Entry 1386, on 2012-05-10 at 12:16:26 (Rating 4, Politics)
Things really are getting interesting in politics around the world, I think. It's odd the way I used to be so disinterested in this sort of thing - when I was a student I didn't take the slightest notice of it. I still think a lot of politics is trivial and pathetic, but I also find it amusing to watch the battle lines, I appreciate the inherent humour, and am amazed at the incredible corrupt self-interest exhibited by many of our political leaders (although, as you will know, I have no greater admiration for business and many other leaders).
The three words in the title of this entry refer to three events I want to comment on here. The first, "ignorance" is in reference to the newly discovered (by the media) Conservative Part of New Zealand. The second "greed" refers to the Talleys company and possible ways to combat their incredible arrogance. And the third "liberalism" refers to the first sign that maybe Obama really does have some liberal tendencies (instead of those just imagined by his political opponents).
So let's get started: ignorance. Well conservatism and ignorance are just about synonyms in many cases. People follow a particular political line for many reasons: habit, conformance, laziness, etc; but ignorance would be fairly high on the list for many. I don't want to say that only conservative people are ignorant but I suspect if a study was done on political allegiance and knowledge of basic facts about the world a trend would emerge!
The leader of the Conservative Party in New Zealand has managed to get himself a bit into the news recently (which is quite impressive since the party has no representation in our parliament) but not always for good reasons. Even his natural ally, John Key, has distanced himself from this nutter. Of course, he doesn't always seem as nutty as he really is and when he makes the effort he can seem quite reasonable, but like all conservative and religious people, in the end the crazy stuff comes out.
His latest blunder is a statement regarding how promiscuous New Zealand women are. Really? He chose this subject to make a comment on? To be fair, he did quote some real research but I have two problems with this: first, finding one piece of research which supports your preferred belief while ignoring other facts isn't fair; and second, why do this at all? Even if it is true (I'm not saying it is) why would you even make this point? Didn't he learn from what happened to that other crazy, Alasdair Thompson? (see my blog entry "Period Problems" of 2011-06-24)
So that's the ignorance, what about the greed? Well you could take any big corporation and accuse them of this offence but in this case it is Talleys who have caused the most outrage. Like all companies they are not all bad: they employ a reasonable number of people, they contribute to our economy in general, and they produce some good products, but (contrary to the belief of most large companies) that doesn't give them an excuse to treat their workforce unfairly (or abuse the environment, exploit their position to gain excess profits, or anything else).
Hone Harawira, the leader of the Mana Party (and a politician who I alternate between despising and admiring) has suggested a "Talley-ban" against the company because of the unfair way they are treating meat workers in the North Island. Good idea. I will certainly be taking part in that ban. I will avoid buying their products, even if they do relent on their current unfair treatment of unions. I've heard local people suggest that the Talley family are barely one step above criminals. Even if that isn't technically true they are clearly immoral.
So moving on to liberalism. Barack Obama has recently announced his support for gay marriage. While I don't really care too much one way or the other on this (who cares about marriage any more anyway?) it is a landmark issue and one where liberals and conservatives clearly disagree. It puts Obama into the more left-leaning camp where he should be. I know his opponents have labelled him a liberal or socialist in the past but that (unfortunately) has not really been true.
Maybe, assuming he wins the election, his next term as president might more represent the values the Democrats should be representing. Currently the US has a right wing party (the Democrats) and another party (the GOP) which is so far off in the distance of insanity that they can barely be described in any conventional political terms!
So these are interesting times and I haven't even mentioned the victory of the left in France and the upcoming battle with the right in Germany (wow, that's a scary image), the near anarchy in Greece, the decimation of the conservatives in the UK, the new tax regime in Australia, etc. And that's ignoring the Middle East completely! Yes, things are getting interesting all right...
Haha, I love how the left and right social liberals enjoy the joke when a survey comes out about how promiscuous NZers are (ooooh "socially liberal") but when it comes to a conservative with some media attention commenting then all of a sudden it is "tsk tsk". Shame on you. Shame on you. Shame on you.
Pathetic. Really. But the irony is funny to laugh at.
Comment 2 by OJB on 2012-05-16 at 11:47:14:
I think the problem is more the way extreme conservatives misuse this sort of data for their own political agendas. No one would use the results of a single (not very scientific) survey to shape policy. So it's the attitudes which this individual really holds which are revealed by this comment that we need to be concerned with.
Comment 3 by SBFL on 2012-05-16 at 12:01:43:
How is it a misuse of data? The liberal blogs lapped it up when initially released (joking haha). Is this also a "misuse of data"? I'm interested to know you point of differentiation.
Comment 4 by OJB on 2012-05-16 at 12:18:02:
As I said in the oriental post, it's using a single finding from a survey of doubtful validity to pursue a misguided political agenda which is the problem, not the survey itself.
Comment 5 by SBFL on 2012-05-16 at 12:28:44:
What is the difference between a liberal blog joking of NZ promiscuity and a conservative pointing out the exact same thing?
Comment 6 by OJB on 2012-05-16 at 12:31:58:
Maybe the "joking" part? Do you think? Just maybe?
The problem is that conservative nutters have a hidden agenda and it's only when this sort of thing comes out that we see what that is. Christianity and sexuality has always bee a particularly screwed up (if you'll excuse the expression) combination!
Comment 7 by SBFL on 2012-05-16 at 12:52:35:
Yes but what is the difference OJB?! How can it be that when liberals point out something for a laugh it is okay, but when a conservative points out the EXACT SAME THING for some serious consideration it is shock, horror! Are you aware of the term "double standards"?
Comment 8 by OJB on 2012-05-16 at 12:54:53:
Commenting in a blog for a "laugh" and making a political statement with the intention of influencing policy towards a personally held superstitious opinion are two quite different things, wouldn't you say?
Comment 9 by SBFL on 2012-05-16 at 13:04:25:
Yes, if they were different people, you would have a point (though typically you skew by using the term "influencing policy"). But when liberals laugh and condemn at the same thing but at different times for their own political advantage I call BS on their credibility.
But I do love how you try to introduce "superstitious opinion" into the debate. Nice try!
Comment 10 by OJB on 2012-05-16 at 13:12:50:
Do you not agree that it is concerning when a politician who in the future might drag an already conservative government even more into conservatism, mainly because of his ridiculous religious beliefs, makes this sort of comment? And that concern should be greater than a few bloggers remarking on survey in a frivolous manner?
Comment 11 by Sean on 2012-05-18 at 10:16:17:
No. (a) because socially conservative and economically liberal are not incompatible (hence no case for dragging) and (b) you assume that a reasonable take on a survey everyone lapped up is "ridiculous religious beliefs" based on your perception of the individual (who is not even elected to parliament).
Comment 12 by OJB on 2012-05-18 at 13:04:40:
So you don't think the comments of a politician with possible significant influence in the future is more a source of concern than some bloggers with very little influence. OK, let's just leave it at that then.
Comment 13 by SBFl on 2012-05-19 at 08:18:59:
The irony for me is:
(a) Survey comes out saying that NZers are the most promiscuous.
(b) Mainstream media and blogs lap it up for a good ol laugh
(c) Colin Craig comes out and states what was already said in (a)
(d) Mainstream media and blogs scream "Shock! Horror!" now that a "conservative" said what they already knew.
In the English language we call this "double standards".
Comment 14 by OJB on 2012-05-19 at 13:35:49:
Right we seem to be getting nowhere fast. At the risk of being accused of invoking Godwin's Law let me give a more extreme example which might illustrate my point. Let's say a comedian does a routine which involves the phrase "I'm bored. I might invade Poland" then Adolf Hitler says the same thing. Which would you be more concerned about?
Comment 15 by SBFL on 2012-05-22 at 12:50:33:
I won't invoke Godwin's Law but if you are so desperate as to compare Colin Craig to Adolf Hitler I would say you've lost this one...and your example didn't even mention a Durex study!
Comment 16 by OJB on 2012-05-22 at 18:32:58:
I specifically said that I was trying to make a point by using an extreme example so it wasn't really comparing Craig (who is only a minor nutter) with Hitler (who was a much bigger nutter). The only point I was trying to make is that a comment can have varying levels of significance depending on who makes it.
Commentary about the Durex study is what we are talking about, right? So did I need to mention it explicitly?
Comment 17 by SBFL on 2012-06-08 at 12:07:46:
So you agree double standards are applied here? Essentially the same point is made but depending on the messenger, the response will vary.
Comment 18 by OJB on 2012-06-08 at 13:42:23:
Yes, I think any response should vary depending on who makes the point. That isn't really a double standard though. Everyone varies their response depending on the source, don't you think? Different people make the same comment with varying degrees of seriousness and varying degrees of ability on being able to act on that comment so our response to that should also be different.
Comment 19 by SBFL on 2012-06-08 at 13:56:17:
Great, so you agree with me. Double standards are applied. And who thought the NZ media were impartial? (and OJB, "degrees of ability" are irrelevant to our dear media).
Comment 20 by OJB on 2012-06-08 at 14:21:02:
If you call giving similar comments different degrees of consideration depending on who makes them a "double standard" then fine, we agree double standards are applied.
And of course the media aren't impartial. But they probably aren't grossly unfair either. I hear about the same number of complaints from the left and right about the media so they must be getting things roughly right!
Comment 21 by SBFL on 2012-06-08 at 14:42:42:
You know we are discussing media reaction. It differs on the messenger. You don't need to turn it into a left vs right thing. Stay on topic please.
Comment 22 by OJB on 2012-06-08 at 15:36:22:
Did you actually read what I said? We agree the reaction of news media (and everyone else) depends on the person making the comment being reported on. That is normal and fair. I just commented that both sides of the political spectrum complain fairly equally about their treatment, showing the media are equally fair (or equally unfair) to both sides. it was nothing to do with left versus right.
Comment 23 by SBFL on 2012-06-14 at 10:23:59:
Okay, so we agree that the media have reacted inconsistently depending on the respondent (original Durex = haha, consertavive view = tsk, tsk)? ...even though the message is the same?
But you uphold that the respondent is key (their level of influence etc).
But I will say that this holds no water (even despite the cold hard fact that Colin Craig holds almost zero influence anyway) because it is not a matter of politics but a matter of principle.
In our society, can we trust our media to be impartial? It seems not. They seem to favour liberal views.
Comment 24 by OJB on 2012-06-14 at 23:37:09:
The media acted inconsistently if you expect similar comments from very different people to be treated the same. I have said this is not a reasonable expectation.
Colin Craig holds little influence now but his party are a logical choice as a partner for National when Act completely disappears. The Nats must be getting fairly desperate by now!
I think the left and right both think the media has a bias for the opposite view. To me this indicates that they have the balance fairly well right.
Comment 25 by SBFL on 2012-06-16 at 08:54:34:
Bottom line is that we have inconsistent responses from our media commentators and this has been shown out by the timing - thus, we can't trust them.
Comment 26 by OJB on 2012-06-16 at 11:51:49:
Yes, OK, we agree. Media responses are inconsistent. And whether we can trust them or not is debatable. I would say we can't trust anyone. Everything should be viewed with suspicion and verified where possible.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE