Open mike 19/01/2010

35 comments on “Open mike 19/01/2010 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Pascal's bookie 1

   19 January 2010 at 7:27 am

   Some stuff re haiti here:

   http://www.newshoggers.com/blog/2010/01/just-what-haiti-needs-more-debt.html

   Skinny: Is giving Haiti loans really a good idea? Wouldn’t the imf be more helpful by issuing some debt forgiveness instead? It’s not like richer folk don’t walk away from their debts. And if they are concerned about moral hazard, I’m aware of some poor houses in the Caribbean that we can put some banksters in. Just sayin.
   • Bill 1.1

     19 January 2010 at 11:49 am

     Good link PB.

     Kind of brings together most aspects of what can only be viewed as a sick and heartless affair.

     Having followed all this quite closely, my only remaining hope is that the various threads spun by the technocrats, bureaucrats, politicians and corporatists in the international and national centres of power somehow become just enough rope with which to hang every last decrepit one of the tiny minded bastards.
2. Jenny 2

   19 January 2010 at 8:04 am

   With his link, Pascal’s b, exposes a terrible scandal.

   In my opinion, this sort of venal exploitation of this appalling disaster, by both the IMF and the US military is on par with a war crime.

   While US banks are forgiven bank debts to the tune of a trillion dollars, Haiti is still paying for the last Hurricane disasters.

   Is this fair?

   Is this Just?

   Is it right to continue to exploit these people like this, in their time of need?
3. Tigger 3

   19 January 2010 at 9:11 am

   And John Key demanded that the sun appear and lo, it doth appearedth.

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10620945
   “Prime Minister John Key wants the Prince’s visit to have a distinctive New Zealand summer flavour. Wellington for once obeyed, putting on a day of calm and sun.”

   By the way, the picture to this article would have us believe Key cooked the barbie. Not true.
   “And last night, the Prince went to the Prime Minister’s house for a barbecue – catered by Ruth Pretty rather than dished out by Mr Key with a pair of tongs.”
   Come on media, can we draw some attention to this desperate effort to make Key appear ‘blokey’ and ‘ordinary’ when he is neither?
   • the pinkpostman 3.1

     21 January 2010 at 3:17 pm

     Im amazed that our Prime Minister ( whether we like it or not)
     is seen to be dribbling in the presence of William Wales.
     When -ever did Aotearoa lose it belief in egalitarianism.
     Its more than time we removed ourselves from the shackles of the Monarchy . Apart from the fact that we are ruled by an old lady the other side of the world, by supporting this system ,we are supporting the corner stone of the British Class sytem.
     The way the ruling monarch is chosen is totally against our belief in democracy. My I remind our readers that in the 1930s we were only saved by a wedding ring from having a known Fascist and dear friend of Hitler’s from being the King of Aotearoa . Its Time for the Republic of Aotearoa..!!!
4. Pascal's bookie 4

   19 January 2010 at 11:17 am

   Who’s up for that new ambassador gig?

   http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100118/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan
5. Ministry of Justice 5

   19 January 2010 at 11:21 am

   My observation of the arguments on this site is that they are predominantly, if not entirely, consequentialist.

   Even the righties here engage in discussing the harm/benefits caused by various acts of Government as though causing more benefit than harm would justify an action.

   I suspect the left lacks principled foundation and that is the reason discussions here focus on consequences.

   Can someone please prove my suspicions wrong by identifying a steadfast principle of the left?
   • felix 5.1

     19 January 2010 at 11:45 am

     …as though causing more benefit than harm would justify an action.

     In what sense does it not?
     • Ministry of Justice 5.1.1

       19 January 2010 at 1:10 pm

       In a moral/ethical sense.
       • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1.1

         19 January 2010 at 1:26 pm

         In what way is it moral to cause harm?
         • Ministry of Justice 5.1.1.1.1

           19 January 2010 at 10:51 pm

           DTB –
           An example of when it’s moral to cause harm is in self defense. But, I wasn’t presenting my perspective – only my observations of discussions here.
   • BLiP 5.2

     19 January 2010 at 1:54 pm

     Can someone please prove my suspicions wrong by identifying a steadfast principle of the left?

     The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
     • Ministry of Justice 5.2.1

       19 January 2010 at 2:10 pm

       Thanks Blip
     • Ministry of Justice 5.2.2

       19 January 2010 at 10:30 pm

       BLiP –
       Do needs trump ownership?

       If some people need something that I own can I morally be forced to part with it for their benefit?
       • BLiP 5.2.2.1

         19 January 2010 at 11:41 pm

         superfluum quod tenes tu furaris
   • prosaic 5.3

     19 January 2010 at 5:24 pm

     Fairness, more explicitly, using something like a ‘veil of ignorance’.
   • prosaic 5.4

     19 January 2010 at 5:39 pm

     And perhaps, MoJ, you could say what you think the problem with consequentialism is.
     • Ministry of Justice 5.4.1

       19 January 2010 at 10:22 pm

       I haven’t got time now but I’ll start a discussion on consequentialism on my blog when I get around to it.

       The “veil of ignorance” is interesting, hadn’t heard of that before.
6. Draco T Bastard 6

   19 January 2010 at 1:31 pm

   http://www.trademe.co.nz/Trade-me-jobs/Trades-services/Building-carpentry/listing-266532420.htm?key=400121

   A full time position is available in Wellington for a Qualified Carpenters to join our team for projects on buildings in Wellington City.

   # Be Qualified
   # Experienced Carpenter

   $16 – $20 per hour

   As my nephew, who happens to be a qualified carpenter, asks, “What was the point of becoming qualified for that much?” It doesn’t cover his costs of going to work never mind the costs of becoming qualified.
   • Gosman 6.1

     19 January 2010 at 2:59 pm

     I presume your nephew didn’t apply for the job then, in which case what exactly is the problem?
     • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1

       19 January 2010 at 3:09 pm

       The problem is that people want to hire people for less than the costs necessary to do the job.
       • Graham 6.1.1.1

         19 January 2010 at 3:21 pm

         If your nephew is correct, then hopefully all other qualified carpenters who look at the ad will feel the same, and they won’t be able to hire anyone. They will either have to pay more, or not take on any contracts and go out of business.

         No problem.
         • prism 6.1.1.1.1

           20 January 2010 at 9:18 am

           Graham are you being ironic? The idea of paying people more than a living wage and that it reimburses the cost and effort in gaining qualifications is basic to an educated, modern, flourishing society.
           Forcing wage prices down is a downward move for society and its stability and aspirations of working people.
7. burt 7

   19 January 2010 at 3:38 pm

   [deleted] holiday antics

   [lprent: Silly.. ]
8. Bill 8

   19 January 2010 at 3:41 pm

   Ooops.

   Cadbury’s board agrees £12bn sale to Kraft

   “Cadbury unions have warned that up to 30,000 jobs would be put at risk by the deal as Kraft would be weighed down by some £22bn in debt. Kraft has a record of aggressive cost-cutting, and the union Unite said that between 2004 and 2008 it shed 19,000 jobs and closed 35 sites to help reduce its debt.”

   Any punt at the odds for Dunedin?
9. Nick C 9

   19 January 2010 at 5:09 pm

   What do people think of this?

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3239890/Union-rules-restrict-fire-volunteers
   • BLiP 9.1

     19 January 2010 at 5:17 pm

     How about if your boss called in some volunteers to do your job?
     • burt 9.1.1

       19 January 2010 at 7:16 pm

       If it saved peoples lives it would be hard to say your boss did a bad thing. But I guess if you put the collection of union subs ahead of the saving lives it is easy to agree with the unions.
10. Nick C 10

    19 January 2010 at 5:52 pm

    Ummmm, well if people were willing to do it then i dont see why not. My job isnt the sort which people would volinteer for though.

    But banning people from helping their own communities in their spare time is absurb and wrong. As the article says, the policy could cost lives.
    • BLiP 10.1

      19 January 2010 at 7:17 pm

      The deliberate failure to adequately provide for the safety of the community as a tactic to reduce wages is criminally absurd. Spinning this behaviour in the media so as to generate fear among the ignorant seems to be a typical National Ltd® tactic.
    • burt 10.2

      19 January 2010 at 7:22 pm

      The deliberate failure to adequately provide for the safety of the community as a tactic to reduce wages is criminally absurd.

      Yes indeed, like paying Dr’s, teachers, nurses etc so much less than they can earn in other counties that they leave NZ creating long waiting lists that people die on. Or is that OK as long as the full time staff are union members ?
      • BLiP 10.2.1

        19 January 2010 at 8:07 pm

        Not it’s not okay. The part time staff should be union members too.
        • Descendant Of Smith 10.2.1.1

          19 January 2010 at 8:34 pm

          Doesn’t the article say that all they have to do is get permission to ensure that conflicts of interest are identified and resolved?

          This seems quite important in the scenario given around issues of rank – in an emergency who has what authority to make decisions can mean quite a lot and there is reference to problems occurring in the past.

          It’s not unusual to find that the unions made the first safety rules to protect members health and safety on the job – not the employer.

          A look at any old union handbook for members will tell you that.
11. Tony Everitt 11

    20 January 2010 at 9:13 am

    Success at Copenhagen requires that we formally recognise carbon locked up in timber from plantations as a valid carbon sink. This is vital to encourage tree planting and putting the carbon back in the trees where it came from – the ultimate solution to global warming. http://www.greenbranz.org/?cat=23

Links to post

1. Copenhagen Accord « CLEAN & GREEN?: posted on 20 January 2010 at 9:02 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS