Written By:
- Date published:
5:30 pm, September 24th, 2024 - 13 comments
Categories: Daily review -
Tags:
Daily review is also your post.
This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Don’t forget to be kind to each other …
Relationship between Health Officials and Doctor's the worst it's ever been, according to leading Health Officials. Cathy Costello & NZF appear to be in the pockets of Big Tobacco ???
And many doctors would be generally be Nat voters….
More Turkeys who voted for xmas however they'll be enjoying the tax break from their investment properties.
GP's you really got played. Time to maybe dust off that Oz registration you hedged your bets with eh ?
There is an interesting korero on the horizon on an upcoming Working Group.
"Iwi Leader Helmut Modlik laid down a Treaty debate challenge to David Seymour:
Helmut Modlik has had enough, he’s calling ACT leader David Seymour’s bluff.
The Te Rūnanga o Toa Rangatira chief executive says Seymour has constantly challenged New Zealanders to have a national conversation about the Treaty of Waitangi but it’s a charade.
“I’m disappointed by David’s divisive rhetoric,” said Modlik. “Either stop the charade around a national conversation and debate and kill the Treaty Principles Bill now, or let’s publicly debate what the Treaty means in the 21st century."
"That’s right folks, The Working Group is proud to announce that we will be hosting the Iwi vs David Seymour Treaty Debate, 7.30pm October 8th, live-streamed on Rova, Youtube, Facebook, Tictok, Twitter, The Daily Blog AND simulcast live on Sky TV Channel 83!"
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2024/09/24/exclusive-the-working-group-to-host-iwi-vs-seymour-treaty-debate/
As a political tragic, I've watched a few of the Working Group and there is sometimes some real gems. Hooten passionately dismissing Hobsons Pledge a couple of weeks ago a highlight.
Seems Brash is offended because Hooton said he was only pretending to be a racist pos.
.
This is because Brash considered the implication that he was insincere in his beliefs highly defamatory, and has “retained specialist counsel”, according to his lawyer, former Act MP Stephen Franks. A letter laying out Brash’s position was sent to Hooton and The Working Group.
When contacted by The Spinoff, Brash made it clear that his defamation claim concerned only one aspect of Hooton’s comments. “I mean calling someone a racist these days is almost fashionable. It’s become so common. I do resent that, and deeply resent that, but when he claims that I was promoting a view which I simply don’t agree with, don’t believe in myself – I mean, that is quite preposterous.”
https://thespinoff.co.nz/media/24-09-2024/matthew-hooton-don-brash-and-the-defamation-drama-behind-a-deleted-podcast
Yep, I recall that vibe, that Brash didn't believe in what he was up to.
I have to agree with Brash, a lot of his political positions are preposterous and totally wrong, but sincerely held. He is a mild mannered person, but dangerously ideological as per capitalism rules OK. Ultimately restoration of a gentry class precariat order, with workers and Maori etc under foot.
Seymour is the in kind continuance.
Massive fail by Bradbury and this "working group" circus. What are they doing? Pushing the boundaries of their precious free (hate) speech, then suddenly Brash fills his colostomy bag over exactly that and they delete the evidence.
These amateur clowns are a parody of themselves are they not?
It's not radical to conclude Brash and Seymour are bone deep racist, so Hooton is mainstream in that respect, but his most important observation is that Damien Grant is a dickhead. That ex-con is someone I would not piss on if he was on fire.
Also, Duncan Grieve is a cock and, I suspect, a closet right wing nut job. He's managed to make David Seymour look upstanding and reasonable in this article, which may have been the real purpose of it all along…
Like 100% Seymore & Brash are bone deep racist's must remember that one.
California sues ExxonMobile for lying about plastics recycling being feasible for decades.
More oil company misinformation on a gigantic scale causing planetary harm.
When the almighty free market picks and chooses it's price to maximise it's cut.
//
I noticed something strange earlier this month when I pulled up the Uber app and requested a ride.
My hypothesis was that Uber seemed to be picking a higher price because I had credits in my account. I might be willing to spend more because my ‘real’ out of pocket cost was less, and those credits were trapped anyway.
I decided to use my Uber credits for Uber Eats instead. That pricing seemed normal. I need to keep my eye on this.
Reader Charles says he noticed something similar.
[…]
https://viewfromthewing.com/uber-caught-overcharging-how-having-credits-in-your-account-might-be-costing-you/
Why sports betting might not be such a great idea.
.
Because different states legalized sports gambling at different times, social scientists can compare different measures of well-being in states that did legalize with those that did not, before and after legalization.
Alarming patterns have started to emerge. Two recent working papers look at the economic impacts of legalization. One, by Northwestern University’s Scott Baker and colleagues, finds that legal sports gambling depletes households’ savings. Specifically, for every $1 spent on betting, households put $2 less into investment accounts. States see big increases in the risk of overdrafting a bank account or maxing out a credit card. These effects are strongest among already precarious households.
A second paper, from the economists Brett Hollenbeck of UCLA and Poet Larsen and Davide Proserpio of the University of Southern California, tells a similar story. Looking specifically at online sports gambling, they find that legalization increases the risk that a household goes bankrupt by 25 to 30 percent, and increases debt delinquency. These problems seem to concentrate among young men living in low-income counties—further evidence that those most hurt by sports gambling are the least well-off.
A third recent paper, from the University of Oregon economists Kyutaro Matsuzawa and Emily Arnesen, shows another, perhaps more surprising—and certainly more harrowing—harm of gambling legalization: domestic violence. Earlier research found that an NFL home team’s upset loss causes a 10 percent increase in reported incidents of men being violent toward their partner. Matsuzawa and Arnesen extend this, finding that in states where sports betting is legal, the effect is even bigger. They estimate that legal sports betting leads to a roughly 9 percent increase in intimate-partner violence.
https://archive.li/Nt3AD (theatlantic)
The other end is even uglier i.e. some of the people behind these sports betting orgs.
Many premier league sides shirt sponsors are for sites illegal in china, the target market, operated outside china by nefarious sorts using indentured labour conditions that make qatars world cup construction force look humane and well paid.
Premier league clubs still keep taking the money though.