The Dim-Post

January 25, 2009

Sunday Bobbleheads

Filed under: general idiocy — danylmc @ 10:42 am

Deborah Coddington takes her column to its logical conclusion and complains about people going to the toilet more often than they used to. Apropos the Leonard Cohen concert:

And what has happened to the modern Kiwi bladder? People were going in and out, back and forth, from 7.30 when Hunt came on, until 11.30 when Cohen finally allowed the cheering crowd to let him retire. Ban the ubiquitous water bottle.

If men and women can’t last four hours without a toilet stop, then they’ll have to go thirsty.

Bill Ralston has entered the ‘It’s-Friday-afternoon-so-I-guess-I-better-churn-out-something-mildly-provocative‘ phase of the newspaper columnist life cycle. A shame, his articles were some of the best in the country for a while there. His latest brain-child is that politicians should simply abandon our adverserial style of democracy and just work together:

Of course, Goff and Labour aren’t doing themselves any favours by constantly whingeing about virtually everything the Government does. To quote Obama again, they need to realise, “The ground has shifted”.

In the current climate the public don’t want to hear the same old stale political arguments.

Both parties would earn far more brownie points if they worked more co-operatively together and only chose to maul each other when there was a really vital issue at stake.

I don’t remember Ralston being this concilatory two months ago when Labour were in power. Maybe he’s had a road to Damascus moment.

Strange that there’s no by-line on this Herald political story:

Most people call John Key “Prime Minister” – but Max Key, aged 13, has taken to calling his dad “Captain Tubbs”.

A rueful Key, 47, admitted yesterday that (what with elections and economic crises and whatnot) he had put on a few pounds over the course of the past year.

“It’s Max’s to speak to, but I’m growing in stature in more ways than one,” he said yesterday.

Well, maybe not so strange.

Bernard Hickey – the lazy finance journalists best friend – has a column up about economic  conditions in the US with some fascinating historical titbits :

A Democrat-controlled Congress may actually be more troublesome than a Republican one. We all hope it can avoid the mistakes of the Democratic Congresses in the 1930s, which embarked on a wave of trade protectionism that deepened the Depression.

As anyone who with the slightest knowledge of US political history knows the trade protection policies – the most famous of which was the Smoot-Hawley Act – were passed by a Republican Congress during the Hoover administration of the late 20’s. I’d recommend Mr Hickey read Jeffrey Frieden’s Global Capitalism for a pretty good overview of 20th century financial history, although he also might want to take a look at Phillip K Dick’s Man in the High Castle . If you’re going to write alternate history fiction you might as well do it right.

I miss Agenda.


  1. Good post. If you think you have to read Deborah for your readers, don’t.

    On Hoover, here an interesting titbit as well:

    To the bankers, Hoover delivered his pet theory of the crash: that it was caused by credit being too scarce to commercial borrowers, it being unduly “absorbed” by speculation. He hailed the Federal Reserve System as the great instrument of promoting stability, and called for an “ample supply of credit at low rates of interest,” as well as public works, as the best methods of ending the depression.

    How familiar. How depression. But yeah, government intervention always works. Can’t leave the market to itself, as people might figure out that governments are not so helpful.

    Comment by Berend de Boer — January 25, 2009 @ 11:01 am

  2. Hickey whilst wrong on Smoot Hawley may be right on the troubles Democrat Party Presidents have with Democratic majorities in the House and Senate see my post of November 8

    which refers

    On Smoot Hawley see this post which references a background piece in The Economist

    Comment by adamsmith1922 — January 25, 2009 @ 11:24 am

  3. Sorry here is The Economist link

    Comment by adamsmith1922 — January 25, 2009 @ 11:25 am

  4. You know, it it wasant for ‘protectionism’ in the 1930’s the world would be a whole lot worse than it is today, technlogically the world would have been worse off and their would be a lot of people jobless.

    Comment by millsy — January 25, 2009 @ 6:10 pm

  5. I agree with you about Agenda, BUT I have been enjoying the series on pivotal artists. I missed a few, but caught Rembrandt, van Gogh and Picasso. It has put their place in art history into a better perspective for me.

    Comment by David in Chch — January 26, 2009 @ 9:58 am

  6. Very good, millsy. You had me there for a second.

    Comment by Clunking Fist — January 26, 2009 @ 12:56 pm

  7. Millsy is of course correct, protectionism exacerbated the economic issues, leading into the Great Depression, Hitler, WWII, the Holocaust and all those consequential technological advancements

    Comment by adamsmith1922 — January 27, 2009 @ 5:09 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: