Apparently New Zealand is governed by morons

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

As a libertarian, I take umbrage as being referred to as a wing of the Republican Party. As far as I'm concerned, Democrats want big government and say so, while Republicans want big government and lie about it. Democrats are tax-and-spend, Republicans are debt-and-spend.

Not all libertarians are Republican, of course. Like Parker and Stone of South Park fame.

Personally, the whole big government-small government thing sounds stupid to me. You reserve big government to the moments when the private sector goes to the shitter, and then cut that power when it's not needed. Thing is, not a lot of politicians seem levelheaded enough to do that.

I'd rather talk of bad government vs. good government, rather than sizes, unless is strictly necessary (like having bureaucracy problems).

The libertarian and the interventionist views are at odds to all I have learned about Control Systems getting my master degree.

And they never will be levelheaded enough. One of the major themes of the Constitution was that politicians cannot be trusted, except when it comes to their own self-interest.

That said, another theme of the Constitution was that a weak federal government is ineffective. I think Madison had some good points.

That said, I identify as small government because I believe you need to have some system for babysitting politicians at all times (such as checks and balances), or they'll fuck things up as soon as your back is turned. This doesn't mean I want a weak federal government, just that I am not okay with giving the government power unless appropriate precautions are taken to prevent abuse of that power.

Fair enough, but again, it's mostly a question of what's apropiate rather than a "one size fits all" thing. That's the reason I don't trust a lot the statements about the size of government without some rigor.

"

Xavderion wrote:

Interesting. So when did they switch sides? I've been told several times that yeah it's basically correct what the guy said in the video but at some point the parties switched sides so the Republicans are the racists now and the Democrats are the good people.

Political parties don't have morals - good ones or bad ones. They have an overarching view of how things should be, and whatever they need to say or do to achieve that is considered acceptable. Their agendas are friable, depending on who they need to support them.

In the USA - the two overarching principles are: More government is better and less government is better.

If one side thought it could win more elections by bullying people with an odd number of consonants in their name, they would do so. When they suspect a large portion of the voters is heavily emotionally invested in a certain issue, they tend to vote overwhelmingly for it.

Not being a citizen of New Zealand, I can't speak for them, but usually this kind of vote means the public has had enough of a particular issue and wants to see that issue fixed.

Carefully crafting and implementation is critical to make sure something like this actually works against bullying and doesn't just snare people who are just speaking their minds. I don't know that anyone has the perfect solution to that problem yet, but we are likely to see numerous attempts at it over the next decade.

The illusion of anonymity will be the first to go, for advertising and government eavesdropping reasons.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

Political parties don't have morals - good ones or bad ones. They have an overarching view of how things should be, and whatever they need to say or do to achieve that is considered acceptable. Their agendas are friable, depending on who they need to support them.

In the USA - the two overarching principles are: More government is better and less government is better.

If one side thought it could win more elections by bullying people with an odd number of consonants in their name, they would do so. When they suspect a large portion of the voters is heavily emotionally invested in a certain issue, they tend to vote overwhelmingly for it.

When you say they'll do anything to win more elections, that certainly includes lying to their constituency. But there are certain things a political party will never do, because it's not merely about winning elections, it's also about using those wins to further solidify power... and serving oneself and one's "friends" with a hefty serving of pork. When a politicial party says it is for small government, that isn't the truth, it's marketing.

Afaic a huge problem is that on both sides the extremists set the tone for the debate. On the left the hysterical SJW's, on the right the wingnuts. But imo the right is way more guilty of that than the left. The left does not have an outright propaganda channel like "fair and balanced" Fox News, it doesn't have willfully ignorant bullies with national recognition like Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh, or crazy people with, again, national recognition, like Anne Coulter, Michele Bachman or Sarah Palin. They don't have symbols of ruthlessness, abuse of power and corruption in their recent history, like Dick Cheney, i.e. the whole of the Bush government, or Richard Nixon. They don't have people willfully falsifying textbooks for schoolchildren so that it fits their agenda, they don't have governors of states that summon the National Guard in case Obama attempts an invasion, etc., etc.
What can be found on the left that comes even remotely close to that?

"

Jojas wrote:

Afaic a huge problem is that on both sides the extremists set the tone for the debate.

That's partially the fault of the media covering them and the people following the news. When people only pay attention to things they really like or really hate, then that's where the advertising dollars will be.

This is a sad situation, because most people aren't as polarized as their elected leaders.

"

Jojas wrote:

On the left the hysterical SJW's, on the right the wingnuts. But imo the right is way more guilty of that than the left. The left does not have an outright propaganda channel

You are right, they don't have one "outright propaganda channel", they have four of them. Fox can get away with more sensationalism, because they are the only game in town for those who lean more the way they do. If the situation was reversed and one of ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN was liberal leaning (let's say NBC for illustration purposes) and the rest conservative leaning with Fox, then NBC would be free to get as sensational as they wished (since liberal leaning viewers would have no alternative choice) and the conservative channels would have to tone down their act or lose a big chunk of their audience.

"

Jojas wrote:

like "fair and balanced" Fox News, it doesn't have willfully ignorant bullies with national recognition like Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh, or crazy people with, again, national recognition, like Anne Coulter, Michele Bachman or Sarah Palin. They don't have symbols of ruthlessness, abuse of power and corruption in their recent history, like Dick Cheney, i.e. the whole of the Bush government, or Richard Nixon. They don't have people willfully falsifying textbooks for schoolchildren so that it fits their agenda, they don't have governors of states that summon the National Guard in case Obama attempts an invasion, etc., etc.
What can be found on the left that comes even remotely close to that?

The left is just as guilty as the right in terms of falsifying, spinning, twisting, obfuscating and otherwise manipulating what the public sees. Examples of what both sides do in pursuit of this would end up being several thousand pages, and that's just the easy to find stuff. Demonizing the opponent had become the modus operandi of politicians seeking office nowadays.

The only quick way to tell who is spinning the truth and how much they are doing so, is checking the few facts that they do give. Other than that, it's a matter of tracking their statements over time. If you are listening to what analysts are telling you about them, than your already in a geometric growth of spin. If you follow a whole team of like minded analysts, than you are in an exponential spin zone. That is true for both sides. People have to step outside their comfort zones and really look at things from other perspectives to start seeing it though.

It isn't so much that politics itself is a dirty business. The raw power that a person in high office holds draws a lot of people that have no business at all being in a position of responsibility. Those that can get away with corruption for a few years also have a chance to rake in a lot of money.

Whether they are on the left or right, the best way to see your average politician is as a hungry shark. The liberal leaning Tiger Shark is not going to be any kinder or fiercer than the conservative leaning Mako Shark.

Elections are feeding frenzy time, and the sharks lose all control, whether it's Howard Dean's primal scream or Donald Trump's diatribe.

This doesn't mean that everything an elected body does is motivated by greed and corruption. It's more like the good intentions are warped and filtered past the corruption and greed.

To bring it back to the original topic - the vote in NZ was heavily in favor of the legislation. I doubt NZ's elected leaders are all of one party, which indicates that politicians of both (or more) sides aren't always at odds.

As Scrotie and others have said - the main factor is to never trust the politicians, and always hold them accountable. If they do a good job, reelect them. If not, give them the boot and vote for somebody else.

The issue NZ was trying to address is somewhat new (in historical/legislative terms) and complex. The fact that they are trying to find a solution is good. Only time will tell whether the one they voted for will work out, need amending, or scrapping and something new put in place.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

When you say they'll do anything to win more elections, that certainly includes lying to their constituency. But there are certain things a political party will never do, because it's not merely about winning elections, it's also about using those wins to further solidify power... and serving oneself and one's "friends" with a hefty serving of pork. When a politicial party says it is for small government, that isn't the truth, it's marketing.[/quote]

Without the pork (and it's not always for buddies, in fact it is usually something "brought home" for the district) there would be little legislation passed at all. The wasteful spending is the grease that keeps Washington moving.

As for using wins to solidy power, I consider that under the "win more elections" category. There are short term and long term goals.

I'm of the mindset that anyone who actually wants to be part of such a circus, probably shouldn't be allowed into office. I'm not sure how you would go about drafting people for single terms of elected office though.

@DalaiLama: Politifact made a fact checking comparing cable news networks. They found that 60% of claims made by pundits of Fox News are "mostly false", or worse. In comparison 44% of (MS)NBC and just 21% of CNN pundits' claims are "mostly false" or worse. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/jan/29/punditfact-checks-cable-news-channels/

This is just fact checking of media outlets, and does not take into account the common denominator of many of the misrepresentations of the right wing media: fear-mongering, or at the very least instilling resentment.
You say the left is just as guilty as the right. But which prominent figure on the left is even remotely comparable, in ignorance, in their bullying discussion tactics, and in extremism, to those on the right? Rachel Maddow? Keith Olbermann? Or Jon Stewart? Bill Maher? Really, none of them even come close.

"

Jojas wrote:

@DalaiLama: Politifact made a fact checking comparing cable news networks. They found that 60% of claims made by pundits of Fox News are "mostly false", or worse. In comparison 44% of (MS)NBC and just 21% of CNN pundits' claims are "mostly false" or worse. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/jan/29/punditfact-checks-cable-news-channels/

This is just fact checking of media outlets, and does not take into account the common denominator of many of the misrepresentations of the right wing media: fear-mongering, or at the very least instilling resentment.
You say the left is just as guilty as the right. But which prominent figure on the left is even remotely comparable, in ignorance, in their bullying discussion tactics, and in extremism, to those on the right? Rachel Maddow? Keith Olbermann? Or Jon Stewart? Bill Maher? Really, none of them even come close.

I fear that nothing good will come of bringing up specific citations or examples. There will only be hurt feelings, anger and ultimately probations. It can take anywhere from a few minutes to several dozen hours to verify a single sentence or idea, and I've no interest in spending a few weeks proving someone else wrong in a viewpoint.

It won't make them a friend, and it won't change their viewpoint. It can win a debate, and it can win viewers to your side. It can generate a lot of ill will, and it can make teachers and executives frustrated and bitter.

I'm not discussing this to convince you or anyone else. I am doing so to represent that there is a valid opposing viewpoint for people to consider. That's all. People will decide for themselves anyways, but I feel it is better if they have heard both sides of the story before they render their personal verdict.


I will say that relying on someone else to check the veracity and logic of a politician's claims, than you have given up a large measure of how much political spin you can detect. Whether the source is biased, or unbiased, or moderately unbiased is only partially relevant. Sites like politifact can be a good starting point. Checking the sources is another. Sometimes it's as easy as reading the original source and seeing that the person citing it is really twisting/spinning the viewpoint. They might just misinterpret their source, or not have a good grasp of the issue. In any case, learning how to detect when someone is lying or hiding something is a valuable skill that will serve most people well.

Here's one technique people can use - though it isn't quick. When you find a hot button issue, save some of the links, and save the text of the pages. Check back on those pages a year later and run them side by side with what you saved in a word processor that shows revisions. Now look at all the red text and start trying to figure out why they changed it, especially, if they never mentioned the revisions.

And make sure to track both the view you agree with and those you don't. You'll probably find a few surprises that will dismay you. If you do it long enough, you will probably find that some of the people you dislike do have sides of them that you agree with on issues, and that they are just as human, just as fallible and loveable as anyone else.