Open mike 17/03/2010

19 comments on “Open mike 17/03/2010 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. SD 1

   17 March 2010 at 6:46 am

   I watched the debate between Hobart’s Labor and Liberal leaders on Sky News the other day, and after hearing what was coming out of the Liberal candidates mouth; I knew Crosby Textor were up to their usual tricks again.

   I even heard “a brighter future” at one stage!
2. logie97 2

   17 March 2010 at 7:55 am

   Is the Prime Minister’s lack of interest in a Commonwealth Games bid a signal that he thinks that in 10 years time the heat will be turned up on the Republic debate, and things will not be sounding pretty for a monarch to be too near the place…
   • prism 2.1

     17 March 2010 at 8:50 am

     Don’t think King John can look that far ahead. Too busy stamping out the small bush fires constantly erupting. Anyway it’s a nation-building thing for the people generally, and Nats aren’t interested in that. The defining question is – is it good for our people, our supporters? Not really. Oh – well next PR agenda item.
3. copycat (was poxywog) 3

   17 March 2010 at 9:42 am

   Oh the irony…

   http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Business/QOA/2/f/a/49HansQ_20100223_00000011-11-Mining-in-Conservation-Areas-Minister.htm

   Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes, I have. I have seen a statement from the Hon Phil Goff, which says: “I think most New Zealanders want to see a balance. They want to see some areas that are less sensitive in the conservation estate available to environmentally sensitive mining.’ However, I have also seen a statement from the member who asked the primary question, Mr Charles Chauvel, in which he says: “What we will not do is permit exploration or mining on the conservation estate.’ Mr Chauvel seems to forget that under Labour there were no fewer than 82 mines on conservation land. I suggest that Mr Chauvel makes it clear to the House whether he or the Leader of the Opposition speaks for the party.

   Not only does Charlie boy have a problem aligning himself with Labour’s support for mining conservation land, but also with Mom and Pop Public – delightful chap…

   [Eddie: Please change your username, it’s derivative of another commenter’s, and is potentially racist.]

   [lprent: Or i”ll change it for you. Of course you may not like what I change it to.. Ah buggerit, I couldn’t resist playing with the utility. ]
   • lprent 3.1

     17 March 2010 at 10:34 am

     What Brownlee doesn’t say is that most of those mines are not operational and were in fact brought into the conservation land when the land became conservation land. ie they are legacy mines.

     There are a very few cases where a mine has been allowed on existing conservation land. However the conditions are pretty extreme and are designed to maintain the conservation estate rather than making it easier for the miners.

     For instance Pikes Point coal mine is outside the conservation land for its entrance. But it goes underground into the park. However it has to maintain pillars to ensure that the land surface doesn’t slump (too much).

     Now if Brownlee would care to put the list of ’82 mines’ into the public and when I can link to it, I’ll be happy to detail exactly how much Brownlee is implicitly lying.

     In the meantime you’d have to say that Brownlee is simply being a blowhard fool.
   • pollywog 3.2

     17 March 2010 at 10:36 am

     aww lprent/Eddie, i was sincerely flattered by the imitation, and of course we all know a pollywog is a pre-tadpole that doesnt know what sex it is yet eh ? I’m hoping to turn into a bullfrog that will get kissed by a princess and turn into a king who one day rules the world wisely, justly, propserously and benevolently then creates a dynasty for my kids to continue 🙂

     but anyway here’s my contribution to the rantosphere for today…

     Some journos now think just cos they ‘re on telly or get their name in print that they’re bona fide celebrities as well.

     Maybe it’s a kiwi thing, seeing as how we’re short on actual celebrities that the media overlords think we ‘need’ to know how many kids pippa or wendy have, or who ally is sleeping with, where hosking gets his portraits done or where holmes does his grocery shopping with p-freak daughter in tow.

     and tis a sad day when legit journos resort to quoting bloggers for soundbites and beat ups.

     http://www.alternet.org/story/145870/the_media_is_too_screwed_up_for_a_little_govt._funding_to_fix_it?page=entire

     BTW I dont think Chauvel is the one to oust Dunne. Like i said before, even if the shit doesn’t stick, the smell will linger.
4. vto 4

   17 March 2010 at 11:22 am

   Lprent, an issue for you which relates to the poxywog thing above and to the clint heine ‘I know who the anon blogger is’ thing on the Chauvel thread.

   A couple months or so back there was a post re big brother watching the net and blogs and things. There were not many posts and I commented how everyon was chicken at not feigning terrorism etc. I wrote ‘blo-up dolls’.

   Anyways, a week or so after that I received at my home here a phone call from some lady pretending to be from the alumni association of an old university I attended here in NZ. “Just checking that this is your address. Oh, yes blah blah. Would like to be on our email?. Oh no, enough of that shit thanks. Okay jolly good, friendly friendly, bye bye”. Later I thought, who was that actually? Today, still no contact from them as promised. It was a fake call.

   What the fuck is going on with that? Posts on the standard. Phone calls from strangers. Various comments from time to time about who anonymous bloggers are. From yourself too.

   So what is the story?

   Are anonymous posts here anonymous? Do you, lprent, know who posters are? Do you know who I am? Have you or any standardite phoned or contacted anonymous posters outside this site?

   Just seeing these couple similar things today makes me wonder. And there not a lot of assurance re this issue.
   • lprent 4.1

     17 March 2010 at 11:33 am

     It has been in the policy for a long time (extended last year)… here.

     But in any case most people don’t have their real names and usually not even their valid e-mails on their comments. The only commenters who we do have a valid e-mail for are the ones who have registered (because you have to have a valid e-mail for the password). Most of those are gmail accounts or the like.

     You’d have probably have to work backwards from the IP’s through the ISPs to figure out who someone is in real life to get to a phone number. Definitely not a task for the faint-hearted.

     Besides which, I’d personally eviscerate any author that mis-used the information that can be seen in the admin pages.
5. Pascal's bookie 5

   17 March 2010 at 12:48 pm

   Guess who’s back
   Back again
   Mookie’s back
   Tell a friend
   Guess who’s back, guess who’s back, guess who’s back, guess who’s back
   guess who’s back, guess who’s back, guess who’s back…

   …Now this looks like a job for me
   So everybody, just follow me
   Cause we need a little, controversy
   Cause it feels so empty, without me
   I said this looks like a job for me
   So everybody, just follow me
   Cause we need a little, controversy
   Cause it feels so empty, without me
6. BLiP 6

   17 March 2010 at 1:27 pm

   WOMAD ROCKS !!!!
   • vto 6.1

     17 March 2010 at 1:32 pm

     There were a-many festivals on last weekend or so ya blipp.. Maybe they should join forces – love to see a WOMAD – WILDFOODS COMBO FESTIVAL….. imagine it… it would go nuts. Or bananas.
7. bobo 7

   17 March 2010 at 1:55 pm

   I would like to see aggressive attack from Labour this week on Keys broken promise of capping services at existing levels, not cutting the health service, with job losses reported in todays news.

   Funny how labours last campaign message was “this ones about trust” wasn’t popular at the time but is ringing home true now..
8. Pete 8

   17 March 2010 at 2:34 pm

   Gah!!

   I had to have a few swears at lunch while reading the editorial in the Dom today. Essentially it was suggesting that the poor shoudln’t pay for pensioners to take ‘day-trips’ (in relation to the SuperGold Card issue).

   The issue I have with it is that it is totally without irony and will probably be forgotten by the time the post-budget editorial is written in praise of raising ‘poor’ people’s outgoings in favour of the rich.

   Grrrrr!!
9. freedom 9

   17 March 2010 at 7:21 pm

   perhaps the powers that be might learn something from this symbolic decision by the public, but probably not
10. Herodotus 10

    17 March 2010 at 7:30 pm

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/3466305/Waihopai-activists-found-not-guilty
    Lawyers admitted the men attacked the base but said they were driven by a belief that the satellite caused human suffering and their actions to shut it down, if only temporarily, were lawful.

    “That belief doesn’t have to be correct,” one said
    So Bush & co would be all Ok under NZ law regarding the Weapons of Mass Destruction and a wee venture into the Middle East
    I wonder where legalism will get us?
11. freedom 11

    17 March 2010 at 8:38 pm

    Herodotus, I think you miss the symbolism of the verdict. Some things are not blankets,
    but they still offer warmth
    • toad 11.1

      17 March 2010 at 9:58 pm

      Heartwarming to see at all the Sensible Sentencing Trust groupies getting ganglia in their goolies over at Kiwiblog re the Waihopai 3 verdict.
      • Pascal's bookie 11.1.1

        17 March 2010 at 10:09 pm

        I haven’t looked, but between that news,
        and National saying they won’t support the ‘bring back youth wages bill’,
        I’m guessing they are nearing a critical mass of wingnut.
12. Ed 12

    17 March 2010 at 9:31 pm

    More National lies over ACC

    I saw an article in the NBR with a headline about ACC needing $19 million dollars to meet solvency requirements for insurance companies. Leaving aside the reality that ACC is not an insurance company, it would be interesting to know just how much would have been needed before Labour decided to increase the funding of future payments under current claims. That decision was made for generational equity reasons rather than to meet non-existent solvency requirements for ACC – who of course have an implicit (or perhaps even explicit) government guarantee.

    National quite reasonably pushed the timetable for that pre-funding out as a response to the global financial crisis – so they didn’t think faster funding was required only a few months ago – the $19 million is only being mentioned to create an artificial crisis. It is really a borderline or shonky accounting argument and it is sad that the Chairman, John Judge, who apparently used to be an accountant would make such a misleading statement that such funding would be beneficial for ACC. The only advantage is probably that it puts more assets under his nominal control, thereby making his ‘job’ bigger. The alternative to accelerating payments to ACC is of course to have the money available for other government investment – but obviously the NBR doesn’t want to ask the hard questions.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS