Open mike 07/02/2011

110 comments on “Open mike 07/02/2011 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Policy Parrot 1

   7 February 2011 at 6:17 am

   I can’t say I was really surprised when I read this article – “Parrots tend to be lefties” – except perhaps that it wasn’t a more informal news source.

   [lprent: 🙂 ]
   • ZeeBop 1.1

     7 February 2011 at 6:32 am

     A town gets a bypass, they lose passing trade (local) for the possibility of large global trade (free trade). Now they have to attract travellers to stop at their town and spend, trade. Some of the town fathers choose whores and no parking fees, others want cafes and artists to target the higher spending tourism dollar and want to pay for the up keep of the pavement by parking fees, others still think that they should be the next silicon valley, or financial hub of the world. How do we know which NZ is? Well there’s a risk premium on investing in NZ due to the fact that we don’t have parking fees for capital gain, and so are left destitute, exporting skilled people and putting up brothels. NZ towns know they want parking fees, nice range of cafes, but Wellington Beehives want brothels and no parking fees on capital gains.
     • prism 1.1.1

       7 February 2011 at 9:14 am

       Good analogy zb. I would like to include in the advantages to towns., a return on every GST $ spent there from central government to local govt. Reward for increasing business and to help provide needed facilities for the visitors, then available for locals.
       • ZeeBop 1.1.1.1

         7 February 2011 at 7:06 pm

         http://www.stuff.co.nz/blogs/opinion/4626376/A-future-path-for-New-Zealand
         You get the message, I get the message, but it seems the smart people don’t.
         If we get lots of weeds maybe we should start weeding.
         Maybe we should look at nurturing people and communities, spread the tax burden further (and onto a CGT), and stop the farce that is NZ won’t deal with, that if we wave people through our country faster, they aren’t going to stop! No parking fees on capital gains, the growth farming industry in NZ is capital gain farming, its cheap to take profit, far to cheap to take profit, and that is at the core of why we fall behind Australia and others. We make it too easy to make a bundle of money selling out to foreign investors. We work hard, we have all the resources, education and ability but we don’t get on the race track because someone sold it off.
         If one of the top scientists doesn’t get that, and its not rocket science, then it must be too hard for the elite to change direction, to honestly debate, and that’s a national calamity.
         • Colonial Viper 1.1.1.1.1

           7 February 2011 at 7:21 pm

           I’ve been taught by Callaghan many years ago (as have tens of thousands of NZ’ers) and I like what he has to say. He’s expressed himself rather apolitically here but I doubt that he is actually apolitical.
           • ZeeBop 1.1.1.1.1.1

             8 February 2011 at 8:14 am

             He’s no idiot, but he idiotically nails the problem without dealing with the underlying realities, that AK housing is even more unaffordable than NY housing, that more of those thousands of NZ’ers he taught have left NZ shores for good. How can you say he did not know that, the lack of a capital gains tax, the lack of credible scientific leaders willing to do some basic diligence into the woeful way NZ is run, for the needs of global speculators. Oh, yeah, that’s it, he gets grants, his daily bread comes from the same system that he is endeavoring to stablize by failing to address the issues facing NZ, or worse addressing them and then come up with nothing substantial worth changing. The guys no idiot alright, and his position is political, he’s providing reassurance and consent to the status quo that even he admits isn’t working. Great teacher, great insight but as a political commentator he suks worse than bad eggs.
2. logie97 2

   7 February 2011 at 7:27 am

   John Key has been at pains to say that the Maori Party issues are theirs and theirs alone – nothing to do with him. He has been quick to stick his oar in this morning however.
   Well done John (let’s see how the wind blows) Key.
3. jcuknz 3

   7 February 2011 at 8:21 am

   As this blog pursues its endless and boring denigration of John Key it seems to me that the highly intelligent and knowledgeable are forgetting a simple fact of politics in a democracy that you have to have popular support, David Lange and Helen Clark had it and now John Key does. I would have thought that the recent Yahoo poll illustrated how out of touch writers here are and this mornings poll seems similar.. I used to look forward to coming here and reading sensible left wing points of view, rather than the trash-wars at Kiwiblog, but these days it is because I have not deleted the URL from my favourites as I do my daily walk around the sites, ever optomistic.
   • orange whip? 3.1

     7 February 2011 at 8:40 am

     jcuknz, you forgot to do the bit about how you used to vote Labour all the time too etc.
     • jcuknz 3.1.1

       7 February 2011 at 2:54 pm

       Orange whip ….I have never voted Labour and the one person I did foolishly vote for once before MMP arrived turned out to be completely ineffectual as a minister in the last Government and now resorts to pointless muck raking.. So OW your cynicism completely misses the mark. Try again.
       • orange whip? 3.1.1.1

         7 February 2011 at 4:08 pm

         I’d be happy to if I had any idea what you just typed. I think there are some words missing.
         • logie97 3.1.1.1.1

           8 February 2011 at 12:09 am

           @jcuknz – not sure who you are directing your comments to – anyone in particular? (Like the addage “you know where the off switch is on the TV,”
           similar applies here. But I suspect you cannot help yourself and you will keep passing by… and the truth is the comments about your dear leader are beginning to cut it)

           What I do know is that, the leader of our country from 1999 to 2008, was subjected to some of the nastiest commentary from a whole lot of people who should have known better – (O’Sullivan, Armstrong, Young, Hooten, Holmes et al)
           – popular? – she started out hugely.
           – any truth in comments about her personal life? – none whatsoever, but the lies were constantly peddled, directly or by innuendo.

           Boag and Brash had a coordinated attack regarding corruption – was complete bs, you know it, but it all became tiresome and distracting.

           Some commenters on this blog site highlight the two-faced nature of our current PM – as someone who is media image driven and appears to be of extremely shallow or immature nature. Time will tell, and all we are doing is highlighting the cracks in the man’s makeup. Remember the campaign about “Trust” (of course you do…) It may come back to bite him yet.

           captcha – incorrect
           • jcuknz 3.1.1.1.1.1

             8 February 2011 at 9:56 am

             Because I value ‘The Standard’ as the best blog I am aware off, apart from special interest blogs I visit, I made my earlier comment because I think the leader writers are heading up a wrong avenue. My comments were not directed at HC but as I said … a minister … if you had read what I wrote more carefully.. If we are going to have a right of centre government in New Zealand then I am happier with John Key than anybody else. Often people gun for the bad only to get even worse.
   • prism 3.2

     7 February 2011 at 9:21 am

     Oh right, another morning, another day of watching John Key lead us confidently towards the cliff. Farmers lose a lot of sheep that way. In sheep flocks they often have one called a bellwether. April Fools Day project – hang a bell on his lapel, on his office door, under a whoopee cushion in his seat in parliament chambers etc.
     • jcuknz 3.2.1

       7 February 2011 at 3:00 pm

       Since sheep are inherently mountain creatures I’m sure they will find a way down the cliff which both the sheep and New Zealanders will find despite the sabotage to the effort by extreme LWNJs with their pathetic bleatings.. Don’t forget that it was a Kiwi who climbed Mt Everest first.
       • Colonial Viper 3.2.1.1

         7 February 2011 at 3:14 pm

         Yeah that generation of NZ’ers is gone jcuknz, and the remaining ones are moving to Sydney. Almost 600,000 of them.
         • jcuknz 3.2.1.1.1

           8 February 2011 at 9:40 am

           It has been said and often repeated … those going to Aussie raise the IQ level of both countries. It is only the capitalists who bemoan the loss of mugs to buy their products..
       • prism 3.2.1.2

         7 February 2011 at 9:34 pm

         Brave sally jcuknz! Definitely not sheepish.
   • millsy 3.3

     7 February 2011 at 9:56 pm

     Piss off jcuknz.

     We dont want grumpy old pricks like you who want to force us back to the good old days of the 1950’s.

     You know where spousal rape was legal, etc.

     John key is a nasty person, who hates those who earn less than $50,000 a year. That is a FACT.

     [deleted]

     [lprent: you are starting to attract my attention. I would suggest pausing to review your writing before sending the send button because you could find you’re unable to use that button shortly otherwise. This appears to me to be pointless abuse. ]
4. Herodotus 4

   7 February 2011 at 9:21 am

   So the middle class burb of Botany is to be ignored by the left, less than 4 weeeks away from poling and there is no sight or sound to be heard of an endanged species …. Labour MP’s.
   So Lab only give lip service to those electorates not held by lanb MP’s Mt Albert and Mana
   Stuff those that our new policies are aimed at… The Middle Class and immigratnts that came to NZ within the last 11 years. All talk and no action.
   http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/central-leader/4613862/Mt-Roskill-a-priority-Wood
   • mickysavage 4.1

     7 February 2011 at 9:55 am

     I bet if Wood said that he was going to campaign full time and not do his constituency duties you would be thrashing him for that. So instead you thrash him for actually trying to do both.

     You obviously do not live in Botany because if you did you would have noticed a huge number of Labour billboards go up on Saturday, if you lived in the poorer part your door would have been knocked on, and if you had been to any sort of community activity you would have met Michael.

     This complete lack of knowledge on your part does not prevent you from pontificating on how Labour has “abandoned” the electorate when the exact opposite is true.

     Do you have strongly held views on other topics you have no understanding of?
     • Herodotus 4.1.1

       7 February 2011 at 10:06 am

       MS – Before yo start get some facts without just blasting away. LAb has abandoned the Botany area and the lack of profile (to display I know the area) The traditional site for Lab bilboards cnr Chapel and Santa Anna has the billboard.
       Where is the profile say here or on Red Alert? Have a review of the histor of posts re Mana & Mt A to the date of the by election. there were posts 5 weeks out. For Botany nothing, not even a mention of Michael Wood.
       Last election Lab had a last minute change from a unionists to an academic.
       There are no notices of meetings, and I have never seen or heard of a Lab member visit the area in this, the last election or when it was part of Collins, or for that matter when Ross r held the area domain. For all her shortcommings Pansy did have a physical exposure and held many street corner meetings.
       And finally no I would not “I bet if Wood said that he was going to campaign full time and not do his constituency duties you would be thrashing him for that”.
       So M.S> where are all the big wigs from Lab? In Mama and Mt A the was an obvious presence. But then that was red territory, this has not been red since boundary changes removed it from Ross Roberstons area.
       I hope that you can pick up I am very aware of the area and its history.
     • Herodotus 4.1.2

       7 February 2011 at 10:42 am

       Also MS (or anyone else out there )as you have some possable connections with Lab, where are the lists of meetings etc that the public can attend and here what Lab is providing. there is nothing that I can see in the public arena.
       There are stories, not confirmed 1st hand yet that JK has already ben seen in the area and participated in a stree meeting.
5. Tigger 5

   7 February 2011 at 9:33 am

   Yes, but does he know why it was stupid?
   http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4624669/Key-Catwalk-mincing-a-bit-stupid

   Not because it was ‘un-PM-like’ John but because it laid bare a bunch of assumptions you make. I mean, you were pretending to be ‘gay’ right? Because only a fag would model clothes. And only poofs walk like that. And if that’s not what you were doing then please enlighten us…
   • ianmac 5.1

     7 February 2011 at 9:57 am

     Fancy Stuff even raising the question! There must be a level of discontent “out there.”
   • pollywog 5.2

     7 February 2011 at 10:07 am

     So is he faking the unusually sibilant accent as well to sound even more stereotypically gay ?
6. prism 6

   7 February 2011 at 9:49 am

   Feminists have over the years sacrificed time, themselves even to progress women’s place upwards in society. There always are a bunch of women who take it all for granted. They then do not impress on their daughters what others have done to provide opportunities to have better lives where they get respect as they move through society.

   Police report that 90 per cent of drunk and stupid people at a recent sports match were women. But this isn’t new. I have a copy of a radio documentary on our drinking culture which is very instructive – women who don’t know how much they have drunk, or who they were mingling with, despite the thought at the start of the evening that they should keep count on drinks etc.

   No wonder there are rapes etc. To men who are equally drunk and careless, it would seem that the women don’t care what happens to them, that they are out foraging for excitement and experience. So they are given it very happily by males who are then blamed for not behaving properly with these little ‘ladies’ who themselves are acting improperly.

   It’s like believing that desire and sex acts rarely occur so can be ignored. That would be obviously incorrect. And then the idea that anybody out in public is always perfectly safe, so being wary and self-protective can be ignored. That’s wrong too. Stats show that young men near pubs etc. are the ones most likely to be assaulted or murdered. The alcohol and the people overusing it result in heightened risk to irrational happenings. It is equitable that women suffer the same effects including attacks, with the extras advantages that a woman’s body provides.

   captcha – trusting! ie mix with people you can trust, and be able to trust yourself to look after your own protection. That’s what emancipated women would do.
   • higherstandard 6.1

     7 February 2011 at 10:00 am

     This country has a cultural problem with alcohol and drinking, therefore the politicians solution was to lower the purchasing age.
     • pollywog 6.1.1

       7 February 2011 at 10:11 am

       …buy wineries and kow tow to the beer barons, then reward them and themselves with titular honours
       • Pascal's bookie 6.1.1.1

         7 February 2011 at 10:39 am

         Well, if they are gonna have a War against some drugs, then there has to be medals, what.
   • Pascal's bookie 6.2

     7 February 2011 at 10:43 am

     The men are blamed for raping people Prism. Seriously bro.

     Women get pissed so ‘no wonder’ they get raped? WTF?
     • Treetop 6.2.1

       7 February 2011 at 11:49 am

       In particular men have to get it that a woman’s judgement is lacking when they are drunk and this may impair/prevent them being able to give consent to sex. Is it wise for a male to hit on a drunk woman for sex?
       • prism 6.2.1.1

         7 February 2011 at 6:27 pm

         Treetop – Why should a drunken male be in a state to be wise about sex any more than a drunken female? Why does he have to think for her? Why as an adult person can she not think for herself?

         It gets back to the man being protective of the little woman thing. I thought that women had decided they didn’t want to be protected and patronised. But then they need to take responsibility to safely manage their environment.

         But of course women as victim is the refrain, so any criticism to that status is bound to be unpopular. Victimhood means you never have to face the truth of a situation or even consider doing so.
         • mcflock 6.2.1.1.1

           7 February 2011 at 6:31 pm

           hang on prism, just to clarify, are you saying that if a woman has passed out the guy might reasonably confuse this, in his 3-drink haze, with consent for sex?
         • Pascal's bookie 6.2.1.1.2

           7 February 2011 at 6:42 pm

           So they should just accept that the environment is full of things like rain, dodgy cobblestones, and oh, rapists.

           Also, ‘be patronised or raped’, is a pretty fucked up dichotomy.

           The thing that is getting people a bit about your position is that you think the consequence for women, (being raped) is equivalent to that for men, (raping someone).

           That’s also, ‘pretty fucked up’.
           • prism 6.2.1.1.2.1

             7 February 2011 at 9:44 pm

             It appears that there can be no rational discussion about the effect of less heavy drinking by women on decreasing rape of women. Pity, it is a shattering, invasive action if it is unwanted sex. But everything discussed must first pass the standards set no doubt by numerous workshops and women’s studies papers. The correct way of thinking is thus, and any deviance is deviant.
             • McFlock …

               7 February 2011 at 10:21 pm

               “It appears that there can be no rational discussion about the effect of less heavy drinking by women on decreasing rape of women. ”

               Oh, RATIONAL discussion. Yep, we’ve all ignored every piece of research you’ve cited or linked to. After all, it’s not like you’ve just been saying that because laddettes are acting unladylike by getting pissed they’re pretty much forcing the poor defenceless drunk men to rape them. /sarc

               Seriously, there has been some research on alcohol and sex crime, quite a lot based on US college campuses. I’m sure that there’s been some more produced in the last few years. Care to show anyone you know what you’re talking about? Something better than “I once heard a radio programme that said young women were getting shitfaced” or whatever you started with…
               • Rosy …

                 7 February 2011 at 11:47 pm

                 As far as I\’m concerned rape is rape – no matter what, whether the victm is male/female, drunk or not, just like showing your ankles in the old days didn’t mean you were asking for it, nor does being drunk. To me the big issue is that young men and women do not know how they are handling drink – to learn that takes a few times being drunk. While they are in this phase there are perfectly ordinary boys and girls who are not totally comatose having sex but in the morning don’t really know whether they gave consent or not, and if they were not drunk know they would not have; or whether they read the presumed consent properly and if they were not drunk they may have read the situation differently.

                 This is a fact of life parents should give their sons and daughters, ahead of the ‘situational awareness’ or whatever other excuse is made up to blame the victim. Otherwise some perfectly ordinary boys and girls could find themselves in perfectly extraordinary trouble.
         • Deborah Kean 6.2.1.1.3

           8 February 2011 at 12:54 am

           My son the health professional (who has just had fun with his colleagues in Welly, cleaning up after drunks in costume at the 7s,) is fond of saying “It takes two to make a bad sexual decision”. (he’s 24 by the way, not some old git! 😀 )
           Making a bad sexual decision is infinitely more likely if you’re trolleyed..
           Deb
           • mcflock 6.2.1.1.3.1

             8 February 2011 at 3:02 pm

             Two to make a bad sexual decision. Only one to commit rape, however, which was the topic of the original comment.
         • Treetop 6.2.1.1.4

           8 February 2011 at 3:44 pm

           Both a male and a female have to think for their self. However woman are disadvantaged as they usually are unable to drink as much as a male, most perpetrators of rape are male and usually when a woman is attacked by a male they are overpowered.

           Facts are facts and this has nothing to do with a woman being emancipated.
     • mcflock 6.2.2

       7 February 2011 at 12:23 pm

       Not only that, but apparently the “90% female” refers to moderately pissed people in the chill-out areas. Not the folk who did not moderate their drinking when they felt they’d had a bit much and then ended up at A&E. The End is NaeNae makes this point.

       As for the victim-blaming, prism – get a life. Rape is not the result of being “careless”. A guy doesn’t stumble on the gutter, fall onto a woman and accidentally rape her. Rape, i.e. when he knows the woman is unable to consent or has refused consent, is not just a drunken accident. Arguing “oooo they’re both drunk” kind’ve lumps “he’d had a couple of drinks, she was comatose” with “they’d both had just enough to relax, but not so much that they were going to make major mistakes in judgement”. Unless you have actual data (as opposed to hypotheticals you just assume), I suggest that this grouping might be unhelpful to the discussion.
     • Bored 6.2.3

       7 February 2011 at 12:32 pm

       So I get drunk and stand in the middle of the road, and surprise surprise get run over by a drunk sociopath……I dont think Prism is making a moral judgement here, merely pointing out a known hazard.
       • mcflock 6.2.3.1

         7 February 2011 at 12:52 pm

         Apart from the fact that if you stayed stone cold sober and spent the bulk of your time locked in your own home, Mr Sociopath will probably not dress up as the meter man or plumber or courier or adapt his methods to find some other way of running you over.

         The sole culpability for any crime lies with the person who committed the act. They can argue mitigation/deprivation/whatever, but it’s them who should be in the dock, not the victim.

         Like most crime, rape is a specific act that is intended. It might be impulsive, but it is still an intentional act. You might argue some generalised personal safety methods, just as you would argue for locking front doors to deter burglars, but the thing is that if someone intends to do something all you might be doing is shifting around who the victim will be, not whether or not there is a victim. And then blaming the victim as somehow contributing to the crime because they happened to match the particular profile a particular criminal got his jollies on and was capable of exploiting is essentially blaming her for not being psychic or living in a state of paranoia.
         • Lanthanide 6.2.3.1.1

           7 February 2011 at 1:13 pm

           “It might be impulsive, but it is still an intentional act.”

           And then blaming the victim as somehow contributing to the crime because they happened to match the particular profile a particular criminal got his jollies on.

           What you’re arguing here doesn’t really make sense. For a crime to happen, there has to be an opportunity and an action. It is easy to see that this is the case – without an opportunity, a crime cannot occur.

           The opportunity does *not* have to be created by the criminal. In the case of home invasion and rape, the criminal has created the opportunity to commit the rape by invading the house. In case of a criminal raping a drunk woman, the woman has created (or greatly eased) the opportunity of the rape happening in the first place.

           You might argue some generalised personal safety methods, just as you would argue for locking front doors to deter burglars, but the thing is that if someone intends to do something all you might be doing is shifting around who the victim will be, not whether or not there is a victim.

           But this clearly isn’t true. If a door-to-door salesman comes to an unoccupied house, and there’s a window open with valuables in full view of the window, it’s very easy for them to reach in, grab the item and be off. If that same window was shut, then the crime never would have happened. What you’re arguing here is that the door-to-door salesman somehow has a daily quota for burglarising houses that he comes across, and if he doesn’t steal something out of your house because the window was shut, then he’ll keep going door-to-door until he does.

           Impulsive crimes are also called “crimes of opportunity” – had the opportunity not existed, the crime would not have happened. This is where people come up with “she was asking for it” when talking about women being raped – clearly she was asking for it if she walked home alone through a dark alley at 2am in the morning. No, not really, it was just a crime of opportunity – if she hadn’t have provided the opportunity, the crime wouldn’t have happened.

           There needs to be an opportunity *and* an action for a crime to occur, and because criminals are 100% in control of the action side of things (until proven otherwise), we can lay 100% of the blame on them at all times. But opportunity does also play a role in a crime happening in the first place, to pretend that it doesn’t is illogical.
           • mcflock 6.2.3.1.1.1

             7 February 2011 at 4:55 pm

             A number of tories are fond of saying “you make your own opportunities”.

             Your door to door salesman didn’t have to reach through the open window. That’s pretty basic. I used to have a job that involved pointing things like that out, and I never nicked a thing. And you’re not asking people to just close a window when they go out, you’re telling women to never, ever, ever get drunk and have a good time because if they get raped, even by someone they thought they knew well and trusted, it’s their fault because they dropped their guard. Nor should they ever go jogging in a park, or catch a taxi, or work late, or meet new people, or go on a date, or have a flatmate, or be a single mum in Rotorua, or wear a skirt, or wear a dress, or wear trousers, or be naked etc etc etc, because it might enable or provoke a rapist, and then it would be their own fault.

             But even if you had closed the window, he might have been able to pop the lock with a card. So you need window locks and deadbolts. Or he might have been doorknocking to confirm nobody was home so he could go around back and break a window, so you need bars and alarms. Or he sold you a doctored alarm, so you need a redundant system from another company. So he just burns the place down with you trapped in it and collects the life insurance he took out on you.

             The point being that when you’re talking about a general crime situation, saying “you shouldn’t have given them the opportunity” is unproductive because criminals just alter their plans to suit. I doubt that would have been the first or last crime your salesman committed. If there is a specific threat, such as reason to believe a drink-spiker or someone attacking joggers, or burglars posing as door to door salesmen (actually charity collectors is a common one – even if they’re home they might still give you money) is operating in the area, then advice on their current MO can be a public service. Saying people put themselves at risk because they got drunk and so removed themselves to a safe, supervised “chill out” area serves only to assign blame on any victims of a crime which already has a very low reporting rate, and a low conviction rate even if a crime is reported.
       • Pascal's bookie 6.2.3.2

         7 February 2011 at 12:57 pm

         I’m not sure I get the analogy.

         Does ‘standing in the middle of the road’ = ‘being a woman’?
         • Treetop 6.2.3.2.1

           7 February 2011 at 1:29 pm

           Rape is done in secret, it requires the perpetrator to use physical force and NO consent is given. A victim is a person who has been preyed on by an unscrupulous scum bag. The moral here is to have your wits in tact as this can prevent being preyed on, but does not guarantee not being preyed on.

           Standing in the middle of the road does not equal being a woman. Even a prostitute is required to give consent to sex.
           • just saying 6.2.3.2.1.1

             7 February 2011 at 3:11 pm

             Rape could happen on nationwide tv and still be rape. Physical force isn’t a necessary condition.

             For those who believe that women and girls who are intoxicated and incapable of consent bear responsibility, ask yourself, when men get drunk is that impicit consent for any other men to do what they want with their bodies, or does this little gem just apply to females?

             http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/10/rape-culture-101.html
             • Bored …

               7 February 2011 at 4:30 pm

               To all above the criminal who commits a crime is the guilty party regardless of the circumstance: and rape is as bad as it gets. On a personal basis you might want to consider whether you would wander drunk into any unsafe environment just because you had an expectation that you should be treated honourably and lawfully? There are dangerous sociopaths out there….they will take advantage. Do you leave your house unlocked? I think not, its an invitation.

               The victims of rape and assault have my total sympathy and support. It does not impress me however that they might have made a criminals task easier. Cautious prevention needs encouraging because there is no cure to the damage done by rapists.
               • mcflock …

                 7 February 2011 at 5:08 pm

                 Sometimes I might be in a hurry and forget to lock my kitchen door. This does not mean I want to be burgled.

                 And we’re not talking about 30sec each morning. We’re talking about a lifetime of living like a goddamn puritan because of someone else’s criminal intent. Fuck that – “then the terrorists win”.

                 And of course nobody here has bothered to actually provide evidence that higher alcohol consumption is associated with higher rates of sexual assault, and (and here’s the pisser) controlled for the fact that a busier social life means meeting more people, therefore more social people meet more rapists.

                 It’s all very well saying “they’re making it easy”, but you might want some fact before everyone demands a major lifestyle change.
                 • Bored …

                   7 February 2011 at 5:24 pm

                   We’re talking about a lifetime of living like a goddamn puritan because of someone else’s criminal intent. Fuck that – “then the terrorists win”.

                   Nice sentiment, agree to a (very) large degree. You wont however catch me going to sea without a life jacket. Its got a little to do with self preservation in a known dangerous environment. And I dont get drunk in the boat, its a recipe for disaster.
                   • mcflock …

                     7 February 2011 at 5:56 pm

                     But boaties don’t wear lifejackets all the time. Sometimes they get swept overboard before they can put it on. And sometimes people can drink alcohol on boats, just as long as someone else is running it. And you can always come ashore, whereas a woman (surgery and hormones notwithstanding) will always be a woman.

                     Sexual attackers are not a force of nature, and can be even more unpredictable than a day on the water. Getting pissed at a venue, acting like a dick, and breaking your leg falling off a table is one thing. Getting pissed at a venue, acting like a dick, and being raped in the toilets is another thing entirely. One is your fault, and I genuinely believe that the latter is not. It is the rapist’s fault.
                 • Deborah Kean …

                   8 February 2011 at 1:15 am

                   What is so difficult about *not* getting ‘off your face’ every weekend, and so puritan about being choosy?
                   Unbelievable! Common sense and civilised behaviour is puritan now? Mad, just crazy…
                   • mcflock …

                     8 February 2011 at 3:00 pm

                     Actually, (given that I know several people who get happily drunk on 1/2 glass of wine) advocating that women should never risk impairing their judgement in practicality means that all women should be teetotal. Which is puritanical, if not technically Puritan.

                     It’s about as difficult as jogging daily and eating only healthy food. Because you’re told that if you don’t, and are raped, you somehow brought it on yourself.
             • Treetop …

               7 February 2011 at 4:32 pm

               Rape always involves some form of physical force/touching.

               Regardless of the gender, rape is unacceptable and there are barriers to reporting the violation.
               • Lanthanide …

                 7 February 2011 at 5:00 pm

                 “Rape always involves some form of physical force/touching.”
                 Well obviously you have to touch someone to rape them.

                 But you needn’t physically overpower someone in order to do it. Threatening them with a gun wouldn’t count as physically overpowering someone, it’s intimidating them with deadly force.
                 • Treetop …

                   7 February 2011 at 5:23 pm

                   6.2.3.2.1.1 “Physical force isn’t a necessary condition.” I disagree with this.

                   Pointing a gun is no different to using any other non physical means to intimidate with deadly force.
                   • mcflock …

                     7 February 2011 at 5:59 pm

                     what about abuse of religious authority?

                     What about using authority to intimidate, e.g. a police officer?

                     If these count as “physical force”, then you’re using a pretty wide broom.
             • Deborah Kean …

               8 February 2011 at 1:10 am

               “or does this little gem just apply to females?”
               It applies to everyone, it’s just common sense!
               Deb
               captcha – pushed, as a drunk person can easily be.. even if they think they’re consenting – when they wake up the next morning and think “what have I done, and why did I do it?” then it may not be rape, but it’s not far off..
     • prism 6.2.4

       7 February 2011 at 6:11 pm

       Sorry – had to go and do some urgent house maintenance.

       Women get pissed so ‘no wonder’ they get raped? WTF?

       No need to wonder about why it happens in many cases, that’s true. I make my point again that now young women have more freedom, more opportunities to decide on what they want to do in life. It is disappointing to find that many of them want to live like, ‘ladettes’ I think is the term, partying, living loudly in the moment, careless of themselves and their safety. They can’t come the fainting maiden if something sexual happens to them then. There is research into how often unplanned sex takes place after drinking to excess. Too much.

       Getting drunk and gormless once or twice is part of learning how much is too much. If it is a regular pattern then that is risk-taking behaviour. Women who take up prostitution have to be careful in their behaviour if they want to be successful at it and also limit the possibility of problems from males. It could be a good idea if they ran workshops for the scatty female amateurs who could learn some pointers.
       • mcflock 6.2.4.1

         7 February 2011 at 6:21 pm

         preamble: “unplanned sex” =/= “rape”.

         right, now that’s done, message begins:
         So getting drunk once or twice is okay, as long as it doesn’t offend your sensibilities? How often is a woman allowed to get drunk before she is taking a risk? How long before being raped is an expected outcome, rather than a surprise? How many times is a woman allowed to be drunk before you think she becomes at least partially culpable for her own rape?

         And why is the guy not 100% to blame?
         • prism 6.2.4.1.1

           7 February 2011 at 8:27 pm

           mcflock – Why are you asking me so many questions? Why not ask yourself how you think rape can be reduced as I have when I suggested that women should set limits on their drinking as if they don’t they are adopting risk-taking behaviour.

           You are preaching at me about how unreasonable my viewpoint is.
           And why is the guy not 100% to blame? It is irrational that some women cannot consider the thought that a woman is not always 100% blameless.
           • McFlock 6.2.4.1.1.1

             7 February 2011 at 9:42 pm

             If you want to reduce risk-taking behaviour, it helps to know the actual level of risk, rather than pulling hypotheticals and assumption out of the air..

             To reduce sexual crime we need a 100% reporting rate. Blaming victims doesn’t encourage that.

             “It is irrational that some women cannot consider the thought that a woman is not always 100% blameless.”

             I’m a male. Where my dick goes is nobody’s fault but mine. Sad but true.

             If you want to know how a guy can be bit pissed off about this issue, I worked for several years in community safety. I shared offices with youth support staff. A big problem isn’t that the victims are drunk, it’s that the offenders are drunk. You want to lower alcohol-related crime, concentrate on offenders, not the victims.
       • Pascal's bookie 6.2.4.2

         7 February 2011 at 6:28 pm

         I’m busy, but I’ll just say, or rather ask, that you think a little bit about how you phrase or think about things in terms of the passive voce and agency.

         As to what I’m getting at, women don’t ‘get raped’. People ‘rape them’.
         • prism 6.2.4.2.1

           7 February 2011 at 8:30 pm

           Pb I’ll read up on google about the passive voice and agency as soon as I get time. If I ever learned about these it has been forgotten.
           • Pascal's bookie 6.2.4.2.1.1

             7 February 2011 at 9:01 pm

             All I’m saying it’s that is not the women who are acting. You are implying that the rapist is just a force of nature, as if they are just there and if a woman chooses to get drunk then rape is something that just happens. It denies the fact that the rapist is the craitical agent here. They are the ones with agency. They own the action. Put it on them. Don’t say women get raped. Say rapists rape women.
           • Pascal's bookie 6.2.4.2.1.2

             7 February 2011 at 9:08 pm

             Or maybe an analogy might help. In the Jim Crow south, the problem wasn’t ‘uppitty negroes’, it was lynch mobs. Saying that African Americans should have just kept their heads down, crossed the road, averted they’re eyes and sat at the back of the bus, is just not right.

             In the same way, the problem here isn’t drunk women, it’s rapists.
       • just saying 6.2.4.3

         7 February 2011 at 7:18 pm

         Wow.

         You haven’t answered my question prism.

         Are the “lads” “asking” to get raped by getting drunk? If not why not.

         I’m assuming you are a man. If you get drunk are you happy for that to be taken as consent for any other man to rape you.

         And as for describing rape as “unplanned sex. What’s murder – unplanned suicide?
         • mcflock 6.2.4.3.1

           7 February 2011 at 7:29 pm

           lol – js gave me an unplanned end to my grumpiness.

           There’s a run of these:

           nuking a city – “unplanned parkland creation”

           dumping toxic waste – “unplanned aquafer supplementation”

           assault – “unplanned cosmetic surgery”

           argh stuff it – I’m knocking off for the day. Might catch up at home, but have a run of meetings tomorrow. FWIW, I’m trying to break it to the bosses gently that part of the secret to my consistent goal achievement is that a few blog sites keep my brain from fizzing. My healthy indignation kept my blood pressure up for a couple of hours longer than otherwise 🙂
           • Bored 6.2.4.3.1.1

             7 February 2011 at 9:22 pm

             Myself I have been warning you off of unsafe places, placing yourself in danger and you admit to going off to work????? A place that crawls with people who make Al Queada look like Sunday school teachers (another known unsafe bunch). Thats somewhere fraught with danger, to sea for me (with or without life jacket)….
             • McFlock …

               7 February 2011 at 9:47 pm

               No, finishing work – it’s okay, it was still daylight when I got home and activated my home-defense minefield. Someone sat behind me on the bus, but I took them out with my keychain nunchukas.

               Thank golly, my days of rotating 24hr rosters are over. Although it does stuff my sleep/work patterns. Going by my posting patterns, Lynne probably has me pegged as unemployed, or a student 😉

               [lprent: I do the frogs eyes trick. If you don’t look like a troll or out of control bot (much the same in my opinion), I don’t start tracking your movement. My attention gets instantly attracted to certain phrases (like my name or handle or some of the hallowed troll phrases indicating a non-functional brain) and comment patterns. But I don’t notice yours when moderating because it isn’t what I am hunting for.. ]
               • McFlock …

                 7 February 2011 at 10:31 pm

                 “I do the frogs eyes trick”

                 Cool: zen and the art of comment moderation…
         • prism 6.2.4.3.2

           7 February 2011 at 8:38 pm

           js Lads do get raped at times. But the most likely victim is a woman. If that woman is intelligent she will not facilitate this attack. Another reason for a woman being ‘surprised’ is if she is young and inexperienced. But regular drunks can’t expect huge sympathy though they and their friends demand it.
           • Colonial Viper 6.2.4.3.2.1

             7 February 2011 at 8:58 pm

             Cripes dude you’ve been given a hiding to nothing on this today.

             Personally I think that every human being should take the practical steps that they can to make themselves a harder target.

             Whether or not someone thinks its a shame that society should be like this or where blame should be placed is to me, irrelevant. The overarching principle of watching out for your own and your mates’ backs hasn’t changed in 10,000 years of human society why would it be any different now.
             • McFlock …

               7 February 2011 at 10:10 pm

               I think the closest explanation of my position that I can come up with is the difference between patient-based health (i.e. doctor looks at patient’s vitals and offers treatment) vs population-based health (look at a population and find differences between groups and outcomes).

               Population: Tobacco use is the risk factor. Lung cancer is the measured attributed outcome. If the population, in general, quit tobacco, ~90% of lung cancers would probably be eliminated.

               Patient: Patient is diagnosed with cancer. Remembers a cigarette that was smoked near him. Blames self for having that cigarette. Actual cause: Maybe that single cigarette. Maybe atmospheric pollution. Maybe a workplace hazard that remained unidentified.

               Crime population: Alcohol use is the risk factor. Crime is the attributed outcome. If the population quit binge drinking, ~80% of crime might be reduced (whatever – dim recollection of some data I read in another career).

               Crime incident: Person is assaulted. Was assaulted while drunk. Blames self for being “in that situation” (drunk). But we know that you being drunk is not directly related to someone choosing to assault you. You might piss them off, but it’s their choice to use violence. The actual cause is that person who committed the crime.

               And it’s not a predetermined biochemical/genetic interaction that follows the laws of physics and chemistry. It’s an actual choice, as if the normal cigarette who seemed nice and not like the others suddenly chose to be the evil kind that gives you lung cancer. Maybe they did it while they were drunk, but the risk factor was being in the sights of a rapist, and unfortunately rapists don’t wear big signs.

               The problem is when the population and patient approaches merge. Saying “alcohol is related to crime, you were drunk, so you are partially responsible for someone raping you” makes it less likely that you will report the offence. Which kind of screws the population-based approach in the areas where it would be valuable. And it also means your rapist won’t be caught. And it makes your aftermath as a survivor even more difficult. That’s the shit that really gets my goat, as folks might have noticed.
               • Colonial Viper …

                 7 February 2011 at 10:36 pm

                 Well you picked it. Even in the largest most powerful studies it is difficult to ascertain what relevance, if any, the conclusions have on the decision making around a specific individual.

                 Its fraught with decision making error and of course you have identified that people can easily place to much faith in a study’s conclusions even if it is actually not relevant to them at all, and end up using its results to criticise themselves.

                 Even if it is not relevant to their own situation at all.
               • just saying …

                 7 February 2011 at 10:46 pm

                 Ta McFlock,
                 Feeling a bit downtrodden by life just now, so not really up to this kind of conversation. Luckily, even straight after a hard day’s work you’re up to it and up for it. Kudos! This stuff is wearisome but important (as you know only too well). Can’t keep letting this kind of shit go unchallenged.
                 • Rosy …

                   7 February 2011 at 11:44 pm

                   As far as I’m concerned rape is rape – no matter what, whether the victm is male/female, drunk or not, just like showing your ankles in the old days didn’t mean you were asking for it, nor does being drunk. To me the big issue is that young men and women do not know how they are handling drink – to learn that takes a few times being drunk. While they are in this phase there are perfectly ordinary boys and girls who are not totally comatose having sex but in the morning don’t really know whether they gave consent or not, and if they were not drunk know they would not have; or whether they read the presumed consent properly and if they were not drunk they may have read the situation differently.

                   This is a fact of life parents should give their sons and daughters, ahead of the ‘situational awareness’ or whatever other excuse is made up to blame the victim. Otherwise some perfectly ordinary boys and girls could find themselves in perfectly extraordinary trouble.

                   Oh and never, ever leave a friend who you start the night with alone at the end of the night.
     • Deborah Kean 6.2.5

       8 February 2011 at 12:36 am

       Even though IMO, the women are (in these contexts) guilty of contributory negligence..
       Deb
       • mcflock 6.2.5.1

         8 February 2011 at 3:30 pm

         Meh – short version in wikipedia is close enough. After that I’m pretty much done with this.

         “The defense is not available if the tortfeasor’s conduct amounts to malicious or intentional wrongdoing, rather than to ordinary negligence.”

         So if a guy chooses to rape a woman, contributory negligence is no defense.

         I mean, that’s exactly the same logic as “oh, her skimpy clothes drove the man insane with lust and he had no choice”. I fully get the desire to reduce alcohol abuse in NZ, fair enough. A drunk person inducing their own rape is a nonsensical reason for it, though.
       • KJT 6.2.5.2

         8 February 2011 at 4:01 pm

         Hang on. Have you lot thought this through.
         Does this mean that of the women who dragged me off to bed when I was a drunken teenager.
         Were they rapists? There was at least one I would not have slept with sober. Or am I for not ascertaining they were sober enough to give informed consent. I doubt if I was sober enough to make that distinction. I did assume consent when they wrapped themselves around me after taking their clothes of though.
         I think some times it may be more morning after alcoholic remorse or even teenagers misreading each other, than rape.
         Considering rape is a crime of power and violence rather than sex.
         • mcflock 6.2.5.2.1

           8 February 2011 at 4:28 pm

           Okay, this is the “thin ice” area – I’m sure lots of people have consensually shagged other people when sober and regretted it later. I’m also sure lots of people have done exactly the same thing when slightly pissed.

           And I’m sure that lot’s of people have apparently “consented” at the time when they were drunk/drugged enough that any commercial contract they signed would have been thrown out. I’m not saying a kiss is a contract (where have I heard that one before?), just if you are talking about “impaired judgement” then any “consent” at the time could plausibly be retracted after the fact.

           But I think that it’s all a bit of a red herring to the original sentiment, which I took as: “these women at the sevens are obviously and disgracefully drunk, it’s no wonder they get raped”. So we’re not talking about situations where both people are maybe a bit tiddly but both seem to be having a fine old time. We’re talking about situations where at least one party is obviously drunk, so consent should be assumed to be unavailable until they’ve sobered up. Austin Powers could do it, but apparently the kiwi male is incapable of self control.

           There’s also the “ooh she could have defended herself / run away from that horrible man if only she’d been sober” accusation as well. That’s pretty much as stupid, in my opinion.
           • Colonial Viper 6.2.5.2.1.1

             8 February 2011 at 4:37 pm

             We’re talking about situations where at least one party is obviously drunk, so consent should be assumed to be unavailable until they’ve sobered up.

             I have no idea what kind of parties you go to, but I’m not sure that this ‘waiting until sobre’ you suggest has ever happened at any party that I’ve been too.
             • mcflock …

               8 February 2011 at 5:10 pm

               Well, if you were at a party where someone was so trollied that they were close to passing out and someone “had sex” with them, I’d suggest that was rape.

               The less clear distinctions rest on power dynamics between participants, who’s making what choices, how drunk the drunkest participant is, and then how much more sober the most active participant is in comparison. It’s a case by case basis, but I’d suggest that if you have an ookey feeling about it, then it’s probably not 100%. Like I say, if both people are a little bit tiddly, not so clear cut.

               My personal rule of thumb is: “never do while drunk what you can put off until tomorrow, and if it’s unlikely to happen tomorrow in the cold light of sobriety then it’s probably a bad idea”. And it’s not just for sex – it also applies to playing with explosives, hi-jinks in high places, and juggling sharp instruments. God I wish I hadn’t learnt it, as a teenager, by trial and error 🙂
               • orange whip? …

                 8 February 2011 at 5:22 pm

                 “never do while drunk what you can put off until tomorrow,

                 That’s all very well if you plan to stay up drinking all night, but I’m not always up for that these days…
         • Bored 6.2.5.2.2

           8 February 2011 at 5:26 pm

           You lucky sod. I must have been ugly then (I certainly am now). Must have been awful for you.
   • Colonial Viper 6.3

     7 February 2011 at 2:59 pm

     Young women seem intent on keeping up with the lads in the pubs pretty much 1:1 drinks these days. Except the women tend to be about 15kg lighter and like drinking 7% and 8% RTDs or 12.5% wines, whereas the lads make do with 4% and 5% beers and considerably more body weight.

     Just do the math on how well that turns out by the end of the night.
7. Lanthanide 7

   7 February 2011 at 10:20 am

   With Hone’s ructions in the MP, he’s starting to look more inept than he looks calculated.

   But anyway, if he does leave the MP, I’m sure either The Greens or NZ First would welcome his safe electorate seat. It would work out quite well politically with NZ First – it would set up a definite spoiler for National because of Key’s impetuous ruling out of Winston. I guess the problem is whether Winston and Hone would see eye to eye, and whether Winston would let another high profile voice take over his party (then again, Winston is getting pretty old these days and needs some sort of succession plan in place…).
   • oscar 7.1

     7 February 2011 at 2:58 pm

     As I’ve said before Lanth, maori seats are NOT cross compatible with general seats.
     So even if Hone joined a new party, they can’t do an ACT and piggy back in on TTT being won by Hone.
     Maori seats are second class, just like all Maori in this country, or have you not realised that yet?
     • Pascal's bookie 7.1.1

       7 February 2011 at 3:29 pm

       That’s not I how understand it. I’m not saying your wrong, it’s just the first I’ve heard of it:

       http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0087/latest/DLM310034.html?search=ts_act_electoral_resel

       Relevant bit, as far as I can tell:

       4) The Electoral Commission must disregard any total under the name of any party that—
       (a) has not achieved a total that is at least 5% of the total number of all the party votes received by all the parties listed on the part of the ballot paper that relates to the party vote; and
       (b) is a party in respect of which no constituency candidate who is either—
       (i) a candidate for that party; or
       (ii) a candidate for a component party of that party (being a component party that is not listed on the part of the ballot paper that relates to the party vote but is, in accordance with the details held by the Electoral Commission under any of the provisions of sections 127(3A) and 128A, a component party of that party)—
       has had his or her name endorsed on the writ pursuant to section 185 as a person declared to be elected as a member of Parliament.

       Now that’s a bit complicated, but it says when the commission is allocating list seats they first disregard the list votes for parties that either:

       (a) doesnae get 5%, or
       (b) doesnae have a candidate elected to a constituency seat.

       The test under (b) is whether or not they have a candidate elected as a MP. says nothing about general vs Maori seats…
       • Pascal's bookie 7.1.1.1

         7 February 2011 at 4:11 pm

         meh, got may ors and ands a bit muddled there.

         last bit should read:

         Now that’s a bit complicated, but it says when the commission is allocating list seats they first disregard the list votes for any party that:

         (a) doesnae get 5%, and
         (b) doesnae have a candidate elected to a constituency seat.
8. Treetop 8

   7 February 2011 at 2:36 pm

   Hone has just been suspended from the Maori Party caucus.
9. Pascal's bookie 9

   7 February 2011 at 4:28 pm

   I see what looks suspiciously like some sorta socialism just won the superbowl

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bay_Packers#Public_company

   don’t nobody tell Glenn Beck
10. Puddleglum 10

    7 February 2011 at 5:06 pm

    Interesting perspective in the Press from Ian Roberts (epidemiologist). He argues that cutting greenhouse gas emissions has considerable health benefits. Then this:

    “The experience of Cuba in the 1990s confirms the health effects of reducing fossil-fuel consumption.

    During the Cuban energy crisis that followed the cut-off of subsidised Soviet supplies, the proportion of adults who were physically active more than doubled. The population’s average BMI fell by 1.5 units, with a halving in the prevalence of obesity, from 14 per cent to 7 per cent.

    Deaths from diabetes fell 51 per cent, from heart disease by 35 per cent, and from stroke by 20 per cent.”

    Nothing too surprising, but it’s nice to have the ‘natural experiment’ to make the point pretty conclusively.
11. Draco T Bastard 11

    7 February 2011 at 5:27 pm

    Droughts, Floods And Food

    The usual suspects will, of course, go wild over suggestions that global warming has something to do with the food crisis; those who insist that Ben Bernanke has blood on his hands tend to be more or less the same people who insist that the scientific consensus on climate reflects a vast leftist conspiracy.

    At least one MSM economist understands. Now we need the rest of them, the politicians and the populace to understand as well.
12. Deadly_NZ 12

    7 February 2011 at 6:28 pm

    There was a cough and splutter on TV3 News tonight, Peter Dunne woke up , and spluttered a few words about NZ day…
13. Pascal's bookie 13

    7 February 2011 at 7:54 pm

    I see it’s ronny raygun’s birthday and the folks at empire central are getting all dei-ariffic.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yovzZkf6OFQ

    AS can be deduced from that thar movie picture show everyone outside empire central knew what the score was in real time, but you still cannae say it at home. Not really.

    It’s kinda amazing how the right there has latched on to the tax raisin, amnesty fer the illegals givin, negotiatin with the dreaded russkie, cutter an runner from the terrists, seller of guns to the perfidious persians, blower out of deficits, creator of whole new government agencies, fake assed old fool that was the Gipper.

    But has been also noted by others, everyone needs there heroes. Their mythic leaders. Their iconic stereotypes. And the GOP is no different, It needs them too. The fat that they chose the Gipp, it’s been also noted, is on account of no one else being plausible. The last president the GOP had that rates previous was Lincoln.

    And just quietly, in plenty of GOP recesses and corners of ID: the great emancipator? Well let’s just say some are conflicted about how they feel, about the day, he took a bullet in the back of the head. Other that though, the GOP presidential wing a unrelenting tale of shit and botherance, mythic figure wise. Not for them an FDR or a JFK. Not a Teddy nor a Woodrow. Not nothin but a parade of place sitters, ticket clippers and escapers of justice. (There’s Ike of course, but what’d he do aside from give a good speech when he was finished?)

    Poor bastards, let them have their raygun.

    That said, here’s John Dolan, who taught Ames the shit, tellin it like it was before the myth took hold, just for the record.

    http://exiledonline.com/reagan’s-cheshire-snarl/
    • millsy 13.1

      7 February 2011 at 8:15 pm

      I was thinking about ‘the gipper’ over the past few days, and I would love for his supporters to tell me:

      1) When he privatised social security
      2) When he sold the Tennesee Valley Authority, Bonneville Power Administration, etc
      3) When he sold Amtrak
      4) When he chopped Aid To Families With Dependent Children (like our DPB)
      5) When he privatised the FAA’s air traffic control system (he sacked the controllers, but thats all he did)
      6) When he chopped Medicare (that he campaigned so strongly against)

      He did his fair share of nasty things, dont get me wrong, but it was Clinton and Bush that took apart America’s institiutions, and Obma is going to finish the job.
      • joe90 13.1.1

        7 February 2011 at 8:25 pm

        We fought a war on lies and lies won, the real Reagan.

        repost
    • Draco T Bastard 13.2

      7 February 2011 at 9:53 pm

      Five myths about Ronald Reagan’s legacy

      On Sunday, America celebrates the 100th birthday of Ronald Reagan, whose presidency is a touchstone for the modern conservative movement. In 2011, it is virtually impossible for a major Republican politician to succeed without citing Reagan as a role model. But much of what today’s voters think they know about the 40th president is more myth than reality, misconceptions resulting from the passage of time or from calculated attempts to rebuild or remake Reagan’s legacy
14. Puddleglum 14

    7 February 2011 at 9:35 pm

    “Well let’s just say some are conflicted about how they feel, about the day, he took a bullet in the back of the head.”

    I remember reading an interesting thing in an ‘anti-conspiracy theory’ book years ago. I forget the author – he was arguing why, psychologically, people like conspiracies.

    Part of the discussion was about how people (in the US) concocted conspiracies when liberal figures got shot (JFK, Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy, John Lennon, etc.) but hardly ever when conservative figures got shot. He then off-handedly mentioned the coincidence that G.H.W. Bush’s son, Neil, was to have dined with Scott Hinckley (John’s brother) the night of – or perhaps the night after – the assassination attempt – then added how, despite that coincidence, few people seemed interested in making a conspiracy out of that (because ‘only’ a conservative Republican was shot).

    My eyes widened. First I’d heard of that. There was G.H.W. Bush, ex-CIA head, the VP, a (distant) cousin of the Queen of England, with the ‘born to rule’ expectations that only a life of high privilege can bestow, a heartbeat away from the Presidency towards which he’d worked most of his adult life only to serve second fiddle to a Hollywood actor – and the families of the VP and the assassin were intertwined!

    Turns out John Hinckley senior was – you guessed it – a Texas oilman and was great friends with G.H.W. and contributed greatly to Bush’s campaign run against Reagan in 1980. Both were a bit upset that Reagan didn’t seem to like the tax breaks for the oil industry on which they relied.

    Also, DC was the only place in the US with an insanity defence and, so, provided non-custodial sentences for murder. Fortunately for Hinckley he chose DC for his attempt (Hinckley was released from Federal Bureau of Prisons custody on 18 August 1981.). Unfortunately for many accused felons in the US, after Hinckley’s non-custodial sentence (though, ever since, he has been confined to a – presumably very nice – psychiatric institution with various periods of unsupervised home visits lasting many days) public uproar meant that the insanity defence became harder to use and, in some states, legislation for it was entirely repealed.

    Then again, John Hinckley Jnr had stalked Carter as well – he was already a bullet with any old President’s name on it (all for the love of a lady).

    Aaahh! The wonderful world of coincidences. Still, when you’ve read about the succession processes of the Kings and Queens of England it would perhaps be even odder if assassination were not part of the ‘career moves’ of the powerful today. Or perhaps the efficacious civilising influence of capitalism and liberal democracy means that it no longer happens now – only back then in the ‘bad, old days’ long before tv, McDonalds and government ‘by the people, of the people, for the people’.

    As they say, ‘the truth is out there’. (In that vein, Reagan was injured in the chest by a ricocheting bullet. It was Brady who took a direct hit to the head.)

    Not that any of it matters, either way. The ‘good fight’ remains the same, conspiracies or not.

    Anti-spam: seek – and you shall find?
    • Pascal's bookie 14.1

      8 February 2011 at 7:17 am

      …Neil, was to have dined with Scott Hinckley…

      Yowsers. I did not know that. When people write novels as crazy as US political reality, in gets filed under surrealism. I suspect a conspiricy in there somewhere.

      Neil Gaimon got it right. The old gods moved to the new world. Also, David Lynch and little Jimmy Ellroy.
15. millsy 15

    7 February 2011 at 9:53 pm

    @ prism.

    Rape is rape. It doesnt matter if women are getting pissed and promiscuous. No means no. That is a fact.

    No may mean yes, or maybe down at the rugby club, but everywhere else, sex is only sex when a women wants to be intamite with a guy, not when a guy forces himself on a women, even if the is in a drunken stupor.

    Its people like you that make me sick. Why dont you admit that you want to strip women of all rights and priviliges?
    • prism 15.1

      7 February 2011 at 10:57 pm

      millsy – You are getting hot and bothered. I am talking about women making the most of their rights and privileges. They don’t do that when they spend a lot of their free time getting pissed so they can have a good time. I started off saying how women have worked so other women had better chances and how that has advanced women’s position but some don’t value it enough.

      Perhaps you can think of a way to ensure that No means No whether or not she is in a drunken stupor. A lock up was used I think at the time of the Crusades. Or perhaps wrap up in duck tape. A sign over the important area declaring ‘Off Limits”. Or a sign saying “I declare my right as a female person to be drunk and not be molested. Trespassers will be prosecuted.”

      It’s sick-making that a woman can’t be sure that she won’t be interfered with even if she goes to a spare room to sleep and recover. It happens though. So girls be clever and keep safe might be the motto. Not tub-thumping about women’s rights to get drunk wherever. That’s the last I’ll say on this.
16. Deborah Kean 16

    8 February 2011 at 6:50 pm

    @McFlock… who said “Actually, (given that I know several people who get happily drunk on 1/2 glass of wine) advocating that women should never risk impairing their judgement in practicality means that all women should be teetotal. Which is puritanical, if not technically Puritan.”
    I am teetotal! (For reasons connected to the family curse of alcoholism. OK, it may not be very highly heritable, but why take chances?)
    It may be, but is not necessarily, puritanical…
    I really don’t see why advising women not to get legless is considered offensive?
    Deb
    • McFlock 16.1

      8 February 2011 at 8:15 pm

      Clarification: the issue isn’t whether people in general should be made aware of risky behaviours and encouraged to moderate them. That’s a standard public health practise when linked to clear and measurable harms (i.e actual risk, as in an actual incidence rate and rate-ratio calculation. Not supposition, conservative abhorrence, or blind guesswork).

      What I regarded as puritanical was the suggestion that every single individual (rather than general population perspective “what would happen if nobody drank?”), should quit alcohol because of what somebody else might choose to do to them.

      What really irritates me in the thread is the suggestion that because a person is drunk, they are forcing somebody else to commit an assault/robbery/rape. That a drunk woman somehow puts a man (sober or drunk) in the position where he can’t resist an urge to “have sex” with her. And that the drunker she is the more responsible she is for the man’s decision. All that it does is shame victims into not reporting the crime because they must have been asking for it. And the low reporting rates do more to enable the crime to be committed than even our current binge drinking culture could ever do.
      • Colonial Viper 16.1.1

        8 February 2011 at 8:53 pm

        So what physical safety messages do you think that alcohol education of young people should promote?

        With the concerns you have raised around victim shame etc. would you even dare to link the state of being heavily intoxicated as a high risk one associated with increased risk of being a victim of an assault (sexual or otherwise) and the impairment of good, safe judgement?

        I note that the MoT has no compunction against ad campaigns which shame drunk drivers who physically hurt and kill innocent people around them (who may or may not be drunk themselves). In fact creating shame seems to be an objective of those anti-drinking ads.
        • McFlock 16.1.1.1

          8 February 2011 at 9:40 pm

          Well, first of all, what’s the actual risk factor? Being drunk or being around drunk people? Or being in low socioeconomic areas? Or being in pubs that sell alcohol to grossly intoxicated people? Or off-license specials that work out to little more than a buck a can?

          Basically, with only one exception that springs to mind (ISTR it was called the “Lisa” ad), the LTSA and ALAC ads focus on bad things you might choose to do when drunk, rather than things that might be done to you by someone else (drunk or sober).

          Drink-driving is an act you actually choose to do which should scream “this is a dumb idea” to even a heavily drunk person. With a high level of risk.

          For many of the ads, I think they’re targetting associates of excess drinkers (beyond the latest run of “don’t bring your mates along” – which also seems to be a reasonably effective attempt, but then I’m no longer 19). Others (especially the drink-driving ads) target offenders. The trouble is in getting good public safety message reception in 15-24 year olds (it tends to either not connect, or connects but quickly desensitises).

          One of the best ads I saw was on a pub urinal – a sticker saying something like “if you take a taxi you’re a bloody legend” and a line-drawing of a cab, and when nature took it’s course the heat changed it to a picture of a car wreck and the “if you drink and drive you’re a bloody idiot” tag. Targeted at drunk people, at a venue, at the time they might need it, easy to make out and read, and encouraged (ahem) “active engagement” to see what the message was. Damned fine piece of advertising.

          The other approach is to supplement efforts of advertising at young people with work on liquor pricing and enforcement at the licensee end. From my personal perspective particularly enforcement, but I haven’t done too much reading in the pricing area. The 17-22 y.o. risk takers are often extremely price sensitive, so the suggestion seems reasonable on that basis, but then you get the entire “what about rich kids and poor mature people” issue.

          Boosting enforcement resources and maybe bunging in police immediate 3 day closure notices upon witnessing offences x y z of sale of liquor act might be useful. If a party premises operates wed/thurs/fri/sat, and the police find gross disorder on a wednesday, that’ll nuke 3 moneymaking days of the week. I saw a couple of places in the paper for liquor act breaches, and their punishment closures were set during a seasonal downturn, when they usually shut for refits anyway. Not a huge punishment.

          Anyway, advertising is one tool, enforcement and price barriers another. The other key course of action, however, is rather than increasing excess drink public safety messages, why not eliminated the competition and re-restrict alcohol advertising? All that cool party social advertising encouraging alcohol consumption basically conflicts with the ALAC message – personally I have no problem with mass-media alcohol advertising bans.

Links to post

1. The Standard: posted on 6 February 2011 at 5:08 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS