Open mike 10/06/2012

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, June 10th, 2012 - 185 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…

185 comments on “Open mike 10/06/2012 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Pete George 1
    10 June 2012 at 7:03 am

    Clare Curran on the Alcohol Reform Bill:

    Do I still plan to vote for the drinking age to stay at 18 both on and off license? Yes

    The legal drinking age is not clearly linked to the age at which young people start to drink, and we can more effective change the culture of excessive drinking by looking at price control and the marketing of alcohol.

    Many of my Labour colleagues are also looking at submitting Supplementary Order Papers on drink driving and blood alcohol levels, minimum pricing, marketing of alcohol, and bringing in tighter restrictions on times of sale at Liquor Outlets near schools, and strengthening opportunities for communities to develop appropriate Local Alcohol Plans and Licencing Trusts.

    The Alcohol Reform Bill is an opportunity to reduce alcohol related harm throughout New Zealand. If we do not get the bill right, it is a lost opportunity.

    Clare’s full response to questions put to Dunedin MPs.

    I agree with her on the drinking age and in general with her (and Labour’s) aims to addresss wider alcohol issues and the drinking culture problems. I’d like to see details of the proposed submissions.

    I do have concerns about changing drink driving and blood alcohol levels. Most drink driving problems involve levels that are far too high, not borderline. If the driving blood alcohol levels are lowered it will affect many people who are not a part of the problem, and could significantly impact on socialising.

    • Draco T Bastard 1.1
      10 June 2012 at 3:40 pm

      Other countries have lowered the blood/alcohol limit and seen a decrease in road accident and it’s possible to socialise without alcohol.

      • Pete George 1.1.1
        10 June 2012 at 5:18 pm

        Of course it’s possible to socialise without alcohol. I often do. But socialising safely with alcohol should be an available choice.

        • Pascal's bookie 1.1.1.1
          10 June 2012 at 5:23 pm

          No one is talking about banning it Pete.

        • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.2
          10 June 2012 at 5:33 pm

          Perhaps I should have said that it’s possible to socialise without driving. That’s why we have buses and cabs.

          • TheContrarian 1.1.1.2.1
            10 June 2012 at 5:39 pm

            This isn’t the first time I have seen Draco suggest that buses were some kind of social hub. Dude, when people catch the bus they generally want to get from A to B without being subjected to a weird socialist babbling away about how the government should build huge swaths of high density apartment blocks and we’d all be happy little workers.

            Shit man, I’d rather walk.

            • felix 1.1.1.2.1.1
              10 June 2012 at 7:29 pm

              And it isn’t the first time I’ve seen you totally misunderstand a fairly straightforward statement.

            • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.2.1.2
              10 June 2012 at 7:56 pm

              Then walk to the party – or you could catch a bus or a cab. No one really gives a shit how you get to the party just so long as you do it safely, i.e, if driving, don’t drink.

              BTW, perhaps you haven’t heard that you can hire party buses? Pretty sure that people who get onto such a bus want to socialise.

      • Vicky32 1.1.2
        10 June 2012 at 6:32 pm

        and it’s possible to socialise without alcohol.

        You’re absolutely right there! I’ve done it all my life, and it certainly makes socialising much more fun, without spewing, incoherent mumbling and fights breaking out! (I had the bad fortune to be married to an alkie and see the glory of socialising with alcohol)

        • Jackal 1.1.2.1
          10 June 2012 at 6:45 pm

          The dark side of alcohol is a truly terrible thing. However booze free parties always seem a bit droll to me. Unfortunately New Zealander’s have inhibitions without a bit of booze under their belts, and it’s now so engrained in our culture that it’s here to stay. Keeping safe is all about good venue management, forward planning and not drinking to excess. Perhaps students should be taught about alcohol in schools, being that a bit of shock treatment about what happens to people who overindulge might work to encourage responsible drinking?

          • Vicky32 1.1.2.1.1
            10 June 2012 at 7:00 pm

            Unfortunately New Zealander’s have inhibitions without a bit of booze under their belts, and it’s now so engrained in our culture that it’s here to stay

            Which is why I pretty much avoid socialising with New Zealanders! 😀

  2. Carol 2
    10 June 2012 at 7:27 am

    Of note in the MSM news sites this morning:

    1) Christchurch red zoners look to take the government to the international court of human rights! Good one them. I hope they go ahead with this, and that this shows Key and cos dictatorial, anti-democratic “enabling” legislation and actions for what they are….. and hangs them out for all to see internationally!

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-earthquake/7073821/Red-zone-residents-threaten-UN-action

    The “supposedly voluntary buy-out offer” was structured in such a way that it was, in effect, compulsory and bypassed existing laws that regulated the taking of land by Government. Cairns said the Government’s threats that services would either be removed or not repaired in red-zone areas, should property owners choose to stay on in their homes, more than 7200 families were effectively being evicted.

    Pleas for intervention at the local and national level had gone unheeded so it was now time to “go international”. Cairns has developed a template letter he is urging people to use to write to the United Nations Human Rights Council, asking it to investigate.

    2) Both Trotter and Hooton claim the government backdown over class sizes is bad for the government, but for different reasons:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7073804/Class-size-backdown-to-haunt-National

    Left-wing commentator Trotter says education politics always featured battles, but before going to war, the Government should have counted its foes and its allies.

    “They will be shaken by this and will think hard before putting something like it out there again, especially without doing the work they obviously did on National Standards.”
    […]
    Even right-wing commentator Matthew Hooton said the backdown would haunt the Government, and that bowing to public pressure was a sign of weakness.
    [..]
    Hooton said the right was becoming concerned at the Government’s sensitivity to popularity. It had also failed to make any bold cost-cutting moves, such as raising the retirement age to 67, adjusting superannuation, Working for Families or KiwiSaver, he said.

    “Businesspeople are concerned about the lack of an economic reform programme.”

    I don’t agree entirely with Trotter that the government has won over National Standards, either. They may have won some battles, but I’m not so sure this blight on education will stand the test of time.

    Interesting that Hooton thinks it’s a sign of weakness for a government to take notice of widespread public “pressure” (although I would call that widespread views of citizens/the public). And also interesting that he sees this government’s radical neoliberal policies, often being pushed through parliament without full consultation, is not austere enough for many in the business community!

  3. Carol 3
    10 June 2012 at 7:33 am

    PS: Special mention for Matt McCarten’s column today, having a go at key’s suck-up to royalty via the increasingly dubious and cronyist NZ honours system:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10811904

    Is it just me or does everyone feel embarrassed about how pathetically cynical our Prime Minister is by bestowing our country’s highest honour on the spouse of the Queen?
    […]
    Assuming John Key is not a revolutionary republican deliberately undermining our imperial pretensions, he certainly has achieved turning our honours system into a joke.

    And also to Bernard Hickey for highlighting the role of German policies and banks in the Eurozone crisis:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10811898

    Germany was the prime beneficiary of the Eurozone. The new currency was weaker than the Deutschmark, making German exports more competitive in the eyes of Southern European buyers.

    Germany generated big trade surpluses and lent those surpluses to its neighbours to buy yet more German exports.

    It’s no accident that Greece and Spain are now awash with heavily devalued Porsche Cayennes and BMW X5s while Germany is struggling to get Greeks and Spaniards to repay the debts.

    • Pete George 3.1
      10 June 2012 at 7:48 am

      Is it just me or does everyone feel embarrassed about how pathetically cynical our Prime Minister is by bestowing our country’s highest honour on the spouse of the Queen?

      I think it’s embarrassing, although I’m not sure about it being “pathetically cynical”, my guess is that Key is just a traditionalist/royalist who likes some past era pomp and subservience.

      And it does suggest he lacks vision of an independently proud New Zealand of the future.

      Whatever the reason for putting personal ceremony before the country’s self determination, McCarten is right when he says “Key has cheapened the honour for everyone who actually deserves it.”

      • Kevin Welsh 3.1.1
        10 June 2012 at 8:37 am

        FFS, Pete, I agree with you 100%. But while I agree it’s not ‘pathetically cynical’, it is cynical.

        • Pete George 3.1.1.1
          10 June 2012 at 9:21 am

          I agree with cynical. I’m reluctant to call it pathetic because that would reflect on the many people who adhore an emotionless, toothless, remote monarch.

          It’s notable that it was ‘their’ jubilee, not ours. Those who were interested seemed happy to watch the pomp on the tellie, but very little jubilation practised on this side of the world.

    • RedLogix 3.2
      10 June 2012 at 4:13 pm

      Now take Bernard’s observations about the Germany and how they benefited from an artificially low Euro … and transplant exactly the same observation onto China.

  4. Olwyn 4
    10 June 2012 at 8:31 am

    A horrifying letter to the SST today; “I agree with Laws. It s time these scum were exterminated. Why do we never give incentives to the intelligent, only the scum?” I was startled both that the person put their name to it, and the SST published it. The concept of hate speech it seems, does not apply universally.

    • Carol 4.1
      10 June 2012 at 8:37 am

      What “scum” is he talking about? The wealthy bludgers that have been incentivised to siphon of the wealth produced by the working classes?

  5. mickysavage 5
    10 June 2012 at 8:47 am

    Winz Boss Janet Grossman has quit suddenly.  The HOS reports:

    Work and Income chief executive Janet Grossman has quit less than a year after being head-hunted from the UK, amid controversy over the Government’s welfare reforms.

    Grossman was recruited in July last year from Britain’s Pensions Service.

    Public Service Association national secretary Brenda Pilott thought the abrupt departure was the result of high pressure surrounding welfare reforms.

    “The speculation I’d heard is to do with the board that’s been put in place to oversee the reforms,” she said.

    The board was appointed by Social Development Minister Paula Bennett to oversee changes, which are largely based on the report of the Welfare Working Group which was chaired by consultant Paula Rebstock.

    Pilott said: “I had heard that Janet was somewhat surprised to find out about the board as it wasn’t quite what she believed she had been recruited for. She came out here to discover that Paula Rebstock is running Work and Income.”

    In typical spin the Government is saying that it is for “family reasons”.  I just wish some times they would say the truth rather than always try to spin it.

    • prism 5.1
      10 June 2012 at 1:04 pm

      The radio report said that Grossmans background was in IT in Britain. It sounded to me like more of the modern generic management style resulting in choosing people for WINZ with no interest in human welfare just in putting people into boxes, and if they happen to be coffins so be it.

      One such appointee was I think a previous seaport manager who brought in the docking priority system for clients, at CYPS? The result was that people who called the department about child abuse would be screened for urgency, and action for the non-urgent wouldn’t happen for months.

      • deuto 5.1.1
        10 June 2012 at 1:35 pm

        Found Grossman’s resignation and quick exit (on Friday apparently) very interesting but knew nothing about her, so Googled her.

        Here is the press release when she was appointed last year – seems that while her most recent experience was IT, she also previously worked/headed the UK Work and Pensions dept.

        http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=janet%20grossman&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CHEQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.beehive.govt.nz%2Frelease%2Fminister-welcomes-new-head-work-and-income&ei=RvfTT4POMYyhiQfKiLy5Aw&usg=AFQjCNG3AQyBq5BLLkceFCNT65vMs9tG1w

        I also found this item also of interest in terms of her public/private experience and the use of IT

        http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=janet%20grossman&source=web&cd=11&ved=0CHgQFjAK&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.publictechnology.net%2Fsector%2Fcentral-gov%2Fsmart-gov-new-approach-needed-public-sector-ict&ei=RvfTT4POMYyhiQfKiLy5Aw&usg=AFQjCNFDbKS5Xl9k_oWopQw_BvBPOx-GUg

        I suspect that she may have had a falling out over her approach and that of the old stalwards in government – and also the setting up of the Rebstock Working Group (Don’t think that is what it is called, but in effect that is what it is).

        • prism 5.1.1.1
          10 June 2012 at 1:59 pm

          deuto
          Salient points from the links you kindly offered.
          From the beehive.govt.nz –
          Originally from the United States, Janet has lived in the UK for the past decade, gaining high-level experience in the public and private sectors. Most recently she was Director of Strategy and Execution for the Northern European Division of IT company Computer Sciences Corporation.
          In the public sector, Janet was the Chief Operating Officer for the Pensions Service within the Department of Work and Pensions.

          and from publictechnology.net
          In her ‘day job’ Grossman heads up the business unit in Cable & Wireless responsible for growing strategic contracts across the public sector, but up until three years ago was a senior civil servant as chief operating officer at the Department for Works and Pensions. In that role, she was responsible for a full scale transformation programme to deliver savings in excess of £60 billion over 5 years.
          The political situation has changed. There’s a pace and a drive to cut costs.

          This backs my point that people are getting managing roles in government with no training in the field of the particular department. But no worries – Grossman saved money at the Dept for Works and Pensions through new technology application. Note her comment “there’s a pace and a drive to cut costs”.

          That’s the clue to her attraction to Bennett et al, following on the NZ Housing withdrawal from speaking to real, smelly people that you have to provide toilets for while they wait an interminable time to speak to somebody who knows something.

          • Vicky32 5.1.1.1.1
            10 June 2012 at 6:38 pm

            Originally from the United States,

            Ah, yes, that makes sense… New Zealand always loves the ‘American expert’…

    • weka 5.2
      10 June 2012 at 4:09 pm

      Would Grossman have something in her contract that prevents her speaking about why she is leaving?

  6. freedom 6
    10 June 2012 at 10:05 am

    Last week we saw info on the disgusting treatment of a group of Serco Olympic Steward Trainees. The ‘volunteers’ for the Queen’s 60th Jubilee celebration duties were dumped in the middle of London without food and shelter, were left to sleep under the Tower Bridge without any facilities then before first light they were shuffled into boots and ponchos to celebrate the Queen’s 60 years of suckling at the teat of prosperity. The volunteers completed their [work experience] in order to have a chance of qualifying as Olympic Stewards. They were then shipped out to Essex where they were left overnight again, this time in a flooded campground.

    As a story it lifted the veil a little on what lies ahead for the 2012 Summer Olympics. An Olympics which more closely resembles Berlin circa 1936 than Sydney 2000. More importantly it highlighted to me how little i knew about the company NZ inc is giving so many of our tax dollars to.

    This a.m. there was an interesting interview on RT regarding G4S ( Serco) and their activities supporting Israeli apartheid practises sorry i mean Palestinian border security. I did some web wandering. After an hour of connecting some truely frightening dots i stumbled across a small video that sums it all up in an honest and direct manner.

    • ianmac 6.1
      10 June 2012 at 10:35 am

      Hells Bells Freedom. Insidious Serco. Years ago I heard of some lot called the innocuous Blue Circle. It was explained to me that they were a conglommorate which hand hands on about 25% of the Worlds resources. Perhaps Serco has another 25+% and maybe our Government is a puppet on their strings. Shudder!

      • prism 6.1.1
        10 June 2012 at 1:30 pm

        There was a good interview this morning on Radionz – 11.05 Ideas: Beyond Imprisonment, with Roger Brooking on NZ prison overcrowding, the lamebrain populist punish-the-bu..ers-lock em up mentality, that produces this. Also the 90% of prisoners that don’t get into any therapeutic system,. Most who are serving a 2 year sentence and therefore able to get out in one if they behave, don’t get the chance to have intervention chances, it’s the one with longer sentences coming up for parole who do the rehabilitation so that they can present that to the parole board.

        Then there was the bit about this Serco run prison to be at Wiri. Cost in cash strapped NZ, only $900 million over 25 years. And Serco supposed to do so much better than govt, make a profit and do magic rehab too. Talk about sucking from the public teat. There was a USA chap Bryan Stevenson on air too talking about the way that imprisonment has been privatised there and is a good little earner for business.
        Info on Wiri and Mt Eden prisons from scoop
        On interesting point about Wiri costs is “The capital cost of the new prison has already been factored into previous budgets and does not require new budget funding.” This means that while the government was moaning about not having enough money for essential services, part of the debits on the ledger was forward allocation for this future prison.
        Also from stuff
        Although the prison muster has been falling, the Government says it needs extra capacity in Auckland

        freedom – ” to celebrate the Queen’s 60 years of suckling at the teat of prosperity.” One of the reasons that there is prosperity is the stability that the Queen has enabled.

        • freedom 6.1.1.1
          10 June 2012 at 2:51 pm

          “One of the reasons that there is prosperity is the stability that the Queen has enabled.”
          prism, with all due respect are you being serious or taking the piss?
          i really couldn’t tell because that statement makes me laugh either way.

          p.s. here’s a taster of what private prisons create
          http://www.inquisitr.com/211740/u-s-judges-admit-to-jailing-children-for-money/

          • bad12 6.1.1.1.1
            10 June 2012 at 4:04 pm

            The Queen??? thank the Gods that that abysmal lot had the use of the hired help to aide in their breeding habits,

            If it were not for the fathering of more than one Royal heir through the auspices of the use of more than one chamber maids reproductive system the whole fucking lot of them would be an inter-bred rabble ensconced in locked darkened rooms decorating the chambers with their own fecal matter,

            Rumour has it that a goodly number of the feral inter-breed’s who stuck too closely to the age old cousin upon cousin as the means of reproduction in the upper echelon’s of that society are kept just such and well away from any prying eyes….

          • prism 6.1.1.1.2
            10 June 2012 at 4:53 pm

            freedom
            That clip is saddening.. I get a bit depressed at this sort of stuff. But one has to learn to be cynical doesn’t one. Stiff upper lip and so on. This piece got me.

            (Ciavarella is one of two judges sentenced to up to 7 years imprisonment in a plea bargain for sentencing kids more heavily so that they would then be sent to a private prison facility for which the judges then got payment to a total of over $2 million.)

            Ciavarella wrote in a letter to the court,
            “Your statement that I have disgraced my judgeship is true. My actions have destroyed everything I worked to accomplish and I have only myself to blame.”

            I wonder what his values and goals were that he was working to accomplish? A larger house, top schooling for his children, doing better than his brother? Or is it one of those sad stories that crop up in the country of miracle medical treatment if you can afford it, and people beggar themselves trying to cure family illness or disability.

            About the Queen. Despite your raspberry I think she does a good job despite being very rich, and she works hard all right. I would have her as a figurehead over Tony Blair, John Key, Julia Gillard, George Bush large or small, film stars, sports people, or any of the type that get elected because they are recognisable by the watchers of the TV news.

          • Vicky32 6.1.1.1.3
            10 June 2012 at 6:46 pm

            i really couldn’t tell because that statement makes me laugh either way.

            That’s a pity. It would be better if you’d stop and think for oh, 5 minutes? He has a point.
            My otherwise reublican father pointed out decades ago, that the Royal’s one achievement was that very stability and unity the promotion of which is their sole person.

            • freedom 6.1.1.1.3.1
              10 June 2012 at 8:20 pm

              I am well aware of the mythical stabilising influence that Monarchy has wrested from the feudalism of history. I simply believe that they do not need squillions of dollars and elitist ideologies to be a leader. If being a figurehead and bringing calm and peace to troubled folk was their motive it should be enough to receive the thanks of a grateful community, who if treated with a modicum of respect and decency might not begrudge them the odd bauble. That sadly is not what happens and never has been in the centuries that the game has played out. War, oppression, eltism and authority over others they perceive as inferior have been the driving force. This perhaps was highlighted most aptly and with a certain subtlety when the Queen recently attempted to steal from the State Poverty Fund to heat one of her houses. Perhaps if she simply sold some of the shares in the numerous companies owned by her family she could pay for her own oil like all her loyal subjects are forced to.

              but i obviously have never given it any thought

              • prism …
                10 June 2012 at 8:51 pm

                freedom
                You have a thought about Royalty and so do I. Why should the Queen be poorer than the other plutocrats because it soothes your little proletariat heart? The head of a nation is bound to have power and want money, probably even Cromwell did, and I think the Queen has integrity and is far better than the alternative of busy robbers spending more time in personal capital accretion than in working for the good of their country.

                And if the Queen invests largely in Britain they have the benefit of that capital to build their commerce with. Pity we don’t have some rich people here investing largely in our innovative business ventures.

                • freedom …
                  10 June 2012 at 9:26 pm

                  The only leader of a nation that has ever actually worked for the betterment of all people needed neither riches nor property. He had no desire for power or to enforce authority on others. He worked tirelessly to end oppression and to create a society of his people that would embolden others to understand the futility and inescapable tragedy that is war. Those who understood him believed him when he said the equality he offered was payment enough and the respect he was gifted made him wealthier than any jewelled crown ever could.

                  His life, like that of all true leaders was taken by a miscreant besotted with theology power and greed and in the dust that caught his corpse Gandhi lay forever silenced

                • muzza …
                  10 June 2012 at 9:54 pm

                  Does integrity involve belonging to a family pretending to be English when in fact its not?

                  • rosy …
                    10 June 2012 at 10:07 pm

                    Not that I have any desire to support any monarchy, I also don’t think mis-attributing nationality is a great idea either…

                    Elizabeth and her parents were born in England. In anyone’s book that constitutes Englishness I would have thought.

                    • seeker …
                      10 June 2012 at 10:31 pm

                      Nicely said rosy

                    • muzza …
                      10 June 2012 at 10:35 pm

                      How have I misatributed nationality?

                      I would not have thought that the parents alone constitute a families origin..

                      If people want to speculate about QE2, and her integrity, then perhaps they should do some research into the backgrounds!

                    • McFlock …
                      10 June 2012 at 10:40 pm

                      Muz  
                      I guess that I’m just “pretending” to be a New Zealander then.
                      Idiot.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      10 June 2012 at 10:49 pm

                      Elizabeth and her parents were born in England. In anyone’s book that constitutes Englishness I would have thought.

                      Their original dynastic family name, changed in 1917, is German. Saxe Coburg and Gotha.

                    • muzza …
                      10 June 2012 at 10:50 pm

                      Read and comprehend my comments McFlock…

                      They were not aimed soley at QE2, which is where you, like the others have not been able to grasp what I inquired about, when prism said Queeny had integrity!

                      My response was about the family!

                      Cheers for the insult though, really felt that one!

                    • rosy …
                      10 June 2012 at 11:11 pm

                      Yes, I’m aware of the German connection, just as I’m aware of my own Scots, Irish and Australian connections. Still, I’m a New Zealander with New Zealand interests coming ahead of any other. I see Elizabeth and her family similarly. The fact that there are a few fasc1sts and other nasties in the family tree doesn’t damn them entirely or mean their interests are not English.

                      The other reading of course is that being German constitutes a particular thought pattern. Why don’t spell it out…

                    • McFlock …
                      10 June 2012 at 11:18 pm

                      Muz
                      This is the second topic today where you’ve been claiming that people who disagree with you have failed to comprehend your point.
                             
                      So best case scenario for you, you have amazing insight but fuck-all communication skills, so your wisdom exists in a vacuum.
                          
                      Worst case for you is that people DO understand your points, but you’re an idiot. And every time you comment you simply show everyone how much of an idiot you are.

                    • muzza …
                      11 June 2012 at 7:39 am

                      “The other reading of course is that being German constitutes a particular thought pattern. Why don’t spell it out…”

                      –No Rosy, being a N.A.Z.I constitutes a particular thought pattern, and she is married to a bloke who at best, was raised as one, at worst is one!….Do I need to spell that out for you, stop trying to blur the lines, they have them in their family yet people want to use words like integrity etc, when they have no idea if that is in fact true or not…(that has been my only point I raised), yet yourself, seeker, mcflock and prism, all seem to have missed it, where viper managed to see it!

                      PS – McFlock – Yes people today have not been able to comprehend , because they simply do not have the faculties or the understanding, its been a long time paying attention, and seeing the levels of comprehension in this site for the most part is a clear example of why our country continues to slide..

                      Take your insults and run along..

                    • McFlock …
                      11 June 2012 at 11:57 am

                      Is it actually insulting to suggest that if people constantly fail to understand you, maybe you have to work on your communication skills?
                           
                      And surely if I am willing to consider the possibility that I am indeed failing to understand your genius, maybe you’d also consider the possibility that you’re not half as smart as you think you are. 

      • lucy 6.1.2
        12 June 2012 at 12:30 am

        Uhh yip. And because of those puppet strings we will never stop the asset sales, no matter how much public opposition there is.

  7. Pete George 7
    10 June 2012 at 10:20 am

    Another Labour position I’m totally in support of is marriage equality. Seems like a no-brainer. So I’ll support Louisa Wall’s member’s bill.

    I saw Colin Craig promoting his contradictory stance on Q + A – it seems like he’s for equality as long as it’s limited to equaling his beliefs. But that’s a separate issue.

    Craig seemed to carefully avoid mentioning religion while promoting virtually identical phrases use commonly by conservative Christians in trying to keep marriage as their own, rather than veing for everyone.

    Craig often appears to be trying hard to speak for and appeal to the conservative Christian vote, without saying that’s he’s doing. In doing so, is Colin Craig deliberately dishonest?

  8. Logie97 8
    10 June 2012 at 11:02 am

    Can anyone here define what seems a nebulous concept – “World class education system”?
    I think it would also be helpful if Parata and (for that matter the rest of the nation) should have a clear definition of what a teacher is as well.

    • muzza 8.1
      10 June 2012 at 3:47 pm

      “World Class’ Must be doing the rounds..

      Owen McCall (former Deloitte, and Warehouse), now a private consultant at AKL Council heading the “transformation”, has been blathering about “World Class”

      Its simply another way of saying that, they are going to chop shop the life out of any industry which gets referred to as world class, because those who say it know the model being used as “world class”, and they wont be sharing it with the workers!

      The model is China/India, the model is outsourcing, downscale, upsize classes, dumb down teachers, and students via curriculum, thats the sort of thing world class means…Because they are talking about using standards from the UK/US which are NOT world class in the teaching/learning sector.

      Why are we not taking world class from the leaders in the education fields!

      Simply because, that is not what is in mind for NZ, otherwise that is what would be happening!

    • Draco T Bastard 8.2
      10 June 2012 at 4:24 pm

      “World class” is a phrase used by our politicians (Especially NACT) to make people think that NZ isn’t up to the task. There is no other reason to use it. As our ranking shows, we already have an education system that meets or exceeds what we need from an education system. Making it better is a good idea but it’s a) not that critical and b) a slow, involved and considered process and so what the NACTs are putting forward in a rush of ill-conceived urgency will make it worse.

      • muzza 8.2.1
        10 June 2012 at 5:15 pm

        Indeed B, there seems to be some push on to rush towards “world class”.

        I agree, that there is an attempt to sell what NZ is doing as not good enough.

        It is also a sales technique used by consultants, to make believe that what they know, and are trying to deliver, is “world class”

        Its a transparent technique, which only impresses idiots, and politicians!

  9. Jackal 9
    10 June 2012 at 11:17 am

    Myth-busting rightwing prejudices

    The main problem is that Hattie fails to find a long run impact on attainment, he measures the effect on small numbers of students where the variable is reduced, his conclusion does not use stringent conditions to decide what studies to disregard and many if not all of the studies he has used have methodological problems. This almost guarantees that Hattie’s findings for the relationship between student/teacher ratio and student learning is biased…

    • ianmac 9.1
      10 June 2012 at 11:39 am

      Good stuff Jackal. Teachers tell me that if they were to use large class methods on smaller classes nothing much changes.
      But if they adapt their methods to more interactive, peer based, inquiry processes and lace that with more teacher feedback for next steps for improved learning (because children are more accessible), then learning is hugely enhanced.
      The bigger the class the more teachers are involved with supervising the busy work of kids and the less in actually teaching. Simple really.
      (The Q&A with Hattie does not appear to be up for viewing yet.)

      • Jackal 9.1.1
        10 June 2012 at 12:27 pm

        Thanks ianmac. The way you put it sounds better than “Whole class teaching is not an acceptable alternative to individual support of pupils’ learning.” I’m hoping Hattie has the gumption to respond.

      • Carol 9.1.2
        10 June 2012 at 5:00 pm

        Exactly what I thought when I saw the Hattie interview this morning before rushing off to work.

        I wanted to know what outcomes were measured. I’m still not totally clear on that, but it does seem to me to be easily quantifiable and measurable short term outcomes.

        As my post below indicates, I also think the aims of education need to be taken into account.

        Having attended a primary school with class sizes around 45 pupils, my view is that large classes suit authoritarian styles of learning, where pupils are taught to regurgitate what the teacher provides for them, and obediently follow instructions.

        In my adult life I have also taught in various kinds of institutions, and think that small classes are more amenable to encouraging students to explore, work co-cooperatively in small groups, and draw some of their own conclusions from active engagement with learning materials and knowledge.

        And with this, it’s not just all the short term measurable outcomes that are important, but the long term outcome of developing a particular approach to engaging with learning.

        I’m sure the large class authoritarian style is more suited to our undemocratic, elitist government, that don’t want people to think critically about the world they find themselves in.

        • Draco T Bastard 9.1.2.1
          10 June 2012 at 5:40 pm

          Having attended a primary school with class sizes around 45 pupils, my view is that large classes suit authoritarian styles of learning, where pupils are taught to regurgitate what the teacher provides for them, and obediently follow instructions.

          That was my impression of schools from my time in them and why I had decided that, if I ever had children, they would be home schooled. It seems that our schooling system has moved on from that dictatorial model but that NACT want to bring it back.

    • NickS 9.2
      10 June 2012 at 2:37 pm

      Eh? Hattie’s actually got a fairly extensive record in teh peer reviewed literature, so slagging him off as “a so called expert” is actually pretty stupid of you.

      And really, you need to know the evidence he’s talking about in order to start even criticising him, case in point he’s relying on meta-analyses consisting of thousands of studies in order to find effect sizes, and from a 06 review Hattie showed that class sizes from 18-26 have equivalent effect sizes on education achievement. And while your quick peak at teh literature is a good idea, part of the problem is that you’re doing what second year uni students tend to do, i.e. cherry picking papers and not putting them in the wider context of the wrap and weft of the research.

      Putting what Hattie’s saying though in context provides much more interesting fun, namely that Hattie’s ignoring the detrimental effects on educational achievement of National’s socio-economic policies and failure to increase educational funding targeting at getting computers into schools and upskilling teachers with better teaching tools and teacher aides. Further more in that presentation Hattie shows his strong dislike for making schools compete against each other, which is one thing National <3's deeply. So by focusing only teacher sizes, rather than also rail against major failures by National in education policy, effectively Hattie's being rather massively stupid.

      And it's fucking aggravating because he should know far better.

      On presentation – ye fucking elder things, Hattie really needs to go to a remedial power point and stats presentation class, for you do not use pie graphs, let alone 3d graphs unless you actually need the fucking things. And you sure as hell don't cram your slides to maximum density unless you want to put the audience to sleep. Gaaaaaaaaaah!

      ffs I HATE bad data presentations, use either 2d bar or line graphs, not pie graphs, not half pie graphs and only use 3d if there's 3 contiguous/discrete data axes, and always provide P values so we can tell if the effect you're detecting is fucking statistically significantly different from the rest of the data. And have fucking references in the fucking slides!

      So in a nutshell – fail post is fail, please try again instead of showing you can't science that well and rely on cherry picking and skimming to construct strawman /trololololol

      • Dv 9.2.1
        10 June 2012 at 4:07 pm

        >>Hattie showed that class sizes from 18-26 have equivalent effect sizes on education achievement.

        And that is a long way from the headline in stuff today.
        http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/7075290/Class-sizes-irrelevant-education-expert

        • NickS 9.2.1.1
          10 June 2012 at 4:26 pm

          Except he didn’t say “irrelevant” in the interview at all, i.e. Stuff likes making up shit as per usual.

          And yeah, what he should have done is elaborate more on size effects and teaching methodology impacts, instead of fluff he gave. It’s also interesting to note that he wasn’t directly involved in the Education spending and policy presented during the budget too, so frankly he really should stfu on class sizes as he makes himself a big red throbbing target for public ire that could be used by NACT spin doctors.

          As for this:

          The government must still find the money to boost teacher quality – ”and I’m sure it’s going to come out of another part of the education budget,” he said.

          Well, I’m putting it down to “ivory tower” syndrome, namely that the cuts weren’t needed at all and the budget would be in the black easily with reversal of tax cuts and closing of loop holes, but evidently Hattie hasn’t been paying attention to that at all…

          • Jackal 9.2.1.1.1
            10 June 2012 at 6:21 pm

            NickS

            so slagging him off as “a so called expert” is actually pretty stupid of you.

            […]

            you’re doing what second year uni students tend to do, i.e. cherry picking papers and not putting them in the wider context of the wrap and weft of the research.

            […]

            So in a nutshell – fail post is fail, please try again instead of showing you can’t science that well and rely on cherry picking and skimming to construct strawman /trololololol

            Interesting comment considering the paragraph that you’re responding to is information taken from other peer reviewed studies. That’s what fellow researchers say of Hattie’s findings, which I have verified and then written into a concise paragraph.

            An expert would not be biased, I’m not a second year uni student, doubt they would write a similar post, have not cherry picked data, have not constructed a strawman and do not need to “science that well” [sic] to understand that Hattie is wrong!

            Keep throwing baseless rhetoric around instead of arguing specifically about the topic NickS, because that’s a real constructive thing to do. /sarc

            • NickS 9.2.1.1.1.1
              10 June 2012 at 6:42 pm

              /chuckle

              Protip: if you wish to slag off a claim you need to put it the wider context of the literature, not grab a couple of papers and claim those show the claim is wrongzors. Which I’ve already explained in more words, but yeah. Maybe with repetition you’ll get the point and bulk up your references to reinforce your argument, instead of relying on a very small number of papers.

              And experts can be biased, particularly in the social sciences where there are major methodological issues that create “fun”…

              • Jackal …
                10 June 2012 at 6:53 pm

                It’s a blog post fool… not a research paper. The excerpts were chosen to show the other side of the argument that Hattie has ignored. Somebody who is biased is not an expert researcher… Propagandist or spin doctor yes! Expert researcher no! If you think National’s attack on education, which has been facilitated by Hattie’s incorrect research methods is fun, you’re more fucked up than I first thought.

                • NickS …
                  10 June 2012 at 6:58 pm

                  Awwww.

                  You do realise that’s the same excuse used by climate change denialists right? Throw up a bunch of papers, showing that the other side is wrong, dis the experts and don’t bother with the wider picture, just cos itz teh blogz post?

                  As for fun, notice the quotation marks? As in “fun“, it’s a sarcasm indicator.

                  • Jackal …
                    10 June 2012 at 7:05 pm

                    What part of the “wider picture” are you talking about NickS?

                    • Jackal …
                      10 June 2012 at 7:43 pm

                      No answer eh! I guess you’re not able to be specific about what part of the post you disagree with then. “Throw up a bunch of papers.” You’re accusing me of exactly what Hattie has done to reach his conclusions that many academics have successfully refuted.

                      Perhaps you might like to at least link to some those 50,000 studies Hattie apparently used (but didn’t reference) to gather information to present to the treasury, so that we can get a “wider picture,” about the topic?

                      You could regurgitate some of the 19 studies Hattie referenced in his 2003 research (8 being his) which contradict his latter findings. But don’t let little things like that get in the way of claiming I’m arguing like a climate change denier. FFS! Do you actually have an argument at all NickS… or did you just not like the post because it doesn’t corroborate what you believe?

                      PS I insulted Hattie because he’s wrong! I didn’t insult him to make him wrong.

          • Dv 9.2.1.1.2
            10 June 2012 at 8:29 pm

            …Except he didn’t say “irrelevant” in the interview at all, i.e. Stuff likes making up shit as per usual.

            That was the point i was trying to make, a little obliquely.

      • muzza 9.2.2
        10 June 2012 at 4:39 pm

        “And it’s fucking aggravating because he should know far better.”

        –And its f-ing aggravating because as an academic, he should know better, and by having to observe this means I have another example where I might have to question my own belief system.

        FIFY

      • Carol 9.2.3
        10 June 2012 at 4:52 pm

        Well, NickS, I can’t access the article you link to because it’s a pay subscription one. neither can I find it on the Auckland Libraries digital Library database.

        http://www.aucklandcitylibraries.com/DigitalLibrary.aspx?Page=AZLIST

        But the first article I found on one of the academic databases, for peer reviewed articles, is a critique of Hattie’s methodology: i.e. he does an analysis of a load of different studies, of varying size and quality to come to the conclusions he does. I also wanted to know more about what outcomes are being measured, and this seems to be at issue with Hattie’s analysis.

        ‘Invisible Learnings? A Commentary on John Hattie’s book: Visible Learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement’
        Author:Snook, Ivan; O’Neill, John; Clark, John; O’Neill, Anne-Marie; Openshaw, Roger: in New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies 44 (1) 2009.

        Much depends, therefore, on the quality of the research studies in the various meta-analyses.
        […]
        The various studies have not been appraised for their validity
        […]
        To be more accurate, he is concerned not with achievement but with achievement that is amenable to quantitative measurement.
        […]
        Much depends on the kind of learning that is desired in formal education. Policy-makers have to take a broad view of schooling; they have to be interested not just in achievement on narrow tests or even on deeper conceptual knowledge, important as this clearly is, but on the attitudes which students bring to their lives as workers and citizens.
        […]
        “A limitation of many of the results in this book is that they are more related to the surface and deep knowing and less to conceptual understanding” (p.249). And yet, conceptual knowing or understanding is what he thinks should be the result of good teaching.
        […]
        In conclusion, we want to repeat our belief that John Hattie’s book makes a significant contribution to understanding the variables surrounding successful teaching and think that it is a very useful resource for teacher education. We are concerned, however, that:

        (i) Despite his own frequent warnings, politicians may use his work to justify policies which he does not endorse and his research does not sanction;

        (ii) Teachers and teacher educators might try to use the findings in a simplistic way and not, as Hattie wants, as a source for “hypotheses for intelligent problem solving”;

        (iii) The quantitative research on ‘school effects’ might be presented in isolation from their historical, cultural and social contexts, and their interaction with home and community backgrounds; and

        (iv) In concentrating on measureable school effects there may be insufficient discussion about the aims of education and the purposes of schooling without which the studies have little point.

        And the final point is my main concern.

        • NickS 9.2.3.1
          10 June 2012 at 5:08 pm

          Same for me, I’m wary of meta-analyses when they involve thousands of studies and more so when it’s done by one person. Especially when it’s sociology, as there’s multiple design and analysis issues, along with multiple confounding factors (point iii basically) that makes drug testing look simple in comparison. However, we do need data, even if it’s rough, in order to work wtf to do, and in this case Hattie does produce some very useful summary info in the peer reviewed literature on varying potential impacts of different conditions and teaching methods on potential student achievement*.

          Particularly Hattie reinforces the idea that we need more investment in eduction vis teaching tools and class room kit and that underlying socio-economic issues still play a role in educational achievement. So yes, we do need to look at things other than class size, but Hattie hasn’t pushed that point well enough and instead uses academic language to talk about teacher resources, training and skills (aka quality), instead of actually taking aim at them in plain language. Which incidentally is why uni’s have press offices

          ______________________________
          *I Iz totes aware of how messy and context sensitive this term is 😛

        • NickS 9.2.3.2
          10 June 2012 at 5:11 pm

          And yeah, I’m not particularly a fan of pushing novel evidence via textbooks, as there’s too much lee way for personal hypotheses going untested and critical errors being missed due to the deluge of information.

      • DH 9.2.4
        10 June 2012 at 6:30 pm

        “Hattie showed that class sizes from 18-26 have equivalent effect sizes on education achievement. ”

        This one I find too difficult to accept when it’s proposed as a broad generalisation like that. 18-26 is a 40% increase in class size. When we look at today’s teachers who do a lot more work out of the classroom than yesteryear’s generations of teachers; in assessment, marking, preparation, reports etc…. it’s not very credible that a 40% increase in class size would result in no difference to student achievements. That seems to be saying that non-class work by teachers is producing no measurable educational value.

        • NickS 9.2.4.1
          10 June 2012 at 6:49 pm

          It’s actually in the paper I linked to:
          http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883035506000607
          r.e. figures 2 and 3

          And yeah, it seems counter intuitive, but Hattie hypothesis’s that it’s the result of teachers failing to change methods across those class sizes, and so is more of a teaching skills issue. Although I have the nagging suspicion it might not ring entirely true in a NZ context…

          And what I was doing there is trying to explain where Hattie is coming from…

          • DH 9.2.4.1.1
            10 June 2012 at 7:30 pm

            That’s a pay site so I can’t read it. The question I’d ask is whether teachers in his research who have bigger classes also have more non-class time to make up for the extra workload. Secondary teachers in NZ get 1:10 free periods from memory, how does that factor in to his class size research?

  10. Hammer 10
    10 June 2012 at 2:02 pm

    Investigation by a Canadian Global Warming skeptic has shown that an Australian 3-year and $300,000 study into CAGW would appear to be false. 
    It is so bad that the so-called peer-reviewed study posted up on the American Meteorological Society’s website has been removed pending an investigation.
    I was to be part of the IPCC’s next major report.
    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/06/300000-dollars-and-three-years-to-produce-a-paper-that-lasted-three-weeks-gergis/
     

    • Te Reo Putake 10.1
      10 June 2012 at 2:32 pm

      “I was to be part of the IPCC’s next major report.”
       
      You might want to peer review your own dismal efforts, Hammer.

    • NickS 10.2
      10 June 2012 at 2:55 pm

      Lolwut?

      Funny then, that if we go a fact checking that blog post turns out to be bullshit, as the paper was already running into post-publication review issues before ClimateAudit even picked it up:
      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/05/fresh-hockey-sticks-from-the-southern-hemisphere

      And for teh lulz:
      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/05/fresh-hockey-sticks-from-the-southern-hemisphere/comment-page-2/#comment-237424

      McIntyre has been “auditing” climate-science for something like a decade now. And it looks like this will be the first time that he has actually unearthed significant errors in a published paper. Science will never be error-free, but the fact that it has taken McIntyre (someone who is obsessed with uncovering scientific malfeasance/wrongdoing and who has had nearly unlimited spare time to pursue his obsession) on the order of a decade to find nontrivial errors in a paper really is a testament to the robustness of climate-science as a whole.

      This whole thing seems reminiscent of the IPCC Himalayan glacier brouhaha. A real error uncovered, and an embarrassing one at that — but nonetheless an isolated one that did not have any impact on the science as a whole.

      And has McIntyre ever acknowledged that he erred when he used tree-ring data to train his “hockey-stick” red-noise noise generator without de-trending the tree-ring data first (to remove the long-term climate signal)? Because he failed to de-trend the tree-ring data before using it as a noise model, the “random noise” that he claimed would produce “hockey sticks” was itself contaminated with “hockey stick” signal statistics. That was definitely a major screwup/oversight on his part. It seems to me that when it comes to acknowledging errors, there’s more than a bit of a double-standard here.

      Trolololololol.

      I also <3 how denialists claim that the real science is done on teh "skeptic blogs" when very little of it has actually ever made it to the climatology literature.

      Oh and lol at Hammer treating one fuck up as oh so significant.

      • muzza 10.2.1
        10 June 2012 at 3:59 pm

        “Oh and lol at Hammer treating one fuck up as oh so significant”

        –But its not just one is it, so yes as the f-ups continue to come they tend to become more signifigant, in so far as the damage it does to “perceived credibility” with the public!

        Climate literature – LOL

        • bad12 10.2.1.1
          10 June 2012 at 4:26 pm

          Yeah climate science and scientists, sort of like bank economists who parrot the party line coz that’s where the money is to be made,

          I have a serious hard on for the notion that one day in my life-time I will get to see the Lyall Bay surf crashing through the International Departure lounge of Wellington airport but in all reality I don’t expect my kids or even their’s to witness such a grand occurrence,

          Hell if I thought it would tip the balance I would poison every last blade of grass in my backyard, you know when you have been CONNED when ‘they’ come up with the perfect monetarist answer to the problem with the Emissions Trading Scam and all the enviromentalist’s just carry on parroting the same old lines at us like Hekia Parata trotting out National Party propaganda over education cuts or the brainwashed believing that raising the tax on tobacco products is all in the aid of the users health when even Treasury admit its a tax grab from a group of addicts who will mostly just keep on paying…

          • NickS 10.2.1.1.1
            10 June 2012 at 4:29 pm

            Here’s an idea, go read up on the science instead of spewing bulllshit, because I’d rather go play Krater than address your ignorance.

        • NickS 10.2.1.2
          10 June 2012 at 4:27 pm

          Dear Fuckhead, put up or stfu.

          • muzza 10.2.1.2.1
            10 June 2012 at 4:38 pm

            ,

            • NickS 10.2.1.2.1.1
              10 June 2012 at 4:41 pm

              Awwww, poor cupcake.

              You’ve never even bothered explaining the actual details of why climate change is bullshit here, not even a peep on CO2 absorption spectra physics that underlies the whole thing, except giving snide conspiracy bullshit.

              So once again fuckhead, put up or stfu

              • muzza …
                10 June 2012 at 4:52 pm

                Nick, where to begin,, I would suggest that you take a few breaths, all that ranting can’t be good for your psyche.

                Notice that I have not actually taken a position, simply pointed out that your comment about “taking one f-up blah blah “…. was not correct, as there has been many more than one, and it creates “perception credibility” issues with the public.

                Conspiracies happen every day Nick, they do not need my help, and I am certainly not contributing to them.

                The bankers have managed to pull it off so far, without one of them in prison yet, and there are more conspiracies involved in the fraud than people can ever possible imagine, and I mean those who actually think or read, or ask questions..

                Are you that fragile it would cause you considerable damage, should it turn out that all those “scientists” had just been part of one massive fraud, just like the bankers!

                • RedLogix …
                  10 June 2012 at 5:09 pm

                  Science is FULL of fuck ups. But over time they are self-correcting.

                  Why?

                  Because unlike almost all other human endeavours science has at it’s foundation a system of reasoning to determine truth. This is a bit of a challenge to most non-science people because most people are accustomed to life being pretty fuzzy, relative and indeterminate.

                  By contrast in mathematics there are many things that are pure absolute truth. Like Pythogoras’s theorem. In math’s close cousin physics there are many things we know that for all practical purposes are true as well. Like quantum mechanics.

                  As we move from the pure natural sciences towards the social sciences things become harder to call absolutely true, but nonetheless using the same system of logic, hypothesis and peer scrutiny we have been able to discover many things that are both interesting, useful and explanatory.

                  Now if science never made any mistakes then perfect and complete knowledge about the entire Universe would have sprung fully formed from the mind of Newton. But it didn’t. It is an endless process of discovery. So we do know that the current understanding of climate science (or any other) is almost certainly not final nor perfect. The door is never closed on new information and new insights.

                  But crucially the ONLY way to improve our current understanding about climate is with more data and better science. Mere opinions, propaganda and uninformed speculation changes nothing. In other words if you think you know more about climate science than the people currently working in the field.. YOU do some field work, generate some new data, derive a new theory, publish a new ground-breaking paper and do better science than the guys currently doing it.

                  And if you are right you’ll get a Nobel Prize.

                • NickS …
                  10 June 2012 at 5:14 pm

                  Notice that I have not actually taken a position, simply pointed out that your comment about “taking one f-up blah blah “…. was not correct, as there has been many more than one, and it creates “perception credibility” issues with the public.

                  Except you are fuckhead, and just too disingenuous to admit that you think climate change is a lie straight out. Instead you try to weasel out by insinuating constantly, but that tactic doesn’t work against anyone who’s dealt with denialist rhetoric or has decent reading comprehension skills.

                  So once more, put up or stfu.

                  • muzza …
                    10 June 2012 at 5:26 pm

                    You have no idea what is in my head…but keep believing you have it all worked out Nick, you will simply end up with a headache, and be a long way wrong!

                    Perhaps one day you will reach maturity to match your intelligence (real or perceived), and become a balanced person.

                    Until then I suspect that its going to be a battle for you!

                    • NickS …
                      10 June 2012 at 5:30 pm

                      Keep on weaselling fuckhead, it’s not going to change what you’ve said here.

          • bad12 10.2.1.2.2
            10 June 2012 at 5:01 pm

            Shucks that’s just out-right abuse from you, naughty wee thing did the taxpayer loan you all that money for your obvious over-education to have you barely forming sentences that contain only abuse of those who do not agree with your view,

            Shame, what a waste of both economy and space within our education system,science so I have been lead to believe is PROVEN FACTS, seeing as the effects touted as the result of the naughty humans man made global warming, oops sorry ‘climate change’ can in FACT only be supposition until such time as these effects actually occur then it is all conjecture,

            It all became mumbo jumbo to me about the time ‘global warming’ became ‘climate change’ simply because there was no real scientific fact attached to the first and the second is a given and always has been, the ‘climate changing’ that is,

            always has always will…

            • Pascal's bookie 10.2.1.2.2.1
              10 June 2012 at 5:11 pm

              “science so I have been lead to believe is PROVEN FACTS”

              nah.

              And ‘global warming’ causes ‘climate change’. The latter is a description of one effect of the former. It’s not difficult.

              But if that was enough to make your brain melt, I’m guessing there’s not much helping you.

              • muzza …
                10 June 2012 at 5:38 pm

                “And ‘global warming’ causes ‘climate change’. The latter is a description of one effect of the former. It’s not difficult”

                — Except thats not how it was sold was it PB – It was a bare faced name changed from “global warming”, which is possible to disprove, to “climate change”, which is like claiming you can win a “war on terror”.

                • Pascal's bookie …
                  10 June 2012 at 5:58 pm

                  Nope.

                  you’re talking shit mate.

                  It wasn’t a ‘blatant name change’. They are talking about different things. “They” (oooh) started talking about the effects, that’s all.

                  not everything is a conspiricy. Indeed, most things aren’t. Talking as if they were though, sometimes helps push agendas, ironically enough.

                  Odd isn’t it, how many ‘former insiders’ show up on the like of Alex Jones show pushing lines to rubes. Lap it up son, nom nom nom.

                  • muzza …
                    10 June 2012 at 6:16 pm

                    “It wasn’t a ‘blatant name change’. They are talking about different things. “They” (oooh) started talking about the effects, that’s all.”

                    — So thats why the use of the term “global warming” has all but vanished from earshot then! Ok, if you say so PB!

                    “not everything is a conspiricy. Indeed, most things aren’t. Talking as if they were though, sometimes helps push agendas, ironically enough.”

                    –Again use of the term CT incorrectly. Whose agenda is being pushed, and if “they” have one, would that not indicate conspiracy?

                    “Odd isn’t it, how many ‘former insiders’ show up on the like of Alex Jones show pushing lines to rubes. Lap it up son, nom nom nom.”

                    –I don’t know too many “former insiders”, maybe they use your bookie service bro, not sure, maybe Pascal knows. Just never assume you have all the answers or details PB, I certainly don’t, but yet you pretend to know whats in my head. Do you and Nick S share showers?

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      10 June 2012 at 6:54 pm

                      none of that makes any sense at all muzza.

                      have another drink mate.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      10 June 2012 at 7:02 pm

                      Google tells me ‘global warming’ gets about 9 million hits in the last month.

                      And “AGW”. What does that stand for?

                      You might want to turn that hearing aid up if you haven’t heard “global warming” in a while..

                      Oh but then you might hear things that contradict what you think “they” have been up to.

                      Not you think it’s a conspiricy.

                      Heaven forfend.

                    • muzza …
                      10 June 2012 at 7:57 pm

                      Not everybody drinks PB,

                      And you doing a google search to validate your line of thought, well, gave me a giggle, thanks.

                      I am more referring to the use of the term “Global Warming”, not AGW, or other references, just GW!

                      It was all the rage in the MSM, papers and tv etc, but ive not heard it for quite some time now, only use of “Climate Change”, AWG is usually only some print media or digital. TV and most media is very much CC centric, when it used to be GW!
                      It was as I said, a bare faced swap of terminologies!

                      You must not have been paying much attention mate when it was obviously decided to drop Global Warming for Climate Change, I can’t help what you dont notice.

                      Telling people what they do and do not think is well, it speaks for itself really!

                    • RedLogix …
                      10 June 2012 at 8:16 pm

                      Really muzza you aren’t making sense anymore.

                      “Global Warming” or more technically “AGW” refers to the trend of increasing temperatures resulting from increasing CO2 concentrations.

                      “Climate Change” refers to the very broad basket of effects that we understand will be the resulting consequences. These are more complex than just ‘warming’ so for ease of understanding it was called “climate change”.

                      Two related but different terms. Period. If you think otherwise you have not been paying attention.

                    • muzza …
                      10 June 2012 at 9:04 pm

                      “Really muzza you aren’t making sense anymore.”

                      —-No you’re not understanding what I am saying Red, V32 down below seems to get it!

                      “Global Warming” or more technically “AGW” refers to the trend of increasing temperatures resulting from increasing CO2 concentrations.”

                      —Correct

                      “Climate Change” refers to the very broad basket of effects that we understand will be the resulting consequences. These are more complex than just ‘warming’ so for ease of understanding it was called “climate change”.

                      —Because GW was becoming too hard to sell due to contradictory data, meant that there needed to be a change of wording, and voila, the “we understand will be the resulting consequences”, shortened to Climate Change, began to be almost exclusively used in the tv/print, news media.

                      “Two related but different terms. Period. If you think otherwise you have not been paying attention.”

                      —Two different terms, agreed, but only one referred to these days in the MSM news, almost exclusively as CC, is this for “ease of understanding” when selling it to the sheep. I would suggest that given the complexities, people should be given complex, descriptive news stories,. or should such important messages simply be dumbed down like everythings else..

                      Put your scientist hat on, and tell me if you think that “ease of understanding” when referring to a “complex” issue, is appropriate Red, because the news media certainly did, why on earth would that be!

                    • RedLogix …
                      10 June 2012 at 9:19 pm

                      Because GW was becoming too hard to sell due to contradictory data

                      You clearly understand exactly what I mean muzza.. but then you proceed to wilfully twist and misinterpret it.

                      Again … global climate warming will result in global changes. Is that too hard for you or are you just pretending it is?

                      Because GW was becoming too hard to sell due to contradictory data,

                      The denier camp created the contradictory messages. The data is quite consistent thank you.

                      Put your scientist hat on, and tell me if you think that “ease of understanding” when referring to a “complex” issue, is appropriate Red, because the news media certainly did, why on earth would that be!

                      Most scientists are deeply sceptical and despairing of how the ‘media’ has packaged the story… so don’t blame us.

                • Vicky32 …
                  10 June 2012 at 7:03 pm

                  — Except thats not how it was sold was it PB – It was a bare faced name changed from “global warming”, which is possible to disprove, to “climate change”, which is like claiming you can win a “war on terror”.

                  + 1,000,000!

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  10 June 2012 at 8:17 pm

                  It was a bare faced name changed from “global warming”, which is possible to disprove,

                  Only if it’s cooling – which it isn’t.

                  to “climate change”, which is like claiming you can win a “war on terror”.

                  Nope. Climate changes all the time, the question is about where the forcing comes from and the evidence strongly suggests (better than 90% probability) that that forcing comes from humans.

                  • muzza …
                    10 June 2012 at 9:20 pm

                    You do realise that you have just endorsed both those statements I made, unwittingly!

                    Guess not!

                    In case you can’t work it out – War on Terror – “changes all the time”, just like the climate!

                    • RedLogix …
                      10 June 2012 at 9:47 pm

                      Again you misinterpret something very easy.

                      Without any human influence climate changes. We know of a number of natural influences that drive these changes over a wide range of timescales…from volcanic eruptions to changes in the shape of the earth’s orbit around the sun. That’s one sort of climate change.

                      In the last one hundred years or so humans have done something we don’t believe has ever happened before in geological history.. digging up vast amounts of fossil carbon and burning it into the atmosphere in a single desperately abrupt event. That’s caused another sort of climate change.

                      Of course there is only one planet, so both sets of change, natural and human are present at the same time in the climate data we record. This kind of imperfect data is commonplace in science. In fact very rarely does any experiment of any kind yield simple unambiguous, complete and noise-free data. Almost invariably we have to apply a range of methods from mathematical statistics in order to derive useful meaning from our observations. This is normal in all sciences because as DtB points out elsewhere, using the raw data almost always gives you a wrong or meaningless answer.

                      Unfortunately most people don’t understand much statistics (other than the stupid old canard about “lies, damned lies and statistics”) so they don’t have the tools to decode what is going on and why the data manipulation is done. Which is a shame really because statistics is one of the more interesting and accessible branches of mathematics and one of the more useful in the real world.

                    • muzza …
                      11 June 2012 at 7:55 am

                      “Again you misinterpret something very easy.”

                      –No Red, you have taken a response of mine to DTB, which was actually seperate, except it appears you read into what its not, yet again, and then you manage to to tell me that I’m missing something easy.

                      Then you go into another diatribe, which again I agree with, the only prolbem is that you open it with by telling me I have misinterpreted something, which was my explaining to DTB, that he had actually endored earlier statements, while trying to find fault with them…

                      The change of terminology WAS a bare faced named change by the MSM, and trying to “fight/combat CC”, is like the “war on terror”, CANT BE WON!

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      11 June 2012 at 8:25 am

                      which was my explaining to DTB, that he had actually endored earlier statements,

                      Except that’s not what happened.

                      Scientists had always used climate change but the MSM had got stuck on global warming – probably due to the journalists being ignoramuses who didn’t understand nor take the time to understand the basic physics underlying the science (and, yes, it really is basic). Eventually the scientists got the journalists to change to using the more correct term – climate change. This confused a number of idiots who then claimed it was all a conspiracy.

                      It’s not like the War on Terror that cannot be won because we know what to do to stop the forcing. In other words, we can stop the forcing if people listened to the scientists rather than the quacks.

                    • muzza …
                      11 June 2012 at 9:00 am

                      “Eventually the scientists got the journalists to change to using the more correct term – climate change. This confused a number of idiots who then claimed it was all a conspiracy”

                      –Oh so thats how it happened, thanks for clearing it up, I guess you were invoved in the process!

                      I said it can’t be won, not that theories about how to stop the “forcing” were unknown! The point remains the same, the CC agenda is an open war on humanity as a whole, just as the war on terror has become!

                      I also said that the CC agenda will be used for taking control of global resources, my comments have not been against what CC is, or is not…I made that clear in a number of posts..

              • bad12 …
                10 June 2012 at 5:41 pm

                Oh hardly the stuff of a serious brain melt or a minor one for that matter, having read of the serious faults inherent in ‘mans’ interference in such things as the data collected by satellites along with the hockey stick fiasco, the emails, and the apparent denial that the river Thames ever froze over in the time of man I feel ‘entitled’ to my doubts about the ‘man made’ cause of such climate change,

                As I said above it always has and always will, change that is but to cite ‘proven global warming’ as the cause of such a changing climate has as much science agreeing with such a notion as it does scientists who disagree,

                If ‘mans’ actions leads to the downfall of the present society then its all ‘man’ deserves specially considering ‘mans’ answer to the supposed problem is to simply create a tax to perpetuate a ‘trading scheme’ which will simply serve to further enrich those who have already become rich from the supposed actions which created the supposed problem in the first place,

                It all looks to me like the same old hostile takeover of the christian religion inflicted by the Romans doing a historical repeat on the new religion of enviromentalism…

                • Pascal's bookie …
                  10 June 2012 at 5:53 pm

                  You said it all started sounding like mumbo jumbo, and now you’re blathering incoherently. Looks like brain melt to me.

                • RedLogix …
                  10 June 2012 at 5:55 pm

                  having read of the serious faults inherent in ‘mans’ interference in such things as the data collected by satellites along with the hockey stick fiasco, the emails, and the apparent denial that the river Thames ever froze over in the time of man I feel ‘entitled’ to my doubts about the ‘man made’ cause of such climate change,

                  Now if you had read the actual science as well … in other words if you had considered ALL the evidence rather than just cherry-picking the information that suited your pre-formed inner model of the world … and you had then compared all the various arguments, the pro’s and con’s for all of them then your conclusion about ‘having doubts’ (which is code for ‘I do not want to have to change my lifestyle’) might carry some weight. But you haven’t have you?

                  And therein lies the crux of the matter. You brain knows that the current way you live is based on the idea that humans can go on increasing the amount of fossil carbon in the atmosphere both indefinitely and without consequence.

                  Therefore it refuses to consider any information that is incongruent with this belief system.

                  • muzza …
                    10 June 2012 at 6:20 pm

                    Have you considdered “all the evidence” Red.

                    Edit: Yes I saw your comment about “making f-ups”, and cant find fault with what ou said.

                    Find it a little hard to believe that anyone has read “all the evidence” though. Well some would have, but not at the level anyone who posts on these boards operates at!

                    • RedLogix …
                      10 June 2012 at 6:47 pm

                      Actually I’ve read much of it over a period of the last decade.

                      I have a science degree, I’ve worked as a geophysics technician, I’ve spent years working with infra-red absorption instrumentation specifically measuring exquisitely accurate and tiny amounts of moisture. I’ve worked with all manner of instrumentation and data processing technology in a 35 year career.

                      Critically I’ve spent an unfeasibly large portion of my life watching real-time trend data series unfold in front of my eyes… and deriving short-term, long-term information from the noise. Hard experience tells me I’m pretty good at this.

                      Yet none of this makes me a climate scientist. What it does do is give me a decent sense of HOW science works and how to follow a science argument.

                      Our current understanding of climate science does not stand or fall on any single piece of data or paper. It’s an enormously complex and diverse science that no single person is expert on. Certainly not me, and probably not you either.

                      Yet science works. The evidence is all about you in the modern world; right at your fingertips lies the most astounding piece of technology based on a quantum mechanical model of the world that most people find utterly alien and counter-intuitive. When you explain it for the first time to any young person almost without fail their mind attempts to reject it. Yet it works and for all practical purposes we know it is true.

                      Just because science currently says something is we cannot prove to be absolutely true, or is different to what we understood yesterday, or we find hard to believe, or worse still, something we do not want to believe…. does not take away one jot or title from it’s method.

                      Neither of us are climate scientists. But as someone who understands how science works I put my money on it being right in the long-run.

                    • muzza …
                      10 June 2012 at 8:23 pm

                      Red, again I agree with all you say there, and clearly you are capable of understanding the science..

                      I’ve just been around the block enough to know lies and BS when I see/hear or experience it, thats called intuition, which to many people is simply a word. Worse they actually think they have it, very few ever develop it in real life..

                      Now I am not commenting on the fact that globalisation/industrialisatin/war etc is polluting this planet, that goes without saying, and I have said it many times on her that its got to stop, it won’t though, and we are all in trouble, regardless of CC.

                      What I am passing comment on, is that fact that CC is simply another weapon to flog people with, and that is exactly whats going to happen is happening, it that which I find to be BS, because its simply going to be turned into another “war”, and a way to take ever diminishing freedoms away from people, penalise them, while gaining greater control of the worlds resources, which is what this is really all about..

                      Nothing to with saving the planet, everything to do with ensuring that those at the very top have total control of the resources , thats the BS for me!

                      For those who can’t see it, I guess are the same types who didn’t see the GFC either, I’m not an economist, but it was easy enough to pick what is playing out right now….

                    • RedLogix …
                      10 June 2012 at 8:57 pm

                      I’ve just been around the block enough to know lies and BS when I see/hear or experience it, thats called intuition,

                      While intuition is very useful in everyday life, and many important science break-throughs are famously linked to it… it can also be spectacularly misleading because it is impossible for most people to tell the difference between ‘intuition’ and ‘confirmation bias’ on their own… and especially without applying other tools such as logic, experimental methods or sceptical peer review. None of these things are easy to master, and all experienced scientists know how very, very easy it is for the human mind to fool itself.

                      Quantum mechanics is a good example of something we know is true, yet normal intuition rebels against it. There are many, many other examples in science. And the opposite it true as well.

                      For almost 900 years (from BC800 to AD100) highly intelligent people all over the ancient world firmly revered the Oracle of Delphi as an objectively accurate prophet… while we now know that she was merely mumbling inanities while stoned on ethylene gas emitted from the geothermal fissure over which the temple was built.

                      People believed because they interpreted what they heard they way they wanted to. Indeed the mere act of pondering on the gibberish they heard triggered the introspection and insight they needed to understand their own situation better. An often useful and powerful intuitive tool… but NOT a science.

                      I’d suggest that it’s more useful to regard science and intuition as complementary methods in life… both have their place but it’s wrong to misapply each to the wrong domain.

                    • muzza …
                      10 June 2012 at 9:39 pm

                      Red, again you are not comprehending what I am saying…

                      You’re trying to validate an argument, I never made using your “scientist” hat. I can’t and won’t even try to make that discussion which is why I stay away from its scientific aspects.

                      The wider context of what CC will be used for, is where the intuition I refer will come in, not because of any bias. Bias would infer I cared about triva such as being right, which is not a consideration personally. My intuition being wrong about the use of the CC agenda, would be fine with me Red, time will tell on that. Again note I am not stating a view on if it is, or is not happening, only what it is, and will be used for.

                      Intuition can be built on logic among other things, maybe try it sometime!

                    • RedLogix …
                      10 June 2012 at 9:52 pm

                      You’re trying to validate an argument, I never made using your “scientist” hat. I can’t and won’t even try to make that discussion which is why I stay away from its scientific aspects

                      Well then may I suggest you stay away from it altogether. Like I know nothing about neurosurgery and I’ve found it best not to dabble in it.

                      Intuition can be built on logic among other things,

                      That’s akin to saying that “the temperature was very green today”, it might work as poetry, but it’s not an argument. Logic and intuition are by definition mutually different things.

                    • muzza …
                      10 June 2012 at 10:16 pm

                      “Well then may I suggest you stay away from it altogether. Like I know nothing about neurosurgery and I’ve found it best not to dabble in it.”

                      –You can suggest what you like Red, I made a comment on Hammers post earlier, and have simply held my opinion, against those who do’nt understand it. You can comment on anything you like, thats the beauty of free speech, you can decide what subject matter works best for you, just dont forget about context before making suggestions to others eh.

                      “That’s akin to saying that “the temperature was very green today”. Logic and intuition are by definition mutually different things.”

                      –Perhaps it is to you Red, but its why most people never fully develop intuition , because they can’t or don’t understand how to take the best of many skillsets, and utilise them in ways which most would claim to be “mutually different things”

                  • bad12 …
                    10 June 2012 at 7:00 pm

                    Implying that ‘you’ have any great knowledge as to my thought processes and whether or not my lifestyle has or has not changed in relation to ‘supposed’ climate changes caused by man is at the least laughable,

                    As is implying there is something wrong with my thought processes based upon a few listed ‘anomalies’ cited with the ‘data’ which I have chosen to make a brief list of in a previous post, to list all the anomalous science in one post would be prohibitive as would be listing all the science that goes to prove the theory of ‘man made climate change’,

                    Just from the GISS data we can learn that the raw satellite data does not support global warming theory, it is not until scientists make interferences with such data that it supports the theory,

                    There are hordes of detractors both scientists and lay people to be found on the web who both support and decry such ‘interference’ with the raw data which is then used to make a computer prediction of future global climate considering this along with having read the leaked emails of the very people interfering with the raw data to make the future models of climate I am left to the one conclusion which is best summed up thus, ???????wtf,

                    I remain convinced only of the possibility and hardly see an inevitability,and as stated in a previous post there would be no sight in nature more beautiful to me than to see the surf of Lyall Bay crashing through the international terminal of Wellington airport,

                    If the majority of mankind is making such a mess of the planet and cannot see this or stop doing it then ‘mankind’ deserves all they get in return from that planet….

                    • RedLogix …
                      10 June 2012 at 7:13 pm

                      Just from the GISS data we can learn that the raw satellite data does not support global warming theory, it is not until scientists make interferences with such data that it supports the theory,

                      Now the point is, when you make assertions like that you’ll need to either make a science case for yourself… or reference one.

                      Like I am here.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      10 June 2012 at 8:35 pm

                      Just from the GISS data we can learn that the raw satellite data does not support global warming theory,

                      Ah, someone who doesn’t understand why adjustments are made to readings to make them more precise:

                      1.) No instrument made is totally identical to another instrument even if it’s an identical design from the same manufacturer
                      2.) A site may have moved so, even though it’s called the same, it’s not the same and thus readings will be different
                      3.) Even if a site hasn’t moved the environment around may have (bush to urban)
                      4.) Satellites are even more complicated as the scientists need to take into account atmospheric conditions at the time

                      These differences need to be accounted for and so the raw data is manipulated in ways that do so. If you want to know the ways and means then I suggest you go read the peer reviewed literature on it but all that we outside the science needs to know is using the raw data will actually get you the wrong result.

                    • bad12 …
                      10 June 2012 at 10:39 pm

                      Ok then, lets say that a study by a climate scientist shows from the NASA Terra satellite data, http://www.science daily.com/releases/2011/07/110729031754.htm, that the Hadley CSU ‘models’ of future climate are wrong because the Terra data shows that the Earth releases far more heat into space than the ‘models’ show,

                      Right,the peeps what did the study were all lead by that bloke from the Uni of Alabama are criticized by the ‘warmist’ set because they could have used the Terra satellite data in such a way as to make ‘it’ say what they wanted,

                      On the other hand the leaked emails from the Hadley CRU would tend in a huge way to suggest that Hadly and Mann et al were doing just that, making the data say just what they wanted it to that is,

                      We could sit here for months trading urls, I think the last elongated web debate i indulged in on the subject run to something like 1000s of posts and went on for something like 4 months but as far as ‘man made global warming’ goes I for one would still be sitting at the end of such saying, ?????wtf,

                      And thats befor resorting to posting what the Russian scientists have to say about it all which basically equates the last warming period to a 200 year ‘known’ climate cycle caused by sunspot activity which is all over as we head to the lower end of the sunspot cycle and some really brrrr cold temps,

                      Am I an adherent to that view, nah my position is still one of ????wtf but Christchurch peeps might see the Russians point…

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      10 June 2012 at 10:59 pm

                      On the other hand the leaked emails from the Hadley CRU would tend in a huge way to suggest that Hadly and Mann et al were doing just that, making the data say just what they wanted it to that is,

                      Which they weren’t as has been proven.

                      You’re going “???wtf” because you just don’t accept what you’re being told by the climatologists which just proves what’s been said by RL on this thread today. I suggest you get over your belief system and start engaging with the real world.

                    • bad12 …
                      11 June 2012 at 8:39 am

                      But, but, but, that bloke Spencer from the University of Alabama I think was his name cited from the link provided IS a climatologist as were many of those involved in the Russian research which claims that heightened and ‘known’ 200 year cycles of Sunspot activity which has already peaked is the culprit as far as global climate change goes,

                      By the way if that www doesn’t work properly i found that particular page by Googling ‘Nasa Terra Satellite Climate Data,…

            • NickS 10.2.1.2.2.2
              10 June 2012 at 5:24 pm

              lolwut?

              I’m from teh internetz, posting on teh internetz, I will mangle language as is my want :3

              And still make more sense than you, even with little sleep, as you seem to be unable to grasp climate change and seem to think that the change in language was some big lie, instead of a clarification. Global warming = increase in global average temperatures, where as Climate Change covers all the impacts of that, from shifts in species ranges, to alteration in rainfall patterns to rising sea levels via thermal expansion and meltwater.

              As for global warming being false? You are a complete idiot then, because even the core denialists have given up on that and now claim it’s “natural”. Anyhow, wikipedia has become quite good:
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record

          • Vicky32 10.2.1.2.3
            10 June 2012 at 6:58 pm

            Dear Fuckhead, put up or stfu.

            Awesome communication skills there my man! 😀
             

            • NickS 10.2.1.2.3.1
              10 June 2012 at 7:00 pm

              You should see it against HIV denialists and mens rights arseholes of the recidivist type :3

              I get really _blunt_ then.

    • joe90 10.3
      10 June 2012 at 4:53 pm

      Among the deniers at Denia-Palooza.

      • muzza 10.3.1
        10 June 2012 at 5:51 pm

        Hey Joe,

        Does making a comment refuting that there has only been “one f-up etc”, mean someone is a denier in your world?

        Seriously, because your posts would indicate a higher level of thought than being stuck in that type of restrictive mindset.

        • RedLogix 10.3.1.1
          10 June 2012 at 5:57 pm

          I just posted a comment that said “science if full of fuckups”.

          Hell what does that make me?

      • joe90 10.3.2
        10 June 2012 at 9:41 pm

        Nah muzza, not at all.

  11. mickysavage 11
    10 June 2012 at 3:49 pm

    TV3 poll out tonight that is apparently very interesting.  John Hartevelt says that it may be “game changing“. 

    Tick tock … 

    • muzza 11.1
      10 June 2012 at 4:01 pm

      MS – So what game would you expect to change as a result of this?

      Its a serious question, do you actually believe that a change of government will lead NZ in any direfferent direction than what its been heading for the past 40 years?

      • willie maley 11.1.1
        10 June 2012 at 9:19 pm

        +1

      • Jackal 11.1.2
        10 June 2012 at 10:40 pm

        Basically muzza, you don’t think there’s much difference between Labour and National policies. The fact that one would sell our assets and the other wont, one has the CGT and policy to tackle the pension problem while the other doesn’t, one party would extend paid parental leave, while the other wont etc, doesn’t seem to register.

        There are some huge differences between the two main parties now, but I guess what will really signal a change in direction will be if the Greens form part of the next government. I’ll eat my hat if they follow the same failed neo-liberal (my new favourite word) agenda as National.

        • seeker 11.1.2.1
          10 June 2012 at 10:49 pm

          +1 Jackal

        • fatty 11.1.2.2
          10 June 2012 at 10:56 pm

          “I’ll eat my hat if they follow the same failed neo-liberal agenda as National”

          It’ll be a different neoliberal agenda from National, but they will repeat the failed Labour neoliberal agenda we had from 1999-2008

        • Draco T Bastard 11.1.2.3
          10 June 2012 at 11:01 pm

          Basically muzza, you don’t think there’s much difference between Labour and National policies.

          That’s because there isn’t – both just work to maintain the status quo which is a proven failure.

          And what fatty said.

  12. prism 12
    10 June 2012 at 4:29 pm

    Carol
    Thought you will be interested. There is a chinwag on feminism on radionz at present. Sandra Coney has just been on.

    • Carol 12.1
      10 June 2012 at 5:03 pm

      Oh, thanks. I’ll check it out tomorrow…. hadn’t got home from work in time to see your post.

      • prism 12.1.1
        10 June 2012 at 5:10 pm

        Carol
        I thought I saw that it was 1 of 5. Germaine Greer Judy McGregor on also.

        • Carol 12.1.1.1
          10 June 2012 at 5:17 pm

          Cool.Thanks. Gottit:

          http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/4til8/20120610

          Three leading feminists – Germaine Greer, Sandra Coney and Marilyn Waring – examine how the place of women has changed in the last 40 years.

          Not especially my pick of feminists though. I’m most interested to hear Coney. Waring has some interesting ideas, but does lean to the right economically. Germain Greer is an erratic publicity-seeker, is not my idea of a grassroots feminist, but has had some good ideas at times.

          • NickS 12.1.1.1.1
            10 June 2012 at 5:37 pm

            And don’t forget Greer is transphobic too.

            • Vicky32 12.1.1.1.1.1
              10 June 2012 at 7:09 pm

              And don’t forget Greer is transphobic too.

              Hilarious neologism there! Full marks for originality, zero marks for comprehensibility, use of the English language, and rationality.
              Greer is, and always has been an anarchist, or so she has recently said, and now says she never claimed to be a feminist. That’s all I know about her.
              Question – WTF is a ‘trans’ and how does one fear one?

              • NickS …
                10 June 2012 at 7:17 pm

                learn2google.

                Or wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transphobic

                And Greer’s works place her as a feminist.

              • Carol …
                10 June 2012 at 7:33 pm

                She has labelled herself as firstly an anarchist since way back when. She was associated with anarchist groups way back when she lived in Sydney. I could well believe doesn’t see herself as part of any “Women’s Movement”. I suspect she doesn’t much like being part of any collectively organised group – probably is an individualist anarchist.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  10 June 2012 at 8:42 pm

                  I suspect she doesn’t much like being part of any collectively organised group – probably is an individualist anarchist.

                  Ah, a libertarian.

  13. NickS 13
    10 June 2012 at 5:29 pm

    And speaking of feminism:
    [Trigger warning for rape and misogyny]
    http://www.feministfrequency.com/2012/06/harassment-misogyny-and-silencing-on-youtube/

    Oh for the ability to castrate douchebags over the internet…

  14. vto 14
    10 June 2012 at 8:18 pm

    The european money printing factory workers will have their work cut out for them tomorrow filling Spain’s banks coffers with $100billion of brand spanking new money. Hope they stocked up on paper and ink – wouldn’t want to run out at say $80billion eh.

    Fucking goober system.

    • Colonial Viper 14.1
      10 June 2012 at 8:22 pm

      Credit the money into the banks’ accounts electronically. No paper and no ink needed. Just tap the return key after entering enough “zeroes”.

      Of course none of that money goes to the ordinary person. It goes to banks which massively over-leveraged and consequently made losses at eye-watering rates.

      • prism 14.1.1
        10 June 2012 at 8:26 pm

        CV Are they doing another Ireland – propping up all the banks and not letting even one go to the wall? Or perhaps if one goes down they don’t know where it will all end.

        • Draco T Bastard 14.1.1.1
          10 June 2012 at 8:46 pm

          If one goes down they definitely know where it will end – think total collapse of the entire global financial system. Yes, the banks really are that incestuous.

          • vto 14.1.1.1.1
            10 June 2012 at 8:56 pm

            But it didn’t happen in Iceland. Apparently it is doing very nicely having let the banks go. They all still go fishing, live with ice and party hard.

            And my viper I think the printing of money makes a much better and more accurate visual than a silly keyboard.

            You know, my own business went hard times a while ago. Maybe I ask for some new money too. What’s the difference?

            • Draco T Bastard 14.1.1.1.1.1
              10 June 2012 at 9:19 pm

              But it didn’t happen in Iceland. Apparently it is doing very nicely having let the banks go.

              Yep, Iceland is but how much was added to the UK’s bailout of Northern Rock? And that was small fry compared to what they’re talking about in the EU ATM and so they were probably able to contain it as they’ve done before but they’re worried about the domino effect upon other banks and countries.

              Personally, I think that they should let the lot collapse for two reasons:
              1.) it’s going to happen anyway and
              2.) it will wake up the majority of people to the fact that the system doesn’t work and the lies and corruption that are in play to make it look as if it works

              • vto …
                10 June 2012 at 10:30 pm

                Agreed it is going to happen anyway. Faith in the system is draining. It is just such a shame that so many people will get blasted through no fault of their own (except for listening to and believing authorities and experts – how many lessons to we need on this aspect?).

              • prism …
                11 June 2012 at 10:55 am

                DTB
                Letting the system collapse may be a stark bit of the drama we enjoy/are addicted to but not much consolation for we poor b..gers left in the dust. It sounds a bit like the tale of the pedestrian who started across the road sure he was in the right but ended up dead wrong.

          • prism 14.1.1.1.2
            10 June 2012 at 8:57 pm

            DTB
            Thanks for that. I think I want someone to read me a happy fairy story and I’ll go to sleep sucking my thumb. It really is a shocker to have this constant bad news. It’s like humans can’t be happy unless they make themselves unhappy with lots of real edge-of the-seat drama. It used to be nuclear bombs, and now the collapse of the world’s financial systems.
            And incestuous banks – that’s a new kind of porn.

  15. ianmac 15
    10 June 2012 at 8:20 pm

    I hope everyone watched 60 Minutes tonight. A very full and intense investigation into the Pullar v ACC. Made my hair stand up on end. Bluddy Hell! It would very very hard to deny the flaws that have developed in the ACC Culture. As for Mr Judge, Chairman, Political Appointee? What are they thinking!!!!

    • Carol 15.1
      10 June 2012 at 8:38 pm

      Yes. I saw it. Based on my experiences with ACC, with a far less serious injury than Pullar’s, I do agree on a couple of points, based on my on-going struggle to get funded for more physiotherapy.

      1) You do get treated as though you are trying to get something you’re not entitled to (even though, ultimately, when I was given funding for a bit more physio, the guy who informed me of it said that they just wanted to give me the help that would give me the best possible recovery from my injury).
      2) You do tend to get slightly differing stories from one person at ACC to another.
      3) It’s all about them trying to save as much money as possible.
      4) You have to really hassle with them, and not give up, in order to get what you are entitled to.

      However, I’m not sure the inadvertent sending of info to the wrong person is as systemically widespread as Pullar claimed – never happened to me, or, as far as I’m aware, anyone I know.

      I also am puzzled why they ACC guy still stands by their claims that Pullar was trying to do a kind of “blackmail” with the mis-sent sensitive document/s.

      My questions about this:

      How easy would it be to tamper with the recording – delete parts, etc?
      The “blackmailing” could have been conveyed without it being said explicitly?

      • Jackal 15.1.1
        10 June 2012 at 9:38 pm

        You could alter (remove a segment) of the original recording, but there would be some telltale signs. It’s very unlikely, as the context of the conversation would also be interrupted.

        I doubt 60 Minutes would give an assurance in the way it did if there was any question that the recording had been tampered with.

        Why somebody hasn’t been fired over this yet is perplexing!

        • ianmac 15.1.1.1
          10 June 2012 at 11:15 pm

          Mr Judge backed the Senior staff but had not listened to the tape.
          The number of ACC payments has plummeted.
          The $3billion profit is a fact, yet ACC claim no money.
          Minister Collins is nowhere and she must stand and front.
          3 months before the complaint was made to the police.
          There have been numerous documented cases of erroneous mail outs of confidential info.
          The collusion between “Independent” doctors is serious.
          Illegal access to Pullar’s file sackable.
          At least there is an appearance of serious problems with ACC.
          http://ondemand.tv3.co.nz/60-Minutes-The-Eye-of-the-Storm/tabid/59/articleID/6789/MCat/22/Default.aspx

          • yeshe 15.1.1.1.1
            11 June 2012 at 12:29 am

            They (ACC officers) are so clearly in breach of the intentions of ACC legislation, as partially read by Pullar … indeed, ACC was brilliantly written by the renowned jurist Sir Owen Woodhouse and presented by him and passed in Parliament as the ‘right’ of all New Zealanders …. where and how do we prosecute them when the breaches are so clear ?

            Thanks to TV3 for a superlative piece of journalism — insightful, and inciteful as the next days might show. I thought Pullar and Michelle Boag were compelling in their honesty — at no stage did body language suggest anything but candour and openness.

            The Boag vs Crusher National heavyweight championship is something to look forward to …

        • felix 15.1.1.2
          11 June 2012 at 7:45 am

          Hi Jackal: “You could alter (remove a segment) of the original recording, but there would be some telltale signs.”

          This is something I do quite a bit of. Yes there would usually be telltale signs, not so much audible but visible in the waveform if you know what to look for and where. It’s possible however for a skilled editor to avoid detection even at this level assuming the right software, a good understanding of audio properties, and a paranoid obsession that someone might be trying to detect his/her handiwork.

          The background noise levels and the properties of the room in which it was recorded will pretty much determine how possible it is. Given a reasonably clean and dry recording, 99% of technicians would never know I’d touched it 99% of the time.

          NB I haven’t seen the 60 mins piece so this comment is entirely general.

      • just saying 15.1.2
        11 June 2012 at 8:00 am

        However, I’m not sure the inadvertent sending of info to the wrong person is as systemically widespread as Pullar claimed – never happened to me, or, as far as I’m aware, anyone I know.

        I’m pretty sure she was talking about long-term claimants, otherwise she would have said “ask anyone”, because it is unlikely anyone older than five has not had a claim of some sort.

        I notice there has been no statement by Labour about this issue yet, which doesn’t surprise me. A lot of these corrupt practises happened under Labour, and as with so many evils, National didn’t start them, they just turbo-charged them.

  16. Jackal 16
    10 June 2012 at 9:23 pm

    Songs from the Inside – Hero of the Week

    There’s been an inspirational documentary series running on Maori Television, which gave an insight into the lives of New Zealand prisoners…

    • Hateatea 16.1
      11 June 2012 at 1:16 am

      I have been watching it – inspirational!

      I think Maori Television makes and shows some of the best programmes currently on New Zealand television.

    • freedom 16.2
      11 June 2012 at 8:31 am

      The album was out last week and debut was at number one on the NZ chart.

      Number One!!!

      If you consider the recent big name visitors to our shores, amongst which was Lady Gaga, and the fact big name tours are usually accompanied by chart topping sales this is a fine achievement and only goes to show how respected NZ Music is and how much talent we have in Aotearoa.

      Congratulations to all involved, you couldn’t wish for a greater bunch of folk on a project.

  17. BillODrees 17
    10 June 2012 at 9:51 pm

    Neo-liberalism, and not challenging the conventional wisdom of Tresury and it’s fans, has seen the real income base of New Zealand whittled away over the past 30 years.  Over 400 people attended an excellent event at QTheatre in Auckland today.  The constant message was that we need a very major shift in thinking to stop the decline.   Thank you to the Fabian Society and the excellent speakers.
     
    http://thevoyage.co.nz/speakers/

    Labour, as much as National, needs to break away from the rhetoric that has failed to deliver hope for our youth. Fiddling with the image of a leader, trying to appeal to transient “good bloke” or “nice guy” marketing silliness is not how we will change New Zealand.   

    The young people want and need a strong leader who will break away from the pack and effect real change.  The youth want a future in New Zealand. We want our talent to return home.  None of the current party leaders have what it takes.  We need change.