So today I learned that there were tie-in novels for THE DOLLARS TRILOGY that went beyond the movies and boy do they have some amazing titles.
Check on the Executive
1,053 followers 181 following 1,611 posts
view profile on Bluesky
So today I learned that there were tie-in novels for THE DOLLARS TRILOGY that went beyond the movies and boy do they have some amazing titles.
In what sense did New Zealand punch above its weight being anti-apartheid? 29 countries boycotted the 1976 Olympics because New Zealand was going to be there and we were too supportive of apartheid.
"15 years ago the Supreme Court decided corporations are people under the First Amendment." is (1) False and (2) *longer* than "Citizens United opened the door for corporations to spend more money in politics".
The problem is money is speech. SCOTUS did not rule that there was a connection between money and speech in Citizens United because they did that decades earlier. SCOTUS did not rule that the first amendment protected corporations in Citizens United because they did that decades earlier.
My point is two-fold: 1) people, especially very smart people with Nobel prizes, should stop misleading others about what SCOTUS decisions are about 2) they should especially do so when they are they are making for rhetorical effect is one that, if followed through, would drastically reduce freedom
Are you? Or is it accidental?
That was also quite some time ago. But yes, that is much more the concern with Citizens United and the other earlier cases in this area. Corporations being protected by the first amendment (and most of the other amendments) is not the problem.
Yes, but both rely on corporate personhood. The reason the New York Times Company has protection under first amendment press freedom right is because corporations have rights under the first amendment.
The number of progressive/liberal types who think the New York Times Company or ABC or the ACLU shouldn't have first amendment protections because they are corporations continues to astound me.
Those are perhaps more apposite to your campaign context, but you also have important cases like New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). Today is not a great day to argue that the New York Times Company, or Disney/ABC or Jackhole Productions shouldn't have first amendment protection.
First amendment protections applied to corporations are much older than 15 years. See Federal Election Commission v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life (1986) or First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978), or National Labor Relations Board v. Virginia Electric and Power (1941).
The newsworthy bit is that Ardern called it a genocide. So that is in quotes. It adds to the import of the story. She didn't just call for an end to the suffering, etc. The PM has done that! She did that *and* called it a genocide. Much bigger news, made bigger in the headline by the quote.
have some bad news, the email clearly says $22.99 :-(
Good compromise. It doesn't stop anyone from collecting signatures and petitioning the House in a highly offensive way, but they'll have to use the old way, or even another website.
Yes.
My biggest criticism of parks and rec is that it actually didn’t go far enough in showing how unhinged the average public commenter can be
At a time when everything seems terrible, I was checking in w one of my kids abt what he’s watching on-line, and apparently it’s inspirational edits like this one, which was … actually pretty uplifting at a time when uplift sometimes seems in short supply.
It could be Diane Calvert!
The decades of committed work by Liverpool supporters is still improving UK law. #LFC
The asymmetry is that one side describes it as the Paradox of Tolerance, and twists itself inside out trying to define a precise formula for what an open society cannot be open to, while the other side is just "we're sending the free speech police to drag you off to the gulags loser"
It doesn't :-) But I do link to that if people want more on the vote counting.
I see this occasionally in government comms or journalism and it does irk me a little.
Probably getting mine too :-)
(Pennywize the Rewilding Clown is a candidate for the Wellington mayoralty)
It's not oversight. It's deliberate because we care more about the Mayoralty. Imagine a long-standing popular local mayor. People (incl. 'obvious' successor councillors) won't run against them because they support them. Gets a diagnosis so withdraws late. Pennywize the Clown becomes mayor.
In which I beg archaeologists to sign up for the fall semester of Skype a Scientist, because we're getting buried in requests for your area of expertise. Sign up here: docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1F...
I'm not saying there is nothing structurally dangerous and concerning about Groyper, 4Chan, et al., culture. But looking at those who shoot and saying "this is what predicts shooting" is a recipe for having a MASSIVE false-positive problem. Sadly, this is relevant YET again:
Also, someone please let the Green Party know that the Electoral Commission (currently) has very little to do with local elections!
If you are (or know) a candidate for either the Wellington Mayoralty, or candidate for Pukehīnau / Lambton councillor do you have an opinion on land value rating that you would like to share with me?
Damn. This dude writes for the Dispatch!
Abundance means a few different things. There's the technofuturist aspect (build energy infrastructure and fund basic science as that will enable amazing things), but also reform of govt procurement to help (if your plan is Auckland light rail, build Auckland light rail!).
Agree that these aren't election advertisements. But it's surely more arguable that they are electoral advertisements?
The aging, latent police reporter in me can't help put pause to remark on the unforced error of the SAC in Salt Lake's FBI field office making the unforced error of announcing they have recovered a “footwear impression.” A shout-out to toss or destroy those shoes, ASAP. That's a detail you keep.
"The foundation of a free society is the ability to participate in politics without fear of violence. To lose that is to risk losing everything. Charlie Kirk — and his family — just lost everything. As a country, we came a step closer to losing everything, too... We are all safe, or none of us are."
Ezra's article on Charlie Kirk is precisely the type of response everyone should be paying more attention to So many responses (from the right) I've seen in the aftermath of the assassination were mostly just blanket accusations of the left
That's absolutely something the returning officer/council can do. It's not really something the government can do.
What do you consider the government rectifying this looks like. All stages urgency to pass a law canceling local elections so there can be a redo?
There’s literally an entire documentary about the tradition of lynching postcards. Engaging in and celebrating political violence has a long, grim history in this country. That’s not to say it’s a good thing (it isn’t!), but “this isn’t who we used to be” is wild self-delusion.
Do you think it did?
Voting papers arrived. Turns out that I follow local government matters so closely that I didn't even realise the Wellington Regional Council had adopted a Māori constituency in a way that would require a public vote under the new law, so there's two referendums for me to vote in.
And the Electoral Commission could invoice local councils, in the way that the Auditor-General invoices government agencies for audits.
It's two private companies :-) Sometimes they have to both run the same election though if eg Porirua uses one of them, and Wellington uses the other, then the Regional Council election gets somewhat split.
So was the language of the 14th!
Feel free to write back and ask them to add me to that list. I offered no objection to my name being released, so I shouldn't be one of the two withheld.
Not as far as I'm aware? New evidence confirming he signed a poem, but I don't think it gets into who typed it, or whether he composed the document before it was typed up? Might have missed something though.
If this was abduction, charge that, but as a general principle, I don't think people should have a legal obligation to let people know where and when they intend to spend time.
I don't know enough to know whether charges could properly have been filed, but one would at least hope they looked at abduction (cf kidnapping, which you might assume is synonymous, but is more serious). I was opposed to the charge here, because I don't think that law should apply here at all.
@lewsos.bsky.social you don't need more people in the thread, but I also thought it fair to say this publicly rather that via DM, so: your position throughout has been entirely reasonable :-)
There is a problem with the New Zealand civil justice system (which I expect is present in other countries too) that a case like this costs $300k+. It's not exactly a surprising figure, but it should be a confronting one. Access to justice should not cost remotely this much.
Raspberry :-)
So if Hegseth say issued guidance requiring people in DoD to have DoW in their email signatures, and some of them change their email signatures, what do you say will be the legal consequences of them doing so? Might they go to prison if prosecuted under a future president for this illegal act?
Agreed. I'm just unclear why people think government departments getting a nickname, or people using a nickname for a government department is "illegal".
Can you explain why you think this is "illegal"? Like, the name is set in statute, but I'll guess the statute doesn't prescribe how the email signatures of people who work at DoD couldn't just say DoW? Is it also illegal to refer to the United States Department of State as "the State Department"?
I can check, but I imagine the vast majority of reporting calls the United States Department of State "the State Department" without indicating it officially uses a different name as provided in statute.
If people start calling the Department of Defence the Department of War, and it changes its logo and it's public profile and its website, and everyone who works there update their messaging and email signatures, if it is still officially the DoD in a statute, is not also the DoW?
ref: text of the proposed amendment ogles.house.gov/media/press-...
My quick read of the text was too quick it seems! You're right. No Obama. But I maintain that it is unfair to accuse him of violating his oath to support the Constitution because he has proposed an amendment to it.
Don McDonald erasure!
rebuts is like refutes - it's almost never true
Rather funny that the person on Reddit who leaked of the Electric Avenue lineup with a one-off reunion of Split Enz headlining the first day had no idea they'd just posted one of the biggest stories in NZ music of the whole decade
Timeline cleanse
Weird thing just happened in Transport Committee - Cr Fletcher mentioned Sir Dove Myer-Robinson in a speech about CRL completion, said his statue wasn't paid for by council but by a group of "us" who thought he should be recognised. But this says council did pay? www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/robbie-ba...
Prof. Kaye took one for the team, being the only non-ridiculous witness at the House Judiciary hearing today. In return, he got asked about... how many classes he's teaching this semester.
The first two sentences here are unfair. Rep Ogles has proposed a constitutional amendment that would change the 22nd amendment. Were it to pass, Pres. Trump would be constitutionally eligible for a third term (as would Pres. Obama). The cult thing? Yes. But he's doing it the right way on 3rd terms.
This random-ish video - which I assume must be AI-assisted - ended up getting autoplayed for me on YouTube and I wish I knew how much the AI assistance was, because it was surprisingly affective audio story-telling. youtu.be/gykVp3JJNdI?...
I was today years old when I realised that V-J Day is commemorated on a different day in the UK and the US. 15 August as the formal announcement of the surrender, and 2 September as the day of the signing of the surrender documents on the USS Missouri.
I obviously knew of Graham Greene from his bigger roles, but have spent a few minutes trying to remember a particular thing I had seen him in recent-ishly. I had rewatched the sentencing scene from Molly's Game! youtu.be/ldgvxEMWkzY?...
This is so damn frustrating. No it absolutely shouldn’t be up to a new council. This decision, amongst others like the Golden Mile and Begonia House, were made months ago. Respect the democratic process. They must proceed otherwise we end up with unfinished projects and escalated costs. #nzpol
Results so stunningly clear they inspired this classic xkcd (xkcd.com/2400/):
It was alcohol.
I was about the suggest someone from Make It 16, but I don't think they were 20?
NZ homeowners: "When I voted for low rates I expected my children and grandchildren would pick up the tab. Not that I'd be paying the consequences in my 60s 😢"
after Australia this spring I was so sad when I ran out of new episodes where the ads like GDAY! sale on kanga bangas this arvo!
You could rewatch the BBC's 1995 Pride and Prejudice!
They'll be diplomats, who will ultimately need the approval of the Foreign Affairs to be granted diplomatic status.
This does not sound like a problem
I'm allowed to pay for more than one medium!
Anyone else having trouble with the NZ Herald website? I'm clearly logged in, and it doesn't ask me to log in again, but it is only showing the first few lines of any premium article.
There are property rights in BORA?!
I noted that I got 5 minutes on the Credit Contracts Amendment as a Barrister, but the principal of a small law firm got 10 minutes, as I assume representing an organisation :-)
I do not accept that it looks good on paper
Opposition control of select committees is beneficial primarily for executive scrutiny (imagine the COVID response committee, but applied to other areas of government in non-emergency circumstances). ACT's argument for it is primarily legislative scrutiny, but this seems much more more tenuous.
So, if there's a referendum at the 2029 election (which appears to be the suggestion), and it passes, then the first election for a four-year Parliament will be 2032. Parliament probably lets the 2031 local election stand, but changes it so the 2034 local elections are for a four-year term as well.
If the public votes for a four-year term for Parliament at the referendum in 2029, I am entirely confident that a subsequent Parliament will extend the term of local government at the appropriate time (i.e. to time so an election every two years).
The Bill is clearly better than it was on introduction! Also, the referendum might not be a referendum on the current lot, but reading between the lines, might not be until the 2029 election.
There's an explanation of the Māori Electoral population in a very small bit of this which I wrote earlier publicaddress.net/legalbeagle/...
making my way through the ken burns JAZZ documentary and this portion of his interview with dave brubeck — who passed in 2012 — is a reminder of how *recent* american history really is. start at :55 or so. youtu.be/stadqAHRroA?...
It's a logical fallacy, sure. It's just a pretty good observational law.
Slippery slope has always seemed the least fallacious of all the fallacies.
I guess my concern was about the tweet, which made it seem like he got the maximum.
It's just that that detention would be ordered as a sentence of imprisonment, not a sentence of detention.
Sure. But if you're going to mention a maximum, you could possibly mentioned that the maximum amount of time he could have been detained under a sentence was 7 years.
I feel like if this was someone sentenced to 12 months in home detention, that the somewhat technically accurate parenthetical "- the maximum sentence of detention available under the law -" would not be included?
If they were used today, I suspect that will not be the last time!
Why do you assume there was a last time? see eg this about farmer Claire Ganantchian from 2023 www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-adv... And 7 Sharp did a piece last year www.facebook.com/watch/?v=112... And she still seems to be going www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-adv...
As Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo put it: "A city where you can get let go of your child's hand"
still is!
Another easily searched example. www.beehive.govt.nz/release/pete...
On the recognition of Palestine A close look at an unconvincing letter from "distinguished" UK lawyers By me Substack: emptycity.substack.com/p/on-the-rec... Personal blog: davidallengreen.com/2025/08/on-t...