Open mike 20/04/2012

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, April 20th, 2012 - 167 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

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

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

Step right up to the mike…

167 comments on “Open mike 20/04/2012 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Gosman 1
    20 April 2012 at 7:09 am

    http://gowans.wordpress.com/2008/09/30/stephen-zunes%E2%80%99-false-statements-on-zimbabwe-and-woza/

    So very funny.

    The sort of typical leftist thinking I read on here all the time.

    It all boils down to the big bad neo-imperial capitalistic USA’s fault. Either that or the bankers.

    • Bored 1.1
      20 April 2012 at 9:07 am

      Bugger Gosman, I was too slow to open a sweep stake on the Standard as to how long it would take you to mention your beloved Zimmers. Cuba 10 to 1 anybody?

    • AAMC 1.2
      20 April 2012 at 9:38 am

      So now Spain’s in the headlines Gosman, it’s a little more difficult for you to argue irresponsible Government spending, given their fiscal prudence leading up to the GFC.
      No their problem was a property bubble, who inflates those again? Oh, that’s right, bankers! And where does the responsibility for the GFC lie, oh, that’s right, speculators and bankers. Where was it’s epicenter, oh, that’s right, Wall St.
      But I admire you’re faith, it takes an extraordinary effort to achieve such willful blindness, most don’t know cause they ignore – Adam Curtis notes that economics is boring, and so that is why economists manage to get away with such restlessness – but you clearly read about these things….

      • Gosman 1.2.1
        20 April 2012 at 10:34 am

        Spain isn’t exactly a libertarian free market paradise so I’m not sure why you seem to imply the problems are caused just by banks.

        Spain has youth unemployment of around 50%. That suggests there is something wrong with their labour market flexibility. Also the problem is not just dodgy banks but the fact that the Central Government hasn’t got an awful lot of control over regional government’s spending.

        Good article on Spain here (admittedly was in 2010)
        http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127069441

        • Bored 1.2.1.1
          20 April 2012 at 1:25 pm

          Great logic Gos, its all the fault of “labour market flexibility”, superb sidestep of an undeniable criticism of globalisation. Sort of “kill them harder and it will all get better”. And what if it were your children?

          • Gosman 1.2.1.1.1
            20 April 2012 at 4:36 pm

            If it was my kids I’d want to live in a country where the labour market wasn’t so inflexible that they had a one in two chance of being unemployed for a long time. Luckily that is the case.

            What’s your solution to the problem of Spanish youth unemployment by the way? More training perchance? If you read that link you will see that many of the youth unemployed are actually highly educated.

            • Draco T Bastard 1.2.1.1.1.1
              20 April 2012 at 4:40 pm

              What’s your solution to the problem of Spanish youth unemployment by the way?

              Less globalisation, eradication of capitalism and a rationalisation of the economy so that it actually does what it’s supposed to – support the people and not just the psychopathic few.

            • Puddleglum 1.2.1.1.1.2
              20 April 2012 at 11:01 pm

              What’s your evidence that Spain’s 50% youth unemployment rate (I’m taking your word for that) is due to labour market inflexibility? (I’m asking for evidence, not assertion of ideological presuppositions.)

              Does anything else play a causal role? 

              • Gosman …
                21 April 2012 at 8:54 am

                Did you bother reading that link I provided? That delves into that very question.

                Why do you think there is such high youth unemployment in places like Italy, Greece, and Spain then?

                • locus …
                  21 April 2012 at 10:01 am

                  An interesting editorial in today’s Guardian on Spain and the Euro crisis: Until the eve of the banking crisis in 2007, Spain’s unemployment rate was 7.9% and Spain had sounder public finances than Germany.

                  Which brings us to one of the most important yet under-remarked aspects of the euro meltdown. What has been painted as a battle between the virtuous, hardworking north and the lazy, feckless south should instead be depicted as a banking crisis. This is the crucial point made in a new paper published by Manchester’s centre for research on socio-cultural change. Deep Stall, it compares the eurozone collapse with a plane crash and finds one big difference: whereas everyone in the aviation industry – from passengers to planemakers to airlines – has a vested interest in keeping planes up in the air, the banks have no such commitment to keeping the rest of the financial system afloat as long as they get paid out.
                  The implication is clear: rather than devote efforts to ruining the lives of southern Europeans, a far more effective way to deal with the continent’s crisis would be to restructure the banks, then rein them in for good. The alternative is to trust in austerity for the public and generously allow the banks to “deleverage” and shrink their balance sheets at their own pace. This is exactly the policy that has turned a Greek tragedy into an existential threat to the entire euro.

        • rosy 1.2.1.2
          20 April 2012 at 10:08 pm

          I heard this morning on Euronews that Mario Monti, the technocrat economist in charge in Italy, is working on labour reform – making it easier to fire people but at the same time make it harder to put people on short-term low wage contracts.

          Luigi Spinola, a political and economic analyst in Rome, spoke to euronews about the prospects.

          Claudio Rosmino, euronews: Labour reform is the biggest, most dangerous challenge facing the Monti government. What are the key points, the most sensitive points?

          Spinola: The labour market is divided in two. You’ve got your stable permanent fulltime contracts on one hand, which offer workers numerous guarantees but which are costly and therefore employers only offer a limited number of these.
          And then there’s a parallel work sector with short term contracts, atypical contracts that pay very little and give very few guarantees.
          Monti’s challenge is to find a kind of redistribution of rights, in two ways: make it easier to fire people, and make access to work more strict.
          I’ll explain this second point, otherwise it might appear paradoxical. It’s really about making it more costly for employers to resort to those atypical, flexible contracts.

          Apparently Italy’s firing rules mean that the worker almost always gets the job back if it is legally challenged, meaning employers prefer contract workers.

          Interesting take on labour flexibility. The main aim is to make it is easier for workers to get full-time, permanent jobs and reduce short-term contracts because labour market instability is a bad thing.

    • Puddleglum 1.3
      20 April 2012 at 11:04 pm

      So, have the various measures taken by the US (as described in the post you link to) had any effect on the economic viability of Zimbabwe?

      If not, are those measures pointless exercises on the part of the US (and, hence, should be withdrawn)?

  2. Pete George 2
    20 April 2012 at 7:15 am

    Clare Curran steams more than Josephine over the Hillside Workshops sale announcement, and calls Key and English liars despite denials they knew about it.

    While most of Dunedin is looking for and seems to want to work on positives Curran talks of starting yet another anti campaign, with Metiria Turei.

    • Ed 2.1
      20 April 2012 at 7:56 am

      “and calls Key and English liars despite denials they knew about it. ”

      Actually no PG, she said “Liars if they say it’s nothing to do with us”.

      Of course this sale is something to do with National – they decided not to get work done in New Zealand, leading to a lack of work at Hillside. Key and English may deny having been told of this sale of state assets, but they cannot deny the link between putting work offshore and an effect locally.

      Is a deliberate misquote a lie or incompetence, Pete G?

    • Fortran 2.2
      20 April 2012 at 2:36 pm

      Surely a combined Union purchase would be acceptable to keep the Dunedin workshop.
      There is enough expertise to run it.

  3. RedLogix 3
    20 April 2012 at 7:17 am

    This Sky City tender just gets worse and worse. If any other ordinary public servant had conducted a tender process so very badly they would be disciplined at the least; quite possibly sacked

    What gets me is the absolute hyposcrisy. Helen Clark signs a painting to raise some money for a charity and it’s the crime of the fucking century.

    John Key grossly inteferes in a major tender process, playing very lose with the law over a matter that involves hundreds of millions and substantial social harm…. and all that happens in the media is a mild round of tut-tutting.

    It’s like a Labour PM has to be pure and holy, while there’s this understanding that we elect National PM’s to be venal and a little bit corrupt.

    • Gosman 3.1
      20 April 2012 at 7:39 am

      That’s right. The media and everyone else is out to get you Red. Suck it up.

    • David 3.2
      20 April 2012 at 7:48 am

      My summary of the whole saga: the clearest (but by no means only) example we have so far in this government of that nasty old Tory corruption, that uses political power personally linked to big bucks to take more money out of less well off pockets, and put it into better off: and then barefacedly deny they have done anything wrong, or hurt anyone.

  4. tc 4
    20 April 2012 at 7:54 am

    That’s most people’s expectations of a Nat govt RL, those with memories of Muldoon would be aghast at the naked corruption and complete arrogance not caring about the wreckage both in NZ and their own part.

    Reading gossie etc reminds me of people who would be cheering at a stoning or hanging, what sad trolls. The MSM is not out to do anything therein lies one of the problems.

  5. vto 5
    20 April 2012 at 8:25 am

    Shearer’s living wage campaign thingy is brilliant.

    It should be made clearer to the public that it is not possible to live on the minimum wage. That we effectively have a wage system that is worse than slavery – at least as a slave you were housed and fed whereas it is not possible to do that on the minimum wage – it needs to be topped up by other taxpayers through various subsidies and handouts like WFF. Effectively the taxpayers are subsidising business.

    This should be made clearer.

    Of course lifting wages like this would require some heavish adjustments across the economy that would take time and some pain here and there. But the alternative is taxpayers paying for business and wages that one cannot live on. Same amount of money in the economy just spread differently (and its current spread is the result of govt intervention so please no rants that such intervention will distort).

    It is actually quite astounding that we have a minimum wage that cannot be survived on. It is a barbaric situation.

    • Pete George 5.1
      20 April 2012 at 8:38 am

      Are you suggesting that those on the minimum wage aren’t surviving?

      The “living wage” idea potentially has some good points, but it’s very difficult to specify one wage that covers many different circumstances and locations. An eighteen year old living with his parents on a farm in Tuatapere has quite different financial needs to a father of five living in Remuera.

      • vto 5.1.1
        20 April 2012 at 8:51 am

        Yes I am suggesting that.

        As for the differing circumstances, lets run an anecdotal test right here – hands up all those who could survive in their current circumstances in NZ on the minimum wage. No subsidides, handouts, supplements, WFFs allowed, just the wage.

        • Gosman 5.1.1.1
          20 April 2012 at 9:08 am

          ‘…hands up all those who could survive in their current circumstances in NZ on the minimum wage.’

          That is a tautological statement.

          Of course the circumstances will change if the income decreases. That is a completely different argument to the one that people are unable to survive on the minimum wage.

          • vto 5.1.1.1.1
            20 April 2012 at 9:11 am

            Fair enough. Hands up everyone who could survive on the minimum wage, those with families, those who are single, those with other circumstances.

            • Pete George 5.1.1.1.1.1
              20 April 2012 at 9:22 am

              If both my wife and I were on the minimum wage we could manage the mortgage and survive financially.

            • Pete George 5.1.1.1.1.2
              20 April 2012 at 9:42 am

              40 hours at 13.50 = gross pay of $540.00
              On an ME tax code net pay is $465.17 per week.

              • vto …
                20 April 2012 at 10:19 am

                Well that’s good, I guess the cheap property values (buy and rent) in Dunedin help. We, in our circumstances, haven’t a hope in hell.

                Score so far: 1-1

                • Gosman …
                  20 April 2012 at 10:28 am

                  So you can survive on minimum wage in this country. You just can’t live in places where the living expenses are greater. Excellent, we have now established that the situation in NZ follows standard economic theory. Do you want to ask us whether we will fall to our deaths if we jump out of plane without a parachute now?

                  • vto …
                    20 April 2012 at 10:47 am

                    No. So far the score is 1-1. That means one family dies and the other scrimps by. Lovely place innit…

                    • Gosman …
                      20 April 2012 at 10:49 am

                      Where’s the evidence that anyone is dying as a result of this?

                    • vto …
                      20 April 2012 at 10:55 am

                      You egg. Surviving has many levels of definition. waster…

                    • Gosman …
                      20 April 2012 at 11:12 am

                      True surviving has multiple meanings. Dies tends to be quite restricted. Unless you are meaning the family fails miserably performing on stage.

                    • McFlock …
                      20 April 2012 at 1:20 pm

                      Where’s the evidence that anyone is dying as a result of this?

                      Lol – you mean you’re once again asking for direct observational evidence of something that is happening right now, when that evidence takes a year or two to collate? Even though the literature in the field strongly indicates that any tory interwebz warrior who argues that the situation does not exist is a bit of a tool?
                                 

                       

                  • rosy …
                    20 April 2012 at 9:40 pm

                    the situation in NZ follows standard economic theory.
                    And standard economic theory suggests those who live in cheaper places are living where there are fewer jobs, so will have to move to more expensive places to improve employment options, making the minimum wage much less than a living wage than it was before. Maybe we should have a flexible minimum wage to go with those flexible employment options.

                    For the record, I couldn’t live on the minimum – a long-term medical condition with a lot of out-of-pocket medical expenses.

                  • Puddleglum …
                    20 April 2012 at 11:14 pm

                    Gosman, let me try to put this in terms that – I think – you’ll understand.

                    There are two ways to ‘survive’ (i.e., to be ‘sustainable’).

                    The first way is to keep regenerating your ‘capital’ (i.e., your health, your mental resilience, your ability to participate in society, etc.).

                    The second way is to live off your ‘capital’ (i.e,. your health, your mental resilience, your ability to participate in society, etc.) and so gradually reduce it while you are physically and biologically ‘surviving’ (i.e., physically and biologically continuing or ‘sustaining’ yourself). 

                    People on the minimum wage are most likely ‘surviving’ in the latter rather than the former sense. 

            • Bored 5.1.1.1.1.3
              20 April 2012 at 10:34 am

              Bollocks fair enough VTO. Gos is just being his usual prize arsehole with some rancid economic rationalist argument to justify people not being able to survive in decent conditions. He does not give a fuck so long as he is OK.

              • Gosman …
                20 April 2012 at 10:39 am

                Where’s the evidence for the increase in death’s as a result of not being able to survive?

                • NickS …
                  20 April 2012 at 10:48 am

                  lolwut?

                  Oh right, I forgot, you have selective blindness. Because the evidence on poverty leading to increases in death rates is fairly well established in the health and sociology literature and mentioned here oft…

                  In other words, go google scholar it.

                  • Gosman …
                    20 April 2012 at 10:51 am

                    I already have and have posted the result in another thread here. There is no evidence that the death rate has increased over the past 4 or so years.

                    • NickS …
                      20 April 2012 at 11:12 am

                      Keep moving those goalposts and failing reading comprehension 101 Gosikins.

                    • Gosman …
                      20 April 2012 at 11:35 am

                      Do yYou disagree that poverty has increased over the past 4 or 5 years in NZ?

                    • McFlock …
                      20 April 2012 at 7:23 pm

                      Gos, how many people died last year, by cause?
                                   
                      Grouping causes by ICD10-AM chapter heading is fine.
                      Then get tell me where you got reliable data with <3% variation over the following 12 months.

                • dd …
                  20 April 2012 at 10:50 am

                  Sounds as though we now have a growing number of ‘third world disease’ in this country. Some of these leading to death. Pretty sure it’s not the rich suffering from this.

                  • Gosman …
                    20 April 2012 at 10:54 am

                    The cause of the higher rates of ‘third world’ diseases can largely be attributed to substandard accomodation. Whether or not someone can survive on minimim wage plays only a very small part in this. That stated I have yet to read an article where mortality has been attributed to ‘third world’ diseases in NZ. Perhaps you can provide a link to something that backs your case up?

                    • Bored …
                      20 April 2012 at 12:02 pm

                      So Gos (aka I Am All Right Jack) you say The cause of the higher rates of ‘third world’ diseases can largely be attributed to substandard accommodation… as if this is some absolution from any spurious arguments you have raised prior.

                      It is easily demonstrable from your statement that according to you this substandard accommodation exists, and that there is a problem. So Gos, do you care?

                    • freedom …
                      20 April 2012 at 12:14 pm

                      so if it’s not the wage earner’s fault i guess it’s the landlords for not doing their bit to keep housing standards up, and the landlords are ???? the very investment addicts that gave us the bubbles that inevitably burst, soaking the fruit of community with poison debt that causes them to fall broken upon the ground like scattered weeds, leaving no option than to be sprayed with the stigma of un-met aspirations and covered with the weedmat of bene bashing!

                      (hyperbole aside, sooner or later gosman you have to face the truth that capitalism is little more than an ouroborus on steroids)

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      20 April 2012 at 12:52 pm

                      The cause of the higher rates of ‘third world’ diseases can largely be attributed to substandard accomodation.

                      Yep, and people on minimum wage can’t afford better accommodation.

        • Vicky32 5.1.1.2
          20 April 2012 at 5:37 pm

          hands up all those who could survive in their current circumstances in NZ on the minimum wage. No subsidides, handouts, supplements, WFFs allowed, just the wage.

          I could, but then I am the exception (being on UB at the minute, I’d be better off on minimum wage!) But that just shows the comparative unlivability of the UB!
          Also, I am single and a miser by nature… 🙂

          • Gosman 5.1.1.2.1
            20 April 2012 at 6:22 pm

            Wow! Someone can live on an income less than the minimum wage. Amazing! Someone inform Ripely’s believe it or not.

  6. Uturn 6
    20 April 2012 at 8:58 am

    “An eighteen year old living with his parents on a farm in Tuatapere has quite different financial needs to a father of five living in Remuera.”

    You’re right Pete, a father of five living in Remuera should get less than an imaginary rural teen, because to be there in the first place, and then with five dependents, he’d have few “needs”. Remuera is overun with breadline solo Dads. Doss-houses everywhere, and cheap slum rentals. The place is a magnet for the hard up. A complete horror.

    You could be imaginative, though, and choose a rural setting much further north, where there is no farm, but lots of space and no family and not much of a farmhouse. Then you could really lean into the stereotypes. Can’t have society without castes and heirachy, eh Pete?

    How is the grass on the octagon this morning, Pete? Anyone muss it up during the night? Bloody scallywags. We should have a discussion about it, about when to have the discussion about doing something, something about something – that should do it. If the situation doesn’t change for the better by itself.

    • Pete George 6.1
      20 April 2012 at 9:02 am

      The ex Octagon grass mussers are trying to get the DCC to ban fracking now, saying “many people” support them. I doubt they have 1% support on that.

      • Bored 6.1.1
        20 April 2012 at 9:10 am

        So PG the whole concept of somebody wanting fracking banned is disagreeable to you? Regardless of who and how unheard they are? Go frack in your own backyard.

      • Kotahi Tane Huna 6.1.2
        20 April 2012 at 9:19 am

        Pete’s right: any group that had such a pathetic level of support has no business dictating policy to anyone.

        I doubt he’s right about the level of concern about fracking though.

        • Bored 6.1.2.1
          20 April 2012 at 10:36 am

          Petes entirely wrong about people with a low level of support not having a valid argument. They are not “dictating” to anybody, try “advocating”.

          • Kotahi Tane Huna 6.1.2.1.1
            20 April 2012 at 1:36 pm

            Yes, I know, I just doubt that anti-fracking groups enjoy such a low level of support. United Follicles, on the other hand…

  7. dd 7
    20 April 2012 at 9:29 am

    “it is not possible to do that on the minimum wage – it needs to be topped up by other taxpayers through various subsidies and handouts like WFF. ”

    You seem to try and play the ‘middle of the road’ type character Pete. But you do it badly. Mostly because you just come across as a slightly more apolegetic National supporter.

    From what I have read your a Peter Dunne follower-which makes a lot of sense. I reckon it’s time to pick a side.

    Anyway, being in a postion where I make a lot more than minimum wage and having times where I wonder where my money has gone I often ponder how someone making 13 bucks an hour; A. gets by and B. can afford any type of simple luxury. Which in my opinion any working person should be able to.

    A person should not have to work 40 hours a week for just food and shelter in this day and age.

  8. ianmac 8
    20 April 2012 at 10:00 am

    When a person is seen as causing harm to you or your power, then get right up close and friendly. Charm him and make it harder for him to sting.
    Patrick Gower is in the swim with John Key and no doubt will be a little less enthusiastic with his stories. Not many political reporters get to swim with the shark PM.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=10800105#

  9. Carol 9
    20 April 2012 at 10:22 am

    Some US researchers have done a series of pieces of research that through a bit of light on how wealth/prestige reduces compassion for others – especially others in difficult situations or less powerful positions.:

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-wealth-reduces-compassion

    But research suggests the opposite is true: as people climb the social ladder, their compassionate feelings towards other people decline.
    […]
    Berkeley psychologists Paul Piff and Dacher Keltner ran several studies looking at whether social class (as measured by wealth, occupational prestige, and education) influences how much we care about the feelings of others.

    The research included observing that drivers of more expensive cars were more likely to ignore pedestrians waiting at crossings, and more likely to cut-up other drivers instead of waiting their turn. They also did other research involving keeping “candy” for yourself and leaving some for children.

    A related set of studies published by Keltner and his colleagues last year looked at how social class influences feelings of compassion towards people who are suffering.
    These findings build upon previous research showing how upper class individuals are worse at recognizing the emotions of others and less likely to pay attention to people they are interacting with (e.g. by checking their cell phones or doodling).
    […]
    Piff and his colleagues suspect that the answer may have something to do with how wealth and abundance give us a sense of freedom and independence from others. The less we have to rely on others, the less we may care about their feelings. This leads us towards being more self-focused. Another reason has to do with our attitudes towards greed. Like Gordon Gekko, upper-class people may be more likely to endorse the idea that “greed is good.” Piff and his colleagues found that wealthier people are more likely to agree with statements that greed is justified, beneficial, and morally defensible. These attitudes ended up predicting participants’ likelihood of engaging in unethical behavior.

    They should add Key, Nacts and their cronyist, legislation for sale antics to their studies.

  10. travellerev 10
    20 April 2012 at 10:53 am

    It’s a good thing most bankers including John Key are psychopaths. Psychopaths don’t feel anxiety like you and I do which mean they can still sleep soundly in the face of what is coming at us and is created by them.
    In fact John Key advising himself in what is arguably to most stunning example of Psychopathic behaviour of a New Zealand Prime Minister is your typical number two of the Hare check-list of Psychopathy: A grandiose sense of self worth.

  11. higherstandard 11
    20 April 2012 at 10:56 am

    Do you realise that when you bandy about words like ‘psychopath’ all it does is make you appear very silly.

    • Gosman 11.1
      20 April 2012 at 11:10 am

      I’d hate to see Travellerev’s psychological report though. I imagine the phrase ‘paranoid conspiracy theorist’ might pop up though.

      • freedom 11.1.1
        20 April 2012 at 11:57 am

        Gosman, have you watched The Corporation ? i mean actually watched it, scraped the wax from the ol’ lugholes and listened to its clear and concise information. You know… applied critical thought to new information? Not simply glance up from the Biggles Annual all bleary eyed as Mummy puts milk on your Kornies?

        There is a lot of well researched data that shows the psychological behaviour expressed by Companies, and those who run them is nothing short of Psychotic. Have you considered the common ground that supports comments from many of the well educated and highly respected individuals who actually have studied the topic. Have you wondered why so many people came to the same conclusions? Remember, if these companies want to be legal people then the values and standards that we hold people to, should apply to them also.

        e.g. how much fun would it be to charge a corporation proper income tax, seeing as they are a legal person and all that.

        The weasel ones just say, but they are a business and as such get to pick and choose what is of benefit to us and what is of damage to the people we take from.

        There is a word for that: Psychopath
        (a person suffering from a disorder characterized by a pervasive pattern of disregard for the rights of others and the rules of society)

        • Bored 11.1.1.1
          20 April 2012 at 12:06 pm

          Plus an extreme lack of empathy and the inability to feel any responsibility for their actions.

        • Gosman 11.1.1.2
          20 April 2012 at 4:38 pm

          Who is pushing for corporations becoming legal people like the rest of us?

          • McFlock 11.1.1.2.1
            20 April 2012 at 4:45 pm

            Wow. 200 years out of date, and you still have an inflated ego. Fool.

            • Gosman 11.1.1.2.1.1
              20 April 2012 at 6:28 pm

              Ummmmmm…..

              I stated like becoming legal people like the rest of us. None of the links you provided suggested thay have the same rights as the rest of us.

              In fact to quote ‘. Legal entities cannot marry, they usually cannot vote or hold public office,[3] and in most jurisdictions there are certain positions which they cannot occupy’.

              • McFlock …
                20 April 2012 at 7:14 pm

                No, you asked “who is pushing” for it, not what it is now.
                  
                I gave you two links that provide a decent background to the issue, which is incredibly longstanding and has progressively expanded over centuries. Those links included actual references (should you choose to speak from a position of knowledge, rather than just being a dissembling cocksucker. I should have known better).
                    
                 

    • Draco T Bastard 11.2
      20 April 2012 at 1:03 pm

      Denying the truth makes you insane.

    • travellerev 11.3
      20 April 2012 at 5:15 pm

      O dear, the resident idjit calls me silly and that should worry me how?

      • higherstandard 11.3.1
        20 April 2012 at 5:22 pm

        Eve I seriously doubt you have ever seen or met a psychopath and I really hope you never do.

        I met a person that the consulting psychiatrist had diagnosed being as close to a pure psychopath as diagnostic tests allowed some years ago and it was an extremely disturbing experience.

        I can assure you that although many of our politicians merit all the distrust and abuse you can muster none are psychopaths.

        • travellerev 11.3.1.2
          21 April 2012 at 7:22 am

          Well actually HS both my husband and I are both diagnosed with PTSD after a five year encounter with a serious Psychopath and the experience has given us a unique view on what these assholes are capable off and I can smell a Psychopath from a mile a way as a result.

          John Key is a Psychopath and by the time he is done with this country and sashays back into the world he feels best in filled with fellow Psycho’s, I can assure you there will be a lot more people with PTSD in NZ.

          Most likely people who lost their income, jobs, benefits, schooling chances, Housing, Houses and ACC compensations and who as a result have to live in cars, garages, and on the streets.
          But don’t worry the pretty girls can find jobs in the super brothel and the boys can be croupiers in Sky city and if your not so pretty but you are lucky you can become a dishwasher in the new convention centre or work in the cigarette packing factory owned by Aussie owners who like our low wages and easy 90 day fire at will clause courtesy of Psycho John Key.

  12. NickS 12
    20 April 2012 at 11:01 am

    Derp:
    http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/kids-punished-opting-bible-class-4842662

    And this is why religious classes are problematic as standard social primate behaviours lead to exclusion and coercion and the usual suspects aren’t all that interested in discussing other religions, except in how Christianity is better than them. Usually.

    • Draco T Bastard 12.1
      20 April 2012 at 1:15 pm

      Religion should not be taught in school time. If the religious nutters want to teach their kids to be as stupid as them then they can do it after school.

      • Vicky32 12.1.1
        20 April 2012 at 6:10 pm

        Religion should not be taught in school time.
         

        I hope you know that the Education Act says that it can’t be? I know this Peter Harrison person of old, and he’s not beyond inventing things to whip up hysteria about – he is a ‘poor pitiful us’ atheist… one of those who claims persecution 100 times a day. 😀

        If the religious nutters want to teach their kids to be as stupid as them then they can do it after school.

        Bigotry. 
        (Back in the 1960s, we had a prayer at assembly, before school began, and I well remember one girl who was horribly miserable when her parents came to make a big stink and a loud performance out of dragging her out, loudly proclaiming that as atheists, they disapproved. We her classmates didn’t harass her, the teachers didn’t harass her, her parents harassed her to say that she wanted to be excused, even though she couldn’t have cared less about a 30 second prayer. My father was an atheist, but he didn’t want to make a meal out of it.)

        • Draco T Bastard 12.1.1.1
          20 April 2012 at 7:10 pm

          I hope you know that the Education Act says that it can’t be?

          Which means that the Education Act is wrong.

          Bigotry.

          Generally speaking, I couldn’t care less about the religious. I get pissed off when they demand that we make allowances for them and that their religion be forced upon society.

          We her classmates didn’t harass her, the teachers didn’t harass her, her parents harassed her to say that she wanted to be excused, even though she couldn’t have cared less about a 30 second prayer.

          Which just shows that you missed the point and haven’t learned anything since – she, and the rest of the children, shouldn’t have had religion forced upon.

          BTW, the children did try to harass me when I decided (yes, me not my parents) to ignore religious class at school. The bible thumping teachers weren’t too happy about it either.

          • Vicky32 12.1.1.1.1
            20 April 2012 at 10:07 pm

            Which means that the Education Act is wrong.

            Ah, if you think so, take it up with the Min of Ed. 😀

            Generally speaking, I couldn’t care less about the religious. I get pissed off when they demand that we make allowances for them and that their religion be forced upon society.

            An attack of the poor pitifuls there, mate! Who’s forcing it on you? Maybe you hate that we breathe the same air you do… would you choose Sam Harris’ and Dawkins’ solution? (For the record, forcible incarceration in mental hospitals, which goes with automatic loss of custody of our kids, and I assume, sterilisation, all “for the good of society”. Given Harris is an American, it’s hard to know what he means by society…

            Which just shows that you missed the point and haven’t learned anything since – she, and the rest of the children, shouldn’t have had religion forced upon.

            Obviously, I did miss the point then. I thought she wanted to do what most of us did, which was to ignore a very tiny part of the day and get on with our Larry’s Rebels fantasies, I didn’t realise anything was being forced on us! (Which of course it wasnt’. Teenagers, even  if they are girls I add for your benefit) are capable of ignoring something they don’t want to hear.

            BTW, the children did try to harass me when I decided (yes, me not my parents) to ignore religious class at school. The bible thumping teachers weren’t too happy about it either.

            Oh, a proper little Dawkins in the making, what a precious, precocious wee genius you were! Your parents must have been so proud. Bible thumping teachers – what was your school, Dotheboys Hall? Sir Lord Herr Professor Dawkins tells the same story – about how he as a 6 year old impressed parents and grandparents with his precocious infant grasp of subtleties and arguments undreamt of by generations that had lived and died before him. ‘Scuse me while I giggle and snort… and oh dear, I had better stop here – with an ego the size of yours, comes great sensitivity to even imaginary slights…

            • Pascal's bookie 12.1.1.1.1.1
              20 April 2012 at 10:34 pm

              We’re not talking about ‘teenagers’ Vicky. It’s primary schools.

              And where do you get off just assumming that the story is a lie?

              Honestly, do you think it’s good enough that primary school children who are not part of these programmes are looked after in a way that makes them feel like they are being punnished?

              Do you think it’s appropriate for religious instructers to be telling primary age kids that dinosaurs didn’t exist?

              It looks to me like you are the one with the ‘poor ;little me’ syndrome going on. it looks like just because someone is criticising something allegedly Christian, you feel the need to jump in and attack the people complaining about it.

              I was talking with a woman today about this story, and she told me she opted out of the classes after her 5 year old daughter was told by the instructer that “didn’t have god in her heart” and that she would “burn like toast”.

              Now 5 yr olds sometimes hear things in a way that they weren’t intended, but that means adults have to be pretty careful in how they talk about things with them.

              These classes are due for a bit of a looking at I reckon, and schoools absolutely need to have good systems in place for the children who do not take part.

              • Vicky32 …
                20 April 2012 at 11:09 pm

                 

                And where do you get off just assumming that the story is a lie?

                What story are you saying I said was a lie?
                 
                 
                 

                Do you think it’s appropriate for religious instructers to be telling primary age kids that dinosaurs didn’t exist?

                Of course it’s not appropriate – if it is happening! Given that the Education Act says that education in NZ must be “free, secular and compulsory”, I really don’t see that what’s alleged can be blamed on the school.
                 
                 

                I was talking with a woman today about this story, and she told me she opted out of the classes after her 5 year old daughter was told by the instructer that “didn’t have god in her heart” and that she would “burn like toast”.

                Sorry, that’s a story I really don’t believe! I know Christians, even the kind I now avoid, the evangelicals who are portrayed in the media as saying such things – and I know that in reality they don’t say such things to children!

                (They do in Hollywood, and on HBO, of course, but not in NZ, and certainly not in schools.)

                 
                 

                These classes are due for a bit of a looking at I reckon, and schoools absolutely need to have good systems in place for the children who do not take part.

                Definitely, if they are what you say they are. My son was at school from 1992 to 2007, and I assure you that ‘Bible in Schools’ in the 1990s, consisted of 10 minutes before 08.30. Leon opted out with my blessing, despite my being a Christian, I have always believed that the Education Act is fine as it is. In fact, almost everybody opted out as it was simply too early for everyone, including parents who, like us, lived 5 minutes walk from the school.
                 

                • Pascal's bookie …
                  20 April 2012 at 11:34 pm

                  What story are you saying I said was a lie?

                  I know this Peter Harrison person of old, and he’s not beyond inventing things to whip up hysteria about – he is a ‘poor pitiful us’ atheist… one of those who claims persecution 100 times a day?

                  I assumed this was in relation to the story linked to.

                  And I’m not sure from the rest of your comment that you actually know how this stuff works in many schools. It’s not ten minutes before class, it’s often 1/2 an hour during the day. To comply with the education act the school ‘closes’ for the time of the classes. The instructers are not employed by the school, they are usually volunteers, but the school is very much responsible for chooing who will be running the program. If inapropriate things are going on, the school has the responsibility to sort it out.

                  And as for you calling my acquaintence a liar based on nothing more than your alleged knowledge of what all christians in NZ would say? Umm, perhaps re-read what I wrote.

                  Do you really think it unbelievable that an untrained but enthusiastic evangelical might phrase things poorly, such that a 5 year old child might think they were talking to and about them rather than generally?

                  Do you honestly think it is not possible that an evangelical might evangelise to children, and talk about the consequences of not having ‘Jesus in your heart’?

                  • Vicky32 …
                    21 April 2012 at 1:19 am

                    And I’m not sure from the rest of your comment that you actually know how this stuff works in many schools. It’s not ten minutes before class, it’s often 1/2 an hour during the day. To comply with the education act the school ‘closes’ for the time of the classes. The instructers are not employed by the school, they are usually volunteers, but the school is very much responsible for chooing who will be running the program. If inapropriate things are going on, the school has the responsibility to sort it out.

                    Happen it’s changed since L, was at school? How is it you know? From my reading of the Standard, I know that maybe 5 Standardistas actually have children, and of the regulars, maybe 2 have… You are not one of them. Still, that’s not relevant, and too easily twisted by you, so moving on..

                     
                    Do you really think it unbelievable that an untrained but enthusiastic evangelical might phrase things poorly, such that a 5 year old child might think they were talking to and about them rather than generally?

                    Yes, I do find it completely unbelievable! As I said I actually know Christians, and not just as characters in HBO dramas, or hate figures and no evangelical would ever say such a thing to a 5 year old as your friend quoted them as saying. Now you’re back-tracking, and claiming it was something different, so what was it, an ‘untrained but enthusiastic evangelical’ or what my old mother would have called a ‘complete and utter luniac’? If it’s the luniac saying “burn in hell”, there’s no way that’s true, and mother no doubt invented what daughter said, dreaming it all up through the veil of her own fears and prejudice.

                    Do you honestly think it is not possible that an evangelical might evangelise to children, and talk about the consequences of not having ‘Jesus in your heart’?

                    Not in the words you claimed, no. Not to 5 year olds. I find it somewhat amusing that you are frantically back-pedalling. Did you have a chat to your friend in the mean time? Did she tell you that exaggeration can amount to lying as Peter Woss-name no doubt did? (In his case to great effect – a TV item no less!)

                    • lprent …
                      21 April 2012 at 7:23 am

                      Most of the authors have kids at various ages. The only one I know who doesn’t is me. I just got to be uncle across my nieces, nephews, cousins, etc – especially when they hit their teens.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      21 April 2012 at 9:22 am

                      I was talking with a woman today about this story, and she told me she opted out of the classes after her 5 year old daughter was told by the instructer that “didn’t have god in her heart” and that she would “burn like toast”.

                      Now 5 yr olds sometimes hear things in a way that they weren’t intended, but that means adults have to be pretty careful in how they talk about things with them.

                      That was what I said, and I haven’t ‘backtracked’ in the slightest from it, so your amusement is based on your failure to read what I said.

                      The education Act hasn’t changed on this for a long time. I’ve Known how it works since I was at school, where we had a similar program. It is also discussed in the article from yesterday:

                      Schools are legally obliged to be secular, but under the Education Act they are allowed to close for an hour a week for instruction, as long as children can opt out.

                      You seem to be remembering the way your sons school did things, and assuming that all schools do it that way. There is no basis for this belief, which you know if you had bothered to read the links, and think about them, rather than get all defensive about ‘atheists’.

                      I’m done with this. I’m taking my son (who I have mentioned numerous times on this blog, so you may need to update your spreadsheet of standartista famial status) to a comic convention today.

                    • felix …
                      21 April 2012 at 9:22 am

                      “From my reading of the Standard, I know that maybe 5 Standardistas actually have children, and of the regulars, maybe 2 have… You are not one of them. Still, that’s not relevant, and too easily twisted by you, so moving on.. “

                      lolz. Oh Vicky, you do say some fucking ridiculous things when you’re speaking in tongues.

                    • NickS …
                      21 April 2012 at 3:16 pm

                      lolz. Oh Vicky, you do say some fucking ridiculous things when you’re speaking in tongues.

                      And oh so predictable too…

                      We can’t have any semi-civil discussions here about secularism without Vicky turning up and playing the persecution complex card /smugface

                      And of course, she misses the whole human rights issue concerning witnessing and it’s exploitative nature in terms of social networks and the negative consequences therein on children. Particularly in teh context of school environs and bullying…

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  20 April 2012 at 11:43 pm

                  The kids shouldn’t need to opt out – religion shouldn’t be in schools during school time. Really, how hard is it to understand that?

            • Draco T Bastard 12.1.1.1.1.2
              20 April 2012 at 11:49 pm

              Who’s forcing it on you?

              The religious are and it’s not upon me but upon children who are incapable of differentiating between truth and BS. The schools should not have to make time available for religion.

              (Which of course it wasnt’)

              Yes it was – you had to go to the assembly and listen to the prayer didn’t you? That’s force because you had no choice.

              Oh, a proper little Dawkins in the making, what a precious…

              What a surprise, not happy with the message you then resort to ad hominem attack

              • McFlock …
                21 April 2012 at 12:19 am

                I quite liked the allegation that wanting a genuinely secular education equalled wanting religious people forcibly detained on mental health grounds.
                   
                That logical leap certainly suggested that one religious advocate might be closer to quaifying than others.

                • Vicky32 …
                  21 April 2012 at 12:46 am

                  I quite liked the allegation that wanting a genuinely secular education equalled wanting religious people forcibly detained on mental health grounds.

                  And that’s how people like you end up ruining the reputation of the people who comment here that y’all have decided to hate – by pretending we said things we didn’t say!
                  I have a degree in education. I have said loud and long through out this thread that I want and agree with the secular education that is mandated by the Education Act. Yet you pretend I said otherwise.  Read back to what I actually said, and try to restrain your impulse to lie about what Christians say. I was quoting Sam Harris, numb-nuts, he’s the one who said he wants Christians locked up so they can’t indoctrinate ‘innocent children’.

                  • NickS …
                    21 April 2012 at 3:21 pm

                    lulz, I do <3 it when apologists quote mine atheists and claim Harris and Dawkins want parents incarcerated for forcing their religious beliefs on their children (and others), when all they did is point out the exploitative nature of much of conversion and it's occasional perturbing closeness to non-physical forms of child abuse.

                    So, by all means Vicky, provide us with teh quotes that show they want to do what you claim they do. Or make a retraction.

              • rosy …
                21 April 2012 at 12:41 am

                “Yes it was – you had to go to the assembly and listen to the prayer didn’t you? That’s force because you had no choice.”

                Yes, that’s my experience at primary school too. We had a Jewish girl in our class who was made to stand outside the hall during religious education – stand, not sit, and nor was she allowed to go elsewhere. I thought she was lucky (I didn’t understand religious intolerance then, but that was a good starting point in learning) and I tried to see if I could join her, but sadly I had no letter from my parents asking to be excused. So yeah – forced religious instruction for the masses.

                • Vicky32 …
                  21 April 2012 at 1:30 am

                  Yes, that’s my experience at primary school too. We had a Jewish girl in our class who was made to stand outside the hall during religious education – stand, not sit, and nor was she allowed to go elsewhere. I thought she was lucky (I didn’t understand religious intolerance then, but that was a good starting point in learning) and I tried to see if I could join her, but sadly I had no letter from my parents asking to be excused. So yeah – forced religious instruction for the masses.

                  Really, I don’t know what to say to this! Will the story include a yellow star and a Judenfrei banner next time?
                  Where did you go to school? New Zealand? Seriously, I doubt it. I attended a state primary school in New Zealand (a state one, note – I wasn’t in the socio-economic band for private education, and we didn’t have any such thing as RE.) The girl I spoke of at our High School was the child of campaigning atheists, and was excluded by them, and was very unhappy about it (I would have been as well, being made the subject of such a drama.) I am sorry for waxing sarcastic above – but seriously, the story of the  poor little Jewish girl made to adopt a stress position outside the classroom, seems such a novelistic one! HBO strikes again – the Jewish kids in Rotorua primary, intermediate and secondary schools that I attended, all two of them, were the children of my Mum’s best childhood friend, and always made a point of flaunting their superior socio-economic status at us, carrying on Esther’s childhood rivalry with our Mum…

                  • rosy …
                    21 April 2012 at 1:56 am

                    Gosh Vicky, you do exaggerate – stress position… 🙄

                    On cue – that sort of religious intolerance lol.

                    • Vicky32 …
                      21 April 2012 at 2:38 am

                      On cue – that sort of religious intolerance

                      Oh, so, I am the intolerant one? Don’t be absurd. I asked you a heap of questions, because your story doesn’t sound very true to me… not true of a state school in NZ anyway, but instead of answering, you make with the insults.
                      I am reminded of the IDF, and their charming habits when it comes to tormenting Palestinian children. Sorry, Jews have used up all their sympathy chips with me…
                       

                    • rosy …
                      21 April 2012 at 2:56 am

                      State primary school – Waikato.

                      btw – a Jewish primary school girl in NZ !=Zionist thugs in Palestine. So yes, that sort of intolerance.

              • Vicky32 …
                21 April 2012 at 1:01 am

                The schools should not have to make time available for religion.

                What part of the Education Act (which I keep quoting) do you not understand? Schools do not have to make time available for religion!

                Yes it was – you had to go to the assembly and listen to the prayer didn’t you? That’s force because you had no choice.

                Cry me a river. No, we didn’t have to go to assembly. We could do as half the school did, and be late! To you all these years later, it’s a massively big deal – to us in 1966 to 1971, it was literally nothing. As I say, my father was an atheist, but a far more tolerant fair-minded one than most I’ve met, especially here! (Working class, English, a far cry from the upper middle class New Zealander with the massive chip on theshoulder that one encounters on the Standard.)  He was ‘down the school’ at any hint of anything unjust, but not about this – he was not as insecure about his childrens’ intelligence as you are (although I assume that as you don’t have children, your concern is for theoretical children, whom you assume are all a bit thick… 

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  21 April 2012 at 2:57 am

                  Schools do not have to make time available for religion!

                  Then why is this shit happening at school and in school time? Oh, that’s right, because some religious arseholes decided to make it available and then when children opt out they get ostracised. All the act should say is that religion should not be taught at school in school time.

                  BTW, you haven’t quoted the education act yet – you’ve merely said what you believe it contains.

                  He was ‘down the school’ at any hint of anything unjust, but not about this

                  Perhaps he didn’t realise that it was unjust.

                  Cry me a river. No, we didn’t have to go to assembly. We could do as half the school did, and be late!

                  Really? If I did that at any of the schools I went to I ended up in detention and/or getting caned.

                  • NickS …
                    21 April 2012 at 3:47 pm

                    lulz.

                    Anyhow, I find it most interesting that Vicky’s avoiding the current issue via diving into the past and trying to establish some sort of ground on which to normalise religious instruction in state schools.

                    • Vicky32 …
                      22 April 2012 at 4:19 pm

                      Anyhow, I find it most interesting that Vicky’s avoiding the current issue via diving into the past and trying to establish some sort of ground on which to normalise religious instruction in state schools.

                      Good grief you are a moron aren’t you?!
                      How many times do I have to say that I don’t support religious education in state schools? Could I say it any more plainly? I am reminded of the way y’all distort what Gosman and Pete George say, and then work your way up to a few cluster f bombs, and shit-storms of hate and indignation about what you said they said, not what they said! Because what I just said will turn into my supporting Pete and Gosman I want it on record that I don’t support them, I just think it would be a much better look for the Standard if you actually answered what they say and not what you wish they had said…
                      My crime seems to be that I questioned the truthfulness of some of the bizarre novelistic stories people here are telling about friends, and their children, and the children of friends of friends, and their own primary schooling any time between 5 and 55 years ago… I well know the temptation to exaggerate to make a good story better – the only problem is, that you risk losing all credibility 🙂 especially when  you tell the exaggerated story to someone who happens to actually know something about the subject – in my case, of state schooling in New Zealand between the 1960s and the 2000s.
                       

                    • KJT …
                      22 April 2012 at 4:54 pm

                      You mean when I tell you what is happening in the real world, right now, and you pooh pooh it because it does not fit your pre-conceived ideas.

                      Not exaggerated stories. fact!

                  • Vicky32 …
                    22 April 2012 at 3:53 pm

                    BTW, you haven’t quoted the educationact yet – you’ve merely said what you believe it contains.

                    What I know it contains, idiot. Look it up!

                    Perhaps he didn’t think  that it was unjust. (FIFY)

                    Working class, English, but he was still intelligent. You ‘lefties’ amuse me greatly, you’re all such snobs! Real lefties would make a meal of you…

                    Really? If I did that at any of the schools I went to I ended up in detention and/or getting caned.

                    Boys’ and boarding schools obviously! Are you one of those self-pitying men who constantly wail that it’s so unfair that girls weren’t caned? (Cause we weren’t 😀 ) You miss the point that because assembly was officially before school started (or there couldn’t have been a prayer, could there?) it wasn’t compulsory?

                • KJT …
                  21 April 2012 at 9:55 am

                  Vicky.
                  You are the one talking crap.

                  My kids primary school closed once a week for religious indoctrination. For half an hour. Unfortunately it was after my kids bus arrived so they were at school, anyway.

                  Because a few religious parents had taken over the board.

                  After my 5 year old started going on about nailing people up, including waking up with nightmares about it, I withdrew them.

                  We would never allow 5 year olds to be told about such extreme torture and violence except under the cover of religion.

                  The schools “Christians’ put all the kids who were not doing religion in the hall with no books, games, or anything else to do, or supervision.

                  Just recently a gay teenager of my acquaintance was told by the Baptist paster of a youth group that he was going to burn in hell.

                  Lovely people, Christians.

                  Not to mention all the adds for teachers, for publicly funded schools, which say that teachers must support the “special character”, i.e. religious indoctrination of students, of the school.

                  My experience is that those who believe in one load of crap, like sky fairies, are much more likely to believe in others, like creationism, Austrian economics or John Key.

                  • RedLogix …
                    21 April 2012 at 10:10 am

                    I think you have made the very common, and understandable error of confusing people who believe in a God, with fundamentalists…. who fool everyone and themselves that they believe in a God… but who don’t.

                    In my world fundamentalists are people who are completely blind and unaware of the real nature of religion which is actually about abstract and evanescent qualities such as justice, compasssion and dignity. Because of this blindness they construct instead a facade of a religion based on institutions, rituals and rules.

                    Which is what you experienced. I’m saddened and sorry to read how it has hurt people you know.

                    • NickS …
                      21 April 2012 at 3:10 pm

                      No True Scotsman alert.

                      And no, your version of religion is not the one “real” one as any look at believers beliefs quickly shows…

                    • Vicky32 …
                      22 April 2012 at 3:56 pm

                      I think you have made the very common, and understandable error of confusing people who believe in a God, with fundamentalists…. who fool everyone and themselves that they believe in a God… but who don’t.

                      Seconded, RedLogix! 😀

  13. freedom 13
    20 April 2012 at 11:35 am

    Crafar Farms official status: SOLD,
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10800234

    funny how the Chinese owners seem ok to talk about selling farms to NZ interests,
    So i guess it was just the National party who didn’t like the idea

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10800148

  14. bad12 14
    20 April 2012 at 11:40 am

    We,as in the we of New Zealand would seem to have 2 choices vis a vis the looming rental ‘price crunch’ facing those whose only means of accommodation is ‘to rent’,

    Choice 1 is to build our way out of a situation where for many of those on low and fixed incomes accommodation costs take between 50 and 70% of their income, a situation destined to become progressively worse as capital and labour are directed into the Christchurch rebuild leaving tenants in other city’s to face a growing shortage of accommodation along with the inevitable ‘rack renting’ that comes with such shortages,

    Choice 2 is to simply enact legislation requiring rental accommodation to be leased on the basis of 25% of the income of any and all tenants to be housed in that particular accommodation….

  16. Draco T Bastard 16
    20 April 2012 at 2:26 pm

    US slams Australia’s on-shore cloud fixation

    The United States’ global trade representative has strongly criticised a perceived preference on the part of large Australian organisations for hosting their data on-shore in Australia, claiming it created a significant trade barrier for US technology firms and was based on a misinterpretation of the US Patriot Act.

    opinion/analysis
    This is pretty much what you’d expect from the US Government — it’s looking out for its own interests and trying to push Australia to conform with it. However, I don’t view the US Trade Representative’s views as legitimate, when examined from an Australian perspective. US cloud computing companies such as Salesforce.com, Rackspace, Amazon and Google have committed very little infrastructure to the Australian market, and analysis after analysis has warned of the data security dangers of storing sensitive data in jurisdictions covered by US legislation, which can, at times, allow the US Government unprecedented access to private data.

    So, the “trade barrier” that the US is complaining about is the fact that the US government isn’t trusted.

  17. lprent 17
    20 April 2012 at 3:59 pm

    One quick reboot coming up. Looks like there is a problem in the network today..

  18. Jackal 18
    20 April 2012 at 4:00 pm

    Naturally poisonous water?

    There is nothing natural about our waterways becoming poisonous!

    • muzza 18.1
      20 April 2012 at 4:45 pm

      Reminds me of the lies that were told about the “e-coli cucumbers” in Europe.

      Yup it was all the fault of the organic farmers!

  19. ianmac 19
    20 April 2012 at 5:39 pm

    Is anyone else getting an email from Iprent regarding subscription manager? It is in a foreign language. Germam? Dutch?

  20. Doug 20
    20 April 2012 at 7:15 pm

    “Today’s New Zealand Roy Morgan Poll shows Prime Minister John Key’s National Party (49.5%, up 5.5%) improving its standing to its highest since last year’s NZ Election. The improvement in National’s vote comes at the expense of the two main Opposition parties — Labour (26.5%, down 4%) and the Greens (12.5%, down 4.5%) — the Greens result is similar to their polling achieved prior to the high achieved in the last Morgan Poll conducted at the time of Earth Hour.

    • Draco T Bastard 20.1
      20 April 2012 at 7:26 pm

      So, between this one and the last one, which of the two do you think is most likely to be the rogue one?

    • ianmac 20.2
      20 April 2012 at 7:30 pm

      Do you have a link Doug? I can only find Australian poll. Thanks.

    • Te Reo Putake 20.3
      20 April 2012 at 8:50 pm

      I can’t find ACT. Anyone know what happened to them? The gap between the current Government and the opposition is still just a few points and this poll was conducted before Jackpot John outed himself as a casino shill.

    • Reality Bytes 20.4
      20 April 2012 at 9:20 pm

      If it’s not a rogue poll for Labour, they have a fair bit of work ahead of them 😛

      I recon it’s more a rogue poll for the Nat’s as they seem to be registering a bit too high given current events. National is serving up their unpopular legislation early in their term to get it out of the way, and hope people forget about it come next election season. So yeah 49.5% sounds a tad high. I would have thought some kind of slight decline would make more sense, so maybe this is the rogue.

      Greens are probably registering a bit low, 15%+/- seems more reasonable, they have been very effective and confident in parliament. They raise good points, they are definitely set to become our third major party imo.

      Of course I have no frigging idea how people would vote, just basing all this conjecture on my personal theories and observations of attitudes of people whom I interact with.

      • McFlock 20.4.1
        20 April 2012 at 9:30 pm

        NZ1 seems pretty constant.
           
        ACT are a joke – at least the electorate recognise that much 🙂
          
        If nats go up next poll I’ll get drunk. I suspect they might not, though 🙂
         

        • Balanced View 20.4.1.1
          20 April 2012 at 9:49 pm

          Agree, ACT are a joke. They won’t be there next time.
          Regardless of the non too subtle swings between polls, public support for the Nats is likely to still sit well above Labour, and still around the same as Labour/Greens combined. All this after a difficult few weeks for the government.
          John Key must be pleased.

          • fender 20.4.1.1.1
            20 April 2012 at 10:09 pm

            And you coming from your usual impartial perspective sound happy too.

          • McFlock 20.4.1.1.2
            20 April 2012 at 10:13 pm

            NZ know Act are a joke – but Epsom know that it’s an extra electorate seat for the nats. So – barring personal tragedy or criminal proceedings – banks will be there next time. The tosser.
                
            Left and right are always going to balance out broadly. A year ago National could have comfortably governed alone – even up to or over 60 with its coalition partners.
               
            So far it is a spike against the trend. Key must be relieved that the knives that were half drawn have gone a bit back into the sheath. But I think he’d be looking for it to go back down to ~45-6 on a good day next time, and the knives will be out if it goes to 44-3.

            • Balanced View 20.4.1.1.2.1
              20 April 2012 at 10:22 pm

              I’m not sure that the Epsom seat is worth forgoing seeing as they poll so low (or not at all) and won’t take additional seats with them. They only cause unneeded embarrassment to National.
              I don’t think Key will be relieved, I dont think he was worried to begin with. And I’m not sure where you’re suggesting these knives were being drawn from?

              • McFlock …
                20 April 2012 at 10:33 pm

                Tories are like sharks. If one starts to bleed, the others attack it.
                   
                As for the relative value of a single seat – they know that right now. It is a single seat that will let them sell public assets, sell legislation to casinos, and continue selling New Zealanders down the river.

    • McFlock 21.1
      20 April 2012 at 7:52 pm

      cheers.
           
       

    • Anne 21.2
      20 April 2012 at 8:00 pm

      Anne 5.1.1.1
      13 April 2012 at 10:47 am
      “when is it going to start penetrating skulls and being reflected in the polls?”

      Your average Kiwi has a skull as thick as a Neanderthal and a brain to match.

      Can anyone (rwnj’s excepted) doubt it now?

  22. Pascal's bookie 22
    20 April 2012 at 7:46 pm

    Lol, Looks like dpf deleted a post:

    David Garrett (1,381) Says:
    April 20th, 2012 at 6:32 pm
    Has anyone noticed the thread about Lianne Dalziell has mysteriously vanished?

    What’s the story DPF??

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2012/04/general_debate_20_april_2012.html#comment-958211

    Thread in question was called something like “Occupying mp” and anout about some crap or other, with the commenters all calling Dalziell a drunk and blah blah blah.

    Remember that time dpf had a hissy fit when Idiot Savant said a Nat mp was drunk in the house, and I/S apologised and stuff.

    Yeah.

      • Pascal's bookie 22.1.1
        20 April 2012 at 9:28 pm

        …and an apology post appears…

        http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2012/04/retraction.html

        • McFlock 22.1.1.1
          20 April 2012 at 9:35 pm

          I didn’t bother soiling my eyeballs by clicking on the links, but I get the impression that Judith Collins should get Leanne Dalziell’s lawyers 🙂

          • mickysavage 22.1.1.1.1
            20 April 2012 at 10:44 pm

            Hehe

            There is one problem though.  Collins needs to show that Mallard and Little were also talking crap …

            I wonder if the slithery one has also retracted his post? 

        • Te Reo Putake 22.1.1.2
          20 April 2012 at 9:58 pm

          Ok, that apology gets Farrar of the hook. Probably. But where does that leave David Garrett? KB was just the conduit for his outburst. I’m guessing that Dalziell has a far more actionable case than Judith Collins could ever hope to muster on the basis of his repeated and, clearly, unprovable allegations. How many strikes is it now for Garrett?

        • vto 22.1.1.3
          20 April 2012 at 10:15 pm

          I read that post yesterday and thought he was taking “a readers email” a bit far. According to Farrar it was beyond scrutiny and 100% accurate. And he was basing all these accusations and things on this “readers email”.

          A judgment based solely on the prosecution is a worthless judgment.

          worthless ..,

          and now sheesh you should that old horse david garrett going crazy. what a cesspit – stinky stinky bleeaargh …

          • felix 22.1.1.3.1
            20 April 2012 at 10:21 pm

            I wonder if the “reader” who sent the “email” is a mate of “Bill and Mary Smith” 😀

  23. joe90 23
    20 April 2012 at 9:00 pm

    Ta-Nehisi Coates: The Blacks and the Conservatives and his follow-up post: Racism vs. the Race Card. The video in his second post is well worth the watch.

  24. vto 24
    20 April 2012 at 11:20 pm

    I find myself up late and working – what’s everyone talking about? It always helps me get my work done quicker ha..

  25. vto 25
    20 April 2012 at 11:36 pm

    I know – that milford dart tunnel. Gotta get more and faster – its the only way. But once there is more and faster and it all settles down, how are they going to get even morer and even fasterer? That’s what I would like to know because I don’t think they have actually thought about that. Or rather, they dont really care about that. It’s all just a good capital making exercise.

  26. Vicky32 26
    22 April 2012 at 4:05 pm

    fucking ridiculous things when you’re speaking in tongues.

    No reply button under this little gem, and I can’t remember who said it now, as every man and his dog seems to have decided to get in on the more-atheist-than-you act… 😀

    I am not a fundamentalist, therefore I don’t speak in tongues, but that doesn’t even matter as whoever said it was typing one handed, he was so in love with his own cleverness
    I don’t go in for effing and blinding, and insults, as I don’t see the need. Pity you do!
    For whoever it was said he was taking his son to Armageddon, all I can say it, I hope my son doesn’t meet you there, and that you can’t identify him… He’s an atheist right now, but things like facts don’t stop you men when you’re on a roll making with the ‘cleverness’!

  27. Pascal's bookie 27
    22 April 2012 at 4:56 pm

    It was me who mentioned my son, because you claimed he doesn’t exist. Just another thing you were wrong about in this thread.

    Other things you were wrong about includes how the religious education in schools program operates. Contra what you were saying, it isn’t at all limited to ten minutes before school, and it often is in the middle of the day, for uop to an hour a week. These facts were noted in the story linked to in the comment that started the discussion.

    Aside from that your comments have mainly been that evryone else must be lying about their experiences because , umm, you can vouch for how all christians in NZ would act, because you know some, and everyone else here just gets their views about Christians from the TV. Or something.

    And by the way, speaking in tongues is a pentacostal thing, not all pentacostalists are fundamentalist, and by an even greater stretch nor are all fundamentalists are pentacostal.