Open mike 02/12/09

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, December 2nd, 2009 - 44 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

mike

Topics of interest, announcements, general discussion. The usual rules apply (see the link to Policy in the banner).

Step right up to the mike…

44 comments on “Open mike 02/12/09 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. gitmo 1
    2 December 2009 at 6:57 am

    Buffoons.

    “One of the reasons the North Shore City Council is looking at charging parking fees at its busway stations is a big rise in the rates it charges itself.”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10612875

    • felix 1.1
      2 December 2009 at 9:09 am

      I wonder how much they spend collecting them? And if they charge themselves penalty fees for late payment?

      • gitmo 1.1.1
        2 December 2009 at 9:42 am

        “And if they charge themselves penalty fees for late payment?”

        You know I’d almost be surprised if they didn’t….fecking imbeciles.

    • Amarello 1.2
      3 December 2009 at 1:04 am

      Bored-

      Captcha- REFLECTIONS.
      I reflect-
      I don’t like the name “gitmo”.

      I state.

  2. vto 2
    2 December 2009 at 7:14 am

    Abusive relationships – in what proportion do you think men are the problem culprit and what proportion women?

    • Tigger 2.1
      2 December 2009 at 8:59 am

      Because abuse only happens in heterosexual relationships…

    • Draco T Bastard 2.2
      2 December 2009 at 10:23 am

      http://www.abanet.org/domviol/statistics.html

      Unfortunately, NZ doesn’t seem to publish the same data – or I’m looking in the wrong place.

      • vto 2.2.1
        2 December 2009 at 10:34 am

        Thanks mr draco. Most of those stats referred to physical violence rather than just more standard abuse encompassing emotional and other abuse, which is what I was wondering.

        Obviously with physical violence stats men will be over-represented due to their larger physical size. Women will not be as violent because they simply can’t be.

        Anyways, what caught my eye is the gay and lesbian stats. In relationships like that (where the physial component is removed) then it is interesting to see that it is about the same..

        11% of women in a lesbian relationship and 15% of men in a gay one reported abuse. So pretty similar rates of ‘attack’ for men and women. Relating that back to my question it would appear that men may be almost as likely to suffer from abuse as women (physical component to one side).

        mmm… bery interesting …

        • felix 2.2.1.1
          2 December 2009 at 10:42 am

          So reality aside, things look different from reality.

          Brilliant, v.

          • vto 2.2.1.1.1
            2 December 2009 at 10:50 am

            ha ha, looks that way doesnt it. My curiosity was spiked by a nearby situation where physical violence is absent but abuse rife. A reasonably common situation I would have thought. I was just interested in thoughts and stats on non-violent abuse differences between men and women. A legitimate and useful question no?

            • felix 2.2.1.1.1.1
              2 December 2009 at 11:34 am

              Ah I see what you mean. inneressing, yes. Although I don’t know why you think the physical differences are removed in lesbian/gay relationships.

        • RedLogix 2.2.1.2
          2 December 2009 at 10:48 am

          @ felix,

          Ease up on the liberal knee-jerk there. vto’s point is a real one. Much of the historic debate around violence and abuse in relationships, while real and important, minimised the simple fact that that neither gender had a monopoly on bad behaviour.

        • Lanthanide 2.2.1.3
          2 December 2009 at 1:07 pm

          “Anyways, what caught my eye is the gay and lesbian stats. In relationships like that (where the physial component is removed) then it is interesting to see that it is about the same..”

          Right, because any two men or two women in a relationship are exactly the same strength because they’re the same gender.

          • vto 2.2.1.3.1
            2 December 2009 at 2:07 pm

            Overall across all gay relationships, on average, yes.

            Whereas overall across all hetero relationships, on average, no. The male is bigger and stronger than the female.

            Pretty simple stuff.

            • Tigger 2.2.1.3.1.1
              2 December 2009 at 3:34 pm

              Draco – vto’s original question implied that the relationship was made up of a woman and a man – otherwise it makes no sense.

  3. Mach1 3
    2 December 2009 at 7:17 am

    Charles Johnson, the only sane voice on the right of the US bloggosphere writes:

    Why I Parted Ways With The Right

    • vto 4.1
      2 December 2009 at 8:34 am

      Well its a sign isn’t it.

      On that note tho – it is an interesting point when bankers start getting the personal threats. The people they often deal with (you know, clients – apparently) are being dealt with in their personal capacity. They personally go bankrupt, lose their home, etc. Very very very personal. Yet the bankers hide behind their ‘office’.

      “Oh, I am just doing my job”. “Oh its bank policy”. No personal responsibility. Walk away at the end of the day.

      They are fools to think that they can personally hide from their actions in their role as bankers. And most especially at times of stress and meltdown. As now. It does not surprise me one little bit that ‘clients’ may taking to their bankers in a personal capacity. After all the bankers take a personal recompense for their role. They cannot have their cake and eat it too.

      This is entirely predictable and natural human behaviour. If the bankers think otherwise then more the fool they.

    • vto 4.2
      2 December 2009 at 8:45 am

      Tell you another sign of this, and much closer to home.

      Rich bankers buying ‘safe havens’ here in NZ. Rothschilds purchased a large coastal farm on Banks Peninsula a while ago. Has port access, open sea access, international airport, magnificent growing conditions, very restricted overland access, etc all in close proximity. Makes one of the best fortresses in NZ.

      It is a place I have on my list to watch if the world, or more particularly the US, really does melt…

      • vto 4.2.1
        4 December 2009 at 9:00 am

        You people may be interested in another example of people taking to their bankers – just this morning in The Press.

        The Press publishes its letter of the week which has some codger suggesting that disgruntled investors in Canterbury Mortgage Trust approach the management at their home addresses. He goes on to say how their addresses can be found (companies office website) and pretty much very directly infers that the disgruntled should take their picks and shovels to their front doors.

        And The Press publishes it as letter of the week !!!!

        Pretty unfuckingbelieveable. Encouragement of lynch mobs (lprent where are you?).

        I suppose its hardly surprising – the ignorance that led to people investing in those outfits (i.e. greed for the extra 2% pa and the refusal to investigate the risks) is the same ignorance that leads to such a letter being penned.

        It is a sign. An ominous one.

        • lprent 4.2.1.1
          4 December 2009 at 11:21 am

          Yeah – I entirely agree with your comment (now that is rare).

          Incidentally that is one of the main reasons we run with pseudonyms as the about explains. It is also the reason we don’t allow addresses to be published here.

        • Kathy 4.2.1.2
          16 December 2009 at 10:00 pm

          I thought you may be interested to know that a large majority of the people that I know of, who invested in the Canterbury Mortgage Trust fund, were elderly people who had no knowledge of investments, apart from a term deposit in a Bank. However, at the encouragement of their ‘legal advisors’ (Solicitors), the CMT was put forward as a safe place for their money. Older people are from the generation where they trusted their Solicitor! These elderly folk are the ones in rest homes – some with dementia, alzheimer’s, etc. who were relying on their funds to pay for their retirement needs and care. My mother was one of these elderly people – she died the day after CMT froze their funds (24/07/2009) and they refused to release her funeral funds. I have no doubt there have been many other ‘codgers’ who have been equally and worse affected by the CMT mess. These are the voices we cannot hear.

          • lprent 4.2.1.2.1
            16 December 2009 at 10:12 pm

            I’m very sorry to hear that.

            Do you mind if I use your comment in a post?

            One of the things that needs to happen is a far stricter oversight of investments outside of stock exchange that aren’t listed. In particular the duties and penalties of the directors of such investment companies, and financial advisers.

    • Draco T Bastard 4.3
      2 December 2009 at 10:36 am

      Goldman Sachs, your one stop shop for banking, diplomacy and private army?

  5. outofbed 5
    2 December 2009 at 8:29 am

    May I heartedly recommend this video on the science of climate change

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&feature=channel

    People on both sides of the argument should find it useful

  6. RedLogix 6
    2 December 2009 at 10:28 am

    Anyone else gobsmacked at Fran’s rant this morning?

    She all but accuses Key of being a fellow traveller.

    • felix 6.1
      2 December 2009 at 10:45 am

      Oh look, Key is a fool for not breaking enough promises:

      All National has/had to do was cite the untenable amount of debt which the Government had to take on board to sustain the fiscal stimulus package, and the fact that Cullen had stripped the cupboard bare in advance of the last election as the economy slipped into a deep contraction.

      Any politician worth their salt could execute a believable volte-face in such circumstances.

    • Draco T Bastard 6.2
      2 December 2009 at 10:46 am

      Oh dear, she mentions the fiscal stimulus package that wasn’t as costing more money.

      There’s a reason why I don’t read her writings – their connection to reality is, at best, minimal.

  8. prism 8
    2 December 2009 at 10:34 am

    Abbott gets to head the Liberal party in Oz, withdraws previous agreement to do something towards climate change amelioration, announces that he is not going to let Rudd? of Labour get happy pats on the back at Copenhagen for Australia’s measures that will cause higher taxes in Oz.

    It’s politicians again – it’s all about ‘me’ and ‘my crowd’ not the good of the country or acting responsibly in the world. We should have a grand spectacle each year – a symbolic rutting with political leaders (male and female) donning antlers and running at each other until they are exhausted.

  9. mickysavage 9
    2 December 2009 at 10:44 am

    What is up with Kiwiblog? No postings in 22 hours nearly and no general debate?

    I miss my morning’s dive into the sewer that is Kiwiblog comments.

  10. Draco T Bastard 10
    2 December 2009 at 11:10 am

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/26/science-shackles-intellectual-property

    Ownership rights pose a real danger to scientific progress for the public good

    Which is something that I’ve been considering for some time. Patents, instead of encouraging scientific development, actually prevents it because any attempt at development is likely to be already covered by an existing patent. Also, they prevent dissemination of those ideas to the people and places who really need them.

    As I’ve said before, capitalism isn’t about a free market but about restricting everything as much as possible to boost profits.

    • Quoth the Raven 10.1
      2 December 2009 at 12:28 pm

      Most free marketeers have come around or are coming around to opposing intellectual property (even the mises crowd now). You should have a look at these anti-copyright resources at the Molinari Institute.

    • Scott 10.2
      2 December 2009 at 5:39 pm

      “Patents, instead of encouraging scientific development, actually prevents it because any attempt at development is likely to be already covered by an existing patent. Also, they prevent dissemination of those ideas to the people and places who really need them.”

      That shows a fundamental lack of understanding about how patents work.

      If patents prevent scientific development, how is it that tens of thousands of new inventions are patented every year?

      Patents reward innovation. Take the reward away and most technology businesses won’t bother to invest in R&D. Why would they spend money developing something they can’t protect, only for their competitors to copy it?

      Take drug companies. I know everyone hates them, but they wouldn’t be spending billions on R&D if it were not for the patent system. Would that be a good thing?

      • Noko 10.2.1
        2 December 2009 at 6:00 pm

        Drug companies spend (by their own admission) as much on advertising as they do on R&D. The fact is, generally the patent system is okay, but it’s the copyright system which is insanely out of whack.

        • Scott 10.2.1.1
          2 December 2009 at 8:14 pm

          They do spend lots on marketing. So does any business that wants to sell its products.

          As for copyright, all I’ll say is there are some big issues there.

  11. gobsmacked 11
    2 December 2009 at 11:44 am

    Unfortunate Quote of the Week Award, goes to Dr Pita Sharples, commenting today on Hone Harawira. Stuff.co.nz reports:

    At a press conference in Auckland Pita Sharples said the party was now happy to be moving on.

    “He is a full part of the party, he’s back, we are finished’.

  12. Pascal's bookie 12
    4 December 2009 at 9:19 am

    @vto (reply function is failing me at the mo)

    And The Press publishes it as letter of the week !!!!

    Jeebus.

Links to post