Open mike 18/06/2015

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, June 18th, 2015 - 155 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmikeOpen mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose. The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

155 comments on “Open mike 18/06/2015 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. RedLogix 1
    18 June 2015 at 6:40 am

    This is just shameful:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/69446691/ashburton-coworker-listening-to-music-when-man-crushed-witness-says

    As an automation engineer I’m totally pissed to see workers STILL being killed and maimed by machines lacking essential safety technology features.

    In the past 5- 10 years the tech needed to virtually eliminate these kinds of accidents has become far cheaper, accessible and easier to integrate into virtually any machine. Yet I’m still seeing employers reluctant to upgrade or retrofit older equipment to the current standards.

    It’s just damn not good enough and they need some legislative teeth to compel them into it.

    PS: I agree that ANZCO are indeed one of the better operators; which makes this story even more annoying. If these guys are good – then WTF are the rest like?

    • Tracey 1.1
      18 June 2015 at 9:02 am

      RedLogix

      At what point (noise-wise) are earmuffs mandatory)?

      • Colonial Rawshark 1.1.1
        18 June 2015 at 2:50 pm

        If you’re around even moderately noisy machinery daily for more than brief periods, you should use them.

    • Draco T Bastard 1.2
      18 June 2015 at 9:57 am

      It’s just damn not good enough and they need some legislative teeth to compel them into it.

      What sort of legislation would you suggest?

      I can see two points here:

      1. The guy was wearing a headset when he probably shouldn’t have been
      2. The door didn’t detect an object it its way and so still came down with full force

      • Lanthanide 1.2.1
        18 June 2015 at 10:06 am

        Legislation for this is pretty easy. Require all commercially operated manufacturing plant and equipment to have a current certificate of safety (or whatever proof of safety you like).

        Any plant/equipment found not to hold certificates during routine/random inspections will result in very large penalties to the owners, regardless of whether the machine is actually safe or not. The fine is then doubled if the machine is found to be unsafe.

  2. Sanctuary 2
    18 June 2015 at 7:13 am

    200th anniversary of the battle of Waterloo, when the Iron Duke dealt old Boney the one-two. In fine old European fashion the French are huffily pretending it never happened, the Belgians are celebrating it, the British are divided about how to celebrate it but secretly still hate the French, and the Germans are pretending Prussia never existed.

    • Tracey 2.1
      18 June 2015 at 9:03 am

      chuckle

    • Kiwiri 2.2
      18 June 2015 at 12:08 pm

      “Napoleon’s dream died at Waterloo – and so did that of British democrats”

      From Martin Kettle:

      The second thing that Waterloo means is the victory of the feudal crowned heads of Europe over the forces of the French revolution. This Waterloo ushered in the repressive united Europe of the Vienna settlement: … [the] … anti-liberal anti-democratic reactionaries set on consigning the Europe of republics and peoples to the history books.

      …

      In one conversation on St Helena, Napoleon was asked by his doctor what he would have done if he had managed to invade southern England in 1805. Napoleon’s reply was an absolute cracker:

      “I would have hastened over my flotilla with two hundred thousand men, landed as near Chatham as possible and proceeded direct to London, where I calculated to arrive in four days from the time of my landing. I would have proclaimed a republic and the abolition of the nobility and the House of Peers, the distribution of the property of such of the latter as opposed me amongst my partisans, liberty, equality and the sovereignty of the people.”

      http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/17/napoleon-dream-died-waterloo-200th-anniversary-triumph-reaction

    • Draco T Bastard 3.1
      18 June 2015 at 10:03 am

      Nope, not surprised. This government obviously believes that ministers need to have the latest, greatest and most expensive cars to be driven around in. If they didn’t then they’d still have the original BMWs and be looking at replacing them now rather than ones just 3 years old.

      • Colonial Rawshark 3.1.1
        18 June 2015 at 10:26 am

        Austerity is for the commoners, not for them

      • infused 3.1.2
        18 June 2015 at 12:39 pm

        Might need to ask the Labour govt about this then. It was all signed and sealed under them.

        • Draco T Bastard 3.1.2.1
          18 June 2015 at 1:54 pm

          No, it wasn’t. Sure, the first purchase of cars was by the labour government but it had a couple of options available to it one of which did not require the replacement of the cars three years ago. The decision to replace the cars three years ago was entirely the decision of this government. If they hadn’t have done that then I wouldn’t bat an eyelid about replacing them now as at 5+ years old the cars really should be replaced and recycled.

          • TheContrarian 3.1.2.1.1
            18 June 2015 at 2:06 pm

            Why at 5+ years?

            My car is 8 years old and there is nothing wrong with it whatsoever.

            • Draco T Bastard 3.1.2.1.1.1
              18 June 2015 at 2:38 pm

              Your car has probably been used as per the normal usage rates for personal cars – 96% of the time it’s just been sitting there doing nothing. The government cars, just like taxies, get used a hell of a lot more and thus have a hell of a lot more wear and tear on them. That extra wear and tear is going to result in higher running costs and maintenance bills. This would not have been such a concern when they were 3 years old.

              • TheContrarian …
                18 June 2015 at 2:51 pm

                I’m not sure the wear and tear on 5 year old BMW that is used to get around the city is going to be much more than that of a 3 year old BMW. Keeping them running is a hell of a lot cheaper than changing them every 5 years.

                Shit you could have them for 10 years before having to do much to them in the way of maintenance.

                • lprent …
                  18 June 2015 at 3:21 pm

                  My car is a 1997 toyota with just under 250k on it. Looks like crap. Drives like a dream.

                  Had to replace the leads a few years ago. And some previous owner pulled the heater out (apparently they leak). Aircond works well in summer. In winter I wear more clothes. But I do live in Auckland.

                  Don’t know why I’d buy a new car. I’ve had two. They really aren’t worth the effort for the amount I drive and when they go into the shop, they tend to be charged like they were made out of gold.

                  • TheContrarian …
                    18 June 2015 at 3:29 pm

                    Shit my dad has a Nissian Cefiro that has done something along the lines of 330K up and down Central Otago (we are talking metal roads etc) and it runs perfectly.

                    He is going for 500K

            • The Lone Haranguer 3.1.2.1.1.2
              18 June 2015 at 3:09 pm

              But Im proud of my recycled 60+ years old Chevy Pickup daily driver.

              It may not be as economical as a Prius, and not as flash as a BMW, and tho it has no airbags, we have fitted seat belts for driver and passenger safety. And got some brakes, suspension and steering recycled from an old XJ6 Jag, and an overdrive autmatic to improve fuel economy.

              And with some much recycled stuff on the truck, I can buy parts to fix it from SuperCheap.

              This “new car thing” is just consumerism gone bad. Next thing you know, some poxy muppets in the homeowners assn will want “age of car” covenants in the subdivisions around here.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                18 June 2015 at 4:53 pm

                This “new car thing” is just consumerism gone bad.

                As I’ve said before: If we had an economic system nobody would own personal cars.

                This is because personal cars aren’t used enough to warrant the resources used to produce and maintain them.

          • The Lone Haranguer 3.1.2.1.2
            18 June 2015 at 3:38 pm

            I discussed cars with Harry Duynhoven (Minister of Transport safety at the time) one evening. Hes a VW/Porsche fanatic and it was shortly after the first batch of BMWs were bought.

            Being a VW fan as he is, he was keen on the Government buying the VW Phaeton diesel limos. Way cheaper than the BMWs and he reckoned they would be good for at least around 500,000kms of solid service – For some in the fleet that would have been about ten years use.

            Given his Government mates rejected his call for the upmarket “Peoples Car” and bought the even more upmarket BMW diesel, I can think of no good reason for the Crown not to hand onto them for ten year type timeframes.

            • Colonial Rawshark 3.1.2.1.2.1
              18 June 2015 at 3:44 pm

              Ministerial Limos should be replaced whenever there is a major change of model/shape. For 7 series beamers this would be every 6 to 7 years.

              Not a good look for Ministerial cars to be clearly out of date; but otherwise who would know.

              • The Lone Haranguer …
                18 June 2015 at 4:05 pm

                Really?

                I dont think the average punter who may (our increasingly may not) watch the 6pm news would know the difference in shape from the 2006 BMW 730D to the current model equivalent.

                New limos in this situation is simply a vanity project for the incumbent government.

                Hell even Prince Chuck who would be King still keeps a 50 year old Aston in his garage. Old cars do not necessarily need to be scrapped.

                • Lanthanide …
                  18 June 2015 at 7:09 pm

                  “I dont think the average punter who may (our increasingly may not) watch the 6pm news would know the difference in shape from the 2006 BMW 730D to the current model equivalent.”

                  Hehe. Ministerial limos aren’t for the average punter to look at, or use. You want to impress foreign dignitaries and visitors – some of whom *would* notice the old body shape, which would (at least) subconsciously shape their impression of NZ and it’s government.

    • Sirenia 3.2
      18 June 2015 at 10:41 am

      BMW dealers often happen to be National Party friendly too.

    • Sirenia 3.3
      18 June 2015 at 10:43 am

      BMW dealers Nat P friends?

      • Colonial Rawshark 3.3.1
        18 June 2015 at 10:52 am

        I think the ones they got the Crown Beemers through definitely are.

        • Tracey 3.3.1.1
          18 June 2015 at 11:40 am

          with the heated seated that Labour didn’t make them buy?

        • Draco T Bastard 3.3.1.2
          18 June 2015 at 12:21 pm

          They’ll be upset that they didn’t get their gong this year. Must be in the running for one next year.

    • infused 3.4
      18 June 2015 at 12:41 pm

      My, what short term memories you all have. This was a contract done under the Labour party which has expired.

  4. wyndham 4
    18 June 2015 at 8:49 am

    Has anyone seen comment from Dame Tariana Turia or/and Sir Pita Sharples re the Iwi dispute over RFR to Crown land in Auckland?
    Both were incredibly vocal over the Labour Party problems with the seabed and foreshore legislation.
    Irony anyone ?

    • Tracey 4.1
      18 June 2015 at 9:01 am

      The Maori Party has been almost silent since the election.

      THIS is one issue I would have expected, based on past issues (as you point out) they would be particularly vocal.

    • Charles 4.2
      18 June 2015 at 9:18 am

      http://maoriparty.org/panui/maori-party-backs-ngati-whatua/

      Not that I’d want to make apologies for people quite capable in themselves, but I imagine if you’d just been integrated into the pakeha system (via honors) you wouldn’t have to speak so loudly (that others would hear your conversations) to the people who were now, metaphorically, standing right next to you.

      • Tracey 4.2.1
        18 June 2015 at 9:24 am

        on 3 June

        ““We have already asked the Government for a ‘please explain’”, says Māori Party Co-leader Te Ururoa Flavell.

        “If the Crown is able to use other legislation to override the RFR this will potentially have significant implications for all settlements.

        “Ngāti Whātua has offered up a number of options to the Crown and we expect the Crown to deal with them in good faith,” says Mr Flavell.

        The Māori Party will continue to keep the pressure on the Government to ensure Treaty settlements are honoured.”

        I think the pressure is telling… the Government had a conceptual bus tour since the warning.

        • Charles 4.2.1.1
          18 June 2015 at 9:30 am

          Yep, though the statement is “old” by current media standards, the classic stern understatement is/was there. The conflict isn’t going to go away by itself anytime soon – a “Check” situation, if it were chess.

          • Tracey 4.2.1.1.1
            18 June 2015 at 9:38 am

            which might make Peter Dunne’s view interesting, should he ever express it or be asked to express it (in unequivocal terms)

        • Tracey 4.2.1.2
          18 June 2015 at 9:31 am

          Isn’t Naida Glavish, MP President Ngati Whatua?

          • Adele 4.2.1.2.1
            18 June 2015 at 2:59 pm

            Kia ora Tracey

            Naida Glavish is the current Chairperson of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua.

            • Tracey 4.2.1.2.1.1
              18 June 2015 at 3:56 pm

              Thanks Adele, and President of the Maori Party. It would be odd for the Maori Party to not express some views on this topic then.

    • Alpha z 4.3
      18 June 2015 at 1:03 pm

      keeping their snouts & lips close to Key’s tipiwhenua has been O-4-Orsome 4 them

  5. travellerev 5
    18 June 2015 at 8:58 am

    John Key has on several occasions said that he thought the collapse of the Derivatives trade was entirely predictable. In fact he confesses to his part in the fraud on NZ breakfast TV. Yet he burdened this country with more than $90 Billion in debt and more than $112 Billion of Derivatives off the books. If this does not make our debt an odious one I don’t know what will.

    Greece just declared their debt an odious one and well they should! Their demise was entirely planned and executed by the Bankers from Goldman Sachs.

    And just in case you want to see John Key talk about the crimes he and his bankster mates perpetrated here is a link to that post

    • infused 5.1
      18 June 2015 at 12:45 pm

      Jesus. Get off the crack.

      Greece’s demise was all their own doing.

      • Kiwiri 5.1.1
        18 June 2015 at 1:13 pm

        Crack cocaine?
        Won’t be able to start on that until it trickles down from you.

        Spiegel reported Goldman Sachs cooked the books to get Greece into EZ.

      • adam 5.1.2
        18 June 2015 at 1:20 pm

        Yeah infusd, nothing to do with a economic theory that does not work, or the criminals who keep it in place for their own personal gain. Greece is isolated from global ideology trends, markets, and the interests of the criminal rich. Thanks for the clarification, here me thinking they were part of the global village – what a silly idea.

      • Colonial Rawshark 5.1.3
        18 June 2015 at 1:27 pm

        Greece’s demise was all their own doing.

        How so? Yanis Varoufakis, the Syriza Finance Minister, has been saying for months now that Greece is essentially bankrupt and cannot repay its loans under current conditions.

        Yet despite this the IMF, Eurozone and ECB want to for Greece to take even more money, and to put Greece in even deeper debt. But Greece is already verging on insolvency!

        So surely irresponsible lending (to a borrower – Greece – who has already admitted in plain language that they cannot make the required repayments) plays a big role, infused?

        • Tracey 5.1.3.1
          18 June 2015 at 3:58 pm

          Greece needs to take a leaf from top US lawyer on Chapter 11’s book

          ““To the ordinary person in the street, it may seem surprising, but certainly not to me,” said Reed Smith partner Michael Venditto, who has represented clients in high profile Chapter 11 cases, including bankrupt airline TWA. “Chapter 11 is how you reshape and restructure a company that has problems. It doesn’t indicate anything nefarious or even bad management…Atlantic City lawyer Viscount doesn’t believe Donald Trump himself should be held accountable for any of his company’s bankruptcies — his creditors, he said, knew what they were getting themselves into when they lent Trump money over and over again. “They’re all big boys and girls,” he said. “They’ve all played this game before, in the insolvency space. The company that possessed his name filed bankruptcy because it was overleveraged. What does that tell you? People want to lend him money. He does grandiose things with it.”

          http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2011/04/29/fourth-times-a-charm-how-donald-trump-made-bankruptcy-work-for-him/

  6. Charles 6
    18 June 2015 at 9:54 am

    Oh boy, having told myself I wouldn’t even glance at the Herald today, to preserve a sensible blood pressure, I instead made the error of reading Chris Trotter’s newest opinion on The Daily Blog. Someone take that man’s spade away. Please.

    So I take too dim a view of things… must be my habit of wearing dark glasses, “the future’s so bright”…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NZKLZmz4kA

    What do you get when you mix sarcasm with irony? Probably the above video.

  7. Molly 7
    18 June 2015 at 10:26 am

    Found in the comments on a TDB post, courtesy of Jennifer G:

    Neil Young’s response to Donald Trump’s use of his music to announce his candidacy:

    Yesterday my song “Rockin in the Free World” was used in a announcement for a U.S. presidential candidate without my permission.

    A picture of me with this candidate was also circulated in conjunction with this announcement but It was a photograph taken during a meeting when I was trying to raise funds for Pono, my online high resolution music service.

    Music is a universal language. so I am glad that so many people with varying beliefs get enjoyment from my music, even if they don’t share my beliefs.

    But had I been asked to allow my music to be used for a candidate – I would have said no.

    I am Canadian and I don’t vote in the United States, but more importantly I don’t like the current political system in the USA and some other countries. Increasingly Democracy has been hijacked by corporate interests. The money needed to run for office, the money spent on lobbying by special interests, the ever increasing economic disparity and the well funded legislative decisions all favor corporate interests over the people’s.

    The Citizens United Supreme Court ruling is proof of this corruption as well as are the proposed trade deals which would further compromise our rights.
    These Corporations were originally created to serve us but if we don’t appropriately prioritize they will destroy us. Corporations don’t have children. They don’t have feelings or soul. They don’t depend on uncontaminated water, clean air or healthy food to survive. They are beholden to one thing – the bottom line.
    I choose to speak Truth to this Economic Power. When I speak out on corporations hurting the common man or the environment or other species, I expect a well financed disinformation campaign to be aimed my way.
    Such is the case with the reaction to my new album The Monsanto Years, which covers many of these issues. I support those bringing these issues to light and those who fight for their rights like Freedom of Choice.
    But Freedom of Choice is meaningless without knowledge.
    Thats why its crucial we all get engaged and get informed.
    That’s why GMO labeling matters. Mothers need to know what they are feeding their children. They need freedom to make educated choices at the market. When the people have voted for labeling, as they have in Vermont, they need our support when they are fighting these corporate interests trying to reverse the laws they have voted for and passed in the democratic process.

    I do not trust self serving misinformation coming from corporations and their media trolls. I do not trust politicians who are taking millions from those corporations either. I trust people. So I make my music for people not for candidates.

    Keep on Rockin in the Free World.
    Neil Young

    • Tracey 7.1
      18 June 2015 at 11:43 am

      gee what a surprise a promoter of the american dream and recompense for one’s own effort, stole something someone else created to promote himself…

      “First things first: Donald Trump has filed for corporate bankruptcy four times, in 1991, 1992, 2004 and 2009. All of these bankruptcies were connected to over-leveraged casino and hotel properties in Atlantic City, all of which are now operated under the banner of Trump Entertainment Resorts. He has never filed for personal bankruptcy — an important distinction when considering his ability to emerge relatively unscathed, at least financially…

      …He did take a personal hit the first time around: he’d financed the construction of the Trump Taj Mahal with junk bonds and was unable to pay the high interest. His business was in the red, and so was he, to the tune of about $900 million in personal debt. By the mid-90s, he’d reduced most of that debt, selling his Trump Princess yacht, his Trump Shuttle airline, and his stake in a handful of other businesses. More importantly, he stopped guaranteeing debt with his own wealth. “The first bankruptcy was the only time his personal fortune was at stake,” said Ted Connolly, a Boston bankruptcy lawyer who used Trump as model for getting out of debt in his book The Road Out Of Debt: Bankruptcy and Other Solutions to Your Financial Problems. “He learned from it. He’s insulated.”

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2011/04/29/fourth-times-a-charm-how-donald-trump-made-bankruptcy-work-for-him/

      • Draco T Bastard 7.1.1
        18 June 2015 at 1:58 pm

        “The first bankruptcy was the only time his personal fortune was at stake,” said Ted Connolly, a Boston bankruptcy lawyer who used Trump as model for getting out of debt in his book The Road Out Of Debt: Bankruptcy and Other Solutions to Your Financial Problems. “He learned from it. He’s insulated.”

        Typical RWNJ, claim all the rewards of risk taking while taking none. All personal responsibility removed.

      • joe90 7.1.2
        18 June 2015 at 2:18 pm

        Corporate welfare king.

        In his disdain of big government, however, Trump glances over an expensive irony: He built his empire in part through government largesse and connections.

        From his first high-profile project in New York City in the 1970s to his recent campaigns to reduce taxes on property he owns around the country, Trump has displayed a consistent pattern. He courted public officials, sought their backing for government tax breaks under extraordinarily beneficial terms and fought any resistance to deals he negotiated.

        He has boasted of manipulating government agencies, misleading officials in one case into believing he had an exclusive agreement to develop a property and then retroactively changing the development’s accounting practices to shrink his tax bill. In New York, Trump was the first developer to receive a public subsidy for commercial projects under programs initially reserved for improving slum neighborhoods. Such incentives have now become the norm in the powerful New York real estate community.

        http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/11/nation/la-na-trump-20110511

        http://askville.amazon.com/Donald-Trump-make-money-grow-empire-single-dime-pocket/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=4645983

    • Clemgeopin 7.2
      18 June 2015 at 12:41 pm

      Great letter! Needs to be in everyone’s email to read and think about.

    • adam 7.3
      18 June 2015 at 1:43 pm

      I just had to add this.

  8. Clemgeopin 8
    18 June 2015 at 10:58 am

    The Black Caps batted very well. However, the English were extraordinary and remarkable. Read the score board to see why.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/cricket/69487629/scorecard-black-caps-vs-england-odi–match-four-engvnz.html

    • Tracey 8.1
      18 June 2015 at 11:46 am

      and without some of their most experienced players including Broad and Anderson.

      • Clemgeopin 8.1.1
        18 June 2015 at 12:00 pm

        Interesting. I did not even realise that!
        The amazing thing is that the Back Caps did put on a great perfomance! Must have been a very exciting match all round!

        • Tracey 8.1.1.1
          18 June 2015 at 4:02 pm

          crazy series so far… we do something and win, then they do that to us in next game… has happened twice now… all on for the decider Clem. I don’t like the english chances against Starc though Clem..

          • Clemgeopin 8.1.1.1.1
            19 June 2015 at 1:45 am

            True, Tracey.

            Personally, I enjoy well played games, irrespective of which team wins!
            And I like good players irrespective of which country they are from.

            But my interest in sport for the last few years has been just fleeting and cursory because of the HUGE amounts of big cash business involved, millions of dollars paid to the players, world wide curse of gambling, corrosive corruption and dirty match fixing that is happening rampantly everywhere, seen and unseen. One never knows if a game has actually been played honestly or not anymore.

            So, I have lost faith in the integrity of sports, sport officials and players and now I don’t care too much as to who wins, who loses….not a big deal for me anymore for any of the sports.

            • Tracey 8.1.1.1.1.1
              19 June 2015 at 11:08 am

              Clem

              A number of years ago I read Lords of the Rings by Andrew Jennings, it changed forever how I viewed sport. Blatter learned his corruption from the Master, Juan Antonion Samaranch. It was only a matter of time before it was exposed.

              Sadly I think the six month delay until the new President of FIFA is appointed is only so Blatter can line up a stooge. He won’t stop until he is dead… that’s what stopped Samaranch (He quickly returned to Nationalist Spain under Francisco Franco and enrolled in the Spanish fascist movement Falange.),

        • Tracey 8.1.1.2
          18 June 2015 at 4:14 pm

          James Anderson, Stuart Broad, Ian Bell, Moeen Ali and Gary Ballance.

  9. Matthew Hooton 9
    18 June 2015 at 11:01 am

    Support Cancer Society

    Ok everyone, there is a way to stop me from trolling here at The Standard.

    For my sins, I’m running next year’s London Marathon for the NZ Cancer Society in exchange for doing fundraising for them.

    The NBR and some friends and family have kicked off the fundraising with very generous $1000 donations, for which I am very grateful.

    Please follow suit. Amounts other than $1000 are welcome. The money goes straight to the Cancer Society not to me and I pay all costs associated with getting to and running the marathon.

    It’s a good cause and a good deal for you. There’s a good chance I’ll drop dead outside the Tower of London and you can have The Standard comments section all to your own again.

    The fundraising page is here: https://londonmarathon2016.everydayhero.com/nz/matthew

    Many thanks for any support for the Cancer Society you are able to give.

    • Kiwiri 9.1
      18 June 2015 at 11:23 am

      It is quite ok, Matthew.
      I will transmit my donation through internet banking to the Cancer Society directly.
      Bye!

    • Tracey 9.2
      18 June 2015 at 11:45 am

      Best of luck training Matthew. I have a friend who ran it a few years ago and won a spot prize to run the New York Marathon. It’s pretty hard to get an entry, did you manage it cos you are running for a charity?

      I won’t be donating but not because it is you but cos the cancer society is not one of the household’s selected charities. Best of luck though.

      • Matthew Hooton 9.2.1
        18 June 2015 at 11:57 am

        Yep, got guaranteed entry from NZCS in exchange for raising $15k for them. They get the cash and I have an incentive to get up at 4.30am on a rainy morning and run 15kms!

        • adam 9.2.1.1
          18 June 2015 at 1:36 pm

          Best of luck raising the $15k. I’m with Tracey, not on my list of things I help with. Otherwise I’d happily give you money to see you out of the country. 😉

          I hope you have brought some decent running shoes, and do your warm up stretches, especially in this cold weather.

  10. Marvellous Bearded Git 10
    18 June 2015 at 11:21 am

    NZ$ today at US$69c and 44 pence. Hope you have already bought your flatscreens.

    This does have serious implications for the “rockstar” economy in terms of expensive travel overseas, expensive consumer and manufactured goods, increased debt levels denominated in $US, inflation etc etc etc.

    One of the main reasons the election went to the Nats last year was the “feel good” factor because the economy seemed to be doing well. Lets see the government explain this away now. To date it has been head in the sand stuff from Blinglish.

    • Colonial Rawshark 10.1
      18 June 2015 at 12:05 pm

      petrol/diesel is the big one

    • b waghorn 10.2
      18 June 2015 at 12:15 pm

      But a banker from hbc told me on the news this morn that we where still living the rock star dream, 3% growth is great he said . /sarc

  11. Clemgeopin 11
    18 June 2015 at 11:58 am

    A good article which shows what awful arse holes and dirty crooks are our so called journalists, political media commentators and the MSM have really become in our country.

    http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/06/16/possibly-the-most-disingenuous-editorial-the-herald-has-ever-written/?utm_content=bufferf5bbe&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

  13. weka 13
    18 June 2015 at 12:49 pm

    More on the Travis County relocated home issue, where residents are blocking the arrival of a second house with their cars. The relocating firm is bringing the police when it does the shift.

    I’m glad to see that councils aren’t responsible for ensuring compliance with convenants on private subdivisions. Also glad to catch a bit on The Panel yesterday that implied that most breaches of such covenants don’t get dealt with legally. Having said that, I wonder if that applies to things like QE2 covenants.

    It would be better if convenants were either regulated via council and/or went through a public consent process. Some make sense (no tall trees on boundaries), but others are daft, like the relocated home one, esp in a place like Chch.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/69482197/residents-use-cars-to-block-house-delivery

    • Tracey 13.1
      18 June 2015 at 12:52 pm

      It used to be, my home is my castle, now it is my home value is my castle.

    • Descendant Of Sssmith 13.2
      18 June 2015 at 1:18 pm

      “It would be better if convenants were either regulated via council and/or went through a public consent process.”

      Nah these fools can have whatever covenants they like and then they can pay their own legal costs to enforce them. Don’t see any reason why a bunch of nongy people who want to live in a place where much of your environment has to be determined by some arbitrary developer/resident nongy set of rules should have to be considered at all by any council or the police for any sort of enforcement.

      Ahh the right – making their own rules and wanting the coercive power of the state to enforce them since forever.

    • Rosie 13.3
      18 June 2015 at 2:55 pm

      Is it Travis County or Travis Country? Either way it’s a lame name.

      What is wrong with these people? Why are they so down right vicious and territorial, like rabid rotweilers? Aren’t they embarrassed by their behaviour? When did we get to be such elitist arseholes in NZ? I know, I know, I know the short answer to that, but this is extreme behaviour, and nothing excuses it
      They will get high blood pressure getting so shrill and worked up on their hatred and their screeching about their precious covenants.
      Imagine being the poor people moving the house on to the site, having curtain twitching haters for neighbours.

      Most days I struggle with the direction our society has gone in. Unpleasant personality traits are nothing new, but this has been a very ugly demonstration of some of the worst aspects of personality; vanity, selfishness and hatred, magnified by its collective nature.

      This is one of those examples of how divided our society has become. These residents make the jerks on The Development where I live look like charity volunteers.

      • weka 13.3.1
        18 June 2015 at 4:19 pm

        lolz the name. I couldn’t remember it exactly except it sounds like something out of a US tv show. The Dukes of Travis County?

        • Rosie 13.3.1.1
          18 June 2015 at 4:27 pm

          I checked their facebook page. It’s ‘country’. It still sounds like a US TV show though.

          It has the whiff of a developer inspired name. They come up with the dopiest names.

          • weka 13.3.1.1.1
            18 June 2015 at 5:19 pm

            I had a look on google maps too. Apparently there is a Travis Rd, and a Travis Country Rd that is a loop off that. But yeah, not a lot of thought in that one.

    • Charles 13.4
      18 June 2015 at 3:17 pm

      Some of the comments after the article are amusing, varying from “It’s an expensive swamp!” to “oh but we worked hard to be superior and if we can’t be better than you scum what will we ever doo?”. It might be a bit of like-attracts-like: I don’t remember reading anything that suggested the owners of the relocated house were hard-up kiwi battlers just tryin to make it in the cheapest way possible, with a smile and plate of gingernuts. Could be some absent landlord, trying for a bob-each-way inflated dollar, renting in the flash swampy part of town.

      • weka 13.4.1
        18 June 2015 at 4:03 pm

        The property the houses are on is understood to be owned by Anne Mackenzie, director of engineering consulting firm Build Green Ltd, which specialises in environmentally-sustainable buildings. She did not respond to requests for comment.

        http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/69482197/residents-use-cars-to-block-house-delivery

        • Descendant Of Sssmith 13.4.1.1
          18 June 2015 at 4:28 pm

          Was curious about the covenants. I’ve seen some quite silly ones over the years.

          Some of the covenants there apparently caused problems with rebuilding after the earthquake eg no wooden floors which given the risk of liquefaction in the future seems to make wooden floors as the most sensible solution to raising the house above the ground.

          There might have been a 10 year sunset clause on them as well which may be up.

          Doesn’t sound like there’s a group to enforce and maintain them now either.

          Anyhoo they have their own Facebook page.

          https://www.facebook.com/pages/Travis-Country/215590598466223

          The whole concept of unnecessary covenants in new housing areas seem to me to be a bit of a developer scam to try and get better prices – buy here cause no-one will be allowed to mow their lawn before 10 o’clock on Sunday, no-one is allowed a broken down car on their front lawn, all the fences must be made of x material type nonsense.

          So many of the people I know who live in these areas moan about government rules and freedom of choice but then willingly welcome the imposition of such nonsense.

      • Rosie 13.4.2
        18 June 2015 at 4:43 pm

        The owners of the property sound ligit, with their hearts in the right place:

        http://buildgreen.co.nz/

        Not sure whether the company director will reside in the house or onsell it.

        Don ‘t think the neigb’s will be turning up with a plate of gingernuts and a smile though. Shame.

        I’ve got a tune for the residents of Travis Country. Swamp Thing (with banjo’s!)

        • weka 13.4.2.1
          18 June 2015 at 5:20 pm

          thanks for the link, interesting. We should be encouraging people to rennovate and move houses. Am thinking of what’s going to happen in South Dunedin too, where they will need to eventually relocate 10,000 people.

  14. Colonial Rawshark 14
    18 June 2015 at 1:34 pm

    State Department visa system down due to hardware fault – leading to US growers hurt by lack of Mexican crop pickers. I guess employing American workers would be too far a leap.

    http://rt.com/usa/267937-downed-us-visa-thousands-stranded/

  15. Les 15
    18 June 2015 at 2:06 pm

    post of the day by Stuart Munro-NZ Herald..response to Hoskings TPP article….’The TPP has more to do with foreign control than trade. We are better off out of it – the US agricultural lobby will keep NZ products out for decades anyway. Best trick’d be to export to Mexico & slip stuff in under NAFTA.

    Your worship of the economic traitor Roger Douglas does you no credit. New Zealand would be immeasurably better off if both of you had been drowned at birth..’

  16. weka 16
    18 June 2015 at 2:17 pm

    Cellphone being developed in the UK, designed around fair trade, workers’ rights, resiliency, ability to be repaired (including home repairs), longevity etc

    Cool web interface as well.

    https://www.fairphone.com/phone/

    • adam 16.1
      18 June 2015 at 3:10 pm

      About time – Phones and them breaking is the number one legal con in the market. The price of repair is a joke. I hope this takes off.

    • adam 16.2
      18 June 2015 at 3:11 pm

      About time – Phones and them breaking is the number one legal con in the market. The price of repair is a joke. I hope this takes off.

    • Charles 16.3
      18 June 2015 at 3:22 pm

      Bring back alpha-numeric pagers… and red phone boxes on every corner, that run on five cent pieces!

      I don’t think those pagers ever made it here did they? It was message service pagers, then cellphones (like phillips isis), then much later, text capable phones. YAY Phillips Isis (P.o.S ahaha)

    • Molly 16.4
      18 June 2015 at 3:33 pm

      I see they are B-corporation certified, quite a stringent test I believe to ensure they meet social and environmental targets as well.

  17. Heartbleeding Liberal 17
    18 June 2015 at 3:11 pm

    Two thirds of polled herald readers support religious discrimination.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11467312

    • Colonial Rawshark 17.1
      18 June 2015 at 3:24 pm

      Do lefties support the practice of religious beliefs, in general?

      • Heartbleeding Liberal 17.1.1
        18 June 2015 at 3:42 pm

        Aside from the fact that its unwise to use terms like “lefties” to describe large amounts of people (implicitly assuming that they all have the same views), I feel like there is some sorta “gotcha” hidden in that question, can you elaborate please?

        • Colonial Rawshark 17.1.1.1
          18 June 2015 at 4:47 pm

          Your instincts serve you well! I’m just having a wee dig at the peeps who think the only valid religion is scientism, while all other religions are obsolescent oddities good for a bit of cultural diversity but nothing more.

          • Tracey 17.1.1.1.1
            18 June 2015 at 4:52 pm

            science = religion.
            bishop tamaki will be pleased

            • Colonial Rawshark 17.1.1.1.1.1
              18 June 2015 at 4:54 pm

              science isn’t religion, but trusting and adhering to faith in science starts coming pretty close

              • Tracey …
                18 June 2015 at 4:56 pm

                a statement used by some to justify their religious notions when most scientists do not treat their practices like religion at all

                • Tracey …
                  18 June 2015 at 4:59 pm

                  to clarify i dont see science as a religion at all but there are those wanting to teach the idea of a superior unknown being creating the earth in 6 days as science to children.

                  we used to call that sunday school..

                  • Anne …
                    18 June 2015 at 5:12 pm

                    I loved Sunday School. They were such exciting stories and kept my imagination working overtime. Moses in the bulrushes and God appearing on the Mount with the tablets were my favourites. They were up there with Enid Blyton’s Famous Five and The Enchanted Tree. Have to admit wasn’t too keen on God. A scary bugger. 🙂

              • Heartbleeding Liberal …
                18 June 2015 at 5:13 pm

                Readers may find the book “Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans” by John Gray interesting. He advances a very similar argument to “Colonial Rawshark” on this issue.

              • McFlock …
                18 June 2015 at 5:33 pm

                Given that “faith in science” means “‘faith’ in something that requires dropping all obsolete claims and methodologies if something demonstrably better comes along”, your comment is meaningless.

                • Colonial Rawshark …
                  18 June 2015 at 5:56 pm

                  And just like that, with the crack of the doctrinal whip, the heretic is cast out by the believer.

      • adam 17.1.2
        18 June 2015 at 3:53 pm

        I’d hope so Colonial Rawshark. I see nothing apart from predicious, that religion, or science, nor socialism are incompatible. Indeed I argue that to truly feel as a whole human being – then we must embrace socialism, science and religion.

        • Colonial Rawshark 17.1.2.1
          18 June 2015 at 4:48 pm

          Indeed I argue that to truly feel as a whole human being

          Aye, this mirrors my personal belief about what being ‘left’ truly means.

          • Tracey 17.1.2.1.1
            18 June 2015 at 4:54 pm

            the notion that you have to believe in a superior being to be truly left or a whole human being is insulting and patronising

            • Colonial Rawshark 17.1.2.1.1.1
              18 June 2015 at 5:07 pm

              People do choose to cut themselves off from spirituality, belief, faith and a wider universe, all the time. Even atheism requires faith to maintain.

              • Tim …
                18 June 2015 at 5:22 pm

                Spirituality can be quite separate from organised religion – I like to imagine things too but once you start trying to force those views on other people in the public domain or teaching it to kids it ticks me off a bit

            • adam 17.1.2.1.1.2
              18 June 2015 at 5:54 pm

              Sorry you were offended by what I said Tracey. That was not what I meant by what I wrote. My belief is that many people are quick to decide that religion is anti science, or is inherently conservative. My argument, poorly worded was meant to say Religion, Science and Socialism are better together as a set of ideas – rather than Religion, Science (more often, anti-science) and Capitalism.

              Many christians I argue with seem to think socialism and science are the enemy of religion. Mind you, they generally are the same christians who get their nose put out of joint – when I pull them up for not protecting the poor. Or a similar group who waste time and energy to defended their own homophobia – via the bible. Then refuse to acknowledge the liberating mission Jesus lays out, makes their homophobic arguments look at best weak, at worst – very far from what it means to be a christian.

              For me, as a personal opinion, religion is a key component to change society. Atheism just can’t pull people together like religion. Please before atheists go off ranting in a huff – I’m talking about making people feel they belong to something larger – by your own definition you deny that. That’s fine too, I think Atheists offer something valuable. But togetherness – mmmm I’m not convinced you can cover that one.

              • Tracey …
                19 June 2015 at 11:13 am

                Some of the most caring, community minded, giving of their time to others, people I know have no affiliation or sense of belonging to an organised religion.

                Thanks for taking the time to clarify your position. I don’t mind people having their religious beliefs until they want to impose them on others, such as through schooling or war or legislation.

    • Tracey 17.2
      18 June 2015 at 4:09 pm

      What religious/cultural basis for the no head gear/hats rule?

    • weka 17.3
      18 June 2015 at 4:09 pm

      ok Herald, you create a whole new article to report on a survey of 103 readers? wtf?

      68 – Yes
      35 – No

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11467071#comment-form

      voting is still open standardistas.

      edit, ah, so you have to make a comment to be able to vote. Jonolism at its finest.

      • weka 17.3.1
        18 June 2015 at 4:16 pm

        DRESS STANDARDS:

        The Board of Management have classified the Dress Rules by defining those items that are NOT acceptable within this Club.

        A reasonable standard of dress is required at all times.
        The following are not acceptable at any time:Dirty, torn or offensive
        clothing
        Barefeet
        Gumboots or work boots
        Dirty footwear
        Singlets, tank tops or sportswear with numbers
        Overalls or dustcoats
        Shirts with offensive printing or logos
        Brief running, football or beach wear

        Subject to Management approval only, the following items of headwear may be worn within the Club:-
        (a) Headwear required for medical reasons
        (b) Headwear for special Club events

        The following are not acceptable after 7:00pm on Entertainment Nights or in the Restaurant on any day: Thongs, socks without footwear and tracksuits

        Your co-operation would be appreciated to ensure a standard of dress in keeping with the high standard of facilities available.

        http://manurewacc.org.nz/membership/

        I’m curious now what they were trying to discourage when they wrote those rules about headwear. The club was established in 1964, but no idea when the dress code was written.

  18. saveNZ 18
    18 June 2015 at 3:28 pm

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503450&objectid=11467246

    Farmers’ leader warns dairying’s in dire straits
    Farmers also wanting to send the government a message.

    Theo Spierings expertise is in mergers, and by wrecking the co operative model he is opening up Fonterra to be destroyed and the NZ farmer along with it. Look at the food scandals and job losses that have come with his reign. Worse things still to come, part of the asset sale agenda.

    • Colonial Rawshark 18.1
      18 June 2015 at 3:40 pm

      Oh dear looks like in future Fonterra may have to be “merged” (i.e. taken over) by a trans-national outfit like Nestle, in order to survive…

      • saveNZ 18.1.1
        18 June 2015 at 3:46 pm

        Yep, run the companies into the ground, and then sell them to mates in a fire sale.

      • Tracey 18.1.2
        18 June 2015 at 4:09 pm

        I object to any taxpayer money going into any religious school.

        • Colonial Rawshark 18.1.2.1
          18 June 2015 at 4:45 pm

          Then why does the government fund economics, business and commerce schools in our universities.

          • Tracey 18.1.2.1.1
            18 June 2015 at 5:02 pm

            you are being deliberately obtuse

            • Colonial Rawshark 18.1.2.1.1.1
              18 June 2015 at 5:04 pm

              just a wee joke really on where the blind faith and ideological doctrine running our society actually resides

              • Kiwiri …
                18 June 2015 at 5:24 pm

                i got the joke at 18.1.2.1!
                i chuckled.
                countries that have taken on worshipping the financial market god have vast numbers of their people suffering the consequences accordingly.

                • tracey …
                  20 June 2015 at 5:05 pm

                  I got it too but but teaching maths and biology isn’t the same as teaching creationism or thanking god before each day starts by way of organised prayer at school.

      • Kiwiri 18.1.3
        18 June 2015 at 4:40 pm

        Oops … hired a hatchet man who hatches the plan.

        Sayonara, Fonterra!

    • b waghorn 18.2
      18 June 2015 at 5:10 pm

      And yet farmers still vote for the nats , turkeys and Christmas springs to mind.

  19. Philip Ferguson 19
    18 June 2015 at 3:42 pm

    On Monday (June 15) the NZ Herald published the latest figures on CEO salaries. The paper noted, “The bosses of New Zealand’s biggest companies enjoyed an average pay rise of 10 per cent last year, their biggest bump since 2010.” By contrast, the average wage and salary earner gained an average increase of only 3 percent and many workers have not had a pay rise at all. Moreover, as Council of Trade Unions secretary Sam Huggard noted the same day, “Half of New Zealand’s households receive no more income, in real terms, than a generation ago” . . .

    full at: https://rdln.wordpress.com/2015/06/17/ceo-salaries-widening-inequality-gaps-and-continuing-working-class-passivity/

    Btw, one of the interesting things is the graph on the growth of the wealth of super-rich NZers. Fairly flat under National in the 1990s and then zooms up under Labour.

    Phil

    • Tracey 19.1
      18 June 2015 at 4:10 pm

      and in the last 10 years many have gone up by over 300%… that suggests their companies have performed well. So, what were the workers wage increases over the same time given we are told when companies do well wages will go up?

    • Kiwiri 19.2
      18 June 2015 at 4:27 pm

      the average wage and salary earner gained an average increase of only 3 percent

      hah. and how much the increase would really be for the many (excluding the CEOs), if the CEOs’ significant increase did not pull up that “average” wage/salary earner’s increase to “only 3 percent”?

  20. Kiwiri 20
    18 June 2015 at 4:46 pm

    Anyone familiar with “roman candle” and is that common usage in NZ ?

  21. Colonial Rawshark 21
    18 June 2015 at 4:52 pm

    What are the 5 Chinese investments in NZ worth over US$100M?

    They are listed here as deals completed in just the last few years. Anyone know what they bought up?

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-17/visualizing-every-overseas-chinese-investment-over-100-million

  22. emergency mike 22
    18 June 2015 at 5:03 pm

    “The purest form of ecstasy is safer than alcohol and should be legalised, an emergency department specialist at Wellington Hospital says.”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/69462806/Wellington-emergency-doctor-calls-for-pure-ecstasy-to-be-made-legal

    The comments section is interesting. It seems that people overwhelmingly agree. Negative comments massively voted down. They get that prohibition of something that is safe, and that people want, creates worse problems than those it doesn’t solve.

    Comment ftw: “Whaaaaaat? Is he seriously suggesting classifying drugs based on their relative harm/safety to create a legal framework whereby safer drugs are legal and less safe drugs are less so? That’s crazy talk. Lets keep the status quo where morals and misinformation are used to classify them into a framework where some safer drugs are illegal and some relatively less safe drugs are legal. That makes far more sense.”

    • weka 22.1
      18 June 2015 at 5:17 pm

      Safer doesn’t mean safe. Decriminalising is probably a good idea, but as a culture we’re a long way from being good at managing recreational drugs, so I think it’s better to be honest about the risks rather than pretend they don’t exist. There’s been some interesting hazards from the legalising of cannabis in the US eg kids eating cannabis sold in candy bars, people having serious adverse reactions etc.

      • emergency mike 22.1.1
        18 June 2015 at 6:35 pm

        Safer means safer. Safer is good no? I should have said ‘relatively safe’. Of course all drugs have risks of some kind, but gosh it would be nice to have the chance to making up my own mind, like a grown up, and being able to chose to enjoy a safer, (much safer), better, positive consciousness altering experience than stupid old wife-beater alcohol. It would almost be like I was able to think for myself and make my own decisions about how I lived my life.

        And if we were honest and well informed about the risks of cannabis and MDMA, they would be legal. Plus we would be a whole lot better at self-moderating use in general.

        Decriminalization would be a positive step, but it would not solve the genuine and serious problems that prohibition causes. Such as the ones that make emergency room specialists call for legalization.

        Sure there’s fair reason to have concerns about kids getting edibles. Personally I’d like to see edibles being made so that they are unappealing to kids in appearance and taste. Or allow it only to be made in a kind of pill form. There’s always going to be speed-bumps when there are new laws like this. I’m confident that they will sort it out somehow.

        I note that in the vast majority of cases, (at least), the parents and kids are a bit freaked out, but, sleep it off, and are fine. This stuff is one of the least toxic substances around. It is generally considered to be impossible to overdose. Compare that to the warnings on the side of over the counter medicines. Let me know more about the serious adverse effects you found from kids ingesting cannabis.

        And as for adults, there have been a couple well publicized cases of newbie journalists failing to listen to instructions and eating far too much. They have a horrible time, and are fine the next day. There have also been the usual scare mongering, ‘thought they could fly and jumped out of a window’, ‘went crazy and done horrible murder’ oh so reminiscent of anti-cannabis propaganda of reefer madness yester-yore. In such rare cases no clear causal link has been found. Meanwhile alcohol causes serious and fatal accidents by the truckload, and in the murder case the wife had been afraid of her violent husband for a while. The ‘it was the drugs what made me do it’ murder defense is not exactly unprecedented. It didn’t work for this guy.

        Every year plenty of underage kids are admitted to emergency rooms for alcohol. That toxic stuff can kill you, and sometimes does. Is that reason enough to ban alcohol? Nope.

        ‘Think of the children’ is the last refuge of the pearl clutching prohibitionists. Sure you don’t want kids eating this stuff, but as an argument against legalization for adults? It’s weak.

        • weka 22.1.1.1
          18 June 2015 at 7:54 pm

          I tend to agree with a lot of what you say there, but I think you missed my point and would appreciate it if you reread what I wrote. I wasn’t making an argument against legalisation. I was making an argument for more honesty in the legalisation debate.

          Of course all drugs have risks of some kind, but gosh it would be nice to have the chance to making up my own mind, like a grown up, and being able to chose to enjoy a safer, (much safer), better, positive consciousness altering experience than stupid old wife-beater alcohol. It would almost be like I was able to think for myself and make my own decisions about how I lived my life.

          Sure, but the issue I raised isn’t about experienced users, it’s about what happens when you give easy access to drugs to the wider population which includes inexperienced users and people who shouldn’t be using at all. Let’s be honest about the risks of that. I’m not saying that to block legalisation, I’m saying if we want to legalise, we need to not gloss over those issues but instead face them front on. That way we can avoid some of the daft stuff that happened in the US with cannabis (making cannabis edibles look like children’s lollies, ffs, that would have to be the best case I’ve seen for not letting potheads make decisions for the whole of society).

          For every dismissal of scare stories, there are stories that are real. Yeah, there’s the journo one (true), and the one about the man who got stoned and killed his family and himself (very unclear). But I’ve had my own experiences with cannabis that suggest caution and I’ve talked to others too. I agree that we need much better education alongside legalisation, but how good are we at that with alcohol? We’re a culture that lowered the drinking age, allowed alcopops, and generally raises children to binge drink. Would we be better off raising kids to be potheads? Probably. Not sure about freely available ecstacy.

          We’re also the culture that fucked up on legal highs, both in letting them onto the market, and then trying to get them off the market. I’m not sure I trust us as a society to manage currently illegal drugs better. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try, but I’ll say again, let’s be more honest about what we are talking about. eg Writing off concerns about children’s access is not going to further the cause. Being honest about them will.

          • emergency mike 22.1.1.1.1
            19 June 2015 at 1:09 am

            I reread what you wrote as requested. You said you would probably favour decriminalization. (Probably? You think we should probably stop ruining peoples lives for smoking a relatively safe drug and bothering no one?) You reckoned that we are not doing well at managing recreational drugs (agreed), you reckoned that some people were pretending that unspecified risks did not exist. (You mean me because I called it ‘safe’? I was using common usage, would call skydiving safe, but it’s not risk free. Is descending a flight of stairs ‘not safe’? I’m happy not fall back to ‘relatively safe’, but to imply I was trying be misleading is going too far.) You said that legalizing in the US had caused problems in both kids and adults. Is this about right?

            Decriminalization is not legalization. Not even close. I thus assumed that you were not in favour of legalization, and that the problems in the US you mentioned as support for your position. Maybe you could make it clear, are you saying you would consider legalization if certain concerns of yours are satisfied? Or that you are not in favour because you don’t think those concerns can or will be satisfied?

            So after 80 years of lies and propaganda against cannabis, you’re complaining that the pro-legalizers are not being being honest enough? Pushing past that irony, can you let me know who these people are that are claiming that the things you are talking about don’t exist?

            Maybe you could reread what I wrote. I didn’t dismiss concerns about kids’ access, I suggested ideas for solutions. I then suggested that where such incidents have occurred, the consequences have been, relatively, not serious. Again, if you know otherwise, let me know.

            As for the real stories of violent reactions, these are very rare, but naturally the media loves them. I don’t know what kind of system you’d like to see put in place to prevent them from ever happening, but I note that every weekend in this country people get drunk and do violence. I’m not trying to ‘gloss’ I’m asking for some perspective. Three million violent crimes a year in the US involve alcohol, but a handful of people go nuts on weed and it’s scary stuff.

            Inexperienced users? What’s the concern there? That they take too much? What will happen if they do? They will get uncomfortably high, not have a good time, sleep it off, and feel fine. They either will lose interest in weed, or learn a lesson about dosage. Chances of physical or psychological harm: very, very low. I gloss you not.

            In states with legal weed it was been noted that alcohol use has dropped. This is a plus for society in my book. If we could replace alcohol usage with an objectively less harmful drug, and shift the mood from aggressive to relaxed, that’s a win.

            I’m all for improving the way we deal with drugs, and yes I too don’t find “we’ve sucked so far” to be a good reason for giving up. I would love to see some honesty around cannabis, did you know that’s what NORML has been campaigning for for more than 40 years? Honesty. And now you too. Back to that irony. If you still think I’m being dishonest about something here, do let me know.

            Would we be better off raising kids to be potheads?

            Well the Green party would be in for a start, so yes. Seriously, I’m not at all convinced that that would be the inevitable outcome of legalization in NZ. Weed is not the same drug as alcohol. I don’t think we will be down the pub cheering on the All Blacks with a bong somehow.

            Honesty, yes please, some of us are sick of the marijuana bogeyman.

            • weka 22.1.1.1.1.1
              19 June 2015 at 2:55 pm

              “(Probably? You think we should probably stop ruining peoples lives for smoking a relatively safe drug and bothering no one?)”

              No. I think ideally we should legalise, but we need to grow up a bit in order to do that. In this conversation I’m arguing for a more realistic process than cannabis is safer than alcohol so all good. Or quality E is safe so let’s legalise it. That’s not an argument against legalisation, it’s an argument for being more thoughtful in how we legalise.

              “You reckoned that we are not doing well at managing recreational drugs (agreed), you reckoned that some people were pretending that unspecified risks did not exist.”

              No. I don’t think people are pretending, I think some people are ignorant of the risks, others don’t believe in them, others think they are the lesser of evils, and others think they’re not big deal.

              “(You mean me because I called it ‘safe’? I was using common usage, would call skydiving safe, but it’s not risk free. Is descending a flight of stairs ‘not safe’? I’m happy not fall back to ‘relatively safe’, but to imply I was trying be misleading is going too far.)”

              Interest choice of comparison, because sky diving either needs a lot of training, or you need to do it with someone who’s had a lot of training and experience.

              Descending a flight of stairs is safe or not depending on many things. Just like taking drugs.

              “You said that legalizing in the US had caused problems in both kids and adults. Is this about right?”

              Not really. I pointed out that the way the process was done had caused problems.

              “As for the real stories of violent reactions, these are very rare, but naturally the media loves them. I don’t know what kind of system you’d like to see put in place to prevent them from ever happening, but I note that every weekend in this country people get drunk and do violence.”

              I already gave an example, not selling cannabis edibles as lollies. These are not difficult things. It’s not about removing all risk, it’s about minimising risk where it’s easy to do so.

              That’s about as far as I’m going to respond to your points. Every step of the way you seem intent on misinterpreting what I am saying and trying to make out I am anti-drug or anti-legalisation. I don’t know why you are doing that, but I’m asking you to stop.

              • emergency mike …
                19 June 2015 at 5:16 pm

                Thanks for clarifying. But I feel you’re talking about some broadly defined strawman.

                “In this conversation I’m arguing for a more realistic process than cannabis is safer than alcohol so all good. Or quality E is safe so let’s legalise it. That’s not an argument against legalisation, it’s an argument for being more thoughtful in how we legalise.”

                Who on Earth is your opponent here? Who is saying that we don’t need to bother trying to mitigate risks or learn from Colorado’s mistakes? Who is writing off concerns or being dishonest about them? Don’t you think that deciding to legalize at all comes before we get into regulatory details about how we legalize?

                “Interest choice of comparison, because sky diving either needs a lot of training, or you need to do it with someone who’s had a lot of training and experience.”

                And I’m all for comprehensive education and preparation for a novice user regarding effects, safe use, and risks. So I’m not sure why it’s so interesting. As for experience, I think there’s only one way to get that.

                Plus, rephrasing to clarify is fine, but please, give me a break:

                “You said that legalizing in the US had caused problems in both kids and adults. Is this about right?”

                “Not really. I pointed out that the way the process was done had caused problems.”

                There’s been some interesting hazards from the legalising of cannabis in the US eg kids eating cannabis sold in candy bars, people having serious adverse reactions etc.

                “…you reckoned that some people were pretending that unspecified risks did not exist.”

                “No. I don’t think people are pretending,…”

                …so I think it’s better to be honest about the risks rather than pretend they don’t exist.

                Maybe if you could be a bit more coherent, people wouldn’t misinterpret. And no weka, just so you know, there was no such intent.

                Hopefully one day, we’ll live in a society capable of deciding not to put weed in lollies. Let’s dare to dream. In the meantime, I guess we’re stuck with our favourite class 1 carcinogen as our only allowed option for mind-altering modern life relief.

          • the pigman 22.1.1.1.2
            19 June 2015 at 1:54 am

            …. i feeel…. philip ure… channelling himself through me….

            … eh?

            making cannabis edibles look like children’s lollies, ffs, that would have to be the best case I’ve seen for not letting potheads make decisions for the whole of society

            Can we at least drop the reefer madness lines? The repeated use of “potheads” betrays a certain amount of close-mindedness in your viewpoint.

            I think the people calling for wholesale legalisation are far more honest than those calling for a half-way house measure (medicinal cannabis) that ends up being a backdoor measure for legalisation (take a walk down Venice Beach sometime and admire the guys touting for “Dr. Kush” etc.), let alone the scummies like Dunne who pretend alcohol is less harmful than cannabis.

            It’s not.

            • weka 22.1.1.1.2.1
              19 June 2015 at 10:30 am

              I support cannabis being legal. Do a search on ts and you’ll find that I’m much more radical than many others here. For instance, I think that cannabis should no be commercialised by regulation and that it should be left to potheads to grow and distribute.

              There’s nothing reefer madness about my comments. All I’m doing is pointing out two things. One is that we live in a society that is pretty bad at managing drug use (regulation, users, education etc), and so if we are going to legalise/decriminalise various drugs we need to figure out how to change that. The other is that pro-legalisation people too often minimise risk and this minimisation is slowing down legalisation.

              I think that you too are misreading and misinterpreting what I am saying. Try to not get hung up on one word in a long post and try engaging with the points I am saying. (seriously, you think my use of ‘pothead’ means I am anti-legalisation?).

              • the pigman …
                19 June 2015 at 2:01 pm

                I think saying “potheads” shouldn’t make decisions for the whole of society is incredibly phobic and close-minded. Alcoholics do the same thing every day.

                This is not the first time we’ve disagreed about the clear semiotic implications of language as I recall :p So perhaps we could use less loaded terms, like “cannabis users”?

                Anyway, it’s good to know where (some) standardistas sit on drug law reform since I feel it’s a subject that is massively overlooked in this internet community (and NZ politics generally).

                • weka …
                  19 June 2015 at 2:25 pm

                  I don’t think potheads are drug addicts, so the comparison with alcoholics fails. Potheads are just people that smoke a lot of weed or smoke all the time. My comment, when read in context, is clearly a point about how the push for legalisation from experienced users outstripped public safety and ethical concerns. I see the same thing happening in NZ, where pro-legalisation people often minimise risk.

                  And no, ‘cannabis users’ is not a substitute for potheads, I would have thought that was obvious. It’s also not inherently a pejorative, at least not where I come from. I don’t want to get into semantics. You could have asked for clarification about what I meant, and you didn’t, and instead you are trying to misuse my comments to make out I’m something I’m not and completely ignore the points I am making in response to the original comment.

                  • the pigman …
                    20 June 2015 at 1:54 am

                    I’m sorry, I didn’t realise I was obliged to prepare a point-by-point rebuttal to everything you say. However, since emergency mike is doing perfectly well on that score above, just take it as a big fat +1 to everything he has said in response to you.

                    What you appear to be arguing for is something just as, if not more conservative than Dunne’s current unworkable testing regime under the PSA, whereby it will cost millions to get products through the various hoops to get them on shelves. And you have a massive hypocrisy where more harmful psychoactive substances are already legal or (because of other pharmaceutical legislation) things like antidepressants and benzodiazepine which are obviously “psychoactive” aren’t held to the same standards harm-wise.

                    Who will have the kind of money to jump the regulatory hoops? Only “Big Weed” like the giant cartels that are currently forming across the US. Not so different to Big Pharma (or Big Booze) in its objectives (to make a lot of money).

                    The expression “pothead” is pejorative, moreso than “stoner” I’d suggest (will take a straw poll of other cannabis enthusiasts if they care to chip in), and the stories about stoned dude killing whole fam/self-harm while stoned are just that, anecdotes, not evidence of anything.

                    “I don’t think potheads are drug addicts, so the comparison with alcoholics fails. Potheads are just people that smoke a lot of weed or smoke all the time.

                    This logic is all jacked up too. Are alcoholics (people who drink a lot of alcohol or drink all the time) drug addicts? How is there no valid comparison to be made?

                    And an apology weka, you might think I’m just trolling you, but the truth is I’m much more inclined to post when there’s something you say I disagree with, than when there’s something you say that I agree with. (That is to say, most of the time I broadly agree with you – clearly not on cannabis law reform.)

                    • emergency mike …
                      20 June 2015 at 4:56 pm

                      Cheers pigman.

                      To be fair, I don’t think weka is arguing for “something just as, if not more conservative than Dunne’s current unworkable testing regime under the PSA.” I think her main point here is that some legalization advocates are ignoring or dismissing risks and hazards to the detriment of their own cause.

                      My response is that that is not happening from people who are seriously involved and working to this end. She also seems to be saying that we need to ‘grow up’ about drugs before we legalize. I think that legalizing would help us grow up a lot. We all want it done in a careful and considered way and I think we are perfectly capable of doing so. I think such fears are unreasonable and ill-informed. Our history of drug legislation has been negatively influenced by vested interests from alcohol, tobacco, and legal highs for a long time. Pro-legalization campaigners are trying to pull this situation back to a better place, not add another layer of bad like some would have you think.

                      I think no small part of my frustration here comes from encountering the ‘harmless’ straw man a few too many times. I get annoyed by online commenters saying things like, “people claim it’s harmless but it’s not look!” when no one has claimed any such thing. That’s not what weka said, but it’s related.

                      On ‘pothead’, “I don’t think potheads are drug addicts” is also ill-informed, (and ironically, ignoring a risk). It is possible to be seriously addicted to weed. Addiction rates are lower than other drugs, including alcohol, and the withdrawal symptoms are not as bad, but they do exist for heavy users who quit.

                      As for derogatory or not, I don’t know about weka’s pot smoking community, but I’ve only heard it used with a negative, derogatory connotation. Smokers might be happy to call themselves and others ‘stoners’, but ‘pothead’ implies someone who is smoking too much, such that it significantly interferes with their ability to function in other aspects of their life.

                      Of course, it all depends on context of use. “I love you all my fellow potheads!” isn’t derogatory. But “let’s not let potheads make decisions for the whole of society” yep, that’s clearly derogatory no matter what weka’s bigger point might have been. And no that doesn’t nullify or ignore her point; your request to avoid derogatory language in the furtherance of a reasoned discussion is simply valid.

    • b waghorn 22.2
      18 June 2015 at 5:19 pm

      Mmmmm I remember that stuff fondly . if they legalized that and weed nz would be a very different and better place IMO.

  23. Penny Bright 23
    18 June 2015 at 6:12 pm

    ‘Create a crisis – so people see the need for reform’

    Where is the Auckland ‘housing crisis’ – when the mantra of ‘an extra million people coming to Auckland over the next 30 years’ was effectively ‘made up’ by the Mayor of Auckland, Len Brown. and the (former) Auckland Council Chief Planning Officer Dr Roger Blakeley choosing to use the Department of Statistics ‘high’ population growth projection – instead of their recommended ‘medium’ population growth projection of an extra 700,000 people?

    This ‘extra million people’ mantra – has then been used to drive the ‘Special Housing Areas’ legislation – which has been used to try and ‘economically cleanse’ State tenants off prime real estate, particularly in Tamaki, and push the privatisation of State housing by ‘social housing’ – for which there is no electoral mandate.

    Combine that with the ‘ghost City’ of 22,000 EMPTY private sector houses in the Auckland region?

    Let’s get real!

    To what extent is the Auckland real estate market being used for MONEY LAUNDERING?

    Who is checking?

    Who else is even asking?

    Penny Bright

    2016 Auckland Mayoral candidate

    http://www.pennybright4mayor.org.nz

  24. Penny Bright 24
    18 June 2015 at 6:34 pm

    Evidence to support my post about the – in my opinion – BOGUS Auckland ‘housing crisis’.

    (Supplementary) EVIDENCE that I provided in support of this Petition 2011/64

    http://www.parliament.nz/resource/mi-nz/50SCSS_EVI_50DBHOH_PET3157_1_A338307/c0545be9171849399f2468c6567ae9303ce418ce

    SUPPLEMENTARY EVIDENCE FOR THE SOCIAL SERVICES SELECT COMMITTEE, IN SUPPORT OF PETITION 2011/64

    Date: 14 June 2013

    SUBMITTER: Penelope Bright

    ———————————————————————

    Penny Bright

    2016 Auckland Mayoral candidate

    http://www.pennybright4mayor.org.nz

  25. NZSage 25
    18 June 2015 at 7:00 pm

    How about gathering some ideas on how this flag referendum bullshit can be hijacked?

    Maybe a social media campaign to vote for the worst design in the first referendum?

  26. Logie97 26
    18 June 2015 at 9:15 pm

    So, as chairman of NZ Inc and thus an “executive” of the State owned airline, why would you be smiling so gleefully at Jetstar’s announcement of expanding its New Zealand operations?