Open mike 10/07/2011

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, July 10th, 2011 - 71 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…

71 comments on “Open mike 10/07/2011 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. travellerev 1
    10 July 2011 at 6:28 am

    Well worth reading is Ellen Brown’s Web of Debt about the privately owned Federal Reserve and how it creates money out of thin air demanding real world interest to pay for their scam.

    John Key was selected to be part of the Foreign exchange committee to the Federal Reserve of New York. A position he was appointed too after his boss Stephen Bellotti left that committee. His boss shared this committee with Robert Rubin, the man responsible for the repeal of the Glass Steagall act and generally considered to be one of the most corrupt capitalists ever.

    Here is what Ellen has to say about the QE2 and how all that money did not go to the economy to get it kick started but to off shore banks were it is hoarded to pay for big bonuses
     

  2. Secret Squirrel 2
    10 July 2011 at 8:11 am

    Goff on Euthanasia (responding to Families First):

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

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

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

    Many people who have had a close encounter with undignified, distressing death, like Goff, and me, think more discussion this is needed. Consider Choices about Euthanasia.

  3. mickysavage 3
    10 July 2011 at 8:46 am

    Cameron is all excited and has reported that Labour has been reported to the Police by the Electoral Commission.  What heinous crime you may wonder that it has committed?  Well it left a couple of words off the back of a brochure.

    The section of the Electoral Act that provides the test on whether or not an advertisement is an election advertisement and needs a promoter statement is (take a deep breath):

    “3A Meaning of election advertisement

    (1) In this Act, election advertisement—

    (a) means an advertisement in any medium that may reasonably be regarded as encouraging or persuading voters to do either or both of the following:

    (i) to vote, or not to vote, for a type of candidate described or indicated by reference to views or positions that are, or are not, held or taken (whether or not the name of the candidate is stated):

    (ii) to vote, or not to vote, for a type of party described or indicated by reference to views or positions that are, or are not, held or taken (whether or not the name of the party is stated); and

    (b) includes—

    (i) a candidate advertisement; and

    (ii) a party advertisement.
     

    (2) None of the following are election advertisements:

    …
    (b) contact information (as defined in subsection (3)) published in any medium by a member of Parliament that satisfies all of the following requirements:

    (i) the information was published by a member of Parliament in the course of performing his or her role and functions as a member of Parliament; and

    (ii) the information was prepared for publication and published by the member of Parliament using funding received under Vote Parliamentary Service; and

    (iii) the information was routinely published in that medium before the commencement of the regulated period and continues to be published in that medium during the regulated period; and

    (iv) the information is published during the regulated period no more often and to no greater extent than before the commencement of the regulated period; and

    (v) the information is published during the regulated period in the same form and style as before the commencement of the regulated period; and

    (vi) the information is not included, combined, or associated with an election advertisement (as defined in subsection (1)), or with any other information so as to constitute an election advertisement, that is published by—

    (A) the member of Parliament; or

    (B) the secretary of the party to which the member of Parliament belongs; or

    (C) any other person with the authority of the member of Parliament:”

     Labour thought that because it was approved by Parliamentary Services and contained Phil’s contact details it was not an electoral advertisement.  The EC in a very technical interpretation has refused to accept this.  Because section 204J says the Commission “must” report the matter to the police it has done so.

    Labour has withdrawn the pamphlets and indicated that all future pamphlets will have the “authorised by …” statement.

    Talk about Nanny State on steroids.   Will DPF recommence his campaign against restrictions on freedom of speech?  Will Cameron agree that this is nanny state gone wild?

    • higherstandard 3.1
      10 July 2011 at 9:04 am

      Who pays for it if it’s an election advertisement vs not an election advertisement ? Doesn’t it come from a different pot of cash albeit all from the long suffering taxpayer.

    • Anne 3.2
      10 July 2011 at 12:55 pm

      Labour thought that because it was approved by Parliamentary Services and contained Phil’s contact details it was not an electoral advertisement.

      What Labour might ‘think’ is not the point. Given the way it was unfairly accused of electoral malpractice in the past – and the recent inexcusable slackness of security of personal information – why didn’t the persons responsible for the pamphlet include the words “authorised by etc.” just to be on the safe side?

      Some may say that it’s all very well with the benefit of hindsight to be critical, but I’m starting to have serious doubts about the ability of some of Labour’s internal HQ staff. These are all avoidable mishaps!

    • chris73 3.3
      10 July 2011 at 3:50 pm

      I know this is probably a foriegn concept but why don’t Labour dot the eyes and cross the tees

      All something like this does is reinforce the notion that the Labour party are arrogant, lazy and think the rules don’t apply to them

      • Colonial Viper 3.3.1
        10 July 2011 at 3:59 pm

        Chris, LAB got Parliamentary Services confirmation that this stuff was not considered party/electioneering material and could wear the seal as such.

        • chris73 3.3.1.1
          10 July 2011 at 4:42 pm

          Pull the other one

          So instead of trying to stop issues that they’ve have had in the past they just keep on repeating them

          Ok so fair point, Labour arn’t lazy or arrogant they’re just really stupid

          Thanks for clearing that up

          • Colonial Viper 3.3.1.1.1
            10 July 2011 at 5:24 pm

            LAB approved the materials through Parliamentary Services. After examining the material it was independently considered (by Parliamentary Services) to not be party material or electioneering material.

            And so the material, OK’d by Parliamentary Services, had the Parliamentary Services seal placed upon them.

            • chris73 3.3.1.1.1.1
              10 July 2011 at 5:33 pm

              Nice to know that Labour will place the blame anywhere but themselves

              So why not just get it right the first time?

              Is it because they’re:

              Lazy
              Arrogant
              Incompetent

              or all of the above

              its not like this is the first time they’ve been in trouble over this kind of carry on and why does it seem as if its always Labour in the gun for this sort of thing? (apart from the VRWC influencing the MSM

          • Anne 3.3.1.1.2
            10 July 2011 at 5:33 pm

            No chris 73 you’re right. They’re not lazy and arrogant nor are they really stupid. I suspect the person(s) who made the mistake was(were) not part of the publicity team when the pledge card misadventure occurred and therefore didn’t learn from it. My understanding is that P.S. approved the pledge card too.

            • chris73 3.3.1.1.2.1
              10 July 2011 at 5:35 pm

              So wouldn’t it make sense to have someone oversee these things so errors arn’t made?

              Naah wheres the fun in that…

              • Anne …
                10 July 2011 at 5:41 pm

                Agreed Chris 73. (minus second remark)
                The moral of the story… don’t rely (only) on Parliamentary Services for electoral law advice.

  4. freedom 4
    10 July 2011 at 10:39 am

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5261850/Legal-aid-plea-is-sick-investor

    so very sick of this empty wallet BS by big boys who lost their toys, after stealing everyone else’s

  5. logie97 5
    10 July 2011 at 11:14 am

    Q+A this morning devoted to all the young’ns and how they are going to be needed to keep us a first world country and so much of what I could gather, from amongst the jargon and cliches of those in the know, was that it was super high-tech that was going to get us there.

    Just got the Internet Bill this morning (on-line) and suddenly thought, how in hell is a superannuatant ever going to be able to access or stay in touch with the world, unless this Super Duper Broadband world that Mr Joyce is promising us is actually next to free.

    $90 a month just to access your money (banking), pay your bills (online) and phone the emergency services all on the basic pension of $251p.w.

    Any suggestions?

    • Draco T Bastard 5.1
      10 July 2011 at 11:47 am

      Internet connection has become a societal necessity which is generally what happens to services that provide a public good. As such, it needs to be a government service paid for through taxes and not a private provided good that makes some non-productive shareholders a profit.

      • Rusty Shackleford 5.1.1
        10 July 2011 at 2:57 pm

        My refrigerator provides a public good and is considered a necessity. Why wasn’t it publicly provided? Another weird thing about refrigerators (and other goods and services that the govt mostly stays out of) is that they get cheaper, with more features, year on year. Some greedy capitalist keeps making better and cheaper fridges! How unproductive.

        • Colonial Viper 5.1.1.1
          10 July 2011 at 3:00 pm

          My refrigerator provides a public good and is considered a necessity.

          You open up your refrigerator to use by your neighbourhood? That’s very generous of you.

          they get cheaper, with more features, year on year.

          Now let’s ask how this is accomplished. Could it be a combination of producing ever higher volumes of crap (economies of scale), designs which do more with fewer parts and materials (tech and design innovation), employing fewer workers (increased labour productivity), and locating manufacturing in the lowest cost countries possible (reduced labour costs).

          All of that is certainly productive. Especially for the capitalist shareholders.

          Some greedy capitalist keeps making better and cheaper fridges!

          Capitalists don’t make fridges, workers do (e.g. engineers and production line staff)

          • Rusty Shackleford 5.1.1.1.1
            10 July 2011 at 3:08 pm

            By your logic every good is a public one.

            In part 2 you did a pretty good job of describing the capitalist process. One that benefits both the producer and consumer. I’m struggling to see the problem.

            • Colonial Viper 5.1.1.1.1.1
              10 July 2011 at 3:34 pm

              I’m struggling to see the problem.

              Of course you are. It goes back to the lie you tried to slide in at the start – that capitalists make fridges.

              They don’t, workers do, and the capitalists reward themselves from the economic surplus generated by the hard work of the engineers and the production staff by paying as few workers as possible as little as possible.

              Marx described the relationship where one party (workers) produce the surplus economic value but where another party (the capitalist major shareholders) has all the power to choose what to do with the economic surplus as being exploitative.

              By your logic every good is a public one.

              No, it doesn’t. Not sure how you can believe that ‘benefiting Rusty’ = ‘the public good’ without some major brain contortions.

              • Rusty Shackleford …
                10 July 2011 at 3:40 pm

                I would like to see you try to build a fridge without capital.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  10 July 2011 at 3:39 pm

                  I would like to see capital build a fridge without workers.

                  Moreover, capital can come from different sources.

                  It does not have to come from a small group of private major shareholders who do none of the actual work which goes into a fridge.

                  • Rusty Shackleford …
                    10 July 2011 at 3:49 pm

                    Fridges are probably built mostly by robots.

                    Capital accumulation can only come from savings.

                    Capitalists take on the risk. Not every investment will see a return so it’s better for society to let people who are good at taking risk carry the burden.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      10 July 2011 at 4:05 pm

                      it’s better for society to let people who are good at taking risk carry the burden.

                      I’d like to know where you think these people actually exist lol

                      Capital accumulation can only come from savings.

                      Untrue. The siphoning off of the economic surplus produced by workers allows capital accumulation by major shareholders at a rapid rate.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      10 July 2011 at 4:29 pm

                      Not every investment will see a return so it’s better for society to let people who are good at taking risk carry the burden.

                      BS as the Spirit Level proves. Having a small bunch of dictators living it up at everyone else’s expense is bad for society. And then there’s the fact, as the latest crash proves, that those dictators aren’t actually taking any risk – societies around the world have bailed them out when the risk came due.

                      As for the refrigerator not being supplied by a government owned, worker run factory is because the capitalists don’t want it that way? They wouldn’t be able to tell everyone how important they are and that they should have the bulk of the wealth if they weren’t needed.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      10 July 2011 at 5:26 pm

                      Fridges are probably built mostly by robots.

                      This is a classic reply

              • Rusty Shackleford …
                10 July 2011 at 3:42 pm

                If I didn’t have a fridge would I not get sick from spoiled food and therefore use more public health resources?

        • logie97 5.1.1.2
          10 July 2011 at 6:03 pm

          So Rusty – why turn this into a Capitalist discussion. Your refrigerator analogy is spurious.

          You have not addressed the issue of retirees being able to remain connected to this all singing all dancing technology.

          The way I see it technology is rapidly advancing and to a greater exclusion of many in society. I have not seen a great reduction in the costs between ISPs.
          Soon (in a couple of years) most of commerce will require an on-line interface with customer and supplier.

          At the moment the basic phone provider is $50 plus. For internet, it is another $30 – $40. Cannot see the pension increasing to such an extent – what do they promise? Rate of increase tied to CPI.

      • lefty 5.1.2
        10 July 2011 at 5:41 pm

        Exactly.
        Difficult now we no longer own Telecom of course.

  6. Morrissey 6
    10 July 2011 at 11:56 am

    That’s the end of the News of the World, thank God. But let’s not kid ourselves about the rest of the British media, and in particular the “liberal” media…

    ‘Extreme Dishonesty’ — The Guardian, Noam Chomsky and Venezuela

    http://chomsky.info/onchomsky/20110706.htm

    MediaLens July 6, 2011

    The headline of last Sunday’s Observer article on Venezuela set the tone for the slanted and opportunistic piece of political ‘reporting’ that followed: ‘Noam Chomsky denounces old friend Hugo Chávez for “assault” on democracy’.

    And then the opening line launched into a barrage of spin: ‘Hugo Chávez has long considered Noam Chomsky one of his best friends in the west. He has basked in the renowned scholar’s praise for Venezuela’s socialist revolution and echoed his denunciations of US imperialism.’

    The ironic sneer directed at the Venezuelan president apparently basking in Chomsky’s ‘praise’, and the sly hint of robotic ‘echoing’ of his buddy’s rants, were indicative of the bias, omissions and
    deceptions to follow. Reporter Rory Carroll, the Guardian‘s South America correspondent, had just interviewed Chomsky and set about twisting the conversation into a propaganda piece. (For non-UK readers who may not know: the Observer is the Sunday sister publication of the Guardian newspaper).

    Carroll’s skewed view was clear and upfront in his article: ‘Chomsky has accused the socialist leader of amassing too much power and of making an “assault” on Venezuela’s democracy.’ As we will see shortly, this was a highly partial and misleading account of Chomsky’s full remarks, leading him to declare afterwards that the newspaper had displayed ‘extreme dishonesty’ and that
    Carroll’s article was ‘quite deceptive’.

    The news hook was the publication of an open letter by Chomsky pleading for the release of Venezuelan judge María Lourdes Afiuni who is suffering from cancer. Afiuni, explains Carroll, ‘earned Chávez’s ire in December 2009 by freeing Eligio Cedeño, a prominent banker facing corruption charges.’ After just over a year in jail, awaiting trial on charges of corruption, the Venezuelan authorities ‘softened her confinement to house arrest’.

    In the open letter, prepared together with the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard University, Chomsky says: ‘Judge Afiuni had my sympathy and solidarity from the very beginning.
    The way she was detained, the inadequate conditions of her imprisonment, the degrading treatment she suffered in the Instituto Nacional de Orientación Femenina, the dramatic erosion of her health
    and the cruelty displayed against her, all duly documented, left me greatly worried about her physical and psychological wellbeing, as well as about her personal safety.’

    He concludes with the plea: ‘I shall keep high hopes that President Chávez will consider a humanitarian act that will end the judge’s detention.’ Towards the end of Carroll’s article, the journalist injected some token balance: ‘The Chávez government deserved credit for sharply reducing poverty and for its policies of promoting self-governing communities and Latin
    American unity, Chomsky said. “It’s hard to judge how successful they are, but if they are successful they would be seeds of a better world.” ‘

    But the blatant spin of the headline and the article’s lead paragraphs had already done the required job – President Chávez is so extreme that even that radical lefty Noam Chomsky, one of his best friends in the West, has now denounced him.

    Chomsky Responds…
    ‘Extreme Dishonesty’ And A ‘Quite Deceptive’ Report
    Activists and bloggers were quick to email Noam Chomsky to ask for his response to Rory Carroll’s article in the Observer. In particular, Chomsky replied as follows to one aggressive challenger who made a series of personal attacks on him: ‘Let’s begin with the headline: complete deception. That continues throughout. You can tell by simply comparing the actual quotes with their comments. As I mentioned, and expected, the New York Times report of a similar interview is much more honest, again revealing the extreme dishonesty of the Guardian.

    ‘I’m sure you would understand if an Iranian dissident who charged Israel with crimes would also bring up the fact that charges from Iran and its supporters cannot be taken seriously in the light of Iran’s far worse abuses. If you don’t understand that, which I doubt, you really have some problems to think about. If you do understand it, as I assume, the same is true. That’s exactly why bringing up [the jailed US soldier Bradley] Manning (and much more) is highly relevant.’

    Joe Emersberger, an activist based in Canada, also approached Chomsky for a reaction to the piece:
    ‘The Guardian/Observer version, as I anticipated, is quite deceptive. The report in the New York Times is considerably more honest. Both omit much of relevance that I stressed throughout, including the fact that criticisms from the US government or anyone who supports its actions can hardly be taken seriously, considering Washington’s far worse record without any of the real concerns that Venezuela faces, the Manning case for one [Manning is the alleged source for huge amounts of restricted material passed on to WikiLeaks], which is much worse than Judge Afiuni’s. And much else. There’s no transcript, unfortunately. I should know by now that I should insist on a transcript with the Guardian, unless it’s a writer I know and trust.’ (Joe Emersberger, ‘Chomsky Says UK Guardian Article “Quite Deceptive” About his Chavez Criticism’, Z Blogs, July 4, 2011).

    In fact the very next day after Carroll’s article appeared, and no doubt stung by the rising tide of internet-based criticism, the Guardian took the unusual step of publishing what is presumably a full transcript of the interview. (Also unusually, the Guardian did not
    allow reader comments to be posted under the transcript.) But the transcript only served to prove Chomsky’s point about the ‘deceptive’ nature of the printed article. His comparisons to the
    justice system in the United States – in particular, the torture and abuse of Bradley Manning – were edited out. Carroll had asked him about the intervention of the Venezuelan executive in demanding a long jail sentence for Judge Afiuni.

    Chomsky replied: ‘It’s obviously improper for the executive to intervene and impose a jail sentence without a trial. And I should say that the United States is in no position to complain about this. Bradley Manning has been imprisoned without charge, under torture, which is what solitary
    confinement is. The president in fact intervened. Obama was asked about his conditions and said that he was assured by the Pentagon that they were fine. That’s executive intervention in a case of severe violation of civil liberties and it’s hardly the only one. That doesn’t change the judgment about Venezuela, it just says that what one hears in the United States one can dismiss.’

    Chomsky added: ‘Venezuela has come under vicious, unremitting attack by the United States and the west generally – in the media and even in policy. After all the United States sponsored a military coup [in 2002] which failed and since then has been engaged in extensive subversion. And the onslaught […] against Venezuela in commentary is grotesque.’ Nothing of that appeared in the published Observer article. [* See Update below]

    Also given scant notice were Chomsky’s observations about positive developments in Venezuela and Latin America generally in trying to overcome the horrendous impacts of over five centuries of European, and latterly also US, colonialism and exploitation: ‘I think what’s happened in Latin America in the past 10 years is probably the most exciting and positive development to take place in the world. For 500 years, since European explorers came, Latin American countries had been separated from one another. They had very limited relations. Integration is a prerequisite for independence. Furthermore internally there was a model that was followed pretty closely by each of the countries: a very small Europeanised, often white elite that concentrated enormous wealth in the midst of incredible poverty. And this is a region, especially South America, which are very rich in resources which you would expect under proper conditions to develop far better than east Asia for example but it hasn’t happened.’

    The above quotes by Chomsky are only extracts of the longest answers, by far, that he gave in his interview with Carroll. But they didn’t fit the journalist’s agenda of setting up Chomsky in ‘denouncing’ Chávez’s supposed ‘assault’ on democracy. Carroll once accurately declared that he is ‘not a champion of impartiality’. Indeed, Joe Emersberger has done much sterling work, exposing and challenging Carroll’s biased journalism from Latin America. Carroll and his editors clearly have supreme difficulty in answering Emersberger’s cogent emails, judging by their repeated
    failure to respond.

    Readers may recall that the Guardian has a dubious track record in recording and accurately reflecting the views of Noam Chomsky; that is, when it doesn’t conform to the usual pattern of completely ignoring him. The Guardian‘s smear of Chomsky in 2005 marked a real
    low in the history of this ‘flagship’ newspaper of ‘liberal’ journalism. See ‘Smearing Chomsky – Guardian in the Gutter’, ‘Smearing Chomsky – The Guardian Backs Down’ and the external ombudsman’s report.

    Perhaps what is most noteworthy about this whole episode is best summed up by Emersberger:
    ‘This is not the first time Rory Carroll has taken a highly selective interest in Chomsky’s views on Latin America. When Chomsky signed an open letter in 2008 critical of Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, Rory Carroll also jumped all over it. At about the same time, Chomsky signed an open letter to Colombian President Alvaro Uribe about far more grave matters but it was ignored by the Guardian. At the time, I asked Rory Carroll and his editors why they ignored it but they never replied to me. They also ignored an open letter to Uribe signed by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and various other groups. I asked Carroll and his editors why that open letter was ignored and – as usual – no one responded.’

    Concluding Remarks
    Noam Chomsky was once famously described by the New York Times as ‘arguably the most important intellectual alive’. And yet, as mentioned earlier, the Guardian is normally happy to ignore him and his views. But when Chomsky expresses criticism of an official enemy
    of the West, he suddenly does exist and matter for the Guardian. That indicates what we already knew: that the liberal press is perfectly aware of the importance of Chomsky’s work. They just ignore it because it undermines the wrong interests.

    Rory Carroll’s article is a wonderful glimpse of the kind of status Chomsky would enjoy if he promoted the myth of the basic benevolence of the West, and focused on the crimes of official enemies. He would be feted as one of the most insightful and brilliant political commentators the world had ever seen. He would be far and away the world’s number one political talking head. His face would be all over the Guardian, the Observer, the Independent, the BBC, the New York Times and so on.

    There is a humbling lesson here also, of course, for those people who are all over the media. In important ways, the media is a demeritocracy.

    SUGGESTED ACTION
    The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. If you do write to journalists, we strongly urge you to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.

    Write to:
    Rory Carroll, the Guardian‘s South America correspondent
    Email: rory.carr…@guardian.co.uk
    Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/rorycarroll72

    Alan Rusbridger, Guardian editor
    Email: alan.rusbrid…@guardian.co.uk
    Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/arusbridger
    Please blind-copy us in on any exchanges or forward them to us later at:
    edi…@medialens.org

    * Update
    July 4, 2011
    Dear Rory Carroll,
    Hope you’re well there.

    Noam Chomsky says your Observer piece yesterday was ‘quite deceptive’ and ‘omit[s] much of relevance that I stressed throughout’.
    http://bit.ly/jiG736

    What’s your response, please?
    Best wishes

    David Cromwell and David Edwards
    Co-Editors, Media Lens
    http://www.medialens.org

    July 6, 2011
    Hello
    Well, the transcript is there so everyone can judge the article, and Prof Chomsky’s response, for themselves.

    Just one point: you say the article omitted Prof Chomsky’s references to Manning and US policy on Venezuela. About half-way there is this: “Its author remains fiercely critical of the US, which he said had tortured Bradley Manning, alleged source of the diplomatic cables exposed by WikiLeaks, and continued to wage a “vicious, unremitting” campaign against Venezuela.
    Best
    Rory
    July 6, 2011

    Hello Rory,
    Thanks for writing and pointing out that mistake – apologies. It should have read that you had given those points scant attention in comparison to the chosen spin of the ‘dishonest’ headline and main thrust of the ‘deceptive’ article. I’ll post an update.
    As you rightly say, and as we noted in the alert, people can see for themselves to what extent the published article reflects what Noam Chomsky said in the interview.
    Moreover, Joe Emersberger’s comments about your selective attention to Chomsky’s views, and your failure to respond to past challenges, remain unaddressed. And so do our concluding remarks about the default stance of the Guardian and the media when it comes to reporting Chomsky’s insightful observations: simply ignore them.
    Best wishes
    David Cromwell

    • D-D-D-Damn ! 6.1
      10 July 2011 at 4:55 pm

      Yeah, I certainly remember reading of the 2005 smear.
      I haven’t got time today, but in one of the Open Mikes in the next few days, I’ll briefly outline a NZ Listener smear of Chomsky from a few years ago.
       
      Excellent work above, Morrissey.

      • Morrissey 6.1.1
        10 July 2011 at 10:16 pm

        …in the next few days, I’ll briefly outline a NZ Listener smear of Chomsky from a few years ago.

        I’ll look forward to reading that, my friend. I hardly bother nowadays to even glance at what was once an essential magazine. Which intellectual giant did Pamela Stirling, that formidable polymath of an editor, assign to the task of smearing Chomsky? Deborah Hill Cone? Joanne Black? Bill Ralston? Raybon Kan? Paul Lewis? The more I think of a possible contender for this Herculean task, the funnier it seems.

        Hurry and post it up, please.

        • D-D-D-Damn ! 6.1.1.1
          11 July 2011 at 5:10 pm

          Thanks, Morrissey. Looks like it’ll probably be later in the week. I’m just a bit too busy at the moment and (possibly like you and one or two others here) I’m a bit of a perfectionist. I want to provide an effective context, before I outline the details. All takes time 🙂

  7. the pink postman 7
    10 July 2011 at 3:31 pm

    Todays Nation was once again mainly an attack onthe

  8. the pink postman 8
    10 July 2011 at 3:44 pm

    Today’s Nation was once again an attack on Labour. The so called discussion on Capital Gains developed into a critizem of the Labour Policy.
    Garner once again ,as he does every week ,finds fault with Goffs leadership.
    What ever has Phil done to this creep?
    Their is no doubt that with the Capital Gains tax announcement Labour is going to dominate the debate. However Nat’s will pull every trick they know to rubbish this. I’m looking forward to Friday’s statement by Phil on this. There is no doubt this could be just what Labour needs to boost the polls.

  9. the pink postman 9
    10 July 2011 at 4:03 pm

    Now I have heard ,from a good source , that this Tory government is considering deregistering theTeachers Union .Anyone heard anything?
    It certainly would not surprise me .

    • ianmac 9.1
      10 July 2011 at 5:43 pm

      If they did deregister the PPTA or the Primary NZEI or could only to pick a fight. The grounds for deregistering have to be pretty compelling and it is many years decades(?) since it was done to a union.
      Can’t believe that since the other day when Anne Tolley was asked if any action was planned against theNZEI re NS, she said dismissively no but they will be helping schools to understand NS (!!!) and maybe next year they will look at other means. Good reason to make sure that Tolley is not there next year to do any more damage.

  10. Blue 10
    10 July 2011 at 4:04 pm

    Yes Postman its the media that are to blame for Goffs ineptitude as a leader. He’s never to blame in the lefts eyes, which is of course a socialist mantra, “he’s not to blame its society’s fault” (and anyone with more money than you). If Goff wants traction he needs a personality transplant and policy that resonates with the voters. Goff repeating the same behaviour and tired speeches and expecting a different result, is the epitome of being deranged.

    • Colonial Viper 10.1
      10 July 2011 at 4:56 pm

      Wow you’re strange.

      The NZ media is pretty soft on questioning Key and pretty hard on pulling down Goff. That’s obvious.

      Hope we get the guy from BBC’s Hardtalk to run one of our election leaders debates 🙂

  12. jackal 12
    10 July 2011 at 4:56 pm

    Earthquakes on the Increase

    There was another large earthquake off the East coast of Honshu, Japan today. It measured magnitude 7. This coincides with a general increase in the number of all magnitude earthquakes over recent years…

    • Secret Squirrel 12.1
      10 July 2011 at 5:16 pm

      How do you know activity is increasing?

      We haven’t been measuring it comprehensively for long, so it would be very difficult to know trends apart from very short term fluctuations.

    • rd 12.2
      10 July 2011 at 9:36 pm

      Felt it in tokyo. A long steady rocking for about 30 sec.

  13. Chris 13
    10 July 2011 at 7:53 pm

    TV3 tonight:

    “The latest 3 News Reid Research poll is out and has National opening up its already massive gap over Labour.

    One of the real winners in this poll is the rise and rise of the Greens; who seem to now be feeding off Labour’s misery and taking their voters.

    National was up 2.1 points on 55.1 percent support while Labour slipped 2.9 points to 29.9 percent. The Greens went up 2.6 points to 9.1 percent.”

    Priceless.

    [lprent: Also completely off topic and looks to me like it was meant to be diversionary. If I see you do again I will kick you out of commenting for while. Moving to OpenMike.

    Oh buggerit – that was too much work. Banned for a week for wasting my time. ]

    • Secret Squirrel 13.1
      10 July 2011 at 8:04 pm

      It’s just showing the volatility of the polls. This one won’t be affected much if at all by the CGT, and certainly won’t be affected by the weekend’s Act.

  14. Chris 14
    10 July 2011 at 8:03 pm

    Forgot to add – John Key up in poplularity to 50.5 and Goff slips [again] down to 6.9.

    Double priceless.

  16. burt 16
    10 July 2011 at 8:54 pm

    Stuff: Labour pamphlets breached rules

    Wow, like that’s never happened before… I can hardly wait for some MP to say the rules were confusing… others did it too… It’s not fair to just prosecute Labour….

    • Colonial Viper 16.1
      10 July 2011 at 9:37 pm

      Labour had prior confirmation from Parliamentary Services that those materials were not considered party promotional materials or electioneering materials.

      • chris73 16.1.1
        10 July 2011 at 11:05 pm

        You really are a dipshit, just man up and say “we screwed up”

        Maybe in future you might want to go for advice elsewhere…you know the saying “fool me once shame on you, fool me twice and I probably work for Labour”

        • Colonial Viper 16.1.1.1
          11 July 2011 at 1:17 am

          Labour originally sought and gained sign offs from Parliamentary Services on the flyers etc. i.e. an independent assessment, that the material was not party material and was not electioneering material.

          Labour was therefore allowed to use the Parliamentary Services seal on the material, which would not have been permitted had the material been judged at the time to be Labour Party promotional material or electioneering material.

          • chris73 16.1.1.1.1
            11 July 2011 at 7:50 am

            Yeah keep repeating the line, maybe you’ll convince yourself

          • burt 16.1.1.1.2
            11 July 2011 at 8:26 am

            CV

            Do Parliamentary Services indemnify political parties from being accountable under the law ?

            You seem to think so and Labour’s previous behaviour seems to imply that – but what are the rules? Remember the rules – in this case the laws passed by MPs for MPs. Can’t say they are confusing and claim to be competent at the same time.

            Are Labour incompetent or are they self serving muppets who think they are above the law ?

            • Colonial Viper 16.1.1.1.2.1
              11 July 2011 at 8:35 am

              Labour sought out early expert advice, and that independent advice came back that those materials were not party promotional or electioneering materials.

              Now that call might have been wrong in the final analysis (we’ll wait and see), but Labour took a lot of care to get this right from the start.

      • burt 16.1.2
        10 July 2011 at 11:17 pm

        So here we go.. The law was confusing… Others were doing it too…

        Oh dear, Labour hasn’t got the numbers to retrospectively validate under urgency.

        How handy would the conventional ‘not in the public interest to prosecute’ be?

        What about that convention that parliament can’t use the excuse a law was confusing because they wrote it and they voted to get it enacted? OK we let that one go for a while when it was convenient with the EFA, but is it gone forever ?

        • Colonial Viper 16.1.2.1
          11 July 2011 at 1:18 am

          Well, as I mentioned above, Labour had the material checked and vetted by Parliamentary Services, and at the time it was independently assessed as not being party promotional material nor electioneering material.

          • burt 16.1.2.1.1
            11 July 2011 at 8:21 am

            So here we go again… The ref made a bad call… the rules were changed…

            Sorry CV – the people who make the laws and pass the laws need to understand the laws.

            So I guess if they had it checked by Parliamentary Services then they will be confident they didn’t break the law and they will be happy to see it tested in court ?

            Remember the Judiciary… I know previously Labour have shown a preference for retrospective validation rather than take their chances in court but they might not get that option this time. But hey PS said it was OK so should be an open and shut case where they are not found guilty – right ?

            • Colonial Viper 16.1.2.1.1.1
              11 July 2011 at 8:36 am

              Well it’s a matter for the police now, however Labour did take plenty of care to get this right and sought independent advice in the process to do so.

              • chris73 …
                11 July 2011 at 5:19 pm

                Its things like this that remind people why Labour were voted out of parliament

                Not following the rules
                Blaming others for errors
                Overwhelming arrogance

                Say ten hail Marys and try to sin no more

  17. Salsy 17
    10 July 2011 at 9:10 pm

    Actually, Key has just dominated the news over big free trade trip to india – staged romance at the Taj and filmed with Bollywood’s Brangelina all that aspirational stuff. Yet only pulled 2%, and is that not the margin of error?? Gloat all you like Chris , but you know as well as most of us – National’s popularity rides of on Key and lets face it, the public will wake up..

    • chris73 17.1
      11 July 2011 at 5:27 pm

      I have no doubt that Labour will get back into power, just not this election

      (As for gloating wait until after the election ;))

  18. Hilary 18
    10 July 2011 at 9:49 pm

    Why are the police being so vindictive in prosecuting Arie Smith-Voorkamp? They are even bullying TV1’s Sunday programme for running the story tonight about his arrest and alleged beating for taking two lightbulbs from an abandoned building. Even the building’s owners didn’t want him charged until the police apparently bullied them too. Something unpleasant going on in the police culture.

    • Vicky32 18.1
      11 July 2011 at 12:55 am

      Absolutely true, Hilary! I watched Sunday for possibly the second time ever, and was very impressed by Arie and by the building’s owners. His reason (that it was a shame to leave electrical fittings in a building that might collapse) would seem perfectly reasonable to someone with Aspergers who wants to become an electrician! He wasn’t looting anything, just rescuing something…

  19. interesting 19
    11 July 2011 at 10:36 pm

    [deleted]

    [lprent: Read this again. ]

  20. interesting 20
    11 July 2011 at 10:38 pm

    [deleted]

    [lprent: Read this again. ]