Open mike 07/02/2015

Written By: - Date published: 7:15 am, February 7th, 2015 - 135 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmikeOpen mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose. The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

135 comments on “Open mike 07/02/2015 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. phillip ure 1
    7 February 2015 at 7:44 am

    (i bang on about pot-hypocrites..)

    (excerpt..)

    ‘..but i reserve my contempt around this issue for the ‘left’..

    ..for both labour and the greens..

    ..(and given harawiras’ (vote-killing/election-losing?) anti-pot tantrum during the election-campaign..even mana to a lesser degree..is tainted by this rank-hypocrisy..)

    ..how those left parties have often been as reactionary on this issue as is the right..’

    http://whoar.co.nz/2015/four-2016-gop-presidential-candidates-who-smoked-pot-comment-ed-and-we-too-in-new-zealand-we-have-our-pot-hypocrites-on-both-the-right-and-the-left/

  2. phillip ure 2
    7 February 2015 at 7:49 am

    (an important question:…why are conservatives so whiny..?..)

    “..Why Are Conservatives Such Whiny Crybabies?..

    ..Over the years Salon columnist Heather ‘Digby’ has written repeatedly about GOP/conservative hissy fits –

    – most notably in her 2007 classic ‘The Art of the Hissy Fit’ –

    – where she noted that ‘the right’s successful use of phony sanctimony and faux outrage –

    – often succeeded in changing the dialogue –

    – and titillating the media into a frenzy of breathless tabloid coverage’..”

    (cont..)

    http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/why-are-conservatives-such-whiny-crybabies

    (and that faux-outrage/sanctimony is what john key is using..

    ..to drive us to a war..we have no business being involved in..

    ..and following/given keys’ quivering-lips outrage..whither boko haram..?..eh..?..)

    • phillip ure 2.1
      7 February 2015 at 8:08 am

      and of course..the media-hacks are barking along..

      ..on-cue/breathless – in their unquestioning war-excitement..

      ..and/but what-about-that-flag..?..eh..?

      ..key really is flying a false-flag with this one..

  3. Paul 3
    7 February 2015 at 7:55 am

    Texan oil giant Anadarko is back in Otago waters with seismic vessel Polarcus Naila testing new prospects.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/business/65892254/Anadarkos-new-tests-off-Otago

    And CO2 has gone over 400.

    Smart move, Messrs Key and Bridges.
    This quote comes to mind.

    ““At the moment, New Zealand is dominated by these neo-liberal, profit-obsessed, very shallow, very money-hungry politicians. They care about short-term gains. They would destroy the planet in order to be able to have the life they want. I feel very angry with my government.”

  4. North 4
    7 February 2015 at 8:18 am

    John Armstrong in the Herald reaches new heights in Key fan-boy-ism and new lows in political journalism:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/john-armstrong/news/article.cfm?a_id=3&objectid=11397970

    ” Given the chatter within National Party ranks…….in the months before the September election……..plus…….a police investigation began in August, IT SEEMS INCONCEIVABLE THAT KEY DID NOT KNOW of Sabin’s problems before late November – the time Key says he was informed. EVERYONE ELSE SEEMS TO HAVE KNOWN BEFORE THEN. ”

    Wait for it folks – this from Armstrong the award winner –

    ” BUT SO WHAT ? …….no one has yet come up with even a JOT OF EVIDENCE……he knew about Sabin’s troubles much earlier…….. ”

    From the Concise Oxford English Dictionary – “inconceivable – not capable of being imagined or grasped mentally; unbelievable. ” From the same source – “evidence – information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.”

    Armstrong aye ? The shill of shills. A right little ToKeyo Rose. Pompous and sneering with it.

    • Paul 4.1
      7 February 2015 at 8:19 am

      See my comment under Micky Savage’s post ‘Police told the Government about Sabin’s problems.’

    • Clemgeopin 4.2
      7 February 2015 at 5:53 pm

      He has not allowed any comments/discussion under the article. This morning the comment button was on, I commented, but NONE have been published yet! A pathetic coward that knows his article is crap or is he just a shameless well paid pro-Key RW shill?

  5. Philip Ferguson 5
    7 February 2015 at 9:25 am

    Very interesting book by Jonathan Eig on the birth of the pill, reviewed here: https://rdln.wordpress.com/2015/02/07/in-review-the-birth-of-the-pill/

    Phil

  6. Philip Ferguson 6
    7 February 2015 at 9:40 am

    The Chinese were the people most discriminated against in New Zealand society in the late 1800s and early 1900s. The formal, legal discrimination was centred on immigration controls which restricted entry in general for Chinese and which also imposed a substantial poll tax on Chinese migrants.

    The White New Zealand policy culminated in 1920 with legislation that passed control of Chinese immigration into the hands of a government minister. At this point Chinese migration was pretty much halted altogether.

    Support for these racist immigration controls united Tory-style traditional conservatives, liberals, feminists, a layer of Maori leaders, the ‘militant’ leaders of the Labour Party and ‘moderate’ elements atop the overall labour movement.

    Below are the initial articles we’ve stuck up on the White New Zealand policy and the theoretical tools for analysing it. We’ll be looking at the development of the policy in the 1890s and first two decades of the twentieth century in future feature articles.

    The articles below can be reached via: https://rdln.wordpress.com/2015/02/07/pieces-on-the-white-new-zealand-policy/

    Written in 1996: Arrested Development: the historiography of White New Zealand

    Written in 1996: Analysing the White New Zealand policy: developing a theoretical framework

    Written in 1996-97: Colonial social relations, the Chinese and the beginnings of New Zealand nationalist discourse

  7. ropata:rorschach 7
    7 February 2015 at 9:47 am

    Paul Thomas’ latest Pulitzer-worthy masterpiece of journalism covers Eleanor Catton and the Left reaction. Every thing this fool writes is pro establishment inanity. I wrote a couple of replies to his latest piece of crap, to remind him that yes journalists and activists are mistreated pretty overtly in GodKeyZone.

    Nicky Hager, Bradley Ambrose, Jon Stephenson have been hassled by cops, spied on, and had stuff confiscated. Judith Collins and Cam Slater try to destroy careers of principals, teachers, and scientists who don’t toe the government line. Paula Bennett has no problem releasing personal details of beneficiaries who complain about government policy.

    National are a bunch of power abusing bullies, and any journalist with a brain and a conscience would recognise that.

    • Paul 7.1
      7 February 2015 at 9:57 am

      ” Alarmist, strident, paranoid and at times hysterical, our self-styled public intellectuals…….”

      What a toadying article that was.
      And what a confirmation of Eleanor Catton’s comment about the anti-intellectual and anti-cultural prejudices in NZ.
      Hang your head in shame Thomas.

      Je suis Eleanor.

    • Morrissey 7.2
      7 February 2015 at 9:57 am

      I endorse your views on Paul Thomas. A couple of years ago, after I questioned Jeremy Hansen’s casual and thoughtless praise for something that mediocrity had written, poor old “gobsmacked” felt the need to come to Thomas’ defence….

      http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-10122013/#comment-742375

      • Paul 7.2.1
        7 February 2015 at 10:04 am

        There seems to be some sort of toadying competition out there amongst the extreme right corporate media we have.
        So far this year Plunket, Christie and now Thomas have all striven to see who can be the most obsequious to the Dear Leader.
        My personal selection for the most slavish and subservient propagandist thus far is Christie. His interview of Key was abject.

        • Morrissey 7.2.1.1
          7 February 2015 at 10:14 am

          Christie is kind of pathetic, actually. I was particularly appalled by the smirking approval that he and everyone else on camera gave to stories about one of Prince Harry’s cocaine and prostitutes binges last year.

          • phillip ure 7.2.1.1.1
            7 February 2015 at 10:38 am

            they were probably just all remembering their own ‘cocaine-binges’…

            ..(and ..historically-speaking) something i have difficulty being too judgmental about..having greeted the odd dawn..in an over-agitated state..)

            ..have you had one moz..?..

            ..or is yr shock/horror a result of too much media shock/horror..?

            .’cos the facts of the matter are that cocaine is hardly worse than alcohol..

            ..and what they do have in common..is that too much of both will mess you up..

            ..but..y’know..!,,you can stop clutching at yr pantaloons..eh..?

            • Morrissey 7.2.1.1.1.1
              7 February 2015 at 10:53 am

              ..have you had one moz..?..

              No. I have had THREE alcohol-induced hangovers, many years apart. Never again, I promised myself each time.

              ..or is yr shock/horror a result of too much media shock/horror..?

              You’re pretty much on the money there, phillip.

              .’cos the facts of the matter are that cocaine is hardly worse than alcohol….and what they do have in common..is that too much of both will mess you up..

              I agree with you, phillip. My problem is not that that murderous little creep was using cocaine, my problem was the indulgent, approving comments by Rawdon Christie, Nadine Chalmers Ross, Peter Williams and Toni Street. One can imagine their frowns and their mock outrage if, say, a young Māori man flagrantly, repeatedly, cavorted with prostitutes and snorted coke—not to mention stalking shepherds from the air and killing them.

          • Once was Tim 7.2.1.1.2
            7 February 2015 at 12:44 pm

            Not that Aunty Beeb is up too much these days…..but Rawdie was a frikken embarrassment to them back then. Probably the reason he came out to the colonies Big fish, little (polluted) pond rather than little fish big pond. Not very ‘aspirational’ I know but it seems we’re into another round of putting up with the U.K.’s rejects.

        • ropata:rorschach 7.2.1.2
          7 February 2015 at 10:33 am

          Claire Trevett and John Armstrong were disappointed to miss out on the toadying competition, and started a rival “league of lackeys”

          • phillip ure 7.2.1.2.1
            7 February 2015 at 10:45 am

            i have been told that when armstrong gets in his cups..

            ..that he is prone to professional-melancholy..

            ..and belts out a play on helen reddys’ ‘i am woman’ anthem..

            ..re-worded as:..’i am hack..!..hear me whimper..!..’

            • ropata:rorschach 7.2.1.2.1.1
              7 February 2015 at 11:32 am

              Haha, the poor old chap, he seems to have brief moments of clarity when he realises the Wizard has no magic, then lapses back to Planet Key lala land.

              • phillip ure …
                7 February 2015 at 11:44 am

                this latest piece of shite from armstrong..has..for me..

                ..really brought into focus that previous exercise in self-indulgant self-rightousness..

                ..when armstrong called for cunnliffe to resign..over some letter from 8 yrs previously..or something..

                ..to compare/contrast with serial-lying from key/the cost of a million + to taxpayers for bye-election..

                ..his possible stealing of the election..(by hiding this..)

                ..the mind boggles that armstrong has a nothing-to-see-here!-attitude..

                ..how can you not gain the impression he is owned by the right..?

                ..is their trained-parrot..

                • The Murphey …
                  7 February 2015 at 12:19 pm

                  Agents and Actors playing their duplicitous role and doing it well enough to ensure the status quo has the planet in a deep sleeper hold

    • The lost sheep 7.3
      7 February 2015 at 10:17 am

      “National are a bunch of power abusing bullies, and any journalist with a brain and a conscience would recognise that.”

      ‘Reporters Without Borders’ have a brain, you will agree?
      I see they rank NZ 9th in the World for Freedom of press, while registering some concern this year that ” the interception of reporter Jon Stephenson’s metadata by the military, which thought his articles were overly critical, and the release of journalist Andrea Vance’s phone records to a leak investigation is indicative of growing government mistrust of the media and their watchdog role.”

      Some interesting reading in the report for those of you interested in Venezula’s Socialist Government (rank 116 out of 180).
      http://en.rsf.org/venezuela-venezuela-urged-to-improve-media-04-08-2014,46751.html

      • ropata:rorschach 7.3.1
        7 February 2015 at 10:31 am

        Yes, Key is great compared to Mussolini as well.

        • The lost sheep 7.3.1.1
          7 February 2015 at 10:41 am

          That’s an ironic comment given that your original post was an attack on the intelligence (‘fool’), impartiality (‘pro establishment’), and competence (‘piece of crap’) of a journalist.

          • ropata:rorschach 7.3.1.1.1
            7 February 2015 at 10:44 am

            Please read Dirty Politics and then get back to me with your thoughts.

            • The lost sheep 7.3.1.1.1.1
              7 February 2015 at 11:03 am

              How you view Dirty Politics depends on how your world view leads you to fill in the unverified ‘linkages’ between facts.

              My experience of trying to discuss it roughly equates to attempts at objective discussion with anti 1080 campaigners or Creationists.

              Everyone has already got their opinion set in stone, so discussion is invalid and pointless.

          • The lost sheep 7.3.1.1.2
            7 February 2015 at 10:57 am

            In fact, as the replies to your original post show, and as you can read every day here both in editorial and commenters content, there is a very strong theme of ‘distrust’ and ‘disrespect’ of the press evident on TS.

            Every day here I read attacks on the integrity of individual journalists and the media as a whole, far worse than anything I have ever heard from a politician in NZ.

            And many of you who do so are the first ones to get out your pens to defend Catton or Hager from the disrespect of others! Hypocrites. The truth is that you only value and support the freedom of those who say things that you agree with. Those who don’t, you attack with a bigoted zeal.

            FFS. Given power, some of you here would quickly have us ranking down there with Venezuela!

            • ropata:rorschach 7.3.1.1.2.1
              7 February 2015 at 11:15 am

              Is the Key-loving paparazzi beyond criticism now? Sorry, I didn’t get that memo.
              My mistake, I thought that journalists were supposed to uncover hidden agendas and question authority, not parrot government PR.

              Puddleglum has written a scholarly analysis of this brouhaha, in summary: the media has joined the neoliberal elite, and anti-intellectualism is rearguard defense of their bankrupt ideology.

              • The lost sheep …
                7 February 2015 at 11:52 am

                Puddleglum certainly is a scholar.
                As such, I am very surprised that he has employed the same ‘faulty generalisation’ sin of logic as many less erudite commentators on the Catton case.

                An extremely small sample cannot validly be used to make claims about the attributes of much larger groupings….

                • ropata:rorschach …
                  7 February 2015 at 12:23 pm

                  Oh so this is just an isolated case of media uselessness? Add it to the list…

                • Puddleglum …
                  7 February 2015 at 10:03 pm

                  Hi The lost sheep,

                  Thank you for the compliment.

                  I’m not quite sure why you think I’ve employed the ‘faulty generalisation’ sin of logic. In fact I’m not sure what that sin is. Is it the well-known flaw in inductive logic? (If every crow I’ve seen is black, all crows must be black …)

                  In my defence, I’d clarify that much of today’s broadcast media (and commentators), and much of its ‘style’, has grown out of the deregulation, privatisation (e.g., of state radio networks) and commercialisation of the media.

                  It is not that long ago that there was no RadioLive, RadioSport, TV3, Mediaworks, etc.. There were no ‘shock jocks’, no news bulletins that competed for market share by making ‘stars’ of their political journalists (and required them to do rapid fire ‘blogs’ on the latest political ‘hot’ issue), no ‘advertorials’, no well-rewarded corporate ambassadors (e.g., Mike Hoskings’ involvement with Sky City) plugging their particular corporation’s PR, etc., etc..

                  It was not that long ago that political journalists never considered ‘market share’ for their employer and, so, would steer well clear of using personal abuse to attract an audience.

                  All of these changes in the political media we now have (and the political journalism we have) arose as a fairly direct result of the reforms of the 1980s and 1990s. I suppose you could say that there is more diversity (or, more correctly, there are more ‘outlets’ ) but I’m not sure that equates to more good political analysis or, for that matter, more or better information about politics and political issues.

                  My concern is less about individual political journalists who may align themselves unashamedly with one side of the political spectrum but about the structural changes in political media which makes it difficult for anyone to step outside of the parameters of political debate that were established in the 1980s/1990s.

                  That’s reinforced, I think, by the fact that the political journalists who dominate the commentary today have often themselves grown up – and certainly only been adults – since those reforms took place. That means that, as individuals, they’ve pretty much imbibed the neoliberal ‘thought world’ into their view of what is ‘common sense’ (as David Harvey argues in ‘A Brief History of Neoliberalism’).

                  In that sense, as individuals they are no different from many other (youngish) New Zealanders who absorbed those same attitudes and values (as we all absorb the attitudes and values of the social and economic arrangements into which we are born). Hardly something I would ‘blame’ them for, of course.

                  Basically, I think the ‘logic’ of the structural changes that occurred at that time have led towards a form of political journalism that finds it harder and harder to do serious political reporting, let alone analysis.

                  As I said, this is not the fault of individuals (who simply earn a living – sometimes quite a good one – in the way that seems to be required of them) but of the ‘incentives’ or ‘logic’ built into today’s media by those reforms.

                  And, of course, there’s also the constant restructuring and rationalising of media organisations that puts greater and greater pressure onto journalists – yet another consequence that can be traced, quite uncontroversially, back to those same reforms.

                  • The lost sheep …
                    7 February 2015 at 11:59 pm

                    Puddleglum, I enjoyed your article immensely, and much of it I would either be inclined to either agree with, or at least agree that I might agree with, if future events unfold in line with trends you predict from current observation.
                    (If they don’t of course I will say you were an arse!)

                    But I do quibble with the arguments you make that derive from ‘faulty generalisations’. i.e. Large scale assertions and conclusions you draw from a very small number of evidential occasions of a particular phenomena.

                    The number of samples you reference as the base material for your argument is 4, in an overall grouping of 4.5 million.
                    Plunkett, Farrer, Hooten, and Key (and with that last sample you are careful to preface most comments with the qualifier ‘seem’).

                    And yet from that tiny sample, (via many delightful diversions admittedly), you draw conclusions about the nature of the vastly larger entities of ‘Neo-liberalism’, ‘our market system’, ‘many New Zealanders’, and ‘right wingers’.

                    I would happily agree that Plunkett, Farrer, Hooten are idiots, and that Key is a man without intellectual sophistication, or a love of the arts.
                    But in my opinion, it is as valid to say that they are representative of any large scale groupings of New Zealanders, as it would be to base a similar argument on the ‘representative’ comments of Martyn Bradbury, Hone Harawira, and Philip Ure.

                    • phillip ure …
                      8 February 2015 at 7:18 am

                      i must counter yr last assertion..

                      ..mainstream political-polling shows that poverty/inequality are an issue that concerns a majority of mainstream nz..

                      ..(which is the only reasons key mumbles faux-promises to ‘do something’..which of course will all add up to s.f.a..)

                      ..so the arguments presented to fix this problem..

                      ..are indeed ‘representative’..

                      ..it is just that the politicians..(of all stripes..)..are trailing behind..

                      ..our ‘representatives’ are the ones who are un-‘representative’..

                      ..those arguing for something to actually be done..

                      ..are the ‘representative’-ones…

                    • Pete George …
                      8 February 2015 at 7:31 am

                      ..mainstream political-polling shows that poverty/inequality are an issue that concerns a majority of mainstream nz..

                      Polling doesn’t show how concerned people are. For example if they are concerned enough to do something about it themselves.

                      Polling is very superficial. I don’t think Government priorities should be dictated by whatever media organisations decide to ask in polls.

                      Poverty/inequality is already an issue of concern to the Government anyway, according to how much they spend on social security and welfare – $27.3 billion for 2013/14 (twice as much as spent on health+education).

                    • phillip ure …
                      8 February 2015 at 7:41 am

                      how did aston villa do last nite..?

                      ..does anyone know..?

                    • The lost sheep …
                      8 February 2015 at 10:27 am

                      @Phillip Ure

                      “i must counter yr last assertion..
                      ..mainstream political-polling shows that poverty/inequality are an issue that concerns a majority of mainstream nz..”

                      Good to see you acknowledge that Phillip. Too often on this site the narrative is that mainstream NZ’ers are purely self – interested, greedy, and don’t care.
                      As you point out, that’s rubbish.

                      ..so the arguments presented to fix this problem..
                      ..are indeed ‘representative’..
                      Just one step too far in your logic there?
                      No question a concern about poverty and inequality is representative of a majority of NZ’ers…
                      But where is the evidence that any specific “argument presented to fix this problem” can be said to be representative of the majority of Mainstream NZ?

                      I know of no such evidence, but as the majority of NZ’ers are concerned about poverty and inequality, you might think that you can draw some simple conclusions about their preferred solutions from their voting patterns at the last election?

                    • Clemgeopin []
                      8 February 2015 at 1:04 pm

                      but as the majority of NZ’ers are concerned about poverty and inequality, you might think that you can draw some simple conclusions about their preferred solutions from their voting patterns at the last election?

                      You speak of logic and strut out such a stupid conclusion. The last election was not fought on a single issue of poverty and inequality. An election result is based on many different political election dynamics. Take a step back and think of the different things that happened during the last election such as the muddying of waters through government propaganda and lies, the effect of KDC, the nasty tricks played against him, IMP and Hone in TTT, the dirty politics, our very mediocre and quite biased mostly pro government and anti cunliffe, anti-Labour and anti-left TV and print media machine, the exaggeration of minor errors of Cunliffe and the left and low scrutiny of Key and the RW. The election was NOT a kind of referendum on the question of ‘poverty and inequality’ as you stupidly infer.

                  • Pete George …
                    8 February 2015 at 7:06 am

                    @Puddlegum: “I’m not quite sure why you think I’ve employed the ‘faulty generalisation’ sin of logic.”

                    “All of these changes in the political media we now have (and the political journalism we have) arose as a fairly direct result of the reforms of the 1980s and 1990s.”

                    Political media has been changing for much longer than that.

                    Newspapers have been always privately owned. The oldest surviving daily in New Zealand is the ODT, first published 15 November 1861. The Press began as a weekly a few months earlier than that.

                    Private radio re-emerged in the early 70s along with talkback radio.

                    And there are significant changes in the last few decades that have little or nothing to do with the reforms of the 80s and 90s.

                    The Internet and social media has radically changed the political media.

                    Some of the changes are negative but some are positive. I certainly wouldn’t want to see Muldoon style bullying and attempted control of political journalists, and I suspect Tom Scott would agree.

                    Competition and diversification encourages more extreme, more superficial and less careful reporting. But it also uncovers things that a cosier club may have decided to keep out of the public domain.

                    And regardless of all this whatever the causes of the changes are it is as it is and there’s no going back.

                    One thing probably hasn’t changed – both sides complaining about unfair coverage that’s biased against them.

            • ropata:rorschach 7.3.1.1.2.2
              7 February 2015 at 8:55 pm

              lost sheep,
              Keep on pretending that all is OK in the NZ media landscape. Lie to yourself. Everybody knows that the Key government are past masters of political spin.

              Dissimulation is a form of deception in which one conceals the truth. It consists of concealing the truth, or in the case of half-truths, concealing parts of the truth, like inconvenient or secret information.

        • phillip ure 7.3.1.2
          7 February 2015 at 11:50 am

          “..Key is great compared to Mussolini..”

          dunno about that..

          ..mussolini fixed up public transport..

          ..whereas key..?..that cycle-track..?

          ..he hasn’t even managed to get that together..

          ..in how many years..?

          ..um..!..what has key actually done..?

          ..to leave his mark..?

          ..um..!..that unfinished cycletrack..?..a bigger casino in auckland..?

          ..anyone got anything else..?

          • Once was Tim 7.3.1.2.1
            7 February 2015 at 12:52 pm

            ……. what has Key done …… ??

            I’m picking a couple of skid marks here and there – but nothing a cyclist could even get worked up about. In some cases, I think I’d rather have the train tracks over which small, modular ‘bus-on-bogies’ type rolling stock could run.

          • ropata:rorschach 7.3.1.2.2
            7 February 2015 at 2:55 pm

            Turned Christchurch CBD into a giant parking lot
            Turned the Auckland housing crisis into serious $$$ for his banker mates
            Promised to fix everything, then went and played golf in Hawaii

      • Morrissey 7.3.2
        7 February 2015 at 11:04 am

        Venezuela’s government has been democratically elected; whether its reforms are “socialist” or not is not relevant.

        That it survived an insurrection and coup, orchestrated by the Bush regime in 2002, is a testimony to the strength and resilience of the Venezuelan electors. A few generations earlier, the United States could have violently overthrown the elected government, with its outrageous democratic pretensions, and installed a compliant dictator, as it did after it destroyed the democratically elected governments in Guatemala (1954) and Chile (1973).

        The Obama administration has continued the rhetorical onslaught against democracy in Venezuela, and it has encouraged the campaigns of hoarding in order to create a sense of chaos and destabilization. But the population of Venezuela has been through it all before.

        People like you, who know little or nothing about anything, will continue to rant and rage about it, but the fact is: Venezuela has a hard won commitment to democratic government—and the violent insurrections, fuelled by U.S. provocateurs, that occasionally flare up will not destroy that.

        • The lost sheep 7.3.2.1
          7 February 2015 at 12:04 pm

          I was not ranting and raving about Venezuela?
          I simply linked to what ‘Reporters without Borders’ has to say about press freedom there.

          They point to significant Government abuses of the Press which you haven’t addressed at all?
          Unless your post above is meant to be a defense of the Govt. abuse of press freedom?

          • ropata:rorschach 7.3.2.1.1
            7 February 2015 at 12:19 pm

            Are you saying that the CIA would never screw around with the news media of a sovereign nation? Baa baa little sheep.

            • The lost sheep 7.3.2.1.1.1
              7 February 2015 at 12:33 pm

              No, I did not say anything even remotely to do with the CIA, and I completely fail understand what your point is?

              • ropata:rorschach …
                7 February 2015 at 1:09 pm

                You were saying how great NZ media freedom is compared to that of Venezuela. That beleaguered country is a touchy subject around here, as an example of underhanded US political interference.

                Comparison of ‘relative’ press freedom doesn’t justify dirty politics mate.

                • The lost sheep …
                  7 February 2015 at 1:33 pm

                  Reporters without Borders do make a comparative judgment on Press Freedom, and I presume next year their assessment of ‘dirty politics’ will be reflected in that.

                  But in the meantime, you seem to be implying that alleged ‘outside interference’ in Venezuela justifies it’s Governments abuse of internal press freedom? (Boy, now that’s a new idea. Sarc.)

                  And Morrissey, who is normally very keen on anything Venezuelan, doesn’t have any comment at all on the freedom of press abuses of the current government?

                  • ropata:rorschach …
                    7 February 2015 at 2:40 pm

                    Awesome derail of the original comment about New Zealand media. These comments about Venezuela are getting further afield. Do you really think a left wing government in NZ would crack down on media freedom or something? Remember how much insane trivia was reported about Helen Clark?

      • McFlock 7.3.3
        7 February 2015 at 3:16 pm

        By the Reporters without borders standard, in 2014 NZ was 9th. In 2013 NZ was 8th.

        In 2008 we were 7th equal

        And it’s not like the world is getting safer for press freedom – but we’re failing faster than our peers.

        • The lost sheep 7.3.3.1
          7 February 2015 at 4:37 pm

          ” we’re failing faster than our peers.”

          A fine example of cherry picking the data McFlock.

          You don’t mention that in 2008 we were 7th equal with 6 other countries, covering 7th to 13th.

          And lets have a look at our position in the index since we first appeared in…
          2003 17th, 2004 9th, 2005 13th, 2006 19th, 2007 15th, 2008 7th =, 2009 13th, 2010 8th, 2011/12 12th, 2013 8th, 2014 9th.

          So a drop from 8th to 9th doesn’t look very significant in light of those figures does it?
          And it’s very interesting to see the general improvement in our placing since 2008….wonder why we were ranked so low between ’03 and ’07?

          • McFlock 7.3.3.1.1
            7 February 2015 at 4:43 pm

            lol

            because other countries were more free relative to nz.

            It’s just a shame that they rescaled their index. otherwise we’d have something more to go on than the drop from 8.38 to 8.55 between 2013 and 2014.

            You never answered why you wanted to know if I was a “worker”, by the way.

            • The lost sheep 7.3.3.1.1.1
              7 February 2015 at 11:20 pm

              You never answered why you wanted to know if I was a “worker”, by the way.

              Nothing personal. Was just following the idea that some actual people who were actual workers might actually consider taking over businesses.
              As opposed to all the theorising about the desirability of doing so.

              Found it quite bizarre that such a line of thought should be considered offense by some – on a worker oriented blog!

              Not to mention the idea that some people would consider it an invasion of privacy to identify themselves as workers?

              • McFlock …
                8 February 2015 at 12:07 am

                But we know that around the globe actual workers have not just considered it, they’ve done it. And we have quite a few co-ops in NZ anyway.
                Seems to be a bit of a waste of your time.

                As for privacy issues, some tories like to identify commenters and contact their employers. So I choose what I tell you guys about me. Sure, you could probably aggregate data and identify me with a certain level of accuracy, but there’s no reason I should make it easy for you.

  8. Chooky 8
    7 February 2015 at 9:54 am

    Robert Fisk of ‘The Independent’ asks who is funding ISIS?

    …we need to be getting answers to this question before we send young New Zealanders off to fight this war and risk the sacrifice of their lives

    ‘War with Isis: If Saudis aren’t fuelling the militant inferno, who is?’

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/war-with-isis-if-the-saudis-arent-fuelling-the-militant-inferno-who-is-10024324.html

  9. Morrissey 9
    7 February 2015 at 10:11 am

    The campaign of demonisation against George Galloway constitutes incitement
    by John Wight, socialistunity.com, 6 February, 2015

    The latest edition of BBC Question Time from Finchley in north London was a low point for the flagship show. The treatment meted out to Respect MP George Galloway was a disgrace, made more so by the fact his car was attacked as he was leaving the venue, despite a police presence outside.

    The ugly events witnessed by millions began in the weeks leading up, as soon as his appearance on the panel in Finchley was announced. An orchestrated campaign of intimidation and provocation was waged through the media, designed to intimidate both him and the BBC. But as George said, the idea that someone who has been an MP on a near uninterrupted basis since 1987 should be prevented from speaking or appearing in any constituency in the country is an attack on democracy. The Conservative MP for Finchley and Golders Green, Mike Freer, played a key part in instigating this media campaign, which given that the Respect MP was physically assaulted in the street just a few months ago by a fanatic wearing an IDF t-shirt, is surely grounds for Mr Freer to be held to account.

    During the show, the question directed at Galloway re the rise of antisemitism in the UK should have been censored. It straddled the line of defamation, not to mention taste, and brought the BBC into disrepute. It was an organised attack, involving an audience in which an array of hate mongers were given free rein. Even the gentleman who reminded the audience of Galloway’s past record in correcting antisemitism when it arised on his Press TV show Comment, went on to assert that antisemitism was directly related to the number of Muslims living in Europe.

    Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian’s statement, “the resumption of violence in Gaza”, during his attack on George was a studied and cowardly attempt to minimise one of the most barbaric military operations against a civilian population the world has witnessed. That he could not bring himself to acknowledge this, when we consider the 500 Palestinian children who were slaughtered during this massacre, was suggestive of a man who has had his humanity surgically removed.

    The free speech ‘merchants’, those who were so up in arms over matters related to the massacre at the offices of Charlie Hebdo, who use free speech as a sword rather than a shield, would like nothing more than to silence one of the only voices in the country’s national life who dares challenge the demonisation of Muslims and the Muslim community, establishment support for the apartheid state of Israel, and a political status of quo of military intervention overseas and social and economic injustice at home.

    That George is a polarising figure is beyond doubt. But the reason they hate him because he knows them, knows what they are and consistently and tirelessly exposes their hypocrisy and double standards. Consequently, it would be a huge reverse if he fails to get re-elected as the MP for Bradford West in May. Fortunately, though, given the disgraceful lynch-mob-audience on Question Time, and the orchestrated campaign of incitement we have seen rolled out against him, his re-election is now more likely than ever.

    Someone tweeted last night after the show ‘Je Suis George Galloway’. It is hard to argue with that sentiment after the attempted political and public lynching of the Respect MP on Question Time.

    http://socialistunity.com/campaign-demonisation-george-galloway-constitutes-incitement/

    George Galloway on BBC Question Time – 5th February 2015
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guAjF0csFI0

    I note Mr. Ladbrokes is still offering a very generous 7/4 on GG retaining his Bradford West seat.

    • Paul 9.1
      7 February 2015 at 10:16 am

      Yes it was a disgrace.
      Galloway simply differentiated between Zionism and Judaism, as well as commenting that there was more anti-Islamic behaviour at the moment. It would appear that free speech is only permitted for some views in the west.
      The fact the BBC allowed such a mob mentality shows how much the UK is slipping from democracy.

    • The Murphey 9.2
      7 February 2015 at 12:31 pm

      The BBC has been compromised openly since the exposure of their involvement leading to Dr David Kelly committing ‘suicide’

      “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize”

      • Once was Tim 9.2.1
        7 February 2015 at 1:05 pm

        Yep! You have to wonder though at who’s been pulling the strings – it has been a similar pattern (even a Crosby Textor/Murdoch type pattern) that’s been active in the ‘Commonwealth of Nations’ …… you know …. that “Club”
        Cameron and cohorts in the UK, Abbott @ Co in Oz attacking SBS and ABC, Key and kronies attacking the last remaining vestiges of PSB in NZ, and Canada – ALL done through cronie appointments and/or cutting of funding.
        Then there’s the commercial arm of Auntie …… stacking it all with colonial rejects just to make it all look good and viable.

        Never mind tho’ chasps – it’ll all jump up and bite them in the bum eventually

  11. marty mars 11
    7 February 2015 at 11:34 am

    Free range parenting is quite a cool name

    Russell Ballantyne, co-director and teacher at Early Childhood on Stafford, in Dunedin says

    If you give your children freedom, he says, these same children will not be scared to make decisions in life, they’ll know their capabilities. They are the people who will become our future leaders.

    “Ninety-nine point nine per cent of people are good and yet we treat them as if they are evil and that’s where we have lost the plot.

    “We have to have faith in our children. We have to have faith in our society, in our villages. If you do not have faith in your village then as a community, we do not exist.”

    Sure, he says, we have to monitor our children and make sure they are OK but we should not always be the source of their entertainment.

    “That’s not healthy. The way for children to know themselves is to have the freedom to try.”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/life/65898625/free-range-parenting-neglect-or-common-sense

    I agree with Russell and that is the philosophy that we are raising our children with.

    • weka 11.1
      7 February 2015 at 12:13 pm

      great article, thanks. I was a free range kid (because that’s just how it was) and extremely grateful for that.

      “In America recently a school got rid of all its swings because they read a study that said swings were the most dangerous equipment in the playground.”

      I wonder that the most dangerous equipment in their playground is now, and when they’re going to get rid of it.

      I love the bit about the kid that went to the moon.

      “Murder and abduction/kidnapping rates have risen. In 1980 there were eight convictions for murder and 19 convictions for abduction/kidnapping. In 2013 there were 33 convictions for murder and 89 for abduction/kidnapping.”

      Pretty useless paragraph there DomPost, and doesn’t fit the article at all except to demonstrate the tendancy to unproductive paranoia. How many of the abductions are by family members? Increases in reported kidnapping vs parental disputes about custody. Increase in divorce/separation rates. Changes in the culture around expections on parents when they separate. Increase in population. etc etc.

  12. Foreign waka 12
    7 February 2015 at 11:47 am

    Today’s article in the Herald from John Armstrong

    “That Key escaped punishment at the ballot box last September despite exposure of the dirty-tricks campaign masterminded by Jason Ede and Whale Oil’s Cameron Slater tells you an awful lot about New Zealand voters’ stance on the abuse of power and safeguarding political rights.”
    “Quite simply, they don’t have one. If they did, Hager would have been considered a hero”

    Yep, and

    Claire Trevett

    “Labour leader Andrew Little has proposed looking at giving Maori greater self-governance, possibly including the ability to make some of their own laws.”
    “Mr Key said allowing some iwi the ability to make their own law would be “divisive” and he did not support the suggestion”

    NZ is so unsettled that under the current confusion rights and laws are in danger of being corrupted to such extend that the country will end up fighting itself. On one hand utter ignorance and apathy regarding laws and civil liberty and on the other jumping on bandwagons to appease creating another bottom less pit of unrest and animosity. The later instigated by Mr Little and this will lead me to never vote for him. Ever. Given that Mr Key is just a puppet of the rich there is not much choice left other then the greens who hopefully can find their footing after the departure of Dr Norman. All in all – meet another non voter. Hallelujah, first time in my life.

    • ropata:rorschach 12.1
      7 February 2015 at 12:31 pm

      Agree with the sentiment waka, Little is uncharacteristically shooting off his mouth. Probably caught up in the moment at Waitangi.

      What a vote loser for the Northland byelection!

      • mickysavage 12.1.1
        7 February 2015 at 12:56 pm

        Andrew Little was drawing what I thought was the perfectly logical conclusion that if Nga Puhi did not cede their sovereignty then they may still have the power to make laws. I am sure that he was not trying to be populist, in fact the opposite. He was talking frankly as a lawyer, not as a politician.

        • ropata:rorschach 12.1.1.1
          7 February 2015 at 1:15 pm

          Thanks micky, a bit of context helps. I still think it’s a bad idea, but at this stage Ngapuhi self-government is just a pipe dream. There’s a fraction too much friction in the ranks.

        • Foreign waka 12.1.1.2
          7 February 2015 at 1:53 pm

          I appreciate your statement. As I see it, Mr Little is now a politician for all, that means the last thing you want to create is a 2,3 4 tier system – it will lead to exactly what is discussed here for such long time that should be avoided like the pest – Apartheid. There is a certain degree of diplomacy and tact needed as well as a firm stance that every NZlander counts.

    • Once was Tim 12.2
      7 February 2015 at 1:11 pm

      I agree totally as well …. the thing is though, when the complacent, and the thick shits eventually wake up (which inevitably they will), can you imagine just how angry they’re going to be? None of them will take kindly to the realisation they’ve been royally conned – especially by a Phil Stein.
      Harder they rise, harder and nastier (hopefully not, but often the case) they fall.
      (At which point of course, we’ll all expected to feel pity for them)

  13. ropata:rorschach 13
    7 February 2015 at 12:26 pm

    Another economic crash is coming. How did this happen? – video http://gu.com/p/45f4y/stw

    David Cameron says a second financial crash is imminent. If he’s right, it’s because the government bailed out the wrong industry, argues Renegade Economist host Ross Ashcroft. He says the last recession was brought on by too much debt. Today private debt is at the greatest level in recorded human history. By ignoring this and instead focusing on the banks, we are heading for economic armageddon.

  14. Paul 14
    7 February 2015 at 12:51 pm

    Just when Key needed a distraction. The Herald obliges.
    Bash the bennies.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11398185

    Pity they don’t spend their time investigating corporate and wealthy tax dogers.
    But then those people own the Herald, don’t they?

    • Psycho Milt 14.1
      7 February 2015 at 1:25 pm

      It does seem appropriate to equate people who rip off the welfare system with those who rip off the tax system, yes.

      • weka 14.1.1
        7 February 2015 at 2:34 pm

        “It does seem appropriate to equate people who rip off the welfare system with those who rip off the tax system, yes.”

        But they’re not people ripping off the welfare system (did you even read the article?). They’re people with outstanding arrest warrants, for anything (not necessarily to do with their benefit), who happen to be on a benefit at the time the warrant it processed. Why target only beneficiaries and not all people with outstanding warrants who receive help from the state and who are contactable that way?

        • Psycho Milt 14.1.1.1
          7 February 2015 at 9:20 pm

          But they’re not people ripping off the welfare system…

          My response was to the suggestion that the media (or maybe the authorities, it wasn’t clear) should focus on tax dodgers rather than beneficiaries. Which would make beneficiary fraud the relevant comparison. If you find it invalid to compare tax dodgers with people receiving benefits while having outstanding warrants, take it up with the commenter who did so.

          Why target only beneficiaries and not all people with outstanding warrants who receive help from the state and who are contactable that way?

          I expect, first, because it’s relatively straightforward, and second, because it offers immediate and hefty leverage.

          • McFlock 14.1.1.1.1
            7 February 2015 at 9:45 pm

            The new policy focuses on beneficiaries, not benefit fraudsters.

            The govt/media should focus on tax dodgers rather than beneficiaries.

            • weka 14.1.1.1.1.1
              7 February 2015 at 10:54 pm

              +1 The only one talking about benefit fraud is you PM.

              “Why target only beneficiaries and not all people with outstanding warrants who receive help from the state and who are contactable that way?”

              “I expect, first, because it’s relatively straightforward, and second, because it offers immediate and hefty leverage.”

              Nothing to do with benebashing. Yeah right.

              • Psycho Milt …
                8 February 2015 at 7:36 am

                Nothing to do with benebashing.

                Well, yeah. Do you imagine the constant demands on these threads for more to be done about “corporate and wealthy tax dodgers” amount to “taxpayer-bashing?” If so, you’ve never objected to it that I’ve noticed, and if not, your “benebashing” refrain is on a par with “You’re ugly and your mother dresses you funny.”

                • weka …
                  8 February 2015 at 8:55 am

                  That’s a stupid comparison. Bene bashing is a prevalent meme promoted by the state and by a chunk of the population in ways that are highly prejudicial against a class of people which includes some of the most vulnerable people in NZ.

                  Criticism of wealthy tax dodgers is a device used to point out the hypocricy of the above, and to hold unethical wealthy people to account. It’s nothing to do with taxpayers as a class of people (for instance it doesn’t include winz beneficiaries who are taxpayers, or low income earners etc). The criticism is from a relatively small section of NZ society against some of the most powerful and most protected members of society.

                  In fact, I’m struggling to see any relevancy or accuracy to your comparison. I think this is probably the most non-sensical argument I’ve seen you make. Nice attempt at diversion from your mistake about the article above, but you’ve just repeated the mistake.

            • Pete George 14.1.1.1.1.2
              8 February 2015 at 7:15 am

              It’s not a ‘focus’ on beneficiaries, it’s just one of a number of levers used to try and ensure that people deal with outstanding arrest warrants.

              Another way they do it is stopping people with outstanding warrants from leaving the country.

              And it’s nothing new. In about 1980 I was prevented from getting a firearms license until an outstanding warrant was dealt with. I thought that was fair enough.

              Should beneficiaries be allowed to ignore arrest warrants?

              • weka …
                8 February 2015 at 8:56 am

                yes, Pete, wanting a firearms licence is the same as needing money this week so you can feed you kids.

                You can fuck right off with your ignorant, muddle NZ prejudices.

                • Pete George …
                  8 February 2015 at 9:13 am

                  I’m prejudiced against people ignoring the legal process.

                  Benefits won’t be cut without giving alleged offenders a chance to sort out any outstanding arrest warrants.

                  The process is:
                  • Courts issue arrest warrants.
                  • Police follow up on all issued warrants.
                  • Warrants can be resolved at any courthouse.
                  • Justice Ministry advises Ministry of Social Development of warrants not cleared within 28 days.
                  • People with unresolved warrants have 10 working days to contact Justice Ministry to clear warrant; otherwise benefit payments can be stopped.

                  The simple solution is to deal with any outstanding warrants.

                  Do you suggest beneficiaries should be free to ignore outstanding warrants?

                  • weka …
                    8 February 2015 at 9:25 am

                    beneficiaries are being singled out as a class of people, by a govt that does this intentionally.

                    Your question doesn’t make any sense in this conversation. The question is why should beneficiaries be targeted in such a potentially devastating way, instead of targeting all people with outstanding warrants, or all classes of people?

                    So, again, fuck off with your muddle NZ ignorance and prejudice. Until you understand the political and personal implications of this policy, you’re just an advocate for bene bashing.

                    • Pete George …
                      8 February 2015 at 9:43 am

                      Do you think that non-beneficiaries are not targeted to try and make them deal with arrest warrants?

                      This policy isn’t a problem for any beneficiaries that take responsibility for any outstanding arrest warrants. If they do what anyone should then they’re not treated any differently.

                      Unless they’re trying to avoid arrest. Arresting people and imprisoning them can be detrimental to their families. Should criminals with children never be imprisoned?

                    • weka …
                      8 February 2015 at 9:58 am

                      Show me which other classes of people are being specifically targeted with such extreme consequences.

                      “This policy isn’t a problem for any beneficiaries that take responsibility for any outstanding arrest warrants.”

                      Again, that’s just incredibly ignorant on your part. Your muddle NZ view that all people are equal is reprehensible when people in this country are struggling in ways you willfully refuse to understand. Worse, it’s exactly your politics that have abandoned those people to the fate you’re endorsing, and now you want to put the boot in with more bashing.

              • McFlock …
                8 February 2015 at 3:30 pm

                Oh wow, a comment from our local national-party supporting fact-checker. There’s a surprise.

                The new policy does focus on beneficiaries, because it doesn’t deal with any other group of people. The policy change in questions does not, for example, deal with nutty attention-sinks who want to own guns.

                Here’s a question for you, pete: should an arrest warrant for a trivial offence prevent someone being able to feed themselves or their kids?

                And if you think people “ignore” arrest warrants, you don’t know what the word “arrest” means.

                Messier 66 (also known as NGC 3627) is an intermediate spiral galaxy about 36 million light-years away in the constellation Leo. It was discovered by Charles Messier in 1780. M66 is about 95 thousand light-years across[3] with striking dust lanes and bright star clusters along sweeping spiral arms.[4] M66 is part of the famous Leo Triplet, a small group of galaxies that also includes M65 and NGC 3628.

              • freedom …
                8 February 2015 at 4:18 pm

                “It’s not a ‘focus’ on beneficiaries”
                *cough* bullshit Pete bullshit *cough*

                If the campaign that has been running wild through the MSM the last few days is not putting a “focus” on beneficiaries I shudder to think what a focussed campaign would look like. Maybe, in your book, if there are no photo ID’s and published street addresses then it’s not quite specific enough to qualify as a “focus”.

                These targeted warrants are reported as being for non payment of fines, child support and such. These are not warrants for violent offenders and definitely not reported to relate to any type of benefit fraud, or we can guarantee that you would have mentioned that detail time and time and time again.

                Which all goes towards the implication it is about recouping of monies owed. Here is where it is good to mention “blood from a stone.”

                The reports clearly mention the 8,000 warrants being targeted are belonging to beneficiaries and that these beneficiaries total over half of the 15,000 warrants outstanding for similar offences. My math is shaky but that leaves around 7,000 warrants for people NOT on a benefit. I see no mention of any attempts to focus on them. Sorry, to target them.

                So why not target those people? They likely have jobs, assets and possibly even disposable income, so the fines can probably be paid or arrangements made for the fines to be paid,with relative ease. Many of those people are probably receiving Working for Families payments also.

                So are you brave enough to ask why these 7,000 fine upstanding people are not also being thrown into the village stocks as the tomatoes get passed around?

      • phillip ure 14.1.2
        7 February 2015 at 4:19 pm

        factually-incorrect..

        ..and never let a chance to poor-bash go by..

        ..it must be p.m..

        ..it must be a day ending in a ‘y’…

    • Murray Rawshark 14.2
      7 February 2015 at 1:40 pm

      This is turning WINZ workers into law enforcement agents and is the sort of thing that happened in East Germany. I am starting to think that Kiwis are turning into a contemptible little people. We didn’t used to be like this.

  15. adam 15
    7 February 2015 at 2:42 pm

    Dam I just put this song on weekend social – but just thought it could be the song de jure for the PM

  16. McFlock 16
    7 February 2015 at 3:30 pm

    Oh look – someone switched the summer back on 🙂

  17. Redelusion 17
    7 February 2015 at 4:08 pm

    Boy the conspiracy theories are flying to thick and fast today, likewise armstrongs article and Venezuela a bit to close to home for many here shattering there half baked beliefs and world Veiw , attack attack

  18. Incognito 18
    7 February 2015 at 5:01 pm

    I have been concerned for some time that attacking Key is not having the desired outcome but, in fact, may have the opposite effect of entrenching his popularity and public support for him and National. All perceived ‘hits’ that have been landed on Key or National have so far had null result; cut off a head and, like a hydra, it grows back. Take Judith Collins, for example, or Nick Smith, or Maurice Williamson. Nothing seems to have had an effect on the election results and some have indeed argued that DP and the Moment of Truth have actually helped National; they backfired.

    Why might that be so? Is it, as depicted in DP, because of an orchestrated campaign from the right? I think this may be part of the explanation but another part is perhaps less sinister and also not too hard to understand. According to some scientific studies* we all process information in a biased manner (“biased assimilation”), which causes us to adopt more extreme opinions and views after been exposed to inconclusive evidence, particular on complex matters. My lay-man’s interpretation is that with complex issues we revert to and rely on our biased initial views even when presented with objective, neutral, unbiased information to the contrary and, and become more radical as a consequence.

    Cass Sunstein** has written good articles about assimilation bias and has listed convincing examples of complex issues suffering from this, such as climate change, the situation in the Middle East, international terrorism, death penalty, etc. Sunstein also discussed deliberate polarization through so-called “polarization entrepreneurs”, who “attempt to create communities of like-minded people, and they are aware that these communities will not only harden positions but also move them to a more extreme point”. Rings a bell? Unfortunately, Sunstein does not offer any ways or solutions to counter these phenomena but it is quite clear that they exist and operate here in NZ as well. And they are getting stronger!

    *For example, Biased assimilation, homophily, and the dynamics of polarization http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1217220110 [free article; I skipped most of it as it was Gobbledygook to me. Please note that homophily is not the same as homophile]

    **Cass Sunstein is a controversial figure by all accounts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Sunstein His name has so far featured twice on TS and not necessarily in a good light.

  19. Philip Ferguson 19
    7 February 2015 at 5:10 pm

    Oops, should have been a fourth piece with the list on the White New Zealand policy:

    Written in 1997: The White New Zealand policy: racialisation, subordination and the first exclusionary legislation: https://rdln.wordpress.com/2014/03/14/the-white-new-zealand-policy-subordination-racialisation-and-the-first-exclusionary-legislation/

    The early leaders of the Labour Party were anti-Chinese racists and staunch supporters of the White New Zealand policy; a later article – not up on the blog yet – deals with developments after WW1, when the RSA, Reform Party, Liberal party, big farmers’ groups, Labour Party and Andrew Russell (head of Massey’s Cossacks in 1913) united in support of further White New Zealand legislation.

    Phil

  20. Clemgeopin 20
    7 February 2015 at 5:36 pm

    These three videos reminded me of the dirty right wing worms that have deeply infected the body politic of New Zealand politics in the last six years.

    [1 minurte + article in today’s New Zealand Herald]
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11398186

    [2 minutes]

    Parasites [7 minutes] [Educative, but don’t watch if very squeamish]

  21. greywarshark 21
    7 February 2015 at 5:39 pm

    Slavoj Zizek says that all the last century systems of the left have failed. Local autonomy and decisions are good, but if talking about direct democracy where all decisions are debated and agreed together, he points out how time consuming that is.
    (Anyone been on committees with eager, keen people who don’t understand the pitfalls of not knowing, not thinking too much, acting in anticipation of success, and having no fall-back policy for failure.)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXVEnxtZe_w.)

    He points out the secrecy around. What is going on that we don’t know. We have in theory freedom of choice, but what choice are we being presented with. And he was shocked at the extent of vision of the chinese over human biology, they are not only wanting to improve physical conditions , but also the workings of the mind. All the continents have plans for the citizens, and from which citizens are excluded from discussion.

  22. greywarshark 22
    7 February 2015 at 5:58 pm

    Nicky Hager fund on 2 January :,
    The fund for his legal costs is now at $65,610 from 1274 donors.

    Now at 7 February on Give a Little page is $65,790 from 1279 donors. Up by 5 donors.
    https://givealittle.co.nz/cause/nickyhager/updates

    Keep thinking of him, the media community and net community, police and pollies are.

  23. greywarshark 23
    7 February 2015 at 6:13 pm

    Pundit’s Andrew Geddis’ comment on the right to death? new measure in Canada. It is strange how strongly the legislation speaks of citizens’ rights when it comes to life, but has nothing to offer for those wishing to die at any time, or when in terminal illness, or in pain.
    http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/all-those-moments-will-be-lost-in-time-like-tears-in-rain

    Because here’s what Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms says that every Canadian enjoys:

    Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

    And here’s why the Supreme Court says that imposing criminal penalties on medical professionals who help another person who is suffering with no hope of remission from ending their own life breaches that right:

    The right to life is engaged where the law or state action imposes death or an increased risk of death on a person, either directly or indirectly. Here, the prohibition deprives some individuals of life, as it has the effect of forcing some individuals to take their own lives prematurely, for fear that they would be incapable of doing so when they reached the point where suffering was intolerable.

    Then consider the right that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act guarantees to us all:

    No one shall be deprived of life except on such grounds as are established by law and are consistent with the principles of fundamental justice.

    This section was deliberately lifted from the Canadian model. And so I’m going to go out on a (not very long) limb and say that if and when a New Zealand court were ever to look at this right in the context of New Zealand’s criminal prohibition on “aid[ing] or abet[ing] any person in the commission of suicide”, it also would conclude that this blanket prohibition unjustifiably limits an individual’s right to life. The fact that Canada’s highest court unanimously ruled that the model for our law has this meaning and effect is going to be so persuasive that a New Zealand court is near certain to do likewise.

    But, and here’s the big but, what does that prediction mean? Well, at one level it means that New Zealand’s existing law imposes an unjustifiable limit on the individual rights of some members of our society (those with some nasty incurable disease that may or may not kill them, but certainly will give them a future of pain, indignity and despair). Obviously that’s not a good look for our law.

    On another level, however, this fact means nothing at all. For unlike Canada, our Bill of Rights Act does not allow a court to invalidate or “strike down” the law. So irrespective of what a judge (or panel of judges) may think of the criminal law’s effect on rights, it stays on the books. Which makes taking the matter to court a bit of a waste of time, and instead throws it back into the legislative arena….

  24. fisiani 24
    7 February 2015 at 9:39 pm

    Spot the odd one out
    1. Lydia Ko
    2. John Key
    3. Celtic
    4. The All Blacks
    5. David Cunliffe.

    Some would say 3 as not from NZ but the answer is of course 5 cos all the others are winners.

  25. rawshark-yeshe 25
    7 February 2015 at 9:47 pm

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/business/65894003/wealthy-chinese-buyers-snap-up-property

    au revoir NZ …. and in bloody great chunks in just a few days. how will this end ?

    • ropata:rorschach 25.1
      7 February 2015 at 10:09 pm

      The Chinese are becoming the landlords of NZ, with the endorsement of National and their wealthy backers. Local values and history do not factor into the financial decisions of this class of one percenters. The generations of Kiwis that built the infrastructure and houses have been sold out by a government who serves Money above all else. Now we know how displaced Maori feel.

    • Chooky 25.2
      7 February 2015 at 11:30 pm

      Well the Christchurch Press was very pro John Key Nactional…and possibly one reason why John Key Nactional won the election…so they should take responsibility for this take over of New Zealand land and property by foreigners and in particular Chinese ……which was entirely predictable if John Key and Nactional won

      The Christchurch Press one day before the Election plastered all over the front page a Tony Abbott inspired terrorist beat up in Australia…( some teenager with a plastic sword it turned out)…. voters in marginal seats in Christchurch were swung by these scare tactics and won by Nactional on the basis of this scaremongering by The Press, many believe.

      ….we can also thank other Nactional biased journalists and media…they know who they are and so do we…..it was an Election result bought by the right wing media

      God Save New Zealand

  26. ropata:rorschach 26
    7 February 2015 at 10:03 pm

    Tony “budgie-smuggler” Abbott could be gone by Tuesday lunchtime:
    Knives out for Tony Abbott in backbench revolt

    Fran O’Sullivan also puts the boot in:

    Deeply unpopular and accident prone, Abbott has failed to keep the confidence of the Australian people and most importantly his political colleagues who are openly weighing his replacement by either Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull or Deputy Prime Minister Julie Bishop perhaps as early as next week in what will be the third party room assassination of a sitting Prime Minister in less than five years.