Open mike 11/08/2011

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, August 11th, 2011 - 132 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…

132 comments on “Open mike 11/08/2011 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Bored 1
    11 August 2011 at 6:39 am

    With the US economy imploding some humour which is doing the rounds….

    US RECESSION
    The recession has hit everybody really hard…
    My neighbor got a pre-declined credit card in the mail
    CEO’s are now playing miniature golf.

    Exxon-Mobil laid off 25 Congressmen.
    I saw a Mormon with only one wife.
    If the bank returns your check marked “Insufficient Funds,” you call
    them and ask if they meant you or them.
    McDonald’s is selling the 1/4 ouncer.

    Angelina Jolie adopted a child from America.
    Parents in Beverly Hills fired their nannies and learned their children’s
    names.
    My cousin had an exorcism but couldn’t afford to pay for it, and they
    re-possessed her!
    A truckload of Americans was caught sneaking into Mexico.
    A picture is now only worth 200 words.
    When Bill and Hillary travel together, they now have to share a room.
    The Treasure Island casino in Las Vegas is now managed by Somali pirates.

  2. Pete George 2
    11 August 2011 at 7:20 am

    Are electorates past their use by date? MSM can’t be bothered with most of them. Many MPs just use them to get publicity for party votes. Is it really time to ditch the electorates?

    Elecorate MP’s redundant, party lists rule?

    Or is it media and punditry convenience? A lot of people still complain that list MPs don’t have a proper mandate and see the party list as a major weakness of MMP.

    • felix 2.1
      11 August 2011 at 8:09 am

      Hi Pete. Got any links for me yet or has it all gone down the memory hole again?

      • Pete George 2.1.1
        11 August 2011 at 8:28 am

        No, it’s gone into the “why the hell bother” basket.

          • mickysavage 2.1.1.1.1
            11 August 2011 at 8:51 am

            What happened there?  I meant to say
             
            Don’t you mean the “I don’t have the links” basket?

            • Pete George 2.1.1.1.1.1
              11 August 2011 at 8:55 am

              You’ll know all about that one. Have you backed up your accusations? Like CT, Beehive? Try setting an example and newer posters here might follow it. How often does felix substantiate his insinuations? Being “honest” doesn’t seem to be the done thing here, stalking is.

              Do you have anything to say about the topic I raised? I think that’s a significant democratic issue. Or are you just trolling again?

              • felix …
                11 August 2011 at 9:03 am

                Oh dear, I’m not sure you realise what you just admitted to.

                If my standards are so woeful then why are you using them as the benchmark for your own behaviour?

                Surely you’re better that that, Pete.

              • mickysavage …
                11 August 2011 at 9:04 am

                I think that’s a significant democratic issue
                 
                I was not going to comment on your proposal because it was really, really silly.  You seem to be suggesting we only have list MPs.  Also I know all of the Auckland Labour electorate MPs quite well and what you say is a reality free insult to them.  They all work their electorates really hard.  And there are List MPs who work hard at electorate issues.
                 
                Your comment was such a reality free one I was going to ignore it.
                 
                But it looks like you are trying to avoid responding to Felix’s request for the links.  Where are they Pete Squirrel?
                 

                • Pete George …
                  11 August 2011 at 9:13 am

                  You seem to be ignoring what I actually said and have jumped to incorrect conclusions, again. If you had any clue about what I prefer of electorates you wouldn’t have jumped straight into troll mode.

                  See what Bryce Edwards says on it:

                  http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2011/08/fake-electorate-candidates.html

                  • felix …
                    11 August 2011 at 9:27 am

                    Slow down Pete, let’s clear up the discussion already underway before you started this new one. Links, please.

                  • mickysavage …
                    11 August 2011 at 9:27 am

                    <i>You seem to be ignoring what I actually said and have jumped to incorrect conclusions, again.</i>
                     
                    I was actually having trouble understanding what you said.  I avoided your link because I did not want to reward link whoring.
                     
                    You previously  said:
                     
                    <i>Are electorates past their use by date? MSM can’t be bothered with most of them. Many MPs just use them to get publicity for party votes. Is it really time to ditch the electorates?</i>
                     
                    I took offence at this because you are not acknowledging that many electorate MPs work damn hard.  Your comment obviously shows you have not the faintest idea what they do.
                     
                    You then jumped into agressive mode to avoid Felix’s request for promised links.  Why don’t you provide the links to Felix?
                     

                    • Lanthanide …
                      11 August 2011 at 9:59 am

                      Politically, in parliament, electorate MPs don’t really offer much. Conscience votes, when an MP should theoretically reflect their constituency, aren’t that common.

                      But MPs in electorates are a go-to point for anyone who is being screwed around by The System. This is a vital role that needs to be filled. Electorate MPs are the best way to do it.

                      If you’re upset with the party list letting people into parliament through a backdoor, and some electorate MPs slacking off and not doing as much as they should, the solution isn’t to get rid of electorate MPs.

                      One thing that could work is a suggestion I’ve made a few times here: make any incumbent MP who holds an electorate seat ineligible for placement on the party list. This would ensure that those MPs fully represent their electorate, because if they don’t, they’re gone. It would allow the public to vote bad MPs out of parliament, and really give some different weight and dynamics to electorate seats and the party list, rather than the peculiar ‘two shades of grey’ system we have now.

                    • Reality Bytes …
                      11 August 2011 at 9:01 pm

                      Interesting Idea Lanthanide. Personally I’d just extend it to any candidate that gets in the top 3 still has a chance to come in on the list. Afterall a close second or even a close third in a tight race, would still be a candidate a lot of people support, so perhaps deserves to be considered.

                      Or make it a percentage thing, any candidate that gets over 23% perhaps of the vote is still eligible to be on the party list. Then if there’s a 25, 23.9, 23.8, 23.7, 2.4 scenario, the fourth candidate which is only a fraction off the elected candidate still gets a chance.

                      Or perhaps some other formula, like just getting more than 5% of the vote?

                      Otherwise this would be the end of the green party as we know it and several others!

                      Oh yeah and what would happen to a party that has received say 10% of the overall party votes but has no eligible members due to missing out on these rules??

                      An interesting idea tho! Just needs a bit of fine tuning imo. Your current format is pretty much just FPP.

                      Perhaps… Make it that the MMP list order is determined by the ranking of %age votes that the candidates get! That would make sense imo!

        • felix 2.1.1.2
          11 August 2011 at 8:57 am

          Well, because if you were honest you’d back up what you say.

          How are you going to win votes if your word can’t be counted on from one day to the next?

        • felix 2.1.1.3
          11 August 2011 at 9:25 am

          You know it’s a funny thing Pete.

          Usually when you run away from a discussion you say you can’t be expected to keep up with all the threads you start. And fair enough I suppose, you do start a lot of them.

          But in this instance no-one’s expecting you to keep up. You’ve been gone for a few days so I’ve waited patiently for your return so you can pick up where you left off.

          Yet still you take no responsibility for what you wrote previously, saying you “can’t be bothered” with it.

          Is there any situation in which a person can expect you to stand by what you say, Pete? Your words don’t evaporate when you close the browser, you know.

          • Pete George 2.1.1.3.1
            11 August 2011 at 9:41 am

            I’m not “running away”. I choose not to be continually stalked by trolls and then blamed for the blog being cluttered up with petty and precious off-topic attacks.

            • felix 2.1.1.3.1.1
              11 August 2011 at 9:44 am

              No, you start conversations and then pretend they never happened when you want to start a new one.

              Links please.

              • Ianupnorth …
                11 August 2011 at 3:54 pm

                He is Gosman mk2

                • Lanthanide …
                  11 August 2011 at 5:01 pm

                  Gosman usually has a point to make, even if it appears to be from another universe.

                  Pete usually doesn’t say anything, just waffles on. A lot of the time I honestly can’t follow what he’s talking about, so don’t usually reply to him.

        • mik e 2.1.1.4
          11 August 2011 at 5:39 pm

          PG it was the same under FPP it was worse half the members of parliament slept or were drunk while in the debating chamber. Did bugger all for their constituents usually fobbed them off .Now with mmp we have a choice off several MPs so it keeps them on their toes.Its very hard to cover up scandals nowadays with the many different parties around all chasing the voter.

  3. mickysavage 3
    11 August 2011 at 7:27 am

    Riots in England, stock exchanges are crashing throughout the world and France and Germany are now in trouble.  In the US the political system is clearly not fit for purpose.

    And in New Zealand Adidas has cancelled its black is beautiful party.

    Its PR have realized that they cannot spin the charging of something costing ten bucks to manufacture with an exorbitant $220 charge for locals.

    The end of the world is nigh … 

    • Bored 3.1
      11 August 2011 at 9:18 am

      http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/11/business/daily-stock-market-activity.html?_r=1&hp

      Nice summary MS….its going down, the slippery slide continues as the deck chairs are re arranged on the Titanic.

      • mickysavage 3.1.1
        11 August 2011 at 10:52 am

        Actually the more I think of it Bored the more I think that the events are linked.  Adidas has effectively commandeered our community intellectual property (the All Blacks) and made them into a money maker for their share holders.  They then go to the third world and use slave labour to manufacture jerseys with significance for locals for $10 or so, import them, and then set this astronomically high price.  We are paying for what was communally owned culture.

        They then use the profits to fund the elite (All Blacks themselves), and the rest goes to their shareholders.

        And we are bombarded with images of their products and told that we have to buy.  And for ordinary people particularly unemployed young this has become impossible.

        So they suddenly realise they cannot afford them and the cultural behavioral norms get shattered and then it all breaks down.  I am not surprised that the looters have been going for TVs and branded clothing.

        We need to seriously change things and get our heads around this. 

        • Bored 3.1.1.1
          11 August 2011 at 11:39 am

          Yeah, I find it amusing how people pigeon hole events and claim that they are unrelated. Unintended consequences abound. Everything is linked….you then get twerps saying riots are unrelated to poverty, and the poverty is unrelated to the top echelon having all the cash….the denial is immense. Creaming the top off of the elites ill gotten cash are their symbiotic parasites, the Denial Industry (spindoctors, MSM, and most importantly “Brand” marketers). And we “buy” it…….

          • Pete George 3.1.1.1.1
            11 August 2011 at 11:49 am

            And we “buy” it…….

            Yes, they keep buying, and buying, and buying. Label clothes. Label food. Label entertainment. And giving adidas more publicity is buying into it all.

            We can choose to ignore Brand” marketers if we want to. I never buy sports clothing, I’m not going to pay a huge premium and be an ongoing “free” advertising billboard. It seems nuts, but there’s a lot of people that freely spend money, to be used by the brands twice.

            • wtl 3.1.1.1.1.1
              11 August 2011 at 11:59 am

              We can choose to ignore Brand” marketers if we want to.

              Indeed it is possible to avoid falling into the consumerism ‘trap’, if you are intelligent and mindful enough about your own behaviour. Unfortunately, advertisers make good use of what is known about human psychology to circumvent rational thinking when it comes to this kind of thing. Unsurprisingly, the result is that many people are convinced that they ‘need’ to have all these things. I am very hesistant to put all the blame on the individuals themselves. Instead, I see it as a societal problem – why do we allow large scale psychological manipulation in this way?

              • mickysavage …
                11 August 2011 at 12:09 pm

                The trouble with our system is that it will fall apart if we do not work harder and harder to buy more and more shiny things that have fancy brandy things on them.
                 
                While engaged in this merry go round we have to consume more and more of our earth’s resources.  And we have to jetson some humans on the way.
                 
                Of course anyone suggesting that this cannot continue are branded as being crazy.

              • prism …
                11 August 2011 at 2:35 pm

                @wtl I bet marketers know more about Pete G’s thinking than he knows himself. Perfect manipulable material to sell some product that is aimed at his category on the values chart. And we all have a place there too.

              • Colonial Viper …
                11 August 2011 at 9:05 pm

                It is NOT possible to resist this all pervasive marketing psychological manipulation 100%. A jingle plays in the background and you instantly recognise McDonalds or Coke or whatever.

                To pretend – like most people do – that you are smarter/better/more resistant/more independent than most is part of the illusion.

                IE “I would never fall for something like that”, etc. Every damn fool thinks that, to the very last one.

                People don’t try and escape from prison if they think that they are free.

        • freedom 3.1.1.2
          11 August 2011 at 10:16 pm

          a lot of people made noise about this very threat to the nature of a supporter’s allegiance when Adidas signed on. Some might remember for the 100 year celebrations there was a large banner image where Adidas appropriated the entire history of the All Blacks in one foul swoop. A brilliant arrogant and soul less piece of marketing that showed exactly what Adidas had in mind.

          an agreement with Adidas was foretold when the game went professional anyway. their longstanding relationship with the IRB would have had it all tied up years before the ink was signed at the NZRU.. it never has been the same gane since, some good rugger but it’s all so $$$$ focused

          ( I have spent fifteen minutes trying to source an image of it but i guess that as it was a limited edition print they have locked it down pretty tight. )

    • prism 3.2
      11 August 2011 at 2:32 pm

      @ms The $10 is for the making of the tops/jackets. I thought I heard that Adidas has taken NZ off some internet trading list presumably to stop people using the free market to get better prices than those being charged by a monopoly jackup.

      • Colonial Viper 3.2.1
        11 August 2011 at 9:09 pm

        But I thought all corporates loved the free market, unhindered globalised trade? 🙄

  4. Gareth 4
    11 August 2011 at 7:34 am

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/5425894/Te-Papa-manager-avoids-assault-conviction

    Just another example of the inequalities in our justice system which seek to protect the privledged…

    • Peter Rabbit 4.1
      11 August 2011 at 8:09 am

      Unfortunately Gareth after spending several days at Manukau District Court last month observing various cases I don’t think this one demonstrates inequalities within the legal system but rather the complete lack of justice that exists within it.

      I hope that that staff and supporters of Te Papa make it clear to its management how inappropriate it is to have this person representing it overseas in any sort of official capacity.

      • Gareth 4.1.1
        11 August 2011 at 9:05 am

        As in people that have admitted assualt/domestic abuse are often discharged without conviction? Or they are convicted but given minor sentences?

    • freedom 4.2
      11 August 2011 at 10:40 am

      sorry Gareth, missed your post somehow when i also posted that below.

  5. Rodel 5
    11 August 2011 at 7:56 am

    Nice to see our P.M. getting involved in the All Black -Adidas jersey debate.

    As Barak Obama said to Donald Trump…”That’s the kind of decision that would keep me awake all night.”

  6. freedom 6
    11 August 2011 at 9:46 am

    have to love the British PM
    standing up tall
    talking of how ‘actions have consequences’
    and ‘people think their rights outweigh their responsibilties’

    when will those same words be directed towards the bankers, hedge fund managers, and every other thief that swagger through our streets, secure in the knowledge their riots not only go unpunished, they are usually rewarded with looser laws and easier access to more booty

    • Puddleglum 6.1
      11 August 2011 at 10:10 am

      Seamus Milne pulls the discussion together on the London riots quite well here.

      I don’t always go along with his analyses but he’s hit a number of nails on the head this time.

      • freedom 6.1.1
        11 August 2011 at 10:35 am

        especially this one
        ‘There is now a danger that rioting might feed into ethnic conflict.
        it has already begun with three deaths last night that have suspcicons of racial undertones that supercede the riot activity. In England racial reactionaries will not be a pretty sight if it develops any more intensity.

        There are many racial divides in England although much of the day to day seperatist activity is purely on cultural lines. The hard-nosed rascists in England are predominately of anglosaxon heritage and on the whole, have a level of thuggery that is beyond anyone’s ability to communicate with.

        We have an opportunity here, Society is showing its best and its worst and we should all pay attention.
        This is not the response to an act of terrorism, a war or a natural disaster. This is the result of complacency and double standards.

        On a positive note, for every kid that has smashed a window there seems to be a dozen ready to clean it up. That at least is some consolation that our future still has a chance.

    • prism 6.2
      11 August 2011 at 2:37 pm

      @freedom 9.46am – Just what I was thinking.

  7. randal 7
    11 August 2011 at 10:13 am

    so then what about a massive depopulation in 2017?

  8. freedom 8
    11 August 2011 at 10:16 am

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/5425657/Te-Papa-manager-avoids-assault-conviction

    plead guilty, claim priviledge, get off

    ‘affect his mana’? what about the mana of our National Museum which is now dragged into the
    quagmire of association with this act. A man with a serious job and according to the report, an arguably even more serious problem, gets released without conviction. The surface of this event is saturated by that blinding glare from the idol we dare not damage, alcohol.

    Many readers would know elders of local Iwi who have fallen foul of alcohol and committed similar acts yet i do not recall seeing their mana used as a reason to discharge without conviction. There is a disturbing undercurrent in our justice system that is eroding the riverbed and the change in course this is presenting seems to be cutting through the fair fields and destroying the pathways of impartial judgement.

    Booze is the single biggest factor when domestic pressure becomes domestic violence

    There are not many options but perhaps we could start with prosecuting the guilty.

    • Bored 8.1
      11 August 2011 at 11:04 am

      Too right, we pay taxes to pay this guys slalry, plus keep the Courts running…..it pisses me off.

  9. ored 9
    11 August 2011 at 10:32 am

    Nepotism alive in well in NZ, Jokey Hen appoints another incompetent to a big bucks position….
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/5427907/Prendergast-to-head-tourism-board

  10. Bored 10
    11 August 2011 at 10:47 am

    And some more absolute bollocks from the Courts….read this for PC crap and absolute disdain for the victim.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/5425657/Te-Papa-manager-avoids-assault-conviction

    Osborne’s lawyer, Chris Pointer, said a conviction for domestic assault could prevent his client from entering some countries as part of his museum work. “This will have a … severe effect on Mr Osborne’s ability to do his job.”

    A conviction would also “severely impact on his mana”.

    Bollocks, if he were a Honky like me…….

  11. weka 11
    11 August 2011 at 12:44 pm

    The search function appears to be disabled – nothing is showing in results since 31 July. Does Lyn or anyone know about that?

    [lprent: Damn. I do now. Means that the cron job on the new server isn’t running. I will fix tonight. Thanks. ]

  12. Kevin Welsh 12
    11 August 2011 at 2:33 pm

    Imagine for a minute…

    You have $100 to invest. Your bank says: if you invest with us, we will give you 9% interest at the end of the year. Great, you say, I’m in.

    11 Months down the track the bank comes back to you and says, sorry, been a bit of a fuck-up. We can only give you 9% on $70 but you will have to wait another couple of years for it, and one day in the future we may be able to give you back your other $30.

    How impressed would you be?

    Do things like this actually happen?

    Weeeeeell, yes they do!

    Another group of suckers (investors) take a bath

    The poor bastards who bought bonds in Bluestar Group (Printing – Trans-Tasman) effectively kissed goodbye to their collective $140 Million yesterday by agreeing to a bank demand for restructure which sees overdue interest payments on $67 Million of the investment pushed out til 2013 and the remainder converted to a fancy-sounding ‘Participating Bond’ which accrue no interest and do not even have a confirmed (if any) pay back date.

    Is it really about the money?

    No.

    Why? Because the poor old BNZ is third in line to recoup their $195 Million investment in Bluestar. Champ PE ($175 Million) were second, and who were first? You guessed it, the BOND HOLDERS. So in order to screw these suckers over and get themselves to the top of the queue the good ‘ol BNZ threatened receivership on Bluestar bond holders unless they voted themselves into third place, BNZ into first, Champ into second, and agreed to the financial rape of their investment.

    For once, the ordinary investor had the opportunity to tell a bank to just fuck right off and they blew it. There is no way the BNZ would have placed Bluestar into receivership to be third in line for any payout (independent analysis put Bluestars worth at $4 Million – assets less liabilities).

    Once again greed wins. These suckers deserve to lose every cent.

  13. randal 13
    11 August 2011 at 2:59 pm

    the tories dont even know what makes something politically correct. they dont know logic. it is what ever they say it is. and the red queens off her heard, go ask alice what the doormouse said.

  14. vto 14
    11 August 2011 at 3:00 pm

    Just need to pick up on a pet rankling rant here. The Christchurch City Council new draft plan is out and the foreword is attended to by the Council’s Bob Parker, which is entirely appropriate, and by Ecan, which is also appropriate. But it also attended to by Ngai Tahu, as if that organisation is somehow an equivalent governing body, which it is not. It is a body determined by privilege of birth and race and precludes the vast vast majority of Chch residents. It is not right. Ngai Tahu has a place for sure, but not here. Or many other places it gets placed. Sheesh, I know I always rant about this subject, but I need to because it is fundamentally wrong.

    And please do not attach all sorts of assumptions to this – Ngai Tahu are fantastic and are a huge ‘asset’ to the city and its environs. And they will go from strength to strength and I wish them well.

    It is just this type of placement of them within the city when it is founded on something so many NZers sought to escape from when immigrating here. They sought to escape because it breaches some fundamental facets of human nature – privilege of birth and race.

    • prism 14.1
      11 August 2011 at 4:36 pm

      @vto – “It is a body determined by privilege of birth and race and precludes the vast vast majority of Chch residents. It is not right. Ngai Tahu has a place for sure, but not here. Or many other places it gets placed. Sheesh, I know I always rant about this subject, but I need to because it is fundamentally wrong.”
      No you are fundamentally wrong vto. Ngai Tahu were at Otautahi (Christchurch) before you were and deserve to be present and heard when planning the new landscape.

      • vto 14.1.1
        11 August 2011 at 4:46 pm

        prism, I fundamentally and very strongly disagree with that approach of “first in first served” for many reasons. But no time today to cover that large and intense issue in detail, sorry.

        Though your statement that they “deserve to be present and heard when planning the new landscape” I don’t disagree with. It is the nature and scale of that “presence” to which I was referring.

        edit: being a pedant, but how would you know whether they were here before me?

        • marty mars 14.1.1.1
          11 August 2011 at 8:33 pm

          It’s not first in first served – the Treaty was signed between the crown and rangatira vto – equal participants – notwithstanding the lies and disinformation, omissions, cheating and evasions told to rangatira of course. I think most of us want to along and having tangata whenua there, is appropriate, indeed necessary – that is what looking forward is all about.

          • vto 14.1.1.1.1
            11 August 2011 at 9:08 pm

            Yes I realise that mr marty and that is all fine and as it was done (the treaty etc). But you well know my opinion on it, which is, briefly, that it may well have been appropriate back then but the treaty is well past its use-by date. It does not take into account the world as it is today and for that reason alone it is fundamentally flawed and needs re-writing. It is no good holding onto contracts which can be frustrated or fail to take into account all parameters, especially in a political nation type setting. Doing so only leads to failure and frustration by sectors of society having less of a stake in society than others. (And this stakeless nature of some of London’s sectors is imo one of the main things which led to the riots)

            Look, in saying that, I do not consider that everything should be thrown out and just forget the lot. I think it should be re-written – and a re-writing does not mean either of the parties has to miss out. Things just need changing.

            And with regards to Chch and their input I think I said at the beginning and further on that they do have a place, an important place. I do not want them not to be there, they have one of the best and largest contributions to make in the region. Bring them on.

            My point was that their placement alongside the Council and Ecan as if they are on some kind of similar governance footing is not right, based as it is on privilege of birth and race. That is all (even though a good argument can be made for such placement based on the out-of-date treaty).

            But thanks for keeping me on my toes ..

            • vto 14.1.1.1.1.1
              11 August 2011 at 9:28 pm

              Just got to add one more bit here. My response “first in first served” above was in response to prism’s point which stated that the reason Ngai Tahu should be there was because they were here first. Prism had no mention of the Treaty.

            • marty mars 14.1.1.1.1.2
              12 August 2011 at 12:35 am

              “Look, in saying that, I do not consider that everything should be thrown out and just forget the lot. I think it should be re-written – and a re-writing does not mean either of the parties has to miss out. Things just need changing.”

              The Treaty is definately the Treaty – that’s why I advocate constitutional change (not the illusory one going on now) where Māori partnership and self determination can be entrenched. That is the road to equality. That is the way to ensure all parties are treated fairly with honour.

              • vto …
                13 August 2011 at 10:23 am

                mr marty, if you’re around … ” that’s why I advocate constitutional change (not the illusory one going on now) where Māori partnership and self determination can be entrenched. That is the road to equality. That is the way to ensure all parties are treated fairly with honour.”

                Self-determination for who? Just one group of people in NZ? That is no road to equality. That is a road to different structures for different people – which is inequality, according to the dictionary definition.

                There is no harm in treating people fairly with honour, under the treaty, just as long as it is recognised that such treatment is under the treaty and the treaty, as you say, is the treaty, with its severe and unrealistic (in today’s world) expectations.

                Do you seriously advocate that a form of self-determination, which is separatism, is sustainable and workable? What do all the other groups in NZ do about their own self-determination? Perhaps muslims would like a bit of self-determination too – under your idea, do they get to have that too? Or is it only for maori, because they are the only ones in the treaty so simply tough titty for the muslims – they just have to suck it up? Because that attitude is completely unsustainable. Feel free to explain in detail because I think your idea is way out of whack with reality.

                • marty mars …
                  13 August 2011 at 4:09 pm

                  It is sad that you don’t believe that people have the right to self determination – it isn’t seperatism as I have pointed out previously to you. Why are you so scared of empowering basic human rights – is it because of what you think you will lose. This “oh what about the muslims” leads me to wonder about you. Why can’t you argue your point honestly. Are muslims the indigenous people of this land? nah – didn’t think so. Got another group to analyse? push them up, it won’t take long. And that is the nub of the issue right there vto. Māori are not just another minority group shat on by the system, Māori are tangata whenua and for that and that reason alone Māori should have the opportunity to be true partners to the Crown, as agreed to in the Treaty, and add a unique voice to the solutions we need. That is not looking backwards, it is looking forward. It is not handout or grievance mode it is honestly dealing with the facts. The sooner you can just get over the fact that Māori are not going anywhere and that they are the partners with the Crown, the sooner we can all get on and build a country and society to be proud of.

                  • vto …
                    14 August 2011 at 9:34 am

                    marty mars, I am just going to ignore the assumptions you made about my beliefs, because you do indeed go right to the heart of issue, as I had asked in my previous post…

                    ” Are muslims the indigenous people of this land? nah – didn’t think so. Got another group to analyse? push them up, it won’t take long. And that is the nub of the issue right there vto. Māori are not just another minority group shat on by the system, Māori are tangata whenua and for that and that reason alone Māori should have the opportunity to be true partners to the Crown,”

                    So you DO in fact believe that because Maori were here first they have a greater position within NZ. This is what prism said right at the start that I railed against. The attitude of “first in first served” is a poorly one which serves nobody in any setting, be it the dinner table each night, the weekly drop of money into the joint account, the allocation of resources like water under the RMA, and the status of immigrants to a new land. First in first served is a weak and selfish attitude and approach. Not to say it has no bearing on matters, but those matters are limited, especially as time passes.

                    You and I completely disagree right here at this junction. And it is a fundamental foundation stone from which you step off. It is a bad stone marty mars.

                    This applies no matter the race or place on earth.

                    As to the treaty, I have already outlined my view that it is a badly structured document. Ffs, the two versions don’t even say the same thing for a start!

                    But sure you can hang your hat on the crown entering into a poorly constructed contract. You can force them to follow through on their promises, even though those promises don’t always make good sense. It is worth being aware however that in legislation and in common law many many types of contract can be struck out for a whole bunch of reasons – like the contract makes no sense, mistakes were made in entering into them, or they are simply inequitable. For example, is there not a bill currently passing through Parliament deeming certain financial contracts illegal? Have you read the Contractual Mistakes Act?

                    While these acts and law deal with the daily machinations of life, they are based on centuries old wide and high principles of fairness and justice which are necessary to foster a good society. These principle apply equally to all aspects of life, including the relationship between different peoples.

                    You, marty, put the treaty above those principle of fairness and justice. That is clear from you last post. I say the treaty should be subject to those wider and highers principles of fairness and justice. My opinion is that the treaty needs re-writing for this and other reasons previously stated.

                    So there we have it. Good swap of ideas, but you and I strongly disagree on these two base foundation stones.

                    …. so what do we do next? …

                    • marty mars …
                      14 August 2011 at 10:36 am

                      see when you say, “and the status of immigrants to a new land” I shake my head – it is not about first in first served – I say again – Māori are the indigenous people of this land – you can argue against that as you have but stop twisting what I am saying.

                      You are clear that you think Māori are just the first immigrant group and that is no reason for any ‘special’ consideration of them, their culture or beliefs. Have I got that right? If so – why? Why do you think this – that is what I’m after vto – I believe I understand what you think – why do you think it? You have said you have Māori blood – how do you work through that and your position? Of course they are personal questions that you don’t have to answer but I am sincerely interested because we are all in this waka together and we have to work through these issues to get our society sorted.

                    • vto …
                      14 August 2011 at 11:41 am

                      Well this is a problem. You haven’t explained why you think that because Maori are the indigenous people, the tangata whenua, the first people here, however you want to describe it, that that entitles them to a greater position in society. Why does their indigenous nature so entitle them? You have stated the position but provided no reason for it.

                      The reasons for me claiming that such first arrival or indigenous nature should have a far lesser status has been explained by me. By way of comparison to the “first in first served” approach. By reason that such privilege of birth and race leads to unfairness and trouble in society. That is why I do not think a society is sustainable with different sets of rules and structures for different peoples. It leads to a sense of frustration for those not so entitled and frustration leads to anger and then further trouble. That is why I do not want such an approach. It is based on birth and race. It is simply unfair. It leads to division. It leads to trouble – that is the reason. It is what many immigrants here escaped from.

                      And yes, all in NZ arrived as immigrants. Describing Maori as indigenous or something else does not subtract from their immigrant beginnings. As with all other immigrants. How are they not immigrants? Such ideas are not mutually exclusive.

                      As for my personal ancestry, that is minor but real. It was revealed only later in life, stemming from a time when such was kept hidden generations ago. Anyway, it makes no difference to my arguments in this thread. I am trying to make these arguments from an objective position. Subjective matters can arise once the broader settings are in place.

                    • marty mars …
                      14 August 2011 at 1:48 pm

                      “You haven’t explained why you think that because Maori are the indigenous people, the tangata whenua, the first people here, however you want to describe it, that that entitles them to a greater position in society. Why does their indigenous nature so entitle them? You have stated the position but provided no reason for it.”

                      because they fit the description of indigenous people

                      “Indigenous peoples, or Natives, are ethnic groups who are native to a land or region, especially before the arrival and intrusion of a foreign and possibly dominating culture. They are a group of people whose members share a cultural identity that has been shaped by their geographical region. A variety of names are used in various countries to identify such groups of people, but they generally are regarded as the “original inhabitants” of a territory or region. Their right to self-determination may be materially affected by the later-arriving ethnic groups.”
                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples

                      That is the simplist search i could do but there are many articles and sources about the nature of indigenous peoples and why they are special and important.

                      “By reason that such privilege of birth and race leads to unfairness and trouble in society. That is why I do not think a society is sustainable with different sets of rules and structures for different peoples. It leads to a sense of frustration for those not so entitled and frustration leads to anger and then further trouble.”

                      snap! that’s what is here already and that is why we need to make improvements. You keep playing the ‘not fair’ card – not fair for everyone, not fair for muslims, not fair for me but you are blind to the fact that it is not fair for Māori now.

                    • vto …
                      14 August 2011 at 2:19 pm

                      I don’t think that wikipedia definition states a reason for their special status, it just describes what an indigenous people’s features are, which I don’t dispute. What I dispute is the nature and scale of the special nature. And how it relates to other people living in that same place. Your placement of that special nature differs quite considerably from mine. I guess that is as far as we can get at the moment.

                      As for things being unfair for Maori now, I am not blind to that and have never suggested otherwise. I don’t disagree and that is why I have suggested in previous posts that Maori should be assisted in righting this situation, but that it should be temporary, and that once that is achieved matters should be righted back to a balanced equality. And that ties in with my view on their special position – their indigenous nature does give them a special position, to protect them perhaps, to assist with the change imposed by worldwide demographic changes, etc, but again it must be temporary. Such a special position has limits and those limits decrease with the passage of time.

                      As I said, we disagree on the nature and scale of that special position. I have given my reasons and you have given me yours. We just have to disagree I think.

                      There are a couple of things which you haven’t answered s I recall … The issue of the treaty as a useful document given its hastily scratched together nature resulting in different versions, and its lack of ability to deal with a changing world, etc. The issue of how having different rules and settings for different people in one place leads to civil trouble, and how to deal with that. The issue of how you deal with other people also wanting their own self-determination. The correctness or otherwise of people having a place in society due to privilege, or not, of birth and race.

                      Don’t know if I will be back here for a while but will check in and see when I can. Good talks. Out for now.

    • marty mars 14.2
      11 August 2011 at 9:01 pm

      I don’t get you vto – you have the so called privilege of birth and race don’t you?

      Why does this get up your nose so much – I hear your ‘we are all one’ line but I cannot reconcile it with my concept of equality. Assimilation is not going to happen – unique valuable cultures will continue and grow because they are important – to the members and all our society. Many indigenous peoples just don’t believe the bullshit anymore – that they are lessor, inferior, lucky. The improvements for indigenous peoples will just keep on coming as momentum builds and it is a good thing because there are many many other ways of looking at the world than the dominant, bland, ‘culture’ most people live within.

      I say the more that tangata whenua can be involved in all aspects of the rebuild, the better. And the more visible signs of that the even better too.

      • vto 14.2.1
        11 August 2011 at 9:17 pm

        “I don’t get you vto – you have the so called privilege of birth and race don’t you?

        Why does this get up your nose so much – I hear your ‘we are all one’ line but I cannot reconcile it with my concept of equality. Assimilation is not going to happen – unique valuable cultures will continue and grow because they are important – to the members and all our society. Many indigenous peoples just don’t believe the bullshit anymore – that they are lessor, inferior, lucky. The improvements for indigenous peoples will just keep on coming as momentum builds and it is a good thing because there are many many other ways of looking at the world than the dominant, bland, ‘culture’ most people live within.

        I say the more that tangata whenua can be involved in all aspects of the rebuild, the better. And the more visible signs of that the even better too.”

        You know, I agree with everything you say there. But what you miss is the fact that one of those cultures is lifted on a pedestal above all other cultures, by law in many many instances, by treaty. It is this that is wrong and which leads to trouble. I don’t think I can say it any simpler than that. It leads to trouble in any society in the world and there are many examples of varying degrees. We are all different, and as the French say vive la differenc, but we are also all equal. Otherwise fail.

        It is a particular point only that I make but imo it is big.

        • vto 14.2.1.1
          11 August 2011 at 9:25 pm

          Just going to add a prediction … what I suggest above (re-write the Treaty) that should happen, will happen. And it will be led by both Treaty partners, but more by Maori. Not the current generation involved in righting things and aligning things under the Treaty. Not the current young generation growing up into this new strong world for Maori. But perhaps the following generation – a leader with the wisdom of Solomon, or Ghandi, or Nelson Mandela, who will stand up, recognise the imbalance, recognise that the Treaty is no longer appropriate or needed, and suggest a rebalancing.

          Betcha.

        • Pascal's bookie 14.2.1.2
          11 August 2011 at 9:37 pm

          I can’t and won’t speak for marty, but for me, as Pākehā, I can’t just ignore the treaty.

          I get what you are saying, and can see how it just describes a just society, but can’t see how we can get there from here in a just fashion.

          The treaty is real. It exists. Wishing it away is pointless, and taking it away would be grave crime no matter what we were trying to do.

          The reality is that as Pākehā my only claim to be of this land is via the treaty. The treaty is the thing I can point to and say this is why I have a right to be here. I can’t do that if the treaty is not honoured though.

          The fact that it hasn’t been honoured affects my claim to be of here, rather than just living here.

          For me to say to Māori that “well nah actually. Screw the treaty, I’m here by virtue of the fact I was born here same as you” I’m claiming what? That the past didn’t happen? That my families history isn’t real?

          We can only draw a new picture with the consent of our partners. We haven’t honoured the treaty, they have. We have a hell of a lot of good will to make up and some huge debts of gratitude to pay before we can expect to be able to even start to converse about putting the treaty based relationship aside and forging a new one.

          My pre-NZ heritage is celtic. Mostly Irish Catholic and a smattering of Scot. I’m not going to say that this gives me any understanding of Māori experience of colonisation, because it just fucking doesn’t. But I know from my own history that my mob weren’t anything like as forgiving as Māori have been.

          And that humbles me greatly. I want to make this shit work.

          • vto 14.2.1.2.1
            11 August 2011 at 9:58 pm

            Well there a few things in there. Firstly, I dont think I said it should be wished away or taken away. Not at all. I guess it could be described as recognising that there was an agreement about how two (see, two. one of the fundamental flaws that does not recognise the future, for a start) peoples could put in place a structure for living together in one place. That is fine. But it is that very structure that is now no longer appropriate because the world is vastly more complicated with more peoples, laws and rights, mobility, cultures, mixed up races (as we are all nealry). In fact, that is exactly it – the Treaty’s structure allowed no room for manouvre (I always spell that wrongue) as the world changed around it. This is a failing of the documenting and structuring put in place in that short and highly volatile moment in these hard lands back in 1840-odd. In that environment it is hardly surprising that they did not get a world class document drawn up, which took into account all the necessary bits such as change.

            I don’t agree about your claim to be of here solely because of the treaty. Being born into a place and having ones families ashes thrown to the soils – at least for a generation or three – is enough (to put it crudely and briefly). In fact, Maori have a simialr idea as I recall. Keeping the fires burning it is called I think. Similar to many many cultures. Burying ones dead in a location, in most all human history, provides a link to a place too.

            And re the last part and comparing your own ancestors acts and concluding they are lesser – I will just leave that for another day. I don’t think it is true and don’t want to get into an argument about who was the nastiest. Have you read some early accounts of Maori-Pakeha relations? They were as heinous and as heart-lifting as any anywhere.

      • Draco T Bastard 14.2.2
        11 August 2011 at 11:45 pm

        Assimilation is not going to happen…

        Yes it will. Such is inevitable and cannot be stopped. Trying to prevent it, which is what you’re doing, is trying to stop the necessary change that will bring us together as one people. Will this mean that some cultural aspects will die out? Of course it does. Others, hopefully better, will emerge to replace them.

        Trying to prevent that change will also bring about civil war. This too is inevitable unless the necessary changes are allowed to occur.

        • marty mars 14.2.2.1
          12 August 2011 at 12:10 am

          sorry but your borg logic is flawed – humans value difference and uniqueness. There is no assimilation utopia that I can see.

          “Trying to prevent change will bring about a civil war.” Really? Change is inevitable alright but not towards your vision.

          • Colonial Viper 14.2.2.1.1
            12 August 2011 at 12:32 am

            humans value difference and uniqueness. There is no assimilation utopia that I can see.

            Only within very very narrow boundaries. In olden tribal days or in very conservative hierarchical societies it was barely tolerated.

            Today we pretend to value difference and uniqueness. But in reality you don’t have to start acting and thinking too differently and uniquely to start losing friends.

            And only a bit more than that, they will probably either lock you up or sedate you (or both).

          • rosy 14.2.2.1.2
            12 August 2011 at 12:32 am

            This discussion is really important and I’m constantly challenged by it, especially since I have 2 grandchildren born a few months apart. One is blond, blue-eyed and is so fair his skin is almost transluscent. He doesn’t know it, but he has Maori ancestry. His cousin, although being brought up in a Pakeha family is clearly Maori – cannot be mistaken for any other ethnicity – and is in close contact with her Maori family. Both, of course, are beautiful, funny and smart, and seeing them together is an absolute delight.

            What are their ‘rights’, their likely futures? Will the both get the same advantages, or will one be left behind? Does one deserve more, given the potential for discrimination in jobs, housing etc? Can one not be Maori because it has never been claimed? Or will we have a mixed-race utopia by the time they grow up?

            I don’t have any sense of how the treaty, privilege and protection will play out for them, but the more discussions like this, the better IMO.

            • Draco T Bastard 14.2.2.1.2.1
              12 August 2011 at 2:24 am

              One is blond, blue-eyed and is so fair his skin is almost transluscent.

              I’ve got a nephew like that. His brother is obviously of Maori descent but he’s pure albino.

          • Draco T Bastard 14.2.2.1.3
            12 August 2011 at 2:18 am

            No, it’s not my logic that is flawed but yours.

            humans value difference and uniqueness.

            No, they don’t.

            Change is inevitable alright but not towards your vision.

            It’s not my vision – merely what will happen. You can not have two cultures next to each other without the people within them learning from each other especially when they happen to be in the same geographical area. Unless you want to go to an apartheid system of course which, really, is what you actually seem to be proposing.

            When you try to put one of those groups above the other then there will be strife.

  15. vto 15
    11 August 2011 at 3:45 pm

    Whoa, the new draft City Plan for Christchurch looks superb. They have been working hard clearly, and it seems comprehensive, well though out and workable.

    Exciting times down here over next decade that be for sure.

    Well done to the people at the Council.

    • vto 15.1
      11 August 2011 at 3:55 pm

      There going to be some central city property owners losing out big time methinks, as building heights are squashed from generally between 40m and 80m (12 to 25 stories) down to 4-5 to 7 stories. Big squashing of heights.

    • Jim in Tokyo 15.2
      11 August 2011 at 5:00 pm

      Yeah I was very impressed by most of it. 
       
      While the Christchurch opportunity is unique, what got me thinking was was the wider applicability and apparent value for money offered by some of the better ideas.
       
      Community gardens – $300,000. Wifi $350,000. Covered outdoor markets for local produce and small business $2.2 million. Proper cycle lane network $22 million.  Even the light rail system @ $410 million sounds achievable in the medium term. 
       
      Then I visit my hometown of Dunedin and I have to look at that ridiculous $198.3 million stadium and reflect on what might have been. 

      • Colonial Viper 15.2.1
        11 August 2011 at 10:16 pm

        Dunedin screwed itself with that unimaginative monstrosity. I know people all around the South Island laughing at those guys, reading the news of ongoing budget shortfalls and saying “who can possibly act surprised”.

  16. prism 16
    11 August 2011 at 4:32 pm

    Jim Mora has Muriel Newman on his show this afternoon. She finds that our welfare problems
    arise from not having fathers in the home as role models, that everyone should take any job they are offered because ‘once you have your foot on the ladder’ you rise up don’t you!

    That woman is such a preachy bitch talking twaddle. She and those like her just repeat comfortable slogans that have been accepted by their set who hold themselves rigidly away from attempts at understanding those who haven’t advanced themselves as they have to comfort and status. Many women have made it good by marrying the right wealthy or high-status professional person but diss others as if they have been high achievers themselves. There is no-one so ignorant as the person who has made up their mind on an emotional basis and from self-satisfaction..

    • Carol 16.1
      11 August 2011 at 4:37 pm

      I switched that woman off who was saying the UK riots were caused by too much welfare… a welfare system creating a sense of entitlement, getting consumer goods on welfare … and then all the stupid stuff about absent fathers.

      • Morrissey 16.1.1
        11 August 2011 at 7:24 pm

        I switched that woman off who was saying the UK riots were caused by too much welfare…

        Don’t switch her off, Vicky—do something about it! You should e-mail Jim Mora and tell him how concerned you are that he (or more likely his producer) has chosen someone as vacuous and ill-informed as Muriel Newman to comment on anything, leave alone such a serious topic.

        I and several others have protested about Mora’s respectful and deferential treatment of the bloodthirsty S.S. fanatic Garth McVicar and his ghastly henchman Stephen Franks, both of whom should be persona non grata. The more criticism he gets from more decent people, the more likely Mora will be to listen.

        Just switching off someone like Muriel Newman is not enough. You have to bring concerted pressure on those who are lazy enough or stupid enough to interview her.

        That e-mail address is…
        afternoons@radionz.co.nz

        Be polite, but firm and clear: tell him you want him to interview a guest who knows what she is talking about in future. That means NO MORE MURIEL NEWMAN.

        • Anne 16.1.1.1
          11 August 2011 at 7:43 pm

          I’ve given up on The Panel. To begin with, have you noticed that all of the guests spend the first 10 to 15 minutes telling everybody what exciting lives they lead. They have either been overseas and had a “simply wonderful time hahahahaha” or they’re about to go some place and have a “simply wonderful time haha etc”. As soon as the serious issues are discussed they all run for cover (including Mora with his heavy sighs) and express platitudes that mean bugger all. Occasionally someone calls their bluff (Brian Edwards comes to mind) and tells something like it really is. The collective drawing-in of horrified breath is almost audible. I am rapidly coming to the conclusion this country is now inhabited by a bunch of wankers and really… they deserve the government they’ve got.

          • prism 16.1.1.1.1
            11 August 2011 at 8:35 pm

            @Anne – your desciption would apply to Kerre Woodham if Morrissey recorded her comments about the rioters right. She kept calling them toe-rags. What intelligent analysis.

            • Morrissey 16.1.1.1.1.1
              11 August 2011 at 8:45 pm

              your desciption would apply to Kerre Woodham if Morrissey recorded her comments about the rioters right.

              I did record it right. Those comments are verbatim. I have lots more by her and her esteemed colleagues, by the way…

          • Morrissey 16.1.1.1.2
            11 August 2011 at 9:55 pm

            To begin with, have you noticed that all of the guests spend the first 10 to 15 minutes telling everybody what exciting lives they lead

            I certainly have noticed this. It’s deadly dull—in fact, it’s dead air. None of the guests have anything remotely interesting going on in their lives, and the regularity of the guests’ recycling and reappearing means it’s usually exactly the same ten minutes of trivia as the last time.

            …Mora with his heavy sighs…

            Ah, yes! The baffled sigh to indicate how perplexed yet deeply concerned he is. Unfortunately, it’s become ingrained into his on-air performance, and it’s as much a marker of Jim Mora as the affected, deliberate Oxbridge stammer is with Chris Laidlaw.

            …and express platitudes that mean bugger all.

            Actually, these seemingly mindless platitudes mean an awful lot. When someone like Barry Corbett or Islay McLeod or Neil Miller or (God save our mortal souls) Garth George says something bland and/or bordering on the moronic, it doesn’t mean “bugger all”, it means that the listeners are being treated with utter contempt.

            Occasionally someone calls their bluff (Brian Edwards comes to mind)…

            Brian Edwards is occasionally very good—he once humiliated his blithe and woolly-minded fellow-Panelist Deborah Hill Cone after she claimed that she knew all about “working-class people”, even though she didn’t believe they actually existed. However, he is usually teamed up with Michelle Boag, a neighbour of his on Waiheke Island, and so he is usually restrained to the point of being tamed. He seems to bend over backwards to find common ground with her, no matter how extreme her comments. Boag, on the other hand, never makes any concessions at all to him.

            I am rapidly coming to the conclusion this country is now inhabited by a bunch of wankers and really… they deserve the government they’ve got.

            Come on, Anne! Don’t be discouraged. You’ve written a perfectly lucid and forceful critique for the benefit of readers of this forum, so why don’t you send it off as an email to Jim Mora himself? Here’s that address again…
            afternoons@radionz.co.nz

            • Anne 16.1.1.1.2.1
              11 August 2011 at 10:11 pm

              Might do just that Morrissey. Sent off an email to Kathryn Ryan after last Monday’s political discussion with Hooton and Bradford. Hooton effectively accused Goff of lying about whether he had seen the SIS briefing papers etc. and Ryan let him get away with it. I supplied her with the Stuff link where Tucker admits he has no signed verification that Goff had seen any papers. No acknowledgement of course.

              • Morrissey …
                11 August 2011 at 10:37 pm

                …and Ryan let him get away with it.

                I think that often she doesn’t know enough. I heard her on this morning’s programme saying how she often takes home lots of reading to prepare for the next show, but there’s precious little evidence of that. She not only routinely lets a notorious liar like Hooton effectively say what he wants each week, she also never challenges her often unreliable and extremely partisan “foreign correspondents”—in particular, the ex-Conservative M.P. Matthew Parris and the ignorant but shameless “middle east correspondent” Irris Makler.

                No acknowledgement of course.

                You should write to her again and demand an answer. It’s probably just idleness on her part, rather than any desire to silence you.

            • felix 16.1.1.1.2.2
              11 August 2011 at 10:15 pm

              “It’s deadly dull—in fact, it’s dead air. “

              Morrissey, the whole show is dead air, occasionally punctuated by grossly offensive reptilian grunts and squawks and the distant screams of children being tortured.

              I’m extremely grateful for the transcripts of the greatest hits you post here so I don’t have to let the black gas fill my ears.

              • Morrissey …
                11 August 2011 at 10:46 pm

                I’m extremely grateful for the transcripts of the greatest hits you post here so I don’t have to let the black gas fill my ears.

                It’s a helluva job, but someone has to do it.

        • prism 16.1.1.2
          11 August 2011 at 8:30 pm

          @ Morrissey – I think you are wrong to think that Jim Mora gives a fart about people criticising him. My take on him is that he is smug and self-satisfied and has a right wing bias. He can ask the questions that the left might ask but only to set up a straw man. He is apparently good natured with a jovial laugh but it sounds hollow.

    • The Voice of Reason 16.2
      11 August 2011 at 7:37 pm

      When I heard Newman was coming on the show, I assumed it was to deliver an apology. But apparently it isn’t 3 decades of neo-liberal economics that has bought us the riots, its the welfare state. What a wally! And to think she used to be the brains of ACT.

      • Morrissey 16.2.1
        11 August 2011 at 8:32 pm

        And to think she used to be the brains of ACT.

        Even in the intellectual wasteland that is the far right of New Zealand politics, Muriel Newman is not, and never has been, regarded as any kind of “brains”. The nadir of her obscure and shamefully inept parliamentary career came when she published an advice book for young people, which told (in excruciatingly exhaustive detail) how to boil a jug of water. When she was hauled on television (the Holmes show, actually) to explain why she had written this piece of idiocy instead of attending to her parliamentary duties (whatever parliamentary duties the “brains of ACT” does) she was blitheringly incoherent.

        She did, however, provide Pam Corkery her one and only opportunity to do something worthwhile in an otherwise wasted three years: Corkery (in the TV studio with Newman) damned the book as a “joke”, a “waste of time” and “irredeemably condescending” before contemptuously throwing it down on the floor.

        Muriel Newman has a doctorate, apparently—from where?

        Does anybody know?

        • Anne 16.2.1.1
          11 August 2011 at 8:54 pm

          The origin of her doctorate seems to be a closely guarded secret. If the truth were known it’s probably something to do with ‘Business Studies’ from an obscure American university. She is a former employee of Michael Hill, and I understand he originally set her up for a political career in ACT.

        • Colonial Viper 16.2.1.2
          11 August 2011 at 10:19 pm

          There shall be daily beatings and half rations for the paupers until morale improves!

        • rosy 16.2.1.3
          11 August 2011 at 10:27 pm

          Wiki says Rutgers University, the state university of New Jersey, PhD in mathematics.

          I’d love to get her on something, but it doesn’t look like a fake degree is it (unless she never completed, of course).

          • Colonial Viper 16.2.1.3.1
            11 August 2011 at 10:39 pm

            math is a real PhD and something I’d normally associate with real intelligence.

            Somebody should be able to search and see if she published any papers from her thesis.

            • rosy 16.2.1.3.1.1
              11 August 2011 at 10:54 pm

              Nothing on a Google Scholar search.

            • Morrissey 16.2.1.3.1.2
              11 August 2011 at 10:54 pm

              math is a real PhD and something I’d normally associate with real intelligence.

              True. However, that doesn’t mean that she brings any rigour or even seriousness to her political thinking.

              Intelligent people can say some imbecilic things—Richard Dawkins made some foolish and ignorant comments about “the middle east” a while ago, which showed he is about as intelligent a source of commentary on politics as Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck.

  17. Bored 17
    11 August 2011 at 5:01 pm

    As a male there is something reassuring to know that being a RWNJ is not specifically a male trait……bloggers are welcome to reply with who they think is the worst RWNJ woman …I think that American baggage who did the consulting on welfare reform.

    • Vicky32 17.1
      11 August 2011 at 6:10 pm

      I think that American baggage who did the consulting on welfare reform.

      Paula Rebstock? Yes, indeed!
      And while I am here, listening to 3 News talking about the wonderfulness of Cameron, and the evil of the young criminals who pretend their rioting is about something else…

    • Morrissey 17.2
      11 August 2011 at 8:03 pm

      Here is a short, hastily assembled list of some of the most vicious right wing women in New Zealand…

      1.) Michelle Boag (PR trout, feared and hated National Party eminence grise and ex-squeeze of Murray McCully)

      2.) Deborah Coddington (the only woman Lindsay Perigo ever fancied)

      3.) Deborah (“Slurp”) Hill Cone (one of the smuggest, most self-satisfied women in New Zealand)

      4.) Robyn Langwell (the smuggest, most self-satisfied woman in New Zealand)

      5.) Lesley Max (rabid, harsh-voiced, invective-spitting late-night talkshow caller, and merciless scourge of the Palestinians)

      6.) “Doctor” Muriel Newman (alarmingly frivolous and lightweight, and so hopeless in parliament she actually made Pam Corkery look good)

      7.) Fran (“Um, ah, y’ know”) O’Sullivan (along with the pitiful Karl Du Fresne, perhaps the world’s No. 1 fan of ex-Australian P.M. John Howard)

      8,) Ellen Read (charmless and deeply complacent NBR hackette)

      9.) Pamela Stirling (clueless, barely literate destroyer of the Listener)

      10.) Janet Wilson (Bill Ralston’s horrifying other half)

      11.) Kerre Woodham (NewstalkZB chatterbox, fervent admirer of Chinese Communist regime)

      • Anne 17.2.1
        11 August 2011 at 8:27 pm

        Off the top of my head add to that list
        Judith Collins – (thin lipped, arrogant pollie who would have been a hit in 1930/40s Germany.)

        Christine Rankin(who came within a whisker of destroying the internationally renowned – and widely copied – welfare system set in place by the 1935-49 Labour Govt.)

        • Morrissey 17.2.1.1
          11 August 2011 at 8:37 pm

          Judith Collins – (thin lipped, arrogant pollie who would have been a hit in 1930/40s Germany

          I’ve always thought she is a dead ringer for the James Bond villainess Rosa Klebb.

          Christine Rankin

          Of course! How could I forget her?

        • prism 17.2.1.2
          11 August 2011 at 9:10 pm

          Add to list
          Dame Margaret Bazley
          and I have formed an immediate (irrational?) dislike of
          Kay Giles, new Oz Chief Executive of Christchurch Polytechnic – making a nice strong case for paying the teaching staff below inflation increases etc.

          • Colonial Viper 17.2.1.2.1
            11 August 2011 at 10:21 pm

            all fraking sociopaths

            Freud would have a field day.

            • prism 17.2.1.2.1.1
              13 August 2011 at 4:34 pm

              Colonial Viper – By the way did you see the links on Bored at 2.56pm. On the guy that carried brainwashing into commercial use, and is related to Freud. That family made waves.

              • Colonial Viper …
                13 August 2011 at 5:27 pm

                Ah yes thanks…I watched about 3/4 of that. Scary, society changing stuff. We’re all sheeple to some extent, and those who swear they are not usually more than most.

                The old PR guy, the relative of Freud, had obviously lived a wealthy and well connected life. But what was his legacy to the world as a frail old man reflecting on past glories, nothing but a harvest of bitter fruit with a taste undisguisable by any luxuries or excess.

      • MikeG 17.2.2
        11 August 2011 at 10:16 pm

        Ruth Richardson …

  18. Carol 18
    11 August 2011 at 5:55 pm

    Scoop has Selwyn Manning’s response regarding an OIA request about the SIS Israeli spy issue:

    Dear Mr Manning

    Official Information Act Request

    1. Thank you for your letter dated 5 August 2011 (received 9 August 2011) requesting a copy of any legal advice received in relation to Official Information Act (OIA) requests for briefing papers relating to the Israeli earthquake investigation.

    2. I am declining your request on the grounds that to do so is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege.

    3. If you are unhappy with my response you have the right to seek a review by the Office of the Ombudsmen under section 28 of the OIA.

    Dr Warren Tucker

    Director of Security

    • Anne 18.1
      11 August 2011 at 8:06 pm

      I love how senior public servants always thank-you so kindly for your correspondence – even when you’ve just told them what a bunch of @#$^$#@ they are.

      Oh, and I’m not necessarily referring to the DoS, Warren Tucker – just senior Pub. Servants in general. 😯

  19. Vicky32 19
    11 August 2011 at 6:24 pm

    Ah, as predicted, Patrick Gower bashing bennies and showing Key with his concerned face on…
    Re sickness beneficiaries, Gower says “Beehive sources say many can work”… What Beehive sources would that be then? And how do they know?

  20. joe90 20
    11 August 2011 at 7:41 pm

    German physicist Harald Haas talks about internet connectivity technology that would make it possible to send data through LED light bulbs instead of via radio waves.

    http://www.ted.com/talks/view/lang/eng//id/1202

  21. The Voice of Reason 21
    11 August 2011 at 8:19 pm

    Excellent article in the Guardian about Fox News:
     
    “According to recent polls, Fox News viewers are the most misinformed of all news consumers. They are 12 percentage points more likely to believe the stimulus package caused job losses, 17 points more likely to believe Muslims want to establish Sharia law in America, 30 points more likely to say that scientists dispute global warming, and 31 points more likely to doubt President Obama’s citizenship.
     
    At the height of the healthcare debate, more than two-thirds of Fox News viewers were convinced Obamacare would lead to a “government takeover”, provide healthcare to illegal immigrants, pay for abortions and let the government decide when to pull the plug on grandma.
     
    In fact, a study by the University of Maryland revealed that the ignorance of Fox viewers actually increases the longer they watch the network.”

  22. Puddleglum 22
    11 August 2011 at 8:42 pm

    Stories of the rapid demise of the Labour Party appear premature.

    Labour 32%, Greens 7%, NZF 4%.

    • The Voice of Reason 22.1
      11 August 2011 at 9:08 pm

      The gap between the blocs has halved in 2 months and the ‘right direction’ numbers have soured as well. Nice.

  23. Mac1 23
    11 August 2011 at 10:46 pm

    Spot on, TVOR.
    The Nat/ACT etc bloc has gone from 60% down to 55.5% and the Labour/Green etc bloc up to 44.5% from 40%. The same movement again in another two months and it’s level pegging. And Roy Morgan is the most reliable of the polls, as far as that goes.

    • Colonial Viper 23.1
      11 August 2011 at 10:56 pm

      I predict the first RM poll of November will show that confidence in the Government is down to a pathetic 110 or below (128 now). Quite a lot below if the All Blacks have lost.

  24. jackal 24
    11 August 2011 at 11:03 pm

    No Human Rights for Rioters

    After WW2, many leaders and progressive thinkers put their heads together and formulated a plan so that such devastation and atrocities involved in the holocaust would not occur again…

    • Morrissey 24.1
      11 August 2011 at 11:36 pm

      David Cameron is a disgrace and a national embarrassment. I thought that Tony Blair was the most disgusting and dishonest politician produced by Britain in a generation, but Cameron brings something else to the table—sheer, unflappable, incorrigible Public School complacency and dimness.

      A lot of people think a dim politician is a good thing, and that relatively smart ones like Blair are more dangerous. Watching Cameron in full graceless flight makes you wonder, though. Maybe a dim politician—Cameron, McCain, Key, Stephen Harper—is just as troubling as a slippery, smart one.

  25. The Voice of Reason 25
    11 August 2011 at 11:38 pm

    More riot related stuff, but from an unusual source. Joey Barton is a professional footballer with, shall we say, issues. But remarkably sound on the riots and man a of impeccable musical taste as well.
     
      ps, Spurs/Everton postponed due to riot.

  26. Draco T Bastard 26
    12 August 2011 at 2:33 am

    Tied to a drowning man

    Interdependence, liberal economists believe, furthers peace – a sort of economic mutual assured destruction. If China or the United States were to attack the other, the attacker would suffer grave consequences. But as the US economy deteriorates from the Lost Decade of the 2000s through the post-2008 meltdown into what is increasingly looking like Marx’s classic crisis of late-stage capitalism, internationalisation looks more like a suicide pact.

    But you can’t have interdependence when global productivity far exceeds global needs – and there aren’t any resources left anyway.

    • Colonial Viper 26.1
      14 August 2011 at 4:19 pm

      classic crisis of late-stage capitalism, internationalisation looks more like a suicide pact.

      This is what the Euro looks like now.

      But you can’t have interdependence when global productivity far exceeds global needs – and there aren’t any resources left anyway.

      But there is a bad kind of interdependence left. When no sovereign state is self sufficient any longer because it has transferred away its industries…and can now no longer afford to buy the goods and services it needs from the countries that it used to buy them from…and can’t make do itself.

  27. Vicky32 27
    14 August 2011 at 4:07 pm

    That is why I do not think a society is sustainable with different sets of rules and structures for different peoples. It leads to a sense of frustration for those not so entitled and frustration leads to anger and then further trouble.

    To Vto, agreed! 🙂