Open mike 15/02/2013

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, February 15th, 2013 - 141 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…

141 comments on “Open mike 15/02/2013 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Te Reo Putake 1
    15 February 2013 at 8:23 am

    100th birthday of one the greatest union organisers, Jimmy Hoffa. A nice summary of the good work he did here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jDBbtBS-LP0

    “I’ve said consistently that no employer ever really accepts a union. They tolerate the unions. The very minute they can get a pool of unemployment they’ll challenge the unions and try to get back what they call managements prerogatives, meaning hire, fire, pay what you want.”

    Still true, eh? Go Teamsters!

    • millsy 1.1
      15 February 2013 at 10:12 am

      The Teamsters endorsed Ronald Reagan in 1980…..

      Mind you, that was when Reagan more or less positioned himself as pro-union. There is a quote from a speech he made somewhere online but I cannot seem to find it anymore.

  2. fatty 2
    15 February 2013 at 8:25 am

    Why is our Labour leader not coming out with these sort of policies?

    I think Chris Trotter said a few months back on a Citizen A that it is not good enough for Labour to dance around the middle, then 3 months out from an election throw some policies at the voters (paraphrased).

    Look what else Miliband says:
    “We would put right a mistake made by Gordon Brown and the last Labour government. A ‘one nation’ Labour budget next month would lay the foundations for a recovery made by the many, not just a few at the top”

    Yes, he said a mistake was made by the Gordan Brown / Tony Blair Labour Government. What is the chance that Labour will admit to the third way / neoliberal failures of the last Government? Miliband is talking of raising taxes and the people of Britain are responding.

    • tc 2.1
      15 February 2013 at 8:37 am

      I’d settle for a labour leader who can speak properly before he gets anything of substance as it’ll just come out all mumbles and umm err’s.

      No need for that type of handwringing, Clark/Cullen could’ve been bolder in areas but Peters did hamstring them in that 3rd term and they did steer the books to nett zero debt, KBank, Ksaver, KRail, WFF etc

      Focus on the slipppery, wrecking policies, corruption etc with solid alternatives is the better tactic IMO.

      • millsy 2.1.1
        15 February 2013 at 10:18 am

        Clark/Cullen pulled back to the right after the 2002 election.

        The minimal levels of unemployment they trumpeted were largely casual/contact positions, wages were stagnant, and poverty more or less blew out, as rents skyrocketed. Etc.

        They never really had any backbone, folding to business in its ‘Winter of Discontent’.

        Thank goodness Labour lost in 2008, and Helen Clark and Micheal Cullen got booted out. Now we just have to get rid of Goff, King, Mallard, Jones and Cosgrove.

        • Colonial Viper 2.1.1.1
          15 February 2013 at 11:54 am

          The minimal levels of unemployment they trumpeted were largely casual/contact positions, wages were stagnant, and poverty more or less blew out, as rents skyrocketed. Etc.

          Your analysis doesn’t fit the reality – the minimum wage for instance went up by leaps and bounds during that time.

          However, the Labour Government’s good economic fortune was built on the back of skyrocketing private debt pumping money into the economy.

    • muzza 2.2
      15 February 2013 at 8:58 am

      Hey Fatty, enjoy your posts by the way….

      Why did Gordon Brown sell the gold….Oh yeah, to prop up failing banks! Where did that pressure come from, and does it still exist today….

      Nothing has changed, Milliband is just another sock puppet, whose policy talk is worthless twaddle!

      Peace

      Edit – Apparantly my ban is over, although OAB will be able to tell you , given he is keeping tabs, but I end up in moderation stil..
      Hey Bloke, is my ban officially over yet?

      [RL: I’m not sure but I’ll approve this ok?]

      • fatty 2.2.1
        15 February 2013 at 9:32 am

        Spot on Muzza…Miliband is another puppet offering us much of the same. But my point wasn’t so much that those policies are good and they will solve our problems, it is that Miliband admit failings of the past (something Labour needs to do) and also Miliband’s policies are attracting voters.
        Labour’s housing policy (which I think is lame) could have attracted votes, but it was not presented alongside other policies…as a result, the possible upside of the housing policy has dissipated, its effect is similar to a fart in a hurricane.
        I don’t expect Shearer to offer the progressive policies we need, all I hope is that he keeps coming with policies that attract votes and end National’s massacre.

        • NoseViper (The Nose knows) 2.2.1.1
          15 February 2013 at 10:48 am

          Hey fatty – give some support to the housing policy will you. What about that it is going in the right direction but needs to show more initiative or something. It’s something at least in the right direction that Labour is doing.

          • muzza 2.2.1.1.1
            15 February 2013 at 11:34 am

            NV – No credit from me what so ever, for the housing policy, which will never get off the ground, and if it did, there will be the usual *unexpected consequences*, but with the certainty the private operations will come out on top.

            Until the LP come out deamnding the following, you can write them off as the imposters (NACT) they have been since the 80’s

            1: RBNZ/OoDM audit
            2: Confirmation that NZ is in control of its sovereign monetary supply
            3: Confirmation the the LP will instruct RBNZ to issue funds directly to treasury (interest free), for schools, hospitals, R&D, *Green Programmes*, environmental improvements etc…
            4: (name the action which will show they are here for NZ, not the foreign masters)

            Time is short, talk is cheap, NZ politics is bent beoyond belief

            Where is a candidate who upon entering parliament, will report freely back to the public on the inner workings of the deals/lobbying etc which directs policy.

            Why is an MP (someone free from blackmail), not publically driving home every day, in as public a way as possible, the corruption of people such as Dunne/Banks etc al, they would be even more despised than they could ever imagine!

            Expose it, or you’re in on it – Vote for it, and you support it!

            • One Tāne Huna 2.2.1.1.1.1
              15 February 2013 at 12:11 pm

              The embodiment of self-serving twaddle: “Endorse my conspiracist world view or you must be part of the conspiracy.”

              ‘No, no!’ said the Queen. ‘Sentence first – verdict afterwards.’

              • muzza …
                15 February 2013 at 12:17 pm

                Hello mate, was wondering what took you so long..

                Go ahead and explain, why those inside parliament are seemingly not forthcoming about the corruption going on, and how voting for it, is not endorsing the broken entity which governs us?

                Perhaps there is none, perhaps the awful, destructive decisions currently tearing away the country’s core is “incompetance” , perhaps it’s all just bad luck all round old boy!

                Nah, I prefer to seek explanations, and in order to do so, it requires means all angles need be considered.

                My interest is only for the betterment of NZ, which is more than I can say for those who *go along* , supporting, hoping, dreaming of a *change in fortune*, it ain’t coming, until people accept why/how, the destruction is allowed to continue, without resistance!

                Interesting you mention the Queen, which one in particular did you have in mind?

                • One Tāne Huna …
                  15 February 2013 at 12:38 pm

                  🙄

                  I note that “those inside parliament” have been vocal in their opposition to and condemnation of Banks et al. Your fantasies are no less tiresome for being so easily debunked.

                  Project Onan would fit perfectly into Alice’s Adventures In Wonderland. You can find the Queen there too.

                  • muzza …
                    15 February 2013 at 12:46 pm

                    Whatever helps you sleep at night bro, I’ll go to the theatre if I want to see a play!

                    Alice in Wonderland, now there’s a Disney adventure to share with the kids!

                    Out of curiosity – Which day did my ban oficially finish Bloke, you’re still stalking me, so obviously know the answer!

                    [RL: Look I’m the one releasing your comments from moderation muzza. I don’t have to.]

                    • One Tāne Huna …
                      15 February 2013 at 1:21 pm

                      “…a Disney adventure…”

                      Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, aka Lewis Carroll, wrote Alice’s Adventures In Wonderland.

                    • McFlock …
                      15 February 2013 at 1:58 pm

                      That’s exactly what they want you to think!

                    • One Tāne Huna …
                      15 February 2013 at 2:22 pm

                      I don’t know whether to roll or lol 😀

                    • muzza …
                      15 February 2013 at 2:50 pm

                      McFlock as well, hello little buddy how you doing, good to see you’re still propping up OAB, who seems to have been counting the days of my ban.

                      Bloke – Which company produced the animated film Alice in Wonderland (1951)?

                      Clue it was called, Walt Disney Productions!

                    • One Tāne Huna …
                      15 February 2013 at 3:10 pm

                      Muzza, which author wrote the book Alice’s Adventures In Wonderland, published in 1865, you tiresome cretin?

                    • Rogue Trooper …
                      15 February 2013 at 3:17 pm

                      check out The Financial Post below (they are banning hookah pipes in parts of Arabian M.E; Open Sesame)

                    • muzza …
                      15 February 2013 at 3:26 pm

                      Bloke, that’s all very good and well, I’m not contesting who wrote it. Thats not what I was referring, when I used the term *Disney adventure*, which I would expect to have been somewhat obvious, and I also suspect your desire to try trip me up, got the better of you , again!

                      Missed your insults though, nice to hear them, although perhaps time to move on from, tiresome cretin, it’s become a little, self titled!

                    • One Tāne Huna …
                      15 February 2013 at 5:12 pm

                      I’m not referencing the “Disney adventure”, I’m referencing the book. In particular, the way that the Queen’s insistence on “verdict first, sentence afterwards” is an apt summation of your myopic mono-mania.

                    • One Tāne Huna …
                      15 February 2013 at 5:31 pm

                      😆 and I even managed to muddle the order too.

          • fatty 2.2.1.1.2
            15 February 2013 at 11:37 am

            Hey fatty – give some support to the housing policy will you.

            Sorry, but like Muzza said, I just see it perpetuating our problems, not solving them. I don’t think maintaining our property price bubble is going in the ‘right direction’.
            I would say that focusing more on building up Government housing stocks so that people from all classes can rent from the Government. I would like to see a move away from this assumption that owning land is embedded in our culture – because its not with younger generations.
            I thought I was being quite kind to Labour’s housing policy, I try my best not to shoot down everything Labour does, but that is difficult.
            The original point I was trying to make is that UK Labour appear to be presenting vote-gaining policies on a regular basis…in contrast, NZ Labour have given a housing policy that has not been as effective as it could have due to the policy vacuum – that appears to be a Labour strategy?

            • NoseViper (The Nose knows) 2.2.1.1.2.1
              15 February 2013 at 11:54 am

              fatty
              You are so right. But I am just grateful for small crumbs from the Labour Barbecue. I’m just like a dog sitting with tongue hanging out thinking – Drop it, go on, drop that juicy bit of sausage. (I don’t have expensive tastes.)

              That’s why I say give them some brownie points. By all means then turn around and accuse them of being backward – they can’t do the same as they did in 1938. Haven’t they ever listened to housing advocate groups? – there are quite a few around with excellent ideas. I have a few too. And you also. I think that government building and selling the houses is crazy. I am all for some sort of managed valuation that rises at term deposit rates annually. Then the government pays them back with this much rise added. Still has the house. Tidies it up, makes it available to people who can save a deposit and afford to pay for it – perhaps on a 25 year mortgage to a proper housing department. etc

            • Bunji 2.2.1.1.2.2
              15 February 2013 at 4:04 pm

              UK Labour just made their first policy announcement (re-introduction of 10% tax rate) since the 2010 election, and are saying hold out until 2015 for the rest… So i’m not sure your compare and contrast with NZ Labour is particularly fair.

              I’d also say UK Labour are every bit as much targeting the middle-class as NZ Labour, and less willing to challenge orthodoxy. Anti-austerity, sure, but not proposing re-structuring the economy, just spending more. The growth of inequality pre-2010 was massive – just reverting to pre-Coalition policies ain’t going to cut it…

              While the housing policy may be better with the Greens addition (or something like it), I don’t see a massive house building program as “maintaining our property price bubble”. Shortage of supply maintains our bubble (particularly in AKL/CHC), not massively increasing supply. Labour will build more Housing NZ stock too – it’s not mutually exclusive.

              Our previously very high homeownership rates are one of the major reasons for us having the lowest pensioner poverty in the world. We need to stop investment properties (and get people to invest in productive businesses), not home-ownership.

              • fatty …
                15 February 2013 at 9:03 pm

                good points Bunji…now I look into it, Miliband hasn’t released policies. Strange how Miliband appears to have a vision, whereas Shearer doesn’t. Maybe its just me that sees that (and NZ & UK voters) – perception is so crucial, even for those of us who think we are well informed.

  3. JK 3
    15 February 2013 at 8:59 am

    Reasons for the sudden increase in spam from xtra are in today’s Herald

    .”…..the problems lie largely with Yahoo, to which Telecom outsourced their email service in 2007.
    ……..
    The vulnerability apparently came about thanks to Yahoo’s failure to keep its blog software up to date – a widely recognised security hole on the Yahoo subdomain developer. yahoo.com that had been around for close to nine months……….”

    This is apparently what you need to do to stop them happening !

    *First, log out. Once logged out the session is “dead” and the account cannot be accessed.

    *Make sure you always log out as closing the browser window won’t suffice.

    *And never use the “remember me” checkbox on webmail, no matter how inconvenient it is to log in every time.

  4. millsy 4
    15 February 2013 at 10:04 am

    Why we should be worried about iwi gaining control of our lakes, rivers and mountains

    David Shearer should promise to re-nationalise Lake Taupo for all New Zealanders when Labour gets back into power/office. With encourangement from the National/MP alliance, the ‘Keep Out’ signs will soon be up by lunchtime.

    • Colonial Weka 4.1
      15 February 2013 at 11:31 am

      “The Lake Taupo District mayor is worried that if a local iwi charges Ironman New Zealand to use the lake for their triathlon event other event organisers could be put off and local businesses could lose money.”

      There seemed to be a bit missing, so I’ve added it in –

      “The Lake Taupo District mayor is worried that if the District Council continues to charge some events organisers to use council owned land for their events then other event organisers could be put off and local businesses could lose money.”

    • marty mars 4.2
      15 February 2013 at 11:50 am

      “Mayor Rick Cooper says even though the tribe does have the right to charge users for the lake, it could have devastating effects on the district’s economy.”

      Good on you millsy – looking after the interests of the district’s economy and of course the right for anyone to do anything when they have that right.

      You’d take every physical thing given back to tangata whenua and put it into the pit for everyone I’m sure, but please feel free to tell me I’m wrong.

      • millsy 4.2.1
        16 February 2013 at 12:12 am

        True it did, but that’s all that went up.

        “You’d take every physical thing given back to tangata whenua and put it into the pit for everyone I’m sure, but please feel free to tell me I’m wrong.”

        With all due respect, yes.

        The handing of vast tracts of recreational estate such as rivers, lakes, and other conservation land to iwi is one of our dirty little secrets.

        My point is that this could be the start of a slippery slope, we could all wake up to find that Tuwharetoa are charging people to go for a swim or a walk along the beach.

        Public ownership by the New Zealand Crown is the only way to nip this sort of tomfoolery in the bud,

        • bad12 4.2.1.1
          16 February 2013 at 12:21 am

          ”The handing of vast tracts of recreational estate such as rivers, lakes, and other conservation land to iwi is one of our dirty little secrets”,

          Care to provide a list of all these vast tracts that have been handed to Iwi,

          The dirty little secret was the fact that these vast tracts were stolen off of those Iwi by the Crown in the first place,

          What your saying is if any of its given back you like a good little colonizer want to keep your boot as the oppressor on the neck of Iwi and tell them what and what they cannot do with what was rightfully theirs all the time…

          • millsy 4.2.1.1.1
            16 February 2013 at 12:49 am

            So you think all of our national parks and DOC estates should be handed back to Maori then? Don’t come crying to me when you have to pay $50 to drive up Mt Ruapehu.

            • bad12 4.2.1.1.1.1
              16 February 2013 at 1:01 am

              Putting ”so you think blah blah blah” is the debating tactic of one who has low intellect,

              I see you have no list of these vast tracts that are to be given to Maori just as i see you make no denial that such vast tracts were stolen from Maori in the first place,

              I have a picture of Ruapehu Maunga on my kitchen wall, the first time my niece set eyes on it Her words were “that’s my mountain”,

              I have no problem with the owners of such property charging any amount of money they so wish if i want to access their property, just as the local farmer has no problem charging hunter’s an access fee to hunt out the back blocks of His or Her property…

              • millsy …
                16 February 2013 at 8:16 am

                That just about confirms it, you DO want all the national parks handed back to iwi. OUR national parks, they belong to ALL of us. The left is depriving future generations of access to recreational assets.

                • The Al1en …
                  16 February 2013 at 8:39 am

                  “I have no problem with the owners of such property charging any amount of money they so wish if i want to access their property,”

                  That’s what tories say.

                  “I have a picture of Ruapehu Maunga on my kitchen wall, the first time my niece set eyes on it Her words were “that’s my mountain”,”

                  I say that too, about all kiwi mountains, rivers, parks, lakes, people, Jade etc…
                  Hope you told her what symbolic means.

                  • marty mars …
                    16 February 2013 at 8:51 am

                    lol – they are not kiwi mountains – read some history and try and learn about this country you’ve decided to live in before you really embarrass yourself.

                    Colonization – it ain’t over ’till it’s over and it ain’t over that is for sure.

                    • The Al1en …
                      16 February 2013 at 9:02 am

                      “symbolism is the practice of representing things by symbols, or of investing things with a symbolic meaning or character”

                      Just like the first arrivals to this beautiful country, I too have also formed a spiritual connection with the land.
                      For better or worse, depending on your view, Hamilton West is mine.

                      Nothing in your reply is really relevant to me.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      16 February 2013 at 9:10 am

                      Most iwi are politically smart enough to know that there is a fine balancing act to be had with the wider communities that they live and do business in. Still, Millsy’s concerns over the loss of DoC land is going to be strongly shared by hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders at a guess.

                      Colonization – it ain’t over ’till it’s over and it ain’t over that is for sure.

                      It’s never going to be over because a lot of Maori have learnt much of the language, the forms, the systems and the attitudes of the colonisers. You can get all the land and other assets back you wish, but from the cultural standpoint it’s hard to see how it will ever be “over”.

                    • marty mars …
                      16 February 2013 at 9:15 am

                      A – enjoy your ignorance oh blissful one 🙂

                    • The Al1en …
                      16 February 2013 at 9:27 am

                      “enjoy your ignorance oh blissful one”

                      Really, is that it? Just an ignorant barb is a little condescending and given I’ve written nothing to deserve it, unfair and a bit insulting. It’s like you’ve knee jerked your way to the wrong conclusion.

                      I’ve written nothing that denigrates Maori. I’ve written nothing that demeans their culture or rights. I’ve written nothing from the viewpoint of a colonizer. I’ve written nothing that makes light of our Treaty. I’ve written nothing to deserve blissful ignorance.

                      If it’s knee jerk reactions we’re playing, then that’s easy to win from here on in, but I’ll do you a courtesy as a brother and let it slide as misguided rather than some of the less civil options available.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      16 February 2013 at 9:32 am

                      It is actually.

                      Symbolism is kind of sterile to be honest. It just represents. To get into the real juice you need to start talking about myths.

                      Now myths aint nothing like fairy stories.

                      Myths have explanatory power. They explain why symbols hold truth. They demand living up to. A myth demands that those to whom the myth have relevance, justify the truth of the symbolism through their actions.

                      So what is the story that says why you are of here, rather than just living here. What is the thing you use to give truth to the claim that west Hamilton is yours, rather than just a place you were born and lived or whatever?

                      Colonialism is New Zealand’s history. Just wishing it away is to have a myth that is a lie, a myth that explicitly denies Maori history. There is no way it can be anything other than racist.

                      The thing that allows me to say that I am of Whanganui, that I have a connection to the river, (albeit of a different kind to the river Hapu), is the Treaty. That is my myth, it’s the only story we have that allows us a ‘truth’ claim to to say we are of here. And that origin myth demands we honour the Treaty.

                      Make a lie of the treaty, and you make a lie of who you are and how you are here. You lose legitimacy in your claim to be of here.

                      So I gree with Marty that you cannot claim the X is your mountain or whatever, if you do not do so in a way that honours the treaty. And that if you have a myth that denies the centrality of the Treaty, that says you have some other claim to be of here, then that myth is just further colonisation in its worst form.

                    • The Al1en …
                      16 February 2013 at 9:38 am

                      “So I gree with Marty that to you cannot claim the X is your mountain or whatever, if you do not do so in a way that honours the treaty.”

                      With respect, that sounds wrong.
                      Maori didn’t have a treaty when they first arrived here and formed their spiritual and symbolic connections with the land.
                      I, like many New Zealanders share the connection to home on a personal level above and beyond any piece of paper, just like I suspect, most Maori do.

                    • marty mars …
                      16 February 2013 at 9:46 am

                      The smiley face meant I was only half playing with you and trying to be funnyish not ripping into you – no need to get offended – you have said what I said was irrelevant to you remember. I just think you are wrong and misguided and the Treaty settlement process, including apologies from the Crown for the injustices committed to the indigenous people of this land, seem to back me up.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      16 February 2013 at 9:48 am

                      Maori didn’t need a Treaty?

                      So what? They have different stories because they have a different history.

                      To say that you are of here, but not reliant on the Treaty is simply and purely to deny not only Maori history, but our own.

                      Like I said, you can’t just wish it away without extending a colonial project of the worst type.

                      Feel free to explain how you could if you like.

                      What’s the story that gives you a claim to be of here that doesn’t deny that the place was someone elses when we arrived.

                    • The Al1en …
                      16 February 2013 at 9:57 am

                      “you have said what I said was irrelevant to you remember.”

                      I said it wasn’t relevant, not irrelevant 🙂

                      “I just think you are wrong and misguided and the Treaty settlement process, including apologies from the Crown for the injustices committed to the indigenous people of this land, seem to back me up.”

                      I can accept you thinking I’m wrong. That’s always allowed.
                      But as I fully agree with the settlement process and righting wrongs and injustices, find the link out of place.

                      I’m on record here as saying the treaty needs to be looked at again to find a definitive article we can all be happy with.
                      I’m on record here stating I believe in a devolved Maori parliament with permanent seats in cabinet, if that’s what they wanted.

                      Socially suicidal as it may be on a blog, I’m saying I love this home world just as much as anyone else does.
                      And very much joking, do you want a fight about that?

                    • The Al1en …
                      16 February 2013 at 10:07 am

                      “Maori didn’t need a Treaty?

                      So what? They have different stories because they have a different history.”

                      That’s the answer, right there. Now expand that to me and everyone else that loves New Zealand and you got it.

                      “To say that you are of here, but not reliant on the Treaty is simply and purely to deny not only Maori history, but our own.”

                      No it’s not, and you’ve taken that well beyond the context intended. I won’t say disingenuous, just poorly interpreted.

                      “What’s the story that gives you a claim to be of here that doesn’t deny that the place was someone elses when we arrived.”

                      I don’t know what you’re asking.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      16 February 2013 at 12:26 pm

                      It’s not difficult.

                      You seem to be saying that your sense of belonging here is not reliant on the treaty. That you have some legitimate claim to that sense of belonging other than the treaty.

                      So what is it based on?

                      It looks like you are saying that you have a legitimate claim to be here just because you are here; that the fact Maori were here first is not relevant.

                      If that’s what you are saying, then I’m asking you to explain where that legitimacy comes from, if it doesn’t come from a colonialist logic.

                    • millsy …
                      16 February 2013 at 1:15 pm

                      Cool Marty, good to know that you want iwi to own all of our mountains. Try going round to the local tramping club with all that B/S.

                    • marty mars …
                      16 February 2013 at 2:58 pm

                      yes millsy – which one are you with – lets make a date.

                      Your fantastic notions of being forced to pay everywhere (not withstanding your original post here) just haven’t happened but a few settlements have been made – hmmm – how you can side with ansell and that crew and still say you are ‘left’ is beyond me – it’s fucked up mate.

                  • The Al1en …
                    16 February 2013 at 9:42 am

                    Besides that, you hold ‘symbolism’ as sterile, then use it by citing the treaty.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      16 February 2013 at 9:44 am

                      Symbolism by itself is sterile. You need a narrative to explain the truth of the symbol, to show where the symbol gets power.

                    • The Al1en …
                      16 February 2013 at 9:48 am

                      “Symbolism by itself is sterile. You need a narrative to explain the truth of the symbol, to show where the symbol gets power.”

                      Well we all have our own narratives. Problem solved.

                    • The Al1en …
                      16 February 2013 at 6:26 pm

                      “But dad, it’s real, it’s luuurve.
                      ‘

                      One can only imagine had someone disrespected Bad 12s neices relationship with her land.

                  • The Al1en …
                    16 February 2013 at 12:52 pm

                    “You seem to be saying that your sense of belonging here is not reliant on the treaty”

                    Correct, though of course I’m happy for some have to have one with the other.

                    “That you have some legitimate claim to that sense of belonging other than the treaty.”

                    Still correct. Doesn’t diminish the treaty or anyone’s reliance on it.

                    “So what is it based on?”

                    Years of experience and learnt behaviour make us who we are. I’ll plump for that, for starters.

                    “It looks like you are saying that you have a legitimate claim to be here just because you are here;”

                    Not just because I’m here, but because the connection has been made, and you can’t tell me otherwise without stepping all over my mana and rights to belong.

                    “that the fact Maori were here first is not relevant.”

                    Not to me, in having a spiritual symbolic attachment, nor does the fact that I’m a relatively late arrival to these shores.
                    Again, that doesn’t detract from Maori, their rights and claims in any way at all, except maybe in your head.

                    “If that’s what you are saying,”

                    It is.

                    “then I’m asking you to explain where that legitimacy comes from”

                    Home is where the heart is. Don’t know if legitimacy comes into it, just like the relevance of the point you’re badly trying to make.

                    “if it doesn’t come from a colonialist logic.”

                    😆

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      16 February 2013 at 2:14 pm

                      Not just because I’m here, but because the connection has been made, and you can’t tell me otherwise without stepping all over my mana and rights to belong.

                      What right to belong do you have, absent the Treaty?

                      You haven’t actually explained that part.

                    • Rogue Trooper …
                      16 February 2013 at 2:21 pm

                      “i’m an alien, an illegal alien, i’m an englishman in new york”
                      hey, that Graham Norton can be funny-
                      “well oil be foocked” (WOBH)

                    • marty mars …
                      16 February 2013 at 2:45 pm

                      “Home is where the heart is” so trite.

                      Why not relatively recently arrive with the inuit and explain to them how much you love their sacred mountain, river, lake and land or whatever, just like them – as MUCH as them, or a Native American or an Andaman Islander? What do you think they would say A?

                      Don’t bother, I know it is all about you and your status. Must win, must assert dominance – ho fucken hum.

                      You want to rewrite the treaty? So what – a gate creaks by the shed.

                    • The Al1en …
                      16 February 2013 at 3:30 pm

                      “What right to belong do you have, absent the Treaty?

                      You haven’t actually explained that part.”

                      It’s a nothing argument you’re using, mate.
                      Euro immigrants to UK don’t need the act of Union to to symbolically identify and become part of a new whole, any more than I have use the treaty as my inspiration/justification/reason to be as home here as anybody else.

                      Surely you’re not as bigoted/short sighted to believe I have to reach a conclusion, but only if I do so your way?
                      That’s quite a statement if you are, that I can’t be a proper New Zealander unless I see it your way. Are you paul henry?

                    • The Al1en …
                      16 February 2013 at 3:35 pm

                      ““Home is where the heart is” so trite.”

                      That’s your interpretation, nothing more.

                      “Why not relatively recently arrive with the inuit and explain to them how much you love their sacred mountain, river, lake and land or whatever, just like them – as MUCH as them, or a Native American or an Andaman Islander? What do you think they would say A?”

                      Are you seriously saying I can’t love that mountain, river, lake, land or whatever as MUCH as them? Or I can’t have a spiritual connection that has as much relevance of importance as it does for someone else, even if we’re from different cultures, backgrounds?
                      And you say I’m blissfully ignorant 😆

                      “Don’t bother, I know it is all about you and your status. Must win, must assert dominance – ho fucken hum.”

                      Don’t be a div.

                    • The Al1en …
                      16 February 2013 at 3:37 pm

                      ““i’m an alien, an illegal alien, i’m an englishman in new york”
                      hey, that Graham Norton can be funny-
                      “well oil be foocked” (WOBH)”

                      Excellent stuff.

                    • marty mars …
                      16 February 2013 at 3:51 pm

                      lol – the empire is gone, oh dear what a pity.

                      and please let me know how you get on with those indigenous peoples – take a video camera, the footage will be priceless.

                    • The Al1en …
                      16 February 2013 at 4:00 pm

                      “lol – the empire is gone, oh dear what a pity.”

                      😆

                      “and please let me know how you get on with those indigenous peoples – take a video camera, the footage will be priceless.”

                      So what it boils down to, is that you can’t accept a newcomer forming a spiritual connection with the land, equal in strength and passion as your own, not beholding to any piece of paper as incentive or motivation.

                      That’s okay, I don’t mind.
                      As long as we all vow to return and keep our mountains, lakes, rivers and land or whatever in pristine condition, fit to leave our rainbow multicultural descendants, then why worry?

                    • The Al1en …
                      16 February 2013 at 4:21 pm

                      “and please let me know how you get on with those indigenous peoples – take a video camera, the footage will be priceless.”

                      I’ve made my point here just fine to you.
                      You can accept others spiritual connections and symbolisms, or not.
                      My mountain, my river, my town, my people, just like you, but different.

                      Take a screen shot and we’ll save the carbon footprint for our kids.

                    • marty mars …
                      16 February 2013 at 4:22 pm

                      “So what it boils down to, is that you can’t accept a newcomer forming a spiritual connection with the land, equal in strength and passion as your own, not beholding to any piece of paper as incentive or motivation.”

                      not ‘my own’ but it does seem a little arrogant imo, – you see you piped in originally snarkily decrying someones heartfelt relationship to their maunga as if you even knew what they were talking about lol, but whatever, I’ve heard the argument more than a few times and rarely does your side adjust their view – bit too much riding on it and uncomfortable truths better left unconsidered.

                    • The Al1en …
                      16 February 2013 at 4:24 pm

                      “you see you piped in originally snarkily decrying someones heartfelt relationship to their maunga as if you even knew what they were talking about lol,”

                      Completely dispute snarkily and decrying, and you’re imposing an ignorance upon me that doesn’t exist.
                      Apart from that, you’re sweet.

                    • The Al1en …
                      16 February 2013 at 4:26 pm

                      “rarely does your side adjust their view – bit too much riding on it and uncomfortable truths better left unconsidered.”

                      I think, for clarity, you should identify ‘my side’, what view it is I’m supposedly sharing and what uncomfortable truth I should or should not be considering.

                    • marty mars …
                      16 February 2013 at 4:36 pm

                      lol that was quite funny

                    • The Al1en …
                      16 February 2013 at 4:44 pm

                      Quite funny is an improvement on ignorance. I’ll take it.

                    • The Al1en …
                      16 February 2013 at 4:46 pm

                      Still doesn’t mean I haven’t got a great stonking symbolic spiritual relationship with the land I call home. 😉

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      16 February 2013 at 5:26 pm

                      You’ve asserted this relationship, but it seems to be a puddle deep one, based on nothing but what looks like personal self based feelings.

                      Like an adolescent’s first crush in comparison to an actual relationship.

                    • The Al1en …
                      16 February 2013 at 5:37 pm

                      “You’ve asserted this relationship, but it seems to be a puddle deep one, based on nothing but what looks like personal self based feelings.”

                      How do you rank and gauge my spiritual connection to NZ?
                      And are not all such connections “personal self based feelings”?

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      16 February 2013 at 6:09 pm

                      But dad, it’s real, it’s luuurve.

                      All I’ve asked is that you explain it, that you give some concrete truth about what it is you’re talking about. But you can’t.

                      You just fall back on trite hallmark slogans.

                      Home is where the heart is, ffs.

                      So what?

                      You could really really like somewhere, but that doesn’t justify a claim to belong to it. Those sorts of claims rely on history, like it or not.

                      And in the NZ context, your claim of belonging to it either comes via the Treaty, or via some sort of colonial mindset that says, Hey, I’m here, I like it, I’d like to think it’s mine, and it doesn’t matter about the history of the place. I disregard that history, because it’s not mine.

                      Now how can you claim to really love the place if you have so little regard for its actual history, if you say the place’s history is just not relevant to your relationship with it?

                      Can you see why I’d call that sort of love for the place an infatuation?

                    • The Al1en …
                      16 February 2013 at 6:22 pm

                      “Pascal’s bookie …
                      16 February 2013 at 6:09 pm”

                      So no answer then. Thought not, given as how any would expose a flawed argument.

                      “bad12 …
                      16 February 2013 at 6:10 pm
                      A colonizing leftist, how unsurprising”

                      You know that saying never bring a knife to a gun fight? Works the same as bringing limited wit to a debate with me 😉 😆

                      “it is Her mountain, just as the Whanganui River which flows from that mountain is Her river,”

                      Was never ever in dispute, and I don’t really know why some here think it was/is.
                      But apparently I’m not, despite our differences, allowed to share the same sense of ownership and symbolism as your neice.

                    • The Al1en …
                      16 February 2013 at 6:28 pm

                      “But dad, it’s real, it’s luuurve.”

                      One can only imagine the response if someone had diminished bad 12s neices spiritual connection.
                      Shame on you 😉

                    • The Al1en …
                      16 February 2013 at 6:38 pm

                      Just a question.
                      Is a four year old natural born kiwi child’s spiritual connection to the landless or more important than a 12 year immigrants?
                      How can you gauge it, and on who’s authority in our free society do you take your lead from?

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      16 February 2013 at 6:41 pm

                      lol.

                      No answer to what?

                      Whiny teenaged angst?

                      I gave you an answer.

                      And am waiting on quite a few.

                      Figured out a reason to say you are of this place that isn’t acolonialist argument yet?

                      Hint: ‘I like it a lot I don’t care what it’s history is, but Imma gonna say I’m of the place’ is a colonialist argument.

                      One that Pauls Henry and Holmes, Michael Laws, and assorted other tory boys and fuckwits use, all. the. time.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      16 February 2013 at 6:49 pm

                      Sigh,

                      Your questions are drivel Al1en.

                      Non_Maori connections ot this land are via an honoured Treaty. This is true whether they know it or not. Read the history. Think about what it means.

                      Inasmuch as they deny the centrality of the Treaty to their relationship, they cheapen their relationship and turn it into something else, a far uglier sort of colonialism. It’s up to each person to work out how they want their relationship with this place to be. they can either choose to make it about honouring the Treaty, or they can choose to make it about subjugation and colonialism.

                      If you think there is another way, I’m all ears.

                    • The Al1en …
                      16 February 2013 at 6:50 pm

                      “lol.
                      No answer to what?
                      Whiny teenaged angst?
                      I gave you an answer.”

                      To be fair, you haven’t answered how you can rank spiritual connectivity to the land.
                      I don’t even think you know what you are arguing for.
                      What you are using against my beliefs here is worse than you accuse others of.
                      Just saying 😉

                      “And am waiting on quite a few.”

                      I’ve been full and upfront. Not my fault you can’t see the logic involved here.

                      “Figured out a reason to say you are of this place that isn’t acolonialist argument yet?”

                      Colonist argument 😆 You sound like that deconstructionist feminist bloke.

                      “Hint: ‘I like it a lot I don’t care what it’s history is, but Imma gonna say I’m of the place’ is a colonialist argument.”

                      Nope, I’m an immigrant from the end of the 20th century and have formed a special spiritual connection with the land, equal to yours and others, including bad 12s niece, even if I’m not Maori and totally unreliant on the treaty.
                      You just have to deal with it, I’m afraid.

                      “One that Pauls Henry and Holmes, Michael Laws, and assorted other tory boys and fuckwits use, all. the. time.”

                      And by the evidence here, you too.

                    • The Al1en …
                      16 February 2013 at 6:56 pm

                      You keep posting lots, yet say nothing.

                      “You’re questions are drivel Al1en.”

                      That fuck your argument out of the water.

                      “Non_Maori connections ot this land are via an honoured Treaty. This is true whether they know it or not. Read the history.”

                      My connection with this land, or any other I chose to connect with has nothing to do with the treaty.

                      “Think about what it means.”

                      I have, and it’s okay. Just like pre treaty Maori bonded with the country without a founding document, I can do the same.

                      “Inasmuch as they deny the centrality of the Treaty to their relationship,”

                      Who’s relationship?

                      “they cheapen their relationship and turn it into something else,”

                      That’s a lie if directed at me.

                      “aIt’s up to each person to work out how they want their relationship with this place to be.”

                      That’s a truth of yours I agree with.

                      “they can either choose to make it about honouring the Treaty, or they can choose to make it about subjugation and colonialism.”

                      There’s the disconnect.

                    • The Al1en …
                      16 February 2013 at 7:02 pm

                      And again, seeing as it’s being overlooked,

                      I have no issue with the treaty (other than not having a version we can all get behind), Maori rights, settlement process etcetera.

                      The only issue here is a couple of people can’t or won’t accept my non Maori, non treaty reliant spiritual connection as equal.
                      That makes them overtly prejudiced, or at best a little bit stupid.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      16 February 2013 at 7:06 pm

                      Why are you totally unreliant on the Treaty?

                      You’ve not actually explained that yet.

                      You do know that the authority that granted you permission to immigrate, comes from the Treaty, right?

                      You do know that it’s the Treaty that grants the government in Wellington legitimacy to govern this place eh?

                      Seriously, you’re welcome here, and I’m stoked that you like it, and it’s up to you, but getting to grips with the place will deepen the relationship. It’s not all about you.

                    • The Al1en …
                      16 February 2013 at 7:14 pm

                      “Why are you totally unreliant on the Treaty?
                      You’ve not actually explained that yet.”

                      Does my spirituality depend or rely on the treaty? No, it does not. What’s to explain? If it doesn’t, it just doesn’t.
                      Spirituality and the symbolism as being discussed, for me, have nothing to do with pieces of paper, however significant to some, or indeed, as our nations founding document.
                      Doesn’t mean I dishonour the treaty or the people it was signed by, as I’ve clearly demonstrated. Quite me if you think I have.

                    • The Al1en …
                      16 February 2013 at 7:16 pm

                      “You do know that the authority that granted you permission to immigrate, comes from the Treaty, right?

                      You do know that it’s the Treaty that grants the government in Wellington legitimacy to govern this place eh?”

                      See, that’s you not getting it, twice in a row.

                    • The Al1en …
                      16 February 2013 at 7:31 pm

                      “Seriously, you’re welcome here,”

                      Nice to know, but irrelevant.

                      “and I’m stoked that you like it”

                      Lucky all of us.

                      ” and it’s up to you, but getting to grips with the place will deepen the relationship.”

                      I have a firm grip on my place on planet Earth, thanks.

                      “It’s not all about you.”

                      That’s wrong, even when we’re not talking spirituality. 🙂

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      16 February 2013 at 7:41 pm

                      I’m not actually questioning your spirituality, or whatever.

                      All I’m saying is that it is the Treaty that gives you the right to form that spiritual connection. Without the Treaty, where do you get off forming that relationship with this place? By what right do you claim to be of here?

                      The aspect of colonialism that marty was talking about, is the idea that someone can just waltz on in to a place, already inhabited and owned and spiritually connected to a people, and just declare that they like it thank you very much so it’s ours just as much as it is yours and how dare you question that? (sound familiar?)

                      Now as long as the Treaty is honoured, it doesn’t have to be like that.

                      But if you say that your relationship with this place is not reliant on the treaty, if the Treaty isn’t the thing that gives you the right to form a spiritual bond with the place, what is? Your feelings? What about the place, what about the people who already own it, as it owns them?

                      If you say that it isn’t the Treaty that grants you the right to form that spiritual relationship, that’s where you are disrespecting the Treaty. Because that’s what the Treaty did, it granted you, some hundred plus years later, the right to form that relationship you have.

                      But if you don’t respect the history of the place enough to incorporate it into your own relationship with the place, then yeah, I’d say your spiritual connection is of a lower order than that of those who do respect it. An adolescent sort of relationship without obligations or acknowledgement or realities. A fairy tale, rather than a myth.

                    • The Al1en …
                      16 February 2013 at 8:06 pm

                      Firstly, I have to say I hate the format of this blog. It’s very illogical to have to scroll up half a page in order to get a post in sequence., anyway…

                      “I’m not actually questioning your spirituality, or whatever.”

                      Well that’s good, because if you were it would belittle your position.

                      “All I’m saying is that it is the Treaty that gives you the right to form that spiritual connection. Without the Treaty, where do you get off forming that relationship with this place? By what right do you claim to be of here?”

                      This is the point of confusion, and I’m happy to agree to disagree if it draws a line under this debate.
                      My point is the treaty doesn’t give me a right to form those connections, just like Maori don’t need a treaty to form them. We, you, I form our bonds because we just do, whether shared or individually. Where do I get off forming a bond? Just begs the question who are you to judge or set rules?
                      By what right do you claim to be of here? Just smacks of Henry et al you quoted earlier. You give your answers to those two, and I’ll try to come up with a reply that isn’t as offensive and dismissive as first thought.

                      “The aspect of colonialism that marty was talking about, is the idea that someone can just waltz on in to a place, already inhabited and owned and spiritually connected to a people, and just declare that they like it thank you very much so it’s ours just as much as it is yours and how dare you question that? (sound familiar?)”

                      See, now that’s not where I’m coming from at all, as evident in my support for Maori rights amongst other things. My point is spiritual connections can’t be measured by date, age, history and tradition.
                      I’m not saying any such connection is more spiritual than the other. I see no argument why this is challenged.

                      “But if you say that your relationship with this place is not reliant on the treaty, if the Treaty isn’t the thing that gives you the right to form a spiritual bond with the place, what is? Your feelings?

                      Nobodies spirituality is reliant on a treaty. Ask Maori, Chinese, Irish or indeed everyone including al1ens the same question and you’ll probably get a lot of similar answers.

                      “What about the place, what about the people who already own it, as it owns them?”

                      We all own it, it owns all us.
                      I’m taking nothing from anyone by sharing the same feelings for the land.

                      “If you say that it isn’t the Treaty that grants you the right to form that spiritual relationship, that’s where you are disrespecting the Treaty. Because that’s what the Treaty did, it granted you, some hundred plus years later, the right to form that relationship you have.”

                      No, you’re wrong. The treaty founded the nation I now live in and call home, and I respect it like most New Zealanders, but it’s not that old bit of paper that permits me a right of connectivity. Spirituality isn’t governed by law or doctrine in a free society.

                      “But if you don’t respect the history of the place enough to incorporate it into your own relationship with the place, then yeah, I’d say your spiritual connection is of a lower order than that of those who do respect it.”

                      I’ve not written or expressed any view you allege.
                      But interesting to find you qualified to judge and rank something you have zero understanding of.

                      “An adolescent sort of relationship without obligations or acknowledgement or realities. A fairy tale, rather than a myth.”

                      There’s that deconstuctionalist feminist talk that stalks the halls.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      16 February 2013 at 8:52 pm

                      Where we seem to differ is that I do not think everybody just has the right to waltz on in wherever they like and claim that they have just as much right to be there as the people who have already established a place there.

                      I think that because people form relationships with places, and that places are integral to cultures and societies to some extent, then when you move somewhere, those prior relationships should be not just acknowledged in a real way.

                      I mean, if everyone, as you seem to say, just has the right to move to a place and declare their relationship is as good as those who preceded them, then what is wrong with colonialism?

                      As to your question, I have already answered it, multiple times.

                      “Just begs the question who are you to judge or set rules?”

                      I don’t claim that, at all. It is a simple matter of historical fact that the Treaty is what grants the legal and moral right for you and I to claim to be of here. It’s not me that is determining anyone’s rights.

                      I am not saying, like Henry, that you don’t sound like a NZer, or that NZers have a particular sound. Or anything of the ilk. Have whatever relationship or spirituality you like, it’s your right. That right is guaranteed you, in NZ, by the Treaty.

                      I’m saying that you a right to be here. That right comes from the Treaty.

                      So I differ completely from Henry et al.

                      But if you can’t see what I’m saying, or catch the difference between having a relationship with a place, and being able to justify that relationship, I guess we’re done.

                    • The Al1en …
                      16 February 2013 at 9:59 pm

                      “Where we seem to differ is that I do not think everybody just has the right to waltz on in wherever they like and claim that they have just as much right to be there as the people who have already established a place there.”

                      “I’m saying that you a right to be here. That right comes from the Treaty.”

                      Are you saying I have a right to be here? Or I have a right, but not as much as others?
                      Whatever the answer, it doesn’t matter. My relationship and new found spiritual connection doesn’t depend on your answer, which is my point all along.

                      “Have whatever relationship or spirituality you like, it’s your right.”

                      At last. 😆

                      “That right is guaranteed you, in NZ, by the Treaty.”

                      Guaranteed, perhaps, but definitely not reliant upon or inspired by.

                      “So I differ completely from Henry et al.”

                      I’m quite sure you really do.

                      “But if you can’t see what I’m saying, or catch the difference between having a relationship with a place, and being able to justify that relationship”

                      I see what you’re saying, I just disagree or think it irrelevant for the most part, and I, like you and everybody else, don’t have to justify any spiritual relationships of any kind to anyone.

                      “I guess we’re done.”

                      I could have told you that half a page ago, in fact I might already have done so, but bollocks trying to read through that lot for a quote.

                  • bad12 …
                    16 February 2013 at 6:10 pm

                    A colonizing leftist, how unsurprising, it is Her mountain, just as the Whanganui River which flows from that mountain is Her river,

                    She ‘owns’ these things through Her whakapapa, and while tourist operators make billions of dollars off of such marvels i see no reason whatsoever why She as an owner does not have the ability to charge any charge She sees fit through her relevant Tribal Authority for others to access either Her mountain or Her lake…

        • marty mars 4.2.1.2
          16 February 2013 at 8:10 am

          The slope is already slippery millsy and you are on the slide but I knew that anyway just wanted you to confirm it. I am pleased that your extreme view is only shared by the likes of ansell and ilk – equality means nothing to you it is just a word to help you maintain your privilege – that mode of thinking is dying out like the dinosaurs mate – enjoy it while it lasts.

  5. NoseViper (The Nose knows) 5
    15 February 2013 at 11:08 am

    Millsy Don’t know whether I’m not more scared of your attitude than I am concerned about those of the iwi. Sounds like you are one of these sports people who want to take over the country for their own sporting and competitive interests.

    This morning on Radionz a cycling spokesperson seemed to think that everything in life should centre around looking after cyclists and that being asked to wear a visibility vest was a disgraceful burden, rather than seeing it as a lightweight aid to recognition by drivers. And argued about the policeman killed – he was wearing visibility stripes, and died, so the thinking went – a vest would have been no better, so let’s not have them. A poor argument and a poor attitude. This seems to be, do nothing and then cry and vent your anger every time there is an incident.

    A woman in New Plymouth who has enjoyed her walks in scenic areas now has to share the path with cyclists and hates having them swish by and break into the enjoyment of nature she wants. I agree, and the aggressive nature of cyclists, mainly young men, often means that they are pumping along paths, not interested in the natural surroundings but just wanting a challenging ride. They have swamped the interests of peaceful walkers or joggers who want to enjoy the outdoors at a human pace relaxed and in safety.

    • McFlock 5.1
      15 February 2013 at 1:30 pm

      same attitude to helmets in some sectors of the cycling community as the hi-viz comments you mentioned.

      And yet many of them are perfectly willing to be seen in public wearing a corporate-branded full-body condom.

      But then cyclists are one of the topics which make me all irrational and totalitarian 🙂

    • Rhinocrates 5.2
      16 February 2013 at 7:23 pm

      Agree. As a regular walker of paths in reserves, I’m getting seriously pissed off with the arrogant sense of entitlement and indifference to other people that cyclists have. I am expected to step aside for them, but they never think that they have to consider the needs of walkers because it’s all about pushing yourself to the limit man, it’s all about the challenge and everyone else is just an obstacle. Narcissistic jerks.

  6. bad12 6
    15 February 2013 at 12:50 pm

    Economic growth and the brighter future just around the corner, lolz forget it, expect instead another 20,000 unemployed in 12 months as the European economies that make up the Euro-zone drive the train headlong into the wall,

    http://www.uk.reuters.com/…/eurozone-gdp-flash-idUKBRE…-unitedkingdom

    As this continues the economy of China will slow as will that of the US which the Prez has decided to continue to prop up by pumping 40 billion dollars a month of printed monies into via infrastructure spending…

  7. bad12 7
    15 February 2013 at 1:05 pm

    I would like to support the campaign to raise wages to the level of a ‘living wage’ but i don’t, it is not wages for these workers that need rise dramatically which in the economy would force prices to rise and directly hurt the same workers who have no leverage in such a campaign to have their wages raised at all,

    I notice while Labour appear to be out in force supporting this living wage they have no proposal that says that should they become Government they will Legislate for this living wage, instead leaving the most vulnerable workers in the economy with the prospect of fighting their employers for that living wage,

    While a few employers might be able to be forced to pay their workers such a ‘living wage’, most will simply scoff at such a thought and carry on business as usual,

    It is in fact COSTS which should be addressed, specifically the cost of living for those who have a household income of $45,000 or less,

    As the largest cost to this decile of low waged workers is in fact accommodation costs it is these costs that should be addressed by the next Labour/Green Government instead of paying lip service to a well meaning but in the end futile campaign for a ‘living wage’,

    Having proposed the radical lowering of the cost of accommodation across the board for all those who earn less than $45,000 it would then be my responsibility to propose the means to achieve this which i will get around to later on today…

  8. NoseViper (The Nose knows) 8
    15 February 2013 at 1:13 pm

    I have just struck a blog on google full of hate and deliberate misinformation if not lies about NZ. It starts off the page “Proudly killed in NZ” and indicates vast numbers of tourists are dying or being injured. Of course the Christchurch building collapse means high bad statistics, and it updated with the latest being the poor Indian chap that was burned. I have been shocked myself at the lack of help from ACC for tourists’ ongoing needs and the laissez faire attitude by government to adventure businesses and safety measures but this is over the top.

    It also calls the NZ Press Association the Ministry of Truth and says that they have forbidden tourist death statistics to be published and that they are a Zionist controlled organisation.
    How can the sweepings from the bottom of the long-drop be able to publish this sort of s…t?
    I see that Broadcasting standards do not apply to the internet as yet.
    There is a name at the end : Theme: Andreas09 by Andreas Viklund and This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

    Could I complain to google I wonder? A sick mind with time to spare, plenty of time for the devil’s work as the saying goes.

    • McFlock 8.1
      15 February 2013 at 1:48 pm

      that’s a special site, for sure. I love the inclusion of long term migrants and workers in the “tourist” numbers.

      Even going by their “3 in every 4 days in 2011” stat, that’s still an annual mortality rate about the same or less than the general population. “Toughen up” is what I say.

      • Rogue Trooper 8.1.1
        15 February 2013 at 3:36 pm

        I am not surprised NZ gets bagged in this fashion, per capita, it often appears a comparitively savage place…(just ask John Key)

  9. Professor Longhair 9
    15 February 2013 at 3:39 pm

    http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/02/wikileaks-rare-truth-teller-smearing-julian-assange-shameful

    WikiLeaks is a rare truth-teller. Smearing Julian Assange is shameful
    by JOHN PILGER, New Statesman, 14 February 2013

    Last December, I stood with supporters of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange in the bitter cold outside the Ecuadorean embassy in London. Candles were lit; the faces were young and old and from all over the world. They were there to demonstrate their human solidarity with someone whose guts they admired. They were in no doubt about the importance of what Assange had revealed and achieved, and the grave dangers he now faced. Absent entirely were the lies, spite, jealousy, opportunism and pathetic animus of a few who claim the right to guard the limits of informed public debate.

    These public displays of warmth for Assange are common and seldom reported. Several thousand people packed Sydney Town Hall, with hundreds spilling into the street. In New York recently, Assange was given the Yoko Ono Lennon Courage Award. In the audience was Daniel Ellsberg, who risked all to leak the truth about the barbarism of the Vietnam war.

    Like Jemima Khan, the investigative journalist Phillip Knightley, the acclaimed film director Ken Loach and others lost bail money in standing up for Assange. “The US is out to crush someone who has revealed its dirty secrets,” Loach wrote to me. “Extradition via Sweden is more than likely . . . is it difficult to choose whom to support?”

    No, it is not difficult.

    In the NS last week, Jemima Khan ended her support for an epic struggle for justice, truth and freedom with an article on Wiki­Leaks’s founder. To Khan, the Ellsbergs and Yoko Onos, the Loaches and Knightleys, and the countless people they represent, have all been duped. We are all “blinkered”. We are all mindlessly “devoted”. We are all “cultists”. In the final ….

    Read more…
    http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/02/wikileaks-rare-truth-teller-smearing-julian-assange-shameful

    • NoseViper (The Nose knows) 9.1
      15 February 2013 at 4:44 pm

      Doesn’t Jemima Khan like trying out new positions – wealthy, English degree, converted to Islam for a Pakistani (which country does not seem woman friendly), now top positions on the New Statesman and Vanity Fair. She is entitled to change her mind about Assange if she wants to – it was probably always a matter of time.

      Wikipedia – Khan first gained notice in the United Kingdom as a young heiress, the daughter of Lady Annabel and Sir James Goldsmith. She converted to Islam and married Pakistani cricketer and politician Imran Khan in 1995. Khan also gained worldwide media attention for her relationship with British film star Hugh Grant.

      • muzza 9.1.1
        16 February 2013 at 10:33 am

        Jemima Goldsmith (Goldschmidt) is a member of one of the worlds most powerful, and influencial families, part of the worlds original banking cartel!

        • NoseViper (The Nose knows) 9.1.1.1
          16 February 2013 at 2:24 pm

          Muzza
          Your family name and background makes a lot of difference for sure. I love her mother’s extended name. I have given my children the middle name of a female family name that would otherwise disappear through marriage change. But it’s hard when you have so many illustrious names behind you.

          Jemima Marcelle Goldsmith, Khan is the eldest child of Lady Annabel Vane-Tempest-Stewart and Anglo-French financier Sir James Goldsmith.

  10. bad12 10
    15 February 2013 at 3:52 pm

    Meanwhile back in the jungle, it’s all good news for those doing the weekly grocery shop,NOT,

    Food prices have risen 1.9% in the month of January, not a pleasant prospect for those reliant upon low and fixed incomes,

    Why such an overt jump in the price of foods, aah remember just befor Christmas Slippery and Bill nominally in charge of the Titanic came up with their latest bright idea to plug the $1.2 billion hole in the National Governments revenue from taxation initially caused by the 2009 Slippery tax switch,

    In a fit of stunning brilliance Bill looked at the books and like the dullard He is, said to Himself if i raise petrol taxes that $1.2 billion dollar hole in the revenue stream will just disappear, trusting Bill’s judgement explicitly Slippery agreed,

    So they did, raise petrol taxes that is, and it didn’t (of course),stop the Government books bleeding red ink to the tune of $1.2 billion that is,

    The Government rack raising of petrol taxes has simply lead to those costs feeding through the economy and hence food prices rise as a result of that petrol tax rise, we all spend a bit less on food and the Government as an end result collects even less tax…

  11. Rogue Trooper 11
    15 February 2013 at 3:55 pm

    Some Obs. Cosgrove suggests there may be more job losses like those of Contact following asset sales;
    “flat power market, slow growth, declining even.” -Bob Lloyd, Energy Expert

    that Finlayson sure seems a sneaky Lawyer (tenacious trailing and climbing plant). Wow, are they harrassing those who require prescriptions, the cross-charge implications were identified by Treasury; seems like an additional tax on the elderly and infirm in particular, to me. Then the Ministry of Health retains two research commissions at 20M combined per annum to save an estimated 1-4.5M from grommet operations!

    then they are gonna subsidize Chorus to 160+M to fund fibre??? r r r (nanoo nanoo; The Fisher King is interesting).

    on One news, a corporate response to the Living Wage campaign- “if the min. goes up, we’ll have to source cheaper options.”

    Christchurch is to get a “Justice Sector Precinct”, (sounds ominous) comprising police + justice+ corrections; now that’s a one-stop-711.

    Wow! 134 / 3 per week cyber attacks on critical government and / or corporate infrastructure IT last year.
    our “protection is flawed” -Keith Ng

    meanwhile NZ retail spending increases with expenditure on the ever helpful Fuel, Car and Hardware (mainly CHCH)

    on their road-trip, the Education and Science Commitee are advised that Charter Schools are “a disaster waiting to happen”.

    Oh well, diligent hands will rule, yet laziness ends in slave labour.
    or
    the sluggard craves and gets nothing, yet the desires of the diligent are fully satisfied (proverbially) 🙂

  12. Emilio Zapata 12
    15 February 2013 at 4:04 pm

    Apartheid Fort New Zealand. I came across that page a few years ago. Somebody definitely took the brown acid.

  13. geoff 13
    15 February 2013 at 6:12 pm

    Hooton on Citizen A with Keith Locke.
    He couldn’t help trying to get the boot into the Greens as part of his campaign against
    the rise in popularity of left ideals. He got soundly laughed at by Bomber and Keith though.

    • Rhinocrates 13.1
      16 February 2013 at 6:29 pm

      He always tries that with the Greens. It’s a fetish, like Wishart’s hate-boner for Helen Clark.

      • Rhinocrates 13.1.1
        16 February 2013 at 7:09 pm

        That said, since his clients are polluters, the slimy little arselicker does have to show that he’s giving them their money’s worth… and then pocket his pay.

      • geoff 13.1.2
        17 February 2013 at 9:22 pm

        Far be it from me to deny that…
        Still, I’m sticking to my ‘the green’s are the last popular bastion of actual leftist ideals and Hooton really doesn’t want that to catch on’ meme.

  14. Pascal's bookie 14
    15 February 2013 at 7:04 pm

    Holy shitballs Mr Internet!

    Check out these meteor videos from russia today:

    Driving along in my automobile:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7c-0iwBEswE&feature=youtu.be

    At about 20 some seconds the shockwave hits:

  15. Pascal's bookie 15
    15 February 2013 at 7:05 pm

    And here’s where (parts of ?) it reportedly hit, reports of people killed:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BDH3-ItCMAANqCv.jpg:large

  16. Pascal's bookie 16
    15 February 2013 at 7:10 pm

    It’s on RT if you’ve got sky.

  17. Anne 17
    15 February 2013 at 7:18 pm

    The news broke on TV1 just before 7pm. My god… the impact must have been horrendous!

  18. Pascal's bookie 18
    15 February 2013 at 7:26 pm

    Another one here, the shockwave seems to be taking while to reach where the videos are coming from, but it’s pretty bloody strong::

  19. Pascal's bookie 19
    15 February 2013 at 7:37 pm

    this guy’s timeline will worth keeping an eye on for updates on the meteor:

    https://twitter.com/BadAstronomer

  20. Pascal's bookie 20
    15 February 2013 at 7:39 pm

    And LOL @ the russians claiming they shot it down.

    YOU’RE DRUNK RUSSIA, GO HOME

  21. Penny Bright 21
    15 February 2013 at 8:41 pm

    http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/supreme-court-ignore-government-deadline-water-rights-decision-bd-135939

    Interesting that the Supreme Court released their ‘Minute’ (effectively ignoring the Government’s deadline of 18 February 2013 – the day after the 13 February 2013 rallies/protests against asset sales in both Wellington and Auckland?

    __________________________________________________

    Want a bit of light weekend reading?

    (After you’ve helped collect some more signatures on the asset sale referendum? 🙂

    “Treasury has released a substantial number of documents related to the mixed ownership process on the COMU website, including papers produced prior to the election. You can access these documents by following this link

    http://www.comu.govt.nz/publications/information-releases/mixed-ownership-model/index.html ”

    (Direct from Treasury! THROW AWAY YOUR ‘WOMEN’S WEEKLY’! 🙂

    Cheers!

    Penny Bright

  22. Penny Bright 22
    15 February 2013 at 9:22 pm

    Must have hit a BIG FAT nerve on Kiwiblog!

    That Peter Dunne did NOT campaign on selling ‘mixed ownership model for the electricity companies and Air New Zealand’?

    FYI

    _________________________________________________________________________

    Pete George (16,285) Says:
    February 15th, 2013 at 4:55 pm
    “Someone else has been perpetuating this same lie – Penny Bright:

    Got a couple of STUNNING new banners which will be unfurled today – first outside the offices of Mighty River Power, then outside the offices of Mercury Energy!

    Opposed to the sale of State Assets by this minority National Government (which only got 59 out of 121 MPs in the 2011 election?

    Remember – the vote on the Mixed Ownership Model Act was 61 – 60.

    National – who did campaign on asset sales – were dependent on the votes of dodgy John Banks – who arguably should NOT be an MP – let alone a Minister, and Peter Dunne – who DID NOT campaign on supporting State Asset sales.

    SO – WHERE’S THE ‘MANDATE’?

    Do the maths!

    NO MAJORITY – NO MANDATE!

    (In my considered opinion)

    She posted that here on GD two days ago (where she was puklled up on it) and at The Standard, where Penny was supported by a moderator versus a commenter:

    [RL: Penny has chosen to withhold paying her rates as a means of political protest; as distinct from avoiding an obligation to the Council. Your failure to mention this is of course a deliberate distortion. Virtually all protest involves some action which can be described as illegal at one level, while ethically justifiable at another. Your approach is here is not a discussion, it’s abuse. Don’t keep repeating it.]

    That’s ironic accusing someone else of “deliberate distortion” when that’s exactly what Penny was doing.”
    ________________________________________________________________________

    MY REPLY:

    Here you go Kiwibloggers – United Future 2011 election policy – straight from the mouth of man himself – Peter Dunne:

    http://www.unitedfuture.org.nz/asset-sales-policy-announcement/

    Asset Sales Policy Announcement
    10 October 2011

    Kiwibank, Radio New Zealand and the water supply should be ruled out of any future asset sales programmes, UnitedFuture Leader Peter Dunne said today.

    Speaking to the Auckland Rotary Club, he said that given that National has a manifesto that includes asset sales, New Zealanders need to start a proper debate on the future limits of those sales.

    “To this point there has not been a proper national debate beyond National saying yes and Labour saying no.

    “We need a conversation that is more detailed and drills down into what New Zealanders really think are acceptable bottom lines,” he said.

    “New Zealanders, I believe, are not definitively pro-asset sales, but under certain conditions, it is no longer the bogeyman issue that Labour would have you believe.”

    Mr Dunne said UnitedFuture’s role as a support partner is not just to contribute its own policies, but to help keep a government to a reasonable, centrist path.

    “UnitedFuture says let’s start with three no-go areas where there would be no asset sales, not now, not ever:

    “They are Kiwibank, Radio New Zealand and the supply of water.

    “Kiwibank is in every sense now a national institution, whether you bank with it or not. And in a market full of Australian-owned banks, and an increasingly fraught and troubled globe, it is both a symbolic and practical statement of our economic sovereignty.

    “Collectively, it is ours pure and simple. It must stay that way.

    “Secondly, Radio New Zealand exists in an increasingly commercial media marketplace, and it is more important than ever to have a voice that does not bend to the dollar, to ratings, to external forces.

    “Every nation needs its own voice and we need to afford that voice our collective protection.

    “Thirdly, and one that I feel particularly deeply about, is water. I do not intend to wait until it is on the asset sales agenda.

    “I do not believe New Zealanders would ever – or should ever – accept a sell-off of the supply of the water, or any of the aspects around it.

    “Let no one claim for any price what is ours as of right. There needs to be a blanket and clear undertaking that this will never be on the agenda,” Mr Dunne said.

    _____________________________________________________________________________

    That’s where I got my FACTS from.

    United Future’s “Asset Sales Policy Announcement”
    10 October 2011

    Anyone want to argue with THAT?

    This MINORITY National Government – which DID campaign on asset sales – has only 59 out of 121 MPs.

    I put it to you – that if the voting public of Ohariu relied on United Future’s above-mentioned “Asset Sales Policy Announcement” in order to cast an informed vote – they could have been led to believe that Peter Dunne was NOT campaigning for the ‘mixed ownership model for the electricity companies and Air New Zealand’?

    It gets a bit deceptive and misleading, in my considered opinion, for politicians not to be upfront and consistent in their stated policies?

    Kind regards,

    Penny Bright

    ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’
    Auckland Mayoral Candidate 2013

    • McFlock 22.1
      16 February 2013 at 12:43 am

      penny, do you have a link for the UF asset sales announcement?

      PG banged on about the “kind’ve sortof” UF asset sales policy before he was kicked. If you have an actual source for “no asset sales” as an unequivocal claim, that would be lovely. I don’t think it’s been presented before.

    • TheContrarian 22.2
      16 February 2013 at 10:01 am

      “This MINORITY National Government”

      Penny, since 1996 there hasn’t ever been a majority government. This is nothing new. National received the largest percentage of the vote that any party has ever received under MMP.

      Nine years of Labour, under Clarke, was also a minority.

  23. ak 23
    15 February 2013 at 11:22 pm

    Buried another precious daughter of Michael Joseph today.

    The Depression, the war, Les back from Cassino minus legs, but a brand new ten-bob-a-week house and a five-day job for life. Jack was as good as his master and he still knew it: no whore of the press barons yet engaged to suggest otherwise.

    Bliss marred only by the influence of the Church and its fatal fear of Christianity – a fear which our courageous and beloved Jean had the guts and intelligence to reject.

    Kids everywhere. Rampant fecundity, suburban neurosis yet to be identified – an indisputable neighbourhood matriarchy content and dominant with maternal love: Jack was still as good as his master, and the state advanced real money to prove it.

    And Jean quietly reigned, yielding the spotlight to the more intense; reliable prompt to much more than the CWI drama group, quietest yet most feared by all the neighbourhood brats.

    Then along came TV and J Edgar Hoover. Competition raised via propaganda from the muddy ruggerfield to life itself. Dog-eat-dog, rugger ogres elevated based solely on physical size and aggression. Cruelty rewarded with cash. Amputees sidelined.

    And too late, revolution. Within a heartbeat our privileged boomers achieved dramatic advance for minorities – but left the ogres still in charge: at funerals every day this week, confused victims of the Douglas/Caygill treason.

    Jack is as good as his master. And yes, John Lennon and Jesus, love is all we need.

    With the backing of the state, Jean and Les and a million others briefly proved it: and in turn their grateful spawn delivered enormous advances to millions.

    It’s your state, young people. Take it back, and give your kids a bliss that we can only imagine.

    • bad12 23.1
      16 February 2013 at 12:50 am

      We have been working underground building missiles for World War 3- The Fugees…

    • Rogue Trooper 23.3
      16 February 2013 at 2:08 pm

      Excellent!

    • NoseViper (The Nose knows) 23.4
      16 February 2013 at 2:34 pm

      Our sympathy to you ak. Yes our people struggled on after WW2 and there was hope and belief that we could build a great little country and there would be a place for everybody. I don’t know if my birth father killed in the war would have liked the present.

      But some good things remain and we must retain them and watch that we are not impoverished by callous business people and the ideological, or mendacious, or self-seeking amongst our politicians. We may be in a jam but need to turn it into NZ conserve.

  24. NoseViper (The Nose knows) 24
    16 February 2013 at 9:34 pm

    The exchange between Pascals B and The Allen seems a good example of what Polish Pride and I discussed today.
    PP says “Maybe I am being too precious, maybe I’m not. but if you attack someone you risk looking like the idiot to outsiders not them. If instead you continuously engage them with well reasoned (evidence based arguments) and they just stick with dogmatic faith in the face of what you present. Then it is they who will appear as the idiot…”

    I said something like life is too short to argue with people who are totally fixed in place on their pet subjects. There are too many problems in our modern world needing to be considered by people who are willing to think about them and discuss them without getting stuck in a mud wrestling contest out of which no bright new understandings will arise.