vehicle was a bike so it's not so surprising he was caught).
Once I got to Indo, I found that the story was front page news in Australia, and its full details were recounted to me in full by gleeful Australian surfers.
Our thief, you see, had been caught riding away with an inflatable sheep sex-toy.
Whilst we keep doing things like this, I'm inclined to think that the Australian's are entitled to the odd laugh at our expense.
Best sheep joke I heard:
"How do New Zealand men find sheep in long grass"
"Most satisfying" -
Neil,
Normally you are pretty sharp but you're letting yourself down today. OBL's primary stated concern with moral values is within the "caliphate". The fact that gay men can marry in Hawaii, I think, is/was of next to no concern to him.
-
Ben Wilson,
Using the old "One Missasippi, Two Missasippi..." technique I was only three seconds out.
I can't undertake the other tests at present because I'm at work and, if I did, it would only reveal my habit. (Blog habit that is.)
p.s. as far as I can tell, being unable to spell Missisppi (sigh) doesn't affect the accuracy of the technique.
-
One of the intriguing things, in my mind, is the way National's grab for power appears to have consciously mirrored that which worked for so long for the Republicans in the US.
1. Find a wedge issue - in this case race. In the US - abortion, gay marriage.
2. Run with the support of a powerful, wealthy elite who often don't actually agree on the wedge issue, but who are placated by the thought of lower taxes [visual: Homer Simpson "mmmmmm Tax Cutttsss"].
What would have been interesting - although thank God we haven't had a chance to test this - is the extent to which policy promises relating to the wedge issue would have actually been followed up after the election. They got their tax cuts in the US; I'm sure they would have got them here too. In the US abortion still remains legal, however. It seems plausible that many of National's promises on race might not have been followed up to the extent that supporters hoped for, for the reason outlined in Jim Bolger's quote in Danyl's article above.
Then again - in Australia - Howard has delivered his promises on the wedge issue (immigration) and some...
The whole idea of campaigning to social conservatives while delivering to fiscal conservatives seems to follow Crosby/Textor round like a bad smell.
One final point – while this whole fiasco makes me worry for the sake of politics in New Zealand, it actually makes me feel just a little more positive about the voting public. Here was a coalition of every ugly aspect of the right – religious cultists, tax loathing super-rich ideologues, and rednecks – throwing everything they could at the election. And being dishonest about it too. And they still lost.
-
Neil,
I agree: we appear to have an irreconcilable difference of definitions. I take far right to mean far to the right of the economic centre. You take it to mean beyond the pale.
Fair enough.
-
Nick,
No - something like 2% (give or take a percent or two) voted for ACT at the last election.
As appears to be well documented in the book, the circa 40% vote that National got was only achieved by them being deceptive about what their economic policies actually were.
-
Craig,
In four words I can tell you what is false about Irving's book: The. Holocaust. Took. Place.
Can you do anything similar with the following charges?
1. Don Brash was aware that the EB were – effectively – campaigning on his behalf. And mislead the public about this.
2. The Brash led National Party received substantial support from people whose views on economic policy are generally in line with those of the Act Party. Their support related to the fact that Brash intended to impose economic policies of this sort after winning the election. Brash et. al. were aware that this wouldn’t rub with the electorate. So they deceived the electorate.
3. Brash received electioneering advice from prominent members of the US conservative establishment.
4. Certain members of New Zealand’s media were much closer to the National Party than they let on.
The thing with Coulter’s ‘evidence’ is that it’s not – it’s opinion.
The thing with Irving’s ‘evidence’ is that it’s not – it’s fiction.The thing with Hagar’s evidence – that no one seems to be disputing – is that it’s genuine National Party documents.
-
Neil,
I'll answer on behalf of - erm - James. Roger Douglas's politics are correctly described as far right, because – as I said above – they are far to the right of New Zealand's political centre (held by fewer than 2.5% of the population at best).
This does not mean that his views are akin to those of the National front, nor even the LibertariaNZ. Far right - like far left - is not a discrete point, simply another segment of the spectrum (or, more correctly, spectrums).
Nevertheless, the simple fact that his beliefs are far removed from what most New Zealanders want (including those with right of centre views, which is why they had to be Trojan-horsed in the last election), means that they can accurately be described as far-right.
-
In the New Zealand Neil Morrison dreams of...
the centre of New Zealand's politics would belong to Roger Douglas. His 'centrist' party would be the first in the developed world to have imposed a flat tax. Whether by design or 'unforseen' consequence, tax revenue would drop to a level where the government could no longer afford to play a major role in health or education (the two big ticket budget items). Markets in health - as in the States - prove to be an inefficient delivery mechanism leading to the middle-class paying more for less, while a portion of the working class goes without. Markets in education perpetuate inequality of opportunity. A no longer progressive taxation system exacerbates rising inequality. Which, in turn, leads to rising crime and a less happy, less healthy society.
Neil: the reason why Roger Douglas is considered far right in New Zealand politics is because approximately 2.5% of New Zealanders (all of whom are conventionally described as rightwing) view the country described above as in any way desirable.