Daily Review 03/07/2018

44 comments on “Daily Review 03/07/2018 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. joe90 1

   3 July 2018 at 5:59 pm

   On the part graphic design played in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign.

   https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/2/17519414/ocasio-cortez-campaign-design-campaign-posters-tandem-branding
2. Anne 2

   3 July 2018 at 6:00 pm

   Words fail me:

   https://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018652006/winz-just-took-that-abuse-to-a-whole-other-level

   Listen to almost the end.
   • AsleepWhileWalking 2.1

     3 July 2018 at 7:14 pm

     From RNZ

     Lawyer Catriona MacLennan said the seven-year fight would have been “enough to break” most people.

     “I don’t think people can understand the thousands of hours she’s had to waste on this, looking for bits of paper, producing them over and over, justifying, explaining where every dollar came from and where it went.

     “And it was just an incredible waste of time. She was bringing up her kids and to have this hanging over her and constantly stressing her is just appalling and completely unnecessary.”
     • AsleepWhileWalking 2.1.1

       3 July 2018 at 7:17 pm

       3000 hrs@ 16/hr (about ave min wage across this time) =

       $48,000 seems a good start.
       • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1.1

         4 July 2018 at 2:30 am

         She’s been legal work and lawyers charge more $200/hour.

         Seems more correct.
3. Tony Veitch (not etc.) 3

   3 July 2018 at 6:10 pm

   Just listening to it on Checkpoint – a solo mother of two fought MSD for seven years finally got a judgement in her favour – bank loans as income – for God’s sake!

   But what really pisses me off is that MSD presumably fought this case ‘in my name and in the name of all the taxpayers of New Zealand.’

   No, sorry, not in my name! Go after the rich tax bludgers/avoiders in my name, with my blessing, but leave the beneficiaries alone!

   Oops, should have been a reply to Anne.
   • AsleepWhileWalking 3.1

     3 July 2018 at 6:31 pm

     +1

     How much did hounding this lady cost *us*?

     She deserves compensation for stress and humiliation.
   • BM 3.2

     3 July 2018 at 6:35 pm

     Minimising tax is not a crime.

     Tax avoidance is though and lots of money has been put into the pursuit of people who don’t fulfil their tax obligations.
     • Ad 3.2.1

       3 July 2018 at 7:19 pm

       You will be particularly pleased to see that the Taxation (Neutralising Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) Bil passed its third reading last week in Parliament under a Labour-led government, after 9 years of the previous government letting foreign corporates run away with profits while paying almost zero contribution to our society through tax.
       • Antoine 3.2.1.1

         4 July 2018 at 4:29 am

         Bet this work started under National and was simply continued by Labour

         A.
     • Pingao 3.2.2

       3 July 2018 at 7:31 pm

       Tax evasion is a crime. Tax avoidance is not.
       • BM 3.2.2.1

         3 July 2018 at 7:46 pm

         Correct, sorry about that, evasion, not avoidance.

         Also, fuck this having to always put in your details every time you post it’s such a pain in the arse.

         Come on lprent this is basic stuff.

         [Do you use a Vodafone network? It seems to be an intermittent problem – MS]
         • BM 3.2.2.1.1

           3 July 2018 at 8:23 pm

           I’m on fibre through My republic, being on vodafone shouldn’t be an issue though. This is a cookie issue.
           • Incognito 3.2.2.1.1.1

             3 July 2018 at 9:20 pm

             Yes, this has been a constant issue since that first major server problem IIRC.

             In addition, I cannot see who’s replied to any of my comments (used to be on the RH side of the page, next to Comments and Opinions) and the Search functionality is also affected.
         • mary_a 3.2.2.1.2

           4 July 2018 at 11:07 am

           @ BM … same here. Been having to log in my details since the change. And I’m not on Vodafone.
     • Draco T Bastard 3.2.3

       4 July 2018 at 2:33 am

       That depends upon how it’s minimised doesn’t it?

       And then that’s basic truth that you RWNJs just don’t seems to get: Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean that it’s right.

       All immoral behaviour needs to be illegal.

       Of course, that would really fuck up capitalism because capitalism is immoral.
       • JohnSelway 3.2.3.1

         4 July 2018 at 4:27 am

         Given we all have varying standards of what constitutes immoral I think your blanket statement is completely hopeless.

         Is cheating on your partner immoral? I think so – my dad didn’t. Should he be guilty of a crime or not?

         Is lying immoral? Most would say yes but am I guilty of a crime because I told my girlfriend I had a single glass of wine when I had a full bottle? Should I be charged with Lying and fined if found out?

         I don’t think you have thought this through
         • Draco T Bastard 3.2.3.1.1

           4 July 2018 at 11:06 am

           Cheating on your partner has always grounds for divorce.
           Lying to your girlfriend is also grounds for breakups. If you lie to her how can she trust you?

           When it comes to paying the proper taxes taxes and ripping people off I’m pretty sure that you’ll find that most of us actually agree that it should be a crime. There’s going to be some resistance from those who think these things are good though and from those that simply will want to hold on to what they know.
           • JohnSelway 3.2.3.1.1.1

             4 July 2018 at 4:22 pm

             Yes but it isn’t illegal and you don’t decide others morals. Some people have open marriages whereas some people find it inmoral. You don’t decide – others decide.

             Basically your suggestion relies on us all having the same moral compass – yours.
     • AB 3.2.4

       4 July 2018 at 8:25 am

       A lot of what currently passes as legal avoidance should be illegal as it is contrary to the spirit an intention of the law. As well as being unethical.
       Going after the avoiders simply requires a preliminary law change. Simplification of the tax code to remove loopholes would probably help. Ideally, any sort of complex structures in someone’s tax affairs would be prima facie evidence of evasion.
   • Bearded Git 3.3

     3 July 2018 at 8:09 pm

     +1000 senor veitch
   • Tricledrown 3.4

     3 July 2018 at 8:19 pm

     I would like to know who ordered this draconian illegal directive Paula Bennett was in charge of MSD at the time remember she exposed private information around the same time.
4. Marcus Morris 4

   3 July 2018 at 6:16 pm

   In October last year Stuff ran a report on an address Sir Peter Gluckman gave at the NZBio Biotechnology Conference in Wellington. In his address Sir Peter suggested that, in the face of the rapid development of synthetics foods, including, and particularly, “milk” it would be an opportune moment to reopen the conversation around genetically modified food. He alluded strongly to this same theme in a recent interview with Liam Dann.

   Sir Peter was appointed to the position of Chief Science Advisor to the Prime Minister of New Zealand in the first year of John Key’s premiership. His qualifications for the position are impeccable.

   Unless I was singularly unobservant I can recall very little that came from his office during the nine years that National was in office. Now, in the last nine months (of his tenure incidentally) he has made three observations that have been of considerable significance and certainly controversial. Firstly he argued against the building of the so called mega prison tacitly supporting the Labour Parties aim of reducing the national muster (which sent amateur criminologist Garth McVicar into an apoplectic fit). Secondly he destroyed totally the “science” of P contaminated houses and thirdly he has reopened the whole GM debate.

   My point is this. For a man so qualified in his field, why did it take him so long to “go public” on these issues. Surely he could have made his pronouncement on P several years ago. Could he have been under some kind of political constraint?

   Given Sir Peter’s latest observations on GM food I am stunned that there has not been more reaction – on this site in particular.
   • AsleepWhileWalking 4.1

     3 July 2018 at 6:33 pm

     I think science is a very politically constrained field
     • McFlock 4.1.1

       3 July 2018 at 6:36 pm

       It is if one works for the government.
       • Johnr 4.1.1.1

         3 July 2018 at 6:46 pm

         True. Unfortunately if your a scientist the labour market is pretty much limited to govt employment, either uni’s or govt research instaitutes. As a result, if you value your income, any dissenting opinions must be muzzled
         • McFlock 4.1.1.1.1

           3 July 2018 at 6:50 pm

           not so much as a researcher (although big calls need big evidence to support them), but when you work in the PM’s office, I suspect the topics you can speak freely on are up to the boss.

           Whether that also applies to the general advice one might give in meetings is also up to the boss.
           • Incognito 4.1.1.1.1.1

             3 July 2018 at 9:09 pm

             I’ll repeat the comment I made late last night:

             Nah, it is the difference between Sir Peter Gluckman, Advisor to the powers that be and Prof. Dr Peter Gluckman, Scientist and seeker of truth by application of the scientific method who adds to [the] body of knowledge produced by many over many years in order understand and explain the physical world we live in to his fellow humans for the benefit of all. The poor guy simply had lost his good hat for the most part of nine long years …

             https://thestandard.org.nz/doofus-of-the-week-july-1-2018/#comment-1499156
             • McFlock …

               3 July 2018 at 10:43 pm

               Sounds like judgemental bs to me, but whatevs.
               I compare gluckman against independent commissioners who are actually free to state their opinions. Even they have unofficial constraints.
         • Incognito 4.1.1.1.2

           3 July 2018 at 9:15 pm

           As a result, if you value your income, any dissenting opinions must be muzzled

           They can muzzle people but they cannot muzzle opinions expressed in independent forums …
           • McFlock 4.1.1.1.2.1

             3 July 2018 at 10:33 pm

             And the village idiot has more opinions than anyone.

             The scientific opinion of the PM’s advisor carries more weight than that of a cleaner, even if they share the same opinion.

             Muzzle the person, you muzzle the experience and status that makes their opinion information rather than random speculation.
             • Incognito …

               3 July 2018 at 10:51 pm

               I disagree.

               A scientific ‘opinion’ has to stand on its own regardless of who puts it forward with the necessary scientific support (e.g. data, logic, reasoning, etc.).

               If an anonymous scientist (let’s call them “the Village Idiot” or “The Janitor”) were to go into a scientific argument with Sir Peter Gluckman here on TS why would you favour Gluckman from the outset? This bias is a known issue in the (peer) review of science.

               Here’s a nice story that’s somewhat linked to the above: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student%27s_t-test#History
               • McFlock …

                 3 July 2018 at 11:06 pm

                 If every single scientific argument I saw here interested me to the degree that I was willing to work it from basic principles, I’d agree.

                 But few if anyone has the breadth and depth to do that for every time people disagree. Hell, wasn’t there a Fukushima explosion argument yesterday? I know fuckall about secondary steam systems in nuclear plants. So if the architect of the reactor came here and said claim xyz was bullshit, I’d probably go with that commenter over the person making the claim. The only exception would be if they were patently wrong, a condition that is more rare than one might expect.
                 • Marcus Morris …

                   4 July 2018 at 3:12 pm

                   An interesting debate. So it would appear that the position CSA to the PM is a somewhat dubious one. The incumbent could well find himself between a rock and a hard place. Acquiesce and remain silent or publish and be damned. I am sure that Sir Peter has held the views, alluded to in my first post, for some time and now that the “shackles” are off he has made those views public. I am sure too that in the case of prisons and methamphetamine usage the Labour government would be very happy to endorse them. Given the Green party antipathy towards GM modified food those thoughts might not be quite so welcome.

                   Am I crediting John Key with too much guile to suggest that his appointment of Sir Peter might have been to have had this most “senior and respected scientist” at his bidding. Had the National Party still been in office would Sir Peter’s revelations seen the “light of day”. One can only speculated but I for one am very glad that these particular issues, backed by serious scientific research are in the public domain.
                   • McFlock …

                     4 July 2018 at 3:33 pm

                     It’s not even “publish and be damned”. Depending on where one is in the state service/public service/department, drafts can be reviewed by anyone from departmental specialists to the minister themselves. And then there are constraints set beforehand – like the instructions in Florida that their environmental agency can’t use the words “global warming” or “climate change”.

                     I suspect that Key’s office gave more guidance on what advice was expected than Ardern’s does (although Curran might be inclined). But the other thing is that we’re still in the period where observed problems are the last government’s fault. Might be interesting to see where we are in six years…
5. AsleepWhileWalking 5

   3 July 2018 at 7:01 pm

   Well I hope all these nasty little fuckers get prosecuted by the SPCA.

   https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12081853
   • Ed 5.1

     3 July 2018 at 7:27 pm

     I fear for their children.
     And their partners.
     • Gabby 5.1.1

       3 July 2018 at 11:36 pm

       But what about their glittering futures?
   • Naki man 5.2

     3 July 2018 at 10:35 pm

     Agree, i hope the school deals to them too, sick little fucks.
     • Chris 5.2.1

       3 July 2018 at 10:42 pm

       Yes, the school certainly needs to. But it’ll be interesting to see what happen here. Principal Patrick Walsh is a right wing fucker. If not enough happens we’ll know why.
6. Robert Guyton 6

   3 July 2018 at 8:22 pm

   “National MP Nikki Kaye is incredibly saddened by her stepbrother’s conviction for first-degree murder in the United States.

   “It’s an incredibly sad and difficult time for all those affected by this,” Kaye said.

   Aucklander Clinton Forbel Thinn could face the death penalty or a minimum of 25 years in prison after being found guilty of strangling his 30-year-old cellmate Lyle Woodward in a San Diego jail in 2016.”
7. Brigid 7

   3 July 2018 at 9:55 pm

   “It’s an incredibly sad and difficult time for all those affected by this,” Kaye said.

   I really do get the feeling she’s not including the dead person or his family.
   • Tricledrown 7.1

     4 July 2018 at 1:48 am

     Thinn has joined a white supremacist gang Aryan Nation.
     His lawyer was making excuses for him like he was late for his bank robbery and his claim that he was scared of his cell mate when in reality he was getting credit from the gang for murdering someone he won’t see the light of day ever.
8. Naki man 8

   3 July 2018 at 10:54 pm

   How long have you been psychic??

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS