cbmilne33's blog

Google is making a huge and annoying mistake. - WWdN: In Exile

Google is making a huge and annoying mistake. - WWdN: In Exile.

Democracy Now! | EXCLUSIVE...9/11 Debate: Loose Change Filmmakers vs. Popular Mechanics Editors of "Debunking 9/11 Myths"

AMY GOODMAN: As we take on the issue of what happened on September 11th, 2001, our guests are Dylan Avery, writer and director of Loose Change; Jason Bermas, researcher for the film; James Meigs is also with us, editor-in-chief of Popular Mechanics; and David Dunbar, executive editor of Popular Mechanics, who led the editorial team that produced the book, Debunking 9/11 Myths. Jim Meigs, you’re the editor-in-chief of Popular Mechanics; your response to this excerpt of Loose Change about what happened in Shanksville?

via jdeanicite.typepad.com

North Korea Party Rock Anthem feat. Kim Jong Il

North Korea Party Rock Anthem ft. Kim Jong Il - YouTube

'Ain't no party like a Pyongyang party, 'cause a Pyongyang party is ABSOLUTELY MANDATORY'

via www.cutesexyfunnyawful.com

Republicans and Democrats Both Want to Kill You!

By Phil of Phil's Stock World

via ilene.typepad.com

Politics, Economics and other Stuff: The Zentrum Party and the NSDAP

Politics, Economics and other Stuff: The Zentrum Party and the NSDAP.

Fixing political finance with a civil society approach

I’d like to think that Jane Clifton of the Listener has been reading my writings on political finance and state regulation of it, as her latest Listener Politics column puts forward very nicely my basic argument that state regulation of money in politics never actually works very well, and that we are better off with a civil society approach to ‘regulating’ the income and expenditure of political parties and interest groups. Of course, I doubt that Clifton has read anything I’ve written, and is instead actually just conveying what is actually a very common sense approach that should be obvious to just about anyone – even if very few politicians seem to comprehend it. [Read more below]

via liberation.typepad.com

[political finance] EPMU and Labour

A Labour Party-affiliated trade union, the EPMU, Is attempting to register as a ‘third party’ under the Electoral Finance Act (EFA), even though it isn’t required to and isn’t necessarily eligible to. This raises some interesting questions about the relationship between unions and the Labour Party, and about further problems with the EFA. [Read more below]

via liberation.typepad.com

Trotter: Labour is a ‘democracy-free-zone’ in crisis

Chris Trotter paints a very dark picture of the political health of the Labour Party in his From the Left column today. Not only has the Auckland Labour Party membership plummeted below 2,000, but the party is also now a ‘democracy-free-zone’ that is ‘at serious risk of imploding under the weight of its own extraordinary timidity’. In his column, entitled, 'Labour: Political Party or Cosy Club?', Trotter pays particular attention to the political nature of the new party president, Andrew Little, who he characterizes as a friend of business who is ‘as exciting as a wet week in August’. [Read more below]

via liberation.typepad.com

Trotter on social democracy’s political degeneration

Chris Trotter is returning to form. After the death of his strangely beloved ‘social democratic’ Labour Government, he’s been in a much more reflective and insightful mood (rather than his previous phase of agit-prop defence of ‘lesser evilism’). In this week’s Independent Financial Review column he reflects on the political degeneration of what currently passes for social democracy. He shows how the Labour Party – and the much of the wider left in NZ politics – has a deeply problematic relationship with the New Zealand working class. Essentially Labour now sees workers as victims to manage rather than as a positive political force with the tremendous potential to change society. [Read more below]

via liberation.typepad.com

[NZ First party history] 17: The 1996 coalition decision

The 1996 election result gave New Zealand First the balance of power and therefore the choice between putting Labour or National into office. On 10 December, after protracted negotiations with both parties, Peters informed the country that NZ First had chosen National. The gamble to go with National was based upon policy concessions, leadership ambition, and protecting the NZ First brand. But because the party had been so adamant about their refusal to work with National after the election, the decision to then go with National damaged both the party and the electoral system. It also confirmed that the basic ideological flavour of the NZ First was indeed conservative and not – as commentators and voters had perceived it to be – left-of-centre. Moreover it indicated that the party was not founded upon a coherent and stable philosophy. [Read more below]

via liberation.typepad.com