1. I thought Cunliffe scored some good hits. Key was consistent but looked harried & on edge. Cunliffe managed to laugh at the PM a couple of times, Key didn’t get the same opportunities.


  2. Was Hosking fair and impartial?

    I thought he favoured the PM both in terms of challenges to statements & how much he talked over either leader.

    I also thought he stayed away from questions National is weak on. He shut down the housing discussion quickly (and repeatedly), shied off poverty, diverted from income equality, & stayed a long way from sustainability (of course).


  3. So. What do we think of the Leaders’ Debate?


  5. Really thoughtful design. Practical, compassionate and simple.

  6. That’s about it.


  7. (Source: alyssarosenberg, via dakotapuma)

    Tagged #art #critique

  9. "Five-star general and President Dwight Eisenhower said, “Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.” But George W. Bush made pre-emptive invasions official U.S. policy when he said, “As a matter of common sense and self-defense, America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed.” We were told that we must silently and blindly follow our president for we cannot possibly know what he knows. But 165 years ago, Abraham Lincoln warned us: “If today he (the president) should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, ‘I see no probability of the British invading us;’ but he will say to you, ‘Be silent: I see it, if you don’t.’ … Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object.”"

  10. In lands turned over to slavery, Wright had observed, there was little incentive to provide so-called public goods—schools, libraries, and other institutions—that attract migrants. In the North, by contrast, the need to attract and retain free labor in areas resulted in a far greater investment in public goods—institutions that would, over the succeeding decades, offer far greater opportunities for social mobility and lay the foundation for sustained, superior economic growth.

    What someone like Helper may not have foreseen is that the abolition of slavery would not cure these ills. The destruction of slavery did not destroy all the political institutions, social mores, and cultural traditions that sustained it. Nor did it make public institutions, of the kind that the north had been building for decades, suddenly come into being.

    I’m not sure that I agree with the conclusion regarding how to reverse this legacy. I think more focus on the basic observation regarding disparities in provision of public services and amenities, and fixing that would do the most. You know, good old fashioned socialism.