Open mike 01/08/2012

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, August 1st, 2012 - 205 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…

205 comments on “Open mike 01/08/2012 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Jenny 1
    1 August 2012 at 6:18 am

    There has been an unexpected drop in Japanese industrial production.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10823292

    This drop in manufacturing has not been caused by peak, oil or the complete nuclear shutdown, (previously responsible for 30% of Japan’s electricity supply), but by a global drop in demand for manufactured products caused by the global economic recession.

    Though undermined by this latest drop in manufacturing demand, Japan had recently been experiencing a recovery due to government spending on earthquake reconstruction and incentives to buy fuel-efficient cars.

    This points the way forward for the Japan economy. A switch to the manufacture of WWS and away from private automobiles would see a huge drop in cost per unit of this technology, kick starting demand, and possibly creating a brand new global market for this technology.

    At a time when the world needs it most.

    With the unused manufacturing capacity caused by the recession Japan has the historical opportunity to harness their industrial might and reputation for innovation to become a global leader in WWS.

    • Colonial Viper 1.1
      1 August 2012 at 10:14 am

      An unexpected drop in Japanese manufacturing? Unexpected to whom, the gormless business wizards at the Herald? Global PMI numbers a full month ago showed the truth in manufacturing across the world.

      http://www.zerohedge.com/news/june-global-pmi-summary-euro-area-slowdown-beginning-impact-rest-world

      We can also see that Japan, a country which has been extremely reliant on (and succesful at) massive trade surpluses with the rest of the world is currently going under because, as you say, falls in foreign orders have been dropping signficantly.

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443570904577547682790871116.html

      And you said

      This drop in manufacturing has not been caused by peak, oil…but by a global drop in demand for manufactured products caused by the global economic recession.

      But the global economic recession is driven (in part) by peak oil. BTW Japan only got away with shutting down its nuclear power plants because its economy was slowing down by happenchance.

      This points the way forward for the Japan economy. A switch to the manufacture of WWS and away from private automobiles would see a huge drop in cost per unit of this technology, kick starting demand, and possibly creating a brand new global market for this technology.

      You are advocating a ‘green growth’ strategy here, in order to “kick start demand”? You do know that if Japan succeeds in greatly increasing WWS manufacturing, it is going to be through firing up fossil fuel power stations?

    • Lanthanide 1.2
      1 August 2012 at 10:29 am

      What the hell does WWS stand for?

      • weka 1.2.1
        1 August 2012 at 11:27 am

        I’m wondering that too. Google and wiki don’t bring up anything useful.

        • Colonial Viper 1.2.1.1
          1 August 2012 at 11:40 am

          In my wildest imagination i’m guessing Wind Wave Solar.

          • Jenny 1.2.1.1.1
            1 August 2012 at 8:13 pm

            Wind, Water and Solar technologies can provide 100 percent of the world’s energy, eliminating all fossil fuels. Here’s how

            Scientific American October 26, 2009

            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030&page=2

            Since CV doesn’t read links, I will have to try the Sysop’s patience by putting in large slabs of text.

            Today the maximum power consumed worldwide at any given moment is about 12.5 trillion watts (terawatts, or TW), according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The agency projects that in 2030 the world will require 16.9 TW of power as global population and living standards rise, with about 2.8 TW in the U.S. The mix of sources is similar to today’s, heavily dependent on fossil fuels.

            If, however, the planet were powered entirely by WWS, with no fossil-fuel, nuclear or biomass fuels, intriguing savings occur. Global power demand would be only 11.5 TW, and U.S. demand would be 1.8 TW. The decline occurs because, in most cases, electrification is a more efficient way to use energy. For example, only 17 to 20 percent of the energy in gasoline is used to move a vehicle (the rest is wasted as heat), whereas 75 to 86 percent of the electricity delivered to an electric vehicle goes into motion.

            Even if demand did rise to 16.9 TW, WWS could provide far more power. Detailed studies by us and others indicate that energy from the wind, worldwide, is about 1,700 TW. Solar, alone, offers 6,500 TW. Of course, wind and sun out in the open seas, over high mountains and across protected regions would not be available. If we subtract these and low-wind areas not likely to be developed, we are still left with 40 to 85 TW for wind and 580 TW for solar, each far beyond future human demand. Yet currently we generate only 0.02 TW of wind power and 0.008 TW of solar. These sources hold an incredible amount of untapped potential.

            The other WWS technologies will help create a flexible range of options. Although all the sources can expand greatly, for practical reasons, wave power can be extracted only near coastal areas. Many geothermal sources are too deep to be tapped economically. And even though hydroelectric power now exceeds all other WWS sources, most of the suitable large reservoirs are already in use.

            The Plan: Power Plants Required
            Clearly, enough renewable energy exists. How, then, would we transition to a new infrastructure to provide the world with 11.5 TW? We have chosen a mix of technologies emphasizing wind and solar, with about 9 percent of demand met by mature water-related methods. (Other combinations of wind and solar could be as successful.)

            51 percent of the demand, comes from 3.8 million large wind turbines (each rated at five megawatts) worldwide. Although that quantity may sound enormous, it is interesting to note that the world manufactures 73 million cars and light trucks every year.

            40 percent of the power comes from photovoltaics and concentrated solar plants, with about 30 percent of the photovoltaic output from rooftop panels on homes and commercial buildings. About 89,000 photovoltaic and concentrated solar power plants, averaging 300 megawatts apiece, would be needed.

            The rest includes 900 hydroelectric stations worldwide, 70 percent of which are already in place.

            Only about 0.8 percent of the wind base is installed today. The worldwide footprint of the 3.8 million turbines would be less than 50 square kilometers (smaller than Manhattan). When the needed spacing between them is figured, they would occupy about 1 percent of the earth’s land, but the empty space among turbines could be used for agriculture or ranching or as open land or ocean. The nonrooftop photovoltaics and concentrated solar plants would occupy about 0.33 percent of the planet’s land.

            If we stick with fossil fuels, demand by 2030 will rise to 16.9 TW, requiring 13,000 large new coal plants, which themselves would occupy a lot more land, as would the mining to supply them.

            • Jenny 1.2.1.1.1.1
              1 August 2012 at 9:00 pm

              If we do not adopt a plan along the lines laid out by Sci Am, see above, then the world is on a track to a 6 degree C increase. According to scientists such a huge increase in global temperatures will destroy agriculture and render large parts of the globe uninhabitable. On top of the environmental disaster, rising sea levels will see large areas of coastal land either covered by sea water directly or severly degraded by salt water inclusion, leading to forced mass migration on a scale unmatched in human history. No part of the globe will be left untouched by the catastrophe.

              “The world’s energy system is being pushed to breaking point,”.

              “Our addiction to fossil fuels grows stronger each year.”

              “Many clean energy technologies are available but they are not being deployed quickly enough to avert potentially disastrous consequences.”

              “Energy-related CO2 emissions are at historic highs, and under current policies we estimate that energy use and CO2 emissions would increase by a third by 2020, and almost double by 2050. This would be likely to send global temperatures at least 6C higher within this century.”

              Maria van der Hoeven executive director of the International Energy Agency

              http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/apr/25/governments-catastrophic-climate-change-iea

              • Colonial Viper …
                1 August 2012 at 10:09 pm

                SciAm plan is unachievable. World can’t convert to electric or hybrid vehicles. Would require massive (fossil fuel) energy investment just to refine the rare earth minerals, steel and aluminium required.

  2. tc 2
    1 August 2012 at 6:27 am

    Has Weldon ever produced the number for donations to chch earthquake recovery he gathered while taking a leave of absence to collect from his overseas contacts ?

  3. Morrissey 3
    1 August 2012 at 6:44 am

    Sir Graham Henry risking rugby ridicule
    NZ Newswire, 30 July 2012

    Former International Rugby Board referee selector Bob Francis fears Sir Graham Henry will be “ridiculed” by the global rugby fraternity following his controversial claims about the All Blacks’ 2007 World Cup quarter-final.

    Henry claims he pushed for an IRB investigation following New Zealand’s loss to France in Cardiff.

    In his biography, Graham Henry: Final Word, the former All Blacks coach was highly critical of the performance of English referee Wayne Barnes and his assistant referees.

    Henry described the match as bizarre, believing at least 40 infringements committed by the French were overlooked.

    Francis, on the IRB panel that selected Barnes to control the final, described Henry’s views as extreme. He was also disappointed that Henry’s legacy would take a hit after having guided the All Blacks to World Cup glory last year.

    He expected the IRB to shortly pen a critical response to Henry’s comments.

    “There will be some support for his views within New Zealand,” Francis told NZ Newswire. “But having some knowledge of the northern hemisphere scene, I think his comments will be ridiculed, without doubt. The saddest part really is that Graham Henry bounced back from 2007 and did so well. He won the (2011) World Cup and was knighted and so he left on a great note. I think this has taken some gloss off that.”

    Francis, a former test referee and mayor of Masterton, said he and former IRB referees boss Paddy O’Brien – also a New Zealander – analysed the Cardiff Test for several hours the day after it was played.

    “We admitted all along there were some referee mistakes in the game, or omissions,” he said. “But we never at any stage believed it was anywhere near the extent in this book. We reject the assertion totally and would question the method of the analysis.”

    O’Brien refused to comment on the Henry revelations on Monday. He was critical of the opprobrium aimed at Barnes in the weeks following the defeat.

    The NZRU produced a short statement on Monday distancing itself from Henry’s comments.

    “It was well documented at the time and as part of our 2007 campaign review, that there were concerns about the refereeing. We took our concerns to the IRB, they listened, and everyone has moved on since then,” the statement said.
    NZN

    Read more: http://www.3news.co.nz/Sir-Graham-Henry-risking-rugby-ridicule—Francis/tabid/415/articleID/263193/Default.aspx#ixzz22E7zvjQa

    • alex 3.1
      1 August 2012 at 7:41 am

      The actual text of his interview read something like “I briefly considered match-fixing, then dismissed the possibility.” The only person who deserves ridicule is the SST journo who blew it all out of proportion.

      Besides, 40 missed penalties? You’d be a fool to not at least briefly consider it.

      • Professor Longhair 3.1.1
        1 August 2012 at 10:16 am

        The actual text of his interview read something like “I briefly considered match-fixing, then dismissed the possibility.” The only person who deserves ridicule is the SST journo who blew it all out of proportion.

        The person who rightly deserves ridicule for this foolish claim is Henry, for even raising it. There is nothing at all to support his allegation.

        Besides, 40 missed penalties? You’d be a fool to not at least briefly consider it.

        You’d be a fool to accept such a baseless and unsupported claim. Henry has no evidence to back up that wild claim. The fact is that France did NOT infringe during the long period in the second half when the All Blacks tried (in vain) to breach their defence.

    • Te Reo Putake 3.2
      1 August 2012 at 7:49 am

      I hope there’s a chapter on cheating by the All Blacks, the current captain specifically. However, the guts of rugby’s problems lie with its ridiculously complicated nature. Football has 11 ‘laws’ that have stayed essentially constant for a century, rugby has hundreds of rules that regularly change. In football or league, the crowd usually sees the offence that causes the whistle to be blown; in rugby, nobody knows.

      • Pete George 3.2.1
        1 August 2012 at 7:55 am

        That rugby laws are different to football laws is something that differentiates them as quite different games. Diversity is a good thing.

        Laws help define the character of the game. Complexity and a range of contests make rugby the unique game that it is. We can enjoy the differences.

        • Te Reo Putake 3.2.1.1
          1 August 2012 at 8:03 am

          🙄
           
          ps. “To choose sports for fashion or you personality. The basic idea is to enjoy yourself. That is important. It’s outdoor sport that has recently started to shine. Outdoor sport is the science to raise spirits”

          The famous Japanese philisopher RAV 4.

          • Colonial Viper 3.2.1.1.1
            1 August 2012 at 9:22 am

            I now have coffee on my keyboard. Thanks.

            • Te Reo Putake 3.2.1.1.1.1
              1 August 2012 at 9:39 am

              Sorry, mate! Pete’s waffle was so similar to that spare tyre cover’s wording, I just couldn’t help myself.

      • Gosman 3.2.2
        1 August 2012 at 8:04 am

        Rugby Union is doing just fine around the world with it’s ‘complicated’ laws. It’s extremely debateable that simplyfied games do better anyway. Rugby League is definately less popular than Rugby Union around the World where it is only in Papua New Guinea and the Eastern states of Australia where it is the more popular form of Rugby.

        • Te Reo Putake 3.2.2.1
          1 August 2012 at 8:19 am

          League is also more popular in the UK in terms of spectator attendence, I understand, though Rugby has the better TV audiences. And the Perth Pirates will be joining the NRL in two seasons, taking that code to both coasts of Oz.
           
          Rugby in NZ is dying, according to a report released this morning. The ITM cup teams are losing millions each year.

          • Gosman 3.2.2.1.1
            1 August 2012 at 8:26 am

            I think you will find that your view about the spectator attendance difference between Rugby League and Rugby Union in the UK is based on out of date data. Rugby Union has pretty much caught up and surpassed Rugby League in the Club game and in the International game there is no comparison. Rugby League struggles to fill 40,000 seat stadiums whilst England, Scotland, and Wales regularly fill 70 -80,000 seat stadiums for the big Internationals.

            It is also incorreect when to state it is in the UK and not England. Rugby League is pretty much non-existant outside the North of England and (one) London club as a Professional spectator sport.

          • Gosman 3.2.2.1.2
            1 August 2012 at 8:39 am

            The NRL expansion is not as settled as you would like to make out. I have seen reports over the past few years which have said expansion to any number of places was imminent, (including to Wellington even). As for ITM provinces losing money, this happens in professional sport all the time. The Warriors had to be bailed out a few years ago. That didn’t mean Rugby League in NZ was dying or even in much trouble.

          • Chris 3.2.2.1.3
            1 August 2012 at 9:12 am

            That link you posted doesn’t state that they are losing millions each year? It says their revenue dropped in 2011 and states the world cup as the likely reason for that.

            That report said that 9 of the 14 teams made a profit.

          • Rob 3.2.2.1.4
            1 August 2012 at 9:13 am

            Only 1 NRL franchise makes any money, they tried expansion before to Perth (your an expert TRP you must remember the reds) and it bit them big time.

            What is it you dont like about NZ Rugby.

            • Colonial Viper 3.2.2.1.4.1
              1 August 2012 at 9:17 am

              What is it you dont like about NZ Rugby.

              The special treatment and high levels of tax payer subsidies required in order to operate its loss making events and venues, for starters.

              • Gosman …
                1 August 2012 at 9:25 am

                I thought you would be all for State picking winners and providing them with preferential treatment.

                • Rob …
                  1 August 2012 at 9:30 am

                  FFS CV, you really are an embittered little c**k.

                  • prism …
                    1 August 2012 at 9:50 am

                    Rob

                    The special treatment and high levels of tax payer subsidies required in order to operate its loss making events and venues, for starters.

                    What’s your beef? Be a man and face the facts. CV stated facts which are sour – the facts about rugby’s present situation, with the money and interest sucked up by the business interests and professionals not the keen people in the regions. But the money guys still present rugby as a family and nationwide sport and therefore the venues should be provided by the public.

                    • Rob …
                      1 August 2012 at 3:30 pm

                      My beef, is that I volunteer a lot of time to community rugby and two other sports. I think it is good for kids to be involved in it. I dont like arm chair wankers who do nothing but run it down.

                      So thats my beef.

                    • McFlock …
                      1 August 2012 at 3:41 pm

                      My beef is that my city council keeps writing off debts accrued by the local rugby union, after building a multihundredmilliondollarfuckingstadium. At the expense of everyone else in the city.

                    • prism …
                      2 August 2012 at 10:07 am

                      Rob
                      I said
                      “with the money and interest sucked up by the business interests and professionals not the keen people in the regions. But the money guys still present rugby as a family and nationwide sport and therefore the venues should be provided”

                      My beef is that I was stating real problems that affect your good efforts so why not try and read through a full paragraph and form an understanding from the full comment. Then comment on whether I was suggesting something you had experienced, understood or whatever. Otherwise it’s a waste of time you trying to participate in a forum where people enter their thoughts and respond to others thoughts not just repeating some litany of moans. No reason for you to call us armchair wankers, know thyself son.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    1 August 2012 at 9:51 am

                    Fuck providing breakfasts in schools dear tax payers, these professional corporate (and government) sponsored rugby teams need a new half billion dollar stadium to strut their stuff!

                    • Frank Macskasy …
                      1 August 2012 at 1:48 pm

                      “Fuck providing breakfasts in schools dear tax payers, these professional corporate (and government) sponsored rugby teams need a new half billion dollar stadium to strut their stuff!”

                      Damn straight.

                      It sez a lot for our skewed sense of priorities that National could oversee spending of $220 million of public money on a rugby tournament, when 220,000 kids live in poverty.

                      No matter which way you colour it, Rob, that is sickening.

                    • Vicky32 …
                      2 August 2012 at 12:42 am

                      Fuck providing breakfasts in schools dear tax payers, these professional corporate (and government) sponsored rugby teams need a new half billion dollar stadium to strut their stuff!

                      That hacks me off, too! Thugby can pay its own way – if enough people give a toss about it! I assure you, far fewer do than the media think – even Radio NZ assumes we care. I thought they’d know better!

                • Frank Macskasy …
                  1 August 2012 at 9:33 am

                  Perhaps, Gosman because unlike you, fairly sensible people prefer public money to be spent on housuing, education and healthcare – rather than wasting $220+ million on a rugby tournament.

                  When we have 4,276 people on a State Housing waiting list – whilst spending millions on a rugby game – then there is something seriously wrong.

                  The question is, Gosman, why do you find it so hard to relate to something so basic in our needs?

                  • Gosman …
                    1 August 2012 at 9:46 am

                    I’ve already mentioned this to you previously, (which unsurprisingly you seemed to fail to comprehend for some reason), if you had a problem with Government funding for the RUWC you should take it up with the members of the last Labour led Government in this country who were instrumental in winning the hosting rights. In short blame Helen and Trevor.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      1 August 2012 at 9:54 am

                      Oh Gossie, that’s past wasteful expenditure on rugby (a “sunk cost” in the terminology, you know). And so if you agree it was shit, let’s stop doing it from now on eh?

                    • Frank Macskasy …
                      1 August 2012 at 10:00 am

                      How did Labour fund $220 million on the rugby world cup, Gosman?

                      How does winning hosting rights mean that taxpayers have to foot the bill?

                      Where did it say in the contract that we were liable to pay for the WRC, Gosman?

                    • Gosman …
                      1 August 2012 at 10:48 am

                      Because a large part of the expenditure was built into the Hosting right’s agreement which Labour signed. The tens of millions of dollars in funding the Government paid to cover the shortfall in the ticket sales was something Labour signed up to. So essentially was the money to provide suitable stadiums and support infrastructure. Yes some funding was driven and controlled by National when they got into power but the vast bulk of it was already committed the moment we won the hosting rights. You seem to fail to grasp this rather simple concept.

                  • Treetop …
                    1 August 2012 at 3:11 pm

                    Re HNZ, King said on Morning Report that a person has to take three rejection letters to HNZ from landlords as part of being housed. HNZ are doing all they can to not subsidise housing for those who are really struggling.

                  • mike e …
                    1 August 2012 at 5:06 pm

                    Frank don’t forget the billion dollars local bodies spent as well.
                    Now the rugby brain injured National party want to stop local authorities from doing it again after Shonkey has taken all the Kudos
                    Cat walk
                    team photo
                    Kinky handshake

                • KJT …
                  1 August 2012 at 9:34 am

                  Winners!
                  Not propping up losing businesses, with artificially low wages, taxpayer subsidies and privatisation, that cannot make a go of it otherwise.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    1 August 2012 at 9:41 am

                    Especially losing businesses and events which are showcases and wallet stuffers for the rich and the corporates. It seems the Right are very fond of that kind of state provided “welfare”.

                • Daveosaurus …
                  1 August 2012 at 2:00 pm

                  It makes more sense than backing losers, which is all that the current mob can do. How’s that Holiday Highway working out for you?

              • Te Reo Putake …
                1 August 2012 at 9:33 am

                Yep, what CV said and, of course, the boredom!
                 
                To answer a couple of points:
                 
                Chris, you need to read the article again. I didn’t say that each franchise was losing millions each year. I accurately reported that they are losing millions collectively. And that’s over many years. Further to that, clubs are dying in the provinces. Forced amalgamations or just closure are the realities for grassroots rugby. Meanwhile football continues to grow ever more popular (go the Footie Ferns!).
                 
                Gossie, dead right about the UK, I should have said England. I disagree about your assesment of local league, though. The Perth Reds (cheers, Rob) and the Warriors both went broke because of financial mismanagement, not because of the state of the game. The NRL will be expanding to WA and they will make it work. Just look at the turnout at the Warriors game there a week ago; bad result, but a whopping crowd. The next expansion phase will also include a new Brisbane team, likely to be based in the suburbs.

                • KJT …
                  1 August 2012 at 9:36 am

                  Grassroots rugby is going the way of grassroots yachting. Too much emphasis on those who are competing at the top end internationally, while starving those who play at local level.

                  • Rob …
                    1 August 2012 at 10:04 am

                    Bullshit, you guys know absolutely nothing as usual. Go to rugby grounds early Saturday morning if you could actually get out of bed on time and you will see loads of grass roots volunteers (coaches, refs , administrators) plus loads of kids playing the game. This is what you fundementally do not get and never will. Whatever your hatred of NZRU or the All Blacks , or the wold cup is, you guys have no idea of what it means at a local community level where lots of good families get involved just as they do for many sports.

                    Take your bigotry and stuff it up your pompous backside .

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      1 August 2012 at 10:19 am

                      “Take your bigotry and stuff it up your pompous backside” .
                       
                      Yes, I’d forgotten Rugby’s obsession with buggery, thanks for reminding me. And do check the sports draw section of today’s newspaper wherever it is you live. Count the number of rugby games. Then count the number of footy games. You’re not going to like the result, Rob.
                       
                      Rugby doesn’t even make it into the top twenty on this list of the games we play.

                    • framu …
                      1 August 2012 at 10:20 am

                      settle down rob – several people are actually saying the same thing as you

                      the general gist of things does seem to be

                      local/grassroots rugby – sweet as, nothing wrong with it

                      corporate rugby – not so good, syphons off taxpayer money to subsdise business ventures and deprives grassroots rugby of much needed funds

                      at least thats the way the discussion appears to me

                    • Frank Macskasy …
                      1 August 2012 at 10:29 am

                      Rob… Have you taken your meds this morning?!?!

                    • Rob …
                      1 August 2012 at 11:15 am

                      Hey Frank, “have you taken your meds this morning” HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, oh really, how original, wow I have never heard that before, my god you are an original comic genius, please stop my sides are acheing. The originality and the humour, classic…

                      As to you TRiPe, obviously we should just call off the whole game as you dont like it, Why dont you go out there if your legs can support your enourmous head and explain to the very few people who play the game or are at all interested in Rugby, that its all waste of time as you are an intellectual genius from the Standard and this is how you deem it to be. How about you tell these guys at half time that its boring you and that they engage in buggery, you dork.

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      1 August 2012 at 11:32 am

                      Cheers, Rob, but I can’t take credit for the slow painful death of rugby as a player sport. That’s entirely down to the game itself and its professional version fixated leadership who don’t give a toss about grassroots rugby, as long as the AB’s get paid. Funnily enough, in the small rural town where I live, the local rugby club limps on, reduced to a single team, with players mainly drawn from the nearest large town instead of from the locals. The sons of the soil round here either work on Saturdays or, you guessed it, play football.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      1 August 2012 at 11:34 am

                      As to you TRiPe, obviously we should just call off the whole game as you dont like it,

                      The games can go on, just not with tax payer handouts to the corporate entities involved.

                    • Rob …
                      1 August 2012 at 11:36 am

                      Go on TRiPe name the rugby club .

                    • TheContrarian …
                      1 August 2012 at 11:51 am

                      ” oh really, how original, wow I have never heard that before ”

                      Heh, while I don’t actually care about this conversation either way I can’t help but wonder how many people are asking about Rob taking his meds and in what capacity.

                      If they are medical professionals I strongly suggest following their advice.

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      1 August 2012 at 11:53 am

                      Why would I want to name the club, Rob? It’s not as if that’s an unusual situation; as I mentioned earlier, clubs are either shutting up shop or going through forced amalgamations right round the country. In the case of my local team, the other clubs have lent them players just so the competition can retain a rural away game every second week. It’s a pretty sad situation, but that’s how the NZRFU seem to want it.
                       
                      By the way, have I mentioned how pathetic the AB’s and Super 12 salaries actually are? The richest sportsmen in NZ tend to be footballers, golfers, yatchies and the occasional basketballer or baseballer. Rugby incomes reflect the global presence of the game, ie. zilch.

                    • Rob …
                      1 August 2012 at 12:10 pm

                      Oh I see now, so a sport is only valid if you get super heated salaries.

                    • Frank Macskasy …
                      1 August 2012 at 1:52 pm

                      @ Rob,

                      “Hey Frank, “have you taken your meds this morning” HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, oh really, how original, wow I have never heard that before, my god you are an original comic genius, please stop my sides are acheing. The originality and the humour, classic…”

                      I never claimed to be “original”. I don’t get paid enough to deliver original comic material on blogs.

                      “Take your bigotry and stuff it up your pompous backside .”

                      What? Anal sex on our first date? Do I get dinner first?

                    • Rob …
                      1 August 2012 at 2:03 pm

                      @ Frank, I know you didn’t claim to be original, and after reading your blog, its probably best you don’t.

                    • Frank Macskasy …
                      1 August 2012 at 2:08 pm

                      ” Frank, I know you didn’t claim to be original, and after reading your blog, its probably best you don’t.”

                      I’m honoured.

                      *doffs hat*

                    • mike e …
                      1 August 2012 at 5:12 pm

                      Mc Flock goose is more likely a mormon like Mitt the gitt gaffe prone

                • Rob …
                  1 August 2012 at 10:18 am

                  How is football or in our language soccer growing more popular. What happened to the Nix crowd numbers this year, where is your proof. In Auckland Junior club teams are down and have been decreasing for 3 years now.

                  • Te Reo Putake …
                    1 August 2012 at 10:30 am

                    The Nix had a poor season and they play in a rubbish venue. Both factors kept attendence down. Even so, the atmosphere at a Nix game is still more exciting than listening to drunken twits moooing Ohhhtagohhh or ringing a cow bell. That does not alter the fact that football continues to grow in player numbers, while rugby continues to decline. I’m too polite to ask for a citation for your claim about numbers dropping in Ak, but for the benefit of the others you might want to front up with the evidence.

                    • Gosman …
                      1 August 2012 at 10:53 am

                      Westpac Stadium would be one of the better sports grounds in the country. I don’t think you can balme the stadium for any issues with attendances.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      1 August 2012 at 10:55 am

                      The Nix had a poor season and they play in a rubbish venue.

                      Well, just copy an answer from the NZRU playbook: time for a brand new stadium! A fully covered one please, to keep up with the Joneses.

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      1 August 2012 at 11:03 am

                      It’s a cricket ground, Gos. It’s an awful venue for watching the football codes because the crowd is so far from the action. Which I why I hope West Ham United don’t move to the London Olympic stadium and why league games in Sydney look so poorly attended, too. 20k spectators in a stadium built for 80k always seems dismal.

                    • Pete George …
                      1 August 2012 at 12:11 pm

                      It’s a cricket ground, Gos. It’s an awful venue for watching the football codes because the crowd is so far from the action.

                      I agree with this – I wouldn’t call it ‘awful’ but a cricket ground is certainly inferior to a rectangular ground.

                      It’s not just watching to the action. The Dunedin stadium has a far better atmosphere per 1,000 of crowd, even smallish crowds of a few thousand can generate a great mood. A RWC pool match in Dunedin had a far better buzz than a semifinal at Eden Park with twice the crowd.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      1 August 2012 at 12:21 pm

                      Westpac stadium is awful for everything.
                      The food is shit, the beer is the worst kind of piss (Tui usually which is undrinkable) and you can’t smoke.

                    • gareth …
                      1 August 2012 at 3:32 pm

                      The Cake tin aint a cricket grounds asshole… now the basin thats a cricket ground….

                • Gosman …
                  1 August 2012 at 10:51 am

                  You should have stated English Rugby but as stated you would have been equally wrong about that too. The attendances for the Super League and Premiership are basically on par. However English Rugby Union has a more dynamic international and cross border competition that Rugby League in England cannot compete with. There is no equivalent of the Heineken Cup for example in Rugby League.

                  • Frank Macskasy …
                    1 August 2012 at 10:54 am

                    How did Labour fund $220 million on the rugby world cup, Gosman?

                    How does winning hosting rights mean that taxpayers have to foot the bill?

                    Where did it say in the contract that we were liable to pay for the WRC, Gosman?

                    Care to answer my questions, Gosman?

                    • Gosman …
                      1 August 2012 at 11:08 am

                      You are having a hard time comprehending this aren’t you Frank?

                      A large amount of the Government funding for the tournament was explicitly (i.e. written down) stated in the Hosting agreement.

                      Additionally the Labour led Government provided a degree of confidence that the Government of NZ would ensure the tournament venues met the standards required and external factors such as security etc would be taken care of.

                      In short the last Labour led Government signed up for a programme that led to much of this funding. Why do you think people like Trevour Mallard haven’t really qubbled with the big ticket items like spending on Eden Park?

                    • Frank Macskasy …
                      1 August 2012 at 11:14 am

                      I comprehend your ACT-style hypocrisy only too well, Gosman.

                      “A large amount of the Government funding for the tournament was explicitly (i.e. written down) stated in the Hosting agreement.”

                      Source please.

                      “Additionally the Labour led Government provided a degree of confidence that the Government of NZ would ensure the tournament venues met the standards required and external factors such as security etc would be taken care of.”

                      Source please.

                      And why couldn’t private enterprise take care of funding security? I thought you were big on not subsiding private enterprise?

                      So you endorse private enterprise enjoying subsidies – when it suits you?

                      “In short the last Labour led Government signed up for a programme that led to much of this funding.”

                      Source please.

                      “Why do you think people like Trevour Mallard haven’t really qubbled with the big ticket items like spending on Eden Park?”

                      Pffft! Deflection. Not a particularly clever one at that.

                      You’ve run out of answers.

                    • Gosman …
                      1 August 2012 at 12:15 pm

                      Here you go Frank

                      http://www.sportnz.org.nz/en-nz/About-SportNZ/Media/2005-Media-Releases/New-Zealand-launches-bid-for-rugby-world-cup-2011/

                      Please note the proposal for the loss to be split 2/3rd to the Government and 1/3 to the NZRFU as well as this section:

                      “What else is the government doing to support the bid?

                      The government is working with various partners to ensure there is infrastructure in place to support the hosting of the event. This includes security, transport and tourism matters so that New Zealand can deliver a safe, well co-ordinated and vibrant tournament. ”

                      This was specified in 2005 under the Labour led government of Helen Clark.

                      There was also the matter of the upgrade to Eden Park which the Government agreed to help finance as a result of getting it up to standard for hosting the Cup matches. Remember that Trevor Mallard would have spent hundreds of millions of dollars more if he had his way with his waterfront stadium idea. Do you remember him pushing for this Frank or have you conveniently fogotten any bad stuff that Labour did?

                    • Frank Macskasy …
                      1 August 2012 at 12:31 pm

                      How will the costs of hosting the RWC be met if the bid is successful?

                      The government and NZRU make cash contributions towards costs of $20 million and $10 million respectively.

                      It appears you’ may not have read that PR properly, Gosman.

                      Labour offered $20 million in 2005, when our economy was bouyant; nett sovereign debt was low-to-nil; unemployment was low; and the Labour Government was in surplus.

                      National blew that out to $220 million of public money during a high deficit; high unemployment; and a stagnating economy which the WRC seems not to have helped much.

                      “Remember that Trevor Mallard would have spent hundreds of millions of dollars more if he had his way with his waterfront stadium idea.”

                      You left out… at a time of low sovereign debt and government surpluses. Neither of which National has achieved with their unaffordable tax cuts.

                      But at least you’re focusing on issues and offering backed-up information (even if it doesn’t prove your argument at all). You’re improving, slowly.

                    • Gosman …
                      1 August 2012 at 12:46 pm

                      Seriously Frank are you expecting people to believe your nonsense about Labour only committed to 20 million dollars of expenditure. You do realise that the large amounts of the 220 million dollars was on the additional costs such as infrastructure and other support services that went into the tournament.don’t you? That spending would have been required even if Labour was still in power in 2011.

                      I note that you try and avoid the fact that Trevor Mallard wanted to spend even more money on the cup by trying to argue that the Government could have done so. Irrelevant. The point is if he had got his way it would have been well above the 220 millions dollars that it eventually reached.

                      Are you still trying to argue that Labour didn’t commit us to much of this spending?

                    • Frank Macskasy …
                      1 August 2012 at 1:00 pm

                      Seriously Frank are you expecting people to believe your nonsense about Labour only committed to 20 million dollars of expenditure.

                      Seriously, Gosman, do you not accept the information that you yourself provided?

                      You provided the figures and now you’re backtracking on it’s veracity?!?!

                      If you have info that Labour would’ve spent more, put up, or shut up.

                      You do realise that the large amounts of the 220 million dollars was on the additional costs such as infrastructure and other support services that went into the tournament.don’t you?

                      Sorry, no, you’ve not provided any evidence of that. You saying so doesn’t make it so. That spending was done by your political party, not mine.

                      Try taking responsibility for a change. It’ll be a novel experience.

                      That spending would have been required even if Labour was still in power in 2011.

                      Oh, not the old Labour-would’ve-spend-more line?!?!

                      *facepalm*

                      Not very original, Gosman.

                      I note that you try and avoid the fact that Trevor Mallard wanted to spend even more money on the cup by trying to argue that the Government could have done so.

                      Dishonest response. That’s not what I said. Not even close.

                      Grasping for straws now.

                      Irrelevant. The point is if he had got his way it would have been well above the 220 millions dollars that it eventually reached.

                      … and back to the old Labour-would’ve-spend-more line.

                      Face it, Gosman, you shot yourself in the foot.

                      You presented information. But unfortunately you didn’t read it carefully enough.

                      Oh well, at least you’re on-topic.

                    • Gosman …
                      1 August 2012 at 2:08 pm

                      Okay Frank. This is easily resolved. What was that 220 million figure made up of? Do you know and if so do you know what part of that spending was as result of decision that National made in Government that it is unlikely Labour would have made the same decision?

                    • Gosman …
                      1 August 2012 at 2:14 pm

                      BTW where did you get this 220 million figure from anyway? Do you happen to have a source for it or are you pulling this out of the air like many of your ‘facts’?

                    • Frank Macskasy …
                      1 August 2012 at 2:16 pm

                      “Okay Frank. This is easily resolved. What was that 220 million figure made up of? ”

                      “BTW where did you get this 220 million figure from anyway? Do you happen to have a source for it or are you pulling this out of the air like many of your ‘facts’?”

                      No, the NZ Herald ‘made it up’: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10760088

                      “Do you know and if so do you know what part of that spending was as result of decision that National made in Government that it is unlikely Labour would have made the same decision?”

                      So what you’re asking here is how much more Labour would have spent had it been in government?!

                      Tell you what, sunshine, when I get back from a visit to Parallel Earth 2, where National lost the 2008 election, I’ll let you know. (Or I’ll just send you a postcard.)

                      How about you just focus that libertarian mind of yours on What Is, rather thasn What Might Have Been? Because I tell you what, Gosman, the constant “Labour-would-have-spent-more” excuse wears mightily thin after a while.

                      I’ll say one thing though; Labour would not have cut taxes in 2009 and 2010. That is a dead cert.

                    • Gosman …
                      1 August 2012 at 2:23 pm

                      No I’m not asking you how much MORE Labour would have spent. I’m asking you of that budget where would Labour not have spent money.

                      Remember Labour committed us to this tournament and the costs associated with holding it. Of that Government spend where would Labour likely have saved money?

                      Would they not have spent any money on a Party central in Auckland on the waterfront? Certainly Trevor Mallard wasn’t against this idea as far as I’m aware.

                      Would they not have spent money on upgrading stadiums? If so then then it is unlikely the IRB would have been very pleased to be playing in substandard stadiums.

                      Start to use the analytical part of your brain for once Frank and delve a little deeper into issues beyond the superficial ideological level.

                      BTW this link suggest the spending by Government was much higher than 220 million dollars.

                      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10642274

                    • Frank Macskasy …
                      1 August 2012 at 2:36 pm

                      Gosman, you’re deflecting from National’s $220 million spend-up, to something theoretical, had Labour been in government.

                      Do you realise how pathetic that attempt at deflection looks?

                      National is in power, not Labour.

                      If you’re going to constantly blame Labour, then they might as well be in power and I expect you to vote for them in 2014 (or earlier).

                      The Nats wasted $220 million, for little appreciable gain, whilst,

                      * 200,000+ kids live in poverty

                      * State houses are damp and mouldy

                      * a critical housing shortage goes unaddressed

                      * we have 160,000 jobless, whilst the Christchurch rebuild is crying out for skilled tradespeple.

                      That is what you should be focused on.

                      Not what Labour “might” have done had it been in government.

                      It seems bizarre that when National wastes $220 million on a rugby tournament, you don’t seem to mind. So much for your libertarian views of keeping the State out of commerce.

                      On the other hand, you’re desperately deflecting onto Labour – who hasn’t been in government for over three years.

                      When will you take responsibility for the policies of the Party you voted for, without trying to blame others?

                    • Frank Macskasy …
                      1 August 2012 at 2:40 pm

                      “BTW this link suggest the spending by Government was much higher than 220 million dollars.

                      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10642274”

                      *sighs*

                      That report you point to was dated 4:00 AM Sunday May 2, 2010.

                      The report I pointed to is dated 5:30 AM Wednesday Oct 19, 2011, and thus more recent. And this kinda proves that you don’t read the info I present to you.

                      This was the very first paragraph on the Oct 19 2011 report,

                      “Budget blowouts have pushed public spending on the Rugby World Cup well above $200 million – without counting $555 million in stadium upgrades and $39 million in direct losses from hosting the tournament.”

                      You are having a hard time comprehending this aren’t you, Gosman?

                      Hopeless.

                    • Gosman …
                      1 August 2012 at 2:41 pm

                      It isn’t theoretical at all Frank. That spending largely became a reality as soon as the IRB awarded NZ the rights to hold the cup in 2005.

                      It is like the Olympics. You don’t simply hold the current Government in power in the UK responsible for the budget, especially considering the Labour party was in power for much of the time that London has spent preparing for the games.

                      I’ll ask you again, which part of the spend on the RUWC would a Labour led government have likely not spent the money that eventually was spent?

                      Would they have cut back on security arrangements?

                      Would they have cut back on tourism promotion?

                      Come on Frank it doesn’t take a genius to carry out this intellectual exercise.

                    • Frank Macskasy …
                      1 August 2012 at 2:52 pm

                      Still deflecting attention from National/ACT wasting $220+ million of our tax dollars, Gosman?

                      Sorry sunshine; ain’t going to work. Bill English writes the budget, not David Parker.

                      Your Party is going to have to wear responsibility for mismanaging the economy – no one else.

                      However, after 2014, things will change.

                      By the way; next time you carp on about people taking responsibility for their economic situation, I’ll be sure to point you back to this page. Your ideas about “taking responsibility” seems to be at variance with your beliefs.

                      Anyway, you’re starting to get repetitive… You’ve run out of ideas, Gosman. And the sources you present are out of date…

                      In other words, you’re boring me…

                    • McFlock …
                      1 August 2012 at 3:53 pm

                      funny as hell – not satisfied with Frank being the only one to oppose him, gos proceeds to provide evidence against own position, then deny its reliability. 
                            
                      saves everyone else the bother of demonstrating for the xxxth time that he’s a moron.

                    • Enough is Enough …
                      1 August 2012 at 4:13 pm

                      I don’t think he is deflecting.

                      The cold hard reality is Trevor wanted to build a $1B whitehorse on the waterfront for the stupid fucking thugby world cup.

                      Thank god someone stopped him.

                      It was the worse decsion ever made by Helen Clark. To bring that stupid tournamnent to New Zealand.

                      Name one benefit it brought us. Thugs on display. I haven’t met one person who enjoyed that silly 7 week spending binge by the government. I suppose Key enjoyed it.

                      Helen was the best PM in history. This decision showed she was at least human after all.

                  • Morrissey …
                    1 August 2012 at 7:59 pm

                    A RWC pool match in Dunedin had a far better buzz than a semifinal at Eden Park with twice the crowd.

                    Rubbish. What a ridiculous, plainly st0000-pid claim to make. Are you really Sir Graham Henry?

          • Professor Longhair 3.2.2.1.5
            1 August 2012 at 10:34 am

            League is also more popular in the UK in terms of spectator attendence,

            No it is not.

            I understand,

            You do not understand. You do not know much about football, therefore your understanding is very limited.

        • mike e 3.2.2.2
          1 August 2012 at 8:21 pm

          BS goose as per usual no proof clubs including professional are struggling .
          The high profile players are doing all right but those lower profile players are finding it tough.
          right across the major rugby playing countries.

      • Professor Longhair 3.2.3
        1 August 2012 at 10:30 am

        Something calling itself “Te Reo Putake” started off well, then got itself just a bit confused…

        I hope there’s a chapter on cheating by the All Blacks, the current captain specifically.

        Footballers will cheat if the referee (or non-referee) lets them get away with it. McCaw, Kaino, Woodcock, and the rest of the All Black pack cheated consistently in the second half of the RWC fiinal because the non-referee refused to penalize them.

        However, the guts of rugby’s problems lie with its ridiculously complicated nature.

        That’s true. So far, so good. But, unfortunately, it was at this point that poor old “Te Reo Putake” lost his way….

        Football has 11 ‘laws’ that have stayed essentially constant for a century, rugby sic has hundreds of rules that regularly change.

        Rugby is football too, in case you hadn’t noticed. Do you mean soccer? Then say so.

        In football or league sic, the crowd usually sees the offence that causes the whistle to be blown; in rugby, nobody knows.

        That’s not true. In last year’s RWC final, everybody could see that the home team was repeatedly fouling, and that non-referee Craig Joubert was refusing to penalize them.

        • Colonial Viper 3.2.3.1
          1 August 2012 at 10:53 am

          Rugby is football too, in case you hadn’t noticed. Do you mean soccer? Then say so.

          Rugby is football “too”? Uh, no where else in the civilised world actually, and not even in Victoria or NSW.

          “Soccer” is a quaint Kiwi/US term.

          • Te Reo Putake 3.2.3.1.1
            1 August 2012 at 11:09 am

            Cheers, CV. The good Prof’s argument is parochial pedantry and historically weak to boot. The game is football. It’s run here by Football NZ. Only the dimmest or willfully foolish sports fan would be confused by the terms football, rugby and league.

            • Rob 3.2.3.1.1.1
              1 August 2012 at 11:34 am

              Tell that to the 8 year olds that play soccer for Central United, because that whats they call it, the volunteer coaches call it soccer too.. Maybe you should go and ‘educate’ them all on your way of the world.

              • Colonial Viper …
                1 August 2012 at 11:35 am

                As I said, soccer is a quaint NZ/US term, not used in many other places in the world. Can you read?

                • Kotahi Tāne Huna …
                  1 August 2012 at 12:01 pm

                  Bzzzt! Wrong.

                • Morrissey …
                  1 August 2012 at 7:42 pm

                  The good Prof’s argument is parochial pedantry and historically weak to boot. The game is football. It’s run here by Football NZ.

                  Everybody here and in Australia, except for a few zealots like your good self, calls it soccer.

                  Of course it’s a kind of football, but when you say “football” in this country, it means rugby football.

                  As you know perfectly well.

              • Morrissey …
                1 August 2012 at 8:03 pm

                Tell that to the 8 year olds that play soccer for Central United, because that whats they call it, the volunteer coaches call it soccer too.. Maybe you should go and ‘educate’ them all on your way of the world.

                You’re trying to argue with a zealot, Rob. He hates and resents rugby football for some reason. Maybe one of these days he’ll tell us why…

            • Gosman 3.2.3.1.1.2
              1 August 2012 at 12:41 pm

              It is actually Association Football as in the A in both FA and FIFA.

              You might be arrogant enough to call it Football but even the governing bodies acknowledge it is just another form of Football.

              • Te Reo Putake …
                1 August 2012 at 3:06 pm

                “You might be arrogant enough to call it Football but even the governing bodies acknowledge it is just another form of Football.”
                 
                Laughibly ignorant, Gossie. At the time Association Football was codified, there were no other kinds of football. You do recall that William Webb Ellis ‘invented’ rugby during a game of football, don’t you?
                 
                And the word ‘association’ in FIFA and FA means the organisations are associations. D’oh! The association came first and the game, after being codified, became known as association football. Not the other way round.
                 
                But thanks for the stats on rugger and league in England (somewhere above in this thread). Must have taken a while to find; I tried and gave up.

                • Morrissey …
                  1 August 2012 at 7:53 pm

                  At the time Association Football was codified, there were no other kinds of football.

                  There were, actually. Rugby football was very popular, and in Australia and Ireland variations of Gaelic football were flourishing by the late 1850s. The Football Association was formed in 1863, and the Rugby Football Union—note the name—was formed in 1871.

                  You do recall that William Webb Ellis ‘invented’ rugby during a game of football, don’t you?

                  No, that’s a myth invented by the Rugby Football Union to establish an entirely bogus provenance for Rugby football. It’s as factual as the Abner Doubleday myth in baseball—that’s something else I’ll bet you know next to nothing about.

                  The association came first and the game, after being codified, became known as association football.

                  It became known as association football to distinguish it from another popular football—rugby football.

          • gareth 3.2.3.1.2
            1 August 2012 at 3:02 pm

            Actually countries have for differing reasons, sports which are referred to as football in general conversation. In the US it’s american football, Ireland gaelic football, NZ rugby football and in Aussie you have league and rules as well…
            The term Soccer originated in the UK prior to football become the common parlance around 18 tears later. In 1863 rules were written up for association football and the game was refered to as assoccer (short for association) shortened again to Soccer before Football took hold years later.
            As a general rule of thumb it seems that each country refers to it’s first prevelant type of football game as football.

  4. Pete George 4
    1 August 2012 at 6:54 am

    Spoonfed and government (picture).

    This doesn’t apply to everyone of course, but it’s fair to question the prevalence of ‘Government gimme’ attitudes.

  5. vto 5
    1 August 2012 at 8:10 am

    So again the business world proves its inability to function without sucking on the tax and rate payer tit. Unable to do or create business without social welfare and subsidies provided by those on the minimum wage. Proof this week lies in…

    1. Government proposal that ratepayers pay for a convention centre for businesses to talk business. Why can’t the business world build and operate its own place to meet and talk?

    2. Government proposal that ratepayers pay for a covered stadium for businesses to do business. Why can’t the business worl build and operate its own place to play business?

    This lines up with countless others such as…

    a. NZX needing taxpayer support to make its flawed business a little better, lest it completely crashes and burns.
    b. Farmers and dairy companies needing taxpayer money to build their irrigation in Canterbury.
    c. Banks and finance companies needing taxpayer guarantees to stop them completely falling over.
    d. Business investors needing taxpayer power companies to invest in because they are incapable of building and investing in their own.
    e. … please add ….

    The business world is useless. The centre-right model fails. They are shown by the above to be bludging beneficiaries.

    I would dearly love someone to explain how this is not the case …. pleeease, please please, someone ….. anyone ….. come on gosman, tsmithfield, david farrar, john key, mark weldon, someone, someone.

    the silence is deafening

    • Dv 5.1
      1 August 2012 at 8:20 am

      If i was a chch ratepayer i would be really pOff, being lumbered with the convention center and a covered stadium. ESpecially if i was having problems with rebuilds etc.

      I agree VTO, why is it the ratepayer is expected to prop these up buisnesses
      I could understand it IF they were good money spinners, BUT they dont appear to be.

      And then there is the really smart idea to sell the profitable parts of the council busineses to fund them.

      DUH

      • Chris 5.1.1
        1 August 2012 at 9:16 am

        I agree with the convention centre being ridiculous but Jade Stadium used to be a good money spinner for Christchurch and there is a bit of evidence that a covered stadium would increase the numbers through the gates.

        • Colonial Viper 5.1.1.1
          1 August 2012 at 9:20 am

          and there is a bit of evidence that a covered stadium would increase the numbers through the gates.

          Evidence that you need a microscope to find.

    • Frank Macskasy 5.2
      1 August 2012 at 11:17 am

      VTO… you’ve touched upon a blogpost I’m currently working on…

      😉

      (Gosman will be a happy chappy!)

    • Gosman 5.3
      1 August 2012 at 12:56 pm

      Ummmm… you assume the National led Government is so ideologically driven it doesn’t see any role for Government. That is plainly not the case as witnessed by numerous policies of the National Party where it makes clear it wants Government to be involved directly in infrastructure development. Whether this is a good or bad thing is a different matter entirely.

      • Draco T Bastard 5.3.1
        1 August 2012 at 1:04 pm

        That’s got nothing to do with what VTO said.

      • Frank Macskasy 5.3.2
        1 August 2012 at 1:32 pm

        “Ummmm… you assume the National led Government is so ideologically driven it doesn’t see any role for Government.”

        Ummmm, no, Gosman. That’s not VTO’s p.o.v. That is the neo-liberal dogma of the free market and it’s adherents. VTO was simply pointing out the sheer hypocrisy that on the one hand, Business doesn’t want state interference in it’s activities – but on the other, is only too happy to accept billions in corporate welfare.

        Can you say, “hy-po-cri-sy”?

        “That is plainly not the case as witnessed by numerous policies of the National Party where it makes clear it wants Government to be involved directly in infrastructure development.”

        Oh…. so, private enterprise by itself can’t deliver infra-structural development and the role of the State is paramount?

        Hmmm, well colour me gobsmacked, I think you may be realising the realities of a modern State, and why your neo-liberal Nirvana doesn’t exist anywhere except in the kinky masterbatory fantasies of Ayn Randists.

        Congratulations, Gosman. You have just crossed over from the Twilight Zone of the “free” market, into Realityland.

        • Pete George 5.3.2.1
          1 August 2012 at 1:39 pm

          Frank, how many people do you think there are in New Zealand who believe in a ‘free’ market?

          • Frank Macskasy 5.3.2.1.1
            1 August 2012 at 1:44 pm

            @ Pete,

            With 100% certainty; 25,484 (ACT & Libertarian voters)

            With certainty ranging from 1% – 99%: 1,117,873 (National & Conservative Party voters)

            Source: http://www.elections.org.nz/elections/resultsdata/2011-general-election-official-results.html

            • Pete George 5.3.2.1.1.1
              1 August 2012 at 3:00 pm

              That’s a very weak claim.

              Even the 25,484 ACT (not so much Libertarian) voters will have varying views on how free the market should be. From their policy on SOEs:

              In the last parliamentary term, with ACT’s pressure and support, the government:
              • Opened up the debate about privatising some State Owned Enterprises.

              ACT will continue to advocate for sensible SOE policy. A Party vote for ACT is a vote to:
              • Continue a rational, evidence based debate about the role of government ownership in the economy.

              That’s hardly free market ideology. From what I see of their website thay are only mildly promoting a partial free market.

              Conservatives (or Colin Craig) didn’t support part asset sales so can’t be called ‘free’ market fans.

              A number of National voters were against or lukewarm on the partial sales. National is a very moderate centre-left party so I’d be surprised if many of them are anywhere near pure free market fans.

              • Frank Macskasy …
                1 August 2012 at 3:25 pm

                It’s not a “weak” claim at all. Despite their website, ACT has stated that they intend to “sell the lot” when it comes to asset sales.

                And you missed this statement freom thweir website, Pete;

                “Sell state assets such as power generation companies; the overwhelming evidence is that such valuable assets produce more wealth when managed privately;”

                – http://www.act.org.nz/policies/economy

                “As a step towards better productivity in the New Zealand economy, partial privatisation is a worthwhile policy.”
                – http://www.act.org.nz/policies/state-owned-assets

                “Conservatives (or Colin Craig) didn’t support part asset sales so can’t be called ‘free’ market fans.”

                No, but they do believe in a free market in other areas.

                “A number of National voters were against or lukewarm on the partial sales. National is a very moderate centre-left party so I’d be surprised if many of them are anywhere near pure free market fans.”

                That’s why I wrote “With certainty ranging from 1% – 99%: 1,117,873 (National & Conservative Party voters)”

      • mike e 5.3.3
        1 August 2012 at 1:51 pm

        Goose thats to do with who donates the most to the National party.
        Roading contractors
        Trucking industry(Nationals retirement policy for over the hill mp,s)
        Global oil companies cartel
        banking Cartel

    • Draco T Bastard 5.4
      1 August 2012 at 12:58 pm

      +1

      Very well said. Contrary to the beliefs of the RWNJs and mainstream economists (and many heterodox) wealth does not come from the private sector. Wealth comes from the community.

    • Pete George 5.5
      1 August 2012 at 1:20 pm

      1. Government proposal that ratepayers pay for a convention centre for businesses to talk business. Why can’t the business world build and operate its own place to meet and talk?

      Presuming that this is correct, public/private partnerships are often used to initiate a better business environment. It’s true that some businesses benefit from public money but the public benefit from employment and economic activity.

      • Frank Macskasy 5.5.1
        1 August 2012 at 1:24 pm

        Mighod, Pete! You’ve just advocated a mixed economy and a role for the State in said economy!

        • Pete George 5.5.1.1
          1 August 2012 at 1:28 pm

          If you actually knew anything about me instead of blindly jumping on the bashwagon you wouldn’t have been be surprised.

          I’ve advocated seeking the best balance between public and private for a long time.

          • Frank Macskasy 5.5.1.1.1
            1 August 2012 at 1:40 pm

            In which case, one wonders why PUBLIC assets have to be PRIVATISED? Why isn’t private enterprise capable of building it’s own pwer generation; transmission; retailing; etc?

            Why the parasitic semi-privatisation of assets that were built up by the PUBLIC, for the PUBLIC?

    • Vicky32 5.6
      2 August 2012 at 12:50 am

      Bless you VTO for talking about something other than sport! I thought it would never end.. 🙂

  6. prism 6
    1 August 2012 at 9:39 am

    I’m listening to Radionz and a business person Peter Townsend Chch Chamber of Commerce and Chch Councillor Yani Johanson who is talking about repairs in suburbs being in the shadows and large expensive projects in the CBD dominating the spending. And that those may not provide a return and so being supported by the taxpayer. Who may be struggling as his and her own life remains on hold and needing help and repair.

    The business person is all ready to sell off part of Chch council’s substantital assets to fund essential investment to prevent ‘Chch underperforming as an iconic city going forward’. The money raised – would it then be spent on what residents really need and which would promote job-creating business.

    I wonder can Christchurch have a good playing area for sports purposes and holding rock concerts etc with a stadium built to a low budget but with a second stage incorporated into the design when and if there is sufficient customer demand and finance available?

    • vto 6.1
      1 August 2012 at 9:43 am

      prism, Townsend and others take the moral high ground on these things and claim, due to their great business acumen and knowledge about all things money, that without this big spend then the city will fail.

      What Townsend and others fail to answer is the question I outline above.

      Their model doesn’t work, and the evidence for that is plentiful (see above). They refuse to answer it. There is no answer to it.

    • rosy 6.2
      1 August 2012 at 9:50 am

      “an iconic city going forward”
      I’d love to hear someone asking him to explain that phrase. And then explain ‘iconic’ in terms of the CBD plan.

      • James N 6.2.1
        1 August 2012 at 10:20 am

        Could be I con (ic).

        Mr Townsend has been a shill for selling Christchurch assets for a long, long time. He’s a fan of Shock Doctrine.

        • bad12 6.2.1.1
          1 August 2012 at 10:26 am

          You have that about right, upon a politician,(or anyone else for that matter), using the words ”going forward” in a phrase it is best to start looking for the Con involved,

          ”Going forward” replaces ”At the end of the day” as the current favorite in the lexicon of the Conman…

          • prism 6.2.1.1.1
            1 August 2012 at 11:10 am

            ‘going forward’ I think it forms one in a series of accepted code words for business and to use it shows that you are ‘one of us’ and understand our language, which often is convoluted so it can’t come back and bite the speaker in the bum.

            That or you don’t say anything and blame that on the need for protecting information because of ‘commercial sensitivity’. And we are getting this more and more from government itself when we want information and answers, and this can only increase as private enterprise is used to carry out government services. No option of Information Act to call on there.

            • Carol 6.2.1.1.1.1
              1 August 2012 at 11:28 am

              Agreed, prism. Also, “going forward” gives the superficial impression of being dynamic and on top of the issues. But it’s an irritating piece of jargon and over-used.

      • Draco T Bastard 6.2.2
        1 August 2012 at 1:15 pm

        Well, from what I saw of the Chch CBD plan, I think iconic mean concrete. Lots of concrete.

        • prism 6.2.2.1
          1 August 2012 at 5:19 pm

          DTB
          You reckon there’ll be no castles in the air then. No doubt they will be reasonably close to the ground in height.

  7. Ianmac in Adulusia 7
    1 August 2012 at 9:47 am

    If in a country where the commentary on tv Olympics is totally in another language (Spanish) it is great to watch coverage, turn the sound down and make your own commentary. Reckon it still makes just as much sense, if not more.

    • rosy 7.1
      1 August 2012 at 11:19 am

      True. I tend to leave the sound to get used to the way the language is spoken (spoken too fast to catch a word, but. Especially Spanish!), although I know I’m sort of fooling myself.

  8. DH 8
    1 August 2012 at 10:41 am

    For those interested in the business side of left/right politics this article here is worth a read;

    “No money for creditors ”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/7376165/No-money-for-creditors

    It might seem like a small bunch of crooks getting away with ripping off creditors but it goes a lot deeper than that. The wrong people are prospering at the expense of the right people. An extreme example of this is Feltex who raised huge sums from shareholders only for the bank to take it all and the shareholders losing everything

    IMO one of the best ways to get our economy moving again is to clean out all the crooks in business & leave the market to the people who do contribute something to society. Labour have never done anything there, I think because so few of them know anything about business they have no idea what goes on in that world.

    • Colonial Viper 8.1
      1 August 2012 at 11:22 am

      IMO one of the best ways to get our economy moving again is to clean out all the crooks in business & leave the market to the people who do contribute something to society. Labour have never done anything there, I think because so few of them know anything about business they have no idea what goes on in that world.

      So you would support Labour in directly and centrally intervening to clear out the crooks, ticket clippers and parasites from the economy and from the business community?

      You do realise that most of the people who will be cleared out will be National supporters?

      • DH 8.1.1
        1 August 2012 at 11:39 am

        Sure would, and yes I realise that.

        Something few people really understand is that there’s been a quiet undeclared war waging in the business sector for a very long time. The crooks who exploit the lack of law enforcement gain a commercial advantage over those people who play by the rules. Most people in business in NZ are actually pretty honest but it’s the crooks who tend to prosper because they have that extra edge which gives them a better profit margin, lower costs etc and prevents the real achievers from competing on a level playing field. Those crooks go on to form networks that protect each other & we end up with the mess we have now.

        • Colonial Viper 8.1.1.1
          1 August 2012 at 11:42 am

          I’m hearing ya. Some of those crooks even end up on local councils…in fact quite a number of them…

          Interestingly, ZeroHedge just posted this recently

          http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-07-30/main-driver-gdp-growth-strong-rule-law

          • DH 8.1.1.1.1
            1 August 2012 at 11:57 am

            Yeah they do, they infiltrate every sector that involves other people’s money.

            The really, really, depressing part is that we have all the laws we need to put an end to these crooks. They just don’t get enforced. People complain regularly to the various regulatory & enforcement bodies and they do nothing. Liquidators & receivers have been complaining about their side of it for a very long time, they got so frustrated about the lack of enforcement action they stopped making complaints… was no point.

            All Labour needs to do is vote enough money to that side of law enforcement to ensure that every single complaint is followed up. Would cost a bomb to start with but once the cleanup started it would only take a few years to get the costs back down. They only do it because they know they can get away with it. It really is that simple.

    • Colonial Viper 8.2
      1 August 2012 at 11:29 am

      That stuff article quotes a “Damien Grant” from “Waterstone Insolvency”.

    • Draco T Bastard 8.3
      1 August 2012 at 1:30 pm

      The director had failed to keep accurate financial reports, accounts, or hand them over to the liquidator, but that sort of non-compliance was now ‘routine’, he said

      If anyone sees that as anything other than outright corruption then they’re deluding themselves. And it’s now routine in NZ.

      • DH 8.3.1
        1 August 2012 at 2:04 pm

        Has been for years. White collar crims are good at working out the loopholes in our laws, it’s their modus operandi really. The biggest loophole by far is non-enforcement, the crims know that the chances of getting caught are virtually nil. Commerce Commission alone get over 10,000 complaints a year and they bin them all…. except for the odd one that suits their own agendas.

        There’s a perverse irony in it really. Labour could have put paid to a lot of their most ardent ideological enemies if they’d simply ensured that our laws were properly enforced. And the country & economy would have been a lot better off from it.

  9. gobsmacked 9
    1 August 2012 at 12:26 pm

    So, yesterday I had a go at Labour for their poor performance at question time.

    But it’s easy to be wise after the event, so this time I’m going to predict what can – or should – happen. Posting this in advance of the questions (2 pm).

    An unusual and interesting question today:

    Hon TARIANA TURIA to the Minister of Finance: “Did the Minister of Māori Affairs discuss with him how the Crown would meet its Treaty obligation with respect to the Mixed Ownership Model?”

    So I’m guessing that’s an attempt to bail out Pita Sharples, after yesterday’s embarrassment. Turia and English will want to say they’ve been consulting, it’s all good, nothing to see here. (I am assuming it’s a patsy question – but if it’s a real question, an opposition-type question, then all bets are off, the coalition is falling apart).

    Then supplementaries – a chance for the Opposition to score a hit.

    Previously Chris Finlayson answered on behalf of Sharples on a related matter (the recent late night meeting between Key and Turia/Sharples, the one where they kissed and made up after Key had dissed the Waitangi tribunal).

    But Finlayson dodged the questions. He claimed that there was no ministerial responsibility, because Turia/Sharples and Key had only been meeting in their capacity as party leaders. Not as Ministers.

    Now Turia is specifically asking the Minister (Bill English) about “the Minister of Māori Affairs” meeting the “Minister of Finance”. On the same subject.

    That’s a clear contradiction. Labour should stop shouting, LISTEN carefully to the answer, and seize on it …

    “Was the meeting [from English’s answer] between Ministers?” etc.

    And more follow-ups, depending on the anwers.

    The basic point is … the National/Maori Party coalition only holds together because Turia/Sharples pretend to be two different things – the party leaders who stand up for their people, and the government Ministers in the limos. It’s a fiction, and it’s the Opposition’s job to expose it. They have a chance to do this today.

    (note – this is only one suggestion, there are many other lines of attack for Labour and other parties. Any hits will do. But faffing around and achieving nothing is NOT good enough).

    (BTW, Key won’t be there today – he’s in Samoa).

    • marty mars 9.1
      1 August 2012 at 12:35 pm

      Good stuff g – I have been harping on about that sham meeting for a while.

    • gobsmacked 9.2
      1 August 2012 at 12:37 pm

      Here’s Finlayson (on behalf of the Minister of Maori Affairs), denying ministerial responsibility:

      http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Business/QOA/9/2/9/50HansQ_20120719_00000011-11-Water-Rights-M-ori-Interests.htm

      • marty mars 9.2.1
        1 August 2012 at 12:49 pm

        that was a meeting between party leaders, for which there is no ministerial responsibility.

        I wonder where they are going with this because that is a real squirmer. My take is key never said what turia said he said. He will use any and every trick, in and out of the book, to get these sales through. There is real murk in that meeting and it should be getting significant questioning – the more questions – the more murk will be revealed.

        • gobsmacked 9.2.1.1
          1 August 2012 at 2:45 pm

          So, Labour didn’t push on this today.

          Before question time Pita Sharples made a “personal explanation”, about his answers yesterday. Maybe Labour thought he’d suffered enough …

          There’s a “No Surprises” agreement between the Maori Party and National. Judging by Bill English’s answers today, Tariana Turia may have broken it.

          Earlier, Norman and Robertson both did a good job on the Banks story. Only undermined by Trevor Mallard being a self-indulgent fool, as usual. “Yeah, that’s a good tactic, Trev, just remind everyone that you were fighting in the lobby, that’s the headline we want”. Idiot.

          • marty mars 9.2.1.1.1
            1 August 2012 at 2:51 pm

            maybe Hone needs to get onto it.

            I’ve wondered if mallard was a double agent the number of times he offers them distractions – but then I remember indigenous trev and I realise he’s just a fool.

            • gobsmacked 9.2.1.1.1.1
              1 August 2012 at 2:56 pm

              Hi Marty

              Did you hear Tariana’s questions? She sounded more “staunch” than she usually is in the House. Sending the message – “We’re fighting for the Treaty”.

              Just talking the talk or a prelude to something more?

          • prism 9.2.1.1.2
            1 August 2012 at 5:24 pm

            gobsmacked
            But lots of people lerve TMallard – such a feisty contender in the House, a handy jester in the right place, but unfortunately takes it too far and has become resident buffoon.

    • Carol 9.3
      1 August 2012 at 5:35 pm

      gs, I think it played out according to your first guess: an attempt at face saving by Turia, and to show all is still well with the partnership between the government and Maori Party:

      http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Business/QOA/2/d/4/50HansQ_20120801_00000005-5-State-owned-Assets-Sales-Discussions-with.htm

      But, you need also to see a video of it – Turia and Sharples looked quite grim; as though they had been backed into a corner.

      Horomia’s supplementary was weak.

  10. aerobubble 10
    1 August 2012 at 12:32 pm

    Just think about the CTV building. Which held up through the first Earthquake ?7.2? only then to collapse. One comment was that the engineers who certified the building said they had problems seeing important parts of the structure because of television cabling etc. When we have rules about getting access to water for fire crews, exit signs that can be seen in a fire, etc. Why don’t buildings have rules, by designers, about how to access buildings weak points after an Earthquake? Especially since after shocks are so much a factor in Earthquake events? Surely the designers were at fault and the building owners, for not collaborating not only after the first quake on weak points, but by not having done so well before any quakes hit. We do after all live in a country of quakes like the Gisborne quake not so long ago.

    • prism 10.1
      1 August 2012 at 5:45 pm

      The reports of the enquiry about the design and structure of the building and its certification don’t impress.

  11. Dave Kennedy 11
    1 August 2012 at 2:13 pm

    New Zealand business should not define our future, but support it. We should be able to rely on our Government to provide direction of our economic development, not market forces.
    http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2012/07/economic-leadership-lacking.html

  12. captain hook 12
    1 August 2012 at 2:37 pm

    national are supposed to be the party of business so where is the new business?
    most businessmen in NZ are inheritors and never started anything.
    all they know is how to cut workers wages to the bone.
    thats not really business.
    thats just running a private horror show for the psychological satisfaction of the owners.

    • Frank Macskasy 12.1
      1 August 2012 at 2:44 pm

      “…thats just running a private horror show for the psychological satisfaction of the owners.”

      And for the satisfaction of their mis-guided neo-liberal cheerleaders, Captain Hook. I can think of one fixated Ayn Randian who hasn’t a clue…

  13. joe90 13
    1 August 2012 at 2:46 pm

    From the NYT: Prison People.

  14. prism 14
    1 August 2012 at 5:12 pm

    An RSA spokesman calls the conviction and punishment of an RSA official ‘laughable.’ What a bunch of twisted people RSA can be. They disdained servicemen from the Vietnam war for some years. Now this RSA official wore a Vietnam medal and they don’t like that. It’s fair enough that they don’t like people wearing medals they don’t deserve to, as this man did but have some balance can’t you.

    He also wrote a cheque for $60 with a flimsy reason. He has been ordered to pay back $500. Considering people who have been actually hurt by war these are just misdemeanours. And a time to be magnanimous. And the fact that some offence he committed back in the 1950s is another indication of what a mean carping society we have. Such minor misdemeanours should be dropped from the ledgers after 20 years.

  15. prism 15
    1 August 2012 at 5:15 pm

    What a pity about the Pacific cable which would have been a great opportunity for NZ investors. It would be a solid investment and all those Mum and Dads who are desperate to put their money in blue chip investments in NZ had their chance. But no, I guess they frittered it all away on an extra one per cent on the risky investments of finance houses fronted by pretty boys with smooth smiles, and well cultured voices.

  16. William Joyce 16
    1 August 2012 at 5:15 pm

    Gore Vidal
    1925-2012
    R.I.P

    • prism 16.1
      2 August 2012 at 10:22 am

      RIP Margaret Mahy (1936–2012 ) is the most acclaimed of New Zealand’s children’s writers. The author of more than 120 titles, and translated into 15 languages, …

  17. prism 17
    1 August 2012 at 5:37 pm

    I heard something about the Minister for Earthquake relief being forced to concede.. and he’s gone off feeling unwell, sick or tired or all the above and couldn’t. Concede? What’s that word.

    • Carol 17.1
      1 August 2012 at 5:44 pm

      Yes, I just posted the quote from RNZ on the 3 billion thread. And I also wryly noted the comment about how he’d gone home sick.

      • bad12 17.1.1
        1 August 2012 at 5:58 pm

        The Greens pick at poor old Gerry incessantly don’t they, it’s hilarious to watch at times,

        For a while there it was all oh so easy for one of Slippery’s bookends Brownlee to bat away such questioning barely deigning to give an answer,

        Having tho learned the intricate nature of ‘points of order’ poor old Gerry has been finding it becoming increasingly impossible to do what He does best, be a condescending arse-hole, today the Greens hit pay-dirt getting Him not only a spanking from the Speaker but giving Him an obvious case of the s**ts as well,

        10 points for good skills go to the Greens who have been doggedly grinding Gerry into the dust of His own bulls**t for quite some time,

        I see no reason to be shy of Gerry’s sudden bout of dyp-something-or-other, (dip-s**ttery), there’s quite a bit more of the large edifice yet to be demolished and hopefully the Greens continue to apply the grindstone…

    • DH 18.1
      1 August 2012 at 8:20 pm

      That’s no surprise Carol, wonder is it doesn’t happen there more often. Their power grid gets massively overloaded by all the hi-jacked power feeds, pinching power is a sport over there.

      In some areas you see a crazy birds nest of wires running from the overhead transformers, people climb the poles at night & wire up their homes for free power. I had a transformer explode right above me when walking the street there once, huge shower of sparks with molten aluminium spraying everywhere, and not one local on the street batted an eyelid… happens all the time.

      Can’t see it happening here…

      • ropata 18.1.1
        1 August 2012 at 11:57 pm

        In NZ, privatisation is more likely to put supply at risk than direct theft and vandalism.

        The Auckland Power Crisis,1998:

        In the last five years, Mercury Energy have followed the present economic
        wisdom of aiming for efficiency and a good return to their shareholders (the
        Mercury Trust), raised power prices, reduced their field workforce by half, and
        raised management salaries by 30%, with total revenues of $580M in 1997. In
        addition for the last three years their energy has been poured mostly into a
        pointless (and ultimately fruitless) struggle to take over their neighbouring
        power supplier, Power NZ, which cost Mercury $300m. In the middle of the first
        week without power, the Auckland City Council called an emergency meeting in
        the town hall to discuss the problems people were facing. Some of the business
        owners who attended were on the verge of bankruptcy because of the lack of
        power, but Mercury didn’t even bother turning up, an act which the mayor
        described as “a disgrace”

  19. Colonial Viper 19
    1 August 2012 at 10:13 pm

    Is Jenny ready to turn Syria over to the bomb makers and islamic fighters of Al-Qaida Iraq?

    Guess you better ask her, since for some naieve reason she thinks that the Syrian conflict is of the Syrian people, by the Syrian people, for the Syrian people.

    “When we attacked the base with the FSA we tried everything and failed,” said Abu Khuder. “Even with around 200 men attacking from multiple fronts they couldn’t injure a single government soldier and instead wasted 1.5m Syrian pounds [£14,500] on firing ammunition at the walls.”

    Then a group of devout and disciplined Islamist fighters in the nearby village offered to help. They summoned an expert from Damascus and after two days of work handed Abu Khuder their token of friendship: a truck rigged with two tonnes of explosives.

    Two men drove the truck close to the gate of the base and detonated it remotely. The explosion was so large, Abu Khuder said, that windows and metal shutters were blown hundreds of metres, trees were ripped up by their roots and a huge crater was left in the middle of the road.

    The next day the army left and the town of Mohassen was free.

    “The car bomb cost us 100,000 Syrian pounds and fewer than 10 people were involved [in the operation],” he said. “Within two days of the bomb expert arriving we had it ready. We didn’t waste a single bullet.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/30/al-qaida-rebels-battle-syria

    • muzza 19.1
      1 August 2012 at 10:38 pm

      http://www.rand.org/blog/2012/07/al-qaedas-war-for-syria.html

      “The United States and its allies should consider opening a second front in the Syrian war. In addition to helping end Bashar Assad’s rule, there is a growing need to conduct a covert campaign against al Qaeda and other extremist groups gaining a presence in the country.”

      –But, hold on, nah that can’t be right…they must be making this shit up. Real people dying though!

      • Colonial Viper 19.1.1
        1 August 2012 at 10:43 pm

        Seems like the goal is to transform Syria into an uncontrollable, disrupted mess.

        Jenny probably thinks that’ll be good for the people of Syria, and nothing to do with giving Israel and the USA a freer hand against Iran.

        Hey Jenny, you pro-war activist, you now backing the Al-Qaida Iraq bomb masters operating in Syria?

        • bad12 19.1.1.1
          2 August 2012 at 12:48 am

          That will learn that pesky Assad bloke to buy his big bangs from the Russians instead of from the Yanks right,

          The American,(Hilary Clinton) geo-political plan for the Middle East would seem to be to simply ‘produce’ in those country’s that don’t strictly toe the American party line ‘popular revolutions’,

          The CIA simply had to get out the old plans for South America and blow off the years of gathered dust,

          Protecting it’s, (Americas), interests in whats left of the oil reserves under the desert sands of the Middle East has jelled quite nicely for the Yanks in that they get to add another layer of (closer) protection to the state of Israel which can only gain O’bummer some much needed political support back home,

          Dove-tailing nicely into this is the ability to help prop up the House of Saud and the smaller dictatorial gulf states who religiously adhere to the American dream while they still can,(until the oil runs out),

          The House of Saud grateful for the protection of 30,000 US troops busily partying up in the smaller Gulf States are more than happy to play bagman and paymasters for the latest US adventure in the Middle-East,

          The bombers having learned their craft in Iraq via the US military while in the employ of the CIA,now to all extents and purposes assassins in the direct employ of the House of Saud doing the bidding of God knows who, but most likely the CIA or some obscure ‘think tank’ or ‘foundation’ back home in the States tasked with spreading such mayhem while giving the US administration deniability thus allowing Barak to wash the blood of martyrs off of His hands every night befor he puts His kids to bed…

  20. fender 20
    1 August 2012 at 10:43 pm

    How is it the Pacific Fibre venture Sam Morgan tried to get going should fall over due to lack of investment when we keep getting told there are investors screaming out for places to invest?

    Guess they wont want to invest in any power companies then.

    • Colonial Viper 20.1
      1 August 2012 at 10:47 pm

      The current breed of ‘capitalist investors’ are only interested in a sure thing. Actual entrepreneurial risk and creation of real, new physical wealth? No thanks.

    • Draco T Bastard 20.2
      1 August 2012 at 10:50 pm

      Power companies are a government guaranteed return. The new Pacific fibre crossing actually contained risk and competition.

      • fender 20.2.1
        1 August 2012 at 11:04 pm

        Yep thanks CV and Draco, I thought that must be why.

        The “free-market” name needs modernising really.

        How about “fleece-market” or “mark-up”. Or maybe just “parasite-city”.

        • Colonial Viper 20.2.1.1
          1 August 2012 at 11:13 pm

          They go on about the free-market and about entrpreneurial capitalism, but those are all sales slogans.

          Underneath that, most of the elite class are actually interested in rentier/ticket clipping/crony capitalism.

          • KJT 20.2.1.1.1
            2 August 2012 at 9:19 am

            Yes.

            The first thing “free marketeers” do with wealth and power is to distort the market in their favour.

            Fletchers dropping trade rates in Christchurch, employers demanding immigration to replace the workers they cannot get because they do not pay or train enough, overseas shipping cartels screwing our ports, managers and directors screwing their workforce to increase their own pay, demanding legislation to restrict workers freedom, demanding freedom themselves to form cartels and monopolies, demanding tax payers to turn over their business because they are incapable of starting their own, just to mention a few.

            http://www.alternet.org/economy/3-big-lies-perpetuated-rich.
            <>

            • KJT 20.2.1.1.1.1
              2 August 2012 at 9:22 am

              http://www.alternet.org/economy/3-big-lies-perpetuated-rich

              ”’Angel investing (capital provided by affluent individuals for business start-ups) accounted for less than 1% of the investable assets of high net worth individuals in North America in 2011. The Mendelsohn Affluent Survey agreed that the very rich spend less than two percent of their money on new business startups.

              The Wall Street Journal noted, in way of confirmation, that the extra wealth created by the Bush tax cuts led to the “worst track record for jobs in recorded history.” ”’

    • mike e 20.3
      1 August 2012 at 11:14 pm

      US government stymied(home of the free market) any chance of this taking off by putting ridiculous tariffs on any new fibre coming in to the US.

  21. QoT 21
    1 August 2012 at 10:49 pm

    I keep thinking I should submit a guest post here about Louisa Wall’s marriage equality bill.

    Then I realise that the “post” would largely consist of saying “For fuck’s sake, people, Pete George supports this, so if you don’t, what the fuck are you doing around here?”

    /randomthought

    • Draco T Bastard 21.1
      1 August 2012 at 10:50 pm

      😆

    • fender 21.2
      1 August 2012 at 11:09 pm

      Yes he’s very strong in his support, he really does love Dunne.

      Is this the only time PG has supported something of merit?

      • Pete George 21.2.1
        3 August 2012 at 6:57 am

        I mostly express my own independent opinions. And I’ve been supporting (and promoting) marriage equality significantly longer than Dunne, he didn’t show his support until last week when Louisa’s bill was drawn from the ballot, which was a change of position for him.

        Is this the only time PG has supported something of merit?

        That’s a bit pathetic. Is ‘of merit’ code for ‘of Labour’? Even if that’s the case it’s a nonsense claim.

        I’ve actively supported Monday-ising holidays and promoted that to Dunne.
        I’ve actively supported Moroney’s Paid Parental Leave Bill (which coincides with UF policy).
        I’ve actively supported and promoted a debate on NZ Super, in part alongside Labour efforts.
        I’ve actively supported and promoted Save TVNZ 7 and was asked (by Labour organisers) to participate in the Dunedin debate.
        I’ve actively supported and promoted the euthanasia debate and I think I’ve been the only one to post on Maryan Street’s bill here.

        I’ve been more supportive of Shearer and Labour leadership here than many with close Labour connections.

        I also happen to support some things UF/Dunne. For example the Taxation (Annual Rates, Returns Filing, and Remedial Matters) Bill that had it’s second reading yesterday is ‘of merit’.

  22. Vicky32 22
    2 August 2012 at 12:58 am

    Name one benefit it brought us. Thugs on display. I haven’t met one person who enjoyed that silly 7 week spending binge by the government. I suppose Key enjoyed it.

    Seconded! It was a huge disruption for no purpose..
     

  23. AmaKiwi 23
    3 August 2012 at 3:07 am

    Will John Judge sue Judith Collins for defamation?  If he can prove what he says in today’s NZ Herald, he should sue her.
     
    That would be an interesting twist.