Open mike 05/02/2014

Written By: - Date published: 7:10 am, February 5th, 2014 - 191 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

 

openmike

Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

191 comments on “Open mike 05/02/2014 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. phillip ure 1
    5 February 2014 at 7:35 am

    can we talk about monarch butterflies..?

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11196784

    “..Two Auckland Council politicians are flouting council rules by planting flower beds on their berms.

    Councillor Cathy Casey and Waitemata Local Board member Pippa Coom are proud of their flower beds –

    – with Dr Casey saying it was easier to maintain flowers than mow a berm against a wall at her Mt Albert home..”

    (cont..)

    ed:..i have about ten big/healthy/sturdy swan-plants in my garden..

    ..and i really dig the monarch butterflies that eat/use/fly around them..

    ..i reckon a couple of them on the berm wouldn’t hurt..

    ..so people walking past will have monarch butterflies fluttering around them..

    ..and as an aside..every garden should have swan-plants..no/easy-care..

    ..and if you are helping the monarch butterflies..

    ..in a small way..you are helping the planet..

    ..what’s not to love about all that..?..)

    phillip ure..

    • greywarbler 1.1
      5 February 2014 at 9:09 am

      We probably wouldn’t be allowed to plant out our berms like that in Nelson. Some people got stick of mowing their berm (we do it ourselves) and they put small stone, what is called river-run
      i think, and the Council wanted it removed. The berm has to be able to be walked on, which is reasonable, so I don’t know what their fuss was about. They would be concerned about flower plants as there is a height and hardiness limit on what can be put in.

      Also I put in some pansies around the base of the light standard and the plants disappeared. There is a problem with the see-thing-take-thing types when growing things in public areas. And using berms for growing plants for butterflies, such plants would be too high and be an obstruction for passers-by, and the berms are meant to be part of the pedestrian path, now cycles also.

    • weka 2.1
      5 February 2014 at 9:29 am

      Interesting technology. Any idea what the EROEI is?

      • joe90 2.1.1
        5 February 2014 at 10:25 am

        No luck finding a ratio but I think that even with the close to zero fuel costs the capital intensive development and relatively high maintenance costs would result in a low EROEI.

        From the concentrating solar power link:

        Nathaniel Bullard, a solar analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, has calculated that the cost of electricity at the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility, a project under construction in Southern California, will be lower than that from photovoltaic power and about the same as that from natural gas.[29] However, in November 2011, Google announced that they would not invest further in CSP projects due to the rapid price decline of photovoltaics

        http://web.archive.org/web/20110811064518/http://ajelp.com/documents/GlennonFinal.pdf

        • weka 2.1.1.1
          5 February 2014 at 10:56 am

          Thanks. Do you know what the maintenance is?

          • joe90 2.1.1.1.1
            5 February 2014 at 11:50 am

            Boilers atop towers, steam-turbine generators, instrumentation and control systems, heliostat tracking systems so lots of mechanical bits and bobs to be attended to in a challenging desert environment.
            And the real problem at the Ivanpah plant, water, lots and lots of water to keep 170,000 mirrors clean in a region that’s in perpetual drought.

            • weka 2.1.1.1.1.1
              5 February 2014 at 11:54 am

              Ah ok, so not that sustainable then. I wonder if the tech can be adapted to low end, more sustainable and efficient use.

            • Ennui 2.1.1.1.1.2
              5 February 2014 at 1:20 pm

              Condensers? Re use the water?

            • Ennui 2.1.1.1.1.3
              5 February 2014 at 1:26 pm

              Very impressive and laudable. There are a couple of issues I would raise (cautionary as opposed to naysayer):
              * high tech installations by necessity require a technology supply chain. Continuity is best served by reduction in technical complexity and progressive simple local supply.
              * The embedded energy (same argument for windmills) in alternate power is often greater than the output. The implication is that these establishments are rarely able to reproduce themselves.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                5 February 2014 at 1:50 pm

                high tech installations by necessity require a technology supply chain. Continuity is best served by reduction in technical complexity and progressive simple local supply.

                I disagree and think that it’s better to build up the local infrastructure to maintain the technological supply. The reason why I think this is because the continuing increase in knowledge will continue to improve society.

                The embedded energy (same argument for windmills) in alternate power is often greater than the output. The implication is that these establishments are rarely able to reproduce themselves.

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested

                The return for windmills is 18:1. Seems capable of reproducing themselves to me.

                • Ennui …
                  5 February 2014 at 3:04 pm

                  Draco, we can all link this one with what appear to be reputable sources, there are plenty of good sources that tell the opposite story, for example this one gives 0.29 to 1 http://iceagenow.info/2012/06/wind-power-fraud/
                  Myself, I think the truth is somewhere in-between. The bigger concern to me is that the supply chain for all the components of a wind farm is incredibly diverse, widespread and energy intensive, and as energy costs balloon with liquid fuel scarcity the costs associated to building increases and the availability goes down.

                  PS I think it is wrong to associate technology to knowledge per se, but agree we should however aim to keep and advance any technology (high or low) for utility alone.

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    5 February 2014 at 5:23 pm

                    we can all link this one with what appear to be reputable sources, there are plenty of good sources that tell the opposite story, for example this one gives 0.29 to 1

                    IMO, a climate change denier website is not reputable.

                    The bigger concern to me is that the supply chain for all the components of a wind farm is incredibly diverse, widespread and energy intensive,

                    Are you sure about that?

                    The blades, made out of resin and fibre, don’t seem to be all that energy intensive.
                    The small amounts of metal used would be energy intensive on a per mass basis but there’s really only a small amount used.

                    And then there’s the fact that that embedded energy is embedded and will itself last decades. It’s not like we’d have to build a new manufacturing plant for every turbine.

  3. bad12 3
    5 February 2014 at 7:42 am

    Along with a slow hand clap, ”Ka Kite Anadarko and don’t come back”, a brief goodbye from Hone Harawira laughingly farewelling the drill ship after being asked to comment on the failure to find anything worth pillaging from Anadarko’s efforts in the Taranki Basin,on TV3 news last night,

    The view here is that ‘the wealth’ of New Zealand is what comes from what we produce on the land and it’s obvious to anyone that enhancing such wealth is simply a matter of further processing all those products and this would seem to rely upon Government intervention as it is obvious that the private sector shows little interest in stumping up with the investment needed…

    • marty mars 3.1
      5 February 2014 at 9:58 am

      yep fuck off Anadarko… meanwhile Shell cancels 2014 Arctic drilling

      Last week the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the US government violated the law when it sold offshore oil and gas leases in the Chukchi Sea off the coast of Alaska. The decision stems from a lawsuit filed by a coalition of Alaska Native and conservation groups. Indigenous Plaintiffs included The Native Village of Point Hope, Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope and Resisting Environmental Destruction on Indigenous Lands (REDOIL), among numerous conservation groups.

      http://intercontinentalcry.org/shell-cancels-2014-arctic-drilling-21892/

      We fight them there, we fight them here, we fight them everywhere.

      • weka 3.1.1
        5 February 2014 at 11:04 am

        We keep our beaches clean. The next step is how do we extend that right to the rest of the world. In other words, how are we going to get off the oil?

        • marty mars 3.1.1.1
          5 February 2014 at 11:22 am

          How are we going to get off the oil? We aren’t i think, too many vested interests, too much greed and too much belief in the myth of progress – imo our western world will run down to fumes and then coast to the cliff face or perhaps very steep slope and over and down we will go.

          My energy is going towards community building and resilience because that will help people (including me) the most.

          • weka 3.1.1.1.1
            5 February 2014 at 11:51 am

            As a way of taking the discussion futher I was going to come back and ask what oil-dependent thing we each would be willing to give up if it meant no more drilling in NZ. Am curious if that would still be something you would do, or if you don’t see the point (given the way the West is run)?

            • marty mars 3.1.1.1.1.1
              5 February 2014 at 12:31 pm

              Hmmm not sure what i’d be willing to give up that is oil-dependant – I compost my poo, i don’t have a car anymore although i do use someone elses when needed, I don’t eat meat, I buy secondhand clothes, I homeschool my 6 year old, I live in the country – and i’ll go and put a banner on the beach and protest their exploitation when needed. The fact imo is that if we are not making the changes that need to happen now for ourselves and our whānau then when will we? How much evidence do we need? Quite a bit apparently which is where my comment above comes from.

              It is worth noting that the protests and anger didn’t stop them – it was that they didn’t find what they were looking for – and unless we smash holes in their ships they won’t stop.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                5 February 2014 at 1:58 pm

                How much evidence do we need? Quite a bit apparently which is where my comment above comes from.

                The problem is the large section of the community that just won’t accept the evidence no matter how sure it is.

              • weka …
                5 February 2014 at 2:09 pm

                Thanks marty. You are doing alot already, but that’s not quite what I meant. I meant what are we willing* to give up in order to say stop drilling or mitigate AGW? The things you describe take effort but I assume were within the boundaries of what was manageable. I think about how we will be forced to give things up eventually, but what if we had a choice. And the things we object to now (NZ offshore drilling), if we could give up those things what would they be. Not the things that we want to do anyway re changing our lives, but what we would sacrifice.

                *or maybe the question is “what are we not willing to give up to save the beaches or mitigate AGW?”

                “It is worth noting that the protests and anger didn’t stop them – it was that they didn’t find what they were looking for – and unless we smash holes in their ships they won’t stop.”

                Yes and no. The protests and anger affect the social and political context that the decisions are made in. A change in govt will make it harder for the next lot, and the more protest and anger there is now, the easier it will be for Cunliffe to get Labour to stick to the promise of its oil policy ie one that makes it sufficiently costly for oil exploration so no-one does it.

                • marty mars …
                  5 February 2014 at 2:56 pm

                  “but what if we had a choice.”

                  I don’t see a choice there to be truthful and when I think what sacrifice would create or allow a choice – i can’t think of anything mainly because i think it is attitudinal not a material change and acceptance that needs to occur – that is the big disconnect imo – we are expecting others to fix it, to do something, to come up with the big idea to save us – but there is no one coming and nothing to be done, it is up to us today to do what we can to mitigate the effects of what has happened and continues to happen, pretty well unabated.

                  I have no faith that labour won’t continue the path the gnats (and labour) have set us on. I listen to their language and it sounds like bullshit, lies and disinformation to me – labour will not make it unusually difficult for the exploiters but the Greens might and Mana too.

                • Flip …
                  6 February 2014 at 7:31 am

                  “…what are we willing* to give up in order to say stop drilling or mitigate AGW?…”

                  I’d have to say for most people nothing. At least until they find themselves on the wrong side of adaption to AGW in which case they will start to demand change by which time it is probably too late.

                  I think the aim is to provide a better alternative to what people have or aspire to so that ‘willing sacrifice’ is not required or at least has an aim.

    • karol 3.2
      5 February 2014 at 10:27 am

      Yes, I chuckled at Hone’s farewell.

    • srylands 3.3
      5 February 2014 at 12:49 pm

      “that the private sector shows little interest in stumping up with the investment needed…”

      Well why don’t you stump up some investment? Buy shares in your company of choice and head to the shareholders meeting to influence their investment strategy.

      Otherwsie you are just an another unemployed hypocrite.

      • bad12 3.3.1
        5 February 2014 at 1:30 pm

        Pathetic comment even for you SSLands, hence ignored…

      • Draco T Bastard 3.3.2
        5 February 2014 at 2:07 pm

        /facepalm

        One person isn’t going to make that much difference in the direction the board is taking unless that one person has more than 50% of the shares. And the laws prevent the majority owner from making decisions that could have negative effects on the minority owners.

        In other words, even a majority owner can’t force a company to take on the risk that’s needed. I suspect this is one of the reasons why the state is the main funder of new technologies. The other reason, as shown by low investment from angel and venture capital investors, is that they’re all looking for fast, high profit returns with little to no risk.

        Really, you should go and read The Entrepreneurial State. You’ll learn the shortcomings of your ideology.

        • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 3.3.2.1
          5 February 2014 at 2:16 pm

          I’m still trying to work out how Srylands believes that someone is a hypocrite when they are not investing money they haven’t got….

          • McFlock 3.3.2.1.1
            5 February 2014 at 2:29 pm

            the line between “entrepreneurialism” and “outright fraud” is frequently blurred to neolibs…

            • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 3.3.2.1.1.1
              5 February 2014 at 2:40 pm

              …yes and ackshully I’ve just realised that Srylands must believe that those without money to invest have no right to have opinions on investment; no right to suggest the way capital is used in our society ….providing yet another good reason for why the income/wealth disparity problem needs addressing quickfast….

              • Colonial Viper …
                5 February 2014 at 2:42 pm

                Actually Shitlands believes that people who do not have significant net worth should be excluded from participation in society, and certainly from participation in democratic processes.

                • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                  5 February 2014 at 2:55 pm

                  …yes, that is becoming patently clear.

                  Not a very democratic attitude at all.

          • framu 3.3.2.1.2
            5 February 2014 at 2:54 pm

            im still trying to figure out how your unemployed if your not an investor

            • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 3.3.2.1.2.1
              5 February 2014 at 3:01 pm

              ….probably understands the ‘Old Boys Club’ well and assumes if you are not an investor you are not in The Club and probably don’t have much chance of having a decent job….and of course for Srylands having a low paid job (not a decent job) is probably synonymous with being unemployed anyway….

              • freedom …
                5 February 2014 at 6:42 pm

                I have growing doubts as to whether Srylands is actually employed.

                • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                  5 February 2014 at 6:52 pm

                  lolz that would be very amusing if your growing doubts were correct! – or truly sad . One or the other

      • framu 3.3.3
        5 February 2014 at 2:52 pm

        “Well why don’t you stump up some investment? Buy shares in your company of choice and head to the shareholders meeting to influence their investment strategy.”

        pretty sure gosman already owns that particular line of BS

  4. Not a PS Staffer 4
    5 February 2014 at 7:43 am

    There will be the unusual tut tut tutting from a wide range people in response to some noisy shouting and some pushing at Waitangi today and tomorrow.

    Nobody will be shot or injured. In many countries around the world hundreds or thousands are killed in historic disputes. 1,000 in the Basque conflict, 3,000 in the Ulster “troubles”.

    Looking at the list of deprivations suffered by Maori it is to our collective credit that the understandable tensions are vented vocally and not violently.

    So, let us ignore the news/media who will go on and on and on about some shouting and shoving. Ignore the politicians who will tut tut tut. We have a phenomenally great record of peaceful protest.

  5. Saarbo 5
    5 February 2014 at 7:49 am

    National’s main economic development initiative of oil exploration is turning into a real flop, with no oil found off East Cape, Raglan/Taranaki…now Anardarko are desperately seeking oil off Otago…in 45 days we will know whether this area is oil free as well.

    Support for National is now down to 43%…I can see this reducing as more people realise that this Party has no idea…what a pack of flops.

    • greywarbler 5.1
      5 February 2014 at 9:45 am

      Anardarko
      Hasn’t found oil. Hasn’t found oi. O. Boney M have something to say.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IP20j9L185g

      Our beaches can be clean, no Renos so far. Hope there will be none. Investment quickly in future-looking energy sources. Now, now, now, now, now, now, now……..

    • Ennui 5.2
      5 February 2014 at 3:40 pm

      Yeah, it gets worse. It is not that they have not found oil, the issue appears that the return on anything they do find is insufficient to justify the dollars to pump it out. In Taranaki the easy close in oil is getting exhausted, the rest is deeper water and exponentially costly to extract.

  6. phillip ure 6
    5 February 2014 at 7:57 am

    every day..of every week..

    ..calves on nz farms have their brains smashed in with hammers/blunt-objects…

    ..(an email to brek-tv said 1,300 annually..from just one farm…)

    ..and we are all pretty relaxed about that..?

    ..i mean..after all..!

    ..we need the milk for our weetbix..!

    .it’s not meant for those calves..!

    ..and..

    ..farmers have to make a dollar..!..

    ..but they ‘really really love ‘ their animal-(slaves)..eh..?

    ..and they do own them..!

    ..so they can do what they like..

    ..and anyway..

    ..it’s all being done in ‘our’ names..eh..?

    ..to feed our ‘needs’.

    ..eh..?

    ..pass me that hammer..!

    ..(and if you think that is bad..

    ..you should see what they do to the pigs..!

    ..and the chooks..!

    ..whoar..!..

    ..’ya want bacon and eggs with that..?’..

    ,,didyahere about the wave of cancer coming..?

    ..but don’t you worry about that..!

    ..you just eat up..!..)

    ..(ha-ha-ha..!

    ..anyone got any good vegan jokes/one-liners/sneers..?

    ..fuck the calves..!..eh..?..)

    ..phillip ure..

  7. idlegus 7
    5 February 2014 at 8:16 am

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11196766

    charter schools want access to state schools specialist subjects. didn’t those same schools also get govt money to set them up? what other private business gets govt funding to start, then get govt funding to send those kids to state schools, talk about a money go round.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHqR1Rql5r8
    wild man fiscsher ‘merry go round’ (theres a good doco on him if anyone is interested in outsider music)

  8. bad12 8
    5 February 2014 at 8:16 am

    Epsom, Ohariu, Waiariki, apparently a large majority of voters polled by the ‘Reid-Poll’ for TV3 are not in favor of ‘election deals’ such as Slippery the Prime Minister proposes to do with potential coalition partners closer to the 2014 election,

    Epsom, Ohariu, Waiariki, 3 seats that will be crucial in the fight to see who makes up the next Government, a question tho has to be asked, if you excuse me, about the question asked by Reid-Poll at this point in the electoral cycle,

    Reid-Poll, rumored to be owned by an avid National Party supporter, has long been accused of ‘skewing’ it’s questions to respondents with a view to gaining a specific answer from them,(John Armstrong the Herald jonolist, not known for speaking outside of the National party line, even bluntly stated in a column last year that Reid happily asked slanted questions with a view to gaining the answer ‘they’ required’,

    Epsom, Ohariu, Wairiki, the winner of the 2014 election might well be found in what occurs in these 3 electorate seats, and my serious question to the left, in the face of National happily, using the media, being more than prepared to ‘jerrymander’ an election win by having it’s supporters vote as directed, can ‘the left’ afford the luxury of the ‘moral high ground here’ by simply playing ‘straight’ in these electorates…

    • greywarbler 8.1
      5 February 2014 at 9:39 am

      I just want to make a point here bad 12. You say that it is possible that Reid Poll is owned by an avid National Party supporter. And it skews or seems to, its questions that direct the answers in a certain direction.

      I have looked at a doco on vote rigging in the USA. It has moved to widely using computer voting. The computer system, supply, processing outcomes are owned by companies with strong political leanings. The researchers have found really dodgy dealings. Can’t remember the link at present. If anyone is interested say and I’ll check if I can find it.

      Putting government activities into private hands is a BIG MORAL HAZARD. Having capitals is justified by the seriousness of the danger to undermining the probity and honest handling of the electoral or any government system.

      • freedom 8.1.1
        5 February 2014 at 6:50 pm

        There was a particularly uncomfortable US Senate Committee Hearing on digital voting machines back in ’98 or ’99 (i think) where one of the company reps (not sure of their position) calmly stated they can fix the machines to deliver whatever percentage is requested.

    • Ron 8.2
      5 February 2014 at 10:29 am

      Just had a quick look at Reid Research. Seems to be in the habit of changing its name betweeen Reid Research and Lion Gold
      Owners appear to be Ngaire Reid and William Barclay Wilkinson both of Golf Road Titarangi
      Reid appears to have been in the research business for quite a while and previously worked for both Neilsen and Heylen. Not sure where there could be a National connection

      Reid-Poll, rumored to be owned by an avid National Party supporter

      • bad12 8.2.1
        5 February 2014 at 1:34 pm

        Ron, expect to find such a connection between Reid-poll and the National Party in black and white on-line did you…

  9. fisiani 9
    5 February 2014 at 8:23 am

    Fear not Standardistas.
    Great news.
    New Zealand is secure.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9683740/Key-keen-on-full-third-term-as-PM

    • Tracey 9.1
      5 February 2014 at 8:30 am

      Hat tip Tom Gould

      “Key says US minimum wage is 28% of their median wage … turns out it’s 40% … according to the NBR story behind the paywall. “

      • Colonial Viper 9.1.1
        5 February 2014 at 9:09 am

        US is a prison economy anyway…thousands of prisoners throughout the USA used for corporate labour (eg. by Victorias Secret, military contractors etc.) and paid $1/hr or less.

        • Poission 9.1.1.1
          5 February 2014 at 1:36 pm

          The US has around 5% of the worlds population,25% of inmates,50% of the lawyers creating more laws of dubious qualities,and invoicing around 1.4 trillion dollars annually (Conrad Black)

          This must make the US the safest,well managed country in the world.

          The US is not governed by the rule of law,but the rule of lawyers (Nial Ferguson)

          http://www.niallferguson.com/journalism/journalism/how-america-lost-its-way

          NZ has gone the same way,especially in tax legislation under Dunne and his various partners .

      • Puddleglum 9.1.2
        5 February 2014 at 2:52 pm

        How does their median hourly wage relate to the NZ median hourly wage on a PPP basis?

  10. phillip ure 10
    5 February 2014 at 8:35 am

    re hoffman..heroin addiction..

    ..i can confirm that tho’ not having taken heroin for over 20 yrs..

    ..the urges are still there..(not all the time..but there..)

    .i can still remember what it feels like..

    ..and i have to factor in all the downsides..

    ..to shake/shrug it off again..

    ..the best description of that ‘always there’ that i have heard..

    ..came from jim mora yesterday..(dunno if it is his..or a repeat..)

    ..he said that ‘it is always there..just over in the corner..doing pushups..and waiting for you to come back..’..

    ..and this is part of the reason i use cannabis..to deal with those other urges..

    ..and why i think prescription cannabis should be offered to all recovering-addicts..from anything..booze too..

    ..it is after all..

    ..the safest of all the intoxicants..

    ..but yes..of course heroin addiction should be moved from ‘crime’..to medicine/health/help..

    ..making it a crime..

    ..just kills users..

    ..most of whom..

    ..need not die..

    phillip ure..

    • Puckish Rogue 10.1
      5 February 2014 at 8:46 am

      True

    • Murray Olsen 10.2
      6 February 2014 at 1:22 am

      Many of the people I know who stopped years ago feel no urges whatsoever, and haven’t for a long time. Everyone’s experience is different, but I agree with you that heroin use should not be a criminal problem.

  11. dv 11
    5 February 2014 at 9:04 am

    NACTS have announce the review in education to root out red tape.
    It is part of the deal with ACT.
    Apparently they are reporting back in May.

    What struck me is why now and that is a very short time frame.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11196754

    Instead, she went in for a bit of political grandstanding.

    With lame-duck Act leader John Banks at her side, she announced plans to waste scarce education funds on a high-powered taskforce charged with rooting out “education red tape”.

    • Colonial Viper 11.1
      5 February 2014 at 9:07 am

      jobs for the Tory boys and the Tory girls

      The NATs are just awesome at this game, rewarding their own team members with perks pay and position all day every day.

    • Flip 11.2
      5 February 2014 at 9:24 am

      Abolish school donations. Do not need a task force to come up with that. Save some money. Removes a whole lot of red tape.

      • Colonial Viper 11.2.1
        5 February 2014 at 9:54 am

        And ensure schools stop supporting corporate profiteers, like they are doing now by making $800 iPads compulsory

        • Roflcopter 11.2.1.1
          5 February 2014 at 11:09 am

          And what would you suggest they use?

            • weka 11.2.1.1.1.1
              5 February 2014 at 11:34 am

              Social justice meets environmental justice and finds we are almost completely fucked.

            • McFlock 11.2.1.1.1.2
              5 February 2014 at 11:54 am

              or even a raspberry pi

              • greywarbler …
                5 February 2014 at 12:15 pm

                My son has one of those raspberry pi’s. Does a lot of useful stuff I think.

                What a good idea for schools. There is one in my area, tertiary level I think, that has demanded that all children have a laptop or similar. That is not looking at the needs of all and they are compulsory so what happens if there’s an accident, a breakage, a theft. And there are two or three tertiary aged youngsters in the family?

                Just more top down regimentation, that goes with specifying expensive school uniforms instead of going with the best cheapest and hardest wearing one. Seeing computers are so perishable, depreciating quickly, it would be best to start with the simple and clever. Then can relatviely cheaply update cleverness.

                I remember hearing the clever things that young men did to get radio reception early on. They built little sets, and used something called whiskers. They didn’t need to wait round for something with bells and whistles to bring the technology to them. Are we getting smarter or just getting lazy and spoiled?

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  5 February 2014 at 3:20 pm

                  Are we getting smarter or just getting lazy and spoiled?

                  I think it’s more that the governments are locking up what everyone can do at the behest of the corporations. These days it seems that the school boards are also helping the corporations.

            • gem 11.2.1.1.1.3
              5 February 2014 at 6:57 pm

              But is 14 quid the true cost of the device? Of course not, but I suppose we will look the other way.
              Apple had 92% ”compliance” with a 60-hour week in its suppliers last year according to its 2013 supply chain audit. I wonder what will be wrung out of workers to produce a 14 pound device.
              And there is no evidence learning outcomes are improved by shifting onto a digital platform.

          • greywarbler 11.2.1.1.2
            5 February 2014 at 11:34 am

            Rof
            What would you suggest schools use? We are anxiously waiting as we feel you have a specially informed opinion you want to discuss.

          • Draco T Bastard 11.2.1.1.3
            5 February 2014 at 3:17 pm

            Pretty much any Android based system as they’re usually significantly cheaper than Apples offerings and have far more of the market and so much more compatibility (which is really the most important aspect of computers BTW).

    • greywarbler 11.3
      5 February 2014 at 10:30 am

      dv
      ‘rooting out education red tape’.
      Is that called deredulation?

      Does this strike anyone else as like (from the urban dictionary) –
      Rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic
      A joke Stephen Colbert made on the 2006 White House Correspondents’ Dinner.
      Some people say changing the cabinet around is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. That’s not true; this administration isn’t sinking. In fact, this administration is soaring; if anything, it’s like rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg.

    • Tautoko Viper 11.4
      5 February 2014 at 12:48 pm

      “rooting out red tape” is National-speak for “introducing bulk funding”.

  12. Puckish Rogue 12
    5 February 2014 at 9:17 am

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11196765

    – Winston defending the PM is interesting

    • Naki Man 12.1
      5 February 2014 at 10:39 am

      Those shit head protesters should listen to Winston and Shane Jones

      • phillip ure 12.1.1
        5 February 2014 at 11:08 am

        wot..?..that they should go and stick their hands out to the racing/fishing industries..respectively..?

        ..that they should offer to be their ‘bitch’..?..

        (word used in it’s non-gender-specific reading..)

        phillip ure..

    • Chooky 12.2
      5 February 2014 at 1:30 pm

      …interesting yes…..and Winston’s voters will be taking note

      …..but Winston knows his voters well ( most probably don’t want trouble at Waitangi….so Winston would not be encouraging protesters)

      ….I think John Key wants trouble though…the more the better for him

      ….Titi Harawera ( Hone’s Mother) is looking positively regal and Queen like

      • Chooky 12.2.1
        5 February 2014 at 1:42 pm

        correction sorry…Harawira is the correct spelling

      • veutoviper 12.2.2
        5 February 2014 at 3:41 pm

        ” I John Key wants trouble though…the more the better for him”‘

        Exactly, chooky. Key would have loved it if he had been the centre of a protest etc. All the attention on him, photo ops, another chance to call the protesters the “rent a crowd” * supported by the loony Greens, etc – and justification for his DPS minders.

        He was building to that with his remarks starting days before going to Waitangi; and was probably spitting tacks when there was a supposed incident with the GG yesterday – instead of with Key. Hence his jumping in like lightning when the first mention of the (Clayton’s) incident came out.

        * If he had tried that with Maori, I think he would have come a cropper, though.

  13. Tiger Mountain 13
    5 February 2014 at 9:23 am

    Well which is it snoops?
    http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/21255154/gcsbs-dotcom-files-not-missing-key/
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/30014175/key-claims-dotcom-files-had-to-be-deleted
    http://www.3news.co.nz/GCSB-deleted-evidence–Dotcom/tabid/1607/articleID/330923/Default.aspx

    The Minister in charge, one John Phillip ShonKey seems to have much to gain from any “aging out*” of Dotcom info. It is highly unlikely to have disappeared completely given agencies like the NZSIS obsession with the past. More likely just stored somewhere NZ lawyers can’t easily go.
    * slipperiest euphemism of the year to date

    • Naki Man 13.1
      5 February 2014 at 11:17 am

      You obviously have comprehension issues. There is nothing dodgy about any of that.
      Why would anyone care about that obese German convicted fraudster.
      The sooner his companies that enable theft from authors and musicians and others is shutdown the better. Any lawyer that earns money defending scum like KDC is no better than him.

      • McFlock 13.1.1
        5 February 2014 at 11:59 am

        we should all care about that obese German fraudster, if only because we might be next on the list.

        But, as an idiot, you wouldn’t know anything about that concept…

        • Naki Man 13.1.1.1
          5 February 2014 at 1:04 pm

          I doubt that you are one of the worst criminals in nz
          so you must be paranoid, delusional, stupid, or trying scare the easily fooled paranoid people

          • McFlock 13.1.1.1.1
            5 February 2014 at 2:21 pm

            Neither. Not saying that’s where anyone intends it to go, not saying that it’ll happen next week.

            But it is, literally, how the Naz1s sold their initial law and order policies to the public in ’33 and ’34.

            But then you’re too much of a cheerleader to think that anything can go wrong. Right up until it does. Then you’ll blame labour.

          • Draco T Bastard 13.1.1.1.2
            5 February 2014 at 3:33 pm

            Last time I looked KDC hadn’t been found guilty of anything in NZ and even in his previous convictions he’s paid his dues to society. This means that, legally, he’s innocent until proven guilty.

      • One Anonymous Knucklehead 13.1.2
        5 February 2014 at 12:06 pm

        If he is all the things you say, how does that affect his right to a fair trial? How do you suppose missing evidence (not to mention perjury and an illegal search. Oh, and the illegal provision of access to evidence, and illegal removal of said evidence from a court-ordered sealed evidence room) will affect the court’s decision?

        Your contempt for his human rights, along with your previously expressed extreme right wing views, makes you a far more suitable surveillance target.

        I think before you get a chance to lock up and brutalise all the people you hate, you should be apprehended.

        • Naki Man 13.1.2.1
          5 February 2014 at 1:16 pm

          Apprehended for wanting KDC to front up for a fair trial. You are an idiot.

          • McFlock 13.1.2.1.1
            5 February 2014 at 2:32 pm

            lol

            He’s working through the process now. Seems to be winning his fair hearings.

            Tell me, do you similarly want the GCSB staff (and the cops who requested it) to front up to a fair trial for unlawful interception of communications?

            What about a fair trial for gross negligence for staging a hellicopter assault by armed officers on a dwelling that they new was occupied by an apparently morbidly obese man and a pregnant woman, and yet failing to have immediate medical support included in the plan, such as an ambulance at the hold point?

            No?

          • One Anonymous Knucklehead 13.1.2.1.2
            5 February 2014 at 2:50 pm

            Nah, you should be apprehended before you get a chance to lock up and brutalise all the people you hate. English Comprehension 101?

      • Chooky 13.1.3
        5 February 2014 at 12:39 pm

        …isnt it true that there are far larger cloud storage companies in the USA?….if so, why are they going for a far smaller cloud storage company ie Dotcom in New Zealand?…is it because he is German?…or in New Zealand?

        …..bully boy tactics from USA and John Key…..co-opting in NZ police ? ( police state because they now lose the evidence?)

        ….or do they have another agenda as well…..such as an experiment in social engineering, totalitarianism in New Zealand ?

        ….they are already dismantling New Zealand State Schooling and replacing it with Charter Schools funded by Chinese businesss and other international business men ….and who else?…..they are not saying at the moment ?…..Israelis?….are Charter Schools the thin end of the wedge for new Immigration policies?

      • framu 13.1.4
        5 February 2014 at 12:42 pm

        “There is nothing dodgy about any of that.”

        evidence for court case “lost” by denfendants

        yeah nothing wrong with that at all – your a disgrace to taranaki

      • framu 13.1.5
        5 February 2014 at 2:58 pm

        “The sooner his companies that enable theft from authors and musicians and others is shutdown the better. ”

        hate to break it to you – but thats pretty much the whole frickin internet

        there is no shortage of places to access, store and share data – some of these places are big internet corporates

      • Ennui 13.1.6
        5 February 2014 at 3:47 pm

        So Naki, imagine you own a road, and perhaps a few service stations and storage depots. And some crooks drive their trucks into your service stations for fuel (which you sell) and use your storage facility. Crooks commit crimes admittedly, and you know it, but hell thats not your issue, that belongs to the cops so long as their dealings with you are legit.

        The criminals then become habitual, but they cant get caught easily…so the cops shut down your roads and stores….and every legit person on them suffers too.

        • Chooky 13.1.6.1
          5 February 2014 at 4:35 pm

          good analogy ….here is another one comparing ‘cloud storage’ with an ‘ocean shipping tanker’

          …. illegal drugs are smuggled into a container on a shipping tanker ….is this reason for prosecuting /disabling/banning /victimising / the the ocean tanker owner ?…..and to be consistent banning all other ocean tankers and doing the same to their owners?..Answer: It just doesn’t happen!

          ….and Dotcom has said he works cooperatively and fast with the authorities as soon as he learns his cloud storage is being used for illegal activities

          So why the persecution of him?….particularly as there are far bigger cloud storage companies in the USA.

          There must be other reasons for Dotcom’s treatment by John Key and Nact….

          • Colonial Viper 13.1.6.1.1
            5 February 2014 at 4:42 pm

            Instructions from the corporate entertainment industry (huge contributors of $$$ to Obama) via D.C. to Wellington.

            • Chooky 13.1.6.1.1.1
              5 February 2014 at 4:50 pm

              still doesnt explain why they want to get little Dotcom in little NZ….when there are far larger cloud storage companies in the USA

              • Colonial Viper …
                7 February 2014 at 7:47 pm

                An easy target in order to send an important message to those “far larger cloud storage companies in the USA.”

                And the nature of that message: co-operate with our NSLs, FISA court judgements and various commercial take down requests, or else.

          • MrSmith 13.1.6.1.2
            5 February 2014 at 6:33 pm

            or arresting the Motel owner because illegal activities have been taking place in their rooms.

      • QoT 13.1.7
        6 February 2014 at 12:08 am

        Because it would be totally kosher if he were a thin German convicted fraudster. 🙄

    • Chooky 13.2
      5 February 2014 at 12:29 pm

      …symptomatic of a police state under Key…the sooner he is gone the better

    • Pasupial 13.3
      5 February 2014 at 3:06 pm

      It seems to be the day for the GCSB and its allies to be putting out negative news – almost as if they’re hoping for them to ignored by a distracted populace:

      http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1402/S00046/waihopai-ploughshares-crown-drops-damages-claim.htm

      • McFlock 13.3.1
        5 February 2014 at 3:15 pm

        Great news!

        • Colonial Viper 13.3.1.1
          5 February 2014 at 3:18 pm

          Yep it’s a huge win for liberal democracy and the right to resist peacefully.

          • Pasupial 13.3.1.1.1
            5 February 2014 at 6:43 pm

            Great news for liberal democracy – not so good for a GCSB wanting to deter repetition. No sign of any story on TVNZ or TV3 online yet – did any one who endured the evening news see anything?

            Much as I respect Scoop and all it has achieved (best wishes for Campbell’s editorship), it can sometimes be where press releases go to die.

            • idlegus 13.3.1.1.1.1
              5 February 2014 at 8:11 pm

              telly 3 had a short clip. amazing news! how much money wasted on taking these guys to court i wonder.

  14. greywarbler 14
    5 February 2014 at 10:02 am

    Kathryn Ryan to Australian commentator.
    *Problems with billion dollar tourist Barrier Reef business through overseas mining company wanting to dump spoil in the waters. Barrier Reef already declining.
    *ABC in trouble with government Abbott being very condemnatory, over revealing Oz spying on Indonesia by listening in, and also reporting on the story of the Navy personnel causing refugees to burn their hands by forcing them to touch very hot pipes. Mentions News of the World type support for government from that part of the media which is unlikely to draw attention to this.
    * Packer’s widow gave half a million dollars last year to Conservatives, Labour got $30 million less in the cornucopia race, and getting tv ads would therefore be enhanced, money makes a big difference in Oz politics.
    Bernard King of Crikey in Oz.

    A good point about set amount of advertising so there is a cap, would be wise in NZ.

    • Colonial Viper 14.1
      5 February 2014 at 3:32 pm

      Public funding of political party election campaigns, hard limits on additional funds which can be raised privately, also tightening up on rules around 3rd party (non political party) advertising.

      Big money fucks democratic politics (which is its goal of course), just look at the USA.

      • Draco T Bastard 14.1.1
        5 February 2014 at 3:49 pm

        Big money fucks democratic politics (which is its goal of course), just look at the USA.

        QFT

        It’s also the proof that democracy is anathema to capitalism.

        • aerobubble 14.1.1.1
          5 February 2014 at 4:16 pm

          No. Proof the stupid rises to the top and goes into bat for policies that harm their wealth.

          Take the ABC TV, it rightly brings to the attention of Australians who do business or travel to Indonesia, why Indonesia are pissed at them (spy exposed by Snowdon).

          So Mr Stupid, PM Abbott, decides to take a potshot at the ABC for informing the pubic, now the spying has been exposed. Weepy weep weep. Oh the poor sap. Oh, no, the ABC has made life difficult for the PM. Geez, if you cant handle the office resign already.

  15. phil 15
    5 February 2014 at 10:45 am

    Give JK credit where due. Information is deleted /aged? Simply brilliant, and he thinks he can get away with it? Hm… . If he does, I’m a Copdock gadfly

  16. greywarbler 16
    5 February 2014 at 11:23 am

    Our future – post election, not personalities, but pursuing a healthy economy.
    Three drags on Nz business today caused by government, either lack of ability to affect outcomes, doing the wrong thing or not doing anything or actually doing something, only the wrong thing (because they won’t, can’t, will not sit down, think, study reports, use their analytical brain, and screen answers through a filter of desire for the wellbeing of all the country now and into the future.

    1 Air NZ has put two bigger planes on to the Dunedin run so that it has same capacity as three planes but cut out a needed evening run. (This is on top of cutting out very cheap prices to Christchurch to give them a boost were $39 for late night, now none at that price, and possibly not many at other cheap prices. Also wiped stand-by fares that could be helpful for sudden flights for poorer people, ie those that can’t charge everything to some corporation.

    Seems that NZers are going to get a back seat or be short-listed to be carried in a canvas bag under the aircraft if they come from the regions, and perhaps all AirNZ interest is to go onto building international strength. Who knows, this new CEO seems to be implementing standard profit-maximising behaviour which probably has caused other, defunct, airlines on their way.
    Christopher Luxon left a role as chief executive of Unilever’s $US1.4 billion Canadian consumer products business to become Air New Zealand’s group general manager international airline in May last year….
    He disagreed the airline’s growth options were limited. Air New Zealand was “uniquely positioned” to capitalised on immense amounts of growth in the Asia-Pacific region and the rapid increase in middle class populations internationally.
    http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/air-new-zealands-next-ceo-revealed-gb-121545

    2 Logs for NZ use. There have been problems in the past with getting timber allocated and available for this country rather than all exported, and then to agree on a price for it with the private owners, usually overseas. We are needing it now for rebuilding Canterbury. So this news is an example of the pathetic decision-making that our right wing politicians and their crazed neo-lib economist advisers have made with bad results for our country. Call them The Subversives – get the Daleks in and let them loose.
    Radionz News – Mill jobs at risk
    The Timber Industry Federation is warning sawmilling jobs are at risk, and working weeks may be shortened, as sawmills struggle to source logs.

    3 Water, coool cleear water. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDtCa8ZgAk4
    Water proposals miss the mark – Commissioner
    The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment says the Government’s plan for looking after freshwater does not go far enough in protecting water quality.
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/235212/water-proposals-miss-the-mark-commissioner

    It seems that there is an attempt to limit water policy discussion so that it stays on water quality. I heard a long term farmer and Fed speaker talk on it recently and he had nothing of value to say it seemed. Water quality is the fencepost on which they are hanging their caps, ground water, wells, being tainted.
    9:06 The Tuesday Feature: The Treaty Debate – Susie Ferguson hosts a panel of experts discussing the current and future state of water in New Zealand (Te Papa/RNZ)
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/schedules/20140204

    One problem skated over was pollution from the dairy industry, and the unsustainability of that industry growing beyond the capacity of the water supply and catchment. (The Smithsonian decades ago did a relevant story on the Colarado which once mighty, is now a trickle at its ocean outlet. But we are too far away for the news to have reached the eyes and ears of our planners and mighty business leaders.

    But there was a problem from urban development needing water, (which though unspoken actually will be a big problem in future when the large agricultural developments have built their businesses and bought their land and installed their expensive infrastructure and want their 10% net return on this outlay which needs X not x water and we are going to have to buy water from them in the dry season when the city is desperate for supplies. Hah, they’ll say we’ve got you by the short and curlies, and they will pull tight.)

    And how is this for a convoluted piece of reporting on Radionz News –
    Govt employees less productive
    A survey by Ernst & Young has found Government employees think they are significantly less productive than employees in the private sector believe they are.
    I think it means that government employees ‘think’ the propaganda put about that they are less useful than private sector employees, but private sector employees ‘believe’ they are usefully productive. And if that is the meaning, the heading is erroneous and misleading.

  17. captain hook 17
    5 February 2014 at 11:30 am

    Heard on the wireless this a.m. that the Liberals outspent the Australian Labour Party two:one and that was $80,000,000 to $40,000,000, That is not peanuts when it comes down to advertising budgets.
    I hope the NZLP has got rid of Brian Finbar Edwards and got some people who know what they are doing this time.
    Its not about what you spend but what the competition is doing.
    The real crosby textor trick is last minute advertising and the NZLP better keep some dough in the kitty for a last minute blitz.
    and also dont forget that in spite of what the moralists in the party say people like advertising so if you want their votes then give them something to like and not something you like!
    Dig?

    • Ron 17.1
      5 February 2014 at 1:29 pm

      Just noted that the Tory party in UK were away on a special meet yesterday and were adderssed by Lynton Crosby who it was rumoured was going to get stuck into the members and read them the riot act.

      P.S. Just a thought is it not possible for this site to have an English dictionary instead of an American one. Drives me crazy the way it keeps telling me my spelling is wrong

      • greywarbler 17.1.1
        5 February 2014 at 2:12 pm

        Every second word is wrong apparently, they must use z’s a lot – it makes me tired zzzzzz.
        But I think some of the spellings ought to be introduced gradually after agreement. Program is one that I’m willing on.

        I don’t like their date order, I like day/month/year but perhaps for ordering and sorting it makes sense to have 12 divisions? But the two methods make it confusing when both numbers are 12 or under. I am training myself, where appropriate, to put 5/Feb/2014 – it’s just one more key stroke.

  18. fender 18
    5 February 2014 at 11:53 am

    Benefits of TPP grossly exaggerated “Only a quarter of the alleged gains, economist Geoff Bertram told RNZ, stand up to serious scrutiny.”

    • Draco T Bastard 18.1
      5 February 2014 at 4:27 pm

      Of course they’re exaggerated – they have to be to get the people on side for the sell out of NZ.

      • srylands 18.1.1
        5 February 2014 at 4:42 pm

        This analysis is worthless. This is the same “economist” who said that the Government should not be giving contracts to companies that pay their bosses more than three times their lowest-paid workers.

        The TPP could be a game changer. Empowering markets will promote prosperity. That prosperity trickles down to everyone.

        Opposing initiatves like the TPP is futile. There is no alternative.

        • McFlock 18.1.1.1
          5 February 2014 at 4:50 pm

          Bwahahahaha
          spoken like a true acolyte:
          paragraph 1: the guy lacks credibility because he said something else you disagree with
          paragraph 2: repeat mantra of free trade good
          paragraph 3: resistance is futile, TINA.

          Fucking neolib borg – fuck off. You pricks said exactly the same shit about the MAI, and that fizzled. There is ALWAYS an alternative to your zombie economics.

        • Tracey 18.1.1.2
          5 February 2014 at 5:04 pm

          Such cogent analysis. That’s settled.

        • Murray Olsen 18.1.1.3
          6 February 2014 at 1:39 am

          Is SSlands an unsuccessful AI program? There’s no evidence of intellect, originality, or emotion in its scribblings.

  19. greywarbler 19
    5 February 2014 at 12:17 pm

    Rogue Trooper
    If you are out there, call home.

  20. Philj 20
    5 February 2014 at 1:33 pm

    Xox
    Good on Geoff Bertram (and unnamed others) for standing up and calling much of this ‘economics’ twaddle for what it really is. Pure 100% Cow poo. It’s 100 per cent Neo Liberal one eyed, biased and framed fabrication.

  21. blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 21
    5 February 2014 at 1:36 pm

    This is an excellent article by Paul C Gorski.

    It is a very comprehensive discussion on racism and contains suggestions on how to address the problem including the challenges toward achieving that. It is fairly long yet a very easy to read and I consider it a must read.

    I make a link to this article for a dual purpose.

    Firstly, it is excellent for understanding the concepts of prejudice and racism.

    And secondly, I view the information as related to the conversation about the Lakoff article that occurred on Open Mike 3/02/14 – It can be read to enlighten one on the background motivations of the increasing negative attitudes people in privileged circumstances are showing toward those in less fortunate circumstances and also discusses how to address these matters; that the solution cannot solely be addressed by reason. To be clear: reason does need to be involved, yet a reasoned approach by itself does not bare the desired results.

    An excerpt from the article:

    “…What makes racial prejudice so sinister is not just the act of prejudging a person or a group. Prejudice is an inflexible, rational attitude that, often in a disguised manner, defends privilege, and even after evidence to the contrary will not change, so that the post-judgment is the same as the pre-judgment. In the definition of prejudice, the indictment is greater for post-judgment than for pre-judgment. If you don¹t have post-judgment in your definition of prejudice you don¹t know what you are talking about. This is because racial prejudice is the refusal to change one’s attitude even after evidence to the contrary, so that one will continue to post-judge people the same way one pre-judged them. This is the due to the fear of losing the power of privilege.”

    And

    “Genuine justice is not based on fairness! In fact, a preoccupation with justice as fairness lies at the root of most problems in our society and in the world today, whether between individuals, groups or nations, and is at the center of the affirmative action debate. At the heart of “justice as fairness” lies equal treatment, which wrongly assumes everyone is the same and thus the need for “fair play,” which we all learn from childhood….”

    “Thus, genuine justice is based on need, not fairness. And since people¹s needs differ, due to differing socio-historical circumstances, true justice does not spring from what people deserve, but from what they need. It is not fair play but fair share. Why? Because as Oliver Wendell Holmes said, “There is no greater inequality than the equal treatment of unequals.” Thus, at the heart of justice lies grace‹ unearned, unmerited, undeserved favor. Only when individuals and institutions get to this point will we begin to approximate a caring society. ”

    • Chooky 21.1
      5 February 2014 at 6:20 pm

      Well Blue Leopard as no one else is talking on this matter I will try……

      ‘Justice as Fairness’ by John Rawls as I recall made an allowance for treating unequal people unequally

      “Principles of Justice
      The most fundamental principle of justice—one that has been widely accepted since it was first defined by Aristotle more than two thousand years ago—is the principle that “equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally.” In its contemporary form, this principle is sometimes expressed as follows: “Individuals should be treated the same, unless they differ in ways that are relevant to the situation in which they are involved.”

      http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/justice.html

      and

      “The foundations of justice can be traced to the notions of social stability, interdependence, and equal dignity. As the ethicist John Rawls has pointed out, the stability of a society—or any group, for that matter—depends upon the extent to which the members of that society feel that they are being treated justly. When some of society’s members come to feel that they are subject to unequal treatment, the foundations have been laid for social unrest, disturbances, and strife. The members of a community, Rawls holds, depend on each other, and they will retain their social unity only to the extent that their institutions are just. Moreover, as the philosopher Immanuel Kant and others have pointed out, human beings are all equal in this respect: they all have the same dignity, and in virtue of this dignity they deserve to be treated as equals. Whenever individuals are treated unequally on the basis of characteristics that are arbitrary and irrelevant, their fundamental human dignity is violated.
      Justice, then, is a central part of ethics and should be given due consideration in our moral lives. In evaluating any moral decision, we must ask whether our actions treat all persons equally. If not, we must determine whether the difference in treatment is justified: are the criteria we are using relevant to the situation at hand? But justice is not the only principle to consider in making ethical decisions. Sometimes principles of justice may need to be overridden in favor of other kinds of moral claims such as rights or society’s welfare. Nevertheless, justice is an expression of our mutual recognition of each other’s basic dignity, and an acknowledgement that if we are to live together in an interdependent community we must treat each other as equals.”

      Hope this helps!….lol

      • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 21.1.1
        6 February 2014 at 1:37 pm

        Correction: The article was written by Caleb Rosado.
        My apologies for such a profound error.

        Hi Chookie,

        The article you provided certainly supplies some agreement with that point I quoted about fairness.

        This is interesting because it appears that context is an established consideration in the assessing of ‘fairness’. This is not the type of understanding we are lead to believe from the memes that are reported repetitively from our mainstream news/information sources.

        I have heard numerous times that certain policies are criticised* and even avoided on the basis that they are ‘discriminatory’* (examples giving more money/ additional help to Maori or the poor) and a tendency to favour universal type assistance preferred for that reason . This argument falls flat when these ideas we are reading are taken into account.

        * I am now guessing these are in actuality right-wing views that are taking over the argument.

        [I have been very slow to answer and probably am a bit too late! However my slowness is no reflection on my interest – I am fascinated by this subject and my slow response is because I have been in ‘receive’ mode – reading, learning and absorbing – rather than ‘transmit.]

    • Puddleglum 21.2
      5 February 2014 at 8:56 pm

      Yes, an excellent article blue leopard. Thanks.

      I particularly liked this bit, which got to the heart of the matter (that you cite):

      “Prejudice is an inflexible, rational attitude that, often in a disguised manner, defends privilege, and even after evidence to the contrary will not change, so that the post-judgment is the same as the pre-judgment.”

      Emotion (e.g., hatred for other groups) has a deep rationality, which is why such emotions evolved. In this case, prejudice and its associated feelings are a perfectly rational tactic (it can be called ‘unconscious’, if you like) for maintaining power and privilege (dominance) of your group over another. ‘Evidence’ will not overcome it – because it is rational.

      The only kind of argument that can overcome it is a moral one – because morality has the same kind of ‘deep’, evolved rationality. In effect, it trumps it by ripping away the incidental disguise (e.g., non-factual claims about the other group) and then exposing the underlying rationality. It is only then that the perfectly rational interests it defends (self-interest) can be exposed as fundamentally immoral.

      That is, through the appropriate moral framing it can be seen that members of one group are being unfairly and unjustly treated solely for ‘personal’ and ‘group’ advantage. That offends against the moral sentiments (i.e., ‘virtues’ ) of justice, compassion and truth/honesty, amongst others.

      I have to admit, I was a bit taken aback over the other thread (on the article about Lakoff’s ideas) in which moral framing was discounted so vigorously. The left – where it has succeeded (and often where it has not yet but has made identifiable progress) – has always relied, primarily, upon moral framing of the issue. That was, and is, certainly the case with racial prejudice.

      There was also confusion – or elision – between ‘religion’ and ‘morality’. (Perhaps the word ‘moral’ has been forever tainted by association with groups like the ‘Moral Majority’?). Religion and morality are very different and very distinct beasts. In fact, it’s by recourse to morality that the harsh injunctions of many religions can be successfully countered – even eliminated. Morality precedes and, in evolutionary terms, no doubt pre-dates any religion.

      Here’s a couple of quotes about what I mean (I know, they’re from Wikipedia):

      According to The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics, religion and morality “are to be defined differently and have no definitional connections with each other. Conceptually and in principle, morality and a religious value system are two distinct kinds of value systems or action guides.”

      …

      Philosopher David Hume stated that, “the greatest crimes have been found, in many instances, to be compatible with a superstitious piety and devotion; Hence it is justly regarded as unsafe to draw any inference in favor of a man’s morals, from the fervor or strictness of his religious exercises, even though he himself believe them sincere.”

      It was a really interesting thread, though, and it made me reflect a lot about the role of moral arguments in politics (e.g., the incredibly morally powerful and morally framed arguments of Chomsky, Klein and Monbiot).

      • karol 21.2.1
        5 February 2014 at 9:15 pm

        Puddleglum, I think you may be misunderstanding some of the resistance some of us had to the article based on Lakoff’s ideas. It wasn’t so much about the left’s (lack of) use of moral framing. It was the way it was argued for, and the way it claimed the right was better at making oral arguments central than the left. In my view, the rght (especially the “neoliberal” version) are better at propaganda and manipulation – cynically using moral arguments.

        I prefer the word ” values” to morals.

        And I don’t se that a particular value set is missing from the arguments from many on the left in NZ – values of inclusiveness, caring for others, the connectedness of people withiin their community and environment, etc.

        And, actually, I’m also not sure that I agree that value based/moral arguments on their own will counter the right.

        Notice how the righties have responded to Turei’s and the Greens arguments about poverty, and other stuff around the clothes debate – response to the Greens/Turei foregrounding their values has been for some righties to dismiss them as “sanctimonious” or “holier than thou” or “preachy”.

        I don’t think there is any specific way of countering right wing ideology, that will win all of them over. Underneath it all are issues of power and privilege – many will just resist to the end giving up their power and privileges, and not clearly stated lines or arguments will change that.

        The left needs to work in diverse ways depending on the context, audience, issues, etc.

        • Puddleglum 21.2.1.1
          5 February 2014 at 9:32 pm

          I can appreciate that, karol. Thanks for the clarification.

          A couple of points.

          First, I don’t think the aim is to convert mouthpieces for the right. It’s about convincing ‘ordinary people’ (for want of a better term). Ordinary people remain highly responsive to moral framing – and rightly so; it’s a pretty good guide to how to live (in relation to others and, for that matter, other living things and the planet in general).

          Second, I much prefer ‘morals’ to ‘values’ as a term. For me, ‘values’ is far too closely associated with the individualising terminology of the enlightenment project, which is why it is such a dominant notion in modern economics (‘value’ is closely associated with ‘preference’ and ‘choice’). I guess I don’t see politics as a case of voters deciding which sets of ‘values’ (‘preferences’ about how the world should be?) to choose – like ticking a box from a shopping catalogue. Instead, I see it as mobilisation, and mobilisation requires motivation. In the psychological literature, ‘values’ are not motives – they’re more like categories of motives. Not really what is needed for action. Here’s a classic example of the incorporation of ‘values’ into motivation theory – and it looks a lot like economic theory to me.

          ‘Morality’ is about how we act in a social world in such a way that a social world could be sustained and work, more or less, for all its members (that’s why that system of organising groups evolved). Morality speaks to how we act (collectively). I’m not sure what ‘values’ – as a word – really signifies: That someone makes certain claims about what they would like to see?

          • karol 21.2.1.1.1
            5 February 2014 at 10:00 pm

            Hmmmm…. but morality for me has religious overtones. I haven’t had much connection with the use of the term “value” in the ways you mention.

            Oh, when I mention “values” I am thinking of social values: what is considered “right” or good” or maybe even “moral” in a given society, community or group.

            You seem to be implying some underlying moral values that all people share. I don’t think such things exist.

            I also come more from a sociology background (at least in recent years), and am a little resistant to using psychological theories to explain social and political phenomenon. For me psychology makes a central focus on the individual – even though it may add a social component. Motivation is a purely individualistic thing: intrinsic to the individual. It is important in certain situations – something I would focus more on when I worked with disabled children.

            But I’m reluctant to apply such ideas to social issues and politics. And I don’t know how you could assess all moral values of each individual in a society…. or their individual motivations.

            And when it comes to race, class, etc, then issues of power, and privilege and how some groups dominate others are central.

            • greywarbler 21.2.1.1.1.1
              5 February 2014 at 11:18 pm

              karol
              ‘how you could assess all moral values of each individual in a society…. or their individual motivations.’

              Would hegemony have an affect on the moral values of a society that would tend to overlay, suppress or dominate many of the individuals’ motivations?

              • karol …
                6 February 2014 at 10:13 am

                It could have that impact. Individuals respond to the same circumstances in different ways – others might be motivated to rebel. It would also depend on each individual’s motivations. Generally, this is all beyond what we will know. We can know something about how some sections of the population will react to certain things. Individual’s motivations are largely hidden from our perceptions.

                I am more for being clear about our own values – what we see as the rights and wrongs in society. It’s very clear in the way some left activists – eg John Minto, Sue Bradford etc talk about poverty and inequalities.

                And it’s one of the things I like about the way the Greens have framed their election campaign. Russel Norman in his statement in parliament last month:

                It’s time for a green government that reinvigorates our common commitment to the values of egalitarianism, sovereignty, and democracy.

                But more than this we need a green government that integrates these historically important progressive values with the new modern values of sustainability.

                We need a green government committed to fairness, independence, democracy and sustainability.

                It’s in Metiria Turei’s speech to Ratana:

                Still, I often get asked by Kuia and Kaumātua what I’m doing in the Green Party.

                My answer is because the Green Party has an unshakeable belief that our identity, who we are is inextricably linked to our land. And our kaupapa holds that in order to honour both our people and our whenua we need to sustain and protect them. This means everything to me.

                Honouring Te Tiriti; getting our kids out of poverty; protecting the moana and whenua, justice and respect – this is what I and the Greens are here to do.

                And such values were clear in Metiria Turei’s responses to the Crosby-Textor calculated accusations by Tolley of hypocrisy. It was much in the way Turei responded as what she said – down to earth, direct, speaking from the heart, sincere, authentic – about her experience of poverty and how that motivated her in her campaigns against poverty.

                • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                  6 February 2014 at 2:21 pm

                  Correction: The article was written by Caleb Rosado.
                  My apologies for such a profound error.

                  I am fascinated by this conversation and the previous one, yet have left it a bit late to join in!

                  There is so much to discuss that it has been hard for me to get words ‘onto paper’.

                  One thing that I liked about Caleb Rosado’s writing is that he (or is that a she? – I think that is a male name) takes a lot of time to clearly define the concepts he is talking about. This helps the readers (and those discussing the article) to be on the same page. And I believe a lot of the apparent disagreement in the last thread about Lakoff – had a lot to do with the different commenters having different definitions for concepts such as ‘moral’. (As Karol has pointed to).

                  Lakoff defined framing very well, yet was very murky in some other areas, such as starting the article by speaking of ‘progressives’ yet, really (after having read it numerous times I realise) he is actually criticising ‘left-centrists’ behaviour and it would have been helpful that he defined what he meant when referring ‘progressives’ and other concepts such as ‘moral’.

                  This brings me to the part that I have a big problem with; where he says “The reason is that conservatives speak from an authentic moral position” . I just do not understand how he can say that – so much so that I have spent time looking up what ‘morality’ means and ‘authentic moral position’ (which brings up zillions of his article on a web search!). I thought morality had to do with right and wrong and considering others – clearly this is my own view of morality – yet I really do think that any version of morality pivots on our relations with others.

                  Lakoff, however, appears to cite right wing morality as being:

                  – that efficiency is all, that big government is inefficient and therefore inherently bad, that nothing must come between a business and its pursuit of profit, that poverty is a lifestyle choice of the weak, that social breakdown can be ascribed to single mothers and immigrants – “.

                  I just don’t see how this comes under ‘morality’ – the first few are simply [failed] economic principles and the rest a rationalisation that is provided by the right-wing to lack good morality – destroys positive attitudes toward others in worse circumstances than the reader.

                  I really might be missing something here (lacking an understanding on what ‘morality’ is officially defined as) either that or I am just seriously disagreeing with this implied ‘authentic moral position’. (I have to find out the first prior to drawing the conclusion!)

                  The cracking great elephant in the room is how the way the right-wing appeal to peoples’ prejudice goes by completely unacknowledged by Lakoff. If he is attempting to say this practice is that of ‘appealing to the emotions’ then this is simply too neutral a description for me to accept about the practice; which I consider neither moral nor healthy for society.

                  I view that the Left need to learn some way of counteracting this despicable practice of the Right and this is where I think Lakoff’s main point does have relevancy and is helpful re the Left needing to appeal to other aspects of the human-being not just the reasoning. (Although I thoroughly disagree with ‘ the abandonment of argument by evidence in favour of argument by moral cause’ – why does this need to be an either/or situation?). i.e. in order to counteract the Right’s immoral manner that they appeal to negative prejudice (and thereby strengthen these prejudices), the Left need to appeal to positive emotions that counteract these prejudices (prejudices that as Rosado conveys astutely are simply a rationalisation conducted by those with privilege to hold onto that privilege despite it causing suffering to others).

                  I think the parts in Rosado’s article about humans creating meaning – fleshed out Lakoffs ideas about framing.

                  There is way more to discuss, yet my comment is already too long!

                  • Flip …
                    6 February 2014 at 3:12 pm

                    I’ve been interested in these two pieces as well. I think your analysis Blue Leopard is good. Lakoff’s piece seems to be more of an opinion while Rosado’s seems more robust and academic.

                    Efficiency is what is generally aimed for as it is simply required outputs/inputs. Increased efficiency in business increases profits. It is good in the use of resources as you get the maximum for whatever input is used. Driving down the inputs like labour also increases efficiency.

                    Efficiency in government is not the primary aim though. Government has imported a lot of business ideas this being one of them. It has replaced what government is really about, the protection and security of the people and by extension environment. (people depend on it) This is part of the left-wing framework that needs promoting and developing.

                    I think there exists a real problem with the meme that government is like business. That business people who are able to maximise profits thus are deemed good are able to govern well. This is part of the right-wing framework the left needs to call BS on!

                    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                      6 February 2014 at 4:15 pm

                      @ Flip
                      I appear to have recently developed an annoying habit of pushing the wrong reply button 🙁

                      Reply to you further down 🙂

                  • karol …
                    6 February 2014 at 3:18 pm

                    Thanks, bl. Yes, I also have a similar problem with the definition of “moral” re Lakoff (are you referring to what Lakoff actually said, or the article based on his ideas that started this discussion – by Williamson, I think?).

                    And als, your article points to the sometimes unresolvable issue of people’s attachment to poeer and privilege. from the Rosaldo article:

                    In its essence, racism is culturally sanctioned strategies that defend the advantages of power, privilege and prestige which “Whites have because of the subordinated position of racial minorities.” This deliberate political, economical, religious and sociocultural structuring of privilege, does not take place in some moral vacuum. It has behind it the moral force of an ideology of supremacy, an ill-will that claims racial superiority and pride of position. By ideology I mean a system of ideas and beliefs about the universe, to which a people adhere in order to justify their attitudes and actions. This ideology can have a religious or a scientific basis, depending on which one shapes our worldview. Nevertheless the outcome is the same, where one group benefits and the other does not.

                    Kind of saying that the moral force behind white supremacy, is not actually a moral position, but acts like it does in order to give it power. The articles explaimns power in sociological, material and institutional terms in both Marxist (coercive power) and Foucauldian (about choices made) terms.

                    Then this:

                    The Moral Basis of Oppression: In order to justify such evil use of power, people will use color, race, gender or sexual orientation as an excuse for oppression by appealing to those moral systems which give them a sense of meaning, righteousness and ultimate value in life‹their ideological belief system, which serves as the highest authority in their lives, the moral basis of their existence.

                    Then it says it’s harder to change people’s beliefs than it is to change institutions – change the institutions, then changes in beliefs will follow. But it also says that compassion needs to be underpinned by a ​connectedness to God….. hmmm..

                    In order to combat people’s resistance to giving up power, the grassroots of communtiies/society needs to be made more egalitarian:

                    The solution to these problems lies in first eliminating status inequality and socioeconomic competition at the grassroots level

                    this leads to a three-pronged strategy: change the institutions, the grassroots of community, and the heart (linked with morality and religion).

                    Hmmmm…. but I still think getting people to give up their power nad privilege is a pretty hard task – and, as the article says, cannot be done without a variety of inter-related changes, of which “morality” is only one.

                    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                      6 February 2014 at 3:50 pm

                      +1 Flip

                      Thanks

                      “This is part of the right-wing framework the left needs to call BS on!”

                      Absolutely agree and I guess what I am focussing on is – How is that BS called by appealing to emotions? How is that done?

                      I am guessing that I am not alone in amongst the left-wing, that I am very much influenced by reasoned information – if it is lacking I am unlikely to get behind a cause – and therefore would not ever consider dropping providing reasoned arguments to voters – yet I am prepared to accept that many others’ are not this way inclined and that emotions somehow need to be ‘spoken to’ as well – and this is where I think Lakoff’s article is helpful. (Perhaps I have just repeated myself here!)

                    • karol …
                      6 February 2014 at 3:59 pm

                      Thew right sell their business-focused memes through continual propaganda and manipulation – using the methods of marketing and advertising. John key does that – uses his personal profile/style to sell the issues. Such methods aim to over-ride rationality.

                      I think that it’s about talking directly to people by stating the underlying arguments and reasons in everyday language. Hone is good at it – “feed the kids” – speaks to ordinary people and families and their everyday lives. It’s not abandoning evidence-based arguments.

                      PS: the right have removed evidence based arguments from the popular face of politics. “Show me the money” – sloganeering over reasoned argument. There is a need to gradually re-insert reasoned, evidence based arguments, without manipulative tricks, into the public face of politics.

                    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                      6 February 2014 at 4:07 pm

                      +1 Karol (to 3.18pm comment)

                      Lol. I noticed those discrepancies too! Especially re institutions changing and then him going on to say that the heart needs changing (??)

                      I do like that Rosado acknowledged a multi-pronged approach. I am noticing a lot of ‘Either/Or’ thinking creating problems (as evidenced at the start of the year here on The Standard!) Lakoff fell into that trap. Having a ‘use all approaches’ attitude bypasses the problem that ‘Either/Or’ thinking creates – perhaps that multi pronged approach is how Rosado resolves the apparent conflict in this writing? ( – yet this isn’t made terrifically clear.)

                      I have to say that the bit about institutional/ behavioural change was news to me: changing behaviour first and attitudes follow – and found that fascinating!

                      I think Lakoff/Rosado combined indicates that making attempts to change the meaning of things for people is another tool that might be effective in creating positive change (along with reasoned information & institutional/behavioural changes).

                      p.s I was reading the commentary on Lakoff’s comments – not directly his writing

                      Edit: agree with your second comment too!

                    • Flip …
                      6 February 2014 at 5:05 pm

                      Man comments move quick here. Still catching up.

                      Really interesting topic.

                      “…Kind of saying that the moral force behind white supremacy, is not actually a moral position, but acts like it does in order to give it power…’

                      Do not think so. Moral force is based on ideology. To weaken it you’ve got to weaken the ideology and that is done rationally and logically. When they get emotional you know it is weakening. Start hitting it emotionally. At some point the force becomes unsustainable in which case it’ll move positions. Where it moves too is critical. There should be some safe landing place and a way to get there. You want them to move to a better position.

                      “but I still think getting people to give up their power and privilege is a pretty hard task”

                      Agree. But they can be given an alternative morally and/or economically to retaining it.

            • Puddleglum 21.2.1.1.1.2
              7 February 2014 at 3:17 pm

              Good grief! Leave your computer alone for a day and look what happens 🙂

              Some really thoughtful comments in all of this thread, but I’ll simply respond to karol @ comment 21.2.1.1.1 in this comment.

              karol, long comment coming, I’m afraid, but I’m keen to show that I’ve thought about this a bit and also to give you a sense of that thinking.

              I fully appreciate the point you make about the individualistic nature of psychological theorising. That is very much my concern with it too (and always has been). That’s one reason why I linked to the ‘Expectancy-Value Theory’ of motivation as it is a good example of an individualistic, value-based approach to conceptualising individual motivation. To be clear, it’s the kind of thinking I don’t like.

              The irony, for me (and I have some experience of this), is that many ‘social scientists, oddly, make the assumption that individuals do ‘have’ minds full of things like ‘attitudes’, ‘intentions’, ‘beliefs’, ‘values’, ’emotions’, etc. inside them.(perhaps because they’ve had, at best, a fleeting acquaintance with psychological theories and thinking and so rely on a ‘common or garden’ view of what it is to be a person). That is, they can slip into an individualistic view of people without realising.

              Blumer, for example, whose work on symbolic interactionism is well-known in micro-sociology (and, I think, is based on a fairly deep misunderstanding of G.H. Mead – who was actually a psychologist/philosopher) takes what, for me, is an incredibly ‘cognitivist’ view of ‘meanings’ as being somehow ‘in’ or ‘possessed by’ individuals (rather than a quality of their ongoing action).

              By contrast, I incline strongly towards recent very interesting work in cognitive neuroscience – at one level – and social constructionist/discursive psychology – at another – that converge on a view of mind that fundamentally locates mind in the world, in bodily action and in the flux of social situations (including macro-structural social institutions and processes like the economy).

              Which brings me to ‘social values’. In many ways, that definition has similarities with what I would term ‘morality’. Morality is, as the word suggests, the ‘mores’ or norms of approved (and disapproved) behaviour. Propriety is an aspect of it, but is not everything (Sometimes it is moral to do the improper thing!).

              Morality, then, (like ‘social values’) is definitely a social-level phenomenon although, because it is a means of regulating individual behaviour, it is manifest individual by individual. (As an aside, I think this is where people like Hayek get it wrong when they make the claim that morality ‘only makes sense’ at the level of the individual. Rather, it manifests individual by individual but, in fact, only makes sense at the level of the social since that is the site of its operation and maintenance. That’s why I think ‘morality’ is appropriate to discuss in relation to politics and in reference to socially created ‘machines’ such as the economy.)

              However, one difference I would make between ‘social values’ (as defined in your link) and ‘morality’ – or ‘morals’ – as I understand them, is that values are ‘ends’ or ‘goals’ whereas ‘morality’ is a ‘means’ (the ‘quality’ of action, whether by individuals, organisations or states that is regulated by means of ‘sanction’, which is to say broad ‘approval’ or ‘disapproval’).

              Put simply, it seems to me that ‘social values’ state the goal by which (if the entity is being ‘honest’) people or societies will be judged, or will judge themselves. Morality, by contrast, – and this is what I was trying to say in my preceding comment – concerns how someone actually acts (i.e., not what they claim to value). In politics, morality – as opposed to ‘values’ – is what is manifested in policy and in the laws used to enact it. And that is what concerns me. I’m less interested in what a political party claims to ‘value’ than in what its policies, legislation (should it get the chance to legislate) and its executive actions sanction (in both the – contradictory – sense of to ‘approve’ and ‘disapprove’ … strange word ‘sanction’, it means two opposite things …).

              Taking the case of the Labour policy to support children and child-rearing, the moral basis of the arguments against it include the notion that it is ‘imprudent’ (because it ‘wastes’ money by giving support to – almost – all parents), uncaring (because, relatedly, it does not give all of the package to those in most need – i.e., lower incomes) and that it is ‘dishonest’ (i.e., in both the announcement and in the general claim that it is designed to help those in poverty or who are struggling with child-rearing costs). Those are moral arguments that can only be credibly countered by presenting a clear but well-thought out moral justification. They cannot be countered by facts and figures (though ‘facts and figures’ should be used to counter the ‘facts and figures’ critics use in support of their moral arguments).

              The counter would be something like – “it is a prudent policy because it considers consequences far beyond those covered by a narrow focus on ‘fiscal prudence’ alone; it is caring because it says, as a society, that we honour and support the very process of caring for our next generation by taking care [i.e., having compassion for] of those of us who carry out this role, as best we can,; it is honest because it does provide help for those in poverty and who are struggling raising families, not least by being universal and so addressing not only the material problems of poverty but also, through its universality, the utterly unfair way in which those in poverty are often made to feel ashamed about their honest efforts to survive and do their best for their families. The policy is not perfect [i.e., ‘modesty’] but this is our honest effort to do the right thing by New Zealand families.”

              Of course, any particular moral argument may not ‘win’ the moral debate – but that debate has to be engaged in directly, not only via other types of argumentation (‘evidence’, ‘rationality’, etc.). Notice how simply asserting that Labour ‘values eliminating poverty’ doesn’t address the moral arguments of its critics.

              Another example would be National valuing ‘success’ and ‘aspiration’ (and, presumably, ‘children thriving’) – its policies, in my view, are nevertheless immoral since (paradoxically) they destroy the ability of individuals, families and communities to ‘succeed’ or even ‘aspire’ through their own efforts by reducing work rights, reducing community education funding, eliminating training incentive allowances, etc. (and let’s not talk about the children). Their ‘values’ are motherhood and apple pie, their ‘means’ (morality as expressed in policy and its enactment), less so. 🙂

              For me, the question “Is what someone, or some country, has done, moral?” goes right to the heart of the matter and can sweep aside and make redundant what may or may not be claimed about what they ‘value’ or what their ‘intent’ was (bring democracy to Iraq because we value human freedom). It sweeps aside the so-called ‘BS’. And this, I think, is what the writer does in the article blue leopard linked to. I have no doubt that racists would claim to value everyone equally (hold to the value equality).

              Also, I disagree about the notion that there are no universal ‘moral’ concerns, but I think I know why you might think that there aren’t (apologies if I get this wrong).

              I distinguish between what are sometimes called the ‘virtues’ (compassion, honesty, loyalty, self-command, industry, courage, etc.) and what are sometimes called aspects of the ‘local moral order’ (here’s an article that uses the phrase and might be of interest). That ‘moral order’ is basically the generally accepted and applied set of obligations, responsibilities and rights used in any particular social setting, and that are used to condone or condemn the actions of individuals.

              In Homer’s time, for example, ‘Xenia’ was the expected – and obligatory – behaviour of providing hospitality to strangers. That obligation was partly a function of the social setting in Greek society at the time which involved relatively widely dispersed populations. In order to maintain the human disposition to ‘reciprocity’ in social relationships amongst disparate – but connected – communities, Xenia was a cultural mechanism to enforce reciprocity (through sanctions that could range from a loss of reputability through to retaliation) and maintain the connectivity of the culture.

              So, as I see it, there are two levels of ‘morals’ – the general and the local. ‘Honour’ (‘reputation’, or whatever), for example, is a general moral concern and is manifest, so far as I’m aware, in every human society and social grouping (that lasts any length of time). But just how it is manifest differs enormously and, sometimes, in contradictory ways (e.g., what is honourable in one context is dishonourable in another).

              If you’re thinking of ‘morals’ in terms of the particularities of each ‘local moral order’ then, yes, there is no universal set of ‘morals’. But, if you think of ‘morals’ in relation to the ‘virtues’ then I think it would be hard to argue that they are just particular to a social situation. Of course, from the outside, some groups may not appear to express, for example, moral concerns identifiable as ‘compassion’ or ‘courage’ or ‘justice’ or ‘industry’- but I suspect that has more to do with a lack of ’empathy’ (to use another ‘virtue’ term!) rather than any lack of existence of that concern in the culture or society.

              I’m particularly worried that if the left eschew the moral debate what that leads to is a simplistic assertion of just what happens to be the case in a ‘local moral order’ – e.g., that homosexuality is ‘immoral’ – rather than a much more well thought out (that’s right, intelligent, subtle, sophisticated and refined) moral argument that can lead to a more civilised society.

              Such a moral argument is quite distinct from arguments over facts and evidence and needs to be engaged in independently of arguments over the latter. In the latter, for example, we might argue against claims that homosexual parents make worse parents than heterosexual ones by quoting outcome studies of children raised by each type of parent. That’s good and very useful rhetorically, especially if similar but opposing ‘facts’ have been cited by those arguing in support of the moral claim that homosexuality is immoral. But, I’d argue that until you also win the moral argument – e.g., by developing a refined and convincing argument that homosexuality is, indeed, a perfectly moral way to live – the ‘local moral order’ will not change, or only excruciatingly slowly.

              Put another way, and linking to blue leopard’s article, prejudice – at the level of a society – begins to be undermined once its moral cloak is ripped from it – and this is done (can only be done) through a moral argument.

              And, think about it, it would be a bit sad (though still welcome) if people come to think that racial prejudice is wrong on the basis of the presented and current evidence rather than on the moral basis. In the 19th century, remember, the ‘evidence’ was clear – non-whites were inferior on almost all measures (e.g., intelligence, judged by collections of skulls and the then means of measuring skull capacity – see Stephen Jay Gould’s book ‘The Mismeasure of Man’). Then, of course, there’s ‘The Bell Curve’ – sigh!

              I think that we are in total agreement about the centrality of issues of power over all of these things. ‘Local moral orders’ typically reflect power and its associated hierarchies. A change in the local moral order requires, then, a change in power relations.

              I’d argue, though, that one important rhetorical vulnerability of such power is that the ‘local moral order’ can be attacked by advancing a much deeper moral argument. In that way, there’s at least the chance of getting the ‘masses’ on side for long enough to change structures.

              Apologies. That was ridiculously long.

              • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                7 February 2014 at 4:41 pm

                Brilliant Puddlegum, just brilliant – you have clarified a lot of things for me, thank you (Not too long, either, because you kept the focus well).

                I think I shall be keeping an eye on your Political Scientist site on a regular basis 🙂

                • Puddleglum …
                  7 February 2014 at 7:15 pm

                  Thanks blue leopard.

                  ‘Approbation’ is always welcome – I’m only human after all, and getting it from making comments on this site suits me better than entering ‘New Zealand’s Got Talent’ 🙂

                  Thanks to you, too, for your comments on these and other threads – always well worth a read (the article you posted was also an excellent read!).

              • Colonial Viper …
                7 February 2014 at 7:44 pm

                Likewise IMO, an excellent contribution, PG.

                May I offer this thought: “the end does not justify the means”.

          • karol 21.2.1.1.2
            6 February 2014 at 3:20 pm

            “Ordinary people” will also hold onto any power and privilege they have, and will not easily give it up – certainly not by “moral framing” alone.

            • Colonial Viper 21.2.1.1.2.1
              6 February 2014 at 4:16 pm

              Northern US slave owners did. So did many male NZ MPs who voted for womens suffrage from early on (based on moral principle that it was the right decision I might add, not based on “evidence”).

              • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                6 February 2014 at 4:27 pm

                …but how was the moral principle explained to them, CV – through reasoned argument or what? Serious question (with some overtones of sark)

                And really serious question – was there any underlying contributing factors present when slave owners changed their minds i.e. like economic factors (such as price of sugar going down). I have a dim memory that something like that was involved – sadly, often there is – yet may be quite wrong and am wondering whether you know?

                • karol …
                  6 February 2014 at 4:34 pm

                  The cotton plantations in the south, and the north’s economic relationship to it was totally tied up with the emancipation issue. Led to a civil war, which the north won and then slavery abolished.

                  The Republican Party wanted to achieve the gradual extinction of slavery by market forces, for its members believed that free labor was superior to slave labor. </blockquote.

                  So not so much a moral argument but an economic one for them – replace slave labour with a capitalist work force. But, the outcome was the result of diverse overlapping and intersecting struggles from various quarters.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  6 February 2014 at 4:54 pm

                  …but how was the moral principle explained to them, CV – through reasoned argument or what? Serious question (with some overtones of sark)

                  Well, as a parallel I can say that a good church sermon has many elements to it, BL.

                  Reasoned argument, metaphor and parable, an appeal to ones better nature, quotation of scripture, the whole lot, delivered with emotion and energy.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  6 February 2014 at 4:58 pm

                  And really serious question – was there any underlying contributing factors present when slave owners changed their minds i.e. like economic factors

                  well, big societal shifts usually require several drivers 😉

              • karol …
                6 February 2014 at 4:27 pm

                Hmmm… that’s pretty simplistic, CV. There were long campaigns against slavery and for female emancipation. They used a mix of reasoned arguments – some focused on enlightenment principles or human rights and democracy for all. But also evidence of the cruelties of slavery was used.

                A lot of the myths about women and African Americans also needed to be tackled.

                And, both the abolition of slavery and female suffrage did not end the underlying white and male supremacy amongst significant sections of the population – ie the moral arguments didn’t go very deep with many. Exploitation of and cruelty towards black people in the US continued – the slavery just took on a different form.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  6 February 2014 at 4:35 pm

                  And, both the abolition of slavery and female suffrage did not end the underlying white and male supremacy amongst significant sections of the population – ie the moral arguments didn’t go very deep with many.

                  Agreed. I’m not trying to claim that abolition and womens suffrage did anything apart from achieving major concrete improvements to the circumstances present at the time.

                  Which is what the left needs to focus on delivering for people. Major concrete improvements to current day circumstances.

                  • karol …
                    6 February 2014 at 4:42 pm

                    Oh, it was an improvement in many ways, but they didn’t end the struggles. And the outcomes weren’t the result of any one factor or kind of strategy.

                    “Concrete” improvements, don’t just mean economic changes for all – and not just short term changes either.

                    Remember, the Spirit Level shows that it is inequalities and the stresses they bring that cause a lot of damage – income inequalities are the easiest of inequaltiies to measure, but other inequalities cause a lot of damage too. It’s not just about gaining a certain level of financial security.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      6 February 2014 at 4:48 pm

                      Economic security is a concrete change that government can deliver to the broad mass of people in a time frame of several months, which is why I prefer it as a major focus (albeit not the sole focus). Not to mention that the biggest difference that economic security makes is to people in highly disadvantaged groups: low paid/unpaid, brown, female, less educated, disabled, homeless etc.

                      I agree with you that other inequalities cause a lot of damage too.

                • Puddleglum …
                  7 February 2014 at 4:00 pm

                  Long campaigns, alright. Abolitionism (stopping the ‘slave trade’, especially by Britain) took decades.

                  Have you read Adam Hochschild’s ‘Bury the Chains’ – absolutely inspiring read.

                  Wilberforce comes across as a pretty wet and weak link in the causal chain leading, ultimately, to the abolition of the trade (diffident, several times advising against bringing it up in Parliament – the time wasn’t ‘right’, apparently. He was an MP.).

                  The main ‘character’ in the book was Thomas Clarkson. He had a revelatory moment, when young, at a literal crossroads and, IIRC, while intending to become a vicar.

                  As this review concluded in The Guardian:

                  “This is a wonderful book, full of richness and colour – a celebration of many people’s achievements. It’s a testimony to both evil and goodness: a story in which, for once, goodness wins.”

                  A ‘moral appeal’, you might say. 🙂

                  For the record – I’m not religious. Raised a ‘socialist atheist’, as I always describe it.

        • Chooky 21.2.2.1
          6 February 2014 at 9:45 am

          when i think of moral framing or ethical framing for the good of all New Zealanders I think of Norman Kirk, who was a humble train driver

          ….he had integrity and ethics and compassion and intelligence and charisma and influence in spades

          ….New Zealand needs another Norman Kirk!

      • just saying 21.2.3
        5 February 2014 at 9:38 pm

        Hi Puddleglum,
        I loved the article too – I’ve bookmarked it so I can come back to it.

        Just a quick word about the Lakoff debate.

        I completely agree with you about moral framing being essential. What I was reacting to was a “flavour” that may have been introduced by the journalist rather than Lakoff himself, which appeared to sanction some kinds of injustice and oppression (racsim and sexism) in order to win over others to the cause of socio-economic oppression. I see no competition between the battles for justice, equality and dignity – the idea that some groups just have to wear ill-treatment and discrimination for some ‘greater good’ troubles me (whose greater good exactly?). To me, there is no difference, it is all the same battle fought on different fronts because everyone deserves justice and dignity and no group is worth less. I find it difficult to even understand why there should even be any argument amongst the left about that. Isn’t that what we stand for?

        Also, I tend to be a bit “knee-jerk” about any hint of focussed-group market-speak. Cant we just say it as it is without consulting psychologists about the best ways to manipulate? I think being saturated in it is starting to turn people off.

    • karol 21.3
      5 February 2014 at 9:28 pm

      I notice the article also focus on power and privilege, and the way some will be resistant to giving that up – may never give up the racial privileges and power.

      • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 21.3.1
        6 February 2014 at 2:38 pm

        I think he is mainly pointing to where there will be resistance -when one thinks about it; it is actually quite natural for people to hold onto what is familiar – especially if it is comfortable for them!

        I thought that was one of the [many] helpful aspects of Rosado’s article (I mistakenly referred to it as written by Gorski) – I don’t believe one can ‘fight a battle’ successfully without knowing what the prime motivations of the other side is.

        I don’t think one should conclude it is impossible -(that people will ‘never give up’ their privilege) simply that this is where there will be the most obstacles and also why those obstacles will be thrown at us.

        • Chooky 21.3.1.1
          6 February 2014 at 3:33 pm

          blue leopard

          on the issue of moral or values or ethical framing…..Kohlberg’s ‘Theory of Moral Development’ may be of some use to u ( long time since I studied it, but it made a lot of sense at the time)

          ….ie he argues for 6 stages of moral development …. fitting into 3 basic categories

          1. Preconventional moral thinking ( kids do this ie “me -first” orientation…psychopaths probably fit into this category)

          2. Conventional moral thinking ( law and order rational approach ….policemen , lawyers , civil society approach etc)

          3.Postconventional moral thinking ( principled autonomous moral thinking..(.able to be universalised) eg sometimes the law is an ass or has to be broken for a greater good eg Waihopi protesters ….sometimes one has to put others rights ahead of ones own because their need is greater etc etc).

          ….I think this last stage 3 category is what you are talking about when you distinguish ‘needs’ from ‘fairness’ concepts ……or inequality in the positive sense from equality in a legalistic ‘one size fits all’ sense

          ….interestingly supporters /protesters on a particular political or social issues or parties can come from differing levels of moral development or moral reasoning

          …..so on Kohlbergs theory ……moral framing is a sliding scale…dependent on the moral development of the individual framer

          • karol 21.3.1.1.1
            6 February 2014 at 3:52 pm

            Ah, yes. I remember that. And basically, some people never get past the earlier stages – which can be avoiding getting told off/punished (me-first), or whatever the law/behavioural code says.

            The highest stage is also making your own decisions on a case by case basis, according to an underlying moral code – because sometimes laws/codes will be in conflict- some of the puzzles included , what does a parent do if they can’t feed their child: 2 codes in conflict – shouldn’t break law and steal, should be able to feed one’s children.

          • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 21.3.1.1.2
            6 February 2014 at 4:48 pm

            @ Chookie

            Ah thanks for the quick summary – I hadn’t heard of it and will look it up!

  22. Draco T Bastard 22
    5 February 2014 at 2:39 pm

    Why you’re wrong about communism: 7 huge misconceptions about it (and capitalism)

    We aren’t; the market is. If you don’t think so, try and exit “the market.” The origin of capitalism was depriving British peasants of their access to land (seizure of property, you might call it), and therefore their means of subsistence, making them dependent on the market for their survival. Once propertyless, they were forced to flock to the dreck, drink and disease of slum-ridden cities to sell the only thing they had – their capacity to use their brains and muscles to work – or die. Just like them, the vast majority of people today are deprived of access to the resources we need to flourish, though they exist in abundant quantities, so as to force us to work for a boss who is trying to get rich by paying us less and working us harder.

    Exactly.

  23. Philj 23
    5 February 2014 at 3:20 pm

    Xox
    ‘Copdock’ is a term that was suggested by my Android tablet and the device wouldn’t allow me to correct it. It was dump the entire post or accept the term. May have some potential? JK is a complete Copdock!… Hmm…

  24. Penny Bright 24
    5 February 2014 at 3:54 pm

    How appropriate is it for the New Zealand Auditor-General Lyn Provost to be a shareholder in Sky City?

    http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/4817/auditor-general-asked-about-her-sky-city-conflict-of-interest/

    How appropriate is it for the NZ Attorney-General Chris Finlayson to give leave (under s.106 of the Crimes Act 1961), for a s.105 Bribery and Corruption private prosecution against Auckland Mayor Len Brown, when the very same Chris Finalyson voted FOR the NZ International Convention Centre (or – as I prefer to call it – the Sky City MONEY_LAUNDERING) Bill, at its Third Reading on 12 November 2013?

    _________________________________________________________________________

    EVIDENCE Attorney-General Chris Finlayson voted in favour of the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — Third Reading 12 November 2013

    How is this not a significant ‘conflict of interest’ for NZ Attorney-General Chris Finlayson?

    Even worse that it was a ‘personal’ vote?

    NZ Attorney-General Chris Finlayson voted in favour of the NZ International Convention Centre Bill (Third Reading). yet under s.106 of the NZ Crimes Act 1961,

    106Restrictions on prosecution
    (1)No one shall be prosecuted for an offence against any of the provisions of sections 100, 101, 104, 105, 105A,105B, 105C, and 105D without the leave of the Attorney-General, who before giving leave may make such inquiries as he or she thinks fit.

    http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/debates/debates/50HansD_20131112_00000024/new-zealand-international-convention-centre-bill-%E2%80%94-third

    New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — Third Reading

    [Sitting date: 12 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14549. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]

    New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill

    A personal vote was called for on the question, That the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill be now read a third time.
    Ayes 61
    Adams (P) Dunne (P) Key (P) Simpson (P)
    Ardern S (P) English (P) King C Smith (P)
    Auchinvole (P) Finlayson Lee (P) Tisch (P)
    Bakshi (P) Foss (P) Lotu-Iiga (P) Tolley (P)
    Banks (P) Foster-Bell Macindoe Tremain (P)
    Barry (P) Goldsmith (P) McClay (P) Upston (P)
    Bennett D Goodhew (P) McCully (P) Wagner
    Bennett P (P) Groser (P) McKelvie (P) Wilkinson (P)
    Borrows (P) Guy (P) Mitchell Williamson
    Bridges (P) Hauiti (P) Ngaro (P) Woodhouse
    Brownlee (P) Hayes (P) O’Connor S (P) Yang (P)
    Calder (P) Heatley (P) Parata (P) Young (P)
    Carter (P) Henare Roy (P)
    Coleman (P) Hutchison (P) Ryall (P)
    Collins (P) Joyce (P) Sabin (P) Teller:
    Dean (P) Kaye (P) Shanks (P) Ross
    Noes 59
    Ardern J (P) Harawira (P) Moroney Street (P)
    Browning (P) Hipkins (P) Norman (P) Tirikatene (P)
    Clark (P) Horan (P) O’Connor D (P) Turei
    Clendon (P) Hughes O’Rourke (P) Turia (P)
    Cosgrove (P) Huo (P) Parker (P) Twyford (P)
    Cunliffe (P) Jones (P) Peters (P) Walker (P)
    Curran King A Prasad (P) Wall (P)
    Delahunty Lees-Galloway (P) Prosser Whaitiri
    Dyson Little Robertson G (P) Williams
    Faafoi Logie (P) Robertson R (P) Woods (P)
    Fenton Lole-Taylor Roche
    Flavell Mackey Sage (P)
    Genter (P) Mahuta (P) Sharples (P)
    Goff (P) Mallard (P) Shearer (P)
    Graham (P) Martin Sio (P) Teller:
    Hague (P) Mathers (P) Stewart Beaumont
    Bill read a third time.

    _________________________________________________

    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM328753.html

    Cute.

    In New Zealand, ‘perceived’ to be ‘the least corrupt country in the world’ – both the Auditor-General and Attorney-General have arguably HUGE ‘conflicts on interest’ regarding Sky City?

    The Auditor-General owns shares in Sky City, and the Attorney-General voted for Sky City!

    (File this under the category – ‘YOU COULDN’T MAKE THIS SH*T UP?’ )

    Penny Bright

    http://www.pennybright4mayor.org.nz

  25. Chooky 25
    5 February 2014 at 4:43 pm

    +100 Penny….that is mindblowing if I understand it correctly

    • Penny Bright 25.1
      5 February 2014 at 5:20 pm

      Thank you Chooky, yes it is and you do 🙂

      There is a LOT more to come on this story (and related matters ………)

      Kind regards,

      Penny Bright

  26. freedom 26
    5 February 2014 at 6:36 pm

    here is a simple table of income realted info doing the rounds today, might be useful to some.
    https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/l/t1/q71/s720x720/71612_10152260667576477_1557799566_n.jpg

    As broadstrokes go it is quite clear, so let’s not be too pedantic on it

    • Chooky 26.1
      5 February 2014 at 7:15 pm

      interesting and sobering…especially when you get down to the unemployment benefit

      what is also needed alongside this table is what the top 50 most wealthy NZers earn and what they do to earn it ( ie how their companies /businesses make their money and who does what)

  27. greywarbler 27
    5 February 2014 at 11:12 pm

    Dr David Kelly, advisor about Iraq weapons to British govt and Tony Blair and his sidekick Alastair Campbell.Last year was 10 years on and a journalist working with him reports on evidence, findings and feelings about the events and Kelly’s cause of death.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10192271/The-betrayal-of-Dr-David-Kelly-10-years-on.html

    Andrew Gilligan, the journalist at the centre of the ‘dodgy dossier’ row, reflects on the shocking facts that have emerged since Dr David Kelly’s death…. (This is a very full and informative piece about the actors in this tragedy.)

    Blair in his book about that time said “politicians are obliged from time to time to conceal the full truth, to bend it and even distort it, where the interests of the bigger strategic goal demand that it be done”

    • Chooky 27.1
      6 February 2014 at 9:36 am

      thanks Greywarbler….what a tragedy!

    • karol 27.2
      6 February 2014 at 9:57 am

      Thanks. Very interesting, gw. So that was written in mid 2013. As i recall, the Kelly case was a turning point – the end of an independence the BBC might still have had prior to the claims that the UK government ‘sexed up” the Iraq dosier.

      Also remember who was in the loop on the “sexing up” lies in the Iraq dossier – claims made as a justification for invading Iraq – our own GCSB director, Ian Fletcher.

  28. captain hook 28
    7 February 2014 at 2:00 pm

    I hear kathryn Ryan deliberately using dishonest figures of speech this morning on 9-noone in a desperate attempt to stamp her authority on her programme. then she goes on to use the personal pronoun ad nauseum. memememememememe. Its all about her.
    My mum used to say that self praise is no recommendation but these media people are so insecure they have to keep telling the rest of us how marvellous they are.
    how about the truth about reality instead of this incessant self promotion and distortion otf the facts.