Get a new lawyer Kim

Kim Dotcom reckons that he CAN stand for the New Zealand Parliament; his lawyer has told him that he can; the NBR reports:

Kim Dotcom now says he can stand for Parliament at next year's election.
Last week, the Teutonic tech titan told media he was going to form his own political party, and take a run at the ballot box himself - only for Kiwiblog's David Farrar to dig up Section 47(1) of the Electoral Act, whose citizenship provision seems to clearly ruleout Mr Dotcom.
But iin a new interview published today with the Washington Post, Mr Dotcom says, "When I made that statement, my lawyers were still looking into it, and their preliminary answer was that you can only run as a citizen of New Zealand. But they went through the full several hundred pages of New Zealand election law, and they found that if I’m a permanent resident of New Zealand who’s lived here for more than a year and is a registered voter — which I will be in November — you can run for office. I’ll get more specifics on Tuesday when I sit with my lawyers, but at the moment it looks like I can run myself."

We have some really bad news for Mr Dotcom, and for his lawyer, who might be looking for a new gig. He couldn't stand last week, he can't stand this week, and unless the Electoral Act changes before the next election, he won't be able to stand next year; check out these tweets on the matter from legal eagle Graeme Edgeler:

There USED TO BE a loophole in electoral law, but that was closed more than eight years ago. Given that Herr Dotcom seems to enjoy the best of everything else in life, we are surprised that his lawyer got it wrong.

Or maybe the lawyer didn't get it wrong at all, and maybe the Large German Gentleman was simply looking for another headline. We'll give it to him:

Dotcom jumps the shark; again!

Your moment of zen: McCain edition

Your moment of zen: McCain edition

by digby



.

Arthur and August! Supahstahs!

Arthur and August! Supahstahs!

by digby

Colbert with the get 'o the decade:

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Video Archive

Arthur and August, the beloved subway kittens, appeared last night with Stephen Colbert, who recognized Daily Intelligencer's work on this important issue in the mayoral race. The host called out former MTA chief and Republican favorite Joe Lhota as the only candidate who vowed firmly to "grease our tracks with cat babies" by refusing to stop the trains.
"Folks, this is a shrewd political move," said Colbert. "All these other candidates are just going to split the pro-kitten voters, leaving Joe to sweep up in the key anti-kitten demographic of sociopaths, rats large enough to vote, and ALF."

The America's Cup 2013; a guest post

Quintin Hogg is a regular visitor to Keeping Stock, and a semi-regular commenter. We've met him several times, and shared a couple of meals. And we know that when he leaves his office, he is a mad-keen sailor.

So we asked him for a yachtie's perspective of the America's Cup match series between Oracle and Emirates Team New Zealand. The syndicates go head-to-head in San Francisco tomorrow morning in the first race of the best-of-seventeen contest. Here's his guest post:

The Americas Cup Match September 2014

KS asked me to give my opinion as a sailor of the Americas Cup which starts NZ Time at 8.15 am on Sunday 9 September 2013.

I thought about waxing lyrical about the AC72’s, the teams (or lack of), the crews, the shenanigans, and the venue but the reality is that all that stuff is easily available online or in the print media so anything I say would only repeat what others have said more capably.

So what follows is, in brief, what I think about the event.  It is the opinion of a bloke with some modest experience as a sailor and as a race management volunteer including helping with the 2000 and 2003 defences.

I grew up with a sailing obsessed father. I grew up with the cup and NZ’s involvement.  Until the responsibilities of fatherhood landed on my shoulders I was sailing obsessed, going out on the water on average 3 times a week. 

The cup has for me been an emotional rollercoaster.  Despair in 1987.  Hope in 1992, Joy in 1995 and 2000.  Anger, later on, in 2000. Despair again in 2003 and 2007. And now hope again in 2013.

The most interesting feeling is dread.  I don’t know who is faster of the two boats that contest the Americas’ Cup on Sunday. 

We knew, sort of that NZL 32 was faster in 1995.  Again we were confident that we had the measure of Luna Rossa in 2000. The boats in 2003 had similar speed but the TNZ boat had frailties and in 2007 the word was that Alinghi had a boat that was a click faster, but even then TNZ only lost 5-2 (and one of those losses by 1 second if that). So we had an idea of the relative merits of each competitor.

I suspect that Grant Dalton is right when he says he doesn’t know. Oracle is said to be fast.  I know that Aotearoa is fast.  The telemetry data from their races is available online.  We will only know on Sunday who is faster.

Which bring me back to dread and I suppose anticipation.  If Oracle is faster then ETNZ have a problem.  Why? The course is short.  The races are completed within 45 minutes.  There are not that many passing lanes even if you can foil upwind at 30knots.  So I don’t know. No-one does.  We have to wait and see.

My hope is an evenly contested match with ETNZ beating Oracle on the water and leaving the shenanigans that have been recorded elsewhere behind.  And if ETNZ wins then "yahoo" for two or three days and then the hard work begins to build an event. 

If ETNZ are not successful well they deserve congratulations.  They have been innovative and creative. They have been an advertisement for NZ beyond anything we have previously had including the AB’s.

My heart says ETNZ will win.  My head would like to.

We thank Quintin Hogg for sharing his thoughts with us. In 24 hours time we will have an idea whose boat is faster, and where the next America's Cup regatta will be held. Here's hoping that it is in Auckland.

Pushing for the rebels

Pushing for the rebels

by digby

Really???

A Wall Street Journal op-ed cited this week by both Secretary of State John Kerry and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has drawn scrutiny for not disclosing writer Elizabeth O'Bagy's ties to a Syrian rebel advocacy group.

On Thursday, The Daily Caller examined O'Bagy's role as political director for the Syria Emergency Task Force, a group that has lobbied the White House and Congress to support the rebels. O'Bagy told The Daily Caller that she is not a salaried employee, but serves as a paid contractor.

Journalist Laura Rozen questioned Friday why the Journal op-ed -- which was published a week ago online and in Saturday's print edition -- did not identify O'Bagy's affiliation with the group.

The Huffington Post contacted the Journal on Friday and was told the paper would not comment on op-ed's lack of disclosure. But shortly thereafter, a clarification was added to the piece: "In addition to her role at the Institute for the Study of War, Ms. O'Bagy is affiliated with the Syrian Emergency Task Force, a nonprofit operating as a 501(c)(3) pending IRS approval that subcontracts with the U.S. and British governments to provide aid to the Syrian opposition."

O’Bagy, a senior analyst for the Institute for the Study of War who has traveled extensively with rebel forces, wrote in the op-ed that “contrary to many media accounts, the war in Syria is not being waged entirely, or even predominantly, by dangerous Islamists and al Qaeda die-hards.”

Both Kerry and McCain noted O'Bagy's findings in addressing Congress' concerns over whether the Syrian rebels can be trusted.

McCain read part of O’Bagy’s piece out loud during a Tuesday Senate hearing and asked Kerry if he agreed with the writer's findings. Kerry said he mostly did. "The fundamentals of Syria are secular and will stay that way," he told McCain. The following day, Kerry said it was a “very interesting article” and suggested members of Congress read it. (Reuters later challenged Kerry’s assertions about the opposition).

Come on. They can't really believe they can run this game again can they?

.

Condemnation from across the board

We blogged yesterday about a cowardly attempt to intimidate Wanganui mayoral candidate Michael Laws.

We are delighted to report that we're not the only ones to condemn this, and that the condemnation has come from both sides of the blogosphere. After all, you couldn't get two blogs further apart than No Right Turn and WhaleOil! 

Idiot/Savant blogs:

Someone has apparently sent a threatening letter to Wanganui mayoral candidate Michael Laws. Meanwhile, Labour leadership aspirant Shane Jones is publicly fantasising about torturing John key's genitalia.There's an obvious link between the two: both involve threatening violence against public figures for political gain. That is vile and it is wrong and it has absolutely no place in our democracy.

From the other extreme, Cameron Slater notes:

We live in a democracy where we encourage people to put forward alternate views. Politics is a robust environment but there is no need for violence. Politics is supposed to be a contest of ideas but unfortunately there are some among us who do not want alternate voices heard.
It used to be they would cut out letters an make words from them and stick them to cardboard and write in green felt tip, but now these essentially retarded people have Facebook and Twitter and other media with which to spew their rantings.

We agree with both points of view. The intimidation of candidates for public office has no place whatsoever in New Zealand society. It is pleasing that the political Left and Right can be in agreement on this issue.

Armstrong on referenda, the Greens and hypocrisy

John Armstrong rips into the Greens this morning, accusing them of hypocrisy over the asset sales referendum. Under the heading Referendums past their sell-by date, Armstrong opines (with our emphasis added):

The time has surely arrived to dump New Zealand's failed two-decade-old experiment with American-style citizens-initiated referendums.
Anyone questioning that recommendation should look no further than some of the self-serving behaviour following last Monday's official authorisation of such a plebiscite on National's partial privatisation programme.
The will of the people - David Lange once observed - was a fickle beast. It could be an awful tyrant; it could be a terrible slave.
Someone should have told the Greens. They are happy to accept the will of the people when it comes to the results of the forthcoming referendum on asset sales. But not so when it came to the 2009 referendum on smacking. That is hypocrisy, pure and simple. If you accept the will of the people once, you have to accept it for good. And that is not a recipe for good government.

Ouch! But Armstrong is dead right; the Greens' hypocrisy is there for all to see, and he is dead right to have called them on it.

He's not done though; read on:

If you do accept it, you accept your Cabinet decisions are going to be proscribed by referendum. The Greens would not like that happening to them. So why impose such restraints on National.

There has been a lot of talk this week about the will of the people. The Greens and Labour argued that had been ignored by John Key following the referendum announcement.
The Prime Minister was accused of being anti-democratic in refusing to halt the upcoming floats of shares in Meridian Energy and Genesis Energy, plus the sale of shares in Air New Zealand, until the referendum has taken place. He was castigated for saying National would ignore the result of the referendum because it had a mandate for the sale of up to 49 per cent of those state-owned electricity generators courtesy of its stunning result at the 2011 election.
To top things off, Key then dismissed the referendum as an "utter waste of money".
That line got wide pick-up with editorial writers across the country asking why $9 million in taxpayers' money was being spent on a postal referendum solely so Labour and the Greens could make a political point that everybody already knew - that a lot more people oppose asset sales than support them.
Sensing they were on the wrong side of the argument regarding cost, the two major Opposition parties the next day offered to help pass legislation which would enable the referendum to be held at the same time as next year's general election - a move that would be cheaper than a postal ballot. That remained conditional, however, on National putting asset sales on hold until then.
That drew a scathing response from Acting Prime Minister Bill English, who said it was typical of Labour to offer something that was not within its power.
Suddenly it was apparent the referendum horse had bolted in the four months since the petition seeking a referendum initially failed for lack of sufficient valid signatures. The public's desire for a referendum has cooled substantially. Once again, John Key had outmanoeuvred his opponents and captured the high ground when they thought they held it.

John Armstrong is dead right; the asset sales horse has bolted. Mighty River Power shares were sold some months ago, and the sky hasn't fallen, unless people foolishly bought the shares hoping to make a fast buck. That was certainly not our intent when we bought MRP shares, and nor will it be when we buy Meridian shares; they are a long-term investment in New Zealand's future.

And Armstrong gives us a bit of a political history lesson:

The country's politicians should daily give thanks to Sir Douglas Graham, National's astute Justice Minister for much of the 1990s, for making the referendums non-binding.
He was obliged to implement a promise inserted in National's 1990 election manifesto following demands from the more reactionary elements in the National Party
When the law allowing voters recourse to these devices was passed by Parliament 20 years ago, Labour's Michael Cullen described the measure as "an ill-thought-out piece of political flummery" and predicted correctly that it would end up satisfying no one. He was too kind. Making it mandatory for governments to implement the results of referendums risks making good government nigh on impossible.
Making such referendums non-binding on governments, however, renders those referendums as next to useless.

Both John Armstrong, and (dare we say it?) Michael Cullen are/were dead right. There is nothing to be gained from this referendum. It is solely an exercise in political posturing and positioning with the 2014 General Election in mind. If the public dislikes asset sales sufficiently, it will vote National out next year. And if partial asset sales are not seen as particularly offensive or significant, National may well be re-elected.

National campaigned on its Mixed Ownership Model policy, and formed a government under the conditions of the MMP system of democracy. That gave them a mandate to implement EVERY policy they had campaigned on. By contrast Labour, the Greens, NZ First and Mana all campaigned against asset sales, but did not win enough public support to form an MMP government.

It's called democracy folks. It may not be perfect, but it sure beats the alternatives.