Open mike 16/02/2011

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, February 16th, 2011 - 77 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post.

It’s open for discussing topics of interest, making announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

Comment on whatever takes your fancy.

The usual good behaviour rules apply (see the link to Policy in the banner).

Step right up to the mike…

77 comments on “Open mike 16/02/2011 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. D14 1
    16 February 2011 at 7:33 am

    OOps
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10706543

    PM admits national standards flaws

    He was at Glen Taylor school in Glendowie, which first launched the flagship national standards policy, when he said that the first year had effectively been a “trial”.

    There had been “teething problems” around the moderation between schools, he said.

    Wasn’t a trial ruled out when asked for by the NZEI.
    Moderation was always going to be a problem!!

    This is a DUH moment!!!

    • ianmac 1.1
      16 February 2011 at 10:57 am

      Amazing that Key would concede that there are problems with the process and not slagging off the teachers.
      Sadly some teachers tell me that the new Curriculum developed over years of research and consultation has often been put on the back burner because the time (frustration) and energy has instead been focussed on National Standards.
      “DUH” indeed D14!

      • stever 1.1.1
        17 February 2011 at 8:43 am

        And any one have any info on why Mary Chamberlain, the Ministry of Education manager responsible for the implementation of National Standards, has resigned?

  2. Bored 2
    16 February 2011 at 7:36 am

    Every time you mention energy depletion / crisis some techno-market fundamentalist will give you the line that the technology will be delivered by the market at the right price point. The following link does a rather good job of disassembling that one.

    http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2011-02-15/eventually-we%E2%80%99ll-have-unlimited-cheap-clean-energy-will-not-help-us-or-our-kids

    • ZeeBop 2.1
      16 February 2011 at 8:24 am

      Stuff takes time in the real world, but financials happen now in milliseconds. The article misses another problem with cheap energy, neo-liberalism. If you provide huge amounts of cheap energy and the promise of more cheap energy then your economies can get wide and deep, and just like an obese person it does not matter what you eat, the invisible hand becomes weakened, the market starts saying screwy stuff like cut all the trees down they can grow back on their own, or how many fish are in the sea clearly an endless supply! Neo-liberalism essentially is a emergent economic philosophy of cheap energy and its creates a zombie society that has no anchors. Unlimited energy is too much of a good thing.

  3. Cnr Joe 3
    16 February 2011 at 7:36 am

    And more importantly – would Prime Minister Keylusconi phuck Gillard? If not why not? Shes got tits!
    nb. shes not on my hot list of woman to phuck when the wifeys got the flu’.

    • the pink postman 3.1
      16 February 2011 at 4:34 pm

      Interesting that you should call him Keylusconi crn Joe because every time he is on photo he is with a young woman ,being kissed or has his arm around them.
      A couple of time he’s being kissed by gay ladies. Now I wonder what ever does his wife think of this strange behaviour ? His teen-like antics are quite embarassing perhaps that’s why she is very rarely seen with him .
      We perhaps could turn a blind eye to childish performances but when he does it on the world stage he is making all Aotearoa look foolish, Thats bad.

  4. Carol 4
    16 February 2011 at 8:47 am

    The gayblade blog on gaynz says “Yes” to Big Gay Out and “No” to Mardi Gras. He’s sees the Big Gay Out as a very positive event for the LGBT community, a grass roots kinda thing. Says that it’s success has resulted in the pollies descending on it like “a swarm of locusts”. Hoverwever he’s positive about MPs who have a good track record on supporting LGBT people, especially Greenie Kevin Hague, plus also Labour’s Grant Robertson and Maryann Street. He has a mixed response to Nikk Kaye, but is very critical of Key, National and any gay’s who fawn over them.

    http://gaynz.com/blog/gayblade/archives/115

    Remember: He did not support the Civil Unions Legislation. He doesn’t support same-sex couples being able to adopt children. So he is nice and smiley around us, he’s very good at how he presents himself, but he still sees us as not deserving of the full rights of other New Zealand citizens. In John Key’s eyes we are not worthy to be parents, and our relationships are not of equal value to heterosexual ones. There is no other way to read his actions.

    Yet our Uncle Toms fall over themselves to be seen with him and get their photo taken. Power is in itself an attractive thing I guess. But this man has not been our friend. Look at National – I think it’s the last party to have closeted MPs sitting in it. Think of how self-hating you must be to live half a life, stuck in the closet because you think being open about being a homo would ruin your political career. But that’s the National Party for you.

    Then there is all the talk of a new Auckland “Mardi Gras”, spilling from, the lips of Auckland Central National MP Nikki Kaye. She’s a nice woman, what I’ve seen of her I like. She’s on the more liberal end of the Nationals too, but I don’t see any real support or understanding of gay issues from her, even though there are a lot of us in her electorate.

    Her first comments about a Mardi Gras were about how much money it could bring into the city – then after dissenting voices arose she hastily followed up by vague murmuring about “community”.

    • ZeeBop 4.1
      16 February 2011 at 9:08 am

      If a child loses their parent then the parents choice, cultural practices should take some part in the choice of guardian. So a catholic kid should go to a catholic family. It should have nothing to do with the sexual make up of the guardian except that kids should go to couples like their parents. So is Key saying this? Is Key saying its unlikely that same-sex couples can adopt? Is Key saying that kids of a deceased single parent should go another single person??? The problem I have with same sex couples is say two men accessing female reproduction services, or more often two women couples being able to access male sperm. All sperm is checked in by men so surely all sperm should be checked out by men. Until men can grow wombs its wrong for one sex to gain access to reproduction technology and that another cannot utilize, and that’s where surely the whole same sex couples should not adopt argument comes from, that same sex couples are treated equally by nature and its not right that government solve the problem any more than government need to provide two legged people with a third leg.
      I’m all for same sex couple adoption the kids of same sex couples (or overflow), but I’m totally against the same sex mentality that says a same sex female couple should access sperm banks. Every child has a right to a male parent and a female parent in their lives.
      Now of course gay men can provide sperm, or men without my views could just walk away, but I believe the default of sperm banks should be to only allow withdrawals by other men. Men suffering for some reason a fertility problem, I mean it is a fertility treatment not a right.

      • Lindsey 4.1.1
        16 February 2011 at 9:50 am

        Little confused there ZeeBop – it is not access to the other part of the gene pool which is the problem. It is that I as a lesbian in a Civil Union could not adopt my brother’s children if something happened to him and his wife, where if I was single – I could. Also two women raising children – the other woman cannot adopt the children, so if anything happens to the biological mother, unless expensive guardianship arangements have been made, there are problems. Same thing with two gay men.

        • Zorr 4.1.1.1
          16 February 2011 at 10:22 am

          Lindsey, from the tone of the post and language used it is obvious he is just taking the piss

          • Jilly Bee 4.1.1.1.1
            16 February 2011 at 11:29 am

            Agree with you Lindsey, and yes Zorr Zeebob may well be just taking the piss! Just as a personal aside, my late mother, baptised a Catholic was orphaned at an early age and was fostered to – OMG an Anglican family early last century! I am eternally grateful for that twist of fate – it would have done my head in to have to adhere to the medieval customs and guilt culture of the R C church.

    • Marty G 4.2
      16 February 2011 at 10:29 am

      I do find the closeted gay mp thing amazing, why do that to yourself and your community? and if you can’t be a nat and openly gay then is it really the party for you? I guess now that finlayson has forged a path others will follow but the closeted ones feel it is too late to come out.

      (for subsequent comments – let’s not name names here please).

      • Lanthanide 4.2.1
        16 February 2011 at 1:29 pm

        Seems like fair game to me. If your party is going to try and court the gay vote, but has members that are not willing to out themselves, then it seems pretty hypocritical to me.

    • the pink postman 4.3
      16 February 2011 at 1:56 pm

      Most of what you say Carol is true except your comments regarding Nikki Kay.Saying she is a decent person. NO such thing as a nice decent Tory. they are all tared with the same brush. Selfish ,greedy arrogant nasties. All antiworker and all tinted with classism and most with at least a touch of racism. I would not trust any of them ,The sooner all working people realise this fact the longer the Nats stay in opposition .

      • Tigger 4.3.1
        16 February 2011 at 4:39 pm

        Kaye’s blurb in Express (gay newspaper) was embarrassing. She had to make it clear she was ‘a friend of your community’ and noted how she’s been welcomed into people’s homes. She also said if we needed help we should call her. Any gay couple in her electorate want to hit her up for an adoption?

      • Carol 4.3.2
        16 February 2011 at 5:37 pm

        Um, just a detail, tpp, it wasn’t me who said Kaye is a decent person. I was quoting the gay blade frpom his gaynz blog. Kaye is a bit socially liberal, but she seems wedded to the Tory focus on business, which, in this case seems to be more important to her than the social issues.

  5. patriot_nz 5
    16 February 2011 at 9:58 am

    So Julia says we have nothing to fear from Australia’s strength as she and John Key prepare to sign an agreement that gives Australians carte blanche to buy up, without scrutiny, what remains of New Zealand? And in return we have the same preferential treatment to invest in Aussie as the Americans do so it’s all good, right? Except we are pretty much bankrupt as a country and won’t be doing much buying. Screwed again- thanks John.

    • Pascal's bookie 5.1
      16 February 2011 at 10:01 am

      Seeing we will be one economic market, I assume we will be adopting Aussie labour and holiday laws, no?

      • Carol 5.1.1
        16 February 2011 at 10:17 am

        On National Radio this morning I heard Gillard say that NZ has nothing to fear from a closer economic relationship to Aussie and then said travelling to NZ is like travelling from one Aussie state to another….. you’ve kinda undercut your own claims for equality between the two countries, Julia, when you see it from such an Aus-centric perspective.

        • Lanthanide 5.1.1.1
          16 February 2011 at 1:38 pm

          That comment struck me as a bit odd, but I was still half asleep at the time.

          You’ve hit the nail on the head there, thanks.

      • Colonial Viper 5.1.2
        16 February 2011 at 10:21 am

        Wage levels too, especially minimum and median wage ASAP.

        • Colonial Viper 5.1.2.1
          16 February 2011 at 10:43 am

          Median wage in Australia, 2009

          25-34 year old (M) = AU$64,827.
          25-34 year old (F) = AU$51,702

          These figures climb as you get older.

          And funny, even though wages and taxes are so much lower here, do you see stacks of Australian companies relocating to NZ? No?

          Read and weep boys and girls, we are being royally screwed.

          http://www.abcdiamond.com/australia/australian-median-wage/

          • Armchair Critic 5.1.2.1.1
            16 February 2011 at 2:01 pm

            Read and weep boys and girls, we are being royally screwed.
            Most of us, but not all. Once you earn a salary over about $250k NZ or $190k AUS you pay less tax in New Zealand. Why oh why aren’t all the Atlases rushing to NZ? Surely John or Bill can explain.

            • higherstandrad 5.1.2.1.1.1
              16 February 2011 at 4:59 pm

              You need to check out the tax deductibles for salary and wage earners in Australia

              • Armchair Critic …
                16 February 2011 at 5:21 pm

                I’ve been looking to move to Australia, so I’ll tick that suggestion off as done – and given that I’m not going to get a job in a salary band that high I’m definitely better off in Australia, from a tax perspective.
                Though if I ever make it to Atlas status I’ll almost certainly be rushing back to NZ, just so I can pay less tax.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  16 February 2011 at 5:32 pm

                  Maybe you could join that crowd of rich asshats who spend all their days on luxury cruisers to ensure that they are of no fixed abode for tax reasons?

    • ianmac 6.1
      16 February 2011 at 11:03 am

      However you would think that the most sophisticated intelligence service in the world would be able to quickly check the validity of his claims. Or did the Administration just hear what they wanted to hear?

      • Vicky32 6.1.1
        16 February 2011 at 4:44 pm

        “Or did the Administration just hear what they wanted to hear?”
        I think that’s the answer, pretty much..
        Deb

    • Mac1 6.2
      16 February 2011 at 11:04 am

      Shades of the Tonkin Gulf incident in the Vietnam War, the German attack on its own radio station to justify the invasion of Poland and thereafter WW2 and the attack by the British on the retreating General Belgrano during the Faulklands War to promote hostilities over a peace process, all for Thatcher’s political advantage.

      As you say, Puddleglum, most unsurprising. The bully seeks to justify his behaviour to others.

  7. Olwyn 7
    16 February 2011 at 10:57 am

    One of the things I wonder about is this: with even closer relations with Australia, do we have any equivalent of senate representation, such as the states of Australia have? We are in fact about the size of a state, but we do not seem to have any mechanism in place for defending our interests at the Australian federal level. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that Aussies are far keener on buying up places like Queenstown than setting up businesses here that employ New Zealanders, even despite the low wages and the cowed workforce.

    • Carol 7.1
      16 February 2011 at 5:41 pm

      Gillard has some good ideas with respect to supporting working people. Her address to the NZ parliament, while stateswomanlike, gave me an uneasy feeling that she is positioning Aussie as a leader in the Pacific region. Aus is still very much a follower of US dominance. It could be that Gillard is aiming for a softer version of Howard’s notion of the country being the US deputy in the region.

      • Colonial Viper 7.1.1
        16 February 2011 at 5:44 pm

        NZ is the equivalent of a small Australian state.

        Even though they have to rely on our LAB built navy now…

      • Olwyn 7.1.2
        16 February 2011 at 5:56 pm

        It is implicit to Australian thinking that if you have a smallish population and a lot of minerals you are vulnerable to invasion. They felt very let down by England during the second world war when Darwin was bombed and Churchill was willing to forfeit the country to the Japanese, and try to regain it once they had won the war in Europe. And they were grateful to America for fighting the war in the Pacific, and have cleaved to America ever since, though not without grumblings from the population about Americanisation, lap-dog obedience to America and so on.

        • Colonial Viper 7.1.2.1
          16 February 2011 at 6:08 pm

          The political class haven’t figured out that the economic geopolitical balance has been shifting away from the US for the last ten years and over the next ten years is going to do so even more strongly?

  8. joe90 8
    16 February 2011 at 11:21 am

    Couple of follow ups on the HBGary comedy, Wired and Forbes.

  9. Draco T Bastard 9
    16 February 2011 at 1:06 pm

    S. Dakota introducesbill that legalises murder of abortion doctors.

    FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to expand the definition of justifiable homicide to provide for the protection of certain unborn children.

    Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to harm the unborn child of such person in a manner and to a degree likely to result in the death of the unborn child, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is.

    The USians really are becoming completely fucken loco.

    • joe90 9.1
      16 February 2011 at 2:23 pm

      Mother Jones on the South Dakota legislation and in their ongoing war on women the Republican move to <a href=http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/republican-plan-redefine-rape-abortion>redefine rape will fit in nicely with a bill which would allow hospitals to let woman die instead of having an abortion..
      And in Georgia legislators want to redefine rape victims as accusers

      Also, some of the victims of an epidemic of rape in the armed forces are suing defence secretary Robert Gates and his predecessor Donald Rumsfeld.

  10. Draco T Bastard 10
    16 February 2011 at 1:29 pm

    Perhaps the reason why our reporters seem to have NFI what they’re talking about is because the information needed to write a valid article is kept from them.

  11. Nick C 11
    16 February 2011 at 2:02 pm

    Watch from 11:40 in, you might learn something about the attitude to economic policy that puts Australia so far ahead of us economically.

    http://inthehouse.co.nz/node/7367

    • Colonial Viper 11.1
      16 February 2011 at 2:17 pm

      ?

      Yeah, they’re the supergiant leaching fissile gas (talent and mortgage interest payments) off us, the smaller star in this binary system.

      What of it?

      We do a huge amount of trade with Australia, and they soak up a huge amount of our labour force that our businesses do not know how to provide for. I guess fair is fair.

      As for attitude, remember that flooded Kiwi’s over there who are Australian tax payers are not getting payouts from the Aussie govt. That’s what I call a hard ass. Puts a wee bit of a lie to how close we are however, doesn’t it?

  12. just saying 12
    16 February 2011 at 2:52 pm

    I’ve mentioned before that I have ten swing-nat family members. Interestingly, in the last two days I’ve had two conversations with two different kin, and both said, quite spontaneously and adamantly, that they would not be voting National again this year. It was just Christmas they were singing Key’s praises.

    I’m getting the feeling of a turning tide from other quarters too…

    Beautiful day innit?

    • patriot_nz 12.1
      16 February 2011 at 3:26 pm

      Yeah- the tide is turning out there. I was going to put up a similiar post. I trawl the net trying to get a feel for public sentiment (in the vain hope that people might have cottoned on to what JK has in mind for us) and I have recently noticed quite a dramatic change. There are an increasing number of very angry and betrayed people out there. Someone on a Trademe board today gave a detailed list of reasons why NZ might end up hating JK as much as they hate Douglas. And the articles written by the neolib shills (aka journalists) at the NZHerald are routinely shredded and summarily dismissed in the comments section of the online paper.

      The people are waking up- what we need now is leadership.

      • Lanthanide 12.1.1
        16 February 2011 at 3:55 pm

        I’ve sensed a change too.

        I submitted a guest post (that wasn’t published) about comments on the stuff report on the election date being 26th November, contrasting pro-Nat and pro-Labour and anti-Nat and anti-Labour comments. I found that there were 55 pro-Nat/anti-Labour comments and 44 pro-Labour/anti-Nat comments, a big shift from the sort of comments we used to see on the stuff site last year where there was very little pro-Labour at all.

        • Marty G 12.1.1.1
          16 February 2011 at 4:37 pm

          I don’t think we got the post. Don’t take it hard

          • Lanthanide 12.1.1.1.1
            16 February 2011 at 4:59 pm

            Should I re-submit it? A bit dated now.

            I think your contribute form should automatically reply to the email address provided saying that you got the contribution. If it already does this, then the page needs to say it, because I never received any confirmation so had no idea if you received it or not. As it now appears, you didn’t.

      • Herodotus 12.1.2
        16 February 2011 at 4:26 pm

        Pity there is nothing better than Nat at the moment. Lab is bereft of ideas. Michael Woods commented last nighht to pay for Labours promises i.e. $5k free tax,ECE, GST on F&V etc there was the ability to tax land/property speculators with the potential of $2b. Pity that as this recession continuals there is no profit regarding developers activities. So what was a potential tax windfall in 03-07 is not present now. Pity Lab for soem unknown reason decided tolook after and protect their wealthy friends. Also this $2b was a once off amount and the continual ability to tax this sector would reduce both in $ and in volumn as other forms of tax management became more sort after and the amoubnts collected diminished.
        Lets not forget that Trevour Mallard was all for the tax rorts to protect landlords as this was (paraphasing) – a subsidy to maintain affordable rents, and with these now having been removed enabled landlords to increase rents. Nice to know that we have so many community focused landlords that gave back to society with reduced rents.

        • Colonial Viper 12.1.2.1
          16 February 2011 at 5:18 pm

          As usual Herod. you make plenty of good points.

          This flat/downward phase of the market is the perfect time to put in a small CGT (to be ratcheted up over time). It will affect investors less than during the upward phase of a market.

          Although there is no doubt that these measures should all have been taken 5+ years ago.

          • Herodotus 12.1.2.1.1
            16 February 2011 at 6:11 pm

            For political credibility- be it Lab,Nat or anyone else. What would be great is: here is a policy, the cost, how it is to be funded and what benefits there are (The other parties can tear it down in a peer review !!!). But to date we have Lab policies costing inxs of $3b when fully implemented, or in the case of some “When we can afford them” does that mean never. Then in Nat we have max $10b in asset partial sales- no time line, unlike mining this is not negotiable from my understanding of Nat policy (This maybe their 1st not neg policy, they are not made of straw !!!!).
            But no all we get is windows and mirrows and some effort to find out if there is anything beyond a policy of Scotch Mist

    • Mac1 12.2
      16 February 2011 at 6:58 pm

      Watched TV3 news tonight and got the distinct feeling that the reporters are waking up. I watched Key walk away from a young reporter leaving her unsatisfied with an aggressive answer and thought that there will be one reporter who won’t forget that offhandedness.

      There were several attack reports ranging from Tama Iti’s horses and Key’s blame of beneficiaries for their condition, to the ads which signalled that Campbell would return to the fray with his contradiction of the attacks upon those poor who made the run on the shelves of the free food shop as being all smokers.

      Wake up and smell them red roses, people.

      • Carol 12.2.1
        16 February 2011 at 7:15 pm

        And as far as I can tell, from the Fronterra guy who fronted up to Campbell Live, the difference between the cheap milk and the expensive “brand” name milk is in the packaging and status value. The supermarkets wouldn’t front up to explain why they make as much out of selling the milk as the milk producers.

        Smells of a big rip-off all round.

        Oh, and now Sammy Wong is on the block!

        • Carol 12.2.1.1
          16 February 2011 at 7:26 pm

          Well that doesn’t look good for Sammy or Pansy. The claim by an ex-business partner of Sammy’s is that Sammy ripped off the guy who designed the helicopters, and that Sammy travelled to China on taxpayer money frequently to do business, plus Pansy used her position as a cabinet minister, including doing business in her MP office, to add credibility to the helicopter business here and in China. Pansy would not put TV3 through to Sammy to get answers, so we await with interest Wong’s version of this.

  13. felix 13
    16 February 2011 at 5:27 pm

    Patick Gower:

    “National gave Labour heaps for funding Hip Hop world tour. But it turns out the Nats have been funding Hip Hop too. My story tonight”

    http://twitter.com/#/patrickgowernz/status/37727388020387840

  14. Vicky32 14
    16 February 2011 at 6:49 pm

    RANT This inspired by an item on 3 News just now.
    What do libertarians have against cycle helmets? IMO, people who cycle without them are morons, yet Patrick Gower just had an item about an old businessman who runs a cycle-tour company, and his brave campaign against Nanny State – also, his whinge about the fines he incurs by allowing his customers to not wear helmets.
    There’s a bike shop near us, and one day I saw Hank and Dagny (the staff, or boss and worker, who knows?) him cycling, her walking, along Carrington Road, helmetless. Because I worked for IHC, and also at Unitec, with brain-damaged children, at least one rendered intellectually handicapped by a motor accident, I chided him for riding without a helmet.
    Dagny whipped out her camera phone, took a photo of me and demanded to know where I work, so she could get me fired.
    Hank whinged about Nanny State spoiling his business.
    Helmet laws are not enforced. I see kids biking all up and down Carrington and Great North Road without helmets, and a ****wit on a bicycle in Queen Street yesterday, with his helmet slung across his handle bars! (My son was told when at school in the 90s, by some boy, that daddy had told him that cops won’t ping you provided you have the helmet somewhere in your posesssion. This boy therefore told my son “You’re within the law if you have it on your handle-bars”. Not true!)
    Contrary to the whinge, cycle helmets DO save brains. Has everyone forgotten the poor kid whose mother campaigned for helmet laws? He was brain-damaged at 12 years old, when some moron in a car hit him, and spent the rest of his mother’s life being cared for by her, unable to walk or even talk! I really care about this – I am not just a nosey-parkering old lady.
    If it’s a dumb blonde 20 something girl who doesn’t want to spoil her hair-do, or a 35 year old man who resents being told by Nanny State that a mind is a terrible thing to waste, I am tempted to say I would love to see them get brain-damaged. Instant karma, dumbass!
    But not when easily influenced 13 year olds who think they’re bullet-proof see people like the old guy on 3 News, or Hank and Dagny at the Bike Shop and think “How cool, I don’t want to look like a dork, it won’t happen to me”.
    Grr…
    Deb

    • Mac1 14.1
      16 February 2011 at 7:06 pm

      Good rant, Deb.

      At Uni in the sixties there was a member of our group who wore a pudding basin motorcycle helmet on his push-bike. We enquired (sensitively I like to think) as to why. His answer was that his father was a brain surgeon and saw too many cycle injuries on his operating table.

      In a mine last month in WA, the land of the matey masculine males, we all had to wear helmets. No problem for any of us.

      Don’t want to wear a helmet? Fine. Don’t ride a bike! The bloke on the Patrick Gower item had one point, though. Not enough is done for obviously unsafe bikes- I have students who ride bikes without brakes at all. End of my rant.

      • millsy 14.1.1
        16 February 2011 at 8:37 pm

        …mind you, back in my school days when tearing at 50k down the steep narrow incline on my bike,there was a section of road there where not even a helmet would have saved you if a overzealous driver put you off balance forcing you to smash into the kerb, or even if you misjudged…

        IMO the best gear to wear when riding a bike is sturdy shoes, long pants, ie jeans, and long sleeved shirts, as well as a helmet.

        I see too many people riding bikes and scooters in jandals and shorts, etc, sure more comfortable, but not so when needing skin grafts, etc.

    • Colonial Viper 14.2
      16 February 2011 at 7:28 pm

      libertarians – why not give our kids the choice not to be drooling, disabled and futureless after a bicycle accident. Use helmets!

      • Mac1 14.2.1
        16 February 2011 at 8:03 pm

        Libertarians- exactly the same label came to my mind, CV.

        The law doesn’t/shouldn’t apply to me. Same mentality that saw the introduction of rabbit myxomatosis. Same mentality that says I can drive as fast as I think I can/want.

        It’s like having to have a licence to drive a car. Don’t like to get a licence? Fine, that’s your right. But you can’t drive.

        My liberty is at stake.

        • rosy 14.2.1.1
          16 February 2011 at 9:15 pm

          At the risk of being beaten around the head with a cycle helmet….. Wear one if you want but it is unlikely you will be at less risk of life-threatening head injury if you are hit by a vehicle. In the spate of cycle deaths over the summer how many were not wearing helments? I haven’t read a single article that said the dead person was not wearing a helmet

          Netherlands and Japan where cycle helmets are not compulsory and are in fact only seen on those cycling for fitness or on small children. The style of comuter cycling here and in many European countries is not fitness training but leisurely getting from point A to Point B.

          Research on the impact of cycle helmet laws have shown that the compelling people to wear bike helmets can to more harm than good. Other transport safety laws like motorcycle helmets and car seatbelts are of proven benefit, cycle helmets are not. Modern bicycle helmets are designed to mitigate the effect of an impact to the head of a person falling off a bicycle and that’s great, especially for children but not so much for adults who are at less risk of simply falling off (race training cyclists excepted). Helmets are tested in the lab for straight line blows only. The tests require a helmet containing a 5kg fake head to be dropped onto a flat surface from a height of 1.5 to 2.0 metres, this test simulates an impact at about 14kph. That’s all, there is no test for an impact with a sharp object or for impacts that rotate the head, which is likely to happen if hit by a car. Research shows that impacts at 20kph are likely to be lethal if a helmet is worn or not

          Only under extreme, theoretical circumstances do mandatory helmet laws not end up costing the healthcare system. Reformulating cycling as a dangerous activity requiring protective gear, rather than a recreational pursuit puts people off. And that means more heart disease and people take to their cars, and this of course leads to fewer cyclists again as those who would do so are put off by traffic density and a greater risk of injury. If you cycle regularly you will feel fitter, have lower cholesterol, lower blood pressure and much less chance of a heart attack or stroke compared to a non-cyclist. Three hours of ordinary commuter cycling per week – 15 minutes each way, perhaps 5kms a day– reduces death rates by about 40 per cent.

          Paradoxically, more cyclists equal fewer crashes, because motorists are more likely to be cyclists themselves, and therefore be more conscious of, and sympathetic towards, cyclists. Safety experts say the decrease in accidents that comes with an increase in cycling is independent of improvements in cycling-friendly laws and better infrastructure such as bike paths. This conclusion is part of a review of safety studies from Australia, Denmark, the Netherlands, 14 other European countries, and 68 cities in California.

          The focus on helmets has taken away a lot of the impetus there may have been for safety measures that actually improve the cycling experience in terms of enjoyment and safety. Traffic calming, road engineering, skills training and cycling facilities are all proven measures to improve the safety and enjoyment of cycling. Due to these factors, helmetless cyclists in the Netherlands, Germany, and Denmark are much safer then helmeted cyclists in New Zealand. Countries considering introducing mandatory helmet laws look at New Zealand as evidence of why NOT to have a helmet law.

          for further updates on this http://www.cyclinghealth.org.nz/

    • Lanthanide 14.3
      16 February 2011 at 8:54 pm

      If he’s running a business, and repeatedly being fined for letting his customers ride without helmets, the fucking law should less the police double the fine for each repeat infringement. Won’t take very long before he starts doing what’s right.

  15. gobsmacked 15
    16 February 2011 at 7:26 pm

    Campbell Live report: real journalism for once.

    So … all doubt now gone. Sammy Wong lied. Pansy Wong lied. John Key backed the liars.

    • Pascal's bookie 15.1
      16 February 2011 at 7:31 pm

      Goodness me. Rodney Hide won’t stay in a cabinet like that. (cf, any number of speeches re Winston Peters.)

    • Carol 15.2
      16 February 2011 at 7:32 pm

      Well, we do need to hear the Wong’s response. But I’m expecting some right wing diversionary responses that try valiantly, but weakly, to equate the Wong’s law breaking and lack of ethics with Helen Clark and some painting, and some flowers being bought for an MP’s partner.

      • Pascal's bookie 15.2.1
        16 February 2011 at 7:36 pm

        I wonder if JK will drag out his ‘private citizen’ line again and say how improper it would be for him to comment… (on how he did his job as PM with regard to one of his ministers and the cabinet manual).

    • Herodotus 15.3
      16 February 2011 at 8:05 pm

      Any links I am unable to locate this on TV3 website?

      • Mac1 15.3.1
        16 February 2011 at 8:23 pm

        All happened on Campbell Live. Great journalism. Well advertised beforehand. Keep up, Herodotus. Guess you’ll have to trust our reports of the programme.

        Fonterra, the Wongs, the supermarkets -all got a workover.

        I loved the bit where Campbell was reporting the non-show by the supermarkets and his finger went up to stroke his cheek. It reminded me of the nose-wipe made by Justice Mahon when commenting on the evidence proferred by Air New Zealand management at the Erebus enquiry- totally an “I am being lied to here” gesture.

    • Lanthanide 15.4
      16 February 2011 at 8:59 pm

      Yeah, so what’s with Campbell Live suddenly doing real journalism lately?

      • Marty G 15.4.1
        16 February 2011 at 9:29 pm

        looks like campbell is one of the first reef-fish to turn.

        this is the kind of stuff journos love. It’s like the community max stuff ups. very tangible, direct stories, about individuals. not nation-level stories where everything is reduced to stats.

        it becomes a bit of a competition for the journos to see who can unearth the next hypocritical spending or useless make-work scheme.

  16. felix 16
    16 February 2011 at 8:01 pm

    Oh look, the Eric Crampton Brains Trust thinks it’s really unfair that ordinary people might be able to go to the RWC final.

    It’s just not natural apparently. Should be just for the super rich. Waaah. Fucking babies.

    http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/defence-world-cup-ticket-scalpers-nk-86143

    ps check the comments. Cream of the crop these NBR readers eh?

  17. gobsmacked 17
    16 February 2011 at 8:19 pm

    More evidence of the imploding government (while the celebrity-in-chief adds to his photo album):

    NZPA reports:

    Mrs Turia said Mr Hide was reaping the results of his own actions.

    “I think that really the biggest disappointment has been Rodney and his attitude towards Maori people,” she told reporters.

    “He did say at one point he would resign and our advice to him is that would be a great thing for him to do.”

    So, let’s spell that out –

    A government Minister has explicitly called for another government Minister to resign. And their boss pretends it has nothing to do with him.

    Looks like third-termitis has arrived two terms early.

  18. Deadly_NZ 18
    16 February 2011 at 8:28 pm

    Did anyone see the campbell live thing where he got someone from Fontera to admit that the cheap milk (dairy Dale) and the expensive brand milk (Anchor blue top) in Supermarkets and were in fact the same milk in a different bottle?