Open mike 04/11/2012

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, November 4th, 2012 - 141 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post. For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the link to Policy in the banner).

Step right up to the mike…

141 comments on “Open mike 04/11/2012 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Jenny 1
    4 November 2012 at 6:17 am

    “Don’t talk about the war”

    Obama and Romney come to an agreement on Climate Change.

    They both agree not to talk about it.

    However despite Obama and Romney’s gentlmen’s agreement to keep silent on climate change. An opposite and more forthright agreement to openly discuss climate change is developing among lower ranked US political leaders.
    After ‘Sandy’ the possibility of an East Coast, if not nation wide bipartisan political consensus to tackle climate change is beginning to emerge.

    “There has been a series of extreme weather incidents. That is not a political statement. That is a factual statement,”
    ” Anyone who says there’s not a dramatic change in weather patterns, I think, is denying reality.”
    “I think part of learning from this is realizing that climate change is a reality.”

    New York Governor Andrew Cuomo press briefing Tuesday (Oct. 30)

    “All up and down the East Coast, there are mayors … being told, ‘You’ve got to move these houses back away from the ocean. You’ve got to lift them up. Climate change is going to raise the water levels on a permanent basis. If you want your town insured, you have to do this.”

    Former President Bill Clinton before a crowd Tuesday (Oct. 30)

    Obama is the better candidate to deal with climate change, which may have contributed to the superstorm.

    New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg Thursday (Nov. 1)

    High-profile figures like Bloomberg, Cuomo and Clinton speaking candidly and practically about climate change suggests a change of pace among public officials. But will the dialogue on extreme weather and climate that has emerged in Sandy’s wake alter the national conversation (or lack thereof) on climate change? Or will that discussion recede with Sandy’s floodwaters and the week’s news cycle?

    Chrystal Gorman Writing for Scientific American

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=will-sandy-change

    If they choose to pick it up, Whichever candidate emerges victorious they will have the makings of this bipartisan consensus lying at hand all around them.

    Whichever candidate wins the US presidential elections, the first order of business, must be to immediately order an assessment of the best strategy to combat climate change, seeking the best advice of the world’s best scientists and climate experts. The fate of civilisation, possibly even the fate of humanity depend on it.

    Of the two candidates, Obama, in my opinion, would be best placed to do this, being less close to vested business interest linked to the oil and coal lobby. But all the evidence is, that he is failing the test.

    • higherstandard 1.1
      4 November 2012 at 7:30 am

      Actually no one can reliably say how much of ‘Sandy’ is attributable to climate change man made or otherwise.

      Regardless the POTUS will do whatever their lobbyists and pollsters tell them to do.

      • Colonial Viper 1.1.1
        4 November 2012 at 8:48 am

        As will all the primary and Presidential candidates. ‘Leadership’ is DEAD.

      • lprent 1.1.2
        4 November 2012 at 9:07 am

        Agreed. They also cannot say how much of “Sandy” is attributable to solar flares, warm water, ocean gods, or some guy mooning the latter from the beach.

        Your statement is meaningless because everything is statistically based and an absolute level of confidience is something that science leaves for matters of religous faith.

        • higherstandard 1.1.2.1
          4 November 2012 at 10:26 am

          Are you trying to make some point ?

          Sometimes it’s difficult to tell with one who is so erudite. Remember not all of us have the vast repository of knowledge that you have.

          • weka 1.1.2.1.1
            4 November 2012 at 10:52 am

            I understood his point.
             
            Have to say, the bickering is getting boring.

          • RedLogix 1.1.2.1.2
            4 November 2012 at 12:12 pm

            As lprent stated … it is a matter of probability.

            Imagine that the actuarial tables on mortality state that a man of your age has a say 1 in 50 probability of dying this year. Does this ‘reliably’ inform us whether you will be alive at the end of the year or not?

            Of course not.

            The only sense in which such tables are meaningful are when you examine (or sample) a whole lot of men of your age. If for example you sampled say 1000 men, then you could be fairly sure that 20 of them might not make it to the end of the year. But it tells you nothing about each individual man.

            In the same way science can reliably predict that increased ocean temperatures and more water vapour in the atmosphere will increase the probability of more frequent severe storms, and increase their peak intensity. It doesn’t reliably tell you anything much about an individual storm. Instead you have to wait until you’ve had many dozens of storms like Sandy before we can confirm the statistical prediction reliably.

            Of course the insurance industry might well spit the dummy at funding such an extended and expensive experiment. The death toll might prove a bit of an irritation too.

            • higherstandard 1.1.2.1.2.1
              4 November 2012 at 1:48 pm

              There is a fair amount of data available regarding the recent storm in the US all one can say is only that some of its components may have been due to climate change.

              The late-season formation may have been influenced by a shifting climate, but its meet-up with an early North American winter storm had no climate change connection.

              A high-pressure blocking event, which may have been climate change-related, steered the storm toward the East Coast rather than out to sea.

              Unusually high tides amplified the storm surge and flooding, but the tides had nothing to do with climate change. And the fact that those four events happened simultaneously was just a very unfortunate coincidence.

              Warmer temperatures, which allowed the storm to carry more moisture, and higher sea level are likely to have amplified its effects. The higher sea level — a foot higher than when the city’s protective sea walls were built a century ago can almost certainly be attributed to climate change.

              • Colonial Viper …
                4 November 2012 at 1:51 pm

                hs…a solid assessment.

                • higherstandard …
                  4 November 2012 at 2:37 pm

                  It’s not mine it’s Scientific American’s.

                  • RedLogix …
                    4 November 2012 at 2:50 pm

                    So if I read what you are saying, then you agree that man-made climate change is real and is fast becoming a significant component of severe and adverse weather events?

                    And going back to your first point; that the barrier to doing anything about it is political … and always has been.

                    Update:

                    Just in case someone hasn’t got it yet :

              • weka …
                4 November 2012 at 2:53 pm

                In other words, climate change affects existing weather and how it intersects with other phenomena like geography, tides and time. Isn’t that a given already?

              • lprent …
                4 November 2012 at 4:07 pm

                Hs: Your second and third paragraph are in direct contradiction with each other.

                The reason this particular storm came onshore at that latitude rather than doing the usual wander into the Atlantic was because it was blocked by a northern jetstream coming lower in latitude than usual.

                If you look at the historic tracks for hurricanes at that latitude you will see that it is almost unknown for them to turn inland. If you look at the historic tracks of the jetstreams you will see that they seldom come down far enough to block which provides the room for hurricanes driven by the otherwise minor effect of the earths rotation to move east .

                The physics of arctic warming when modeled indicate that the jetstreams will have a higher amplitude, and over the last decade that is exactly what has been seen. So it becomes a higher probability that there will be offshore blocking events driving hurricanes into the upper eastern seaboard of the US. That also increases the probability of hitting cold fronts being spun out of the arctic by those same jetstreams and following that same rotational spin towards the east (frontal systems have quite predictable tracks as well when they don’t get blocked).

                It isn’t coincidental. It will probably become more and more obvious through the rest of this current weather cycle for the next few years, then it will reduce in probability as the rate of the deicing of the arctic wanes and the atmosphere shifts to a new equilibrium. It will then resume in the 2020’s.

                What the SA was saying was that the degree of the impact of climate change on that storm wasn’t proveable yet (although highly likely) because it takes a number of events to get a statistical sample sufficient to establish confidience. By the time that there is the required confidience, the east coast will have developed good hurricane systems anyway – they will have had received quite a few – probably 10 or more to get to a 90% confidience level that there has been a shift in the high latitude hurricane tracks.

                Reductionism of the type you were repeating has it’s place in science, but in weather and climate systems you really have to look at the whole because the effects work on each other in a much more complex set of interactions.

                • Anne …
                  4 November 2012 at 4:41 pm

                  Thanks 1prent. Most people view the weather as a surface event only but it is not. What goes on in the upper atmosphere plays a major role in how things turn out at the surface. In recent decades the polar jets (both North and South) have been tracking further into lower latitudes than has hitherto been the case. When this happens and cold air from those upper level jet streams feed into warmer surface cyclonic weather systems then you can expect further cyclonic generation to occur. It is certainly due to global warming, and as a consequence… expect to see deeper and more frequent tropical cyclonic events occurring in the Southern Pacific region too.

                • higherstandard …
                  4 November 2012 at 4:53 pm

                  Tell it Scientific American.

                  It is their article I was quoting but perhaps you should send them a letter what with your earth sciences BSc I’m sure you’re far more erudite than any of their contributors and with your computer skills you’d be able to model weather events with far greater reliability than anyone else has to date.

                  • weka …
                    4 November 2012 at 4:56 pm

                    Can we have a link please? I tried a random cut and paste of your post in google and go no hits.

                  • RedLogix …
                    4 November 2012 at 5:01 pm

                    Read your own reference hs;

                    Warmer temperatures, which allowed the storm to carry more moisture, and higher sea level are likely to have amplified its effects.

                    which is pretty much congruent with what we are saying.

                    • higherstandard …
                      4 November 2012 at 5:55 pm

                      Yes, there’s no denying that.

                      What can be denied is the youtube video you have linked to with alarmist comments suggests a warming of 6 or more degrees C in the next few decades.

                    • RedLogix …
                      4 November 2012 at 7:39 pm

                      What can be denied is the youtube video you have linked to with alarmist comments suggests a warming of 6 or more degrees C in the next few decades.

                      You’ve not been keeping up. The video was quoting the IEA:

                      LONDON, April 27 (UPI) — Global greenhouse gas emissions will nearly double by 2050 under current policies unless urgent action is taken, the International Energy Agency has warned.

                      Issuing a stark assessment this week at a London environmental conference, the energy policy advisory group said failure to develop fossil fuel alternatives quickly will put the world on an irreversible course to a catastrophic long-term temperature increase of 6 degrees Celsius.

                      “Under current policies, we estimate that energy use and (carbon dioxide) emissions would increase by a third by 2020, and almost double by 2050,” said IEA Deputy Executive Director Richard Jones.

                      “This would likely send global temperatures at least 6 degrees higher. Such an outcome would confront future generations with significant economic, environmental and energy security hardships,” he added.

                      The grim forecast was delivered at the third annual Clean Energy Ministerial, which brought together ministers from 23 governments for discussions on clean energy progress and opportunities.

                      Read more: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2012/04/27/IEA-warns-of-doubled-CO2-emissions/UPI-62511335522600/#ixzz2BEWQKE7U

                      While it’s true that some years ago, 6 degrees was considered a fringe ‘worst-case’ scenario, as with so many other things around climate science, it’s rapidly become a lot more main-stream.

    • Jenny 1.2
      5 November 2012 at 5:47 am

      WATCHING SANDY, IGNORING CLIMATE CHANGE
      Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/10/watching-hurricane-sandy-ignoring-climate-change.html#ixzz2BJfZ2aiA

      Coming as it is just a week before Election Day, Sandy makes the fact that climate change has been entirely ignored during this campaign seem all the more grotesque. In a year of record-breaking temperatures across the U.S., record drought conditions in the country’s corn belt, and now a record storm affecting the nation’s most populous cities, neither candidate found the issue to be worthy of discussion. Pressed about this finally the other day on MTV, President Obama called climate change a “critical issue” that he was “surprised” hadn’t come up during any of the debates, a response that was at once completely accurate and totally disingenuous. (As one commentator pointed out, he might have brought up this “critical” issue on his own since “he is the friggin’ POTUS.”)

      Elizabeth Kolbert New Yorker,
      October 29, 2012

      • Jenny 1.2.1
        6 November 2012 at 4:33 pm

        Title: Climate Change Deniers

        Definition: The CCDs argue that climate change is not real and is not happening. CCDS explain the controversy is a result of global conspiracy deliberately concocted by scientists politicians and media, unfortunately they have not been able to give any rational explanation of the reasons for this conspiracy.

        Current Status: The CCDs are Pretty much at the fringes of the current debate on climate change

        Title: Climate Change Apologists

        Definition: CCAs admit that climate change is happening, but say that jobs, profits, the economy and growth, and a myriad other issues are far more important than taking steps to address climate change. The apologists are also adept at blaming or scapegoating others, usually groups that they have taken a dislike to anyway. This group are quite comfortable with the idea of millions if not billions of human deaths, as well as the destruction of entire eco systems and the resulting animal and plant extinctions. Their previously listed preoccupations are considered far more important.

        Current status: The most sinister, cynical and dangerous of the different Climate Change factions. Currently the CCAs are the main spear carriers for doing nothing about climate change

        And now a third category has arisen:

        Title: Climate Change Ignorers

        Definition: Political leaders and parties who refuse to even mention Climate Change, if they can avoid it. Usually for sectarian political advantage, ie not scare the horses, not look too radical in the eyes of the voters, not offend vested interest etc etc.
        Rather than alert the electorate and the wider population to the danger, the CCIs put getting bums on seats for their particular sectarian grouping more important than even alerting their political rivals who could steal a policy march on them.
        The whole topic of Climate Change is a ‘no go area’ for these politicians. They will rarely if ever mention the subject of Climate Change unless it is pushed right up under their noses, and often not even then. If forced to mention Climate Change CCIs say that one day when they are in complete control of the presidency and the congress, or have the most seats in the house of parliament then they will call for action on Climate Change. CCIs neither deny, or apologise for climate change, they just simply ignore it.

        Current Status: The most ridiculous and laughable faction of all, I don’t expect it to last long.

    • Lanthanide 2.1
      4 November 2012 at 8:30 am

      Being connected to the internal network is definitely a security breach waiting to happen, but I find it hard to believe that such an obvious problem went unnoticed for 13 years, yet within 1 year of the new kiosks being set up it was discovered on at least 2 separate occasions (that we know of).

      Therefore, I suggest, that although the old computers may have been connected to the internal network, they did not exhibit the same basic security breach (that is, navigating with an ‘open file’ dialog in Word would give you access to the entire network) probably through some configuration option that stopped it, which should also have been configured on the kiosks but wasn’t.

      This means that the security was still incredibly lax and just waiting for someone malicious to exploit it, but this would have required a specific intent to do so by someone with the required skills, rather than any moderately-knowledgeable office worker with Microsoft Office skills being able to find it.

      In short, no, the evidence would suggest that National is worse than Labour.

    • weka 2.2
      4 November 2012 at 8:38 am

      That depends. I’d like to see the report. But on the face of it, MSD under National were told, at least twice, that there was a serious problem and to fix it, and that advice was ignored. What happened under Labour? I don’t think we know yet.
       
       

    • mickysavage 2.3
      4 November 2012 at 9:10 am

      Oh look a Slater repeater …

  3. David H 3
    4 November 2012 at 8:46 am

    AAAHHHHH I’M blind…………. Slater on TV before morning coffee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

    • Chalupa Batman 3.1
      4 November 2012 at 8:56 am

      Just think how much more influential hes going to become…most popular blog, newspaper editor, tv columnist

      Muwahahahahaha!

      • Colonial Viper 3.1.1
        4 November 2012 at 9:01 am

        You’re channeling WO’s inner fantasys now…break the link before it’s TOO LATE!!!

  4. David H 4
    4 November 2012 at 8:55 am

    What a comedy Whaleoil trying to justify his editorial prowess. Oh well at least the Greengrocers will have something to wrap the lettuces in.

  5. karol 5
    4 November 2012 at 8:55 am

    hmmm… so WO has just said on TV3 that his new rag is for the average NZ “bloke”.  So revolutionary!

    • Chalupa Batman 5.1
      4 November 2012 at 8:57 am

      Considering the herald and dom post it actually is

    • tc 5.2
      4 November 2012 at 9:01 am

      Says so much about his myopic view of our society and how he thinks he’ll ‘add value’.

      Talk about give a bigot RWNJ, with established psych issues, an even bigger soapbox to indoctrinate the frogs with, last roll of the dice for the truth IMO.

      if they can’t boost the circulation appealing with dog whistles they are history like so may publications are already.

    • David H 5.3
      4 November 2012 at 4:24 pm

      So with a readership of what 25000 ? There’s not many “Average NZ blokes” out there, that want to waste their money on that rag.

    • Colonial Viper 6.1
      4 November 2012 at 9:51 am

      Rortney Hide on the financial transparency war path! Has Rortney come clean on his girlfriend’s parliamentary travel perks yet? Or his flash international hotel stays?

    • Draco T Bastard 6.2
      4 November 2012 at 11:18 am

      Well, when Rodney Hide advocates that all business financial dealings become public (which I believe should happen anyway) then he’ll have a point.

  7. ianmac 7
    4 November 2012 at 10:21 am

    Funny this. Wonder about their credibility?
    The annual Legatum Prosperity Index has ranked New Zealand as the fifth most prosperous country in the world overall, and first in the education category.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10845034

    • Draco T Bastard 7.1
      4 November 2012 at 11:24 am

      Just another RWNJ think-tank by the looks of things.

      • ianmac 7.1.1
        4 November 2012 at 12:20 pm

        Yeah Draco. Bluddy right wing nobs. They say that they are: ” Legatum Institute (LI) is an independent non-partisan public policy organisation whose research, publications, and programmes advance ideas and policies in support of free and prosperous societies around the world.”
        Must be a trick in there somewhere. I expect Parata will now quote the claim that NZ is “first in the World Education” as being the product and vision of her leadership. Yeah Right!

    • Bill 7.2
      4 November 2012 at 1:42 pm

      Their credibility? In their own words, “…we have a vision of a more prosperous world based on greater economic and political liberty balanced with personal and institutional responsibility.”

      So, free markets and personal responsibility and political liberty that is probably measured in terms of consumer choice and institutional responsibility measured in terms of protecting a market ‘free for all’ and keeping pesky citizens who want more political freedom than mere consumer choice firmly in line.

  8. felix 8
    4 November 2012 at 10:26 am

    Chalupabot, your count is getting too high. 18.4% of all comments on this site in the last 48 hours have been made using your handle. As you know, the limit to avoid unwanted attention is 9.7%

    Please return to an acceptable ratio or use some of your other handles.

  9. AsleepWhileWalking 9
    4 November 2012 at 10:31 am

    http://www.silvergoldsilver.com/entry/qe-sandy
    Quote:
    “One sentence post: Is the next QE bailout masked to be a Sandy bailout for the insurers?”

    Good question SGS. Probably.

  10. AsleepWhileWalking 10
    4 November 2012 at 10:34 am

    Interesting boots on the ground report of the chaos that is Sandy. Disturbingly there are still Americans full of the belief that someone will rescue them, so they don’t need to prep.

    Give it a week and that attitude will be wiped out – at least in affected areas. We would do well to heed their experience.

    http://www.tfmetalsreport.com/blog/4293/guest-post-ground-nyc-green-lantern

    • Colonial Viper 10.1
      4 November 2012 at 10:45 am

      New York City authorities have been doing an amazing job of getting things going again. It reminds me of what a great hard working nation America was.

      As for the “preppers” anyone who is serious about that would not be living in NYC or New Jersey.

  11. weka 11
    4 November 2012 at 11:01 am

    DB Breweries has been slammed for abusing Kim Dotcom’s wife on a Tui billboard. Seventeen billboards around the country say “She clearly married Dotcom for his body. Yeah right”.
    Dotcom, in a statement to the Herald on Sunday, described the campaign as “hurtful and insulting. It’s not only offensive to me and my wife but to everyone who is overweight and their partners”, he said.
    He said his wife Mona had been through hell in the past nine months.
    Tui marketing manager Jarrod Bear said the billboards were an irreverent spin on topical issues that would appeal to “everyday Kiwis”.
    One person, (not Dotcom) has laid a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority.
     

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10844971
     
    Fuck Tui and their fatphobic, culture-manipulative, body-hating excuse of an ad agency.

    • deuto 11.1
      4 November 2012 at 11:16 am

      +1 to your last sentence!

    • QoT 11.2
      4 November 2012 at 11:42 am

      Fuckin’ A, weka. Tui can sometimes be actually funny but the rest of the time it’s just embarrassing the way their marketing team’s rampant insecurities are put out their for the world to see …

      • mac1 11.2.1
        4 November 2012 at 11:49 am

        Tui? Bad taste all round.

        • Jackal 11.2.1.1
          4 November 2012 at 1:09 pm

          +1 Only a complete moron would drink that ferrets piss anyway. I guess with such despicable advertising that only a moron could like, DB Breweries is trying to appeal to their consumer base. An irreverent spin on topical issues… Yeah right! It’s defamatory rubbish that many New Zealanders will be offended at.

    • Vicky32 11.3
      4 November 2012 at 7:37 pm

      Fuck Tui and their fatphobic, culture-manipulative, body-hating excuse of an ad agency.

      Absolutely agreed. That billboard is vicious.

    • Murray Olsen 11.4
      4 November 2012 at 7:44 pm

      Yep. One Tui billboard in ten might actually be funny. Unless Jarrod Bear is willing to put a photo of him/herself and partner on a billboard, he/she should just shut up.

    • felix 11.5
      5 November 2012 at 12:24 am

      Tui can still be proud of producing such an awesome beer though. Yeah right.

  12. Sookie 12
    4 November 2012 at 11:15 am

    It’s no surprise that Fran O Sullivan is a detestable old right wing battleaxe, but this shallow article endorsing Romney really had me flabbergasted http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10844776

    I find it an embarrassment that our supposed premiere newspaper prints this rubbish *facepalms*

    • fender 12.1
      4 November 2012 at 11:48 am

      Yes Fran O Cyclops has really lost the plot, or that article was intended to be a job application to join the (non) Truth. ( I see production problems looming with frequent web-breaks* due to slaters being keen to feast on rotting paper)
      *web-breaks is printers jargon for the reel of paper snapping when press is running

    • Vicky32 12.2
      4 November 2012 at 7:43 pm

      And under Fran O’Sullivan’s embrassing brain-blurt, is the perfec place to copy the email I sent to my son today, after doing some reading:
      “This was said on the IMDB boards about a Romney supporter, arrested
      for voting twice:
      “I understand why you and the government would hate such a women.

      She’s a hero, one of the very few Americans actually trying to rid us
      of the corrupt regime currently hogging power.

      “Lock her up” You said, well so did all the dictators.”
      Hilarious, and yet very disturbing…”

  13. Chalupa Batman 13
    4 November 2012 at 11:38 am

    http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2012/11/cunliffe-learning-to-lie-already/

    Do we believe Cactus or Cunliffe? Though to be fair to Cunliffe it did sound really boring.

    • QoT 13.1
      4 November 2012 at 11:44 am

      I’m sorry I clicked that. But I guess it was time for my annual reminder of how pathetic “evidence” has to be for WO to treat it as hard-hitting gospel.

      (For those who don’t wish to click: Hamish Keith tweets “why no Labour MPs at Fabians”, Cunliffe tweets “sorry, I had a cold”, Cactus responds “you didn’t look sick when I saw you in town today!” It’s fucking riveting journalism, Keith Ng should take note of how it’s really done.)

      • Colonial Viper 13.1.1
        4 November 2012 at 11:46 am

        Editorial standards at Truth are going up already. Up in smoke.

      • Chalupa Batman 13.1.2
        4 November 2012 at 11:49 am

        Well someones lying, who do you think it is?

        • fatty 13.1.2.1
          4 November 2012 at 11:59 am

          Maybe he was sick enough that he couldn’t attend a major function and put on his future-labour leader face….but he was well enough to get up for a meal.
          A few weeks back I wasn’t feeling well enough to get over the other side of town for a meeting, but I could get down to the supermarket.
          You need to stop letting whaleoil think for you chalupa batman, you can probably do better with your own brain

          • QoT 13.1.2.1.1
            4 November 2012 at 12:14 pm

            Exactly. There’s no reason anyone has to be deliberately lying, it’s just bullshit for Cactus/WO to act like one non-medical professional’s opinion of how a person looks has any bearing on their actual state of health.

        • Colonial Viper 13.1.2.2
          4 November 2012 at 12:04 pm

          Is Cactus Kate a qualified medical doctor as well as a lawyer?

          • PlanetOrphan 13.1.2.2.1
            4 November 2012 at 12:08 pm

            I’m sure the Fabians would approach Cunliffe if they had a reason.
            Everyone’s working toward the same goal etc.
            When it comes down to doing something concrete is when we’ll see them talking.

          • Chalupa Batman 13.1.2.2.2
            4 November 2012 at 12:22 pm

            Probably as well qualified as LPRENT I guess…

    • fatty 13.2
      4 November 2012 at 11:53 am

      classic whaloil…jeeze, the tories really are scared of cunliffe

    • mickysavage 13.3
      4 November 2012 at 1:26 pm

      One should always take with a great deal of cynicism anything that Slater says about Cunliffe.  I am interested in his obsession with DC, obviously he thinks that Cunliffe is a threat to the right and needs to be attacked at every opportunity.

      The reality is that David is crook.  He pulled out of some no asset sales petition campaigning that was arranged for this morning and this afternoon he is missing an important party fundraiser.  I have spoken to him a couple of times and he sounds sick as.   

      • Rhinocrates 13.3.1
        4 November 2012 at 3:24 pm

        Oh yes, it’s been amusing – Richard Long begging Shearer not to reshuffle, Hooters saying that really, David Shearer needs more support and Cunliffe should be sacked while Farrar, knowing that Shearer’s a lost cause, suggests the next waste of space, Robertson.

        All of them presenting themselves as sensible voices of reason – just like Pete George, come to think of it.

        Alas, the Right and their shills know what they want and make it clear…

        • felix 13.3.1.1
          5 November 2012 at 12:29 am

          Did you hear Hoots on the wireless slagging Cunliffe off this week? Really vicious, nasty stuff.

          They’re all terrified. As they should be.

    • David H 13.4
      4 November 2012 at 4:42 pm

      Now I was under the impression that, that vindictive old bat lived in Hong Kong. So HOW could she see Cunliffe in town? Also when I had the flu, I still had to go out, and people probably from looking at me didn’t realise I was screwing up their lives for the 3 weeks it takes to get over the flu. And anyway, anything Whaleshit says, needs to be checked, rechecked, verified, with at least 10 other neutral people. And I still WILL NOT believe a word he vomits.

    • Murray Olsen 13.5
      4 November 2012 at 7:47 pm

      Do I believe Cactus is a demented stalker? Yeah, I do.

  14. Te Reo Putake 14
    4 November 2012 at 12:08 pm

    Are you tired of the US election yet? Abby sure is! I hope her mom votes for Bronco Bamma anyway 😉

  15. Jackal 15
    4 November 2012 at 12:57 pm

    Rodney Hide’s Union bashing fetish

    There’s been a lot of disinformation being promoted by the right wing at the moment concerning Unions. In fact if you didn’t know the real reasons behind what propagandists like David Farrar, Cameron Slater and Rodney Hide were saying, you might believe that Unions are an evil blight on society…

    • Chalupa Batman 15.1
      4 November 2012 at 1:07 pm

      Or they could just follow the rules…

      • Jackal 15.1.1
        4 November 2012 at 1:17 pm

        Do you mean the Unions should follow the rules or the NBR should adhere to publication laws Chalupa Batman? The Unions have followed the rules. The NBR hasn’t because it’s publishing inaccuracies based on Hides speculation. There has been no finding of wrongdoing on the part of the Unions. Clearly the NBR has again breached publication laws by promoting defamatory and inaccurate speculation.

        • PlanetOrphan 15.1.1.1
          4 November 2012 at 1:19 pm

          More time & money wasted because someone has an axe to grind ….. no other reason.

    • fender 15.2
      4 November 2012 at 1:22 pm

      Good article Jackal, I’d like to see these dropkicks getting their asses sued for defamation by the Unions concerned.
      Hide should find a rock and invite those other creeps to join him in entombment.

      • Jackal 15.2.1
        4 November 2012 at 1:47 pm

        Thanks fender. You’re clearly talking about Act’s standard retirement package… Slithering under a rock is the best place for the likes of the unlawful David Garrett, John Banks and the rest of the deluded Actoids. What a bunch of worms!

        • Chalupa Batman 15.2.1.1
          4 November 2012 at 1:58 pm

          How about this then, we wait for Neville Harris to decide whats what and if in the unlikely event theres nothing I’ll apoligise. Of course once something dodgy has been uncovered we’ll expect an apology from you?

          • Jackal 15.2.1.1.1
            4 November 2012 at 2:17 pm

            Apologize for saying that there’s been no finding of any wrongdoing? Get off the grass Chalupa. Just like Affco’s complaint to the Serious Fraud Office, the Companies Office won’t find anything unlawful either. That’s because Rodney Hide is full of shit, and always has been.

            • Chalupa Batman 15.2.1.1.1.1
              4 November 2012 at 2:23 pm

              I’ve said I’ll apoligise if theres nothing found, will you apoligise if something is found?

              • Jackal …
                4 November 2012 at 2:39 pm

                You want me to say I’ll apologize about a what if? How retarded!

                The claims by Hide and Slater that the Maritime and Meatworkers Union’s are hiding and misspending millions of dollars of their members money are in the present tense false. There is no evidence, I repeat no evidence of this. They’re speculating and then trying to say their assumptions are facts.

                I think QoT summed it up nicely today when she wrote:

                I’m sorry I clicked that. But I guess it was time for my annual reminder of how pathetic “evidence” has to be for WO to treat it as hard-hitting gospel.

                In my opinion, the same can be said about the deplorable Rodney Hide as well.

                • Rhinocrates …
                  4 November 2012 at 3:27 pm

                  Hunter S. Thompson was onto that trick long ago, relating an anecdote about Lyndon Johnson wanting stories about his opponent fucking pigs to be promulgated. When his advisors were shocked (this was a more innocent time), saying that there was no evidence, Johnson retorted, “I want him up there denying that he fucks pigs!”

                • Chalupa Batman …
                  4 November 2012 at 3:41 pm

                  So thats a no, not even willing to put up an apology if something is found (which you strenuously deny any possibility of)

                  • Jackal …
                    4 November 2012 at 4:14 pm

                    Hide’s article’s aren’t about if something is found, he’s saying they’re already guilty even though there’s no evidence of this. My article is about Hide and Slater’s baseless propaganda, which is a fact. Therefore I won’t be apologizing to you Chalupa Batman.

                  • David H …
                    4 November 2012 at 4:51 pm

                    Oh for gods sake CB will you just get over it, your tiny mind has obviously been overloaded with this discussion, other wise you would be writing something of substance and value instead of repeating Whaleshit’s propaganda, and wanting an apology to a non existent wet dream you once had?

                  • QoT …
                    4 November 2012 at 5:22 pm

                    strenuously

                    Hey, congrats on getting that ticked off your Big Word of the Day checklist!

          • Draco T Bastard 15.2.1.1.2
            4 November 2012 at 2:34 pm

            The dodgy has already been uncovered – it’s Hide and WO.

    • David H 15.3
      4 November 2012 at 4:45 pm

      Not really, but then again I believe that David Farrar, Cameron Slater, and Rodney Hide, are all an evil blight on our society

    • Draco T Bastard 15.4
      4 November 2012 at 5:07 pm

      A Day In The Life Of Rodney Hide

      I heard the recognisable thud thud thud of a helicopter’s rotor blades. I looked up to see one of our birds coming in, guns blazing!

      “We’re saved!” I yelled, leaping to my feet, waving my arms so as to be seen.

      The chopper came in on its run, and I knew it would leave a trail of destruction. The gunner let loose and the world all around us turned to fire. Roy and Douglas went down in a bloody mist, but Johnny somehow escaped being eviscerated by the chopper’s 30-mm chain gun. I dived to the ground.

      “You’re shooting at the wrong target!” I screamed into the radio.

      “Sorry about that,” came the reply. I knew the voice all too well. “But frankly, er, you’re lucky we even came. Stand by for pick-up. Gunner Perigo, er, have you got a fix on the enemy?”

  16. ianmac 16
    4 November 2012 at 2:49 pm

    Great work Jackal. Because for us all that would be left otherwise with just the slur. Will watch developments.

  17. Penny Bright 17
    4 November 2012 at 2:52 pm

    http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/video-whaleoil-goes-mainstream-ck-131794#

    MY COMMENT – YET TO BE PUBLISHED:

    If Cameron Slater is ‘no holds barred’ in holding politicians ‘feet to the fire’ – what has he done to hold John Bank’s (and Don Brash’s) ‘feet to the fire’ over the ‘ONE LAW FOR ALL’ (that they both support) – not yet applying to them over Huljich?

    (John Banks and Don Brash were both former Directors of Huljich Wealth Management (NZ) Ltd, and both signed Huljich Kiwisaver Registered Prospectuses dated 22 August 2008 and 18 September 2009 which contained untrue statements – a ‘strict liability’ offence under s.58(3) of the Securities Act.)

    I formally requested the Finance Markets Authority (FMA), the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), and the NZ Police apply ‘ONE LAW FOR ALL’ to the former and current ACT Party Leaders.

    When each of the above-mentioned put it in writing that they would do nothing, I petitioned Parliament for an urgent investigation. However – the national party dominated Commerce Select Committee also chose to do nothing.

    At least I tried!

    What has Cameron Slater done on this issue?)

    Why has Cameron Slater banned me for commenting on his ‘Whaleoil’ blog – is he purports to support ‘freedom of expression’?

    If staff at the ‘TRUTH’ are covered by employment law – how long is Cameron Slater going to last, as ‘TRUTH’ Editor?

    (Kind regards Cameron – I’d be making this comment to you directly – on YOUR blog – if you hadn’t ‘banned’ me? 🙂

    Penny Bright
    ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’

    http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com
    http://www.pennybright4epsom.org.nz

    • Chalupa Batman 17.1
      4 November 2012 at 3:43 pm

      Why has Cameron Slater banned me for commenting on his ‘Whaleoil’ blog – is he purports to support ‘freedom of expression’?

      – Probably because you posted long-winded, boring diatribes that basically had nothing to do with the thread, wouldn’t reply when challenged and ignored the warnings given

  18. Dv 18
    4 November 2012 at 2:57 pm

    Good luck Penny in that.

  19. Fisiani 19
    4 November 2012 at 6:04 pm

    Oh dear, Never mind.

  20. Draco T Bastard 20
    4 November 2012 at 7:16 pm

    Brothel vs Church

    H/T Trevor Mallard through twitter

  21. Doug 21
    4 November 2012 at 7:38 pm

    Bugger another rouge Poll?

    • gobsmacked 21.1
      4 November 2012 at 7:53 pm

      No, another good poll.

      Good because National/Key (there’s no difference) continue to fade. Plan A is finished, only Plan B will save them. There won’t be a “National plus electorate Righties” majority at the next election. Key’s been found out, and the voters are looking for alternatives.

      Which brings us to National’s Plan B … a third term thanks to Labour fucking up. That’s their best hope now.

      So again, a good poll because the (few) remaining Labour ostriches can’t keep those heads in the sand. As National’s support declines, voters will turn to the opposition that is not Labour. Like Winston, in this poll.

      Unless Labour decide (finally) to do something about that.

      Polls like this – and the last Roy Morgan one – make it more likely that they will. Good.

    • McFlock 21.2
      4 November 2012 at 8:06 pm

      This one?

      Taken in concert with the most recent roymorgan, beginning to be a bit concerning. The issue for labour is to get out of the low30s in CB polls and at the moment it seems pretty steady.

    • Stephen Doyle 21.3
      4 November 2012 at 8:31 pm

      Link?

      • karol 21.3.1
        4 November 2012 at 8:32 pm

        TV One

        • Colonial Viper 21.3.1.1
          4 November 2012 at 8:42 pm

          Labour dropped from 34% 6 weeks ago to 32% now.

          During the time this poll was taken the following was going on:

          -MSD privacy scandal
          – The Government messing up on asset sales and Maori water rights
          – Christchurch school screw ups
          – Sweet talking its way through “No manufacturing crisis”
          – Key being absolutely unbelievable and brain faded in the Dotcom/GCSB affair.

          http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/national-support-holds-labour-slips-in-poll-5194717

          • Bill 21.3.1.1.1
            4 November 2012 at 10:06 pm

            I never watch TV these days but clicked through to get a taste of everything that’s not changed. Front of vid is a still picture of JK raising a glass (in the vid it coincides with him saying ‘cheers’). JK in a factory that’s still open! And (the only potentially dodgy one) in operating garb to a voice over about ‘the good health’ of the Nats. Shearer edited to be heard apparently taking advice from a fucking wizard. Shearer standing looking at derelict sites and (twice?) framed alongside a ‘No Public Access’ sign.

            And less than 50% of those polled thinking the economy will improve is spun in a positive light!

            Anyway. If a Shearer led Labour Party that does nothing but shoot itself in the foot and offer gift horses to the Nats is still over 30%, just imagine what a Labour Party could do.

            And then the scare mongering begins about the prospect of a dysfunctional NZ1/Green/Labour coalition. Because we’re meant to believe that NZ1 wouldn’t go with the Nats!?

            TV is staying in the ‘bad stuff’ cupboard.

  22. ianmac 22
    4 November 2012 at 9:34 pm

    Funny how TV1 says National can govern alone on 44%.
    They ignore NZF because they are only on 4.9%.
    Yet they count The Maori Party, Act, the Conservative Party and Mana who are all struggling to register.
    So if you put Labour 32%, Greens 12%, NZF 4.9% = 48.9%.
    This for the sake of discussion trumps National on the poll, doesn’t it?
    Not all that good for Labour but not that bad either 2 years out from an election.

    • weka 22.1
      4 November 2012 at 9:46 pm

      You’d think by now we would have a user-friendly web app for calculating various results. And that the MSM would be putting polls in those contexts.
       
      Old fashioned I know, but I think the media’s job here is to report on the range of things that might happen (you know, actually inform people), rather than promoting one in particular. Would love to know how that editorial decision was made.
       
      Ian, the reason they are counting MP, ACT, UF and Mana is because they’re all in parliament due to safe-ish electoral seats (except maybe UF). NZF is completely dependent on crossing the 5%.

      • Jackal 22.1.1
        4 November 2012 at 10:33 pm

        Well actually there is a calculator for working out the allocated seats depending on vote percentages. It’s called the MMP seat allocation calculator. Of course the MSM can’t be bothered using it because it would mean they couldn’t peddle their propaganda.

        You would increase or decrease the likelihood of certain MPs winning electoral seats on the previous election results in comparison to the percentage of current polling. Just assuming that the current incumbent MPs would retain their seats even though their party support has declined and then claiming the right wing would be able to form the next government is obviously wrong!

        In fact it’s astounding just how arrogant the media is with its manipulations. They treat the public like fools!

        • weka 22.1.1.1
          5 November 2012 at 10:44 pm

          Yes I know about that calculator, it’s just not very user friendly.
           
          I’m not sure that there is such a direct correlation re the seats and previous/current polls, esp re the Maori Party/Mana seats. Have you done that calculation?

  23. ak 23
    4 November 2012 at 9:38 pm

    Right on, mac. It’s a Brolmar, and NACT’s desperate for good news. Take 10% off NAT, add 5% to Lab, have a good chortle at “add ACT and MP” and the ignoring of Winnie, and relax.