New Fisk
Tuesday, November 11, 2003
Another step down the slippery slope, part V
Nigeal Kearney says it much better than I did:
What is the difference between the state punishing speech that it disagrees with, and the state forcibly taking people's money and using that money to subsidise speech that it supports? I would suggest there's not that much difference. One is a punishment for undesired behaviour and the other is a reward for desired behaviour. The effect is largely the same.Therefore, a government that funds universities and respects freedom of speech, ought not to make funding conditional on viewpoint in any way. The system of life tenure in the U.S. works pretty well. An illustration of this is the way that tenured faculty members blog under their real name, while untenured faculty (especially the right-leaning ones) use pseudonyms.
Is there anything I can add beyond a "me too"?
Why Running Blog Capitalist is whack
Why don't I find Running Blog Capitalist's position on selectively withdrawing State funding from universities on political grounds compelling? Consider these premises (expressed by RBC in his posts on the subject):
1: The State has the same absolute property rights as an individual. It can fund things or assign benefits however it sees fit, and selectively withdraw that funding or benefit for any arbitrary reason whatsoever.
2: Withdrawing a benefit is not an "imposition" or a "penalty", and is not an attack on the former recipients freedom.
You can get to some very interesting conclusions from these premises. For example, the State provides an important benefit to all its citizens: the roads. However, according to RBC, it can selectively withdraw that benefit from whomever it chooses for any reason whatsoever. So for example, if it didn't like RBC, it could withdraw his right to use the roads. This would leave him confined to his own property, unless he had a helicopter or was able to persuade his neighbours to let him wander through their backyards.
This is a nightmarish scenario, but according to RBC's own premises, it's not any sort of attack on his freedom of movement. To paraphrase, he's still free to go whereever he wants - just not on the State's roads...
Another step down the slippery slope, part IV
Running Blog Capitalist has moved on from actually addressing my points, and is now raving about how the government is stealing his TV and shouldn't be funding universities anyway. That's all very well, but as NZPols so nicely points out in the comments, the problem is that they do - and we therefore need to have some way of ensuring that they do it properly.
Needless to say, I think RBC's answer that they can do it however the hell they want, and that this is no infringement on freedom, is inadequate. I'm also not so sure about NZPol's suggestions that funding be assigned explicitly according to political viewpoint. While I agree that there's nothing inherently wrong with doing so (provided it is done in a fair and equitable manner), it is I think missing the point a bit. We publicly fund election advertising in NZ in this manner because politics is the point of the exercise. But I don't think producing political views is the point of universities. While academics have a traditional duty to be a "critic and conscience of society", it's not what the job is primarily about. I think its far better to allocate funding for teaching and research, tell people "go off and be a critic and conscience of society" and leave them to their own devices. The rest is (memetic) evolution in action...
(Oh, but I do find the idea of conservatives - usually vocal opponents of affirmative action - demanding such action so that their own views have academic respectability to be highly amusing...)
It's official
"McJob: low paying and dead-end work." That's according to the latest edition of the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. And boy, McDonalds is pissed...
Monday, November 10, 2003
Some States to Drop Presidential Primaries
Yes, you read that right - the World's Greatest DemocracyTM is cancelling elections. The purported reason is because of cost (!), but strangely it's only Republican-controlled states who are doing it. The real reason seems to be an attempt to deny media coverage to democratic candidates or to Republican primary candidates who may criticise Bush.
I've always felt that the US primary system was silly (yeah, each party has an election before the election to determine their candidates), but that's the way they've chosen to do things, and they shouldn't be changing the rules in the middle of the game in an effort to benefit one side or the other.
Expectations
NZPols responds to my slagging off Labour's meanness on annual leave by pointing out that this shift to the center is what is keeping Labour in power, and that "ideological purity is a waste of time if you don't have your hands on the purse strings". I agree with that, but at the same time I also feel that there's very little point in holding power if you have to sell out so completely that you're not going to do anything useful with it.
The political choice at the moment seems to be between a "center-right" coalition which will rapidly make things worse, and a "center-left" coalition which won't, but won't really make them any better either. Yes, Labour has done some good things while in office - increased the minimum wage, reintroduced income-related rents for state houses - but they haven't done enough. They haven't rebuilt the government services that were gutted by underfunding, restored the welfare state to pre-Richardson levels, reintroduced a universal student allowance, addressed the problems of an increasingly casualised workforce, or done anything significant about student loan debt. Instead, they've run up enormous surpluses in an attempt to please the business community (and been far stricter on spending than National would have been, I suspect).
(One area where they have delivered is on social policy - they were too chickenshit to take a public position on decriminalising prostitution, but worked behind the scenes to make it happen. And I am pleased with their moves to put gay and defacto couples on the same legal footing as traditional married ones. But then, this doesn't cost the government any money...)
I have no doubt that things are better than they would be under National, but they're not better enough, and Labour seems to lack the will to make them so. Unfortunately my only real option to move a future Labour government in the desired direction is to vote for the Greens, and they have some unpalatable policies in other areas...
Blaming the US
In the same post referenced below, Running Blog Capitalist expresses amazement that I can blame America when Syria tortures a Canadian. It's only amazing if you ignore the fact that the United States deported him there. They deliberately chose to send him to a shitty despotism he hadn't seen for 16 years, rather than the country he actually lived in. I'd say that that gives them a certain amount of moral responsability.
Another step down the slippery slope, part III
Running Blog Capitalist is still trying to deny that the US government's plans to cut funding to universities that question administration foreign policy is any sort of attack on academic freedom or freedom of speech. His justification?
Withdrawing a benefit is not an "imposition" or a "penalty"
At some stage you just have to cry "bollocks" and be done with it. Withdrawing a benefit is a penalty, if it's done in an attempt to influence behaviour. And that's exactly why the authors of this bill are doing it - to pressure academics into refraining from publicly disagreeing with the administration. You'd think the old libertarian meme about coercion would be kicking in around here, but RBC seems to think that only applies if you shoot people and throw their bodies in a ditch.
If this was a case of a private donor withdrawing funding, then there would be no issue; an individual can fund only those who politically agree with them, and it would be an infringement on their rights to deny it. But the State is not an individual - it belongs to all its citizens. This means that it must act in a neutral and impartial manner. It must not discriminate on the basis of belief in the benefits it assigns, and it cannot apply political content tests to recipients of government funding. Its expectations in funding academic institutions can only be in terms of measures such as papers published, research done, or students graduated. Private donors can expect political agreement in exchange for funding, but the State (or rather, the government of the day) cannot.
Sunday, November 09, 2003
Jam tomorrow
The government has agreed to give workers four weeks annual leave - but not until 2007.
I'm less than happy with the way they've handled this. Once upon a time basic working conditions were a core Labour party issue, but their entire attitude to this has been to wish that it just went away. And then when people refused to shut up and kept pressing it, to deny it to as many people as possible, and put it off until the far, far future. Sure, you need some leadtime to let employers psychologically prepare, but three and a half years?
This is a perfect example of the problem with the Labour party at the moment - that they are now more interested in cosying up to the business community than in standing up for their traditional ideals. And when they do do something that benefits ordinary people, it's done so grudingly you get the impression that their heart just isn't in it. While they haven't sold out as much as Tony Blair, they're well on the way...
Contracts Go to Allies of Iraq's Chalabi
I guess Cheney isn't the only one into crony capitalism...
Saturday, November 08, 2003
Abandoning Democracy
Via Daily Kos: The White House is limiting congressional questions from Democrats. This is akin to our government preventing opposition MPs from asking questions of it at Question Time.
The ability of elected representatives to demand answers from the executive is an essential part of the democratic process, and its a sad testament to the current state of affairs in the US that that once-great democracy is moving away from it.
Graphing the NZ blogosphere
The Political Compass test seems to be doing the rounds again, and Tim Lambert's nifty graph of where various blogs stand has inspired me to do a similar one for New Zealand bloggers.
Or, in case you want the actual numbers (from right to left):
| Blog | Right / Left | Authoritarian / Libertarian |
| David Farrar | 10.0 | -6.15 |
| Darkness | 8.25 | -2.92 |
| Running Blog Capitalist | 7.00 | -2.77 |
| Syringe | 7.00 | -5.38 |
| NZPundit | 6.38 | 0.26 |
| Michael Green | 5.88 | -4.72 |
| The Whig | 5.00 | -1.79 |
| KiwiPundit | 3.12 | -4.15 |
| Malach | 3.12 | -4.51 |
| Gryfon | 2.88 | -5.33 |
| Cuba St Geek | 0.75 | -3.69 |
| This Chick | 0.62 | -3.33 |
| NZPols | 0.5 | -4.10 |
| Gareth Robinson | 0.38 | -1.28 |
| Damian Christie | 0.38 | -3.85 |
| The Holden Republic | 0.00 | -3.69 |
| The Sock Thief | -0.38 | -3.13 |
| David Zanetti | -1.25 | -5.03 |
| ObservatioNZ | -1.38 | -7.74 |
| GeniusNZ | -2.12 | 0.72 |
| Big News | -2.38 | -2.26 |
| Half Pie | -3.38 | -5.85 |
| Che Tibby | -3.50 | -5.44 |
| Joe Mahoney | -3.75 | -4.31 |
| David Slack | -4.00 | -4.92 |
| Tristan | -4.12 | -5.79 |
| Steve | -4.5 | -2.41 |
| NoiZyBlog | -4.5 | -4.0 |
| Russell Brown | -4.62 | -4.62 |
| Hans | -4.75 | -5.23 |
| The Backyard | -5.38 | -4.51 |
| Philosophy, etc | -5.38 | -5.74 |
| The Grey Shade | -5.62 | -7.28 |
| No Right Turn | -5.75 | -7.49 |
| Justin Moore | -6.4 | -4.51 |
| Leto | -7.12 | -5.74 |
| Matt Nippert | -7.25 | -6.56 |
| Greg Stephens | -7.38 | -6.72 |
| First Against the Wall | -8.12 | -6.46 |
| Matthew Walker | -8.12 | -7.69 |
| Span | -8.75 | -8.26 |
| Just Left | -8.75 | -8.36 |
| Asher | -8.88 | -8.62 |
| Bad Politics | -9.00 | -8.72 |
I'll add more data as it comes in.
Update: I've added Michael Green to the graph, though he mostly seems to blog about cameras rather than politics.
Update 2 (9/11/03): I've also added DPF, who overtakes Darkness as New Zealand's most right-wing blog.
Update 3: Mea culpa Yes, the chart was originally labelled "Authoritarian / Libertarian". I changed it to "Authoritarian / Liberal" on the basis of a feeling that I'd gotten it wrong. Obviously I should have checked first and made sure of it, and it has now been changed back to "Libertarian". Mea cupla, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. The graph will change when I next update and upload it.
Update 4 (11/11/03): Added Russell Brown, Damian Christie, and Leto. I'm no longer alone in my own little corner!
Update 5 (11/11/03): Added Cuba St Geek, The Sock Thief, Joe Mahoney, and NoiZyBlog.
Update 6 (13/11/03): Added Half Pie, This Chick, and Malach (who used to run NewsBox).
Update 7 (13/11/03): Corrected This Chick's rating to her current views, not her past ones. Also, she points out that there is another political test at http://politics.beasts.org/.
Update 8 (14/11/03): Added David Zanetti and Justin Moore.
Update 9 (15/11/03): Added Gryfon.
Update 10 (16/11/03): Corrected Gryfon's results and spelled his nym correctly.
Update 11 (23/11/03): Added Matthew Walker.
Update 12 (01/01/04): Added Bad Politics.
Update 13 (24/05/04): Added Steve and Just Left.
Update 14 (04/06/04): Added Syringe, David Slack and Matt Nippert.
Update 15 (24/10/04): Added The Whig, Holden Republic, Hans, The Backyard, Span, and Asher.
Update 16 (26/10/04): Added GeniusNZ (the first in the top left quadrant), Big News, Che Tibby, Philosophy, et cetera, The Grey Shade, and First Against the Wall, and fixed a few typos in the table.
Update 17 (09/01/05): Added Gareth Robinson, ObservatioNZ, Tristan and Greg Stephens
Friday, November 07, 2003
We Hate America
According to a poll by the NBR, that is:
Two years ago most New Zealanders said they felt positively about the US (54%) but when asked that question now only 29% of people said they felt positively about the US, down 25 points.[...]
...the number of those who had a negative perception of the US was only marginally less than those who disliked Russia.
This is Bush's legacy: turning a country that was once universally looked up to into an international pariah.
Kim Hill vs the Ambassador
Amusing show last night when Kim Hill interviewed US Ambassador Charles Swindells. She gave him a damn good bollocking - at one stage I thought she was deliberately trying to goad him into walking out - but somehow it didn't seem like it was enough. She didn't really press things home hard enough, didn't ask him where he got off on lecturing a democratic nation on our overwhelmingly popular anti-nuclear policy (or whether that was interfering in our internal politics), and she didn't question him about the Bruce Hubbard email at all.
Highlights: Swindells' floundering when asked "where are the WMD", trying desperately to spin the NBR poll about NZer's attitudes to America, and saying that the Senate's passing of the $87 billion package for Iraq showed the depth of their support for the president. Yeah, that's why they passed it on a voice vote...
Another step down the slippery slope, part II
Running Blog Capitalist accuses me of being a "fair-weather socialist" for objecting to the US government's attack on academic freedom. For some reason he conflates government funding with government control, but the real clanger is his claim that "this isn't an attack on any kind of freedom". Come off it! It's an explicit attempt to impose financial penalties on institutions that fail to toe the administration's line. If that isn't an attack on the freedom of speech of academics, then what is?
In a democratic society, government funding of academic institutions should not be subject to content-based tests. Private individuals can apply such tests, but the State cannot.
Thanks to America
A Canadian citizen who was deported to Syria while passing through the US has described his ordeal and reports that he was tortured while in Syrian custody.
"Atheist values"
The Independent has Q & A session with Philip Pullman. Among the questions was this one:
You famously criticised CS Lewis for incorporating Christian values into his books for children, and yet you do the same with atheism in your books. Isn't this a double standard?
Atheist values in His Dark Materials? Well, I guess it all depends on what you call Atheism. While God, angels and fallen angels all unquestionably exist in the books, the values are overwhelmingly humanist; it's all about us. Whether you think that this is atheism will obviously depend on which particular brand of Christianity you subscribe to, but there's no necessary incompatibility between the two, as any C14th Italian will attest.
