Open mike 11/04/2012

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, April 11th, 2012 - 156 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post. For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the link to Policy in the banner).

Step right up to the mike…

156 comments on “Open mike 11/04/2012 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Jenny 1
    11 April 2012 at 6:19 am

    “Be there or be square”*

    The first of the The Green Party mining our future community tour hui is to be held tonight, 7pm, Wednesday, 11 April, 2012

    Green Party MPs Catherine Delahunty and Gareth Hughes invite you to discuss the Government’s broad “drill it, mine it” agenda for Aotearoa – what’s happening, what does it mean to our environment and communities and how do we stop it.

    Where – University of Auckland Campus, Auckland

    Lecture Theatre B15,

    First floor University Library

    With the Greens at record highs in polls the subjects being discussed here may well end up in government policy. So make sure you have your say.

    *old greeny saying

  2. Pete George 2
    11 April 2012 at 6:25 am

    Last month the UN conducted a world-wide survey. The only question asked was:-

    “Would you please give your honest opinion about solutions to the food shortage in the rest of the world?”

    The survey was a huge failure because of the following:

    1. In Eastern Europe they didn’t know what ‘honest’ meant.
    2. In Western Europe they didn’t know what ‘shortage’ meant.
    3. In Africa they didn’t know what ‘food’ meant..
    4. In China they didn’t know what ‘opinion’ meant.
    5. In the Middle East they didn’t know what ‘solution’ meant.
    6. In South Africa they didn’t know what ‘please’ meant.
    7. In the USA they didn’t know what ‘the rest of the world’ meant.
    8. In Australia they hung up as soon as they heard the Indian accent.

    Food for thought? I think it was designed as humour but there’s more in it than that.

    One source of this used Australasia instead of Australia, and the first response must have been from an American: “Australasia?” Where the hell’s that?

  3. travellerev 3
    11 April 2012 at 7:23 am

    Yesterday Kotahi Tane Huna/One Anonymous Bloke thought it would be fun to ask me for serious calculations about the mass and potential energy of the Twin towers which were attacked on 911. Hard sums he called them.

    Which is great because generally people find it hard to read such rapports which is why I usually limit myself to videos such as this, this, this and this all different video’s of building 7 falling into its own foot print and made by News senders who were on the scene that day.
    And while I’m sure the Mr. Unknown will move the goal posts because in all probability the 43 pages of this paper are going way over his head and hey on paper you can put any old numbers right? Here is a PDF discussing exactly that.
    And for all of you scientists out there who prefer to read scientific papers many of whom were peer reviewed and some of home appeared in peer reviewed scientific magazine and all of whom were written by Scientist who are respected amongst their peers for doing outstanding scientific research in their tenures at universities you might find more to your liking here  and here
    And here is what fire fighters for 911 truth have to say about the “evidence”.

     

    • travellerev 3.1
      11 April 2012 at 7:32 am

      Oops forgot to link to the video’s of building 7 collapsing. Here is a compilation of all these video’s and here is some footage of amateur video’s showing how huge this building was.

    • Te Reo Putake 3.2
      11 April 2012 at 7:35 am

      “With regard to matters requiring thought: the less people know and understand about them, the more positively they attempt to argue concerning them.” 

      ― Galileo Galilei
       
      Ten years, 5 months. No evidence.

      • travellerev 3.2.1
        11 April 2012 at 7:43 am

        As I said you wankers will probably move the goal post but calculations is what your colleague troll wanted and that is what he got now go bully someone else and yes that quote applies totally to you and your wanker mates.

        I can’t believe the size of the blinkers you guys are wearing and what gets me is that while you fight back the fear and the dawning realisation your rich prick masters don’t give a flying fuck about you trying to silence me and the thousands of scientists, fire fighters, engineers and other professionals risking their jobs and reputations who speak the truth.

        There are three things you can not hide for long: The sun, the moon and the truth. Buddha

      • Colonial Viper 3.2.2
        11 April 2012 at 9:37 am

        Ten years, 5 months. No evidence.

        I love the piety of the faithful.

    • rosy 3.3
      11 April 2012 at 7:44 am

      The first one I opened has this for an abstract:

      Abstract: The widespread belief among those who question the official account of 9/11, that a large plane did not hit the Pentagon on 9/11, is unsupported by the evidence. The failure of the 9/11 truth movement to reach consensus on this issue after almost a decade is largely due to a failure to rigorously apply the scientific method to each proposed theory. This paper, by so applying the evidence to each proposed theory, shows that a large plane hitting the Pentagon is by far the most plausible theory.

      One conspiracy theory down, which one goes next?

      • travellerev 3.3.1
        11 April 2012 at 7:52 am

        Good for you Rosy, you discovered the scientific method.
        Some hypothesis (not conspiracy theory but a scientific theory, BIG difference) will be proven right, some wrong. Now read on.

        • rosy 3.3.1.1
          11 April 2012 at 8:04 am

          It may surprise you I wouldn’t have got my degrees without some understanding of the scientific method. Watching videos over and over again until you see what you want to see and then interpreting everything through what you ‘saw’ is not it.

          • travellerev 3.3.1.1.1
            11 April 2012 at 8:09 am

            No, just reading one paragraph of one paper to judge the many is.
            Rosy, whatever.

            • rosy 3.3.1.1.1.1
              11 April 2012 at 8:35 am

              I’ve read more on this topic than I’ve ever wanted to. I just had a quick look to see if there was something different… and that was it 😉

              • thatguynz …
                11 April 2012 at 8:51 am

                OK simple question – do you believe the official account Rosy?

                • rosy …
                  11 April 2012 at 8:57 am

                  I think the official account is more probable than any other account I’ve seen. (I also think their mistakes before the event haven’t helped with their perceived post-event credibility).

                  • freedom …
                    11 April 2012 at 10:38 am

                    Rosy, for clarity, what do you call the official account? The 911 Commission Report, The NIST report? or are you simply singing the pavlovian aria, repeating ad-nauseum the MSM bleatings that have programmed so much of the population to not believe what they saw, but what they are told they saw.

                    • rosy …
                      12 April 2012 at 6:45 am

                      My family would lol if they saw you insulting me with that ‘Pavlovian response to MSM’ line. I’m not known for being in thrall of ‘authority’.

                      I’ve read NIST and browsed the 911 Commission report, so for me they are both part of the official account.

                      I’m not an engineer, physicist, emergency response person nor was I an eyewitness so like most people I get my information interpreted from others. Were you there? are you qualified to opine? One of us will be sucking eggs in 50 years when the original docs are released. Until then you’re welcome to interpret things in a way that makes sense to you, and I’ll do the same.

                • locus …
                  11 April 2012 at 9:08 am

                  I believe the NIST report and i know a little more than most about fires and accident investigation. However i don’t feel any need to try to ‘prove’ all the conspiracy theorists wrong

                  • AnnetteH …
                    11 April 2012 at 9:49 am

                    If you “believe” (a matter of faith) I suspect you didn’t read the NIST report, where the question of WTC7 has a convoluted and unlikely explanation.

                    From a group of architects and engineers – http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/57-news-releases-by-others/450-scientific-theory.html
                    A free-falling building means there is no supporting structure whatsoever below to slow the building’s fall. The NIST theory does not explain this astounding fact. (more at link)

                    Investigate all aspects of WTC7 and your understanding of the whole matter should improve to the extent that you no longer need faith to consider the many outstanding questions.

                    • locus …
                      12 April 2012 at 6:09 am

                      let me repeat: i have read the NIST report and i understood it. “Believe” was a very bad word to use – I should have said: i accept that the NIST report was written by professionals who have a good understanding, and their analysis of the evidence gives me certainty the WTC buildings burnt down. Nothing else i’ve read, and that’s plenty, has led me to have any doubts about their findings.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      12 April 2012 at 11:34 am

                      There have been no other instances in history where a steel framed skyscraper “burnt down” collapsing to the ground on its own foot print.

                      Yet suddenly we get three in one day, each of the three having suffered assymetrical impact and fire damage, yet each collapsing in a completely symmetric and instantaneous way?

                  • freedom …
                    11 April 2012 at 10:32 am

                    i strongly suspect you have not read the NIST report at all, but may have glanced at a couple of quotes from it as any rational person who has actually read the report knows full well the questions raised by the numerous omissions of fact, far outweigh any conclusive proof offered by its flawed methods and fictitious theories. All Hail Thermal Expansion !!!

                    How can you put any faith in a report that has actually changed its official final and complete story . . . three times ???

                    • locus …
                      12 April 2012 at 6:13 am

                      i’d be more concerned if the report had been accepted in its entirety first up without any critical analysis. Peer reviews and revision based on expert input is essential in this kind of investigation. The findings are critical for future building design and fire safety.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      12 April 2012 at 11:37 am

                      Improving upon an essential and changeable fiction is a very necessary process, yes.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  11 April 2012 at 9:45 am

                  I think the official account is more probable than any other account I’ve seen.

                  Isn’t it remarkable that “probable” is all we have to go on at the moment as opposed to say, “beyond all reasonable doubt”.

                  Interesting isn’t it.

                  By the way, how did they explain the issue of how an amateur student single engine light plane pilot managed to successfully fly a commuter passenger jet nap-of-the-earth (well under radar detection altitudes) over urban terrain for at least a mile in order to hit the side of a low-rise structure like the Pentagon?

                  That’s fucking expert flying even for a seasoned military professional who is experienced “on type” (i.e. has many flying hours on that specific kind of plane).

                  • rosy …
                    11 April 2012 at 10:06 am

                    Ok I’ll go with beyond reasonable doubt. We’ll have to disagree on this one.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      11 April 2012 at 10:20 am

                      Being pedantic and just for the record:

                      – a student pilot
                      – studying only on light single engine planes
                      – successfully flew a large passenger jet type (that he had zero hours experience on)
                      – nap-of-the-earth hugging the ground for over a mile
                      – on an approach that he had never used or practiced before
                      – straight into the side of the Pentagon
                      – the first time he tried it (i.e. he didn’t muck up his approach, overshoot and have to double back, or abort his final approach because he was on the wrong heading and be forced to retry, etc)

                  • muzza911 …
                    11 April 2012 at 10:32 am

                    Incredible piloting skills, unvelieveable one might say. The only two planes ever to have vapourized on impact, about as convincing as the passports found unscathed under the rubble of the twin towers, or the building 7 “collapse”

                    Beyond reasonable doubt – Please never serve on a jury!

                    Edit – cv, nothing in those lines of enquiry to look at mate. I practiced those maneuvers daily while doing a PPL. Amazing what you can learn in a Grumman

                    • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                      11 April 2012 at 11:06 am

                      No debris to see here, especially not from this angle.

                      I’ve been looking for the very funny comedy skit where Bush and Cheney get together to plan the whole thing – figure out how to bribe the tens-of-thousands of air-traffic controllers, engineers, police and firecrew etc etc.

                      It’s impossible to find though because of all the other witless crap from the loony echo chamber. If anyone has a link I’d love to read it again 🙂

                    • higherstandard …
                      11 April 2012 at 11:26 am

                      Although I accept that it is almost impossible to change anyone’s deeply held beliefs the is ample evidence that the pentagon plane didn’t ‘vapourize’ on impact there were plenty of pieces scattered about.

                      If you do simple search on google there’s oodles of photos showing wreckage.

                    • freedom …
                      11 April 2012 at 11:48 am

                      to Higher Standard 11:26

                      oh you poor sad puppy. If that wreckage is what you believe came from a 757 airliner then you are in need of either, a: new eyes or b: a few basic lessons in spatial reasoning. Where are the wings???? the seats ???

                      and where are two six tonne Jet engines ?? Where are the undercarriage assemblies? Where is anything apart from a few scraps of painted aluminium and a rotor head that only matches an aircraft engine that is not only used on much much smaller planes but also can be found in a few drone aircraft and some missile assemblies.

                      but to return to your wreckage … do not overlook the fact that this evidence of a crime was illegally collected in the hours after the attack, and magically dissappeared before any official investigation was begun, much like the steel from the towers for example

                      you sad sad puppy, Q. when your Uncle took your nose did you believe that too?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      11 April 2012 at 4:58 pm

                      Amazing what you can learn in a Grumman

                      F-14 Tomcat??? lol

                    • McFlock …
                      11 April 2012 at 5:18 pm

                      Yus, a plane will always be plane-shaped, especially after it flies through reinforced concrete at speed with substantial amounts of fuel on board.
                         
                      Oh that’s right, a plane can’t burn.  

      • muzza 3.3.2
        11 April 2012 at 7:59 am

        Yes an amateur pilot flew that huge commercial jet in patters which experienced military pilots said are almost impossible, right into the pentagon, and it left damage the size of a cesna!

        Yet nobody saw the jet, and no cameras picked it up on the way to the building, and the debris was , lets call it, non existent!

        Facinating stuff!

        I fly planes, my old man flies plans, his old man flew planes in the air force, and none of us think that a plane that size hit the pentagon! The evidence around that impact was…where was it again, non existent!

        • Kotahi Tane Huna 3.3.2.1
          11 April 2012 at 8:09 am

          “…non-existent”? Not according to Allyn E. Kilsheimer. Who was at the scene. Were you at the scene, Muzza? Didn’t think so.

          • muzza 3.3.2.1.1
            11 April 2012 at 8:11 am

            LOL – What about all the cameras Bloke….

            Oh they all failed, apart from one, which showed nothing..

            Guess the plane was moving too fast for it…

            One name is all you got

            Fuck off!

            • Kotahi Tane Huna 3.3.2.1.1.1
              11 April 2012 at 8:25 am

              Oh dear. Yes Muzza, that’s right, that’s the only name I’ve got. A Google search for eye witness accounts returns no results, honest, no really, trust me.

              I can also reveal that Thierry Meyssan was definitely right there, standing next to you, Muzza.

              • freedom …
                11 April 2012 at 11:01 am

                as stated by the authorities themselves there are/were approximately 63 cameras pointing towards the very area of the Pentagon where a large commercial Airliner is meant to have impacted. The views are from hotels and gas stations and freeway cameras and cctv security systems in the area. Even the Pentagon admits that over twenty cameras exist and were recording the impact site. The Pentagon was at the time, one of the most cctv surveillance heavy buildings in the entire world.
                yet oddly, the only images they could find of use were six completely useless images from behind a carpark barrier partially obscuring the stated flight path and impact site.

                Even if you only take the same time period that the six frames the FBI released images came from, allow for abare a minimum image capture system of five frames a second that is still over three hundred single frames of images that were recorded, confiscated and never released…why?

                Just for fun you may want to explain how a plane with a wingspan of over a hundred feet folds up into a sixteen foot wide imapct zone, has two six tonne engines evaporate due to the intense fireball yet leaves telephone books and office chairs unsinged barely thrity feet away?

                • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                  11 April 2012 at 11:19 am

                  Explain? Various people already have, from Popular Mechanics on up, but according to you their explanations don’t add up, because you reckon they just don’t, or something.

                  Not that you back up your vague feelings with actual calculations, though, and you can’t even all agree on the same narrative. I think you don’t understand the Physics involved, so you mask your ignorance with incredulity.

                  PS: re: cameras, you mean to tell me that they could bribe all those people and mount a covert inside attack on their own armed forces, but not fake a few blurry CCTV images? Are you completely dense?

                  • freedom …
                    11 April 2012 at 12:38 pm

                    I am not going to sit here rehashing ten years of dialogues and providing thousands of links to scientifically verifiable work because you fail to present any credible credentials that you seek the truth. The evidence you put forward only promotes doubt that you have even brought the most basic tenets of critical thought to bear on any of the Official Story. Even when the Official Story constantly needs updating every-time new scientifically proven data is presented to contest it.

                    ..and Popular Mechanics??? well they have had their bugle calls silenced so many times even the original die hard pundits of their propaganda steer clear of it.

                    in short, the Standard has seen this dialogue many times before and perhaps if you spent some time going through the vast wealth of data previously spoken of on the site then you would not look like a man holding a sieve to capture the rain.

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      11 April 2012 at 12:45 pm

                      To save time, here’s all the facts presented so far by the 9/11 denial movement:
                       
                      And here are the names of the real conspirators:
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       

                    • muzza …
                      11 April 2012 at 1:05 pm

                      Hey Voice does it scare you to think there are things happening in the world, beyond your control or comprehension! It must do, as between Bloke and yourself, the thought of such a scenario allows you to believe in fantasy, the same way you ridicule others for, hypocrite much!

                      Denier, truther , racist, anti semite…..Thats all you got, is labels….and a very closed mind!

                      Maybe Bloke can repeat once more “don’t have such an open mind that your brains fall out”

                      Hey I’ll call you next time there is a quiz on somewhere, keep your phone handy!

                    • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                      11 April 2012 at 1:24 pm

                      If you cast your gaze upon a few of my responses on this very page, you will debunk your own bullshit – I have spent plenty of time looking at plenty of your “evidence” and finding the same tired old zombie crap reheated over and over.

                      Take your whining, “Freedom” – first you draw my attention to a lack of camera footage, then when I address that you back right off. Come on, how come the all powerful, able-to-suborn-anyone-they-please secret chiefs couldn’t muster up a few grainy ol’ photos eh? All those “eye-witnesses” and they couldn’t even manage a bit of Photoshop. Were the secret chief’s computers down that day? Perhaps they’d gone Galt for the weekend, no\?

                      Oops, is that thought a bit too critical for you?

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      11 April 2012 at 1:25 pm

                      I’m excitedly waiting for the call, Muzza! I sure hope you ring soon because after waiting 10 and a half years for any evidence of a conspiracy other than the actual one that caused 9/11, I tend to get a little bored.
                       
                      Denier, turther, racist etc are not merely labels, they accurately describe Ev’s political position, based on her own words. Don’t forget climate change denier, either. If you want to defend the illogical and unprovable fantasies of a right wing loon, that’s your problem, not mine. Me, I’m going to stick with rationality, empirical method and left wing politics.

                    • freedom …
                      11 April 2012 at 2:18 pm

                      http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-11042012/comment-page-1/#comment-457950

                      Kotahi Tane Huna,
                      firstly, all video footage was confiscated by the authorities, they freely admit that.

                      i am completely befuddled by what the hell you are talking about.
                      “how come the all powerful, able-to-suborn-anyone-they-please secret chiefs couldn’t muster up a few grainy ol’ photos eh? ” that is the very question people would like to know. ‘They’ confiscated every image, every tape, every hard drive that held or could possibly hold an image of the aircraft, So where is the plane? Ask the authorities !

                      Certainly there is still room for the occasional comment here and there but this forum is generally exhausted of dialogue on 911. So i am not backing off in quivering fear as you suggest. I am simply respecting the wishes of our hosts by not bothering to do battle on certain blog boards everytime some troll wants an itch scratched. There are better uses for this medium, as The Standard has proven time and again, NZ is in a very fragile place in its history.

                      Trying to convince those that support the Official Story of 911 to question the findings, takes a back seat when whatever paradigm shifting event required to personally wake you up is obviously still some time off. Perhaps when your grandkids are standing in a meal-line presenting their RFID implant and receiving their work voucher for the next day, you may think back and quietly feel very very ill. It has all been said, for over ten years the debate has continued and yes there are fanatics on both sides. Yes there are people doing the Truth movement much harm. There are also thousands of highly qualified and respected people who certainly know a hell of a lot more on the topic than you do. Popular Mechanics? LOL, and i guess G W Bush won two elections also.

                      If the official Story is so simple, why was Saudi Arabia not attacked as that is where the terrorists purportedly came from? oh yeah and how come so many of the 19 high-jackers are alive today ????? And WTC7 fell down because of Thermal Expansion ? ? ?
                      See how stupid the story gets without even trying.

                      You want the Truth to be a simple story. One that can be laid at the doorstep of a bunch of guys in a cave. It is not that simple. It will not go away. If you decide to rehash the illusory rhetoric that passes for 911 reality then do not abuse others simply because they have the common sense not to swallow the koolaid.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      11 April 2012 at 3:43 pm

                      If the official Story is so simple, why was Saudi Arabia not attacked as that is where the terrorists purportedly came from?

                      Because the AQ leadership was in Afghanistan. OBL had had his saudi citizenship revoked, he had declared war on Saudi Arabia, reasons like that.

                      oh yeah and how come so many of the 19 high-jackers are alive today ?????

                      Really? I assume you have reliable links for that. How come AQ released martyrdom videos for the hijackers? Why did senior AQ planners do interviews detailing their planning fo 9/11? I assume you’ve read Yosri Fouda’s book “masterminds of terror”. along with the looming tower it’s a must read whatever side of the debate you are on.

                      I must admit that I tend to find truthers to be remarkebly uninformed about the official theory, for people trying to critique it.

                      And WTC7 fell down because of Thermal Expansion ? ? ?

                      It was a factor, yes. Read the NIST report, try and understand it. Do you think thermal expansion is a trivial thing, by the way?

                      See how stupid the story gets without even trying

                      Not really. No where near as tupid as any alternate theory that gets put forward, oh hang on there are none. Just wiffle.

                    • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                      11 April 2012 at 3:55 pm

                      “WTC7 fell down because of thermal expansion.” No, you tiresome parrot, it fell down because of damaged sustained in a terrorist attack, as evidenced by a highly detailed report – linked above. You think you can summarise that in one easy soundbite, and then you have the stupidity to lecture me about evidence and science.

                      Do you think the US needed to do this to justify attacking Iraq? When have they ever cared about justification before? Chomsky quite clearly outlined the military doctrine driving their quest for oil – you think they have to make shit up on top of that? How absurdly naive.

                      You think the evidence that there is a war on democracy somehow validates your fantasies about cruise missiles and thermite and controlled demolition and all the other facile dreck that keeps you clicking feverishly?

                      Before you talk about respecting others, don’t you think a little self-respect might be in order, instead of humiliating yourself over again?

                    • wtl …
                      11 April 2012 at 3:55 pm

                      oh yeah and how come so many of the 19 high-jackers are alive today ?????

                      LOL. This caught my reply in PB’s response (I didn’t bother to read the original comment, naturally). So the truthers really believe that someone carried out this huge conspiracy but didn’t even bother to have the hijackers they blamed killed? Seriously???

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      11 April 2012 at 5:58 pm

                      No, you tiresome parrot, it fell down because of damaged sustained in a terrorist attack, as evidenced by a highly detailed report – linked above.

                      Not sure how assymetrical damage mainly to one side of the building structure caused the entire building structure to symmetrically collapse, instantaneously.

                      You see, that normally takes a carefully planned controlled demolition event to accomplish because normally severe assymetrical damage would cause the building to collapse unevenly on to one side.

                      It might even leave parts of the building standing upright as other parts collapsed and tore away.

          • travellerev 3.3.2.1.2
            11 April 2012 at 8:24 am

            Yep, he spends a lot of time on ranting debunking forums or he gets the talking points fed to him.

        • travellerev 3.3.2.2
          11 April 2012 at 8:21 am

          It is still a hotly debated subject. I’m with you guys on this one but only a real independent investigation with all the video’s confiscated around the Pentagon will solve this tantalising conundrum. I personally think something like this is what hit the Pentagon.

          • Kotahi Tane Huna 3.3.2.2.1
            11 April 2012 at 8:33 am

            I personally think it would be fun to build a pit, an arena of sorts, and let you argue it out with the families of the people who were on the plane.

            • travellerev 3.3.2.2.1.1
              11 April 2012 at 8:52 am

              There you go, another one of those Key talking pints rolled out to manipulate the emotional environment in which 911 needs to be discussed to keep the official conspiracy theory in tact.
              It is the survivors and family members of people who died in those towers that had to lobby for 1.5 years for an official investigation which when it happened was judged to be a cover up and a great big lie by those same family members and to this day it is the family members who want a new and independent investigation.
              For those of you interested in what family members really want and feel here is a heartbreaking documentary called: Press for truth.
              Here is how they are still trying to get answers to their questions

              Here is a list of names (not all inclusive) of family members and survivors of 911 speaking out on 911 and to this day I have several facebook friends who have lost loved ones on that day.

              I would personally like to see them in a pit with you you manipulating bastard or perhaps not because I wouldn’t want to see an asshole like you cause them more pain with your horrible insensitive use of their loss as an argument to stifle the need for a new and independent investigation into what happened on that day.
               
               
               

              • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                11 April 2012 at 9:14 am

                “…the need for a new and independent investigation…” is precisely what you have failed to show exists. Abject, complete, utter, total, failure.

                Ten years, five months, no evidence.

                Just the same tired old right-wing bullshit about government conspiracies. Fits with the rabid survivalist narrative much?

                I have wasted enough time on this today. Keep believing the fantasies. The best thing about your abuse of me and others is that you are going to get more tired and more bitter and learn more ways to fail and wallow in ridicule, for the rest of your life, most likely. And I’m going to laugh at you 🙂

                • travellerev …
                  11 April 2012 at 9:17 am

                  Wow, this is what is called projection in Psychiatry. I haven’t seen a single rational argument from you. Only emotional pressure, ridicule and warped talking points and now the old I have wasted enough time on you meme. Classic. Have a nice day.

    • Kotahi Tane Huna 3.4
      11 April 2012 at 7:50 am

      I wonder if you have read Urich’s report, which “…refutes the popular notion that the building
      weighed 500,000 tons.”

      It quotes NIST as a reliable source. Oh noes, he’s joined the dark side 😆

      Or the Journal of 9/11 Studies, for example, which presents the following:
      “The widespread belief among those who question the official account of 9/11, that a large plane did not hit the Pentagon on 9/11, is unsupported by the evidence.”

      As for FFFNET, Eric Lawyer was exposed as a liar years ago. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=183072

      But keep clinging to your beliefs, hold them tight, eh. Just make sure you only ever consider evidence that supports them, though.

      • travellerev 3.4.1
        11 April 2012 at 8:06 am

        ROFL, you call that an exposure?
        Why is it that when material proven to be correct but coming from a tainted institution all of a sudden a “debunking” argument.

        Why is self doubt and research possibly correcting one hypothesis all of a sudden proof that all the hypothesis which we were able to proof correct as incorrect.
        And why is a rant of a forum all of a sudden proof that someone is a liar. Erik Lawyer points out that the standard according to which all fires are investigated was not applied to the 911 collapses/fires and that’s OK because the standard set in 1000s of precedents was not a Law?

        What I do get an inkling of is that you spend an inordinate amount of time online reading “debunking” sites and you are a master of all the Key “debunking” points. I wonder how much you get paid?

        • Kotahi Tane Huna 3.4.1.1
          11 April 2012 at 8:15 am

          Oh the pay’s quite good actually. Shilling for the man is a growth industry these days of course, what with all the right wing claptrap to defend, and I’ve had a few lucky breaks. I’ll leave your fertile imagination to fill in the blanks.

          “Ten years, five months, no evidence.” Cheers TRP 🙂

        • Gosman 3.4.1.2
          11 April 2012 at 8:17 am

          Same as me Travellerev. Although he normally does the early morning shift and I take the afternoon.

          It’s a good gig. You should get into it. It might give you some spare cash to send to your mate Richard Gage keeping him in the style he has become accustomed to.

          • travellerev 3.4.1.2.1
            11 April 2012 at 8:29 am

            Oh looki here, Work day started has it? Come in at 8 am, get coffee start the computer and hook up to the Standard for more hour long time wasting.
            Maybe you’re on the dole Gossi, maybe you’re a paid shill because if I was your boss I sure as shit wouldn’t want you to spend hours debunking mad conspiracy theorists.

            • locus 3.4.1.2.1.1
              11 April 2012 at 8:52 am

              debunking mad conspiracy theorists

              is not scientifically possible

            • Bored 3.4.1.2.1.2
              11 April 2012 at 11:33 am

              Trav, I am curious as to why you continue to try and proof to an unreceptive audience that there was a conspiracy behind the Twin Towers nightmare. From where I see it there quite possibly could BUT even if there was who can ever be called to account.

              My take is that there was a massive “intellegence failure” from the CIA etc, and that even if it was known there was something afoot lots of parties had agendas that sidelined them. The same has been said of Pearl Harbour, again there is no definitive proof of systemic conspiracy or blind eyes.

              So if we have no real proof of conspiracy OR if the people are going to ignore it (i.e Joe Public and their “leaders”), why concentrate on the act. What can be easily demonstrated is that the US and its allies used this act as “justification” for wars they needed to fight for geo political reasons such as oil. That is where the lack of honesty becomes apparent, the simple line that “We in the west needed to kick the shit out of Iraq to grab their oil so we could continue happy motoring for another few years”.

              • freedom …
                11 April 2012 at 11:59 am

                expressed so succintly with the recent announcement that one of the very archtiects of the deception that signed the death warrants for a million civilians admits the lies and the whole world shrugs and carries on ..

              • tsmithfield …
                11 April 2012 at 12:11 pm

                On that, I would agree with you Bored.

                It is difficult to convince someone that a conspiracy theory is false, because what ever contradictory evidence that is produced is considered by the conspiracy theorists to have been manufactured by the conspirators so that it doesn’t appear to be a conspiracy. How do you argue against that?

                • Te Reo Putake …
                  11 April 2012 at 12:37 pm

                  Yep, then you get accused of being a ‘paid shill’, without any hint as to who the paymaster might be or what services they are paying for.
                   
                  Still, 911 truth denial is mainly righties arguing with righties, and I’m fine with that. Distracts them from doing real damage elsewhere, such as in the idiot cousin to the Turth movement, climate change denial.

                  • Stephen Doyle …
                    11 April 2012 at 1:01 pm

                    Well bugger me. How many shooters on the grassy knoll again?

                    • Tiger Mountain …
                      11 April 2012 at 5:12 pm

                      The ‘spirit’ of the “magic bullet” often comes to mind during the regular 9/11 discussions here.

                      I pay little heed to the utterings of the US Military Industrial set up as it used to be known, hanging ‘chads’ leading to illegitimate President Dubya, more invasions of sovereign lands than you can shake a Humvee at, what a bunch of assholes. The whole set up is bent and undemocratic. The attack on Iraq was a major earn for a motley crew of corporates.

                      9/11 events are far from proven IMO, and I don’t like the bullying tone of responses to Ev’s posts. I don’t have the dedication or time to devote to the 9/11 building collapses but something there stinks bigtime. Ev always links to videos or documents that are worth a look. Lay people I know watch some of the vids and just don’t buy the official line. As Bhudda said (n.b. as a marxist I am not a major Bhudda quoter) “three things always come out; the sun, the moon and the truth.

              • travellerev …
                12 April 2012 at 11:11 am

                Bored,
                Do you have any idea how many people lurk on this blog?

                While the above idjits ridicule me and the others who know the official Conspiracy theory can not be true because basic laws of physics can’t be broken and who want a new and independent investigation into the events of 911 a lot of people who are intelligent, curious and waking up to the fact that a small group of rich people are destroying the global economy for their own gain find my blog and other websites with information through debates such as this and as long as people are dying as a result of the events of that day I and tens of thousandsof others will keep it alive in the communal memory so that one day the real perpetrators may be brought to justice.

      • belladonna 3.4.2
        11 April 2012 at 6:49 pm

        Who would believe anything James Randi says, he is the ultimate fraudster.

  4. Hilary 4
    11 April 2012 at 7:47 am

    The government is refusing to reveal the amount of taxpayer funding and other details around the public private partnership involved in building two new schools in Auckland.

    I have been involved in chool governance long enough to realise that anything to do with school property can be very fraught, and new buildings are very vulnerable to flaws, often because of building shortcuts and insufficient attention to detail (often to save money). What is the record of the companies involved, and what is their liability?

    There is also nothing in this deal abut how appropriate the spaces are for modern teaching, for example are there quiet spaces and low sensory areas, and how easy would it be for a child or teacher in a wheelchair to get out in a hurry?

    Trust us we know what we are doing, as Craig Foss says, only makes me more suspicious.

    • Janice 4.1
      11 April 2012 at 8:13 am

      I have tried to find who “Learning Infrastructure Partners” is. The best I have been able to come up with is http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/nz-consortium-preferred-bidder-first-ppp-school-ck-114649 from the NBR, Hawkins are the only company I recognised from the consortium, the others are all acronyms. Mary Wilson did better last night than Simon Mercep this morning, but neither managed to get anything out of Craig Foss about costs, etc. He just mouthed the party line re “commercial sensitivity”, and “all will be revealed”. No one is asking why the two new schools are going the Donkeys electrorate and not where they are really needed like Christchurch.

      • DH 4.1.1
        11 April 2012 at 9:04 am

        Interesting it’s being underwritten by the taxpayer via the super fund money channelled through Morrison & Co.

        From MED….

        “The Learning Infrastructure consortium is made up of firms with significant experience in designing and building New Zealand schools including ASC Architects and Hawkins Construction. Programmed Facility Maintenance (PFM) will maintain the school buildings. Morrison & Co’s Public Infrastructure Partnership Fund will provide the equity and Westpac Bank will provide the senior debt.”

        I can recall Morrison & Co were bragging potential returns of more than 20% when they launched the Public Infrastructure Partnership Fund.

        Morrison is part of Infratil, Super Fund is also involved with Infratil in the ex-Shell petrol stations.

        From Foss…

        ““I’m confident Learning Infrastructure Partners is up to the task of creating world class facilities for 21st century learners, this is important because the PPP model transfers all risk onto the private partner”

        Err, no the Govt still carries some of the risk through the super fund.

        • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1.1
          11 April 2012 at 1:43 pm

          Actually, the government carries all of the risk as it can’t allow the schools to fail and, IMO, the Learning Infrastructure consortium will be wound up and unable to be found once the buildings start failing.

      • DH 4.1.2
        11 April 2012 at 9:38 am

        Another one for you Janice, this looks to be the maintenance contractor…. an Aus player who call themselves Programmed Facility Maintenance back in Aus .

        http://www.programmed.co.nz/

        Curious the domain name was registered two days before the election in November 2008. Odd coincidence.

        They have a media release on their Aus site confirming it

        http://www.programmed.com.au

        Will be interesting to see who their 25yr contract is with – the Govt or the owner of the building.

        • Janice 4.1.2.1
          11 April 2012 at 10:27 am

          Thanks for that DH, I still couldn’t find any names of directors or CEO on the site, only clients and photos of smiling people working hard. I wonder what blind trusts are also investing in this.

          • DH 4.1.2.1.1
            11 April 2012 at 2:34 pm

            I doubt there any Janice, I’d expect the business structure to be pretty standard with the usual shell company to hide the parents from liabilities. If there’s any corruption here it would likely be the jobs for favours variety; some cosy directorships or similar for a select few and perhaps some inside info on share prices etc. Could be there’s been some kickbacks already to swing the PPP concept, I doubt we’ll ever know for sure there.

            Maybe our media will do their job for a change & start asking the serious questions but I wouldn’t hold out much hope on that front.

            Wouldn’t it be nice to have a guaranteed job & income for 25 years. Alas it’s not for us mortals.

  5. Pete George 5
    11 April 2012 at 7:57 am

    Peter Dunne was on Firstline this morning laying out his case for supporting increasing the length of Paid Parental Leave.

    He said it was far too soon to worry about the possible use of a “rare” veto to block the bill, should it get the support of all of Labour, Greens, Mana, Maori Party, NZF and United Future.

    As coalition partners United Future and Maori Party are in similar positions, but should be free to support a bill that fits with their policies.

  6. mickysavage 6
    11 April 2012 at 8:01 am

    The National blitzkrieg in favour of the misnamed “civil detention” is being rolled out.

    On Sunday the SST had an in-depth article on Murray Wilson aka “the Beast of Blenheim”. 

    Then true to form yesterday Cabinet discussed and approved Judith Collins’ proposed legislation.

    And this morning on Morning Report the police chipped in.  Former police officer Nigel Hendrcks who was stabbed continuously by a recidivist and paralyzed was interviewed.  Understandably at a human level he thinks his attacker should never be released.  The Sensible Sentencing Trust is fully in support.  No surprise there.

    Then the officer in charge of the Wilson case chipped in and inevitably supported the proposal.

    A couple of opponents made very qualified statements.

    But this proposal breaches the universal declaration of human rights and is an utterly appalling attempted political wedge.  Labour cannot support it but National will then attempt to paint them as “weak on crime”.

    Collins stated that a Bill of Rights Certificate will be issued.  It will be interesting to see how much strain the English Language will be subject to in order to justify something that clearly breaches some fundamental rights. 

    • Uturn 6.1
      11 April 2012 at 8:32 am

      “…Adam Dudding comes face to face with the ‘Beast of Blenheim’….”

      Not in the SST article he didn’t. Not even close. Laughable.

    • prism 6.2
      11 April 2012 at 9:09 am

      It seems that the sentence of preventive detention would give the prison system the right to hold onto the thoroughly warped and vicious. It is very expensive letting such people out into society under control and restraints. And the human rights of others who haven’t committed a string of vicious offences should be paramount. It is not fair to victims, usually women and children, and people who have become the object of focussed hatred, to be the tethered goats to a warped vicious personality.

      One example is of the woman murdered within hours by a voluntary patient at a mental hospital who checked herself out. In that case I don’t know what could have been done to restrain her but many women in NZ are trying to have a life but have become the obssession of a diseased mind and their lives are filled with fear. Who cares about their rights in this great country? Not many men, who can afford to be objective, philosophical and legalistic about it, being usually untouched by such danger.

      • Carol 6.2.1
        11 April 2012 at 9:18 am

        But surely this should be taken into account with the original court sentence? It seems wrong to me to over-ride that court sentence.

        • higherstandard 6.2.1.1
          11 April 2012 at 10:14 am

          “Under current sentencing regimes, Wilson would be a prime candidate for preventive detention – the open-ended jailing of sexual offenders deemed too dangerous ever to return to society. There are around 270 prisoners in this category, and although they are all technically entitled to parole, only a couple a year are ever granted it.

          Wilson slipped that net because his sexual convictions pre-date the arrival of preventive detention.

          Wilson is unusual not because his crimes are horrific, nor because his attitude towards rehabilitation has been hopeless (when asked last year if he would stick to a post-release condition that he have no contact with children under the age of 16 he said “I don’t give a stuff about it”). He is unusual because those facts aren’t enough to keep him locked up.”

          The best thing that could have happened to this oxygen thief would have been a bullet into the temple post conviction.

          • mickysavage 6.2.1.1.1
            11 April 2012 at 10:35 am

            So HS are you comfortable with changing of the rules after the game has finished?  Not a teensy bit anxious that the Executive should determine who gets locked away not based on the rule of law but based on how icky the subject is?  Not worried at the slipperly slope to the curtailing of our freedoms this sort of action represents?

            • higherstandard 6.2.1.1.1.1
              11 April 2012 at 11:01 am

              Yes, No and No

            • Draco T Bastard 6.2.1.1.1.2
              11 April 2012 at 2:13 pm

              In extreme situations retrospective legislation is required – this appears to be one of those times. Do I like it? No but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t necessary.

              • mickysavage …
                11 April 2012 at 2:33 pm

                But this is not a case where an unusual legal finding has popped up.  The law was very clear when Wilson was sentenced.  He received a long but finite sentence.  There was nothing controversial about what happened.  Why should his expectation of freedom be taken away from him for political gain?

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  11 April 2012 at 4:22 pm

                  But this is not a case where an unusual legal finding has popped up.

                  No, it was a case where the judge couldn’t put him away indefinitely even though that was obviously needed. The judge recognised this at the time but the law wouldn’t allow it.

                  It’s National and probably is being done almost solely for political gain but that doesn’t mean that the community doesn’t need to be permanently protected from this person. In this case the right of the community not to be put in danger takes precedence over the persons expectation of freedom.

      • McFlock 6.2.2
        11 April 2012 at 9:38 am

        Oh ffs someone acting under the influence of severe but obviously under-diagnosed mental illness is not even in the same league as a criminal that the double-bunking put-’em-in-chains-crowd failed to rehabilitate the first dozen times.

      • Bored 6.2.3
        11 April 2012 at 11:56 am

        I am thoroughly in favour of preventative detention of those who pose a danger to themselves and to others. My biggest issue with it is how we prevent the abuse of detention by politicians and pressure groups, simply because they regularly demonstrate that they cannot be trusted to be our “guardians”.

        • McFlock 6.2.3.1
          11 April 2012 at 12:21 pm

          I’m in favour of medical detention for people who pose a danger to themselves or others.
                     
          I regard the danger of these few individuals (who A]are incorrigible serious offenders; and B]committed their last offence before preventative detention came into effect) as being less than the danger of a government that feels entitled to retrospectively lock people up for previously addressed criminal charges.
               
          First they came for the psychopathic fucktards, but I was not a psychopathic fucktard, and all that…

        • mickysavage 6.2.3.2
          11 April 2012 at 12:23 pm

          Preventative detention laws today give the Courts the power to lock away people like Wilson.  The legislation is to try and catch about 10 historical cases where PD was not available and these people are coming to the end of their sentences.  The problem is not the fact of indefinite detention per se, just the retrospective effect of the proposed law change.

          • Treetop 6.2.3.2.1
            11 April 2012 at 5:37 pm

            Mickey are you opposed to preventative detention?

            I do not for a second think that the National Government are pushing for political gain when a person possess such a risk to vulnerable members of the community.

            A sex abuse survivor serves a long sentence, (45 years in my case to date) the course of their life is impacted on in many ways.

            • mickysavage 6.2.3.2.1.1
              11 April 2012 at 10:27 pm

              No Treetop I am not.

              But I am opposed to the state changing the rules after someone has been sentenced.

              I appreciate this is a really difficult subject.  Wilson and his ilk are scum and all victims deserve the utmost respect and support.  But changing the rules part way through is a breach of basic rights concepts.

              This is the wedge issue of wedge issues.  When yourself and Draco adopt measured responses in favour I can see that those opposed to the proposal are in for a hard time. 

              • Draco T Bastard …
                12 April 2012 at 12:21 am

                Generally speaking I’m with you. The rules aren’t perfect and we have a process for changing and, hopefully, improving them and that change should come into effect no sooner than on the day that the change was legislated. I really don’t like retrospectively changing the rules but there are times when we have to accept an exception. This is, IMO, one of those times because the community does need to be protected from this sociopath.

                That said, we also have to be aware of when the government tries to retrospectively change the rules when it’s not needed and stop them from doing so.

              • Treetop …
                12 April 2012 at 12:34 pm

                This is the wedge issue of wedge issues.

                I thought about search and rescue last night, in particular Pike River. The reason that no rescue team entered the mine was because it was deemed to be too dangerous when the decision was made. Morally and ethically this is also a wedge issue when the safety of the rescuers cannot be guaranteed.

                But I am opposed to the state changing the rules after someone has been sentenced.

                In the case of pedophiles/rapists/murderers society now has a better understanding of the damage/injury which is caused to those who are perpetrated against, this is why we have preventative detention for those who are deemed to be a very high risk of reoffending. Were someone to have been sentenced prior to the introduction of preventative detention and not be deemed to be a public risk today and detained after the sentence had been completed, I to would oppose the changing of the rules.

                Detail of the proposed legislation is required to ensure that a person’s liberty is not being with held unless it is necessary for the safety of the public.

  7. rosy 7
    11 April 2012 at 8:13 am

    Free sharing of published scientific research is gaining some momentum. It can’t happen soon enough IMO.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/apr/09/wellcome-trust-academic-spring

    Nearly 9,000 researchers have already signed up to a boycott of journals that restrict free sharing as part of a campaign dubbed the “academic spring” by supporters due to its potential for revolutionising the spread of knowledge.

    But the intervention of the Wellcome Trust, the largest non-governmental funder of medical research after the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, is likely to galvanise the movement by forcing academics it funds to publish in open online journals.

    Sir Mark Walport, the director of Wellcome Trust, said that his organisation is in the final stages of launching a high calibre scientific journal called eLife that would compete directly with top-tier publications such as Nature and Science, seen by scientists as the premier locations for publishing.

    • KJT 7.1
      11 April 2012 at 9:25 am

      It is long past time this was addressed.

      Academic journals make a fortune out of publishing research, most of which is tax payer funded or would otherwise be public domain.

      Universities and private citizens are paying for access to their own research results.

      Many times I go to link to an article to find it is behind a paywall.

      It also makes it very hard for private citizens to check up on the rubbish and propaganda from politicians and the media.

      • Carol 7.1.1
        11 April 2012 at 9:33 am

        My understanding has been that academic journals pretty much just break even, and there’s not much profit in it. What’s the evidence of vast profits being made? Maybe a handful of the MOST high status journals make some profit, but I reckon most don’t.

        • rosy 7.1.1.1
          11 April 2012 at 9:43 am

          It’s not so much that vast profits are being made, although 35% profit margins is quoted, it’s the money academic libraries have to spend to access research papers – up to 20,000 euros/yr according to the article.

          • Draco T Bastard 7.1.1.1.1
            11 April 2012 at 4:50 pm

            And it’s the universities research as well that was paid for by the taxpayers. Making a profit off other peoples work that was paid for by the taxpayers is a rort.

        • Colonial Viper 7.1.1.2
          11 April 2012 at 9:07 pm

          My understanding has been that academic journals pretty much just break even, and there’s not much profit in it. What’s the evidence of vast profits being made? Maybe a handful of the MOST high status journals make some profit, but I reckon most don’t.

          The journals themselves make very little money. The publishers/distributors of the journals like Elsevier make a killing.

    • ianmac 8.1
      11 April 2012 at 9:48 am

      Very interesting Joe. Rote learning seems to be the essence. Depends on how the connectivity works with real learning problems .
      I can teach my children to say E=MCsquared. And answer tests which has E = ? But whether they or I understand what it means and how it connects is seriously in doubt.
      The argument that kids do need to be able to read and operate basic maths in order to progress is true but surely most do that now anyway.
      It also reminds me of those very insulated religious groups who are totally sure of their beliefs and the kids also being brought up so believing and in total denial of the real world view.

      Be interesting to see just what the NZ version of Charter schools are planning.

      • freedom 8.1.1
        11 April 2012 at 10:21 am

        here is an interview with a lady who has tried for years to highlight what is happening to education around the world by focusing on steps taken in America over the last thirty years. It includes a link to her free e-book. A publication some may find has many relevant points as to why Education in NZ is not what it used to be , and is fast heading in the wrong direction.
        http://tickergrail.blogspot.co.nz/2011/12/secret-history-of-western-education.html

        This link offers a glimpse into the mindset of those who have worked so diligently over the past century to destroy the human potential that is the backbone of education.
        http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/MomsPDFs/Death%20of%20FreeWill_12_11_2010.pdf

        and a whole bunch of related articles, videos, interviews,some good, some waffly, all of them pertinent to the issue.
        http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/

        lastly a couple of simple graphics that do the whole thousand word thing really well
        http://static.infowars.com/2011/03/i/article-images/21school_dees.jpg
        http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ExXXGJAVx0w/TvncUHXfEfI/AAAAAAAAH3o/TNcqdTBZ97s/s1600/dumbing+down+of+america.jpg

        • ianmac 8.1.1.1
          11 April 2012 at 10:35 am

          Some great graphics there freedom. The trouble is that to outsiders a Developmentally based program looks so “messy” whereas a heavily controlled behavioural type looks “good”. It is easier to persuade parents that a sequence of tested steps must mean good teaching even though no-one really learns that way.
          In the first 5 years children learn the huge majority of their lifelong learning in a jumbled way at their own pace and in their own unique way with nary a test in sight. Well until recently!

          • freedom 8.1.1.1.1
            11 April 2012 at 10:45 am

            You know it Ianmac, The herd mentality must be enforced at all costs for fear of what calamity could face the world if the billions of young minds being borne actually were allowed to garner independent thought and implement rationality into their life process. Godalmighty can you just imagine the hell that would be created in a few short generations. Fewer wars, less poverty, better housing, cleaner heavy industry, widespread fair employment practices,

            the horror, the horror

            • Bored 8.1.1.1.1.1
              11 April 2012 at 11:17 am

              Thanks Ianmac and Freedom, something of substance here: cant help thinking that education has become a follow the money game (i.e a commodity transaction) as opposed to equipping everybody with some ability to think critically. Those who “already have” would not want that would they?

              • freedom …
                11 April 2012 at 11:34 am

                when you remove the ability to think rationally, you get to do fun stuff like this …

                “It is being used to get the people used to new types of documentation and carrying new types of identity cards pursuant to the United States instituting a formal policy of internal passports.

                “What Primakov finds funny are what he calls these ‘right wing flag wavers’ who were so anti-communist and they’re supporting a state policy of internal passports. The irony is deafening.”

                Now ask yourself, whose domestic security policies have we been mimicking these past years and who has been at the forefront of biometric data implementation?

                Since Gutenberg first looked to press knowledge instead of grapes, education has always been about how best to control the masses to facilitate the incumbent authority. It has never been about your independent development as a free human being. Don’t believe me, count the drones. The ones beside you and the ones now flying above.

                • Bored …
                  11 April 2012 at 12:03 pm

                  Counting the drones…Gos, HS, PG etc etc all touting the party line even when they don’t receive direct benefit in a rational self interested way. Then there is the other party line from most of the rest of us who argue about fixing a paradigm that cant be fixed because we cant see any alternative structure…my God it hurts the brain to imagine anything outside of the box. We just have not been educated to do so…wonder why… proves your point.

        • muzza911 8.1.1.2
          11 April 2012 at 11:32 am

          Freedom, the Charlotte Iserbyt document is indeed very interesting, I read this a while back.

          I should expect that the document will come under fire from those who would call “conspiracy theory”, at the content of the book, because accepting a “dumbing down” is juxta to their belief that they are free in their thoughts. The dumbing down is also a key component of the propaganda war, which of course hold direct ties into the wider context of world conditioning!

          Control of the mind is critical to the status quo, but more importantly, to the direction the stakeholders of the status quo want to take humanity! Those same stakeholders have spent generations studying and learning the human mind!

          Education at all levels from pre to tertiary has been, and is being subjected to the same ideology!

  9. prism 9
    11 April 2012 at 9:33 am

    The time spent on churning over details of the NY Twin Towers and Pentagon disaster should be
    extended to cover other important historic events. There is such a lot to learn about the details of World War 1 and World War 2 for instance. Understanding the latest disaster shouldn’t become so all encompassing that thoughts and information about past larger ones should be boxed, filed in dusty corners and forgotten.

    I have been reading about Chamberlain in Britain before World War 2 and have gained a different interpretation of his peace-making forays which I had learned were appeasing and lacking integrity. The time between the talks he held and the declaration of war was vital for a better-prepared Britain to withstand the onslaught of offensive instead of being in a very weak and vulnerable condition.

    • ianmac 9.1
      11 April 2012 at 9:53 am

      It was easy for history to mock Chamberlain’s “Peace in Our Time” yet the window gained may have been the time which lead to UK surviving – just. History is vulnerable to just what is chosen and how it is interpreted. Open minds are needed I suppose. Travellev might have a point but why would “they” lie? Mmmmm.

      • Gosman 9.1.1
        11 April 2012 at 6:50 pm

        Rubbish. This analysis ignores the fact that the German army was in no shape to fight a two front war in 1938 especially as it would have had to commit most of the troops to defeating
        Czechoslovakia as they had a world class defensive system and some of the best tanks in Europe. These were the same tanks that the Germans eventually used in great numbers in the Battle of France two years later. On top of this was the fact that the German military hierarchy were still very suspicious of the Nazis at this stage and thought it would be madness to start a shooting war against the UK and France. There were only a handful of third rate garrison divisions in the west of Germany that could be spared to fight the Allies. A concerted effort would have cut Germany in two quite quickly. For a decent read on this I highly recommend Len Deighton’s Blitzkrieg.

        • Tiger Mountain 9.1.1.1
          11 April 2012 at 7:56 pm

          A pertinent question Gozzie, is whose side (fascist/Allies) would you have been on in WWII?, assuming that you are not now in your 90s, which might make for an easier conclusion.

        • McFlock 9.1.1.2
          11 April 2012 at 10:58 pm

          So Hitler would have gifted Stalin a bit more of Poland. England being 4-800 fighter aircraft down on its numbers in the Battle of Britain would have fucked them. Then you get into the “scapa flow fleet cutting logistics for Sea Lion” debate, but of course with Bismark, Tirpitz and Scharnhorst all operational in the North Sea that changes the equation. And now we’re in “what if what if what if” territory. Good for cheap novels, not so hot for judging the leaders of the time.

          • Gosman 9.1.1.2.1
            12 April 2012 at 9:15 am

            We are not talking about Poland here but Czechoslavakia. The German’s would have had a hard time giving away bits of Czechoslavakia to the Soviet Union and carving up Poland at the same time. On top of this is the fact that 1938 was the height of the great Red Army purges in the Soviet Union. They certainly were not in a shape to participate very easily in any offensive operations in support of the Germans. Czechoslavakia had one of the more modern armies in Europe at this stage as well as top class military fortifications along the border with Germany. Virtually the entire German army would have had to have concentrated againstthem and the French and British would have not faced much opposition in the West.

            • McFlock 9.1.1.2.1.1
              12 April 2012 at 12:41 pm

              Oh please. England/France mass on Rhineland border (but in not too much of a rush because of the Maginot line), Germany polishes off Cz while maintaining defensive reserves to West, but Cz needs defensive reserves to NE in case Stalin doesn’t want to stop. Germany then hangs a left and takes out the remainder of Poland. Army is one thing, but at that stage the Germans were way ahead in integrating full combined forces operations. Not to mention the fact that Poland also invaded Czechoslovakia at the same time as Germany.
                  
              But the big difference is that the Czechoslovakians  had some good tanks and some excellent weapons factories. The Germans were fighting to a next-gen playbook from everyone else.
                 
                
              And then on the flipside you’ve got a lower level of hostility between the US and Japan – the US embargoes against Japan escalated over 3 or 4 years from Nanking, and the real brinkmanship was the oil embargo of 1941. That’s a full year of additional fighting without direct US intervention. One might argue that had Germany gone to a Channel stalemate on the Western front and launched Barbarossa a year earlier, they could have taken Moscow the following year (especially if the Japanese weren’t quite so anti-US or even had eyes on “German” oil from the Caucuses, so the Siberian divisions couldn’t be safely redeployed). 
                   

                 

  10. The Chairman 10
    11 April 2012 at 10:18 am

    Ombudsman warns on power sell-down

    The Government’s plan to block public scrutiny of partially privatised power companies is unjustified on commercial grounds and will see a valuable part of the democratic process lost, Chief Ombudsman Beverley Wakem has warned.

    Ms Wakem – whose office investigates public complaints against the Government – said the fact that the Crown was maintaining controlling stakes in the companies on behalf of the public demonstrated their importance to New Zealand’s interests.

    “The sale of a minority shareholding in them did not affect the reasoning for them being subject to the independent oversight and accountability provided through the Ombudsman Act and the Official Information Act (OIA).

    “They will carry on the same operations as they do presently which have significant scope to impact on individuals and communities and the environment. It’s not just about commercial interests, the impact of these companies goes much wider than that and all of those interests ought to be protected.”

    Ms Wakem said there were plenty of safeguards in the OIA to protect against disclosure of commercially sensitive issues.

    Partially privatised council-owned businesses had proved that ongoing obligations under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act and Ombudsman Act did not put them at a commercial disadvantage. “There’s no evidence that continued coverage under the OIA would place these companies at a competitive disadvantage.”

    Green co-leader Russel Norman said that given there appeared to be no clear rationale for removing the companies from OIA requirements, the move suggested “the long-term direction is full privatisation”.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10798005

  11. captain hook 11
    11 April 2012 at 11:25 am

    this government is composed of venal nitwits who dont want any part of their machinations to see the light.
    they are capitalists pure and simple and anyone who has ever red thorstein veblens ‘theory of business enterprise’ will know that keeping people ignorant and off guard is a key part of confusing the opposition.

    • Bored 11.1
      11 April 2012 at 11:49 am

      I read Veblens “Theory of the Leisured Classes” and pissed myself laughing when he compared the well healed capitalists of the Hamptons with New Guinea tribals. have not read the Business book but hear its also quite a laugh.

  12. Te Reo Putake 12
    11 April 2012 at 12:27 pm

     
    Latest news update fromthe Meatworkers’ Union. A bit lengthy for a comment, but it’s interesting to read.


    Talley’s/AFFCO Fact Sheet
     
    11 April 2012
    The Meat Workers Union (MWU) has over 1300 workers in AFFCO meat plants located in:  Moerewa, Horotiu (near Hamilton), Rangiuru (near Te Puke), Wairoa, Whanganui and Feilding.  It also has a membership in two small leather processing plants in Wiri (Auckland) and Napier.
    AFFCO is owned by the Talleys.  This is one of the biggest privately owned company in the country and the Talley family have interests in meat, dairy, fish and horticulture.  Combined it employs up to 4500 New Zealand workers.  The NBR rich list has the family wealth estimated at $300 million.
    On 24 February this year after only 10 hours of negotiations for a new Collective Agreement, the company gave the MWU notice of an indefinite lockout for 770 of its 1300 members leaving the remaining to continue working.  The MWU has subsequently  issued a number of limited days strike action for those remaining in the plants and subsequently a further 50 workers have been indefinitely locked out with an additional 470 locked out over Easter meaning they did not receive statutory holiday pay for these days.   Following Easter AFFCO intend the 470 “Easter lockout” workers will return to work while their union colleagues remain locked out.  These workers will take one weeks strike action beginning 13th April.  As at 10 April the locked out workers have been locked out for 42 days without pay!
    We estimate up to 5000 children are impacted by the lockout.
    What are the issues?
    Talleys /AFFCO workers are covered by a core collective agreement with site agreements determining additional terms and conditions.  The core pay rates range from $13.48 to $15.76 per hour.  On top of this workers are paid a rate based on the number of animals killed.  If the “tally” for the day is reached, wages range from $27 to $31 per hour.  The work is seasonal (2 to 11 months per year, with many short days and short weeks even during the season).
    To secure wages set by tally, manning levels and tally rates are agreed.  The company wants the right to change these unilaterally stating the need to manage the plants according to changing circumstances.  The union has agreed they should manage the plant but want provisions in the agreement to continue to secure the large part of wages that are currently determined by tally and manning numbers.  They agree that AFFCO should manage but not manipulate!  The company is saying it won’t use the changes to reduce pay but will not put this in writing.
    The company is also complaining that the union is too quick to go to the Employment Court over an interpretation of the collective agreement.  This is not true.  There have been numerous interpretation difficulties and the union has gone to Court but only because it has not been able to get agreement from the company.  It has won almost all these cases.  The union has agreed to new provisions in the new agreement that set out the process when disagreements occur.  The Company continues to raise this as an issue even though it has been resolved.
    The company has said it wants reduced Union presence in the plant.  It is offering workers the ability to return to work if they leave the union and sign an IEA.  The company is notoriously anti-union and has de-unionised in many its other businesses.  The Meat Workers Union believe this to be a major driver in the companies aggressive approach to this bargaining.
    Where to from here?
    There is mediation set down for 12 April in Auckland.  There is also a Court hearing booked for 23/24 April to hear the unions claim that the lock out is not lawful.  The workers are continuing to picket and campaign and organise community support. 
    The major needs are for support at the protests and pickets and for donations of food and money.  To sustain such a large group of workers requires large amounts of regular funds.  It costs $50,000 per week to provide as little as $50 per member for food – much more is needed.
    There is a website at http://www.mwu.org.nz/  for more information. 

    • bad12 12.1
      11 April 2012 at 4:27 pm

      If after 10 hours of negotiation AFFCO issued lock-out notices to its unionized work-force then to all extents and purposes the Company has put itself in the position of having created a serious breach of the provisions in the Act requiring it,(the Company), to bargain in good faith…

  13. starlight 13
    11 April 2012 at 12:58 pm

    The govt plans to remove state owned power companies from the obligations under
    the official information and ombudsman acts.
    These include, Mighty River power,Meridian energy,Genisis energy,Solid energy.
    The Ombudsman has warned the govt against it.
    The herald has a story under the politics headline.

  14. Rosemary 14
    11 April 2012 at 2:47 pm

    South Korea parliamentary elections are currently on. BBC World reported that the two main parties are fighting over the centre-left. The current conservatives are moving towards the left on welfare and other social policies to pretty much where the main left opposition is now, and that the only main difference between the two is their free-trade agreement with the US. What needs to happen in NZ to get our two main parties racing to the left?

  15. freedom 15
    11 April 2012 at 2:56 pm

    respectfully wondering why my 2:18pm comment was put into moderation ? Wondering why it was in moderation more than how long it has been there …

    it has no profanity, godwins or similar such alarms…. was it the word fanatic?

    [lprent: I put “troll” on the auto-moderation list a few weeks ago after a bout of rampant over-use in comments and some incredibly tiresome sequences that were simply people accusing others of being trolls when mostly none were. The general category of moderation was “boring the moderators shitless with having to read the drivel”.

    We tend to view trolling as being a quite technical offence that we will warn about and ban for if it persists. It actually gets more complicated if all and sundry are accusing each other of doing it as it means that is the moderators happen to agree then we leave ourselves open to charges of favouritism. The intent is to frustrate people over-using it and to provide an opportunity for moderators to exercise sarcasm when they find a good example in the moderation queue. Of course since then, the usage dropped an out external workloads increased, which means we haven’t had our fun yet….

    So until the usage of the word drops back to a non-accusatory level, you’ll just have to get used to being automatically moderated if you want to use it. 😈 ]

    • freedom 15.1
      11 April 2012 at 4:12 pm

      Thanks for the clarification lprent. It is always good to know the trigger words.
      I should never have taken the bait but the worm was so juicy, i had to nibble on the line.

  16. freedom 16
    11 April 2012 at 5:45 pm

    I was going to leave this alone but in fairness some statements have to be properly denied. I refer to the comments made earlier by a couple of flag waving mutton shanks who seem to have absolutely no respect for the victims they so often claim to support.

    Here is the most mainstream example i have that mentions the issue of the very much alive high-jackers. I figured anything less than the accepted authority of the BBC would no doubt be subject to ridicule and general accusations of nuttery from those loons who seem not to believe, that in the linear experience of 4d space, 1+1=2.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

    I mean the BBC are so solid on the news they report events 22 minutes before they even happen :]
    http://www.wtc7.net/bbc.html

    This article mentions four, but seven have been confirmed and some put the number as high as nine. That is nine people who were absolutely definitely guilty of being 911 high-jackers turning up alive and well.

    i include a long list of reference material that also mentions this widely known reality
    http://www.welfarestate.com/911/

    • Pascal's bookie 16.1
      11 April 2012 at 7:12 pm

      Freedom,

      First up, this:

      I refer to the comments made earlier by a couple of flag waving mutton shanks who seem to have absolutely no respect for the victims they so often claim to support.

      …is completely uncalled for.

      Moving on though, I’ll note your careful phrasing in this line:

      Here is the most mainstream example i have that mentions the issue of the very much alive high-jackers

      “mentions the issue” is not the same thing as what I was asking for was it?

      And yet, by the end of your comment, the BBC report has somehow become related to this:

      This article mentions four, but seven have been confirmed and some put the number as high as nine. That is nine people who were absolutely definitely guilty of being 911 high-jackers turning up alive and well.

      Hang on, how does four names being mentioned in the BBC report suddenly become evidence of the idea that up to 9 hijackers have turned up alive and well?

      It doesn’t. The BBC report is from shortly after the attacks. It’s about confusion around some of the names. .

      That report is not about a story of. “Some of the supposed hijackers are alive!”

      The report is a story about how some of the names on the list could be wrong, that they are common names, with many spellings, and that the hijackers could have using false travel documents, etc

      Read the link at the bottom of the BBC report, it looks like this:

      (Note: An update on this story was published in October 2006 in the BBC News editors’ blog)

      .

      So who are these 7 that have been ‘confirmed’ as being alive?

      And how outlandish is the idea that conspirators at the level you are alleging, would fuck up such an important point, to have 7 guys they said absolutely did it still alive?

      You claim the nist report is not credible, but seriously, how credible is this idea you are pushing?

      A theory based only on evidence that you are apparently ashamed to bring forward

      But I’m a mutton shank for asking obvious questions, and actually reading what is written down.

      • muzza 16.1.1
        12 April 2012 at 7:28 am

        PB – SO the BBC changed their tune years later, and your point is what exactly? – Nice attempt to steer away from discussion BTW – SO because people question events they are disrespecting “victims”, if I read you right, that is simple laudable, and rediculous!

        Original story should never be editied, only amended – Surely what any changes tell you is that the official line was unstable from the start, it had to be or why the changes!

        The point here is that, nothing is 100% clear, in fact not even close, so your diss of Freedoms links only make you look as if you are defending something that can’t be defended!

        Nice use of the word conspiracy theory by BBC in order to discredit discussion around the original article linked by Freedom…it does little other than raise serious credibility questions…Like the BBC needed more of that following the Dr David Kelly affair firectly linked to wars stemming from 911

        Just keep thinking you have it all licked, and giving grief to others because they can be aware enough that things do not stack up..

        There is BS on all sides, and the only thing anyone should be ashamed of, is ruling out categorically , what they simply do not know either way!

      • freedom 16.1.2
        12 April 2012 at 8:42 am

        PB, I said the BBC article mentioned the topic, I did not say it was the herald of all that is true and holy. The BBC article was included as it was one of the first screw ups to make it into the public arena and in no way does it simply discuss a mix up in names. It shows a shambolic cover story that fell apart once the innocent parties were identified, and they have been. If you bother to work your way through ‘the welfarestate ‘link you will see there is a volume of data out there on this subject alone and i will not spoon feed you. Those days are basically gone. I prefer to leave 9/11 discussion to face to face encounters these days where you have a real chance of helping someone. With a face to face dialogue it is much harder to atutomatically deny evidence when you actually have another human there to answer your doubts and share the tiller as it were. It is too easy to negate difficult data when all you have to work off is the reflection in your screen. Rational critical thought so often seems to be elsewhere as the blog boxes get filled with reactionary cliches from myopic supporters of lies deception and murder. You have been around long enough to know that if it smells like coffee looks like coffee and tastes like coffee, they will still try to tell you its a milkshake.

        I will apologise for the muttonshanks remark, it was a bit snappy and not very nice to highlight someone’s handicap. I know some very pleasant sheep but sheep they are and sheep they will remain. If you want to be called something else, then do the work, learn the truth and wake up!

        I know what i know and i suspect you know it too, the difference is i have acknowledged the heart-splintering reality that is the lie we all suffer under. It makes the world that little bit darker but at least i see where the light is coming from more easily.

        • Pascal's bookie 16.1.2.1
          12 April 2012 at 9:14 am

          For goodness sake.

          Most of your comment is just an extended attack on me, based on nothing at all. It’s fine for you to disagree with me, and even have a go, but at least try and put forward an argument that is more than just “It is too a conspiracy and yuo’re just stupid and evil if you claim you don’t believe me”

          The stuff about face to face discussions is like-wise nonsense. The internet has the advantage of people being able to link to data, something not available face to face.

          I looked at the links at the welfare state site, and it’s a series of news reports about the same mistaken identities and confusion.

          Confusion always exists in breaking stories. It is natural that the picture becomes clearer as time passes. This is not evidence of conspiricay and coverup. Conspirators would have their story straight and convincing from the get go.

          And it’s not like we haven’t had this conversation before, but that time you told me that you included the BBC article as a ‘joke’, again saying that I was an idiot for not getting the joke.

          In that conversation I linked to an article in which a Saudi Prince apologised to the people of the US for the actions of its citizens.

          Here is that link again:

          http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/02/06/saudi.htm

          and some quotes from it:

          Previously, Saudi Arabia had said the citizenship of 15 of the 19 hijackers was in doubt despite U.S. insistence they were Saudis. But Interior Minister Prince Nayef told The Associated Press that Saudi leaders were shocked to learn 15 of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.

          “The names that we got confirmed that,” Nayef said in an interview. “Their families have been notified.”…

          …Nayef said it was natural that the kingdom had not noticed the 15 hijackers beforehand.

          “How can I place the name of a Saudi on a blacklist when I have nothing to justify the action? The Saudis are free to travel wherever they like,” he said. “If we had known they were going to do what they had done, we would have stopped them.

          “I believe they were taken advantage of in the name of religion and regarding certain issues pertaining to the Arab nation, especially the issue of Palestine,” said Nayef

          You’ll note that the saudi prince was for the first time admitting that the hijackers were indeed saudis, and that they did what was alleged. He is saying that the Saudi govt would have stopped them if they had known what they were going to do, but they didn’t know.

          Importantly, you’ll note that he says the families had been contacted.

          Do you think the Suadi government would have changed their tune about the identity of the hijackers if the families had told them that their guys were alive, out the back, sipping on a cool glass of water and a wee bit distressed that the US was calling them terrorists?

          Here is the link to our previous discussion about this, the one where you claimed you linked to the BBC report as a joke:

          http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-09112010/comment-page-1/#comment-268769

          If you can’t actually discuss this in a sensible way, then I’ll be bowing out.

          • muzza 16.1.2.1.1
            12 April 2012 at 9:31 am

            Confusion always exists in breaking stories, and gives easy outs to blame conspircay theorists, as the story changes. It is natural that the picture becomes clearer as time passes and the conspirators line their ducks up properly in a slightly more co-ordinated propaganda campaign. This is of course a solid base for evidence of conspiricay and coverup. Conspirators would have their story straight and convincing from the get go, except that this time the story is too big to cover all the the bases – FIFY

            Saudi Arabia – One of the most oppressive monarchist states on earth, totally untrustworthy, and a key part of the imperialist clique, and you take them at their word, BRAVO!

            “The names that we got confirmed that,” Nayef said in an interview. “Their families have been executed” FIFY Too

            “I did not have relations with that woman”

            “There are unknown unknowns”

            “Iraq has WMD’s, and can strike in 45 minutes”

            “Iran is building nuclear weapons”

            Oh but wait….

            • Pascal's bookie 16.1.2.1.1.1
              12 April 2012 at 9:45 am

              I missed the part of your comment where you provide the slightest bit of evidence that the people the US claims did it, the same poeple the saudis admit did it, and the very same peopleAQ praise for doing it, didn’t do it.

              • muzza …
                12 April 2012 at 10:26 am

                PB – Evidence, yeah its been contentious on all sides, hence my stance of not pretending I have it all sorted in my head. That said the evidence you seem to be in favour of has lead to the direct deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of innocent people, in multiple countries in the resulting wars – I’m not a fan of war or lies, and the stories concocted to brainwash public opinion simply do not stack up in multiple ways, and I will continue to question anything I see fit, when my guts tell me that it stinks!

                If you want to be an apologist for imperialist wars and lies, that is your prerogative, you are as entitled to your line of thought, as anyone else!

                PS – You seem to not understand who or what AQ is, or where it was born from!

          • freedom 16.1.2.1.2
            12 April 2012 at 10:38 am

            thanks for the reminder and in the time since i have shifted my view from that article being a joke to something slightly more worrying in that it highlights how the MSM had been swamped under the message so quickly. Since 2001 the debris that has popped up has become its own Sargasso Sea. Navigating it will always have its hazards.

            Yes i am tired and bored with talking to sheep about 9/11. If you take that personally then that is your decision and i can only hope the unfortunate negativity it stirs up can be be used in a positive manner. I do try to refrain from personal attacks but to be fair my statements were fairly lowkey and your reaction does tip your hand a little if you take them so personally. ( take for example the accusations of rascism and misogyny i received the other day from QoT, for simply asking a question! did i get all riled up? no, i know i am neither misogynist nor rascist, so feel no need to defend it. Always seems like such a waste of energy and inevitably only gets misconstrued anyway) I will make more of an effort but if you truthfully do not see that 1+1=2 there is no way that anything anyone says will ever sway you. It is something you must come to on your own, which is why face to face discussion on 9/11 is far superior to web wars.

            – “The stuff about face to face discussions is like-wise nonsense. The internet has the advantage of people being able to link to data, something not available face to face.”
            – Regarding your bizarre statement above, working face to face does not in any way preclude the use of the web. (I have heard that assumption many times and i never understand how doing one somehow precludes the other.) When you spend time with a person and are physically there as the data is searched, you witness the change and it is a startingly powerful moment, it is like a homecoming, someone’s humanity returning.

            Finally, i do not trust any statement made from the Saudi, or any government, that ‘clarifies’ their knowledge of events or persons pertaining to the events of September 11 2001. Without an independent and binding international tribunal that openly and honestly investigates the events, no-one will ever know the Truth. Why is the mere suggestion of that tribunal so horrifying to the powers that be ? ? ? that is the 22 trillion dollar question

          • travellerev 16.1.2.1.3
            12 April 2012 at 12:07 pm

            Couldn’t help myself so here is just another neat video of scientists explaining why the buildings had to come down with the help of explosives.

            • Pascal's bookie 16.1.2.1.3.1
              12 April 2012 at 12:25 pm

              …and I’m sure it’s fascinating.

              But what’s it got to do with what freedom and I were discussing?

              What do you think about his theory that 9 of the people currenetly thiought to be the hijackers are actually confirmed to be alive?

              Don’t you think that would be an incredibly stupid mistake for the conspirators to make?

              And what do you think of the fact that the saudi government, and AQ admit that the names on the list are the people that did it? Do you think thaty carries any weight?

              Have freedom/muzza got it right? The saudis are just lying about it, for some reason, and AQ are just something that I don’t know anything about?

              Are those unreasonable questions?

              • freedom …
                12 April 2012 at 1:12 pm

                PB are you being serious??? Do you not know who AQ are?
                here’s that nice Mrs Clinton to help you understand

                If you do know who and what they are then how can you honestly trust a single statement made about them or anything they have reportedly done. Usama bin Laden’s dad is a business partner with dubya’s dad and has been since 1973. I have a copy of the notarised agreement authorising the agent to act on their behalf. Do not forget that AQ was fingered on the day of the attacks. On the day. Remember the info published on Lee Harvey Oswald that turned up in a kiwi paper the day after the shooting ??? The US is not alone in this complicity and nor is it innocent when it comes to lying through their teeth about some pretty heinous acts in their history. The Gulf of Tonkin springs to mind! The US admitted just a couple of years ago it never happened. This very week we have the lies about WMD’s in Iraq completely exposed and admitted to yet it is business as usual.

                Operation Northwoods is also good starter for ten. or, take the WTC bombing in ’93. They have admitted that it was an FBI sting op that went wrong. These guys are criminals acting out a very dark plan that has you, your family and several billion other people listed as future compost material. It has been a long slow road that is hundreds if not thousands of years long and to claim you believe what they tell you is possibly the most distressing aspect of this entire topic.

                I end with that most well known and highly worrying statement made by one of the architects of today, David Rockefeller, made to the Bilderberg group, who you may remember denied even existing until independent media exposed them, their members and their invited guests, all of whom are very powerful and secretive people who did not appreciate the exposure. Why is that?

                “”We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time
                Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended
                our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost
                forty years.”

                “It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world
                if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years.
                But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a
                world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite
                and world bankers is surely preferable to the national
                auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”

  17. Jackal 17
    11 April 2012 at 8:34 pm

    Productivity Commission slams National

    Today, the newly formed Productivity Commission released its Final report into Housing Affordability (PDF), and it’s all bad news for young Kiwi’s who want to own their own homes.

    • rosy 17.1
      11 April 2012 at 9:32 pm

      From The Herald

      “Auckland Council’s proposed compact city approach, based on containment of the city, undermines the aspiration of affordable housing.”

      However…
      Auckland – pop = 1.4m, area = 559 km2, density = 2,700 km2
      Vienna – pop = 1.7m, area = 414 km4, density = 4,970 km2 (always near the top of QoL lists)
      New York – city pop = 8.2m, area = 468 km2, density = 27,012 km2

      Increasing the land for Auckland is such a waste of resources – there is a long way to go before Auckland is too densely populated. The compact city approach is the way to go – more combined public outdoor space and less private outdoor space – and shouldn’t detract from affordability or desirability if planned well.

      • Jackal 17.1.1
        11 April 2012 at 10:13 pm

        I agree that urban spread is a waste of resources, but increasing density isn’t always the answer either. Who wants to give up the Kiwi lifestyle and live in a chicken coop? So there’s a balance that should be based on optimum habitat requirements and not speculators and developers profiteering.

        What I think New Zealand needs to do is improve work opportunities for smaller communities so there is less migratory pressure on places like Auckland. Increasing wages and the affordability of building materials by reducing market domination and implementing a proper social housing policy would also help more Kiwi’s into home ownership.

        • rosy 17.1.1.1
          12 April 2012 at 12:45 am

          You’re right about reducing migratory pressure and about reducing market domination and social housing. Investing in regional development should be a top priority, it that hasn’t happened for decades and it would be nice to see a return to that. However, that doesn’t mean that urban density is not an issue.

          Increasing density doesn’t have to mean chicken coop living – as usual NZ is doing it the wrong way by increasing density for poor families, using poor materials with expansion on the periphery so the middle classes can have their large blocks of land. It needs to be reversed – that apartments become a style statement, so to speak. Some of the best QoL cities in the world are dominated by apartment living. Generally the apartments are not tower blocks, but a more human scale, with lots of green space nearby rather than minimal private sections and no public space provision.

          • Draco T Bastard 17.1.1.1.1
            12 April 2012 at 1:24 am

            Land Hungry Cars

            The key point here is to think about land as the obvious scarce resource it is – especially in our cities. If land is being used for wider and wider roads and larger and larger parking lots, that is land which cannot be used for buildings, parks and other – arguably more productive and desirable – uses.

            Cars really are massively inefficient and have huge negative impact upon our lives.

            High Density & High Rise: not necessarily the same thing

            While in some areas high-rise residential development will be an appropriate way to intensify, we need to break the connection that high-density automatically means high-rise apartments. Each Sheehan Street terraced house has a small courtyard, a deck, there’s a shared (admittedly quite small) green space in the internal area for residents to share. Each place has its own front door and a direct pedestrian link to the street – all at a density significantly higher than that of a 16 level tower block.

            And Sheehan Street is probably both far more social and more private.

            What does density look like?
            Auckland Density Illustrated I: The Inner City

            So in order to help those who seem to have absolutely no conception that life in Auckland is possible, for some even preferable, outside of a detached suburban 3 bedder I have dipped into my archives. These are simply random examples of the rich variety of lives lived by different people with different interests and different resources already enjoying the ‘absolutely gobsmacking‘ life that so terrifies the good councillor Quax.

            Ok, that’s enough, I didn’t find the article I was looking for but enough to show that high density living isn’t the nightmare that some would have you believe it is.

    • Draco T Bastard 18.1
      11 April 2012 at 9:22 pm

      Yeah, not far from the earthquake that caused the tsunami that struck India in 2k4.

      • rosy 18.1.1
        11 April 2012 at 9:37 pm

        I hop it’s not a replay of that event. There was one in the same region a year later that didn’t cause a tsunami…

        Just heard the tsunami warning has been upgraded to an alert.

  19. Nick 19
    11 April 2012 at 9:51 pm

    Bill English – “I think the public would be probably as concerned that the Labour Party don’t appear to have learnt anything that they think that handing out lollies is how you get political favours.”

    You mean unaffordable tax cuts? Additional Pokie Machines / License extensions? Employment Law Changes for Movie Execs? Loans to MediaWorks while axing TVNZ7? Stop me when we’ve run out of lollies

  20. Campbell Larsen 20
    12 April 2012 at 11:41 am

    I/S on No Right Turn in “If all you have is a hammer…” makes a couple of noteworthy observations.

    The first is the fact that Nationals policy announcements consists of just a load of waffle with no actual detail whatsoever – It is quite an effective strategy, albeit a darkly cynical one given the importance of the issues paid only lip service to. For those wanting to critique the ‘plans’ or even to understand them there is nothing to grasp onto. An educated or informed response is impossible when slogans are all that we have been given.
    But where is the critique in the media of the lack of detail? Nationals policy announcements are about as convincing as a new years resolution and their Ministers should be laughed out of their press conferences for daring to turn up and make proclamations that are a deliberate study in vagueness.

    Secondly I/S highlights the growing use of ‘the children’ as an excuse for implementing unpopular policies or reform. Once again it is only the most darkly cynical who would deliberately use peoples concern for their children to promote a course of action – when a hostage taker holds a gun to the head of someone’s child and demands obedience the violence of the act is rightly condemned by law and society – yet the governments modus operandi is now little different.
    It is time that the government stopped implying that children will suffer if we don’t accept their austerity and their radical hard right agenda or that children will benefit if we do.
    Austerity harms economies and harms society. The Nats don’t care about kids any more than the hostage taker does.