Open mike 18/08/2012

178 comments on “Open mike 18/08/2012 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Jenny 1

   18 August 2012 at 6:15 am

   Yesterday Carol commenting on open mike posted a link to an article exposing the shameful exploitation of the parliamentary cleaners.

   Here is the link she supplied:
   http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/7486644/Parliaments-cleaners-seek-pay-rise

   Anyone who has ever been to parliament cannot help noticing what a amazing job these low paid workers do. The place glows like a polished jewel. The respect these workers have for this institution and the dedication they put into their work, shows.
   It is morally shocking at how low paid they are.

   For MPs to walk through these polished halls everyday and ignore the exploitation of these low paid workers right under their noses and in their very midst, is in my opinion, dangerously corrosive to their moral compass. (And I am talking about all MPs here). Blatantly turning a blind eye to the injustice of this extreme inequality every day in your own workplace, day in day out, makes it easier for these men and women to ignore child poverty or other extremes of inequality in the rest of the country.

   Draco T Bastard and Vicky 32 both wrote;

   There are many things that the government should do…….

   To which I would like to add that there is also a lot the opposition MPs should/could do, as well.

   The cleaners, backed by the Service and Food Workers Union, recently met representatives from Labour, the Greens and NZ First.

   All three parties have committed to support their bid for a wage increase and other political parties are also being approached.

   Union advocate Jill Ovens said the MPs had agreed to approach Parliamentary Service for the cleaners, agreeing that $13.85 was not enough to live on.

   If the opposition MPs were serious about helping low paid workers out. Of whom the parliamentary cleaners are a representative of.

   And these opposition MPs approach to the Parliamentary Service in support of the clerners demand for $15 is not met, in full, then I would like to challenge the parliamentary opposition parties, Labour, Greens, NZF, Mana to go on strike for one week. During which time they will donate their wages to the Spotless workers to stay at home as well.

   Will they do it?

   Or, is all the expressed concern for the low paid by these opposition MPs just hot air?

   By their actions you shall know them
   • Carol 1.1

     18 August 2012 at 6:51 am

     Thanks for this Jenny. Yes, I hope that the opposition parties do take some protest action on this issue.

     However, isn’t it now against the law to go out on strike in support of workers in a different occupation? Or does the law relate to those in a different workplace, and it is within the law to protest for other workers in your workplace?
     • Jenny 1.1.1

       18 August 2012 at 5:52 pm

       However, isn’t it now against the law to go out on strike in support of workers in a different occupation?

       Carol

       In answer to your question Carol. Yes it is. But I don’t think this prohibition applies to parliamentarians. And even if it did, I don’t think it is likely we would see the police and the courts try to enforce it. They would look like even bigger wallies than when they raided Kim Dotcom, or Tama Iti.

       On a more serious note. Parliamentarians rather than being regarded as workers, (albeit in another occupation), could be more accurately called their own boss and so are free to do as they please. If they called their stay-away a protest and not a strike, then quite likely it would not be illegal.
   • Grumpy 1.2

     18 August 2012 at 6:51 am

     Of course they are worth $15/hr, everyone is.

     The question is why the “workers champion”, when they were in power for 9 whole years didn’t do anything about it.
     • Draco T Bastard 1.2.1

       18 August 2012 at 9:38 am

       That’s easy Grumpy, they were following the neo-liberal play book that they introduced to NZ three decades ago.
       • Colonial Viper 1.2.1.1

         18 August 2012 at 1:04 pm

         Labour did push up the minimum wage enormously when they were in power. But in our current political economy, that minimum wage quickly falls behind, and is also irrelevant for those who become unemployed.

         A UI and policies of 100% employment are crucial.
         • burt 1.2.1.1.1

           18 August 2012 at 1:07 pm

           A tax system that rewards work rather than breeding would also help.
           • Draco T Bastard 1.2.1.1.1.1

             18 August 2012 at 1:17 pm

             and burt wanders in spouting his usual ignorance.

             It’s not the tax system that rewards work but the wage system and our wage system is designed to keep wages low and profits high.
           • burt 1.2.1.1.1.2

             18 August 2012 at 5:06 pm

             Oh, that’s right… we only pretend that WFF is part of the tax system when we want to talk about tax credits to argue tax isn’t high on low earners when Labour are in power… It’s part of the welfare system when National are in power… sorry Draco – I didn’t keep up with the fantasy world of pretending we can tax our way to a fair society.
             • millsy …

               18 August 2012 at 5:10 pm

               Its not fantasy, and it seems to work OK. Not like other countries that have no welfare system and vast expansive slums.
             • Draco T Bastard …

               18 August 2012 at 5:16 pm

               WfF is there due to low wages, not high taxes.
               • burt …

                 18 August 2012 at 6:10 pm

                 Oh, of course… it rebates the tax burden because …. low wage earners are taxed too heavily… yeah – slice and dice the BS any way you want Draco – it’s a tax adjustment/it’s welfare… – it’s a breeders tax reduction whichever way you look at it.
                 • Draco T Bastard …

                   18 August 2012 at 7:30 pm

                   If they weren’t paid so little to begin with then we wouldn’t have to cut the taxes that they pay so that they could afford to raise their families. That is the heart of capitalism – paying many SFA to work hard so that the few can live in luxury and not have to work at all.
                   • burt …

                     19 August 2012 at 12:16 pm

                     Right, so your glorious socialist party that identified people were paid too little played with the tax system to be popular enough to win another election so that it could …. play some more with the tax system.
   • blue leopard 1.3

     18 August 2012 at 5:49 pm

     @ Jenny (& Carol)

     Yes, this would be excellent!
     Would speak volumes if opposition party members took this approach.
     “Walking their talk in pictures” (which speak a thousand words).
     • Jenny 1.3.1

       18 August 2012 at 9:59 pm

       Thanks for that Blue. Here are two stories from Common Dreams that could have just as easily been written about how our scandalously low paid parliamentary cleaners are treated.

       Here’s to the Houston Janitors

       Dead Woman Working

       Will our opposition MPs act or will they keep walking through their polished halls refusing to acknowledge those who do their work?
       • Jenny 1.3.1.1

         18 August 2012 at 10:03 pm

         Houston is “Millionaire City,” after all, having added more millionaires to its population than any other city in the US for two years running. These janitors sanitize the bathrooms and workspaces, empty the trash, and vacuum the floors of some of the largest and most powerful corporations in the world: JPMorganChase, Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Wells Fargo, KBR and Marathon Oil to name a few. They do their work in the best-performing commercial real estate market in the US in terms of demand. Many in this predominantly female workforce literally have to run to cleanmore than 100 toilets in five hours each night…..

         Here’s to the Houston Janitors Common Dreams

         …..“It’s clear that our country still doesn’t value the work of service workers. We have to fight harder to make sure that the people who are cleaning the buildings, taking care of the elderly, teaching our kids—all the different kinds of service work—that those folks are coming to the forefront and that people understand and hear their stories,” she said. “And we need to be up front about income inequality. I don’t think people want to accept that people earn $9,000 a year cleaning the offices of billionaires.”

         Here’s to the Houston Janitors Common Dreams

         It was a slow and torturous death, my American dream. And for millions of others, I am guessing it is the same. Nothing this current round of politicos is planning to do can restore it……

         …….No matter whether a Republican like Nixon, Ford, Reagan or Bush — either one — or Democrats like Carter, Clinton, or Obama, the real chances were always next to none that I would actually “make it” and also live a life of purpose I so desperately wanted.

         Dead Woman Working Common Dreams

         My dreams weren’t outrageous and of great wealth. No, my dreams were of a comfortable home, food on the table, children, a meaningful job, and perhaps the “freedom from want” signaled by not being terrified that I wouldn’t make it to my next paycheck. I wanted to pay the bills without fretting. I wanted an occasional vacation from work. And I looked forward to a little time in retirement with enough health left to spend with my husband, kids and grandkids before leaving this earth. Now I am so tired in my late 50s of the struggle and the futility of trying to be heard, that I am angry beyond belief.

         Nothing in my dream was tied to massive wealth or domination over other people. But that killer instinct certainly is present in many people I know. That’s the instinct I apparently lack – the need to be rich and control others even if it means allowing those many others to suffer and die for my personal achievement.

         My real situation is like millions of other people in America. I’ve worked hard – very hard. Vacations were almost non-existent as I either needed to use that time for sick leave when I needed to for children, my husband, or myself or I “banked” the time knowing the next financial storm would come. Retirement security? Come on.

         Dead Woman Working Common Dreams
       • blue leopard 1.3.1.2

         18 August 2012 at 10:15 pm

         @ Jenny

         Cheers

         I particularly liked the “Dead Woman Working” article:

         “Nothing in my dream was tied to massive wealth or domination over other people. But that killer instinct certainly is present in many people I know. That’s the instinct I apparently lack – the need to be rich and control others even if it means allowing those many others to suffer and die for my personal achievement.”
2. just saying 2

   18 August 2012 at 6:30 am

   Fran Osullivan is interesting today:
   Cloth Cap Cunliffe Pursues Hidden Agenda

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10827742

   I didn’t think it was possible to cram so many neo-godwin’s law (comparisons to totalitarian communist states) infringements into such a small space.

   However, her final comment is relevant, and who here hasn’t thunk it?

   …As with Bo in China, Cunliffe has launched a serious challenge to the prevailing ideology of his party’s political wing. Does he seriously believe the nostrums in his three speeches or has he cynically “gone red” to build votes within the party at large. And will his colleagues succeed in burying him? The ABC club can’t place Cunliffe under house arrest. They might just have to engage instead.
   • Carol 2.1

     18 August 2012 at 6:49 am

     Ewww…. so unsubtle, Ms O’Sullivan…. The right must truly fear Cunliffe, meanwhile trying to keep Labour in-fighting front-and-centre.

     However, I did smirk a little at the sideswipe at Nikki Kaye:

     The general rule of politics is to “breathe through your nose” when beginning a parliamentary career; pay endless obeisance to the leader (this is usually achieved by repeating the leader’s name at every opportunity as, for instance, does Auckland Central MP Nikki Kaye in her Facebook announcements detailing the latest event where she has been the PM’s handbag in New Zealand’s commercial capital) but not complacent to the point of being brain dead by the time you are considered for a senior role.

     And that speaks more of politboro politics than Cunliffe’s alleged independence of thought.
     • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1

       18 August 2012 at 10:02 am

       That sounds remarkably like how to succeed in large private firms as well.
     • muzza 2.1.2

       18 August 2012 at 10:19 am

       not complacent to the point of being brain dead by the time you are considered for a senior role

       Perhaps FOS understands what the “parliamentarians on ‘exchange’ is designed for..

       “It’s a very full schedule we’ll be having a range of meetings with various speakers and senators. We’re meeting with a thinktank, we’re meeting with Mike Moore who is our ambassador over there.

       It is possible that FOS is astute to enough to subtley indicate that the “Think Tanks” which are blatantly not what most simpletons want to believe, are in fact little more than brain (dead)washing?
   • Jenny 2.2

     18 August 2012 at 10:01 pm

     Would Cunliffe be the one to lead a parliamentary opposition walk out in a solidarity action with the parliamentary cleaners?
3. Morrissey 3

   18 August 2012 at 6:31 am

   LEST WE FORGET

   Here’s the real reason they want to destroy Julian Assange….

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0
   • Grumpy 3.1

     18 August 2012 at 6:59 am

     I thought the only person wanting to destroy Assange was Assange…..
     Talk about a self destruct personality, ot uncommon on the left
     • Morrissey 3.1.1

       18 August 2012 at 7:14 am

       I thought the only person wanting to destroy Assange was Assange…..

       You “thought”? Here’s what you need to do, pronto…

       1.) WATCH the video.

       2.) READ something about the case. (Something serious, that is. Paul Thomas in the Herald is not serious. The Grauniad and the BBC, from which you draw your opinions, are about as serious and independent as Pravda and Tass.

       3.) THINK.

       4.) READ some more.

       5.) READ, read, read, and think….

       Off you go now.
       • Pascal's bookie 3.1.1.1

         18 August 2012 at 10:36 am

         Link to something serious M.
         • Morrissey 3.1.1.1.1

           18 August 2012 at 11:26 am

           Link to something serious M.

           I’ve done that virtually every time I have started a thread on this topic. But here’s another one just for you, my friend….

           http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9ExSqnuwyk
           • Pascal's bookie 3.1.1.1.1.1

             18 August 2012 at 11:46 am

             Ooh, a 2 year old msnbc report and an interview with Ellsberg.

             Ellsberg is a serious historic figure. His leaks of the Pentagon papers went all the way to the Supreme Court and resulted in rulings that clarified that journalists who hace recieved classified material are protected by the first amendment when they publish them, you’ll note in that report that officials were saying that charges were not imminent. Guess why that is? Hint, I’ve already told you in this paragraph.

             Also relevant is that WL has never published anything as secret as what Ellsberg leaked, or what the NYT or the WaPo have published.

             Two years on, and the investigation Holder mentions in that report has still not laid any charges. No charges = no grounds for extradition.

             And to forestall any bleating about the UK–> Sweden extradition; Sweden lays charges much later in the investigation the the UK or the US does. If Assange was accused of rape and sexual offences in either the uS or the iK, or here, he would already be charged.

             Now you dismissed the gaurdian Edit I linked to yesterday in a laughable manner, simply asserting that it could have been written by the Foreign Office.

             Yet two wrongs do not make a right. Just as Ecuador is wrong to pretend that Mr Assange is a refugee, so Britain is wrong to threaten to enter Ecuador’s London embassy. The Foreign Office may have been factually entitled to remind Ecuador this week that a 1987 act allows it, if permissible under international law, to enter the premises. But the reminder is more trouble than it is worth, and risks being massively counterproductive to this country’s interests in places where fewer scruples apply. The threat was a mistake, allowing Ecuador to shift the argument away from the Swedish criminal charges. Our diplomats in hostile or failing states would be put at unacceptable risk if this threat were carried out.

             http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/16/julian-assange-wikileaks-refugee-protection?CMP=twt_gu

             I’m sure the foreign office would write that. Yup, aha. I don’t think you even read the editorial.

             I trust you can either argue against the editorials content yourself, or link to someone serious who can do so. It raises some inteesting points that are relevant today, rather than 2 years ago.

             Particularly, the point that if Assange goes to Sweden, international law gives him more protection than he has if he stays in the UK. this is because “both Sweden and the UK would have to sign off on any extradition application” from the US. An application that hasn’t been made yet because no charges have been laid in the US.

             So have at it, be serious. Address these points.

             Or wriggle around and launch ad homs like a fan boy. Your choice.
             • Pascal's bookie …

               18 August 2012 at 4:55 pm

               Here ya Morrisey, jump on this one and address the actual content of the editorial.

               Have at it, should be a piece of cake, seeing you’ve read so much and all.

               List the errors and explain their significance.
               • Morrissey …

                 18 August 2012 at 7:18 pm

                 Have at it, should be a piece of cake, seeing you’ve read so much and all.

                 I’ve posted a lot on this topic already, and I’ve linked to many reputable articles and talks by people who know what they’re talking about, rather than poorly informed hacks and out and out propagandists like David Aaronovitch. And now, hilariously, someone who says Daniel Ellsberg and Noam Chomsky engage in rhetoric, wants me to engage in stupid trench warfare with him.

                 Sorry, my friend, your approach is frivolous—rather than argue your case, you’ve tried to belittle me by calling me a “fan boy” on at least two occasions today, but then you’ve also virtually dismissed Ellsberg and Chomsky, so I’m in good company.

                 Not that you would care, but for anyone who does give a damn, the inadequacy of that craven Grauniad editorial has been astutely analyzed here….
                 http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1345182455.html
                 • Chris …

                   19 August 2012 at 2:13 am

                   At some point can everyone stop these threads. They say the same thing everyday and noone gets any further but they fill up Open Mike so noone can talk about anything else without scrolling down for ages.

                   I get it Morrissey Assange is a saint – I get it pretty much everyone else he should front the investigation without danger of being extradited to the US.
                   • Morrissey …

                     19 August 2012 at 6:50 am

                     I get it Morrissey Assange is a saint…

                     No, I have never claimed that. He is a man, albeit a very brave man who has dared to tell the truth at a time when that is an extremely dangerous choice.

                     And he is also a man who obviously is not above temptation. There is no evidence whatsoever that he is a rapist, of course.
                 • Pascal's bookie …

                   19 August 2012 at 9:08 am

                   Morrissey, saying “No it isn’t” isn’t analysis.
     • rosy 3.1.2

       18 August 2012 at 7:37 am

       Grumpy, what makes you think Assange is on the left? I thought he was more an anarchist / individualist.
       • Grumpy 3.1.2.1

         18 August 2012 at 7:51 am

         Probably common with anarchists too…..
       • millsy 3.1.2.2

         19 August 2012 at 9:52 am

         There was an interview with him in one of the Australian papers, and I got the impression he was a libertarian.
4. Morrissey 4

   18 August 2012 at 6:51 am

   The John Banks Trophy for…
   DUM QUOTE OF THE WEEK
   Award No. 1: for week ending 17/08/2012

   This week’s winner—and the inaugural holder of the John Banks Trophy—is the awesome Te Reo Putake. In a field crowded with the uninformed, the cynical, the craven, and the plain stupid, our friend nudged ahead of close rivals Weka, Pascal’s Bookie, and the indefatigable yet ill-informed McFlock with this effort for the ages, posted late at night, quite possibly under the influence of a mind=bending substance…

   “What is so special about Assange that Sweden should change its laws for him?”

   Te Reo Putake, Open Mike, 17/08/2012

   His inanity was, of course, almost immediately seized on and corrected by the superior RedLogix and Colonial Viper; their contributions serve to highlight and immortalize our friend’s achievement.
   • Grumpy 4.1

     18 August 2012 at 6:57 am

     Bloody good quote actually and one that most people would be proud to have made……..
     • Morrissey 4.1.1

       18 August 2012 at 7:09 am

       Bloody good quote actually and one that most people would be proud to have made……..

       LOL. Classic! You couldn’t make this stuff up!

       Still, good on you, Grumpy. I’ll bet you’re a great friend in a crisis.
       • Grumpy 4.1.1.1

         18 August 2012 at 7:17 am

         Assange HAD great friends in a crisis too, until he skipped bail………
         • Morrissey 4.1.1.1.1

           18 August 2012 at 7:22 am

           Vaughan Smith is a very nice man, but his brand of timidity is not what you want on your case in a crisis….

           http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1345167751.html
           • Grumpy 4.1.1.1.1.1

             18 August 2012 at 7:32 am

             Well, I agree with you there…..looks like Assange just took money where he could and “weak”idiots like Smith and Jemima Khan were soft touches.

             For a guy who didn’t think twice about putting a bullet into the back of some poor bastards head, Assange is sure a whiner……..
             • Morrissey …

               18 August 2012 at 8:49 am

               looks like Assange just took money where he could and “weak”idiots like Smith and Jemima Khan were soft touches.

               Once again, whether deliberately or not, you’ve missed the point spectacularly. Smith is weak not because he has paid money to help a dissenter, but because he lacks the toughness of character, the fortitude, to confront an ignorant bully like David Aaronovitch.

               For a guy who didn’t think twice about putting a bullet into the back of some poor bastards head, Assange is sure a whiner……..

               What on earth are you talking about? Is this another government-sponsored fantasy now?
               • Vicky32 …

                 19 August 2012 at 6:47 pm

                 What on earth are you talking about? Is this another government-sponsored fantasy now?

                 Interestingly enough, I just this afternoon, was reading a discussion about Assange/Ecuador on an American site, and someone came and answered the (reasonable) question ‘why don’t Sweden say they are not going to extradite Assange to the USA’?
                 This person’s answer “Well, if he’s found to have murdered someone in the US, they may have to”…
                 First, the person did not say “found to be suspected of having murdered’ – which I find interesting in itself, but second and more important – is there such an allegation coming up?
               • Pascal's bookie …

                 19 August 2012 at 6:52 pm

                 I wouldn’t read too much into that V, it sounds like a hypothetical to explain why the demands that Sweden promise he won’t be extradited to the US won’t fly.

                 The problem is that they have an extradition treaty with the US. Given that fact, they can’t make that promise. If the US charge him with something, (and given the passing of time it looks like they ahving problems doing so), then Sweden will be legally obligated to consider an extradition request.

                 The demand to ‘promise not to extradite’, is a demand that Sweden abandon it’s treaty with the US.
                 • Colonial Viper …

                   19 August 2012 at 7:12 pm

                   If the US charge him with something, (and given the passing of time it looks like they ahving problems doing so)

                   This conclusion is complicated by the fact that a Grand Jury may have been formed to consider charges against Assange, but due to secrecy rules we would never know about their deliberations, or even that a Grand Jury has been called.

                   Further, rule 6e, 4) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure allows for a criminal indictment to be sealed until a suspect was in direct custody. In other words, the US may have already charged Assange – but are keeping the indictment secret.
                   • Pascal's bookie …

                     19 August 2012 at 7:30 pm

                     But can they extradite him from Sweden without an indictment CV, or with a secret one?

                     They will need to convince Sweden and the UK to extradite him. That means they will need to say what they want him for.

                     And if they do say what they want him for, Sweden will be legally obliged to consider the request.

                     That’s why Sweden can’t offer him a blanket promise. To do so would be to throw the extradition treaty in the trash bin.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     19 August 2012 at 10:10 pm

                     Yes the US would have to make the details available to the Swedish authorities at a future time.

                     So the key is that those US indictments may already exist. If they do exist, they have been formalised with the intent of seeking Assange’s extradition. But because they are secret, Assange has no way of using their existence, in his defence against extradition to Sweden.
                   • Pascal's bookie …

                     20 August 2012 at 7:45 am

                     That makes no sense at all.

                     If the indictments exist, then it doesn’t matter if he is Sweden or the UK. If he is in the UK, the US will ask the Brits, if he is in Sweden, they will ask the Swede’s. the fact that the US hasn’t asked anyone suggests that they haven’t been able to come up with an indictment. Unless you have another explanation?

                     The only relevant point is that if he is in Seden via extradition from the UK, then both the UK and Sweden would have to agree to a US extradition.
       • Grumpy 4.1.1.2

         18 August 2012 at 7:19 am

         …oh, yes……..he had other “great friends” too, until he slipped one into them while they were asleep……….
         • Morrissey 4.1.1.2.1

           18 August 2012 at 7:29 am

           until he slipped one into them while they were asleep…

           What have you got to say about the murder video? Or do you spend all your time on state-sanctioned diversions?
           • Grumpy 4.1.1.2.1.1

             18 August 2012 at 7:35 am

             The video is shocking, I agree. But, we are talking about Assange the person, he gave up the mantle of “freedom fighter” when his warped personality got the better of him.

             Not worth wasting your time to defend……….
             • Morrissey …

               18 August 2012 at 8:44 am

               we are talking about Assange the person, he gave up the mantle of “freedom fighter” when his warped personality got the better of him.

               No doubt you now condemn Martin Luther King, who was a tireless womanizer. There is evidence that he was a rapist too—as much as there is against Assange.
               • marty mars …

                 18 August 2012 at 9:06 am

                 LOL – a minor morrie? don’t forget to chuck in some miners – your stew is tiresome – much like you.
                 • Morrissey …

                   18 August 2012 at 9:09 am

                   …your stew is tiresome – much like you.

                   Personal attacks now? That’s getting a bit desperate, surely?

                   But in the light of your lack of any other weapons, such as facts or arguments, it will have to do for you, I guess.

                   By the way, you might like to check out my advice to Grumpy, above. Hope it proves to be of some help to you.
                   • marty mars …

                     18 August 2012 at 9:38 am

                     thank you my friend, but I hardly imagine you really find “tiresome” too insulting and it’s a pretty mellow “personal attack” if it can even be called that. I admit I did try to be funny – 🙁 my bad
                   • Morrissey …

                     18 August 2012 at 11:29 am

                     I admit I did try to be funny – my bad

                     No need to apologize, my friend. You’ve done nothing wrong. I can take a putdown. You don’t think I’m a delicate creature like Judith Collins, do you?
             • RedLogix …

               18 August 2012 at 9:03 am

               Lot of people just envious that Assange was getting laid.

               The man has done a thousand times more for the world than any of us will ever do .. and these small minds sneer at him because he had sex.
               • marty mars …

                 18 August 2012 at 9:13 am

                 you are a projectionist mate – and that comment is contemptible but not surprising coming from you.
               • Grumpy …

                 18 August 2012 at 9:22 am

                 I have some symathy for that view BUT as the sex seems to have been obtained under, at least, dubious circumstances, that sympathy is pretty limited.

                 Reminds me of the defence for Clinton, “at least we have a President who f*cks”.
                 • Morrissey …

                   18 August 2012 at 11:33 am

                   Reminds me of the defence for Clinton

                   Please don’t mention Julian Assange, who is a champion of democracy, in the same sentence as that disgusting, corrupt champion of dictatorships and mass bombing.

                   Actually, the fact that you have done so tells a lot about just how ignorant and non-serious you are.
                   • Pascal's bookie …

                     18 August 2012 at 11:52 am

                     More evidence for the Fan boy thesis.
               • locus …

                 18 August 2012 at 9:29 am

                 if i were to assume the very best possible interpretation of your comment RL I’d say it was spawned by such awe of Assange’s professional ‘achievements’ that you have misplaced your sense of right and wrong

                 if i were to assume the worst – that you have not only prejudged the rape accusation as a fabrication but also that Assange should be admired for his treatment of women – then I’d have to say you you have no sense of right and wrong
                 • RedLogix …

                   18 August 2012 at 10:36 am

                   that you have not only prejudged the rape accusation as a fabrication but also that Assange should be admired for his treatment of women

                   Ah … only it’s not a ‘rape’ accusation. It’s something else. The women involved invited Assange into their beds.

                   At the same time the Swedes have these relatively laws around regulating what adults can and cannot do in their beds …. and they’ve already had one significant 5 week period where Assange stayed in the country, was interviewed and the proceedings apparently dropped. He was then given permission to leave the country.

                   Subsequent events however cast a great deal of doubt on whether the real motives involved in re-opening and pursuing the case. Given that reality all that is required is for the Swedes to get on a plane to the UK, interview their man, decide whether to lay a charge or not, and make a simple, cost-free, declaration that if he returns to Sweden to face a Court (in a timely fashion) … that he will not be subject to other unrelated actions.

                   Then the desired legal process can proceed in the normal fashion.
                   • weka …

                     18 August 2012 at 10:51 am

                     “Ah … only it’s not a ‘rape’ accusation. It’s something else. The women involved invited Assange into their beds.”
                      
                     Rape myth: if you have sex once with someone you cannot then be raped by them.
                      
                     Rape myth: if you invite someone into your bed, you consent to all sexual activity that that person wants.
                      
                   • locus …

                     18 August 2012 at 10:53 am

                     So you think it’s a trumped up allegation to get him back to Sweden so that he can be tried and subsequently extradited to the US?

                     Does your conviction also mean that you have decided the women making the allegations are both liars, and that a Swedish court won’t give him a fair trial?

                     Does your view also give you the right to call the people who are asking for him to face up to those allegations “small minded, sneering and envious” ?
                   • Jackal …

                     18 August 2012 at 1:09 pm

                     Although I’m rather bored with this debate, the question is whether the consent to have sex ended? When exactly did one of them or both fall asleep and how long was that for? “You better not have aids,” isn’t exactly a statement that clarifies the situation.

                     In Assange’s mind, he would have thought; ‘I don’t have aids, this feels good, everything is OK’. In the complainants mind, it could have been translated as; ‘He’s not wearing a condom and probably has aids, get the fuck off me you pervert’.

                     She didn’t say stop or get off me though, so the question as to whether the consent to have further sex is not answered, and the speculation on blogs about such things is rather pointless. Only a court of law can answer the question to an adequate degree.

                     I don’t think Assange should risk extradition to the US where he possibly faces the death penalty for the alleged crimes surrounding Wikileaks. I do think he should stand trial for the alleged crimes in Sweden. Unfortunately these are not mutually distinguishable and until they are, which depends mainly on a decision by the US, we’re at an impasse.
                 • Morrissey …

                   18 August 2012 at 11:40 am

                   you have misplaced your sense of right and wrong

                   RedLogix pointed out what you and some others choose to turn a blind eye to: that an enraged U.S. government is conspiring to destroy a whistle-blower by using two women to file a wild and ludicrous sexual allegation. You wouldn’t know, of course, but that’s an old KGB procedure. In your mind, to point that out is “misplacing a sense of right and wrong”, apparently.

                   Could I ask you to have a look at this and then see who has misplaced a sense of right and wrong?….

                   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0
               • weka …

                 18 August 2012 at 10:23 am

                 “and these small minds sneer at him because he had sex.”
                  
                 Look, now we have our own painter on the roof story! Because as we all know, it’s completely possible to tell whether something was rape from the other side of the globe 🙄
                  
                 Also, that’s two clear examples in this thread where the wellbeing of women is expendable according to leftwing men.
                  
                 • RedLogix …

                   18 August 2012 at 10:38 am

                   I’m fairly sure the women involved in these accusations are ok. I stand to be corrected.
                   • weka …

                     18 August 2012 at 11:08 am

                     Red you have no way of knowing whether those women are ok or not.
                      
                     At the very least, stop calling rape sex.
                   • Jackal …

                     18 August 2012 at 1:22 pm

                     It’s not proven to be rape yet… There is no question that they had sex. You are guilty of your own accusation that it’s not possible to tell if it’s rape or not from the other side of the world.

                     Please stop inferring that all people who defend Assange are supporting rape culture weka, and that isolated opinion defines what all men who comment here think. It’s insulting!
                   • weka …

                     18 August 2012 at 1:40 pm

                     It’s not proven to be rape yet… There is no question that they had sex. You are guilty of your own accusation that it’s not possible to tell if it’s rape or not from the other side of the world.

                     I have no idea what happened Jackal, that is the point. I’m not saying that Assange raped those women. I’m saying that the complainants’ account fits the definition of rape. Other people are saying it doesn’t. We’re not arguing about whether Assange is a rapist, we’re arguing about what rape is, and who gets to define it.
                      
                     Anyone who says that rape didn’t happen is pre-empting the justice system, which is meant to afford justice to victims. 
                      
                     Now, just to be clear, because apparently this is a bit subtle for some people, my last sentence does not read “Assange is a rapist”. Please read it carefully and think about what I have just said.

                      
                     Please stop inferring that all people who defend Assange are supporting rape culture weka, and that isolated opinion defines what all men who comment here think. It’s insulting!
                      

                     Well the difficulty for me Jackal is that there are a number of regular commenters in the ongoing conversations about Assange on TS who DO use  mis-arguments about rape  and promote rape myths to support their politic agenda. Nowhere have I said that all people who support Assange support rape culture. In fact the opposite. If you can’t see that then you really are not understanding my argument at all. This surprises me, because you seem an intelligent person otherwise.
                      
                     Honestly, I think you are reading many things into my comments that simply aren’t there. I’ve been very specific about what I think supports rape culture in this debate. Morrissey’s insistance that rape didn’t happen. RedLogix calling rape sex. The rape myths eg that once a woman has sex with someone once she consents to all other sexual activity. CV’s misusing concepts of consent. Prism’s ideas that rape is only extreme physical sexual violence. Those are all the things that support rape culture, NOT the fact that they side with Assange. Do you get what I am saying now?
                      
                     I’m really happy to keep discussing this with you but would appreciate if you could be more specific about my points and check things out rather than making statements about what I am implying.
                   • muzza …

                     18 August 2012 at 1:43 pm

                     “At the very least, stop calling rape sex”

                     Um, unless I managed to miss something Weka, that’s you pretending to know what actually went on.

                     Edit: Just read your reponse above Weka, and would can’t say I read the quote any other way, perhaps I missed a reference or comment in another post?

                     The Assange situation is most likely nothing what anyone who has posted or read on either side of anything to do with WL’s, or other events surrounding Assange, and taking a position on either side of it categorically, means that people are easily fooled, because they think in absolutes!

                     Did he do it , did he not, was he really in charge of WL’s, was it a front etc….

                     See the energy the internet sucks out of people…put that into something physical, and those on this site might actually make a real difference..

                     Whose in….thought not!
                   • weka …

                     18 August 2012 at 2:18 pm

                     Hmmm, let me try again Muzza.
                      
                     One of the complainants says that Assange had sex with her while she was asleep (ie he put his penis inside her vagina while she was unconscious). That is an illegal act of rape (unless she gave him permission beforehand). I’m not saying that Assange did that. I’m saying that IF he did that, then that’s rape.
                      
                     When someone describes that act as sex, they’re wrong. The law states that it is rape.
                      
                     As far as I can tell, RL thinks the act of a man putting his penis inside a woman while she is unconscious is sex. He’s wrong. 
                      

                     A person does not consent to sexual activity if the activity occurs while he or she is asleep or unconscious.
                      

                     
                     
                   • weka …

                     18 August 2012 at 2:19 pm

                     http://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM329057.html?search=ts_act%40bill%40regulation%40deemedreg_crimes+act+_resel_25_h&p=1
                   • Jackal …

                     18 August 2012 at 2:51 pm

                     weka

                     We’re not arguing about whether Assange is a rapist, we’re arguing about what rape is, and who gets to define it.

                     ? Much of the debate has revolved around whether Assange is guilty of rape or not. In fact labeling it rape at this stage shows you have already made up your mind. I think most people have a fair understanding of what rape is, which is defined by various laws in different countries.

                     Nowhere have I said that all people who support Assange support rape culture. In fact the opposite.

                     I must have misunderstood this then:

                     Here on TS, where women are deemed expendable.

                     and

                     That’s two clear examples in this thread where the wellbeing of women is expendable according to leftwing men.

                     This could be interpreted as: “People who defend Assange think it’s OK to rape women, and because some people are defending Assange on the Standard, all leftwing men support rape culture”. Can you not see why I object to such generalizations?

                     This is an important point because you run the risk of alienating people and turning them against your cause, even though your cause is justified. Reducing rape culture (which some people have argued doesn’t exist) is a fundamental step in creating a more equal and safe society… Especially for woman.

                     Rape culture is pretty well defined, and although some of the comments here are borderline, categorically saying they support rape culture would to some degree depend on your opinion about what happened between Assange and the complainants.

                     Honestly, I think you are reading many things into my comments that simply aren’t there. I’ve been very specific about what I think supports rape culture in this debate.

                     I understand your points of view, but very much doubt that any of the people you’ve named because you disagree with their comments support rape culture. Your accusations that they do is somewhat detrimental to your cause, and therefore I think you’ve not been as careful as you believe in choosing what comments to rally against.
                 • Colonial Viper …

                   18 August 2012 at 10:48 am

                   weka, Assange should certainly face up to Swedish criminal investigators IMO. I presume he is innocent, but a criminal investigation has been started and he needs to participate in that to either clear his name or be found guilty once and for all. But I also back RL’s statement:

                   Given that reality all that is required is for the Swedes to get on a plane to the UK, interview their man, decide whether to lay a charge or not, and make a simple, cost-free, declaration that if he returns to Sweden to face a Court (in a timely fashion) … that he will not be subject to other unrelated actions.

                   Assange has also offered to do the interview by videolink – completely standard procedure in the modern day – and from there Swedish investigators can either charge him, or follow up with him in person. All that could be done TODAY.

                   IMO the women complainants are being used as pawns by the major governments and their complaints unnecesarily held in limbo by the authorities – you should be angry at that. The criminal investigators have had multiple opportunities to progress their complaints by questioning Assange, but they haven’t – I suppose on the orders of their superiors/political sponsors.
                   • weka …

                     18 August 2012 at 11:04 am

                     Sure CV. But in my world it’s conceivable that Assange sexually assaulted those women AND those women are being used by political powers.
                      
                     Further, I don’t consider Assange’s personal wellbeing more important than the women in the case, no matter how big a hero he is to the left. 
                      
                     And, I don’t consider wikileaks to be a more important issue for humanity than rape culture.
                      
                     Whenever the left puts Assange and/or wikileaks and/or the issue of political interference ahead of the complainants, women’s experience of rape, or the politics of rape*, I sigh and think here we go again. As I’ve said, this is not new to women on the left. It happens alot and until men on the left understand this enough to change culturally there is always a severe limit in their solidarity with women.
                      
                     * let me put that another way: whenever the left undermines the complainants, women’s experience of rape, or the politics of rape, and they do so for another political purpose eg saving the butt of a famous well-off white man, or resisting US imperialism, or whatever, they engage in the very same behaviour they are fighting against, and so we all lose.
                      
                     There is nothing wrong with you wanting to save Assange, or wanting to fight US imperialism. I’m saying you don’t have to do it at the expense of women. I think some men on the left struggle to even understand what I am talking about, but others are well aware of the dynamic and just don’t give a shit (women are expendable after all).
                      
                     I’m not sure where you sit in all that, you seem to understand, but still be playing the game albeit much more lightly than Morrissey or RL.
                      
                     “you should be angry at that.”
                      
                     What makes you think that I’m not?
               • prism …

                 19 August 2012 at 7:42 pm

                 Red Logix
                 It is so pleasant for people to cut others down, I don’t see it as being tall poppy syndrome but just a desire to carp and pass judgment. Think Bill Clinton, think Helen Clark’s signed auction item – any way to chip away from them.

                 Look at the covers of women’s magazines in supermarkets. They are quite expensive but stay in circulation as they reveal all, and often just about do in their sneak photos on the covers. The people who become celebrities have searchlights and moral potshots lobbed at them, no overlooking any fault, despite what noble or ground-breaking improvement they are trying to achieve. I’m not including Strauss Kahen? in this as he seems to just have been a well paid jerk.
   • Te Reo Putake 4.2

     18 August 2012 at 9:14 am

     “What is so special about Assange that Sweden should change its laws for him?”
      
     Apparently the law should change because international misogyny’s Morrissey and a little light raping’s Red Logix say so. I’m so impressed.
      
     Is it diificult to type with your penises lads? Or are they small enough to hit the keys first time every time?
      
     • Colonial Viper 4.2.1

       18 August 2012 at 10:53 am

       No law change would be required mate. Just an assurance that Swedish authorities aren’t going to extradite Assange on completely unrelated and unannounced matters.
       • Te Reo Putake 4.2.1.1

         18 August 2012 at 11:04 am

         Such an assurance might satisfy you, CV, but clearly it won’t satisfy Assange. We already know that Sweden won’t extradite if the death penalty is a possibility, so we are left with a cowardly criminal* hiding for no good reason. 
          
         *Criminal in the sense that he has broken UK law by skipping out on his bail. And ripping off his mates in the process. Like you, I believe he should answer and defend the Swedish charges, so I make no assumptions about the criminality there. Though his sexual behaviour is obviously appalling anyway.
       • rosy 4.2.1.2

         18 August 2012 at 11:07 am

         “Just an assurance that Swedish authorities aren’t going to extradite Assange on completely unrelated and unannounced matters.”
         Ecuador has said it’s willing to co-operate on that basis.

         Ecuador was willing to co-operate with the British and Swedish authorities over the matter of Assange’s extradition to Sweden. “In the negotiations with the FCO, Ecuador has been proposing that we would be prepared to accept an undertaking from the UK and Sweden that, once Julian Assange has faced the Swedish investigation, he will not be extradited to a third country: specifically the US. That might be a way out of it and Ecuador has always said it does not want to interfere with the Swedish judicial process; we could facilitate it.”

         http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/17/julian-assange-extradition-ecuador-embassy

         Assange has probably realised he’s a bit trapped with this move. I agree it’s time for diplomats to do the diplomatic thing and if that’s what it takes to end the stand-off, Sweden should give an explicit, rather than implied assurance and get this sorted.
     • Morrissey 4.2.2

       18 August 2012 at 11:45 am

       The John Banks Trophy holder writes wittily: “Is it diificult to type with your penises lads? Or are they small enough to hit the keys first time every time?”

       Considering he’s a Banksy winner, that was a really, really good one.

       But I feel sure others will agree with me that he’s funnier when he’s pretending to be serious.
       • Pascal's bookie 4.2.2.1

         18 August 2012 at 11:50 am

         Might start calling you Overhead, on account of how you project so well.

         Or you can get serious any time you like.
         • Morrissey 4.2.2.1.1

           18 August 2012 at 11:59 am

           “Overhead”?

           Say… I LIKE it!
           • McFlock 4.2.2.1.1.1

             18 August 2012 at 5:00 pm

             Or “rear projector”, because you’re talking out of your arse.
             • Morrissey …

               18 August 2012 at 7:27 pm

               Or “rear projector”, because you’re talking out of your arse.

               Not such a good one. That could set you up for a Martin Devlin Unfunny Line award, however.

               I’ll nominate you. Can I get a seconder?
   • Draco T Bastard 4.3

     18 August 2012 at 10:06 am

     You know, I’d probably know more, and possibly even care more, about the Assange case if these threads didn’t keep degenerating into what amounts to little more than flame wars.
     • Morrissey 4.3.1

       18 August 2012 at 11:53 am

       I’d probably know more, and possibly even care more, about the Assange case if these threads didn’t keep degenerating into what amounts to little more than flame wars.

       No, you’d know more and—unless you’re a moral imbecile—you’ll care more about the Assange case if you do some serious and sustained reading about it.

       Here’s a starter for you….

       http://www.countercurrents.org/todhunter240612.htm

       If you’re serious, though, you’ll read much, much, much more.
       • Pascal's bookie 4.3.1.1

         18 August 2012 at 12:04 pm

         Lol.

         Serioulsy, that’s serious? Rhetoric. Marginally effective rhetoric I suppose, if what you are after is something to stir the blood of that already convinced, but the analysis is non existent, and the description of Wikileaks is so shallow I’d expect ot see it in a broadsheet article ‘From the Left’.

         that’s Trotter level stuff.

         try again.
         • Morrissey 4.3.1.1.1

           18 August 2012 at 12:25 pm

           Okay. You’re here and you’re serious. That’s encouraging.

           Is Daniel Ellsberg serious enough for you?….

           http://www.ellsberg.net/archive/public-accuracy-press-release

           Noam Chomsky?….

           http://www.democracynow.org/2010/11/30/noam_chomsky_wikileaks_cables_reveal_profound
           • Pascal's bookie 4.3.1.1.1.1

             18 August 2012 at 12:41 pm

             Neither of those pieces, which I’ve seen before, really add much to the actual issues of the moment.

             What I’m looking for is analysis and reporting. Not rhetoric, arguments.

             Thinngs that just outline how bad the US is, or what Wikileaks was doing, and to whom, and whether or not we should support wikileaks, don’t add much to a debate about the actual state of play today.

             Just because an individual has cred, that doesn’t make everything they say ‘serious’.
             • Morrissey …

               18 August 2012 at 2:59 pm

               What I’m looking for is analysis and reporting. Not rhetoric, arguments.

               Daniel Ellsberg and Noam Chomsky are not analytical? That’s rich coming from someone who’s just recycled some windy Grauniad propaganda and even praised it as “good”.

               …don’t add much to a debate about the actual state of play today.

               Nonsense. Their analyses touch on the very heart of what we’ve seen in London over the last two days. The fact you choose to participate in the black propaganda campaign waged by the likes of William Hague means your protestations that you are “looking for analysis” are not serious.

               Just because an individual has cred, that doesn’t make everything they [sic] say ‘serious’.

               On the other hand, you are prepared to accept as “serious” the allegations of individuals and organizations with NO “cred”, such as the inveterate liars and governments that are trying to destroy Assange.

               I don’t believe you’ve read those pieces before, either.
               • Pascal's bookie …

                 18 August 2012 at 4:50 pm

                 Daniel Ellsberg and Noam Chomsky are not analytical? That’s rich coming from someone who’s just recycled some windy Grauniad propaganda and even praised it as “good”.

                 they are sometimes. those pieces didn’t have any analysis of the recent events that I could see. Why don’t you tell me how the Ellsberg piece sheds light on the extradition issues.

                 And it seems to me that your basis for judging the seriuosness of who is saying it is based on two things. Whether they support your position, and whether you like the author. Prove me wrong, talk about content, discuss the issue.

                 Nonsense. Their analyses touch on the very heart of what we’ve seen in London over the last two days. The fact you choose to participate in the black propaganda campaign waged by the likes of William Hague means your protestations that you are “looking for analysis” are not serious.

                 More tiresome nonsense. Explain to me how those pieces touch on the very heart of what we’ve seen. And what black propaganda campaign am I engaged in? Honestly, because I disagree with you I’m a lackey of Hague/ Grow up Morrisey, cut the bluster and start on the actual issues. Address the content of the gaurdian edit, instead of just rolling our eyes at the mention of the word Gaurdian.

                 On the other hand, you are prepared to accept as “serious” the allegations of individuals and organizations with NO “cred”, such as the inveterate liars and governments that are trying to destroy Assange.

                 More baseless smearing. What allegations have I accepted? Again, show me that your views are driven by more than Assange good, everyone who doesn’t saint Assange, utterly evil and not worthy of listening to.

                 Address some of the actual arguments. All you’ve done so far is attack the sources. Weak overhead is failing.
                 • Morrissey …

                   18 August 2012 at 7:42 pm

                   1.) And what black propaganda campaign am I engaged in?

                   Classic! We have an early contender for the next John Banks Trophy.
                   • McFlock …

                     18 August 2012 at 7:45 pm

                     Don’t forget to put yourself down for a regional daytime Emmy.
                   • Pascal's bookie …

                     18 August 2012 at 8:05 pm

                     So to recap:

                     Your response to the arguments in the editorial I linked to is:

                     Neena neena, The Gaurdian, MSM

                     Your explantion of how your links are relevant to what’s going on now is:

                     It’s Ellsberg!! and Chompsky!! Therefore it must be relevant.

                     And your evidence for me being a part of, or repeating, black propaganda is :

                     You’re like John Banks!

                     That’s some powerful argumentation in support of your positions there Morrisey.
                   • marty mars …

                     18 August 2012 at 8:30 pm

                     yes Pb. I read both the links supplied by morrissey at least twice because I was searching for something to do with what was being discussed – they almost seemed irrelevant, in that the background issues they raised aren’t even in contention as far as I can tell on this forum.

                     the prof might mark that effort down a bit I think.
     • weka 4.3.2

       18 August 2012 at 12:04 pm

       Me too Draco.
5. Carol 5

   18 August 2012 at 7:09 am

   This looks like a shambles waiting to happen…. and a load more questions likely to be put to that 3yr old masquerading as Minister:

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10827772

   The YPP, and a similar Youth Payment for teens aged 16 and 17 without children, will still add up to the same as the current benefits, ranging from $136 a week for a young parent living with their own parents up to $293 for sole parents aged 18 and over.

   But under the new system only $50 will be paid in cash.

   Rent or board will be paid directly to landlords or parents, and the rest will be loaded onto a payment card to buy “food and groceries at approved stores”.

   Unfortunately no one has yet told any of the teenage mums at Mt Eden’s Eden Campus teen parent unit what the approved stores are or what exactly they can spend their cards on.

   They have also yet to receive their cards.

   It seems that things, necessary to some teens like tranpsort, will need to come out of the cash payment. There also is supposed to be a local community-based youth service provider that will replace case managers. But many of these “providers” won’t be in place for a few months, leaving many teens with no-one to turn to when there are problems.

   Work and Income head Debbie Power said young beneficiaries would not move onto the payment card until they met their new service providers “over the coming months”.

   She said the payment card could be spent only at food stores.
   • rosy 5.1

     18 August 2012 at 7:44 am

     She said the payment card could be spent only at food stores.
     Being the good business people most food store owners are, I’m sure the range of goods they stock will increase reasonably quickly.
     • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1

       18 August 2012 at 10:10 am

       Being the good business people most food store owners are, I’m sure the range of goods they stock will increase in price reasonably quickly.

       FIFY

       Normal procedure when a business has a customer base that can’t go anywhere else.
       • rosy 5.1.1.1

         18 August 2012 at 10:32 am

         I should have put a little /sarc tag on that one, but anyways, nearly there, how about….

         Being the good business people most food store owners are, I’m sure the range of goods they stock will increase reasonably quickly, and priced at a premium for these customers with restricted access to alternatives markets.
   • Bill 5.2

     18 August 2012 at 8:31 am

     So an adult is to cater for their and their child’s non-food needs on $50 a week? ffs!
     • rosy 5.2.1

       18 August 2012 at 8:40 am

       No, they simply can’t. It’s all designed to get them moving – out of school, out of motherhood and into the world of low wage employees.
       • Colonial Viper 5.2.1.1

         18 August 2012 at 10:55 am

         And since there are no jobs out there at the low end, its actually designed to permanently suppress already low wages by ensuring a massive oversupply of labour.
   • prism 5.3

     19 August 2012 at 7:55 pm

     Carol
     When I was doing my social policy papers I came across a strong distaste for a condition that welfare was supposed to encourage called ‘learned helplessness’. It seems to me that handing out pocket money to youthful parents is not helping them to learn mature financial handling if they need it. I have heard interviews with numbers of young mothers who have been very serious about their position and acquiring skills that would enable them to cope and live better.

     And this food thing reminds me of the diminishing situation for beneficiaries personal esteem where Shipleys National govt had it set up so that supermarket checkout staff vetted their choice of groceries.
6. Carol 6

   18 August 2012 at 7:45 am

   Dame Anne Salmond’s Sir Paul Reeves Memorial lecture is worth reading and meditating on:

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10827658

   Like Sir Paul, I am concerned about the current quality of our relations with each other, and fear that these have gone awry. As he remarked, ‘I happen not to believe in the trickle-down theory. I fear we are in the process of creating a stratified society.’

   Here, he was prescient. Over the past four years, according to a recent report, the median weekly income for European families increased to $580, while that for Maori families fell to $460, and for Pacific families to $390. Not just a stratified society, but one ranked by ethnic background.

   She outlines some European and Maori traditional cultural values and ideas, which are a mix of complementary and conflicting ideals (the hierarchic, fragmenting and marginalising order of things, and the more egalitarian and inclusive order of relations, following Foucault).

   Genuine differences do exist between Maori and Pakeha, men and women, Left and Right – but so do networks of interlocking relations, shared values and mutual dependency. Rather than excluding the middle ground, the challenge is to get the networks of relations across it working in ways that are mutually positive and creative, not hostile and destructive. This, I think, is the task that Sir Paul set himself, and why his life mattered so much to us all.
   ….

   Who knows how philosophical shifts occur? When Rogernomics was launched in the mid 1980s,…
   As selves were split from others and nature from culture, the idea of the autonomous individual pursuing his or her own rights and interests without constraint, was reframed as a virtue. Because New Zealand has few checks and balances, it was possible for a relatively small number of people to drive this idea beyond its reasonable limits, as Sir Paul argued at the time.
   …
   As a result, over the past thirty years much of our collective life has been re-shaped in the image of the market, with citizens defined as cost-benefit calculating customers, required to buy and sell even the most basic of their needs – education, health, personal safety and security in old age, for example. As in the case of many finance companies, values such as truth, justice, integrity and generosity have been set aside.

   As a template for running for a small, intimate society, this kind of logic is remarkably ruthless. It is also non-adaptive, cutting across our key advantages as a species. As Homo sapiens, we are social animals, able to think and communicate through language, forge strategies and combine our efforts to achieve them. Our offspring have a long, vulnerable period while they learn these capacities, during which they have to be protected.

   Dame Anne argues, with reference to statistics and current issues in education and politics, that the way forward is to draw on some cooperative traditions from Europe (the order of relations) and Maori (and Asian) approaches to community in order to develop some innovative ways of responding to current problems.

   In this context, old, arrogant, unilateral habits of decision-making are bound to backfire – whether over charter schools or class sizes. Collaborative processes for forging strategies and policies, such as those used by the Land and Water Forum, for example, are much more likely to succeed. With so many lives and the future of the country at stake, surely such an experiment is worthwhile.
   …
   To give another example, one dear to Sir Paul’s heart, inter-ethnic relations on the old hierarchical, bi-polar model are also changing. Rather than seeing Maori and Pakeha, or Maori and Pasifika, or for that matter, Kiwi and Asian as binary opposites with some kind of Berlin Wall between them, these are increasingly understood as linked across the middle ground – the pae.

   In a philosophy based on whakapapa, for example, there is no need to regard oneself as purely Maori, or Pakeha, or Pasifika, or Asian. Rather, an individual is made up of all the relationships in which they participate, with their different taha or ‘sides’ turning from one network to another. One can see how readily such a person can adapt to the diverse, rapidly changing world in which we dwell

   But it’s worth taking the time to read the whole lecture. But this idea of a network of relations and collaborative, non-hierarchical ways of working with diverse groups of people, is one close to my heart.
   • Bill 6.1

     18 August 2012 at 9:37 am

     …an individual is made up of all the relationships in which they participate, with their different taha or ‘sides’ turning from one network to another

     Rather than ‘network’, I tend to view this in terms of societies. What I mean by that is that it’s a nonsense to consider NZ as a society. No person belongs to a single society. We all are a part of numerous societies that often overlap and that are connected by various ‘degrees of separation’.

     Once that is understood, then it becomes clear why our current mode of governance – remote authority seeking to legislate or educate or whatever, on a simplistic and mistaken idea of society as some monolithic or homogenous whole – results in an ever growing, unsatisfying morass that’s forever in need of ‘refinement’.

     There is a dominant strain of values contained within the more powerful or dominant expression of culture in NZ (ie, once rooted in Christianity and now largely reduced to so called market values). And to the degree that your cultural identity departs from the mores that inform the governance of so-called ‘NZ society’, the greater the potential for that governance to be inimical, irrelevent or unjust (disempowering) from your cultural perspective.

     It’s not in any way controversial to hold that societies need to be able to govern themselves. But the radical situation we find ourselves in whereby societies are rendered invisible by a false overarching construct that simply labels itself ‘society’ makes that simple and basic need impossible.
   • Draco T Bastard 6.2

     18 August 2012 at 10:15 am

     You create serfs by making people dependent upon the few and that’s exactly what’s happening in our society. The rich few are making everyone else dependent upon them – just as they did under feudalism. They’re just using laws instead of swords to enforce that dependency.
   • Bill 6.3

     18 August 2012 at 10:26 am

     Now that I’ve read Dame Anne Salmond piece, I’d just say it’s a shame she doesn’t ‘call it’. Seems to me she is almost advocating horizontal or non-heirarchical forms of governance or organising, but can’t take the final necessary step of politically challenging the legitimacy of current heirarchical and centrist approaches.

     And that leaves her trying to square a circle insofar as she’s advocating that current structures persist, but adopt different ways of functioning. I can’t see it myself. They are what they are, and have the influence they have, because of the way they function. And that way of functioning…that defines and maintains their existence… runs smack head-on into how she would rather things fuctioned.
     • Carol 6.3.1

       18 August 2012 at 5:45 pm

       A very sharp and useful mini-analysis, Bill, pointing to where Salmond falls short.

       Yes, she falls short of taking the strong political position that her argument seems to be heading towards.

       But some good conceptual background to leap from to take a totally new direction in politics.

       Also, while she denounces binaries, there’s a bit of a catch-22 in that the polarities still function in society, relegating the least powerful terms to the bottom of the heap – Maori, low income etc. How do we get from here to a new relational position.

       And I like your use of “societies” over networks. Networks are pretty one-dimensional and linear, and don’t really bring to the fore the dense interaction of multiple relationships that exist in and between societies.
       • Bill 6.3.1.1

         18 August 2012 at 7:01 pm

         How do we get from here to a new relational position?

         Well, for a start I don’t think NZ as an entity moves to anything. But we are already members of numerous societies. And some of them present open spaces where new forms of governance can be trialed and developed. I’m not talking ‘big cheese’.

         As an example, a ‘Coronation Hall’ near to me is in the throes of attracting community interest and establishing organisational structures for the community facilities it can make available. Traditionally the hall has been run by a typical old style committee and been fairly closed and distant from the community. But now there is an opportunity to introduce more participatory (non-heirarchical) modes of organising and managing. For the sake of argument, lets assume new ways are adopted and succesfully developed.

         In and of itself it’s a ‘nothing’ in the scheme of things. But people will have been introduced to different and more empowering ways of going about things. And if and when those new ways become as habitual and natural to them as the old authoritarian and exclusive ways, then they will naturally introduce some of the facets of the ‘new’ and better ways to other things they are involved in…whether that be the local Pony Club or whatever…and then, hopefully, in time apply it to new business set ups (worker co-ops/collectives) or housing scenarios (housing collectives) .

         In other words, over time and by osmosis, the ‘new’ ways could become the tradition. And the attraction or habit of appealing to or accepting the dictats of remote authority would wane and New Zealand become merely a name that designates a geographical area. And within that geographical area would exist a myriad of self governing, inter-related and highly democratic societies.
       • weka 6.3.1.2

         18 August 2012 at 10:46 pm

         Also, while she denounces binaries, there’s a bit of a catch-22 in that the polarities still function in society, relegating the least powerful terms to the bottom of the heap – Maori, low income etc. How do we get from here to a new relational position.
          

         Low income… people on benefits for instance could form networks (sorry that word still works best for me) amongst themselves and solidarity with others (low income workers, Maori, Pacifica etc). It’s those relationships that change things. There is a still a need to challenge via the binary opposition IMO, but when that’s the dominant activity and the dominant story, it undermines the Order of Relations that Salmond is talking about. This is why challenging govt is important, but ultimately it’s what communities do within themselves that will generate meaningful and long term change.
         • weka 6.3.1.2.1

           18 August 2012 at 10:49 pm

           Which is what Bill is saying I think.
            
           You get to the relational way of organising, by practicing being relational.
     • weka 6.3.2

       18 August 2012 at 10:38 pm

       I’d hazard a guess she isn’t calling it because she doesn’t want to put her foot in her mouth, and because calling it immediately puts us into the binary opposition she is advocating against: old hierarchical model vs new non-hierarchical model.
        
       I think that people engaging in the relational models she talks about will change the structures themselves (assuming the absence of force from those wishing the status quo, which is a big assumption).
        
       It’s a superb piece of writing, one that bears rereading and time for thinking.
7. Descendant Of Smith 7

   18 August 2012 at 7:55 am

   “In the past year, HNZ has sold 15 properties in the city worth more than $700,000, generating $12.8 million.

   A spokeswoman said HNZ had sold the houses as part of its policy to look at getting rid of properties worth more than $700,000 so it could reinvest in cheaper housing.”

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10827509

   No space for state tenants in wealthy suburbs and last I knew John Key was stopping housing developments from going ahead – at least in his own electorate anyway.
   • Draco T Bastard 7.1

     18 August 2012 at 10:27 am

     It’s just one more step along the path to gated communities for the rich.
   • bad12 7.2

     18 August 2012 at 10:47 am

     That wouldn’t be so bad, it’s pretty oppressive living among those with money, if there was any real evidence that the monies gained from the sales of these properties was actually being used to build more,

     As Glen Innes shows what ‘renewal’ is code word for in the Slippery National Government is to take 150 houses off of those most in need and only make provision to replace half of them,

     As with all of National’s changes in the delivery of social programs ALL of this is done under the auspices of ‘doing better for’, or, ‘helping’ the poor when the reality would give every appearance of being the usual State House sell off to those who are most likely to vote National…
8. Morrissey 8

   18 August 2012 at 9:07 am

   Bizarre news item re U.S. policy about-turn
   National Radio news, Saturday 18 August 2012, 9 a.m.

   Just heard on the news that the U.S. government has condemned the Russian government for the jailing of Pussy Riot. Something about “free speech” and “democracy”. I missed the rest of it because of the gales of laughter and hoots of derision from a couple of my skeptically minded friends.

   Is what I heard correct? Has the United States started to support the cause of free speech and democracy?

   Or is it still, as usual, support for free speech and democracy in other countries?
   • muzza 8.1

     18 August 2012 at 9:45 am

     Morrissey, indeed the stories will continue to flow freely from international “news” relay stations here in NZ.

     The continued ramping up of rhetoric against Russia is painfully transparent

     What is stupid little nonsense country the dumbed down have allowed NZ to become.

     America Fcuk yeah!
   • Draco T Bastard 8.2

     18 August 2012 at 10:33 am

     My guess is that it’s solely free speech and democracy in other countries.

     Around 40 protesters stood outside New York’s Russian consulate, wearing brightly colored clothing and masks and holding banners that read: “We are all hooligans.”

     Six people were arrested. Among them was Rebekah Schiller, who was wearing a mask. In New York City, it is illegal for more than three people to wear masks without a permit.
9. Grumpy 9

   18 August 2012 at 10:18 am

   Strangely, muzza and Morrissey, I agree with you on this.
   • Morrissey 9.1

     18 August 2012 at 11:57 am

     Morrissey, I agree with you on this.

     This is a great moment! (Hugs Grumpy).
   • muzza 9.2

     18 August 2012 at 1:51 pm

     One dot at a time Grumps, they are interlinked, not the random acts/actions/events most want to believe.

     Slow and steady is the best way, perhaps you get there, perhaps not, just don’t pull a hammy in the process, its not a race eh!

     On ya
10. bad12 10

    18 August 2012 at 10:31 am

    ”Lately one or two have fully paid their due, i’m not working for the clampdown”-The Clash,

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/…/accountants-jailed-for-fraud

    7 billion of it year in year out, money that is, gets ripped by the likes of the people in the stuff article, who, having businesses already have the ability to make millions, but, through greed rip the tax system off big-time,

    Its not just some Bene dipping a toe in the trough where that Bene should have had a finger in a different pool, this is systematic THEFT from us all, everyone who pays every week through PAYE is being ripped off by these monied thieves and although this particular little piece of organized theft against the State has been closed down there’s still 7 billion dollars of it going on out there right now,

    So m’bwana Shearer bossmun, in between marveling at how the really poor still have the energy to fight each other over the Mango skinned crumbs off of your table perhaps you might like to consider a little Accountant homily where you make it quite obvious that EVERYONE wearing a suit JUST MIGHT BE AN ACCOUNTANT ripping off the tax system to the tune of 7 billion dollars a year,

    Please m’bwana bossmun Shearer don’t beat me massah boss,i aint done nothing wrong…
11. Draco T Bastard 11

    18 August 2012 at 10:42 am

    It just gets worse and worse for cheap purchasing:

    “Once we get the bugs out of the new locomotives they will be as good as the ones which are nearly due for replacement.”

    And I’m sure that both this government and the management at Kiwirail won’t learn a damn thing.
    • RedLogix 11.1

      18 August 2012 at 10:49 am

      I’m reliably informed that 8 of the first 50 DL’s have been cannibalised (temporarily at least) for parts to keep the rest going.

      The Te Rapa workshop is swarming with Chinese techs trying to keep them going. There is no excuse for this whatsoever. There is nothing complicated about a diesel electric loco and they should have been delivered virtually perfect and reliable and a say a modern car from a top-end manufacturer.
12. BillODrees 12

    18 August 2012 at 11:49 am

    A major change has occurred.

    Fran O’Sullivan’s piece is one of a many pieces of evidence that it is now a matter of “WHEN” rather than “IF” Cunliffe takes over the leadership.  

    The sheer stupidity of the briefing to Garner by the faction has shifted the frame in which Cunlffe is viewed. The trite personal shallow stuff that has been repeadly rolled out by most journalists has lost all of its currency.  No journalist will want to be seen to be blindly relaying drivel from the faction. 

    The debate has shifted to genuine policy positioning.  The re-assessment of the last 30 years of economic and social “conventional wisdom” was overdue. Thank you Cunliffe. 

    That the much younger Cunliffe is so much more grounded, skilled and experienced than Shearer has also been glaringly highlighted. Shearers’s gauche and weak handling of the recent issues contrasts dramatically with Cunliffe’s studied calmness and focus under heavy fire.   

    The “WHEN” for Cunliffe and the vast majority of the Labour Membership cannot be thwarted by the faction and the proposed rules.  The membership must make the Caucus respect it’s wishes.  Get your amendments to the proposed rules into HO now. 
13. bad12 13

    18 August 2012 at 12:09 pm

    Here was me sailing along in the bubble thinking all was well and i got transported,rudely i might add, by the link on a comment over on CV’s post giving Blubber-boy a tickle,

    I am not sure whether the Pigani comments on Blubber -boy’s blog where deliberately placed there by one of the J. Pigani’s or if Blubber-boy has simply co-opted Her onto it by dint of not having a original thought, other than those provoked by the meds,but, no matter, that particular J.Pigani seems to have found the perfect spiritual home to match Her particular intellect, enough said,

    Time for a bit of light hearted brevity lest you all read the Blubber-boy blog and become despondent, what do you achieve by genetically mixing the genes of a Whale and a Pig,

    The same old Bullshit of course what did you really expect, enlightenment???

    *Here’s the gospel according to J.Pigani, the welfare system is un-affordable, AND, this will not be addressed in any way by focusing our minds upon the 7 billion dollars a year lost to the Government revenue from Tax Fraud,

    Nor it would seem will this supposed unaffordibility of the welfare system be addressed by us focusing our minds upon the appox: 7 billion dollars further lost to the Governments revenue from ‘legal’ tax avoidance, so says J.Pagani in shades of trying to emulate Ruth Richardson,

    This could start getting a little looooong here as i am going to directly quote J.Pagani from Blubber-boys blog, bear with me tho there is a point,

    ”The reason for Labour getting into Government is not to defend welfare-or anything else-against reform”,

    ”It’s so reform can be done our way-fairly-,and, in a way that produces a decent outcome that provides a fulfilling future for everyone”, unquote.

    Now J.Pagani, one or both of them, claims that they won’t comment on The Standard because (a)the J.Pigani’s might receive some abusive replies, and (b), laughably claims that those who disagree with the Post authors get banned for life, (hey where the fucks my life ban),

    In reply i have to do just that, spit a little abuse, Bullshit, Bullshit,absolute f**king Bullshit, to presuppose as one of the J.Pigani’s does that ‘welfare’ is the problem is shortsighted rubbish put forward in my opinion with deliberation by this particular J.Pigani,

    There is in fact nothing wrong with the ‘welfare system’ it is the economic system adhered to by successive Governments both Labour and National which ensures that there WILL NOT be enough employment in the economy so as to employ all those available to work that is at fault,

    The ‘welfare system’ is not at fault one little iota, J.Pigani simply suggests without actually saying so that large numbers of beneficiaries are ‘hiding out’ on benefits thus avoiding work,

    The reality is that the UNAVAILABILITY of work is what makes the numbers of those dependent upon welfare and the number of those AVAILABLE to work has nothing whatsoever to do with the amount of work available,

    If the J.Pigani’s want to ‘reform’ the welfare system they should first ‘reform’ the economic system which fails to provide the required levels of employment, reforming the latter will negate the need to reform the former…
14. Pascal's bookie 14

    18 August 2012 at 12:20 pm

    Here’s some serious writing about Wikileaks, just for Overhead:

    http://zunguzungu.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/julian-assange-and-the-computer-conspiracy-%E2%80%9Cto-destroy-this-invisible-government%E2%80%9D/

    Desribes what Assange was actually up to. his strategy if you like. the leaks weren’t ends in and of themselves. It wasn’t about informing people as to what was going on, or at least, not just about that. The informing people was a welcome by-prosuct of the tactic od leaking secrets, and the leaking of secrets was a strategic move aimed at secrecy itself.
    • Pascal's bookie 14.1

      18 August 2012 at 8:15 pm

      You should actually read this link Overhead. When the post first appeared Wikileaks linked to it repeatedly, saying that it nicely got some of what they were up to. the blogger followed up with more posts, all based on Assange’s essays, which I’m sure you’ve read.
15. Jackal 15

    18 August 2012 at 12:32 pm

    Dame Anne Salmond – Hero of the week

    Dame Anne Salmond’s article is a breath of fresh air of intelligent and professional writing that is all too often missing from our mainstream media…
    • LynW 15.1

      18 August 2012 at 4:04 pm

      +1 Totally agree. Carol also commented above. Definitely an article to ponder over.
    • Carol 15.2

      18 August 2012 at 5:52 pm

      A very good contrast Jackal

      – the well-reasoned academic piece from Salmond drawing on research, statistics and an in-depth examination of significant ideas and philosophical traditions.

      – then the superficial reasoning of O’Sullivan’s op ed piece that is more propaganda than analysis – arguing by analogy and association, using loaded adjectives in order to smear Cunliffe with ulterior motives and a red scare tactic.
16. weka 16

    18 August 2012 at 2:21 pm

    Thought this might be useful all things considered. Thanks McFlock for posting the link the other day.
     

    128AAllowing sexual activity does not amount to consent in some circumstances

    (1) A person does not consent to sexual activity just because he or she does not protest or offer physical resistance to the activity.

    (2) A person does not consent to sexual activity if he or she allows the activity because of—

    (a) force applied to him or her or some other person; or

    (b) the threat (express or implied) of the application of force to him or her or some other person; or

    (c) the fear of the application of force to him or her or some other person.

    (3) A person does not consent to sexual activity if the activity occurs while he or she is asleep or unconscious.

    (4) A person does not consent to sexual activity if the activity occurs while he or she is so affected by alcohol or some other drug that he or she cannot consent or refuse to consent to the activity.

    (5) A person does not consent to sexual activity if the activity occurs while he or she is affected by an intellectual, mental, or physical condition or impairment of such a nature and degree that he or she cannot consent or refuse to consent to the activity.

    (6) One person does not consent to sexual activity with another person if he or she allows the sexual activity because he or she is mistaken about who the other person is.

    (7) A person does not consent to an act of sexual activity if he or she allows the act because he or she is mistaken about its nature and quality.

    (8) This section does not limit the circumstances in which a person does not consent to sexual activity.

    (9) For the purposes of this section,—

    allows includes acquiesces in, submits to, participates in, and undertakes

    sexual activity, in relation to a person, means—

    (a) sexual connection with the person; or

    (b) the doing on the person of an indecent act that, without the person’s consent, would be an indecent assault of the person.

    Section 128A: substituted, on 20 May 2005, by section 7 of the Crimes Amendment Act 2005 (2005 No 41).

     

     
     

    http://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM329057.html?search=ts_act%40bill%40regulation%40deemedreg_crimes+act+_resel_25_h&p=1
     
    • bad12 16.1

      18 August 2012 at 2:43 pm

      Seeing as, should He ever be, wee Julian aint about to go on trial based upon that set of laws what relevance do they have to the debate….
      • McFlock 16.1.1

        18 August 2012 at 5:14 pm

        Indeed.
                 
        But it is interesting that if the alleged facts are true, then by NZ standard it’s rape. Not “sex”. Not “not as bad as war so it’s not rape”. Not “oh but he did such nice things so it’s not rape”. Not “you’re black propagandists for the US hegemony so it’s not rape”. Not even “you’re just after feminist brownie points so it’s not rape”.
             
        If the alleged facts are true, it’s rape. And people here are being disingenuous when they minimise it.
      • weka 16.1.2

        18 August 2012 at 6:25 pm

        I didn’t post that because of Assange, I posted it because there appear to be people here on TS who don’t understand what rape is. A legal definition is a good place to start, although of course it doesn’t define rape in and of itself.

        Plus what McFlock said.
17. bad12 17

    18 August 2012 at 2:34 pm

    You have to wonder don’t you at the intelligence,(lack of), inherent in the likes of Fran O’Sullivan who in today’s Herald tries to insult Labour’s David Cunliffe with the banner headline ”Cloth Cap Socialist”,

    Round here the cloth cap is worn with honor, the ‘cloth cap Socialist’ is simply one that see’s the solution to the problems of economy as being easily addressed mostly through the simplest of solutions,

    IF, Cunliffe is as O’Sullivan says a ‘cloth cap Socialist’ then He has my support,

    PS: Fran the only reason we doff em, the cloth caps that is, is to get them outta the cross-fire as we Hoick a big one at you….
    • Colonial Viper 17.1

      18 August 2012 at 2:46 pm

      Interesting writing from O’Sullivan. She says that Shearer has had to stack his frontbench with lightweights unable to land hits on the Key Government, and she says that Cunliffe is damn capable – both professionally and in politics.
      • bad12 17.1.1

        18 August 2012 at 3:47 pm

        Do you think that O’Sullivan is trying to ‘do balanced journalism’, at one point She seems to be insinuating that Cunliffe is attempting to inflict a cunning charade upon the electorate by appearing to be ‘more left’ than He actually is,

        Pity the Herald cannot find a truly ‘left’ journalist to provide ‘balance’ to the continuous stream of what gives every appearance of being produced from the mind of a schizophrenic that it presently fobs off on us all…
        • Carol 17.1.1.1

          18 August 2012 at 6:19 pm

          Yes, it’s curious on FOS’s part, that as well as disparaging him by associating a “cloth cap” with a “hidden agenda” to deviously seize power, but she also smears Cunliffe by comparing him with the Chinese politburo, and the disgraced Bo . Yet FOS has a recent record of talking up China as a great place to do business with, and seems to quite like the infamous Bo:

          But as Kevin Lu wrote in a recent article in Foreign Policy magazine headlined “The Chongqing model worked”: “Bo Xilai might be a crook but he was actually pretty good at his job.”

          Just like Bo, Cunliffe is trying to recreate a new left agenda to attract those who have been disadvantaged by the wealth gap.

          Cunliffe has suggested big investment by the Government in industry, citing the NZ Steel plant of the Muldoon Government.

          As with Bo in China, Cunliffe has launched a serious challenge to the prevailing ideology of his party’s political wing.

          On Aug 11 2012, FOS wrote,

          http://www.nzherald.co.nz/fran-osullivan/news/article.cfm?a_id=13&objectid=10826130

          But former Commerce Minister Bo Xilai – who kicked off free trade negotiations between China and New Zealand in 2004 – won’t be present. Bo was sacked from the Politburo this year and faces disciplinary charges. His wife, Gu Kailai, did not contest murder charges this week.

          But when Bo first talked up the FTA, China was still coming to grips with its entrance into the World Trade Organisation. Its growth has since rocketed. As the East Asia Forum recently emphasised, China is now the world’s largest exporter, largest importer, largest holder of foreign reserves and second-largest economy and is in a much more powerful position than was projected at the time of its WTO debut in 2001.
18. Southern Limits 18

    18 August 2012 at 4:01 pm

    Air New Zealand’s annual report is due out by the end of August and the signs do not look good. Air NZ is just one company dealing with the general malaise of the airline industry. Jet fuel now accounts for 35 percent of airline industry operating costs compared to 15 percent a decade ago. Jet fuel closely maps the price of crude. Petroleum deliveries are at their lowest point since September 2008, with the weakest July demand since 2005 and yet Brent crude prices are still sitting above $US116 per barrel. Oil prices would not have to raise much higher to create a US$5.3billion loss in 2012. The future of the global aviation industry is in big trouble.

    “Being the most innovative airline company does not necessarily make you the most profitable. Air New Zealand announced a 71 percent earning slump in February 2012. As part of it’s recovery plan the company announced it was cutting 441 jobs. The airline blamed a decrease in passenger numbers as well as as fuel costs NZ$173 million more than forecast. This is despite the airline enjoying “a solid performance from the domestic network including benefits from the Rugby World Cup and improved market share on the Tasman” according to Air New Zealand chairman, John Palmer.

    The outgoing chief executive Rob Fyfe says the price of jet fuel has doubled over the last three years and due to the weak global economy it has been difficult to pass on the higher costs to passengers.The inflation adjusted average price of jet fuel was US$3.04 per gallon for the six months to December 31st. Going off jet fuel prices alone it is unlikely the airline will see much of a turn around in profitability for 2012. In the first six months of 2012 the average price barely moved, up US$0.04 to $US3.08.”

    http://www.southernlimitsnz.com/2012/08/running-on-empty-big-airlines-in-big.html
    • Colonial Viper 18.1

      18 August 2012 at 7:41 pm

      And the slow grinding, energy depletion driven, end of globalisation continues.
19. Jackal 19

    18 August 2012 at 5:09 pm

    Paula Bennett should resign

    What a complete fail for a Minister to not even be aware of (or not want to acknowledge) the information provided by her own ministry…
    • Draco T Bastard 19.1

      18 August 2012 at 7:39 pm

      She shouldn’t need to resign – she should have been fired already.
20. millsy 20

    18 August 2012 at 5:15 pm

    “Your town does not owe you recreational facilites”

    Actually, yes it does. Its called a ‘social contract’. The provision of community assets such as parks, sportsfields and libaries are provided in return for payment of rates and various other charges by the community.

    Those who say ‘the world does not owe you a living’ completely disregard the social contract.
    • fnjckg 20.1

      18 August 2012 at 5:33 pm

      jcwept.
21. William Joyce 21

    18 August 2012 at 5:44 pm

    Not wanting to draw more fire, as an FYI,  an exemplar of the complexity of dealing with laws in another country and language, and the complexity of dealing with human relationships…

    On 18 November 2010, prosecutor Marianne Ny asked the local district court for a warrant for the arrest of Assange in order for him to be interviewed by the prosecutor. As he was now living in England, the court ordered him detained (häktad) in absentia. On appeal, the Svea Court of Appeal upheld the warrant on suspicion of olaga tvång (duress/unlawful coercion), and two cases of sexuellt ofredande, which has been variously translated as “sexual molestation”, “sexual assault”, “sexual misconduct”, “sexual annoyance”, “sexual unfreedom”, “sexual misdemeanour”, and “sexual harassment”.
    Wikipedia : Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority

     
    • McFlock 21.1

      18 August 2012 at 6:03 pm

      Indeed. 
      But irrelevant, unless the translation from the Swedish for “asleep” could equally be “awake and willing”. 
      • William Joyce 21.1.1

        18 August 2012 at 6:26 pm

        Again you argue from the charges back to the events. What Swedish laws say and means is more complex. You said yourself that you don’t speak Swedish. So here it is. For English speakers on the other side of the planet the actual charges have more nuance that the emphatic English language charges.
         
        It also ignores the complex nature of gender politics in Sweden in which  the sexual offence legislation being written. The prosecutor herself is of the opinion that a man/offender should be locked up first and questions asked later.
         
        Brita Sundberg-Weitman, a Swedish lawyer, professor, retired judge and distinguished jurist, spoke of Sweden’s gender politics and the Assange case…..

        “It is a fact that people like Marianne Ny and Claes Borgström have worked in cooperation on different issues in efforts to produce our new, more stringent sexual offence laws. It is a fact that Marianne Ny was one of the experts for the recent law reform committee which published a report in 2010 recommending even more harsh sexual offence legislation. It is a fact that Marianne Ny approved the contents of that report which concluded that, unlike the law of England and Wales, Swedish rape law is not based upon lack of consent and which specifically rejects any recommendation that Swedish law be amended to adopt the English law approach where rape is based on consent”
        “…Ms Ny .. is known to have said that when a woman says she has been assaulted by a man, the man ought to be detained because it is not until he is in prison that the woman may have the peace to consider whether or not she has been mistreated. Ms Ny has stated that she believes that imprisoning the man has a positive effect, “even in cases where the perpetrator is prosecuted but not convicted”. It is also informative, in regards to the presumption of innocence, that she uses the term ’perpetrator’ rather than ’defendant’ or ’suspect’ in discussing criminal investigation in rape cases.”
        Swedish Gender Politics and the Assange case

         
        • McFlock 21.1.1.1

          18 August 2012 at 6:39 pm

          I’m happy to leave the interpretation of Swedish law up to the Swedish courts.
                 
          I’m also happy with the concept that if he returns to Sweden, Assange should be detained in custody until the trial is completed. He is after all a repeated flight risk.
             
          I’m also happy with the concept that the allegations against him are serious enough to be considered crimes here (as opposed to homosexuality, adultery, unprotected sex being illegal, etc).
                     
          So what’ your point? 
          • Colonial Viper 21.1.1.1.1

            18 August 2012 at 6:45 pm

            He is after all a repeated flight risk.

            Sure. As long as you aren’t counting the time he left Sweden with the full knowledge and permission of the Swedish authorities.
            • McFlock 21.1.1.1.1.1

              18 August 2012 at 6:59 pm

              “Permission”? Being told that they have no power to detain you is not the same as “permission”. 
                             
               
              • Colonial Viper …

                18 August 2012 at 7:13 pm

                If authorities replied “yes you may leave the country” then that’s permission. They certainly didn’t ask him to stay, did they. And, authorities were fully informed of Assange’s intentions to go. He didn’t leave the country hidden in a car boot did he?

                Which is why the event should not be included in any assessment of his flight risk.

                edit…man you should explain why you really have it in for this guy just so bad.
                • McFlock …

                  18 August 2012 at 7:18 pm

                  You can only give “permission” if you have the power to prevent something happening.
                           
                  I don’t have it in for him. I just think he’s used every possible means to avoid a sexual assault investigation. 
                  • Colonial Viper …

                    18 August 2012 at 7:34 pm

                    You can only give “permission” if you have the power to prevent something happening.

                    Assange was told by Swedish authorities that he was allowed to leave the country. If you like I can reword the sentence in the negative. Assange was told by Swedish authorities that there was no need for him to remain in Sweden.

                    Happier?

                    Regardless, given that Assange voluntarily stayed in Sweden for a full 2 weeks after investigations against him were reopened, then was told he was free to go, after which he left with the full knowledge of authorities, the event should not be counted against him as a flight risk.

                    Breaking his UK bail conditions certainly counts, but not that.
                    • McFlock …

                      18 August 2012 at 7:42 pm

                      Assange was told by Swedish authorities that he was allowed to leave the country. If you like I can reword the sentence in the negative. Assange was told by Swedish authorities that there was no need for him to remain in Sweden.

                         
                      Option 3: We can’t stop you leaving. And of course the Swedish prosecutors were trying to arrange another interview via the same lawyer who had asked if they could stop him leaving the country.
                         
                      But the point is strictly whether he’s a “serial done it before flight from detention” or simply a “done it before flight from detention”. Either ay, if he goes back to Sweden I’m cool with him being detained while on trial, if only to stop him fleeing the justice system again.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      18 August 2012 at 8:00 pm

                      You sure you don’t have it in for Assange?
                    • McFlock …

                      18 August 2012 at 8:07 pm

                      never met the guy. 
                                  
                      But given his track record, I’m cool with him being held in custody until the end of the process. If he actually ends up in Sweden again.
                    • Pascal's bookie …

                      18 August 2012 at 8:09 pm

                      If you are trying to work out if he’s a flight risk, then whether or not he had ‘permission’ is a bit beside the point.

                      The fact remains that he was under investigation, knew he was under investigation, and left the country and refused to return.

                      It’s certainly reasonable to assume from the fact that he didn’t return, that he left in order to avoid the investigation. Do you have another theory as to why he left sweden? If he did leave Sweden because of the investigation, then that is evidence for him being a flight risk. ‘Permission’ or not.
          • William Joyce 21.1.1.1.2

            18 August 2012 at 7:04 pm

            I agree with you all points except the last one. As the charges are written they do in fact constitute crimes here. No disagreement there. My point is that what is interpret as a sexual crime is harsher in Sweden and so a regular action that happens in the tumble of a sexual encounter can be written up in such damning terms that someone else would think “shit”.
             
            So I guess my point is that :
            Yes, as they are written the charges would also be a crime in NZ
            BUT even though the charges sound so damning, the actions that would warrant such a charge in Sweden, may not do so here.
            Of course, “sticking it in while she is asleep” sounds so serious (and it may well be if that is what happened) but given the state of the gender politics behind harsh Swedish laws its as Lord Cooke famously said, “In law, context is everything” Lord Cooke of Thorndon.
             
            The reason I am continuing to debate is the ridiculous assertions of Weka and the continued emphatic assertions that there is an equivalence between the Swedish charges and what we would be charged with here. There isn’t.
            • McFlock 21.1.1.1.2.1

              18 August 2012 at 7:13 pm

              How are the “harsh” Swedish charges more severe than NZ or UK rape charges?
                    
              • William Joyce …

                18 August 2012 at 7:14 pm

                Have you not been paying attention?
                • McFlock …

                  18 August 2012 at 7:22 pm

                  “My point is that what is interpret as a sexual crime is harsher in Sweden and so a regular action that happens in the tumble of a sexual encounter can be written up in such damning terms that someone else would think “shit”.”
                         
                  I just thought that you must have mistyped, given that the allegations if true would constitute sexual assault and rape  here and in the UK. Sweden – that’s what the Svea is for.
        • William Joyce 21.1.1.2

          18 August 2012 at 6:43 pm

          Also see Professor of English Law at the University of Oxford Andrew Ashworth making comparisons between Swedish law and English law.

          http://justice4assange.com/Allegations.html
           
          The charges in the EAW do not allow for discussion of whether Assange had mens rea (guilty intent) and whether he had a reasonable expectation that he had consent.
          The charges, which appear damning, also hinge on such things as a definition of what constitutes “force” – what actions are “force” and what degree of “force” needs to be applied. Next time be careful when you part you partner’s legs because in Sweden the laws are are more strict about what constitutes force.
          These are all things that will be discussed in court and not dealt with in the EAW.
          • McFlock 21.1.1.2.1

            18 August 2012 at 6:57 pm

            So what’s your point? 
                 
             
            • William Joyce 21.1.1.2.1.1

              18 August 2012 at 7:15 pm

              Well, if you haven’t got it by now…..

              *He withdraws from the battlefield to pour the first of what promises to be a number of glasses of wine*

              *Turns the TV up to drown out the screams in suburbia as his beloved country is driven into the abyss*
              • McFlock …

                18 August 2012 at 7:27 pm

                Yeah, whatever dude. You seem to be arguing that we wouldn’t necessarily regard the actions as rape, and that it’s persecution by feminist extremists.
                     
                Whereas Morrissey thinks it’s all the fault of the CIA.
                • Morrissey …

                  18 August 2012 at 7:45 pm

                  Whereas Morrissey thinks it’s all the fault of the CIA.

                  No I don’t. That’s another dishonest statement from you.
                  • McFlock …

                    18 August 2012 at 7:48 pm

                    ooo I must be a black propagandist…
                    • Pascal's bookie …

                      18 August 2012 at 8:12 pm

                      You could always play the Chompsky card.

                      Just link to him mentioning propaganda in any context, and that’s it.

                      Link to Chompsky–> point proven.

                      Doesn’t matter what the point is at all. Just link–>win.
22. Fisiani 22

    18 August 2012 at 7:03 pm

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10827742

    So the only question is when will Cunliffe make his move or will he be beaten to the punch by the evem more arrogant and lazy Grant Robertson
23. Vicky32 23

    19 August 2012 at 6:06 pm

    Having briefly seen the beginnings of a discussion about Pussy Riot on Friday’s Open Mike, I when read this –
    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article32225.htm
     
    Very interesting!

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS