James Bloodworth at The Independent writes:

Having lived in the US for 8 years but having business interests in New Zealand that bring me back home frequently, I have had a good ringside seat as to how Kiwis view America. It has been fascinating to witness US and world events through an American media slant and how my friends, family, business compatriots and my local community in the US see things and then see how the same events are portrayed in the NZ media and perceived by NZ friends, family and business contacts. The differences can be quite marked. This essay seeks to explain why and covers six key areas:

1 – Media

Public opinion is still largely shaped by media although the rise of blogs like this has blunted the power of the mainstream media. We all know what is meant by the term “mainstream media”. Amongst those on the centre right, it is a code for the left leaning or liberal tendencies of the old legacy media (in the US: NYT, WaPo, LAT, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS and NPR along with establishment journals like Time, Slate and TNR augmented by left leaning blogs: Huffington Post, Talking Points Memo, Daily Kos and even supposedly neutral political online sites like The Hill and Politico). These outlets dominate elite thinking in the US and are almost exclusively are the feeds and sources chosen by NZ media when reporting on the US. NZ media then apply a filter that interprets US news through the same lens that non US establishment elites apply to the US in Europe (Reader’s Digest version: that the US is a predatory economic superpower that throws its weight around the world as the world’s self-appointed policeman). The NZ public are served up a left leaning US MSM world view filtered through a mildly anti American kiwi media lens. This process by-passes the extensive right wing media alternatives that have grown strongly in the last 20 years at the expense of the legacy MSM (Fox News, talkback radio, NY Post, Washington Times, Wall Street Journal, The Blaze, National Review, National Standard and Commentary magazines and the rise of several key centre right blogs such as Hot Air, Powerline, Red State, Breitbart, Pyjamas Media and Real Clear Politics). In terms of aggregate audience and nationwide reach, particularly into heartland America, the collection of right leaning media either matches or exceeds the audience of the legacy MSM. NZ media consumers are rarely exposed to both sides of the robust, intense and often partisan political debate that is a strong feature of American political life unless they go out of their way to read centre right US blogs or watch some of Fox News. There is universal opprobrium of centre right US news sources by most NZ media commentators and a blanket extremist tag is placed on every and all sources lumping the moderate Brit Hulme with the more right wing Glenn Beck. US media consumers, especially those on the right, are able to separate out the various conservative media and ‘rank; them for quality. Similarly rather than apply an ideological blanket over Fox News, US viewers know for example that Fox News’ hard news team (Brit Hulme, Shepherd Smith and Chris Wallace etc.) are highly regarded as more neutral highly professional news guys whereas the nighttime line up on Fox features more conservative commentators with far less hard news who view the political news of the day though a much more right wing partisan lens.  More moderate right leaning contributors like Fred Barnes, Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer are assumed to be the same as Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin and Glenn Beck when they most decidedly are not.

NZ media consumers are pretty much shut out from not only the bulk of centre right commentary from the US but are less able to weigh the quality of what little content is reported on. This means most US affairs reported on in NZ  are done so through a mostly left wing lens with virtually no attempt to even report what the right is saying let alone applying any qualitative analysis to what the US right says. This renders making truly and deeply informed opinions about US politics and US responses to global affairs more difficult in NZ.

 2 – Political systems

To most kiwis the American political system seems chaotic and messy. The American system does indeed involve a level of complexity rarely seen in other democracies: its unique division of powers at the Federal and State level, the primacy of the Constitution, the frequency of elections, the states being like 50 countries and then add in counties, cities and countless ballot initiatives (referenda) and you have a mélange of governments, elections and competing interests. In NZ we have triennial elections of Parliament and a similar staggered triennial cycle for local bodies and that’s it. It is easy for kiwis to assume that less is better and to dismiss America’s version of democracy as an almost excessive indulgence especially when outsiders consider the vast billions expended in each electoral cycle especially at the Presidential level. When assessing the US political system, here are some things for NZ observers to consider:

• America was founded on a political experiment to do things explicitly differently from England whereas NZ’s Parliamentary tradition is a direct Westminster clone albeit with modifications over time (e.g. abolition of the Upper House)
• America’s political system stems from its founding document the Constitution whereas the British system has evolved over time. For example the Constitution dictates when elections are held (first Tuesday in November depending on what office/body being elected) whereas the NZ system gives the governing Prime Minister the power to decide the exact election date (within the three year term limit). Both systems work fine. Both systems make it difficult to change electoral law without strong bipartisan consensus (the Constitutional amendment process in the US and the entrenchment provisions of NZ’s Electoral Act)
• America was a collection of separate colonies that chose to federate – NZ was one colony that had separate provinces that were abolished early on in its history. NZ has a unitary government administering almost all executive governmental functions in a unified manner across the country. US states are sovereign and the Constitution specifically limits the role of the Federal Government leaving all unspecified matters to the States. Thus a huge amount of law and administrative/governmental processes and procedures are decided at the state level leading to considerable differences in laws between states. When it comes to education, this is decided at an even lower (city) level with large metro areas having multiple separate school systems. All schools in NZ take the same holidays at the exact same time whereas in the US, each district decides their own system. I help coach a high school aged club rugby team that straddles three city school districts and they all have their own spring break and not at the same time!
• Electoral laws are decided at the state level leading to quite different election procedures in each state such as: when special (by) elections are held, how lieutenant governors are elected, who can participate in primaries and when primaries are held and who/how boundaries are redrawn. NZ has codified such matters in the Electoral Act or designated administration to quasi-independent bodies such as the Representation Commission or the Electoral Commission.
• American voters get to have a much greater say on governance matters than their kiwi counterparts. A larger number of officials who preside over voters are subject to voter approval such as a variety of state wide offices and judges. More matters can be put to referenda due to lower petition thresholds, some states make the results binding on legislatures and in all jurisdictions, bond issues and sales tax increases are always put to voters via ballot initiatives. NZers are only able to express opinions on these matters indirectly through the election of the national (note the small n) government.

Politics in NZ is most definitely simpler but American politics is more rich and varied and American voters, notwithstanding the noise, expense and confusion, have a far greater say in their destiny.

 3 – Business

Calvin Coolidge (the 30^th American President) once famously said that the business of American is business. This is an accurate statement. Big business built America. The oil, steel, railroad and coal barons catapulted America to the world’s largest and wealthiest economy in a single generation in the late 19^th century. Having done business in the US, NZ, Australia, Canada and a bit in Europe I find Americans are the easiest to do business with. They analyze deals the quickest, they get to the nub of a deal quickly, they are usually polite and professional, they are self-assured and firm in what they want, they are better at assessing and taking risks and they have unrivalled access to capital. Starting businesses and being an entrepreneur is in their blood – entrepreneurship is the life blood of the modern US economy and it is considered universally as an honourable and revered career pathway. It is not quite the same in NZ.

NZ was built by big government because only government had the sufficient access to capital to build infrastructure and business. NZ pioneered various key welfare state provisions and have only gradually and carefully given some of them up. Many big businesses could only thrive with government protection (tariffs) or subsidies. Government interventions in NZ are more welcomed, expected and tolerated. More kiwis see business in a less than positive way. The hard socialist left (those who detest and publicly oppose capitalism) comprises barely 1% of the US electorate – when you add the Greens, Mana and the left wing of the Labour Party, fully 15% of the NZ electorate are largely hostile to capitalism. This negativity towards business, free markets and capitalism bleeds into wider NZ societal views. NZ’s experience with freer markets is barely 3 decades old so the culture of entrepreneurial business startups and seeing them as the backbone of a vibrant growing economy is in its infancy.

This divergence of views on business between the US and NZ can be illustrated in my observations of how each society views business success and failure. In America successful business people are mostly admired, respected and followed whereas in NZ there is a vocal and sizable minority who consider successful businesspeople through a negative lens assuming that they have somehow ripped people off to “get rich”. This same divergence is evident on the flip side: in the US if you fail in business most people are sanguine and nonjudgmental and the widespread view is to encourage those who fail to get up and have another go and not give up citing the various successful businessmen (e.g. Steve Jobs at Apple) who failed before they succeeded. In NZ the attitude to failure (outside the small enclave of successful small/medium business entrepreneurs who see failure like most Americans) is to judge the failed businessperson in such a way as to leave somewhat of a black mark on their reputation sometimes for decades especially if the failure occurred in smaller cities.

4 – Religion

In no area do kiwis misunderstand American culture more IMO than over religion. The gulf between the percentage of Americans who attend church regularly and the same percentage in NZ is huge and this gap explains why many kiwis are baffled by the very large role faith plays in American life. Roughly 85% of Americans profess belief in God – a figure double the equivalent in NZ. Over 50% of Americans attend church regularly compared to only 10% of the NZ population. These figures only tell part of the story. Belief in God is widely accepted in most parts of America (exceptions being the east and west coast progressive enclaves) and with that comes an acceptance of prayer, of mentioning God in public, of invoking God in public speech and discussion of, and hope for, miracles. Such pronouncements of faith occur despite concerted efforts by atheist litigants to sue various persons and groups who show public displays of faith. Such displays are almost unheard of in NZ and those who participate are usually ridiculed off the public stage. Nowhere is this gulf more apparent than in politics. In America, politicians routinely invoke God’s name, the most common saying being the almost obligatory “and God bless the United States of America” at the end of speeches, many openly profess a belief in God and tout regular church attendance and belief in prayer all of which are seen as electoral plusses. Indeed the number of professed atheists in elected office at ANY level in US politics runs in single digits – a miniscule number compared to the many thousands of people who hold elected office. Being an atheist is such an electoral negative that even people who really are atheists hide their atheism and nominal Christians like Obama, even if they have ceased to be regular church goers, will go through the motions of church attendance and at least give the impression they believe.

In the NZ the exact opposite is the case. To admit to a belief in God, to attend church regularly, to confess to regular prayer and belief in miracles would be electorally toxic in all but the safest National electorate seat. Being an atheist is common place – NZ’s last two Prime Ministers professed no belief in God and suffered no electoral backlash for this. What is thoroughly mainstream behaviour in the US is considered ‘godbothering’ nutter fringe territory in NZ. This gulf causes NZ observers of the US to assume that there is something slightly odd and weird about America because so many believe in a Deity. It enables stereotypes of rednecks and backwater hicks to be exaggerated and for the mocking to take on an almost anti-Christian tinge to it as the now mostly secular average kiwi struggles to make sense of why God, church and the Bible play such a large part of US life particularly in the heartland regions. Some NZers tend to favour discussion with secular Americans and become a little nervous coping with Americans who do profess faith and belief because such beliefs are extremely rare in polite society in NZ.

5 – The military

It has been many decades since New Zealand was on a genuine war footing with many of our young men enlisting to fight in a war. New Zealand is far from the world’s hot spots and our military involvements since the Korean War have been modest and limited with the recent SAS assignment in Afghanistan being one of our longer deployments. For this reason military culture has faded from prominence in most of NZ society. For many years military enlistment was a more prominent part of Maori family life with so many Maori joining mostly the Army. Deployments in Singapore and NZ Peace keeping efforts overseas meant Maori families were proportionately more impacted by NZ’s military commitments.

In the US, the impact of the military on everyday American life is far more pronounced and reaches far deeper into the fabric of US society. US per capita spending on defense, whilst a lot lower than it has been, still far outstrips similar per capita spending in all other first world democracies. Such is the sheer size and scale of the US military that there is barely a single Congressional district in the country that does not have some kind of military installation or base. The overseas deployment of US forces, either in peace or war, has a far more pronounced impact on US society than in NZ. Many many more families are impacted particularly in heartland areas of the US where enlistment rates are far higher than the more liberal urban west and east coast enclaves. Americans understand the vagaries of the military, the arbitrary transfers, the odd hours, the threat of death or disablement due to American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, the primacy of the command structure and the loyalty to one’s country that is needed to serve in difficult circumstances. There are significantly fewer NZers who appreciate the sacrifice made to serve one’s country in the military. Regardless of what people may think politically about America’s wars and America’s foreign policy, it is much more difficult for kiwis to see things as Americans do when it comes to war and the military because we are so much more isolated from both matters. Meeting serving and former Marines who have served in wars is a sobering experience as they talk about what war is really like. Almost to a man they served with bravery and distinction and are proud of what they did for their country. Hardly a family I know in my community does not have someone in their extended family that either is serving or has served in some branch of the military. When former servicemen die, active duty members of their service arm attend their funeral in uniform, reverently fold the US flag in an elaborate ceremony, and give the flag to the widow or other close family member with care and always with the words “on behalf of a grateful nation”. I must confess to being quite moved by such burial services especially the 3 (or more) volley salutes always given at the graveside. Few kiwis are similarly exposed and this makes understanding of US foreign policy decisions harder to understand.

6 – Guns and Crime

Non Americans love to criticize the American love affair with guns. For a good percentage of the lives of most NZers, America has featured a high crime rate particularly of gun related homicides. And for any kiwi over 40, we lived most of our lives in a relatively crime free world and with an unarmed police force with very few gun related homicides. When this reality was the norm, it was very easy for NZers to look askance at America and judge that the 2^nd Amendment right to bear arms was a foolish anachronism. In the last 20 years roles have somewhat reversed. Property related crime (burglaries and car theft) soared in NZ as did assaults and rapes and murders increased markedly as well. At the same time, many US cities adopted the famous New York City broken windows/crime hotspot management approach to policing with dramatic reductions in all forms of crime but particularly homicides. Whilst all reported crime in NZ has come down off the highs of the mid 2000’s, it is still true that, if you take homicides out of the equation, most US states have a lower crime rate than the US. This new reality does not prevent old stereotypes of NZ being safe with a low crime rate and the US being violent with a high crime rate from dominating some kiwis’ perception about the US. In fact if you took out of the US stats, the crime rates of five key crime ridden metro areas (LA, Chicago, Washington DC, Baltimore and Philadelphia), US non homicide crime states would be even lower than NZ.

The issue of guns and gun laws suffers from the same perception fate as the crime rate with NZ observations of America. Most kiwis see the mass shootings as evidence of the folly of the US right to bear arms. Few realize that gun related crime has dropped dramatically as has the overall US homicide rate over the last 20 years and that the mass murders are incredibly rare but highly publicized events. The real picture is even more nuanced because recent statistics prove that violent crime rates in states where they have what are called concealed carry laws (the right for properly licensed private citizens to carry a hidden handgun in public) are lower than in the states that have more restrictive gun laws. Chicago and Washington DC stand out as two of America’s most violent cities and both sport the most restrictive gun laws. The issue is complicated by the reporting of high profile murders by the liberal media who are known to strongly favour more restrictive gun laws and they work very hard to promote events that favour this narrative. What is RARELY reported (at least in the national media) are the numerous incidents of violent crimes averted by a private citizen brandishing or using their concealed carry weapon scaring off the gun toting person who could commit a violent robbery or even mass murder. A potential major crime averted is never as big a story as school child shot by a gun toting madman.

Kiwis are prone to see America as a violent place riven with crime perpetrated mostly because so many Americans own guns. The reality is actually quite different but such perceptions strongly shape some kiwi perceptions of American life.

The Herald reports:

Embattled internet tycoon Kim Dotcom says he is now considered a pariah and is looking to quit New Zealand.

In an exclusive interview with theHerald on Sunday the Mega founder, who is facing internet piracy charges, says he is bearing the brunt of a vicious public backlash since September’s general election and now thinks his only option is to leave his adopted home.

He said he was renewing his offer to the Department of Justice to voluntarily travel to the US for his trial. But this was on the condition he was given bail and that assets seized in the 2012 Dotcom mansion raid are returned to him.

I doubt bail would be a problem, but I suspect return of the assets would be, as they are forfeit if he loses the case, and releasing them would possibly put them beyond the court’s control.

Dotcom was at a loss to explain why the tide of public opinion had turned so harshly against him.

“It’s turned into something very ugly,” he said. “Now I am a pariah.

“The funny thing is I haven’t changed and I don’t think I’ve done anything wrong. I’m still the same guy who only a matter of months ago people were cheering for.”

I blogged here on why opinion turned. I’m surprised he has not been able to work out why. The preposterous forged e-mail was the final nail in the coffin. Leading chants of FU John Key did not help, plus spending $4.5 million trying to change the Government.

Dotcom, who founded the Internet Party, which then forged a controversial and ultimately disastrous alliance with Hone Harawira’s Mana Party, said his political intentions were “pure”.

“The Internet Party stood for good for all New Zealanders. I thought I was doing people a favour and it backfired.”

Yeah, Right. You vowed to destroy the elected Governing Party, which around half the country support – and see this as good for all New Zealanders. It was utu.

Stuff reports:

Anti-fluoride campaigners are alarmed at a “sinister” move to slide through a law change over Christmas, validating councils’ power to add the chemical to drinking water.

Medsafe opened public submissions on November 25 on a law change to stop fluoride being legally defined as a medicine – meaning it can be added to municipal water supplies. The deadline for submissions is this Friday.

The law change comes after a High Court justice said the law needed clarification, as he ruled against an appeal by anti-fluoride groups to stop fluoride being added to water.

David Sloan, the director of anti-fluoridation lobby group New Health New Zealand, said the Ministry of Health was rushing the law change. But the organisation’s request to extend the timeframe for submissions outside of the Christmas and New Year period was dismissed by the Ministry of Health.

“We’re a voluntary organisation and all have jobs, so to expect us to put together a good submission in that timeframe is terrible,” Sloan said. “This is kind of a sinister move by the Ministry of Health.”

Submissions are open for 45 days. That is pretty standard.

I’m sure they have their submission pre-written anyway, as it will be the same as all their submissions – fluoride is a poisonous toxin blah blah blah.

News.com.au reports:

Gary Johns, writing in The Australian, suggests there should be “no taxpayer inducement to have children”.

The former MP who served in the Keating government admits such a measure will “undoubtedly affect strugglers, [and] … Aboriginal and Islander people in great proportions”.

“But the idea that someone can have the taxpayer, as of right, fund the choice to have a child is repugnant.”

Welfare should be there for people who have a child and then lose some of their income through a split, redundancy etc. It should not be there for people already on welfare unable to support their existing children, to continue having more children.

The ex-Minister claims “it is better to avoid having children until such time as parents can afford them”.

That’s what 90% of families do. They time having children to when they can afford it, and they limit the number to what they can afford. But around 10% just have child after child on welfare, as taxpayers get them more and more money. We should limit welfare so that if you are already on welfare, you don’t get additional welfare payments if you have further children on welfare.

Introduction

The goal of this post is to give an overview of this important topic in US presidential politics. There are numerous web links included for readers who want to go into more detail. First a definition of a presidential executive order:

Executive orders and proclamations are directives or actions by the President. When they are founded on the authority of the President derived from the Constitution or statute, they may have the force and effect of law…. In the narrower sense Executive orders and proclamations are written documents denominated as such…. Executive orders are generally directed to, and govern actions by, Government officials and agencies.

For an explanation of the presidents powers see this article from the Cornell University Law School. The powers discussed are found in Article II of the Constitution.

Historical context

Of particular note is that the first presidents from Washington through to the first half of the 19th century made very little use of executive orders. In the 20th century the use of the orders increased markedly especially from the time of Theodore Roosevelt thru to Harry Truman. In the case of FDR the use of the orders coincided with the Great Depression and WWII and were issued almost daily. Some well known executive orders:

• During the early stages of the Civil War  in 1861 Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus (the right to seek relief from illegal imprisonment).
• In 1864 the emancipation proclamation was issued by Lincoln.
• Franklin Delano Roosevelt established internment camps during WWII.
• Equal treatment of all members of the US armed forces was mandated by Harry Truman.

Modern presidents

Much has been made of Barack Obama’s use of presidential executive orders especially in regards to his immigration order. Opponents of Obama consistently attack him over this issue and criticise him for being a progressive with a big government agenda. So how does he compare with other presidents? The chart below compares Barack Obama to every president from FDR onwards.

Source: The American Presidency Project: Presidential Executive Orders. The orders issued by Barack Obama are those up until 20th October 2014. The webpage cited has a full list of all presidents and the number of orders issued.

Of the presidents listed in the table FDR has the highest yearly average by far with Truman second. Jimmy Carter a big government progressive is next. As for Obama he currently has made the least use of executive orders (ie. the yearly average) of any president going back to Grover Cleveland’s first term in 1885-9. Furthermore one has to go back to the Chester Arthur in 1881-85 to find a Republican president who has a lower yearly average than Barack Obama. Also since the days of Jimmy Carter in the White House the use of the orders has trended down.

Comments

So although there has been fierce debate about Obama’s immigration order the issue of the use executive orders is not a new debate it was an even bigger issue in 1861. So should the debate on executive orders be about the quality of each order as opposed to just the number issued by each president? My view is that executive orders should only be used when absolutely necessary and not be a means to avoid less ‘convenient’ ways of implementing policy.

Update: 5.1.2015

One of the commenters ‘Scrubone’ has noted an article by USA Today on Obama’s use of memoranda. The data used by USA Today is from research by one Kenneth S. Lowande a graduate student from the University of Virginia. Glenn Kessler from the Washington Post has covered this topic in some detail. The use of memoranda by Barack Obama can be found in the full list on the White House website. On the topic of presidential memoranda and their usage by presidents Kessler writes.

Lowande said he picked that start date [1945] as “practical research decision” because he did not have enough time to go back further.  He added that “my data only include those that presidents chose (for whatever reason) to publish.” He [Lowande] noted that USA Today’s assertion that Obama has issued the “most ever” was not correct. “More accurately, he has deemed more of his important enough to publish in the Federal Register,” he said. In other words, while the research is interesting, it actually tells you little about how different presidents have used this tool to further their policies.

So the upshot of this is that whilst Obama’s use of memorandums is a valid debating point from a policy perspective but it is not easy to get accurate data to compare him to his predecessor’s. Previous presidents typically chose not to publish a complete record of their memoranda in the Federal Register.

The Telegraph reports:

The commitment, which will be in the party’s General Election manifesto in May, will cap pay-offs at £95,000 each in the National Health Service, the civil service, council staff and even the BBC.

The move comes in the wake of rows after large taxpayer-funded payments to officials in the NHS and Civil Service, as well as the BBC, have emerged.

Unveiling the plans, Priti Patel, a Treasury Minister, said that a future Tory Government wanted to “bring some fairness back to the system”.

Stuff reports:

Wellington flew into a moral panic in 1954 after a teenage sex “gang” was found in the Hutt Valley.

Revelations that groups of Lower Hutt teenagers were meeting at a milk bar in Petone to have sex shocked the city.

Murky stories about young men on bikes and assignations by the banks of the river appalled parents and made them wonder what society was coming to.

There are clearly dark aspects to what went on, but most of it, though, was just teenagers having sex.

As they have done for several thousand years!

The Parker-Hulme murder in Christchurch a few months later – the source for Sir Peter Jackson’s film Heavenly Creatures – added to the outrage and convinced Sidney Holland’s National Government that it had to be seen to do something.

It appointed Wellington lawyer Oswald Mazengarb to head a commission.

Mazengarb was an eloquent and charming man, but also a puritanical moralist with a streak of fundamentalism.

So what did the report find:

In former times it was the custom for boys to take the initiative in seeking the company of girls; it was conventional for the girls to await any advances. Nowadays, girls do not always wait for an advance to be made to them

Scandal.

Perhaps the most startling feature is the changed mental attitude of many young people towards this evil. Some offend because they crave popularity or want to do what their friends are doing. Some assert a right to do what is regarded by religion, law, and convention as wrongful. It was reported that some of the girls were either unconcerned or unashamed, and even proud, of what they had done.

Those hussies. They were not ashamed of having sex.

One of the recommendations:

When crime serials are broadcast it should be made obvious that crime does not pay

d

Stuff reports:

Well, that didn’t go over well.

For months, publishing giant HarperCollins has been selling an atlas it says was “developed specifically for schools in the Middle East.” It trumpets the work as providing students an “in-depth coverage of the region and its issues.” Its stated goals include helping kids understand the “relationship between the social and physical environment, the region’s challenges [and] its socio-economic development.”

Nice goals. But there’s one problem: Israel is missing.

There’s Syria. There’s Jordan. There’s Gaza. But no mention of Israel. The story was first reported by a Catholic publication, the Tablet. …

How did this happen? Collins Bartholomew, a subsidiary of HarperCollins that specialises in maps, told the Tablet that it would have been “unacceptable” to include Israel in atlases intended for the Middle East. They had deleted Israel to satisfy “local preferences”.

And people wonder why so many in Israel think their neighbours want to wipe them out of existence. Oh, its’e because they do.

Harper Collins should sack the staff responsible for this. They won’t of course.

The US cartoonists have been particularly active over the holiday break so I’ve selected three cartoons.

The first makes fun of GOP leader Steve Scalise for allegedly giving a speech to a KKK audience in 2002. He claims he didn’t know. NB: toga party = costume party.

© Mike Luckovich – Found at Real Clear Politics

The second cartoon has Obama assessing the odds of Gitmo prisoners being a threat upon release.

© Michael Ramirez – Found at Real Clear Politics

Finally it wasn’t the Americans who busted the North Korean internet a couple of weeks ago…..

© Gary Varvel – Found at Real Clear Politics

[UPDATE]: Added the word ‘allegedly’ to the line above the first cartoon.

Stuff reports:

One of New Zealand’s most respected judges, Sir Ivor Richardson, has died at the age of 84.

In a long and distinguished legal career, Sir Ivor rose to became president of the Court of Appeal. He was appointed a judge of the then Supreme Court in 1977 but was almost immediately appointed to the Court of Appeal, where he served from 1978 to 2002.

Richardson was president of the Court of Appeal from 1996 until his retirement at age 72.

Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias said he was a great New Zealander. “He had an unparalleled influence on New Zealand law during his long tenure as a judge, law teacher, and adviser,” she said.

“His work as an appellate judge for nearly three decades touched all areas of law and provided leading cases which remain authoritative today. In addition, his collegial approach to judging and his interest in better judicial administration meant that he has had a unique influence upon the operation of the courts.” …

Attorney-General Christopher Finlayson, QC, also paid tribute to Richardson on behalf of the Government. “It is hard to think of anyone who has made a more substantive contribution to the law and social policy,” Finlayson said. “His was a career marked by excellence in everything he did.”

“Sir Ivor Richardson was unfailingly courteous and pleasant to appear before. But if you weren’t on top of your material, his questions would destroy your case very quickly.”

It says much about Sir Ivor that he was appointed to the Court of Appeal the same year as he was appointed to the High Court. He was made a member of the Privy Council in 1978. A huge loss to the legal profession, but especially to his family and friends.

The Herald editorial:

The dawn of a new year invites the mind to entertain endless possibilities, especially in a country so lucky. New Zealand enters 2015 with its dollar nearly as valuable as that of the signature “lucky country” next door. Three days ago Infratil and the New Zealand Superannuation Fund bought an Australian retirement village company for $670 million taking advantage of the rising kiwi. One swallow does not signal a summer of investment that would reverse the direction of transtasman ownership but it is another step of confidence.

When people rail against foreign investment, it is worth bearing in mind, that as our economy does well, it will be NZ companies investing overseas, and if we try and restrict foreign investment in NZ, then we risk being blocked ourselves.

The Herald reports:

A Kiwi jihadist who claims to be fighting in Syria with the Islamic State has been mistakenly broadcasting his exact location after forgetting to turn off a tracking function on his phone.

Mohammad Daniel, also known as Abu Abdul Rahman, and formerly known as Mark John Taylor, has now deleted 45 posts from Twitter after discovering that he had been revealing his location to intelligence agencies and enemies keeping tabs on him.

Hilarious. His tweets are giving away his location.

In 2009, Daniel was arrested by Pakistan authorities while trying to gain access to an al-Qaeda and Taleban stronghold close to the Afghanistan border and was subsequently subjected to travel restrictions by the New Zealand Government.

It is worth noting that in 2009 he claimed not to be a jihadist:

He had been arrested trying to enter the al-Qaeda stronghold of Wana in Pakistan.

Mr Taylor told TV3’s 60 Minutes programme last night he went there only to find a Muslim wife.

“I didn’t have a death wish I was just looking for a lady for marriage.

“It was my mistake. People might call me stupid and dumb for making that mistake but that’s my problem.”

People with malignant motives, will of course lie about their motives. He’s now happy fighting with the Islamic State as they butcher infidels.

The Herald reports:

Police are considering establishing a single national phone number for non-emergency calls to lighten the load on the 111 system.

An increase in people calling 111 over the past five years has prompted police to think about how to improve the service, and they say that a non-emergency number would mean they could better respond to high-priority incidents.

Figures provided to the Herald under the Official Information Act show police answered more than 628,801 111 calls last year – about 17,000 more than 2013.

They answered 88 per cent of those calls within 10 seconds, with most calls taking just four seconds to be picked up.

Mr Trappitt, who is the national prevention manager, said establishing a second non-emergency number was one of those strategies.

“It is potentially one of the options that we could explore and promote. We are having ongoing discussions.”

They’ve been talking about a non-emergency number for years, probably 10 – 15. Time to stop taling and just do it. Have a (say) 777 number for non-emergencies and 111 for emergencies.

Another option was a smartphone application that would allow people to call 111 and have their location immediately tracked by police.

Mr Trappitt said police, along with Fire Service and ambulance operators, had been in discussions with telecommunications providers and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment about how GPS could be used to help with 111 calls.

That’s a great idea.

The Herald reports:

New Zealanders might not have found the campaign for a UN Security Council seat especially thrilling, but the possibility of former Prime Minister Helen Clark leading the United Nations is a common subject of speculation.

Could it happen? The answer is yes, but not easily.

Prime Minister John Key has said the country will back Clark if she puts up her hand to become the next UN Secretary General.

There is no question that she wants it, but that does not mean she will go for it.

She would not go for it without New Zealand’s full backing, and New Zealand’s backing of her depends on what Eastern Europe does. It is considered Eastern Europe’s turn to supply the next Secretary General, a view that New Zealand accepts.

Clark’s chances rest on whether Eastern Europe can come up with a consensus candidate, one acceptable to Europe, the US and Russia.

With the current crisis in relations over Ukraine, that is not a simple task.

If it can’t find a consensus candidate, Clark will almost certainly seek the post and would be a front runner.

If there was no suitable Eastern Europe candidate, then Clark would be a strong contender. But she may have annoyed some by starting her unofficial campaign too early. The Guardian notes:

The field of those seeking to be the next secretary general is widely felt to be underwhelming. Helen Clark, the head of the UN Development Programme, gave an example of how a UN official should not behave when, before the current secretary general was even halfway through his term, she began to discuss, in these pages, her interest in succeeding him. It is time for something more serious.

The lead candidate at this stage appears to be Irina Bokova, the Bulgarian Director-General of UNESCO.

Wellington City is named after the (1st) Duke of Wellington. It has always amazed me that there is no prominent mention of this in Wellington, let alone a statue of the man we’re named after.

The Guardian reports:

Valerian Wellesley, the 8th Duke of Wellington, who has died aged 99, was a courteous and reticent man who devoted much of his life to Stratfield Saye, the estate in Hampshire of his illustrious ancestor Arthur Wellesley, the 1st Duke of Wellington, and to the titles and landholdings abroad which had been conferred on the 1st Duke after he famously routed Napoleon at the battle of Waterloo in 1815.

The 8th Duke combined his stately living with devotion to the British Army and the preservation of the countryside. He could be as dogged as his famous forebear about what he thought to be questions of family honour and practical politics. Preserving Stratfield Saye, which the 1st Duke had bought from the £600,000 conferred on him by the British government for his war services, was first on the list of his priorities.

The 200th anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo is on the 18th of June. It is one of the most significant battles in the history of the world.

The Duke’s military career includes 60 different battles. He was also Prime Minister of the UK twice, and died in 1852.

The Herald reports:

The New Zealand dollar rose to its highest against the Australian dollar since the Aussie was floated in 1983, as investors favour the outlook for the New Zealand economy where interest rates are set to rise further, compared with Australia where rates may fall.

The kiwi touched 95.93 Australian cents overnight, and was trading at 95.64 cents at 8am in Wellington, from 95.61 cents at 5pm yesterday.

Here’s what the NZ dollar has done vs the AU dollar since floating:

Parity is not far off, but is a tough psychological barrier to beat.

The Dom Post editorial:

For Wellingtonians, barring the earthquake we’re always half-expecting, the super-city decision looms as the biggest event. Mooted for years, it’s already provoked loud opposition from most of the region’s mayors; they’re concerned about a loss of local autonomy and the costs of a merger.

They’re mistaken. The current menagerie of mayors and councillors is overkill. Wellington is a modestly-populated region with a shared heart.

It needs bolder, more coherent leadership, and residents should grab the opportunity for a shake-up.

We don’t need eight Mayors for the region.

An interesting comment at Whale Oil:

As I was eating crayfish last night I was wondering who is feeding all those 10,000s of starving kids we keep hearing about who are living in poverty over this xmas New years break while the schools are closed?

I haven’t read any reports of them turning up in droves at A&E suffering from malnutrition …or are they only starving when politicians are not on holiday???

This highlights the problem of making schools responsible for feeding kids, rather than parents. What happens at school holidays?