Daily Review 10/08/2015

34 comments on “Daily Review 10/08/2015 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. mickysavage 1

   10 August 2015 at 6:03 pm

   One of the Herald’s most liberal writers, Dita Di Boni, is having her column discontinued for “budgetary reasons”. Another liberal media voice is silenced …
   • ianmac 1.1

     10 August 2015 at 6:39 pm

     That is appalling. I always read Dita and applaud her sharp writing clarity. I reckon she got right up Key’s nose as did John Campbell. Same result. Wonder if there is any thing we could do show our support?
     • Ffloyd 1.1.1

       10 August 2015 at 8:46 pm

       Hope John Campbell has her on his new show.
   • tc 1.2

     10 August 2015 at 7:14 pm

     Another dissenting voice gone, whose a good little MSM poodle now. Good granny now go fetch some more cray cray mud and sling it about like the obediant dog of a paper you are.
   • weka 1.3

     10 August 2015 at 9:26 pm

     Is the column the whole of her work for the Herald or does she still have a job with them?
2. AB 2

   10 August 2015 at 6:15 pm

   Surprised Dita de Boni lasted that long. One of the few contributors worth even skimming in that increasingly anorexic Tory rag
3. Anne 3

   10 August 2015 at 6:39 pm

   Well, that is so blatantly political… Dita de Boni should come out in the open and publicly say so. Take the Deborah Cone-Hill contribution… she’s so self-obsessed it’s embarrassing. Has she gone for budgetary reasons? I think not… cos she’s on the right-hand side of the political road. Look who her bestest friend is… Cathy Odgers.
   • tc 3.1

     10 August 2015 at 7:19 pm

     She will keep her counsel if she wants anymore work.

     With not having any proper legislated public broadcasting to employee those who seek to provide an independent voice this is what it comes down to, toe the line or theres the door.
     • DoublePlusGood 3.1.1

       10 August 2015 at 7:51 pm

       She may as well just blow the lid off it and make a scene; it’s not like the right wing-controlled media is going to give her more work. She may as well go out guns blazing – and anyway, it could attract job offers from other circles.
       • tc 3.1.1.1

         11 August 2015 at 6:40 am

         It’d never get published so what would be gained.
   • Paul 3.2

     10 August 2015 at 8:03 pm

     Maybe it was this article that the editors found did not fit their budgets.

     ‘What could possibly go wrong with the TPP?

     New Zealand, New Zealand, New Zealand. Don’t you go worrying your pretty head about anything this Government is doing on your behalf. Remember to have an optimistic, aspirational look around you once in a while, and say, “What a great country I live in”.

     Don’t ever, ever worry that we are about to be sold down the river in Hawaii, where 12 countries are in the middle of agreeing to the Trans-Pacific Partnership. You don’t need to know what’s in it. We ourselves barely know, as we change our story by the day, but all you need to remember is a) we are great economic managers, and b) America, which holds almost all of the bargaining power, wants us to succeed economically almost more than we do.’

     Read the rest of the article below.

     http://www.nzherald.co.nz/dita-de-boni/news/article.cfm?a_id=611&objectid=11489469

     The article was so popularly received by people that the Herald was forced to do its favourite tactic in such situations and close the debate.
     • Ffloyd 3.2.1

       10 August 2015 at 9:13 pm

       Tried to share article to my fb twice. Didn’t work. Is this normal?
4. Ovid 4

   10 August 2015 at 7:26 pm

   With the release of the long list of flag designs, we’re now getting down to the pointy end. I know a lot of people have dismissed it as an expensive white elephant that’s mainly there to serve as John Key’s legacy, but we can’t stop it. We now have to think about what symbol we want to represent our nation. And I think that’s something bigger than party politics, however we got here.

   I’ve picked my favourite already and I invite you to give the matter some close thought.

   In the meantime, here’s Roman Mars with a TED talk on flag design.

   http://youtu.be/pnv5iKB2hl4
   • sabine 4.1

     10 August 2015 at 7:47 pm

     we have a flag.

     we don’t need a corporate logo for NZ.

     None of the designs look like they should be on a Countries flag, they migth look nice as a corporate logo, but a National Flag?

     ahh….money, somehow we have it in spades to spend it on a new flag…that no one really asked for, wanted, and most importantly that no-one but a few want to pay for.

     If Key wants a flag so bad, let him buy it.
     • Anne 4.1.1

       10 August 2015 at 8:06 pm

       +100

       The current flag talks. It’s steeped in history. It reminds us of what we once were and what we have become. It’s where our identity as a thriving multi-cultural nation lives on… In other words it’s a living flag.

       Sabine is right. All those designs are nothing more than empty logos. They’re not representative of a living flag. They’re nothing. Just like JK and his neo-liberal ilk.

       I will fight against NZ being turned into a nothing nation!

       PS. There is one exception – the ‘stylised’ Union Jack in the corner representing our 200 year history as the nation of NZ and the Southern Cross.
       • Anne 4.1.1.1

         10 August 2015 at 8:21 pm

         PPS. At least it is reminiscent of our present flag… which is better than ‘nothing’.
       • greywarshark 4.1.1.2

         10 August 2015 at 9:02 pm

         The new flag will represent the death of the First NZ and all its hopes and beliefs.as represented by the old flag.
     • Ffloyd 4.1.2

       10 August 2015 at 8:50 pm

       We should have a flag dedicated to key. One made of rags, depicting the tatters he has brought our country to.
       • maui 4.1.2.1

         10 August 2015 at 9:27 pm

         I’m excited by a degenerative flag process, where we unwind through all our previous flag changes over history and end up back at the Union Jack in maybe 20 years time. It would pretty much describe where we’re heading currently – backwards.
     • Pat 4.1.3

       10 August 2015 at 8:56 pm

       he is…with our money
   • lprent 4.2

     10 August 2015 at 8:12 pm

     I can’t see anything wrong with the existing on. If we actually want a flag (which I doubt), then change the flag after we actually drop the links to the British monarchy. On the other hand I can’t see any particularly cogent points in getting rid of the monarchy either. I can see quite a few reasons not to – the effect on the Treaty of Waitangi for one.
     • b waghorn 4.2.1

       10 August 2015 at 9:14 pm

       “” On the other hand I can’t see any particularly cogent points in getting rid of the monarchy either””
       Because no one should be priveliged just because they where born into the right family.
       • weka 4.2.1.1

         10 August 2015 at 9:28 pm

         that’s not just an issue of the Royals though. I have privilege because of the family I was born into, how would we change that?

         Don’t worry, I’m not a royalist, my main problem with them is the extreme amount of money and assets, but it’s not like they’re unique in that respect.
       • lprent 4.2.1.2

         10 August 2015 at 11:57 pm

         “…no one should be priveliged just because they where born into the right family.”

         I really don’t care. The crucial issue is the place that the monarchy has in our constitutional base.

         One thing I always get amused about is watching strongly constitutional radical law students going into constitutional law course, and coming out as constitutional conservatives. The complexities of getting a working constitutional structure are immense. You only have to look at the USA’s dynastic constitutional monarchy to see the downsides of getting it wrong. Or any number of other countries where the presidential system completely sucks – France since the 1780s comes to mind.

         The constitutional drag anchor that some of the monarchies and the institutions around them provide for parliamentary democracies appears to add a degree of centuries long stability that is intensely valuable. It both allows change and a retardation of too much or too fast change.

         I am pretty sure that it is possible to drop a monarchy and replace it with institutions that are as morphable while being stable. However I think it takes decades to bed them in slowly. Right now we are still bedding in the supreme court. As far as I am concerned we are 5-10 years off adsorbing that (the key period will be looking at a complete court rollover as judges slowly get replaced).

         Besides as a amateur historian, I absolutely abhor revolutionaries and revolutions.

         Firstly because to have them means that someone screwed up decades earlier through stupid rigidity and short-term thinking.

         Secondly because the short to medium-term (ie 1-2 decade) consequences of revolutions is invariably horrible for large chunks of the society that they happen in.

         Sometimes they are required for the long-term good. But usually only because some idiots screwed up badly in the past and didn’t take care of their society.
         • b waghorn 4.2.1.2.1

           11 August 2015 at 7:07 am

           I assure I don’t want revolution .
           “”One thing I always get amused about is watching strongly constitutional radical law students going into constitutional law course, and coming out as constitutional conservatives.”
           Education calms the hottest head it would seem.
   • DoublePlusGood 4.3

     10 August 2015 at 8:15 pm

     I’d say that your one fails on the grounds of not using meaningful symbolism, and not being distinctive.
   • Mark 4.4

     10 August 2015 at 10:43 pm

     I would like to change the flag but as it is a John Key vanity show, I will vote against any change.My decision is based solely on the immense enjoyment I will get from seeing that lying two faced piece of shit not get his way for once. Hate is a great motivator.
5. Anne 5

   10 August 2015 at 8:17 pm

   I can’t see any particularly cogent points in getting rid of the monarchy either. I can see quite a few reasons not to – the effect on the Treaty of Waitangi for one.

   +100
6. Incognito 6

   10 August 2015 at 10:38 pm

   Not sure whether this should go under Open Mike but here it goes.

   The following is worthy of a read and syndicated from Bloomberg View Tougher rules can’t repair banking’s broken culture.

   This sentence is particularly striking:

   “Relying too much on rules rather than principles can create a narrow compliance mindset: If something isn’t explicitly forbidden, it’s all right. The result is perverse. Finding ways to get around the rules becomes praiseworthy.”

   I associate this with so many things in our current society that I find “perverse”.

   For example, our Government has made singeing hairs (hence the smell) into an art by getting extremely close to what is morally, ethically, or legally accepted or allowed. Exhibit (just one of many; I am not getting into the sheep saga): “Oh we think it’s pretty legal” by Steven Joyce.

   Another example, admittedly a little more far-fetched, the teaching or studying ‘to the test’ rather than aiming for excellence or, God forbid, put in (a little) extra effort because of passion for the subject.

   On that note, two words or concepts that I detest (I have a rather long list!) because they have now spread to all sorts of areas of life for which they (ought to) have much less applicability and utility or where they don’t belong at all: milestone and KPI.

   [lprent: Daily Review is the afternoon Open Mike. When we started to routinely get 300+ comments in at least one or two Open Mikes in a week, we tried a afternoon open mike with a different name. It seems to have be slowly working.

   Having very large numbers of comments hits the server and clients performance hard, and is also cumbersome to maintain conversations in. Anything that bleeds conversations to another post helps. ]
   • Draco T Bastard 6.1

     11 August 2015 at 9:24 am

     For example, our Government has made singeing hairs (hence the smell) into an art by getting extremely close to what is morally, ethically, or legally accepted or allowed. Exhibit (just one of many; I am not getting into the sheep saga): “Oh we think it’s pretty legal” by Steven Joyce.

     I directly asked a couple of RWNJs here about if they thought Slater and Ede breaking into the Labour Party server was moral and they refused to answer. One said that they were only discussing the legalities. So, I figure that they knew that Slater’s and Ede’s actions were immoral but they were going to defend them anyway.

     This, IMO, is why laws and rules need to be fairly broad with the final decision made by a jury and judge. Unfortunately, that sets precedent and a bunch of RWNJs on the jury will obviously, from experience here, find immoral actions legal if it’s their team as the defendants.

     These are the actions of people who consider winning to be more important than being right. And with these peoples immoral support this government is getting away with things that should be sending them to jail.
     • Incognito 6.1.1

       11 August 2015 at 1:00 pm

       Agreed, but to those people winning is being right! Everything else is secondary. It is not that winning and being right are two opposing or even conflicting positions but they are in fact one and the same thing; being right just has a different meaning. This is one reason why much ‘debate’ is just talking past/over each other because we attribute different meanings to the same word as if we speak different languages, which, in a sense, we do. The first step to resolving conflict is to know where the other comes from, what he’s saying, what he means. This is why I believe PR and spin doctors are the root cause of stifling or derailing political and public debate: because they warp and twist words and meanings and play games with semantics, confusing the proverbial out of people. It is another form of “divide and conquer”.
   • Incognito 6.2

     11 August 2015 at 12:46 pm

     Thanks for the clarification re. DR vs. OM; I’ll keep it in mind.
7. Pat 7

   10 August 2015 at 10:48 pm

   http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/aug/09/jeremy-corbyn-labour-overspending-did-not-cause-financial-crisis

   a message for NZ Labour in this?
8. appleboy 8

   11 August 2015 at 12:52 pm

   Wow I read Mike Hosking’s analysis of the dairy situation

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/Mike-Hosking/news/article.cfm?a_id=947&objectid=11494689

   It’s all OK. Mike says there’s nothing to worry about. Whew. That’s all right then.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS