Open mike 15/08/2013

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, August 15th, 2013 - 178 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…

178 comments on “Open mike 15/08/2013 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Jenny 1
    15 August 2013 at 6:25 am

    More and more civil rights abuses revealed.

    How far does New Zealand have to disappear into this orwellian nightmare, before we wake up, and have to claw a way back to something closer to democracy? Let us rid ourselves of overbearing and arrogant state agencies, who openly flout the law, commit forgery and perjury. Then arrogantly defend their abuse of power and demand even more power.

    In a case of police perjury and forgery to get a conviction against motorcycle gang members. No police were charged with breaking the law. And a police prosecutor openly argues before our courts, in defence of torture.

    Justice Simon France put a halt on more than 150 charges going further in the court system after police were found to have committed a fraud on the courts during the operation.

    Police manufactured a fake search warrant, created an invented signature of a court official to back it up, then staged a false arrest of an undercover agent…..

    The false search warrant was a “forgery” and obtained through a false oath given to the court, Mr Lithgow said.

    “That kind of abuse of process is a humiliation of the justice system.

    “That is so abhorrent, that has to be confronted.”

    Mr Mander had argued that ruling for a stay of prosecutions was not an option available for Justice France to use…..

    One of the judges hearing the case today, Justice Christine French, asked Mr Mander whether, hypothetically, if a police officer was to torture a suspect but that evidence did not make it to a resulting trial, should that trial go ahead.

    Mr Mander said if the torture did not affect the trial then the trial should still go ahead. It would not mean the court was endorsing the torture, he said.

    The hearing is due to finish tomorrow.

    Rebecca Quilliam NZ Herald, National, 5:44 PM Wednesday Aug 14, 2013

    I might like to ask officer Mander: In the hypothetical example of police torture. You have argued here, that if the evidence gained under police torture did not make it to the resulting trial. Or was not presented. Then that trial should go ahead. But if evidence of the police torture didn’t come to light, or was denied had happened by the police. How would the courts know if the evidence resulting from that torture had not made it to any trials?

    I would disagree with the police officer Mander. In the hypothetical case of police torture raised by Justice French. Officer Mander argues, before Justice French and the two other judges. That the courts would not be “endorsing torture”, if they didn’t, (as they have done in this case of police forgery and perjury), stop the proceedings immediately on discovery of it.

    If you allow known police law breaking. The question is how much undiscovered police law breaking is going on?

    The courts must express zero tolerance for police perjury and forgery.

    “The end justifies the means”

    anon.

    This is the argument of all terrorists, indeed it is the argument of all authoritarian police states. (including this one).

    However in my humble opinion.

    “Rotten means, usually indicate rotten ends”.

    anon.

  2. amirite 2
    15 August 2013 at 7:39 am

    Watch this:

    http://www.3news.co.nz/John-Key-defends-the-GCSB-bill/tabid/817/articleID/309018/Default.aspx

    So GCSB is basically like a Norton antivirus. It’s all Helen Clark’s and Labour’s fault. Everyone is wrong about GCSB except the PM himself.
    Uh huh.
    Unfuckingbelievable.

    • BM 2.1
      15 August 2013 at 7:44 am

      Yep Key explained it really clearly, any doubts I may have had regarding the GSCB bill have been well and truly put to bed.

    • karol 2.2
      15 August 2013 at 7:54 am

      What a weasley bully John key is. Won’t answer difficult questions just keeps talking over Campbell and continues on with his used car salesman con. When he does answer questions, he actually doesn’t – does slick sidesteps.

      More submissions to the snapper Bill than the GCSB one, means more Kiwis care about the snapper Bill. Really?

      The GCSB Bill is more legally complex and not so easy for most Kiwis to comment on formally.

      • BM 2.2.1
        15 August 2013 at 8:02 am

        Key didn’t bully Campbell.

        Campbell invited Key on to explain the GCSB bill, which he did very clearly and very well.
        When some one is invited onto a show to speak, you let them speak, you don’t bombard them with 20 questions and then interrupt and try to talk over your GUEST every 10 seconds because you’re trying to prove them wrong.

        What sort of interviewer does that, obviously a poor one going by what Brian Edwards tweeted.

        @JohnJCampbell Raving is not interviewing, John. A graceless and embarrassing performance. This from your greatest fan. Brian

        • wyndham 2.2.1.1
          15 August 2013 at 8:35 am

          There would be no possible way to interview Key other than to “talk over” him. He has the well learned technique of politicians (and yes, used car salesmen) of talking in a continuous stream of facts and figures. Some of them true and some downright untrue. Key is a master of it – – – glib, persuasive, often laced with ad hominum attack, oblique denigration of the opinions and status of those that might disagree with him.
          He can’t get his comeuppence quickly enough for this NZ’er !

        • geoff 2.2.1.2
          15 August 2013 at 8:38 am

          You’re as full of shit as Key.

          The reason John Campbell interrupted Key was because Key wasn’t answering the fucking questions he was asked!

        • Bearded Git 2.2.1.3
          15 August 2013 at 9:53 am

          Key did bully Campbell-he “played the man” to shake Campbell up. This is classic court room witness procedure to throw someone off their stride.

          It’s not about who “won” this interview, it’s about whether Key fronted honestly and answered the questions central to the issue, which he refused to do.

          Key is very good at answering questions he is not asked-he had been well coached. The spinmeisters would have trained him on the getting to the studio anecdote.

      • tinfoilhat 2.2.2
        15 August 2013 at 8:39 am

        I’m not sure if you watched the same video I did Carol ?

        I don’t like Key at all, but I thought in this instance he politely took Campbell to the cleaners, it was a terrible interview by Campbell live and reminded me of when he tried to ambush Helen all those years ago.

        Worse still I think for any people wavering on the GCSB bill this will have them more comfortable with what the government is doing… as I said an unmitigated disaster.

        • vto 2.2.2.1
          15 August 2013 at 8:45 am

          Agreed, as much as I loathe Key and what he has done.

          How the fuck is Shearer going to combat Key next year? He will get turned into mincemeat.

          • Colonial Viper 2.2.2.1.1
            15 August 2013 at 9:27 am

            Key was masterful…the “I’ll get to that point in a moment” (then never does) was classic. Key’s opening 60 seconds were the worst, he turned the tide from there.

            By the end Campbell was flustered and unable to land any hits. He’d underestimated the form that Key was in, and reading out paragraphs of legislation was not going to engage viewers.

            Key on the other hand spoke without notes, was very patient but firm with Campbell, talked from memory, and appeared expert and reassuring.

            • Molly 2.2.2.1.1.1
              15 August 2013 at 9:37 am

              Yes, after the opening salvo, it felt that Campbell lost confidence in his knowledge of the GCSB, just because John Key delivered such misdirection with confidence.

              It’s been a while, but watched the Hardtalk interview recently to someone who hadn’t seen it, and noted how the interviewer did not allow Key to take control, and reminded him that he hadn’t answered questions.

              At present, closest I see to that technique is Mihirangi Forbes on Native Affairs.

            • geoff 2.2.2.1.1.2
              15 August 2013 at 10:27 am

              Masterful?

              I suppose if you think watching a used car salesman go through his usual schtick is masterful then you can’t be helped.

              Campbell was flabbergasted that the shit kept dribbling out Key’s yap which I thought was the reasonable reaction to the performance.

              Tell me CV, how would you have handled Key if you had been interviewing him?

              • Greywarbler …
                15 August 2013 at 10:44 am

                Geoff
                It sounds as if Key was masterful at the spin to the RWNJs at the other end of the tube. And used Campbell’s program to do so very effectively.

                I have a tape of Stephen Price’s excellent list of methods to use for pollies who want to avoid answering unsuitable questions. I don’t know if it’s available anywhere. I did once have a look at Replay Radio. I think it is very funny and actually instructive.

              • Colonial Viper …
                15 August 2013 at 11:06 am

                Tell me CV, how would you have handled Key if you had been interviewing him?

                This angle from Campbell the entire interview:

                “This is now an issue of trust, and of transparency. We have seen overseas that authorities have lied to the public about how laws and limitations are actually interpreted, circumvented and used. In NZ intelligence laws have been broken and no one held accountable. So experts say that the new legislation is wholly inadequate.”

                • yeshe …
                  15 August 2013 at 11:21 am

                  But Key responds, pretty much as he did last night — ” No it’s not ! Just you and your programme are lying about it and spreading misinformation etc etc etc etc and you are scaring ordinary New Zealanders”

                  Then what ?

                • geoff …
                  15 August 2013 at 11:26 am

                  And Key would have rolled in with his ‘I cant talk about what other countries are doing…” schtick.

                  The fact is you cant combat someone who is prepared to unblinkingly stand by their barefaced lies.
                  We’ve seen this time and time again with Key. He never is prepared to admit he lied, if his lie gets properly exposed he just comes in with an excuse that he forgot or some such garbage.

                  The best that can be done is to show again and again that this is a man who cannot be trusted because he keeps changing his story.

                  • McFlock …
                    15 August 2013 at 1:00 pm

                    The fact is you cant combat someone who is prepared to unblinkingly stand by their barefaced lies.

                    ^this.

            • DavidC 2.2.2.1.1.3
              15 August 2013 at 10:32 am

              CV.
              Key did go back to most of the things he said “I’ll get back to…” but he went back to them in his own time and in his own way. Didnt allow himself to be rushed or pushed. Key explained items very well and when Campbell got pissed with Keys polish and tried to interupt he kept saying “let me finish..” which pissed Campbell off even more.

              Very very smooth performance from Key.

              Not many on this site would have liked what they saw in that interview. I am happy to ignore the content of the whole segement (because GCSB will be forgotten in a year) and just concentrate on the performance of Key. Rare for Key to really get out of 2nd gear and its a bit of a glimpse of what Key is capable of. Who has Labour got to come close in pre election debates? No one.

              • geoff …
                15 August 2013 at 11:20 am

                Did he get back to KimDot Com? No
                Did he get back to the law society? No
                Did he get back to anything he said he would?

                Please give us a specific example of what he actually got back to.

                • DavidC …
                  15 August 2013 at 11:55 am

                  He went back to the DotCon issue.

                  (and no I am not watching it afuckinggain to make a list for you ! ) 🙂

                  • geoff …
                    15 August 2013 at 8:07 pm

                    Ok I retract that he didn’t go back to KimDotcom but he
                    also didn’t get back to the supposed threats to NZ which is his supposed main motivation for this bill.

                    Look that main point is that John Key clearly was not there to properly answer questions and really properly inform people. A person who is trying to do that doesn’t behave the way John Key did. He was playing a stupid game and it was obvious he was playing a stupid game.
                    And even that completely ignores the context of this story, ie Snowden, the NSA, global diigtal surveillance and NZ’s part in that via the GCSB, the whole shebang.

                    Key wont even acknowledge that stuff even exists let alone the GCSBs role in it. And why? Why wont he acknowledge it? Because he’s fucking hiding something! And plenty of people think he’s hiding how in the pocket of the USA him and his party is.

            • grumpy 2.2.2.1.1.4
              15 August 2013 at 11:25 am

              I haven’t seen such a total dismatling of an argument since I came up against Puddleglum on these pages some time ago.
              I feel for Campbell.

              • DavidC …
                15 August 2013 at 11:58 am

                I dont feel for Campy one lil bit.
                He set out to smack Key around and he got a beating.
                A bully on his own patch too, was funny to see.

                • grumpy …
                  15 August 2013 at 12:17 pm

                  Yep, but there is a brighter side…..when I got smacked by Puddles, I looked up her blog and was so impressed by her obvious intelligence in all things that now I just automatically believe everything she says.

                  Maybe that will happen to Campbell?????

        • Molly 2.2.2.2
          15 August 2013 at 9:03 am

          I had hopes, but felt that Campbell started off with a hiss and a roar… and then let Key smile his way into using the show as a platform for himself.

          Analogies are a VERY useful tool to help understanding, but also to redirect if used skilfully. Key uses them all the time, and needs to be pulled up on them.

          When he stated that whether he took a bus, car or walked to the studio it didn’t matter how he did it – as long as he got there – I waited with hope for Campbell to say “… using your analogy, you are saying that if you ran over ten people on the way to the studio it doesn’t matter – because here you are! That is what the concerns of the Law Society, etc seem to be – you are running over our civil liberties and rights to privacy in order to pass this bill.”

          … as for Norton antivirus and metadata discussion …. how did Campbell let him get away with that?

          • BM 2.2.2.2.1
            15 August 2013 at 9:12 am

            Because Campbell was a complete mess, he was all over the place nervously shuffling papers and telling Key to sue him.

            Key could’ve dropped his tweeds at that stage and tea bagged the man and Campbell wouldn’t have said anything.

            It was all rather one sided.

            • Molly 2.2.2.2.1.1
              15 August 2013 at 9:30 am

              “Key could’ve dropped his tweeds at that stage and tea bagged the man”… and since that is your idea of PR skill and competence, your admiration of him condemns him more than Campbell ever could.

            • Strategos 2.2.2.2.1.2
              15 August 2013 at 9:34 am

              Campbell was ambushed by a well-coached and prepped politician who set out to control the interview .. “let me just finish this point ..” “like the Norton antivirus” .. “Ok, ok .. I am just stating the facts .. ” ..”you are frightening people .. you are .. you are” .. “You might as well read a James Bond movie” .. “you have nothing to be worried about” ..

              .. analyse the audio – who is he getting media advice from these days ?

              • Molly …
                15 August 2013 at 9:42 am

                I agree with you entirely about the performance of Key BUT where is John Campbell’s skill after years of current affairs?

                I spent most of the interview noting the amount of times Campbell could/and should have regained control.

                Also thought immediately that the response to NZers don’t care should have been already drafted by Campbell along the lines of:
                “Perhaps it is not that Kiwi’s don’t care, PM, it is that after hearing you and your National MP’s arrogantly dismiss the Law Society, the Human Rights Commission, Geoffrey Palmer, Dame Anne Salmond etc they feel that it is a waste of time, and perhaps an exercise in humiliation to broach this subject. Snapper quota interaction – on the other hand – has been actively promoted.”

                • Strategos …
                  15 August 2013 at 10:06 am

                  Near the end I stopped looking at the video and started taking notes. Re. “where is John Campbell’s skill” .. you don’t develop skill when there is no opposition, but Key has just shown the effect of good media training. He was calm and composed and kept taking the initiative to sell his case in language Joe or Jill Voter would use.

                  Crosby & Textor are probably working with Abbott – who is advising the US Rebublicans or the UK Conservatives these days ? Ashcroft has connections with both & Key’s performance was no fluke. A snap election might be around the corner.

                • Greywarbler …
                  15 August 2013 at 11:21 am

                  Molly
                  As you say Campbell is not a newbie. Lots of practice makes perfect yet some new effect has destabilised him?

                  I was really annoyed at Campbell years ago as he harrassed Helen Clark about what Labour’s plans were for handling the GM entry into agriculture, I think corn was then being discussed. I felt he was trying to force her into saying something that would prove to be incorrect so he and others could continually harrass her about it.

              • yeshe …
                15 August 2013 at 11:23 am

                crosby textor, same place as always

              • grumpy …
                15 August 2013 at 11:36 am

                “Getting advice”???? he could “give” it….

            • Tautoko Viper 2.2.2.2.1.3
              15 August 2013 at 9:35 am

              I don’t think John Campbell was nervous. He was furious with frustration on how to stop the garbage pouring out of Key’s mouth. It is obvious that both Steven Joyce and John Key try to talk continuously so that they don’t have to answer specific questions.
              I think the answer is to follow up the next night with a dissection of the diatribe, sentence by sentence, using real experts to discredit the inane ideas put forward. State the questions asked, show the deflecting comments (I’ll come back to it later, etc) and to link our situation with the current situation which is between the NSA and congressmen who had to vote without having full information. We need people to understand that we don’t want to end up trying to unwind the type of mess that the US has got itself into. People in NZ are not head over heels with the US now (apart from Dear Leader) and will see the reason why more time and consideration is needed, including a full inquiry into all surveillance before changing the GCSB law.

              • Tigger …
                15 August 2013 at 10:02 am

                Campbell was angry. Key used that and ran rings around him. Campbell allowed himself to think he had Key on a hook. His arrogance was on display while Key was allowed a prime time spot to further his agenda.

                If you can’t kill the snake then don’t grab it’s tail.

                • geoff …
                  15 August 2013 at 10:13 am

                  Give me a fucking break.

                  Campbell asked him a lot of good questions and Key squirmed and lied and talked shit and stalled for time. He repeatedly asked Campbell to allow him to finish (which Campbell often did). If Campbell had continually berated him it would have Ken Ring all over again. How the hell you equate that as a win to Key I have no idea.

                • Mary …
                  15 August 2013 at 12:02 pm

                  And Key was too gutless to grab the tail because he knew he’d be sliced up so instead decided to dance around it from forty paces. Says a lot about Key. He’ll do anything to avoid the discussion. Do you think avoiding discussion and avoiding getting to the truth is admirable?

          • geoff 2.2.2.2.2
            15 August 2013 at 10:19 am

            Disagree.

            I thought it was obvious to anyone watching that Key was talking crap and avoiding providing real answers. Campbell gave him enough rope to hang himself. That’s as much as an interviewer can actually do. Some of you lot seem to think Campbell should have reached across the desk and shaken Key until he admitted he’s a filthy lying scumbag.

        • Raa 2.2.2.3
          15 August 2013 at 9:05 am

          I have taken advantage of the premature government digitization initiative to give it the digit,
          save my eyes, and prioritise whatever time I have left on this planet for living rather than passively absorbing the garbage which passes for news or advertising or commentary in NZ.

        • North 2.2.2.4
          15 August 2013 at 9:42 am

          Campbell not at his singular best on this occasion. In a complex issue so vulnerable to facile minimisation and glib prime ministerial assurance ShonKey Python successfully deployed his customary modus operandi and presented exactly that.

          So, rejoice, rejoice, rejoice those relieved not to see ShonKey Python slaughtered. But do recall that there is out there a live question as to ShonKey Python’s integrity and true loyalties and last night did not answer that.

          One Campbell Live does not a summer make.

          To Brian Edwards’ re his snippy Twitter comment…….get over yourself. The public interest as identified by the Law Society, Palmer, Salmond, Human Rights, Privacy and the rest is immeasurably more commanding than your self-accorded status as professor emeritus of New Zealand television journalism. I’m thinking “Old Fart” akshully.

          • Murray Olsen 2.2.2.4.1
            15 August 2013 at 6:09 pm

            I used to have a lot of time for Brian Edwards. That was many moons ago. Now he’s a pompous old fart who just wants to assert his superiority in all things. It’s sad to watch.

        • geoff 2.2.2.5
          15 August 2013 at 10:30 am

          Go and rewatch the corngate interviews.

          I’m no fan of Helen Clark but it was clear in that interview that she had been setup and explained so during the interview.

          There is absolutely no comparison to the interview last night.

          How did he ambush Key?

    • Hami Shearlie 2.3
      15 August 2013 at 11:59 am

      Yep, when what he actually SAID is dissected, you realise he’s actually crazy but he really believes that the public will swallow all his rubbish! It doesn’t matter how he got here, whether by taxi or bus etc? It’s just like Norton’s anti-virus?? What pot-smoking planet is he on? People need to start LISTENING instead of just watching!!

      • gobsmacked 2.3.1
        15 August 2013 at 12:08 pm

        People need to start LISTENING instead of just watching!!

        Welcome to television. Goes back to Nixon’s famous five o’clock shadow.

        Key avoids radio interviews with Mary Wilson, Kim Hill etc because on radio we only listen. The lack of content is exposed.

        On TV we are (obviously) watching, and Key is made for that medium. He appears unruffled, and in control, even if he is saying black is white.

        Shearer looks awful on TV. The open mouth, the flicking tongue, the blinking. This may not be fair, but it is true.

        • grumpy 2.3.1.1
          15 August 2013 at 12:28 pm

          No, he avoids interviews with Mary Wilson and Kim Hill because they are raving leftie loonies pushing their own agendas. They also have tiny audiences of mostly other committed leftists.
          Great to see him taking on the easiest radical leftie target, Campbell, on prime time television. What a boost to Nationals re-election chances!

          • gobsmacked 2.3.1.1.1
            15 August 2013 at 12:35 pm

            “Tiny audience” … You’ve been taking truth lessons from Key?

            “I can find you another dictionary that says tiny means something else …”

            • grumpy 2.3.1.1.1.1
              15 August 2013 at 12:46 pm

              You mean if he went on the committed leftie shows, his popularity might even increase???? Wow!

          • geoff 2.3.1.1.2
            15 August 2013 at 12:44 pm

            Did you toddle out of the kiwiblog nursery, get lost and find yourself here?

            I have to keep reminding myself that it is useful to have cretins like about because everyone needs to know that people like you do actually exist.

        • Murray Olsen 2.3.1.2
          15 August 2013 at 6:13 pm

          I wonder if his minders go so far as to insist he only ever be filmed front on. He doesn’t have a very flattering profile at all, and it’s difficult to find profile shots of him. I really do think he is false and manufactured to that extent.

        • Hami Shearlie 2.3.1.3
          15 August 2013 at 6:19 pm

          Plus the constant eyebrow lifting – I agree. Still, John Campbell is on every night and can dissect the interview piece by piece, the “performance” won’t play so well in that light I would imagine!

  3. Asterix 3
    15 August 2013 at 7:57 am

    Labor plans to put Tony Abbott’s character at the centre of the election campaign after a third stumble by the Opposition Leader in three days.

    Despite having presented Prime Minister Kevin Rudd as a beacon of positive politics, Labor strategists have called game on for an all-out assault on Mr Abbott.

    In an interview on Wednesday, Mr Abbott appeared to dismiss same-sex marriage as ”the fashion of the moment”. Finance Minister Penny Wong, who is in a long-term same-sex relationship, tweeted: ”Note to Mr Abbott: Equality is not a fashion item.”

    The criticism came after Mr Abbott referred on Tuesday to the ”sex appeal” of the Liberal candidate for Lindsay, Fiona Scott, and a slip of the tongue on Monday when he said no one was ”the suppository of all wisdom”.
    Advertisement

    The Labor campaign initially decided against commenting on the sex appeal quip, but Mr Rudd came out swinging on Wednesday, declaring any male employer who stood up in a workplace and praised a female employee’s sex appeal would be ”in serious strife”.

    ”In modern Australia, neither sexism nor racism nor homophobia has any place whatsoever, and I believe people look to their national leaders to set that sort of example,” Mr Rudd said.

    Mr Abbott hit back, calling Labor ”pathetic” for trying to ”raise this sort of thing in an attempt to claw back votes in a campaign they’re losing”.

    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/labor-turnaround-targets-abbott-for-allout-assault-20130814-2rwvz.html

    • grumpy 3.1
      15 August 2013 at 12:31 pm

      Oh! The same tactics Gillard employed – that will go down well. Look at how Gillard’s ratings dropped after her “Misogyny” speech. Rudds will head that way (they already are) pretty damn quick if they keep this up.

    • Murray Olsen 3.2
      15 August 2013 at 6:41 pm

      It would be easier for Labor if Rudd had some character. The old leader, Latham, came out and said you’d have to be drunk to find the Liberal candidate sexy. They’re a bloody train wreck.

  4. Adrian 4
    15 August 2013 at 9:03 am

    Key.. ” i have 1/2 dozen public meetings a day engaging with people” Well, that’s bullshit right from the start. Key’s only public meetings are generally small mobs of pre-pubesent girls at private schools.

    • Tigger 4.1
      15 August 2013 at 10:13 am

      I’ve been depressed ever since seeing Key not get nailed to the wall but this comment has cheered me up! Also, truth!

  5. weka 5
    15 August 2013 at 9:58 am

    Anyone still wanting NZ to build nuclear power plants?

    • DavidC 5.1
      15 August 2013 at 10:15 am

      yip.

      • weka 5.1.1
        15 August 2013 at 10:34 am

        Is it because you think the risk of disaster is so small, or that you think it doesn’t matter?

        • DavidC 5.1.1.1
          15 August 2013 at 10:50 am

          A modern plant can be engineered to be safe.
          Up North somewhere, maybe beside the Waikato river 🙂

          • weka 5.1.1.1.1
            15 August 2013 at 10:54 am

            A citation for how the Fukushima plants could have been engineered to be safe from tsunamis is now needed, thanks. Then some credible analysis of the risks in the NZ situation, and how those can be engineered to be completely risk free.

            • DavidC 5.1.1.1.1.1
              15 August 2013 at 11:08 am

              Put the Fukushima plant up behind the 1000 year old stone tablets that told the locals not to build anywhere closer to the sea! The sea fucked it not the earthquake.

              The report on Fukushima came up with a bunch of causes. Everyone of the causes is considered to be preventable.

              and of course Fukushima is 45 years old?

              • weka …
                15 August 2013 at 11:26 am

                “The report on Fukushima came up with a bunch of causes. Everyone of the causes is considered to be preventable.”

                Citation please. And make sure the citation shows that the risks can be reduced to zero. Otherwise I will assume that you believe the risk is acceptable and that it doesn’t matter if it happens.

                • grumpy …
                  15 August 2013 at 11:41 am

                  France is almost 100% nuclear – no problems there. Sweden is also heavily into nuclear but it’s plants are getting old and are being systemically shut down. A prudent action by a responsible government.

                  • weka …
                    15 August 2013 at 12:12 pm

                    Seriously? You want to say that NZ will be safe because Europe is even when Japan isn’t? That doesn’t make any kind of rational sense.

                    • grumpy …
                      15 August 2013 at 12:42 pm

                      FRance and Sweden have better oversight, they don’t keep plants going as long and probably make better coices where to build them, although neither France or Sweden are known to be prone to Tsunami.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      15 August 2013 at 12:44 pm

                      Oversight? What, are you saying that market forces won’t be enough to ensure safety, you filthy communist?

                    • grumpy …
                      15 August 2013 at 12:51 pm

                      Sometimes, in this case, market forces just need a little help……

                    • DavidC …
                      15 August 2013 at 12:53 pm

                      Tsunami is easy to engineer out, same as earthquakes and a smallish plant in NZ could run at stable load which is a big plus. Biggest issue is as always the variables. People.

                      Lets just get on with it, save building more pylons up thru the Waikato.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      15 August 2013 at 1:13 pm

                      I say we tread carefully here. Let’s wait until the first ten or so have been successfully decommissioned in full overseas and then talk about it again sometime, eh.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      15 August 2013 at 1:19 pm

                      Lets just get on with it, save building more pylons up thru the Waikato.

                      Whatever gave you the idea that a nuclear power plant wouldn’t need the pylons?

                    • DavidC …
                      15 August 2013 at 1:45 pm

                      DTB, it wouldnt need pylons if you build it North of the Waikato would it now. You know, build it up where the power gets used?

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      15 August 2013 at 2:57 pm

                      Auckland doesn’t use that much power and considering that we need a smart grid to tie in all generation across the country we’d still need the pylons. The only way we wouldn’t is if we went to underground distribution which has nothing to do with building a nuclear power plant.

                • DavidC …
                  15 August 2013 at 11:53 am

                  Care to explain what you mean by “reduced to zero” ?
                  I know the Gweens are anti science but sheesh even that has limits.
                  It is possible to engineer a plant that will run for a million years and it could still possibly be hit by a lazer beam from an alien spaceship having a scrap with another alien spaceship. Slim chance but it is possible.

                  • weka …
                    15 August 2013 at 12:17 pm

                    Nice try at a diversion. I asked you if you think the risk of disaster is so small, or if you think it doesn’t matter. You haven’t answered. YOU are the one that made the claim that nuclear power can be engineered to be safe, and I just assumed from the context (eg Fukushima) that you mean pretty close to 100%. Don’t worry so much about alien fantasies, and instead look at risks that already exist in the real world. Please tell us how those can be engineered to not exist.

                    Until you do, I am going to assume that you think the risk doesn’t matter.

                    • DavidC …
                      15 August 2013 at 12:24 pm

                      you said “reduced to zero” and “completely risk free”

                      Neither thing is humanly possible. Grow up.

                      If you are asking me if a plant can be engineered and built in New Zealand to be safe within reasonable margins then yes it can.

                    • DavidC …
                      15 August 2013 at 12:25 pm

                      You dont think aliens exist? really?

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      15 August 2013 at 12:50 pm

                      “Anti-science” – my poor dimwitted ignoramus, the Green movement started in the scientific community and remains firmly committed to its values.

                      Perhaps you think Dr. Mike Joy is a social worker or something.

                      I don’t mind you arguing your pitiful drivel, but the best you can do is smear other people instead.

                      We need better wingnuts.

                    • weka …
                      15 August 2013 at 1:12 pm

                      “you said “reduced to zero” and “completely risk free” ”

                      But I only said that because you said the risks can be engineered out. Still waiting for some evidence that humans can engineer nuclear power plants to be safe from tsunamis (or any other of the currently known risks). But not holding my breath, I’ve asked multiple times now and you’ve failed to give even a hint of something that backs up what you said. It is as I thought, you think the risks don’t matter, and are just making shit up to support that.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      15 August 2013 at 1:16 pm

                      It’s a matter of faith, Weka. Faith and reckless disregard amounting to negligence.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      15 August 2013 at 1:26 pm

                      If you are asking me if a plant can be engineered and built in New Zealand to be safe within reasonable margins then yes it can.

                      Actually, no it can’t. NZ is an unstable land mass and it’s not tsunamis that are going to be the problem but the plant being ripped apart by earth movement.

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    15 August 2013 at 1:20 pm

                    I know the Gweens are anti science but sheesh even that has limits.

                    Ah, no, that would be National and they’re anti-science because it proves them wrong. Everything the Greens say has good scientific backing.

                    • DavidC …
                      15 August 2013 at 1:42 pm

                      DTB.. You are just taking the piss 🙂

                    • Murray Olsen …
                      15 August 2013 at 6:47 pm

                      I am a scientist and I work with scientists. Most of us are green to some extent, because it makes sense scientifically.
                      It’s the business community and right wing politicians who tend to be anti science. DTB is dead right.

          • yeshe 5.1.1.1.2
            15 August 2013 at 11:27 am

            ‘Lost pink and white terraces ‘ ring any bells in there DavidC ??

          • freedom 5.1.1.1.3
            15 August 2013 at 11:29 am

            “A modern plant can be engineered to be safe.”
            no matter what happens on this crazy little ball of chaos as it spins ever-onwards to cosmic annihilation, you have to love the willful yet optimistic ignorance of the human species 🙂

          • McFlock 5.1.1.1.4
            15 August 2013 at 1:13 pm

            A modern plant can be engineered to be safe.

            Which is probably exactly what they said when Fukushima was built – something along the lines of “oh no, no chance of a Windscale here, this plant has been engineered to be safe”.

            Basically, nuclear power has three main safety issues: fuel, operation, and waste. The first and last are definite issues in NZ given the Rena and other incidents, and the middle on is a definite issue because NZ is located in the “ring of fire” (and, of course, sooner or later the plant will be run under a National government, and staffed by products of charter schools).

            There is also an economic issue based around the sheer cost of building and operating such a plant for NZ’s small market.

            • DavidC 5.1.1.1.4.1
              15 August 2013 at 1:41 pm

              Cost to build is trivial. All the power is pre sold well in advance. A fraction of the cost of wind. Run the plant at constant load (which they like) and use hydro as peak load.
              Stop building ugly noisey expensive wind turbines!

              • McFlock …
                15 August 2013 at 1:54 pm

                Cost to build is trivial.

                cite pls.

                [gets popcorn]

                And you ignored every other issue mentioned.
                Although I might possibly endorse the building of a nuclear power plant close to its major market, i.e. Auckland. Coastal area with nine volcanoes and multiple fault-lines, what could go wrong…

                • DavidC …
                  15 August 2013 at 2:03 pm

                  Volcanoes in the Waikato? I didnt know that. Where? its pretty flat.

                  • McFlock …
                    15 August 2013 at 2:14 pm

                    Nah, if it’s safe then you might as well build it in downtown Auckland. Right where it’s needed.

                    How’s it going finding a source for your claim that the capital costs of a nuclear power plant are “trivial”?

                    • DavidC …
                      15 August 2013 at 6:27 pm

                      McFlock.
                      Sorry not to keep up with your pressing timeframes.
                      I was forced to do my Saturday long run today as I cant on Saturday, so now I am sore and stuffing my face. 🙂

                      But thunk on this.
                      If you can build a factory and turn out widgets that are presold for the next 50 years and the price of manufacture of those widgets is far below any other widget manufacturer in the counry…. would you build that factory?

                    • DavidC …
                      15 August 2013 at 6:31 pm

                      oh and if I was looking at a place to put it I think alongside the Whangaparoa (sp?) inlet would be the place.
                      Above Jaffaland, sea not river for cooling, nil chance of Tsunami.

                      Then we can build a big wall at the Bombay hills and the Jaffas can be independant and leave the rest of us in peace 🙂

                    • McFlock …
                      15 August 2013 at 7:08 pm

                      No worries, you pulled it out of your arse anyway. Like that “nil chance of Tsunami”.

                      A nuclear power plant is not a widget factory. It is a fucking expensive investment (and that link is for a reactor that is “less expensive to build than other Generation III designs “) with a massive penalty for failure. They make even the Clyde Dam look cheap.

                      Maybe one day there will be a nuclear (probably fusion-based) reactor that does not have the massive capital costs or the inherent high-penalty dangers of fuel & waste storage and/or transport, or indeed the high-penalty dangers of natural disaster or human mishap during normal operation. It might even happen in my lifetime. But I doubt it.

                    • DavidC …
                      15 August 2013 at 8:13 pm

                      McFlock.

                      I can hear my pillow calling me but…

                      Its not how many zeros the number has its about the cost per unit. If the cost per unit is right then the big number is trivial.

                      Wanna tell me how you will get a tsunami up the inlet? tricky me thinks.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      15 August 2013 at 8:23 pm

                      Only idiots would suggest destroying the remaining tatters of our clean, green image.

                      BTW whatever the initial capital cost of the reactors, double it in order to include the end of life clean up in 50 years.

                    • McFlock …
                      15 August 2013 at 9:19 pm

                      Its not how many zeros the number has its about the cost per unit. If the cost per unit is right then the big number is trivial.

                      David, on nobody’s planet is US$5,000,000,000 “trivial”.

                      But even if you were correct, “cost to build” is a stupid measure to use against lifetime MW produced: build cost, fuel cost, operating cost, wate management costs, and a buffer in for risk management. And nuclear isn’t competitive.

                      Wanna tell me how you will get a tsunami up the inlet? tricky me thinks.

                      Does the tide get up there? Or would a largeish tsunami just go over the top? Is your hydronamic knowledge as good as your calculations of capital costs?

                  • yeshe …
                    15 August 2013 at 5:00 pm

                    davidc — you do know, don’t you, that what we call Lake Taupo is the biggest volcanic crater of its kind anywhere in the world ? Obviously not in the Waikato, but nature will not care not a jot for your paltry district boundaries if the energy arises !)

                    • DavidC …
                      15 August 2013 at 6:06 pm

                      yeshe.
                      I hunt in the Kaimanawas a bit. Its awesome in there to see the side walls of some of the streams where they are cut down fifty meters or more and its all just one big thick white layer of pumice! (with a meter of dirt on top)

                      If Taupo blows again all of NZ is dead so a nuke plant wont matter much.

  6. dv 6
    15 August 2013 at 10:00 am

    My problem with the GCSB bill is one of trust.
    You have to TRUST those who are involved in the spying to obey the law and NOT LIE

    What is to stop a lying malevolent PM(future?) to manipulate the law to suit him/her self.

    Also there needs to be buy in from all/most of the parliament. NOT a one vote majority.

    • North 6.1
      15 August 2013 at 10:18 am

      A vote purchased from a sanctimonious moral pygmy and trougher at that.

    • gravedodger 6.2
      15 August 2013 at 10:24 am

      What part of tweeking a poor piece of legislation, enacted with wide support in 2002, then exposed as legally dodgy a decade later, being improved with additional and wider oversight yet still being opposed philosophically by the current opposition largely with charges of undue haste, escapes you.

      Haste maybe, but will a dodgy threat intent on perpetrating damage on NZ Inc just wait patiently for the current Government to sort its sh*t out or would taking advantage seem an opportunity too good to miss.

      • North 6.2.1
        15 August 2013 at 11:09 am

        Sorry Gravedodger……..after several readings any point you’re making has completely dodged me. Punting, I’ll go with this – you agree with “I disagree……”. No ? Sorry. Maybe I’ve missed a snapper in there somewhere.

    • James 6.3
      15 August 2013 at 10:44 am

      LOL – remember labour saying it was “all about trust” – so everybody voted National.

      Looking at the poll results they are still a lot more trusted than labour.

      • weka 6.3.1
        15 August 2013 at 10:55 am

        But not more trusted than L/GP.

        • DavidC 6.3.1.1
          15 August 2013 at 11:19 am

          Jonn Key is trusted more by NZers than either other party leader.

          • weka 6.3.1.1.1
            15 August 2013 at 11:23 am

            citation for that please. I think what you really mean is that a poll of a few hundred people who have been given a specific question shows that most ticked the JK box.

            Your original comment was about trust for NACT vs trust for Labour.

            • DavidC 6.3.1.1.1.1
              15 August 2013 at 11:49 am

              No what I mean is that either Norman or Shearer are trusted less than Key.

              Care to show me a single poll anywhere anytime that has said otherwise?

          • Greywarbler 6.3.1.1.2
            15 August 2013 at 11:53 am

            DavidC
            Have you checked your findings with Transparency International guidelines?

          • Draco T Bastard 6.3.1.1.3
            15 August 2013 at 1:31 pm

            IIRC, that question has been asked and the Labour leader is more trusted than John Key.

            • DavidC 6.3.1.1.3.1
              15 August 2013 at 1:50 pm

              Not trusted to lead the country he isnt.

              So what is Shearer more trusted to do? cake stall? tie his shoes?

              • Draco T Bastard …
                15 August 2013 at 3:01 pm

                Now you’re shifting the goal posts.

                • DavidC …
                  15 August 2013 at 6:08 pm

                  The original comment was about voting in an election…so I think it is spot on to comment on Mr Shearer and his lack of traction with voters.

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    15 August 2013 at 9:00 pm

                    No it wasn’t. It was about trust – trust in the GCSB and trust in PMs. Your comment, the one that I responded to, was that John Key was more trusted than any other party leader.

      • Chooky 6.3.2
        15 August 2013 at 11:26 am

        @ James…….agreed it it is all about trust

        *No one trusted Phil Goff as leader and his anti state owned asset sales campaign ….because he was a Rogernome who sold state assets in a previous Labour Government….Labour people stayed at home because people have long memories…it was too much to swallow

        * Now Labour has Shearer….not the will/choice of the Labour Party members….and Shearer looks like he has jetted into some corporation and cant believe his luck!….He hopes he will do a good job but doesn’t sound convinced ….either by what he is saying or how he is saying it….and he sounds like he could quite easily fit into National….

        Labour is a mess until they get Cunliffe as a leader!…and then Labour will sock it to John Key and show him up for what he is ….Cunliffe is National’s greatest fear!

        • yeshe 6.3.2.1
          15 August 2013 at 11:30 am

          +1000% Cunliffe is the ONLY possible Labour leader who will take down Key in debate.

          • freedom 6.3.2.1.1
            15 August 2013 at 11:58 am

            +1

            Many people no longer support Labour because of their unwillingness to face the reality that New Zealand’s ‘experiment’ with trickle down wealth transfer to the rich over the last thirty years has failed and failed spectacularly. Or to put it another way . .

            They are the cocky teenager unable to admit they crashed dad’s car on the weekend. They somehow believe with a bit of paint and some careful lighting that the damage is really not all that obvious. They are right, it’s not, but only if you are still sitting in the car.

            Many ex-Labour voters, myself included, have real trouble understanding why Labour cannot admit this reality and just do what needs to be done. Puting Cunliffe in charge is the most obvious action towards doing what is necessary to help save New Zealand.

            • srylands 6.3.2.1.1.1
              15 August 2013 at 12:13 pm

              “their unwillingness to face the reality that New Zealand’s ‘experiment’ with trickle down wealth transfer to the rich over the last thirty years has failed and failed spectacularly.”

              Only problem is there is no such experiment.

              We have a massive welfare safety net and a highly progressive tax system, wityh most houesholds with an income of less than $50,000 paying no net tax.

              The current government is a left wing, progressive government committed to a considerable role in ensuring wellbeing through income redistribution.

              You are raving against a myth.

              • freedom …
                15 August 2013 at 12:26 pm

                “The current government is a left wing, progressive government committed to a considerable role in ensuring wellbeing through income redistribution.”

                Srylands, you are a dangerously deluded individual and I hope your minders don’t let you play with scissors. Speaking of playtime, the library logon says mine is almost over but that’s ok, I have some very exciting paintings to return to. I imagine you just have more inanities to vomit onto these pages whilst ignoring the wealth of accurate information numerous people have tried to share with you these past months.

                Hopefully it will begin to sink in soon that your shonKey dogma loving platitudes to greed are about as boring as any seen here over recent years, and if I may add, are sadly devoid of the entertainment value more enlightened tr0lls attempt to deliver.

                Have a nice day.
                p.s. if this is a left wing government,
                I hate to think what side of the road you drive on!

              • Mary …
                15 August 2013 at 12:30 pm

                “We have a massive welfare safety net and a highly progressive tax system, wityh most houesholds with an income of less than $50,000 paying no net tax.”

                Which government minister’s office do you work in?

              • geoff …
                15 August 2013 at 12:34 pm

                And you’re a fucking nutter!

                Less than $50,000 paying no net tax!?
                Just because you can say it doesn’t make it true, srylands.

                Families are struggling to keep their heads above water in an economy with high unemployment and oligopolies sucking every last cent out of them and you come out with that crap.

                What a piece of shit.

                • Seti …
                  15 August 2013 at 3:09 pm

                  “Less than $50,000 paying no net tax!?
                  Just because you can say it doesn’t make it true, srylands.”

                  There are obviously some receiving WFF who effectively pay no income tax, although will be subject to other taxes and levies.

                  http://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/monitoring/household-income-report/key-findings-2013-4.doc

                  “An example is that single-earner two-child families with income less than around $60,000 from wages pay no net income tax. They receive more from Working for Families tax credits than they pay in income tax and ACC.”

                  • srylands …
                    15 August 2013 at 3:28 pm

                    ““Less than $50,000 paying no net tax!?
                    Just because you can say it doesn’t make it true, srylands.”

                    Um no me saying it does not make it true. The data makes it true. I should clarify I am talking about net income tax. I am simply stating the obviouis. The combination of the welfare and income tax system is highly redistributve. There is no “trickle down” experiment. More like gushing down through a government constructed pipe.

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

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      15 August 2013 at 4:41 pm

                      Of course, your statements are faulty, wealth continues to gush upwards, as it normally does in a capitalist regime.

                      The bottom 50% of NZers have zero net worth, the top 10% almost have as much as the rest put together.

                    • geoff …
                      15 August 2013 at 7:54 pm

                      God you’re a joke. Typical useless lying right wing crap, cherry picking extreme cases while ignoring the situations that normally occur.
                      For fucks sakeyou don’t even realise that WFF is a subsidy to NZ businesses so they can pay shittier wages.
                      It’s impossible to avoid the conclusion that you are simply a complete and utter piece of shit.

                    • KJT …
                      15 August 2013 at 8:30 pm

                      Except Srylands you said NET TAX, not net INCOME tax.
                      Just as you did when we called you on the same bullshit a while ago.

                      Which is just the sort of lying by omission Key did so well on the Campbell live interview.

                      Apart from the fact that working for families is a subsidy for employers, who do not pay decent wages, a little arithmetic would show you that the family above would still be net tax positive.
                      After income tax and ACC which almost pays WFF, they also pay at least 15% of their remaining income in tax, GST, as low income families spend all their income. They do not have enough money to buy shares inpower companies, or have net savings.

                      On the other hand 178 of the around 300 richest families, the exact figures have disappeared off the IRD website, (Surprise) in NZ, had declared taxable income of less than 70k a year.
                      As wealthy people use a much higher proportion of tax payer provided resources, they are most definitely tax negative.

                      Most of the tax is, in fact, paid by PAYE tax payers in the middle percentiles. More than 60% of income tax.
                      Earn enough to pay PAYE, but not enough to pay a tax accountant.

              • Murray Olsen …
                15 August 2013 at 6:55 pm

                I am proud to rave against the myth that sorryhands and other neoliberals rave in favour of.

          • Rosie 6.3.2.1.2
            15 August 2013 at 12:08 pm

            Don’t we know that yeshe and Chooky! Last night watching the Campbell live interview I had wondered if shonkey had popped an upper before the show. He was alert, focused and calm. 100% A grade spin that fools the fools who vote for him. It put me in mind again of what it will be like during the election debates next year with Shearer, if he is still there heaven forbid.

            And y’know, it’s politically important that Shearer speaks at Monday nights GCSB bill meeting at the Ak town hall. Mostly it’s important for him. What I worry about is that he will become unquestionably popular simply for speaking and that people will confuse his opposition to the bill (if that is how he does indeed feel) for ability and begin to support him, and the destabilisation campaign will lose power. We can be real suckers like that. We need a main opposition party that tears the National Government apart with quick wits and intellect.

            Cunliffe could have Key in a total fluster in a debate but I fear that if we still have Shearer it will be him who will be in a total fluster.

            • Mary 6.3.2.1.2.1
              15 August 2013 at 12:37 pm

              “Cunliffe could have Key in a total fluster in a debate but I fear that if we still have Shearer it will be him who will be in a total fluster.”

              I totally agree. The only problem with Cunliffe is that he comes across as arrogant and thinking he’s superior to everyone. The way he treats the media is a good example, as well as the last group he needs to be treating like this. He’s sharp and has the smarts to deal to Key like nobody else currently within Labour. He just needs to lose that arrogant streak and he could do wonders. And if he doesn’t but becomes leader nonetheless then Labour just ends up with the same problem it has now: a leader people can’t relate to.

              • Olwyn …
                15 August 2013 at 3:39 pm

                I have a different view of him, having only had one conversation with him. But I found him personable, direct, and mercifully without that ghastly, “working the room” quality.

                • Hami Shearlie …
                  15 August 2013 at 11:19 pm

                  My cousin knows David Cunliffe very well through the party , and finds him very friendly and personable and not arrogant or superior at all. Just another story spread by the ABC gang.

              • Colonial Viper …
                15 August 2013 at 4:39 pm

                The only problem with Cunliffe is that he comes across as arrogant and thinking he’s superior to everyone.

                Uh, no he doesn’t.

              • Not a PS Staffer …
                15 August 2013 at 5:31 pm

                Mary, stop repeating the stupid baseless crap formulated by Grant and Trevor and repeated ad nauseam by their acolytes along the corridor.

                Cunliffe is highly respected by the leading Public Servants who have worked with him in Government and in Opposition.
                Cunliffe is highly respected by the interest/industry/lobby groups who have worked with him in Government and in Opposition.
                Cunliffe is highly respected by the Labour people who heard him during the Nov’11 Leadership debates. To our cost and shame the Membership were ignored by the losers in Caucus.
                Cunliffe is loved by the voters of West Auckland who dumped a Nat for him (Titirangi) and who give him 5,000 votes more that they gave Labour under the ABCs (New Lynn).

                http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/mpp/electorates/data/DBHOH_Lib_EP_New%20Lynn_Data_3/new-lynn-electoral-profile

              • Murray Olsen …
                15 August 2013 at 7:02 pm

                I have never noticed any arrogance in Cunliffe. I have noticed it in Goff, Hipkins, Mallard, and King. I can’t for the life of me see where that idea comes from. Even on his Facebook page, he actually interacts with people.

          • DavidC 6.3.2.1.3
            15 August 2013 at 12:16 pm

            But the problem with your Man Cunliffe is a large portion of the Larbour MPs hate his guts. So until there is a cleanout of the old gaurd Labour (and silent T) are screwed.

            I blame Helen for this farce. She could of/should of done the deed.

            • Chooky 6.3.2.1.3.1
              15 August 2013 at 4:55 pm

              @ David C

              You cant blame Helen for the present Roger caucus!…..she kept the Labour ship afloat and only just I would think….that was sufficient and a magnificent feat in itself !……with that motley crew of pirates breathing down her neck…. watching and waiting

        • Hami Shearlie 6.3.2.2
          15 August 2013 at 12:08 pm

          + 1

        • Bearded Git 6.3.2.3
          15 August 2013 at 12:23 pm

          +1

          I’m hearing (admittedly vague) rumours that things are starting to move on the useless Shearer/saviour Cunliffe situation.

        • Agora 6.3.2.4
          15 August 2013 at 1:08 pm

          Goff’s strategy in game theory terms seems to be to outwit, outplay, and outlast .. and then discover he is the only one left of his generation.

  7. Greywarbler 7
    15 August 2013 at 11:48 am

    Is ‘absolutely’ the most over-used word in the new, in, buzzwords list? Absolutely! I am absolutely sick of hearing it. A simple yes without extra emphasis is usually quite sufficient to indicate agreement.

  8. gobsmacked 8
    15 August 2013 at 12:39 pm

    On Key, Campbell, GCSB and Shearer … Russell Brown sums it up very well:

    http://publicaddress.net/hardnews/fluency-ease-of-manner-and-norton-antivirus/

    Required reading for Labour MPs.

  9. lprent 9
    15 August 2013 at 12:47 pm

    Fear not. The Feeds on the right currently have parts of them turned off. We’ve been having high CPU at the server since the weekend. I’m testing the new parts of the system to determine where it is coming from.

    The current suspicion is focused on the thumbnail images in the feed. And that looks like being the winner.

    • weka 9.1
      15 August 2013 at 1:16 pm

      Any chance the RSS links could be changed to open in the browser window or new tab instead of a popup (or whatever that’s called)?

      • lprent 9.1.1
        15 August 2013 at 7:51 pm

        LightBox. There is a method behind the madness, and it has to do with the other behaviours already available. What you are requesting is already available – these are standard browser behaviours.

        In Chrome on Linux, on the link…

        Shift-Click will open the link in a a new browser window.
        Ctrl-Shift-Click will open the link in a a new browser tab.
        Right-click gives a context menu with “open in new tab”, “open in new window”, and “open in incognito window” as well as several other actions.

        Tablets should have “hold finger down in link” to pop up the context menu (works fine in chrome on Nexus 7 – android 4.2.2). That gives me “Open in new tab”, “Open in incognito tab” and a few other options.

        Now why it is different from any of these. It is the expectation about what the Feed is used for – mostly fast quick glancing..

        The default action on the Click on the link would normally be to “open in this tab”. Now while that would be good for our page views as people go back and forth (depending on how the browser caches), it makes everything quite a lot slower for doing the page renders when you come back.

        That incidentally, is why the the default behaviour for links clicked in the posts or comments is to “open in new tab”. Most people will read the link in the new tab and then kill the tab to go back to TS – without suffering a render delay.

        I could “open in new tab” rather than a LightBox. But this really the Feed is meant to mostly give you an idea of what is in other sites rather than give you more tabs. I seem to wind up with at least 20 open most of the time with work browsing, personal browsing, mail, trac, svn, TS admin pages etc etc…

        By putting it into a lightbox it makes it easier to have a faster deeper peek than the excerpt, provides a action that isn’t in the context menu, and helps with the “glance at that”, close, “glance at the next interesting one” that the Feed is meant to foster.

        The place where it is a pain is if you’re on a tablet and you don’t have good context menus – ie safari on a iPad (and I think Chrome is like that on iPads too).recently.

        Personally I’d like to just add a button to the LightBox to “open in new tab” that closes the light box and opens up the site with a wider drill down. I’d actually like to do that on the links inside the site as well.

  10. North 10
    15 August 2013 at 12:57 pm

    Don’t confuse popularity with trust offered up as the wages of integrity. History generally forgets cheap current popularity and tells a very different story as to substance. To wit……..Muldoon. Even the National Party dismisses him. Any fool knows that a huge input to the preferred prime minister polls is the glitter sprinkled on the turd of incumbency.

    Fortunately stench bests glitter. Problem is that much may be corrupted in the interim.

    • yeshe 10.1
      15 August 2013 at 11:10 pm

      Your writing delights, thank you, North ! Your final three sentences .. most entertaining I’ve read in weeks. And on the money, too.

  11. tricledrown 11
    15 August 2013 at 3:58 pm

    Schrillands families pay more gst because they spend all their money on food clothing electricity education housing transport!
    Then their children grow up unlike you and become taxpayers!
    Australia like you have been misleading pays far more in family supports than NZ.
    Schrillands trying to pull the wool again 47% ters Romney style aye sheep shagger schrill!

  12. Colonial Viper 12
    15 August 2013 at 4:44 pm

    So Labour are supporting Paula Bennet’s anti-child abusers legislation yeah?

    Can we tack on an extra to the bill, requiring all child abusers to wear special arm bands in public, so we can safeguard our children please?

  13. McFlock 13
    15 August 2013 at 7:31 pm

    Been a few months since the last privacy fuckup? Time for another.

    An ACC case manager hand-wrote detailed notes on 35 to 125 ACC clients (including bank account info), took the notebook home (wtf? A notebook?) from where it was promptly stolen. Oh, and Key’s response was to bullshit with “It’s probably…” and come up with a reasonable excuse.

    Hell, it might have been anything on a scale from nefarious through careless into merely unlucky, but it was nice to see the bullshitter be completely relaxed about making shit up yet again.

  14. Chooky 14
    15 August 2013 at 7:33 pm

    @ CV….this Paula Bennet Nat Bill makes the Labour ‘nanny state’ and anti- smacking bill look tame!

  15. joe90 15
    15 August 2013 at 7:54 pm

    An offer he couldn’t refuse.

    “I was faced with the choice of watching it suffer or putting it to sleep quietly… it was very difficult,” he told Democracy Now. “I had to pick between the lesser of two evils.”

    What was that other choice? “Unfortunately, I can’t talk about that,” Levison said during today’s interview. “I would like to, believe me. I think that if the American people knew what our government was doing, they wouldn’t be allowed to do it anymore. My hope is that the media can uncover what’s going on without my assistance” and pressure Congress, he said. Together with Lavabit’s own efforts working through the court system, he hopes it can “put a cap on what the government is entitled to in terms of our private communications.”

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/08/lavabit-founder-under-gag-order-speaks-out-about-shut-down-decision/

  16. tricledrown 16
    15 August 2013 at 9:03 pm

    Iprent you have done a good job of fixing smart phone access what about a TS app

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.