Open mike 11/07/2011

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, July 11th, 2011 - 142 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…

142 comments on “Open mike 11/07/2011 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. big bruv 1
    11 July 2011 at 6:39 am

    So chaps, how much has the Labour party stolen from the tax payer this week?

    • Deadly_NZ 1.1
      11 July 2011 at 3:39 pm

      So chaps how much has the National Party lied to the tax payer this week?

    • ianupnorth 1.2
      11 July 2011 at 4:16 pm

      How many government minister have stayed in expensive hotels whilst war veterans were left to fend for themselves?

  2. happynz 2
    11 July 2011 at 6:40 am

    Heard something on TV3 News this morning about National increasing its lead to 55% of something compared to Labour’s 30% whatevers. No context about which questions were asked, who they asked, when the poll was taken, or anything much of all.

    • Colonial Viper 2.1
      11 July 2011 at 8:26 am

      Haha it reminds me of the polls saying that Gaddaffi has the support of 97% of his people.

  3. big bruv 3
    11 July 2011 at 6:45 am

    When will we see Goff rolled?, will it be before Wednesday?

  4. Secret Squirrel 4
    11 July 2011 at 7:02 am

    Ansell went for broke and may have terminally broken Act. I can’t see them getting many vote from women and I doubt many men will buy into his superiority complex either.

    The women who support ACT are not squeamish about speaking bluntly about rational issues (including racial issues). I respect them very much.

    In short, they’ve got guts.

    More typical women are less rational and more emotional. They’d rather preserve relationships than rock the boat. Is that not true?

    But women, by a reasonable margin, preferred to cuddle the various minority groups and spend more of other people’s money on welfare that to take the hard economic decisions.

    New Zealand is awash with parties that represent the female view of the world: Labour, the Greens, the latter-day Nats.

    But only ACT represents rational women and rational men. The party should not be ashamed to say so.

    What is it with Women and Act?

    • felix 4.1
      11 July 2011 at 7:49 am

      SS, your daily links raise interesting issues from time to time.

      It gets a little annoying, however, that you start a discussion and then won’t engage with the responses.

      For example, I’m still waiting for a response here: http://thestandard.org.nz/exit-stage-right/#comment-350166

      It doesn’t bode well for your new way of doing democracy if you want all the communication to be one way.

      • Secret Squirrel 4.1.1
        11 July 2011 at 7:59 am

        I try to engage, but it’s easy to miss responses. I’ll have a look at that one.

        • prism 4.1.1.1
          11 July 2011 at 11:26 am

          Secret Squirrel – I think this response thing could be helped if people first put the name being replied to, and that person can do a search under their own name, and the responses will pop up without time wasting.

          • lprent 4.1.1.1.1
            11 July 2011 at 12:02 pm

            Ummm it is an issue especially with the numbers of comments going into the system right now. What if I put an extra tab on the right panel for “Responses” ?

            I  have either the login or the last comment details in the cookies. It wouldn’t be hard to run a query for your last few hundred comment comments and then any direct responses to them.

            Computationally it sucks up CPU – but it would only be doing it for the relatively few page loads from people who comment. That also means the spiders and bots won’t read it.

      • Secret Squirrel 4.1.2
        11 July 2011 at 8:47 am

        Re Greens and “niche”.

        I think the Greens are a niche party, albeit with a strong level of support right now due to Labour’s soft support levels. Greens are trying to position themselves as more mainstream but I think they’ll find this difficult.

        They have had and still have MPs who are on the extreme side of our spectrum, eg Sue Bradford and Keith Locke. Green policies on things like exploring for and utilising natural resources are relatively radical.

        UF is very middle of the road on most things, not radical. They have low party support because they are seen as a single electorate single person party, Dunne’s personal versus the UF party vote in Ohariu in 2008 illustrates this.UF competes in a large middle ground occupied most byNational and Labour.

        I don’t judge niche on level of support, I see it as representing more special interest rather than general appeal.

        I support Greens being in parliamanet, and I support some of their policiies, and I have voted for them in the past, but as a niche party, I wouldn’t support them becoming a major mainstream party – unless of course they radically from their current niche positioning.

        • felix 4.1.2.1
          11 July 2011 at 9:18 am

          SS, you’re still just throwing the word “radical” around without defining it. It usually implies some sort of extremism, but in the context you’re using it it can’t possibly mean any such thing.

          “UF competes in a large middle ground occupied most by National and Labour.”

          And picked up 0.87% of the vote in this “middle ground”. That’s not the score of a party with broad popular appeal. That’s not the score of a party representing the mainstream of NZ.

          “I don’t judge niche on level of support, I see it as representing more special interest rather than general appeal.”

          This is getting closer to a definition, but it still contradicts the facts. The Greens have several times the “general appeal” of UF. So why do you insist that they’re the outlier, the niche, the radical, when by your own measure UF is far more so?

          • Secret Squirrel 4.1.2.1.1
            11 July 2011 at 12:40 pm

            Sorry, I presumed you would know what they meant.

            niche: a distinct segment of a market, derivative of Latin nÄ«dus – nest

            It’s got nothing to do with size, it’s about being distinctive. The Green Party has one of the more distinct market segments in our politics.

            radical: favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms

            That description fits Green far more than UF policies.

            • felix 4.1.2.1.1.1
              11 July 2011 at 8:17 pm

              And how are you determining that either of those descriptions befits the Greens but not UF?

              What is “mainstream” if it’s not defined by numbers?

              If UF is a “mainstream” party rather than a “niche” party then why do they only attract a tiny niche of voters?

            • felix 4.1.2.1.1.2
              14 July 2011 at 8:17 pm

              Come on Squirrel, stop running away from the discussions you start.

              Anyone considering taking you at your word that you want to encourage a more consultative, more inclusive, more transparent system of govt should have a close look at the way you conduct yourself in discussions on this site.

              Quite simply your words don’t match your actions.

  5. Adele 5
    11 July 2011 at 7:22 am

    And what is it with your site which is currently advertising “hot colombian beauties.”

    • kriswgtn 5.1
      11 July 2011 at 7:34 am

      Cos he makes $ from doing so
      hope ur payuing your tax squirrel and not stashing it away

  6. Bored 6
    11 July 2011 at 8:06 am

    Couple of thoughts for the day with relevance to RWNJs (BB et al), Randists and free market afficienados…..just listened to a speach from Orlov when he mentioned the following…

    Free markets are marginally more efficient than planned economies at using all the resources up until collapse is inevitable

    and The free market is like a casino where all the chips end up in a few hands, when that happens the casino collapses, shuts doors and the chips are useless……

    Have fun all you monetized rationalist morons.

    • Colonial Viper 6.1
      11 July 2011 at 8:24 am

      Orlov is pretty good eh.

    • Draco T Bastard 6.2
      11 July 2011 at 12:27 pm

      Got link?

      And, yeah, the obvious conclusion of the capitalist free-market is, firstly, economic collapse as the money ends up as large pools in the hands of a few followed (after an “economic rescue” ie, New Deal etc) by total collapse as the resources are used up.

      The money ends up in a few hands and they don’t spend it trying to live on the interest (Money generated through other peoples work and ideas) rather than being productive. As the money accumulates at the top the interest payments increase resulting in even more of the money going to the few while the money going to everyone else declines. Eventually the economy collapses because there isn’t enough money in the hands of the many to keep it going.

      Keynes seems to have seen the problem but his solution appears* to have been to get the government to borrow that money from the rich at interest**. At best this would extend the time between economic collapses but, eventually, the governments would have borrowed so much that nobody would be willing to loan to them.

      * The a reason why I use “seems” and “appears” here is because, according to Steve Keen, Keynes’ 1936 work was misinterpreted.
      ** Now consider just what National wanted to achieve by cutting taxes over the last decade and why they’ve suddenly gone to borrowing far more than they need to.

      • Bored 6.2.1
        11 July 2011 at 5:18 pm

        Draco, the video is well worth while, link is http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2011/06/road-ahead-for-community-action.html

        It is rather sad that we argue left versus right in politics and the respective economics. Both entirely miss the point, they are predicated on continuous growth in consumption and debt. Neither is sustainable on a finite planet, arguing the toss about which version you prefer is deck chair shuffling on the Titanic.

        There is one critical need to argue however, as we decline the usual RWNJ suspects will attempt to cushion their fall at the expense of the masses, by way of debt, force, expropriation etc. We conversely must resist and make them observe a good left wing prescription: the sharing of what is available equitably.

        • Draco T Bastard 6.2.1.1
          11 July 2011 at 7:16 pm

          Unfortunately, even the economists who see the problems of austerity don’t realise the problems inherent within a socio-economic system that requires larger and larger markets. It is impossible to fulfil their vision of trickle down or even redistributed growth from a finite planet. Hell, the definition of economics given to me at uni was the study of the distribution of limited resources and yet the economists fail to realise that the theory they postulate and teach must result in the destruction of the environment,all the resources being used up and the few ending up with all the wealth (not that it’ll do them much good once the environments fucked).

          We need to move to an socio-economic system that’s based around resource use and then we might get round to having some prosperity.

  7. big bruv 7
    11 July 2011 at 8:16 am

    Micky

    You missed this story?

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/07/labour_referred_to_the_police_for_electoral_act_breach.html

    It’s called stealing Micky, something your lot don’t seem to have a problem with.

    BTW Micky, are you behind Goff or Cunliffe?

    • Colonial Viper 7.1
      11 July 2011 at 8:23 am

      Labour’s flyers/pamphleets had been vetted and checked by Parliamentary Services where they were assessed as being neither electioneering or party promotional material. Therefore, at the time, those materials were given the independent OK to contain the Parliamentary Services seal.

    • mickysavage 7.2
      11 July 2011 at 9:17 am

      Saw it BB and posted on it.  I had a read of the legislation and can understand how someone would see it differently to the EC.  From now on IMHO all parties  should put “Authorised by …” on everything.
       
      It misses the point though.  The authorisation requirement was to address the Exclusive Bretheren scenario where shadowy entities put out publications and no one had the chance to see where the publication was coming from.
       
      It aint called “stealing” BB it is called “mucking up the paper work”. 
       
      BTW I thought you were all for freedom of speech and against Nanny State?  This is pretty aggressive nanny statism doncha think?
       
      I support Phil.  I reckon he has a good chance of creating history and in defeating a National Government after only one term.  If he does not succeed and resigns then Cunliffe would be a wonderful replacement.

  8. big bruv 8
    11 July 2011 at 8:26 am

    Oh Come on Viper…are you still sticking to that pathetic line?….reminds me of the 850k you lot nicked back in 05.

    Tell me Viper, do you lot think stealing is OK?

    • Colonial Viper 8.1
      11 July 2011 at 8:31 am

      Labour had those materials independently checked and vetted by Parliamentary Services b.b. As for theft, check out the $7B asset give away that Key and English are sponsoring – those assets belong to the children and great grandchildren of NZ, not to the Chinese and Saudis.

      • big bruv 8.1.1
        11 July 2011 at 8:46 am

        Stop telling lies Viper

        The AG deemed it to be theft, remember how Clark had to change the law to make her theft legal?

        You lot really do like rewriting history don’t you.

        As for the 49% sale of the “assets” well the people of NZ don’t seem to mind much about that Viper, the coming election will prove that. Mind you, I know that will not stop you guys moaning about it, democracy is not something you really bother with.

        So..one again I ask you, do you lot think stealing is OK?. we know that your MP’s think it is perfectly fine to steal from the tax payer I just want to know if you are of the same opinion.

        [lprent: The AG never said it was theft as far as I’m aware. A three week ban for putting words into the AG’s mouth unless you can link to something where the AG explicitly said it was “theft”.

        Arggh reading your comments – I can’t be bothered with idiot trolling. You are on probation for a ban until after the election and the only reason you didn’t get it is because you don’t normally act quite as much of a dickhead. ]

        • mickysavage 8.1.1.1
          11 July 2011 at 9:19 am

          Bruv
           
          There is no suggestion that Labour has been stealing.  The pamphlet is being reported to the police because the law says it has to.  This is only happening because “Authorised by …” was not printed on the pamphlet although given the fact that it is clearly a Labour Party publication and has Phil’s details all over it I think it is pretty clear that it was authorised.

        • felix 8.1.1.2
          11 July 2011 at 9:22 am

          Good to see Big Suze is so strongly in favour of strict transparent electoral finance regulation.

        • Draco T Bastard 8.1.1.3
          11 July 2011 at 12:33 pm

          
remember how Clark had to change the law to make her theft legal?

          Don’t forget all the other parties that got caught up in the AG’s rule change which included National who also overspent their allowed electioneering spend by the amount of GST.

          • KJT 8.1.1.3.1
            11 July 2011 at 7:36 pm

            Anything done by Labour recently pales into insignificance compared to the theft of our wealth that NACT are intent on carrying out.

  9. ropata 9
    11 July 2011 at 8:36 am

    Working conditions in the US IT industry :
    My current company, has no vacations. You simply tell them when you are not going to be there, and they decide if they want to fire you for the absence.

    They also do not have weekends. On the Friday before each customary “3-day” weekend the owner declares an emergency that, somehow, MUST be finished by Tuesday.

    No one wants to work there for very long. Turnover is very high. Projects don’t get finished, precisely because of the turnover. Other projects do get “finished’, but don’t work, also because of the turnover

    The owner doesn’t seem to realize that he is sabotaging his own projects.

    http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/07/10/1410234/IT-Crises-vs-Vacation-Sometimes-It-Isnt-Pretty

    • Colonial Viper 9.1
      11 July 2011 at 8:39 am

      US is 6 to 12 months from a breakdown moment. Oil at $175-$200 barrel should do it.

      • big bruv 9.1.1
        11 July 2011 at 8:47 am

        Ready to admit that Obama is a failure yet Viper?

        • Colonial Viper 9.1.1.1
          11 July 2011 at 8:57 am

          Mate, that became bloody obvious when he hired Geithner, Bernanke and Summers. And decided to sideline Volker, Warren and Krugman.

          Plus, despite overwhelming public support, he couldn’t/wouldn’t get a public healthcare option through.

          • big bruv 9.1.1.1.1
            11 July 2011 at 9:04 am

            OK…we are getting there Viper.

            So the next step is for you to admit that Socialism is a failed ideology, Obama has tried it and near destroyed the Yankee economy.

            I see you emerging from the dark hole of socialism Viper, keep up the good work.

            • Pascal's bookie 9.1.1.1.1.1
              11 July 2011 at 9:11 am

              Obama hasn’t tried socialism bruv. His health care plan was stolen from the republicans, his ‘stimulus’ (which is now dropping off, expect to see further contraction and more unemoployment) was weighted heavily towards tax cuts at the top end.

              About the only thing that has worked was the auto industry bail out.

              • big bruv …
                11 July 2011 at 9:28 am

                Lol…how ironic given it was the unions (socialist to the core) who fucked the auto industry in the first place.

                • travellerev …
                  11 July 2011 at 9:35 am

                  No, it was the greed, outsourcing and the bad (because their boards are populated by oil guys)strategic decisions with regards to their designs (Bigger, more gas guzzling as opposed to small energy efficient) that made the industry collapse and the bailout worked because it allowed them to screw the US workers even more by financing more outsourcing making the fat cats and their shareholders happy.

                • Pascal's bookie …
                  11 July 2011 at 9:41 am

                  Yawn. If the us had a proper health care system like grown up countries do then the unions wouldn’t have to negotiate that stuff.
                  And your idea that the US union movement is either powerful or socialist only goes to prove that you wouldn’t know socialism if it nationalised your nutsack

                • mickysavage …
                  11 July 2011 at 9:44 am

                  it was the unions (socialist to the core) who fucked the auto industry
                   
                  Yep you go to the Bahamas now and the beaches are full of retired auto workers drinking their pina coladas and living it up on their ill gotten gains.
                   
                  And you then go back to Pensylvania and there are all these ex merchant bankers and Wall Street types living out of scraps they get from Dumpsters and sleeping rough.
                   
                  Those god forsaken communist unions sure knew what they were doing …
                   
                   

                • ianupnorth …
                  11 July 2011 at 4:11 pm

                  Big Bruv, you really need to gen up on the term ‘Fordism’ – Henry T Ford paid wages way above the market rate for two reasons; firstly the jobs were tedious and boring, secondly nobody could afford his new cars, hence he paid his staff nearly double the average wage and they all bought cars too. Guess what, he started a thing called commercialisation, where everyone was envious of their neighbours vehicle.
                   
                  Blame the companies not the unions – BTW  can you actually tell me the real root of socialism? Let’s see….

                  • mik e …
                    14 July 2011 at 5:40 pm

                    Democracy heaven forbid giving the vote to the poor peasants or even allowing them to have an opinion they might vote for some income redistribution

            • Morrissey 9.1.1.1.1.2
              11 July 2011 at 9:20 am

              Something called “big bruv” is, unwisely, trying to be clever….

              So the next step is for you to admit that Socialism is a failed ideology,
              Do you even know what you are talking about?

              Obama has tried it
              No he has not. It’s clear you don’t know what you’re talking about.

              and near destroyed the Yankee economy.
              “Yankee”? Clearly, as well as knowing nothing about political and economic theory, you also know nothing about American culture.

              Why don’t you take some time off, my friend, and read a few books? Seriously, you need to do that. You are way out of your depth at the moment.

              • MrSmith …
                11 July 2011 at 12:33 pm

                Morrissey: My guess is the only books Burv reads are Penthouse and Playboy and he only reads the pictures.

                • Morrissey …
                  11 July 2011 at 1:47 pm

                  I think Penthouse Forum banned him from writing any more letters, and he dispels all that pent-up energy by coming onto fora like this.

            • Colonial Viper 9.1.1.1.1.3
              11 July 2011 at 9:55 am

              lol you get that Obama tried socialism by rehiring a bunch of senior Goldman Sachs hacks to be his economic team?

              You’re an idiot.

            • Vicky32 9.1.1.1.1.4
              11 July 2011 at 4:39 pm

              So the next step is for you to admit that Socialism is a failed ideology, Obama has tried it and near destroyed the Yankee economy.

              Hilarious Big Bruv! Obama, a socialist? It is to laugh… Really… Prove it! 😀

        • marsman 9.1.1.2
          11 July 2011 at 8:58 am

          It’s the neoliberal agenda that has fucked the USA.

          • Secret Squirrel 9.1.1.2.1
            11 July 2011 at 9:00 am

            Not really, that’s just the label of the day for too much interwoven power and money.

          • big bruv 9.1.1.2.2
            11 July 2011 at 9:01 am

            marsman

            And yet the facts don’t back up your claim….funny that.

            Want to know what “fucked” GM, Chrysler and to a lesser extend Ford?

            Yep..unions, low life, parasitic unions.

            • travellerev 9.1.1.2.2.1
              11 July 2011 at 9:18 am

              Reminds me of a joke doing the rounds: A CEO, a worker and an unionist sit down at a table. On the table are a plate with 12 cookies. The CEO takes 11 cookies and puts them in his pocket than he points the finger at the union guy and tells the worker:” Be afraid boy, be very afraid because that union guy wants part of your cookie”!

              Tell me BB what don’t you get about 1% owning 50% of all wealth and resources of the US while 50% have to make do with 2% being unfair and those 50% organising themselves to get a bigger part of the pie being with unions being a good idea?

            • marsman 9.1.1.2.2.2
              11 July 2011 at 9:19 am

              More than likely management that did for GM etc., parasitic, low life management.
              Remember Reagan, Bush etc.? Unmitigated disasters for many Americans except for a few wealthy ones, funny that.

              • big bruv …
                11 July 2011 at 9:24 am

                marsman

                You and I agree that the management of GM were pathetic.

                Pathetic for giving into parasitic union thugs
                Pathetic for agreeing to pension demands that sent the company bankrupt
                Pathetic for not taking on the low life unions and smashing them.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  11 July 2011 at 9:52 am

                  Unions need to become stronger and more active with larger memberships. A rise in unions = a rise in worker pay and condition.

                  GM fucked up by not producing cars that people wanted, and when the oil crunch came they were fully unprepared.

                  The unions now own GM lol.

                  • big bruv …
                    11 July 2011 at 10:13 am

                    Stop telling lies Viper.

                    The tax payer owns GM. GM should have been left to fail, however Obama is so closely tied to the scum union movement that he wasted billions of tax payer dollars propping up GM.

                    Do a bit of research Viper, have a look at the facts, GM could not compete with other car makers because their wage and pension plans were crippling the company.

                    [lprent: Talking about lying – see http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-11072011/#comment-350555 ]

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      11 July 2011 at 10:21 am

                      🙂

                      Unions are crucial to any strong well paid, successful industry. There are of course right and wrong ways to do union/industry relationships.

                      And remember, the unions did not negotiate the Private Jets for GM executives 🙂

                      GM could not compete with other car makers because their wage and pension plans were crippling the company.

                      This was only 40%-50% of GM’s problems.

                      Their repeated string of dud designs, over reliance on fuel guzzling trucks, unwillingness to support new pollution and fuel efficiency measures, and slow progress in closing the quality gap with the Japanese formed the rest.

          • Colonial Viper 9.1.1.2.3
            11 July 2011 at 9:50 am

            And through economics academia, central banks and various international bankster institutions, the rest of the western world.

            There is now many times more debt and financial obligations in existence than the real economy has the resources to deliver on.

        • travellerev 9.1.1.3
          11 July 2011 at 9:10 am

          Obama isn’t a failure for his “Socialism” BB but for his sleazy surrender to the banksters and the Military industrial complex, pandering to their insatiable thirst for more wars and more looting while the populations of the countries they invade and destroy and the American population die and wither as a result.

          • big bruv 9.1.1.3.1
            11 July 2011 at 9:26 am

            trav

            Obama is a failure for socialism, just as socialism has failed everywhere else it has been tried.

            What part of that do you not get?

            • travellerev 9.1.1.3.1.1
              11 July 2011 at 9:28 am

              BB, you’re so brain dead it’s not even funny any more.

              • big bruv …
                11 July 2011 at 10:08 am

                Given up already Trav?

                That’s the problem with you socialists, you cannot defend your beloved system despite the fact that it has failed everywhere it has been tried so you resort to abuse.

                Shame.

                • travellerev …
                  11 July 2011 at 10:43 am

                  From ultra right wing to socialist in a few comments! Wow.

                  No, BB unlike you I actually have life and besides I’ve come to the conclusion that your Ignotrance lifestyle choices are a waste of time to me.

                  Have a nice day!

                • ianupnorth …
                  11 July 2011 at 4:13 pm

                  Troll

            • the pink postman 9.1.1.3.1.2
              11 July 2011 at 2:44 pm

              What a lot of tripe you utter BB. Socialism failed ? Not in the Scandinavian countries who have the highest standard of living in the world. Nearer to home how about Fonterra which is pure Socialism. Something you and farmers conveniently forget.

      • Lanthanide 9.1.2
        11 July 2011 at 9:27 am

        I don’t think we’ll see $175-200 within 12 months. The economy will simply collapse and won’t sustain that price.

        • Draco T Bastard 9.1.2.1
          11 July 2011 at 12:46 pm

          /agreed

          The price of oil won’t go above about $130/barrel as the economy can’t sustain that. Of course, the economy will still collapse once we start going down the other side of Hubbert’s Peak.

  10. Morrissey 10
    11 July 2011 at 9:14 am

    Imagine if a Palestinian or Zimbabwean protestor did THIS to an official supervising a house destruction…

    http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/a-proactive-approach-to-eviction-orders/

    A proactive approach to eviction orders

    http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/a-proactive-approach-to-eviction-orders/

    [lprent: Removed the excess bold. There was no need to make your text shout. You might think that it is IMPORTANT and requiring emphasis – others do not. It didn’t have a reason in doing it, went beyond the permitted minor emphasis, and I’m really really uninterested in having an emphasis war.

    I could start emphasizing how much I disapprove by removing the offenders to save my eyes. ]

    • Morrissey 10.1
      11 July 2011 at 1:44 pm

      It was only one line! I always make sure to avoid excess bold or excess capital letters. I understand what you’re saying, but I didn’t think one line was excessive.

      [lprent: Two single lines – your complete contribution to the comment in fact :twisted:. It is hard to figure out a point that it was being used for when it is the whole comment. You comment above is a lot better – the bold was an emphasis on your point (even if that was incorrect). ]

  11. big bruv 11
    11 July 2011 at 9:21 am

    So..how about them polls then?

    • Pascal's bookie 11.1
      11 July 2011 at 9:30 am

      Is Brash on 40 yet? 4 even?

      • Morrissey 11.1.1
        11 July 2011 at 9:35 am

        Is Brash on 40 yet? 4 even?

        Actually, it’s 1.7 per cent, and falling. Once again: that’s ONE POINT SEVEN.

      • felix 11.1.2
        11 July 2011 at 9:36 am

        0.4?

        • Pascal's bookie 11.1.2.1
          11 July 2011 at 9:46 am

          He’s heading that way. poor bruv. He had such high hopes. Turns out the country doesn’t like racist old misanthropes. Whocoodanode?

          Speaking of Brash Bruv, where do you stand in the great Brash v Ansell throwdown? Brash was for Ansell before he was against him, so you could go that route too, I suppose. Like you were for Hide before you were against him, IIRC.

  12. ianmac 12
    11 July 2011 at 9:29 am

    Don Brash this morning: “I can speak for most NZers that they don’t want Maorisation.”
    Don Brash this morning: “I can’t speak for the others in my Party about how they regard the current publicity.”

  13. Lanthanide 13
    11 July 2011 at 9:30 am

    On National Radio on Sunday morning they had a retrospective on the homosexual law reform, passed 25 years ago.

    Didn’t listen to much of it, but did catch a speech by John Banks MP saying it would be a sad day long remembered in New Zealand because of what was being passed, with a very dark cloud hanging over parliament. Seems like he couldn’t have been more wrong.

    Be nice if this little speech could be brought up around Epsom: 25 years ago John Banks said this, do you really want to be represented by a small-minded bigot from the past?

    • Tiger Mountain 13.1
      11 July 2011 at 11:57 am

      Banksie tried to chum up with gays during the supercity mayoral contest and it looked most unconvincing. Todays voters should know what a cockroach he is.

      Homosexual law reform was indeed a reform that worked and has lasted, not perfect but made life that bit more bearable and fair for part of our community. Anyone remember the straight supporters little pink HUG buttons (Heterosexuals Unafraid of Gays) and Blue Jeans Day which could be hilarious?

  14. uke 14
    11 July 2011 at 9:47 am

    The poor working conditions on NZ-chartered fishing trawlers is an ongoing disgrace to this country. Stuff reports on the latest saga here, but gives few details. Another article summarises the background and specific allegations:
     
    Slave labour conditions in NZ’s fishing industry
     
    If what this latter article states about the collaboration/indifference of Iwi company owners and the Maritime Union in perpetuating this situation is true, it is a sad day.

    • KJT 14.1
      11 July 2011 at 8:17 pm

      The maritime unions are not exactly happy about it, but as they no longer have the right to strike there is not much they can do about it.

      ITF and the maritime unions in NZ have done what they can for the welfare of the fishing crews.

      Unfortunately we have a Government who believes that all workers should have the same lack of rights.

      With 25000 unemployed youth in Northland, why are fishing boat owners allowed to exploit foreign crews, anyway?

  15. prism 15
    11 July 2011 at 11:40 am

    Intermittent signal July 2011/3
    Great sounding NZ research that should make a big difference in energy, finding non-food sources, and can reduce waste. Don’t know what the disadvantages are – I guess that there is some law that for every improvement there is one.
    http://www.lanzatech.co.nz/

    Hear interview on Radio nz – Can’t provide instant control, but your own work can get there in a few seconds.

    Details from RadioNZ 9 to Noon program.
    Feature Guest – Sean Simpson
    Sean Simpson is the co-founder, and head of the science team at Lanzatech – a privately owned, NZ-based company which has developed and patented a microbe that eats polluting gases and excretes ethanol. (30â€Č48″)
    Download: Ogg Vorbis MP3 (He makes some comments on the effects of our present tax system on forward-looking research and development in NZ, I think it’s called imputation.)

  16. pollywog 16
    11 July 2011 at 12:12 pm

    Seeing as how everyones labelling everyone a racist these days. Let’s have a debate about ‘race’ as it applies specifically to NZ ?

    First we’ll define the terms of reference, then we’ll compare racial characteristics by a number of indicators to determine whether in fact some ‘races’ are indeed superior/inferior to others.

    We’ll naturally include assimilated phenotypes, genetic markers, social norms, cultural values and ideals as indicators of any evolutionary oneupmanship with regards to adaptibility and natural selection/survival of the fittest.

    …and then based on the outcome we’ll determine which ‘race’, if any, has the right to determine the “one rule of law, irrespective of race by which we as NZers should all live by”. and whether promoting any such rule of law is indeed racist.

    yeah, nah…is that a radical idea whose time has come or are we still too chickenshit as a nation to truly confront our fears and prejudices ?

  17. Jim Nald 17
    11 July 2011 at 12:14 pm

    “NZ dollar strength depends on US: Key”
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10737756

    New Zealand’s future is grim.
    And we’re not even locked into a free trade with the US. Yet.
    Imagine how much freer we are now?

    And on free trade … how come the more free trade agreements we sign up to, the less free we become in controlling our own economy?

    How come it feels like we’re more like losers when we play this global game called free trade? What’s wrong with us?

  18. prism 18
    11 July 2011 at 1:16 pm

    Further to my comments on young women, careless boozing, irresponsibility, and reliance on men to have superior standards to their own:
    nz herald 11/7/2011

    A Timaru gynaecologist wants a campaign against promiscuity after encountering a shocking number of pregnant patients who cannot remember whom they had sex with.
    Dr Albert Makary, who has been in Timaru for 20 years, called on national leaders, sports stars, schools and the media at a Forum on the Family in Auckland yesterday to “stigmatise” both promiscuity and the binge drinking that usually preceded it.

    He cited a survey by a condom maker that said New Zealand women were the most promiscuous in the world, with 20.3 sexual partners on average. The world average was 7.3.
    Kiwi men were also above average with 16.8 partners. New Zealand was the only country where women had more sexual partners than men.

    “I get women coming in and saying, ‘Doctor, I can’t remember who I slept with yesterday.’
    “It is very, very frequent. I’m not talking about one or two or three or 1000 cases. I’m talking about thousands and thousands of cases a year [nationally].” What’s more, they’re proud of it.
    He said such promiscuity undermined stable life-long relationships.

    The symptoms were increasing violence, sexual assault, alcohol and drug-fuelled car accidents, a growing incidence of depression and the world’s highest rates of both chlamydia and youth suicide.

    • Jim Nald 18.1
      11 July 2011 at 1:19 pm

      Promiscuity?
      It takes two to tango? 🙂

      • Campbell Larsen 18.1.1
        11 July 2011 at 1:31 pm

        It only takes one fundamentalist to discover a whole lot of sinners

        • Vicky32 18.1.1.1
          11 July 2011 at 5:31 pm

          It only takes one fundamentalist to discover a whole lot of sinners

          I rather think you missed the point, Campbell. The reason these things have been called sins  in the first place, is because of the damage they do to relationships and to people. There are examples in my own family – my somewhat dim-witted nephew has a wife who is hell-bent on churning out baby after baby despite repeated bouts of post-natal depression, because her own family life was so f***ed up. The reason they married in the first place, I have been told is because she was preggers, and because she was “easy”. Result, 4 children under 5 years old, and my sister is going round the bend trying to support this dysfunctional family (financially and emotionally). They’re both under 25 years old.

          • Campbell Larsen 18.1.1.1.1
            11 July 2011 at 6:38 pm

            Hi Vicky, apologies for not being clearer. There are serious issues raised and I do not mean to make light of them. I do think that the articles could have done a better job of avoiding the potential reinforcement of negative stereotypes of woman and was wondering if the promiscuity debate was going to be used as part of a UFuture (or others) election campaign around family values.

            • Vicky32 18.1.1.1.1.1
              11 July 2011 at 6:56 pm

              and was wondering if the promiscuity debate was going to be used as part of a UFuture (or others) election campaign around family values.

              That’s always possible – but I would stick my neck out as far as to say that “family values” aren’t necessarily a bad thing! Saving young women from STDS, broken hearts and a broken family can only be a good thing, I’d have thought.
              As a woman (and back when I was a younger woman I felt the same way) I always felt a mixture of pity and revulsion towards promiscuous girls. (That applied to myself when I was one! 😀 )

              • Campbell Larsen …
                11 July 2011 at 7:36 pm

                Given that in some (but by no means all) cases there are underlying issues which promiscuity is but a symptom of don’t you think revulsion is a quite a negitive emotion/ tag which if normalized as a response is likely to cause further distress to the very people that you want to help?
                …Chaste does not imply moral – there are no doubt many ‘promiscuous’ people who would object to the assertion that they are somehow less caring or functional because of the way they express thier sexuality.

                • prism …
                  11 July 2011 at 10:55 pm

                  Campbell Larsen – This is a sticky mixture of sentimentality and political correctness which does not give the women involved the respect due to them as adults who need to find adult ways to cope with life.

                  • Campbell Larsen …
                    12 July 2011 at 10:12 am

                    Prism – ‘sentimental’ ‘PC’ and somehow disrespectful at the same time?
                    Easy up on the name calling tiger – I don’t think we disagree as much as you think – the issue is health, both individual and societal – the approach to any problems should also be health focused and not come from a faith based or religious perspective, or from claims to the moral high ground.

                    • prism …
                      12 July 2011 at 11:06 am

                      Campbell Larsen – My point was that there is a sticky trap for those trained in political correctness often through social work courses, which actually involves fudging the issues of those people supposedly being helped. The focus of attention may be to the difficulties they face – their disadvantaged position in society, bad parent role models, constant sexual emphasis in advertising even to the very young girl etc.

                      In the case of promiscuous females this would occur if their behaviour was not directly discussed, with an emphasis on their own agency in the unfortunate result. Understanding the societal pressures should not prevent helping the person to develop their own adult competency to handle those societal problems. That is what I mean by having respect – that is respect for their own abilities, understandings and strengths. Anything else is patronising and infantilising.

                    • McFlock …
                      12 July 2011 at 5:29 pm

                      well, seeing as we’re in the “pc gone mad” stage, why are you talking about female promiscuity and not male promiscuity?

                      Males get tracked down by IRD for 18 years of maintenance, have the emotional upheaval, and also find out that it really CAN fall off. And males are the ones who wear the major prophylactic against these issues.

                      But then of course, male “promiscuity” doesn’t seem to be the public health tragedy that female “promiscuity” is.
                       

                • Vicky32 …
                  12 July 2011 at 5:31 pm

                  … there are no doubt many ‘promiscuous’ people who would object to the assertion that they are somehow less caring or functional because of the way they express thier sexuality.

                  True, but these are not the girls referred to in the original source! The ones referred to are living pretty dysfunctional lives, and have  such bad relationships with alcohol, that they can’t have good relationships with guys.

                  • McFlock …
                    12 July 2011 at 6:16 pm

                    Really? Maybe they don’t want a “good relationship” with one guy at that stage of their life?

                    Binge drinking is a major issue, but “promiscuity” is a judgement.

                    • R …
                      12 July 2011 at 10:54 pm

                      ‘The symptoms were increasing violence, sexual assault, alcohol and drug-fuelled car accidents, a growing incidence of depression and the world’s highest rates of both chlamydia and youth suicide.’

                      Hm, most of which were instigated by said young [drunk at time of conception] women.

                      Scarlet As, people? Of course this problem is young women’s fault. Nothing to do with the rest of us.

      • prism 18.1.2
        11 July 2011 at 10:42 pm

        Jim Nald Promiscuity? It takes two to tango?
        The excerpt covers the two sexes and their promiscuity. (Doesn’t mention anything about the third), ie

        He cited a survey by a condom maker that said New Zealand women were the most promiscuous in the world, with 20.3 sexual partners on average. The world average was 7.3.
        Kiwi men were also above average with 16.8 partners. New Zealand was the only country where women had more sexual partners than men.

        Also from CV’s link – “She said times have changed so much that the fear of getting pregnant or catching a sexually transmitted disease were no longer seen as reasons for not having sex.

        “We don’t even call them sexually transmitted diseases anymore, we’ve changed that to infections which kind of downgrades it and makes it not as serious as they can be.”

      • R 18.1.3
        12 July 2011 at 10:56 pm

        bingo, thanks JN

    • Colonial Viper 18.2
      11 July 2011 at 1:25 pm

      This is related as well

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10737698

      Drinking too much was another reason why some women, especially very young women, were sleeping with so many people.

      “We need a campaign about women keeping themselves safe,” she said.

    • Vicky32 18.3
      11 July 2011 at 5:20 pm

      A Timaru gynaecologist wants a campaign against promiscuity after encountering a shocking number of pregnant patients who cannot remember whom they had sex with.

      My giddy aunt! No one can possibly think that’s a good thing can they? Aside from anything else, if they keep the child, what will they tell her when she is 5 and asks “who’s my Daddy, Mum, and why don’t we ever see him?” (She/he will ask, you can depend on that…)

      • McFlock 18.3.1
        11 July 2011 at 8:34 pm

        Agreed.
        We need to distribute more condoms and increase the availability of abortions and other family planning services.
        Oh, is that not what you meant?

        • Vicky32 18.3.1.1
          12 July 2011 at 5:42 pm

          Agreed.
          We need to distribute more condoms and increase the availability of abortions and other family planning services.

          Yeah, that’ll help! Not! The issue as I see it, is the emotional harm done to both boys and girls, by a pattern of behaviour that causes huge problems for them and the children they have who escape being slaughtered! (Abortion also causes huge emotional problems especially if the girl allows herself to be pressured into it, either by her parents or the boy’s..) I’ve seen this in my own family.
          When my son went to his school ball (he went only once, for the experience, as she and his friends were the designated nerds, therefore not interested.) He was both amused and embarassed to be issued condoms and pamphlets about STIs and what we used to call ‘the clap clinic’, with his ball tickets. He had no intention of either getting trolleyed or having sex that or any othert night.
          If instead of being issued condoms and even more sex ed., (by year 11 they will have years of it years of it), girls and boys were taught more about the benefits of further education, there’d be far fewer teen pregnancies to abort…

          • McFlock 18.3.1.1.1
            12 July 2011 at 6:14 pm

            Right – because tertiary education really lowers the libido!

            Basically, from a public health perspective, getting 17-24y.o. who are all piled into a concentrated area to not shag each other is pushing shit uphill. The best you can do is throw rubbers at anyone and everyone so that they’re available when the impulse strikes, and they don’t have to overcome embarrassment to buy a french tickler themselves. “Promise rings” and other abstinence bs just plain doesn’t work, and they end up having unprotected sex (or unprotected anal sex on the grounds that it “doesn’t count”) and that leads to all sorts of bad stuff.

            Drinking is another matter – price controls and licensing restrictions (not to mention better tools to enforce the current law) should take the edge off the worst of the binge drinking culture.
             

            • Vicky32 18.3.1.1.1.1
              12 July 2011 at 6:58 pm

              Right – because tertiary education really lowers the libido!
              Basically, from a public health perspective, getting 17-24y.o. who are all piled into a concentrated area to not shag each other is pushing shit uphill. The best you can do is throw rubbers at anyone and everyone so that they’re available when the impulse strikes, and they don’t have to overcome embarrassment to buy a french tickler themselves. ”Promise rings” and other abstinence bs just plain doesn’t work, and they end up having unprotected sex (or unprotected anal sex on the grounds that it “doesn’t count”) and that leads to all sorts of bad stuff.

              I never said it lowers the libido. But what it does do, is give these people a sense of having a future that they don’t want to risk. Do you know any 17-24 year olds? My son and his friends didn’t shag their way through university, neither did I when it was my turn. You seem to be very cynical about students. The ones who drank and shagged their way through uni rather than studying, are the ones who graduate (or not) and instead of being doctors, cardiac nurses (as my son now is) or lawyers, work in insurance companies, regretting their lost opportunities.
              Your cynicism shows itself in the unsupported assertion that “”Promise rings” and other abstinence bs just plain doesn’t work, and they end up having unprotected sex (or unprotected anal sex on the grounds that it “doesn’t count”) and that leads to all sorts of bad stuff.” Your assertion is widely believed but it’s not true. People are perfectly capable of abstinence if they feel they have a reason, and I mean abstinence from sex and also from binge drinking! Sex is not a physiological necessity, no one dies from the absence of it, Shortland Street and other NZ TV drama notwithstanding. You seem to have a very low opinion of human nature, and you remind me of that satirical song by the Bloodhound Gang which my abstinent son used to quote: “You and me, baby/We ain’t nothing but mammals/So let’s do it like they do/On the Discovery channel”. Possibly you didn’t even get that it was satirical?
              Years ago, I read a book about adoption, and the girls who in the 60s and early 70s, who were pressured into giving up their babies. The author (whose name escapes me right now) talked about the fact that the girls who devoted themselves to getting an education instead of an STI were on the whole much happier.
              You’re also wronger than a professor of wrong at Oxford University that these people don’t want relationships, they just want to shag. That attitude is one I’ve heard put forward by the middle aged and older male, not by young women or young men. 17-24 year olds are terribly hung up on romance. Every time a teenage girl (or boy) has sex with a new partner she’s secretly hoping he might be “the one”. Trust me on this – my son is 24, and I remember my 17-24 years far more vividly than I ought to!
               
               

              • RedLogix …
                12 July 2011 at 7:10 pm

                “You and me, baby/We ain’t nothing but mammals/So let’s do it like they do/On the Discovery channel”.

                Actually apart from our nearest genetic cousins the bonobos and chimps, most mammals have sex quite at quite limited seasons or stages of their lives. Many species will get by quite well with only several dozen acts of intercourse in their entire lives. Contrast that to the many thousands of times we are capable of engaging in it more or less anytime any place…with anyone… if we so desire.

                So actually comparing us to animals isn’t right… they are usually far more restrained than us.

              • Pascal's bookie …
                12 July 2011 at 7:23 pm

                That Bloodhound Gang Song certainly is satirical.

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xat1GVnl8-k

                As is the song “Hell Yeah” from the same album, “Hooray for boobies”.

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4JDYD_0-mM

                I always figured the target for the satire was the same in both songs. But I’d love to be corrected if I’m wrong.

              • McFlock …
                12 July 2011 at 8:40 pm

                The abstinence debate has been well-travelled especially regarding the states and Africa. There is a reason that e.g. the Catholic missionaries went from Abstinence-only to ABC (abstinence – but if doing it, use a condom). Heck, armies have been trying to stop soldiers getting stds for centuries, and success only started with antibiotics and distribution of condoms. And, on occasion, regulated military brothels.

                I worked in a university providing various services to students for many years. It might be cynical, but I think it’s realistic for at least 25% of the tertiary population, if not treble that (according to various NZ studies in the area). Not all students have sex at university, but quite a few do. Not all of those who have sex have it for reasons that are healthy, and not all who have sex practise safe sex. It’s the last two that are problems.

                Oh, and your idea that everytime a teenager has sex they think s/he’s “the one”? Don’t make me laugh – and that goes for quite a few women as well as men.

          • RedLogix 18.3.1.1.2
            12 July 2011 at 7:00 pm

            Human beings are the most extraordinarily hyper-sexual creature evolution has ever produced. Yet the amazing thing really is how few partners most people have, compared with our physical capacity to have sex. Most people actually make pretty restrained choices around sex the vast majority of the time…so let’s not get too morally panicky here.

            The real issue I believe, and lots of others have said this, is the prevalence of alochol abuse. And while both genders are responsible for their behaviour, ultimately it’s the dissolving of inhibitions that results in girls drunk in charge of their pussy.. and then having to wear the consequences.

            And that is what has changed in the last decade or so. Now I do recall sometime in the 70’s ‘chaperoning’ a good friend of mine (later we almost married… but that’s another story) around a pub crawl to celebrate the end of the uni year. She held together remarkably well almost to the end, and I eventually got her home safe and sound… and unfucked as agreed. But it was pretty much a one off, we never made a habit of that sort of thing.

            But these days the sheer numbers of scantily clad young women staggering about in public, utterly muntered is what has changed. The unplanned, unsafe sex is the consequence of this unsafe, out-of-control alcohol abuse. It’s the drinking that’s the root cause here; address that.

    • rosy 18.4
      12 July 2011 at 8:29 pm

      not all is as it seems that median vs average problem seems to be behind the high rates of sexual activity.

      The long-running Otago multi-disciplinary study, which has tracked just over 1000 people since they were born in Dunedin in 1973, has found that half of the men had 10 or fewer sexual partners by age 32, and half the women had eight or fewer partners.

      But a small group of highly active men and women pushed up the average number of sexual partners by age 32 – the total of all sexual partners divided by the number of people surveyed – to 20.8 for men and 13.3 for women.

      Those figures are comparable, although gender-reversed, with a survey of 26 nations by a condom maker that found Kiwi men had an average of 16.8 partners and Kiwi women an average of 20.4 partners. The women’s figure was the highest in the world.

      I blame the booze. Oh and maybe women here are more accurate in their counting or more likely to treat the survey as a joke – a cultural difference?

  19. Morrissey 19
    11 July 2011 at 1:37 pm

    Brave Little Israel fights off Non-Violent Peace Protestors
    Radio New Zealand National “World Watch”, 12.45 p.m. Monday 11 July 2011

    Israel’s paranoid and increasingly insane political leaders are worried—they’re certainly working hard to stop dissenters focusing international attention on the illegal blockade of Gaza. More than 30 human rights and peace protestors from many countries, after being prevented from sailing from Athens, have now tried to enter Jerusalem’s Ben-Gurion Airport, but have again been blocked by Israeli machinations.

    To cover this, Radio New Zealand National chose to run a ridiculously biased, cynical Deutsche-Welle “report” by the notorious Irris Makler. After approvingly outlining how the Israelis had inveigled several airlines, including Lufthansa, to actually do their dirty work for them, Makler said this: “Some Canadian pilgrims, however, found that it’s easy to get into Israel if you come in with a less aggressive agenda.”

    Excuse me? Protesting against an illegal blockade and against the continual harassment, brutalization and killing of Gaza’s population is an “aggressive agenda”, now? Even in the Looking Glass world of Israeli state propaganda, that statement is meshuga and Ś ŚÖ·ŚšŚ™Ś©.

    But Makler was not finished. “A group of Israeli families of suicide bomb victims,” she sneered, “wants to meet with the protestors—if they get through.”

    In spite of the dire and depressing quality of this travesty of journalism, it’s still interesting for what it reveals about the state of Israeli apologetics. People like Irris Makler really have only two weapons: defamation and diversion. Note how, after working hard at defaming the protestors with their “aggressive agenda” of peaceful protest, Irris Makler also played the diversion card—avoid the real and continuing oppression of Gaza, and talk about something else, in this case, suicide bombings which happened more than a decade ago.

    I think a report as flagrantly dishonest as this one could be a case for an official complaint to Radio New Zealand, as well as Deutsch-Welle. What do others think?

    • grumpy 19.1
      11 July 2011 at 3:33 pm

      I think you need a good little lie down……….

    • Deborah Kean 19.2
      11 July 2011 at 5:56 pm

      I think a report as flagrantly dishonest as this one could be a case for an official complaint to Radio New Zealand, as well as Deutsch-Welle. What do others think?

      I agree absolutely!
      P.S., I am trying to post this comment and keep getting an error message, fill in name & email yet I am logged in. Was gibt? 3rd try… 5th try and for some insane reason I’ve been logged out. What on earth is wrong?

      • Draco T Bastard 19.2.1
        11 July 2011 at 7:31 pm

        The login actually has a time limit that does not renew every time you come to the site. Unfortunately it can strike while you’re reading a thread so, even though the page says that you’re logged in, you’re actually logged out. You have to refresh the page and log in again.

        • lprent 19.2.1.1
          11 July 2011 at 9:56 pm

          Good description. I looked at it in 2009 and decided that there was bugger all that I could do to improve it. I didn’t want to play with the login cookie system. I should have another peek at it and see if they opened up the convoluted login code.

        • Vicky32 19.2.1.2
          12 July 2011 at 5:46 pm

          Thanks DtB and lprent for the explanation… It’s great! 🙂

  20. prism 20
    11 July 2011 at 3:37 pm

    Morrissey – Agree. I hope for good stuff from National Radio. How much are they paying Makler for this partisan slop?

  21. ianupnorth 21
    11 July 2011 at 4:15 pm

    Warren Buffett has just given away 99% of his US$1.87 billion fortune
    http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/81436,business,warren-buffett-gives-away-178bn-shares
     
    Therefore not all the mega rich are twats; also he has some interesting views on tax
     
    http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/71836,business,tax-the-rich-says-billionaire-warren-buffett-

    • Colonial Viper 21.1
      11 July 2011 at 6:42 pm

      Warren Buffet knows that the rich have waged class war upon the poor for years; he said it publicly.

      Edit – wait, he gave most of that money to Bill Gates???? Who in return seems to be giving most of that money to already well paid professionals at big universities and pharma companies??? If I may politely say, wtf.

  22. Pascal's bookie 22
    11 July 2011 at 6:44 pm

    Don Brash Vs Pita Sharples on Native Affairs tonight. 830 Māori TV. .

  23. jackal 23
    11 July 2011 at 8:05 pm

    National Contributes to Africa’s Misery

    Once again we’re witness to the horrendous images of starving people arriving at refugee camps in east Africa, with nearly 12 million people facing starvation across Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia…

    • Draco T Bastard 23.1
      11 July 2011 at 10:14 pm

      This is one of those problems where the more we spend the worse the problem gets. Ensuring that a group of people don’t starve to death just ensures that their children probably will because we haven’t addressed the underlying problem of over population. As long as we don’t address that these things will just keep getting worse.

      The cronyism you note is par for the course for National.

      • jackal 23.1.1
        11 July 2011 at 11:42 pm

        It’s pretty despicable to cut foreign aid at a time when it’s most needed. Most of what National does I’m reasonably indifferent to, but this really pisses me off! National really are a bunch of heartless old bastards!

        It’s an issue that isn’t going to go away anytime soon. Some of the problem lies with administration costs whereby a lot of the aid funds don’t get to where they are required. Controlling distribution lines would also help to ensure aid got to where it is most needed.

        Another issue is that many areas affected by drought don’t have the means to irrigate or produce seed to grow their own crops, which is usually the underlying issue to starvation. Supporting farmers in areas of food insecurity through such measures as free or subsidized fertilizers and seeds increases food harvest and reduces food prices.

        Crop failure will become more prevalent with the increased effects of climate change. That could be a serious issue considering the UN recently said food production will need to double by 2050 to meet demand.

        Overpopulation is a tricky one. Education is probably the best remedy there. The more education the less incidence of starvation or implementation of more draconian policies.

        The earth can in fact sustain many more humans with proper wealth distribution and measures to increase food production such as proper crop selection. Restricting the use of genetically engineered seeds, helping countries develop proper irrigation systems and education goes a long way to developing self reliance.

        It’s not all bad news though. The share of malnourished and starving people in the world has been more or less continually decreasing for at least several centuries. This is due to an increasing supply of food and to overall gains in economic efficiency.

        Share of undernourished people in the developing world

        1970 1980 1990 2005 2007 2009
        37 % 28 % 20 % 16 % 17 % 16 %

        What peak oil is going to do to that trend is another question.

        • freedom 23.1.1.1
          12 July 2011 at 12:07 am

          we can add single generation seeds onto the list of current threats to global food production. It is one that will continue to become more prominent as the decades roll on. They are in the EcoSystem. What this will eventually do to the Environment, no-one can honestly know.

        • Colonial Viper 23.1.1.2
          12 July 2011 at 12:10 am

          What peak oil is going to do to that trend is another question.

          There’s definitely no question as to what peak oil will do to that trend.

          What peak oil does to the trend in the Developed World should also be asked.

  24. prism 24
    12 July 2011 at 9:10 pm

    Re -McFlock 

    12 July 2011 at 5:29 pm
    I agree about promiscuity of both sexes. But what appears to have happened is a race to the bottom with women trying to echo mens attitudes, or what they imagine these are.

    Women are likely to come off worse in this situation, diseases, unwanted pregnancies, interruption of their education which was supposed to set them up for an adult life. They might end up sterile because of chlamydia or despising sex which would affect future close loving relationships.

    • McFlock 24.1
      12 July 2011 at 9:33 pm

      As opposed to men who end up viewing women as strictly a vagina? Or the couple who got married as virgins and it turned out one party was hoping that heterosexual sex would get rid of their inclinations? Or the teen who believed that you couldn’t get pregnant the first time you did it? Or the guy who doesn’t take his warty leaking appendage to the doctor until it’s far to late? Or etc etc etc.
      Some people like and can handle higher volume sex than others, without it being the result of (or resulting in) some sort of emotional disorder – everyone is different.  This is not a problem. As long as people are doing it for reasons they recognise and are at home with is fine. Not having the good sense to roll a johnny on the wee chap (or, for that matter, use dental dams, spermicide, sponges, caps, rubber gloves and so on) IS a problem.