Open mike 10/06/2011

69 comments on “Open mike 10/06/2011 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. mickysavage 1

   10 June 2011 at 6:55 am

   Simon Power is at it again, engaging in US type defense counsel bashing. He insists on Law Society reform to deal with unidentified lawyers who are supposedly rorting the system but Power and the Government have the very simple and effective tool of tearing up the contract the Legal Services Agency has with any errant lawyer. No reform is necessary if what he says is true.

   Been bashing and lawyer bashing for political advantage, how predictable.

   One further comment, no mention of the Roy Morgan poll in the Herald or Stuff as far as I can see. How surprising …
2. Carol 2

   10 June 2011 at 7:38 am

   This sounds a little familiar. It won’t surprise many of us that research by California-based Oakland Institute shows that the foriegn land grabs in Africa do not benefit the countries that US unis and other interests are investing in:

   http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/08/us-universities-africa-land-grab

   Researchers say foreign investors are profiting from “land grabs” that often fail to deliver the promised benefits of jobs and economic development, and can lead to environmental and social problems in the poorest countries in the world.

   Harvard is one of the US unis named as being major participants in these African landgrabs, and Harvard also already has endowment investments in NZ land:

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/markets/news/article.cfm?c_id=62&objectid=10728265

   Potential bidders reported to have shown an interest include Chinese dairy giant Bright Dairy, which last year invested $82 million in struggling South Island milk processor Synlait; a pastoral fund owned by Australian investment bank Macquarie Group; British private equity firm Terra Firma; US private equity firm Carlyle Group; and the Harvard Endowment Fund, which already owns a swag of forests and farmland in this country.
3. logie97 3

   10 June 2011 at 7:56 am

   Basic English seems to be a problem for our leaders.
   First Key and now Barnett – (captains of industry some would say).
   A small point but why do these people murder the language.

   …”There’s lots of things happening … There’s plenty of differing views…”

   Perhaps Delorus Umbridge could apply some of her standards and advise her mates.
   They’re not alone though – I’ve noticed it a lot with MBAs during public interviews.
   • Colonial Viper 3.1

     10 June 2011 at 11:04 am

     They use sloppy meaningless language as it suits their purposes of obfuscation and distraction perfectly.

     i.e. it is usually deliberate.

     Apart from that NAT MP who had no idea about internet copy protection, that was simple thickness.
4. vto 4

   10 June 2011 at 8:45 am

   I just about spat my porridge across the breakfast table this morning on reading Minister of Fisheries Phil Heatley’s plans for paua takes post-election.

   He said that in order to counter poaching the rules would be changed to make that poaching legal. Then voila! No more poaching and the government gets a return.

   Seriously. That is what he said.

   Now lets apply that reasoning to say, speeding, tax evasion, … um …. (insert any crime).

   It is the most shallow and poor drivel just about ever. What a fuckwit.
   • Vicky32 4.1

     10 June 2011 at 7:00 pm

     He said that in order to counter poaching the rules would be changed to make that poaching legal. Then voila! No more poaching and the government gets a return.

     My giddy aunt! You’d think it was satire…
5. ak 5

   10 June 2011 at 9:30 am

   Pagani claims Bennett has been at it again.

   Deliberately leaking private details of a beneficiary for political gain (SBW’s punchbag) – just before announcing a crackdown on the weak.

   Disgusting if true. Well worth following up.
   • The Voice of Reason 5.1

     10 June 2011 at 9:51 am

     John’s site here.
      
     He’s pretty on the money about the dirty tricks being used in this beat up. But I suspect nobody in the parliamentary press gallery is going to rat out Bennett as an abuser of power because they’d rather have a stream of pre-written ‘news’ stories from her PR team that can be cut and pasted under their own bye-lines in a minute or two. A bloody sight easier doing that than actually doing journalism.
   • prism 5.2

     10 June 2011 at 1:16 pm

     ak – I like logie97’s latest inventive name Petulant Bean, I thought of Paua Bennie but can’t think of a good caption for it, so it’s a bit lacking. It seems that name-calling is all one can do with her, she has no shame, and is a favoured MP doing exactly what the NACTs want and making squids in pay doing something that she apparently enjoys.

     The RW love a female who puts on jackboots and whips the lower orders. Margaret Thatcher, for instance and Ruth Richardson was being questioned as over the top in a 1991 newspaper sheet I have. Jim Bolger had to defend giving her the position of Finance Minister. Incidentally it is interesting to see the similar state of political matters seen for 1991 repeated in 2011.

     In 1991 SWMinister Jenny Shipley could not rule out office closures after departmental review. Kindergartens face funding crisis, Wellington doctors declare crisis, Treasury approves its own pay rise, Government wins oil field fight (Ngaere land issue in Taranaki), a television poll showed 55% against benefit cuts, the Prime Minister Jim Bolger ‘failed to spell out government growth strategies but instead continued to focus on cutting the deficit’. Welfare system under attack -meeting of 300 people discussing the Employment Contracts Bill.

     The National Party announced for 1990 general election that to vote for them would give –
     1 Real Growth 2 More Jobs 3 Better Pay, NZ Banks face tighter lending limits after DFC collapse Dr Don Brash, Reserve Bank governor states. Australian Wool Corporation hopes to raise hundreds of millions with bonds which would be government guaranteed, Fruit giant Chiquita Brands goes to NZ government over NZ Kiwifruit Marketing Board refusal to allow it to sell 20 million trays on world markets and wants second-exporter status.

     Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. If you don’t know the meaning of that you coulf have learned French at night school if Anne Tolley wasn’t hostile to anyone learning more than she knows.
     • weka 5.2.1

       10 June 2011 at 6:38 pm

       One big difference is that in 1991 kiwis took the the streets and protested.
     • Vicky32 5.2.2

       10 June 2011 at 7:05 pm

       ak – I like logie97′s latest inventive name Petulant Bean,

       Point of order, that was mine! I posted it in the middle of the night one insomniac weekend… it’s from an anagram generator I had discovered… I am young enough and neuro-typical enough to be a bit off-piste that he started using it, even in a post in which he attacked me, without acknowledging that it my name for Bennett in the first place!
       • logie97 5.2.2.1

         10 June 2011 at 7:33 pm

         Good on ya Vicky32 – as you grow up you will learn that “immitation is the highest form of flattery”. In future every time Petulant Bean is used (and as you quite rightly observed was apt), I will ensure that I acknowledge you as the originator if that relaxes you. As for your other comment that I attacked you – I should be interested in the link where I “attacked you”. But then you quote ak when it would appear to be “prism” who is making reference so your accuracy and recall are somewhat questionable.

         In the meantime, feel free to use Joky Hen and Professor Delorus Umbridge as often as you like – perhaps then we can make them part of the vernacular and everyone will know who we are referring to.
         • Vicky32 5.2.2.1.1

           10 June 2011 at 9:17 pm

           Good on ya Vicky32 – as you grow up you will learn that “immitation is the highest form of flattery”. In future every time Petulant Bean is used (and as you quite rightly observed was apt), I will ensure that I acknowledge you as the originator if that relaxes you.

           Please, don’t be so childish! Acknowledgement the first time you took credit for it, would have been nice, but then if 97 is your birthdate, then I suppose you can’t help the ‘childish’ bit… 🙂

            
           As for your other comment that I attacked you – I should be interested in the link where I “attacked you”.
            

           I am not hunting for a link.. you can find it as well as I can. It was when you accused me of supporting Bennett in her use of of the “toolkt’ when all I wanted to say is that I knew Ian and Mary Grant, and they weren’t the fascistic fundies everyone was claiming them to be.

           In the meantime, feel free to use Joky Hen and Professor Delorus Umbridge as often as you like – perhaps then we can make them part of the vernacular and everyone will know who we are referring to.

           The first would appear to be John Key, the second, who? Tolley? If you’re the originator of those, congrats, but as to the 2nd, I rather think J K Rowling might have something to say…
           • logie97 5.2.2.1.1.1

             10 June 2011 at 10:59 pm

             Got to love you Vicky32. But for your information I have never entered into any correspondence on this site regarding the Petulant Bean and the Grant’s toolkit.
             Clearly, my dear, your insomnia has affected your memory badly.

             I have never ever claimed naming rights for any or all of these alternative names for these politicians – just think they are apt and enjoy using them. Congratulations once again on finding the Petulant Bean.

             As for Delores Umbridge – she attempted at Hogwarts what Tolley is attempting here. (Read the Order of the Phoenix).
             • Vicky32 …

               10 June 2011 at 11:33 pm

               As for Delores Umbridge – she attempted at Hogwarts what Tolley is attempting here. (Read the Order of the Phoenix).

               Er –  that would be re-read for the nth time, which is why I said if you were laying claim to the name, Rowling might have something to say. Please, just leave it alone, you’ve made your point, and now you’re being – dare I say it, petulant? 😀
               BTW, I am not your ‘dear’, don’t be a sarcastic patronising berk. Thanks in advance.
                
               • logie97 …

                 10 June 2011 at 11:43 pm

                 Glad you’re a Potter Fan. No room for berks in that community.
                 Trust we can now direct our efforts collectively to keep the Petulant Bean, Joky Hen and Professor Umbridge honest.
6. grey lynner 6

   10 June 2011 at 9:50 am

   There are lots of things bothering me:

   What a cheek – letting Rob Pope retire before doing something about the Scott Watson debacle

   How come Treasury can produce a fantasy document like the Budget and NOT be called to task? Like you’d want that one on your cv

   What happened to the Pansy Wong investigation? How come her husband could spend $75,000 in domestic travel and not have that investigated.
   • Morrissey 6.1

     10 June 2011 at 10:53 am

     …letting Rob Pope retire before doing something about the Scott Watson debacle

     Pope was also involved in the persecution and jailing of Peter Ellis.
     • vto 6.1.1

       10 June 2011 at 11:06 am

       and the poor Lisa Blakie’s convicted murderer Taylor.

       Rob Pope resigned when he realised the public has cottoned onto his deadly and evil ways and the politicians didn’t want a bar of him. He is one of NZ’s most crooked cops imo.
7. Morrissey 7

   10 June 2011 at 10:30 am

   New Zealand governments supported the Khmer Rouge from 1978 to 1990

   http://www.nzjh.auckland.ac.nz/docs/1999/NZJH_33_2_05.pdf.

   Page 1
   New Zealand Journal of History, 33,2 (1999)
   The Devil You Know: NEW ZEALAND’S RECOGNITION POLICY TOWARDSCAMBODIA
   FROM 1978-1990 [1]
   by ANTHONY SMITH

   THIS ARTICLE looks at New Zealand’s policy of recognition towards Cambodia (or Kampuchea [2]) between 1978 and 1990. New Zealand policymakers had to make the difficult decision as to which political entity to recognize, if any at all, after the Vietnamese invaded and installed a puppet government in Kampuchea in 1978. The Vietnamese army’s removal of the genocidal Khmer Rouge, or Democratic Kampuchea (DK), led by Pol Pot, provoked mixed reactions from the international community. There was universal relief at Pol Pot’s removal, but the Association of South East AsianNations (ASEAN), China and the United States expressed the concern that a Soviet-sponsored Vietnam was attempting to achieve sub-regional hegemony.These nations all
   supported the anti-Vietnamese resistance forces.Controversially, New Zealand also opted to give diplomatic recognition to the ousted Khmer Rouge regime-in-exile as the legitimate representatives of the Cambodian people.

   What emerges about New Zealand foreign-policy decision-making over this issue is that it contained a great deal of ambivalence. ……

   Read the rest of this apologetic and biased, but revealing article HERE…
   http://www.nzjh.auckland.ac.nz/docs/1999/NZJH_33_2_05.pdf
8. The Voice of Reason 8

   10 June 2011 at 10:47 am

   I’m told that TV one’s Sunday program is leading with a damning report on safety standards at Pike River which is going to raise the possibility that some miners survived the initial blast but were left to die by the company.
    
   Could be interesting viewing.
   • vto 8.1

     10 June 2011 at 10:50 am

     Exellent. This is the exact direction many of us have been hollering about for some time. Others keep saying shut up and let the Royal Commission of Inquiry do it all – to which I say get stuffed. There is absolutely no requirement whatsoever to so shut up. Lives have been lost here and I have contended since dot that it is human and corporate and govt culpability. It was not an accident. It was gross negligence at several levels. Heads must roll.
     • Colonial Viper 8.1.1

       10 June 2011 at 10:59 am

       The powers that be will be scrambling right now to get the show pulled. Just wait and see.
9. Draco T Bastard 9

   10 June 2011 at 11:33 am

   Bigger councils ‘stronger but not cheaper ‘

   Local councils that amalgamate into a larger body can exert more influence on central government but are unlikely to make any cost savings or lower rates, according to a trans-Tasman report out this week.

   That bits actually fairly obvious when you think about it. All the work still needs to be done which is why Auckland is having to get in contractors now – the ATA went and fired over a thousand people and left Auckland without the people needed to do the jobs that they were doing.

   There were few robust examples of such savings being achieved, yet many in central government and some in local government “still cling to the belief that substantial savings can and should be made”.

   Yep, politicians, especially the ones on the right of the political spectrum, seem to make decisions that affect all of us on their beliefs rather than on the facts. This really needs to change as it hurting us.

   Concerns about loss of democracy resulting from less representation were “muted”, suggesting the issue was being managed well or that it was not a major factor for communities, the report says.

   So, does “managed” mean that it’s been kept out of the public eye because the MSM are ignoring it because if they actually reported it people would begin to question the governance?
   • Carol 9.1

     10 June 2011 at 12:08 pm

     But getting rid of people and/or making them re-apply for their old jobs can be used to drive down the cost of wages in the long term ie, employing more people to do the jobs that were axed, but offering them a lower salary.
10. travellerev 10

    10 June 2011 at 11:36 am

    This weekend is Bilderberg weekend.
    For those of you who have never heard about this illustrious group: the Bilderberg group named after the hotel were the first meeting was held with our the Dutch/German Nazi prince Bernhard (the father of the current Dutch queen) in attendance consists of the most powerful Money men, Corporate CEO’s combined with Political leaders such as Hillary Clinton and New Zealand’s own Globalist and current Ambassador to the US Michael Moore who was an invite to the meeting in 2000 (Just in case you’re wondering who John Key’s handlers are.)

    Here is the one and only (And yes, he does rant a bit) Alex Jones reporting on it.
    For those of you who still think that Alex Jones only represents the fringe; the man gets about 24 million listeners a month and is the fastest growing info talk show in the world.
     
     
    • The Voice of Reason 10.1

      10 June 2011 at 12:44 pm

      I don’t think Jones represents the fringe, Ev, though his personal politics (libertarian) are obviously of appeal only to a minority. That’s the same in NZ where ACT, the LibertariaNZ and the various offshoots thankfully struggle to get support from more than a handful of Kiwi voters.
       
      However, rabid right wingers such as Jones and Beck have a huge following in the States for their various media outlets because their shows bash easy targets and appeal to ignorance, fear and bigotry. There’s no substance, of course, just innuendo, exaggeration and froth, but it sells well to people who know they are being ripped off, but don’t know who by.
       
      As long as the likes of Jones say it’s the gummint, the illuminati, the New World Order, or whatever the fantasy of the day is, the real truth will alway remain hidden from his audience. And that truth is that it’s capitalism’s fault. But, as capitalism is making Jones rich, he’s not going to rock that particular boat, eh?
       
       
       
       
      • travellerev 10.1.1

        10 June 2011 at 1:09 pm

        Interesting! So for clarity what is right wing in your view? Or more precise what is rabid right wing? Do they hate blacks, women, Arabs, peaceniks and other scary leftists for example? Is a clan member rabidly right wing? Is an Obama hater guaranteed right wing?

        I am honestly curious as four years ago I would have agreed with you for more than 100 % but now I look at it totally different.

        So for the sake of civilised debate (promise) give me your ideas about what defines rabid right wing.
        • The Voice of Reason 10.1.1.1

          10 June 2011 at 1:30 pm

          Anything that supports the exploitation of the many by the few is right wing in my estimation. I look at things from a marxist perspective, so my default position is to support things that benefit the majority.
           
          Jones is a libertarian, which is a subset of the right. Broadly speaking, I see communists, socialists and social democrats as the left. Liberals (including our Green party) I see as being inclined to the left, but also capable of going to the right if it suits their temporary interests. The right I see as mainly made up of the petit bourgious, the monarchists and, of course, the established capitalists.
           
          Oddly, the right really only represent the interests of a small minority and it always amazes me that they manage to keep a reletive political balance despite this fact. Having most of the money must help!
          • travellerev 10.1.1.1.1

            10 June 2011 at 4:13 pm

            Shit, I wrote this whole thingy already and now I have to start again in order to respond properly to your comment.

            Again four years ago I would have concurred totally with your but things have changed for me to a point that none of what I used to take for granted as my reality is there any more so bear with me. OK?
            Coming from Europe and believe it or not from a socialist/Communist background it took me a while to come to the conclusion that while the socialist ideal of sharing was a grand one it just did not happen that way. Not in the East block at any rate.

            I have come to the conclusion that any “ism” including the current US state of Capitalism is a totalitarian system.
            I don’t think there is a “system” that will solve all our problems and that no matter what the balance between individual needs and those of the community at large will sometimes conflict and that it will always be a tight rope act to prevent disintegration of society as we find out which is more important at what time. I’ve once found this nice schematic of this and it was the mature individual or component of the group which makes this possible. i.e. Childish narcissistic, me me me is one side of the equation and the overbearing parental attitude of rules and sharing and group thinking is the other side. The mature individual or the mature individuals in a group will try to balance their own needs and those of others making it acceptable to live in that group as an individual.

            So I don’t have a problem with liberals flicking from right to left or whatever their self interest dictates because if they are mature individuals they will take others needs into account. That is one part of my response.

            Now how about this pertains to Alex Jones whom I regard to be hugely different from the likes of Glenn Beck and other shock jocks in the right wing spectrum.

            For instance of all the radio hosts in the US he is the only one who will interview someone like Cynthia McKinney. She is a high profile black female politician who once served in the senate and who is currently the leader of the Green party and presidential candidate for this party and who is currently living in Tripoli Libya to endure with the local population the incessant bombardments perpetrated by the NATO and US.
            Alex Jones is the only radio host who from day one called the wars started after 911 illegal and criminal and who calls out the “good ole boys” for believing the propaganda and dehumanisation of Muslims.

            He hosts Black and Hispanic political activists and rappers and allows them plenty of air time.

            He called George Bush a war criminal as much as he calls Obama a war criminal (And seeing as he has expanded the drone attacks on Pakistan, started the war in Libya which even you must see is not the humanitarian action they claimed it to be and expanded the military action in Afghanistan when he won the election on a promise to pull out).

            You argued that Alex Jones is getting rich of his program but I leave you with this to ponder.
            First of all the ads he runs are not the high end corporate big money spinners. In fact he attacks those with a vengeance.
            He puts all his films, radio shows and documentaries on your tube in low res for all to see for free.
            Rather than claiming copy right and limited viewing he actively encourages people to copy and spread his material around for free and as a member I can give my password to his site to 5 other people without any repercussion.

            Alex Jones believes in the Capitalism free trade system but claims that the US is not a free trade system but corporatism/fascism with the big corporations monopolising their money spinners and while I don’t agree with some of his political points of view I do agree with him on that but his generosity with regards to the fruits of his labour tells me he belongs in may ways to that mature part of the population I like to relate to and that makes him in many ways OK with me.
            • travellerev 10.1.1.1.1.1

              10 June 2011 at 4:19 pm

              What am I doing wrong. My comments end up in moderation?

              [lprent: Nothing that I can see from the filters. Just random from the anti-spam would be my guess (I haven’t released them so I’m not sure which comments you’re referring to). It will eventually correct itself. ]
              • travellerev …

                10 June 2011 at 4:56 pm

                No worries
              • Vicky32 …

                10 June 2011 at 8:17 pm

                I ended up in moderation the other night, no ant-spam issue as I was logged in, so what gives? Have I been declared a RWNJ cause I’m black? “religious’? 😀 (Before QoT nuts off at me, I’ll remind him/her of Ali G)…

                [lprent: Nope. The anti spam checking operates on ALL comments except for editors and above. Login just means that the system will not ask you for a antispam word. ]
                • Morrissey …

                  10 June 2011 at 9:37 pm

                  Ali G? Unfunny, unfunny, unfunny.

                  Almost as dismally unfunny as Bruno.

                  Mind you, the TV versions of Bruno and Borat were funny. And Borat (the movie) was funny for a while, until you realize just what a disgusting individual Baron Cohen is. He really is Borat.

                  There are many smart British comedians—Jack Dee, Steve Coogan, Ricky Gervais, and scores more. But Sasha Baron Cohen, like Madonna, gets there not through talent but an implacable work ethic.
                  • Vicky32 …

                    10 June 2011 at 10:45 pm

                    Really, I agree. Baron Cohen is desperately unfunny, and a rather nasty individual… What happens is that things I am about to say remind me of other things, and sometimes I just burble! 😀
                    • Morrissey …

                      11 June 2011 at 9:01 am

                      Don’t feel bad about quoting or referencing him, Vicky. He is funny, on one level. You weren’t burbling; I just saw the opportunity to have a blast at someone I despise.
                  • D-D-D-Damn ! …

                    11 June 2011 at 12:08 am

                    I’ll tell you what, the guy’s a Fucking Creep.

                    The Following story emerged after completion of Baron Cohen’s film Bruno:

                    “A Palestinian grocer from Bethlehem filed suit against comedian Sacha Baron Cohen on Monday for the sum total of $115 million in libel damages over his film Bruno…..According to the Daily Mail, the Palestinian, Ayman Abu Aita, who is also a Christian peace activist, said that Baron’s depiction of him as a Lebanese Islamic Terrorist in his recently-released and controversial movie has ruined his life…..He has also filed suit against NBC, Universal Studios and famed American talk show host David Letterman for being part of the film which tricked him into meeting Cohen under the false pretext that Cohen was a German producing a film about the Palestinian cause…..Abu Aita told the Daily Mail that since the film was released to cinemas this summer, he has received several death threats despite the fact that he is a firm opponent of terrorists…..During the scene, Abu Aita was depicted as a leader of the Al-Aqsa Brigades, according to the film’s caption which referred to him as ‘Terrorist Group Leader, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade.’

                    But more than this, when promoting the film on Letterman, Baron Cohen stuck rigidly to the fiction that Abu Aita was indeed a Lebanese Terrorist tracked down by the CIA and that the filming had taken place at “a secret location”. Subsequently, journalists discovered that Baron Cohen’s “interview” with Abu Aita had, in fact, taken place directly across from an Israeli military compound (in Occupied Palestinian territory).

                    Baron Cohen was a very active member of Zionist Youth Organisations in the UK during his teenage years.
                    • Morrissey …

                      11 June 2011 at 9:04 am

                      I saw that interview with the official government jester Letterman, and transcribed it. Would you like to see it?
                    • Vicky32 …

                      12 June 2011 at 2:51 pm

                      I hadn’t heard that (about Baron Cohen). But it simply confirms my opinion… What a creep!
                • lprent …

                  11 June 2011 at 9:11 am

                  Figured out the problem with the auto-moderation. When akismet is unable to get an answer to a query about a comment from the main server immediately, it pops the comment into moderation and waits a while before retrying it.

                  A present we’re seeing about a 10 fold increase in spam comment attempts in the past few days, and it looks like many many other sites are having the same attack going on. So the main akismet server is obviously failingto handle every comment in a timely fashion, but does so soon afterwards. Explains why I never saw any of these moderated messages.

                  The battle in the net appears to be starting to subside from our spam comment rate – got up nearly a thousand per day and is now about 700. Normal service is resuming. The war will continue…
            • Pascal's bookie 10.1.1.1.1.2

              10 June 2011 at 4:57 pm

              I really don’t want to get into a scrap about this, I’ll just say that up front, and there is much of what he says that is appealing to people from all over the spectrum (or rather, to radicals on various fringes of the spectrum). But trying to put him in a non-US context is a mistake.

              He opposes many things that various leftists oppose. As you outline. Going back before GWB he opposed Clinton and Bush the elder. He was right into the whole Ruby Ridge and Branch Davidian stories in the nineties, and consequently with the black helicopters, militias/posse comitatus/sovereign citizen movement.

              All I’m saying by that, is that just as he will interview Cynthia McKinney, he’s interviewed all sorts of people who were deep in to the whole ZOG NWO scene, (where the US govt is ZOG, Zionist Occupied Government), As a taste of how that stuff was going, Jones maintained that one of the space shuttles that exploded was an inside job. I forget the details, but it was to do with there being an Israeli on board. The space shuttle explosion was a false flag operation somehow aimed at sparking a war to benefit Israel.

              there are echos of it in this thread:

              http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=201697.0

              But what I’m getting at with all this at is that to view Jones in his context, you are right to ignore left right divisions as they are more broadly understood. He has to be understood in a USian context.

              Right throughout US history the big division hasn’t been Capital vs Labour, or any of the other left/right fights that we see elsewhere. Right from the beginning the fight has been between the federalists and the anti-federalists. Jones is with the latter, and that’s where all his stuff starts to makes sense. Viewing him through any other lense he becomes incoherent.
              • travellerev …

                10 June 2011 at 5:18 pm

                Thanks, Pascal’s bookie for your contribution.

                I agree. I listen to him with a great many reservations and indeed from the point of view that he is very much a US based entity.

                I think though that it is interesting to listen to him and his attempts at shining light on the secretive meetings of the ultra powerful and whether you believe all the things he says or not that is up to the individual.
                There is one thing I don’t agree with you in this and that is his “anti Zionist” stance as he is very careful to avoid this controversy. In fact among the more extreme his avoidance of the subject has let ot speculations as to whether he could be a “Zionist” agent. LOL.

                In fact he only recently spoke about Israel and his opinion on the matter. He is an equal opportunity anti war activist though. His opinion with regards to Libya, Syria, Yemen and Israel is simple; Why are we not bombing the shit out of Israel which has ignored every single UN resolution since ’67 while we have no compunction about doing the same with Libya to name one country? In his opinion we should not be involved in wars with any of the country’s the US is currently bombing. Not Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen or Pakistan but if we are we should be even in our response to all countries killing peacefully demonstrating. That includes Israel, Bahrein and other countries serving the interest of the US currenly getting a free pass for their torture, abuse and indiscriminate killing.
                I tend to agree.
                • Pascal's bookie …

                  10 June 2011 at 6:17 pm

                  His opinion with regards to Libya, Syria, Yemen and Israel is simple; Why are we not bombing the shit out of Israel which has ignored every single UN resolution since ’67 while we have no compunction about doing the same with Libya to name one country? In his opinion we should not be involved in wars with any of the country’s the US is currently bombing.

                  Well sure. But that rhetorical question is an interesting one if that’s the way he framed it. One answer to why the US federal government isn’t bombing Israel is ZOG.

                  And he was always careful about his interviews with militia types even in the nineties, he’d always ‘just be giving them a platform to speak’, because the federal government silences it’s critics; he doesn’t endorse, he’s just fightin for these folks civil liberties.

                  But the theme is almost always that the federal government is the enemy of the people. That’s why the wars are bad. It’s the damnable federal government usurping power and using fear to control the populace and maintain it’s tyrannical rule.

                  People who hinted that maybe a domestic war against the federal government wouldn’t get the ‘war criminal’ treatment.

                  What’s his current line on state level government civil violations? He always used to be pretty quiet on that score.

                  On immigration, (‘illegals’) for example, they were a threat to state governments and the federal government ignored the problem deliberately, probably hoping for internal grassroots reaction that they could use as a pretext to steal everyone’s guns and lock folks up in FEMA camps.
            • The Voice of Reason 10.1.1.1.1.3

              10 June 2011 at 6:53 pm

              The moderation happened to me too. I thought maybe I used a bad word like, er, liberal.
               
              My take on Jones is that he is a traditional Republican, as opposed to the Reagan generation that lead the GOP now. He leans to the armed rebellion end of right wing politics, who believe the Government is a conspiracy against the People. Jones is not a dry righty, totally focussed on the bottom line, so I’m pleased to hear that he gives a bit back, but with the numbers you suggest (24 million listeners a month) he can afford to. I’d imagine the Tshirt sales alone would be huge, eh.
               
              The thing with American politics is that there are a hell of a lot of very specific beliefs that enjoy levels of support at a state, regional or national level that never get beyond single digit support, federally. These groupings coalesce in either the democrat or republican parties.
               
              Jones represents a particular strain of thought that is shared by maybe only 1% of Americans, but shares enough similarities with other fringe beliefs to generate that 24 million listenership and also a voice within the republican party.
               
              I agree that the US is not best practice when it comes to free trade, by the way. Pork barrel politics, special interest lobbying and the pandering to farming interests has always meant that the US talks the talk, but has never walked the walk when it comes to genuine free trade.
               
               
              • Colonial Viper …

                10 June 2011 at 7:15 pm

                Genuine free trade has never been promulgated by any of the major western powers.

                In fact, its highly likely that true “free trade” only exists as an academic theory which was then used by commercial powers to humiliate the sovereignty of foreign countries and their markets.
                • travellerev …

                  10 June 2011 at 8:07 pm

                  Love all the comments. Will be back tomorrow. Knackered now.
            • prism 10.1.1.1.1.4

              10 June 2011 at 8:50 pm

              travelrev –

              I’ve once found this nice schematic of this and it was the mature individual or component of the group which makes this possible. i.e. Childish narcissistic, me me me is one side of the equation and the overbearing parental attitude of rules and sharing and group thinking is the other side. The mature individual or the mature individuals in a group will try to balance their own needs and those of others making it acceptable to live in that group as an individual.

              That sounds like transactional analysis with a scheme of dividing behaviour into three – it arises from the parent, the adult or the child state. I think it is an excellent shorthand for getting a fast understanding of one’s and others’ mindsets.
11. pollywog 11

    10 June 2011 at 12:16 pm

    Lance a festering racist boil on the red neck of kkkiwiblog and watch all the pus filled motherfuckers reveal their true colours.

    priceless
    • ianmac 11.1

      10 June 2011 at 12:22 pm

      Yep. Read a few of the comments on Darren Hughes. Sick people over there. Wonder if David Farrar enjoys the spleens?
    • vto 11.2

      10 June 2011 at 12:27 pm

      Yes it seriously amazes me that Farrar is taken seriously by others. He chooses the subject of the day most likely to fire up his cretins (like something taniwha, something Clark, something sexist) and lets them go. It is like the most disgusting and ignorant of talkback radio writ large.

      I have a bash over there sometimes but it always immediately degenerates into a stinking shithole screamfest.

      Shouldn’t be allowed…
      • Pascal's bookie 11.2.1

        10 June 2011 at 12:46 pm

        I’m thankful you have to register for comments and that I’m so damn lazy about such things.
      • pollywog 11.2.2

        10 June 2011 at 12:52 pm

        Allow it to the fullest i say.

        What better way to show them the error of their ways than to hold a mirror up in public for all to see 🙂
        • Draco T Bastard 11.2.2.1

          10 June 2011 at 1:30 pm

          They still won’t see the error of their ways – but everyone else will.
          • logie97 11.2.2.1.1

            10 June 2011 at 7:48 pm

            It is worse that The Penguin gets comfort from Jim Mora as a panelist on Afternoons on national radio. Mora bills his guest as a leading blogger and mentions the name of the notorious blog as well. Just perhaps, Mora never reads beyond the Penguin’s posts – Farrar, however, is responsible for what he allows to be appended to his blog.
    • Morrissey 11.3

      10 June 2011 at 4:27 pm

      …the red neck of kkkiwiblog

      Why do you call those fools “rednecks”? That implies they work hard in the sun like honest farmers and labourers. I wonder how much manual work the likes of Farrar, Slater, Hooton, Leighton Smith, and Paul Holmes actually do.

      I guess you call them “peasants” too?
12. Draco T Bastard 12

    10 June 2011 at 1:29 pm

    Rule by the Rentiers

    What lies behind this trans-Atlantic policy paralysis? I’m increasingly convinced that it’s a response to interest-group pressure. Consciously or not, policy makers are catering almost exclusively to the interests of rentiers — those who derive lots of income from assets, who lent large sums of money in the past, often unwisely, but are now being protected from loss at everyone else’s expense.

    Sounds a lot like what’s happening in NZ as well. The rich are protected (SCF, AMI, farmers subsidies via the ETS) from their bad decisions and everyone else pays for them. Especially the small businesses.
13. jackal 13

    10 June 2011 at 2:23 pm

    Fudging Welfare Figures

    On the back of the National Government ordering that the entire Christchurch unemployed population not be included in recent welfare statistics, comes another blatant attempt by National to trick the public into believing unemployment rates have fallen. The difference between the cons is that one completely disregards a large sector of unemployed and the other ensures that more people are not eligible or do not reapply for their benefits because of harsh new criteria imposed by WINZ.
    • weka 13.1

      10 June 2011 at 6:47 pm

      What’s the new hoop jumping UB’s have to do to reapply?
      If the reapplying thing is merely policy (that’s not in statute) then it should be challengeable. 5,000 is a very large number of people to not have an income all of a sudden. I’d like to see an analysis of that number.
      • jackal 13.1.1

        11 June 2011 at 10:39 am

        An analysis of that number? In a recent article it was reported that only 1400 out of the some 5000 removed from the unemployment benefit said they had found work, with over 1000 no longer eligible according to the harsh rules leaving 2600 unaccounted for. Or perhaps you mean an analysis to see what has actually happened to the 2600? Like how many have committed suicide and left for Australia for instance. I’d be interested in seeing those figures as it would be proper way to glean the effectiveness of the policy change.

        According to the WINZ website:

        When you re-apply, you’ll also need to complete a Comprehensive Work Assessment.

        Work obligations include things like:

        attending scheduled job interviews
        actively looking for a job
        taking a suitable job that’s offered to you
        attending work experience, training or workshops that Work and Income think would be helpful.

        The first time you don’t meet your work obligations, your main benefit will be reduced by 50%. You’ll continue to receive any supplementary assistance that you’re entitled to.

        The second time you don’t comply, your benefit and supplementary assistance will be suspended.

        The third time you don’t comply all your benefits will be cancelled.

        Failing to complete the 52 week reapplication process
        If a client reapplies before their expiry date but does not complete the reapplication process on or before the expiry date, their benefit will stop.

        If a client reapplies after their expiry date and does not have an exceptional circumstance for not reapplying on or before the expiry date, their benefit must be manually cancelled from the expiry date.

        Note if a client does not complete the reapplication process within 20 working days after the expiry date the benefit will automatically be cancelled.

        Client still wants to apply for benefit

        Clients who fail to complete the 52 week reapplication process but want to continue to receive a benefit must be advised to reapply for a benefit as a new applicant. The client will be subject to the normal commencement date rules, including initial stand-downs.

        Note if the client advises they want to reapply you can use their reapplication form as their application.

        If a client does not want to reapply for a benefit, they should be advised to apply as a non-beneficiary for supplementary assistance (such as Accommodation Supplement).
        For more information:

        One thing I would like to note is that this is the Policy that WINZ is meant to follow. It is likely that Paula Bennett has instructed WINZ employees to utilize any means to remove people from the unemployment benefit. It is the application of the new rules that is ultimately the problem. Because beneficiaries are not being informed about their rights, they are being taken advantage of, which is not acceptable in a democracy.

        Here’s a run down of the WINZ sanctions:
        • seeker 13.1.1.1

          11 June 2011 at 4:02 pm

          Jackal
          “Or perhaps you mean an analysis to see what has actually happened to the 2600? Like how many have committed suicide and left for Australia for instance. I’d be interested in seeing those figures as it would be proper way to glean the effectiveness of the policy change.”

          I too wondered what had happened to the 2600. Does anyone apart from us care?
          The government certainly appears not to care by publishing the fact as a ‘win’.
          What has happened to humanity under neoliberal ideology. Oh I remember, from the merry 80s and 90s -we have been economically quantified and there is no such thing as society which – makes it easier to forget people exist and think only of that lovely money. Why on earth do they still call Ms.Bennett’s department Social Development-from these shocking facts it should be called the Society Nihilation department. Such a name would really cheer the Right Wing exploiters of humanity up.
          How could John Key say National’s ways were closer to Destiny Church. Destiny Curch is meant to be Christian and Christ spoke against most of what National enforces.”Love thy neighbour as thyself,”said he.John key needs to get a Bible.
14. Colonial Viper 14

    10 June 2011 at 4:40 pm

    Federal Reserve, European Central Bank willing to destroy Greek sovereignty and Greek workers to prop up large Investment Banks

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVbL8eWwER0

    Max Keiser and Stacy Herbert are on to it .

    Watch and weep peeps
    • M 14.1

      10 June 2011 at 6:41 pm

      CV,

      I’ll raise you Keiser’s GIABO 154 – interesting take on copyright and how ridiculous the time period is:
      • Colonial Viper 14.1.1

        10 June 2011 at 7:16 pm

        🙂
        • Draco T Bastard 14.1.1.1

          10 June 2011 at 8:31 pm

          More videos to watch.
15. logie97 15

    10 June 2011 at 7:12 pm

    Just heard on the news that apparently the outpatient departments in New Zealand hospitals are not geared to cope with drunken idiots. WTF. When was a festival of sport a license to be drunk and disorderly?

    The worst of this is that we have a Prime Minister who has countenanced “Party Central” (in other words unbridled piss up time). Now take away the involvement of international rugby, and what would the reaction be to a mob of drunken louts roaming the streets.

    Try to imagine foreigners in such places as France, Greece, Saudi Arabia, Hong Kong et cetera, being drunk and disorderly in the streets – doesn’t bear thinking about.

    But given the inevitability of this, who is going to have to stump up for the cost of this behaviour and treatment? I bet it won’t be the RFU – they are already staring down the barrel of massive debt.

    We could have strategically placed billboards at every international terminal advising rugby fans that there will be a zero tolerance of abuse of alcohol. That may be an approach…

    F#ck the World Cup, if it is going to mean streams of urine in our gutters…
16. Carol 16

    10 June 2011 at 7:56 pm

    Watching the second round of Nkii kaye vs Jacinda Ardern on Citizen A with Bomber on Stratos. This time, Jacinda & Bomber are not letting Nikki get away with so much interuptions…. although she did that just now. Kaye has claimed poverty grew under the 9 years of the Clark government…. is that correct?

    This time Kaye has ditched the repetitive “Let me be clear” and is instead repeating “The reality is” or “the point is”.
    • jackal 16.1

      11 June 2011 at 11:06 am

      Yes! Poverty did increase under the last Labour Government. Another indicator was the comparison with Australia (GDP, Cost of living ect), which also worsened under Labour. However the gap between rich and poor has increased at twice that rate under National with a similar doubling of the disparity with Australia compared to New Zealand under a John Key led Government. Labour is just the lesser of two evils in my opinion. Perhaps they’ve changed but we wont know until they’re able to form a Government. Where is Phil Goff anyway?

      Was a good debate. Just wish Bomber the egotist would get the damn audio sorted.
      • Colonial Viper 16.1.1

        11 June 2011 at 11:23 am

        When you look at the levels of benefits compared to the average weekly wage, the last Labour Govt did little to bring them back to pre-Ruthanasia ratios.

        Of course, under Labour, unemployment and youth unemployment were far far lower and so this affected fewer people. What Labour didn’t get is that on the downslope of the economic cycle, it would end up affecting a hell of a lot of people.

        So what they did instead of increasing benefit levels to livable ratios, was to increase the minimum wage and to focus on tax breaks to couples with children (what about everyone else in this country?!).

        Problem is of course that income tax breaks and increases in the minimum wage only mean something if you have work.
17. RobC 17

    10 June 2011 at 9:20 pm

    Best laugh of the day: a comment on the NZ Herald to Farrar’s weekly column:

    “David – my advice would be to take your own advice, except the only difference would be that I for one would prefer you didn’t come back in a couple of years. Actually I would prefer that you never came back at all.

    While you are at it – take John Key with you. I would recommend Gerry Brownlee as well but I sincerely doubt you can afford the cost of the excess baggage.”

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS