Open mike 03/02/2016

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, February 3rd, 2016 - 140 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmikeOpen mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose. The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

140 comments on “Open mike 03/02/2016 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Paul 1
    3 February 2016 at 6:09 am

    Another day, another piece of spin for the TPP from the Herald. This time it’s Audrey Young doing her owners’ bidding.
    After years of not reporting it, now they seem to be advertising it.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11583642

    • The lost sheep 1.1
      3 February 2016 at 8:06 am

      And if you go to the Politics page of the Herald (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/headlines.cfm?c_id=280) you will also find the 2 articles below that are highly critical of the TPPA Paul.
      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11583470
      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11573810

      Would you call those ‘spin’ also?
      Seems to me The Herald is reporting both sides of the story.
      Your problem is that you wake up each morning with only one eye open a bad case of confirmation bias.

      • framu 1.1.1
        3 February 2016 at 8:44 am

        2 goulds – hmm

        what about the multiple audreys, frans, claires, etc etc

        yes the herald does have some critical articles – but its pretty hard to deny that they arent engaging in a ramp up of once over lightly, put down the dissenters, spin articles

        Ok – im really only looking at the opinion section there so will freely admit theres stuff i dont see

      • Puckish Rogue 1.1.2
        3 February 2016 at 8:56 am

        If its anything positive for the government its spin, if its anything negative for the government then its good, honest, unbiased reporting

      • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.3
        3 February 2016 at 9:04 am

        Seems to me The Herald is reporting both sides of the story.

        You’ve heard of the phrase “false balance”, I’m sure.
        Perhaps you’re even aware of the argument that it distorts public discourse.

        It might pay you to think about this a bit harder. Yes, that again.

        • The lost sheep 1.1.3.1
          3 February 2016 at 4:13 pm

          You’ve heard of the phrase “false balance”, I’m sure.

          I’m sure you are aware that there are actually several manifestations of ‘false balance’, including the very common use of it as an attempt to avoid bias.
          So unless you have a specific allegation of a specific use of ‘false balance’ by The Herald? I’ll take it that you are simply pulling your usual trick of implying something dark and then leaving the believers to join up the dots in the way that best suits their personal bias.

          Perhaps you’re even aware of the argument that it distorts public discourse.

          Yes. And you may be aware of some of the objections and qualifications to that argument.

          1. In order for ‘public discourse’ to be significantly distorted, a specific manifestation of ‘false balance’ would need to be consistently applied to a sufficiently large bloc of all available media.
          In simple terms, in an environment where an educated public have access to many media sources, it is impossible for a single media outlet of the size of The Herald to produce enough bias to have an appreciable effect on ‘public discourse’. (This is why truly repressive Governments always have overt media control as a priority).

          2. ‘Truly balanced’ reporting is an impossibility.
          Except perhaps in a case where there are no factors involved that are open to dispute, and the protagonists to the issue are split a perfect 50/50 among the public. But when did that ever happen?
          Most if not all Human issues are complex and there are as many different views of it as there are members of the public. How then does a journalist of editor judge what the perfect balance of reportage should be?
          It is inevitable that ‘balance’ is to some degree subjective, and will vary across media outlets according to their judgement and personal inclination – and it will be nearly impossible for any one outlet to get balance perfect – let alone all outlets.

          3. ‘Perfect balance’ is not actually desirable!
          When you access The Guardian, or Independent, or Huffington Post, or Al Jazeera, or The Daily Blog, or The Standard…..do you want them to be ‘perfectly balanced’ in their reporting?
          Or do you expect them to be showing a ‘balance’ of reporting somewhere in line with your own worldview of what is ‘right’ and ‘important’?
          Think about it. What would the difference between those outlets be if each one was striving to achieve a ‘perfect balance’ of all different views? Fuck all eh?
          And more disturbingly, think about what kind of mechanism would be necessary in order to establish a standard of ‘balance’, and how that would be imposed? Yup, we’re back in the territory of repressive governments again…

          4. The Public have a critical faculty of their own with which to filter bias. This means that even when bias exists, it’s ability to ‘distort’ an individuals opinions is very limited.

          ‘Balance’ is actually provided by having a wide variety of free media outlets that are freely available to the public, and allowing the public free rein to choose among them, and make up their own minds about what they actually think.

          Happily, That’s the situation here in Aotearoa, as reflected in our World Press Freedom ranking.
          So I reckon you can stop worrying about Granny.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.3.1.1
            3 February 2016 at 4:34 pm

            Did I quote The Herald? Did I say I was worried about them?

            1. in an environment where an educated public have access to many media sources, it is impossible for a single media outlet of the size of The Herald to produce enough bias to have an appreciable effect on ‘public discourse’.

            That depends what the other media sources report.

            2. There’s no such thing as a “balance” between facts and bullshit. Take the “debate” about the Greenhouse Effect, for example.

            3. If opinions can’t be swayed why does the National Party spend so much money on ratfucking and propaganda? Whither advertising? Why does Bill English say low income earners pay no tax while John Key says they’ll have to pay for the tertiary education budget?

            In short, reporting lies isn’t “balance”. Facts don’t have sides. The “story” is as like as not “PM caught lying. Again”.

            • The lost sheep 1.1.3.1.1.1
              4 February 2016 at 10:22 am

              That depends what the other media sources report.

              As i point out above. the fact that the NZ public has numerous free media outlets to freely access ensures that no one outlet can, or is, limiting the free flow of information.

              There’s no such thing as a “balance” between facts and bullshit. Take the “debate” about the Greenhouse Effect, for example.

              Of course there is no ‘balance’ between facts and bullshit. For the very obvious reason that there is a substantial blurred line between those two states. As a compulsive obfuscatator, you should know that better than most.
              Yes, take Greenhouse debate. Over the many years since it was first raised (1824), how often have the ‘facts’ changed? How long were the ‘facts’ in debate before enough of a consensus emerged to establish even the basic premise as a widely accepted ‘fact’? Even now how many aspects of the effect are still in debate? How many ‘facts’ will change as research and debate evolve?

              So tell me me OAB, over the years the evolving issue has been in the media, and so many ‘facts’ were unknown or in debate, how would journalists and editors have gone about ensuring that they were only printing ‘facts’?

              In short, reporting lies isn’t “balance”. Facts don’t have sides. The “story” is as like as not “PM caught lying. Again”.

              You seem to be assuming it is the role of the media to arbitrate the ‘truth’, and then filter the news so that ‘truth’ is all we have presented to us.
              It is not of course.
              The medias role is to present us with the whole glorious mess of stuff that is out there, and let us make up our own minds what is truth and what is lies.

              I’ve read enough from you OAB to know that your problem with this is that you believe ‘the people’ are stupid empty vessels with no free will and therefore incapable of assessing the validity of what is put in front of them. Behind your complaints about the media, I sense a yearning for a Ministry of Truth that would do that for them.

              If opinions can’t be swayed why does the National Party spend so much money on ratfucking and propaganda? Whither advertising? Why does Bill English say low income earners pay no tax while John Key says they’ll have to pay for the tertiary education budget?

              See above. Because if you have a message you want to put in front of people and give them the opportunity to agree or disagree.
              Once again, you are assuming that because a message is put in front of someone, it must influence them against their free will and own critical faculty.
              It does not.
              Does all advertising succeed? Does all political propaganda have the desired effect?
              As Orwell said, “Propaganda is only effective with people who are already inclined to accept it”.

              In short OAB, you and the others on this forum that have an unhealthy conspiracy tinged obsession with the theory that the media is the reason your ‘message’ is not being adopted by the majority of the people, need to drop that delusion.
              The issue is with the message itself.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                4 February 2016 at 12:56 pm

                In fact, journalism involves a fair degree of fact-checking.

                The rest of your bullshit says something about you, and nothing whatsoever about me.

                • The lost sheep …
                  4 February 2016 at 2:06 pm

                  ‘Bullshit’ that you have no counter arguments to?
                  O.K.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    4 February 2016 at 2:13 pm

                    Since your bullshit consists of assertions about me, what “argument” do I need other than to point out that fact?

                    Why don’t you get a PR company or think tank to figure out an answer for you: it’s not like anyone credible would waste their time.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                4 February 2016 at 2:04 pm

                The medias role is to present us with the whole glorious mess of stuff that is out there, and let us make up our own minds what is truth and what is lies.

                No, it isn’t: this is the very stuff of false balance. As I said: your beliefs say something about you: in this case that you don’t have the first inkling what a journal of record is.

                • The lost sheep …
                  4 February 2016 at 2:12 pm

                  you don’t have the first inkling what a journal of record is.

                  Yes, but i don’t see what that has to do with the discussion above, unless it is that you think we should have one?

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    4 February 2016 at 2:16 pm

                    Here’s a little clue: journal, journalism.

                    Has it never occurred to you to wonder why people who’ve been overseas have a low opinion of our “news” media? Or why you Righties always think that academics have a left-wing bias, to the extent that you have to set up think tanks because you can’t pass peer review?

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    4 February 2016 at 2:33 pm

                    While you’re thinking about those questions of something to say, here’s another: if journalism consists of writing down any old shit and letting the public decide, why do we have s.68 of the evidence act and a Press Council?

                    Think.

                    • The lost sheep …
                      4 February 2016 at 2:37 pm

                      If you believe the current situation is not satisfactory OAB, what changes would you advocate?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      4 February 2016 at 2:53 pm

                      Get money out of politics.

                      Entrench te Tiriti O Waitangi and the BoRA.

                      Repair the rule of law.

                    • The lost sheep …
                      4 February 2016 at 3:03 pm

                      A bit shy about giving a honest answer OAB?

                      This is an honest debating forum, so I’d really like you to answer my question directly please.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      4 February 2016 at 3:10 pm

                      What’s the matter? My answer didn’t fit your preconceptions? Or are you incapable of joining the dots between journalistic freedom, the rule of law, the bill of rights and money in politics?

                      Must I spell it all out for you in one syllable words?

                      You asked me what I’d do about this particular issue: I thought about it, and those are the things I’d do.

                    • The lost sheep …
                      4 February 2016 at 3:34 pm

                      The matter is that you are avoiding making an honest answer to a perfectly straightforward question.

                      So yes, do please spell it out in very clear and simple terms.

                      If you genuinely believe the ‘measures’ you suggest would lead to a change in the ‘balance’ of media information in NZ, can you please explain exactly what the specific ‘mechanisms’ would be that cause that change?

                    • McFlock …
                      4 February 2016 at 3:46 pm

                      it seems that monosyllabic it must be 🙂

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      4 February 2016 at 4:31 pm

                      I honestly don’t know if I can be bothered. It’s difficult, teaching is so much harder than learning, whine whine it’s too hot and humid for that kind of effort please don’t make me.

                      1. Getting money out of politics: propaganda relies on repetition, effective repetition costs money.

                      2. The BoRA provides tools by which the citizenry can defend themselves against institutional wrongdoing.

                      3. The rule of law makes politicians (and the Crown) answerable to the same rules as everyone else.

                      4. Te Tiriti O Waitangi is the founding document of our nation – it also provides checks and balances against authoritarian predations.

                      See, that wasn’t so hard was it? I even had to think.

                    • The lost sheep …
                      5 February 2016 at 4:28 pm

                      I asked you specifically about mechanisms that would change the way The Media currently apply (false) ‘balance’.

                      None of the measures you quote contain any such mechanism?

                      1. Would change the way Political Parties put forward information, but it would not effect the ability of The Media to present that information with what ever ‘balance’ they chose.
                      2, 3, and 4 are all existing structures that are part of the environment The Media currently operate under, and so without changing them in some way, they contain no mechanism that would require The Media to change their behavior.

                      So the measures you quote would have no effect what so ever in addressing ‘false balance’ or the publication of ‘lies’ in The Media?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      5 February 2016 at 4:45 pm

                      Why do you say “require” the media to change? Is your authoritarian bias showing?

                      What do you think “getting money out of politics” entails? Perhaps you’re forgetting how much Crosby Textor charge per hour.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    5 February 2016 at 5:03 pm

                    As for 2, 3 and 4, they’re insufficiently entrenched. Entrenching them would assist opportunities that are presently being throttled by vested interests.

                    If you believe that wouldn’t change local media behaviour I suggest you try thinking about it.

                    • The lost sheep …
                      5 February 2016 at 6:05 pm

                      “Why do you say “require” the media to change? Is your authoritarian bias showing?

                      No, YOU are the one who started this thread with a complaint about about Media ‘false balance’, and YOU are the one saying it would be desirable to change that.
                      I’m just very interested to know how specifically you would go about it.
                      On that note, you are still talking in exceeding vague terms OAB.

                      Specifically HOW would you further entrench 2,3,4?
                      Specifically WHAT opportunities would that ‘assist’?
                      Specifically HOW would that change media behaviour?

                      And, if you ‘took the money’ out of politics, specifically HOW would that alter the ability of the media to chose to publish whatever political ‘balance’ they chose?

                      These should be easy questions to answer in a straightforward manner?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      5 February 2016 at 7:38 pm

                      “Complaint” no, it’s an observation.

                      Your entire bullshit rests on the fatuous drivel that I want to compel the media to do things my way. Are you so fucking dense you can’t conceive other ways to affect change?

                      That’s all you’re getting this evening – I’m having far too much fun afk.

                      I might respond more fully tomorrow.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      6 February 2016 at 1:42 pm

                      Nah, still can’t be bothered: what’s the point in explaining it to you again – especially since you seem to think shouting at me is some sort of debating strategy.

                      Those are the things I’d do. Get over it.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    6 February 2016 at 6:04 pm

                    Hint: it’s all about the balance of power. That’s all you’re getting: if you need more clarity try re-reading my comments and thinking about them.

                    • The lost sheep …
                      6 February 2016 at 7:06 pm

                      What I read in your comments is that there are some areas of your beliefs that you are not willing to discuss openly in a straightforward matter.

                      Wonder why that would be?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      6 February 2016 at 7:19 pm

                      It’s because you’re confused about the meaning of words, and projecting your broken-ass preconceptions onto me.

                    • The lost sheep …
                      7 February 2016 at 12:20 pm

                      You advocate moves to to ‘change the balance of power’, but you are not willing to be specific about exactly what you mean by politspeak phrases like “Entrenching them would assist opportunities”.

                      Naturally, I always see a flag raised when people are not willing to openly discuss their proposals. After all the discussion around that very point re. the TPPA, i thought most people here agree secrecy is a very bad thing.

                      So what is your reason for not being willing to openly specify how you would ‘adjust the balance of power’?
                      At a rough guess, I’d say your references to ‘authoritarianism’ above are a clue.
                      You know that there is no way you can ‘adjust the balance of power’ without invoking mechanisms that most people would see as increasing the level of the states involvement / control in such matters. You might look a bit like you were advocating something that was authoritarian in short.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      7 February 2016 at 12:33 pm

                      I openly specified how I’d adjust the balance of power. Do you actually understand the meaning of words?

                    • The lost sheep …
                      7 February 2016 at 1:07 pm

                      ‘Remove money from politics’ and ‘Further entrench Te Tiriti O Waitangi, BORA, The rule of Law, are not specifics OAB, they are generalities.
                      They give as no indication what so ever as to exactly what specific changes to those mechanisms or their role in law you would propose.
                      The devil is in the detail as they say, and frankly the range of possibilities you leave open by being so vague is extremely wide, if not open ended. Under that circumstance I think it is only fair to have a healthy interest in what the details might be?

                      So if you have nothing to hide, it should be no problem for you to detail a few of the specific changes you would make to those mechanisms in order to adjust the balance of power?
                      That’s a straight forward enough question isn’t it?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      7 February 2016 at 1:16 pm

                      Do you understand the meaning of the word ‘entrench’ in this context? It’s self-explanatory.

                      Similarly, repairing the rule of law is self-explanatory. It probably involves little more than re-funding the various watch-dogs the National Party has ratfucked. Perhaps a firm statement from the AG to the judiciary re-establishing the Crown’s commitment. After that leave it to the bench.

                      As for getting money out of politics, some variation on ‘one person one dollar one vote’ might work, and I’d like to see info on how other countries address the issue before going any further.

                    • The lost sheep …
                      8 February 2016 at 1:28 pm

                      ‘Entrench’ is obvious. It means you would change the current status of some legislation in relation to those mechanisms.
                      What exactly you would change, and therefore how deep the ‘entrenchment’ went…..?

                      It’s a bit like a mechanic telling you he is going to ‘repair’ your car, and when you asked him ‘how’ he was going to repair it, he answers that he has already explained that he is going to he is going to repair it…isn’t that self explanatory ad nauseum.

                      As for getting money out of politics, and theories like the ‘one person, one dollar, one vote’ thing, yes they are very problematic.
                      I do note however, that there does not seem to be much debate around such things in NZ?
                      Perhaps that is because there isn’t actually much of a concern that money is in fact significantly distorting the democratic will of the people here?
                      Are you aware of any credible research that suggest it is?

                    • McFlock …
                      8 February 2016 at 3:31 pm

                      lol
                      so sheepy doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
                      Big surprise there /sarc

                      “Entrench” has a precise meaning. When a precise meaning is applied to specific documents, then that constitutes a specific, exact, and straightforward description of the action under consideration.

                      Seek and ye shall find.

                      hint: >50+1
                      Another hint: 266

      • Molly 1.1.4
        3 February 2016 at 10:02 am

        Both of Audrey’s articles have no comments.

        Allowing her work to stand without visible criticism.

        A common tactic when driving narrative.

        Bryan Gould seems to be more robust, allowing comments and debate on what he has written.

        • Sacha 1.1.4.1
          3 February 2016 at 10:53 am

          Audrey’s stories are supposedly ‘news’.
          Gould’s are contributed ‘opinion’.

        • mary_a 1.1.4.2
          3 February 2016 at 11:29 am

          Hi Molly (1.1.4) – Yes, Seems this is a habit of NZH. It puts opinions across, sometimes inviting comments, but doesn’t open the article for debate. On the odd occasion, the opinion piece is open for discussion, but that’s the case more often than not, usually well after the topic has been relegated far into the realms of history!

          I guess that keeps a smooth and even playing field for msm’s dear leader.

          No chance of debate, no chance of criticism!

          Isn’t that just how a despotic leader likes it?

  2. Paul 2
    3 February 2016 at 6:12 am

    Eight years of incompetent and reckless mismanagement of the economy and we are starting feel the effects.
    When are Key and his clowns going to be held to account?

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11583451
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/dairy/76491017/nz-dairy-prices-drop-sharply-at-globaldairytrade-auction

    • Eyre 2.1
      3 February 2016 at 9:06 am

      Thanks i read the link. Can’t find anything in it to say john key is to blame for the fall dairy prices. May we can blame key for the drop in oil as well.

      • alwyn 2.1.1
        3 February 2016 at 9:20 am

        John Key is responsible for everything bad that happens anywhere in the world.
        He was, after all, the one who created the Ebola virus and is almost certainly the person who has unleashed the Zika virus as well.
        To keep up with the play you only need to remember one thing.
        “Everything is John Key’s fault”

        • Puckish Rogue 2.1.1.1
          3 February 2016 at 9:33 am

          Pretty sure I saw John Key on the grassy knoll as well…

        • pat 2.1.1.2
          3 February 2016 at 9:52 am

          you forgot match fixing

          • alwyn 2.1.1.2.1
            3 February 2016 at 10:16 am

            True.
            Both the cricket and the tennis.
            On the other hand I am quite willing to forgive him fixing the outcome of the 2011 and 2015 Rugby World Cups.
            I never forgave the last lot for messing up the 2007 competition’s result.

            • pat 2.1.1.2.1.1
              3 February 2016 at 10:35 am

              ah well the last lot didn’t have the contacts in the underworld did they

              • alwyn …
                3 February 2016 at 6:03 pm

                It is quite hard for National to totally avoid figures from the underworld.
                National sit on the Speaker’s right. The underworld figures sit directly opposite them on the Speaker’s left, all 32 of them.
                National MPs have to sit there and look at them.

                I blame the 2007 cock-up on Helen not keeping the arrangements in her own office. H2 would have so terrified the other teams they would have thrown the games. Instead she passed it over to that twerp Trevor Mallard.

        • wyndham 2.1.1.3
          3 February 2016 at 10:25 am

          But according to John Key himself everything is Labour’s fault. Oh! and Helen Clark did it too.

      • Atiawa 2.1.2
        3 February 2016 at 12:10 pm

        It only seem’s like yesterday that Key and Co were prepared to take credit for the headline act of the rock star economy – Taranaki -. The land of black & white “gold”. Of course the diminishing returns on both commodities is out of the control of government, but so also is being able to claim any credit when returns were great.

      • Draco T Bastard 2.1.3
        3 February 2016 at 4:36 pm

        John Key and National are to blame because they supported, both through legislation and rhetoric, the ramping up of the dairy sector. They should have been pushing diversification instead.

    • adam 2.2
      3 February 2016 at 3:55 pm

      Is it just me or did the Tory idiots on this board, just take a statement which blamed this national government for economic mismanagement, and turn it into commentators on the standard bagging Key.

      Paul did say ” Key and his clowns”, which means this national government.

      Poor Tory scum, who have to twist things to feel better.

      • Paul 2.2.1
        3 February 2016 at 5:42 pm

        Key has ruined our economy , dragging us into ever deepening debt and he is surrendering our sovereignty.
        Pretty easy to bag such a character.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 2.2.1.1
          4 February 2016 at 4:49 pm

          “Surrendering”.

          Nah, he’s just let it go for some beads and blankets.

          When we surrendered our sovereignty to the ILO, that was a good thing, because it’s a fair exchange.

  3. Pasupial 3
    3 February 2016 at 8:39 am

    Lies on lies from the SDHB & Compass:

    New information released by the board shows 44 people had cancelled the service since January 18… In explanation, the board said it had not been aware of cancellations handled by its own staff, and only counted cancellations handled by Compass Group…

    Grey Power has taken issue with a claim it gave good feedback to the meals in a taste-testing session held last year.

    In a statement, Ms Heatly said Grey Power and others gave “positive feedback” after the sessions.

    Grey Power Otago president Jo Millar said this was incorrect, and she believed the situation was misrepresented.

    Mrs Millar said the test meals were not good, and the group was told there was an issue with the oven.

    http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/371838/44-cancel-meals-wheels#sthash.x7LWBGDV.dpuf

    Yesterday, it was 11 cancellations (but the link to that article on the ODT is 502 broken, this update has the gist):

    Information provided to the Otago Daily Times this afternoon shows 44 people have cancelled in the past two weeks – not 11 as the board previously said.

    – See more at: http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/371783/more-meals-wheels-cancellations#sthash.VpIaj9wF.dpuf

    Even 11 cancellations would be a 4.4% in a fortnight, which if it continued at the same rate would leave no one by the end of the year. 44 of 250 is 17.6%, and if continued would go to zero by April!

  4. marty mars 4
    3 February 2016 at 8:54 am

    For me

    the head is sacred
    ritual welcomes are sacred

    I don’t care who produced the picture

    It is over the line

    don’t you get that?

    • alwyn 4.1
      3 February 2016 at 9:09 am

      Please enlighten us
      What on earth are you talking about?

        • alwyn 4.1.1.1
          3 February 2016 at 9:32 am

          Thank you. Now I understand.
          I hadn’t looked at the daily review yesterday, so this comment here didn’t make any sense to me.

        • vto 4.1.1.2
          3 February 2016 at 9:41 am

          In these days of mass communication and the worlds cultures exposed and crashing into each other all over the place, it seems it is very difficult to avoid sensitivities in many many places, simply because people do not know of said sensitivities….

          how to deal with?

          • marty mars 4.1.1.2.1
            3 February 2016 at 10:24 am

            That is a very generous interpretation vto

            I really don’t think it is that hard to either get it right or err on the side of caution.

            i’m calmish at the moment but later on i’m going to allow my anger to come forth. I’m very disappointed that this shit is happening here – but maybe I’m just not taking the hint eh.

            • vto 4.1.1.2.1.1
              3 February 2016 at 10:39 am

              Yeah I see that. Perhaps in this world of crashing cultures people should err on the side of caution.

              After all, that is what we all do when we go into people’s homes – err on the side of caution. We don’t go in and barge around with no manners – that would just be plain rude.

              It might take some more time for the internet culture to grasp these things though – it is still rough, young, and raw imo.

          • weka 4.1.1.2.2
            3 February 2016 at 10:43 am

            In the days of mass communication and 40 years of the Māori renaissance into the view of Pākehā, how is it that the left wing is still so ignorant of such matters?

            I don’t mean ignorant as pejorative, just a statement of fact about our (Pākehā) lack of knowledge. When I saw the picture I had a pretty negative gut reaction to it (there was something very wrong with it), considered saying something but didn’t know what to say and then scrolled on past. As soon as marty posted that it was offensive, I went ‘duh!’, of course. Even with the little bit of exposure to te Ao Māori that I’ve had, I know that there are issues with both messing with heads, and messing with ritual.

            If we (all of us) want left wing spaces to be anything other than Pākehā dominant, this is not the kind of thing we can get wrong. Also, we (Pākehā) do get this stuff wrong a lot, so it’s not about having a go at whoever put it up, but I think there is an opportunity here to learn and to change.

            I think the image should be removed, in the same way if a misogynistic image had been put up it should be removed too.

            • Bill 4.1.1.2.2.1
              3 February 2016 at 11:16 am

              Maybe the image should have been removed. But removing it now means that any discussion around it becomes meaningless.

              I saw it last night (prior to any comments about it) and felt very uncomfortable with it, but couldn’t quite articulate why. Because I couldn’t pin down exactly what was wrong with it, I didn’t comment, and just moved on. I still can’t. Maybe I’ll get there and the penny will drop.

              Heads are of no particular significance to me, so the source of my discomfort isn’t the same as for Marty being offended. Regardless, the image comes across as (somehow) just plain fucking wrong and racist.

              How’d I feel if it was pigs heads or some such? How’d I feel if it was pigs bodies? The former would be as similarly (though maybe more obviously) fucked up as the one posted, and the latter would be just another photo mash up.

              Maybe I’ll come back to this conversation later today and see if the penny drops.

              • marty mars …
                3 February 2016 at 11:40 am

                the ignorance around Māoridom on here is astounding and disgusting. Fucking embarrassing – seriously I don’t know why I bother – oh that’s right I’m trying to help alleviate ignorance – waste of time

                that is not directed solely at you bill as I’m sure you will realise but ffs

                • Bill …
                  3 February 2016 at 12:30 pm

                  I agree with that and fully acknowledge my understanding of Māoridom is woeful. But having said that, is knowledge of Māoridom really necessary in this instance marty?

                  If it is, then ignorance of a specific cultural perspective potentially serves to get perpetrators of offence off the hook.

                  I mean, if a similar photo had been produced with the heads photo-shopped onto the bodies of some First Nations people, I’d have had the same basic reaction.

                  For me, as best as I articulate at the moment, there is something unacceptable about presenting an image that over-lays colonised peoples/cultures with expressions or signifiers of colonial dominance.

                  That perspective is neither ‘right’ nor ‘wrong’, ‘adequate’ or ‘inadequate’…just illustrative of the fact that there can be a number of roads leading to the same basic conclusion.

                  • weka …
                    3 February 2016 at 2:03 pm

                    Except the issues around heads and ritual, if not learned about, just come up again in another context some other time and so it goes on, because we ignored the specifics. So yes, it’s good to recognise the general racism issues and on our own terms, but it’s also vital that we learn what is important to Māori.

                    Criticising/understanding the image from a Tau Iwi perspective is useful, but not if it’s done at the expense of understanding the Māori one.

                    It’s not just about this one image, it’s about the fact that this space is still so bad at this, and the only way to remedy that is to learn some tikanga Māori. That’s honouring the Treaty too.

                    Which brings me to the fact that as much as I’d love to hear and would welcome marty’s thoughts at this point (and other Māori Standardistas), it’s not up to him (or other Māori) to educate Tau Iwi here about what the specific issues are. Thankfully we have the internet now and there’s no reason why some non-Māori here can’t go and educate ourselves. I don’t think the internet is the best way to learn what’s important by any means, but at least we do have resources in the public domain from Māori, and Tau Iwi who have done the mahi of listening to Māori directly on Māori terms. It’s the least we can do to get up to speed with those. Then perhaps we might find that Māori are willing to be here and engage more.

                    • Bill …
                      3 February 2016 at 3:17 pm

                      Is it really necessary (web wise) to have comprehensive knowledge of particular cultures in order to not offend people?

                      If it is, then when and where do we find the time to lift our heads from all that cultural immersion of the 1001 cultures we’ve indulged in?

                      And how does one ‘correctly’ navigate instances where aspects of particular cultures are themselves considered offensive to, contradict or clash with, one’s own?

                      In the final analysis I’d rather a world with no cultural identities or tradition given the nonsense and conflict it all has and does give rise to, but hey…

                      …in the meantime, and in recognition that I can’t learn, store or reconcile all the cultural and traditional knowledges out there, I’ll just have to settle for using whatever (culturally informed 😉 ) common sense and sensibility or empathy I have in order to avoid inadvertently and somewhat pointlessly offering up offence.

                    • marty mars …
                      3 February 2016 at 6:11 pm

                      you live here Bill maybe start with the cultural aspects of this country – Waitangi Day is here – go to a marae for the ‘celebration’ – that might be a good first step

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      3 February 2016 at 6:22 pm

                      Bill, look at it this way: giving offence feels so much better when it’s done deliberately. Clumsy blunders let you* down.

                      *or me, or anyone, when we make them.

                • weka …
                  3 February 2016 at 2:07 pm

                  really sorry you’ve had to deal with this marty. Thanks for taking us to task despite it all. I’ll support you in any way I can if you want more to happen here (I’ve got my own RL mahi going on over the next few days so will be in and out). I’m doing some thinking about what I can do otherwise as well. Hope you can take good care of yourself too.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  3 February 2016 at 6:07 pm

                  Marty, please forgive my ignorance: how far does the sacred nature of the head extend? For example, does it apply to (say) drawn caricature? Or doodling on a newspaper photograph? Pakeha have been juxtaposing heads and bodies to comic effect for centuries. That’s not meant to be some sort of excuse it’s just true.

                  My atheist side wants to reject the whole notion of “sacred” as I would any other mumbo pocus, and yet these are the terms I employ to ridicule the religions and spirituality of my own culture, and I feel quite uncomfortable with them in this context, as I would for example, in going to a Buddhist or Hindu country and mocking their beliefs.

                  Thanks for bringing this up.

                  • marty mars …
                    3 February 2016 at 6:47 pm

                    I think this example that pissed me off was too far. Whether sacred or special the head is used as a target for insult and ridicule across the board here and elsewhere – just got to be careful about who to and how specific.

                    I’m okay with that approach from the atheist side too – I prefer it to the ‘my god is better’ approach of other belief systems.

              • weka …
                3 February 2016 at 11:57 am

                “Maybe the image should have been removed. But removing it now means that any discussion around it becomes meaningless.”

                I think the standard group should take it’s direction directly from Māori on that rather than deciding what is meaningful or not (I’m sidestepping the whole anarchic, who makes decisions etc thing). Which means not just listening but making an effort to find out (thanks for your comment btw).

                • BM …
                  3 February 2016 at 12:03 pm

                  I’m tangata whenua and I don’t care.
                  There you go, problem solved, the image can stay.

                  • weka …
                    3 February 2016 at 12:27 pm

                    Thanks for putting your hand up as one of the most ignorant people in the room (quite an achievement that) as well as one of the biggest shit stirrers. Well done BM.

                    • McGrath …
                      3 February 2016 at 7:56 pm

                      @Weka. Stop being so precious. I too am tangata whenua, and the image didn’t bother me in the slightest.

                      Just because you’re offended doesn’t mean you’re right.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      4 February 2016 at 4:54 pm

                      Just because you’re offended doesn’t mean you’re right.

                      I think that’s looking at it arse about face: in any given situation (especially one which might further your interests), would you rather give offence deliberately or from ignorance?

                • Bill …
                  3 February 2016 at 12:50 pm

                  Had I seen marty’s comment last night (not to mention the others) it would have reinforced my gut reaction and I’ve have replaced the image. (Without my gut reaction, the same action would likely have been taken)

                  The point I was making here is that time has elapsed and that a conversation has ensued – one that might be productive, but also one that would seem to rely on the source of the discussion being available.

                  It’s been done. It’s shit. Hitting a delete button now doesn’t undo what’s been done..doesn’t catch shit from sailing towards the fan.

                  Informed dialogue on the other hand….

                  -sigh- seeing pros and cons on all sides now.

                  • weka …
                    3 February 2016 at 1:54 pm

                    That makes sense and if it were say a gender issue I might agree (depending on the image). I guess my point is that it’s not up to us to decide whether that takes predecent because we don’t have the cultural knowledge on which it make the decision.

                    The ensuing conversation can still happen, it just requires those of us who have seen the image to explain what the issues are. That’s probably a good thing, because it makes it about the cultural safety issue rather than that particular photo.

            • Karen 4.1.1.2.2.2
              3 February 2016 at 11:32 am

              +1 Weka

    • r0b 4.2
      3 February 2016 at 1:05 pm

      I can see issues with the image and I have removed it. I will let the poster know, they should have right of reply.

      Apologies to marty mars and anyone else who was offended.

    • mickysavage 4.3
      3 February 2016 at 1:30 pm

      Hi marty

      I chose the picture. I can recall a while ago using the Key picture with the tattoed Merril Lynch face and you raised concern and I was happy to take it down and have not used it since.

      I thought about this when I chose this picture but I did not think it would cause offence because Maori have made a very principled decision concerning the TPPA and the picture was to poke fun at the Government and its lack of Maori support.

      Clearly I will need to recalibrate my thinking on the issue.

      My apologies for my lack of sensitivity and causing distress.

  5. Rodel 5
    3 February 2016 at 9:27 am

    The current media frenzy over Key/Harawiras /Waitangi is great publicity and the result will be reported as positive for Key.
    Greatest show in Aotearoa written and produced by Crosby Textor.

    • Puckish Rogue 5.1
      3 February 2016 at 10:34 am

      That’s why the PM should visit other maraes around the country, might stop all the histrionics the media love

  7. cogito 7
    3 February 2016 at 11:09 am

    What complete and utter rant and BS by Mike Hosking re Waitangi.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11583922

  8. Michael 8
    3 February 2016 at 11:13 am

    http://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2016/2/2/10895670/mitch-mcconnell-2016

    The US Senate will not be voting on the TPP in 2016. So we won’t see any vote on it until after the presidential election most likely.

    And the 4 possible Presidents – Hillary, Bernie, Ted Cruz, and Trump – all say they oppose the TPP. So is the TPP dead? Well, maybe at least for another year…

    • Puckish Rogue 8.1
      3 February 2016 at 11:33 am

      I’m not as up with how the American government works but I’m pretty sure the American president can’t just say “I don’t like it” and that’s it

      • Pasupial 8.1.1
        3 February 2016 at 11:50 am

        PR

        The first power the Constitution confers upon the president is the veto. The Presentment Clause requires any bill passed by Congress to be presented to the president before it can become law… the bill does not become law, unless each house of Congress votes to override the veto by a two-thirds vote.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States#Administrative_powers

        If you follow the links: “Historically, the Congress overrides the Presidential veto less than 10% of the time”. Although that was 33% of GW Bush’s 12 vetos and 0% so far of Obama’s 9. FDR had 635 vetos with only 9 over-ridden!

        • Puckish Rogue 8.1.1.1
          3 February 2016 at 11:56 am

          I’m not bothered, the military-industrial crypto-fascist new world order will ensure this goes through

          Or so I’ve heard…

      • Michael 8.1.2
        3 February 2016 at 1:42 pm

        The Congress cannot negotiate or pursue trade agreements itself, it can only vote on them. Only the President can actually do the negotiation, bring it to the Congress, and then sign it.

      • Draco T Bastard 8.1.3
        3 February 2016 at 4:47 pm

        Actually, the US president can veto legislation.

  9. savenz 9
    3 February 2016 at 11:19 am

    International order by the Human Rights Council and professor of international law at the Geneva School of Diplomacy – say DON’T SIGN TPPA!

    http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=17005&LangID=E#sthash.uakqAUnE.gbpl&st_refDomain=web.facebook.com&st_refQuery=/

    • Chooky 9.1
      3 February 2016 at 4:17 pm

      +100 savenz…that says it all really !…about why New Zealanders and our country should NOT be party to the TPPA!

  10. Tc 10
    3 February 2016 at 1:19 pm

    And in latest competition removal news fletchers look to acquire higgins. Higgins were bought into rangiriri bypass on sh1 as fletchers screwed the first earthmoving crowd so hard they went broke.

    So send one out of business then buy one of the remaining players, tough decision for fletchers that one.

  11. alwyn 11
    3 February 2016 at 2:07 pm

    Clearly all the people spending so much time commenting on this site don’t live in Wellington.
    At the moment it a warm (well 26C) day with an absolutely cloudless blue sky and the barest hint of a breeze. I have just come inside to collect my togs to go to the beach.
    It is far to nice to waste any more time indoors.
    It doesn’t rhyme very well but locals here are singing “wonderful, wonderful Wellington, salty old dame of the sea”.
    Eat your heart out jafas. I believe you are cloudy and it is very windy.

    • Sacha 11.1
      3 February 2016 at 2:38 pm

      Fine days are not such a novelty in Auckalofa. 🙂

    • Draco T Bastard 11.2
      3 February 2016 at 4:59 pm

      Eat your heart out jafas. I believe you are cloudy and it is very windy.

      Nope

      • Muttonbird 11.2.1
        3 February 2016 at 7:26 pm

        Seems Alwyn and his now banned stablemate fisiani are Wellington people and that makes a lot of sense because their glossy views on the state of the nation are consistent with a Wellington centric outlook on life. Basically, it’s the same old right wing mantra: I’m alright, so why can’t you be too?

        Lol.

        • swordfish 11.2.1.1
          3 February 2016 at 7:48 pm

          Well, speaking as a life-long resident of Welling-on-Sea, New Zealand’s answer to the French Riviera (in fact, some would go as far as saying The Venice of the South), can I just say that Wellington is second only to Dunedin in its Left-leaning proclivities (alwyn and fisi represent a dysfunctional, Tory-leaning minority of grizzled malcontents).

          The good burghers of my unusually fetching city (very much Cinderella to Jaffaville’s Ugly Big Sister*) are significantly to the Left of that humid, half-crazed cultural wasteland in the North.

          * I suspect I’ll pay dearly for the previous 3 words.

        • Anne 11.2.1.2
          3 February 2016 at 8:02 pm

          In defence of alwyn I think this was a friendly tongue-in- cheek exchange on both sides Muttonbird.

          • Muttonbird 11.2.1.2.1
            3 February 2016 at 8:06 pm

            You are generous, Anne, and it’s a credit to you. I’ve not time for the incessant barbed attacks on social responsibility from the likes of Alwyn and fisiani.

            An attempt at the joke from these types leaves me cold.

    • McFlock 11.3
      3 February 2016 at 5:12 pm

      some of us are stuck indoors waiting for machines to go “ping!”

      Dunners today was about right – maybe a touch too warm for me, but I have a certain amount of insulation pre-installed.

    • Anne 11.4
      3 February 2016 at 6:47 pm

      Eat your heart out jafas. I believe you are cloudy and it is very windy.

      You have been misinformed. Beautiful sunny day (27 degrees) with a cooling easterly breeze. A few small and harmless cumulous clouds wafting by to give brief respite from the wall to wall sunshine.

  12. Chooky 12
    3 February 2016 at 2:28 pm

    …Why is Europe not looking at the root causes of the refugee crisis?

    …Are the ordinary people being listened to ?

    …or are political elites foisting their views against the will of the people of sovereign democratic nations?

    ….Issues of listening to the grassroots opinions of indigenous people in sovereign nations on mass refugee influx /immigration ….and its effects on sovereignty and cultural identity of nations

    ‘Waves of refugees’

    https://www.rt.com/shows/crosstalk/330558-mass-migration-crisis-eu/

    “When it comes to mass migration and the current refugee crisis hitting the EU, it is getting harder and harder to remain an idealist. The reality is that Europe not only must manage its external borders, but also internal ones. There are of course economic issues to deal with, but what about the importance of culture?

    CrossTalking with Marcus Papadopoulos, Matthew Goodwin and Alan Posener.”

  13. Morrissey 13
    3 February 2016 at 5:07 pm

    Mike “I Agree With Matthew” Williams is now
    spouting nonsense about AMERICAN politics
    The Panel, RNZ National, Wednesday 3 March 2016
    Jim Mora, Simon Pound, Mike Williams, Julie Moffett

    The Pre-Panel segment today is, once again, vacuous and determinedly trivial. As usual, they say nothing interesting….

    JULIE MOFFETT: Comedian Jerry Seinfeld is selling three of his luxury Porsches. That’s out of his collection of 47.

    JIM MORA: He’s got 47 has he?

    JULIE MOFFETT: [curtly, after a significant pause] Yes.

    MORA: They’d stop being drivable wouldn’t they, just languishing in the garage?

    JULIE MOFFETT: They’re not languishing, he’s got a full-time mechanic working on them.

    MORA: He’s got a mechanic?

    ….et cetera, ad nauseam….

    An hour later, they’re discussing American politics with about the same level of insight you’d expect on Larry “Lackwit” Williams’ Drivetime program over on NewstalkZB….

    MIKE “I AGREE WITH MATTHEW” WILLIAMS: Ted Cruz is an extremist, and so is Bernie Sanders.

    On the plus side, Simon Pound was both lucid and intelligent, but the sad fact is that this program has ten Mike Williams equivalents for every Simon Pound.

    • Paul 13.1
      3 February 2016 at 5:48 pm

      Mora’s panel sinks into the abyss.

    • alwyn 13.2
      3 February 2016 at 7:13 pm

      One out of two right isn’t too bad is it? I mean he was the Labour Party President and they aren’t really renowned for intellect are they?

      He got it wrong about Cruz but right about Sanders is what you are trying to say I assume.

  14. Paul 14
    3 February 2016 at 6:29 pm

    TPP post coming up?

    In the meantime, this is a must read before tomorrow.
    For Independence and Freedom: March against the TPPA!

    http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2016/02/03/for-independence-and-freedom-march-against-the-tppa/

  15. Paul 15
    3 February 2016 at 6:51 pm

    The Herald continues to fawn at The Dear Leader.

    TheIr online heading.
    John Key will brave Waitangi.

    Wonder whether they thought he was such a hero when he flew off to the US to watch his son play baseball before attending the funerals of NZ soldiers.

    What a parody of the media the Herald has become.
    It should be in North Korea.

    • Muttonbird 15.1
      3 February 2016 at 7:16 pm

      The right wing media are loving this. The plaintive cries from Hosking, Ralston, and Williams that the office of the prime minister should be respected on this issue, the issue of the prime minister’s right to attend Waitangi falls on deaf ears as far as I’m concerned because the it has been the prime minister himself who has disrespected the office in recent times…

      His kid’s baseball over Kiwi soldiers
      Presides over increasing public sector corruption
      Calls a red top ‘gay’ in perforative terms
      Ignores the OIA and is comfortable with it
      Harasses waitresses in their place of work
      Sets the SIS on the leader of the opposition
      Texts his bud, hate speech peddler, Cameron Slater
      Jokes with the Chilean government about a killer his corrections dept just released
      Entertains shock jocks…
      …and participates in jokes about prison rape
      Chops and changes ministers to minimise accountability

      I could go on.

    • Anne 15.2
      3 February 2016 at 7:35 pm

      I am reminded of the vitriolic response by the media (including the Herald) when Helen Clark forsook going to Waitangi and attended another ceremony in the South Island- I think. And the reason why she didn’t attend was because she had previously been denied speaking rights. Helen (rightly) took that as an insult to her as a female political leader and also women across the board.

      • Stuart Munro 15.2.1
        3 February 2016 at 7:47 pm

        The one that gets me is Armstrong’s ‘Resign Cunliffe’ rant. Even Armstrong was ashamed of it – not in time to save the election of course.

        Helen handled it about right – though she didn’t have a good answer to it on the day she got disrespected.

        Key should be there as PM – but speaking rights are not a given – if I were Maori I wouldn’t want him grandstanding from Waitangi. He should go to listen – God knows he never does anywhere else.

    • Colonial Viper 15.3
      3 February 2016 at 10:32 pm

      The NZ Herald have been pro-Tory and pro-ruling class for…decades. Are we really still complaining about them.

  16. Anne 16
    3 February 2016 at 8:15 pm

    No Daily Review so will leave here
    Methinks the NAct government is in a bit of a tizz!
    Just had call from David Farrar’s Curia outfit. Started out with the usual. Who are you voting for… why etc.etc. Went on to ask “which is the best party for:
    1. the economy
    2. housing
    3. education
    4. immigration
    5. employment issues
    and there were others.

    Next:
    Who is the best political leader – rate them from 1 to 5 with 5 being the top score.
    Who is the strongest leader – ditto
    Further questions on what you look for in a leader.

    At the end of all that:
    Who will win the next election.

    And last but not least:

    Which flag are you going to vote for.

    Decided to answer honestly.

    • b waghorn 16.1
      4 February 2016 at 7:07 am

      Heh heh I just had a vision of farrar crawling up a long carpet on his belly to give his master the answers you gave