Open mike 07/12/2014

Written By: - Date published: 7:09 am, December 7th, 2014 - 81 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

climate change head in sand-1Open mike is your post.

The Standard is not a conspiracy – just a welcome outlet for the expression of views. Leaders that command respect will not be undermined by this.

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

Step up to the mike …

81 comments on “Open mike 07/12/2014 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Jrobin 1
    7 December 2014 at 7:49 am

    Tom Scott! Well said, but what was Kim Hill’s argument, that if you get a grant from NZ on Air you cannot then criticise the Government? Best RNZ interview by mistake. Not the violence, that is just immature, but that the working class got done over by the Election and his feelings on John Key, yes he spoke for a lot of the silent and disenfranchised majority. Censorship and mediocrity in the media just got a stern kick in the pants by this musician. Kim Hill a massive fail except it did go to Air.

    • Wayne 1.1
      7 December 2014 at 9:24 am

      Disenfranchised? In the literal sense of the word of not being able to vote, well no.

      Every permanent resident can vote. All you have to do is enroll and vote. Not too hard really.

      And in any event the “silent majority” appear to have voted for John Key.

      But they can change their minds in just 2 years 9 months.

      As for Tom Scott, well you are welcome to him as your spokesman.

      • batweka 1.1.1
        7 December 2014 at 9:56 am

        disenfranchise |ˌdɪsɪnˈfran(t)ʃʌɪz| |ˌdɪsɛn-| (also disfranchise )

        • [as adj. ] ( disenfranchised) deprived of power; marginalized : a hard core of kids who are disenfranchised and don’t feel connected to the school.

        .

        Roughly 30% of voters voted for National. The only people that voted for John Key were the power brokers within National who appointed him.

        .

        You obviously didn’t listen to the interview. Tom Scott made it plain and clear he’s not a spokesperson.

        .

        What was your point exactly?

        • Tom Jackson 1.1.1.1
          8 December 2014 at 1:16 am

          Oh come on. Looking at how many New Zealanders watch reality TV is enough to tell you that there’s more than enough morons here than needed to elect Key and his band of merry pranksters.

      • Murray Rawshark 1.1.2
        7 December 2014 at 6:47 pm

        You quite possibly know that disenfranchised is not normally used in the sense of not being able to vote. Your comment is in bad faith. Please remain silent like the rest of your fictitious majority.

      • Tracey 1.1.3
        7 December 2014 at 7:36 pm

        Do you respect the Cabinet Manual?

      • Tom Jackson 1.1.4
        8 December 2014 at 1:15 am

        Is the “silent majority” like a silent fart?

      • millsy 1.1.5
        8 December 2014 at 6:58 am

        its probably old news, but “Wayne” is actually Wayne Mapp, former National Party cabinet minister 2008-2011.

    • James 1.2
      7 December 2014 at 2:02 pm

      It never ceases to amaze me how people manage to overlook comments when they suit their agenda.

      People on this blog has argued long and hard against what they call “the rape culture” of New Zealand.

      Yet someone comes out and says “I mean obviously I regret what I said. I probably should have said I was going to rape his son.”

      When asked if he had any regrets, he said: “I don’t regret what I said actually. Screw that.”

      And whats the reply by the first poster on this blog?

      “Best RNZ interview by mistake. Not the violence, that is just immature”

      Immature. Really?

      So I guess its ok to say you should rape someone – as long as you are talking about raping the son or daughter of someone you dont like.

      • greywarshark 1.2.1
        7 December 2014 at 3:12 pm

        James 1.2
        What does this relate to? Can you make it clearer, ie who was talking, where, and give a link? Was it Tom Scott? Whose son is referred to?

        • cricklewood 1.2.1.1
          7 December 2014 at 4:11 pm

          Yes Tom Scott replying to a question whether he regretted lyrics relating to John Keys daughter.

        • greywarshark 1.2.1.2
          7 December 2014 at 4:43 pm

          Concerning the Tom Scott interview. I have just listened to the relevant part of the interview – after about 18 mins – and Kim Hill does question Tom Scott making an anti John Key piece with government money from NZ on Air. But when it is considered that he refers to murdering/killing John Key and doing something to his daughter then it doesn’t seem an unreasonable question. This isn’t about a simple statement of a political nature, it refers to killing the PM. If the subject was a Labour leader and Jordan Williams or Whaleoil et al had produced such an extreme sounding product, we would be enraged.
          http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player/20160090

          Kim was very anti about Tom bringing his family, ie his daughter into his political vendetta video. Tom said that perhaps he should have said something about his son instead. Tom said that anyway what was important was the he was thinking of Key and had said he wanted to murder him.

          Tom takes a very straightforward line. He doesn’t like Key and he said he would like to kill him. He considers he is justified in issuing a music video with that message which can be played in public. And he is trying to draw the young people’s attention to politics and the need to vote. Voting with clear and rational thinking would not happen after hearing stuff about murder and Key. But Tom did notice that it caused a lot more attention than his other work and felt it had served a purpose. Trouble is that it wouldn’t help that clear thinking and informed understanding which is what the young people need. And he presumed that Kim wouldn’t understand because she wasn’t young. Other way round Tom!

          I suggest that sort of attitude is in the minds of most of the men assaulting others and murdering them in real life regularly in NZ. The lack of self control and self justification is just the same. In Tom’s case he just referred to it, knew it would be publicly released, and if someone did attack or kill Key, he would not have accepted any blame. He is part of the problem when he acts like this, not part of the solution to our political morass, and our culture of violence.

          • Ergo Robertina 1.2.1.2.1
            7 December 2014 at 5:45 pm

            Well said, especially the last sentence.

          • Tracey 1.2.1.2.2
            7 December 2014 at 7:46 pm

            I agree with much of what you wrote. However politicians who use their family to build their image, facebook and other stories must be prepared to have them targetted.

            Remember the right and its fixation with Clarks husband?

            Threatening to kill anyone, or harm anyone is appalling. So is making jokes about murderous paedophiles. This PM carries some responsibility for the deteriorating tone of many in this nation. Monkey see monkey do.

            Hell Hooton said IP was responsible for the song… So by his bizarre logic Key is responsible for Scotts behaviour

            • greywarshark 1.2.1.2.2.1
              7 December 2014 at 7:56 pm

              @ Tracey
              I take your points. But better to stick to the clean line of – it was wrong of Tom to do that. Otherwise one starts to get into this false equivalence thing.

      • Murray Rawshark 1.2.2
        7 December 2014 at 6:52 pm

        I think the guy is a young idiot who got some things right and some very wrong. He is not my spokesperson and some of his lyrics represent very clearly the decay of society since the first ACT government of 1984. Neoliberalism has taught young kids to look for quick individualistic and stupid answers, even in the fight against neoliberalism.

      • Tracey 1.2.3
        7 December 2014 at 7:37 pm

        What are you referring to???

      • Tracey 1.2.4
        7 December 2014 at 7:40 pm

        Perhaps go read the thread from the time about that song. I have been corrected here for saying the lyrics said rape. People here tell me it was sex BUT you will find I and others at the time condemned it. Doesnt fit your narrative but it is true nonetheless

  2. odysseus 2
    7 December 2014 at 8:37 am

    I see Slater is going on ( and on ) about a new newsfront that is being set up ( = Freed) , calling out for some resources etc. No doubt it will lead off with a scream and a roar about a vast left wing conspiracy involving the LP , Nicky Hagar, Matt McC, Andrew Little , (and his cat ) , the MSM etc etc etc in a plot to assassinate and destroy the aforementioned Slater, and Western civilisation as we know it.
    Be prepared.

  3. Chooky 3
    7 December 2014 at 9:34 am

    Max Keiser talks about the politics of gold …and takes on Martin Wolf of the ‘Financial Times’ …..for an alternative Left view on big business, banks, financial markets and economics…

    http://rt.com/shows/keiser-report/211095-episode-max-keiser/#mc-16915802

    In this episode of the Keiser Report, Max Keiser and Stacy Herbert are joined by Liam Halligan of Business New Europe (www.bne.eu) to discuss Martin Wolf’s analytical article in the Financial Times about the “radical measures” needed to combat our “unusual economic ills.” They also discuss Max’s response, published as the lead “Letters” item in the FT. In the second half, Max interviews Chris Powell of GATA about the failed Swiss Gold Initiative, the successful Dutch repatriation of 122 tons of gold and about the negative GOFO rates in the gold market.

    ..and why were the Dutch repatriated with their gold and the Germans NOT ?! ….anything to do with politics?….eg. invasion of Iraq; as well as the bombing of Libya?…and the crashed Malaysian airliner and shutting up ….. more politics in the letters

    • nadis 3.1
      7 December 2014 at 10:17 am

      Awesome! you’ve managed to link gold conspiracies with Malaysian Airlines. If only you can work in the Twin Towers and the Bilderbergs you’re on to a winner. Your conspiracy blog awaits you.

      Of course the real reason the Germans stopped repatriation of their gold could be the fact the the Free Democratic Party (who had been agitating for the repatriation) left the Merkel coalition. Last I heard the Bundesbank had audited the gold and were happy, and wanted gold held in Eurozone banks (i.e Bank of France) repatriated but that held outside the Eurozone to be left as is.

      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-23/german-gold-stays-in-new-york-in-rebuff-to-euro-doubters.html

      The gold conspiracy movement is a self interested, delusional sham. Follow their advice or the advice of the scamsters you currently hear on Radio Live etc and you are guaranteed to dust your money. Ask them to explain the 40% drop in gold prices over the last few years without mentioning a global conspiracy.

      Aside from the greater fool theory, there is no reason to own gold. Especially if you claim to care about building a more productive society. By definition, ownership of gold makes you a resource hoarder – you’re hoarding money that could otherwise do something productive.

      • Chooky 3.1.1
        7 December 2014 at 10:41 am

        @ nadis …lol…obviously touched a raw nerve here!

        …..i have no absolute view on this and keep an open mind …I recommend people should make up their own minds and view the link and comments

        (…just repeating comments as to why the puzzle of the Dutch getting their gold and the Germans not…was it it political?….as some comments argue…..)

        • nadis 3.1.1.1
          7 December 2014 at 11:23 am

          you havent touched a raw nerve – I just think it bizarre how eager people who claim to be mentally stable are to embrace ludicrous conspiracy theories.

          And there is no puzzle about gold repatriation unless you listen to gold bug nuts and self interested scamsters trying to sell you gold at a 25% bid offer spread

      • Draco T Bastard 3.1.2
        7 December 2014 at 11:38 am

        By definition, ownership of gold makes you a resource hoarder – you’re hoarding money that could otherwise do something productive.

        Two points:

        1. Apply that definition to those that have money in the bank as well
        2. Gold is pretty much useless for most things in society which is why the world has a massive hoarding of gold. Basically, there’s a massive over-supply of it.

      • Jones 3.1.3
        8 December 2014 at 12:47 pm

        My reason for holding some of my wealth in physcial gold and silver is that I can see the debasement of currencies worldwide and I don’t trust paper money. I want to lock some of what paper money I do have to something tangible. I cannot afford land and precious metals are affordable. It’s not an investment… it’s a hedge.

    • Foreign waka 3.2
      7 December 2014 at 2:34 pm

      please read kaiser report on the web: maxkeiser.com/2014/01/german-legislator-seeks-repatriation-of-all-the-bundesbanks-gold/#more-70730
      You also need to know that Germany was for quite a while mislead by the Fed regarding their reserves being held in the US and its repatriation. I belief that Goldman Sax has sold the gold of other countries – if any of the reports are true.

  4. David H 4
    7 December 2014 at 9:49 am

    Lets all live in Auckland, with it’s sky rocketing house prices, burgeoning population, and free flowing motorways. No wait. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11370244

    I am glad I live in Cloudy (today) Levin

    • Draco T Bastard 4.1
      7 December 2014 at 11:48 am

      Somewhere near the end there’s an idiot saying that the council needs to build a tunnel across the harbour rather than the CRL because Northshore needs better transport to the city CBD. He doesn’t seem to have worked out yet that Northshore got much better transport to the city CBD when they got the bus lanes across the bridge and that him sitting in his car was part of the problem that he was complaining about.

    • ianmac 4.2
      7 December 2014 at 12:01 pm

      David. Lived in Levin for 15 years but now my loyalties lie with wonderful Blenheim for much of the same reasons that you say. Why would anyone want to live in a big city? Self flaggelation maybe?

      • Naturesong 4.2.1
        7 December 2014 at 4:43 pm

        Family?
        Community?
        Employment?
        Sport?
        Affinity with sites and places around the isthmus?

  5. Whateva next? 5
    7 December 2014 at 10:09 am

    Did I just hear Nash dismissing and minimising dirty politics/ influence of Slater on Q&A this morning? ( rather familiar to National party lines)
    Worrying when so much effort going into lancing this boil that is the undermining integrity of NZ politics……..and any sign of lack of cohesion will have a bus driven through by Crosby Textor, so get onto this guys…

    • mac1 5.1
      7 December 2014 at 10:15 am

      I didn’t hear the interview, but I am aware that it’s very easy and a real trap for Labour and the Left in general to blame it all on Slater, the MSM and dirty politics.

      If Nash was saying that, then he’d be right. Some very hard answers to difficult questions have to be still found, understood and acted upon.

      • Ergo Robertina 5.1.1
        7 December 2014 at 10:30 am

        No, Nash isn’t right. As Whateva next said Nash was running the Nats’ disingenuous line that New Zealanders want to hear about the issues, not dirty politics etc.
        What this obscures is that WO’s attack politics tries to silence those who engage in politics, just one e.g his campaign of attacks on teachers who opposed national standards.
        It’s this skewing of the public debate that means we don’t have a good focus and debate on those ‘issues’ that are so important.

        • whateva next? 5.1.1.1
          7 December 2014 at 11:16 am

          exactly. If National is able to get away with this style of politics so blatantly this time…well, whateva next?

      • Morrissey 5.1.2
        7 December 2014 at 11:05 am

        You’re very foolish and/or a supporter of the National Party.

        • mac1 5.1.2.1
          7 December 2014 at 2:57 pm

          Well, Morrissey, I may be foolish but I don’t pronounce that others are on a superficial reading and wrong interpretation based on one’s own preconceptions.

          Please note the disclaimer- I did not hear what Nash said.

          Then, note the use of the word ‘all’. Were Slater/MSM/dirty politics the only reason why Labour polled as it did, and the Left in general?

          If not, that there were other reasons as to why so many stayed away who were Labour voters, if you believe that Labour ran a faultless campaign, that it was well-funded, well advised and chose the best candidates, that it chose people who were all well united behind their leader, Cunliffe, that it chose only to speak on the core issues and did not get diverted in side issues, that it chose a great campaign slogan and all its considerable membership worked their butts off to ensure election- if you believe like me that some of those issues were also involved in the 2014 election result, then like me you are indeed ‘foolish’.

          But if we deny any or all of that as being also factors, then you are worse than foolish, but in denial, of little critical ability or worth and worst, destined to repeat the same mistakes of history.

          Apart from that, a great critique of my introduction of the topic of what else may have been at play up to September 2014.

          • Morrissey 5.1.2.1.1
            7 December 2014 at 3:07 pm

            Fair points, my friend, and well made. Cancel that bit about you being a National Party member, and also the bit about you being foolish.

    • tc 5.2
      7 December 2014 at 10:33 am

      Nash is in it for Nash. Little needs to smash him over this as DP traction is eroding the smiley one.

      Nash is asked on because they know he will put this out there so c’mon Andrew where is the discipline FFS.

  6. Morrissey 6
    7 December 2014 at 10:59 am

    Stuart Nash’s performance this morning will have depressed Labour supporters;
    Did someone instruct him to endorse the National Party’s line?
    Q+A, Television One, Sunday 7 December 2014

    Halfway through today’s episode of this utterly dire programme—the last one of the year—a text from a viewer came up on screen: Should Lucy Lawless be defined as an ecoterrorist? I say yes.—Bob.

    Part of the problem with New Zealand is that halfwits and moral pygmies like Bob always vote, but normal, fair-minded, decent people don’t. The other part of the problem—probably the bigger part— is politicians like Stuart Nash. Shortly after Bob’s moronic text appeared, the screen was filled with a talking head….

    GLENN GREENWALD: Any politician in New Zealand who has made statements like that, that there’s no mass surveillance been taking place aimed at New Zealanders, is a politician who has been deceiving the public.

    Next talking head filling the screen was that of JOHN KEY, grinning nervously and ranting desperately about “Dotcom’s little henchman”, and denying that his government conducts mass surveillance on New Zealand citizens. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature knew Key was lying, and that he and his grotesque regime were extremely vulnerable at that point.

    Greenwald is a journalist of unimpeachable integrity, and his work should have been devastating for the Key government. Any sensible and principled politicians would have co-opted Greenwald into their campaign. But listen to the Labour Party’s representative this morning….

    STUART NASH: Kim Dotcom and Hone Harawira tried to focus on this last year and they failed. New Zealanders were not interested.

    Nash was foolish enough to back up the National Party MP Chris Bishop’s take on the revelations from Nicky Hager’s book. Bishop asserted that “both sides have been at it”, that “both sides talked to bloggers” and that nobody cares anyway. That is the National Party line, beyond doubt carefully reiterated at the first meeting of the new Caucus. Instead of contradicting Chris Bishop’s audacious lie, Stuart Nash endorsed it.

    It has often been mentioned that Nash is a great-grandson of Walter Nash. His spineless behaviour will only remind people of his great-grandfather’s infamous failure to take a position during the 1951 waterfront lockout. Stating that the Opposition was “neither for nor against” the watersiders, Walter Nash and the Labour Party ceded all authority to a vindictive, out-of-control National Party in 1951. Clearly, more than sixty years later, the Labour Party has not changed very much.

    • tc 6.1
      7 December 2014 at 11:09 am

      Said it elsewhere today but Nash is all about Nash.

      He needs a home because in 2017 without SST running in Napier he’s gone burger so 3 guesses who he’s serving…..with friends like this etc.

    • millsy 6.2
      7 December 2014 at 12:01 pm

      As I said before, I see no difference between Slater, the KKK, and Hitler’s Brownshirts.

      Anyone who associates with Slater and his ilk endorse thuggery and intimidation.

      How long before Slater, Lusk and Ede orchestrate a New Zealand version of kristallnacht

      It happened in 1981, with people willing to smash bottles over the heads of women and children for a rugby match, there is no reason why it should happen again for lower taxes and corporate profits.

      • Colonial Rawshark 6.2.1
        7 December 2014 at 12:09 pm

        with people willing to smash bottles over the heads of women and children for a rugby match

        And public servants using truncheons.

    • B. Adam 6.3
      7 December 2014 at 1:15 pm

      It has often been mentioned that Nash is a great-grandson of Walter Nash

      not a real grandfather. No blood relation. Nash was adopted….as far as i know from some reading sometime back,

  7. millsy 7
    7 December 2014 at 12:49 pm

    One wonders, with the benefit of hindsight, if Hager was better off releasing his book after the election…

    Sure, it would have had everyone on here complain about how it should have been released before the election, but given the result, that point is moot.

    It might have completely blindsided the government, and allowed the opposition to slowly wear them down over 3 years.

    I believed for a while that National was always going to win in this year. Probably going back to David Cunliffe’s “chair of caucus” at question time — he probably lost the election right there and then — which is why I have empasised that Little needed to put in a solid performance (at least) at his first Question Time.

    Cunliffe and the left were too impatient. Cunliffe should have bided his time and waiting for his chance instead of trying to force the issue, Hone should have said “thanks, but no thanks” to KDC’s offer that “moment of truth” should have been canned right from the start.

    How we could have 6 more years, rather than just 3.

    Little doesnt seem to be impatient as Cunliffe was, given his track record — he decided not to go for Parliament in 2008, and ruled out a shot at the leader ship in 2013. He knows the importance of occupying the crease and playing a straight bat, building an innings.

    • batweka 7.1
      7 December 2014 at 1:49 pm

      There’s no way of knowing if the left’s inability to mobilise the non-vote was a consequence of DP or KDC.

      “Sure, it would have had everyone on here complain about how it should have been released before the election, but given the result, that point is moot.”

      I think there would have been widespread shock and anger if Hager had released book after the election. It’s not about complaining on ts, it’s about the truth not being presented in time. The only option that Hager had was to wait and release it next year, but he strikes me as a pretty honest person so if he was asked he would have to say why he waited.

      I think he did the right thing. There is no good timing here. The country is being screwed and even if DP/IMP hadn’t happened and the left had run a clean campaign, it would still have been smeared left right and centre. Plus there was the little matter of Labour not having its shit together. That the book came out before the election means that there are now compounding problems for National, it’s never going to end for them until Key and the dirty MPs are gone. Cat’s out of the bag and a bloody good thing too.

      • Morrissey 7.1.1
        7 December 2014 at 2:10 pm

        There’s no way of knowing if the left’s inability to mobilise the non-vote was a consequence of DP or KDC.

        Nicky Hager researched and presented in irrefutable detail how the National Party’s attack machine had targeted LABOUR politicians. For some daft reason, some genius at Labour HQ decided that this revelation was an embarrassment and a distraction, rather than a godsend. You would have thought it was Andrew Little, Phil Goff and Stuart Nash who had been exposed as liars and criminals; instead of taking advantage of the book and attacking the people exposed in it, they spent more time attacking Kim Dotcom and belittling Hone Harawira.

        Watching Nash’s almost unbelievably inept performance on Q+A this morning, it’s clear they’ve learned nothing.

        • batweka 7.1.1.1
          7 December 2014 at 2:35 pm

          yes, but we still don’t know why the non-vote didn’t vote. We’re guessing.

          re Nash, I think Labour, and Little, need time make changes. If the conservatives in the party are seeing Nash as leadership potential, the problem is there are conservatives in the party. What you you going to do about them?

          I don’t really understand how the Labour Caucus and parliamentary part work. I see big differences between them and the GP eg it’s rare to see a GP MP speak out from their own perspective rather than from party policy, but I don’t know if the difference is because the GP just has more internal philosophical cohesion, or if it’s because they actually work together, are required to work together, irrespective of their personal ideas.

          • Morrissey 7.1.1.1.1
            7 December 2014 at 2:53 pm

            yes, but we still don’t know why the non-vote didn’t vote.

            With the publication of Dirty Politics, Labour, and New Zealand, was handed the most compelling evidence of National’s dishonesty and criminality. They could have teamed up with Nicky Hager, Laila Harré, Hone Harawira, Russell Norman and every other concerned New Zealander to really put the heat on the criminals and liars that run our country. Instead, they spent the whole of the election campaign repeating John Key’s line that “New Zealanders just don’t care about that sort of thing”. Why would anyone vote for such a timid and indecisive bunch as the Labour Party?

            We’re guessing.

            Well, we’re thinking about it. “Guessing” is a rather reductive way of describing that process.

            re Nash, I think Labour, and Little, need time make changes.

            As was painfully clear this morning, Nash has not got the wherewithal to inspire anyone. Little got off to a fine first week, but he undid it all by backing Key’s outrageous, anti-democratic “terror” legislation and then saying that “next time” the Labour Party won’t be such a pushover. National quite rightly will be feeling that they have him just where they want him—-compromised and on board.

            • Manuka AOR 7.1.1.1.1.1
              7 December 2014 at 4:26 pm

              “They could have teamed up with Nicky Hager, Laila Harré, Hone Harawira, Russell Norman and every other concerned New Zealander to really put the heat on”
              Yes. Things would be a bit different now if they had done that.

              (AL) “backing Key’s outrageous, anti-democratic “terror” legislation”
              A.L/ Labour backing warrantless surveillance was a bit of a shocker. Very disappointing.

              “compromised and on board.”
              I wish it were not so.

              However, despite that, Laila for one is optimistic about the future with A.L. She and Wayne Hope discuss the whole surveillance question at this link, and Laila has some good things to say irt A.L. near the end of the session: http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/12/06/the-daily-blog-breakfast-club-ep-3-dr-wayne-hope-and-laila-harre/

            • batweka 7.1.1.1.1.2
              7 December 2014 at 7:07 pm

              .

        • Clemgeopin 7.1.1.2
          7 December 2014 at 2:40 pm

          I agree! The nastiness of National needs to be relentlessly exposed, charged and made to answer for their evil ways.

        • Murray Rawshark 7.1.1.3
          7 December 2014 at 8:14 pm

          +1
          You keep on making sense.

  8. Morrissey 8
    7 December 2014 at 1:27 pm

    Blubberguts is totally defiant, and unrepentant; his site just keeps getting worse.
    Anyone out there prepared to sign up and cause him some grief?

    Evil, disgusting racism did not die with “Sir” Paul Holmes. It is alive and festering quite openly in this country. Whether it emanates from Garth the Knife’s S.S. Trust, the ACT Party and a significant section of the National Party, talkback hosts (from one station in particular), the rabid talkback ranter Dame Lesley Max, or Kyle Chapman’s New Zealand National Front, the vilest bigotry is, sadly, an ongoing fact of life in New Zealand.

    One of the more depressing examples appeared on Blubberguts’s blog yesterday….
    http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2014/12/pandering-royalty-prince-paki-convicted/

    The article—allegedly written by Blubberguts, but more likely written for him by John Ansell—is bad enough, but the comments are even worse. In tone and in the level of intelligence, they are like something that might have been scrawled on a wall in Mississippi in the 1950s.

    Yes, I hear you say, these clowns are largely in an echo-chamber, and half of the comments are probably written by Blubberguts himself or by Carrick Graham, but they need to be confronted. I have been banned for life, unfortunately—it was something I said—but perhaps a few Standardisti might like to register on the site and start contradicting a few of these ninnies. It’s really easy; you can sign in with Discus, Twitter, Facebook or Google. See if you can last longer than I did: a year and a half.

    In case anyone’s interested, here’s one of my early threads from long ago (29 December 2012). It led to my first warning, and it came from Blubberguts himself: “Your idiocy of the past few days has not gone unnoticed, lift your game or fuck off.” ……
    http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2012/12/face-of-the-day-379/#disqus_thread

  9. Sirenia 9
    7 December 2014 at 2:05 pm

    I heard that Stuart Nash is a friend of Simon Lusk’s and Jordan Williams. So probably put on Q and A specifically to do such revisionism.

    • Morrissey 9.1
      7 December 2014 at 2:13 pm

      Thanks for that very interesting little bit of information. He’s not simply vacuous, as I thought this morning, he’s compromised.

    • Naturesong 9.2
      7 December 2014 at 4:55 pm

      Do you have a link for that?

      I’ve seen the assertion bandied around a bit, but it’s never been clear to me whether they approached him, or the other way around, and what exactly was the nature of the contact.

      • rawshark-yeshe 9.2.1
        7 December 2014 at 6:03 pm

        note 13, chapter 9, Dirty Politics; joins some dots.

      • Naturesong 9.2.2
        8 December 2014 at 12:16 am

        Yup, here’s the article; Hawke’s Bay Today – Nash makes no apologies for contact with Hager target

        Mr Nash said he had been in contact with Havelock North-based Mr Lusk because the pair were both opponents of the proposed Ruataniwha water storage scheme.

        “He’s run a pretty good campaign, I think, in terms of what I’ve seen, and I’ve taken some advice on how to message stuff there,” Mr Nash said.

        … and,

        Mr Nash said he had written two articles for Whale Oil blogger Mr Slater when Mr Slater was editor of the Truth newspaper.

        Ouch!

    • rawshark-yeshe 9.3
      7 December 2014 at 6:00 pm

      isn’t he a client of Lusk, as is the Nat party new tobacco cultured MP sitting next to him on TV this morning? Way to go Lusk — two out of five on the Q and A couch. FFS

    • BassGuy 10.1
      7 December 2014 at 6:30 pm

      Aaah, Ayn Rand. Didn’t she end up a beneficiary or something?

      • Murray Rawshark 10.1.1
        7 December 2014 at 8:46 pm

        The story goes that she gave someone else power of attorney to apply for it. She was consistent in that she always put her own self interest first. She also wrote empowering poetry:

        vegans are good…
        pot cures cancer…
        google it yourself…
        you dependent parasite…

        • BassGuy 10.1.1.1
          9 December 2014 at 1:31 pm

          It turns out that I’m not as good a poet:

          Roses are red
          Violets are flowers
          Rhetorical questions
          aren’t meant to be answered.

      • framu 10.1.2
        8 December 2014 at 12:25 pm

        all watched over by machines of loving grace, while not about rand specifically does have some good quotes from her early followers

        namely that they often behaved alturisticlly to satisfy her own selfishness

  11. North 11
    7 December 2014 at 7:06 pm

    Is the fact that this poor man wasn’t (according to the park’s management at least) ‘contractually’ meant to be using the flying fox……does that establish that the flying fox wasn’t unsafe ? Is that is what is being said ?

    I’d prefer to wait for the outcome of a doubtlessly thorough investigation before I could countenance early talk along the lines of “his own fault”. Certainly the management has offered condolences (which I echo regardless) but it’s a pity they chose to detract somewhat by insensitivity in the delivery.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11370116

  12. batweka 12
    7 December 2014 at 7:10 pm

    Matthew Hooton’s contribution to society today was to argue on twitter that it’s facist to call for a boycott of the SST via subscription cancellation (because they’re publishing columns written by Judith Collins).

    I doubt that he really does think this is facism, but instead it was just another round of spin designed to keep the lefties arguing and the rest confused as to whether this whole Dirty Politics things is really a problem. The continuation of the demonising Giovanni Tiso was probably just a bonus.

    Link for those that can be bothered 😉 (Tiso and others’ points about Collins being rehabilitated are good though) https://twitter.com/gtiso/status/541395954952175616

  13. Ecosse_Maidy 13
    7 December 2014 at 7:31 pm

    Oh That Pic, I thought it was an early caption competition…

    Slater orders national MPs to search for Gold….

    Pete George and Family endeavour to look for common sense…

    Westpac & ANZ, show off new anti theft cash dispensing machines.

    Green Party conference in absence of a tree to hug find alternative..

    Aussies search for their own arse and elbows and get it totally mixed up…

    Government, use unemployed people as a cycle park.

  15. Ergo Robertina 15
    7 December 2014 at 10:37 pm

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11370278

    Robotic cameras focusing on empty parts of the studio rather than presenters causes bemusement and confusion at the BBC.

    ”Problems arose after their introduction when the broadcaster moved to its new London headquarters in Broadcasting House as part of a £1billion revamp last year – and now it is feared the issue could get worse when a new computer system is launched.”

    Puts in context the automation thread recently, in which a couple of commenters sincerely argued doctors will be replaced by robots. They can’t be trusted yet to identify and focus on faces in a TV studio; it will be a fair while until they dispense medical advice and diagnoses.

  16. Ben Adam 16
    7 December 2014 at 11:13 pm

    Two filthy rich buggers fight like filthy rich buggers….and a little child weeps…. somewhere. Sickening.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/63910002/Stakes-rise-in-Glenn-Watson-feud