Posts by Terence Wood
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
and again, with the proper tags this time:
"Does anyone else find the economic policy responses of not only the incumbent, but all the US presidential hopefuls unconvincing to the point of being delusional?"
Nope.
Much as I admire Obama's style, his "give everyone $250" policy is daft. It seems that everyone's solution involves cranking up the federal deficit some more, and worrying about inflation some other time.
Have you been possessed by the spirit of Herbert Hoover this morning Russell?
Inflation and the deficit are the least of the United State's worries at present*. If (and that is still an if) the recession comes and is as bad as people fear, priorities ought to be (a) helping those in need of help and (b) increasing consumer spending and confidence. If (b) alone was your sole concern then you might simply rely on monetary policy*. However, monetary policy isn't a heck of a lot use to those suffering in the short term. The solutions offered by the front Democrat front-runners on the other hand may well be.
And Obama's plan isn't necessarily daft at all. If directed at lower socio-economic groups it's money to ease the pain of the recession and money which will be spent.
The trouble with Bush's stimulus suggestions is that (a) they will give money to people who won't need it and (b) to people who wont necessarily spend it. Not the fact that they are deficit increasing per se.
_
*There is a risk of Stagflation which might change this a bit. However, inflation is not dangerously high in the US and it certainly isn't the cause of the current crisis. Meanwhile the deficit is a mid-long run concern. The current crisis is something in the here and now.
**even then, for fear of a liquidity trap, you might want to involve fiscal policy too. -
His main whoopsie with potential Democrat voters so far has been failing to put sufficient distance between him and a preacher who claims to have been cured of homosexuality.
For what it's worth, Obama has made a couple of real woopsies:
1. Buying into untrue conservative talking points on Social Security.
and
2. A health care plan with a fatal flaw.
All this means that, purely in terms of policy on offer, I'm conflicted. Obama is better than Clinton on foreign policy. Clinton, for the most part, is better on domestic stuff. Edwards is better than both of them, but he won't win the primaries.
And then, of course, there is the fact that, above and beyond policy, as much as anything else I want a Democrat who can win. And this is somewhere where Obama seems to have the edge.
-
The name wasn't pretentious, and I quite liked it, so I stuck with it.
But if you need an alternative please consider: 'Postcards from the Edge'
[shuffles off]
-
You really ought to be making a request to Al Qaeda and Moqti et al terrorists & insurgents etc. to make a video on You Tube to apologize for the all the homicide bombings and murder and mayhem that they inflicted on Iraqis over the last few years. They killed, deliberately, a hell of a lot more people, and are thus responsible for the displacement etc, than the MNF killed, and any civilians the MNF killed, were killed by accident. There is no moral relativity there at all.
And I for one would like to thank you James for your tireless work in providing us with tidy, succinct summaries of the conservative talking points of the day. It saves me from having to surf over that side of the fence and for this I am grateful.
As for the "dead Iraqis, well that ain't our fault, that was the terrirists" argument, that's just plane silly. For a start, according to most reliable stats, a significant proportion of the dead have been killed by our weapons (and if you believe all of this was accidental then honestly I don't know where to begin). Secondly, we created the conditions that caused all this killing. This doesn't exculpate Al Qadea etc for their acts but at the same time surely it leaves some of the blood on our hands.
We poured the petrol. We lit the match. And you want to blame the flames.
Now, given the outcome of the invasion of Iraq, tell me again do you really think that invading Iran will make things better for the people there. And that if it doesn't, if we go ahead and invade knowing what we know and it turns to hell, that we won't deserve some of the blame.
-
Oh - one other thought.
Assuming that: the affidavit that was leaked contained all the police's key evidence - from a year +'s investigation.
Assuming that: the Dompost mined this for the most sensational claims.
...does the evidence that we have read really indicate a likely terrorist attack? As opposed to the idol boasts of some very silly and nasty people?
These aren't rhetorical questions - I'm genuinely interested what people think. Yesterday, my thoughts on this were quite different from what they are today.
-
Re the Hikoi:
If Tuhoe and their supporters wanted to let NZ know that they were angry, then they succeeded. If they wanted to strategically gain public support, then it seems like they failed. But, after all they've been through over the last few weeks (not to mention the last few hundred years), who can blame them if it was the anger that was afforded front stage.
Russell (et al), if - in the very recent past - the police held you spread-eagled on the ground for several hours while your kids were locked in a shed, how strategically do you think you would be thinking at present?*
Once again, I think the people quoted in the Dompost are nut jobs, and anyone who was genuinely planning acts of violence way, way, way beyond the pale. However, by all accounts, what happened to the people of Ruatoke and surrounds, was completely over the top and, given that the police no real reason to expect armed resistance (everyone had gone home from the camps remember), pretty damn repulsive.
=======
*I'm assuming here that my memory from the foggy mists of this morning is correct and that the allegation made on National Radio was true. -
I'd wholeheartedly agree except for this one little conundrum. You've neatly divided the world into the extreme and the moderate. I hope this isn't also a substitute for thought. It is just possible that extreme views are actually sometimes right. Minto has been trading on this for years.
Nice!
-
Is it reasonable to be angry with everyone at this point? With people who want to shoot their fellow citizens, with clumsy police and dastardly leakers, with the arrogant bugger-your-fair-trial Dompost, and with people who do their own causes no good?
I don't know if it's reasonable, but it's certainly how I feel.
-
There has been an order of magnitude more hysteria from supporters of those arrested than from the general public.
And you're comparing apples with oranges. What you really want to be comparing is the respective levels of hysteria of the supporters of the arrested and the Mark/Peters/Kiwiblog-comments lynch mob.
Anyhow, last time I looked, the police's mandate was to uphold the law, not to uphold the law until someone got hysterical.
Once again, the members of the "Urewera 17"* who uttered the comments published in the DomPost appear to be loons of the first degree and deserve to stand trial. They also deserve a fair trial.
=================
*As an aside, would it be too much to ask that the left possibly start coming up with some sort of new naming system for their martyrs; the old one's more than a little bit worn. -
Over at Norightturn, Idiot/Savant has posted. This extract, I thought, sums up exactly the problems with the actions of the police (if, indeed, they were the leakers):
I have already said that I am against trial by media, and this clearly demonstrates why. If this material had been revealed in court, the defence could have properly tested it and cross-examined the witnesses. That right has now been denied to them, as they cannot respond for fear of prejudicing their case on the remaining charges. The effect will be to establish "facts" in the public mind (and thus of potential jurors) which have not been properly tested - "facts" which are highly contentious and could have a significant bearing in a case which is ultimately about the purpose for which firearms were being used.
It’s all the worse when you consider that in an effort to avoid prosecution, the Dominion-Post has anonymised the evidence. While on the one hand this seems to avoid some of the worst features of trial by media, the net effect is to lose any distinction between the accused, and tar them all with the same brush. According to Campbell Live, the number of people recorded making dangerous and violent statements was five - but now all seventeen defendants get to be smeared with the extremist views of Jamie Lockett.
That of course was the aim of the police in leaking this - to show that they were justified by smearing the accused. This is grossly improper for any police officer, and speaks of an utter contempt for the judicial process and rule of law. And in the face of such gross malfeasance by the police and the media and the damage it has done, the court now has only one option: to declare a mistrial.
I'm not sure that I agree with calls for a mistrial (yet) but I do think that, what we desperately need now, is a police force that obeys the laws they are supposed to enforce. I'm not anti-police but I think it's critical that the defendants in this case get a fair trial. I also think that there is a more general point about the enforcement arm of any democracy needing to be squeaky respect the legal system. Once that respect goes you are on a heck of a slippery slope*.
__________________
*I feel this all the more acutely because I have just returned from Australia.