Open mike 15/01/2011

29 comments on “Open mike 15/01/2011 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. jcuknz 1

   15 January 2011 at 8:33 am

   From a NYT OpEd …
   “In 2007, an Army study found that spraying foam insulation on the exterior of inefficient structures would reduce their energy requirements by over 80 percent and improve the quality of life for the troops living in them”
   That little titbit of info makes me wonder if after adding a pleasing colour this could be an answer for some of the old buildings we have in New Zealand.
2. jcuknz 2

   15 January 2011 at 9:18 am

   One of the interesting things I learnt as I discovered politics decades ago here in NZ was that the difference between national and labour was not solely worker/management and you would find numerous small businessmen who were staunch Labour. My boss at the time had been a steward on the Tasman ships until he came ashore. So maybe this article from NYT will be of interest .. it deals with internet marketing … that assumes that anybody in a small business has time to spend on the internet and at a site like this, I have my doubts 🙂
   http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/the-old-man-and-the-internet/?ex=1310446800&en=4af2a6b7a86560fc&ei=5087&WT.mc_id=BU-D-I-NYT-MOD-MOD-M184-ROS-0111-L2&WT.mc_ev=click
   • Deadly_NZ 2.1

     15 January 2011 at 10:02 am

     now that makes a lot of sense, and a good read too, nice find.
   • Marty G 2.2

     15 January 2011 at 10:04 am

     you don’t get much anti-small business stuff here. it’s the big corporates that are the problem by and large. many regular commenters on both sides are small business owners
   • Colonial Viper 2.3

     15 January 2011 at 10:28 am

     I agree, a lot of small business owners work at the coal face (not at the top of a 20 story corporate office block) and can see the difficulties that many of their customers are having first hand.

     Further those small business owners have the nous to see past the rhetoric and the political sales pitch if it does not match what they are seeing in their own daily business turnover.
     • ZeeBop 2.3.1

       15 January 2011 at 12:50 pm

       Listening to a pod cast on NR. Could not understand how astonishly stupid the economic debate was.
       GPD, we’re told strongly correlates to happiness and well being. Sure, in an era of cheap energy.
       It does not follow that it will continue to correlate when growth for the last 100 years come from
       more oil, more uses of oil, and more oil on the horizon.

       Then I read another report on SMH, that passanger numbers are down in Sydney rail but
       the peak hour cruch is up. This indicates people are not going out as much because they
       don’t have the money but more people need to use public transport because they can’t afford
       the car!!!!

       Now in a democracy we’d have a discussion of oil, openly, and we’d also have public transport
       lowering their prices during the day to fill up empty seats. If the rail were to let people ride
       for free during the day then employers might get more flexible with their hours and
       so save their employees money. Happy employees are more productive. Then as the
       work environment does become more flexible and rail fills up, then lower the price
       at peak and raise it back above zero for off peak. But this would take a progressive
       opportunist culture, a open debating culture, that we just don’t have in our evil lazy cheap
       cowardly media complex.

       GDP nolonger correlates with happiness when there is no discernable GDP growth!
       and won’t be since there is no new oil, or new energy growth!!! FCKing economists
       • Colonial Viper 2.3.1.1

         15 January 2011 at 1:03 pm

         GDP nolonger correlates with happiness when there is no discernable GDP growth!

         This is especially true when it is only a small portion of society which receives the benefits of GDP growth.

         Primarily large shareholders and capital owners.

         Notice how 4% GDP growth never leads to 4% wage increases all round? The difference goes into the hands of the few, not the many.
         • ZeeBop 2.3.1.1.1

           15 January 2011 at 1:36 pm

           Yeah, if a left wing government were to provide incentives to employers to shift to job sharing, then you could see happiness go up as GDP goes negative! As more people find more time with their kids, familes, hobbies they are happier and using less oil. After a while it may cause a flourish of new business startups as peopel take their work experience, skills and make a jump into business in their down time. But hell that won’t happen because the system is rigged to push the best skilled people overseas and make sure there is no realistic competition to unseat highly indebted incumbent businesses whose profits pay interest to foreigners. Same old same old, the government protects the slow lazy business practices.
           • Colonial Viper 2.3.1.1.1.1

             15 January 2011 at 1:44 pm

             You are quite right, I’m waiting for a resurgence of active, evolved trade unionism (the trade union model of the 1970’s and 1980’s is dead and gone, probably rightly so), collective community enterprises and private companies with communal ownership.

             The model in NZ where the people who are the top 4,000-5,000 major asset holders, investors, company directors and bankers basically determine what happens to the economic lives of the rest of us is very good for the few, very bad for the many.
3. Pascal's bookie 3

   15 January 2011 at 9:34 am

   Had a bit of fun here the other day with a one day wonder streak of duckshit intellectual puddle going by the handle of ‘orangepeel’.

   The clockwork idiot wasn’t even wrong about pretty much everything, so this won’t come as much of a surprise to those that read the thread, but I came across a wee article that did look at the question that ‘peel was ever so insistent that we go and find the answers to.

   http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/

   So what are the factors that are associated with firearm deaths at the state level?

   Poverty is one. The correlation between death by gun and poverty at the state level is .59.

   An economy dominated by working class jobs is another. Having a high percentage of working class jobs is closely associated with firearm deaths (.55).

   And, not surprisingly, firearm-related deaths are positively correlated with the rates of high school students that carry weapons on school property (.54).

   What about politics? It’s hard to quantify political rhetoric, but we can distinguish blue from red states. Taking the voting patterns from the 2008 presidential election, we found a striking pattern: Firearm-related deaths were positively associated with states that voted for McCain (.66) and negatively associated with states that voted for Obama (-.66). Though this association is likely to infuriate many people, the statistics are unmistakable. Partisan affiliations alone cannot explain them; most likely they stem from two broader, underlying factors – the economic and employment makeup of the states and their policies toward guns and gun ownership.

   Firearm deaths were far less likely to occur in states with higher levels of college graduates (-.64) and more creative class jobs (-.52).

   Gun deaths were also less likely in states with higher levels of economic development (with a correlation of -.32 to economic output) and higher levels of happiness and well-being (-.41).

   And for all the terrifying talk about violence-prone immigrants, states with more immigrants have lower levels of gun-related deaths (the correlation between the two being -.34)….

   …And what about gun control? As of July 29 of last year, Arizona became one of only three states that allows its citizens to carry concealed weapons without a permit. Might tighter gun control laws make a difference? Our analysis suggests that they do.

   The map overlays the map of firearm deaths above with gun control restrictions by state. It highlights states which have one of three gun control restrictions in place – assault weapons’ bans, trigger locks, or safe storage requirements.

   Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).
   • Colonial Viper 3.1

     15 January 2011 at 10:36 am

     That’s just weak and pathetic, after all this time this is what you come up with. This has barely anything to do with evidence around tighter gun controls reducing gun deaths. If that’s the best evidence you have, no wonder you liberal lefties have already lost. Everything else you said there is simply about how irresponsible people make bad decisions and that’s why there are firearms deaths. You can’t blame the availability of firearms for that. In fact your statistics show that good law abiding citizens need their guns as it makes everyone else safer.*

     *Channelling one day wonder ‘orangepeel’ to keep the thread ‘balanced’.
     • joe90 3.1.1

       15 January 2011 at 11:19 am

       Insurrectionism time line.

       On June 26, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court embraced the National Rifle Association’s contention that the Second Amendment provides individuals with the right to take violent action against our government should it become “tyrannical.” The following timeline catalogues incidents of insurrectionist violence (or the promotion of such violence) that have occurred since that decision was issued:
4. Pascal's bookie 4

   15 January 2011 at 9:56 am

   Exciting times in Tunisia

   Newshoggers:

   http://www.newshoggers.com/blog/2011/01/revolt-or-coup-in-tunisia.html

   BBC live updates:

   http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/9361546.stm
5. johnm 5

   15 January 2011 at 11:25 am

   Time for political Humour! A video: Hitler telephones the Irish prime Minister to try to find out what the f..ck is happening! The latter responds in typical politician manner talking nonsense! def: The Jägerbomb is a cocktail that is mixed by dropping a shot of Jägermeister into a glass of Red Bull.[1]

   In German-speaking countries, it is called a “Turbojäger”[2] or a “Flying Hirsch” (Flying Stag) — where “Flying” is derived from the slogan “Red Bull gives you wings” and “Hirsch” means “stag” in German (inspired by the Jägermeister logo).
   • johnm 5.1

     15 January 2011 at 2:51 pm

     Referring video Hitler speaks to Cowan, there is a kernal of truth here in that the bankers ripped off Germany and impoverished it in the 20s and 30s plus the extortionate reparations: all crippled Germany eventually leading to the acceptance by a desperate people of the Nazi Party: Capitalist greed has a lot to answer for!
6. Colonial Viper 6

   15 January 2011 at 11:31 am

   QLD Flood Damage Shows Govt Lost Focus on Flood Regulations to Advantage Developers

   From the world socialist website

   http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/jan2011/inte-j10.shtml

   Levees were built in the 1960s that could keep out small and medium sized floods, but not massive floods. At the same time we developed techniques, such as urban zoning, to stop willy-nilly development in seriously flood-prone areas.

   We started removing previously unwise development on flood plains and began buying back houses in these areas. These were voluntary schemes and local councils, with a good deal of support from state and federal subsidies, bought out home owners in dangerous environments. The houses were then knocked down and the areas returned to park land and for other non-dangerous flooding use. We also developed warning systems, so that people could be advised of a coming flood and, of course, appropriate education for safety.

   I’m appalled by the situation in Queensland at the moment. The large number of new houses that have been flooded proves that land management by the Queensland government is extremely poor and building is still going on in inappropriate areas.
   • johnm 6.1

     15 January 2011 at 11:36 am

     Also houses built on the flood plain are not insured as premiums prohibitively high or even uninsurable! It certainly shows an amazing lack of forsight considering climate change etc.
7. Jum 7

   15 January 2011 at 12:03 pm

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10699821

   Well done Mayor Len Brown on the plan in 2012 for free entry to public pools. Just make sure Otahuhu actually gets the one they thought they were getting until the rich prick John Banks decided they could bus to some other pool and panned the planned, sited and lobbied for pool.

   In Franklin it costs $4.50 unless you are on green prescription and then it is $2. Never mind that the once Franklin Primary School turned Intermediate morphed their pool into firstly a giant plant pot, now a car park. That entry in a school setting was of course free and included school swimming lessons when children really needed it – early.

   Use some of those wonderful NAct volunteers JKeyll keeps waffling about to teach the children to swim for free. Stop using tutoring costs as a reason to charge for pool entry, especially to families with more children.

   PS Of course, once the schools are cunningly privatised, there’ll probably be a charge at existing school pools too.

   Pondscum NActs and their devil spawn acolytes.
   • higherstandard 7.1

     15 January 2011 at 12:13 pm

     What is the situation in Manukau – are the pools open to anyone at all times or are there particular times when they are free entry ?

     If it is free entry at all times for everyone I can see it being an unmitigated fiasco, if it’s staggered with priority given to schools etc I think it may possibly work well – if it is affordable.

     Certainly the current situation on the North Shore where there is a minimal charge for entry seems to work fine for people over here.
     • Jum 7.1.1

       15 January 2011 at 12:31 pm

       Higherstandard,
       You’re talking about New Zealanders; these days they can barely return trolleys to the trolley place after they’ve unloaded their fat-foods.

       There were discussions on reducing parking in the main street and all the businesses hopped up and down because they thought people couldn’t manage the 5-minute walk to the main street from a car park and business income would go down. Pathetic.

       Besides, I doubt that 75% of the population have been to a pool in the last year. The actual numbers would be interesting, but it would probably be the same energetic people returning over and over again.

       Also, if the $ savings from health cost reductions in fat diseases are allocated against these preventive plans the benefits far outweigh the loss of income.

       Mind you, with the Americans intending to attack Pharmac through the TPPA if NAct legislates it through in November, then neither government nor the drug companies will be keen for Kiwis ever to be fit and healthy again.
     • john 7.1.2

       15 January 2011 at 4:36 pm

       Manukau pools are great,the one near us is in highland park i take my 2 and a half year old there every two days and the pool 5 min away in Pamure is about 10 bucks,Manukau pools are free all the time.
       • john 7.1.2.1

         15 January 2011 at 4:39 pm

         and yes it is the same people there all the time
8. Pascal's bookie 8

   15 January 2011 at 5:34 pm

   The Tea Party People are not racist so stop saying that.

   http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/01/13/founding_fathers_tennessee_tea_party/index.html

   American history is about white people god dammit. That’s just a fact and it’s not racist to demand that everyone else should sit down the back of the bus.
9. fabregas4 9

   15 January 2011 at 6:24 pm

   The question “Are you better off now than you were two years ago” is the key to this years election alright – being on holiday I joined my lovely wife on her fortnightly trip to the supermarket where I discovered that she actually goes to two supermarkets (to take full advantage of all possible savings) and that bugger all costs a whole heap. Looking at meat I was shocked to see the cost of everything bar chicken and it seems that we can afford only soft drink (99cents a bottle) and potato chips (3 for $5). We are certainly not poor how on earth do all those lucky people only paying the lowest tax rate eat at all? (Cake, maybe?).
   • Lanthanide 9.1

     15 January 2011 at 7:30 pm

     I honestly have no idea how people earning $35k/year feed themselves decently while still being able to pay for rent, clothing, electricity and petrol. I guess the answer is that “they don’t”.

     Big key to cutting down shopping costs is to buy everything on special, though, and if you know a staple is yours is on sale you should buy it in advance. Of course you have to have the discretionary income to be able to do that. Using freezer space for meat on sale is essential.
     • KJT 9.1.1

       15 January 2011 at 8:50 pm

       Most families have two income earners to get a reasonable family income.

       Those that do not, such as solo parents, are seriously disadvantaged.
   • Draco T Bastard 9.2

     15 January 2011 at 11:11 pm

     Hint: Don’t shop at supermarkets if you can possibly help it as they’re about 300% to 500% more expensive than the small vege store.

     Meat is just expensive no matter where you shop.
10. KJT 10

    15 January 2011 at 9:04 pm

    After the huge success of youth rates in reducing youth unemployment an ACT mp now proposes special lower rates of pay for Polynesian and female workers. He said “it is well known that reduced rates increased access to jobs for disadvantaged youth” and expects them to work the same magic for women and Maori.
    “Once we get people used to the idea that reducing pay increases job opportunities, we will have 100% unemployment by reducing all wages to zero”.
    “Employers will become prosperous with zero wages and tax to pay”,
    WFF will be extended to all workers to complete the privatisation of profit and socialisation of losses’.
    “At the same time police powers will be increased to prevent the poor from invading our gated communities and stealing our property”.
11. Jum 11

    16 January 2011 at 11:41 am

    KJT
    “And while that’s happening, JKeyll and ACT now want to legislate to bring back the bash for NZ women who in huge numbers were only too keen to repeal the S59 repeal because they want to lovingly hit their kids. And repeal the legislation that stopped women being raped legally in marriage – ya know they want it.”

    “It will be great preparation for the next war, too. Eee, JKeyllAct have already set up the boot camps to indoctrinate the kids with suitable back o’the hand upbringings that encourage violence to become cannon fodder. Men bashing women bashing kids bashing pets bashing up other countries. The cunning plan is working.”

    “Money for military, money for war; keep the economy going – just like a little America.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS