Open mike 09/07/2011

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, July 9th, 2011 - 58 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post. For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the link to Policy in the banner).

Step right up to the mike…

58 comments on “Open mike 09/07/2011 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Secret Squirrel 1
    9 July 2011 at 7:19 am

    I’d suggest to the Greens (and others) that they’ll get more support if, rather than playing rich against poor,, they argued on the merits of a Capital Gains Tax rationally rather than pandering to envy emotion.

    • freedom 1.1
      9 July 2011 at 8:35 am

      SS, go chomp on some nuts. Your moaning is no more effectual than a spoilt child who knew only of Automatic Dishwashers being told they must now use soap and water in the kitchen sink.

    • mickysavage 1.2
      9 July 2011 at 8:59 am

      This site has been debating the merits of the CGT for the past few days.  Didn’t you notice?

    • Colonial Viper 1.3
      10 July 2011 at 9:39 am

      rather than pandering to envy emotion.

      LOLZWUT

      Languaging in Right Wing terms of envy and greed now?

      Maybe you don’t think that the massive wealth and income inequity this country suffers from should be a factor in the discussions around a CGT but you would be wrong.

  2. Lazy Susan 2
    9 July 2011 at 8:35 am

    Wow – John Roughan likes CGT and Labour.. Read and weep Mr Key. This is gettting very interesting

  3. RobM 3
    9 July 2011 at 8:54 am

    THE TRADER (from Songs Of Expedience)

    By William Blank

    Trader! Trader! polling bright
    In the bullpen of the right,
    What opposing gal or guy
    Could front thy frank expediency?

    In what Hawaiian deeps or skies
    Burst the framing of thine lies?
    On what cycleway dare he perspire?
    Will the left dare face the liar?

    And what Textor, & false start
    Could twist the media to thy heart?
    And will thy Banksy get a seat,
    What right hand? are ACT dead meat?

    What the capital? tax the gain?
    In what furnace was thy train?
    What the angle? what fiscal grasp
    Dare its policy errors clasp?

    When the Maori threw down their spears,
    And watered cows replaced the shears,
    Did he smile their work to see?
    Will he who defended Rog defeat thee?

    Trader! Trader! polling bright
    In the bullpen of the right,
    What opposing gal or guy
    Dare front thy frank expediency?

  4. mickysavage 4
    9 July 2011 at 9:02 am

    And over at http://www.billenglish.co.nz 61% of nearly 5,700 votes support the CGT.  Epic social media fail!

    • Draco T Bastard 4.1
      9 July 2011 at 10:50 am

      I’d say that was social media win 😀

      • chris73 4.1.1
        9 July 2011 at 12:01 pm

        Kudos to the lefties for (finally) learning from and implementing ideas from the VRWC

        Welcome to the dark side

        (Seriously Bill what were you thinking putting an internet based poll up on your site…)

    • sweetd 4.2
      9 July 2011 at 2:38 pm

      On line poll, must be accurate. In light of these results, lets just call the election off and put labour in.

    • weka 4.3
      9 July 2011 at 5:35 pm

      Seems he might have learnt something. The poll currently asks:
       
      “Do you support Govt steps to improve NZ’s infrastructure?”


       

  5. freedom 5
    9 July 2011 at 9:28 am

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5258992/PMs-wife-the-medias-new-darling

    I am sure Collins and Bennett will love reading this,

    ” It’s a handy way of reaching out to women who would be otherwise put off by the bolshier characters in the party such as Judith Collins and Paula Bennett.”

    Does Andrea Vance know that the Pm’s wife is not actually a Member of Parliament? On that note,
    is Bronagh actually a member of the Party at all?

    • Ianupnorth 5.1
      9 July 2011 at 5:52 pm

      The article in Woman’s Day was sickly sweet – the Bronagh (rhymes with Mona in case you didn’t know – are Woman’s Day readers that tick?) and John show had nearly as many pictures of the smiling assasin, cooking, ironing and being a new age man – as if!
       
      Seriously, the charm offensive needs nailing, we cannot have another three years of this won by virtue of Woman’s Day et. al.

  6. travellerev 6
    9 July 2011 at 9:30 am

    Ratigan, a finance talking head, Eliot Spitzer the former Wall street sheriff who like Dominic Strauss Kahn was caught with his pants down and thrown out of his job just before he planned to march down Wall street with his posse to start cleaning the town up and comedian Sherrod Small play a game of credit rating theatre.

    This is how John Key made his money.

    Watch this little video and spread it around and while your at it here is Max Keiser about the Greek collapse and Professor Michael Hudson tells you why John Key with his huge financial interest in BoA has a vested interest in keeping the corrupt banking system going and that means the looting of every Nation in the world and that includes New Zealand
     

  7. Jim Nald 7
    9 July 2011 at 9:51 am

    The country stands with Dunedin today at 1pm for their Kiwirail rally. Best wishes.

    http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/168440/speakers-ready-support-hillside

  8. rd 8
    9 July 2011 at 12:20 pm

    Ok this is scary.
    Jane Young writing in Pundit
    Are the Tea Party deliberately trying to force the US to default so they can get power!!

    http://pundit.co.nz/content/americas-ugly-ideological-hostage-takers

    • Lanthanide 8.1
      9 July 2011 at 2:38 pm

      It’s pretty obvious the US is going to have to default or hyper-inflate their currency to get out of the mess they’re in. The only question is when that’s going to happen.

  9. Jenny 9
    9 July 2011 at 12:34 pm

    ‘

    “FED UP WITH PANDERING TO MAORI RADICALS”

    Such are the screaming headlines from a huge paid advertisement by the ACT Party in the New Zealand Herald today.

    Typically such advertisements cost thousands of dollars.

    Well well, for a party that claims to have the economic answers for the country, it is very telling that ACT choose to run their electoral campaign on an emotive race issue.

    The real message of this advertising campaign is that we at ACT have no answers but we will give you a scape goat instead.

    We cynically hope to divert all your disillusionment with the economy onto Maori, while the banksters and financiers who wrecked the economy and who gave us the money for this sick racist electoral campaign, are left alone, to continue quietly plundering the economy and the country.

  10. jackal 10
    9 July 2011 at 2:41 pm

    Damn! Should check the Jackals emails a bit more often. BBC asked me to talk on their World have your Say program about the recent dismissal of Alasdair Thompson. They had read the article I wrote about the asshole!

  11. Secret Squirrel 11
    9 July 2011 at 3:01 pm

    Both Goff and Key fronted up to a question session with Family First. According to the Herald in “Goff, Key reveal core beliefs” on the moral issues that concerned Mr McCoskrie, they were “surprisingly akin”.

    On euthanasia Mr Key said:

    … he voted for the first reading of a private member’s bill to legalise it in 2003 and would vote for a bill to go to a select committee if it came up again.

    Mr Goff said:

    that when his mother was terminally ill three years ago, stopped eating and wanted to die, the family refused to let her.

    “She lived for three months, but those three months were entirely without quality and all of us now wonder whether we did the right thing,” he said.

    “It’s a hard question. I think we should keep discussing it. I would want to have the choice.”

    There’s a topic on this on Kiwiblog, and I’ve written on my recent experience in detail.

    Being closely involved with an extended death can be harrowing for the person who dies and their family. There has to be a better way, in limited situations, where comfort and dignity are given much more priority than archaic law.

  12. Jum 12
    9 July 2011 at 4:20 pm

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5090982/Case-weak-for-selling-assets

    I particularly liked the comments, especially No 3, but the info in No 2 disappointed me for two reasons;

    One – if the Chinese agreement includes them being treated to ‘national’ equality are all profits kept in New Zealand and used in New Zealand for New Zealanders? Is the money being spent on rail coaches (being built in China, at the expense of our economy and our workers’ employment) staying in New Zealand and the Chinese spending that money in New Zealand for New Zealanders? Obviously not, but that is what ‘national equality’ should be about.

    Surely when a country’s workers are unemployed that must take precedence over impersonal and greedy business transactions. The Dunedin debacle where workers lost their jobs and this New Zealand government led by America’s men Key and his PR man Joyce rejected its own people’s welfare was a reprehensible decision made purely for profit over people.

    Tenders never have to be about the cheapest price, so Key/Joyce had an opt out choice.

    Two – If the Chinese do not allow ownership in their land/assets then that is not ‘national’ equality of treatment if we are selling ours to them and this government, via Bill -in denial- English’s visit to China with the knowledge that the Chinese government have $6 billion put aside to buy our assets, is preparing to sell us off. They’ve already spent over $6 million on preparation work for something there is no mandate for, not to mention cooking their budget books with the $6 billion from asset sales. Key’s behaviour in signing off on English’s un-mandated budget is outrageous.

    This NActMU government is allowing China to take us over; they have the money, we will have less because we will have less dividends coming in because they will soon own all our productive assets if NActMU gets in on 26 November. There is no way we can compete with global low wages, and nor should we; hopefully we have more respect for our workers.

    So with low wages which would rightfully never be lower than China’s, no productive assets, no dividends, a widening gulf between rich and poor for income and health (both emotional and physical) New Zealand will become the fifth rate country this fifth rate government wants it to be, ripe for takeover and plundering by the American-driven Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement and any New Zealander who thinks that is a good result is scum.

    In the 2008 election the scum content of New Zealand was higher than the egalitarian reasoning of the thinking Kiwi. Pre-election 2008 there was more than enough evidence that National was lying in its intentions; dead fish – swallow… I do hope that situation reverses on 26 November and I can be a proud New Zealander once again.

    Scum = greedy and selfish aggrandisement at the expense of all our children’s futures, for the benefit of the few. Not to mention stupidity in the majority of these NActMU voters imagining the ‘few’ will invite them in to enjoy the plunder.

    • millsy 12.1
      9 July 2011 at 6:24 pm

      Jum,

      Probably a little bit off the point, but there will be a time when the Chinese will put away their chequebooks and use bombs and machine guns instead.

      The NACToids and their pro-Chinese quislings supporters, such as Hooten and Shipley may become part of a Vichy government here, but us plebs wont be so lucky..

      • Colonial Viper 12.1.1
        9 July 2011 at 8:19 pm

        Probably a little bit off the point, but there will be a time when the Chinese will put away their chequebooks and use bombs and machine guns instead.

        Not quite.

        The Chinese don’t like to use bombs and guns directly on a foreign populace. What they sometimes do is install (or help keep in power) a rump government and supply them with the money and weapons needed to tame their own people.

  13. Scott 13
    9 July 2011 at 4:24 pm

    When Eddie of The Standard described the Maori Party leadership as ‘kupapa’, was he insulting Sharples and Turia, or nineteenth century rangatira like Waka Nene? Is it historically appropriate and politically useful to use the word ‘kupapa’ in a derogatory way?

    http://readingthemaps.blogspot.com/2011/07/should-kupapa-be-swear-word.html

  14. Reality Bytes 14
    9 July 2011 at 5:11 pm

    Veterans made do as minister basked in luxury

    New Zealand war heroes in their 90s ended up paying to attend commemorations in Europe while the taxpayer funded the Defence Minister’s luxury travel, personal assistant and top hotels.
    The treatment of the veterans on the 70th anniversary of the Battle of Crete shocked observers, who had expected to see them treated as the centrepiece of the New Zealand contingent.
    Defence Minister Wayne Mapp spent more than $26,000 on flights and top hotels for himself and a secretary, in luxurious suites overlooking the Bay of Chania.
    But New Zealand’s war heroes were forced to pay out of their own pockets, arrange their own itineraries and stay in modest accommodation, with just $2000 Government support – less than a return airfare.
    Australian veterans were flown over by their Government and cared for by provided doctors. They stayed at the same upmarket lodgings as Australia’s defence and government officials.
    Crete veteran Malcolm Coughlan said he had travelled on his own savings, and the Government grant only covered about 15 per cent of his expenses.
    …
    The Australian party had arranged everything for its veterans and their families to attend, and at ceremonies Australian officials stood behind the old troops, he said.
    “All the focus was clearly on the veterans. Meanwhile, it seemed like the New Zealand top brass and minister were sitting safely in their seats and the New Zealand veterans had to make do.”
    …
    He said the attitude of Australian officials towards their veterans was “whatever they want, our pleasure to provide”.
    “With New Zealanders there was just no recognition – no deference paid them for what they went through.”
    …

    Source:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10737384

    (Wow the Hearld does occasionally have good articles!)

  15. lprent 15
    9 July 2011 at 7:03 pm

    Wow. Nothing to moderate for the entire day… No warnings. A few bad tempered comments, but nothing of concern…..

  16. Salsy 16
    9 July 2011 at 7:18 pm

    Country Calendar tonight, so inspirational – 60yo Maori woman single handedly running a northland farm. Has more understanding of the issues with our agriculturual industry than the entire fed farmers/National govt rolled together..

  17. Jim Nald 17
    9 July 2011 at 8:32 pm

    Some worrying news emerging from Malaysia, a country with which we have a free trade agreement.

    http://news.google.co.nz/news?edchanged=1&ned=en_my

    What is the NZ Government’s public response to the Malaysia Government?

  18. jackal 18
    9 July 2011 at 9:18 pm

    Hero of the Week Award – The Dominion Post

    Today, the Act Party ran a racist and divisive advertisement in the New Zealand Herald. The advertisement is headed Fed up with pandering to Maori radicals? Act’s assumptions are completely ludicrous to anybody with half a brain…

  19. Ianupnorth 19
    10 July 2011 at 12:31 am

    From our friends at Vote for Change….

    Ian we lost you when you held up The Standard as the be ll and end all of sane and rational logic when it comes to running internet commenting policy.

    and

    When The Standard authors make themselves public will be about the same time that we will. So far there are only two of the prepared to own their hate filled posts under their own names, and those two generally are more mild since they started using their own names.

    I didn’t realise I was associating (albeit electronically) with such nasty people!

    If you want to join me in asking them questions and not getting any answers they are at https://www.facebook.com/voteforchangenz

    • lprent 19.1
      10 July 2011 at 8:32 am

      They are rather lost in the past. In no particular order..

      lprent = Lynn Prentice
      Mike Smith
      Ben Clark
      Anthony Robins = r0b
      rocky = Rochelle Rees

      I guess that they are too stupid to make the jump from a pseudonym to a real name. But personally I couldn’t care less if it is a pseudonym or a real name, and neither does the law. It is really only if you want to pursue extra-legal attacks that it becomes an issue.

      • Secret Squirrel 19.1.1
        10 July 2011 at 8:41 am

        I don’t think you can escape the reality that real names have more credibility.

        If you post under a real name you remove most speculation about associations and motives. I acknowledge there can be good reasons for using a pseudonym, especially for commenters.

        But I think your chances of being taken seriously as a blog poster are enhanced considerably by being open and transparent about your identity. Especially in politics.

        • lprent 19.1.1.1
          10 July 2011 at 9:26 am

          You have weird ideas on why people blog. At least you do from the view of someone who has participated in online discussion for most of my life through BBS’es to usenet and now to blogs.

          I don’t care one way or the other for other people’s opinion of how I or others write. Most people around blogging are not writing for effect – they are writing to express themselves on topics that they feel are important about why they feel they are important. This can be anything from politics to cars. Readers can take from it what they will and comment on it how they know or feel. The interactions and conflicts of commentary are just fun. But isn’t hard to find blogs with excellent posts and no comments or readers where people are writing for them for the sheer joy of expression.

          Sure it has a wider influence, as do the comments. But personalities and knowlege express regardless of if it is on arbitrary label or another. Someone’s name is just an arbitrary label, and has very little to do with who they are.

          So as I said, wanting to know who someone is in real life is pretty much a sign of someone who doesn’t understand the world of blogging / usenet / bbs. People who insist on it in my opinion usually have online symptoms of being a bully, or a gossip, or a narcissist.

          Of course there is an exception to that generalization. Journalists have this creed of real names – largely as far as I can see for litigation reasons. So people with aspirations towards being a journalist or something similar tend to assume that bloggers should be the same. But that is simply a pile of hogwash.

          So where on those axes do you see you yourself.

          • Secret Squirrel 19.1.1.1.1
            10 July 2011 at 9:37 am

            I think the strengths of journalism and blogging are best combined, it’s become a mega media mix. Both have to keep adapting to a rapidly changing medium.

            It’s possible your long history of blogging clouds your view of how the wider world may see it. Most people probably don’t care about identities if they are prattling and entertaining themselves.

            But when it comes to politics most people want openness and honesty, things badly and sadly lacking in politics.

            Some parties may prefer to keep things undercover, that won’t improve public perceptions of deviousness and deceit.

            • lprent 19.1.1.1.1.1
              10 July 2011 at 10:27 am

              Well this site isn’t run by a party. Most political parties have problems finding their arse with any hands when it comes to online presences. Quite simply the only reason that kiwiblog and the standard got so dominant in the political debate online is because the parties were so late and incompetent. Frogblog is pretty good, but for a party that is off the mainstream. Red Alert is a bit constrained. The Nats and Act are just pathetic.

              That is much the same as internationally.

              But I suspect that you simply don’t understand the social dynamics of online. But just look around at what works. The social experiment has been in full swing for decades and what you think theoretically is a lot less interesting than just observing happens in practice.

              The journos have their own blogs. Look at something like pundit or the comments off nzherald. They have this one basic trait – they tend towards the boring, and people don’t argue with each other enough to shake anything loose. The social dynamic doesn’t work.

              The blogs that have very high participation rates all allow pseudonyms in the comments – which is where most of the writing goes. Some blogs have authors who use pseudonyms, some do not, and some have pseudonyms where the identities are also known. It does not appear to make any difference apart from people like yourself who try to use it as a hammer.

              Perhaps you should look at online as is rather than blathering on about how you’d like it to be – ie being a critic. if you want to try something different then just do it and see how well it works – that is the way that the net tests theories.

              • Secret Squirrel …
                10 July 2011 at 10:36 am

                I’m not disputing the need to allow anonymous posts, that’s essential. I’m talking about the blog posters. What are the three most viewed political blogs? Kiwiblog, The Standard and The Dim-Post?

                How many of those operate under the blogger’s name? The “theories” have already been tested.

                Each blog can obviously do things however it likes. I only expressed my opinion that I think posts with an identifiable author usually have more credibility. I don’t think that’s blathering on.

                • lprent …
                  10 July 2011 at 10:43 am

                  Read open parachute listings you are a little short, and you missed public address

                  But out of the three ones you’ve mentioned. My rough count says… There are four authors using their own names – three of them here. Three using pseudonyms with known names (like myself) attached – two here. Remainder (all here as the other two sites are effectively single person blogs) are pseudonyms only

                  So what exactly are you waffling about? How you are unobservant?

                  Quite simply what you are blathering about is simply your opinion. A not very well informed opinion, one that doesn’t have anything to back it up, and one that clearly has never exercised their brain to think about what is going on at a social level.

                  It is an opinion you’re putting up against that of someone who has been studying and participating in the type of social media we’re discussing for decades, and who is helping to run a successful example.

                  The tens of thousands of readers and commentators on this site have been voting with their fingers. They’re using what they read and discuss here out in the communities where politics actually happens. The journo’s come here to read and pick up ideas – but they are merely doing their job. The site isn’t run for them, they are just parasitical on it.

                  The participants, authors, commentators, and readers come here to just have fun playing with ideas and words.

                  And meanwhile you’re busy touting some theoretical model of how such social media should operate. You’re as pathetic as that polsci lecturer from Canterbury that John Drinnan was quoting. Understanding why people participate in these sites is really the key to them. And the people who participate really don’t give a crap if a author or a commentator is a name or a pseudonym. It is a meaningless distinction if they cannot contribute, and they certainly cannot contribute if they trade on their name because the usual reason to do it is to shut down debate.

                  Those few who have an anal reaction of the sphincter clenching when they deal with pseudonyms can always find somewhere boring that doesn’t offend them. Basically they are almost by definition too boring to be around people who like to argue because they always want to appeal to some kind of ‘authority’ which really doesn’t exist. If they were any good then they’d just point to supporting material and convince others.

                  Had to come back to this – got called away. I was insufficiently sarcastic in the first draft.

            • MrSmith 19.1.1.1.1.2
              10 July 2011 at 11:07 am

              “But when it comes to politics most people want openness and honesty, things badly and sadly lacking in politics.’
              Most people have know idea what they really want SS, they’re just following the crowd and the latest fashions, until we start practicing what we preach, there will be no openness in politics, expecting our poly’s to do what we have no intention of doing ourselves is a bit rich, don’t you think. 
              The individual generally sees little advantage in openness and honesty, instead we copyright and patent still, until people come to understand, that our poly’s are just a projection of ourselves, following the crowd, while doing whatever is popular (fashion) to stay in power. Little will change until it is forced upon us.