A fellow named Andrew Geddis posted on another NZ blog a post about electoral reform in which he takes a swipe at KP for not having “dirt under its fingernails.” I do not know this fellow, and he certainly does not know me. Nor does he seem to know that KP is a collective, not an individual effort.
I take it that he believes that KP (whether singular or plural) does not practice what it preaches, as if KP was some sort of effete armchair intellectual circle jerk that is not grounded in real life praxis or any experience with real politics. In a word, he appears to think that KP is all bluster and no substance.
I cannot speak for the other KP members but I know them and can say with some confidence that we, collectively and individually have, are and/or will continue to engage in real politics as well as in political discussion and debate. My experience was mainly in US government service of one sort or another as well as academia (teaching aspects of politics), and after I came to NZ, in voluntarilly helping in the defense of Ahmed Zaoui and the Urewera 18 against scurrilous charges of terrorism, among other things academic and not.
I am therefore somewhat perplexed by Mr. Geddis’s negative mention of KP. Does he have a beef with one of us? Is there some history I am unaware of? Otherwise I am at a loss to explain what in any event appears to be an unprovoked jibe that has no basis in fact.
Can anyone illuminate me as to what might be going on?
Update: As several readers including Andrew himself have pointed out, the remark that I found untoward was in fact a joke. As I said in the comments, that pretty much confirms that I am humorless, or at least thin-skinned where KP’s integrity and “grounding” is concerned. I apologise to Andrew for misconstruing his words. What is interesting, once again, is that in contrast to more thoughtful posts, this post on a trivial matter enjoyed a strong upward spike in page views. I guess even reasoned people like to read about unreasonable silliness.
If you’re referring to this:
…then I read it as a light-hearted joke. Plus it seems to imply that Kiwipolitico does have dirt under its fingernails.
Thanks James, I hope that you are correct. I read it differently.
pretty definitely sure it was a joke…
OK, just call me humorless.
I read it as a light-hearted challenge, like being slapped by a mitten. A blog war between a law wonk and an IR wonk, while entertaining, isn’t that constructive to tweaking MMP.
Trolls. Don’t feed them. ‘Nuff said.
I suspect this blog was chosen for the clearly humorous swipe because, it is the blog of academics (Andrew is a professor of law at Otago) and is therefore often pitched at a high level.
Pablo,
While explaining is losing, can I just say … it was an absurdist joke, intended as a light-hearted tweak at a “rival” site of intelligent analysis (cf many other blogs) and not meant to be reflective of any shortcomings with you personally or any of your colleagues (if, indeed, such things exist).
Andrew: Sorry about that. I read it the wrong way. I have corrected the post in an update to reflect your true intent.
Andrew gets it wrong too as do most of us sometimes. During the launch of the “teapot tapes†saga he vociferously maintained a certain wording attributed to the HOS and quoted in a post by The Standard blog and also by Mathew Hooten; was incorrect. He was wrong, the fluid nature –ie they change the online edition at will, was what caught him out. Luckily multiple versions usually survive somewhere out there in such situations.
“What is interesting, once again, is that in contrast to more thoughtful posts, this post on a trivial matter enjoyed a strong upward spike in page views. I guess even reasoned people like to read about unreasonable silliness.”
Or maybe your readers aren’t as reasonable as you think!
I would take it as a compliment if I were you, obviously he considers your blog academically worthy of a sly jibe. I notice he didn’t make the joke about, say, Kiwiblog.
No, no, Alex, DPF does take well to jokes about his own running joke – Kiwiblog.
He was most displeased when I made what I thought was a brilliantly perceptive suggestion that he change his motto “-Fomenting Happy Mischief…” to “fomenting willful ignorance…”
So maybe the lesson is that blog owners lose their sense of humor at times just as commenters overrate their own intellectual heft!
“…does not take well…”
Sorry.
Explaining is not losing Pablo. Well said.