Open mike 06/01/2014

Written By: - Date published: 7:00 am, January 6th, 2014 - 265 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 right up to the mike …

265 comments on “Open mike 06/01/2014 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Ecosse 1
    6 January 2014 at 7:12 am

    Ho Hum. I have just scan read 5th January, “Open”(closed/censored) Mic. To see that some that have had the audacity to question & propose other ways forward, dispatched. There has to be a balance of good, open, frank debate that does not discourage others from contributing. I realize that this site is not directly related to the Labour Party yet is a place apparently where those from the broad left can comment. Yet the amount of abusive, confrontational language is appauling . The remit surely, of the site is to challenge the actions of the racist right wing morons in charge and to agitate the labour party to to do better & put forward polices for those that have been victimized, forgotten, written off by those nasty NeoCons!

    Someone has said that this site is not a mouth piece of the Labour Party and a coalition of the broad Left however quote the fact of being formed in the late 30′s by The Labour Party. This may be wrong yet seems like a acute case of “Hypocritical Having My Cake and Eating It All!”

    From only being on this site for near on a month & I hate to jump to a conclusion yet can see no other. This site, seems to be run and by a “Gang of Four/Five”, whom have there own hobby horse issues and see no room for others to have their points fairly and equitably viewed without them being vilified. The Gang of Five, under the guise usually of authors, seem to run this site like a 3rd rate, chat room. These people should know better and allow open debate and get off their one trick hobby horses and allow others to fully contribute, yet they wont…

    One has to wonder about the mindset of these people whom protest to support the broad left yet seem intent on keeping the status quo on the site. Why would this be? Surely they cant be so shallow, as not truly to mean as they protest? Yet actually wish to keep this Perpetual Argue Mental Chat Room Atmosphere as it will secure their positions within it?!

    An election looms. NZ has been through merry hell under the command of The Wannabe Fascists of The National Party. A defining moment approaches. Unite as far as possible and agitate, organize, question The Labour Party to do better….Pose the views of our fellow citizens whom have had the life kicked out of them & don’t have the luxury of being a comfortable, one issue-no further comment author/chat room admin(s). I don’t want another term of enslavement of National, do you? Most on this site don’t I am sure….Yet, you have to wonder about some of the authors, As Opposition suits their purposes and keeps their Mini Me Personality, Power Base in Tact in The Fiefdom of TS….

    I may not be able to vote till later on this year against The Scum in charge of this wonderful country, however I can vote with my feet and would advocate others do to find a site(s) (for QOT’s benefit, no need to pique too hard, there are many, take your choice. I am sure if you ask Google “nicely” it will oblige) where your voice, comment, suggestion,,,no matter how small is treated with equality, respect and with the true aim of creating a better New Zealand for all! Take care one et All!

    [RL: If you read the actual intro to Open Mike “The usual rules of good behaviour apply (See Policy)”. Open means open to all-comers, their ideas and robust debate – not open to mindless, offensive abuse.]

    • Sacha 1.1
      6 January 2014 at 7:34 am

      Political movements are bigger than particular parties.

      To attract a wide range of contributors that reflect such a movement and those it serves we must all create a welcoming space to meet and talk. There is plenty of knowledge about how to do that, including respecting the communication needs of women who make up 51% of the population.

      Productive debate does not mean allowing anyone to say whatever they like, especially in the form of the drunken slurs which attracted moderation yesterday.

      MMP allows selecting a political party that fits your own interests best. Likewise, there are many vehicles for contributing to the broader discussion.

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 1.2
      6 January 2014 at 8:17 am

      Dear Ecosse Martyr.

      Far more than five commenters here.

      Far more than five readers too.

      Even over a period during which a large cohort were on holiday.

    • RedLogix 1.3
      6 January 2014 at 8:35 am

      From only being on this site for near on a month & I hate to jump to a conclusion yet can see no other. This site, seems to be run and by a “Gang of Four/Five”

      Over the seven years this site has run, there have been many authors. Far more people have come and moved on than would be apparent in just one month. In the big picture there certainly has not been a “Gang of Five’ running the site.

      Quite the opposite – the person who really runs this site Lynn Prentice, is remarkably ‘hands-free’ in steering the authors or the content. His prime concern is to provide an environment in which robust debate can thrive and then he sits back and watches the fun.

      The only other author/mod whose been around since the start is me, and I might be fairly po-faced bugger, but the one thing I’ve never done is stop anyone expressing their ideas (as distinct from behaving badly). Ever. Period.

      What you are really touching on is a question of tone. The atmosphere at The Standard has best been described as “noisy local bar”, with a few quiet nooks. Not everyone feels comfortable with that, and either feel silenced or simply not heard. It is still is a masculine dominated space.

      Which is not all bad. A lot of the puffing and preening that goes on can also carry a sharp wit, humour and insight. For all the surface “Perpetual Argue Mental Chat Room Atmosphere” there is also an underlying community and over time the really smart people adapt their positions and behaviours. It’s challenging and some people rise to it.

      And while men may seem to be engaged in testosterone poisoned death matches – the thing that’s easy to miss is that often the very next day the clock has been reset, the grudge match buried and they’re happily batting away on some completely new topic.

      For most people new here, the biggest challenge is just the usual one, breaking into the cliquey conversations that go on. It just takes time, watch what’s going on and eventually it flows. When I take a few months out, I’ve noticed it takes time to ease back in.

      An election looms. NZ has been through merry hell under the command of The Wannabe Fascists of The National Party. A defining moment approaches. Unite as far as possible and agitate, organize, question The Labour Party to do better….Pose the views of our fellow citizens whom have had the life kicked out of them

      Yes your heart is surely in a good place. It often takes an outsider to see clearly what others have stopped seeing because it was there all the time.

      • karol 1.3.1
        6 January 2014 at 9:03 am

        Ecosse only been here for a month or so?

        During December some of the regular authors (or at least ones who have been pretty regular in posting over the last year) tend to take some time off writing, take some time out.

        • lprent 1.3.1.1
          6 January 2014 at 12:54 pm

          Authors come and authors go, and periodically then they come back again. Depends what their work and family loads are. Sometimes it depends on if they can find anything that they really really want to say.

          We’ve had about 4 almost complete rollovers of regular authors over the last 6 and a half years. It isn’t a career. It is a voluntary activity that The Standard trust (administered by myself and Mike Smith because we were the known IRL people when we set up the trust) provide to invited people as authors, and anyone else as commenters who behave within our policy.

          There are 40 odd authors with writing rights if they can remember their logins (because I don’t turn them off). I’d expect that a fair number of them will start writing again this election year.

      • Ennui 1.3.2
        6 January 2014 at 9:16 am

        A wise comment Red…I think the Scot has a point. Gang of Five? Sometimes it feels that way, to me that’s a known quantity, the other bit is the propensity of bystanders here to kick the (wo)man whilst they are down. Perhaps we should reflect on how good we are at carving our own side up….at this rate we might just kill one another off and leave the field clear for the Right.

        • weka 1.3.2.1
          6 January 2014 at 9:39 am

          Gang of Unknown Five?

          fify.

          Nothing like insinuation without being clear to leave people wondering who the enemy are and this undermine a community.

      • Ad 1.3.3
        6 January 2014 at 10:02 am

        Well phrased there.

        Ecosse should stick with it.
        This is the best place for political debate among actual citizens and commentators anywhere in New Zealand.

        Ecosse, the best way to get debate going the way you want is to write and propose a post. Up the flag, see who salutes it. Do it.

      • lprent 1.3.4
        6 January 2014 at 1:01 pm

        It is still is a masculine dominated space.

        A lot less so these days. Looking at commenters the way I do, I’m seeing a steady approach towards parity.

        • karol 1.3.4.1
          6 January 2014 at 1:15 pm

          I think there’s more women (as far as I can tell re-pseudonymns and stated gender) participating than previously.

          I understand “masculine” to be as much about culture and socially aquired characteristics as to do with biology. The masculine legacy of politics generally has slowly changed over the years, but still some of the older characteristics linger.

          • NZ Femme 1.3.4.1.1
            6 January 2014 at 2:02 pm

            In my pols paper last semester at Otago, during one of our tutorials that followed a couple of lectures on NZ Politics and the Media, our tutorial group had to divide in to four smaller groups. Each smaller group had to represent one of four NZ political websites: The Standard, The Daily Blog, Whale Oil, and Kiwi Blog. (Couldn’t choose which blog team you could be on, and to my barely disguised horror, I ended up on the Whale Oil team. It was excruciating.)

            Anyway, the interesting thing was that the three females on “The Standard” team, all took on male gendered persona’s, and started talking in this kind of gruff salty vernacular. It was kind of disturbing.

            • weka 1.3.4.1.1.1
              6 January 2014 at 2:07 pm

              Crikey.

              So much for the feminazi take over then.

            • QoT 1.3.4.1.1.2
              6 January 2014 at 3:23 pm

              That exercise sounds disturbingly fascinating.

              • NZ Femme …
                6 January 2014 at 4:33 pm

                It was!

                I had to stop myself from bellowing “Why aren’t you channelling QoT in all her magnificent mouthy glory??? Or Karol, with her *I will not be ruffled by white noise onslaughts* .” While trying really hard to channel a sort of femmed up version of Tighty Righty/BM and saying “left wing wankers” a lot.

            • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 1.3.4.1.1.3
              6 January 2014 at 3:32 pm

              @ NZ Femme,

              That is fascinating!

              There are a couple of points that arise to explain what occurred in your tutorial:

              a. The Standard is full of male gendered personas talking in a gruff and salty vernacular.

              b. There are a variety of personas, male, female and gender neutral on the Standard and there are many polite and reasoned comments as well as gruff ones, yet the male gendered personas speaking in a gruff way are what that group of people noticed.

              I choose b. as being the most accurate explanation.

              • Tim …
                6 January 2014 at 4:22 pm

                Interesting!. I/we did a similar thing (media/sosc related) with social networking (internet dating) sites a few years ago. In my case the one and only social networking site involving a profile database I have, or ever intend signing up to.
                Our profiles were complete crap in terms of persona and physical stats but the various responses were fascinating, BOTH in terms of various messages received, and in the way ‘sysops’ made various assumptions.
                Of course … only of anecdotal value and borderline unethical, but it did serve to reinforce the findings of an earlier Queensland study.

              • NZ Femme …
                6 January 2014 at 4:44 pm

                Yes, I would go with B as well. It really fascinated me. 🙂

                The tutorial group I was streamed in to were quite young. As in, NONE of my classmates were old enough to vote at the last election, and only a very small number (3, including me from memory) were looking at Pols as a major, so I don’t think they were reading up on the various political blogs prior to the class requirement.

                • weka …
                  6 January 2014 at 5:07 pm

                  How much time was spent reading the blogs for the assignment then? Over what kind of time? If it was just a couple of days I can imagine coming away with a distinct impression that doesn’t reflect reality over time.

                  • NZ Femme …
                    6 January 2014 at 5:26 pm

                    The time period was over approximately 10 – 14 days, depending on what day your tutorial would have been. And yes, I’d have to say, it felt like the tutorial class was reflecting something of a caricature rather than the reality of the blogs. (Except for Whale Oil, because – well – that already is a caricature ;D )

              • Morrissey …
                7 January 2014 at 7:13 am

                ERRATUM

                There are a variety of personas, male, female and gender neutral…

                should be….

                There are a variety of personae, male, female and gender neutral…

                • Te Reo Putake …
                  7 January 2014 at 8:53 am

                  Firstly, nobody likes a pedant.

                  Secondly, correcting the spelling of commenters here is the act of a wanker, unless the original commenter claims to have a brilliant grasp of the language and accidentally trips themselves up.

                  Thirdly, pedants who correct the language of others and get it wrong are even funnier than the commenter in example two.

                  Thanks for my first laugh of the day, Moz.

                  • Morrissey …
                    7 January 2014 at 8:59 am

                    ….unless the original commenter claims to have a brilliant grasp of the language and accidentally trips themselves [sic] up.

                    Ignorami will be relieved to know they have such a sterling defender as you, my friend….

                  • NZ Femme …
                    7 January 2014 at 11:36 am

                    Wait! Now I’m confused. Should I have written:

                    “…all took on male gendered personas…” or “…all took on male gendered personae..”

                    My formal academic education ended precisely at the end of the third term of my fourth form year – outside of a failed attempt at Massey in 1999 when I freaked out at a 100 level Psych paper that involved basic stats. The giant gaps in my maths knowledge became painfully obvious to me at that point, and I was too embarrassed to ask for help.

                    These days, I’m not at all adverse to asking for help or clarification, so please feel free to be as pedantic as you like with my spelling and/or grammar. 🙂

                • SHG (not Colonial Viper) …
                  7 January 2014 at 6:14 pm

                  “personas” is correct, because we are writing in English.

                  • Arfamo …
                    21 January 2014 at 11:01 am

                    Agreed. Personae is correct Latin plural of persona. Personas is correct English for plural of persona. Nobody these days bothers about sticking with the latin plural forms for words we’ve imported into English.

            • just saying 1.3.4.1.1.4
              6 January 2014 at 4:07 pm

              Interesting.

              I took on a male personna (albeit a male version of myself) for the first few few months commenting on TS.

              Anyways, what conclusions did they come to – do you remember?

              It would be hard to get a feel for this place in just a few weeks, you’d have the advatage of the outsider point of view, but without any of the depth of the multiple histories/herstories.

              • NZ Femme …
                6 January 2014 at 5:17 pm

                @Just Saying;

                Yes, I think the majority of the students wouldn’t have had a very long overview of the four sites, because it was A: a first year paper, B: the average age was quite young, C: the majority were doing the paper as an elective outside of their majors and D: it was relatively early in the semester. So yes, it was a small snapshot of time in Blog land.

                In terms of conclusions, really the exercise was a 101 exploration of the political landscape in NZ via the internet. I think what stood out was how quickly and easily people became polarised and entrenched in our relative positions.

                @Karol:

                Yes I survived being a Right Wing Nut Job! It was actually a good exercise for me, because I had to argue against my own belief system/world view. It forced me to really think about why I think/believe the things I do, which over the years (cos I’m 43 now) have become – I don’t know – naturalised (?). I’d half forgotten how I’d arrived at many of my beliefs.

            • karol 1.3.4.1.1.5
              6 January 2014 at 4:34 pm

              Fascinating – and you participated in and survived WO – well done!

        • Treetop 1.3.4.2
          6 January 2014 at 1:25 pm

          Do you keep any statistics on the gender of commenters?

          I’d like to know what stats you keep?

          • lprent 1.3.4.2.1
            6 January 2014 at 2:29 pm

            Do you keep any statistics on the gender of commenters?

            Not directly (obviously I cannot).

            But I do have the non-visible email addresses and the emails that people send to me (and some of those have surprised me). Moreover as moderator I do scan a lot of comments. Between one thing and another I can usually pick the probable gender, broad age of most of the commenters, and educational levels of commenters after they do hundreds of comments.

            Both are things that I actually look for because I think a well rounded mix of both is crucial to developing an effective community.

            Similarly I can also get aggregate probability information from other sources. Statcounter, wordpress stats, and Alexa are all pretty low confidence stuff. The new Google analytics appears to be pretty good – if only because they describe how they arrive at their confidence levels..

            But mostly I just look at the comments, and there has been a noticeable change over the years with a gradually reduction in overwhelming predominance of youngish males towards a older audience with a more equal gender distribution.

            • Treetop 1.3.4.2.1.1
              6 January 2014 at 4:13 pm

              Thanks for that. I suppose you put the bad spellers under the level of education, I expect that this does not take too many comments. (Re spelling, I have my good and bad days).

              Possibly someone at the GCSB has more information on The Standard, maybe I could inquire there!

              • karol …
                6 January 2014 at 4:31 pm

                I realise I had become dependent on Chrome’s spellcheck – quick to type, easy to notice and correct errors underlined in red without looking closely.

                Now I’m using FF without spellcheck, my spelling is noticable atrocious.

              • TRacey …
                6 January 2014 at 4:38 pm

                nice

              • lprent …
                6 January 2014 at 7:03 pm

                I suppose you put the bad spellers under the level of education,

                Hell no. I’m a naturally sloppy speller saved by the spell check systems. My pronunciation is even worse (especially according to Lyn who gets wound up by that) because often I have only read the words.

                Different when looking at code of course – you have to love those compilers.

                I usually assess education from what people say. In particular if they can present an argument that I can’t find by putting in key phrases into google and finding out where they got them from. Few people who understand what they are talking about will ever use exactly the same language to describe the concept.

    • QoT 1.4
      6 January 2014 at 10:48 am

      Yes, this is such a terrible place of censorship. I mean, have you ever tried posting almost the exact same thing to multiple days’ Open Mikes? I bet you they don’t let it through, especially if you’re threatening the Final Five.

      Hang on a minute, what’s this? http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-05012014/#comment-753900

    • Pasupial 1.5
      6 January 2014 at 11:47 am

      Ho Hum?.. Hum drum.

      Some have a hard row to hoe.
      Others just want to bang their own drum to tell the hos how hard to row.

  2. Sacha 2
    6 January 2014 at 7:26 am

    After his tilt at the Auckland Mayoralty, Rev Uesifili Unasa eyes up representing Pasifika interests on the national stage – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11181763

    • phillip ure 2.1
      6 January 2014 at 9:06 am

      i like unasa..and would like to see him in parliament/a position of power..

      ..i see him as a positive agent for change..

      ..and have said so @ whoar….as far back as when he stood for the mayoralty..

      ..i have never met the man..

      ..but what i have seen to date has impressed..

      ..phillip ure..

  3. amirite 3
    6 January 2014 at 7:51 am

    This government motto is Sell, sell, sell everything that is worth anything – and then we sell the population into slavery.
    Oh wait…

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11181102

    • infused 3.1
      6 January 2014 at 8:34 am

      New Zealanders should be able to sell *their* land to whoever they please.

      • CC 3.1.1
        6 January 2014 at 8:46 am

        Yes infused – of course. After all, the land was pretty much all stolen from the original inhabitants so ‘easy come, easy go’. However, one would have to wonder how your descendants will feel when they achieve the same negative social statistics that are currently dominated by Maori as a consequence.

      • One Anonymous Knucklehead 3.1.2
        6 January 2014 at 8:52 am

        Infused, it’s not theirs. Eminent domain and all that. Of course, if you sell it to citizens of other nations eminent domain becomes that little bit harder to enforce. Uncle Sam and all that.

      • North 3.1.3
        6 January 2014 at 9:04 am

        Sell “*their* land to whoever they please…..” Infused ? You mean on the same basis as *their* car or *their* flat screen ?

        National interest ramifications are *absolutely* irrelevant then ? Just a question which you may care to answer.

        • Tracey 3.1.3.1
          6 January 2014 at 10:09 am

          rules have changed since the minority became the majority. The minority are now thrown in prison for stealing

        • Tim 3.1.3.2
          6 January 2014 at 4:38 pm

          Infused probably works on that old justification that ‘they can’t take it with them’. It’s OK of course for citizens to become tenants of their own nation – IF of course they can even afford to do that. Different cause, but same effect of various Pacific Islanders and Indian Ocean dwellers facing oblivion

      • Draco T Bastard 3.1.4
        6 January 2014 at 11:29 am

        It’s not their land.

    • Draco T Bastard 3.2
      6 January 2014 at 11:27 am

      A member’s bill from Labour MP and former Foreign Minister Phil Goff to limit rural land sales to foreigners was recently drawn from Parliament’s ballot and will be debated early this year.

      We need to do better than limiting foreign ownership, we need to ban it altogether.

      • Flip 3.2.1
        6 January 2014 at 3:38 pm

        Agree. If you do not live here I cannot think of a single reason to own land. Goes for corporations owning property as well. If not majority NZ owned they should not hold land.

        • Draco T Bastard 3.2.1.1
          6 January 2014 at 4:15 pm

          My ban on foreign ownership also includes NZ businesses and corporations.

  4. Saarbo 4
    6 January 2014 at 8:55 am

    At 8.45am this morning on Radio New Zealand, an article on Ngai Tahu creating NZ’s largest dairy farm in Balmoral, South Island. I bet it ends up employing lots and lots of philipino workers. It will draw water out of the Waimakariri River…how is this still allowed to happen given water issues. This cannot be a good thing.

    • Tracey 4.1
      6 January 2014 at 10:10 am

      “I bet it ends up employing lots and lots of philipino workers. It will draw water out of the Waimakariri River”

      What is your basis for both these comments?

      • weka 4.1.1
        6 January 2014 at 10:40 am

        That’s what other industrial dairy farms are doing as a matter of course?

        Plus chopping down trees and using shit loads of electricity.

    • Puckish Rogue 4.2
      6 January 2014 at 10:33 am

      If its the same Balmarol I’m thinking of thats a large amount of forestry land to be converted but on the plus side (for them) its mostly flat

      • weka 4.2.1
        6 January 2014 at 10:39 am

        Chop down trees and build an AGW-enhancing desert instead. Real smart.

        • Puckish Rogue 4.2.1.1
          6 January 2014 at 11:01 am

          Smart if they want to make more money that is

          • weka 4.2.1.1.1
            6 January 2014 at 11:08 am

            Smart if they want to make more money without any regard for anything or anyone else.

            fify

            It is possible to make money without being ethically bankrupt.

            • Puckish Rogue 4.2.1.1.1.1
              6 January 2014 at 11:22 am

              Just to let you know its not my decision to convert it to dairy its Ngai Tahus decision, the guardians of the land and all that

            • Draco T Bastard 4.2.1.1.1.2
              6 January 2014 at 11:37 am

              It is possible to make money without being ethically bankrupt.

              Actually, no it’s not.

              • Tracey …
                6 January 2014 at 11:40 am

                can you expand on that?

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  6 January 2014 at 12:11 pm

                  Modern business practices require the exploitation of many, often pushing them into poverty, so as to provide profit for the few. On top of that there’s also the damage done to the environment especially when the environment has already been damaged beyond sustainability, i.e, incapable of maintaining life cycles. And then there’s competition which forces the cheapest, least suitable practices on the participants in the market.

                  No, it’s not possible to make money without being ethically bankrupt.

                  • Bill …
                    6 January 2014 at 1:17 pm

                    agree Making money in ‘the market’ involves that you acquire for the lowest price and sell on at the highest…ie, rip off all and sundry or be ripped off…. and sunk.

                    • weka …
                      6 January 2014 at 1:42 pm

                      So the guy who I buy my veges off locally, who intentionally keeps his prices low, who prioritises selling to locals, grows organically, is doing ecosystem restoration, he’s ethically bankrupt?

                      By your and Draco’s definition we are all ethically bankrupt for ever having bought or sold anything.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      6 January 2014 at 2:07 pm

                      By the sounds of things, he’s not using modern business practices.

                    • weka …
                      6 January 2014 at 2:18 pm

                      Actually he is. He’s part of the growing movement of ethical modern business practices, but much of what he does is old school traditional too (be good to your customers, look after the land etc).

                      Besides, reread my original comment about making money and you will see I didn’t specify ‘modern business practices’. You made some assumptions and then dumped some ideology into the conversation.

                      One of the first proper jobs I had was working for a guy who ran his own business. I was the only employee. The owner paid above award rates in pretty much every respect and was very good to me. This was late 80s. He once pointed out to me that when I slagged off ‘business’ policially I was also talking about him. That really made me sit up and take notice and be much more discerning in my politics (I of course had meant ‘big business’ and hadn’t really thought about him as a businessman until he pointed it out). Got to get the target right or so many people get lost along the way.

                    • Bill …
                      6 January 2014 at 2:26 pm

                      Fair point, weka. Correction – you can be less unethical, though never entirely ethical when you act within the confines of a capitalist market economy.

                    • Ennui …
                      6 January 2014 at 2:29 pm

                      Draco / Bill, lets strip the bullshit out of business ethics (because despite all the theories etc it is essentially really simple). Business consists solely of transactions aka trading, buying, selling.

                      To do a transaction has no ethical basis other than I have, you want, we agree a price. We then trade if we agree (or don’t if we don’t agree).

                      Essentially it is as honest or dishonest as the traders make it. It has no ethic to be bankrupt of. Ethics are particular to the individuals involved (and might I venture be directed by the environment or system….for example to place an individual in a position of power in a transaction – think corporate banksters- and their ethics might naturally vere toward greed).

                      Interestingly most long term successful small businesses survive on their long term reputation as being honest traders, usually within a circle of known like businesses. How do I know? Because that is my experience out here in “”marketland”.

                    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                      6 January 2014 at 2:40 pm

                      @ Ennui 2.29pm

                      The transactions you are referring to involve people and people can act ethically or not- you are taking the people out of the equation in your theory.

                      You can’t have a market without people. Isn’t this exactly what is going wrong with the current ‘market theory’ mentality – that all the ‘people effects’ are taken out of the equation? i.e. In order to get it resembling a scientific theory ‘people effects’ such as irrationality, following the leader – and lack of ethical behaviour – are removed.

                      This approach is sadly removing the ability to know or predict the effects of markets. Isn’t this one of the major reasons we are suffering sorely? (from this error of omitting very real inputs in our calculations)

                    • Bill …
                      6 January 2014 at 2:46 pm

                      Ennui. Buying and selling isn’t the simple and neutral process you claim it to be. It takes place within a framework of rules and conventions – capitalism or market economics. and one (some would say the) of the defining features of capitalism is exploitation. So, that’s the arena your business operates in. And I’m going to guess we can agree that exploitation is unethical. And even if you are self employed or your business is a collective where no wages are paid and so no direct exploitation occurs…materials still have to be sourced. And that unavoidably ‘supports’ exploitation. Likewise, when you sell on or provide a service, the people doing the purchasing have to enter into exploitative arrangements in order to afford your product/service.

                      That’s not to say that all business operators/owners are bad bastards – they’re not.

                    • weka …
                      6 January 2014 at 2:55 pm

                      There is also the ethics of what is being sold. Trafficking of child prositutes as neutral transaction?

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      6 January 2014 at 3:32 pm

                      The owner paid above award rates in pretty much every respect and was very good to me.

                      That’s nice but he was still increasing his own income through your work which is the base exploitation inherent within capitalism. Yes, administration of the business is important but you as the creator of the wealth should have had a direct say in how much the administration was paid. It is this lack of say that employees have that makes their employment exploitation and thus makes a business person unethical even if they’re good people.

                      He’s part of the growing movement of ethical modern business practices,

                      So he’s actually making effort to be more ethical – good for him.

                      but much of what he does is old school traditional too (be good to your customers, look after the land etc).

                      The old school didn’t really have a lot of looking after the land in it. In fact, it was the old way of doing things that has caused so much damage to NZs environment – a way of doing things that National, in their re-write of the RMA, is bringing back.

                  • Ennui …
                    6 January 2014 at 3:08 pm

                    Blue / Bill / Weka, I dont disagree with your sentiments at all: if you read me again I say the process of business is transactions and that transactions in themselves have no ethics. I also note that the environment and system will affect a individual involved in the transaction.

                    Business is in my mind entirely simple and easy to corrupt. For example the power relationships can be manipulated (as in child trafficking). The issue in my mind is how the power relationships can be made equitable in a transaction. If they are equal there can be no exploitation.

                    My way of keeping it even is to have long term relationships where I can and rely upon regulation etc where I have to. Its a very imperfect world. I suppose the real point is that humans are very corruptable.

                    • weka …
                      6 January 2014 at 3:12 pm

                      “The issue in my mind is how the power relationships can be made equitable in a transaction.”

                      Which power relationships do you mean? The ones between the two people doing the transactions? Or the ones between all the people affected by the transaction?

                    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                      6 January 2014 at 3:18 pm

                      @ Ennui,

                      I agree what you are saying about long-term relationships and reputation being a good way to go, however it is becoming apparent that ignoring ethics is giving those who are prepared to be dishonest an upper hand.

                      I believe that the original idea behind markets was exactly what you are conveying at 3.08 – kind of ‘keeping it simple’ I often think about how that system was set up at a time where ethics were possibly valued with greater resolve, (or would that be probably ?)

                      Ignoring ethics and the complexity of people in regards to transactions people make, in my opinion, however, is simply failing us.

                    • Ennui …
                      6 January 2014 at 4:50 pm

                      Weka, what I mean is the power in relation to the transaction….i.e does the seller have a monopoly that gives them an unfair power advantage. Is the buyer of the loaf starving with lots of cash but cant buy nearby? And there maybe downstream effects as you intimate that need to be mitigated in the transaction.

                      Blue, you are right, ethics cannot be ignored in the individuals, the institutions and the systems / isms.

                      I deliberately went down this track to flush out the difference between doing a transaction (business between two individuals etc) and the systems we call out as unfair and corrupt. People since time immemorial have transacted business, traded, bought, sold. It predates any of our current models and “isms”.

                      Why did I go down this path? We have a future in which we will still need to trade / exchange / transact. We can pull down isms, institutions etc but we wont stop transactions. I think “transactions” and the ethics / rules around them are the best place to discuss alternatives. Rather than what we want to pull down WHAT do we want to construct? How will it work? What will govern a transaction?

                    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                      6 January 2014 at 5:08 pm

                      +1 Ennui,

                      You appear to be aiming at unclouded clear analysis; it is hard to fix things appropriately if the varied problems aren’t separated out and addressed. Good stuff!

                    • greywarbler …
                      6 January 2014 at 7:05 pm

                      Thinking about ethical trading in the simple sense. I noticed when reading about the past that establishing correct weights and measures was very important in establishing ethical markets of the people’s in the town square sort. And in Nelson there is still, or was till recently, the official yard measure set in concrete to use as a ‘yardstick’ for all traders.

              • Puckish Rogue …
                6 January 2014 at 11:59 am

                The new Green Party campaign slogan for the next election 🙂

            • freedom 4.2.1.1.1.3
              6 January 2014 at 1:08 pm

              re the “It is possible to make money without being ethically bankrupt.”

              I agree with Draco, (and hopefully am not putting words in his mouth but the “no it’s not” was an obvious mass-generalisation, and who can get through a day without a half dozen of those to keep you sane )

              Far too many NZ businesses seem incapable of behaving ethicallly in the pursuit of profit. The nz dairy industry being a glaring example.

              $6.50+ for 500g of butter in NZ as exhibit one
              $2.80+ for 1 lt of milk as exhibit two
              add in the now familiar $4 a loaf for bread and you have three of the most basic of grocery items costing more than an hour’s net income for a minimum wage earner.

              so yeah, the minders of NZ business need a refresher course in basic social ethics

              • weka …
                6 January 2014 at 1:40 pm

                So you think that the small organic dairy farms in NZ that exist at least partially outside of Fonterra and are trying to or are succeeding at working entirely outside of that model are ethically bankrupt?

                I take your point about the need for mass generalisations on occasion, but if you just named every business owner in NZ as ethically bankrupt how can you expect them to take any notice of what you say or be willing to change? And what exactly are you going to do with all these ethical bankrupts come the revolution.

                • freedom …
                  6 January 2014 at 2:15 pm

                  “if you just named every business owner in NZ as ethically bankrupt how can you expect them to take any notice of what you say or be willing to change?”
                  I never said anything of the sort weka.

                  re dairy: If I had just said Fonterra then I feel some readers would have steered the responsibility for the behaviour away from the stockholders in that company i.e the farmers. Farmers whose current practises, especially in Dairy, are swiftly moving away from NZ’s history of largely ethical farming into the realm of factory farming.

                  I thought it was also clear that I was not throwing a blanket over the whole mess when I wrote “Far too many NZ businesses seem incapable of behaving ethicallly in the pursuit of profit. ”

                  I think we can all agree that it is largely the primary industries where this profit over people attitude is most often witnessed and in most need of adjustment. Overall though I fundamentally believe that the minders of NZ business do need a refresher course in basic social ethics. Even the good guys can always do better.

                  • weka …
                    6 January 2014 at 2:28 pm

                    Fair enough.

                    I said: It is possible to make money without being ethically bankrupt.

                    Draco said: No, it’s not.

                    You said: I agree with Draco.

                    I took that to mean that everyone making money in NZ was ethically bankrupt. I can see that you didn’t, but can you see why it came across that way?

                    This sub thread was in response to PR saying that it was smart to do whatever to make money, and I pointed out that what he really meant was it was smart to make money that way if you didn’t give a shit about anyone else (ie unethically). I was making a differentiation between ethical business and unethical business. Draco and Bill posted some ideology and theory stating that for all intents and purposes there was no distinction. Hence my conclusion that those agreeing with Draco and disagreeing with me were saying all business was unethical.

                    It’s a fairly absurd debate now, but it comes out of my increasing frustration for the amount of focus on abstractions and ideology here at the expense of exploring actual solutions (theory is important, I’m just saying the balance is wrong).

                    • freedom …
                      6 January 2014 at 2:45 pm

                      “It’s a fairly absurd debate now, but it comes out of my increasing frustration for the amount of focus on abstractions and ideology here at the expense of exploring actual solutions”

                      that happens a lot when humans are involved, 🙂

                      and may I add
                      you are not alone

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      6 January 2014 at 4:23 pm

                      It’s a fairly absurd debate now, but it comes out of my increasing frustration for the amount of focus on abstractions and ideology here at the expense of exploring actual solutions (theory is important, I’m just saying the balance is wrong).

                      Your inability to think (too abstract for me) or to offer cogent arguments for or against the solutions offered is one of the reasons it’s getting absurd.

                    • weka …
                      6 January 2014 at 4:38 pm

                      Thanks freedom 🙂

                      Draco,

                      What you call my ‘inability to think’ is actually a cognitive disability which is esp bad at the moment. It’s not an inability to think so much as a need to ration my cognitive energy.

                      I repeatedly ask for examples of solutions, and routinely get offered more theory by you.

                      We also have a different take on logic, as evidenced by the thread you just linked to. In that thread I DID offer cogent responses to what was being put out. What I see you doing in that thread is not really engaging with what I was saying and instead either going on misunderstanding, or just saying what you want. It’s just happened again this very thread. Read my synopsis of the sub thread again and tell me where I am wrong.

                    • TRacey …
                      6 January 2014 at 4:45 pm

                      Hmmmm I think you can make money and have ethics.

                      Ethics need to be defined so that I can disagree with myself. So does “make money”. MOst of my work is for free and the rest I seriously undercharge. Thankfully my partner has ore secure income.

                      Business process is as abstract and largely redundant comment in relation to ethics because a process rarely exists without humans, from imagining it, to planning it, to implementing it.

                      The process may be inherently unethical if designed and implemented that way, or can become unethical.

                      I dont see the point of making an argument based on such an abstract it might as well not exist within the context of the discussion of ethics.

                      I may also have misunderstood the post.

                    • phillip ure …
                      6 January 2014 at 5:04 pm

                      the elephants in the room being ignored in all this talk of ‘ethical-dairying’..

                      ..is a)..that dairy causes cancer..so essentially..as a country..we export death..we had may as well be growing/exporting tobacco..

                      ..and b)..all the other vile/cruel treatments of animals continues apace with the ‘unethical’-farmers..

                      ..ie..calves taken from mothers after birth..(how do you think you get the milk..?..it is intended for them..in the grand scheme of things..)

                      ..and have you ever heard that..?..the cries-of-separation from both the mothers..and their calves..?

                      ..you really should..it is heart-rending..will chill yr soul..and should have you thinking:.

                      .(‘this is being done in my name?..)’

                      ..and of course..once the serially-inseminated cows are flogged out..after a few years..(natural life-span 20+ yrs..)

                      ..they too are sent to the slaughterhouse..

                      ..’ethical-dairying’..?

                      ..my arse..!

                      phillip ure..

                    • weka …
                      6 January 2014 at 5:10 pm

                      You may be surprised to hear then that much of my objection to industrial dairying is for animal welfare reasons.

                      It is perfectly possible to grow milk for human consumption while keeping the calf with the cow.

                      Consumption of dairy doesn’t cause cancer.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      6 January 2014 at 6:50 pm

                      In that thread I DID offer cogent responses to what was being put out.

                      No, actually, you didn’t.

                      What I see you doing in that thread is not really engaging with what I was saying and instead either going on misunderstanding, or just saying what you want. It’s just happened again this very thread.

                      I engaged with what you said, I even understood it. I then pointed out where and why you were wrong.

                      What was that expression that QoT used the other day that fits what you’re doing here? Oh, that’s right, Gaslighting.

                      Read my synopsis of the sub thread again and tell me where I am wrong.

                      You were wrong in this:
                      Draco and Bill posted some ideology and theory stating that for all intents and purposes there was no distinction
                      because you failed to understand what was actually being said which is what you said here:
                      but it comes out of my increasing frustration for the amount of focus on abstractions.
                      Thinking is an abstraction itself and without using them we would be very limited in expressing ideas for solutions. Ethics are also an almost totally abstract concept.

                    • weka …
                      6 January 2014 at 7:38 pm

                      You were wrong in this:
                      Draco and Bill posted some ideology and theory stating that for all intents and purposes there was no distinction

                      because you failed to understand what was actually being said which is what you said here:

                      but it comes out of my increasing frustration for the amount of focus on abstractions.

                      Thinking is an abstraction itself and without using them we would be very limited in expressing ideas for solutions. Ethics are also an almost totally abstract concept.

                      What you have done there is go “you are wrong, I am right” but you haven’t said how you think I am wrong, so I am still none the wiser what you mean (other than that you think I am wrong).

                      You’ve pointed to something I’ve already said, and decided that my acknowledging my frustration with abstracts means that I didn’t understand ie you’ve decided you know my reality better than me and haven’t bothered to check if you are right. In fact the times when I do put the mental effort into reading something I am unfamiliar with that seems abstract to me, I understand it well enough (or enough to get the gist at least and come back and ask questions) but I still feel frustrated by the approach. Hence my comment elsewhere where I said I didn’t want someone to say the solution was to smash capitalism, I wanted some actual ‘how’ (which you then supplied).

                      I’m sure you think you are being clear, but making an assertion without explanation isn’t clarifying. I suspect that you don’t like my using the term ‘abstract’, and that we use that term in different ways. But instead of seeking clarification about what I mean (which might lead to better communication between us), you now want to have a meta argument about abstraction. Given that we don’t communicate that well already, I don’t think that’s a useful path.

                      “Ethics are also an almost totally abstract concept.”

                      Only if you look at them abstractly. If you look at how they are applied then you are looking at an application as well, not just an abstraction.

                      There was a great example of this whole thing the other day when I suggested that Bill and RL bringing conceptual discussion into a space where people were still feeling pretty raw wasn’t the best move. They came up with this, to my mind, brilliant analogy around half-bakery. Bill, in response to RL:

                      Half baked you say? By that scheme of things, I was only suggesting ingredients that might go in the mixing bowl and hadn’t even thought about pre-heating the oven ffs. Anyway, those new super absorbent mops? They ain’t bad for splattered spillages.

                      I don’t want to imply a negative around their thinking by the use of the term half-baked. The analogy just really clarified for me the, in that case, very large gap in terms of where people were coming from. And knowing that, that we might build some bridges or telegraph systems or something.

                      It also helped me understand where Bill in particular is coming from in ways I hadn’t before.

                      http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-05012014/#comment-753614

                      Your gaslighting link is broken.

                    • karol …
                      6 January 2014 at 7:49 pm

                      My reading of the “abstraction” by Draco that weka was referring to:

                      R& D – it was mentioned in pretty general terms – and, for those of us that don’t know the extent and depth of R & D that goes on, it’s impossible to know whether it would happen as Draco says – I think it’s likely that all R & D is not the same – some of it more likely to be done out of neccessity – some avoided, some may need certain conditions: eg enough people to work on it, with the time, available resources etc.

                    • weka …
                      6 January 2014 at 8:07 pm

                      Well if you ask me, the classic example in that thread of miscommunication between myself and Draco is this:

                      Me: Why limit [jobs for unemployed people] to R and D or Arts and Craft?

                      Draco: I, personally, can’t think of any limits to those [R and D or Arts and Craft].

                      I’ve asked one thing, he’s replied to something else (that I didn’t ask about). I still don’t know what he meant (that R/D and A/C would supply all jobs?). It’s like we have subtle but important different versions of the English language. There are other examples where I ask something, and he replies to that specific question, but as if I had said something else. I’m not surprised I gave up soon after.

                    • weka …
                      6 January 2014 at 8:16 pm

                      R& D – it was mentioned in pretty general terms – and, for those of us that don’t know the extent and depth of R & D that goes on, it’s impossible to know whether it would happen as Draco says – I think it’s likely that all R & D is not the same – some of it more likely to be done out of neccessity – some avoided, some may need certain conditions: eg enough people to work on it, with the time, available resources etc.

                      I was unclear what was actually meant by R& D in that conversation. The gardening example was interesting. Plenty of gardeners do R & D already, to varying degrees. We could formalise that more and build very useful bodies of knowledge. However not every person on the dole moving into a gardening job is going to want to do R & D as well as part of that job. Maybe they just want to mow lawns listening to music or using that time to think about other things. I guess it depends on how broadly you define R & D.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      6 January 2014 at 8:23 pm

                      I suspect that you don’t like my using the term ‘abstract’, and that we use that term in different ways.

                      Abstract:

                      1. thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances: an abstract idea.
                      2. expressing a quality or characteristic apart from any specific object or instance, as justice, poverty, and speed.
                      3. theoretical; not applied or practical: abstract science.
                      4. difficult to understand; abstruse: abstract speculations.

                      What you have done there is go “you are wrong, I am right” but you haven’t said how you think I am wrong, so I am still none the wiser what you mean (other than that you think I am wrong).

                      You’ve been calling for less abstraction but it is only through abstraction that we can explain our ideas and solutions for a better world quite often because a concrete example doesn’t exist.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      6 January 2014 at 8:39 pm

                      Well if you ask me, the classic example in that thread of miscommunication between myself and Draco is this:
                      Me: Why limit [jobs for unemployed people] to R and D or Arts and Craft?

                      Draco: I, personally, can’t think of any limits to those [R and D or Arts and Craft].

                      We were talking about unemployed and in a previous comment I implied that there shouldn’t be any unemployed. We destroy jobs through R&D and that the people thus made unemployed need to be moved into either R&D (or arts & craft) themselves or into jobs that others have vacated to go into R&D (or arts & craft). The only reason why we have unemployment now is to keep wages low (which really is just another indication of how the present system doesn’t work). There are no limits to what can be researched and developed or in art.

                    • weka …
                      6 January 2014 at 8:46 pm

                      “You’ve been calling for less abstraction but it is only through abstraction that we can explain our ideas and solutions for a better world quite often because a concrete example doesn’t exist.”

                      Actually, I’ve been calling for more exploration of concretion alongside the abstract. It seems like you see abstract and concete as two discrete things, whereas I see them as a continuum, generally speaking.

                      Plus, the whole baking bowl analogy. If you are still making a shopping list, and I’m sitting at the table to eat, how can we progress a conversation?

                      I don’t want to go into the whole R & D thing with you again tongiht, because as I said I think there is a basic miscommunication, so there doesn’t seem to be much point until that is overcome. Also not really willing to deal with being told I’m wrong that much at the moment unless there is a willingness to explain or acknowledge as well.

                    • phillip ure …
                      6 January 2014 at 8:48 pm

                      @ weka..

                      “..Consumption of dairy doesn’t cause cancer..”

                      yes..yes it does..

                      ..do you need the evidence-links again..?

                      ..and not only cancer..what about the diabetes..?..the strokes..?

                      ..the huge role it plays in obesity..?

                      ..any of this ringing any bells..?

                      ..do you need those evidence-links too..?

                      ..phillip ure..

                    • weka …
                      6 January 2014 at 9:00 pm

                      no, no it doesn’t.

                      I have read enough about dairy and health to know that you are grossly misrepresenting science. You can link again if you like, but I suspect that it will just be another search list from your blog, which generally consists of lots of assertion without any evidence. But go on, you might surprise me.

                      Type 2 diabetes is an issue of insulin resistance. Dairy consumption can be a problem for people that are increasingly insulin resistant (because of the milk sugars I think), but it doesn’t ’cause’ diabetes. Many traditional cultures that consume alot of dairy don’t have high rates of diabetes. The only cultures that I am aware of that have high rates of diabetes are those that eat a Western diet or live a Western lifestyle (and there are many factors involved in why those people get insulin resistant, most notably refined carbohydrate consumption).

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      6 January 2014 at 10:45 pm

                      Plus, the whole baking bowl analogy. If you are still making a shopping list, and I’m sitting at the table to eat, how can we progress a conversation?

                      Because I, at least, am capable of making a shopping list at the same time as talking. In fact I’ll likely to be asking what you want to eat. Unfortunately, you’re sitting down, banging your knives and forks on the table and demanding dinner.

                      I don’t want to go into the whole R & D thing with you again tongiht, because as I said I think there is a basic miscommunication, so there doesn’t seem to be much point until that is overcome.

                      /facepalm
                      because of a mis-communication I won’t communicate with you

                    • McFlock …
                      6 January 2014 at 10:48 pm

                      if the r/t’s broken, there’s no point in continuing to try to use it.

                    • weka …
                      6 January 2014 at 11:45 pm

                      “because of a mis-communication I won’t communicate with you”

                      That is NOT what I said. Again, this is an example of us speaking different versions of the same language.

                      Draco, I’ve tried my best to explain how I see things. If you are unwilling to engage in good faith, that’s fine. All I’m hearing from you this evening here is personal disaparagement of me (I’m incapable of thinking, I’m unreasonably demanding something from you, I’m wrong), and virtually nothing in the way of a meeting, so I’ll just leave it there for now.

        • Tracey 4.2.1.2
          6 January 2014 at 11:41 am

          Dairy farms were not meant for arid areas. THAT is why the Waimak shouldnt EVER be diverted to farms converted to dairy.

          • weka 4.2.1.2.1
            6 January 2014 at 2:08 pm

            Yep, you got it. Although I would say there is no good landscape for industrial dairy as it’s done today.

      • Ennui 4.2.2
        6 January 2014 at 12:05 pm

        Balmoral forest is on the north bank of the Hurunui, in a valley between mountains, on very stony soil that cooks in the summer and freezes in winter. On the basis of animal welfare alone using current dairy practices it is a cruel environment. Cows need warmth and shade, the way we treat our stock in NZ is scandalous.

        I hope this is not the same place proposed. To farm there will require irrigation schemes, damming of the Hurunui has been proposed and opposed regularly.

      • Will@Welly 4.2.3
        6 January 2014 at 10:49 pm

        The farms – in total 5 – will be ready in 2015 – so I would take it that the trees will be long gone. Then they are to build two big storage reservoirs on site, so in winter they can “harvest” the Waimak and store the extra water for use in summer. The farms will have the highest concentration of cows on the plains. As the sediment under the land there is quite thin, it is expected that there will be some detrimental effects downstream as effluent seeps into the alluvial water, and infects the drinking water of the likes of Christchurch and other towns that lie in the path of the underground waterways. Still, that’s the price we pay for J.K.’s brighter corporatised future.

  5. Morrissey 5
    6 January 2014 at 9:06 am

    “To try and make the lives of people better”
    Helen Clark interviewed by Chris Laidlaw, August 2013

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/sunday

    Some of Helen Clark’s statements in this interview are remarkable, considering her actual behaviour while in office. She speaks forthrightly about the Andrea Vance affair, and seems to approve of that particular journalist’s right to act as an investigative journalist: “she had a right to pursue a story and get to the truth as she saw it.” Which will seem odd for those who remember her choleric outbursts against the journalists who tried to penetrate behind her smokescreen of denials and personal attacks as they were attempting to cover her government’s persecution of Ahmed Zaoui. At more than one press conference she angrily shut down Selwyn Manning, the editor of Scoop, refusing to answer any questions from him about the matter.

    Helen Clark’s newly respectful opinion of journalism will be welcome news to John Campbell, who suffered a wrathful public denunciation from Ms Clark after he tried to get her to speak honestly about her government’s ill advised encouragement of GM experiments in this country.

    Ms Clark also states, near the end of the interview, that she used her power and influence “to try and make the lives of people better.” Again, this sits oddly with the facts of her time in power. As well as presiding over the cruel detention of Ahmed Zaoui—it was a team effort, with thugs like David Benson-Pope allying with New Zealand First MPs like Peter Brown and Winston Peters in parliament to yell out crude insults in parliament at the political refugee—she was foolish enough to take the advice of her less-than-brilliant “strategists” after Don Brash’s infamous Orewa speech and imitate National Party racism instead of confronting and rejecting it. And any of the 15,000 Māori land rights protestors she sneeringly dismissed as “haters and wreckers” would be interested to hear that Helen Clark thinks she used her power and influence “to try and make the lives of people better.”.

    This transcript starts at 21:18 and goes to the end (25:34)…..

    CHRIS LAIDLAW: We’ve been talking here,…hrrrumph…. some might say obsessively, about the phenomenon of the surveillance society. Does any of what has been happening here lately over the accessing of private information surprise you?
    HELEN CLARK: I was certainly surprised that, er, Parliamentary Services handed over those records! [guffaw]
    CHRIS LAIDLAW: A heh, heh!
    HELEN CLARK: Ha ha ha! But, errrr…
    CHRIS LAIDLAW: What would you have SAID to them?
    HELEN CLARK: Errrmmmm…
    LAIDLAW: Had that been YOU?
    HELEN CLARK: I think–heh heh—someone would have had to have been holding the phone out rather a long way from their [sic] ear! ….[guffaw]…. I mean, I don’t think this is acceptable, at ALL. ….[pause]…. I mean, err, y’know, journalists have a duty! And that duty is to get out and seek the truth! That journalist broke what in journalistic terms was a pretty good story! Now, it happened to be pretty annoying to the government! Y’know, been there, experienced THAT! ….[guffaw]….. But, ahh, you know she had a right to pursue a story and get to the truth as she saw it.
    LAIDLAW: Were you aware of that Defence Force manual that stated that investigative journalists could be lumped in with a lot of other undesirable people?
    HELEN CLARK: [guffaws] I’m certain I never SAW such a thing! Huh! I would have found it rather extraordinary.
    LAIDLAW: Did you ever sign a warrant for covert surveillance of a New Zealand citizen?
    HELEN CLARK: [cagily] Wellllll, as reported on every yeeeear, in the annual report, uh …. [uncomfortable caesura]…. Yes I did sign warrants!
    LAIDLAW: Mmmm, hmmm…
    HELEN CLARK: Yep! And they were all, ahh, referred to and counted up in the Annual Report to Parliament every year.
    LAIDLAW: And you’re convinced that they were absolutely justifiable?

    …….[Significant pause]….

    HELEN CLARK: [carefully] I aaaaam. Because one of the systems that was put in place and was at the time when the SIS legislation was amended in the late nineties when I was Leader of the Opposition, was this Inspector of Security Warrants, errrr, Sir John Jeffries, through my time as prime minister. I had a HUUUUUUGE respect for John Jeffries and whenever the SIS wanted a warrant, they didn’t come first to me—[guffaw]—I was a BUSY PERSON! They went first to Sir John Jeffries, and Sir John Jeffries went into the offices, into the files, could access EVERYTHING he wanted to see, and then he came with the Director of Security Intelligence to see me, and he would set out the issues as he saw them. And together we would make a decision. So there was a LOT OF CARE taken with that.
    LAIDLAW: Isn’t the most serious effect of some of this the erosion of public confidence in the organs of the state? We’ve been seeing a lot of pressure on various departments lately, MFAT and others, but revelations of this kind really do make people wonder about whether the state is on their side.
    HELEN CLARK: They doooo! And it’s partly an issue of not knowing what you don’t know. But I think that, given that in this whole fracas, there appears, if we take the Kitteridge Report as the guide here, that there WAS a gap in the law. Now something has to be done about the gap in the law, BUT…. at the same time I think it’s an opportunity to have a, y’know, broooooader dialogue about the kind of protections New Zealand citizens are entitled to and one would hope that that would come through this sort of process.

    ….[Pause]…..

    LAIDLAW: A lot of people talk about the nature of power, and you’ve had it, and you have it, and you experienced it. Do you understand it? Do you have a better understanding now of what it represents?
    HELEN CLARK: I think that power as a concept is neutral. You can use power for good ends or you can use it for bad ends. I like to think that I used the power and influence I had in my life in New Zealand and now at UNDP to try and, y’ow, make the lives of people, errr, BETTER. That was my mission. So I think it can be used for GOOD but it can can also be used for ILL.
    LAIDLAW: Nice to talk to you! And I hope you enjoy your time here. That was former prime minister Helen Clark, who is these days leading the UN Development Program, and her book At the UN is published by Dunmore Publishing.

    • phillip ure 5.1
      6 January 2014 at 9:14 am

      chrs 4 that morrissy..

      ..i tried listening to this interview..

      ..but the exercise in self-justification/glossing-over from/by clark..

      ..was giving me serious gastric-reflux..

      (..i had to turn back to music..my salve at times like that..)

      ..did she dare to say anything about poverty..?

      phillip ure..

    • Ennui 5.2
      6 January 2014 at 9:18 am

      Hello Morrissey, good work.

    • Lanthanide 5.3
      6 January 2014 at 9:26 am

      This time Morrissey actually seems to have gotten the words about right. But as usual, he’s adding extraneous punctuation and emphasis on words, as well as his usual bullshit “Significant pause” crap so as to distort what actually happened.

      • Te Reo Putake 5.3.1
        6 January 2014 at 9:49 am

        Yep, better than average effort, only a few errors and really only spoilt by the distortions of meaning that his spin puts on the words. Kinda hypocritical to demand of others standards he doesn’t apply to himself, but that’s our Moz. 6/10.

        • Morrissey 5.3.1.1
          6 January 2014 at 9:51 am

          Listen to the tape, then come back and tell us where I distorted anything.

          Anything.

          And where were the “couple of errors”?

          • Te Reo Putake 5.3.1.1.1
            6 January 2014 at 10:02 am

            Already did listen to the tape, Moz, hence my comment that you got it mostly correct. Well done. If you want to find the errors, which are mostly small ommisions, then go back over it yourself.

            The distortion is adding emphasis were no emphasis can be heard. That’s not reporting, that’s editorialising. It’s bogus if you are calling it a transcript. As I said, you demand standards of others you don’t apply to yourself.

            • Morrissey 5.3.1.1.1.1
              6 January 2014 at 10:18 am

              ….mostly correct. Well done.
              No, it was completely correct.

              If you want to find the errors, which are mostly small ommisions [sic] then go back over it yourself.
              So you couldn’t find one small “ommision” then. But you’re happy to carry on with the baseless claim.

              The distortion is adding emphasis were no emphasis can be heard.
              For example?

              That’s not reporting, that’s editorialising.
              No, it’s reporting. Pointing out that Helen Clark was cagey and diffident and awkward when asked whether or not she set her spies onto New Zealand citizens is not distortion, as you say, but reporting. It’s quite clear that you think reporters should simply be megaphones for politicians. You don’t like their words being emphasized and underlined: that’s your problem. You are plainly wrong when you try to insinuate there’s something misleading about pointing out the obvious discomfort of a politician.

              It’s bogus if you are calling it a transcript.
              So you want just the words, without any colour, without any bringing out of nuances that are often contained in a hesitation or a slightly irritated tone of voice? Please put up your bald transcript of those four minutes—and we’ll see which one is more true to the nature of that conversation.

              As I said, you demand standards of others you don’t apply to yourself.
              More empty personal insults. Can I remind you: this is not an LEC meeting, and I don’t get intimidated or confused by your strategy of abuse.

              • Te Reo Putake …
                6 January 2014 at 10:27 am

                Again with the slander, moz? You’re a sad wee man.

                • Morrissey …
                  6 January 2014 at 10:56 am

                  So you don’t behave at LEC meetings in the same way you behave on this forum? Okay, we’ll take your word for it.

                  As they say in parliament, I withdraw and apologize.

              • felix …
                6 January 2014 at 11:03 am

                “So you want just the words, without any colour, without any bringing out of nuances that are often contained in a hesitation or a slightly irritated tone of voice? “

                That’s pretty much the definition of a transcript.

                • Tracey …
                  6 January 2014 at 11:09 am

                  Thats what we get from the Court. The time the initials of the speaker and the words.

                  • Morrissey …
                    6 January 2014 at 11:11 am

                    Thats what we get from the Court. The time the initials of the speaker and the words.
                    That’s why we depend on honest reporters to bring out the nuances and inflexions that the bare transcripts leave out.

                    • Tracey …
                      6 January 2014 at 11:14 am

                      hmmmm. I use the transcript and the audio. You are right that how someone says something matters, but that ius why I read and audio.

                  • freedom …
                    6 January 2014 at 1:10 pm

                    when the courts actually let you see the transcripts that is 🙁

                    • Tracey …
                      6 January 2014 at 2:09 pm

                      I get that but they release ones to parties, that is the context I get them in.

                    • freedom …
                      6 January 2014 at 2:38 pm

                      Tracey, It has been my experience that when it comes to the courts, ‘parties’ seems not to include the victim.

                      So crumbled the cookie of justice into the teacup of disillusion.

                    • TRacey …
                      6 January 2014 at 4:48 pm

                      Yes you are right if by victim you mean in criminal cases? That’s wrong of course and transcripts ought to be readily available. The police prosecution service ought to be cooperative in the supply though? Or are they so budget conscious they wont pay for the extra copy?

                      I deal with civil matters btw.

                • Morrissey …
                  6 January 2014 at 11:09 am

                  “So you want just the words, without any colour, without any bringing out of nuances that are often contained in a hesitation or a slightly irritated tone of voice? “

                  That’s pretty much the definition of a transcript.

                  Yes, you’re correct there, felix. That’s why my enhanced transripts, and even my more imperfect slapdash efforts scribbled on a piece of paper, are better than a bald transcription of the words. It would be highly misleading, for instance, to not mention that Helen Clark was uncomfortable and hesitant when pressed on the subject of whether she set her spies onto New Zealand citizens.

                  • Te Reo Putake …
                    6 January 2014 at 11:33 am

                    ‘Enhanced’ transcript.

                    So your efforts relate to real transcripts in the way enhanced interrogation techniques relate to lawful questioning? Good to know.

                    • Morrissey …
                      6 January 2014 at 11:47 am

                      False analogy. I’m not surprised.

                      By the way, I’m guessing that you support “enhanced interrogation”. Am we correct in surmising that?

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      6 January 2014 at 11:52 am

                      That’s twice today you’ve used the royal pronoun, Moz. You’re not related to that German woman on our money, are you?

                    • sockpuppet …
                      6 January 2014 at 12:08 pm

                      Really Morrissey I don’t know why you bother trying to educate TRP he appears to be a rather nasty little bigot and bully boy who is unable to widen his thought processes beyond his own little clique’s list of what is good and what is bad.

                      I’m also not sure why he’s desperate to suggest Liz Windsor is German .. unless it’s some poor imitation of a Fawlty Towers joke that I’m missing ?

                  • Morrissey …
                    6 January 2014 at 12:03 pm

                    TE REO OUTAKE: That’s twice today you’ve used the royal pronoun, Moz.
                    MORRISSEY: It’s a common propaganda trick—but you were alert to it. Well spotted, Te Reo!
                    TE REO PUTAKE: You’re not related to that German woman on our money, are you?

                    ….[Uncomfortable pause]….

                    MORRISSEY: [carefully] Errrrr, as far as I know, no-o-o-o-o. If I wasn’t fearful that it was a Mormon site, I might be tempted to check it on the ancestry.com site.

                    • Morrissey …
                      6 January 2014 at 12:15 pm

                      Really Morrissey I don’t know why you bother trying to educate TRP he appears to be a rather nasty little bigot and bully boy who is unable to widen his thought processes beyond his own little clique’s list of what is good and what is bad.

                      Thanks, sockpuppet, I do appreciate your solicitude. Te Reo is a buddy of mine. He dishes it out to this writer, i.e. moi, fearsomely at times, but he is also kind and supportive at other times. A diamond geezer, he is—as they say in the East End.

                      I’m also not sure why he’s desperate to suggest Liz Windsor is German .. unless it’s some poor imitation of a Fawlty Towers joke that I’m missing ?
                      I think he meant this German woman….
                      http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/j/Dominatrix.jpg

                    • sockpuppet …
                      6 January 2014 at 12:22 pm

                      Thanks for the clarification Morrissey I didn’t realise you were indulging in a grumpy old man double act, although I’m not sure if my reading of TRPs comments in the tone of Ginger Rodgers will make them any less ludicrous.

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      6 January 2014 at 12:54 pm

                      ‘grumpy old man double act’

                      The Statler and Waldorf of teh blogs? No, Moz and I are actually the same person. We’ve been having this bipolar, duopolist dialogue since June 1984, only days after Al Gore invented the web. Moz corrected Al on his proposed name for the internet (we felt that it obviously should be the elegant ‘bittube’, rather than the cheap, brutalist Americanism of ‘the web’). I publicly disagreed with myself (mozself?) on an embryonic board and an institution was born. We’re sorry if this has led to any confusion, or indeed, contusions.

                      ps, the Windsors are German. They changed their name from the original Wettin a century ago for PR purposes.

                      http://www.private-eye.co.uk/covers.php?showme=90

                    • Morrissey …
                      6 January 2014 at 1:09 pm

                      …the Windsors are German. They changed their name from the original Wettin a century ago for PR purposes.

                      http://www.private-eye.co.uk/covers.php?showme=90

                      Here’s another great British/German royalty-themed cover from 1985…
                      http://www.private-eye.co.uk/covers.php?showme=615

                    • sockpuppet …
                      6 January 2014 at 1:36 pm

                      To say that Liz Windsor is German is a bit of a stretch. She’s probably no more German than you or I.

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

                      Fascinating that you are one and the same person – it really does make me all the more in awe of Morrissey being able to write so beautifully under his own name as distinct from his efforts under the TRP pseudonym.

                    • Morrissey …
                      6 January 2014 at 2:23 pm

                      Fascinating that you are one and the same person – it really does make me all the more in awe of Morrissey being able to write so beautifully under his own name as distinct from his efforts under the TRP pseudonym.

                      Thanks for that my friend. I turn into Te Reo Putake whenever I want to write something really horrible.

                      😀 😀 😀 🙄

                      Next I might try being Garth Gaga George….

                    • fender …
                      6 January 2014 at 3:54 pm

                      Have you consigned Professor Longhair to the scrapheap? 😉

                    • Morrissey …
                      6 January 2014 at 4:01 pm

                      Our good friend “fender” asks: Have you consigned Professor Longhair to the scrapheap?

                      The Professor wrote to me the other day. He is on “sabbatical”* in Eastern Europe somewhere. He extends to all Standardisti the very best wishes for the New Year.

                      * Colloquially known as “on the run”.

                    • fender …
                      6 January 2014 at 4:33 pm

                      I don’t think they’ll catch up with him

                    • TRacey …
                      6 January 2014 at 4:55 pm

                      Louis Mount Batten was born Prince of Battenburg, changed during world war one cos of german dislike in England. Mount Btten ws Prince Philip’s uncle

                      Saying she is no more German than you or I is a little spurious given she is only Queen by virtue of those who came before, some of whom in this case were German. Her Great Grandfather Albert was German, so that’s an 8th German right there.

                    • sockpuppet …
                      6 January 2014 at 6:48 pm

                      That’s great great grandfather ….. and a good chap as far as that family goes by all accounts.

      • Morrissey 5.3.2
        6 January 2014 at 9:53 am

        This time Morrissey actually seems to have gotten the words about right.
        I got it exactly right, my friend. Exactly. I was careful to even include Ms Clark’s little verbal tics, like the repeated use of y’ow and her frequent guffawing, which is a control mechanism par excellence.

        But as usual, he’s adding extraneous punctuation and emphasis on words,
        “Extraneous”? I challenge you to put up ONE example of where my punctuation is extraneous or misleading, and where I have emphasized a word inappropriately.

        ….as well as his usual bullshit “Significant pause” crap so as to distort what actually happened.
        There were several significant, awkward, uncomfortable pauses when Laidlaw pressed her on whether she had set the dogs onto New Zealand citizens. They were significant, all right, and you know it.

        My “stage directions” are intended, as always, to emphasize and clarify, and to evoke the flavour and nature of the conversation. They are not intended to distort, as you allege.

        • Lanthanide 5.3.2.1
          6 January 2014 at 3:47 pm

          Because I have some time, and because you’re so much in denial, I figured I’d bother to answer these questions.

          “We’ve been talking here,…hrrrumph…. some might say obsessively,”
          This “hrrumph” is unwarranted, as it was a very brief mumbled pause before he continued on. Recording this as “hrrumph” has negative connotations that are not warranted.

          “I mean, err, y’know, journalists have a duty! And that duty is to get out and seek the truth! That journalist broke what in journalistic terms was a pretty good story! Now, it happened to be pretty annoying to the government!”
          None of these exclamation marks are warranted.

          “[cagily] Wellllll, as reported on every yeeeear, in the annual report, uh …. [uncomfortable caesura]…. Yes I did sign warrants!”
          It wasn’t cagey, you’ve added unnecessary emphasis on “Well” and “year” that implies she was reluctantly answering the question when there is no reluctance in her voice at all. I don’t think “caesura” is the correct term here and there was certianly nothing uncomfortable about it. Once again, an unwarranted exclamation mark.

          “Yep!”
          Another unwarranted exclamation mark.

          …….[Significant pause]….
          This pause at 22:48 is shorter than one marked merely “[pause]” at 24:40-24:42. Furthermore there is nothing significant, nor indeed apparently deliberate in the very brief pause here at all. It’s a natural part of speech after someone has asked a question in a new direction on the topic at hand.

          “I aaaaam.”
          She said “am”.

          “I had a HUUUUUUGE respect”
          She said “huge”.

          “I was a BUSY PERSON!”
          Exclamation mark appropriate, but capitalisation is not. This makes it appear like she’s being defensive when there is nothing defensive about this conversation at all.

          “and he would set out the issues as he saw them.”
          No idea why you chose to embolden ‘as he saw them’ in your first transcript.

          “So there was a LOT OF CARE taken with that.”
          Inappropriate emphasis on “lot of care” not present in the audio.

          “They doooo!”
          She said “do”. Again, inappropriate exclamation mark.

          “broooooader dialogue”
          She said “broader”. Again not sure why you choose to embolden this.

          The entire section between your “significant pause” and “pause” markers actually under-transcribes Helen’s stammering and filler sounds, and for a strict transcripts as you are claiming this is, you actually miss a few words out entirely around these parts.

          • Morrissey 5.3.2.1.1
            6 January 2014 at 3:57 pm

            Awesome analysis, Lanthanide! I do have some disagreements, but I haven’t got the time to answer now. I’ll make a feature of it on tomorrow’s Open Mike (for January 7th).

            Sorry, but I have to go now.

          • QoT 5.3.2.1.2
            6 January 2014 at 9:58 pm

            But it’s ~enhanced~, Lanth. Like all propaganda.

    • Tim 5.4
      6 January 2014 at 4:51 pm

      I have to say …. Helen probably would have been a lot better off withOUT her various ‘advisers’ – the ‘long termers’ probably responsible for the biggest fuckups she ever made.

    • SHG (not Colonial Viper) 5.5
      7 January 2014 at 6:19 pm

      How much NZ property does Clark own while a non-NZ resident again?

      • lprent 5.5.1
        7 January 2014 at 7:12 pm

        You mean that Peter Davis and her *both* own – right? I hadn’t noticed Peter leaving his job at Auckland Uni. They just rotate holidays and visits. Perhaps you should look at the requirements of being a “resident”.

        While you’re at it look at a mirror to see what fatuous dickhead looks like.

  6. Ron 6
    6 January 2014 at 9:11 am

    An article worth reading from Steven Ward professor of sociology at WCU http://chronicle.com/blogs/conversation/2013/10/02/a-machiavellian-guide-to-destroying-public-universities-in-12-easy-steps/
    I am trying to work out which step Joyce and his cohort have reached. It certainly sounds familiar.

  7. Philj 7
    6 January 2014 at 9:20 am

    Xox
    Dairy cows on the Canterbury Plains + Irrigation = pollution of water
    I see there was recently another e coli outbreak in township Darfield water supply. Fonterra has recently built a mega processing plant in the area.

    • Morrissey 8.1
      6 January 2014 at 10:06 am

      Compare and contrast…..

      Nick Griffin: responsible for ZERO deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq.

      Tony Blair: responsible for hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq.

      And so goddamn WEAK at the same time….

  9. phillip ure 9
    6 January 2014 at 9:57 am

    just heard a brilliant interview on nat-rad..

    ..on the advances in knowledge on how our brains actually work..(using mri etc..)

    ..and what stood out was the evidence of the actual physical benefits to the brain/psyche from either regular religious-practices..prayer/chanting..

    ..or from the secular practice of meditation..

    ..we are told these practices physically strengthen areas of our brains…that make us feel/do good..

    ..and help protect us from things that make us feel bad..anxieties..etc..

    ..they increase empathy..and strengthen our synapses..which..makes pratitioners think much faster..than those who don’t..(and going on the evidence presented..much much faster..)

    fascinating stuff..that should appeal to all..

    ..and secularists have the meditation-tool to turn to..

    ..(i’m gonna link to/write it up later..when it comes online..

    ..the radio nz website will also have it for you..

    ..and seriously..!..a recommended-listen..

    ..(i love it when science proves ‘things’..eh..?..it so settles arguments..sometimes..)

    ..phillip ure..

    • Ron 9.1
      6 January 2014 at 11:05 am

      Sorry I must have missed something, what did it prove?

      ..(i love it when science proves ‘things’..eh..?..it so settles arguments..sometimes..)

      • phillip ure 9.1.1
        6 January 2014 at 11:11 am

        go listen to the interview..ron..

        phillip ure..

        • Zorr 9.1.1.1
          6 January 2014 at 9:48 pm

          Because interviews are sooooooo peer-reviewed science papers…

          Feel free to link to the evidence. In fact, I implore you to, for once, link to some evidence that is outside your inane ramblings…

          • phillip ure 9.1.1.1.1
            6 January 2014 at 10:03 pm

            @ zorr..

            ..here is the interview..

            http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/summernoelle/audio/2581774/dr-rick-hanson-rewiring-happiness

            what i refer to in the above comment that you sneer at..

            ..is the response to a question from the interviewer..(in the second half of the interview..(but the preceeding stuff is pretty interesting too..)

            ..where she asks hanson if his physical-research had shown any difference between the brains of people who followed daily religious-practises..(praying/chanting)..

            ..and for the secularists..the likes of meditation/yoga..

            ..and those people who practise none of those..

            ..the question surprised hanson..which made his answer seem all the more credible..the surprise he expressed at his findings in this area..was genuine..and not part of any prepared script..

            ..the daily practice seems to be a key factor..

            ..but the striking benefits cited by hanson..if this mri-based evidence is to be believed..and it is hard to see why it should not..

            ..is that these multi-faceted benefits are to hand for both the religious/secularists..

            ..so it is not a religious-barrow that is being pushed..

            ..it is evidence/proof of helping mental-health/well-being..

            ..what is to hate on about that..?

            ..was it something i said..?

            phillip ure..

            • Zorr 9.1.1.1.1.1
              6 January 2014 at 10:38 pm

              Firstly, if I may apologize. I should have been more diplomatic with my wording and what I said was very… abrupt.

              You are the very embodiment, it seems, of trying to tell people either that the way they are living is the least perfect or that they could be doing things more perfectly. If it was just a link of “here is cool science, what do you think” then it would be much more palatable but you present it in a manner that provokes a personal response (intentionally or unintentionally) from the likes of myself where I severely dislike being preached at.

              Especially on extremely borderline topics such as nutrition and spirituality.

          • weka 9.1.1.1.2
            6 January 2014 at 10:15 pm

            “Because interviews are sooooooo peer-reviewed science papers…

            Feel free to link to the evidence. In fact, I implore you to, for once, link to some evidence that is outside your inane ramblings…”

            Zorr, the things that phil claimed (as far as I could understand it) are not really in dispute and have been well tested by science. In this situation peer-reviewed papers are not even necessary. Neuroscientists speaking or writing about it from a place of knowledge and authority would do.

            Peer-review is important. It’s also flawed esp with regards to medical research. Saying that it’s the gold standard to the exclusion of other knowlege bases is a way of making science elitist. Then a whole bunch of scientists start complaining about the public being ignorant 😉

            All that btw is not an endorsement of the RNZ piece, I haven’t looked at it yet.

            • weka 9.1.1.1.2.1
              6 January 2014 at 10:19 pm

              here’s the science page link on the interviewee’s website.

              http://www.wisebrain.org/science

              • karol …
                6 January 2014 at 10:31 pm

                Trying to find the actual science, following the links via that page, weka, I end up here.

                I studied a bit of neurology way back, when I trained in special education etc. Back then it was pretty well known that all kinds of experiences enhanaced brain activity, could get parts working to a greater or less extent following brain damage…. music and dance therapy can be good too.

                It doesn’t surprise me that meditation etc, or reading novels has a positive impact on the brain.

      • phillip ure 9.2.1
        6 January 2014 at 10:13 pm

        @karol..yes i saw that one..

        ..but surely it is not either/or..?

        ..just do both..

        ..phillip ure..

        • karol 9.2.1.1
          6 January 2014 at 10:17 pm

          There are many ways to get the brain working, and in diverse ways. This is not revolutionary.

          • phillip ure 9.2.1.1.1
            7 January 2014 at 6:25 am

            it is actually ‘revolutionary’..karol..

            ..did you even listen to the interview..?

            ..or are you making this pronouncement from a position of ignorance/unheard..?..

            ..does the ‘religious’ aspect of it scare you..?

            ..relax..!

            ..secular-practices such as t.m/meditation/yoga – will do the same thing for you..

            this is what i found ‘revolutionary’..both that and the proof/evidence of (visible) physical-strengthenings in the brain..

            ..were you not impressed by that..?

            ..or is yr sneer from a fists-stuffed-in-ears-position..?

            ..is yr dismissal basically an orifice-pluck..?

            ..and you haven’t even listened to what you so easily dismissed..?

            ..really..?

            phillip ure..

            • karol 9.2.1.1.1.1
              7 January 2014 at 7:33 am

              Mate, I said I have learned a fair bit about neurology in the past, and ways to improve the brain and, related body functionings – ways that alter the physical make up of the brain. So I just don’t find it at all surprising that mediation etc physically strengthens the brain. Not that revolutionary a finding to me.

              • phillip ure …
                7 January 2014 at 8:00 am

                ok..so you haven’t…heh..!

                ..you already ‘know it all’..eh..?..and with this ‘knowledge’ you have..

                ..and if you already ‘know’ what these new findings are..

                do you put it to practical use in yr own life..?

                ..do you even know what i am talking about..?

                ..and….is this the only area where there is nothing left for you to know..?

                ..carry on..!

                phillip ure..

  10. captain hook 10
    6 January 2014 at 10:10 am

    Its official:
    wail boil is “COLLECTING” the s.l.a.
    what a guy!

  11. Pete 11
    6 January 2014 at 10:23 am

    What happened to the post on Garth George? Down the memory hole?

  12. Tracey 12
    6 January 2014 at 10:28 am

    “Seduced into evil

    In fact, the classic electric shock experiment by social psychologist Stanley Milgram, PhD, showed that when given an order by someone in authority, people would deliver what they believed to be extreme levels of electrical shock to other study participants who answered questions incorrectly.

    Zimbardo said the experiment provides several lessons about how situations can foster evil:

    Provide people with an ideology to justify beliefs for actions.

    Make people take a small first step toward a harmful act with a minor, trivial action and then gradually increase those small actions.

    Make those in charge seem like a “just authority.”

    Transform a once compassionate leader into a dictatorial figure.

    Provide people with vague and ever-changing rules.

    Relabel the situation’s actors and their actions to legitimize the ideology.

    Provide people with social models of compliance.

    Allow dissent, but only if people continue to comply with orders.

    Make exiting the situation difficult.”

    http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct04/goodbad.aspx

  13. Puckish Rogue 13
    6 January 2014 at 11:03 am

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/editorials/9577985/Minnows-need-to-beware-the-elephants

    Or maybe Obama likes to play golf and gets on well at a personal level with Key and since both were in Hawaii why not have a game? I think the dompost is clutching at straws.

  14. Morrissey 14
    6 January 2014 at 11:22 am

    Next time you hear someone praise Abe Lincoln, bring out this article….

    “Ordered that of the Indians and Half-breeds sentenced to be hanged by the military commission, composed of Colonel Crooks, Lt. Colonel Marshall, Captain Grant, Captain Bailey, and Lieutenant Olin, and lately sitting in Minnesota, you cause to be executed on Friday the nineteenth day of December, instant, the following names, to wit [39 names listed by case number of record: cases 2, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, 22, 24, 35, 67, 68, 69, 70, 96, 115, 121, 138, 155, 170, 175, 178, 210, 225, 254, 264, 279, 318, 327, 333, 342, 359, 373, 377, 382, 383].

    The other condemned prisoners you will hold subject to further orders, taking care that they neither escape, nor are subjected to any unlawful violence.

    Abraham Lincoln,
    President of the United States”

    On December 6 (1862) President Lincoln notified Sibley that he should “cause to be executed” thirty-nine of the 303 convicted Santees, Execution date was the 26th of December. At the last minute, one Indian was given a reprieve. About ten o’clock the thirty-eight condemned men were marched from the prison to the scaffold. They sang the Sioux death song until soldiers pulled white caps over their heads and placed nooses around their necks. At a signal from an army officer, the control rope was cut and thirty-eight Santee Sioux dangled lifeless in the air.

    A spectator boasted that this was “America’s greatest public execution.”

    Read more…..
    http://www.unitednativeamerica.com/hanging.html

  15. Adele 15
    6 January 2014 at 11:27 am

    Kiaora Saarbo

    Prejudice much?

    Iwi Maori farming practice has evolved to align more closely with our cultural and spiritual values represented in the principle of ‘kaitiakitanga.’ Our people have never wholly accepted the commodification of the natural world and the subsequent rape of its resources to fuel profit and greed. Our business leaders are unlearning traditional business thinking and taking on board quadruple, or more, bottom-lines. If you had bothered to investigate further with a simple Google search you would have found this:

    “The Eyrewell farming development is 40km northwest of Christchurch and sits within the takiwā (tribal area) of Ngāi Tahu hapu (sub-tribe), Ngāi Tūāhuriri. Ngāi Tahu Farming began dairy farming on the site in 2012.

    The Mana Whenua Working Party is made up of members of Ngāi Tahu hapu who hold mana whenua (authority) over the Hurunui and Waimakariri River catchments associated with Ngāi Tahu Farming’s Eyrewell and Balmoral developments.

    Cultural and environmental aspirations have been the top priorities for mana whenua, says Ngāi Tūāhuriri Chair and member of the Mana Whenua Working Party, Clare Williams.

    “Our main concern is nutrient levels in waterways. We don’t want our farms to adversely affect our waterways because that’s where we get our kai from,” says Clare.

    The environmental monitoring of Ngāi Tahu Eyrewell Dairy Farms will involve direct measurements of nitrate leaching losses. Lysimeters (large tubes containing undisturbed columns of soil) will be used to measure the nitrate leaching loss in drainage water. The lysimeters will be installed in an on-farm facility on farm one. This facility will be constructed within a monitor paddock on the dairy farm. The facility will also serve as an on-farm laboratory suitable for visitors to inspect.

    Ngāi Tahu Property Chief Executive Tony Sewell says the research is forward-thinking and will allow us to better manage our farming businesses.

    “We are pleased to be teaming up with the expertise of Lincoln University. The research will give us valuable and accurate insight into the impact we are having on the environment. Understanding our impact will help us to make educated farming decisions to minimize the movement of harmful contaminants, it will ensure we are at the forefront of dairying and that we are doing our best to uphold Ngāi Tahu values,” says Tony.

    The biodiversity programme will protect and expand vegetation remnants within the farms and enhance the future trajectory of the ecological restoration. More than 150 hectares is already set-aside for native plants and animals. This project will provide a template for establishment, monitoring and enhancement of native habitats, focussing on the ecological and environmental benefits of restoration planting. The goal is to add value to the Ngāi Tahu Farming development at Eyrewell, which will provide a template for dairy farms in the future.

    In my neck of the woods we have recently retired over 500 ha of farm land to be replanted in both natives and exotic trees. It took 170 plus years to have the lands returned to us under the treaty settlement process. These lands will never be sold off and therefore our farming practices must reflect sustainable methods way into the future.

    • Te Reo Putake 15.1
      6 January 2014 at 11:41 am

      Thanks for the explanation, Adele. I think you owe Saarbo an apology. There’s no obvious prejudice in his comment that I can see and even if the owners minimise the damage done, damage will still be done. Big dairying is bad, no matter who does it.

      • Adele 15.1.1
        6 January 2014 at 6:06 pm

        Te Reo Putake

        I owe Saarbo diddly squat. What’s with the “ I bet it ends up employing lots and lots of Philipino workers” line? Tell me what Māori farm currently does this? Actually for that matter what farm in NZ employs Philippine workers?

        Dairying is a fact of life in this country and while tangata whenua would prefer not to be involved in such industries we are committed to making these industries work for us in a way that is sustainable in the long run and aligns with our values.

        • Te Reo Putake 15.1.1.1
          6 January 2014 at 7:07 pm

          “What’s with the “ I bet it ends up employing lots and lots of Philipino workers” line?”

          Um, filipino workers make up a significant number of migrant labour being used and abused on our farms, Adele. Google it.

          You owe Saarbo an apology.

        • weka 15.1.1.2
          6 January 2014 at 7:50 pm

          “Dairying is a fact of life in this country and while tangata whenua would prefer not to be involved in such industries we are committed to making these industries work for us in a way that is sustainable in the long run and aligns with our values.”

          As I said below, I don’t believe the industrial/export dairy model can ever be sustainable, but it’s good to see changes being attempted. However, I do also wonder at how often Maori are expected to not use their resources for their own people in the ways that Pakeha do, and are supposed to somehow magic up a new, perfect model of doing pretty much everything in ways that satisfy Pakeha notions of what’s ok. Despite Pakeha not even coming close to their own ideals.

    • Ennui 15.2
      6 January 2014 at 11:45 am

      Adele, I hope that Ngai Tahu can make this a beacon of hope on the Plains. Myself, knowing what I do of the soils, geography and climate have little faith that there can be any success within the current economic framework of dairying: I would welcome being proved wrong.

      Good news on regaining and retiring land: I see returning land to iwi / hapu as one of the most important strategies we can adopt for both social equity and to save/Aotearoa from foreign ownership,

      • Morrissey 15.2.1
        6 January 2014 at 11:51 am

        Listening to those Ngai Tahu spokesmen talking, both recently and in the past, I dread what they have planned or will consent to having done on their land. They sound like, and often are, members of the National Party, and they seem to have about as much respect and care for their whenua as, say, Conor English.

        • marty mars 15.2.1.1
          6 January 2014 at 12:27 pm

          As a member of the iwi I am not a supporter of this development. However there are a lot of checks and many eyes watching so i think the iwi and hapū representatives will do their best to minimise pollution from the dairy farm. But when you take water from the awa for dairy farming that degrades it. Personally I would have preferred Organic small scale sustainable operations – and I actually told them that.

          As for you moz yes I’m sure they are members of any and all political parties but your assertion regarding care of the ‘whenua’ is stupid – you ‘seem’ wrong and rather than ‘seem’ why not check out all of the various ways the tikanga is maintained. You seem to display as much care and respect for tangata whenua as any of the gnats.

          • Morrissey 15.2.1.1.1
            6 January 2014 at 12:58 pm

            I’m sure they are members of any and all political parties….
            The leadership? They’re solidly National Party. Which raises the question: why does the rest of the iwi tolerate such a situation?

            The Ngai Tahu corporation hasn’t shown much care or respect for the Asian crews on the fishing boats they run. Let’s hope they treat their own people with a bit more aroha.

            • marty mars 15.2.1.1.1.1
              6 January 2014 at 1:22 pm

              you are out of our depth moz and dog-paddle ain’t going to cut it – the leadership? who exactly are you talking about – rūnanga representatives? kaiwhakahaere? commercial arm of the iwi? Stick to listening to leighton mate or talking about the RWC – you sadly display no nous for this stuff – read up a little and become educated my friend before you embarrass yourself further 🙂

              • Morrissey …
                6 January 2014 at 2:11 pm

                …you are out of our depth moz

                No I’m not out of my depth. I can read and follow what is happening in Ngai Tahu as much as anyone else can, and it’s clear that a small clique of well connected businessmen wield the power there just as a small National Party clique (Georgina Te Heuheu’s family) dominates Ngāti Tūwharetoa, and a small political elite dominates Tainui.

                There are many reasons I, and many others, have looked with mounting disquiet at what Ngai Tahu has been doing….

                1.) Its involvement in the brutal mistreatment of overseas fishing crews…..
                http://www.dol.govt.nz/News/Media/2012/2012-foreign-charter-vessels.pdf

                2.) I’m concerned by the people who are routinely allowed to speak for Ngai Tahu—people like Mark Solomon, who has some very disturbing views indeed. For example, in 2010 he expressed his approval of the notorious private prison company Serco, telling Guyon Espiner that he was “blown away in the way that they deal with their prisoners…. We’re completely impressed.”
                http://tvnz.co.nz/q-and-a-news/q-mark-solomon-interview-3580452

                3.) Worse was to come, however. A couple of years ago, Solomon made a point of betraying other Māori and publicly backing John Key’s flogging off of our public assets. As with his backing of private prisons, this anti-Māori posturing earned Solomon some fulsome praise from the rabid right….
                http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/tag/mark-solomon/

                4.) In 2012, Shane Taurima keelhauled Solomon for his craven behaviour in a memorable televised interrogation….
                http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1210/S00338/qa-shane-taurima-interviews-mark-solomon.htm

                5.) Solomon has also been less than forthright in his denials that he might commit Ngai Tahu to get involved in one of John Banks’s harebrained “charter school” projects.

                Now if you can demonstrate I have been unfair to Mark Solomon—the public face of Ngai Tahu—then I will accept your charge that I have “no nous for this stuff”, and will return to my normal dismal task of logging the idiocy of Hatin’ Leighton and his colleagues.

                By the way, I’ll bet that at some time in the last few years, Hatin’ Leighton has stepped away from his normal programme of reading out articles from the Spectator and foaming about Barack Obama’s communist plotting to take over the world to announce how much he is impressed by Mark Solomon.

                • enjoy every sandwich …
                  6 January 2014 at 2:15 pm

                  thanks for the info, morrissey

                • marty mars …
                  6 January 2014 at 2:39 pm

                  Yes some like Mark and others don’t and yes he is kaiwhakahaere and that role is often the public face of the iwi. I find myself disagreeing with many of his views. I don’t like the way the fishing has developed – too much ‘market’, let alone the poor condition that some crew experience. I don’t like serco or charter schools or selling our assets. So for each example you have dug out I am generally opposed to Mark’s view. Keep trawling the news moz I am sure your knowledge will continue to increase exponentially…

                  My attempt at humour at 1.22 was obviously not funny for you – next time I’ll put 2 smiley faces…

                  • Morrissey …
                    6 January 2014 at 2:53 pm

                    I’m sorry, marty, I did get your little joke and I did appreciate it at the time. You know, deadpan non-acknowledgement is my modus operandi; one of the reasons I can hardly bear listening to Jim Mora’s program sometimes is the way that he feels obliged to acknowledge every single quip with a dutiful “That’s very funny!”—rendered all the worse by his patent insincerity. So I did get your little dig.

                    I appreciate your comments, and I hope it doesn’t look like I’m absolutely opposed to Sir Mark; I recognise that he is an intelligent and accomplished man, and I respect him in spite of some misgivings. It’s just that I get concerned sometimes that there is a lack of democracy and that the iwi corporations are acting just like the “private tyrannies” that Noam Chomsky describes.

                    • weka …
                      6 January 2014 at 3:09 pm

                      I don’t know the Chomsky reference, but it’s the ‘just like’ bit in your comment that I have a problem with. There may be issues with how Ngai Tahu does business, but saying they are the same as Pakeha business is inaccurate and stops us really understanding. I want to see the differences, understand the diversity, because that will help us out of the mess.

                      This is the problem with the original comment. Someone reports that RNZ reported x about Ngai Tahu. When we see Adele’s comment we see there is in fact a lot more to it. That more to it is important. Seems to be my theme currently, we have to get our targets right.

                    • Morrissey …
                      6 January 2014 at 3:27 pm

                      I don’t know the Chomsky reference, but it’s the ‘just like’ bit in your comment that I have a problem with. There may be issues with how Ngai Tahu does business, but saying they are the same as Pakeha business is inaccurate and stops us really understanding.

                      Fair comment, weka.

                      By the way, here’s Chomsky talking about private tyrannies, AKA corporations…
                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmrfWF3S4Tk

                      If you’ve got a couple of hours to spare…

                    • marty mars …
                      6 January 2014 at 3:36 pm

                      All good – I broke my own, self imposed, rule on that one and deserved a good put down. For me ts isn’t really a safe space to discuss this stuff and i usually leave alone unless the errors are really glaring or horrible. The fact is there is no context and to create the context and then discuss/argue the merits each way takes massive time and energy – which frankly i don’t have and don’t have the inclination to acquire.

                • weka …
                  6 January 2014 at 2:46 pm

                  Morrisey,

                  By public face, I take it you mean to Pakeha NZ. Why exactly should Kai Tahu care about that?

                  How about you give us your analysis of how Solomon fits into the overall power structures within Ngai Tahu?

                  Most of what you just wrote expresses Pakeha political views. Are you suggesting that Maori, specifically Ngai Tahu, should adhere to those?

                  Solomon is one person (and we still don’t know who he votes for). Who are all these other leaders who are National Party members/voters?

                  • Morrissey …
                    6 January 2014 at 3:16 pm

                    Morrisey, By public face, I take it you mean to Pakeha NZ.
                    I’m sure most people, whether Māori or Pakeha, regard Sir Mark Solomon as the leader of Kai Tahu, just as they did Tipene O’Regan before him.

                    Why exactly should Kai Tahu care about that?
                    If Kai Tahu wants to pretend that public discourse and politics do not matter, then you’re correct, they need not worry about the public perception of Sir Mark’s comments. If they want to live in the real world, such things matter very much indeed.

                    How about you give us your analysis of how Solomon fits into the overall power structures within Ngai Tahu?
                    He is obviously the kaiwhakahaere, and I know he has an immense amount of influence on all aspects of governance in Kai Tahu.

                    Most of what you just wrote expresses Pakeha political views.
                    That’s not correct. I know thoughtful Māori are very concerned about the behaviour of certain powerful but virtually unaccountable leaders—and not just in Kai Tahu.

                    Are you suggesting that Maori, specifically Ngai Tahu, should adhere to those?
                    Some Ngai Tahu will, some won’t. But it’s not just a Pakeha thing—-I hope not anyway.

                    Solomon is one person (and we still don’t know who he votes for).
                    Let’s see: he has publicly stated his admiration for an infamous private prison company; he has broken ranks with other Māori and announced his support for the Key regime’s selling off of our public assets; he has failed to make a principled statement rejecting the National/ACT imposition of “charter schools” on the devastated children, parents and teachers of Canterbury. That spells National, surely? Or if he does not vote National, there are two other options: (a) he belongs to the Shane Jones wing of the Labour Party or (b) he has been lobotomized and has joined the science-deniers, doctor-bashers and grave-robbers in ACT.

                    Who are all these other leaders who are National Party members/voters?
                    The iwi leaderships are full of them.

                    • weka …
                      6 January 2014 at 9:17 pm

                      “Most of what you just wrote expresses Pakeha political views.”
                      That’s not correct. I know thoughtful Māori are very concerned about the behaviour of certain powerful but virtually unaccountable leaders—and not just in Kai Tahu.

                      Obviously. But the analysis is different IMO to what you have just done.

                      I’ll give an example. I know people (Pakeha as it happens) who like the idea of Charter Schools, not because they’re rightwing, but because they can see that it gives alternative education some power and control. These are people who think the mainstream education system is competely dysfunctional in terms of basic philosophies around teaching children usefully. So they put Charter Schools in a completely different context than you do. They don’t see education policy in terms of National vs Labour, because to them both are woefully inadequate.

                      Likewise, when I hear Maori talking about the value of having contracts to deliver welfare services to their people, it makes sense to me, because they are being so badly failed by mainstream welfare. We can jump up and down and shout “privatisation is bad”, but that just fails as well. (Part of the problem there would be solved if Maori were allowed sovereignty to run things for themselves the way they know works ie don’t see Iwi as ‘private’).

                      So, when you make a list of all the terrible things that Mark Solomon says and does, it’s not that I think you have no valid points, it’s that until you can make those points in the cultural context that Solomon is operating within, then those points are fairly meaningless. By this I mean in the sense that they don’t take us anywhere particularly useful. They just point yet another stick at Ngai Tahu and say x, y, z wrong there, which just feeds another whole thread of racism into NZ society.

                  • Morrissey …
                    6 January 2014 at 3:52 pm

                    For me ts isn’t really a safe space to discuss this stuff and i usually leave alone unless the errors are really glaring or horrible. The fact is there is no context and to create the context and then discuss/argue the merits each way takes massive time and energy

                    I know exactly what you mean. I think the same whenever I hear Pakeha commentators discussing such matters. Whether it’s the outright hostile, even racist commentators (Sean Plunket, Michael Laws, Leighton Smith, Larry “Lackwit” Williams) or even the “well meaning” ones, the treatment of iwi politics is nearly always substandard.

                    I understand your concern.

          • Ennui 15.2.1.1.2
            6 January 2014 at 1:58 pm

            Mars, pleased you made the stance you did. It is the only one that makes sense to me, though it strains the commercial imperative somewhat.

            Years back we did work with Lincoln scientists to ascertain the moister retention and soil retention (from wind erosion) in grass behind shelter belts on the plains. This was in aid of avoiding border dyke irrigation, and abstraction from the Rakaia. Grass growth behind shelter belts came out well in front when the other costs were totaled. Bluntly for every reason not related to the economics of cheap energy and fertilisers dairying on the plains makes no sense.

    • Tracey 15.3
      6 January 2014 at 2:07 pm

      thanks for the information

    • weka 15.4
      6 January 2014 at 2:39 pm

      Kiaora Adele,

      thanks for that information, as always the real story comes out later when it comes to te Ao Maori. I have no trouble believing that Kai Tahu are generally doing better than their tau iwi neighbours when it comes to kaitiakitanga and farming practices. For me, there is no ethical way to do industrial, export dairy, esp in that landscape. It’s always a loss. The things named in your post are very encouraging, and one thing I would hope would come out of this, as well as the local effect, is for other mainstream farmers to be influenced and shown a different way. That Lincoln are involved is also encouraging, because of their power to influence widely. I do agree with marty though, that there were other paths here. The core model being chosen is inherently unsustainable from land regeneration, AGW and Peak Oil/Everything perspectives.

      I also take the view that there tends to be prejudice in critiquing Ngai Tahu’s business practices, and that critique instead should be done intelligently and from an informed perspective taking culture into account, which it usually isn’t. Still so hard for pakeha to look at things in any way other than through their own lenses.

    • phillip ure 15.5
      6 January 2014 at 5:21 pm

      yeah..a major industrial dairy-farm will be good for the environment…

      ..(excuse me while i pick myself up off the floor..i fell there..laughing..)

      ..and no thoughts on the product to be peddled causing cancer/diabetes etc..?

      ..(and ultimate-irony)..especially amongst the owners..?

      ..it’s all ‘good!’..eh..?..)

      ..why don’t they use their power for ‘good’..f.f.s..!

      ..follow the lead of james cameron..

      ..he bought huge dairy-holdings..in the wairarapa..

      ..and is now converting them back to growing ‘real’-food..

      ..why t.f. do ngai tahu..(and others..).. want to just do more of what has fucked the country in the first place..?..

      ..am i the only one face-palming over this..?

      ..(as we all morris-dance on the heads of pins..over how ‘ethical’ some animal concentration-camps are or aren’t..?..)

      ..why don’t they drop james cameron an email..?

      ..i am sure he would be glad to help/advise..

      phillip ure..

    • Saarbo 15.6
      6 January 2014 at 8:08 pm

      Sorry about the late reply Adele…thanks for the reply and great to read your response.

      My understanding is that a huge number of the South Island dairy farms are being worked by a mix of foreigner’s, mostly Philipino…if the farms were a bit smaller, say 300 to 500 cows it would be a hell of a lot easier to get local workers. Large farms are incredibly tedious to work on, cupping 800 cows twice a day is one of the most soul sapping jobs around (Ive done it, Ive also milked smaller herds, so I know what Im talking about). But if Ngai Tahu are going to employ local and put the effort into protecting the environment then I have absolutely NO problem with what they are doing…if Ngai Tahu are going to pollute the local environment then they probably have more rights to do that than the local pakeha farmers.

      • phillip ure 15.6.1
        6 January 2014 at 8:38 pm

        @ sarbo..

        “.if Ngai Tahu are going to pollute the local environment then they probably have more rights to do that than the local pakeha farmers..”

        are you fucken kidding me..?

        phillip ure..

      • Adele 15.6.2
        7 January 2014 at 8:38 am

        Kiaora Saarbo

        I do owe you an apology for suggesting that your comments were motivated by prejudice.

        Personally, I would rather dial everything back to before 1800 when life was definitely much more hunter-gather-ish and small-scale. However, we are in the 21st century and are products of the modern age. Our reality is so vastly different from those of our tūpuna.

        As a child I used to love collecting eggs from free-range chickens. As an adult, I had the opportunity to revisit these child hood memories on visiting a friend’s lifestyle block. I was mortified to find eggs covered in chicken crap. Out came the hand sanitiser followed by the Samsung Galaxy to research the efficacy of hand sanitiser on the likelihood of developing histoplamosis symptomatology post egg harvest.

        Māori business practice is evolving and for the better as our business leaders are having to align their business practice to more closely fit with the principles we espouse as Māori. The rigid ‘for profit’ business model is no longer tenable in an age where growth is no longer possible without extreme prejudice to the environment. Ngai Tahu are being watched by many eyes so let’s see how evolved their thinking has become.

        • Saarbo 15.6.2.1
          7 January 2014 at 1:42 pm

          Thanks Adele,

          “Māori business practice is evolving and for the better as our business leaders are having to align their business practice to more closely fit with the principles we espouse as Māori. The rigid ‘for profit’ business model is no longer tenable in an age where growth is no longer possible without extreme prejudice to the environment…”

          That is fantastic if Maori achieve that, it will be challenging. Dairy farming does have scope for improvement, Ive seen worker rights really take some huge backward steps in dairy farming, instead of dairy farmers meeting the market and paying workers the market rate and also improving conditions they have simply lobbied for overseas workers who are desperate…its just something that really annoys me.

          Good luck with the dairy project, I know Whakatohia in Opotiki (much smaller than Ngai Tahu) are running dairy farms with locals..and they relatively large dairy units.

  16. Treetop 16
    6 January 2014 at 11:48 am

    “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”

    Albert Einstein

    • phillip ure 16.1
      6 January 2014 at 5:28 pm

      @ treetop..+1..

      (..and the conclusion..?)

      ..that way lies madness..

      phillip ure..

    • SHG (not Colonial Viper) 16.2
      7 January 2014 at 6:34 pm

      A wonderful moral lesson from the man who wrote to US President Roosevelt suggesting that the US should commence a nuclear weapons program.

  17. Draco T Bastard 17
    6 January 2014 at 12:00 pm

    Sea Shepherd Locates Whale Poachers

    The Steve Irwin’s helicopter first located the Nisshin Maru at 64°44′ S, 162°34′ W, in New Zealand’s sovereign waters in the Ross Dependency Antarctic region, and inside the internationally recognised Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.

    Sea Shepherd has obtained compelling footage and images of three dead protected Minke Whales on the deck of the Nisshin Maru, taken at the time the factory ship was first located. A fourth whale, believed to be a Minke, was being butchered on the bloodstained deck.

    I wonder what our government will say to this.

    • Tracey 17.1
      6 January 2014 at 2:06 pm

      nothing is my guess

    • ScottGN 17.2
      6 January 2014 at 10:01 pm

      McCully has already started the weasel words and has issued a statement saying the Ross Dependency is not NZ sovereign waters. We just have search and rescue responsibility for it. So I guess it belongs to us when we want to exploit the shit that’s in it but doesn’t belong to us if that means upsetting the Japanese?

  18. Pete 18
    6 January 2014 at 2:19 pm

    David Shearer seems to have found his footing as foreign affairs spokesman.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/9578995/NZs-reputation-great-asset-in-UN-quest

    • Draco T Bastard 18.1
      6 January 2014 at 4:33 pm

      We’re not the puppet of any master: we are independent and honest.

      Yeah, I’m gonna call BS on that one – especially under the present government.

      • Tim 18.1.1
        6 January 2014 at 5:10 pm

        “We’re not the puppet of any master: we are independent and honest.”
        Once upon a time, MAYBE perceived as being so ….. now more and more being perceived as a croc of shit BY more and more.
        Let’s see how it all pans out (i.e./e.g. in our quest for SC seat).
        BTW …. I keep asking myself – how did that little trade mission jaunt to Sth America pan out early last year. Real successful according to Key!
        Well tick that one off the list! Next stop India aye?
        Increasingly, let me assure them – that perceived honesty and independence is becoming about as relevant as a spin doctor’s advice – especially the likes of Hooten’s, or that Mr I’m-inclined-to-agree-with-you-Mathew’s

      • phillip ure 18.1.2
        6 January 2014 at 5:25 pm

        @ draco..and the previous one..

        phillip ure..

  19. Ad 19
    6 January 2014 at 7:23 pm

    Helpful summary on Sir Mark there Morrissey. It’s an odd regional-grotesque capitalist variant all right.

  20. jcuknz 20
    6 January 2014 at 8:58 pm

    After all the abuse awhile back I received on the subject I found this report on KB interesting
    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/01/ny_charter_schools.html

    • McFlock 20.1
      6 January 2014 at 9:12 pm

      LoTR was also “interesting”.
      Maybe one day you’ll figure out how to judge the reliability of a source.

      • jcuknz 20.1.1
        7 January 2014 at 7:54 am

        It is hard to sort the chaff from the wheat with bias and mis use of statistics coming from both sides … frankly I am ambivilent on the subject and think the experiement should continue unhinderd until some reliable answers become apparent …. I picked several holes in the KB article and the sarcasm of David was unhelpful. With some cherry-picking while others handle the dross is bound to make for misleading statistics.

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 20.1.1.1
          7 January 2014 at 8:01 am

          Can you show some examples of bias and misuse of statistics coming from the pro-education (ie: teachers’ unions, left wing parties) “side”?

          Or even one single example?

          Put up or shut up.

          • McFlock 20.1.1.1.1
            7 January 2014 at 1:07 pm

            personally I’m sick of that fucking “both sides do it”-style argument.
            It’s essentially an admission that the speaker cannot demonstrate that they are in a “good”, morally or logically defensible position, so all they can do is muddy the waters enough to pretend equivalence with opposing positions.

            • jcuknz 20.1.1.1.1.1
              12 January 2014 at 4:29 pm

              Since most here are expressing opinions rather than facts I think my opinions are as valid as anybody elses …. I have yet to be convinced by the arguments of the teachers which sound to me to be largely job protectionism cloaked in high sounding principles

              • McFlock …
                12 January 2014 at 5:09 pm

                most people here can provide facts to support their opinions when asked. You – not so much

                • jcuknz …
                  13 January 2014 at 5:01 pm

                  I was discussing this subject at least a year or so ago and frankly have forgotten details, it simply isn’t that important to me in my second childhood and grandchild overseas finishing her education … so without taking sides I drew the article to your attention … but as we all know, when we are honest with ourselves, we tend to only read what we agree with though I have a receptive audience for Nasska’s jokes so visit KB for them … as important as anything else I read there.

  21. Draco T Bastard 21
    7 January 2014 at 12:33 am

    Judge Napolitano: How to get fired from Fox in under 5 mins
    Lots of questions that, apparently, Fox News didn’t like.