Open mike 02/04/2012

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, April 2nd, 2012 - 99 comments
Categories: open mike, uncategorized - 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…

99 comments on “Open mike 02/04/2012 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Kotahi Tane Huna 1
    2 April 2012 at 6:34 am

    Public servant Denise Cosgrove thinks her corruption is “cute”.

    Is her manager equally corrupt, or will she be seeking new employment?

  2. Pete George 2
    2 April 2012 at 6:40 am

    Despite the latest onslaught of “perception building” the people seem largely unmoved, if the latest One/Colmar poll is any indication.

    I checked with an ordinary person what they thought – vaguely aware of National hiccups, they think Labour (and Greens) are always moaning, and are far more interested in things happening in their everyday lives. People on politics – yawn.

    Labour seem to have been trying hard out to destroy Government. Apart from most people hardly noticing, this does not present as a party capable of being successful in government themselves.

    • Bored 2.1
      2 April 2012 at 6:49 am

      What PG do you think the role of the Opposition really is? Do you expect them to get all lovy dovy with the Government? Especially when that Government is wrecking the country at a rapid rate with the collusion of your beloved Dung. I can assure you people will notice, and they will act on it, maybe not for Labour.

      You really are a benighted pillock if you believe what you wrote.

      • Kotahi Tane Huna 2.1.1
        2 April 2012 at 6:55 am

        …and if he doesn’t believe it he’s a deceitful shill – just not a very good one.

      • Pete George 2.1.2
        2 April 2012 at 7:10 am

        The Opposition has to try and find a good balance – holding Government to account when justified, and establishing credentials as a viable alternative.

        Instead of being seen as 90% negative Labour would create a much better impression if they were 90% positive, and saved attacks for when they were really justified (and would much more effective rather than being seen as just more crying wolf) .

        I think Shearer gets this, but he seems nowhere near getting old Labour working with him yet.

    • Muzza 2.2
      2 April 2012 at 7:49 am

      Pete you do realize that politics is a sham right? Pete, pete wake up mate, there you go!

  3. Bored 3
    2 April 2012 at 6:44 am

    Whilst we have been watching the fiasco of a NACT civil war unfold rather larger events are happening in Europe. Spain is up in arms with students and young people “rioting”. Ireland is watching to see if the Irish willl cough up the cash from a “poll tax” that will effectively go straight to the banksters…bugger all have paid up or will.

    The common theme of the financial fiasco is that young people through out Eurozone are unemployed, have no future prospects and are going to be expected to pick up the debts over their lifetimes. Expect (extreme) trouble.

  4. james 111 4
    2 April 2012 at 7:38 am

    Good poll result for the Nats in times of turmoil. Shows the public trust John Key ,and are happy with his governance in times of trouble.

    To govern in the time of the second biggest insurance claim in the worlds history and still be relatively popular (51%) is a great effort. Dont believe strenuous efforts by Labour to throw mud at the wall,and hope for something to stick is really working.If Mallard ,and Andrew Little are found guilty it will only dent any rpogress Labour were making yet again

    What the voting public are really looking for is for Labour to come out with Policy that shows what it is going to do, that doesn’t involve taxing the shite out of everyone again.How will it build the economy? How will it help businesses grow?

    As the old adage goes the trouble with Socialism is eventually you run out of other people’s money what then?

    http://curiablog.wordpress.com/2012/04/01/one-news-colmar-brunton-poll-march-2012/

    • Fortran 4.1
      2 April 2012 at 8:27 am

      This is a rogue poll. Don’t believe it.

    • muzza 4.2
      2 April 2012 at 9:24 am

      James do you actually think about what you say….You are aware that National borrowed the tax cuts right?

      “Good poll result for the Nats in times of turmoil. Shows the public trust John Key ,and are happy with his governance in times of trouble” – The public trust John Key, which is why the lowest turnout in NZ history just a few months back, yeah they trust him James, just like the trust the rest of them..My god boy, can you try a little harder, or are you at capacity!

      “How will it build the economy? How will it help businesses grow?” – Lets see, force record numbers of Kiwis offshore, businessess foreign owned, profits gauged out of Kiwis flowing offshore, charter schools, casual workforces, lockouts union busting, drilling/mining consents, asset sales…the list goes on James.

      “As the old adage goes the trouble with Socialism is eventually you run out of other people’s money what then” – So better to borrow it into existence, never account for where it went, then sell off real assets as a cover story for your offshore mates to grab the hard assets, while clocking up further interest, which will have to be paid back to those same mates who now own the assets, forcing higher prices on consumers, having to service the debt from tax cuts via tax raises in future….Bravo James, Bravo

      Remember that I am not a party voter, in case you think I care about you dissing Labour et al!

    • Ben 4.3
      2 April 2012 at 11:55 am

      “Shows the public trust John Key ,and are happy with his governance in times of trouble.”

      Which, in the real world, means that National’s spin doctors are doing a wonderful job and most of the NZ public are completely ignorant of just how hard they’re getting fucked.

    • Draco T Bastard 4.4
      2 April 2012 at 12:55 pm

      And the problem with capitalism is that we eventually run out of resources (Peak Oil), profit is dropping fast (Can’t grow the “economy” and so can’t pay the interest on money printed hand over fist by the private banks) and the capitalists think that they deserve everyone else’s wealth and so push most people into poverty (Talley’s and PoAL).

  6. Kotahi Tane Huna 6
    2 April 2012 at 7:50 am

    The quisling justifications for Charter schools are falling apart.

    Christchurch teachers are working wonders.

  7. james 111 7
    2 April 2012 at 7:51 am

    Actually Muzza I do agree with this enquiry the floating mortgage rate should be about 2.5% above the borrowing rate. Which means its should be around 4.5% depending on when ,and where the banks are borrowing money from.The four Australian banks last year took 4.5 billion dollars profit out of the New Zealand economy. Four companies profit( National Bank, ANZ),Westpac,BNZ ASB was greater than all the profit added up by the other 400 companies on the stock exchange that clearly shows something out of whack. I fully support Labour on this enquiry believe the Aussie banks are gouging ,as they have been accused in their own Country

  8. Sanctuary 8
    2 April 2012 at 7:59 am

    What was the percentage of undecided voters in the colmar-brunton? I can’t find that figure anywhere.

  9. vto 9
    2 April 2012 at 8:06 am

    Why is it that every time there is a shark attack the same old bores come out with the line … “well, you know, it is the shark’s territory, not ours …blah blah blah” as if we human’s somehow have less right to be there. As if we are somehow from another planet. This is the most hogwash bullshit unsupported blather. As fas as I can tell we have always come from this planet. Mankind has always gone into the sea, still does so now and will in the future. Mankind is as entitled as the fish to enter the sea.

    • Te Reo Putake 9.1
      2 April 2012 at 8:10 am

      I think you’re missing the point, vto. It’s not about rights, it’s about risk.

      • vto 9.1.1
        2 April 2012 at 8:18 am

        Being one who has often been around sharks and in the ocean the point has been made to me countless times over the years and it is most often a point of so-called rights rather than risk. The risk is the risk and all who enter the oceanic realm are aware of that, but the claim that we somehow have less right to be there has never been adequately argued – because the argument doesn’t exist. Just a bee in my bonnet…

        • Pascal's bookie 9.1.1.1
          2 April 2012 at 8:31 am

          Well yeah. We have a right to swim in the sea, sure.

          Swimmers gonna swim; sharks gonna shark.

          I aint got fuck all sympathy for an argument that says the ocean is not our territory, but I’ve got even less sympathy for an argument that says it’s not the shark’s, or that we have a superior right to the territory, which amounts to the same thing.

          But man oh man, if sharks were people too, they would be fucking us up for sure about that finning shit.

          Lynch mobs of sharks in crazy airsuits roaming the streets thinning out our numbers.

        • Jackal 9.1.1.2
          2 April 2012 at 8:42 am

          The argument does exist. If you claim that there is a predetermined right for humans to enter the ocean to exploit it simply because we’re also from earth, you are missing one of the main problems… there are too many humans.

          The rights of animals that have been on the planet a lot longer than humans will always ethically trump the rights of humans to enter areas that are not their natural environments. There are clear-cut boundaries… it is unfortunate that humans have not learnt to respect the animal kingdom and are determined to exploit the earth to the detriment of all living creatures.

          • vto 9.1.1.2.1
            2 April 2012 at 9:42 am

            Mr Jackal, you describe the issue clealy which is exactly the issue I have a problem with and have done for years. Also note that I am not talking about exploitation of the marine environment. That is a different issue.

            You say this “The rights of animals that have been on the planet a lot longer than humans will always ethically trump the rights of humans to enter areas that are not their natural environments. There are clear-cut boundaries”. I disagree with that in two main areas..

            I do not see time on the planet as any sort of determinant. That is a very slippery slope. How is it a determinant? And further, how on earth have sharkes been here longer anyway? If you accept evolution then you will realise that we (sharks and humans) have been here equal amounts of time, in various forms.

            As for the sea not being human’s natural environment, I am not sure how that could be the case given that humans have always entered the sea – for food, for pleasure, for travel. How do you imagine it is not our natural environment? Because we cant breathe underwater? neither can whales. Is it because we don’t spend as much time in it? how time do seagulls spend on the water compared to land and air. And which would be a ducks natural environment – the water, the land or the air? I think Jackal that you are casting all sorts of dubious frameworks around an issue that for many arises simply due to some sort of misplaced guilt complex. (or possibly, due to a justified guilt complex due to the exploitation you mention, but that does not affect the issue at hand – whether the sea is our natural environment)

            • Jackal 9.1.1.2.1.1
              2 April 2012 at 12:42 pm

              How is it a determinant that the time frame spent on earth is relevant you ask? I mainly mentioned this because you initially said that humans aren’t aliens. You argued that humans have as much right because were not alien to earth… how does that relate to use being alien to environments on earth?

              There’s another aspect that should also be mentioned… Humans have developed technology that enables us to unnaturally exploit the natural environment. Who are we to use our technology to impede other animals from having enough time to develop as well?

              There is no question that the boundaries are set by nature, and mankind has devised ways of disregarding the natural balance of our ecosystems.

              You argue that the ocean is our natural environment, however humans are land based creatures… being on a boat is not our natural environment and swimming in the ocean is not our natural environment per se.

              You say that you’re not talking about the exploitation of the marine environment, however your mentality that humans have more right to be in an environment that is predominated by marine creatures is highly defunct… it is what leads to overfishing, pollution and species extinction.

              Your argument amounts to: I’m a human who has developed technology that allows me to exploit the environment and other animals. Therefore it is my right to do so.

              Considering the mess because of so-called technological advancements, can you truly say that humans are more intelligent (or whatever you’re basing your superiority on) than animals that solely reside in their natural environments?

              • Pascal's bookie …
                2 April 2012 at 12:48 pm

                Humans have developed technology that enables us to unnaturally exploit the natural environment.

                What’s unnatural about it? Either humans are part of nature, or they are not. If they are not, you need to explain what they are, and why they should care about nature.

                • Jackal …
                  2 April 2012 at 1:11 pm

                  Species extinction because of technological advancement is natural?

                  Human’s have made thousands of species extinct because our technological advancement allows us to encroach on their natural habitats. Human’s are a part of nature, many of our technological advancements are not.

                  I need to explain why humans should care about nature? Because humans cannot exist without the natural world. Without balance within ecological systems we cannot hope to progress.

                  • Pascal's bookie …
                    2 April 2012 at 1:15 pm

                    many of our technological advancements are not

                    Then what are they?

                    Tool making is natural for humans. If we are a part of nature, then so are the tools that stem from our nature.

                    That’s not to say that it comes without cost to our environment and what have you, but the ‘unnatural’ argument is just hogwash.

                    Edit: And yes, species extinction is an entirely natural by-product of the things we do.

                    • Jackal …
                      2 April 2012 at 1:35 pm

                      To expand on your theory… CO2 emissions causing climate change is natural because a car is a tool we have devised to move around in and a nuclear bomb is “natural” because it is a tool we have devised to destroy other human beings. You’re being ridiculous Pascal’s bookie. Our natural inclination is to make tools, that does not mean the tools we make or the way we use them are natural.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      2 April 2012 at 2:33 pm

                      Sort of, and sort of not.

                      What I’m saying is that the categories, natural/unnatural are meaningless if you think humans are part of nature.

                      So yeah, AGW and nuclear bombs are natural, there is nothing mystical about them.

                      I don’t really see any mileage in dividing the world into things human do on the one hand, and everything else on the other hand, and labelling the latter ‘natural’.

                      I mean where does that get you really? Should we limit ourselves to doing only natural things? But what’s that? Is a beaver’s dam natural? Is a hunter-gatherer’s skin cloak natural? Is a nature reserve natural?

                      A more intriguing thing to look at is our, also natural, ability to take account of things, theorise, predict consequences and adapt and refine our behaviour.

    • Kotahi Tane Huna 9.2
      2 April 2012 at 8:19 am

      “Entitled” lol

      • vto 9.2.1
        2 April 2012 at 8:29 am

        .
        lol.
        what?

        • Kotahi Tane Huna 9.2.1.1
          2 April 2012 at 8:43 am

          People would no doubt argue that they are “entitled” to eat fish – until all the fish are gone. Hence the increase in shark “attacks”. From the sharks’ perspective I guess they would argue that they are entitled to a square meal once in a while.

          “We are all equal in the ocean.”

    • Uturn 9.3
      2 April 2012 at 8:23 am

      Are you saying we should be allowed to fight/kill sharks that are pestering/threatening swimmers/fishermen, or something else? Is it a nature’s authority vs human authority argument? Though I am sure you are serious, it sounded like the tuna vs lion argument for a moment. Sharks are from planet earth too, but you don’t often see them at Subway for a lunchtime sandwich, though they may have the right.

      • vto 9.3.1
        2 April 2012 at 8:31 am

        Sharks don’t visit Subway because they can’t drive cars.

        My point is pretty clear. It is a subset of the argument about whether mankind is part of nature or something different.

        As for killing them … It is more a case of protecting ourselves, individually or as a school, which all creatures do.

        • Uturn 9.3.1.1
          2 April 2012 at 8:36 am

          Yeah, but we don’t have gills. Does that suggest the ocean is an environment where we do not have the kind of authority we hold on land? Even with breathing aparatus, the sharks will just wait us out.

        • Kotahi Tane Huna 9.3.1.2
          2 April 2012 at 8:47 am

          Part of nature, definitely – cf. Physics Chemistry Biology Genetics etc.

          “It’s more a matter of protecting ourselves” agree and disagree – on the one hand people want to feed their families. On the other overfishing puts all of us at greater risk on many fronts, in and out of the water.

        • marty mars 9.3.1.3
          2 April 2012 at 9:39 am

          Yes humans are part of nature but the emphasis is on part – no better or worse than other parts of nature. Sharks do what sharks do and we kill them – yay for us, not.

        • vto 9.3.1.4
          2 April 2012 at 9:51 am

          uturn, kotahi and marty, see my reply to jackal above. The idea that we somehow have less “right” to be in the sea compared to a shark, which is the idea first raised as the problem idea, has still not been adequately made. I’m all ears though.

          And just to be clear, I am not for killing them, or over-eating them, especially for fin soup (like rhino’s horns in its vulgarity and repulsiveness).

          We are as entitled as sharks to be in the sea and we are entitled to protect ourselves. (as kotahi points out, “entitled” is not a good word for it but I think you get the idea).

          • Uturn 9.3.1.4.1
            2 April 2012 at 10:08 am

            From your post to Jackal:

            “Because we cant breathe underwater? neither can whales.”

            Try holding your breath as long as a whale, spend your life underwater, eat krill for dinner, dive as deep as a whale and survive. Still feeling like the ocean is your natural habitat? Can you openly communicate with a whale in his language and tell him where to go, when to go and how to go? Do you understand his animal instincts and needs – not only understand, but control them? The key point is habitat – what is our natural habitat. We are not whales, or sharks. Despite Kevin Costner’s attempts, we can’t survive indefinitely in the ocean, we need land, so the sea is not our natural habitat.

            “how time do seagulls spend on the water compared to land and air. And which would be a ducks natural environment – the water, the land or the air?”

            A duck is not a shark or a fish. Perhaps you can help by listing the elements of necessity, both physical, psychological and historical of human environments and make another list of that of the ducks. For example, what do they need to reproduce, flourish, what are their collective achievements, how do they organise their groupings. Do we find any patterns of necessity emerging? Do we find ducks drawing on cave walls, have they built using stone or iron, what materials do they use, do they mine the earth or trap water for electricity – and if they do, why do they, and what do they do with the things they create?

            Why have ducks have not invaded our human habitats and conquered us? If they don’t possess the kind of minds and abilities we have, is it our evolutionary obligation to infringe their habitat without redress? Should we ever regulate our urge to claim ourselves master of everything? Is fear of being Mr.Shark’s dinner, or fear of the natural world’s pwer in general, an evolutionary balance born into us from a power greater than us? Why do we fear sharks if we are their masters?

            • Uturn 9.3.1.4.1.1
              2 April 2012 at 10:37 am

              “We are as entitled as sharks to be in the sea and we are entitled to protect ourselves. (as kotahi points out, “entitled” is not a good word for it but I think you get the idea).”

              This is far more interesting than what I should be doing.

              Since we have jumped from sharks to whales to ducks and seagulls, there is a PNG tribe that mutilate themselves to make their skin look like the crocodiles in the rivers they live on. It’s a right of passage, the pain of the mutilation, from boy to man, a man to a respectful hunter. Their natural habitat is on land, near rivers and estuaries, which is the source of their fishing and hunting life. But they know that Mr. Crocodile will kill them given the chance. They pray to a god that oversees crocodiles and good fortune. They understand where they sit in the ecology of their environment. They could go on a croc killing spree, but don’t, their god would be enraged and children would die; men would lose honor and the tribe would disperse. They protect themselves with prayer and precautions; historical knowledge of feeding times and animal traits, methods and tools of hunting.

              Out here in the techno-western world, we’d call them stone aged. Bullets and laws surpass the power of gods, but we also have a new task of righting the imbalances we create in the natural world: we have laws that say a certain number of native trees have to be planted if we clear a site for development; we know from scientific research, not legends and religion, that killing sharks upsets a larger food chain that would not be in our best interests. We are entitled to protect ourselves, and we do, directly and indirectly.

              What we often sneakily do though, is tell ourselves that a nice safe swimming beach in sub-tropical waters would supplement our beachside hotel quite nicely. If it means we have to “protect” our investment, and by association ourselves (there’s the moral skip, jump and delusion), then a few sharks must die. We are entitled to do it. Our religion of dollars and hedonism says so, right up to the point – as someone else said – that there are no more sharks and no more fishy inconveniences; the coral isn’t so bright, the snorkeling boat stops running, the sea turns brown and silty, the white sands fill with sludge and our hotel on the beach closes.

            • vto 9.3.1.4.1.2
              2 April 2012 at 10:46 am

              Uturn, your points are repititions of those previously made and ones which I do not accept. You claim those various features mean the sea is not our natural environment but you do not say why that is so. Perhaps you could also explain what level of engagement with the sea would make it our natural environment? Being able to hold our breath as long a whale?

              Manwomankind has been entering the sea forever – that is what makes it our natural environment. It is part of us. We are entitled to be there as equally as the shark and whale. The shark also uses the air and sometimes the land (very rare). Perhaps they should not be allowed to jump into the air or charge up onto land to grab a seal. Or rather, they should not be entitled to do that. Following the reasoning of course.

              • Uturn …
                2 April 2012 at 11:12 am

                “…but you do not say why that is so.”

                Yes I did, I asked you to define a human habitat. Listen carefully: a natural human habitat contains all the things that allow reproduction and support the aspects of human life; psychological and physical and have the means to allow full expression of the human condition.

                A shark jumps into the air, but gravity returns him to his natural habitat.
                An orca shunts up onto land to grab a baby seal, but if he sits there for too long, he’ll die, so he forces himself back. Each has a temporary “right” to be there. But holds no authority in the air or on the land.

                If the shark could hover in space, it would still not be his natural habitat. He’d need wings to catch birds to eat and an improved respiratory system. If an orca were to sit on the shore line for too long, he could not reproduce – or a passing hunter might spear him and the line would die out. Neither has an equal right to use the terrain they have temporarily visited, compared to those who normally live there. Neither has the kind of mobility and ability that humans have. Humans can go from shore to ocean and kill/take almost anything we want. We don’t even have to be hungry or in need. Fish, whales, sharks, while apparently cunning in their jumping and land skipping, are only displaying learned tricks to meet instinctual demands.

                Are you saying that a man’s instinct is to be master of all, is therefore evidence that he should be master of all?

                I think the problem we’re running into here, is the misconception that humans are the same as animals, that an animal analogy fits directly to a human truth. What would speed things up would be if you could outline the bee you say you have in your bonnet in specific detail. Has a naughty greenie chastised you for diving at the Poor Knights or something? It’s quite possible they were being a fifteen-thousand-steps-removed kind of silly.

                • vto …
                  2 April 2012 at 11:27 am

                  ” Has a naughty greenie chastised you for diving at the Poor Knights or something?” ha ha. Yes. Of a kind and place.

                  Your reference to natural habitats being the main place for occupation, sustenance and reproduction I don’t think supports the contention that a species has more entitlement to occupy that space than another species which hails from a different environment, although that is often the basis for the argument that humans have less entitlement to be in the sea than sharks.

                  To revert to ducks again.. a duck spends very little time in the water (under it) and certainly doesn;t breed there and doesn’t need to feed there, but they do go under water. I suspect few people would expect that the duck has less entitlement to go under the water than the fish who swim around their feet. In fact that is the analogy, for me. The underwater realm of the duck is as much its natural environment as is the riverbank on which it waddles. The same goes for humans and the sea.

                  • Uturn …
                    2 April 2012 at 11:38 am

                    So what did they say to you?

                    • vto …
                      2 April 2012 at 11:42 am

                      I can’t recall specifics but the words have been along the lines “well, it is the sharks environment not yours, you have no / less right to be there. You should stay out.”

                      It has been pretty common over the years. I put it down to a guilt complex thanks to our species penchant for taking it all until it all gone – be it kauri forests, moas, oil, rivers, fish,…

          • marty mars 9.3.1.4.2
            2 April 2012 at 10:41 am

            I do not see time on the planet as any sort of determinant. That is a very slippery slope. How is it a determinant? And further, how on earth have sharkes been here longer anyway? If you accept evolution then you will realise that we (sharks and humans) have been here equal amounts of time, in various forms.

            around an issue that for many arises simply due to some sort of misplaced guilt complex.

            Isn’t that the same logic you use when discussing indigenous issues?

            Back to the sharks – to argue that the oceans are humans natural environment argues nothing. Under that logic everywhere is part of the humans natural environment which, whilst true at one level, makes any distinction of ‘natural environment’s’ meaningless, surely.

            • vto 9.3.1.4.2.1
              2 April 2012 at 10:54 am

              “Isn’t that the same logic you use when discussing indigenous issues?” Yes, there is some overlap, but not really..

              And yes the term ‘natural environment’ is generally a reference to the non-human world. It is not the best description.

              • marty mars …
                2 April 2012 at 11:09 am

                It seems an issue of respect to me. We respect different ecosystems, environments and habitats and their inhabitants and when we enter those realms we treat them with respect not condescension. I don’t believe in our supposed godgiven right to wade in and fuck everything up for everything else.

                • vto …
                  2 April 2012 at 11:19 am

                  “It seems an issue of respect to me. We respect different ecosystems, environments and habitats and their inhabitants and when we enter those realms we treat them with respect not condescension. I don’t believe in our supposed godgiven right to wade in and fuck everything up for everything else.”

                  I agree entirely and can’t understand why you would assume that from my point about the right to be in the sea.

                  One (the right to be in the sea) doesn’t mean the other (the right to dominate and exploit).

                  • marty mars …
                    2 April 2012 at 11:30 am

                    wasn’t about you vto just a generalised statement about my view on the way humans should approach different environments and so on. Although not sure what these ‘rights’ entail, i mean can’t we go to the beach now?

                    • vto …
                      2 April 2012 at 11:48 am

                      Oh, ok. What do those rights entail? As mentioned above the words ‘rights’ or ‘entitlement’ are not the correct description of the situation. It is more a recognition that the sea is part of the natural human environment as it is part of the fishes natural environment. It is this aspect which many deny.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      2 April 2012 at 12:00 pm

                      Does your right to be in the sea, extend to a right to be in the sea without a risk of shark related incidents involving blood, and the chomping?

                      If it doesn’t, then I’m not sure there’s an argument to be had here.

                      Folks that talk about the shark being there first or what have you, tend to be responding to an argument that ‘the shark is at fault’, or an implication that ‘bloody sharks, what a pack of wankers, someone ought to do something, like kill heaps of sharks’.

                      No one disputes that you have a right to go into the sea, as long as it’s accepted that if you are really unlucky, you might get bitten by a shark. Nor does anyone dispute that you wouldn’t get bitten by a shark if you didn’t go into the sea.

                      In other words, go into the sea for sure, but your only grounds for complaining about shark bites is if you don’t go into the sea.

                    • vto …
                      2 April 2012 at 12:11 pm

                      P’s b, I mentioned above, the ‘right’ includes the right to protect yourself. If the sea is accepted as part of the natural human realm then all aspects are incorporated, in your example case the aspect of individual and group protection in that environment. All creatures protect themselves of course.

                      So the next question is – what level of protection is right? Culling of sharks in populated areas? Repulsion devices? Nothing at all and you just roll the dice? This is where it gets tricky and the issue becomes even more difficult…

                      I don’t know the complete answer. I guess if you decided to go diving off Stewart Island during great white breeding time and decided to get rid of them to enable your diving to happen there is something amiss, but if you were diving somewhere and a great white came sniffing around and you took it out then it veers to the other end of the spectrum.

                    • marty mars …
                      2 April 2012 at 12:17 pm

                      but as you agreed above, the human natural environment argument is meaningless when extended to all environments.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      2 April 2012 at 12:21 pm

                      Yeah, it’s complicated all right.

                      To get briefly buddhist on it, a human is just the universe being a human; and a shark, the universe being a shark. same shit, with fundamentally different perspectives.

                      Now what is a human? It’s no good going as far as saying humans are a part of nature/the universe, you have to say what part of nature/the universe humans are.

                      Does humanity define nature? Meh.

                      Was atime when we were naked apes beset by dangerous beasts, nowadays, it’s hard to say there are many truly wild large beasts left. Once the universe bes something much bigger than a housecat it runs the risk of human bits of the universe extincting it. Lions tigres bears, all exist right now, on human sufferage. We allow them space.

                      I’m not sure if that makes them ‘lions’ still or not.

                      To come down from those clouds, I think one of the main things to think about is the purpose for being in the water. If you are a subsusitence fisher putting food on your families table, I think you have alot of justification for killing a shark.

                      A recreational diver going out for a look see? I’m inclined to say “Well look-see and what lives in the sea muthafucka’

                    • marty mars …
                      2 April 2012 at 12:33 pm

                      what level of protection is right?

                      The shark is master of it’s own domain, if we enter their domain we get what we get and infrequently at best. I’m all for protection but if your logic is extended then you would kill off everything because of its potential to harm humans and that would be a big no no for me. You points may have some merit if a shark wandered into your street and started biting people but until then…

                    • vto …
                      3 April 2012 at 11:33 am

                      A further note to this thread from yesterday.

                      Now we have a person munched by a croc in knee-deep fresh water. http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/6684651/Woman-dragged-from-crocodiles-grasp

                      Whose realm is this then?

                      Does the shark criteria apply here?

                      Who has the most ethical right to be at a water hole in driest Australia?

                      edit: not a reply to just marty but to all, if anyone around. Maybe everyone gone swimming…

                    • vto …
                      3 April 2012 at 12:03 pm

                      Good of you to put up your own home vids felix, you are a very brave cat…

    • felix 9.4
      2 April 2012 at 11:12 am

      I almost came as a shark actually, but then I realized an eagle’s slightly better.

      • vto 9.4.1
        2 April 2012 at 11:29 am

        But felix aren’t you a pussycat? And wouldn’t both eagles and sharks have them for entree?

    • Bill 9.5
      2 April 2012 at 12:47 pm

      Hmm. God knows where this comment will land in the thread. But anyway. Any environment can be entered into to some degree or other with the proviso that we can actually survive it for some span of time or other.

      Eg. A road is an environment I cross over quite often. I’ve been around longer than some drivers in their cars have, but so what? If I don’t look around, allow for the fact that a couple of tonnes of machinery under the control of an idiot is going to hurt me lots and lots if it hits me, and modify my behaviour appropriately, then I’m going to get hurt or killed.

      And I can, if I want, lash out at cars that threaten my safety in spite of any reasonable precautions I’ve taken. (Panel dints tend to piss off wankers behind a wheel).

      So. I can go into the sea. And get hit by rips and sharks and ‘a million and one’ other pieces of shit. And maybe I can punch the nose of a shark that is thinking of having a chew on my leg or whatever.

      Jeez. What was the point of this thread again? yup. I can go where I want. And sometimes shit might happen. And if shit happens, is it my fault or something or someone elses? Kind of depends on circumstances dunnit?

      Did I have any right to be on the road when I got run over and munted? Yes. Was it wise to have stepped out onto the road pissed as a newt and not looking? No. Was it my fault I got munted? And did I have the right to be on the road stone cold sober (observing the ‘common sense’ rules of the environment) when that car ‘hung a right’ and whacked me? And was it my fault I got whacked?

      Who knows what rules govern the sea? You kind of takes your chances and do what you can if and when shit lands , innit?

      • Pascal's bookie 9.5.1
        2 April 2012 at 12:50 pm

        I reckon so.

        Sharks’ gonna shark.

        • vto 9.5.1.1
          2 April 2012 at 5:12 pm

          To all those who kindly offered their opinions above, ta. But I still aint too far ahead. Pretty much the same arguments as I always come across, so not sure what the true reality is. I of course stand by my own opinion which is that the sea is part of our natural environment just as much as sandy desert, icy mountain or windy skies and we are as entitled as the birds and the dinosaurs and the fishes to be in it.

          As to the other side issues, such as exploitation, senseless killing, respect for the environment etc they are surely correct. It seems however it is often these side issues which people take into account when deciding the main issue – which is the classic case of mixing up the issues and questions leading to an erroneous answer.

          Now, who’s having fish for tea? And it had better not be a Talleys fish …..

          • Bill 9.5.1.1.1
            2 April 2012 at 9:34 pm

            Nah vto. It’s heaps ahead. I get your point about being pissed off by the ‘it be shark’s environment and you in’t got no right to be there’ shit.

            So, we can go where we want. But we takes our chances.

            What if we wandrered into head hunter territory? And we got whacked? Shit happens. Did we have a ‘right’ to go there? Yup. Did we have a ‘right’ to the consequences? Yup. Do we have a right to ‘go ape’ on the headhunters? Nope.

            Fucking simple.

    • Vicky32 9.6
      2 April 2012 at 5:57 pm

      Mankind has always gone into the sea, still does so now and will in the future. Mankind is as entitled as the fish to enter the sea.

      Agreed! 🙂

  10. ianmac 10
    2 April 2012 at 9:51 am

    ACC VIPs get ‘preferential treatment’
    By John Gibb of the Otago Daily Times

    ACC has come under renewed attack over suggestions its “VIP claims” handling policy delivers better protection for the privacy of powerful decision-makers, including MPs, judges and ACC board members.

    Its in their manual. ACC says it is to ensure privacy of VIP.
    But why would so called VIPs get preferential treatment?
    This is significant given the ACC Privacy question currently.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10796116

    • deuto 10.1
      2 April 2012 at 10:02 am

      This Stuff article today on apparent gagging of ACC rehabilitation providers under the new system that has just come into place is also interesting – http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/6676034/ACC-gags-vocational-rehabilitation-providers

      ACC under fire from a number of quarters – an I a cynic in terms of diversion and/or put the heat on ACC to undermine its credibility further for both the privacy issue and other purposes (eg privatisation). That is not to say that the matters raised in both the Herald and Stuff articles are not disturbing and serious.

      • ianmac 10.1.1
        2 April 2012 at 1:58 pm

        deuto:

        “…am I a cynic in terms of diversion and/or put the heat on ACC to undermine its credibility further for both the privacy issue and other purposes (eg privatisation).”

        Yes. This was a concern expressed by Millhouse a week ago. Soften up the public that ACC is a mess, (Welfare anyone?) and presto.
        Guess who can supply a bit of Privatisation to fix it up? We all know that Private is better than Public – don’t we???

  11. captain hook 11
    2 April 2012 at 11:23 am

    so what does ipredict say or aren’t they taking bets on this one?

  12. Jackal 12
    2 April 2012 at 12:09 pm

    Guilty until proven innocent

    The question is can we trust our so called “representatives” to act ethically and ensure that such powers are not abused?

    • Frank Macskasy 13.1
      2 April 2012 at 12:18 pm

      A pity the same cannot be said for unemployment; governmrent debt; and better growth, eh, Muzza?

      • muzza 13.1.1
        2 April 2012 at 12:20 pm

        Frank actually I am sure the figures are BS, and heading up the same as those you mention…They are linked intrinsically, and I’m calling shennanigans!

        • Jackal 13.1.1.1
          2 April 2012 at 1:25 pm

          Maybe not concerning falling crime rates. National is just trying to take credit for what is a world wide trend that has little to do with legislation.

        • Frank Macskasy 13.1.1.2
          2 April 2012 at 8:44 pm

          Muzza… But, but, surely John Key wouldn’t lie to us… ?! 😀

          • Gosman 13.1.1.2.1
            2 April 2012 at 9:03 pm

            Given the fact that John Key isn’t responsible for the production of these statistics I’m not sure how you can imply this is a lie from him. If it was then NZ has got a lot bigger problem than just a right leaning Government you don’t like very much. Our entire system is corrupted beyond repair and will need to be rebuilt. You are surely not suggesting that are you Frank? Even you’re not that stupid surely.

            • Descendant Of Smith 13.1.1.2.1.1
              3 April 2012 at 7:18 am

              From memory was it revealed a couple of years ago that National got the police to start laying charges differently i.e. if someone stole a checkbook and used 6 cheques then 6 charges (using s document for pecuniary advantage, fraud whatever) used to be laid.

              This was changed to lay only one charge.

              • Descendant Of Smith …
                3 April 2012 at 7:29 am

                Funnily enough (assuming it is the same burt) burt had a view on this a few years ago when Labour were in power.

                http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/10/crime_stats-2.html

                October 2nd, 2007 at 12:54 pm

                As somebody who spent time working from an IT perspective on Police stats I can tell you that most of the comments here are very poorly informed. Including yours.

                October 2nd, 2007 at 1:08 pm

                One more thing. I you (or anybody else on propaganda propagation duties) can secure me an official release from the lifetime confidentiality agreements I signed while doing that work – I’ll happily fill in the blanks that exists between the perception and the reality. Until then – all I say is that the stats are produced by police but published by the Govt of the day.

                That last sentence I suspect sums it up quite nicely.

  14. Jimmie 14
    2 April 2012 at 1:10 pm

    Not much comment on here about crime rates falling

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10796158

    Nothing to do with Judith Collins/3 strikes/improved policing & morale of course – obviously the commissioner has been didling the figures to suit himself.

    What an evil national government getting the commissioner to massage crime stats for their own purposes – likely they have been bribing crims to go straight as well so that they can do some sneaky cuts in Police numbers – typical tory scum!

  15. felix 15
    2 April 2012 at 1:52 pm

    Filthy dirty corrupt disgusting cops: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxlL0I5AWLI

  16. bad12 16
    2 April 2012 at 2:08 pm

    Slippery has announced a bit of a Cabinet re-shuffle in the carve up of Nick Smith,s little empire following His long over-due relegation to a position on the Government bench,s that in our opinion best suits His abilities,

    No surprises in any of that and the only point of interest is the further subtle dilution of the ”Brat Pack,s influence”…

  17. james 111 17
    2 April 2012 at 2:20 pm

    Great Stats on crime for the Nats sure to be a vote retainer for them if they can keep it up. Very good result for Christchurch does that mean the crims actuall have a heart. Or they were all shaken out of Chrsitchurch excuse the pun

    • ianmac 17.1
      2 April 2012 at 2:47 pm

      I believe that Recorded Crime is up in Waikato and Auckland. Did you just forget to mention that James?

    • muzza 17.2
      2 April 2012 at 2:57 pm

      LOL – Jimmy you really are quite funny, much more than Gosman who tries to be clever, but simply is not! Your naivity of comment should actually be embraced, because you seem able to be able to roll even the largest of turds in glitter

      What a special little guy eh….

      FYI – The crime has moved from Christchurch, most likely headed to Waikato, Auckland, Nelson and Oamaru…make sense buddy?

    • McFlock 17.3
      2 April 2012 at 3:13 pm

      Meh.
      1% of that would be the CHCH central stats dropping by 44%. I wonder why?
         
      And we’re at the end of the census cycle, so who knows whether their population projections include the exodus to Aus, and of course what’s the tourist population rate? And that’s without juking the stats.
         
      Happy crime seems to be down, waiting to see if it’s for real.

  19. Dv 19
    2 April 2012 at 5:36 pm

    Are the stats reported per population or ‘raw’ data?

  20. vto 20
    2 April 2012 at 5:37 pm

    Heard Stephen Franks the other day waffling on about how the Lombard Four’s crimes should not have been crimes because they lacked the intent (and knowledge). It was a bit of a discussion I think on Nat Radio but it lacked the crucial pieces …..

    Our criminal laws have developed over centuries and centuries of events and instances that have been hauled up before the courts and carefully considered and decided by judges and juries.

    The result is that our society has deemed certain acts to be criminal, whether or not they have any intent. This has resulted from society deeming those acts and their results to be of such grave consequence for both individuals and society as a whole that they must be sanctioned to the extent of being made a crime, no matter the lack of intent. These acts can be against both people and property. This is the result of centuries and centuries of this consideration by the wise heads of the judges and by the average of society as a whole through the jury system.

    Manslaughter is one example. Making false statements when raising money from the public is another. Do those such as Stephen Franks also suggest that those who by their unintended actions kill someone should also not be subject to criminal charge? Because I have seen and heard no argument around this particularity.

    He argued against something that society has developed over centuries but offered not a single decent reason as to why those centuries of consideration should be dispensed with. imo.

    • McFlock 20.1
      2 April 2012 at 6:47 pm

      My perception has always been that all crimes require intent, but it is the intent to commit the act, not just of outcome. So manslaughter requires the intent to commit the act that killed someone, even if you didn’t think it would hurt them.
         
      Similarly the lombard crew intended to sign their papers, even though they might not have known they were incorrect. The fact is that they asserted as fact something that, as far as they knew, could have been either fact or fiction. That was the intent, not the “well, they didn’t know it wasn’t true, so they didn’t do anything wrong”-type BS of Franks perspective. Which is perilously close to the:

      aide: sir, this might be strictly tr-

      boss: nah nah nah not listening! It’s true until I’m told otherwise, and nobody’s told me anything!

      aide: very well, sir

      defence. 
         
      The law can be an ass, but it’s not that dumb.
       

  21. starlight 21
    2 April 2012 at 8:41 pm

    Amnesty International wants an independant investigation into nz compliance with
    human rights obligations in Afghanistan,PM say’s there is no need.
    This article is on the stuff site.

  22. starlight 22
    2 April 2012 at 8:46 pm

    The rich create debt,the poor have to mop it up,look at greece,spain and ireland.

  23. Dave Kennedy 23
    3 April 2012 at 12:25 am

    There is an audible grumbling in the ranks, a little like a volcano about to erupt…

    http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2012/04/grass-roots-of-union-movement.html