Save the Humans

Mrs Thatcher We Need You

I have only dim memories of Margaret Thatcher. After all I was living in New Zealand at the time. I do remember her alliance with Ronald Ray-Gun (as our fourth form social studies teacher called him) and her rather steely voice. Arriving in the UK in the early 90s her work was done, and Mr Grey-tie had taken over. She was forced out over the council tax I think, but it could have been any number of things. Like Roger Douglas in New Zealand, she made a lot of enemies.

Mrs (now Lady) Thatcher became PM in a country that had lost its way and was spiraling downwards in the grip of failing industry, massive taxes and union muscle. She left a country which had regained its confidence and success.

Lady Thatcher is hated by by the left, not least the unionists and socialists who felt her glare and whose orgy of power and spending was brought to such an unexpected and brutal halt. Even the word Thatcher is enough to get many of these people spitting and changing colour in the face. Just have a read of this article in the Guardian (written by someone who was about 20 when she was elected PM) to get a feel for that. He is trying to be nice.

The result was dramatic, not only in the huge boost to inequality and the income of the well-off, but also in the US-style decline in the share of GDP going to wages and salaries – which fell from a peak of 65% in 1975 to 53% last year – as corporate profits swelled.

(clever how he brings in the words US, profits, corporate and inequality all in one sentence - this is code for "I am talking about something very bad")

Most who lived through the time have respect for what Mrs Thatcher did - here is a comment I found which covers the ground:

This is the lady that saved our country from the dustbin. Hard decisions were made,not all right, but our country was stronger and richer for her efforts. Right now a "forever young" Maggie is what we need to put right a decade or so of waste, mismanagement and failed social engineering suffered by our country by this futile Labour government.

As it is 30 years ago that her government came to power, there is quite a bit of comment in the media.

Boris Johnson (now mayor of London) writes:

She gave people the confidence to buy shares, to start their own businesses, to move on and up in society – and there was more social mobility under Margaret Thatcher than there has been since. She was a liberator, and she gave the Labour party such an intellectual thrashing that they ended up changing their name

and concludes:

Margaret Thatcher will always divide the British people, not least since we are ourselves divided. There is a part of us that will always dislike the acquisitive, appetitive instincts she seemed to espouse, and yet we also recognise that they are essential for economic success. More than any leader since Churchill, she said thought-provoking things about the relationship between the state and the individual. Some of them were unpalatable, some of them were exaggerated. But much of what she said was necessary, and it took a woman to say it.

Acres of newsprint has been expended in looking back on her legacy. Just look at the Google news search today.

But the real point of this post is how desperately Britain needs her today. This place needs a serious re-vamp. Massive amounts of cash seems to just vanish into the government with nothing appearing in return. A London council pays $30k per month (yes per month!) to house a family of 7 who can't afford their own home. Huge petrol taxes appear unable to reduce congestion on the roads and instead signs have been erected to advise of delays. Good schools are full, leaving only the private (and eye-wateringly expensive) option. Councils are as out of control as ever, full of loony money-sinking schemes. Light bulbs are to be banned. Trains are unaffordable. Even the Polish are leaving.

Perhaps the picture is not so bleak as painted in this speech in 1979 because the election:

The report from the Confederation of British Industry is that many firms are being strangled. There is a shortage of materials. They cannot move their own products. Exports are being lost. It says that secondary picketing, picketing of firms not in dispute, is very heavy all over the country. It is particularly affecting such items as packaging materials and sugar and all vital materials necessary if industry is to keep going. Lay-offs known to the CBI are at least 125,000 already, and there are expected to be 1 million by the end of the week. There are telegrams and telexes from many companies saying that their exports are not being allowed through and that they might lose the orders for ever.

There are messages from firms such as Marks and Spencer which last week lost 20 per cent. of its food production, approximately £2 million. Unless secondary pickets are removed this week the estimate is of a 30 per cent. loss. Over last week and this week and this week, unless there is a change, the company says that it will not shift 50 per cent. of its exports.

But it is bleak.

And I'm sorry, but David Cameron (not that I have seen him on TV yet, er actually perhaps I should start watching TV) appears more interested in traipsing around after silly environmentalist causes than laying down the law.

Come back Margaret Thatcher, all is forgiven.

Monkey Business: Bush or Obama?

I thought it was quite funny that the New York Post had to apologise for likening President Obama to a chimpanzee. After all, there is a full web site devoted to comparing George Bush to one. And not an obsure part of the internet either - it has had a million hits a year.

I recall a cartoon in The Press which depicted George Bush as a monkey. Did they apologise? No, but perhaps that is because George Bush's supporters had a sense of humour.

Jeanette Fitzsimons Heads to Landfill or Plate

The positive press for Jeanette Fitzsimons has been significant. The greens as a whole are dismissed as loons, but it seems that Fitzsimons is sincere, nice and principled.

It would be more honest to say that Fitzsimons is deluded, like environmentalists, but then it isn't good to speak ill of the dead. Let's just hope that the party posters with her photo were printed on biodegradable material.

Which makes be wonder - what happens to dead environmentalists? Should they be buried in the ground to rot? Surely not - given the current obsession with not letting anything rot in the ground (but instead be composted and sold).

Should they be cremated? No, think of the carbon emissions!

In the sort of primitive society that environmentalists harp back to, they would be roasted on a spit and served to younger, more alive, members of the cannibalistic tribe. These days this is probably unacceptable on food safely grounds. Also, dead environmentalists may not be classed as 'organic food', depending on what they have eaten in the few years before death.

Which leaves only one option: composting.

But even that has its drawbacks. Does Jeanette Fitzsimons have any mercury amalgam fillings? These are toxic to the environment (unless they are in CFL bulbs of course, which are somehow exempt from the laws of nature). What about the nitrogen - won't that pollute the water supply with unwanted nutrients?

Never fear, an enterprising bunch of lunatics have found the solution.

But it doesn't please everyone:

It appears a lot of thought has gone into this process, and it does appear to have some environmental value... But being freeze-dried, vibrated until I turn into a powder, and then filtered for toxic metals does not sound like I'm not subject to any "violent and destructive handling." Furthermore, if water is 70% of your body, isn't it the most important part? Without it one would resemble beef jerky more than a person. Finally, I'm a little confused about the corn starch coffin. Is something wrong with the styrofoam coffin I was planning on using?

Looking at the two that are competing to replace Jeanette Fitzsimons, it is hard to see that the party will increase its influence in New Zealand. Sue Bradford frightens the horses and Metiria Turei would do for any horse that had heard of her. On top of that, there seems to be no role for the environmentalist party in this government, at least.

Maybe we will spend the next few years worrying about humans instead. Save the humans!

Antidismal Succumbs to Dismal Fate

 

I hope this isn't a pattern developing, but Anti-Dismal, an economics blog which has a track record of creating many interesting and informative articles, is shutting down due to a supposed 'lack of demand'. This is surely a case of demand-side economics being applied to things on which it is ill-equipped to speak.

So I demand that Anti-dismal supplies answers to the following questions:

• Where is the demand data?
• How was it obtained?
• Is there any hidden demand?
• What pricing analysis has been done to determine the elasticity of demand?
• What is the opposite of the 'tragedy of the commons'?
• On the supply side, were the articles of consistent standard, or did readers find the product of varying size / quality / colour?
• How was demand affected by article length, periodicy, topic choice and Internet congestion?
• If there is a downward trend, how do we know that the trend is not due to other factors?
• While in a depression now, is it possible that very shortly we will see a recovery?
• Have you tried cutting the base rate?

Well anyway...

My approach to blogging is that the enjoyment and interest comes in taking part, and getting the stuff out of my head and onto the screen. Better out than in. The thought that someone else might read it was of little interest - for the first few weeks I didn't tell anyone about the blog. Now I am pleased to see a few people keeping up with my rantings, but not really expecting a huge readership - I don't have the time to post 10 items a day, nor to do the research that I would really like to do in some areas. I seldom admit to having a pro-human blog. Being an anti-human environmentalist is so much more trendy, and destructive.

Newspapers are printed and sent to you every day, whether you like it or not. In Christchurch we have to open the paper just to throw it out, so might as well at least glance at the front page. Many newspapers are delivered free to groaning letter boxes. It is not like there is a shortage of material. While not free in many cases, the cost is minimal, spread over 100,000+ readers. So it's no surprise that blogs have fewer readers.

Blogs are different. They are hard to find, you have to make an effort to read them each day, and the type of material is not quite so consistent (few blogs give you the weather, automotive, classified ads and gardening articles each day). Blogs are a type of 'narrow-casting', sometimes to only a few readers.

So I don't think people should be disheartened with a small readership. The issue is your contribution to the debate, not your popularity.

At the very least, I hope Anti-dismal will keep the blog there for archival purposes, and perhaps the odd post when a burning issue develops. After all, you need something to fill in the days, and the mass-produced coffee in Cafe-101 isn't that good...:-)

Government Workers

From Annie Fox - this is pretty funny. Please don't read if you are one of the 40% of New Zealand who is employed by the state. Go to this site instead.

The Four Cats

Four men were bragging about how smart their cats were. The first man was an Engineer,
the second man was an Accountant,
the third man was a Chemist, and
the fourth man was a Government Employee.

To show off, the Engineer called his cat, 'T-square, do your stuff.
'T-square pranced over to the desk, took out some paper and pen and
promptly drew a circle, a square, and a triangle. Everyone agreed that
was pretty smart.

But the Accountant said his cat could do
better. He called his cat and said, 'Spreadsheet, do your stuff.
'Spreadsheet went out to the kitchen and returned with a dozen cookies.
He divided them into 4 equal piles of 3 cookies.

Everyone agreed
that was good. But the Chemist said his cat could do better. He called
his cat and said, 'Measure, do your stuff. 'Measure got up, walked to
the fridge, took out a quart of milk, got a 10 ounce glass from the
cupboard and poured exactly 8 ounces without spilling a drop into the
glass. Everyone agreed that was pretty good.

Then the three men
turned to the Government Employee and said, 'What can your cat do?' The
Government Employee called his cat and said, 'CoffeeBreak, do your
stuff.'
CoffeeBreak jumped to his feet.......
ate the cookies........
drank the milk.......
pooed on the paper.......
beat up the other three cats.......claimed he injured his back while doing so.......
filed a grievance report for unsafe working conditions.......
put in for Workers Compensation...............and went home for the rest of the day on sick leave!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and that is why the many losers in this country want to work for the government!

Sir Humphrey would be proud.

Winston Missing Style?

Winston Peters is (was?) without doubt one of the best dressed and 'styliest' politicians. So how do we explain this statement, obtained from his Beehive web site?

A Human Government?

It seems we have a new government. (Also Stuff).

Prime Minister elect John Key has announced the formation of a National-led centre-right government.

At a joint press conference with Act leader Rodney Hide today, Mr Key announced he had formally signed up Act's support.

The Maori Party also confirmed today it will sign a deal with National and Mr Key is scheduled to announce a similar deal with United Future later today.

John Key has said that his government will be very focussed very clearly on economic issues. I believe him, and if he delivers on this, then it will be about bloody time. For years, governments have focussed on social legislation and messing with the markets. Where the economy has figured in the legislative programme, it has more often than not resulted in more regulations, additional taxes, complex work-welfare schemes and the like.

John Key is a bit of an unknown quantity. I think it is also fair to say that there are a few experienced but not-exactly-top-drawer people in his government. It is possible to conceive of a government with more talent, and a bit less baggage. Of course, we won't know where the baggage will end up, and it may be out of the room, yet. That said, it seems that Mr Key's leadership qualities are sound.

And when you consider the alternative that was on offer - Labour, Winston First and Environmentalists -  it is clear to me that voters have made the right choice. The alternative was a well-understood government of economically illiterate teachers and unionists, joining for the first time with even more economically clueless environmentalists. I doubt it would have sunk us, but neither would it have resulted in us putting our best foot forward.

The economy is the thing that will stop people leaving our shores in droves. The economy is what pays the wages, the mortgage and the bills. The economy is what pays for the massive health, welfare and education expenditure (80% of the government budget). If the economy grows faster than the rest of the world, we all benefit. If it continues to grow more slowly, we only need to look to Fiji to see our eventual place in the world (Australia's pet country).

So let's hope and trust that this government will focus on people, not the environment. We need a government which tries to help parents to get more out of education, not to close down the private school system. We need to help /drag people out of welfare, not widen the net. We need to worry about actual medical operations performed and results delivered, rather than whether it is a health board, a HFA or a private hospital.

On the economy, environmental issues need to take a back seat. For far too long policy has been driven by environmentalists.

• Running out of electricity or finding it too expensive? Well that's just due to the evil reforms of the 90s. No sorry you can't have a new power station.
• Want to build a new house on the edge of town? No sorry, we need to stop expanding cities - just move into an apartment like a good little family.
• Need a plastic bag for your shopping? No sorry, they are bad for the animals.
• Don't have enough rubbish bags to function in life? Try spending more time with your rubbish to get to know it, and love it. No sorry you can't have any more bags. Try a compost heap.
• Want to mine coal on your land? OK, but only if you spend $50m to dig up all the snails and keep them in a fridge.

The good news is that this government does not include environmentalists, at least officially. I sincerely hope that this will mean a strong focus on humans, and consideration of the environment only in as much as it affects us.

The release is here, and the actual agreement as PDF can also be downloaded.

Sir Roger Douglas

My one concern about the government is the lack of one Sir Roger Douglas. I am sure he is an arrogant bugger, but if you had almost single-handedly brought in the most dramatic and successful economic reforms in living memory, it is forgiveable to have a slightly big head. Sir Douglas has very negative public opinion rating, and I know almost no one who believe (as I do) that he has a lot of offer New Zealand.

But in my view, Sir Douglas is neither captured nor capturable by any particular faction or pressure group, whether union, business, environmental, educational or welfare. He has one of the clearest heads in New Zealand, and is able many times to get to the core of an issue and make a change that sticks.

John Key, in justifying the exclusion of Sir Douglas, says he intends to run a moderate government which keeps faith with the New Zealand public. Here at least, Mr Key has produced a reasonable defence of his actions. The 1984 Labour government was elected with very little idea of what they were to do. Their main benefit was that they were 'not Muldoon'. It was a similar 'change' election to this one, in fact, although National have produced a lot of policy this time. People were shocked at what Labour did.

In Douglas's defence, the Labour government was only acting on advice, and good advice too. When treasury suggested that agricultural and export subsidies and the network of legislation and rules which had built on top of them, were inefficient, Labour abolished the lot. Once told that taxes were too high, they reduced them. When told that most countries had a value-added tax in addition to income taxes, they introduced one, and almost unique in the world, didn't add any exceptions, because that would be 'too complex' (I still remember the bleating about GST on food). Many argue that a National government would never have been so bold, particular when the reforms would hit farmers and businesses hard.

The one thing Labour did not do, which arguably made unemployment worse, was to reform the labour market. This was left to National in 1991. I am not in a position

But just look at the role call of people who hate Sir Roger: Chris Trotter, Jeanette Fitzsimons, Nicky Hager,
John Minto:

This architect of Rogernomics enacted these policies before as minister of finance in the 1984 Fourth Labour Government and they were disastrous.

But still neither National nor Labour is prepared to provide any real break from the free-market economic policies forced on the country by Roger Douglas. Both are still talking so-called free-trade, continuing destruction of New Zealand manufacturing, more user- pays for roads, schools and healthcare. Both parties' proposed tax cuts disproportionately favour the rich.

These people are not the economic stars of our country. They have not brought untold wealth and success to anyone. They are dedicated to old, lost causes which don't matter and miss the point.

For the record Sir Roger does have one or two supporters - people like Roger Kerr, Michael Bassett, the dozens of consulting appointments, and Sir Roger himself.

But given what New Zealand owes him, his reputation stinks. He has a lot to offer, and is not the evil ghoul that he is painted as.

Whoever is doing Sir Roger's PR needs to be terminated.

UPDATE: This cartoon (via The Inquiring Mind) is pretty funny, though.

Someone Still Hates National (Updated)

I have been complaining about how everyone seems to be giving National an absurd honeymoon, and the hypocrisy of fawning over what was the enemy only a week ago. Such is politics, I suppose. It continues today. Just read this (hat tip Kiwiblog) which talks about how great it is that the Maori Party will be in government:

But Key is the key. If he wants a deal for the right reasons it will work.

They could be the authors of a constitutional precedent that will do more for the social wellbeing and national identity of New Zealand than they can yet imagine.

Is this guy looking for jobs in the Beehive, perhaps?

And what about this:

Later this week, Prime Minister-elect John Key and two of his new-minted Cabinet ministers, Murray McCully and Tim Groser, will fly out to the Apec summit in Peru. There, Key plans to draw on his experience as an investment banker in proposing paths out of the global credit crunch.

It reminds me more of a Batman film than real life. I am very pleased that we appear to have a PM who has an understanding of how the world economy works. It could be a real boon. But is this the same paper that seriously reported Dr Cullen's comments that he can't be trusted because he once worked Merril Lynch, which then hit trouble?

But don't worry, all is not lost. Here is a bloke who voted Labour, hates National, and is not doing any fawning at all:

In an angry letter to the network, McGlashan said he had never voted National and "would rather have sex with a very ugly crayfish than let them use my music".

"Of course I am in no way criticising the process of democracy or New Zealanders' right to throw out the best government we've had in years because we happen to be a bit bored, but you might as well know I've never voted National."

If this is the sort of person who doesn't fawn over National, I'll rescind my comments and live with the fawning. What a nutter! At least he still has his sense of humour. I hope that's what it is because the alternative is too awful to contemplate.

Anchor Me, recorded for 1993 album Salty, was used by Greenpeace - with McGlashan's blessing - to mark the 20th anniversary of the 1985 Rainbow Warrior bombing in Auckland Harbour.

Oh well that's ok then. Maybe he is an environmentalist.

UPDATE: Gray Bartlett, one of New Zealand's most successful guitarists, holds forth against this dopey specimen (Hat Tip: Whailoil)

"McGlashan and his insular lefties show their hate for anything other than the crippling Soviet-style music politics of the Labour Party, and especially [former Prime Minister] Helen Clark, who are only interested in building as many leftie socialists as possible through their social welfarism music policies.

I think we should have a stage fight!

Chris Trots Out of the Park (Updated)

I assume that the police have been called. It seems that Chris Trotter has been kidnapped and an imposter is writing in his place. If the police act quickly, a life may still be saved.

As I watched the cavalcade of secondary school pupils receive their
prizes, and heard all around me the happy murmuring of proud parents, a
lifetime's worth of hostility towards these sorts of ceremonies melted
away.

How can a kid raised among the stark, bare walls of a state house
hope to compete with a kid who has grown up with Beethoven and Bach,
Rembrandt and Brueghel?

But as I watched the prizewinners make their way across the stage,
it suddenly hit me that this attitude was both extraordinarily
arrogant, and very, very dangerous.

Who is served by belittling, or condemning, the distinctions
conferred upon these children? Who is served by an ideology that
refuses to recognise that crucial aspect of the human spirit which
refuses to accept the brute statistical reality that many are called
but few are chosen?

Are we socialists, in our drive for an absolute equality of
outcomes, really willing to descend to the level of a certain species
of crab which will, when collected in a bucket, seize and haul back
into the doomed mass any individual that attempts to escape its fate by
climbing out?

Having been so mean about him recently I can't quite believe this is the Chris Trotter from last week. Has he been drinking? Under too much stress? Or just kidnapped as I suggested?

Should John Key's mother be condemned for instilling in her son the
notion that, with lots of hard work and a little luck, he could
transcend his state house roots?

One would hope not.

This is a powerful piece I think, not because of a particularly strong or well-argued case, but because of his effort to see things from another point of view. It is funny that socialism and capitalism sometimes argue that they are trying to achieve the same ends.

Socialism appeals because it seems more in control and more lovely. More in control because the government can just pass laws for things. More lovely because we give lots of money to poor people.

Capitalism loses because it is too random and hard. Random because the market is unpredictable - although people responds to incentives, the government has a lot of trouble working out exactly what the response will be. Hard because of capitalism's brutal customer ethic - if your customers leave, for whatever reason, even you are are a wonderful human being, you starve.

Having said that, most peoples' understanding of both is woeful. Mr Trotter would do us all a favour if he devoted the rest of his life to trying to educate people about socialism and capitalism, and the merits and demerits of each.

On a less serious note, if this sudden love and wonder of National and John Key doesn't stop soon, I'm going to be violently ill in a bucket. Doesn't anyone hate National anymore? Even the environmentalists are scrambling around for an olive branch (hat top Whaleoil).

Next Labour will get on board and we won't have a democracy any more. Where is Her Majesty's loyal opposition? Mr Goff has already apologised for the EFA and a smacking climbdown can't be far off.

UPDATE: Don't worry, the reall Trotter is back. And wow is he back. More barking than ever.

Your people will not easily forgive this turning away, Tariana. When unemployment and homelessness and poverty bite. When the prisons are full of your rangatahi. When National’s true whakapapa stands revealed.

They will curse your name.

Kupapa!

First Goff, now Trotter. Losing the Maori Party must really be hurting Labour.

Doesn't He Look Like the PM?

Some sort of transformation is happening. The John Key that we knew in the election campaign, confident but a bit unwilling to offend, seems to be fading. A new John Key appears to be on top of things, comfortable in control, and effortlessly calling the shots. The news media's honeymoon period appears to have started with a vengeance. Even Duncan Garner, he of the leaked Labour tapes, is speaking in awe-struck tones of decisive and fast-moving government formation.

Labour has chopped off its old head and shoulders and is busy frying them in oil - the media barely notices. They  dutifully report it without much interest, but commentators like Colin Espiner are more interested in talking about the (for now) pointless topic of whether National will have two terms or three.

How much of this is relief, on all sides, that we don't Labour + Environmentalists running the show? Are even the Labour voters looking at this and thinking that a National government might not be a bad thing for a while?

Or is this just the usual honeymoon, with expectations that the attacks will start again in 90 days?

Helen Clark famously had a very long honeymoon. I'm not even sure when it ended. I will be interesting to watch this one, but for now I am just astounded at the positive and uncritical spin the media are putting on National. It really makes a change.

Judith Becomes Nikki

Auckland Central's loss was a pretty sad event for Labour, and Helen Clark. The new MP is Nikki Kaye from National:

Auckland swung strongly towards National in the election, with a 6.9 per cent jump in its share of the party vote to 49.7 per cent - helping it pick up three seats from Labour plus the new seat of Botany.

Ms Kaye reflected the Auckland Central electorate's changing demographic towards a younger, more highly educated crowd.

But it seems that for some on the other side it is a very happy occasion worthy of enormous effort and sacrifice. How else can you explain Whaleoil's latest video? The dialogue is pretty funny!

Judith Tizard will be spending more time with her family.

Worryingly for common sense, Nikki Kaye describes herself as bordering on an environmentalist:

"I know I did win a couple of booths on Waiheke [Island], which is very historic for us," said Ms Kaye, who described herself as "pretty passionate" about the environment.

Of course there is nothing wrong with caring about nature. But when it degenerates into ranting about global warming, peak oil, save the whales, etc. it is dangerous and expensive stuff. Maybe she is keen on trees and fresh air, rather than the nuttier causes.

Let's hope this doesn't mean the government will fill up with environmental types. We have enough of them in the wild.

Mean Deluded Journalists

Am I the only one that finds this comment from one Linda Burgess sad?:

Most bizarre footage of the night was the arrival of our prime
minister-elect at election HQ. For five minutes or so what we got was a
group of The Sopranos – Uncle Junior lookalikes in rumpled suits
looking as if they were doing a deeply uncoordinated square dance.

They shambled slowly forward. Trapped in the middle of them, unsure
when to Do-si Do, was an understandably embarrassed-looking Mr Key –
surely even he knew this was his Obama fantasy taken to ludicrous
extremes.

They certainly didn't look like a family of extroverts who have done it all before. They looked dreadfully normal, a bit like any family you might meet wandering around the neighbourhood. How wonderful.

But the night was Miss Clark's. Here was someone who has been mocked
for being childless, surrounded by her family – her parents, sisters, a
line-up of adoring and exquisite nieces. She looked tired, she knew it
was over, and with total graciousness she told us she was resigning as
leader of the Labour Party.

In terms of facial expressions it was striking how similar the Labour and National background people were.

Helen Clark's speech was anything but gracious. Our group were singularly unimpressed, particularly after Mr Peters had done such a wonderful speech, and particularly with her nasty comment about right wing people undoing all her work. She mentioned Mr Key only once and never said anything nice about him.

For the record, 'gracious' is when you congratulate your opponent, talk a bit about his good side and how he has New Zealand's future at heart just with a different take on it, muse about the future of the country under the new leader, and wish him the very best of luck. Listen to John McCain's speech for a few ideas.

There's a lot we don't know yet. But what we should know is that for the past nine years we have been served by a very fine person indeed. An exceptional prime minister.

Many would agree. In fact, few would disagree with that now that she is gone. Let's give Mr Key a chance though, just for a few weeks. He obviously has some clue, right?

Chris Trots Out the Talking Points

Chris Trotter has his moments. But this piece, an attempt to explain Labour's loss (rather than National's win) is not one of them.

After nine years of left-wing government, New Zealanders by the narrowest of margins have elected a government of the Right.

I think National won seats 2:1 against Labour. Only the list votes saved Labour from deep embarrassment. Under FPP this would have been a landslide and it is about as close to one as possible under MMP. National also won more seats than the left put together. It's hardly a narrow margin.

Because the 2008 election campaign really began the night the 2005
general election ended; the night when New Zealanders courageously
refused to stick to the Right's carefully crafted and lavishly funded
script and returned Helen Clark's government to office.

Now that was a close thing. If South Auckland had run out of chicken on election day, things might have been very different.

In terms of funding, Kiwiblog's analysis suggests that the left funds far more lavishly. Of course this ignores the free manpower that the unions provide.

In the intervening three years, the angry drumming of the Right's multi- faceted campaign has never ceased to assail our ears.

Talkback radio: hard-right from one end of the dial to the other.

Soft right maybe. But people out there simply aren't as left wing as Mr Trotter wants them to be. The class struggle days are over. People care about issues that affect them. Does Mr Trotter want to ban calls who refuse to expound left talking points?

The daily press: partisanship on a scale not seen by New Zealanders in more than 30 years.

Certainly they have railed against the EFA. Most would argue that is their job. But many supported the smacking bill with obedient stories of child abuse, ran Labour's reaction to a National point rather than the National point, and asked the environmentalists for their point of view on just about every article where they might have an opinion. To me the press seems hopelessly compromised towards environmentalism, and to a lesser extent, the left.

Television: dumb and dumber.

Hard to disagree, although I am not the most conscientious TV watcher. But there has been clear left bias there also - witness TV3's role in the secret tapes despite the enormous loss of credibility it has created.

Strangely this seems to have evaporated during the election as National is getting only positive now. Is this the honeymoon?

Right-wing lobby groups: the Sensible Sentencing Trust, Family
First, the Free Speech Coalition quoted, feted and funded as if their
reactionary gobbets of fear and rage were the products of sage and
sober reflection.

Perhaps it is true that the silent majority did start to take an interest in family, sentencing and free speech matters. For this to happen they have to feel highly threatened. There is far too much going on in most peoples' lives to mess around with this sort of thing. Perhaps Labour's sorties in these areas bit a little too deep into the comfortable understanding built up over years of ambivalence.

For example, Brad Shipton, convicted in a pack rape case, was released 3 years into his 8.5 year sentence due to a change in the law that Labour made.

The smacking bill is all I need to say about the family.

The EFA obviously frightened many people enough to get them out on the streets.

Labour's politicians, up on the stage, felt the grinding and the clanking of scene-shifting machinery more acutely than anyone else. It is what led them to make the many strategic and tactical errors that ultimately led to their downfall.

I don't think they ran a bad campaign. Looking at it, it seemed to me that Labour had a very real chance of victory. The fact that the environmentalists and Mr Peters failed on the night was all there was in it.

Mr Key was a formidable opponent, and the actions of government over the last 3 years are not immediately forgotten just because it is election time. A weaker campaigner may have just given up before it started. Miss Clark appeared to work hard and expect victory right up until the final debate, at which point she folded.

The "overspending" in 2005 had to be paid back, essentially requiring the governing party to fund the equivalent of two and a half election campaigns in just three years.

Without the deliberate and dishonest overspending (remember, Labour was advised it was illegal, promised not to spend that money, and then decided that they would anyway) which may have altered the result of the 2005 election, Labour would have had more money. So what?

But it is hard to see that Labour was poor. Billboards everywhere, online ads all over the place (I never saw one for National), a red Labour sticker on the newspapers a day before the election... The signs were of a very well funded campaign.

The Electoral Finance Act, intended to shove a great big spanner in the right-wing works, fell victim to the law of unintended consequences. Denied the opportunity to lobby in the traditional fashion, Labour's enemies were forced to press the one institution which the EFA did not regulate – the news media – into their service.

If that was the EFA's purpose, then Labour deserved to lose for that reason only. You are not supposed to rort the electoral system to screw your opponents.

It was the news media that dubbed Sue Bradford's attempt to confer upon children the same protections against assault and battery that adults enjoy "the anti-smacking bill", faithfully reproducing Family First's public relations talking-points.

And the talking points of about 80% of the population. What a silly, silly bill! How people raise their children is no concern of the state, anyway. This is the same government that argues that what people get up to in their own bedrooms in their own affair. Next the government will be regulating permissible acts there.

More than any other factor, it was this misrepresentation of Ms Bradford's bill as an attack on parents' rights that soured so many of Labour's traditional supporters, especially in its crucial working-class heartland. The drop of eight percentage points in Labour's share of the party vote in Auckland represents a huge victory for a resurgent Christian Right.

Describing this as a misrepresentation states very clearly that Mr Trotter still doesn't get it. It may take years for Labour to understand this issue. Until they do, they will not be back in power. Lots of people have families, not just Christians.

It was the news media, too, which characterised the EFA, Labour's attempt to drive a wedge between wealth and influence, as an attack upon democracy. Poorly drafted, and introduced without bipartisan support, the act proved to be a sitting duck for the shotguns of the Right.

And fair enough too. Although I would point out that it had a lot of criticism from the left also. It was a shoddy and cynical piece of work. For one thing it tried to allow the unions to do what they wanted.

The dark side of the Right's campaign was, of course, the unprecedented political assault upon Winston Peters and NZ First. Brilliantly conceived and ruthlessly executed, the attacks upon Mr Peters removed from the stage the one individual, and the one party, which could have prevented the Right from assuming power. The NZ First leader has paid a heavy price for spurning the advances of Don Brash in 2005.

In Trotter-world, this is no doubt gospel truth. In the real world, Mr Peters was the architect of his own downfall, with lies, misleading statements, dodgy accounts and unwarranted and dishonest attacks on journalists and opponents. Few mourn Mr Peters' passing. If he is honest, neither does Mr Trotter, except for the fact that he might have supported Labour for another term.

The only good thing to come out of it was Mr Peter's concession speech, which was the highlight of the evening, and one that I will remember for a long time. I don't know if he wrote it, or the angels did, but it was brilliant.

Encouraged to see their government as arrogant, high-handed and fatally out of sync with their most cherished moral values, the hundreds of thousands of Labour supporters who simply stayed home on Saturday have also paid a heavy price.

We will see. Whether it will top the $250 a week price of Labour's increased government spending remains to be seen. I think it is unlikely. National will probably be a much cheaper government.

In Helen Clark they have lost the most accomplished political player of her generation. Returned in an election in which just 77 per cent of enrolled voters cast a ballot, National takes the stage on the second-lowest turnout in a century.

At last a point I can agree with. This election was not particularly inspiring. Labour had 'trained' its opponents to agree with everything it said, or face nasty press headlines. Mr Key did exactly that, swallowing all the dead rats, and then, confounding the left, producing a few dead rats of his own and swallowing them also. Labour purchased a dud railway for way over valuation - National promised to keep it. Labour brought in middle class welfare - National expands it with unemployment insurance.

It started to look like Mr Key would swallow any rat. Labour had to stop producing rats and think of another idea. This is quite different from last election, where Don Brash choked on the rats and ended the meal.

Looking at the show from the electorate, it is not surprising that people were not impressed. While many voted for National in the end, it was really 'change' they were voting for, just sick of the same face on the TV each night. Without the EFA and smacking, perhaps Labour could have survived that for another term, particularly with Mr Peters in tow. But with the EFA and smacking, people wondered whatever next - crappy showers maybe - and bailed.

Mr Trotter shows a remarkable lack of understanding about the reasons for National's victory. National's billboards weren't great, their messages were simple but not particularly polished, and frankly boring. They did little or no online ads. It could simply be that National won because the voters wanted a National government. Stranger things have happened.

Being out of the country for the 90s I haven't seen a National government since i was a kid. I still remember old Muldoon. I hope this next few years is going to be interesting.

Mr Trotter needs o cheer up and join a yoga class.

UPDATE: Well he has quit. Read the comments here.

Why Labour Lost?

The Dim Post has a great analysis of the reasons behind Labour's election rout. Harsh, but fair, as the Aussies might say. It's quite short so be sure to read it. To quote a few lines:

Congratulations to the Green Party for their improved result, and special congratulations to Sue Bradford; her bill closing the Section 59 loophole in the crimes act was the other key ingredient in making the evening what it was. Your hard work in pushing through trophy legislation in the face of overwhelming public opposition has helped put Judith Collins (or some facsimile thereof) in charge of the New Zealand welfare system. I hope you think it was worth it.

Ouch.

And congratulations to all those who promoted and supported the Electoral Finance Act; I trust you are thrilled with the outcome of the election and that you will enjoy the process of watching the National Party write their own electoral laws in the same spirit of spiteful hyper-partisan vengeance with which Labour passed the EFA. I’m sure new ACT MP John Boscowan will be delighted to help them out and that he’ll also take a very keen interest in gutting the MMP electoral system while he’s at it.

The only march I have ever gone on in my life. Who would have thought Mr Boscowan would end up in parliament over that?

I suppose a general point is that when you think you are the natural party of government, and cannot lose, there are no restraints on the silly legislation you will pass. Some might call this dangerous extremism, but for others it is fact the natural centering effect of democracy, when they get tossed out.

Election Thoughts

Well that was a night, wasn't it. We had a little do with a few people. We also had a list of party cocktails to be drunk when that party did well. The favourite drinks were Maori (Toblerone) and Act (Dancing Angel). The environmentalist drink (Prohibition) was mostly tipped down the sink - recycled, you might say. By the time it was National's turn, as Mr Key gave his wooden but nice victory speech, no one could face another cocktail - champagne instead, Labour supporters included. We never got to drink the 'Helengrad', unlike last time. Miss Clark's speech was not gracious, despite John Campbell's views on the matter.

The question all night was how far National's vote would fall, but in the end it didn't fall enough to grant Labour another term. Winston getting almost enough to be back, but not quite, was a sad result for the Labour First axis.

The strange thing about MMP is how it accentuates the extremes. For example, environmentalists seem to have a lot of control in the last term, with the ETS, the smacking bill, the coal fire power station ban, more DOC land purcchase, etc. Yet they had only 5% of the vote in 2005.

This time, had voters given National just another few percent, they would have been able to govern alone and might have had a very centre government. (Oddly, commentators on the left painted this as a more scary prospect that coalition with others). Instead, National needs Act to govern and you can be sure that Act will want paying. Act's less-than-4% support will likely see the ETS watered down, some crime sentencing changes and maybe even repeal of the 39% tax rate.

In terms of tail wagging the dog, MMP has a lot to answer for. Act is of course very happy.

But for me, I am very relieved about two things. Firstly that the environmentalists did not get to form a government with Labour. In my view this would have sent New Zealand even further into the environmentalist dead end, of banning all forms of energy, production and exploitation, ultimately resulting in no power, goods or jobs.

Secondly, I am relieved that the environmentalists did not get the 10% hoped for. A figure of 6.5% is far too high and surely reflects the fact that voters have not spent enough time reading policies and engaging their critical thinking facilities. But it could have been a lot higher, and in fact even Winston Peters got 5% last time. It seems that a well organised contender can get 5% just for showing up. In that respect, the environmentalists have been kept in check.

The reasons for that are not clear to me. Some say that the environmentalist vote doesn't often present on election day. Perhaps soccer mums drive around in their tanks and dream of voting for environmentalists to assuage their enviro-guilt, but in the cold light of the polling booth think better of it.

Perhaps voters can see through the deep dishonesty of a campaign based around images of children, by a party which seeks, not to put to fine a point on it, to wipe them out. Our little group groaned every time Jeanette Fitzsimons mentioned children in her speech last night. That was a surprising number of groans. Sadly Mrs Fitzsimons' remarks are not on the web site.

Those who claim that environmentalists are hamstrung by their dedication to left wing politics are missing the point. It is not possible to be a right wing environmentalists, or at least not a very good one. Environmentalism requires state intervention, global government, tight limits on the contest of ideas, a focus on procedure rather than people, massive regulation and rule by a small elite. If that sounds a lot like communism then it is no accident. Environmentalism is a left wing game. National's Nicky Wagner take note.

Overall, the election is a good result. Not just because there is a change of direction (but to where?), but because it is a clear result. Early in the evening we discussed how many weeks it would be before we knew the result of the election. While the detail is sketchy, the good news it that the bones of the government were set in place by 11pm on election night.

For MMP at least, this was a good result.

Good Luck President Obama!

If it wasn't clear before today, it seems clear now that Barack Obama is the next president of the USA. This is going to be very interesting for a number of reasons.

Firstly, those who claim to not be anti-American, but only anti-Bush, have now lost their cover. It will be interesting to discover the truth of this. We will see in the next year or two how the attitude of New Zealanders changes with respect to the US. I have found the anti-Americanism pretty hard to take at times.

Secondly, those who claim that America is racist have also lost their cover. A country which believed that blacks are inferior in some way would not elect one as its president.

Thirdly, the democrats now have control over all three branches of government. The fiasco of the past 2 years, where Democrats were unable to get any of their proposed agenda through into law could possibly be blamed on President Bush, although he vetoed very little. That cover is gone and it will be interesting to see the result.

Fourthly, in Europe, Obama was clearly the favourite candidate, perhaps by a margin of 4:1. Therefore we can expect an opening up of Europe to the USA. To some extent this has already happened in France and Germany, but we can expect Spain and the northern countries to come to the party also.

Finally, given that Obama was endorsed by Hamas, supposedly bin Laden, Iran and many other enemies of America, we can hope for an end to terrorism and a new era of peace.

OK so the last one may be a bit much to hope for, cynic that I am. But even terrorists might keep their word. An attack on the US during Obama's presidency would be a massive betrayal and not be good for the terrorists.

All in all this is a very interesting and promising result. No one can predict the future, but it seems clear that in 2012 his presidency will be judged either as just the tonic the world needed, or a massive disappointment.

Given Mr Obama's obvious abilities, I hope and trust that he will make good on his promises, and that the US and world will be the better for it. Even his ability to communicate must count for a lot, as Ronald Regan showed.

Good luck President Obama.

Obama: Will the USA Go Down the Loo?

An interesting article from Real Clear Politics, which I will quote a bit:

After the big gamble on subprime mortgages that led to the current financial crisis, is there going to be an even bigger gamble, by putting the fate of a nation in the hands of a man whose only qualifications are ego and mouth?

Barack Obama has the kind of cocksure confidence that can only be achieved by not achieving anything else.

...

Flashing his special phony smile, Biden said, "I think I have a much higher IQ than you do." He added, "I went to law school on a full academic scholarship" and "ended up in the top half" of the class.

But Biden did not have a full academic scholarship. Newsweek reported: "He went on a half scholarship based on need. He didn't finish in the 'top half' of his class. He was 76th out of 85."

Biden sounds a bit like Al Gore. No doubt he will finish up in environmentalism and tour the world doing speeches about global cooling in a few years.

If the USA is to have a black president, then this is presumably the time to do it. it will certainly shut up those who claim that the USA is racist. It isn't. But there are lots of dodgy things about Mr Obama, the people he associates with and the views he appears to hold. Let's hope that he has great advisers and is as good a listener as he is a talker.

Add to Obama and Biden House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and you have all the ingredients for a historic meltdown.

Let's hope not. I thought we had that already.

Hat tip: Power line

NZ First Billboard

Whailoil has been in the billboard designing business also - here's one from Winston:

Environmentalists Turn Down National

The Environmentalists have decided that National is not for them. This will be a huge boost for National. It may even sway my vote.

Greens co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons said "on the whole" National's policies would take New Zealand in the wrong direction.

This from the people who have banned power stations, intruded on child discipline, want to ban decent showers and now want to tell us how many children we can have. Given this record, I think we can safely say that National policies would in fact be the right direction.

National leader John Key said this afternoon that the Greens in government meant environmental policies over economic.

I think that's the definition of an environmentalist - environment is more important than anything.

John Key the Anti-Christ

Wow it is amazing the level of bile that is directed at Mr Key. For someone the critics call bland and inoffensive...

...he seems to get a lot of attention from Labour.

Just look at the headlines on Labour's blog, just in the last few days! It is clear that Labour really hates John Key.

• Questions over Key’s handling of Tranzrail
• Diversion tactics
• Did you pay the tax, John?
• John’s lying eyes
• John Key on honesty
• Who’s sorry now?
• Can he look himself in the mirror?
• Hand in the till

It's pretty amazing to read. It isn't the first time I've exhorted readers to head to The Standard for a good time. Keep it up.

Labour Burns

I noticed this a few days ago, but Whale Oil has saved me taking a picture.

I probably agree that Labour hasn't been the ideal experience for the country, although it isn't clear what the alternatives were. But I wouldn't describe it as a burning sensation. More drowning.

I happen to be in Mr Burns' electorate. I think he would be better representing Burwood, where Labour's burns can be effectively treated.

Helen Clark and Photoshop (2)

As I may have mentioned earlier, Helen Clark is pretty keen on Photoshop. Someone has taken the trouble to complain to the ASA about the latest one:

A disgruntled voter has complained to the Advertising Standards
Authority about a Labour Party flyer, saying the photo makes the Prime
Minister look too young and glamorous.

Greg Fletcher, of Auckland, said photos of Helen Clark used on leaflets and billboards were outdated and should be replaced.

But his claim failed at the first hurdle when the ASA ruled the photos did not break advertising codes.

The Herald has taken the trouble to crop and select a photo with roughly the same point of view. So it is certainly hard to argue that the two photos were taken in the same decade. Either that or the 'soft light' mentioned by her photographer is a euphemism for a digital Photoshop lens.

The Sarah Palin Show

So it seems at the moment. The woman is some sort of answer to the Obama phenomenon. Did you know that North Alaska is sunny half the year and dark half the year because Sarah Palin needed the reading light, then wanted a nap? (see the end for more!)

Stories abound about Sarah Palin. Her electrifying performance at the Republican National Convention was watched by perhaps a record number of people in the US - 37 million, almost as many as Barack Obama.

Time Magazine attempts a look at what makes her tick.

Everyone can agree that Palin is no Beltway creature, but in less than a week, the country has uncovered at least half a dozen new Palin personas that are competing to share top billing on her Wikipedia entry. She's a beauty queen turned sportscaster turned governor. An anticorruption crusader in an oil-soaked, scandal-racked state capital. A caribou hunter who also showcases her femininity in fashion shoots. An Evangelical with very sharp elbows and worldly ambitions.

The Economist weighed in last week with The maverick and the hockey mom. I love the first bit:

BEFORE Barack Obama’s big open-air speech in Denver last week, some
Christian conservatives prayed for rain. That was in poor taste. But
this is a competitive election, and anything the right can do, the left
can do better. When the news came that a hurricane might strike New
Orleans during the Republican convention in St Paul, Minnesota this
week, Michael Moore, a film-maker, said it was “proof that there is a
God in heaven”.

and this:

Since voters say they care most about energy, and since she governs
an oil state, she spoke about it at length. She scoffed at Democrats
who oppose drilling for oil on the ground that it won’t solve all
America’s energy problems—“as if we didn’t know that already”—and
promised to promote nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal energy and clean
coal, too. The crowd chanted “Drill, baby, drill!”

An interview with Todd Palin (husband) seems ridiculously casual to me, but the down-to-earth ordinary bloke plays well. The interviewer is actually pretty capable in the way she asks the questions seemingly off the cuff. Worth a watch if you want to understand them better.

Todd knew he would marry he one day from soon after they first met. Not the ugliest girl in the class! She was Miss Wasilla 1984:

John McCain has varied his speech quite a bit since:

The old sections have just been condensed, so that McCain
spends just a few sentences each on a standard set of topics:
out-of-control spending that has "got to stop"; veterans as a "company
of heroes" that he will never let down; the need to produce more energy
domestically and "stop sending $700 billion overseas to countries that
don't like us very much"; reforming the common congressional practice
of "earmarking" federal money for special projects; today's "tough
times" for many families; and his pledge to "keep this nation safe"
from Russian aggression, Iran's nuclear ambitions and other threats.

McCain is a lot heavier on empathy than solutions, though. He
spends nearly all his time defining problems, and very little time
giving detail on how he would fix them.

Various races in the US are tightening up in McCains favour, now that Palin is on-board, although it seems far to early to say if this is a trend.

The press seems to be having a field day with negative commentary . The New York Times could be expected to be upset that someone might interfere with their chosen candidate, but the scale of their bitterness is frightening:

If he seriously thought this first-term governor — with less than two
years in office — was qualified to be president, if necessary, at such
a dangerous time, it raises profound questions about his judgment. If
the choice was, as we suspect, a tactical move, then it was shockingly
irresponsible.

But that is not what troubled us most about her remarks —
and, remember, if they were scripted, that just means that they reflect
Mr. McCain’s views all the more closely. Rather, it was the sense that
thoughtfulness, knowledge and experience are handicaps for a president
in a world populated by Al Qaeda terrorists, a rising China, epidemics
of AIDS, poverty and fratricidal war in the developing world and deep
economic distress at home.

In a dangerous world, Americans need a president who knows that real strength requires serious thought and preparation.

And this comment could easily refer to Mr Obama, who is actually running for President rather than the second job.

The interviews made clear why Americans should worry about
Ms. Palin’s thin résumé and lack of experience. Consider her
befuddlement when Mr. Gibson referred to President Bush’s “doctrine”
and her remark about having insight into Russia because she can see it
from her state.

We should also remember that Al Gore, who is no rocket scientist, was VP for 8 years and apparently did a good job (I don't recall hearing huge complaints). Surely all sides can agree that Clinton was and is a very capable bloke, despite his flaws. Gore is no Clinton, and didn't need to be. But Palin seems more grounded and perhaps actually more effective than Gore. The Times is on thin ice with this sort of nasty and picky editorial.

More generally, supporters of McCain / Palin complain that Mr Obama gets better treatment in interviews. This comment is doing the rounds:

First, Obama:

How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
How does it feel to “win”?
How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling?
Who will be your VP?
Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?
Will you accept public finance?
What issues is your campaign about?
Will you visit Iraq?
Will you debate McCain at a town hall?
What did you think of your competitor’s [Clinton] speech?

Now Palin:

Do you have enough qualifications for the job you’re seeking? Specifically have you visited foreign countries and met foreign leaders?
Aren’t you conceited to be seeking this high level job?
Questions about foreign policy
-territorial integrity of Georgia
-allowing Georgia and Ukraine to be members of NATO
-NATO treaty
-Iranian nuclear threat
-what to do if Israel attacks Iran
-Al Qaeda motivations
-the Bush Doctrine
-attacking terrorists harbored by Pakistan
Is America fighting a holy war? [misquoted Palin]

So Obama gets “how does it feel to win” and “what did you think of Hillary’s speech.” Palin gets questions about the territorial integrity of Georgia.

Perhaps the shock of having an idiot from Alaska (of all places) take the country by storm, is forcing the papers to do their best to shoot Mrs Palin down. Some think (hope?) she has peaked such as this senior adviser to the Gore 2000 Presidential Campaign, who writes:

Frum thinks McCain has found a path to the White House.
I think McCain and Palin have peaked. The debates are coming—where
their camouflage will be stripped away. Recession, McCain’s echo of the
Bush-Cheney policies, his admitted ignorance of economics, his
indifference to 47 million Americans without health insurance and his
bellicose unilateralism will all come home to roost. Palin will remain
interesting, but become increasingly irrelevant—unless she memorably
reveals her vacuity. If Obama does his part—and he will—the voters will
figure things out.

Others (such as this presumably McCain-supporting journalist) blame Mr Obama:

Now, facing John McCain's blistering ads, Obama seems unable to
fight fire with fire. The Democratic rank and file are furious (while
simultaneously denouncing McCain's negativity).

Obama, they may be realizing, doesn't know how to close the deal.

Nonetheless,
the Obama campaign has vowed, once again, to take the gloves off and go
after McCain hard, linking him to President Bush and highlighting the
fact that the Arizona senator is out of touch.

One flaw with
this supposed course correction is that it isn't one.
McCain-Bush-Economy has been Obama's message for months now. Indeed,
ABC News' Jake Tapper wrote on his blog that this is actually the
fourth time Team Obama has pledged to engage in a bracing round of
fisticuffs.

He quotes from a recent ad, which has not exactly hit the mark:

"He admits he still doesn't know how to use a computer, can't send an
e-mail, still doesn't understand the economy and favors $200 billion in
new tax cuts for corporations, but almost nothing for the middle
class." All the while it shows ancient computers and a cordless phone
that looks like a World War II-era walkie-talkie.

What's new is the charge of computer illiteracy and the blatant attempt
to attack McCain as too old for the job -- and that speaks volumes.

First, the ad is dishonest. McCain has been one of the Senate's leading authorities on telecom and the Internet.

In
2000, Forbes magazine called him the "Senate's savviest technologist."
That same year, Slate's Jacob Weisberg gushed that McCain was the most
"cybersavvy" of all the presidential candidates that year, a crop that
included none other than Al Gore.

Oh dear oh dear.

One reason McCain is not versed in the mechanical details of sending
e-mail and typing on a keyboard is that the North Vietnamese broke his
fingers and shattered both of his arms. As Forbes, Slate and the Boston
Globe reported in 2000, McCain's injuries make using a keyboard
painfully laborious. He mostly relies on his wife and staff to show him
e-mails and websites, though he says he's getting up to speed.

"It's extraordinary," Obama spokesman Dan Pfeiffer said, "that someone
who wants to be our president and our commander in chief doesn't know
how to send an e-mail." For the record, President Clinton sent exactly
two e-mails while in office, according to the archives in his
presidential library.

What does Mr Obama think about all of this? Well apparently he didn't call her a pig. Actually he seems quite kind. And:

Well, I — I don't know Gov. Palin. I have not met her before. I had a
brief conversation with her — after she was selected to congratulate
her and — and wish her luck. But, not too much luck on the campaign
trial. And — she seems to have a compelling life story. Obviously,
she's — a fine — mother and — up-and-coming public servant.

So, it — it's too early for me to gauge — what kind of running mate
she'll be. My sense is that she subscribes to John McCain's agenda. And
ultimately, this is going to be about where I want to take the country
and where Joe Biden wants to take the country, and where John McCain
and his running mate want to take the country.

Finally, for a bit of light relief:

And I'm sorry this post is so long, it's a topic I've been collecting for for a while, and haven't got around to posting!

McCain Wins Another Endorsement He Doesn't Need

Power Line reports that Mr McCain has an endorsement from...Vietnam.

Among a handful of interviewed former Hoa Lo personnel, only retired Col. Pham Cong Khoi, who served as a cell guard responsible for Sen. McCain, offered a reluctant admission that the "Hanoi Hilton" was not quite the paradise it's made out to be.

"I personally did not beat anyone," he said when asked about Sen. McCain's accounts of frequent thrashings. "But it is very normal that something like this happens in prison, when you question someone and they don't want to answer you." Minutes later, Mr. Khoi returned to toeing the party line. "We saved McCain's life and treated him well," he insisted with a broad smile. "And in return we think McCain will do something good for Vietnam."

A little bit sick, and truly bizarre.