Kiwiblog

Adam Smith at The Inquiring Mind blogs on confidence in Obama in 25 different countries, and notes that despite his Cairo speech (cited as part of the rationale for the Nobel Peace Prize), he still ranks negatively in the Muslim world.

As always I am interested in the raw data. The question asked was whether they were confident Obama would do the right thing in world affairs. His net ratings (positive less negative) are:

1. Kenya +89%
2. Germany +88%
3. France + 83%
4. Canada +79%
5. Nigeria +78%
6. UK +76%
7. Japan +76%
8. South Korea +69%
9. India +68%
10. Brazil +56%
11. US + 50%
12. Spain +50%
13. Indonesia +49%
14. Poland +41%
15. Argentina +35%
16. Mexico +22%
17. Russia -3%
18. Lebanon -4%
19. Egypt -5%
20. Israel -13%
21. Turkey -19%
22. Jordan -27%
23. Pakistan -38%
24. China -39%
25. Palestine -52%

So Russia, Muslim countries and China not persuaded yet.

Another question asks about overall favourability of the US, and tracks it from 1999. The data below shows the change between 2009 and 2008 (or 2007 if not polled in 2008) which presumably reflects the Obama effect.

1. France +33%
2. Germany +33%
3. Indonesia +26%
4. Spain +25%
5. Mexico +22%
6. UK +16%
7. Argentina +16%
8. Nigeria +15%
9. Brazil +14%
10. Canada +13%
11. India +10%
12. Japan +9%
13. South Korea +8%
14. Jordan +6%
15. China +6%
16. Egypt +5%
17. Lebanon +4%
18. US +4%
19. Kenya +3%
20. Palestine +2%
21. Turkey +2%
22. Poland -1%
23. Russia -2%
24. Pakistan -3%
25. Israel -7%

So Obama has had US favourability rise greatly in Western Europe and South America. Asia had had a modest improvement, and Middle East countries a very small improvement only.

One thing I found interesting is that the US under Bush had a 87% favourability rating amongst Kenyans. Bush actually delivered huge aid to Africa.

The 2010 Pew data will be interesting.

Adam Smith (who is a must read blog) blogs a letter to the editor, pointing out a problem with s92A:

So is this true? Is John Key regarded as an ISP by this legislation, and he also will need a policy to disconnect users if s92A comes into force?

Sadly yes, and in one sense I am partly to blame. But not really – more the incompetence of the former Minister.

The original Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill defined an ISP as

‘‘Internet service provider means an entity offering the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user’s choosing

But the problem is that the exemption from liability for ISPs for material that their users may upload needed a wider definition. It needed to include hosting providers, and even blogs.

So InternetNZ in its submission, said the definition should be expanded to include hosting. We also said that s92A should be deleted. So we (I was part fo the INZ team) got that definition into the bill.

The Commerce Committee admirably did both things. They added this onto the definition of an ISP:

hosts material on websites or other electronic retrieval systems that can be accessed by a user

They also deleted s92A saying:

We recommend that new section 92A (clause 53) be deleted as the standard terms and conditions of agreements between an Internet service provider and its customers usually allow for the termination of accounts of people using the services for illegal activity. Moreover, new section 92C already requires an Internet service provider to delete infringing material or prevent access to it as soon as possible after becoming aware of it.

So the law at that point made sense. No S92A, and an ISP was defined as any person hosting material, in order to qualify for protection from liability if copyright infringing material is placed on their site by others.

But then came along the Minister, who did an SOP. Judith Tizard stuck back in a new form of s92A, specifying:

An Internet service provider must adopt and reasonably implement a policy that provides for termination, in appropriate circumstances, of the account with that Internet service provider of a repeat infringer.

The Minister and her officials fucked up big time. They stuck in a clause that was reliant on a definition that was no longer appropriate.

So we have a law that now defines even the Prime Minister (as he hosts a website where people can leave comments) as an ISP. And this would have been okay if it was only for the purposes of protecting the PM from liability for any infringing material placed on his website by users. But thaks to Judith the Prime Minister (and every MP who has a website that allows user comments) has to now have a policy that provide for termination of users who are repeat copyright infringers.

Imagine how much money the legal profession is going to make writing such policies for almost every business in New Zealand.

Getting the rights holders and the TCF to agree on a code of practice is a great solution to the problem of people losing their accounts on the basis of mere allegation. And I am hopeful we will get a good result there.

However the code of practice will not be a solution to the fact that the law is an incompetently written law, that is confusing and costly.

Adam Smith does a great public service by scanning in most days the more nutty or idiotic letters to the editor. Today’s one is simply bigoted.

Talking of the Middle East, Little Green Footballs highlights a Jerusalem Post column where Caroline Glick states:

Both Iran and its Hamas proxy in Gaza have been busy this Christmas week showing Christendom just what they think of it. But no one seems to have noticed.

On Tuesday, Hamas legislators marked the Christmas season by passing a Shari’a criminal code for the Palestinian Authority. Among other things, it legalizes crucifixion.

Now this has not been reported in any media outlet, so maybe Ms Glick has it wrong. But one would hope all those reporters and journalists are checking out the veracity of the claim that Hamas has voted to legalise crucifixion.

1. Busted Blonde has a post on domestic violence and how she spent several years in an abusive relationship. Go read it, and make sure you show it to any friends who need to read it.
2. Adam Smith blogs on the Giles cartoons. As a child I loved Giles cartoons, and every year could not wait for the annual. Grandma was my favourite character. For those who never saw them, you missed out on classics.
3. Matthew Hooton makes the case for an Upper House.
4. Steven Price reviews two decisions by the Advertising Standards Authority.
5. Matt Nolan wants some better statistics from the Government.

Idiot/Savant looks at what would happen if the Foreshore and Seabed Act was repealed. I tend to favour repeal of the Act, but also would like the Court of Appeal ruling to have been tested by appeal to the Privy Council or the Supreme Court. Maybe one can repeal the Act, legislate to allow the Supreme Court to hear an appeal from the Court of Appeal ruling, and then whatever the Supreme Court decides, forms the basis of negotiations between Crown and Iwi.

Adam Smith at The Inquiring Mind links to an article in The Times on the huge number of subtitling mashups done of the bunker scene from Downfall. Over 150 mashups have been done, including three by Whale Oil. They are Winston’s Downfall, Helen’s Downfall and Judith’s Downfall.

Aaron Bhatnagar blogs on how Waiheke Island and Great Barrier Island residents will be polled on whetehr they want to remain part of Auckland City, or transfer to the Thames-Coromandel District Council. I don’t think many do want to change but as 10% o residents signed a petition, the Local Government Commission is obliged to run a poll.

Paul Walker retires from blogging. A real pity – I enjoy all the economist blogs, even though they are not high traffic. Maybe if they all combined together?

Bryce Edwards has done a series of posts on the party that shall not be named. They are a fascinating background read. One day he should publish them as children’s horror stories

Finally Adam Smith scans in and blogs every day a good Letter to the Editor. Have a look at this one from the Co-vice-president of the Maori Party responding to Chris Trotter.

The Inquiring Mind has a copy of a graphic from the Herald looking at the facts behind Helen’s sneering at Key’s campaign as hermetically sealed.

So if we total up both weeks we have:

• Walkabouts – Key 11 to Clark 3
• Large advertised meetings – Key 2 and Clark 2
• Smaller community meetings – Key 5 to Clark 4
• Workplace type visits – Clark 10 to Key 7
• Photo Ops – Clark 3 and Key 3

NZ Herald Political Editor Audrey Young looks at the attack ad run by Labour against John Key. SHe blogs:

The pictures chosen did get me wondering though. Having chosen such an aggressive photograph of John Key for the first picture in the ad, I wondered whether the Labour leader’s attempt to portray Key in last week’s television debate as aggressive at home was quite the error it appeared to be at the time.

Perhaps it was part of a wider strategy to try to convince the public the John Key you see in public is not the real John Key.

I think Audrey may be onto something here. Clark may well have tailored her comments in the debate to support the theme her attack ads were going to take.

Adam Smith at The Inquiring Mind comments:

… was the Helen Clark attempt to portray Key as some sort of tyrannical figure at home part of a wider strategy as suggested by Ms Young above. Was Helen’s tantrum part of some misbegotten plan? Has Labour embarked on a dirty tricks campaign?

Adam then looks at how after losing the debate Clark accussed Key of losing control and having a tantrum. He concludes:

Perhaps there is something in what Audrey Young is suggesting after all. …

it is fascinating that Audrey Young thinks Clark and Labour fully capable of such a strategy.

Now remind Adam which party is supposed to be employing evil spin doctors. Who is going on about trust all the time?

Personally I have no problem with the TV advert Labour are running. May they keep running it. I do still have a problem with the PM’s suggestion that John Key shouts in anger at his wife and children, and the only thing worse than her saying such a thing in the heat of the moment would be her saying such a thing as part of a deliberate campaign to paint him that way.