World Politics

[Ferminal]

I can't tell whether you are taking the ****.

In Victoria the Libs and Labor joust almost to the death in order to show voters they are the most serious about tackling crime. (Hence my laughing at your earlier response.)

The two major parties are responding to people's genuine and legitimate concerns and fears. But by trying so hard to top each other in the "Best in Tackling Crime" stakes, they also do voters a disservice because they could instead be pointing out that people's perception of crime in the community (and resulting fear of crime) is usually a gross exaggeration. Statistics almost invariably show crime to be far less frequent than commonly thought.

As to jail being a deterrent, well it's 15 years or so since I studied Sociology, but I'm pretty sure evidence shows that jail does not act as a deterrent in the way that people commonly think.

And BTW, my life has been profoundly affected by crime. I have PTSD, of which the major cause was being held up at gun point at the age of 24. I'm 50 now and the PTSD (which was undiagnosed for 20 odd years) has shredded my life.

I still believe policies should be formulated in response to evidence, though, not primarily in response to fear or perceptions which are inaccurate.

If you're genuinely interested in Greens policy on crime it comes under Justice, and here's a link to a PDF detailing their policy.

Yeh I am...

I was watching one of those "People's Forums" a few weeks ago and the Opposition Leader just kept rambling on about how people need to go to jail...

 

[Spare Tyre]

Yeh I am...

I was watching one of those "People's Forums" a few weeks ago and the Opposition Leader just kept rambling on about how people need to go to jail...

Alright. So my perception of you remains intact.

Sometimes interaction on this interwebby thing is a bit confusing.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Kangaroos and Collingwood FC have told voters how they should vote by saying "vote Labor" because they are renovating two football grounds. They are football clubs not political parties. That is real shoddy...

 

[The Hitch]

Kangaroos and Collingwood FC have told voters how they should vote by saying "vote Labor" because they are renovating two football grounds. They are football clubs not political parties. That is real shoddy...

This is to me one of the biggest problems in the west. Celebrities inspire a hatred in me that Bank mangers, corrupt politicians cant. In this country the political discourse has already laready been lowered to the point that a minimum of one celebrity is needed on any given political or panel show. This makes all political programmes automatically unwatchable for me. On sky news of course, only celebrities can appear on political programmes and half the questions will be about their favourite football team and about showbiz.
Every leaflet in our election had a celebrity on it. Celebrity endorsements make the news big time.

Of course yesterday i went to pick up the evening standard, a free daily paper which claims to be a broadsheet not a tabloid, and yet the front page had yet another full page picture of the "royal" couple.

Didnt something happen in South Korea? Nah, probably nothing

 

[L'arriviste]

...Of course yesterday i went to pick up the evening standard, a free daily paper which claims to be a broadsheet not a tabloid, and yet the front page had yet another full page picture of the "royal" couple.

Didnt something happen in South Korea? Nah, probably nothing

I sympathise with this. It was also one of the things I hated about the UK before I left. It just doesn't happen like that elsewhere in Europe (as far as I've seen anyway, mais après moi, le déluge).

However, I do believe times are changing. I'm optimistic. I was reading The Economist's World in 2011 the other day - this is my third year of getting it and I recommend it ad nauseam to anyone who'll listen - and there was a nice piece in there about how the super-rich will start to hide in 2011 or at the very least 'tone it down' a bit.

It struck me that it could apply to celebrities. The Dior posters of Charlize Theron dripping in gold have already been replaced here with tasteful, dare I say even modest, perfume ads ahead of Christmas.

What we really need to fill that void is for respect for intelligence to make a stunning comeback. Otherwise of course, we might just end up with more homey celebrities instead: more Jamie Oliver and that girl formerly of the One Show.

 

[redtreviso]

HOST: How would you handle a situation like the one that just developed in North Korea? <...>

PALIN: But obviously, we’ve got to stand with our North Korean allies. We’re bound to by treaty –

 

[Cobblestones]

HOST: How would you handle a situation like the one that just developed in North Korea? <...>

PALIN: But obviously, we’ve got to stand with our North Korean allies. We’re bound to by treaty –

In other words, she would bomb Seoul?

Shoot first ask questions later.

 

[auscyclefan94]

This is to me one of the biggest problems in the west. Celebrities inspire a hatred in me that Bank mangers, corrupt politicians cant. In this country the political discourse has already laready been lowered to the point that a minimum of one celebrity is needed on any given political or panel show. This makes all political programmes automatically unwatchable for me. On sky news of course, only celebrities can appear on political programmes and half the questions will be about their favourite football team and about showbiz.
Every leaflet in our election had a celebrity on it. Celebrity endorsements make the news big time.

Of course yesterday i went to pick up the evening standard, a free daily paper which claims to be a broadsheet not a tabloid, and yet the front page had yet another full page picture of the "royal" couple.

Didnt something happen in South Korea? Nah, probably nothing

I have been a member for the club who posted that on twitter for half my life. It just really ****ed me off that they would do something like that. I am not voting for the people who they suggested anyway. They have done a woeful job anyway.

 

[Spare Tyre]

This is to me one of the biggest problems in the west. Celebrities inspire a hatred in me that Bank mangers, corrupt politicians cant. In this country the political discourse has already laready been lowered to the point that a minimum of one celebrity is needed on any given political or panel show. This makes all political programmes automatically unwatchable for me. On sky news of course, only celebrities can appear on political programmes and half the questions will be about their favourite football team and about showbiz.
Every leaflet in our election had a celebrity on it. Celebrity endorsements make the news big time.

Of course yesterday i went to pick up the evening standard, a free daily paper which claims to be a broadsheet not a tabloid, and yet the front page had yet another full page picture of the "royal" couple.

Didnt something happen in South Korea? Nah, probably nothing

That sounds rather familiar.

So I suppose those fabulous old-fashioned English discussion-around-the-table TV programmes no longer exist, or have been completely *******ized by the inclusion of celebrities. My favourites are the ones from (I think) the 1960s and 1970s, with highly articulate men (they were always men) puffing away on their ciggies as they earnestly debated various issues. (There was no Australian version of these shows; we're so anti-intellectual here as to find earnest intellectual debate unfathomable. We have an endless number of panel shows which discuss football though.)

 

[redtreviso]

Tom DeLay(R) is going to PRISON.....

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/11/24/us.delay.verdict/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

 

[The Hitch]

That sounds rather familiar.

So I suppose those fabulous old-fashioned English discussion-around-the-table TV programmes no longer exist, or have been completely *******ized by the inclusion of celebrities. My favourites are the ones from (I think) the 1960s and 1970s, with highly articulate men (they were always men) puffing away on their ciggies as they earnestly debated various issues. (There was no Australian version of these shows; we're so anti-intellectual here as to find earnest intellectual debate unfathomable. We have an endless number of panel shows which discuss football though.)

No such Australian shows? Well the only show in this country which is percieved as being "for intellectuals" is question time, and you guys have question time (Q and A i think its called). Ive seen it once or twice and it seems more respectable then our version.

Surely that cant be that bad. I dont know much about the guy who presents this, Terry Jones is it? but he was at the festival of Dangerous ideas, of which i saw some so he cant be that bad. Then again, on the few occasions ive seen or heard from him, he just plays the nice guy roll of asking the questions he is supposed to, politely.

Anyway, our version of this generally has at least one celebrity per week. Theyve even stooped as low as the presenter of Big brother and the runner up of one of those singing competitions.

A recent publicity stunt was to invite the leader of the British National Party (a openly racist party with far right policies) on to the show. This particular episode run dangerously close to reality tv.

The first question was "should the bbc have invited Nick Griffin onto question time". In a time of big economic problems, the 3 main parties each sent the best showmen they had, full of preprepared put downs in order to make the respective parties appear as anti Nazi as possible, and the entire 60 minutes was spent on this.

That no politics were covered, and nobody learnt a thing from the show didnt matter too much as question time recieved record ratings.

His inclusion on the show became the major news story of the week, taking up front pages of every newspaper.

And this is part of a growing trend in the 24 hour media. The media manufacturing its own news.

 

[Anonymous]

Tom DeLay(R) is going to PRISON.....

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/11/24/us.delay.verdict/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

He spent $8 million to get convicted. Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

 

[redtreviso]

He spent $8 million to get convicted. Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

and that 8 mil is more than his lifetime earnings..probably didn't even hurt him.

 

[Skandar Akbar]

HOST: How would you handle a situation like the one that just developed in North Korea? <...>

PALIN: But obviously, we’ve got to stand with our North Korean allies. We’re bound to by treaty –

Is this a real quote? She really is worthless but none the less I thoght she would know the difference between North and South Korea.

 

[Skandar Akbar]

Tom DeLay(R) is going to PRISON.....

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/11/24/us.delay.verdict/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

He looks so shocked and awhed on that video. to bad maybe him and that lib Lance the Prance can relax in the same jail cells.

 

[redtreviso]

Is this a real quote? She really is worthless but none the less I thoght she would know the difference between North and South Korea.

I just made it up to make scotty sh his pants.

 

[Spare Tyre]

No such Australian shows? Well the only show in this country which is percieved as being "for intellectuals" is question time, and you guys have question time (Q and A i think its called). Ive seen it once or twice and it seems more respectable then our version.

Surely that cant be that bad. I dont know much about the guy who presents this, Terry Jones is it? but he was at the festival of Dangerous ideas, of which i saw some so he cant be that bad. Then again, on the few occasions ive seen or heard from him, he just plays the nice guy roll of asking the questions he is supposed to, politely.

Anyway, our version of this generally has at least one celebrity per week. Theyve even stooped as low as the presenter of Big brother and the runner up of one of those singing competitions.

A recent publicity stunt was to invite the leader of the British National Party (a openly racist party with far right policies) on to the show. This particular episode run dangerously close to reality tv.

The first question was "should the bbc have invited Nick Griffin onto question time". In a time of big economic problems, the 3 main parties each sent the best showmen they had, full of preprepared put downs in order to make the respective parties appear as anti Nazi as possible, and the entire 60 minutes was spent on this.

That no politics were covered, and nobody learnt a thing from the show didnt matter too much as question time recieved record ratings.

His inclusion on the show became the major news story of the week, taking up front pages of every newspaper.

And this is part of a growing trend in the 24 hour media. The media manufacturing its own news.

It seems that in Britain things have sunk further than I had realised.

My take on Tony Jones, the host of Q and A, is pretty much the same as yours. He seems reasonably decent but he never goes anywhere near an awkward, difficult-but-really-needs-to-be-asked question. It always seems to me that he doesn't want to ruffle feathers. Unfortunately, unless someone does, pollies control the discourse.

Now that I think about it we have some intellectual discussion on one of the radio stations of the ABC (our version of the Beeb). Of course 90% of the population probably do not know this station exists. But it's usually guest/interviewee, and its often academics or authors discussing their research or field of expertise, rather than a panel or round table type thing.

 

[auscyclefan94]

It seems that in Britain things have sunk further than I had realised.

My take on Tony Jones, the host of Q and A, is pretty much the same as yours. He seems reasonably decent but he never goes anywhere near an awkward, difficult-but-really-needs-to-be-asked question. It always seems to me that he doesn't want to ruffle feathers. Unfortunately, unless someone does, pollies control the discourse.

Now that I think about it we have some intellectual discussion on one of the radio stations of the ABC (our version of the Beeb). Of course 90% of the population probably do not know this station exists. But it's usually guest/interviewee, and its often academics or authors discussing their research or field of expertise, rather than a panel or round table type thing.

I think Tony Jones is quite good. He is a very good interviewer if it is on politics.

 

[Ferminal]

I dislike Q&A, it's a cross between a one-on-one interview, parliament question time and a political fundraiser (for whichever way the audience is biased that particular week). Usually there will be politicians mixed with people who on occasions may talk sense, but are too far from the political realities of the situation. The show is supposed to be about a further "insight" into national politics by breaking through the facade and spin, but this rarely happens because usually it's just an attack on "policy x" from "party y". Most of the audience questions are similar to "feeding the trolls" if you can put it that way. Then there's the clapping and cheering, as if it's a football game (or question time), I think I'd prefer the worm.

 

[Cobblestones]

I just made it up to make scotty sh his pants.

No, it's for real, from the Glenn Beck show (so she can't even blame the "liberal" media)

 

[The Hitch]

No, it's for real, from the Glenn Beck show (so she can't even blame the "liberal" media)

Of course she can. The idea is never to claim your opponents tricked you into doing something. In this case she complains that the “liberals” are once again attacking her. “Making a big deal out of every little mistake she does.” In this way totally changing the subject from the mistake she made, to the hatred the liberals have to her, which is a common theme already.

She doesn’t need to do any of this herself. In fact preferably not. Get a radio hosts and conservative leaders to go out there, and make 3 points.

1 Give examples of other occasions on which they went after her. Say that when “liberals” make gaffes they are treated nicely, but the second palin makes an “innocent mistake” they “CRUCIFY” (needs to be a strong word) her.

2 Sexism . Make the point that she is a woman and “liberals” don’t like Conservative women. A lot of women out there will nod their heads strongly to this. I remember Ralph Naeder saying Liberals were being sexist towards her. If they find that clip they can use it. And Subliminally try to make it look like it’s a bunch of guys beating up on a lightly built, small statured defenceless mother.

3 a quip about how they should obsess less about her and more about fixing the economy, or something to that effect. Or that liberals are trying to change the subject while Americans suffer. Pre prepared quotes like this are very effective in America.

Divisions create blind support. The stronger "liberals" hate on her, the more the conservatives will ignore her faults and choose her. Also the more the liberals are seen to try to “kick her down,” the more a feeling of invincibility to “the liberal media” she builds up.

And for Palin, divisions are good. Hatred is good. Elections in America are won, not by convincing everyone to vote for you, but by firing up your base, and making sure your base turns out in droves.

Especially in your state.

I think this can help her. I still don’t see her being nominated though.

 

[Cobblestones]

First of all, I think it was more a slip of the tongue than anything else. In particular, since she identified North Korea as the adversary in her previous sentence.

But, the fact that it got so blown out of proportion is because it feeds the narrative about her as completely clueless concerning foreign policy. Without this narrative already in place, no one would have jumped on this. But on this background, it seems to be just one more piece of the puzzle.

I don't think it helps her. Certainly not with people who had doubts before. With her base, maybe she can spin it in a way you mention, but it still is in need of a spin, and everybody knows it.

ETA: Also, a lot of the kicking recently came from the conservative, Republican side: Karl Rove, Barbara Bush. The Republican establishment hates her just as much as the 'left' (which just shows that there are Republicans with brains, which is a good thing).

 

[The Hitch]

First of all, I think it was more a slip of the tongue than anything else. In particular, since she identified North Korea as the adversary in her previous sentence.

But, the fact that it got so blown out of proportion is because it feeds the narrative about her as completely clueless concerning foreign policy. Without this narrative already in place, no one would have jumped on this. But on this background, it seems to be just one more piece of the puzzle.

I don't think it helps her. Certainly not with people who had doubts before. With her base, maybe she can spin it in a way you mention, but it still is in need of a spin, and everybody knows it.

I dont see how anyone who doesnt already see her as ignorant can suddenly after seeing something like this decide "oh maybe shes not so great after all". People are eigher already convinced that shes totaly unprepared for high office, or they will never be convinced. Beyond my help, so to put it.

ps. Next time someone interviews her, they should ask, "Mrs Palin, who do you see as a greater threat to the US. The Republic of Korea, or the Peoples Republic of Korea". It would be fun to see her responce.

 

[Skandar Akbar]

I dont see how anyone who doesnt already see her as ignorant can suddenly after seeing something like this decide "oh maybe shes not so great after all". People are eigher already convinced that shes totaly unprepared for high office, or they will never be convinced. Beyond my help, so to put it.

ps. Next time someone interviews her, they should ask, "Mrs Palin, who do you see as a greater threat to the US. The Republic of Korea, or the Peoples Republic of Korea". It would be fun to see her responce.

It is a shame that Palin is one or all that the republicans have to put forward at this time.

 

[Dettol]

Now that I think about it we have some intellectual discussion on one of the radio stations of the ABC (our version of the Beeb). Of course 90% of the population probably do not know this station exists. But it's usually guest/interviewee, and its often academics or authors discussing their research or field of expertise, rather than a panel or round table type thing.

The most famous thing Q&A is famous for is somebody throwing shoes at John Howard.

Tony Jones was much better on Lateline.