Open mike 16/09/2011

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, September 16th, 2011 - 181 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…

181 comments on “Open mike 16/09/2011 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Tiger Mountain 1
    16 September 2011 at 7:18 am

    Nice to see Mana displaying expected political maturity and tory annoying tactics in Waitakere. Sue Bradford is seeking party votes for Mana while endorsing Labour’s Carmel Sepuloni as electorate candidate. Sue and Carmel will hopefully give “ladder pull” Bennett a good going over in the course of the campaign.

    Tory reaction via the Maori Party’s Te Tai Tokerau candidate Waihoroi Shortland was swift. Shortland has said Ms Bradford was trying to get a “free ride to Parliament on the backs of [Te Tai Tokerau] people”.

    Hello shithead, it is known as MMP the system that also enables your sellout crew to be represented in parliament along with your ACT friends.

    • mickysavage 1.1
      16 September 2011 at 7:37 am

      I hope that the message resonates Tiger.  I would be pleased to see Sue Bradford back in Parliament via the list.  She was a conscientious and capable MP.  And I would really like to see Carmel win and take pseudowestie Bennett down.

      I just home that Sue’s campaign does not cause too much confusion.

      Now all we need is for the Green’s candidate Steve Tollestrup to do the same and it will be all on.  

    • marty mars 1.2
      16 September 2011 at 9:40 am

      tautoko – very good news indeed

    • millsy 1.3
      16 September 2011 at 10:30 am

      From the looks of it, Mana is going to be a fizzer. We havent heard hide nor hair from Hone since his election to TTT as Mana leader, and they are struggling in the polls.

      • Tiger Mountain 1.3.1
        16 September 2011 at 10:39 am

        Dream on millsy, Mana are making a splash just where they should, among the young and politically disengaged. http://www.facebook.com/ManaParty

        Hone has been on a virtual non stop road trip since his by election win, good ’ol organising style politics. Tactics are sorted-party vote in general seats to not scare the Labour/Green horses, two ticks in the Māori seats to scare the Māori Party rabbits.

        • Ianupnorth 1.3.1.1
          16 September 2011 at 11:08 am

          The amount of Mana groups on there is astonishing; I really think they will exceed the 5% threshold too; in the Tuhoe region (where Maori Party president Pem Bird lives) they appear to be having a major impact – always helped when you have a hapless PM who considers them as cannibals.

        • millsy 1.3.1.2
          16 September 2011 at 11:30 am

          clicking ‘Like’ on a facebook page is one thing, ticking the ‘like’ that matters on the voting form is another.

          Dont get me wrong, I quite like some (but not all) of Mana’s policies, but I just think that they are going to struggle to get off the ground, and Hone’s brand is not going to endear them too well to some people, and anyway, I always belive that he sees himself as Maori first, and left a distant second – remember, he chose to stay with the Maori party, even when it was clear that they were going to hook up with National.

    • Jim Nald 1.4
      16 September 2011 at 2:56 pm

      Funny. Don Trash is unelectable and is desperately wanting a free ride on the backs of donkey and john wanks.

  2. logie97 2
    16 September 2011 at 7:32 am

    Collins and Speed Cameras.

    If you are exceeding the speed limit, presumably you are considered to be driving dangerously. For many drivers this is an exception rather than a deliberate flouting of the law.

    One of the most effective ways of warning drivers has been the installation of the speed indicators, advising them to slow down or at least giving an indication of what speed they are driving at.

    As for being caught by a camera, you are going to receive the warning some weeks after the event in the form of a fine. In the meantime you may have driven some distance at a speed considered by the “authorities” as unsafe or dangerously.

    One can only draw the conclusion therefore that hidden cameras are a revenue gatherer, and not a road safety device…

    • Lanthanide 2.1
      16 September 2011 at 9:49 am

      If you don’t want to be fined by a speed camera, don’t speed. Pretty simple.

      • Ianupnorth 2.1.1
        16 September 2011 at 11:17 am

        Agree, but the speed factor is always considered the primary issue affecting the level of road fatalities, but people forget several factors, such as when speed limits were originally set. Modern vehicles, in the main, have major safety features that never existed when the roads were built – ABS, traction control, radial tyres, etc.
         
        The problem really though is this – in NZ we have the following

        terrible drivers – the standard of driving is poor, poor lane etiquette, poor handling of the vehicle, limited unsderstanding of the drivers responsibilities
        badly surfaced roads
        a fleet of geriatric cars – very old Jap imported with minimal safety features – this escalates the more rural you are
        a tolerance of unacceptable behaviour, e.g. drink driving, driving with no licence, running a car in an illegal state

        I can drive fast safely, I know my limits, but regrettably in the town where I live about 20% (I kid you not) of the cars do not have a WOF or rego; the two page weekly pull out in the local paper of those done for drink driving – most with multiple offences – is a joy to behold.

        Total revenue gatherer (you could argue they are a way of redeploying the fat cops to productive activities). The hypocrisy in the article from both Crusher Collins and Ryall is indicative of this government.

        • Lanthanide 2.1.1.1
          16 September 2011 at 11:30 am

          To the person you killed because you were speeding, it doesn’t matter if you were speeding deliberately, accidentally, or because you had a flash car and a good driver so you thought you could do it.

          Speeding kills.

          If you don’t want a speeding fine, don’t speed.

          • Bazar 2.1.1.1.1
            17 September 2011 at 1:46 am

            I’ve only ever got 1 speeding ticket in 6 or so years of driving, being earlier this year.

            ANd it was from a parked car, catching me doing 63 in a 50 area (so 60 is the limit).

            It was right as i was driving down a small steep ditch about to climb a small steep hill.
            I still can’t think of that car as doing anything but collecting revenue, as there were plenty of places to catch real speeders, but setting up at that place if you’d catch people who’d temporally exceed the speed limit far more then actual constant speeders.

            I’d of loved to have contested the ticket in court, and berate the office for sleazy practices, but alas apparently i’m the evil one for being 3km faster then acceptable for about 10 seconds.

            • McFlock 2.1.1.1.1.1
              17 September 2011 at 1:50 am

              It’s called a “brake”.

              • Bazar …
                17 September 2011 at 5:49 pm

                Its called “being fair”.

                But go on and be narrow minded over speeding. Because obviously you believe that if anyone ever goes past the speed limit they deserve a ticket 100% of the time.

                I’d like to believe speed tickets are about deterring reckless drivers and encouraging better driving, this ticket did nothing of the sort, other then fill me with contempt to the police [ticketing] system, and empty my wallet.

                My driving hasn’t changed a bit, other then if i ever go past that hill again, i’ll be sure to look for arsehole cops parked there to fill what i expect is a ticket quota.

                • McFlock …
                  17 September 2011 at 6:52 pm

                  It’s not that difficult to avoid speeding. By your own admission you were well over the limit (where the hell you got the *if the limit was 50km/hr then the real limit is 60* logic from I don’t know). You got caught. And you’re pissed off about it.
                    
                  I guess it’s not just drunk uni students who think rules apply to other people, and are outraged when proved wrong.

        • McFlock 2.1.1.2
          16 September 2011 at 12:18 pm

          The other point is that, from what I’ve observed in a variety of contexts (from IT to public safety), nobody but nobody says “oh, I know I’m doing X unsafely, my equipment isn’t up to the task of dealing with it reliably, and I have no idea of where the my personal limit of competency lies, so actually I’m really sorry you caught me doing [bloody stupid thing X]”.
            
          Everyone is convinced that they know what they’re doing, and if there is a risk they are the only ones in danger and nobody else will be affected. 
            
          If you make e.g. 300 trips at a speed which increases your chance of an accident (or serious injury resulting from an accident) by .3%, you’ve got a good chance of an accident. If, by trip 100, you get 3 tickets in the post and it’s getting a bit painful, then there’s a good chance you’ll lower your speed and thereby lower your chance of serious accident.
          Cameras aren’t after the 200km/hr drunk driving hoon – that’s what police cars are for – they’re about lowering the probabilities overall rather than responding to individual cases. It’s not revenue gathering, it’s a population-based approach. 

          • Ianupnorth 2.1.1.2.1
            16 September 2011 at 1:31 pm

            Kindly explain why the stats for countries like Germany, where the Autobahn speed limits are immense, have lower road fatalities?
             
            I’d say quality of vehicles, quality of driver training and quality of driver performance. We have yet to tackle obesity by fining people for eating too much junk, yet that causes far more death – so why are we taxing drivers in this way?

            • McFlock 2.1.1.2.1.1
              16 September 2011 at 1:41 pm

              Not to mention exceptional road design and incredibly over-engineered roads. But they also aggressively enforce road rules with heavy fines and have a fairly low BAC level for drunk driving. And if you’re speeding on or  off the autobahn, they have speed traps. 
                

              Your obesity analogy generally doesn’t involve hitting a school bus, although there is a lobby to levy fast foods and sugar waters.

            • Ianupnorth 2.1.1.2.1.2
              16 September 2011 at 1:51 pm

              Nail on the head firmly hit; we do NOT deal with repeat offenders and we allow piece of shit wrecks on our roads. The standard of road building is pathetic. Fix these and the accidents will decrease – maybe use the fine revenue?
               
              Re. the obesity one, I am all for a $1 per burger tax on every McD’s, BK and KFC purchsed, if only to pay cor the collection of discarded rubbish (and as a disincentive of sorts)

              • McFlock …
                16 September 2011 at 2:10 pm

                re: roading, my impression is that transit NZ has an extensive “to do” list that is at the mercy of funding constraints (special projects with ministerial hat-tips notwithstanding). E.g. the progressive installation of median barriers of various kinds at black spots competes with standard road maintenance and emergency repairs after flooding/landslips (either of which might have been mitigated by more prompt maintenance, but what the hell). 
                Basically, they seem to be on the back foot simply because they don’t have enough money – and in a recession repairing/upgrading infrastructure is an excellent plan for multi-region stimulus. Not just new highways, but widening, addressing reverse-camber corners, median strips/barriers, retaining walls, and so on.
                  
                But I still think speed cameras are a useful and valid tool in the road safety box – and so do the Germans.

                • rosy …
                  16 September 2011 at 6:32 pm

                  Part of the problem is a catch-all speed limit isn’t it? 100kph on a motorway as well as on a narrow rural road. I doubt the accident rate would go up if the motorway limit was increased to 120 and suspect it would go down substantially if some of the difficult to drive bits of the state-highway system were reduced to 80kph.

                • McFlock …
                  16 September 2011 at 6:50 pm

                  Practical speed limits are essentially arbitrary – the only thing stoping someone choosing a limit and then designing road and WoF specs around it is money. 
                   
                  Enforcement of rules is another matter – but then I tend towards being an authoritarian bastard in the face of arrogant stupidity.

            • Deadly_NZ 2.1.1.2.1.3
              16 September 2011 at 11:13 pm

              “Kindly explain why the stats for countries like Germany, where the Autobahn speed limits are immense, have lower road fatalities?”
              Because they invest money in their Autobahns. Unlike most roads in NZ that are diabolical to drive on. There are some between Levin and Palmy Nth that undulate like mad and then dip suddenly left or right, quite scary to drive on, and even scarier to see oncoming traffic having probs and lurching towards the opposite lane. In this country the Revenue is snatched by the Govt for Bullshit roads like the Holiday highway and tax cuts for their mates. and the pot holed roads in the smaller areas are just forgotten, or ignored, until there is a huge head on with fatalities, then they may fix a few of the worst holes.

        • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1.3
          16 September 2011 at 1:59 pm

          Modern vehicles, in the main, have major safety features that never existed when the roads were built – ABS, traction control, radial tyres, etc.

          Yeah, so? Going slower saves fuel and thus the environment. In fact, the highway speed limit should be lowered back to 80km/h. Around town driving needs to be slow because of pedestrians.

          • Ianupnorth 2.1.1.3.1
            16 September 2011 at 3:48 pm

            Modern cars are also more fuel efficient thanks to better fuel management systems and aerodynamic design features.
             
            Car usage is excessive in NZ thanks to a lack of public transport and peoples reluctance to cycle or walk. Seriously, people drive from shop to shop in malls like the Hub in Hamilton.

            • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1.3.1.1
              16 September 2011 at 8:59 pm

              Modern cars are also more fuel efficient thanks to better fuel management systems and aerodynamic design features.

              Yes they are but that doesn’t change the basic physics. Going faster decreases the fuel efficiency. Actually, according to that article, the drag coefficient hasn’t changed much either.

              0.36 Citroën CX (named after the term for Cd) 1974
              0.36 Citroën DS 1955
              0.36 Chrysler Sebring 1996
              0.29 Mazda 3 2010

      • logie97 2.1.2
        16 September 2011 at 5:23 pm

        @ Lanthanide – Got to love the Holier than thou attitude on this thread. Thought you were less of a reactionary than that …

        Most New Zealand drivers who pick up a speeding ticket, have got it because of a momentary lapse of concentration. If there was a visible (other than the speedo) warning just indicating that your vehicle is travelling near or over the limit, most or all drivers would immediately throttle back. If the driver ignores that warning, then clearly the consequences are deserved.

        When children were available to monitor the driving from the back seat of the holiday car, there was a ready warning or reminder of all road conditions.

        On the holiday highway I have noticed many drivers randomly flash, whether there is a camera lurking or not, and that has an instant affect on the overtaking maneuvers of many.

      • Vicky32 2.1.3
        16 September 2011 at 6:58 pm

        If you don’t want to be fined by a speed camera, don’t speed. Pretty simple.

        Agreed!

        • logie97 2.1.3.1
          16 September 2011 at 9:57 pm

          Guess the holy rollers don’t care if a car on the open road flashes them because they never inadvertently exceed the speed limit do they? If they have ever exceeded the speed limit they are as deserving as all others in being ticketed – just because they weren’t caught does not make it right. And driving too slowly in busy traffic is also an offense and deserves to be ticketed for inconsiderate driving. Just because there were no police around does not make that right.

      • Deadly_NZ 2.1.4
        16 September 2011 at 11:01 pm

        Really well I have found out that my Speedometer is out by between 10 and 15 kph, So if i am doing 50 by my speedo I am actually doing somewhere around 40-43kph So you tell me how I can not speed when I have a line of cars behind me?? And I am not the only one with this problem, anyone with an older model car has it to some extent or other. So your inane Don’t Speed is pretty much a moot point, So maybe you could maybe engage brain, before letting your fingers walk.

  3. Pete george 3
    16 September 2011 at 7:49 am

    Maori culture has experienced a resurgence and has become a significant part of New Zealand processes and events.

    Is it now at about the correct level? Or has “Maori correctness” gone too far?

    • mickysavage 3.1
      16 September 2011 at 7:54 am

      Support for United Future has experienced a steady decline from the heady days when its fortune was tied to that of an electronic worm.  The coiffured one has become an irritating and insignificant part of New Zealand politics.

      Is its support now at about the correct level??

      • Puddleglum 3.1.1
        16 September 2011 at 2:10 pm

        That’s an interesting “opinion gathering” comment MS. Clearly it bears no relation to any opinion of your own that I might, quite unfairly, try to infer.

        Concerning your interesting and provocative question, my fuzzy little feeling in the pit of my guts tells me that the correct level would be a tad lower.

        Of course, that’s just me – though I have to say that my opinion does seem to line up with common sense and reasonableness.

        Consider my opinion gathered.

    • vto 3.2
      16 September 2011 at 8:16 am

      Your question is not the right one. I used to work closely with one of NZ’s most successful people and one of the things I learned during that time is that having the right answer is not the important thing – the right answer can usually be found easily enough. The important thing is having the right question – once you have that determined then you can go out and find the answer.

      I don’t think your question even has any relevance. Maori has been resurgent and it is fantastic for them/us and for the country as a whole. It is to be encouraged. I suspect the area you’re questioning has more to do with whether its resurgence impinges on other cultural mores or standards etc. What, precisely, are you trying to evaluate mr pete?

      • rosy 3.2.1
        16 September 2011 at 8:20 am

        Maori has been resurgent and it is fantastic for them/us and for the country as a whole. It is to be encouraged
        +1

      • Pete George 3.2.2
        16 September 2011 at 9:07 am

        I kept the question deliberately “imprecise” because I wanted to hear what people thought, part of the opinion gathering process. There are various ways different people might look at this.

        • vto 3.2.2.1
          16 September 2011 at 9:14 am

          Oh, fair enough. My 2c says that there is almost certainly no “correct level”. However, like any individual person or wider collective group or sector, that person group or sector can go “too far” when it impinges others reasonable rights, cultural mores, expectations, etc. Otherwise go for it I say – the sky is the limit.

    • The Voice of Reason 3.3
      16 September 2011 at 8:23 am

      Hope you don’t scrape your shins jumping onto the racist bandwagon, Pete. I’ve gotta say, this is a new low for you.

      • Pete George 3.3.1
        16 September 2011 at 9:12 am

        Good grief, that’s a change for being criticised for not saying anything of substance.

        Why a low? I know there are some people that think we now get too much imposed Maori culture. Maybe it’s a small minority that should just pull their heads in. Or maybe it’s something that should be talked about openly rather than being afraid to mention it in case you get jumped on by reverse rascists.

        • Adele 3.3.1.1
          16 September 2011 at 9:43 am

          I would say the opposite, that there is too much imposed ‘paakehaa culture’ Remember, before colonisation there was only ‘Maaori culture.’ Therefore, everything else since then has been an imposition. Look to Te Tiriti (the Maaori version of the Treaty) to gauge what is ‘correct’ in terms of the relationship between the two worldviews.

          • vto 3.3.1.1.1
            16 September 2011 at 9:52 am

            Sheesh Adele, I think we are on the same wave length for a change. Agreed, such impositions are the issue – both you and Pete raise the same issue, each with a different set of circumstances. Resolving this is at the heart of this entire subject in NZ.

            • Pete George 3.3.1.1.1.1
              16 September 2011 at 9:58 am

              And the only way to try and resolve it is to discuss it without fear of being labelled.

              Adele – I acknowledge that in the past Maori culture was suppressed and discouraged, I think that’s a shame. It’s good to see people proudly demonstrating their culture now.

              • McFlock …
                16 September 2011 at 12:22 pm

                I suggest, Pete, that raising the issue the day after some nutbar is reported as sending a racist email to a school over a few flags simply screams “bandwagon, jumping onto”.

              • Deadly_NZ …
                16 September 2011 at 11:55 pm

                “It’s good to see people proudly demonstrating their culture now.”

                However as with religion, it should not be pushed down everyone’s throat.

                It’s like the 8am bang on the front door only to open it to about 3 people trying to push into the house, whilst trying to give you some magazine. God help you if you let them in, it’s easier to remove a red wine stain from a white shagpile carpet using nothing but a dirty rag, than to dislodge them in full cry. However I digress.

                I have some family members that are Maori, and me I am English and some of the stories my auntie tells me of growing up in a NZ that tried it’s best to stamp out the Maori culture makes me really sad, not so much that it happened, but for what has been lost. Some of the stories that are only dimly remembered and many more forgotten and lost forever.

                But also when I went to Polytech it was compulsory to do Maori studies no matter what you studied, and that did not go down well at all, and so almost vacant classes were held, mainly because it was forced upon the class. About 2 of us turned up, it was great because we go the other good thing about the culture is the love of food, I must admit to be a poor struggling student it was great to be able to eat and get invites to other cultural things like hāngi, singsongs, and beer drinking. Ahh the 70’s were great.

                So yes by all means be proud and demonstrate the dances the carvings the language, But if someone is not interested then that is their decision and their loss. So don’t force it upon them, just feel a little sorry for them because they know not what they are missing.

            • Adele 3.3.1.1.1.2
              16 September 2011 at 10:13 am

              I totally concur vto, It’s rather nice being on the same page for a change.

        • The Voice of Reason 3.3.1.2
          16 September 2011 at 9:44 am

          Actually Pete, you’ve said nothing of substance in this post as well. The whole point of dogwhistling is to avoid directly saying what you think, but to cloak the idea in a veneer of reasonable debate. It’s a new low, because you have at least shown some hints of decency and understanding on occasions. Playing the race card is definitely poor form.

          • Pete George 3.3.1.2.1
            16 September 2011 at 9:52 am

            How is this “playing the race card”? It’s raising an issue I hear a lot of people talking about privately. Should what they think be ignored?

            Are you playing the “don’t dare criticise anything Maori” card?

            • Frida 3.3.1.2.1.1
              16 September 2011 at 10:27 am

              You’ve proven in your dogwhistling comments over at the Sewer what your motive was in posting this question, Pete George. So don’t try and pretend you were doing anything else than jump on the racist bandwagon. Talk about a troll. You must know you aren’t going to get much sympathy for your racist Dunedin views on this blog.

              • Pete George …
                16 September 2011 at 10:35 am

                What’s racist about my views?

                I mean specifically, and not just jumping on the “call him a racist because he dared raise a significant issue” bandwagon.

                • rosy …
                  16 September 2011 at 10:45 am

                  PG – I don’t know that your views are racist or just ignorance – but you make no attempt to discuss, or maybe even see, what is behind disparities between Maori and Pakeha. You’ve spent enough time on this blog that you should have some understanding. All you’ve done is put on a frown as soon as Maori getting good press, and are at the forefront of the culture of New Zealand for one particular event. That’s pretty whiny really.

                  • Pete George …
                    16 September 2011 at 10:53 am

                    Rosy, it started here when some people got whiny about John Key not appeasing every nitpicker in his speech last Friday.

                    I haven’t “put on a frown as soon as Maori getting good press”. I give Maori good press when I want to. I posted an open question here because I wanted to hear what other people felt about the issue generally. Mostly they seem to feel like attacking the person and avoid the issue.

                    • Frida …
                      16 September 2011 at 10:56 am

                      Pete, John Key is the Prime Minister last time I looked. The Queen’s representative in right of NZ. ie THE CROWN. Maori are tangata whenua and in partnership with the Crown via the Treaty of Waitangi. The least the ignorant so and so could have done was speak one of the two languages of that partnership when welcoming the world to NZ. If you can’t see that, then there’s no point in even debating any issues of Maori culture with you any further.

                    • rosy …
                      16 September 2011 at 10:59 am

                      “I give Maori good press when I want to”

                      So you’ve never wanted to then, at least not on this blog.
                      Edit: I’m happy to be corrected…

                    • Pete George …
                      16 September 2011 at 11:12 am

                      The first thing I posted today was: “Maori culture has experienced a resurgence and has become a significant part of New Zealand processes and events.”

                      And later: “I acknowledge that in the past Maori culture was suppressed and discouraged, I think that’s a shame. It’s good to see people proudly demonstrating their culture now.”

                    • rosy …
                      16 September 2011 at 11:25 am

                      That statement wasn’t made until after you were beaten up about ‘Maori Correctness’. And talking about avoiding the issue – it seems to me that statement was simply avoiding an explanation of what ‘Maori Correctness’ means.

                      I have a picture in my head of the people who would use that phrase to dismiss Maori progress, and it’s not pleasant. You really shouldn’t want to be associated with it unless you agree with Don Brash IMO.

                    • Pete George …
                      16 September 2011 at 11:45 am

                      It doesn’t sound like you are happy to be corrected.

                      I don’t agree much with Don Brash. I disagreed strongly with his and John Ansell’s advertisement and directly challenged Ansell on it’s innaccuracies. They are extreme and misrepresent how things are.

                      I’m talking about a degree of disquiet amongst middle New Zealand. It’s not anti-Maori, it’s saying “we’re happy for Maori culture to be expressed, we just don’t want it forced on us too much”.

                      Frida’s post just above provides a good example of the pressure being applied to toe the cultural line. And she refuses to discuss it. Demands don’t go down well with many people – especially when that event was a major Maori cultural showpiece as it was.

                      Surely we should be open and talk about it without being called names? If we don’t deal with it it could lead to widespread grumpification.

                    • rosy …
                      16 September 2011 at 12:04 pm

                      I am happy to be corrected. I was looking forward to saying ‘Well done, I stand corrected.’ But that is not the case.

                      Stating that there is a Maori resurgence is a neutral statement, you didn’t say “and that’s a good thing” did you? You went on to make a negative statement about Maori correctness, whatever that means…. and then you talked about the ‘imposition’ of Maori culture! You backtracked only when the original comment was taken negatively (and I don’t know why you would have expected any other response).

                      And Pete, you’re not discussing it. You just want others to … how about you say what parts of Maori resurgence you like? Why is Maori Correctness a reasonable term? Why shouldn’t the PM say a simple ‘kia ora’ to an international audience? Why is it a shame that Maori culture was suppressed? What did that suppression cause? When do you think this resurgence is gone too far? etc, etc.

                      Otherwise I agree with Frida, you’re sounding passive-aggressive.

                    • Pete George …
                      16 September 2011 at 12:24 pm

                      you’re not discussing it. You just want others to …

                      I’ve already explained that, I wanted to hear what others thought about it. That’s a part of getting electorate feedback, not stating my views but prompting others to give theirs.

                      Why shouldn’t the PM say a simple ‘kia ora’ to an international audience?

                      He should say it if he wants to, and he needn’t if he doesn’t want to. Presumably it’s not part of his normal vocabulary. Mine niehter – if someone greets me in a different language I often just say Hi back.

                      Why is it a shame that Maori culture was suppressed?

                      I think it’s a shame that people think that is was cultural suppression. There was a heap of cultural expression at the opening.

                      What did that suppression cause?

                      Nothing that I’m aware of, apart from a few people geting precious and hissy about it.

                      When do you think this resurgence is gone too far?

                      I think it gets borderline and sometimes too much now (from what I hear others are less tolerant). As I’ve said elsewhere it’s partly due to media overkill, I was interested to see international teams arriving in New Zealand but got a bit jaded by yet another Maori welcome.

                      Some of it is easy to avoid, for example I don’t usually settle down to a test match until the first whistle. The New Zealand anthem does little for me – I actually prefer the Maori verse, it sounds better, but I don’t like the English version words or sound/feel.

                      I’m over the pre-game haka performance, I think it’s become an overhyped media marketing exercise more than anything. I’m also concerned that the haka represents male aggression and violence, something there’s far too much of in our society.

                    • rosy …
                      16 September 2011 at 12:33 pm

                      I’ll just make one eurocentric, pragmatic comment and leave the rest to others that know more about cultural suppression than I do.

                      The RWC is putting NZ on the world stage. There is a heap of research that shows international visitors expect 2 things when they come to NZ – natural beauty and Maori culture. If you’re a bit jaded, just think about what our invited guests want – and put it in $$ terms if you like, you’ll feel much better about having to sit through it and if you’re really money oriented (for the country), you might even promote it.

                      As for me – I think it’s fantastic 🙂

                    • Pete George …
                      16 September 2011 at 12:40 pm

                      Don’t you think international visitors (and potential international visitors) would have been far more interested in the waka part of the ceremony than Key’s speech? I was. I remember the grand visuals well. And I don’t remember what Key said.

                      How many would have noticed or cared if he included a token Maori phrase? I don’t think many come here to see him, and even less come to hear him mash some Maori.

                    • Puddleglum …
                      16 September 2011 at 2:23 pm

                      Sorry Pete, but I fundamentally disagree with your tactics here of “opinion gathering” (which is why I was happy to go along with mickysavage’s parody of your initial comment – above).

                      For me, politics is about the contestation of ideas and values. This notion that someone can act as an “empty vessel” into which others’ desires and wishes can be poured is either ignorant of the realities of being human or deceptive. You are not an empty vessel “gathering opinions”.

                      Before I vote for anyone I want to know what they believe in, what they support, etc.. On touchstone issues (e.g., here in NZ that includes cultural and Treaty issues) I want them to be very clear about what their lifetime of experience leads them to think.

                      I’m not interested in them gathering my opinion, I’m interested in me gathering their opinion.

                      Tell me honestly, Pete – and without any distractions into other issues – do you think that Maori ‘resurgence’ has gone too far? And why or why not?

                    • Pete George …
                      16 September 2011 at 3:03 pm

                      Sorry Pete, but I fundamentally disagree with your tactics here of “opinion gathering” (which is why I was happy to go along with mickysavage’s parody of your initial comment – above).

                      I fundamentally disagree with you about “opinion gathering” – to represent people one of the basics is listening to them. I thought your parody was well done.

                      For me, politics is about the contestation of ideas and values.

                      To an extent but if a party get’s too obsessed with that they get out of touch with the people and get punished in the polls for it.

                      This notion that someone can act as an “empty vessel” into which others’ desires and wishes can be poured is either ignorant of the realities of being human or deceptive. You are not an empty vessel “gathering opinions”.

                      I’ve never claimed to be an “empty vessel” – I’ve obviously got a lot of my own ideas and preferences – but I enhance those by listening to other people.

                      Before I vote for anyone I want to know what they believe in, what they support, etc…

                      It’s hard to portray that properly on a forum that where much attacking and misinformation goes on. This isn’t where I intend for people to learn that about me.

                      Tell me honestly, Pete – and without any distractions into other issues – do you think that Maori ‘resurgence’ has gone too far? And why or why not?

                      From my point of view it seems mostly to be about right but with some excesses – as there probably always will. The quibbling over Key’s speech seemed bizarre to me.

                      You’d have to ask Maori if they think it’s gone far enough, a few on here seem to think it hasn’t but there are a lot more out there. And they also have to respect the place for otheer cultures here.

                      From what I hear some non-Maori (it’s hard to quantify but it’s common to hear grizzles) think things Maori have taken over too much, especially when it is insisted on like it’s compulsory or a distinct quota.

                      Some refer to English or colonial culture – non Maori Kiwi culture has always been an evolving mixture of different cultures, many of which came here to get away from the English class ridden colonial culture. Kiwi culture is now an even bigger mixture, it includes some Maori culture, and there are a number of variations around the country. Plus new cultures are adding to the mix.

                      Even Maori culture has evolved and adapted and integrated. A choreographed high tech waka themed televised light show in a rugby stadium is an example of that.

                      My position on culture more than anything is tolerance and acceptance of different cultures. And I don’t think I or any New Zealander should be coerced or forced or shamed or guilted into greeting anyone in any particular way, it should be a personal choice.

                    • felix …
                      16 September 2011 at 3:13 pm

                      What is your understanding of the definition of the word “culture” in the context of your initial question, Pete?

                    • Puddleglum …
                      16 September 2011 at 3:50 pm

                      Thanks Pete. You think things are about right at the moment on this issue, though with some excesses. That’s all I wanted to know. (I won’t ‘contest’ that here too much – as I’ll focus on the rest of your comment – but one point that raises for me is the extent to which those excesses are about government policy as opposed to just what some people, in some places, organisations, workplaces, etc. decide they will do?)

                       “I fundamentally disagree with you about “opinion gathering” – to represent people one of the basics is listening to them.”

                      Yes, indeed. That’s the work of MPs once elected – perhaps particularly electorate MPs who represent not just those who voted for their party but all their electorate constituents.

                      Prior to an election, however, the main direction of opinion gathering should be the way I suggest – candidates expressing their opinions/policies on various significant topics and people deciding, on that basis, who they would most want to represent them.

                      And, so far as listening goes, of course listening matters. But, by the time an election comes around and candidates have been chosen they (the candidates) should have had plenty of time – in their lives – to have listened to others, to the arguments doing the rounds, etc. in the formation of their opinions and then to have come to some sense of the policies they support. Listening is one important way to form beliefs – it should not be a market research exercise once someone is trying to get elected.

                      “I thought your parody was well done.”

                      Thanks – I enjoyed writing it.

                       “To an extent but if a party get’s too obsessed with that [the contest of ideas and values] they get out of touch with the people and get punished in the polls for it.”
                       
                      Not really. If you mean getting too ‘closed-minded’ then I’d agree. But, for me, it is through the contesting of ideas and values expressed clearly and without reticence that those same ideas can be changed. Uncontested ideas are the ones that don’t change, which is why I don’t like the ‘idea’ that ‘everyone’s opinions are of equal value’ – that’s a huge disincentive to ever consider changing one’s views, even to improve them while keeping them substantively the same.

                      “I’ve never claimed to be an “empty vessel” – I’ve obviously got a lot of my own ideas and preferences – but I enhance those by listening to other people.”

                      My guess is that you’d enhance them far more effectively by stating your views clearly and then listening to others’ responses. In that way, their responses will be more directly relevant to your views and help to provide ‘angles’ that your view may not incorporate. That’s what I get from this and other sites at any rate.

                      “It’s hard to portray that properly on a forum that where much attacking and misinformation goes on.”

                      Well, yes, that does happen sometimes – but, Pete, haven’t you noticed that it happens in ‘real life’ too? It’s hard to avoid and part of discussing things with others. If I think ‘misinformation’ is present then I try to show why I think it’s misinformation. As for ‘attacking’ – attacking arguments (or lack of) I have no problems with. Attacking people – to the point of abuse – I don’t like. Then again, if done with wit and out of frustration or some other understandable (even reasonable) cause, it bothers me far less. I don’t expect people to be saints.

                      “This isn’t where I intend for people to learn that about me.” 

                      I think that might be what irritates people. I remember one of my early comments was met with “Yes, but what do you think?” 

          • Deadly_NZ 3.3.1.2.2
            16 September 2011 at 11:58 pm

            I look at it as more like web site trolling, to his site.

        • Mutante 3.3.1.3
          16 September 2011 at 5:18 pm

          Jesus Pete. Nobody’s forcing you to get a full face Moko are they?

          Go crawl back under your master’s wig.

        • Colonial Viper 3.3.1.4
          16 September 2011 at 10:08 pm

          Good grief, that’s a change for being criticised for not saying anything of substance.

          Whoever accused you of not saying anything of substance was misinformed.

          Bovine excrement is a substance.

      • felix 3.3.2
        16 September 2011 at 9:16 am

        Looks like Pete’s finally found his election issue (too much mowree stuff) and a snappy catchphrase to repeat (mowree correctness).

        Now it just needs Peter Dunne’s endorsement.

      • vto 3.3.3
        16 September 2011 at 9:20 am

        TVOR, you expose the exact issue which most people in NZ cannot understand;

        A person asks whether a culture / race within a multi-cultural society is at the correct level e.g. Margaret Mutu, and that is deemed not racist by some.

        Another person asks whether a culture / race within a multi-cultural society is at the correct level e.g. Pete George, and that is deemed racist by those same some.

        Tell the bulk of NZ how that works…

        • The Voice of Reason 3.3.3.1
          16 September 2011 at 9:39 am

          Pete is just dogwhistling after aracist Dunedin businessmoron noticed maori flags flying at a local primary schools and got up on his hind legs to have a bleat about it. I find Mutu’s comments equally vacuous so I’m not in a position to opine on your conundrum, VTO.

          • Pete George 3.3.3.1.1
            16 September 2011 at 9:48 am

            Speaking up about something is dogwhistling? I have said something about the flag flying here:

            http://yourdunedin.org/2011/09/16/flying-the-flag-%e2%80%93-friday-16-september-2011/

            • The Voice of Reason 3.3.3.1.1.1
              16 September 2011 at 9:57 am

              I was talking about your Maori Correctness post, where you did not ‘speak up’, you sucked up. To racists. The newer ‘flag’ post is a more substantial explanation of your position, but I think you should have been less coy with the phrase ‘some people’. Just call them racists, it’s more honest.

            • McFlock 3.3.3.1.1.2
              16 September 2011 at 12:37 pm

              oh FFS I can’t believe I got suckered into reading that linked drivel.

              1: clarification – The school doesn’t just fly “Maori” flags – there are at least half a dozen there every day.

              2: as for asking people to be “tolerant” of Maori “embracing some of  their own culture” – besides being patronizing in an almost Victorian way, it was the school decision to fly some flags that reflected, among some other things, its own cultural mix. Not “Dunedin”, not “National”, but the damned school decided on flags that it felt described it. It’s not a Maori thing, it’s a school thing, and just because one small-minded bigot takes offense you thought you sniffed a winner. Well you didn’t.

        • just saying 3.3.3.2
          16 September 2011 at 9:51 am

          One problem is that when you see racism (or sexism etc.) as a kind of level-playing-field, those who are at the coalface of racism everyday are effectively silenced in speaking out about it because the dominant and dominating group claims that these main victims of racism are being equally racist in calling them out on their racism. You start playing a game of pretend in which everyone and every group is just as at fault as every other, and all people are equally victimised by racism. Which makes a mockery of the whole concept imo.

    • marty mars 3.4
      16 September 2011 at 9:27 am

      correct for who?

      Have you had anything to do with this email pete – just asking

      “I wish I was a Maori………
      I have been wondering …

      http://mars2earth.blogspot.com/2011/09/i-wish-you-werent-so-dull.html

      sounds like your view to me or do you disagree with it

      • Pete George 3.4.1
        16 September 2011 at 9:45 am

        I’ll have a good look later (it’s long) but I think I’d generaly disagree with it. I don’t wish I was a Maori or anything other than who I am. I agree with dealing properly with the ToW. I like to see a good Maori representation in parliament. I work with Maori people on things. I enjoy and am sometimes moved by Maori cultural events.

        But I think I should be able to raise issues that are definitely out there. And if I get criticisd for daring to raise them then too bad. I also get criticised for not saying enough.

    • Draco T Bastard 3.5
      16 September 2011 at 11:13 am

      Nope, need to go further until there is not two clearly defined cultures but just one – NZ culture.

      • marty mars 3.5.1
        16 September 2011 at 12:59 pm

        what does your sentence mean? – it sounds like your usual assimilist borg talk but just checking

        • Draco T Bastard 3.5.1.1
          16 September 2011 at 1:51 pm

          The two cultures will merge – nothing you can do will stop that and trying is actually preventing the necessary changes to both cultures.

          • marty mars 3.5.1.1.1
            16 September 2011 at 5:00 pm

            yeah yeah doesn’t your programming allow a different response sometimes – you know – to trick the humans

            • Draco T Bastard 3.5.1.1.1.1
              16 September 2011 at 9:01 pm

              Why do you try to prevent that which will happen no matter what you do?

              • marty mars …
                16 September 2011 at 10:00 pm

                it’s a thing people do – struggle against seemingly insurmountable odds – it’s rewarding in a funny human way – no merging for me even if resistance is futile. Your utopia is heinous to me – the opposite of what I want.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  17 September 2011 at 12:07 am

                  It’s not my utopia. It’s merely the way things are. Cultures will change over time especially when two or more co-mingle. We can either direct that change and bring about what we want or try to resist it which will leave us open to the Law of Unintended Consequences.

                  Thing is, like most conservatives, you’re looking to the past through rose tinted glasses – what you’re trying to hold onto never existed.

  4. Tiger Mountain 4
    16 September 2011 at 8:07 am

    Just when you are looking forward to a nice cruisy Friday tory Pete appears with another inane highly subjective question. How would we know Pete? in constantly changing human societies what is the ‘correct level’ for anything behaviour related apart from breathing? Take up philosophy or something.

  5. Pascal's bookie 5
    16 September 2011 at 10:42 am

    Lol.

    And I thought the Brash/Ansell ‘Maorification’ thing was the clumsiest piece of dogwhistling fail I’d see this year.

    • Frida 5.1
      16 September 2011 at 10:53 am

      Yeah I’m no longer convinced that Pete George isn’t Brash or Ansell. Certainly worships at their altar clearly

      • Pete George 5.1.1
        16 September 2011 at 10:57 am

        Frida, what’s racist about what I’ve said?

        Some people have complained I haven’t said anything. Some people have complained I’ve said things that are apparently forbidden to be talked about.

        • Pascal's bookie 5.1.1.1
          16 September 2011 at 11:16 am

          Explain “maori correctness’.

          Be thorough.

          It is something that you say exists, so what is it?

          When someone is being ‘Maori correct’ what are they doing?

          It seems to me that the phrase ‘Maori correctness’, which you have invented as far as I can tell, and which you are posting about in numerous comment threads, carries a negative emotional tone.

          I’d like to have that aspect of it addressed in your explanation of what it means.

          Why did you choose that phrase to capture whatever it is you want to talk about?

          Seems obvious to me that it is related to political correctness right?

          That’s a negative phrase as well, don’t you think?

          So it looks to me that your invention and use of that phrase tells us what you think about what that phrase describes.

          • Frida 5.1.1.1.1
            16 September 2011 at 11:23 am

            “Maori correctness” sounds like a synonym for “Maorification” to me. Says it all, Pete. That’s why none of us can be bothered to engaged with your question. It’s loaded. And you’re a passive aggressive racist.

        • mik e 5.1.1.2
          16 September 2011 at 7:11 pm

          Its surprising you have offended any body at any time as your super sensitive to offending any body wig worm, I though people would be complaining about be bored to death with his lack of conviction.

  6. rosy 6
    16 September 2011 at 10:57 am

    A left-wing in Denmark. Congratulations to new PM Helle Thorning-Schmidt, the Social Democrats, Social Liberal party and the Red-Green Alliance. Maybe the tide is turning…

  7. thejackal 7
    16 September 2011 at 11:02 am

    Asshole of the Week Award – Murray McCully

    Well this one should come as no surprise… Murray McCully has once again shown what a complete A hole he really is. After failing to ensure Aucklands infrastructure could cope with a huge influx of people, McCully declares himself emperor of the waterfront, in some sort of delusional Machiavellian take over bid. The Minister for the Rugby World Cup didn’t even have the courtesy to inform Len Brown, effectively giving the two-fingered salute to the Mayor of Auckland…

  8. Brett Dale 8
    16 September 2011 at 11:26 am

    George Clooney is better than us, he is
    a better and bigger man than all of us
    put together, and he has let us know
    this in an interview he did at the Toronto
    film festival.

    Oh by us, I mean all of us, not blogger’s or
    reporters, I mean everybody.

    You see this reporter by the name of Paul Chi,
    asked this innocent question, about how he
    balances his personal and professional life in
    the spotlight. Fair enough question I thought.

    Not fair enough for George Clooney who went
    on and tried to embarrass him.

    Clooney laughed and sneered and said “I knew
    someone would ask that question” he went on to
    ask this guy’s name, Paul Chi told him, but Clooney
    kept on asking about half a dozen times.

    He then added, everybody remember the name Paul Chi,
    he asks the questions that has to be asked. He also told
    Paul that he should tell his editor that he asked the question.

    To his credit Mr Chi remain professional, unlike
    Mr Clooney who afterwards went on to tell
    the media, he likes it when people ask him dumb
    questions, because it makes him laugh.

    What got me, was how the rest of the press core
    just sat there laughing, and clapping like trained
    circus seals.

    I found it to be bullying behavior on a high school
    level, where the cool kid, berates the nerd kid and
    the whole class laughs at the Nerd, while the cool
    kid sits there superior.

    If I was at the press conference, I would of asked
    George, “Why do you have to be a jerk?”

    Lets hope one day people don’t tolerate bullies
    anymore.

    Hats off to Paul Chi for keeping his dignity.

  9. Joe Bloggs 9
    16 September 2011 at 11:36 am

    .
    Interesting findings from the Department of Labour’:

    The study found that the introduction of the New Entrants (NE) minimum wage was largely ignored by businesses and that most 16 and 17 year old workers were moved on to the adult minimum wage. Combined with a 75 cent increase in the adult minimum wage at the same time, this led to a 28.2 percent increase in the effective minimum wage for 16 and 17 year old workers.

    This research found that this minimum wage increase accounted for approximately 20–40 percent of the fall in the proportion of 16 and 17 year olds in employment by 2010.

    Good to see businesses acting responsibly.

    Bad to see that the 2008 minimum wage reform has contributed so heavily to youth unemployment.

    • millsy 9.1
      16 September 2011 at 11:48 am

      Joe,

      Do you own rental property? If so, did you raise your rent this year? If yes, then you are a fucking hypocrite.

      I get sick and tired of people like you who think that wages should be just held down. Young people slog their guts out making burgers for people like you and you think they should be paid a subsistance?

      Tell me, what is your opinion on the labour market in the US before 1865?

      • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 9.1.1
        16 September 2011 at 11:54 am

        Yeah, Joe.

        Do you own a sweetcorn cannery? If so, did you raise the price of the sweetcorn this year? Fucking hypocrite.

        • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 9.1.1.1
          16 September 2011 at 11:57 am

          Hey, Joe,

          Do you run a boutique floral arrangement service? If so, did you put up your rates for decorative arrangements you sell this year? Fucking hypocrite.

          • Joe Bloggs 9.1.1.1.1
            16 September 2011 at 12:12 pm

            😀

            No rental properties, no sweetcorn factories, no boutique floral arrangement services…

            … hate to burst your bubble millsy but I’m just another impoverished worker-bee who refuses to parasitically leech off a welfare system.

            But in my own defense I’ve helped create jobs for 22 people in the last 12 months, plus set up a small home business for myself – despite the GFC

    • The Voice of Reason 9.2
      16 September 2011 at 11:58 am

      You’re a bit selective in your quotes, JB.
       
      “The research found that the minimum wage increase lowered the proportion of 16 and 17 year olds in employment by between 3 and 6 percentage points in the subsequent two years (there was no impact on employment immediately following the policy change), which accounted for between 20 and 40 percent of the fall in the proportion of 16 and 17 year olds in work over this period (a loss of 4,500–9,000 jobs). The remaining 60 to 80 percent of the fall in employment can be attributed to the deteriorating economic conditions.” (My bold)
       
      What the report is actually saying is that it improved the incomes of most young people and had a minor impact on their overall employment rate. In other words, overall, it is a good thing.
       
       

    • Campbell Larsen 9.3
      16 September 2011 at 12:10 pm

      Nice try Joe, it’s pretty clear that the main reason that the main reason that the new entrants minimum wage was not significantly exploited by employers was the time/ hours limit placed upon it and the additional admin that would have been required.
      To assert that businesses acted responsibly out of the goodness of their hearts is just plain laughable.
      Up to 80% of the so called ‘losses’ were attributable to the recession – not the moves designed to remove discrimination on the basis of age.
      It is not the job of NZs young people to prop up the bottom line of companies who do not want to pay even the current pitiful minimum wage.

      • Joe Bloggs 9.3.1
        16 September 2011 at 12:13 pm

        New Zealand’s minimum wage is still close to the highest it has been, as a proportion of the average wage, since the late 1970s.

        It is also the second-highest of any developed country in relation to the median wage. So we have one of the highest minimum wages in the world, and people want to make it even higher.

        The 2008 reforms have already priced youth out of the employment market.

        Perhaps a better focus would have been on family or household income instead of individual income.

        • Campbell Larsen 9.3.1.1
          16 September 2011 at 12:33 pm

          Wages in NZ are by and large terrible, and for those on the minimum this means that affording a life is practically impossible, and debt is almost inevitable.
          The only reason our minimum wage is second highest to anything is because our median wage is so low.
          You may want to be a cheerleader for the inspired plan of ‘catching up with the third world’ but the thing that needs to be addressed is greed of the people at the top, and of businesses.
          Paying people below, or even the minimum wage is not helping them – it’s exploiting them.

          • Joe Bloggs 9.3.1.1.1
            16 September 2011 at 1:18 pm

            Paying people below, or even the minimum wage is not helping them – it’s exploiting them.

            Work’s work Campbell – if a lower minimu wage means that unemployed youth have work opportunities then that’s a better outcome for them than no work and no wages.

            • Campbell Larsen 9.3.1.1.1.1
              16 September 2011 at 1:39 pm

              Fair pay is fair pay Joe.
              The study you quoted proved that wage rates were not the predominant reason why young people were out of work and thus your magical solution of paying them less is not going to achieve SFA. Of course it will make McDonalds and progressive enterprises richer – yipee.
              Now if you are so concerned about the youth how about you go back to the drawing board and come up with a solution that doesn’t involve stripping them of their rights, rather than just pushing tired old lines from The Nact propaganda machine.

            • Draco T Bastard 9.3.1.1.1.2
              16 September 2011 at 1:50 pm

              Paying people less than it costs to live and work is theft and that is what you’re asking to be legal.

              • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …
                16 September 2011 at 3:59 pm

                Paying people less than it costs to live and work is theft..

                How do you figure?

                I pay the guy who mows my lawn once a fortnight $40 a go. I doubt he could live on that for two weeks. Am I stealing from him?

            • millsy 9.3.1.1.1.3
              16 September 2011 at 4:53 pm

              I bet plantation owners in the antebellum South used the same arguments regarding the abolishment of slavery.

              “If we end slavery there would cost too much to pay them niggers and they would be doing nothing”.

              Tell me Joe, how much would you pay your workers if the minium wage was scrapped totally. And do you accept that would lead to workers not being able to afford basic expenses?

              • Joe Bloggs …
                17 September 2011 at 8:59 am

                Tell me Joe, how much would you pay your workers if the minium wage was scrapped totally.

                If I had workers working for me – which I don’t – I would pay them whatever it took to retain their services. In other words a little more than the next best offer that they could get from another employer on the open market.

                My sixteen year old son has found work by successfully circumventing the minimum wage provisions. He has offered hiomself to employers as an independent contractor, contracting himnself out at a rate that’s $1.50 below the minimum hourly wage. He has more had offers of work than he can cope with and he is very happy with the fact that he has work. Incidentally he came up with this approach entirely by himself – showing a bit of entrepreurial flair and respect for the dictum that he has responsibilities as well as rights.

                • drx …
                  17 September 2011 at 9:05 am

                  Joe,
                  I hope you are not subsidizing him at home.

                • Campbell Larsen …
                  17 September 2011 at 11:00 am

                  Your son didn’t even need you to tell him to sell himself short – he came up with it himself – says a lot about your gene pool and parenting skills.
                  What’s next for him? Chimney sweep?
                  Sounds like he should be spending more time at school and less time trying to circumvent labour laws designed to preserve the dignity and livelihoods of NZers trying to raise their own families.
                  ‘dictum’ etc – still preaching from the Nact spin bible I see – responsibility goes two ways buddy, something you might want to consider as you dance and shake your pom poms on behalf of a government who doesn’t understand that it has responsibility to activly manage the economy on behalf of the people it is supposed to serve.

                • mik e …
                  18 September 2011 at 10:31 pm

                  Thats the sort of thinking that will catch us up with Australia.He can’t be that bright if he has to be working for less than the minimum wage. He obviously gets that from you bloggs!

        • mik e 9.3.1.2
          18 September 2011 at 10:26 pm

          Thats why every body is leaving in droves for Australia.Selective statistics are not the truth

  10. joe90 10
    16 September 2011 at 12:40 pm

    Paging ianmac: Over is Right, Under is Wrong (illustrated).

    Put simply, there is a right way to hang the toilet paper, and a wrong way. Read on to determine the status of your own roll.

  12. Bored 12
    16 September 2011 at 12:51 pm

    The Friday social????? Please, theres some gardening and rugby to discuss

    PS A political comment: the fekker cant organise a Cycleway…..what the hell do you expect for a RWC party?

  13. grumpy 13
    16 September 2011 at 3:50 pm

    So the news is out…

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10752214

    Makes interesting reading and makes a lot of commentators here look very silly.

    • McFlock 13.1
      16 September 2011 at 4:22 pm

      How?
         
      All it says is that the allegations against 4 of the 18 were serious enough to allow illegally-obtained evidence. Of coure the allegations are serious – that’s why the cops used AOS and dawn raids. But on the face of it the allegations are also a bit fantastic – although that’s what a trial is to determine.

      • grumpy 13.1.1
        16 September 2011 at 5:36 pm

        Seems like all the rest were serious too but the videos are not allowed due to a technicality.

        • McFlock 13.1.1.1
          16 September 2011 at 5:54 pm

          What are you – an 80s cop movie?
            
          The “evidence” was illegally obtained, you don’t know what it is or its context, and the most they had were “firearms” charges, yet you’ve immediately gone to “oh they were obviously guilty of something they should be in jail for”. There are reasons we have rules of evidence, they aren’t just “technicalities”. And cameras in the real world aren’t like CSI – you can’t just say “enhance” and it’s suddenly a perfect, unequivocal image. There can be many interpretations to a single image, and I’m pretty sure that the police are grasping at straws on this one. The number of people released without charge is pretty interesting – if the cameras were all they had in the way of “actual” evidence, then it’s pretty piss poor.

          • davidc 13.1.1.1.1
            16 September 2011 at 6:52 pm

            The warrant they had did not allow video recording.
            I can buy a day/night aut sensor video that runs off D cells for $600. Perfect image quality and takes 10,000 shots.. I am sure the cops had plenty of perfect images of what was going on.

            Compare the “training” of this group to Anders Berivik’s preperation.

            • McFlock 13.1.1.1.1.1
              16 September 2011 at 9:04 pm

              Pure projection.
                
              ASSUMING they were acting like “military-style” training, a picture cannot prove whether it was terrorism planning, training as “security” for private contractors in Iraq, intensive method-acting rehearsals for a play or movie, or even just a bit of fun in the forest.
               
              Fuck sake – cameras are frequently debatable at sporting events, prepared environments with 360 degree unobstructed coverage. Cameras are vulnerable to distance, field width, obstruction, light, glare, weather, and context.
                
              But you’re comparing the few remaining charged people to a right-wing mass gunman simply because you read the word “camera”. 
               
               
               

              • davidc …
                16 September 2011 at 10:10 pm

                I dont need a camera to know that they possessed and were traing with illegal military semi auto rifles and shotguns. The police were forced to leave their watchpost because of the large volume of gunfire.

                69 dead Norwegians because of whackjobs like these.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  17 September 2011 at 7:56 am

                  69 dead Norwegians because of whackjobs like these.

                  What an ass. No comparison mate.

                  • davidc …
                    17 September 2011 at 8:33 am

                    Wannabe rambo’s training with slr’s no comparrison? Home made explosives no comparrison?

                    Tell me then why would anyone do live fire squad training with a military semi auto if they dont have intention of killing humans?

                    You really are a sad small minded hypocrite.

              • McFlock …
                16 September 2011 at 10:31 pm

                Ever been on a firing range?
                  
                Again, You’re comparing them to a spree-killer based on a few one-sided lines in a paper, when even a judge or jury need to hear a bit more than that and from both sides.
                 
                You’re the sort of nutjob who, I dunno, gets the evidence first and worries about warrants later, then complains that the DA is a pussy for not going ahead with the case. And votes for the nice austrian corporal who promises to do away with such political correctness in the justice system, not because you agree  with his other policies, just because you’re too dumb to figure out the consequences of a legal system that lacks impulse control..
                 

                • davidc …
                  17 September 2011 at 7:47 am

                  I have been around firearms all of my life, I have shot in various forms of competition for 35 years.
                  It is beyond question that this group had illegal semi auto military style firearms and were using them.
                  It is because I have a respect for firearms and legal firearms owners that I want this group punished.

                  I only wish the Police had stayed within the warrant they held so that the other 13 would not have escaped prosecution also.

                  • McFlock …
                    17 September 2011 at 1:36 pm

                    “beyond question”? Isn’t that for a trial to determine?
                    Like I say, the antihero in a bad ’80s cop film, just before he starts killing everyone he assumes is a bad guy.

        • lprent 13.1.1.2
          16 September 2011 at 10:07 pm

          Heh grumpy – you mean a major technicality like the police are not allowed to take either audio, video or pictures from private property without authority to be on the property? Or electronic survelliance of phones. They either have to have warrants, court approval, or due cause under one of several acts.

          What is steadily becoming clearer as the charges steadily get dropped is that the police teams who were collecting evidence had none of the above. What they are left with right now are 4 people charged on the basis of the results of searches where the warrants were issued to the officers making the application to the court, where they probably lied in and certainly inflated the statements to get them issued. It would not be the first time that I have seen it happen with some of the cowboys amongst the ‘special’ units of the local police.

          I would expect that the next round of legal arguments going to have an interesting look at the basis on which search warrants were issued. As far as I can see there is no suppression of those statements seeking a search warrant. Does anyone have them? Or can tell me why I cannot read and report on them?

  14. Oligarkey 14
    16 September 2011 at 3:58 pm

    Mr Bloggs:

    “New Zealand’s minimum wage is still close to the highest it has been, as a proportion of the average wage, since the late 1970s”

    Hourly rate or weekly earnings? If we’re talking hourly rate you are most certainly wrong. If it’s weekly earnings, then that’s a red herring because 30% of jobs are part-time now, as opposed to 15% back in the 1970s.

    • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 14.1
      16 September 2011 at 4:00 pm

      You are using “misnomer” incorrectly. This is very annoying and serves to undermine anything else you might be saying.

  15. Oligarkey 15
    16 September 2011 at 4:05 pm

    Only if you’re an irritable pedant with nothing of substance to contribute. In any case i changed it to “red herring” – though you probably won’t be happy with that either.

  16. AAMC 16
    16 September 2011 at 5:07 pm

    http://takethesquare.net/2011/09/16/roar-why-we-are-marching-on-september-17/

    “This Saturday, September 17th, tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of people will take to the streets and squares of financial districts in dozens of cities around the world in a global day of action against the excessive power of the banking sector — and for a more just, more stable, and more sustainable global financial system”

  17. mickysavage 17
    16 September 2011 at 8:53 pm

    I might try and repeat this comment tomorrow but Pete secret squirrel coiffured one admirer would be UF MP George managed to spark 58 comments today and it was all about a calculated banal yet racist comment.

    And he then did that wriggle where he maintains that he was not being a racist but actually a progressive tolerant leftie and the comments about him were really unfair and he was being misunderstood.  He then debated by being banal and not debating.

    The man is a troll.  He is the most effective disrupter of posts and discussions the Standard has ever seen.  And he wants to get Dunne reelected, AND there is the outside possibility that good old peety could be an MP.

    I am going to try and post this again tomorrow but can I urge everyone to reply to his banal crap with DNFTT?  I know how much fun it is to point out the stupidity of his comments but he is not learning and I suspect that all he wants to do is disrupt and confuse.

  18. Vicky32 18
    16 September 2011 at 9:05 pm

    I’m also concerned that the haka represents male aggression and violence, something there’s far too much of in our society

    Despite that I’ll no doubt catch hell for saying so, I agree, Pete. 🙂

  19. Adele 19
    16 September 2011 at 10:12 pm

    The haka is a supreme expression of raw masculinity. Spine tingling stuff. Peter George should give it a go then perhaps he would be less of a sneaky little bitch.

    • Pete george 19.1
      17 September 2011 at 6:14 am

      Who sounds bitchy?

      I shouldn’t give it a go, the haka doesn’t do it for me, it’s not a part of my culture. Adele, if I thought that Maori men would use the haka for expressing their raw masculinity and leave it there I would agree that it’s a good way to express it.

      A major problem that our society has is that raw masculinity is expressed in too many other ways that are destructive to families, destructive to relationships, destructive to the well being of people. And it’s destructive to the perpetrators of vioolence. You will be as aware as I am of the over-representation of Maori in these statistics. Raw masculinity is far too often a raw and open wound.

      Do you think the use of haka is a good outlet for men’s expression and can be left in the performance? Or is it symptom of too much male aggression in other aspects of normal living?

      • Colonial Viper 19.1.1
        17 September 2011 at 7:08 am

        I shouldn’t give it a go, the haka doesn’t do it for me, it’s not a part of my culture.

        Looks like PG doesn’t believe that the All Blacks doing the haka represents his culture or that of our country.

        Which country’s culture does the All Blacks haka represent, then, Pete?

        Thanks for letting the voters know.

        • Pete george 19.1.1.1
          17 September 2011 at 7:21 am

          Wrong CV. The haka is obviously a part of All Black culture.

          I’m not against them doing the haka, it just doesn’t do anything for me and I usually choose to grab a beer and some chips when the anthems and haka are on. I usually avoid the TV buildup to matches too, but I’m not anti them having a buildup.

          I live in a country that has a culture of allowing people to watch the bits they want to watch.

          • Colonial Viper 19.1.1.1.1
            17 September 2011 at 7:43 am

            LOL mate so you don’t think the All Blacks represent NZ or represent you internationally?

            (Ummmm regardless of whether or not you watch them, this is not a question about TV viewing preferences!)

            • Pete george 19.1.1.1.1.1
              17 September 2011 at 8:08 am

              ??

              Of course the All Blacks represent NZ at rugby, in a commercial sort of way. Internationally they are one of the best known symbols of the country.

            • Vicky32 19.1.1.1.1.2
              18 September 2011 at 4:40 pm

              LOL mate so you don’t think the All Blacks represent NZ or represent you internationally?

              Well, I don’t think they represent me internationally! I’d rather be represented by skill and brain not fighting, bullying, battles and brawn… Deborah Wai Kapohe for instance… or Allan McDiarmid (even though I see from Wikipedia that he’s dead now).

      • Adele 19.1.2
        17 September 2011 at 11:55 am

        Violence is not solely the preserve of males nor is it an inherent feature in Māori men.

        In Te Ao Māori, Tūmatauenga is the Atua that defines the ultimate expression of ‘masculinity.’ To be dedicated to Tū was to instill within, a set of principles and ethics, and the values of courage, discipline, principled actions, chivalry, charity, mercy, proper knowledge and behaviours. The NZ Army has as its soubriquet ‘Ngāti Tūmatauenga’ or the people of Tūmatauenga.

        Raw masculinity is seen in the best of human behaviour – not the worst. It is a masculinity that uses physical and mental strength to protect, preserve and enhance the lives of others. Masculinity, also, is not only a ‘male’ thing. Women can also express masculinity, and can also bind themselves to Tū.

        That Maaori feature disproportionately in all adverse indicators speaks to the ongoing effects of colonisation. The insidious nature of dis-inheritance from identity and culture has the effects you now witness. Random acts of violence is not Māoritanga. Rape is not Māoritanga. Bashing and killing children is not Māoritanga. Nor are they the actions of men expressing masculinity.

        Our prison system is punitive and largely gives lip-service to rehabilitative measures. However, where there have been efforts towards rehabilitation for Maori prisoners, the most successful (in terms of reducing recidivism rates) have been those programmes that teach identity through whakapapa (what it means to be Māori) mau rakau (martial arts) and the haka.

        A haka performed by an emasculated male is sore to the eyes. Flailing and undisciplined limbs, floppy gestures, and droopy expressionless features are not the stuff of ‘raw masculinity.’ I suggest you stick to Morris dancing.

  20. M 20
    16 September 2011 at 10:16 pm

    Tired of the surveillance shtick?

    Nice pisstakes:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIan6woglrA&feature=related

  21. big bruv 21
    16 September 2011 at 10:53 pm

    Any comment on the latest Roy Morgan poll?

    Come on guys, it is time that you rolled Goff and got somebody in who can at least save face for the once proud Labour party.

    • ak 21.1
      17 September 2011 at 1:03 am

      Once proud? Gee, many thanks for the advice bruvver boy, but I can assure you that the Labour movement’s still very proud of its achievements, and the fact that ignorant scum such as yourself will bite the very hand that has succoured you, will not diminish that pride.

      In fact, great optimism stems from the performance of your very own flip-flop lad over the past three years. Hels (and now Chris) have been released to perform important functions for progression and enhance our reputation on the global stage, while your wee boy has basically held the fort: an embarrassing, cringe-inducing grinny-do-nothing retard admittedly, but besides putting our children and grandchildren on terrorists’ lists temporarily, a totally ineffectual nonentity in the grander scheme of things. Our very own John W. Palin for the times.

      So yes, gloat like a goat if it floats your boat, wee bruv, but know that you are less than nothing: and if “winnng” is your all, reflect on the Warriors tonight: written-off by pundits, commentators, punters, pundits and press; yet resplendent in glory. She works in mysterious ways old son, but always, inevitably, for the good.

  22. Draco T Bastard 22
    17 September 2011 at 12:13 am

    Burger Fuel defends 90-day firing

    Unite Union’s “utu squad” today said Burger Fuel in Auckland’s Mission Bay had sacked a young staff member on the 89th day of the 90-day trial period after she asked for her work break entitlements to be better respected.

    Hey, look at that, exactly what we on left said would happen. Scum would hire people and then, on the 89th day, fire them.