Open mike 18/08/2013

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, August 18th, 2013 - 104 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post. For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

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

Step right up to the mike…

104 comments on “Open mike 18/08/2013 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Jenny 1
    18 August 2013 at 7:50 am

    One day to go before the big meeting in the Auckland Town Hall GCSB bill.

    And the leader of the Opposition Labour Party hasn’t made it clear if he will even be there.

    Already we know that David Shearer refuses to stand on the podium with every other Opposition Party Leader.

    The actions of David Shearer are deliberately undermining the sincere efforts of those who are trying to lobby Peter Dunne and/or any National MPs who have concerns about this bill to vote against it.

    How can Peter Dunne or any other Government MP make this weighty decision to change their vote, when they can witness with their own eyes that the Opposition leader David Shearer is standing with the Prime Minister John Key on this issue.

    David Shearer’s mealy mouthed words calling for a “review” (something that Peter Dunne has already asked for, and the Prime Minister has already agreed to), Is not enough.

    So come on David Shearer. In the best traditions of Labour Party leaders of the past, why don’t you show that you stand with the grass roots of your own party and the rest of the opposition, and the nation. Announce that tomorrow you will be mounting the podium with the other leaders to make your opposition to this bill clear.

    If it is beyond you. You don’t have to say anything. Just stand there in solidarity.

    Remember: Actions Speak Louder Than words!

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 1.1
      18 August 2013 at 8:08 am

      Given his name’s on the poster, does anyone other than you seriously doubt his intention to attend? I’m not interested in your opinion, just a link to someone other than you saying it will suffice.

      • Jenny 1.1.1
        18 August 2013 at 8:35 am

        Not on any poster I have seen. Not on the ones posted on this site.

        Oops looked again his name is there my sincere apologies.

        When did this happen?

    • Anne 1.2
      18 August 2013 at 10:12 am

      Shearer declared his intention to be one of the speakers earlier in the week since when he’s been on the “list” of speakers. He has emailed members and supporters twice in the past few days urging people to attend.

    • Huginn 1.3
      18 August 2013 at 12:51 pm

      I thought Shearer was very good on Key’s exclusive NZ Herald GCSB ‘clarification’ when Shearer said that Key didn’t understand his own legislation and was making it up as he went along.

      It was quick, sharp and to the point

  2. Jenny 2
    18 August 2013 at 8:38 am

    Talking about bad journalism;

    “Shot man had lengthy list of convictions”

    So reads the banner headlline by an article penned by journalist Tracey Chatterton for Fairfax NZ News,

    I might like to ask Tracey Chatterton;

    So What?

    Would a headline reading hand cuffed man shot in the back be more accurate. What if this helpless and unarmed man had been shot in the back by someone other than a police officer?

    Would his list of convictions be in the headline? Would that even be seen as relevant?

    What is Tracey Chatterton trying to say here?

    That the man deserved to be shot in such circumstances because he had a list of convictions?

    That people who have convictions are more likely to get shot while being under arrest vulnerable and helpless, than those without previous convictions?

    Despite the purposely leading headline, the report itself is less judgemental laying no fault on the arrested man who was offering no resistance at the time when he was shot.

    When it comes to bad journalism this example surely must rank at the top.

    • Jackal 2.1
      18 August 2013 at 1:06 pm

      It’s also very unlikely that a gun would simply just go off. Despite what the movies try to make us believe, guns don’t usually go off by themselves. If the riffle was slung over the officers shoulder, it should have been located at the officers back. Therefore he would have to have been leaning forward away from Iriheke Te Kani Pere for him to be shot. However it was also reported that the unarmed man was being helped to his feet by the officer when he was accidentally shot in the back with a Bushmaster rifle, that should have had it’s safety on. The events as described by the police seem highly implausible.

      • fender 2.1.1
        18 August 2013 at 1:22 pm

        Could it be that under this government the police feel they have the right to administer their own penalties out to suspected law breakers. This could see a handcuffed suspect thrown off a fence and paralysed or handcuffed then shot in the back. Serco may not like the loss of income from these events but Paula Bennett will be fond of this style of treatment of suspects I’m sure.

        • Murray Olsen 2.1.1.1
          18 August 2013 at 4:35 pm

          The police have always felt that they have the right to administer their own penalties. What changes are the penalties. When a government with some interest in human rights is in power, they scale things down a bit, maybe to the level of grievous bodily harm. With the present government and its absolute contempt for any sort of legalities, the death sentence can be on the table. As a society we give the police enormous powers. We should make equally enormous efforts to hold them to account when they step outside these powers.

        • felix 2.1.1.2
          19 August 2013 at 1:00 am

          Has there ever been an instance of someone pointing a firearm at a nz police officer and living to tell the tale?

          I don’t recall it ever happening.

          • Populuxe1 2.1.1.2.1
            19 August 2013 at 2:41 am

            So you’re saying the police should just stand there like numpties and allow themselves to be shot? Of course I expect you will probably say they could shoot the perp in an arm or a leg, but that would be to reveal a fatal misunderstanding of how deadly someone with a fire arm can still be or how quickly they can squeeze off a bullet

            • felix 2.1.1.2.1.1
              19 August 2013 at 7:24 am

              No Pop, I’m not saying any of those things.

              Once again you are arguing against your own imagination.

      • Suitably Clueless 2.1.2
        18 August 2013 at 1:23 pm

        Not enough time spent training on weapons would be my guess, they fire SFA rounds a year to be current, and I would find it hard to believe they even know how to pull their weapons apart. But surely he answer must be to carry them all the time, that would fix everything when they have no idea how to use them, that seem’s to be the modus operandi of this government?

        • Colonial Viper 2.1.2.1
          18 August 2013 at 1:40 pm

          Budget cuts, heightened stress with too few experienced staff around, not enough training and weapons handling time.

          • infused 2.1.2.1.1
            19 August 2013 at 12:08 am

            The sun, the moon, and the high tide…

            • Colonial Viper 2.1.2.1.1.1
              19 August 2013 at 12:33 am

              Also lack of procedural weapons safety discipline, including the very basics…do not point your weapon, loaded or unloaded, at anything you are not willing to kill.

    • Foreign waka 2.2
      18 August 2013 at 5:39 pm

      The last frontier, shoot first ask question later.

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 2.3
      18 August 2013 at 5:41 pm

      “…bad journalism…”

      From memory it’s usually the sub-editor who chooses the headline.

  3. phillip ure 3
    18 August 2013 at 9:12 am

    “..Why should dogs die – so humans can get high?..”

    (cont..)

    (ed:..and of course it would be salutary to see the (totally-justified) outrage at this plan to overdose dogs to death..to test the toxicity of new legal-highs for humans..

    ..to see this outrage spread to the fact that 270,000 animals are tortured/killed by the vivisectors in new zealand..

    ..each and every year..

    ..let that fact sink in…

    ..and then please start asking ‘why?’…’why are we torturing/killing animals..?

    ..to test cosmetics/dishwashing liquids..?’

    ‘cos..y’see..there are computer-testing programs that

    can replace these hidden horrors..obviate the need for this litany of cruelties/miseries..

    ..’so why?’..i hear you ask..

    ..that ‘why’ is the same as for all the other industries that thrive on the miseries inflicted on others (alcohol/tobacco/legal-highs..)

    ..these animals continue to be tortured because of economic reasons..

    ..those doing the torturing..and the breeders..

    ..are locked in a ghastly dance of monetary self-interest..

    ….so what needs to happen..

    ..is for a large spotlight to be shone on the practices of this industry..

    ..and for them to justify the/any compelling need to be doing this to animals..

    ..until this comes to pass..

    ..these pieces of shit who garner their gold from torturing defenceless animals all day..

    ..will just continue inflicting these miseries..

    ..and it may be a cliche..

    ..but the animals cannot speak up for themselves..eh..?

    ..it has to be us..eh..?..

    (and irony o.d-alert..!..for many years the spca has sat on the panel ‘approving’ these experiments/tortures on 270,000 animals each and every year..)

    ..and guess what..?..the spca used to sell/supply animals to the vivisectors..

    ..and how do i know this..?

    ..i know this because i once ‘liberated’ a dog from a courier van..

    ..that dog was enroute from the spca in auckland..

    ..to vivisectors in wellington..

    ..she ended up living a long and happy/well-loved life..

    ..so the next questions for the spca must be:

    ‘do you still sell/supply animals to the vivisectors..?’

    and..’how do you – as an organisation purporting/fund-raising on the premise you help/protect these defenceless animals..

    ..how do you marry that with ‘approving’ the torture/killing of 270,000 of those ‘defenceless-animals’ you claim to ‘protect’..?

    ..and this each and every year..?

    ..eh..?..

    ..eh..?..)

    phillip ure..

    • vto 3.1
      18 August 2013 at 10:06 am

      animals are tested on for medical purposes to deal with the effects of…

      alcohol
      sports
      coffee
      sugar
      drugs
      driving

      everything.

  4. chrissy 4
    18 August 2013 at 10:12 am

    Good grief! (Still gagging) I have just caught a bit of the Nation with bill ralston and somebody else( aided by nodding and smiling smallie) going orgasmic over keys performance on JC Live. How concise and coherent he was and how he spoke to middle nz so that they could all understand his message. And how bad JC was in comparison and labelling him as pretty much politically biased. Did they not read the transcript! As far as I am concerned JCLIve is the only TV programme that is trying to give us ordinay kiwis a say and actually putting the TRUTH out there so we can make an informed opinion. Elsewhere you have Fran,Audrey,John A all using the NZ Herald as their no obstacles vehicle for waving the pom poms for national EVERY WEEK! It’s blatant and it is wrong that we are being fed their infantile drivel under the guise of political commentary. Go John Campbell and boo hiss to the herald.

    • Hami Shearlie 4.1
      18 August 2013 at 10:59 am

      I feel like that too! Strange (yeah right) that Ralston and Walden never mentioned the big back-down from Key since the interview either, where what he had said turned out to be WRONG – But he’s going to make no written change to the bill and just says that he won’t give the OK to read our mail – Do we really trust Key to keep his word that he won’t read our emails and how would we ever find out if he did? Sorry, I’d need that in WRITING!! This IS a merchant banker talking, don’t forget that!!

      • chrissy 4.1.1
        18 August 2013 at 11:25 am

        I thought he was just a money trader and general go to boy to do Merrill Lynch’s dirty work. With a smile.

      • Greywarbler 4.1.2
        19 August 2013 at 9:22 am

        Someone on radio said that so much political chatter is about performance instead of substantive matters. It is commentators treating politics as a sports game, and the politicians merely players. Shakespeare understood it (No fear Shakespeare site)

        Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
        Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
        To the last syllable of recorded time,
        And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
        The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!

        Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
        That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
        And then is heard no more. It is a tale
        Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
        Signifying nothing.
        Hamlet A5/Sc5/5.

    • Paul 4.2
      18 August 2013 at 11:06 am

      These corporate shills have a lot to lose.
      Remember CL challenged their lack of action in his report on Thursday.
      Bill Ralston sold out long ago.

      • North 4.2.1
        18 August 2013 at 2:25 pm

        Ralston and Walden subscribe to the construct of an Auckland media/political “glitterati”. They cannot be accurately assessed or relied upon without prior disclosure of that comedic self-consciousness. Hitching up to Planet Key provides buoyancy for ascent to the surface of the little pond of Auckland and confirms “glitterati” membership.

        • Saarbo 4.2.1.1
          18 August 2013 at 7:48 pm

          Yes, more that just Walden and Ralston subscribe to this, every commentator seems to have jumped on the bandwagon Kerre Mc Ivor (who ever she is), Sean Plunkett, Armstrong, etc…it seems very few commentators will challenge John Key. Not one commentator has brought up John key’s major cock up in the interview, which is amazing. I’m sure your explanation has something to do with it, along with some really savvy media management by the National Party.

  5. AmaKiwi 5
    18 August 2013 at 10:31 am

    On August 17, 1975, U.S. Senator Frank Church appeared on NBC television’s Meet the Press to discuss the results of his full-scale investigation into America’s burgeoning intelligence capabilities. Senator Church revealed startling information and closed with a dire warning to every citizen of the United States:

    “American intelligence gathering capability at any time could be turned around on the American people and no American would have any privacy left. Such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. (This was before internet.) There would be no place to hide.”

    “If this government ever became a tyrant, if a dictator took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how precisely it was done, is within reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology.”

    “I don’t want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that (the NSA) and all the agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision so that we never cross that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.”

    • Colonial Viper 5.1
      18 August 2013 at 11:23 am

      Only took three decades and a couple of collapsing skyscrapers to turn the good results of the Church Committee around. Pumping more money into the corporate/military/industrial/intelligence complex and then allowing a system where individual congressmen have to become more susceptible to money just to get re-elected finished it.

      As has been said by several people previously…the US has suffered a slow motion corporate/internal coup d’état over the last 20 years. Five hundred senior officials, a few billionaires, and a couple of hundred corporate board members have more say over the USA today than 250M voters.

  6. vto 6
    18 August 2013 at 11:22 am

    Has John Key’s government done anything to improve New Zealand’s environmental record?

    I see nothing doing but maybe somebody can point to something which has improved the situation.

  7. chrissy 7
    18 August 2013 at 11:44 am

    My perfect scenario for Question Time in Parliament would be for the Opposition to ask jk a question, sit through the now standard garbage he spews and then on a point of order point out to him that he is WRONG and then sit down. What would his retaliation be? Everyone should just keep saying YOU ARE WRONG and only that. It’s when you go down the rabbit hole with him that you just lose the will to live. He does it all the time, without actually showing any solid proof to his challenge.

  8. Pete 8
    18 August 2013 at 11:56 am

    Rod Oram blasts the government with both barrels. Why aren’t we hearing this kind of coherent narrative from Labour?

    • Bearded Git 8.1
      18 August 2013 at 3:21 pm

      Yep excellent piece Pete.

      The SST also does a good job in its leader today of highlighting the fact that Key does not understand the GCSB Bill and screwed up (or IMO lied) in the John Campbell interview.

      Even Colin Espiner, on the same page, says the GCSB Bill is bad law.

    • Red Rosa 8.2
      18 August 2013 at 6:30 pm

      +1

  9. Jackal 9
    18 August 2013 at 12:44 pm

    Is No Minister really a left wing blog? Sure, it has contributions from Psycho Milt, but he’s being somewhat overwhelmed by the stupid Tories over there. May I suggest some of these as a replacement?

    • Tim 9.1
      18 August 2013 at 8:15 pm

      I had a look at it too (yesterday) J, and asked myself the same question! Short answer NO! or no longer.

  10. Huginn 10
    18 August 2013 at 12:48 pm

    Selwyn Manning asks some interesting questions about the consequences that the GCSB Bill may have for NZ’s relationship with China

    Special Feature: For China Is The GCSB Bill One Insult Too Many?

    http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/08/18/special-feature-for-china-is-the-gcsb-bill-one-insult-too-many/

    • Draco T Bastard 11.1
      18 August 2013 at 2:34 pm

      Quoting Get off the Grass:

      And when it comes to the New Zealand economy, our situation is seen by many as deeply paradoxical. International economists refer to the “New Zealand paradox” when pointing out that getting the market fundamentals right doesn’t always lead to economic growth.

      There’s no paradox at all – the economic fundamentals are wrong and so by getting them right we’ve been damaging our economy.

      • Colonial Viper 11.1.1
        18 August 2013 at 3:21 pm

        Reality doesn’t conform to their carefully crafted and mathematicised parallel universe of economics? Who wudda thunkit?

        • Rhinocrates 11.1.1.1
          18 August 2013 at 3:33 pm

          Economics is and always has been a pseudoscience. It uses mathematics the same way astrologers do. Yes, there are real stars and yes, there are real resources and money, but let’s start studying them in a real scientific manner. Astronomers have been at it for a long time. I invite economists to do the same, any century now – no pressure [gritted teeth].

          • Chooky 11.1.1.1.1
            18 August 2013 at 4:49 pm

            +1 …I think astrology works better…it does not pretend to be a science…but open to interpretation and imagination.

            ….economics is similar …depends who does it and what their ideology is and then they get the maths hocus pocus equations to prove it..tweek it here….tweek it there…..and bingo the bankers and wealthy 5% come out on top

            ………And have any of these economic theories really worked for the majority of people in individual countries , let alone the world?…that is the acid test….’economics’ as a ‘science’ has been an abject failure

            • One Anonymous Knucklehead 11.1.1.1.1.1
              18 August 2013 at 4:58 pm

              The same could be said of pre-Hubble telescope Cosmology, but that doesn’t mean said Cosmology was a waste of time.

              All science progresses more by debunking failed dogma than by genius insights. It progresses nonetheless.

              • Chooky …
                18 August 2013 at 5:42 pm

                @ depends on whether the ‘scientist’ starts with an open mind or not….

                …some ‘scientists’ have closed minds and will try and fit the facts/stats/equations to their own predilections and preferred ideologies …as is the case in economics and much less so in astronomy( hard science) …hence economics called a ‘pseudoscience'( accept that some economics is descriptive /phenomenological)

                • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                  18 August 2013 at 5:48 pm

                  It depends on nothing of the sort. You aren’t taking peer review into account. Scientists must present their findings in public where their worst enemies can pull them to pieces. Looking for the mythical unbiased opinion is a mistake: everyone exhibits bias.

                  It can take decades for science to progress in any field: Economics is no different.

                  • Chooky …
                    18 August 2013 at 6:38 pm

                    @ + 100 Poission and Rhinocrates….

                    Knucklehead ….who said I was looking for the mythical unbiased opinion?….it is a sliding scale

                  • Rhinocrates …
                    18 August 2013 at 8:13 pm

                    OAK, indeed, the joke about cosmology told by physicists is that cosmologists put error bars on the exponents. However, it seems economists don’t use error bars at all.

                    Sciences do progress, and it’s the scientific process not only of peer review but of correlation with other sciences that matters – every chemist is open to review by physicists, but economists still try to be a closed shop. Their fundamental paradigms are jealously guarded from scrutiny and review and are therefore arbitrary (a euphemism for self-gratifying bullshit).

                    Scientific disciplines advance at different rates in any case. In a couple of centuries, whatever replaces the current pseudoscience of economics may reach the equivalent of Newtonian physics (i.e.., where physics was in the seventeenth century), but it’s nowhere near that position yet.

                • Rhinocrates …
                  18 August 2013 at 8:27 pm

                  their worst enemies can pull them to pieces.

                  Yes, and many self-professed experts in Klingon who like to dress up in costumes can pull each other to pieces too – and they do – but I challenge them to engage with real linguists.

                  No real science is an island, and I’ll take an economist seriously when they are routinely open to review by physicists, tribologists, and herpetologists. If you think that I’m being facetious, I’d like to point out that physics is telling us a lot about palaeontology through biomechanical analysis of skeletons. That’s how real science works, not a cargo cult.

                  • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                    18 August 2013 at 9:10 pm

                    Not facetious at all Rhino, in fact I broadly agree with you that economics can and should learn more from other disciplines, for precisely the reasons you outline.

                    • Rhinocrates …
                      18 August 2013 at 9:47 pm

                      Well fingers crossed then, if not for our generation, then the ones to come, because it’s a science we need.

              • Rhinocrates …
                18 August 2013 at 8:23 pm

                Alchemy was a waste of time, chemistry isn’t.

                • Chooky …
                  18 August 2013 at 8:28 pm

                  @ well I dont know about alchemy being a waste of time…Jung seemed to get quite a lot out of it….depends on whether you take it literally or not…maybe it is a metaphor for components/development of the psyche?

                  • Rhinocrates …
                    18 August 2013 at 8:40 pm

                    In a literary sense, I think that both Jung and Freud have real value and I regard Freud’s essay on the uncanny as a masterpiece of literary and aesthetic criticism. However, “science” is a very precise term, denoting verifiability and consistency. A lot of art and literature is “true” in ways that sciences aren’t, but be that as it may, “economics” as it stands is not a science.

                    • blue leopard …
                      19 August 2013 at 3:12 am

                      @ Rhinocrates
                      If you don’t view chemistry as a waste of time, then alchemy wasn’t either; because chemistry arose out of alchemy.

                      Practical applications of alchemy produced a wide range of contributions to medicine and the physical sciences. The alchemist Robert Boyle[8] is credited as being the father of chemistry.

                      ….. The attempts of alchemists to arrange information on substances, so as to clarify and anticipate the products of their chemical reactions, resulted in early conceptions of chemical elements and the first rudimentary periodic tables. They learned how to extract metals from ores, and how to compose many types of inorganic acids and bases. ~ Wikipedia – Alchemy

      • Poission 11.1.2
        18 August 2013 at 3:57 pm

        economic fundamentals are wrong

        The equations used in economic models are not fundamental but phenomenological ie they relate to the process but not to the cause,hence you cannot ask to much of them anyway.

        • Rhinocrates 11.1.2.1
          18 August 2013 at 8:35 pm

          not fundamental but phenomenological

          In other words: make-believe, the mere aping of forms and not amenable to empirical tests. Unfalsifiable. Bullshit, to put it bluntly.

          Sorry, I have too much experience in both hard disciplines and the humanities to take all of their weasely pantomime seriously. Indeed, the intellectual pretence is offensive.

        • Chooky 11.1.2.2
          18 August 2013 at 10:19 pm

          On phenomenology:

          Edmund Gustav Albrecht Husserl (German: [ˈhʊsɐl]; April 8, 1859 – April 27, 1938[3]) was a philosopher and mathematician and the founder of the 20th century philosophical school of phenomenology. He broke with the positivist orientation of the science and philosophy of his day, yet he elaborated critiques of historicism and of psychologism in logic. Not limited to empiricism, but believing that experience is the source of all knowledge, he worked on a method of phenomenological reduction by which a subject may come to know directly an essence.

          • Rhinocrates 11.1.2.2.1
            18 August 2013 at 10:38 pm

            Have to say I agree – again, straddling the hard professions and the humanities, I think that there can be parallel kinds of truth.

            A couple of my degrees, my work and a lot of my publication would not be possible if I didn’t appreciate phenomenology – I’m just aware of the demarcations.

            Sorry to be cryptic, but I value my privacy and don’t want to give too much away (someone has already found out who I am and I don’t want that repeated).

            Short answer: “Yes.”

  12. Draco T Bastard 12
    18 August 2013 at 1:31 pm

    Lee’s Post Keynesian Price Theory: Chapter 4

    Hall and Hitch concluded that businessmen did not generally estimate the elasticity of the demand curves for their products or equate marginal revenue with marginal cost, but instead set prices by means of “full cost pricing” (Lee 1998: 90), which was their terminology for what are now called “administered prices.”

    Hall and Hitch found that full cost pricing was determined by the following factors:
    (1) direct material and labour costs per unit of output;

    (2) indirect costs at an expected level of output, and

    (3) a markup for profit. (Lee 1998: 90).

    The poor economists, finding out that pricing of goods has absolutely nothing to do with margins.

    • Rogue Trooper 12.1
      18 August 2013 at 1:44 pm

      fuel and electricty not as inelastic as once held by economic theorists, but then, they may be Living In The Past.

    • bad12 12.2
      18 August 2013 at 1:45 pm

      Yes business have a series of indicators which indicate how pricing should be achieved, based of course around the level of competition and one other important imperative,

      The less competition the higher the price and that is always coupled with that other business tool known as ”coz we can” where in the absence of any real competition prices are fixed by either the individuals involved or by agreement of the Cartels,

      The electricity industry is a great indicator of such Cartel price fixing where at a time small consumers have reduced demand for the product competition would indicate that prices would drop in an effort for the different players to attract more custom the opposite is the reality as Cartel price fixing keeps all the players profits rising…

  13. vto 13
    18 August 2013 at 1:52 pm

    What has happened to the little colourful square things that used to sit next to our ‘names’? Those made it easier to follow conversations.

  14. Colonial Viper 14
    18 August 2013 at 3:35 pm

    Distressed needing help on the street but ignored

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10913776

    not sure if someone has already posted this. It seems if you are better dressed, people MIGHT think about helping you a bit faster.

    • Murray Olsen 14.1
      18 August 2013 at 4:52 pm

      I would have helped the old guy, because that’s what I do. I would have checked on the woman as well.

  15. joe90 15
    18 August 2013 at 3:49 pm

    Chrysi Avgi (Golden Dawn) polling at around 12% and the ruling Nea Dimokratia at 28%, give them another year or so and the fuckers could well hold the balance.

    Recently, Golden Dawn has signaled it would like to go global, and has opened offices in Germany and Australia. A website has appeared claiming to be the hub for the group’s New York City office.

    “Nightline’s” repeated email requests for interviews from Golden Dawn members were met with an angry “No.”

    “You can blame your fellow mainstream media cohorts for that, who do nothing but shamelessly slander us,” one email response to “Nightline” said.

    But as Georgousis’ film shows, Golden Dawn sees the blame for Greece’s woes spreading far beyond its shores. The party claims the economic crisis in Greece is not just caused by immigrants in Athens, but in Chicago and “especially New York,” Georgousis said.

    “They keep posting articles that, ‘it’s the Jewish capital that has brought Greece to this point, which is located in New York,’” he said.

    http://abcnews.go.com/International/greeces-hostile-golden-dawn-party-filmmaker-captures-unguarded/story?id=19948097

    (check the comments – auto play video too)

    • Populuxe1 15.1
      19 August 2013 at 2:48 am

      “They keep posting articles that, ‘it’s the Jewish capital that has brought Greece to this point, which is located in New York,’” he said.

      That must come as a surprise to the Israelis

  16. Foreign waka 16
    18 August 2013 at 6:02 pm

    Watched Susan Woods today – I think it will be the last time – she makes me cringe when she interviews foreign visitors (in this case from Iran) with a preconceived propaganda point of view trying hard to be a Christiane Amanpour. Please, please, please take Mrs Woods off politics programs, give her gardening or something else.

  17. logie97 17
    18 August 2013 at 6:46 pm

    The government wants the GST on on-line purchases. The retailers association want it too.
    Well I guess they could also chase the corporate tax avoidance rorts that are ripping us all off while they are at it. (That would be billions, and not just a few million).

    • srylands 17.1
      18 August 2013 at 8:25 pm

      “Well I guess they could also chase the corporate tax avoidance rorts that are ripping us all off while they are at it. (That would be billions, and not just a few million).”

      Can you be specific about these rorts?

  18. Chooky 18
    18 August 2013 at 7:59 pm

    @ logie97….agreed…..

    Loretta Napoleoni’s book ‘Rogue Economics- Capitalism’s New Reality’ (2008)…. indicates what is wrong with present day economics

  19. Veutoviper 19
    18 August 2013 at 8:10 pm

    Yes – its 8pm on a Sunday night. But for those interested before it disappears behind NBR’s paywall – A MUST READ on the effects of the combine GCSB Bill and its companion TICS Bill.

    An article on NBR today by Vikram Kumar, former SSC manager and CEO of InternetNZ, now CEO of Mega, giving more – very disturbing – insight into the effects of the TICS Bill.

    I am out of my depth here on the tech aspects, but if what Kumar is saying is true, then it is very revealing.

    “The government is planning to issue secret orders to service providers when the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill (“TICS Bill”) becomes law to force them to create interception capability for surveillance agencies. This has been approved by cabinet and is therefore official Government policy.

    What’s not clear is if the mechanism of a Ministerial directive will also be used to gag the service provider? Or is the secrecy merely a guise to allow compliant service providers to pretend they haven’t been forced to create a backdoor for the government?

    Either way, the impact on New Zealand online service providers, and New Zealand as a country, could be truly devastating. …”

    To read the whole article – and the comments and remarks by the NBR editor at the start of the article – the link is

    http://t.co/kvhoyJCfse

    • Ugly Truth 19.1
      19 August 2013 at 8:05 am

      From the 2012 technical paper:

      A Ministerial directive will be used to secretly/confidentially impose an obligation to create interception capabilities by individually named service providers (referred to as “deem-in” but what I call a backdoor) “so as not to publicly announce a lack of capability in a particular service.”

      “when X is “deemed” to be Y it is ordinarily conceded that X is not Y, and is known not to be Y”

      Legal Fictions and Common Law Legal Theory Some Historical Reflections, Eben Moglen

  20. North 20
    18 August 2013 at 8:22 pm

    Someone must have linked or commented on this –

    http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/revealed-govt-plans-secret-orders-so-service-providers-under-spy-bill-ck-144562

    Wildfire !

    And just before I hit submit I see Veutoviper has.

  21. locus 21
    18 August 2013 at 8:39 pm

    i’ve only just discovered Richard Wilkinson’s (co-author of The Spirit Level) TED talk about why reducing income differentials in developed democracies really matters.

    http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html

    if you’ve not heard him talk, take a few minutes…. and note where NZ figures in most of the data he presents

    • Pascal's bookie 22.1
      19 August 2013 at 10:39 am

      And it’s pretty hard to see how this could be an oversight, or some sort of mistake.

      The list of proscribed ‘luxury items’ would have had to have been produced at some point. And it should have been checked pretty thoroughly after that.

    • Rogue Trooper 22.2
      19 August 2013 at 10:54 am

      sometimes, not just lacrimal fluid.