Open mike 04/12/2012

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, December 4th, 2012 - 148 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…

148 comments on “Open mike 04/12/2012 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. BillODrees 1
    4 December 2012 at 7:02 am

    There are some very concerning trends in the TV3 Poll that have been ignored or even mis-represented in the MSM. In my view these will be worsened by the unpopular decision to bring Tamihere into the already unstable mix. 

    “Less people think Mr Shearer is doing well. That’s down to 31.6 percent. And more people think Mr Shearer’s doing a poor job, at 34.4 percent – that’s a 2.9 percent rise.”
    Patrick Gower yesterday:   http://www.3news.co.nz/Poll-shows-possible-change-of-Govt/tabid/1607/articleID/278887/Default.aspx

    43% say Shearer is the best Labour Leader, but only 9% say Shearer is their preferred PM. However 12% say Cunliffe s the best Labour Leader and 6% Little. 
    That 43% for Shearer will be a reflection of the wider public while the 12% for Cunliffe will reflect a less populist leaning sub-set, given this is Cunliffe’s first significant outing in the Leadership stakes.  (Thank to Patrick Gower and Chris Hipkins: did Cunliffe pay these two?)

    Only 1 in 3 of Labour’s 33% see Shearer as the preferred PM. But there is a 12% that sees Cunliffe as the best Labour Leader.  
    It is possible that the TV3 Reid Poll found that Cunliffe has a level of support from Labour leaning people close to that of Shearer’s.
    I’d love to see a further breakdown of the Reid Poll results.

    Further concerning trends from Feb 12 to Oct 12 in the TV3 Reid Poll are that the Labour Leader:
    Has more style than substance: 15% to 28%
    Is rather narrow minded:            9%  to 20%
    Tends to talk down to people:      9%  to 18%
    Is too inflexible:                           11% to 19%
    Is rather inexperienced:              65% to 73%
    Has a lot of personality:              35% to 30%

    These details explain the desperate behaviour over the past few weeks of the clique around poor Shearer.  
    The meeting a few of them had last Wednesday, in Vivace on High Street in Auckland, decided that Tamihere was one way of getting a temporary lift in numbers to keep Shearer  from having to face the membership in a few months. Understandable given the polling details above. 

    http://www.reidresearch.co.nz/TV3+POLL+RESULTS.html

     

    • Lanthanide 1.1
      4 December 2012 at 9:00 am

      “The meeting a few of them had last Wednesday, in Vivace on High Street in Auckland, decided that Tamihere was one way of getting a temporary lift in numbers to keep Shearer from having to face the membership in a few months.”

      I’m sorry but that doesn’t make any sense at all. Tamihere is merely a member. He has nothing to do with the caucus vote that would trigger the leadership competition that enables members to vote. If members do vote, his vote would count as 1, just as any other member’s would.

      • BillODrees 1.1.1
        4 December 2012 at 12:20 pm

        The reference was to Popularity numbers, not Caucus numbers.  
        Camp Shearer believes that if they improve the Labour support to high 30s that he can avoid having the awful members have a say on his tenure. 

  2. Red Rosa 2
    4 December 2012 at 7:13 am

    Tamihere has kicked off predictably…

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8030417/Tamihere-calls-journalist-stupid-little-girl

    Shearer? ‘Unavailable for comment’.

    Put the guy out of his misery.

    • karol 2.1
      4 December 2012 at 7:32 am

      And JT says politics has been “dumbed down” …. as if his comments, and talk-back radio hosts, are the height of in-depth, and considered thinking?

      • vto 2.1.1
        4 December 2012 at 7:48 am

        Yep, Tamihere claims to be a straight talker, but there aint nothing straight about his talk. He does not call a spade a spade. He does not speak clearly. He does not make his opinion known on the matter at hand.

        For example – Is Tova, the “stupid little girl”, stupid? Well from what can be gleaned she is most definitely not stupid.

        Is Tova little? Well, I wouldn’t know actually but presumably not. Probably average size. Besides Tamihere, what has her size got to do with anything.

        Is Tova a girl? Well, no, she is a grown woman. So, wrong again Tamihere. You need to learn to speak clearly and in black and white.

        John Tamihere – first burst to his ego and looky at that – not a straight word spoken anywhere, not a spade a spade, not one ounce of clear statement on anything, not able to decipher between black and white. He does not speak with any authority, he does not call a spade a spade, and in fact it is entirely impossible to decipher what he was saying there.

        John Tamihere – last person in the world to call a spade a spade.

    • David H 2.2
      4 December 2012 at 9:49 am

      Nice one JT. You like to be called JT, makes you sound like one of the boy’s, Eh, JT? Well, JT you are a misogynistic, Racist, Brain Dead Moron who really is more suited for the ACT party (you’d fit right in). So please do us a favour (just by joining Labour you have probably alienated most women that vote Labour, and the article in today’s paper just finished the job). And leave.

      David H
      A MALE

    • millsy 2.3
      4 December 2012 at 9:56 am

      Only confirms that he is pretty much a brown …[RL:Deleted.]

  3. JazzaBelle 3
    4 December 2012 at 7:36 am

    Tamihere at his usual bullying ignorant level alas off a lady reporter yesterday calling her a stupid little girl.
    Darien Fenton (junior whip to angry-boy Hipkins) says — I wouldn’t say it didn’t upset me, but don’t want to make a comment. In Stuff.
    Darien, that is up there with the most useless responses of all times.
    At the Annual Conference in Ellerslie you abused Service Workers who supported the shift to democratic selection of a Leader. You ranted at one til she was in tears. You had heaps of invective for union and labour members: but not an ounce for a bully like Tamihere. Shame on you.
    With Tbe new processes your placing on the list must be under threat. After the conference gig you will not get union support again. Swallowing a rat for a whip position was not one of your better moves. You need to win back the membership and union support u once had. Go to the backbenches with Cunliffe.

    • insider 3.1
      4 December 2012 at 7:57 am

      Why would an opposition whip have to have a view on someone who isn’t even an MP?

      • Ramlea 3.1.1
        4 December 2012 at 10:53 am

        3.1 insider asks
        Why would an opposition whip have to have a view on someone who isn’t even an MP?

        because the decision to have Tamihere back into Labour is not a simple decision about a simple Joe Average member. It was a major decision that involved conversations with Twyford, Cosgrave, Robertson, Shearer and more.
        They think all the anti-PC element who disliked Helen will now flock to planet Shearer. And despite what Shearer and Tamihere say, giving JT a shot at a seat was discussed between them in a very positive manner. Phil, my MP, thinks it is an inspired idea. (It settles an old score)
        So it should be of considerable interest to a whip how Tamihere behaves.
        Many ordinary Joe Average members got bolickings at the Conference from senior MPs for supporting the 40% threshold for a wider leadership vote. Why should Tamihere have special exemptions?

        • Murray Olsen 3.1.1.1
          4 December 2012 at 5:20 pm

          The idea of giving Tamihere a shot at a seat to grab back the anti-PC voters is as inspired as giving John Ansell a shot to link with poor whites who blame their plight on the “Treaty Industry”. Why not go the whole hog and get Kyle Chapman? Maybe the “Beast of Blenheim” could be coopted as well? When all we see from the ruling faction of Labour is this sort of inspiration, and the totally incompetent gagging of anyone who says something slightly progressive, I would have to think very hard before even giving one of them an electorate vote.
          What’s the difference between John Tamihere and John Banks apart from a few years in age? It seems they both support charter schools, probably both like Harley Davidsons, and both have problems seeing “front bums” anywhere but the kitchen. Well, I’ll call them “back pussies” and they can go and —— each other as far as I’m concerned.

    • Te Reo Putake 3.2
      4 December 2012 at 7:57 am

      “At the Annual Conference in Ellerslie you abused Service Workers who supported the shift to democratic selection of a Leader. You ranted at one til she was in tears.”
       
      Citation needed. And Fenton voted for the change to a (party wide) democratic leadership election. Everyone did. However, what you meant is that she voted for the normal union position of 50% plus one.
       
      “After the conference gig you will not get union support again.”
       
      And yet Darien remains a life member of the SFWU and a popular and active participant in the union’s activities. Funny old world, eh?
       
       

      • Anne 3.2.1
        4 December 2012 at 5:42 pm

        “At the Annual Conference in Ellerslie you abused Service Workers who supported the shift to democratic selection of a Leader. You ranted at one til she was in tears.”

        While Darien is capable of robust debate, I don’t believe for a moment she would behave like that.

  4. Draco T Bastard 4
    4 December 2012 at 7:50 am

    How Banking Harms the Environment

    One of the greatest pressures being placed on the environment today is due to the need to sustain the required economic growth that ensures the stable functioning of our current economic system.

    To then service that debt requires future earnings over and above what is required merely to continue the existing level of economic activity. So economic growth, often in the form of more debt, must accompany debt service.

    This is the elephant in the room. The only reason why we need growth in our economy is to feed the greed of the banksters and by doing that we destroy the environment.

    Time to change the financial system to a positive money system and the economy to a stable state. That way we can provide for our children and grand children rather than destroying any hope they have.

    • Slartibartfast 4.1
      4 December 2012 at 8:03 am

      Agree. Stable societies of the past all had some means of re-distributing accumulated income back into the “tribe”. We don’t, quite the opposite.

    • thatguynz 4.2
      4 December 2012 at 10:40 am

      Couldn’t agree more DTB.  Reminds me of the old proverb that I can’t seem to find attributed to anyone in particular – “We do not inherit our world from our parents, we borrow it from our children.”

  5. muzza 5
    4 December 2012 at 7:54 am

    Finlayson judged top politician

    Guess who has done the best job of *fixing* establishment problems lately…

    You have to read through these awards, then take a look at who got to vote, and why they might want to be propping up CF.

    • Tigger 5.1
      4 December 2012 at 11:06 am

      A gay man who votes against gay marriage – he’s the right wing’s wet dream.

      • Ennui in Requiem 5.1.1
        5 December 2012 at 5:04 pm

        Ven Young is sitting over there in Heaven…National Party man who tried to decriminalize homosexuality back when Norm Kirk (Labour) was very disparaging of gays…..he looks a little puzzled with the “right wing wet dream” bit, he is asking why “lefties” align anti gay politics with the Right? I said to him to ask that of Marilyn Waring…another National Party person.

  6. muzza 6
    4 December 2012 at 9:05 am

    Syria violence pushes UN from Damascus – Todays reuters propaganda report

    Syria has said it would not use chemical weapons against its own people after the United States warned it would take action against any such escalation.

    The statements came amid media reports, citing European and US officials, that Syria’s chemical weapons had been moved and could be prepared for use in response to dramatic gains by rebels fighting to topple President Bashar al-Assad.

    Reviving old claims first made months ago – “”Syria has stressed repeatedly that it will not use these types of weapons, if they were available, under any circumstances against its people,” the foreign ministry said.”

    US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had earlier warned that Washington would take action if Syria used the weapons.

    “I am not going to telegraph any specifics what we do in the event of credible evidence that the Assad regime has resorted to using chemical weapons against their own people, but suffice to say, we are certainly planning to take action if that eventuality were to occur,” she said during a visit to Prague on Monday.

    Setting the scene for more action based on BS, just in case..

    The rebels have begun to advance quickly in recent weeks after months of slow sieges to cut off army routes and supplies.

    Read: The rebel sponsors have imported more AQ fighters, and probably armed them to the teeth also.

    In the past few weeks, they seized several military bases around the country, and an oil field and hydro-electric dam in the northeast. Rebels are using anti-aircraft weapons to attack the military helicopters and fighter jets that have bombarded their positions with impunity until now

    Yup, tooled up with some big guns – where did they get the armoury I wonder!

    The opposition-linked Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the Syrian army was trying to take over Daraya, on the southern outskirts of Damascus, and was attacking rebels with rockets as it advanced into some parts of the town

    Opposition linked – Must make them impartial *good guys* by default then eh!

    Whats interesting is that there is no UN mandate which says they can interfere in domestics, only international, does not seem to rate a mention in the MSM reports though!

    • Pascal's bookie 6.1
      4 December 2012 at 10:14 am

      Wellll, yeah nah. eh.

      They call it ‘oppositon linked’, because it is.

      It’s like they’d call the state run media chanels ‘state run’.

      Or are you saying that they shouldn’t have mentioned the outfit’s affiliations, or that they shouldn’t have run what they had to say, or what, exactly?

      And on the chem weapons stuff, again this is standard MO right?

      The govt is moving the weapons, for whatever reason.

      Western intel. sees that they are moving the weapons.

      At this point, they are going to say that there will be consequences if those weapons are used.

      That’s not because they are itching to get in there, (they’d be in there already if that was the case), it’s because if they don’t say that, then the regime might take that as a signal that they would be ok with their use.

      It’s all about signals.

      Like when Saddam wasn’t told directly that invading Kuwait would be met with consequences, he took it as a green light.

      Same thing. If the regime resorts to using chems, the west doesn’t want there to have been any ambiguity about where they stood.

      • Colonial Viper 6.1.1
        4 December 2012 at 12:07 pm

        Same thing. If the regime resorts to using chems, the west doesn’t want there to have been any ambiguity about where they stood.

        I believe you are mistaken in thinking that this media messaging is for the consumption of the Syrian ‘regime’.

        As in the case of Iraq’s supposed WMD, the media messaging is for our consumption.

        The Archdruid has written recently about the nature of nuclear deterrence. Many of the rules apply to chemical weapons as well. Assad knows that any use of chemical weapons on Turkey will trigger a massive and immediate NATO campaign that he would be lucky to survive a week of.

        • Pascal's bookie 6.1.1.1
          4 December 2012 at 12:19 pm

          Not sure what Turkey has got ot do with it, goes without saying that if someone uses Chems against a NATO member there are going to be consequences.

          This is really obvious.

          He’s moving his stockpiles.

          We know that.

          He knows that we know.

          So, you say ‘We see you moving them weapons, don’t you be thinking about using them now y’hear’.

          What’s the alternative.

          You say nothing. He hears you say nothing.

          That is also a signal.

          So what’s your theory?

          If the west wanted to be in there. they’d be in there now.

          • vto 6.1.1.1.1
            4 December 2012 at 12:23 pm

            Sheesh p’s b, it sounds like you believe everything you read in the paper…

            • Pascal's bookie 6.1.1.1.1.1
              4 December 2012 at 1:04 pm

              Not at all.

              I just don’t take everything I read in the paper as being proof of something else.

        • Johan 6.1.1.2
          4 December 2012 at 8:18 pm

          Nato will be hard pressed to get involve in this messy business. The stumbling block for NATO involvement is Russia, who has just recently setup a naval base in Syria in the exchange of at least six billion dollars worth of armaments. Now, much of the arms are sent from Iran. Many of the rebels are an assortment from different groups and heavily sponsored by the Arabs.

  7. Johnm 7
    4 December 2012 at 9:33 am

    “Easily the most important development of “late monopoly capitalism” is the triumph of the rentiers or the absentee owners, as Veblen called them. These people are less “entreprenuers” than economic barons. They call themselves “venture capitalists,” “investment bankers,” “hedge fund managers,” “brokers” and “financial analysts.” But the term “bankster” is as good a descriptor as any other, as i
    t captures the predatory venality of what is essentially organized criminality. As a political force, the banksters rule the realm through a combination of graft, propaganda, legalized extortion and outright thievery. As creditors, they have made “serfs” out of millions with their insidious usurious policies. As legal activists, they have manipulated the tax codes to engross a larger share of social wealth. As ideologues, they have pushed the view that government indebtedness, rather than unemployment, is the true measure of “crisis.” And as class warriors, they are currently using the big stick of “austerity” to smash the welfare state.

    The “financialization” of capitalism is a catastrophic turn. In many ways, it is the institutionalization of barbarism. When “austerity” is the ideal, it becomes normal: to see people homeless on the streets; to see the elderly working in menial jobs when they ought to be comfortably retired; to see children going hungry; to see young people without prospects, crushed by debt; to see poverty “feminized” as familes collapse, or never get going, under the strain; to see people die prematurely for want of health care; to see crime rampant, as social bonds wither; to see “tribalism” return in sinister forms, as people turn to “race,” “nation” and “religion” in search of authentic identity; to see addiction grow apace; to see the general spread of mindlesssness and meaninglessness as “the market” colonizes every social space. We are already experiencing many of these social pathologies. It’s an open question whether a society of this nature has any real future.”

    • Johnm 7.1
      4 December 2012 at 10:45 am

      “Neoliberalism is a philosophy which construes profit making as the essence of democracy and consuming as the only operable form of citizenship. It also provides a rationale for a handful of private interests to control as much as possible of social, economic, and political life in order to maximize their personal profit. Neoliberalism is marked by a shift from the manufacturing to the service sector, the rise of temporary and part-time work, growth of the financial sphere and speculative activity, the spread of mass consumerism, the commodification of practically everything.

      Neoliberalism combines free market ideology with the privatization of public wealth, the elimination of the social state and social protections, and the deregulation of economic activity. Core narratives of neoliberalism are: privatization, deregulation, commodification, and the selling off of state functions. Neoliberalism advocates lifting the government oversight of free enterprise/trade thereby not providing checks and balances to prevent or mitigate social damage that might occur as a result of the policy of “no governmental interference”; eliminating public funding of social services; deregulating governmental involvement in anything that could cut into the profits of private enterprise; privatizing such enterprises as schools, hospitals, community-based organizations, and other entities traditionally held in the public trust; and eradicating the concept of “the public good” or “community” in favor of “individual responsibility.”

      It is a form of terrorism because it abstracts economics from ethics and social costs, makes a mockery of democracy, works to dismantle the welfare state, thrives on militarization, undermines any public sphere not governed by market values, and transforms people into commodities. Neoliberalism’s rigid emphasis on unfettered individualism, competitiveness and flexibility displaces compassion, sharing and a concern for the welfare of others. In doing so, it dissolves crucial social bonds and undermines the profound nature of social responsibility and its ensuing concern for others. In removing individuals from broader social obligations, it not only tears up social solidarities, it also promotes a kind of individualism that is almost pathological in its disdain for public goods, community, social provisions, and public values. Given its tendency to instrumentalize knowledge, it exhibits mistrust for thoughtfulness, complexity, and critical dialogue and in doing so contributes to a culture of stupidity and cruelty in which the dominant ethic is organized around the discourse of war and a survival of the fittest mentality. Neoliberalism is the antithesis of democracy.

      • Draco T Bastard 7.1.1
        4 December 2012 at 11:29 am

        +1

        Describes neo-liberalism perfectly. We, as a society, need to see it as the threat that it is.

      • Colonial Viper 7.1.2
        4 December 2012 at 11:39 am

        This should be a post in it’s own right.

          • Ennui in Requiem 7.1.2.1.1
            4 December 2012 at 4:46 pm

            “Hell” of an eternity here in Purgatory…just saw some recently deceased resident of the Hamptons trudging back from the Pearly Gates, in a delicious piece of irony St Peter has employed Thorsten Veblen and some spear wielding New Guinea natives to escort Wall Streets finest back to Purgatory.

            On the note of larceny there was one “hell” of a row coming out of there, a fellow called Tetzel and several of the numerous Dominicans down there were arguing with John Law that they deserved the credit for the invention of derivatives…indulgences that specified spiritual repayment at some unspecified future date…the Devils agents on Earth report that Goldman Sachs execs are filing a class action for damages against this claim to their IP in “virtual” financial instruments. Just after that we all got boiled in oil, Lucifer decided that the cost of litigation should be “socialized”. Financial crime it appears does pay, and we, like you on Earth got the bill.

  8. millsy 8
    4 December 2012 at 10:12 am

    Didnt seem much comment here about it, but Fonterra shareholders fund kicked off on Friday. Say what you like about it, but it is essentially a stockmarket listing through the backdoor. I read on another site that farmer-suppliers cannot just ring one of the directors and have a chat with them about the company anymore because they are now bound by insider trading laws.

    One of the strengths of Fonterra is that it is a co-op, collectively owned by its suppliers, and provides a wide range of support for them. (I also note that Fonterra EMPLOYS its tanker drivers, and doesnt have them as owner operators – one of the few companies to do so). Co-ops have been a mainstay throghout agriculture — Ballance, Ravensdown, LIC, RD1, and so on — even the Farmer’s chain store used to the the Farmers Co-Op Trading Society.

    However, a few people high up on Fonterra’s board have decided that co-ops some how resemble Stalinist collective agriculture, and want to undermine it, and there are come stupid hayseed cockies singing their praises.

    No good will come of this.

  9. millsy 9
    4 December 2012 at 10:26 am

    Call for a review of Tomorrow’s Schools

    I also think we need to re-look at the Tomorrow’s Schools (TS) reforms of 23 years ago, schools pretty much lost a lot of support when this happened, causing a lot of students to fall through the cracks, plus the whole consept of winner and loser schools, and the white flight from schools in smaller areas.

    I have to also mention that TS may have also resulted in more central control of education, ie by the minister, and that with the old Education Boards in charge, the restructuring of Christchurch schools might have gone a bit differently, (not to mention Mallards school closing frenzy last decade).

  10. Professor Longhair 10
    4 December 2012 at 10:42 am

    Apple Inc. censors anti-drone application

    Apple Inc., which has received over $9 million in Pentagon contracts in recent years, has rejected from its App Store, and therefore from all iPhones, a simple informative application.

    Drones+ is an application that shows no depictions of the carnage of war and reveals no secret information. It simply adds a location to a map every time a drone strike is reported in the media and added to a database maintained by the U.K.’s Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

    Apple has rejected the app as “objectionable and crude.”

    Drone wars continue because the U.S. public is unaware what is being done in our name with our money. We are interested in knowing where our government is using drones and has killed people, not in celebrating that killing.

    The people in Pakistan and Afghanistan and elsewhere living under the drones can’t ignore what’s being done to them. Neither should we, as it’s done with our money and in our names.

    A recent study by Stanford and NYU found that drones traumatize innocent populations, who have no way of knowing how to protect themselves from drone strikes. Further, only 2% of victims of these strikes are high-level targets. The drones kill civilian men, women, and children, are being used to target rescuers, schools and funerals, and create significant anti-U.S. hostility — exactly as the Pakistani and Afghan governments have said they do.

    Ask Apple to stop hiding the simplest of facts.

    http://act.rootsaction.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=6750

  11. travellerev 11
    4 December 2012 at 10:44 am

    Here is a link to a newly published scientific research paper which comes to the conclusion that the seismic information collected from the Palisades seismic station on 9/11 does not support the official assertion that 2 planes were responsible for the collapse of the two twin towers and WTC7.

    • McFlock 11.1
      4 December 2012 at 11:59 am

      Here is a link to a newly published scientific research paper which [begins its analysis on the assumption]  that the seismic information collected from the Palisades seismic station on 9/11 does not support the official assertion that 2 planes were responsible for the collapse of the two twin towers and WTC7.

      FIFY

      • travellerev 11.1.1
        4 December 2012 at 12:10 pm

        Great, two links for the price of one! Thanks McFuck.

        And for those of you who are interested, seismic data is a pretty robust kind of science about what kind of forces are unleashed around the globe. It’s how we know about the strength of Nuclear explosions, Earthquakes and Volcanic eruptions.

        Planes ramming into buildings at a significant distance from the ground are pretty insignificant details in the scheme of things. Explosions activating the seismic recorder in a seismic station 34 km away from these explosions on the other hand are not so insignificant.

        • McFlock 11.1.1.1
          4 December 2012 at 12:57 pm

          Nor are the assumptions around which one starts one’s analysis. The dude, for example, ruled out other types of waves based on assumptions of what waveforms the collisions would have caused, made assumptions about the average speeds of those assumed waveforms through the ground, and only those assumptions enabled him to draw the conclusion of a time discrepancy. “Scientific” my arse.
                   
          But feel free to continue making a hobby out of peoples’ deaths.

          • travellerev 11.1.1.1.1
            4 December 2012 at 1:25 pm

            The “dude” is:
            André Rousseau and he is a Doctor of Geophysics and Geology, a former researcher in the French National Center of Scientific Research (CNRS), who has published 50 papers on the relationships between the characteristics of progressive mechanical waves and geology.
            Dr. Rousseau is an expert on measurement of acoustic waves.
            I would say that’s doctor Dude to you.

            There were no other events that would qualify as seismic triggers and if we talk about the refusal to consider reasons for why the three buildings collapsed maybe we should have a look at NIST which refused to look at the possibility for the use of explosives because nobody they said had heard any loud bangs.

            And in response to your last remark. It is the survivors who want a new and independent investigation and with some 70.000 first responders dying and two wars started in the aftermath of the attacks so your comment is callous and sow a severe disregards for the fact that these people are not making a hobby out of other peoples deaths you sad excuse for a human being.

            • One Tāne Huna 11.1.1.1.1.1
              4 December 2012 at 1:29 pm

              Who cares who he is? His “analysis” starts by assuming its conclusion.

            • McFlock 11.1.1.1.1.2
              4 December 2012 at 1:41 pm

              I would say that’s doctor Dude to you.
                     
              That’s sweet. And yet the doctors who don’t agree with you are government conspiracists. I was simply pointing out that the “scientific” paper explicitly states that it seeks to demonstrate alternative theories. He successfully does this by making unreferenced assumptions about waveforms and propagation speeds.  This is not “scientific”. It is borderline reasonable.

               There were no other events that would qualify as seismic triggers
              According to his theory, based on uncited assumptions.
                         
              Some survivors do not believe that the official explanation is enough to explain the deaths of their loved ones. Fair enough.
              Two illegitimate wars were started using the incidents as an excuse. Fair enough.
              Not sure on the actual numbers, but it’s fair to say that thousands of first responders have been seriously harmed or killed by inhaling the debris while trying to save lives. No argument.
                 
              My last point was simply pointing out that you, personally, have made a fucking hobby out of seeing patterns in clouds and thereby stating as fact that there is a big man in the sky. Stamp your moral outrage all you want, but I wouldn’t be surprised if you drool at the sight of the latest piece of bullshit that you happen to agree with – as we all know, anything else is black propaganda.
                 

               

              • Murray Olsen …
                4 December 2012 at 3:00 pm

                I also have a PhD. I’ve published 75 papers in the peer reviewed literature. I do not think chemtrails exist and have serious doubts about WTC theories. I am apparently “Too blind to see denier brainwashed dude.” Ah well, I never liked the word dude anyway.
                By the way, I just read the article. It does indeed start out with a premise or an assumption. This is not typical of French scientists I have known and worked with. Especially in forensic investigations, which this purports to be, any investigator should be led by the evidence. They should not lead the evidence.

                • travellerev …
                  4 December 2012 at 7:56 pm

                  Hey Murray, I saw a congrats is in order! It seems you and your team will be transporting atoms along fiber optics in oh, the next four years or so. Way to go! Can’t wait to see that happen! LOL.

                  • Murray Olsen …
                    4 December 2012 at 8:20 pm

                    Actually, the basics of what we described in our article have already been done in a couple of laboratories. What you have linked is an old press release from the university PR department and is not from the scientific literature, but I understand you have trouble telling the difference. Maybe you’ve been staring at chemtrails that were a bit close to the Sun? If you find the actual article, you might be able to find someone who can explain it to you.
                    Nice piece of stalking, by the way. Says heaps for your talents as a fearless investigator and noble truthseeker. It also creeps me out a little, but maybe I’m just over sensitive.

                    • McFlock …
                      4 December 2012 at 8:37 pm

                      Nah, you’re not over-sensitive, but try not to let it concern you. You’ve just been googled by the Keystone Kooks.

                    • thatguynz …
                      5 December 2012 at 1:15 am

                      I apologise Murray – This should have been appended to McFlock’s comment.

                      And there again you attack the “hypothesiser”. I sure hope it doesn’t come back to bite you in your bum. Is it so wrong that Ev has such a different view from you that you need to lambast her so repetitively? Different != wrong necessarily..

                      And McFlock “Keystone Kooks” – unnecessary don’t you think?

                    • travellerev …
                      5 December 2012 at 11:03 am

                      Oh dear, A simple Google search and you feel stalked? You who jumps on every thing I write here? Who couldn’t wait to get me dumped of a facebook page? It’s one thing to do the stalking but not so funny when it happens to you isn’t it?

                      Your university puts out PR about you and your team developing “Beam me up” technology while you can’t get your head around simple Newtonian laws is what makes this search result funny though. 😀

                    • Murray Olsen …
                      5 December 2012 at 12:20 pm

                      Funny, when I studied Mathematics and the different ways of proving stuff, I missed proof by vilification, repetition, dishonesty and character assassination. They must be reserved for those who see further than the rest of us.
                      Yawn. Ding dong.

                    • travellerev …
                      5 December 2012 at 12:46 pm

                      I so agree Murray, so why don’t you stop?

                    • McFlock …
                      5 December 2012 at 10:57 pm

                      TGNZ- keystone kooks?

                      On the same if not higher level than “mcfuck”. What’s good for the kander is good for the kook.

        • One Tāne Huna 11.1.1.2
          4 December 2012 at 1:08 pm

          That’s a very pretty red herring. How does it alter the fact (since you’re all about truthiness) that – as McFlock says – the “analysis” starts by assuming its conclusion? Is that how they do science on your planet?

          Eleven years. No evidence. Pitiful.

          • travellerev 11.1.1.2.1
            4 December 2012 at 1:36 pm

            And for those of you interested to find out why I find OTH to be an absolute and total bore, read the very detailed research submitted by André Rousseau a Doctor of Geophysics and Geology, a former researcher in the French National Center of Scientific Research (CNRS), who has published 50 papers on the relationships between the characteristics of progressive mechanical waves and geology. Dr. Rousseau is an expert on measurement of acoustic waves. Here is the link to the PDF.

            • One Tāne Huna 11.1.1.2.1.1
              4 December 2012 at 1:48 pm

              Start by assuming the conclusion. Is that how they do science in France?

              • travellerev …
                4 December 2012 at 2:13 pm

                For those of you not familiar with the layout of a scientific paper here are some ground rules on how to present your work. The first thing you do is to write an Abstract when you begin to assemble the results of your research in order to present it to your scientific peers.
                An Abstract is nothing more than an introduction to your research and an explanation of the thesis you have been working on. This is not the same as starting with an idea and bending the science in order to proof your thesis.

                The proper response is to read the paper and to either refute the paper with scientific arguments or if you have no such arguments to hold your tongue.

                For OTH and McFlock to suggest that the Abstract is anything other than that is to say the least disingenuous. However I am very happy to hear their proper scientific response. With a paper starting with:

                Abstract: In this paper we aim to refute the findings of Dr. Roussau with regards to his assertions that only controlled demolitions could have brought down the Twin towers and WTC 7 on 11/9/2001. We aim to show that only two planes flown into the Twin towers can be held responsible for the freefall collapse of both the twin towers and WTC 7…. Oh wait, you can’t!

                • travellerev …
                  4 December 2012 at 2:14 pm

                  Only one link and no swear words and still in purgatory?
                   

                • McFlock …
                  4 December 2012 at 4:17 pm

                  For OTH and McFlock to suggest that the Abstract is anything other than that is to say the least disingenuous. 
                       
                  [much laughter]
                  Hey, you might want to check whether the abstract conforms to your own source’s description.
                      
                  The main issue is that there is no consideration of a “question”. The aim isn’t to examine the seismic records and their consistency with current literature. It’s not even to examine other possible explanations. It explicitly sets out to refute previous conclusions. 

                  In addition to that BIG issue,  the methodology description is absent, and as for the rest of the “article” conventional science tends to keep the methodology, discussion and commentary on the conclusion separate, just to ensure that preconceptions do not taint the analysis.
                            
                  But I’m sure you know all that.
                           
                   

                • Wisewoman …
                  4 December 2012 at 8:58 pm

                  How much experience do you have with writing scientific papers Traveller Ev?

                  • travellerev …
                    5 December 2012 at 11:43 am

                    Wrong question oh, Wisewoman (Rofl)! The question should be how much experience do I have in reading them and…. even more important understanding them. 
                    Too wit, Murray Olsen says he has written 75 scientific papers but he still has a problem understanding Newtons laws of Physics.

                    • McFlock …
                      5 December 2012 at 12:18 pm

                      Funny.
                      You’ve probably got 10 years’ experience in part A of your question, but  the answer to part B is likely somewhere approaching zero.
                         
                      But who needs a decade of formal scientific training when they have an ego like your… 

                    • Wisewoman …
                      5 December 2012 at 1:00 pm

                      I love how you hate personal attacks but are more than happy to deal them out. You are a funny little thing. Ignorant. But amusing

          • Te Reo Putake 11.1.1.2.2
            4 December 2012 at 2:46 pm

            Y’know, I’d completely forgotten about 9/11 these last few months. Maybe I was being overly optimistic, but the whole Obama winning thing seemed to have not only caused the internal collapse of the Republican Party (faster than freefall?), but also the end of the associated birther/truther/CCD axis. The end of the racist birther movement is clearly linked to the election; what point is there in moaning after Obama’s been elected a second time? None. may as well put the white sheet back on the bed now. Shame about the eyeholes though.

            As I’ve pointed out previously, mad conspiracy theories usually only last a generation or so. Elvis, JFK, the Lindberg baby … all had a decade or so of currency, then became irrelevant through the passage of time. 9/11 truth deniers have already hit their peak and its a long slide through disinterest, eye rolling and derision and into a deserving obscurity that awaits the remaining acolytes.

            • thatguynz 11.1.1.2.2.1
              4 December 2012 at 3:30 pm

              It seems to me TRP that you are awfully keen to universally pan “conspiracy theories”.  I can only assume this MAY be because there seems to be a belief that “theorists” are nutbar right wingers whereas I don’t actually think there is a relevant or common point on the political spectrum and the “nutbar” descriptor is subjective.
               
              Perhaps it might be beneficial to look at (just a handful) of historical “conspiracy theories” which were later proven to be fact.  There are probably of course countless others however these are perhaps some of the more prominent.

              Project MKULTRA
              Bay of Pigs
              Operation Northwoods
              Gulf of Tonkin

              Accordingly, irrespective of whether you agree with Ev’s assertions and/or hypotheses, it may not be prudent to universally discount what she suggests as these may (or may not) also be proven to be correct in retrospect.

              • vto …
                4 December 2012 at 3:37 pm

                .
                Humans have been conspiring ever since they stepped off the spaceship onto planet earth.

                It is one of our most common traits. We do it as much as work, love, game, construct, destruct, plot, plan, play, plop, and plunder. It is as old as the hills.

                Everybody conspires, and consequently every organisation conspires. Look it up in the dictionary.

                People who roundly dismiss “conspiracy theorists” as fools are in fact themselves the fools.

              • McFlock …
                4 December 2012 at 3:46 pm

                (some_conspiracy_theories == true) != (all_conspiracy_theories == reasonable) 
                     
                This is where critical thinking comes in. And the fact is that interpreting facts to support your hypothesis is not a way to reliably determine the truth of your hypothesis.
                          
                It’s possible that aliens destroyed the twin towers with nano-thermite. The problem is that we then have to develop a theory to explain away hundreds of millions of people watching on TV as a plane apparently flew into a goddamn building. It’s possible that twenty floors of each tower were painted with explosives cunningly disguised as wallpaper paste. The trouble is that at the moment there’s no evidence of either scenario. All we have are people staring at pixelated images for ten years, interpolating the dots with assumptions and wishful thinking.

              • Pascal's bookie …
                4 December 2012 at 3:48 pm

                No one denies that conspiracies do happen. But that isn’t evidence for every touted conspiracy being real.

                The widely accepted theory for what happened on 9/11 is of a conspiracy as well.

                The question is, which conspiracy theory best fits all the observed and known facts.

                The widely accepted theory posits that a terrorist group did it. That group admits they did it.

                I’ve not seen how truthers fit the fact of AQ involvement into their theory. In fact, I haven’t seen anything resembling an actual theory from them at all.

                It’s been a long time.

              • MikeD …
                4 December 2012 at 4:24 pm

                ThatguyNZ:

                I don’t universally pan conspiracy theories, because, as you point out, some turn out to be true. I am pretty down on the 3 recent rightwing ones (Birther/Truther/CCD) because they are (in order) racist, fantastical and in denial about observable fact.

                As P’s B notes, 9/11 was a conspiracy. So was the Chilean 9/11. So were Watergate, Iran Contra and the Hollow Men. Add to that professional cycling and most Italian football games in recent years. It’s really just the offensive or downright stupid ones I tend to take against.

                • thatguynz …
                  5 December 2012 at 1:20 am

                  Mike, I respectfully ask what differentiates a right wing conspiracy theory from a left wing one? Assuming I’m missing something obvious, examples of each would be useful to help me understand.

                  Cheers.

              • Wisewoman …
                4 December 2012 at 9:03 pm

                All too often the tricky thing about conspiracy theorists is that they take actual incidents and twist and manipulate until they become far fetched. I hate it when they do that

                • Colonial Viper …
                  4 December 2012 at 10:42 pm

                  Shit the irony. On Sept 10 anyone talking about hijacked Boeings being crashed into the Twin Towers would have considered delusional, twisted, far fetched conspiracy theorists.

                  But after Sept 11 it’s merely an “actual incident”.

                  • McFlock …
                    4 December 2012 at 11:06 pm

                    Actually a guy tried to do it to the fedex building in the 1990s. And a guy tried to hijack a plane to do it when nixon was in the White House, but got shot while the plane was still on the ground. And the PFLP was doing simultaneous hijackings in the 1960s.

                    A bit of an evolution, really.

                    But no worries, I’m sure it was completely out of the blue to someone who thinks they know everything…

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      4 December 2012 at 11:22 pm

                      I hand’t realised that there had been so many similar style attempts in the past, albeit smaller scale ones.

                      Given what you said you’d have thought they’d be far more ready for big one on 9/11 eh? Wonder how they never managed to intercept a single hijacked plane with an F15 or F16 even an hour after the first incident was confirmed.

                    • McFlock …
                      4 December 2012 at 11:46 pm

                      you mean like the two F16s that were scrambled from Washington DC towards flight 93 when they figured out that an unknown number of other aircraft might be involved?
                             
                       

        • Wisewoman 11.1.1.3
          4 December 2012 at 9:11 pm

          McFuck. Wow. Mature

  12. Jackal 12
    4 December 2012 at 11:38 am

    Well the good news for today is that it looks like Petrobras has pulled out of oil drilling in the Raukumara basin on the East Coast of New Zealand, likely a result of pressure from environmental groups and local Iwi plus the fact that Petrobras has major financial problems at the moment.

    • McFlock 12.1
      4 December 2012 at 11:56 am

      nice

    • felix 12.2
      4 December 2012 at 1:51 pm

      John Key promising to subsidise them in 3…2…

    • Murray Olsen 12.3
      4 December 2012 at 2:49 pm

      My only worry about Petrobras pulling out is which bunch of cowboys the government will call in to take their place. For all their faults, and my total opposition to deepwater drilling in our shaky tectonic plates, Petrobras is the technical leader in this field.
      The next lot will be worse. A luta continua.

  13. Rogue Trooper 13
    4 December 2012 at 12:16 pm

    Well, it’s been sackcloth and ashes for a few days 🙁 (there was a coutier attack)
    🙂

  14. Draco T Bastard 14
    4 December 2012 at 1:10 pm

    Missed this bit:

    But it gets worse. Inadequate equipment, untrained crew, no instruction manuals. And the problems were systematic across the entire RNZAF, to the extent that it was unable to “adequately and reliably ensure safe and effective military air operations”. And then there’s this:

    The report found knowledge of problems went to the top of the command chain.

    The Chief of Air Force at the time of the accident, Air Vice-Marshal Graham Lintott, was last year promoted to be New Zealand’s defence attache in Washington.

    So much for accountability.

    So, our air force is inadequately trained and the top brass knew about it but did nothing to correct it. One wonders how they got to be the top brass.

  16. Rosie 16
    4 December 2012 at 2:21 pm

    As a follow on from Karols TPPA article yesterday:

    Good interview with Jane Kelsey and Lori Wallach hosted by Bomber from last week (Apologies if this has already been posted/discussed, it may well have been)

    The three areas covered are:
    Why should New Zealanders be concerend about signing up to the TPPA?
    Why would the Government back a deal that does not benefit New Zealand?
    How much is the TPPA a manifestation of the new USA China cold war?

    http://livenews.co.nz/2012/11/citizen-a-with-martyn-bomber-bradbury-jane-kelsey-lori-wallach-on-the-tppa-negotiations/

    Wayne, if you’re out there, you need to watch this mi amigo.

    • karol 16.1
      4 December 2012 at 5:34 pm

      I did mention it in my TPP post last Friday, Rosie. But it is well worth mentioning again for those who haven’t already seen it. They cover a lot of important ground.

      I also see that the Greens have picked up on the increase of secrecy around the Auckland TPP negotiations this week. 

      • Pascal's bookie 16.1.1
        4 December 2012 at 5:42 pm

        Don’t know if this has been mentioned, but Gordon Campbell has found a hella quote from Groser;

        http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/2012/12/04/gordon-campbell-on-tim-grosers-political-projectile-vomiting-about-the-tppa/

        “I am confident we can find ways that advance U.S. interests [on these two issues] without causing projectile political vomiting in New Zealand, and many of the other countries of the TPP,”

      • Rosie 16.1.2
        4 December 2012 at 7:12 pm

        Thanks for linking your article Karol. My headspace has been elsewhere of late. And yes, I had read today how stakeholders had been locked out of the meetings, which they hadn’t anticipated. Imagine travelling from overseas only to have the rules change on you, on your arrival.!
        Must be a real bad buzz going on inside if negotiaters feel they must lock out previously welcome observers……….

  17. gobsmacked 17
    4 December 2012 at 3:28 pm

    Winston has told Parliament that Brendan Horan is outski.

    Apart from anything else, a useful reminder to those who just want to add NZ First to the Labour-led majority after the election, and confidently assume it’ll all be hunky-dory.

    Minor party lists are a breeding ground for unreliables (Garrett, Copeland, Kopu, etc) and the opposition should be aiming for a majority with a buffer, otherwise Fruity McLoopy MP can hold the balance of power (see John Banks).

    • Draco T Bastard 17.1
      4 December 2012 at 4:14 pm

      Minor party lists are a breeding ground for unreliables…

      Your prejudice is showing. I think you’ll find that there’s just as many unreliables in major parties they just don’t get found out as often probably due to being on the backbench rather than the front bench. Think, Field, Worth, Wong, etc, etc.

      • gobsmacked 17.1.1
        4 December 2012 at 4:52 pm

        Not prejudice. Accurate and deliberate choice of words. Key word: “Lists”.

        Major parties have unreliables too, but more of them have won electorate contests. This is no fail-safe mechanism (e.g. Field), but it makes it more likely that they will come under scrutiny, not least in the original candidate selection.

        Every three years we have presidential-style campaigns which do not match our voting system, and consequently every three years the coat-tails are barely scrutinised. Especially of minor parties.

        • McFlock 17.1.1.1
          4 December 2012 at 5:00 pm

          But list candidates come under candidate selection, too – they don’t just suddenly appear.
               
          Even minor parties now look at their lists carefully – mostly because UF was especially funny after 2002. 
           

          • Pascal's bookie 17.1.1.1.1
            4 December 2012 at 5:13 pm

            Yeah, but;

            NZFirst

            ACT

            United future (who was a a worm like event from having Pete George in the house, for the love of christ)

            • McFlock 17.1.1.1.1.1
              4 December 2012 at 5:34 pm

              NZfirst has no real surprises – the Horan thing seems to be a “could’ve happened to any party” thing, rather than anything on the scale of an MP who turns out not to be eligible to be in parliament, and another who insists on having “Dr” on his office door by virtue of an internet-order degree.
                   
              I’d go so far as to say (and yes, the competition is strong) that ACT’s biggest freak in the last ten years is its current electorate MP.
                   
              Fair call on Pete George, though 😉
                 
               

  18. xtasy 18
    4 December 2012 at 5:03 pm

    An interesting bit of another revelation about the governments “job creation” policies – implemented by WINZ paying grants to desperate young job-seekers to get their passports and tickets, to line up for jobs across the Tasman Sea:

    http://www.labour.org.nz/news/government-aids-export-of-job-seekers-to-oz

    This was for once an excellent performance by Jacinda Ardern in challenging Bennett in the House today.

    Have a look at the link above, and what this is about!

    It puts another “spin” on the “low” registered unemployment figures that Key and Natz love to go on about, in contrast to the Household Labour Force Survey.

    NZ is following the “economic model” of the Philippines, Pakistan, and other poor nations, EXPORTING its work force now.

    • Draco T Bastard 18.1
      4 December 2012 at 5:18 pm

      http://www.3news.co.nz/WINZ-cash-grants-for-tickets-to-Australia/tabid/1607/articleID/279169/Default.aspx

      “Hoping isn’t going to change the fact that roughly 6000 people move off the benefit each year to move overseas, some of whom have apparently done so with help from Ms Bennett,” Ms Ardern said.

      “We have a Government that believes unemployed Kiwis are better off leaving New Zealand because it has given up on finding work for them.”

    • Mary 18.2
      4 December 2012 at 5:47 pm

      Big strategy blunder from Ardern, more like it – just more fuelling of the already entrenched hatred of the poorest of our poor. In fact, I’d say using the transition to work grant to fly a beneficiary over to Australia to take up secured employment would clearly be within the rules because it’s about assisting people into employment. Regardless of this, though, Ardern’s shown a complete lack of judgement with the way she’s gone about things. Following in the footsteps of her leader’s “sickness beneficiary painting the roof” ill-thought out fiasco. I always thought Ardern was a light-weight. Now she’s confirmed it. Dumb, just plain dumb.

      • xtasy 18.2.1
        4 December 2012 at 5:55 pm

        Mary: Of course it is “within the rules”, and Bennett more or less had to admit it.

        I understand your criticism of Ardern, as she tends to pick issues that she believes have “press appeal”. She admittedly fails to raise her voice for the beneficiaries as such, apart from making rather general critical remarks in major speeches.

        From my view she is still an “apprentice”, and I fear she may be influenced by the wrong “mentors” and also restrained somehow, re what she can say, and how far she can go.

        Nevertheless it is worth exposing the government’s apologetic explanations of unemployment not being so high, given low numbers on the UB.

        She risks though a fiasco like Shearer with the GCSB story about Key being filmed during a meeting there, and a tape existing that held the footage.

        • Mary 18.2.1.1
          4 December 2012 at 6:33 pm

          That may be right, but Ardern showed total lack of judgement by going down the “sickness beneficiary on the roof” road, which was her main reason for speaking out. Just naive and strategically dumb. Bennett of course responded by saying it wasn’t the intent for the transition to work grant to meet the cost of airfares to Australia, as if they’re made to fly people over for a holiday on the Gold Coast, which of course is not happening. Bennett will now feel justified making it clear in the rules that airfares to even secured employment can’t be covered by the grant, which ironically will have the effect of increasing unemployment by preventing people accepting employment opportunities which they’d otherwise be able to take up. Her effort today I think shows there’s no hope for her. It shows she’s either too naive for the job, or simply too right-wing or both, like her bumbling leader.

          • karol 18.2.1.1.1
            4 December 2012 at 6:45 pm

            I don’t see it as going to the fiddler-on-the-roof narrative.  It seems more that it’s aimed at exposing the fact the our current government is disappearing people of the unemployment register by shipping them to Aussie.  It makes their stats look as though they are increasing the amount of jobs in NZ.

            And it’s IS against the guidelines of the transition to work grant, which includes this stipulation:

             You may get a Transition to Work Grant if you are:
            ·         aged 16 years or over
            ·         looking for a job, moving into a job, or between jobs
            ·         a New Zealand citizen or permanent resident.
            You should also normally live in New Zealand and intend to stay here.

            • Mary 18.2.1.1.1.1
              4 December 2012 at 7:48 pm

              Karol, you’re quoting from the policy only, which is often very different from the legislation or principal instrument. In this case the principal instrument is the Transition to Work Grant Programme, in which there’s no reference at all to needing to “normally live in New Zealand and intend to stay here”:

              http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/manuals-and-procedures/legislation/welfare_programmes/transition_to_work_grant_programme.htm

              Clause 9 of the programme sets out the types of costs that can be met, and at 9(b) it says:

              “(vi) relocation costs, if the applicant needs to relocate his or her place of residence to take up employment.”

              As I’ve mentioned, there’s no reference to the job being in NZ only, so if the person has secured employment in Australia there’s no bar to the programme being used to assist a person to move there. I’d also go so far as to say that this would be well within the purpose of the grant which surely must be about assisting people to move from receipt of a benefit into employment?

              Regardless of Ardern’s press statement, she should’ve shown the nous not to approach the topic in the way she did because all it will do is stir up what is already an entrenched hatred of beneficiaries, the same resentment that was fueled by Shearer’s “sickness benefit on the roof” remarks. At the very best all Ardern’s done is to push Bennett into changing the programme so that it assists a smaller number of people to move off a benefit and into employment. At the same time she’s helped, unwittingly or not, to grow the anti-poor sentiment that’s become so rife within New Zealand society.

              There’s more than one way to skin a cat. Ardern chose the wrong way.

              • Skinny …
                4 December 2012 at 10:51 pm

                Mary you makes some good points, the opposition benches are buoyed by small gains lately. ‘Fast or last’ when a scoop against National comes along. Its competitive & this plum was rushed, I know it is her portfolio  but Adern wasn’t a good choice to land the hit. Alas this would have been right up DC’s ally & what’s more he would have made it stick! Think i will keep a weekly tab on lost opportunities.  

                • Mary …
                  5 December 2012 at 12:54 am

                  I think you’re right, and there’s a stack of lost opportunities regularly. The issue here, apparently, and if there even was one, was about people leaving for Australia. Instead the social welfare spokesperson went in with her social welfare hat on. What else could we have expected could happen? Like I said before, dumb, just plain dumb. Where the hell are Labour’s advisers? The problem’s not just with benefit/poverty issues – it’s everywhere within Labour. Just look at the leadership / conference fiasco? I mean, fuck, how stupid are these people?

            • Descendant Of Smith 18.2.1.1.1.2
              4 December 2012 at 7:52 pm

              Interesting the legislation doesn’t refer to normally living in NZ and intending to stay here. Nor does it say jobs overseas are ineligible.

              http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/manuals-and-procedures/legislation/welfare_programmes/transition_to_work_grant_programme.htm

              edit: I see Mary has posted the same thing while I was typing.

              • karol …
                4 December 2012 at 9:51 pm

                Well, in Question Time today, it seemed to me that the crux of the matter was that Bennett was not fully in touch with an area under her ministerial policy.  She seemed to be caught out that she wasn’t aware whether WINZ staff had been allowing people to get transition allowances to take up a job in Aussie.  Bennett said:

                 Hon PAULA BENNETT: Well, except that it is not the policy intent, and that is very clear to staff.

                Aren’t ministerial directives to staff in her area pretty strong guidelines that need to be followed.  hence the point about being an NZ resident on the WINZ website.

                 It doesn’t look like Bennett will make a rule that the transition allowance never be used for fares to Aussie.  In this NZH article tonight, she gives examples of an occasional extenuating circumstance when it may be in order to pay such fares.

          • Te Reo Putake 18.2.1.1.2
            4 December 2012 at 6:46 pm

            Bollocks, Mary. You are reading waaay to much into this, as your claim to know her motivation for speaking out shows. It is appalling that this government have given up hope of providing work for our young and good on Ardern for sticking it to Bennett. Its bad enough that our education system subsidises the future doctors, scientists and engineers of Australia, Britain and the middle east, but paying for an air ticket out for people who could be training to rebuild Chch maybe the most cynical thing I’ve heard from this witless Government since they first got in.
             
            Brighter Future? Blighted Future!

            • karol 18.2.1.1.2.1
              4 December 2012 at 6:55 pm

              Oh, actually, I’ve now looked at Ardner’s press release.  This part does play into the bludger bennie discourse and is entirely unnecessary.  Ardern doesn’t need it to show up the government’s lack of interest in providing work for the unemployed:

              Revelations today that taxpayers are picking up the tab for unemployed Kiwis to fly to Australia to take up job offers is further proof that the Government has no interest in creating work opportunities here,

                

              • Te Reo Putake …
                4 December 2012 at 7:06 pm

                How does that play into the ‘bludger bennie discourse’ Karol?

                • karol …
                  4 December 2012 at 7:16 pm

                  Because it’s a variation on the line that – beneficiaries are doing [xxx] and getting away with something luxurious that they shouldn’t on tax payer money.   It also draws focus away from the fact that it’s the government in the wrong, and beneficiaries are actually being given a bad deal.  It didn’t need to be said.
                   

                  • Te Reo Putake …
                    4 December 2012 at 7:21 pm

                    No its not a variation on the line, its a straight fact. The Government is illegally using taxpayer funds. There is no explicit or implicit criticism of the unemployed in pointing that out. Remember, these people are going off the benefit and going into work. That’s the direct opposite of the bludger bene meme.

                    • Mary …
                      4 December 2012 at 8:51 pm

                      “Remember, these people are going off the benefit and going into work. That’s the direct opposite of the bludger bene meme.”

                      Yes, it is, but that’s not how the poor-hating right-wing will describe it. Just wait for when the post on Slater’s blog about it arrives. There’ll be no mention of how the one-off grant is dwarfed into insignificance by the savings in ongoing benefit payments, just how the poor are screwing the taxpayer for overseas trips. It’s probably there already.

                    • felix …
                      4 December 2012 at 9:13 pm

                      Sorry Mary, I must have missed a memo. Are we no longer to make any criticism that the government’s goons might object to?

                    • Mary …
                      4 December 2012 at 10:05 pm

                      No Felix, but Ardern should’ve thought about strategy when picking her battles, that’s all. She clearly didn’t, unless of course she disagrees with the current (and lawful) policy that assists people to move from a benefit into employment.

                    • Adele …
                      4 December 2012 at 10:22 pm

                      Tēnā koe, Mary

                      Who needs enemies when you have someone like Ardern as your advocate. Cheap political point-scoring with beneficiaries as the dart-board, and the ultimate losers.

                    • vto …
                      4 December 2012 at 10:28 pm

                      agreed adele, all most people will hear is some politician having a go at beneficiaries again and good job. bloody beneficiaries. They wont know who Adern even is. Shallow sound bites. Its our times. Adern added an extra layer of political complexity that nobody cares for.

                    • Mary …
                      4 December 2012 at 11:18 pm

                      Nightline on TV3 has just done an anti-beneficiary piece now. They’ve conflated the various types of costs to make it sound not only that the help for the travel is unlawful (by focusing on the policy instruction that says “normally for those staying in New Zealand”, which is wrong because there’s no such requirement in the principal instrument), but they’ve said that the grant is being used to simply travel to Australia to ‘look’ for work, which is also wrong. Relocation costs can only be met if the person has secured employment.

                      So, already we’ve got the media reporting “look at all these thieving beneficiaries getting their airfares paid for by the taxpayer so they can take off to live the life of Reilly in Aussie, and it’s illegal!” So much for the truth, eh? -which is that relocation costs can lawfully be paid, but only for actual costs and capped at $1500 (for example, a ticket to Aussie might only be $300 or $400 so that’s what’s paid – it’s not a standard amount of $1500), and only when employment has been secured (not simply to go somewhere to look for work) thus saving potentially thousands and thousands of dollars of ongoing benefit payments per grant issued.

                      Thanks Jacinda – good thinking. I guess tomorrow you’ll be telling Bennett she needs to “stop giving these bludgers free trips to Aussie – it’s an outrage!” What’s worse, Jacinda, is that Bennett will be only too happy to oblige. In fact, the media beat-up will probably mean she’ll be left with no choice. Nice work.

            • Balanced View 18.2.1.1.2.2
              6 December 2012 at 12:39 am

              Were you aware that this loophole was created by Labour?

          • xtasy 18.2.1.1.3
            5 December 2012 at 12:59 am

            While we are at it, could you tell me any one Labour MP sitting in the House at present, who does clearly and resolutely raise her or his voice for beneficiaries? I admit there may be one or the other, but they do not sit in the front line, and they are not observed as being very vocal to make sufficient impact.

            Fact is: Beneficiaries are for most politicians now a NO GO AREA. The nasty MSM have made sure that beneficiaries do too often get mentioned in the same line with criminal offenders, drug users, alcohol abusers, rapists, robbers, murderers and the likes, and while the recession-like times hit many worker’s pockets, too many of them have developed a lack of sympathy and even hatred for supposed “bludgers” they have to feed through.

            The submission hearing process before the Social Services Committee, presently taking place, is a clear evidence of this.

            There are NO media reports, there is virtually NO press release with sufficient information from any party, apart from one by Ardern on 30 November. It is indeed SCANDALOUS that the most draconian, mean spirited welfare “reforms” are being pushed through like a necessary, undisputed, un-sensational measure, not even worth talking and reporting about.

            Perhaps someone here takes note of this and raise it with “connected” party members or whosoever.

            For many of the remaining activists it is like “the last man (or woman) standing” in a lost battle, I fear. I simply cannot believe what is going on here.

            • Mary 18.2.1.1.3.1
              5 December 2012 at 1:43 am

              Dead right. The debate now isn’t about, for example, the adequacy of benefit levels but about whether benefits should be paid at all. That’s what policies of the 1990s did, that’s what’s pushed us to where we are now, which is it’s every person for themselves. No area has been left unscathed by all of this, not even the judiciary, who’ve also been suckered into the pop-analysis which says “beneficiary=poor=own fault=useless=fuck off and anyone who argues will get dealt to in the same way”.

    • millsy 18.3
      4 December 2012 at 10:23 pm

      It might sound good now, but it will all fall over when the Liberals allow Reinhart to import thousands of workers from Asia to work in her mines.

      Then they will all want to come home.

  19. Draco T Bastard 19
    4 December 2012 at 5:30 pm

    George Osborne’s growth plan relies on us accruing even more debt

    Meanwhile, for all their promises of a new economic model, Britain’s politicians – of right and left – remain stuck on the old debt-fuelled system.

    In 2003, Vince Cable warned of a looming crisis: “The growth of the British economy is sustained by consumer spending pinned against levels of personal debt secured, if at all, against house prices …” A decade on, not much has changed – possibly not even the sticky ending.

    Thing is, that’s exactly what Labour’s KiwiBuild is. NZers getting even deeper into debt to fuel growth. It’s certainly not addressing the problem of debt based money.

    • Neoleftie 19.1
      4 December 2012 at 5:39 pm

      My point exactly nice plan to stimulate growth in an artificial and actual way.
      Artificial due mortgages etc and actual due to down flow effects of building.

      During the boom Clark years most of the boom was off the back of expanding housing prices inflated by various means supply and demand issues, this enabled home owner to remortgage easily and spend spend spend creating artificial growth.

      Labour want to expand the house bubble effect by 1000000 units. Much better to recognise the problem that we face and face it head on.
      We need bold direction and solutions now.

  20. Penny Bright 20
    4 December 2012 at 8:40 pm

    What is NZ Prime Minister John Key going to do about the arguably ‘Not-So-Honorable’ John Banks, the Minister for Small Business, and Regulatory Reform — and Associate Minister for Education, and Commerce, when he appears, (as I understand it) in the Wellington District Court on Tuesday 11 December 2012 at 1.45pm – facing a private prosecution for alleged electoral fraud?

    ( CRN: 12085501327 – the charge relating to the filing of a false return.)
    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2001/0035/latest/DLM94799.html

    134 False return

    (1)Every candidate commits an offence who transmits a return of electoral expenses knowing that it is false in any material particular, and is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to a fine not exceeding $10,000.
    ____________________________________________________________________________________________
    Is the arguably ‘Not-So-Honorable’ John Banks, the Minister for Small Business, and Regulatory Reform — and Associate Minister for Education, and Commerce, going to be, at the very least, ‘stood down’ as a Minister, by National Prime Minister John Key?

    If not – why not?

    Penny Bright
    ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’
    http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com

  21. Descendant Of Smith 21
    4 December 2012 at 8:52 pm

    Been interesting watching Ken Burn’s recent documentary on the Dustbowl.

    Apart from some lessons about mis-managing the environment one quote stands out for me.

    “But of all our losses, the most distressing is our loss of self-respect. How can we feel that our work has any dignity or importance when the world places so low a value on the products of our toil?”

    —Caroline Henderson, Oklahoma farmer during the 1932 drought during the Depression.

    I’ve never understood this government and right-wingers penchant for denigrating it’s own citizens and the low paid.

    I’ve never understood employers who pay people a pittance and expect loyalty and dedication.

    I’ve never understood the reason why small businesses support policies that benefit the corporates (including reducing wages, high unemployment and paying a pittance in benefits ) and lead to their own extinction.

    We reap what we sow in more ways than one.

    • millsy 21.1
      4 December 2012 at 11:00 pm

      Ken Burns — excellent film maker. Just finished watching his doco on Prohibition. What a fuck up that was. As if banning booze was going to solve all of societys’ problems – even then there were heaps of loopholes and exceptions.

      • muzza 21.1.1
        5 December 2012 at 2:15 pm

        Remember that banning of anything is fantastic for those who control the supply, then taking control of the black markets!

        When you reverse the ban, the control remains with those who hold effective monopolies!

        Societys problems had nothing to do with anything, other than convenient catch phrases!

Links to post