Open mike 17/11/2010

102 comments on “Open mike 17/11/2010 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Tigger 1

   17 November 2010 at 7:53 am

   Rodney Hide is having a baby. But as to whether there will be more “He said he and Ms Crome would like more children but that was “up to God””

   WTF? So it’s an Immaculet Conception? Or he thinks he’s a deity?
   • Bored 1.1

     17 November 2010 at 8:12 am

     Correction Tigger, its not Wodders having the baby. Its the Crome person. Wodders no doubt checked out market conditions and decided to in-source the baby. After putting out a tender no doubt to which he had no bidders, thereby proving the market is rational after all.
     • Bunji 1.1.1

       17 November 2010 at 9:07 am

       Saw this in paper today. Still need a cold shower to try and feel clean again…

       (captcha: father – freaky!)
     • ianmac 1.1.2

       17 November 2010 at 10:05 am

       Will a Crome baby be tax-deductible?
     • Vicky32 1.1.3

       17 November 2010 at 5:54 pm

       What a terrible thought! Nooooooooooooooooooooooo!
       Deb
       • felix 1.1.3.1

         17 November 2010 at 6:16 pm

         The really awful bit:

         Consider that Hide himself kinda looks like a big ugly newborn baby. Now imagine what the baby will look like.

         I’m sorry, I know…
         • Bored 1.1.3.1.1

           17 November 2010 at 7:56 pm

           Im laughing like a drain, it does not bear thinking of.
           • mickysavage 1.1.3.1.1.1

             17 November 2010 at 8:31 pm

             Which end would you smack?
             • felix …

               17 November 2010 at 10:32 pm

               You and your trick questions: Neither, that would be illegal and wrong.
   • bobo 1.2

     17 November 2010 at 3:46 pm

     the omen ?
   • Armchair Critic 1.3

     17 November 2010 at 4:21 pm

     I thought objectivists didn’t believe in God, or god.
2. D14 2

   17 November 2010 at 7:53 am

   A few weeks ago an indian overstayer couple were going to be deported to India with their NZ children.
   Does any one know what happened?
   • Pascal's bookie 2.1

     17 November 2010 at 8:13 am

     This is the latest article I could find (2/11/10)…

     Back to jail for month for man facing deportation
     

     Hastings man Sital Ram, who is facing deportation to India, has been sent back to jail for another 30 days.

     He and his wife Usha Rani are overstayers, and are waiting for a deportation decision by the Immigration Minister.

     The couple have three New Zealand-born children, an 8-year-old girl and twin boys, 6, who are eligible to stay.

     Mr Ram has been in prison since September, and was committed to another 30 days at a hearing in Napier District Court last week.

     Family friend Julie O’Shea said the family were disappointed but had expected the decision.

     She said the children had only been able to visit their father in prison once, and supporters were trying to arrange another visit.

     Lawyer Jean Paul Delamere said Mr Ram had asked Immigration New Zealand whether bail would be reconsidered if he agreed to sign travel documents to India.
     • D14 2.1.1

       17 November 2010 at 8:47 am

       Thanks. That article was on the 2 Nov. So 30 days would take it to early Dec for the next step in the process.
   • Nomad 2.2

     17 November 2010 at 9:24 am

     Associate Minister of Immigration, Hon Kate Wilkinson denied the Ram’s clemency – in spite of the The Convention on the Rights of the Child requires that:

     In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.
3. freedom 3

   17 November 2010 at 8:25 am

   the future of airtravel for ‘private citizens’ is looking
   bleaker by the day.

   So now if you don’t want the TSA to take a photo-realistic scanner image of your three year olds genetalia they can have [highschool dropouts who had minimal security checks] sticking there hands down your child’s pants instead

   this is on top of the recent inclusion of Pilots receiving the “Enhanced Pat Down Procedure’
   (which is now under review as pilots are causing more than a little stink about it)

   this has nothing to do with security and is only about ramping up the Police State conditioning
4. freedom 4

   17 November 2010 at 8:39 am

   why does the http: prefix keep getting dropped when putting in links?

   anyway, here are the links from above, these stories are everywhere, this is our reality

   http://www.infowars.com/tsa-now-putting-hands-down-fliers-pants/
   http://www.infowars.com/flashback-tsa-goon-molests-3-year-old/
   http://www.infowars.com/tsa-caves-on-molesting-pilots/
   • AndyB 4.1

     17 November 2010 at 8:54 am

     Simple solution, don’t fly to America. Far more interesting places to go in the world anyway.
     • freedom 4.1.1

       17 November 2010 at 9:00 am

       Americans , can’t live with ’em, pass the beer nuts
       • Vicky32 4.1.1.1

         17 November 2010 at 5:58 pm

         😀
         Deb
     • Lanthanide 4.1.2

       17 November 2010 at 10:39 am

       Or, do like Brazil and put in world-wide reciprocals immigration and security controls. All American’s going to Brazil have to go through their checks, while anyone from any other nationality only has to face their own standards of checks.

       captcha: except
   • ianmac 4.2

     17 November 2010 at 10:12 am

     Bin Laden won didn’t he/they. Or did the USA become losers?
     • grumpy 4.2.1

       17 November 2010 at 10:28 am

       Yup, Bin Laden won, slam dunk!
5. freedom 5

   17 November 2010 at 9:03 am

   ? why is my comment awaiting moderation , it contained nothing offensive, threatening or questionable on any level?
   • Bunji 5.1

     17 November 2010 at 9:14 am

     Dunno, approved now…
   • felix 5.2

     17 November 2010 at 9:20 am

     More than two links, perhaps.
     • freedom 5.2.1

       17 November 2010 at 9:53 am

       i would understand that, except it was the single link comment that was moderated.
       • lprent 5.2.1.1

         17 November 2010 at 10:10 am

         It allows up to about 10 links so that isn’t the problem.

         Just happens according to the logic of the anti-spam. Basically you’re getting evaluated against the logic of everyone who uses Akismet worldwide – in other words almost everyone who uses WordPress. We all feed the system with spam (stuff that made it through) / ham (stuff that got trapped as a false positive). The cumulative stats amend the rules.

         It is incredibly accurate. But generally the more links you have, the more likely it is to find one has been spammed by many people before. Same with certain words or phrases.
         • grumpy 5.2.1.1.1

           17 November 2010 at 10:30 am

           Always thought it’s a poor day when you don’t learn something new.

           My comments seem to be hanging in the netherworld for about 8 minutes, this seems a bit harsh. Any reason?
         • freedom 5.2.1.1.2

           17 November 2010 at 11:09 am

           I just find it interesting how ‘statistically’ dangerous the sharing of certain information has become. If i understood correctly… the Akismet System’s AntiSpam target is based on origin and frequency of content associated with ‘verified spam’

           So it is only statistically targeting articles on Transport Safety Authority measures, yet not flagging Royal Wedding articles?

           That strikes me as somewhat illogical. A spammer or virus operator, whose main function is to attain commercial or other more nefarious goals, uses high volume articles to maximise the opportunities for exposure and the more popular the item the better opportunity for success.

           Of these two subjects A Royal Wedding is certainly more likely to be the target of a spam operator, or the issue of TSA procedures in America is growing massively as a news story, thus causng more interest from spam operators.

           There is another explanation. Independent news sites experience statistically anamolous spam on a regular basis, usually made up of disinfobots and trollmachines. A win-win then for the Co-Intel crowd. Send out the spambots to clog the site, which triggers an anti-spam blockade on links. So simple, it is a wonder it isn’t done more often…….

           capcha: authorities roflmao
           • lprent 5.2.1.1.2.1

             17 November 2010 at 12:16 pm

             Nope. It is based on hundreds of thousands of sites dropping a message into spam or pulling it out of spam.

             Usually it isn’t the link that is the issue. It will be the domain that the link comes from and the text around it. For instance we have only two trackbacks in span right now – but it will give you an idea.

             “UK couple’s relatives shocked at murder » MURDERBristol, Bristol24-7Ronni, relativesCentral, BlenderRelated, BlogPaltrow, generatedRelated, couplesLodges, Independent » JaymesLine”
             “Web political ads must disclose funding » FundingChicago, StandardCUSA, latestinternetmarketingRelated, workingcareersMaking, discloseHouse, generatedRelated » JaymesLine”

             As you can see they try that association

             Both from the same site. So they will be confirmed by me. Anything else from that site or its current IP or with those tags will be regarded with a very slightly heightened suspicion by all wordpress sites.

             Whenever we rescue one of your comments from spam, then you, your IP, the sites you link to, and the tags in your text will be regarded with slightly less suspicion.

             I suspect that the level of ‘respect’ for this sites operating practices is also measured against other sites to give a weight to our decisions as well compared to other sites. Sites that bin everything have little respect, and so do sites that don’t do much. The weighting will be towards the sites that contribute.

             That is pretty much how the net has been dealing with spam(of various types) forever. I use very similar systems to kill the 80-90% of mail through my mail servers that is spam. It isn’t quite as bad here. There are 218 thousand comments here, and about 100k spam comments, trackbacks and pings killed. That is from just over 3 years of operation. We see the spam that is a few percent of the total and make judgement on that.

             The trick generally is not to piss off system operators – but everyone knows that already – don’t they? 😈
             • freedom …

               17 November 2010 at 12:42 pm

               thankyou,
               as a non-IT person this is really interesting, educational and reasonably confusing.
               I was wondering if showing the trackback for The Atlantic Media Group Article i linked to above, would help identify news sites to avoid linking to in the future?

               but as i am not quite seeing the mechanism,
               and you have better things to do with your day,
               is there a good ‘spam for dummies’ site to learn a bit more at?
6. Lats 6

   17 November 2010 at 9:08 am

   Election 2011 Predictions – is National in Trouble?

   An analysis from my mate Eric Crampton at the University of Canterbury suggests Labour ought to be cozying up to the Maori Party in order to win support following next years election. Full text below, or for the original go here: http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.com/

   Wednesday, November 17, 2010
   2011 predictions

   iPredict’s vote share markets ought to be scaring National.

   There are eight potential states of the world, sorted by whether ACT, New Zealand First, and United Future make it back into Parliament. iPredict has contracts on each, assuming that the very most likely route into Parliament for them is winning a seat – no chance any crosses the 5% threshold. Here’s some first cut analysis, based on the highly dubious assumption of independence across contracts that lets me ignore covariance, and based on simple rounding rather than using the quota system for list allocation.

   The most likely state of the world, 26.7% by current prices, sees ACT returned but neither United Future nor New Zealand First. In that state of the world, National and ACT together see 60 seats, based on current prices. But the Maori Party gets 5 seats (overhang of one – expected outcome given prices on contracts in the Maori Seat markets). So even in that favourable state of the world for National, the Maori Party could give the government to a Labour/Green alliance (56 seats plus 5).

   Next most likely has none of the minor parties return: 21.2% In this case, National at 58 seats ties Green + Labour; again, Maori makes the government.

   There’s a 12.4% chance that ACT and UF make it in but not NZ First. National’s coalition, assuming UF stays with National, makes 60 seats to Labour/Green’s 55. Maori could induce a tie, but that seems pretty unlikely. This is the best state of the world for National.

   Next, an 11.4% chance of ACT and NZ First without UF. National plus ACT total 58; Labour plus Green 54, NZ First gets 4 and Maori 5. I’d guess National most likely to form government here as the alternative would require NZ First and Maori to side with Labour/Green.

   Next most likely: a 9.8% chance that only UF makes it in. National and UF get 59 seats; Labour/Green 58. Maori Party chooses the government.

   Next: a 9% chance that only NZ First makes it in – worst state of the world for National, who get 56 seats to the Labour/Green 55. NZ First could ensure a National government with 5 seats, but I’d expect them to be more likely to go with Labour; they couldn’t push Labour over the line on their own. So Maori chooses the government.

   Then, a 5% chance that all the minor parties survive. National’s coalition gets 58 to 54 for Labour/Green. Either Maori or NZ First could make a National government, but it would take both together to make a Labour government.

   Finally, a 4.2% chance that UF and NZ First survive while ACT doesn’t. National and UF get 57 seats; Labour/Green 55. Maori or NZ First could give the government to National; both would be needed to make a Labour government.

   The market says there’s a 78% chance of a National Prime Minister following the next election; this requires that Maori stay onside with National if the vote share markets are to be trusted. I’m always a bit nervous about relying on results from the vote share markets – they have very flat payoff curves and don’t pay out for about a year.

   But the bottom line seems to be that the Maori Party will likely choose the next government; consequently, whichever party forms government, the Coastal Coalition folks will be upset.

   Note that these numbers are based on odds from iPredict, a “betting” website which runs books on a whole range of things apparently. It’s not my thing, but Eric spend a bit of time analysing their odds for statistical purposes.
   • felix 6.1

     17 November 2010 at 9:33 am

     Interesting, but this:

     …assuming that the very most likely route into Parliament for them is winning a seat – no chance any crosses the 5% threshold.

     flies in the face of reality regarding NZ First for a couple of reasons:

     1. They came very close to the threshold last election (4.?), much closer than the other two could hope to get in their dreams. And that was after a year or more of scandal and negative attention.

     2. Unlike the other two, they don’t have a seat they could be seriously expected to win.

     Their situation is quite different to the other two parties and the complete opposite of the initial assumption; NZ First’s most likely route to parliament is to cross the threshold.

     But Eric has never been known to let reality interfere with his assumptions.
     • Eric Crampton 6.1.1

       17 November 2010 at 9:49 am

       The odds on NZ First come from the contract paying out if Winston re-enters Parliament. If we take that as being due to NZ First passing the threshold rather than due to Winston or Laws taking a seat, then NZ First gets more seats in all states of the world in which they receive any seats. If you want the spreadsheet to play with it yourself, send me an email.

       It was laziness rather than anything else that drove my assumptions, and I think I was pretty clear about that when I said “Here’s some first cut analysis, based on the highly dubious assumption of independence across contracts that lets me ignore covariance, and based on simple rounding rather than using the quota system for list allocation.”
       • felix 6.1.1.1

         17 November 2010 at 10:53 am

         I’m sorry for being so snippy so early in the morning. Sincerely.
     • lprent 6.1.2

       17 November 2010 at 10:21 am

       NZ First’s most likely route to parliament is to cross the threshold.

       I suspect that they have a pretty good chance of it happening. There have been quite a few people I’ve talked to (rather elderly mostly) that seem to be swinging back around to supporting NZF as best expressing their interests and viewpoints. They mostly didn’t vote for NZF last election because of all of the heat generated by the ACT’s lynch party but have previously. They now think those accusations were complete bullshit.

       That is what I was worried would happen. Because the idiots in Act, the sewer and associated reflectors, and the MSM tried to knock out Winston with a short-cut and didn’t do it in a fair manner, they’re going to inflict him and his ridiculous party on us for a few more elections
       • Eric Crampton 6.1.2.1

         17 November 2010 at 10:31 am

         Would you reckon that Labour could again go into coalition with New Zealand First? Suppose that the first two list places are Peters and Laws. And maybe the Sensible Sentencing Trust has bought a third place position in NZ First.
         • lprent 6.1.2.1.1

           17 November 2010 at 11:48 am

           Politics is the art of the possible. The possible is defined by the number of seats of various blocks inside parliament to get a working majority. If NZF gets in then they represent a significant proportion of the voting population. It is pretty likely that not having a support agreement with them would not be viewed as being sufficient by the voters to force a new election (after all we all have those elderly in our lives).

           If NZF was required by either National or Labour to get a working majority, then I’d expect that the politics would require that to happen. I wouldn’t be happy with it (I wasn’t last time – I wish the greens would actually get the votes on the day as they pre-poll), but it is the wish of the voting population as expressed in their votes. I wouldn’t gainsay that.

           …the Sensible Sentencing Trust has bought a third place position in NZ First.

           That didn’t seem to have stopped National from forming a coalition with Act you notice.
           • Eric Crampton 6.1.2.1.1.1

             17 November 2010 at 11:59 am

             Of course on the last bit; I’d expect it to be a bigger negative to Labour than to National, so it’s why I suggested it.

             So your preference ordering is then (Labour govt with Winston) > (National govt without Winston). Pretty much any configuration with NZ First in it drops to the bottom of my preference ordering.
             • Lats …

               17 November 2010 at 12:32 pm

               Hardly surprising that someone here would favour Labour+NZF over National-NZF though Eric…
         • prism 6.1.2.1.2

           17 November 2010 at 11:48 am

           Ewwwhh to that idea. Ghastly – and unworkable. Labour needs more than pop-up toys bouncing up and squeaking from their seats in parliament. A grouping as suggested might get Labour in and National out but we would have another parliament that just creaked on with time taken up on trivia instead of solid practical thought about theories and visions and then action.
           • Lanthanide 6.1.2.1.2.1

             17 November 2010 at 11:56 am

             Sounds like an argument for FPP.
             • prism …

               17 November 2010 at 12:14 pm

               Lanthanide are you thinking that MMP gets embroiled in trivia and FPP doesn’t? I think there would be many instances of farce and time-wasting before MMP came along. With MMP charismatic charlatans do get a better chance for their day in the sun than if they were back-benchers or even ministers under party rule. But I wouldn’t trade MMP for FPP and don’t like any other pref vote better. MMP needs a tweak though to make it start well on a cold morning.
               • Lats …

                 17 November 2010 at 12:38 pm

                 I think what Lanth was saying is that you are much more likely under MMP to be in a position where coalition/support deals become necessary than under FFP. MMP can make for some strange bedfellows in the grab for power post election. Having said that I still favour it over FPP.
   • Jenny 6.2

     17 November 2010 at 10:04 am

     In the latest news Maori Party MP Hone Harawira is backing left wing union leader Matt McCarten’s campaign in Mana.

     Stuff.co.nz:

     Harawira backs McCarten for Mana

     Straddling the left/right divide, Maori Party Co-leader Tariana Turia has endorsed both McCarten and National Party candidate Hekia Parata.

     It is anyone’s guess on which side the Maori Party leadership will come down. If we don’t want another term of a National led administration, it behoves the Labour Party to abandon sectarianism and do as much as possible to bring the Maori Party to come down from their fence sitting to the left, of the left/right divide.
     • Draco T Bastard 6.2.1

       17 November 2010 at 11:31 am

       The Maori Party, according to their actions since the last election, is obviously of the right though. I really don’t think there’s anything that the Labour Party could do to change that.
       • Jenny 6.2.1.1

         17 November 2010 at 1:52 pm

         J.

         it behoves the Labour Party to abandon sectarianism and do as much as possible to bring the Maori Party to come down from their fence sitting, to the left of the left/right divide.

         DTB

         I really don’t think there’s anything that the Labour Party could do to change that.

         Personally DTB, I could think of a lot of things “that the Labour party (and their supporters) could do to change that.”

         If you have any dispute with any of them, let’s see your reply. I am fully prepared to go over each of them with you, clause by clause, line by line if necessary.

         1/ Labour could reverse their right wing support for the confiscation of the Seabed and Foreshore on behalf of big business.

         2/ Instead of being cheerleaders for the para-military attack on Tuhoe. Labour could distance themselves from Urewera Terror frame up, either by demanding that the crown drop the charges, or demanding that these charges along with the crown evidence (if any) be presented at the local district court which would actually be more befitting the petty nature of the actual offences alleged. (I imagine if this was done, most of the charges would have to be dropped anyway.)

         3/ Labour could apologise to Maori for their refusal to endorse the United Nations mandate on the Rights for Indigenous peoples.

         4/ Labour could retreat from their sectarian approach to the Maori Party and apologise for insulting the Maori Party as “Haters and wreckers”. Extreme language that Labour leaders have never used to deride either National or ACT or any other party in parliament, seeming to have reserved this sort of aggressive and insulting slur only for the Maori Party.

         5/ Labour could announce that they are totally abandoning the whole failed Neo-liberal approach to economics, which of all sections of society has hit Maori particularly hard. And instead announce that the Labour Party is prepared to work with all those who are prepared to join them in overturning neo-liberalism, and building a fairer society.

         6/ Labour policy makers should admit, even if it is just to themselves, that the creation of the Maori Party was originally a split to the left of the Labour Party.

         7/ Left Labour activists and supporters need to wake up to the fact if they don’t lobby their leadership to at least make an offer of friendship to the Maori Party they will be allowing the conservative elements in the Labour Party to hand the next election to the Nats.

         capcha – consequence
7. Gina 7

   17 November 2010 at 9:23 am

   Government Progresses Bills With House Under Urgency. The Courts and Criminal Matters Bill passed its second reading by 110 votes to 8 with the Greens opposing.
   The first reading debate of the Māori Purposes Bill was interrupted when the House rose at 10pm.
   It will resume tomorrow at 9am.

   The NZ Labour Party are worse than the Democrats in the US. Pathetic is all I can say. You may as well be the National Party. What hope is there for this country I wonder.

   It really is time for a real left wing workers party to fill the gap. I wonder if changing Labours
   leadership would help.

   Seeing the way you are voting on these issues is not an incentive for me to vote for you. Are these your real values or are you scared of the media and what big business will do to you at election time? If these are Labour party principles then you are no longer the labour party but a bunch of media and corporate colaborators.
   • Draco T Bastard 7.1

     17 November 2010 at 11:35 am

     I wonder if changing Labours leadership would help.

     I think changing their name to Liberals, the other party of business would help more. It would at least show that Labour are no longer the party for the many.
   • just saying 7.2

     17 November 2010 at 12:15 pm

     God(dess) help us. The SS bill is coming up soon too!

     Excuse my ignorance, but what is the Maori Purposes bill?

     A change of leadership could only be an improvement, (if not a solution).
     TARAL!

     No sign of that change NZLP…….
   • mickysavage 7.3

     17 November 2010 at 9:20 pm

     The CCMB has been around for at least two years and has been through the select committee process. It is not in the same league as some of the other stuff that this Government has been doing.
8. Jenny 8

   17 November 2010 at 9:30 am

   They say that those who can frame the argument ‘win the argument’.

   Connor English the Chief Executive of Federated Farmers is trying to frame the argument in a right wing way that benefits the rich and privileged, to the detriment of the poor and the environment.

   The Farmers Federation Chief has launched a public attack on the left and the protest movement resorting to simplistic right wing rhetoric reminiscent of the Tea Party of the US.

   Conner English publicly criticised protesters opposed to the unsustainable rape of the environment by mining and agribusiness, combining this, with an attack on those seeking pay justice for teachers, or union rights for actors.

   English’s argument boils down to one simple premise:

   ….those who want decent wages and conditions (for teachers actors and other workers) must trade this off with maximum exploitation of nature and the environment by big business.

   Though slyly framed, Connor English’s argument attacking both types of protest reveals that in truth he favours maximum exploitation of both, workers and the environment, and is opposed to any protest that challenges his corporate agenda.

   There is no free lunch

   watching 4 recent protests in Auckland. The first against just the idea of doing a stock take on the minerals that we have. Secondly the idea that a movie might be made in New Zealand on different terms than in some other countries. Thirdly marching for more pay for teachers, and finally, against New Zealand produced food.

   if you are marching for “more pay from government” then you should not also be marching against investigating our mineral potential, our creative film sector or indeed our food sector.

   The claim is that there is not enough wealth (money) to go round unless big agri-business or mining companies are free to exploit human and natural resources to their limits, (and beyond them), is an emotive and simplistic framing of the argument that leaves out such embarrassing facts as the extreme inequality in the sharing out of the wealth of this country.

   As the Greens like to say: “there is enough for our need but not for our greed”.

   Connor English is a well paid advocate for those whose personal greed comes above all else.

   Connor English in his diatribe mentions the debt crisis, but nowhere does he mention the excessive profit taking by the banks and finance companies that has made getting a house on an average wage an impossibility without going into risky debt.

   Connor English in his attack on those seeking fairer wages or protection for the environment accuses them of seeking a free lunch.

   But if you are the manager of Telecom, or you are a rich investor in South Canturbury Finance, or the head of big film production company, or the overpaid president of the Feds. you are enjoying a ‘Free Lunch’ at the expense of the rest of us.

   Connor English in his attack on the left wants such privileged people to be able to continue to enjoy their free lunch indefinitely, no matter how much damage to society or the natural environment thier continuing ‘Free Lunch’ leaves in it’s wake.

   Maybe I should thank Connor English for opening up this debate so that a lot more people are moved to counter this simplistically slanted rubbish.

   capcha – “whoever”
   • KJT 8.1

     17 November 2010 at 12:05 pm

     Ask Conner English how many of his members pay tax?
   • prism 8.2

     17 November 2010 at 12:53 pm

     Suits the farmers lobby to run down or close established businesses because of laws and measures introduced to advance themselves. Then when they are the only game in town they can look down on us all from their high horses or quadbikes and say “You don’t know how lucky you are, you bludgers in the towns living off our hard work.”

     And this attitude often advances to – “You pasty ivory-tower academics who sit around thinking and discussing not doing real work (sounds similar to discussion on fascism seen on this site recently), you dross who have never had a job, you plodders who haven’t a brain to bless yourselves with, you lazy single parents who only know how to whore and want us to pay for your children etc etc.” It’s all there not buried very far under the surface, and shows it’s ugly face from time to time hinted at in Conor English’s piece but its only the tip of the iceberg from the malignant and focussed minority who would stir up prejudice of this type if the occasion arose. And they will come into town and bash you with their batons if times get tough and desperation mounts. Just like they did before.
9. freedom 9

   17 November 2010 at 9:47 am

   The Courts and Criminal Matters Bill races towards law with an unvalidated haste, with barely a discssion and certainly sweet F A public consultation. In the time between the Bill’s first and second ‘reading’ I doubt a single MP would have had time to physically read the document. Yes i realise the term ‘reading’ is a titular phrase but there is a complex nature to law, especially law involving manipulation of the Justice System.

   Giving MP’s, who are busy people, time to duly consider Bills in the House was once part of our parliamentary process. The collective manouevering of partisan motives, the self-protection and adjustment of potential personal rewards, these things used to matter to our politicians. Now its a smash and grab on the day with no consideration to the consequences or how much more they could have grabbed for themselves. Where is the long term thinking of our Nation’s leaders?

   Considering the content of this particular Bill involves our Courts I suppose it is understandable that they feel it doesn’t warrant any pause. It is hardly relevant after all, what are the odds any of them are going to see a Courtroom? The passage of Law in our country has become a dangerous and undemocratic joke, one in poor taste with a lousy punchline
10. Carol 10

    17 November 2010 at 10:00 am

    Why are those royal bludgers all over our news media? It’s taken over the top section of the Stuff website, and a load of space on morning Report. They’ve been living together for a while now. Why not just nip quietly down to the registry office and save the taxpayers some extra grief in these times of “austerity”? Bread & circuses!
    • Tigger 10.1

      17 November 2010 at 11:45 am

      Oh Carol, don’t you know we now live in a period of new-adoration for royalty and all they signify? Key reinstated titles, and good on him too. Surely any sane person wants to live in a country that still has breathless adoration for an archaic system of peerage that has absolutely no meaning in the modern world? Why, I’m hoping, no praying, that Sir Mr Key (it’s inevitable, don’t you know?) decides that our laws can only be made by a faraway government and sells all our land to these noblepeople for some glass beads and blankets.
      • prism 10.1.1

        17 November 2010 at 1:00 pm

        Hey I wish them well. We are always hearing about celebrities anyway, so let’s have some royal celebrities being feted for getting married rather than others noted for taking drugs. All media are drawn to light stuff about people –
        Obama got in and the newspapers did a piece on Mrs. She is a smart woman in her clothes and lifestyle but also in her intelligence and mindset. What did we hear about, the former not the latter.
        • Vicky32 10.1.1.1

          17 November 2010 at 6:17 pm

          I agree Prism. This Royal Wedding thing is pretty harmless really! I just heard a reporter on 3 News saying the Royal Wedding is expected to cost $60 000 and I thought, hey., that’s much less than I would have expected!
          Given that on reality TV I’ve seen “ordinary New Zealand couples” spending pretty near that on their weddings…
          If Brangelina got married, there’d be pretty much a smiliar fuss. No biggie really…
          Deb
          • The Voice of Reason 10.1.1.1.1

            17 November 2010 at 6:33 pm

            60k won’t even cover the flowers, Deb. The Guardian suggests more like millions, not including police, transport and other associated costs.

            http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/16/royal-wedding-bill-cost
            • Vicky32 10.1.1.1.1.1

              17 November 2010 at 6:50 pm

              Oops, sorry, I must have misheard… Let them pay for their own wedding! (Although I did hear they are paying for “part” of it.) I wonder what part?
              Deb
              • The Voice of Reason …

                17 November 2010 at 7:02 pm

                A very small part, I imagine, Deb. There will be a competition amongst the rich and powerful to gift them whatever is needed. It’s started already with London mayor Boris Johnson offering the use of the town hall at a knock down rate. Every wannabe Sir or Lord will be getting the chequebook out as we speak, hoping for a gong and a seat near the front at the do.
                • Carol …

                  17 November 2010 at 7:27 pm

                  Time to start seriously talking about NZ becoming a republic!
            • prism 10.1.1.1.1.2

              17 November 2010 at 8:53 pm

              They will probably sell the tv and magazine rights. The royals provide much interest directed at Britain. A republic in NZ would not result in similar focus on our top couple but we would have to pay for their probably extravagant lifestyle. Having the royals in Britain is good, they pay for the costs. And they have a bigger economy than ours.

              NZ a small country with a small economy has already turned the economy inside out for the RWC. We can get ourselves in hock for rugby, so I hope we can find some dosh to support soccer. But I don’t think we can afford a republic. I can’t see what advantages we’ll gain.
              And who would get to be President? It could even end up being Rodney Hide as political machinations might push him up to the job and out of everyone’s hair in the political corridors.
              • Vicky32 …

                19 November 2010 at 5:10 pm

                Very good point Prism! President Hide, noooooooooooooooooooooooo!
                Deb
11. Sanctuary 11

    17 November 2010 at 10:13 am

    The problem with “cosying up” to the Maori party is their price of coalition (effective privatisation of the foreshore and seabed) is unpalatable to the Pakeha majority. Since in MMP politics this presents an unsolvable conumdrum, I predict the solution that will be adopted by the Pakeha majority will be to replace MMP with FPP.
    • Lanthanide 11.1

      17 November 2010 at 11:11 am

      Given the Maori Party are winning electorate seats, that doesn’t actually solve the issue.
    • Lats 11.2

      17 November 2010 at 1:01 pm

      That hurdle was crossed successfully by the Nats at the last election, and their constituency is arguably less culturally diverse and less sympathetic to Maori issues than are Labour supporters, so it ought not be an insurmountable problem for Labour.
    • Jenny 11.3

      17 November 2010 at 3:24 pm

      Unfortunately, Sanctury it’s your meme that is wrong. It was the Labour government that with their Foreshore & Seabed legislation prepared the ground for the privatisation of the foreshore and seabed on behalf of big business and offshore mining interests who demanded the removal of any restrictions put on their exploitation of the S&F from troublesome indigenous rights claims as happened to them in Canada.

      Not long after the legislation was passed, prospecting rights for a huge area of the West Coast iron sands resource was sold off to an Aussie minerals group.

      The Labour Government hid this treachery behind simplistic rhetoric attacks on Maori by pandering to the prejudices of many Pakeha who believed the lie that Maori were trying to exclude them from the beaches.

      The truth was that the government was trying to deprive Maori of any right to mount any legal challenge to the use of these resources.
      • Colonial Viper 11.3.1

        17 November 2010 at 3:28 pm

        Links please, or this is just ridiculous speculation.
        • Jenny 11.3.1.1

          17 November 2010 at 3:42 pm

          I have provided the links for this several times whenever this argument has been raised. And they have never been challenged.

          Since you have challenged me to do it, I will dig them up again. If I go to this effort I would appreciate attempts by you or others to refute this chain of events, rather than as before just try and ignore it, so the racist myth making can continue.
          • Colonial Viper 11.3.1.1.1

            17 November 2010 at 4:16 pm

            Ah I think I just found what you were referring too, thanks

            http://thestandard.org.nz/what-the-foreshore-and-seabed-is-really-about/#comment-202229
            • Jenny 11.3.1.1.1.1

              17 November 2010 at 7:29 pm

              CV you also might like this:

              Changing The Game Plan Essay by Dr Maria Bargh, New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online May 2006

              The path to the Foreshore and Seabed Act itself began in June 2003 when the Court of Appeal ruled that the Maori Land Court had the jurisdiction to hear claims related to the foreshore and seabed. Shortly thereafter, the Government announced that it needed to legislate to protect the foreshore and seabed for all New Zealanders. The Act was passed in November 2004 and came into effect in January 2005. The Act vested the foreshore and seabed in the Crown and established a system under which Maori could take claims regarding customary rights to the Maori Land Court and territorial rights to the High Court. However, under the Act, these rights and remedies are of a radically lesser kind than would have been possible previously.5

              The following series of events draw into question and make problematic the Government’s claims of legislating in order to “protect” the foreshore and seabed. It is important to note that they are part of a broader and long-standing government approach which seeks to continue privatisation and corporatisation, while encouraging a greater role for the market mechanism in areas of the community previously governed in other ways (Bargh 2002; Hindess 2002).

              In early March 2005, information began to circulate about applications from national and international companies for licenses to explore and mine the ironsands from Raglan to Kaipara Harbour (Thompson 2005). Some mining had taken place in small sections of those areas, but the new applications were far more extensive and would involve mining and exporting huge quantities of ironsands. A number of environmental groups have argued that this kind of mining would have potentially devastating consequences for many species, including the Maui dolphin which lives in those waters and whose population now hovers at 100 (Thompson 2005).6

              Also in March 2005, Steve Maharey (Minister of Research, Science and Technology) ……. stated that: “There has been a huge increase in the income New Zealand generates from the oceans over the last decades … [and] there is potential for much greater increases in wealth … in the future … Future possibilities for new wealth that could be derived from the oceans are diverse. These opportunities could be in the biotechnology area; new species yet to be discovered could provide routes to novel substances. Or the microbiological community under the sea could provide new opportunities for a range of industrial and pharmaceutical processes. The mineral wealth could also provide considerable opportunities. (Maharey & Hodgson 2005)”

              In April 2005, it became public that the New Zealand Treasury was considering how the foreshore and seabed should appear in financial statements, and therefore how it was to be valued for the purposes of tendering out sections (for oyster farms or other exploitation) (Crewdson & Milne 2005). In July 2005, Crown Minerals made public its decision to allow Seafield Resources Ltd to conduct gold exploration of the seabed on the West Coast of Te Waipounamu (South Island). The exploration is not simply of the seabed, as defined from the low-water mark to the edge of New Zealand’s Exclusive Economic Zone, but also beyond towards the edge of the continental shelf (Madgwick 2005). With these events in mind, it is appropriate to consider the Government’s specific claim that it needed to legislate to “protect” the foreshore and seabed for all New Zealanders. It is difficult to imagine how creating a system to exploit the foreshore and seabed for monetary gain, including increasing mining of the foreshore and seabed (activity which is generally destructive of the environment and of ecosystems), might contribute to a concept of “protection”. It is clear from these projects that the exploitation of the foreshore and seabed in this way is not a random and unexpected development but rather part of a broader agenda of privatisation, commercialisation, and extension of the market mechanism, consistent with policies which the Government has pursued for some time and which played a key role in its unwavering intention to legislate.7 It also continues a much longer series of tensions between the Crown and Maori regarding the ownership of resources and how the benefits are to be distributed

              …..the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) released its report in March 2005, finding that the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 “appears … on balance to contain discriminatory aspects against the Maori” (United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination 2005).

              capcha – “debates”
          • prism 11.3.1.1.2

            17 November 2010 at 8:59 pm

            Jenny people should be directed to the archives of your earlier posts and you shouldn’t have to look them up again. It’s easy to view them.
            • lprent 11.3.1.1.2.1

              17 November 2010 at 10:01 pm

              http://thestandard.org.nz/?s=%40author+Jenny&isopen=block&search_comments=true&search_sortby=date
              Or Search using advanced tab for “@author Jenny” in comments by freshness

              I can’t help be such a nice helpful stirrer 😈
12. Lanthanide 12

    17 November 2010 at 11:09 am

    On Morning Report this morning, they tried to interview John Key, Bill English or whoever their chief whip is on the housing expenses rort, who all declined to talk. Pete Hodgson was on, pointing out that under the new rules the housing expenses have gone up 8%, when the new rules were supposed to save money.

    Hopefully this issue can be given air again.
13. ianmac 13

    17 November 2010 at 11:14 am

    Fran O’Sullivan Herald today:
    “The New Zealand export lobby has given “big ups” to Trade Minister Tim Groser – who has chalked up another victory in New Zealand’s quest for free trade deals with emerging economic powerhouses by getting Russia to the negotiating point.”
    And I thought that John Key had single-handedly powered into the Russians. Now why did I get that wrong?

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10688101
    • Jim Nald 13.1

      17 November 2010 at 3:31 pm

      It’s more likely that attribution to John Key’s so-called single-handedness would be met with a big finger up.
14. nzfp 14

    17 November 2010 at 1:03 pm

    Well here’s an interesting one:
    The EconomicPolicyJournal reported on Tuesday, November 16, 2010 that Michael “Bloomberg Calls for Carbon Tax as a Way to Fight Terrorists”.

    That’s right – instead of discussing methods to reduce production and consumption – by maybe eradicating the debt based private banking system in New York – Bloomberg instead elects to take revenue from trades in Permissions to Pollute to fight terrorism.

    According to the Wall Street Journal, he told attendees at a Wall Street Journal CEO Council annual conference that the U.S. needs to reduce its dependence on foreign oil, if

    “you want to stop sending your money to … terrorists.”

    The answer, he said:

    “We need a carbon tax.”

    This is completely appropriate because on the 29th of January 2010 The Telegraph reported that Osama (Emmanuel Goldstein) Bin (dead since 2001) Laden has also entered the Climate Change debate by blaming industrialised countries for global warming.

    According to the Telegraph:

    Bin Laden criticised George W Bush, the former US president, for not signing the Kyoto Protocol on regulating carbon emissions, and spoke out against excessive corporate influence in the United States

    Demonstrating a surprising concern for the environment, Bin Laden voiced his dismay at recent international efforts to tackle global warming.

    “Discussing climate change is not an intellectual luxury, but a reality,” he said. “All of the industrialised countries, especially the big ones, bear responsibility for the global warming crisis.”

    You just can’t make this stuff up can you… Who frames the debate? The corporate media does – that’s who! Thesis, Anti-Thesis, Synthesis and the fourth element, complete control of all sides of the debate.

    Captcha:moments – it’s moments like these you need Minties…
15. Carol 15

    17 November 2010 at 2:45 pm

    In a supplementary in Question time today, Sue Maroney (Labour) has quoted from this 2003 article, and asked the acting Minister of Women’s Affairs if she agrees with it:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3517965

    The Ministry of Women’s Affairs is a sexist historic relic that should have been scrapped, says National Party MP Georgina te Heuheu.

    Georgina Te Heuheu says that might have been the case then, but it is not now.

    Now Moroney is asking if Te Heuheu been told by Key to take over the portfolio until it can be disbanded as part of the government’s public service cuts.
    • Carol 15.1

      17 November 2010 at 7:42 pm

      And now some ACT women MPs are saying that Te Heuheu was correct in 2003 and the Ministry of Women’s Affairs should be disbanded…. though their reasoning seems to be that underperforming ministries should be disbanded. I guess trying to get the MoWA to perform better hasn’t been considered?

      http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4355433/Acting-Womens-Affairs-Minister-under-fire

      ACT MPs Heather Roy and Hilary Calvert today said they agreed with the premise that the ministry was sexist and historic and should be scrapped.

      “This ministry cost taxpayer’s nearly $5 million in the 2009-10 financial year, yet the recent Census of Women’s Participation 2010 shows that female participation in governance, professional and public life has begun to slide,” they said in a statement.

      “There are no ministries of men’s or children’s affairs – and nor should there be. If there were a case for special attention it would be with our boys, who are failing in education and over-represented in crime statistics.”

      Where to start with the contradictions? And according to that logic the Ministry of Finance should be disbanded because we are failing to close the gap with Aussie!
16. bobo 16

    17 November 2010 at 3:26 pm

    National in yet more shit ?
    —-

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4353958/Ministers-met-members-of-under-investigation-trust

    LATEST: A series of Government ministers met with the tax-payer funded trust now at the centre of a police investigation.

    Taeaomanino Trust Operations manager Ifopo So’o was dismissed in March 2009 after he admitted stealing around $107,000.

    An investigation by forensic accountants Deloitte later revealed a series of other allegations about inflated expense claims, senior managers employing relatives and staff leave.

    However, less than a year later the trust was awarded government contracts thought to be worth up to $1.7m by the Social Development Ministry.

    Prime Minister John Key met staff members of Trust earlier this year, its annual report reveals. The Trust was invited to participate in a business expo organised by National MP and Mana by-election candidate Hekia Parata and the Pacific Business Trust.

    Chief Executive Gerardine Clifford said in the report: “The Prime Minister’s parting comment, ‘I will definitely remember you guys’ along with the wonderful photos was a talking point for many months after.”

    ——–

    Love the John Key comment about the lovely photos, absolute classic 🙂
    • bobo 16.1

      17 November 2010 at 3:42 pm

      oops missed this was mentioned earlier on the standard..
17. Fisiani 17

    17 November 2010 at 4:05 pm

    Was at Porirua today and saw Matt McCarten and Hone Harawira and his team drumming up support under the canopies. I heard some of his team then tell passers by to walk to the special voting booth 20 metres away and cast their vote. Does that breach electoral law? Can you campaign that close to a polling booth.
18. Vicky32 18

    17 November 2010 at 6:23 pm

    Patrick Gower attacks Matt McCarten and Kris Faafoi again… Sigh.
    • bobo 18.1

      17 November 2010 at 7:44 pm

      Patrick Gower spends his time trawling facebook coments these days for news.. So we get the route for the warkworth holiday highway today but no mana highway route which has been “delayed” so voters cant make an informed choice..

      http://www.nzta.govt.nz/about/media/releases/955/news.html
    • Lazy Susan 18.2

      17 November 2010 at 7:58 pm

      Gower’s a complete joke another beat up today following hard on the heels of yesterday’s “in-depth” look at Mana candidates knowledge of grocery prices. He calls himself a journalist – pathetic. By the way, strangely he forgot to mention that other famous “carpet bagger” John Key, MP for Helensville, who lives in Parnell. I really despair of the trash that Gower spits out.
19. Chris73 19

    17 November 2010 at 7:20 pm

    Sorry I forgot its not good form to point out Liarbours failings is it

    [lprent: Diversions in posts outside of OpenMike are completely frowned upon. I view them as a sign of a probable troll, and in your case looking at the comment above – probably one still stuck in 2007.

    If you want to comment here, then follow the policies and contribute. Or if reading that is too hard (probable) then the main thing you need to remember is that wasting my time or that of the moderators is something we don’t appreciate. Mindless and pointless name-calling is just stupid and leads to flamewars that we have to stomp out. We usually start with the instigators.

    But if you want to be a f*ckwit then be my guest. I’ll dump your arse out of here so hard you won’t get back. In the unlikely condition that you have a capability to contribute, then I’ll ignore you. If you actually say anything worthwhile I may even argue with you. But personally I suspect that you have your head stuck so far up your arse that all you can speak are idiotic slogans of yesteryear. ]
20. Chris73 20

    17 November 2010 at 7:29 pm

    Speaking of news…

    http://www.3news.co.nz/Full-interview-with-Litea-Ah-Hoi/tabid/370/articleID/186441/Default.aspx

    [lprent: completely off topic – moved to open mike.. ]
    • gobsmacked 20.1

      17 November 2010 at 7:38 pm

      Off topic, go to Open Mike, troll.

      On topic – why do you think John Key is linguistically incompetent and incoherent? Apart from maybe George W. Bush, can you think of anyone worse, in your lifetime?
      • Chris73 20.1.1

        17 November 2010 at 7:41 pm

        I personally don’t care how he speaks (truth be known he speaks like me and my work mates) but about results and as such I’m very pleased with how hes doing
        • Colonial Viper 20.1.1.1

          17 November 2010 at 9:24 pm

          (truth be known he speaks like me and my work mates)

          You work with a bunch of people who are inebbriated and evasive???
21. Colonial Viper 21

    17 November 2010 at 9:26 pm

    Something is definitely changing in the MSM, the NZH just wrote this up on Coleman and made him look both daft and petty.

    “Minister attends NZ on Air party, then slams it”

    Broadcasting Minister Jonathan Coleman is under fire for attending a tax payer-funded New Zealand On Air party and then criticising it for spending too much money.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10688283

Links to post

1. DJ Burt: posted on 25 July 2008 at 10:15 am
2. Jeremy Greenbrook: posted on 2 April 2009 at 6:51 pm
3. Fiji Truth Movement.: posted on 5 September 2009 at 9:36 am
4. Clare Curran: posted on 19 October 2009 at 8:17 am
5. Alastair Jamieson: posted on 14 February 2010 at 7:04 pm
6. Alastair Jamieson: posted on 31 March 2010 at 8:14 pm
7. LGD: posted on 20 May 2010 at 9:20 am
8. The Standard: posted on 16 November 2010 at 5:10 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS