Kiwiblog

The Daily Telegraph has had its US staff prepare a list of the 100 most influential people on the right and left of US politics. Their top ten for each are:

Liberals

1. Barack Obama, President
2. Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State
3. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House
4. Bill Clinton, former President
5. Rahm Emanuel, White House Chief of Staff
6. Al Gore, former VP
7. Oprah Winfrey, TV Talk Show Host
8. Tim Geithner, Treasury Secretary
9. David Axelrod, White House Senior Advisor
10. Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader

Five current politicians, two retired politicians, two staffers and one media person.

Conservatives

1. Dick Cheney, former VP
2. Rush Limbaugh, Talk Radio Host
3. Matt Drudge, Drudge Report
4. Sarah Palin, former Governor
5. Robert Gates, Secretary of Defence
6. Glenn Beck, For News presenter
7. Roger Ailes, Fox News President
8. David Petraeus, Head US Central Command
9. Paul Ryan, Wisconsin Congressman
10. Tim Pawlenty, Governor of Minnesota

A much more varied list, perhaps reflecting not being in office. Four of the ten from the media, and almost no one at all from the mainstream Republican hierarchy – Pawlenty is probably the only one in that mould.

From Predictably Irrational:

The order reflects the number of hits in Google!

A very amusing article about Great Barrier Island:

Members of Auckland’s singles scene who are becoming frustrated with the so-called “man drought” may have an option on the horizon – there’s a shortage of women on Great Barrier Island. …

Although local builder Haz Got has already been snapped up, he said he had always noticed the shortage of women during his 20 or so years on the island.

“Particularly in winter – winter’s a real sad state of affairs for some of our red-blooded gentlemen residents.”

Mr Got admitted island men might be a bit fussy.

“We are picky about our women folk. There’s only certain women folk that will fit the bill,” he explained.

“You get your fancy ladies with their lipstick and their high heels and they come in here and wave their arses around and they think they’re in,” he joked, “But the boys aren’t interested.”

I’m a regular visitor to the Barrier and the locals are very down to earth. You have to be to live on an island with no central electricity supply!

In four days the voters will go to the polls in Massachusetts to elect a new US Senator. This is to effectively replace Ted Kennedy.

Massachusetts is one of the most liberal Democrat-voting states in the US. Recent Senate results for Democratic candidates have been:

1. 2008 65.8%
2. 2006 69.3%
3. 2002 80.0%
4. 2000 72.6%
5. 1996 52.2%
6. 1994 58.1%
7. 1990 57.1%
8. 1988 65.0%
9. 1984 55.0%
10. 1982 60.8%
11. 1978 55.1%
12. 1976 69.3%

Not exactly marginal results.

And for Presidential elections

1. 2008 61.8%
2. 2004 61.9%
3. 2000 59.9%
4. 1996 68.0%

I believe no Republican has won even a single county or congressional district in a presidential election since 1988.

So what is happening in the current election for the US Senate in Massachusetts in this safest of safe seats? And bear in mind the loss of this seat would remove the ability of the Democrats to prevent a filibuster.

So what have the polls said. Here are the seven latest:

1. 8 Nov Dem +31%
2. 4 Jan Dem +9%
3. 6 Jan Dem +15%
4. 9 Jan Rep +1%
5. 11 Jan Dem +2%
6. 13 Jan Rep +4%
7. 14 Jan Rep +15%

This could be one of the major upsets in US politics. I wouldn’t put too much weight on the last poll, but nevertheless it shows how much the tide has turned in recent weeks. Obama is now going to go in himself and campaign to try and rescue the candidate.

The site was infected by some malware for a few hours. It is gone now, but if you visited Kiwiblog earlier today and did not have a security programme give you a warning, you may want to check your own system is secure.

My thanks to Inspire for getting rid of the malware and patching it up.

I was hugely disappointed in Google when they started censoring google.cn. It was the first time they really broke their motto of do no evil.

So I am equally pleased to see this story:

Google, the internet search engine, has set itself at odds with the authorities in China by declaring that it will stop censoring search results on its Chinese website.

This is going to be a fascinating battle between two giants.

Labour MP Grant Robertson blogs:

I probably disagree with John Minto about as much as I agree with him in terms of the various statements he makes.  I know that he irritates some New Zealanders, but he is someone who stands up staunchly for what he believes, and has played a real part in raising issues that  are important to New Zealand and New Zealanders.

If  it is true as reported on Stuff that the police are seeking an order to destroy the megaphone he used as part of his protest at the tennis in Auckland last week, then this is shocking.  We have to defend the right to protest in this country.  I have been on both sides of the fence when it comes to protests and they are a critical part of a functioning democracy.

Now I agree with Grant the Police should not be seeking an order to destory the megaphone. If Minto broke the law, then he will have his day in court, but destroying megaphones is a bad act symbolically.

Labour’s love of megaphones though seems only to extend to when they are in Opposition. What did they do when they were Government. This is what Labour, NZ First and the Greens voted for in reporting back the from select committee the Electoral Finance Bill:

Other types of broadcasting, such as the use of loudspeakers and megaphones, would be captured by the new provision in paragraph (i).

Paragraph (i) was expanding the definition of publish to include:

(i) bring to the notice of the public in any other manner

So Labour, the Greens and NZ First wanted to make it illegal to use megaphones to advocate against a party or candidate, unless one spoke your name and home address out loud to authorise the message.

So while supporting Grant on John Minto’s megaphone, I do wonder where was Grant’s voice when his own party was trying to regulate megaphone use in election year?

Incidentally the outcry from myself and some others over this odious clause, saw the then Government backdown on it just a few days later.

The Standard is obsessed with the fact that John Key holidays in Hawaii. They go on about it all the time. The obvious answer that it gives him and his family some privacy is far too obvious.

Anyway a new low was reached in their comments section. Now this is not by one of the authors of The Standard, but from one of the Key hating commenters. And here is his theory:

i wish the standard had enough cash to send someone after Key on his hollidays to snoop around in Hawaii. what the hell does he do there anyhow? i hope it’s all savory activities. no strip clubs etc…. if he were going to indulge in anything that offends “mainsteam NZ” he sure as hell wouldn’t be doing it in Wellington.

at the very least an expat NZ asset could be developed to keep tabs on him.

No that is not the ghost of Mike Williams, but Roger Nome.

When challenged on his plans, he responds:

this is politics not kinergarten. the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of lower-income nzers is at stake here – and Key is screwing them. they’re more important than this filthy rich dude’s privacy (of course within the boundaries of the law).

Ironic that he posts under an alias, yet says there is no right to privacy. Oh, sorry no right for filthy rich dudes.

What can one say? The expected loss of life, let alone the homeless, makes it one of the worst natural disasters anywhere.

Even worse with it being a relatively small country of ten million, the impact is felt far more. It is possible over 1% of th population has died and 30% are homeless.

You can donate online to the Red Cross appeal through Give A Little.

I’m afraid I was a long way from the internet last Friday. So here’s two birds to make up for it.

These are Australian Magpie Geese. They were once common, but numbers have diminished due to habitat loss. I like this photo mostly for the fact that both birds are in focus

Hope everyone has a good day, whether you are at work or not.

Lost Internet for around 12 hours so finally gave up and went to beach. Hence this is the first post of the day!

Jessica is the 16-year-old Australian teenager attempting the record for the youngest solocircumnavigation of the globe in her bright pink yacht. Last night she passed a massive milestone, rounding Cape Horn – generally considered to be the greatest navigational challenge of the journey. I have to say I had my doubts about whether she would make it, but having come this far her chances are looking pretty good!

Jesse has a lot of things making the journey easier for her than it would have been for previous record holders. She gets daily weather forecasts and navigation advice from contacts in New Zealand. She can contact her mum by sat phone whenever she wants. She has a laptop connecting her with thousands of people who leave comments and messages of support on her blog. The technology she has on the ship is quite incredible and means that she rarely has to steer by hand. At first this seemed to me like cheating, but now I don’t suppose it matters so much. Record breaking is more often than not about pushing the limits with new technology, rather than being born stronger or faster or better. Just look at the way that new swimsuits are making a mockery of old records, and new designs have to be constantly banned because they are making record breaking too easy. The whole endeavour is futile. Technology as part of record breaking should be embraced, even celebrated. Otherwise what you are really saying is that the advancement of human achievement is down to better genes and the refinement of the human race, rather than the obvious truth, which is that new creations are driving us.

That said, a very small number of teenagers would have the guts or ability to do what Jessica is doing, even with the assistance and equipment she has. Check out her blog for lessons in her unique kind of determination and optimism – she really is a remarkable girl. Best of luck to her for the rest of the trip!

Norman Buwalda won a two-year legal battle between Mr Buwalda with Southwold Township over the council’s subsequent ban on keeping wild animals as pets, after a tiger attacked a visitor to his property.

He won as an Ontario Superior Court judge ruled the bylaw was flawed and too broad.

He was found dead in the tiger cage at the weekend, having been mauled to death by his 300 kg pet.

Almost counts for a Darwin Award.

The ODT reports:

“I am Dunedin” is to be dropped as Dunedin’s slogan and a nationwide search is now on for a new slogan and promotional strategy.

I am Dunedin is rather lame. Dunedin is not – Dunedin is great, but the slogan is lame. Still not as bad as that Auckland Eh slogan a few year ago.

Wellington is lucky to have struck a great slogan a couple of decades ago, and doesn’t need to keep looking for new ones.

I have been thinking further on the name suppression issue.  I understand that the legislation applies automatic name suppression to alleged sexual offenders in cases where a minor is involved, or where the relationship with the accused means that the victim can be identified (or when you are really really famous).  Why?

Why does being the victim of a sexual attack mean that an individual shouldn’t be identified?  If the attack had been of a physical nature would name suppression be put in place?  And, just to exaggerate the point further, is the honour killing of rape victims by relatives in some countries (to cover up the attack and the way it tarnishes the family) just a more brutal version of a similar moral instrument in our society.

And, no, I’m not suggesting that we specifically name victims… just that using possible victim identification as the reason for perpetrator name suppression is… well… trite.

It seems that we as a society (and through our legislation) have applied a moral code.  We have decided that to be sexually abused or attacked means to be broken in a way that is unsuitable for others to have knowledge of.  As a society we have decided that people who are sexually abused might have their reputations besmirched by being a victim of such an attack.  Of course to move away from that would mean allowing victims (or an adult in their place) to have more say as to whether perpetrators (and potentially they as victims) are named.

Again, I ask you if it would be different if a well-known man had allegedly physically beaten his step-daughter?  Would he require the same sort of name suppression?

Name suppression (of the alleged or convicted perpetrator) has the possibility of actually putting sexual abuse victims in more of a box, to isolate them further and to effectively make it clear that we as a society don’t want to talk about that sort of thing.

I’m not saying there isn’t a place for name suppression… more challenging the reasons behind it being a necessary or automatic measure in some cases.

I’d also like to place some faith in the justice system so do think it is important that a person has the potential for a  level playing field before they go through trial to be found guilty or otherwise.

Labour MP Darien Fenton is “intrigued by the idea of fining people who break the law according to their wealth” and hopes Steven Joyce will consider this in his road safety review.

I look forward to Labour revealing more of its thinking for its 2011 election manifesto. What other proposals might we get:

• Longer jail terms for rich pricks
• All Govt owned companies (such as power) to introduce a rick prick tariff where you pay more if you earn more.
• Primary and secondary schools to be able to charge compulsory fees to children of rich pricks
• A&E Departments to refuse treatment to rich pricks unless they sign a statement showing their net wealth and hand over a credit card for 5% of it
• Supermarkets to have two prices for every item – one price for those earning under $60,000 and another for those earning over $60,000

What other policy ideas for Labour in this vein can you think of?

UPDATE: Darien is not alone. Senior Labour MP Lianne Dalziel backs her. Lianne has already advocated fining the rich more in a letter last year to Steven Joyce, and thinks they should do more policy work on it.

Please, please do that policy work.

The Dom Post editorial today is on blogs and name suppression. Extracts:

As the internet has transformed the world, the blogosphere within has become pervasive. Anyone with a computer can either read the opinions of people who craft blogs – sometimes, merely illiterate streams of consciousness – or pen one themselves.

That some who cannot spell, let alone write, think that the world is gagging to know their business is as presumptuous as tweeters who think everyone is interested in their self-absorbed lives. Be that as it may.

Some blogs demand attention, in this country those by, for example, David Farrar, Russell Brown and Cameron Slater.

I’m not sure if that means we are excluded from the description of merely being illiterate streams of consciousness!

Attention Slater has now got.

Last month, police charged him with breaching name suppression orders when, on his WhaleOil blog, he posted pictorial clues identifying the accused in two high-profile sexual offence cases. This week, he revealed by way of binary code the identity of a former national figure accused of a sexual attack on a 13-year-old girl.

Nelson police, who laid the latest charges, call Slater’s actions irresponsible, because they fear they might lead to public identification of the victim, whom the suppression order was intended to protect.

Slater is on a mission. He has said, outside the courtroom, that he believes everyone should be equal before the law, that celebrities and the wealthy have their identities suppressed more often and more easily than do ordinary Kiwis, and that the law needs changing.

The Dominion Post agrees. But there are better ways to lobby for a more open court system than by putting at risk the future of a teenage girl.

I agree, but point out a newspaper had already effectively done the same thing.

At the same time, Slater has forced police, perhaps the solicitor-general, possibly Justice Minister Simon Power, Courts Minister Georgina te Heu Heu, and Attorney-General Chris Finlayson, and maybe, later, the judiciary, to confront the fact that the Criminal Justice Act, which gives judges the power to suppress certain information relating to cases before them, needs revision.

Which I believe is likely, on the basis of the Law Commission report and the comments at the time from Simon Power.

In the meantime, it is reassuring to see the Crown Law Office has decided that it can no longer apply the law relating to suppression unequally. At times of egregious breach, the solicitor-general has been keen to go after those in the mainstream media who have broken suppression orders or otherwise committed contempt of court.

For the most part, however, inhabitants of the blogosphere have been merely warned about their cavalier disregard of suppressed information or other transgressions, notably during Clayton Weatherston’s trial for murder.

Either everyone who breaches this law is prosecuted, or no-one is. And were the latter to become the reality, those sections of the Criminal Justice Act pertaining to suppression orders need to be repealed.

I find it quite funny that yesterday we had bloggers such as myself saying that the media are getting away with transgressions, while today the media are saying the bloggers are getting away!

An excellent summary of the whole issue has been done by Steven Price. I won’t do extracts because people should read the whole thing.

Law Professor Andrew Geddis has done a second post on the issue.

Also a number of posts from media lecturer Martin Hirst at Ethical Martini.

Miep Gies has died, aged 100.

Miep Gies was one of the “helpers” who hid Anne Frank, and kept her diary safe after the Franks were sent to concentration camps. She gave it to Otto Frank on the day he was told by the Red Cross Anne was dead.

She is one of the Righteous Among the Nations.

The Dom-Post reports:

New Zealand’s influence in the Pacific region country had been “chiselled away” to the point that “the viability of our operations was under threat”, Mr McCully said yesterday.

The two countries had agreed to post a new diplomatic counsellor in each other’s respective capitals. Deputy heads of mission would be added later.

“We’d got to a point where our viability was under some threat. This will give us the ability to conduct closer to a normal range of activities,” Mr McCully said.

Neither country has top level representation in place after a third New Zealand high commissioner was deported from Suva in November last year and Wellington followed suit, sacking Fiji’s representative here.

New Zealand representation in Suva has dwindled to an acting head of mission, two immigration officials and two NZ Aid officials.

The small staff had put “a huge limit” on what New Zealand could do in Fiji and compromised its historical position as a regional hub for the Pacific, Mr McCully said. …

The new appointments did not signal a change to New Zealand’s substantive policy on Fiji, including continuing sanctions.

“But it does signal the determination to improve the relationship and in particular to be able to agree to disagree about some things,” Mr McCully said.

Agreeing to disagree is always important.

This is a productive step forward. I’m not sure whether it will last, as my reading of the situation is that when one of the Commodore’s appointees comes up against the Australia and NZ travel bans, he has a temper tantrum and starts expelling people.

But the Commodore is the person in charge there for now. He has given himself a ridiculously long time-frame of 2014 before he calls elections. The one good thing about such a ridiculously long period of time, is that if he then refuses to stick to the 2014 schedule, it will be proof that he never plans to surrender power.

What many are now looking for is actual progress towards those elections. Detailing of a process for adopting a new constitution. A timetable for the census etc.

A very interesting survey done in November by UMR of 1,000 adult NZers about morality on the Internet. I blog most of the findings below. It is important to remember this is a poll of all NZers, not just of Internet users.

Respondents were asked about eight activities and if they thought they were morally acceptable or morally wrong, regardless of legality. Morally acceptable percentages are

1. A single person using Internet dating 82%
2. A single person flirting online 69%
3. A single person watching porn online 41%
4. Watching copyrighted TV online via Youtube 31%
5. A married person watching porn online without spousal knowledge 21%
6. Downloading copyrighted music for free 18%
7. Downloading copyrighted movies for free 13%
8. Married person flirting online without spousal knowledge 6%

I think the first three are morally acceptable, but the last four are not. No 4 depends a bit on context – if that is the only way to see a TV show in your country, I don’t think it is morally unacceptable.

I’m am amazed that some people think it is morally unacceptable to use Internet dating if single.

Men in all eight categories are more likely to say something is morally acceptable. The biggest difference is with a single person watching porn online – 56% of men say morally acceptable and only 26% of women.

Age difference also pronounced. 59% of under 30s say pron watching is fine for singles, while only 17% of over 60s agree.

Also og interest is 47% of respondents said they have downloaded music files even though only 18% say it is morally acceptable.

1. Gooner at No Minister has the appalling tale of the man arrested for a “hate crime” because of an objection to planning permission for a mobile gypsy home..
2. Whale Oil reports on the 143 complaints against Dr Who from gingas after he was reincarnated into the 11th Doctor (two more to go) and said “Still not ginger” with relief.
3. Conservative Home blogs how the UK boundaries (unlike NZ there is no maximum tolerance from the population average) means that the Conservatives beating Labour by 10% will result in a likely Commons majority of eight MPs, while if Labour beats the Conservatives by 10%, their likely majority is 138 seats.
4. Labour MP Kelvin Davis calls on Maori to put an equal effort into “sorting our own crap out”, as into fighting to correct past injustices.
5. Cactus Kate blogs on the failing of feminism as rich professional women are failing to boot out their sponging men.

The Press reports:

A blogger faces fresh charges after he revealed the name of a national figure charged with indecently assaulting a 13-year-old girl.

Cameron Slater already faces charges over alleged breaches of name suppression, and he said yesterday that he had no doubt his latest effort would land him in more trouble.

Slater, who writes the WhaleOil blog, yesterday posted a blog entry that stated the name of a man charged with indecent assault. The name had to be deciphered by translating a code the blog was written in.

I think it was hexadecimal converted into binary. Now Cameron will find out in due course, whether or not that is seen to identify the ex-MP with name supression, but if they do prosecute the Whale, the question has to be asked whether newspapers should be charged also?

The man’s name was suppressed when he appeared in the Nelson District Court on Thursday.

A Sunday newspaper published details about the man, which Slater said had narrowed the field of possible accused to three.

He wanted to clarify who the accused was so the other two men were not unfairly accused.

Now I am not gunning for the Herald on Sunday. But I would say that far more people worked out from their story, who the accussed is, than the handful of people who were capable of working out the code Cameron had used, and reverse engineering it into hexadecimal and finally the  alphabet.

I am not saying that one justifies the other, or two wrongs make a right. I am saying that the Police should be very careful not to be selective. The Herald on Sunday article told us the following:

• An ex-MP in Nelson – narrows it down to around four people
• A “national figure” – probably eliminates around two of the four people as now very low profile
• He has a partner
• Has a firearms licence (implied)
• Implies the victim is the partner’s daughter
• Implies the ex-MP has been in more than one party by referring to the leader of “a” party he represented in Parliament

I would say that identifies the accused far more easily to many more people than the hexadecimal and binary code did.

You can argue that Whale’s post left no doubt, once you cracked his codes, while the newspaper story only allows you to make an intelligent guess. However the law in s139(2) says:

No person shall publish … the name of the person accused or convicted of the offence or any name or particulars likely to lead to the person’s identification.

Were the particulars in the newspaper story enough to be likely to lead to identification of the accused? They certainly were for me, and most political observers.

Now again, I am not advocating that the newspaper be charged. I would prefer no one be charged. But I would be interested in how one could conclude that the blog post is a breach, but the newspaper story is not.

The Dom Post says:

Union of Students Association co-president David Do says student groups are already seeing an increase in exclusions for poor academic performance. He proposes more funding as the solution. It is not. Mr Do says toughening up the admission standards goes against New Zealanders’ sense of fairness and their sentiment that people should be given a “fair go”.

New Zealanders do believe in giving people a “fair go”. They do not not believe in giving them a free ride regardless of performance – especially when taxpayers are paying out nearly $4 billion a year for tertiary education.

Of course NZUSA calls for more funding – just as Labour did. By coincidence Mr Do was the Chairman of the Princes Street Branch of Labour not long ago.

NZUSA often go on about the high level of student debt. Well I’m worried about the high level of taxpayer debt – we are borrowing $240 million every week to fund stuff like universities. To think that taxpayers should borrow even more is naive.