Open mike 21/11/2011

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, November 21st, 2011 - 101 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…

101 comments on “Open mike 21/11/2011”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Carol 1
    21 November 2011 at 6:55 am

    Winston’s going strong in a discussion with MPs from various parties on Pacific Viewpoint on Stratos right now. He’s called ational on not keeping their 2008 election promises, GST etc… Key’s Brighter Future is in Aussie. And he’s claimed he’s researched it and the new Conservative Party is really created by National, just like Act has become.

    • Simon 1.1
      23 November 2011 at 9:26 am

      Winston is using gutter politics, because the Conservative Party is trying to take his patch. He’s scared his voters will forget what he’s done for them, when the Conservatives offer the first $25,000 tax free. That would make pensions tax free, something promised, but never delivered, not even by Peters.

  2. tsmithfield 2
    21 November 2011 at 7:06 am

    How many lefties here are proud of this little gem that has come to the attention of whale oil.

    This is disgusting, misleading and just plain wrong on so many levels. I think it is more likely to turn people off than turn them on to Labour, so I say “more please”. However, it is still evidence of how far into the sewer some Labour campaigners have got.

    Here are some of my thoughts on this pamphlet.

    1. The first page appears to make the ludicrous claim that people will die before they see the first year of their child. It is not until they read further into the body of the leaflet that they find its true message. Yet many people just look at the headline and trash the leaflet as junk mail.

    2. It uses the National party logo without consent, which I assume breaches some law or another such as copyright infringement, or “passing off”.

    3. It actually advertises the National logo to people who have a fleeting view of the leaflet anyway.

    4. It is factually wrong. It claims that beneficiaries who become pregnant will have to go to work at one year after the birth of their child, when in fact the law will apply to only a limited class of beneficiaries. The semantics could be argued that it doesn’t specifiy all or some pregnant beneficiaries. But that is a fairly thin argument.

    5. And, the requirement is for these people to be “work ready”, so they won’t lose their benefits if they can’t get a job. So the claim that they will be forced to find work is false. If it were true, then it would contradict the arguments Labour has been making that the jobs aren’t there. How can people be forced into jobs that, according to Labour, don’t exist?

    So, IMO, a very shabby piece of gutter campaigning more likely to back-fire than fire up the voters.

    • kriswgtn 2.1
      21 November 2011 at 7:18 am

      fuk you talk some crap idiot
      get outside and do some exercise

      • tsmithfield 2.1.1
        21 November 2011 at 7:23 am

        I guess that means you like the leaflet, then. That wouldn’t surprise me.

        • kriswgtn 2.1.1.1
          21 November 2011 at 8:19 am

          wouldnt waste my time @ that slime site-i got banned hahahahah wayyyyy bk

          why dont you go bk there and live?
          free rent and all

    • tc 2.2
      21 November 2011 at 7:23 am

      Trolling on behalf of the fat man eh, or maybe that’s because its very close to your home……yawn.

      Come on TS you can do better than that or has sideshow hit the panic button so all his minions react accordingly.

      • tsmithfield 2.2.1
        21 November 2011 at 7:25 am

        Your unwillingness to condemn this piece of trash says a lot about you IMO.

        • Galeandra 2.2.1.1
          21 November 2011 at 7:39 am

          What sort of comments do you expect? I’ve still got your spit in my face. So Whaleoil is full of wild indignation about someone’s anonymous bit of politicing. Gosh.

    • The Voice of Reason 2.3
      21 November 2011 at 7:24 am

      Try a dose of reality, ts. Government policy is killing our kids. Now that’s really shabby.

      • tsmithfield 2.3.1
        21 November 2011 at 7:56 am

        Nice try at diversion TVOR. Of course, these problems stem back into Labour’s nine years in office. So why would a vote for Labour change these outcomes?

        So what do you think of the leafleat?

        • Colonial Viper 2.3.1.1
          21 November 2011 at 8:12 am

          I back it 100%. What’s the problem?

          So why would a vote for Labour change these outcomes?

          Because Labour has children at the centre of its policies, whereas National has multimillionaires at the centre of theirs.

        • kty 2.3.1.2
          21 November 2011 at 9:33 am

          To the best of my knowledge official autherised leaflets and flyers that are sent by the postal system are sent under a permit system and do not require a stamp.The upsidedown autherisation makes it look cheap and like a failed attempt at cut, copy and paste on a computer,

    • freedom 2.4
      21 November 2011 at 8:21 am

      As usual your selective interpretation is at work,
      1. “you won’t be around …” is a statement that the parent will be elsewhere, i.e. not at their child’s birthday,nothing more sinister than that. But you know that already and could not help the juvenile claim of sensationalist bs.

      2. They have used the brand image, as is allowed for any representational presentation of an organisation in correspondence.

      3. Yawn

      4.” But that is a fairly thin argument. ” said it yourself

      5. There are no jobs, there will be no jobs. The work referred to is the work for the benefit programmes that National are so keen to bring in. You know, the ones the Rebstock report custom wrote for National earlier this year.

      overall a not very warm fuzzy pamphlet but your reaction is about as over the top as we would expect .

      Since you are so concerned about people defending the actions of others, care to defend your great leader’s statements about the Police having spare time when crimes go uninvestigated
      http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/6002076/Thief-to-hand-herself-in-after-police-fail-to-act

    • ianmac 2.5
      21 November 2011 at 10:42 am

      Goodness me! “It claims that beneficiaries who become pregnant will have to go to work at one year after the birth of their child, when in fact the law will apply to only a limited class of beneficiaries. “
      And here was I thinking that Key/Bennett were making that the major selling point of their policy. You say ts that it is only for a few and then only work ready. Please tell your mates that they must be misleading or even lying to us.

    • Galeandra 2.6
      21 November 2011 at 12:04 pm

      National desperate in New Plymouth. Orange add-on to billboard telling the blue-rinsed to be sure to vote on Saturday, ‘it’s “crucial”.

    • William Joyce 2.7
      21 November 2011 at 2:52 pm

      TS, you really are a mean spirited, heartless individual if you think that this flyer is not only offensive but is important enough that you would go to battle over.
      This country has so many real world problems that make the lives of its citizens a misery. The health, education, well-being, and future of our children are at stake.
      And all you can do is bitch about some perceived offence in this letter.
      The only people complaining about it that I can see are pro-National people who just couldn’t wait to ship it off to whaleoil – of all people! – you would think that for the average citizen whaleoil would not be the first person to come to mind when you wanted to complain. They would think of the MSM if they were genuine, unbiased recipients.
      Unless of course you’re already a follower of His Magnitude as he leaves a trail across the mudflats of his miserable existence.
      This is manufactured outrage – no more, no less.

    • mik e 2.8
      21 November 2011 at 6:00 pm

      Insider your leader has promised 170,000 jobs 3years ago
      now 60,000 unemployed you must have some
      insider information NO jobs now is it at least that’s closer to the truth than your leaders claims
      Extrapolating Mankeys job figures 170,000 jobs = 60,000 more unemployed +100,000 to Aus
      60,000new job next term of govt must given your leaders claims above = 170,000more unemployed + 300,000 to AUS
      Insider trading thanks for insider info!

  3. logie97 3
    21 November 2011 at 7:12 am

    So Key reckons that Peters will hold the country to ransom.

    Oh yeah, and if Key is re elected, he will sell a king’s ransom (and more).

    • Colonial Viper 3.1
      21 November 2011 at 8:28 am

      Oh that’s a good line. Winston will hold our country’s ransom. Key will flog it off first chance he gets.

    • ianmac 3.2
      21 November 2011 at 10:44 am

      What really worries Key is that he would have to back down from his clever unbending anti-Peters line and negotiate with Winston. Loss of face?

  4. Huginn 4
    21 November 2011 at 7:32 am

    “a politically charged tune that will have left-leaners fist-pumping, and Key supporters frowning.”

    from Home Brew, Tourrettes and Matthew Crawley

    “5500 listens in 24 hours, we’ve run out of free downloads on Soundcloud… So here it is:

    http://homebrew.bandcamp.com/track/listen-to-us-feat-tourettes

    released 15 November 2011
    Produced by Haz Beats
    Raps by Tom & Tourettes
    Guest vocals by Esther Stephens & Matthew Crawley
    Recorded by Jyeah & DJ Substance
    Mixed by DJ Substance

  5. Pete George 5
    21 November 2011 at 7:47 am

    Polls show voters want an alternative to National sole rule, and see Labour as lost in bewilderment. Peters has surged on this sentiment but now voters will have a closer look at what that really means.

    In difficult times (and if Europe crashes it could get much more difficult) that leaves a stark choice, Winston’s antics versus safe and reliable Peter Dunne and United Future.

    Critical choice – Winsome’s ransom versus United Future. What sort of future do we want?

    • Colonial Viper 5.1
      21 November 2011 at 8:01 am

      UF – where you are promised everything except good hair days.

    • mickysavage 5.2
      21 November 2011 at 8:06 am

      Geez Petey where is your authoriser’s statement.

      Dunne would not know what to do.  His answer to deficits is to give middle class tax cuts.  He thinks his super policy will make super more affordable even thought it is defined as being cost neutral.

      There is a third choice.  Don’t waste your vote on United Follicles and vote for a real party of change.  Labour or Greens will do nicely.

      • Chris 5.2.1
        21 November 2011 at 8:59 am

        His authoriser statement is down the bottom of the page.

      • Colonial Viper 5.2.2
        21 November 2011 at 9:01 am

        Too many upper middle class Green committee members are ready to sell out to John Key. And it seems he is good with the idea.

        http://www.nzherald.co.nz/election-2011/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503012&objectid=10767544

        • Uturn 5.2.2.1
          21 November 2011 at 10:38 am

          They get comfortable, get old, get scared, then sell out their kids. Normal Kiwi behaviour. Nothing can explain the sudden purposeful naivety of a politician believing Key will follow up his sweet nothings with commitment. She should ask herself, if Key gets a majority, will he still call her in the morning?

          Anyone who’s worked in a corporate knows Key’s behaviour. There are two ways to expose his real intentions: try to get him to commit, set a formal meeting or even just discuss his plans in detail, or literally tell him to F-off. The result will be the same.

    • NickS 5.3
      21 November 2011 at 8:53 am

      Nothing that involves a known sellout who’ll sidle up to whoever promises him power and merrily allies himself with the failed remnants of NZ’s religious right.

    • Ben 5.4
      21 November 2011 at 9:26 am

      What I’d really like to understand – and I realise I harp on about this a fair bit – is how UF can use the tagline of “Fairness & Choice” while blocking any attempt to make changes to our (hideously failed) drug laws.

      How is it “Fair” to criminalise people for electing to imbibe one mind altering chemical over another?

      How can we have “Choice” when we don’t even have dominion over our own consciousness?

      “Fairness and Choice” – as long as you play by our rules, and make your choices from the options we give you.

      What a load of bollocks. It is a good tagline – most people support the concepts of fairness and choice – but it’s a complete lie (see also: “Fair and balanced.”).

      • Uturn 5.4.1
        21 November 2011 at 10:50 am

        As a general rule, any political party that reduces it’s policy to a subjective fuzzy slogan means to apply the exact opposite of the positive interpretation of said slogan to all but their target demographic. For example:

        A Decent Society
        A Brighter Future

        It will be a bright, decent, life for those in the top 5%.

        There are also deceitful twists: “Balance the books sooner” actually means,

        “get rich quick”

        and like all those schemes, it’s theft in everything but name.

        It is a strange and demoralising language with plenty of grey areas. Own your Future, is a fuzzy slogan too, but it is supported by the absolute of No Asset sales, so the chances of follow through are above 75%.

        • Ben 5.4.1.1
          21 November 2011 at 1:22 pm

          True, UTurn. Very true.

          I’m just interested that I never get a response from Petey Boy on any point I raise regarding UF and Peter Done-His-Dash (hopefully!).

          In my experience, failing to address a legitimate point is the behaviour of a coward. Even people who know their views are flawed will answer the question if they have any guts.

    • mik e 5.5
      21 November 2011 at 6:03 pm

      UF was in coalition with peters twice before no doubt will be again follicle!

  6. Banter 6
    21 November 2011 at 8:21 am

    Once again Key refuses to front on RNZ this morning to debate Goff.
    Listening now to Goff on his own in an extended interview – he is getting very passionate and is doing well

    • marsman 6.1
      21 November 2011 at 8:38 am

      Guess John Key’s continual no show is part of National’s SCAMpaign strategy

      • kty 6.1.1
        21 November 2011 at 10:01 am

        makes you wonder, will he show up tonight for the debate ?.

        • ianmac 6.1.1.1
          21 November 2011 at 11:19 am

          Wondered too but he will need to hammer his Labour/money line and now more urgently have a go at Winston and repeat the line as often as possible. Bet on Hooton doing the same this morning- last chance to manipulate us. Ha.

          • ianmac 6.1.1.1.1
            21 November 2011 at 11:29 am

            Ha! Hooton is using the whole time bagging Winston. Wow. They must be really scared of not getting an Election win. The Nat weakness/vulnerability can be grabbed by voting Winston.

    • Deuto 6.2
      21 November 2011 at 8:49 am

      A good interview – Goff came across clear and precise and on message. The interview approach was also reasonable for once – not so aggressive, negative as it has been to Goff in recent months.

      At the start of the interview, the explanation given for Key not accepting was that he or his advisors said that he has/was participating in four leaders’ debates and that he did not have time to prepare for more than that – or words to that effect. Excuse me, but debating with the leaders of other parties in an election campaign should be his top priority!

      • Lanthanide 6.2.1
        21 November 2011 at 9:46 am

        Goff should make the point that any CGT is always going to have a ramp up period. If we don’t introduce the CGT and ramp it up now, then when it is eventually introduced it’ll have a ramp up period.

        If they keep putting it off for this excuse, then it’ll never be implemented, when it clearly needs to be.

  7. Blue 7
    21 November 2011 at 8:54 am

    Welcome to New Zealand, where kids die from poverty and no one cares.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6002311/Shock-look-at-NZs-child-poverty

    We’d rather punish their parents than help them, and it’s only going to get worse when National starts ‘reforming’ the welfare system.

    What will happen to these kids if their parents fail a drug test and get their benefit cut in half?

    • Draco T Bastard 7.1
      21 November 2011 at 10:37 am

      Grant Robinson has a post up at Red Alert about what Labour plan to do about this.

      • Jenny 7.1.1
        21 November 2011 at 11:38 am

        Investment in children is not being given enough of a priority, and that needs to change. Our fully costed plan will make that change happen over six years.

        Labour’s policy for children

        Draco, why will our children suffering now, have to wait 6 years (obviously) conditional on Labour being in power for two electoral cycles)?

        Labour supporters like yourself should be ashamed of this deliberate and opportunist delay when children are suffering now.

        Mana’s John Minto has slammed “Labour’s policy for children” as a non-promise.

        One concrete measure to address child poverty that is mentioned in the Swedish example is providing free meals in schools.

        Shock look at NZ’s child poverty

        Inside Child Poverty: A Special Report, set to air this week, Wellington documentary maker Bryan Bruce shows a Swedish doctor footage of sick, scab-ridden schoolchildren suffering from preventable diseases in Porirua and asks if he saw similar situations in his country.
        The doctor shakes his head: “In the 70s, maybe.”……..

        ……..As part of the study, Mr Bruce visited Sweden – a country once considered similar to New Zealand – and found that children there received free healthcare, were provided a free meal a day at school and were free from diseases associated with poverty.

        Mana have costed their policy for supplying free breakfasts and lunches for low decile schools.

        From MANA Foreign Policy Spokesperson John Minto’s Foreign Policy release – Sunday 20 November

        The headline point from the policy

        1. Bring the troops back from Afghanistan and use the money to feed kids in decile 1 to 3 schools.

        Our troops in Afghanistan are involved in an imperial war on behalf of the US. We are helping prop up an illegitimate government of drug barons and war lords. We are seen quite rightly as foreign invaders and our presence increases the possibility of New Zealand becoming a terrorist target in future.

        The $40 million we would save would be used to kick-start our “feed the kids” program which would roll out for all New Zealand children at school to provide healthy breakfasts and lunches. We would start at decile 1 to 3 primary schools at a cost of around $38 million.

        • Draco T Bastard 7.1.1.1
          21 November 2011 at 11:58 am

          I’m not a Labour supporter. I was going to vote Green but I’ve seriously been considering voting Mana as their policies have filled out. They’re still talking about maintaining the capitalist ideology though. Of course, all the political parties are which just proves their complete misunderstanding of economics

          • Uturn 7.1.1.1.1
            21 November 2011 at 12:05 pm

            To answer your question on Red Alert: Only the Greens have a policy plan to have rental properties rated for energy efficiency (mandatory), which includes insulation. They will extend the current scheme for insulating, but it will not stop slum lords operating. It will however give some people an insight into how it will be to live in a particular home.

          • Galeandra 7.1.1.1.2
            21 November 2011 at 12:11 pm

            They’re still talking about maintaining the capitalist ideology though. Of course, all the political parties are which just proves their complete misunderstanding of economics

            I’m not a fan of free market totalitarianism either, but I think pragmatic left policy recognizes that capitalism isn’t so much about economics as it is about psychology and sociology. I’m inclined to Green but resent its bluishness as of now.

          • Jenny 7.1.1.1.3
            21 November 2011 at 5:21 pm

            I’m not a Labour supporter.

            Draco T Bastard

            Sorry for mistaking you for a Labour Party supporter, Draco. I am kicking myself for being so insensitive. Sorry for the insult.

            I thought you were touting Labour’s opportunistically conditional policy for dealing with childhood poverty and hunger in this country of extraordinary wealth.

        • Uturn 7.1.1.2
          21 November 2011 at 12:02 pm

          I do not mean to answer for Draco, but to suggest Labour will do nothing for 6 years is incorrect. Their immediate push to improve the lot of struggling people is the increase in minimum wage and the $5K tax free threshold – which also applies to beneficiaries. Then there is the removal of GST on fruit/veges – small but useful. This is the first steps in lowering the cost of living to people who need a hand the most. It is not a silver bullet, but it is at least a firm commitment. Other measures such as free healthcare to under 6’s will phase in gradually.

          • just saying 7.1.1.2.1
            21 November 2011 at 12:26 pm

            This is becoming a real bug-bear for me*. The tax-free threshold is a benefit for all taxpayers, including multimillionaires like Key. The argument that the threshold is for the benefit of the poor simply on the grounds that the poor will appreciate the extra money more, is, to my mind offensive. If Labour had targeted all of the expenditure that this measure will cost to those in need, it would make a big difference.

            Same with the GST off fruit and veges. Where does Labour get off saying that because there are people in dire need they will give everyone a small amount extra to address it rather than, you know, actually addressing the need. It would be like providing the equivalent of 5 cents to every human on earth as a response to an emergency affecting a much smaller number of people in Eastern Europe for example.

            *Not directed specifically at you uturn, you are just the latest person to say this.

            • Uturn 7.1.1.2.1.1
              21 November 2011 at 1:10 pm

              These are valid points and ones Jenny argues in her post above. Why don’t Labour, why don’t The Greens, why doesn’t anyone? Why don’t we all call a meeting of our local community and take back the problem? Why do we rely on the comfortable distance of redistributed income tax instead of getting up close and personal with the people we say we support, or for that matter, hate?

              First on the lists of why is that government is a balancing act within a corrupted system. You can’t simply take jillions of dollars from, say, infrastructure projects and build McDonald’s-esque food houses for card carrying poor people to patronise. To attempt such a thing would shake our culture of greed, earning and profit so severly it’s hard to imagine the unintended results/backlash.

              Second on the list is that if we allow government to dictate how and when assistance happens, we’ll lose control of our communities every time there is a change of government, effectively undermining our goals.

              Third would be that some people will be better suited to assist from a distance and some up close. At least intially. Not everyone is or can be the same, but then not everyone who is poor is the same. People are still people.

              I think that in the end, poverty must be challenged face to face, one on one, at whatever the cost. As an intermediary step, people not in poverty need to think about everything they consume, everything they want to buy and streamline the things they have, but don’t use. Give excess away to people at a disadvantage who can use them. Don’t buy stuff no one needs – like the other day I saw a tool for taking chips out of the bag so you don’t get greasy fingers.

              When choosing entertainment, try to find it in the company of others first, not on an X-box by default. Make conversation rather than listen to the distraction of TV, pop music and beer. Work on neighbourhood projects together. Share problems. Keep an eye on the fortunes of the people around you. If they’re doing fine, leave them be; if they are falling below the bread line, help them to regain their feet – for free. Learn about other people, learn about yourself – respect both. Listen to what others say, not just the response and ideas in your own head. Take time.

              Small changes in atittude and reduction of waste will have a gradual indirect influence on poverty. Understanding why it is right will ease the pain of giving up the “getting ahead” mindset.

              • just saying …
                21 November 2011 at 3:27 pm

                A: “Why do we rely on the comfortable distance of redistributed income tax B: instead of getting up close and personal with the people we say we support, or for that matter, hate?”

                A: Because poverty is lack of resources just as scurvy is lack of vitamin C. The immediate need in both cases is what is lacking. B: Community korero is great and certainly not mutually exclusive. But it is no substitute for what is lacking. Funnily enough, poor communities have less material resources to share. We have enough resources in NZ, they don’t need to be rationed out of the hands of the poor. As for “up close and personal” speak for yourself.

                “You can’t simply take jillions of dollars from, say, infrastructure projects …”

                I specifically said that targeting help where it is needed instead of a big, sparse, lolly scramble, would make a huge difference. If the tax-free threshold is such small change that is is only the poor that get any benefit from it, don’t give a bit to everyone. Use the resources where they are needed most. In health we don’t give everyone a small proceedure regularly, regardless of need, and tell those needing heart surgery, for example, that they can have a free mole removal, like everyone else.

                “McDonald’s-esque food houses for card carrying poor people to patronise…”

                Are you taking the piss here, or is that as far as your imagination can take you?

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  21 November 2011 at 7:21 pm

                  A: Because poverty is lack of resources just as scurvy is lack of vitamin C.

                  No it’s not, it’s a misallocation of available resources caused by the capitalist free-market. Although it will turn into a lack of resources over time as all available resources are used up ASAP by the capitalist free-market.

          • just saying 7.1.1.2.2
            21 November 2011 at 12:29 pm

            Quick note to the moderator. My email address (and therefore my pictogram) has changed because I’ve changed server. I assume this is the reason my last comment went into moderation.

            [sprout: correct, first comments from a new email are auto-moderated]

            • Draco T Bastard 7.1.1.2.2.1
              21 November 2011 at 1:05 pm

              http://en.gravatar.com/

              You can upload a pic and associate it with an email address and change the address when you change ISPs. You can also go get a gmail or similar account and so get a permanent email address.

              • just saying …
                21 November 2011 at 3:30 pm

                Ta Draco.
                I’ve moved to orcon (miles cheaper) and the email addresses are mine for life.
                I think I will organise a gravatar though. Really don’t like my new pictogram.

  8. freedom 8
    21 November 2011 at 9:13 am

    a recurring thought, feel free to share it around,

    No-one likes giving their money to a Banker, so why would you give your Vote to one?

  9. joe90 9
    21 November 2011 at 9:17 am

    What will happen to these kids if their parents fail a drug test and get their benefit cut in half?

    I would imagine something like this.

    Thanks to a federal ban on food stamps for people with felony drug convictions, people like McLemore are out of luck when it comes to getting assistance with putting food on their tables. Though states can opt out of the ban, those that don’t (like Mississsippi) deny food stamps even to individuals who have already served their sentences or overcome previous addictions. It’s true that McLemore’s past isn’t perfect — she has four felony drug convictions and one misdemeanor, which place her firmly in the category of people the federal government has declared unfit to receive public benefits. Hence, faced with the prospect of being unable to feed her family, McLemore lied on her application.

    • NickS 9.1
      21 November 2011 at 9:27 am

      Welcome to the war on drugs, where once convicted you’re fucked for life, unless you’re rich that is.

      Note also that loan fraudsters get far lower sentences for a crime that impacted negatively far more than one person lying so they and their kids could eat. Justice this is not.

  10. NickS 10
    21 November 2011 at 9:20 am

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/11/17/huge-lakes-of-water-may-exist-under-europas-ice/

    Fucking awesome. although having mucked around with origin of life stuff in uni, sunlight isn’t entirely needed, as warm seeps can kick out a wide range of simple to complex organic molecules*, while black smokers provide various sulphates than can be oxidised to provide an energy source for life. Although what we need to do is send probes into the ice, and even into the black depths of Europa to find signs of “life”, which isn’t as straightforward as you’d think**

    ________________________
    * In biochem land, this means multiple chiral centres.
    ** aka philosophy of biology fun land, or at it’s simplest “life is a heat engine, exploiting thermodynamic gradients for reproduction, thus creating more entropy”. I’d also argue it’s not time dependent, which causes all sorts of fun-times for the human mind…

    • Colonial Viper 10.1
      21 November 2011 at 3:27 pm

      Its not time dependent? Or rather can occur on scales so large (or small) that it appears not to be time dependent?

  11. Bill 11
    21 November 2011 at 9:20 am

    just commenting to see if it comes through.

    [lprent: Sorry – been obsessed with correlations for e-day. I will have another look at this. Found and fixed. Moderators – if you’re going to do blacklist DO NOT tag the persons name. ]

  12. baffeled 12
    21 November 2011 at 9:31 am

    People forget Peter Dunne was Labour MP THEN feel out of bed and ended up looking like Act with a red face
    He seems to win the personality stakes for all time in NZ politics without a scratch

    He almost fits the proposition that all MPs should be elected as independents to reduce the enormous drain on the voters sanity supporting the BS of party politicing

    The shock of having to be standing and winning on their own may cause such a melt down of honesty that the people might even take it very seriously that we are a puppet state of the international corporations and have serious problems that will eventually drive us to join Australia so we can survive

    Physically we are one of the most endangered island country’s in the world

    Get a little unsettled NZ and WAKE UP

  14. joe90 14
    21 November 2011 at 12:47 pm

    NYT: U.N. Panel Finds Climate Change Behind Some Extreme Weather Events

    The findings were released at a conference in Kampala, Uganda, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a high-profile United Nations body assigned to review and report periodically on developments in climate research. They come at a time of unusual weather disasters around the globe, from catastrophic flooding in Asia and Australia to blizzards, floods, heat waves, droughts, wildfires and windstorms in the United States that have cost billions of dollars.

    “A hotter, moister atmosphere is an atmosphere primed to trigger disasters,” said Michael Oppenheimer, a Princeton University climate scientist and a principal author of the new report. “As the world gets hotter, the risk gets higher.” …

    The new report on extreme weather, one of a string of reports that the panel is issuing on relatively narrow issues, did not break much ground scientifically, essentially refining findings that have been emerging in climate science papers in recent years.

    Indeed, the delegates meeting in Kampala adopted scientifically cautious positions in some areas. For instance, some researchers have presented evidence suggesting that hurricanes are growing more intense because of climate change, but the report sided with a group of experts who say that such a claim is premature.

    Nonetheless, the report predicted that certain types of weather extremes will grow more numerous and more intense as human-induced global warming worsens in coming decades.

    “It is virtually certain that increases in the frequency and magnitude of warm daily temperature extremes and decreases in cold extremes will occur in the 21st century on the global scale,” the report said. “It is likely that the frequency of heavy precipitation or the proportion of total rainfall from heavy falls will increase in the 21st century over many areas of the globe.”

    By the end of the century, if greenhouse emissions continue unabated, the type of heat wave that now occurs once every 20 years will be occurring every couple of years across large areas of the planet, the report predicted.

  15. joe90 15
    21 November 2011 at 1:06 pm

    Conflicts across the globe that don’t make the headlines: Wars in the World

    Also, from Tidy Read: War nesw updates.

  16. Jackal 16
    21 November 2011 at 1:23 pm

    Here’s a little video mash up of the Teapot tapes footage: Teapot tape debacle

  17. Lanthanide 17
    21 November 2011 at 2:11 pm

    Poor Brash: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6005840/Brash-leaves-leadership-door-ajar-for-Isaac

    I caught this bit of the interview and I don’t think it’s been fairly represented in that story. The thing with Brash is that he’s not like other politicians – he’s quite politically naive. He’ll say what he thinks and is generally up-front about it. Other politicians (Key is a master at it and Goff does it as well) answer questions couched in ways that the listener thinks they’ve said something but they can later come back and ‘clarify’ or refute. Brash on the other hand just says it with little beating around the bush. Political journalists hear this from Brash and think that there really must be more going on behind his words than he’s letting on (as they would be with any other politician), but really in Brash’s case there isn’t any cloak and dagger skullduggery at all.

    • just saying 17.1
      21 November 2011 at 2:58 pm

      Contra argument: The hollow men.
      He may not be much good at it, but he is dishonest.

      On the other hand, Like Te Mana, representatives of parties that aren’t competing for Mr and Ms Middle seem to be far more able to be frank about what they believe.

  18. Uturn 18
    21 November 2011 at 2:36 pm

    Sounds like he’s confirmed some of the rumoured contents of the teapots, reaffirmed his consent to the Act/Nat plan, reaffirmed National are in trouble and signalled he is stepping away from the increasingly stinky dung heap it’s all become. He has inadvertently hung a closed for business sign on ACT too – nothing more than an organisation in name only for the machinations of National.

  19. AAMC 19
    21 November 2011 at 3:11 pm

    Been away for a week, so this may be a repeat if somebody else has posted it, but this is a great election track from Avondale’s finest! Must listen.

  20. Jim Nald 20
    21 November 2011 at 3:43 pm

    Are you a Kiwi? Am I a Kiwi? Are we Kiwis?

    Well, John Key is now presuming to speak on your behalf:

    “Key: Kiwis Support Asset Sales”
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10767604

    Will we be selling our assets?
    Will you be voting?

    Presumptuous twit. Punish the prick

    • Draco T Bastard 20.1
      21 November 2011 at 4:57 pm

      All the polls I’ve seen show that ~85% of people oppose asset sales, ergo, this must be Jonkey trying to rewrite reality so that it conforms with his ideology.

  24. logie97 24
    21 November 2011 at 5:32 pm

    You can see where NACT get their education policy. There is nothing new under the sun.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/nov/20/schools-michael-gove-behaviour-adviser

    Just one day, sometime down the track, parents might be required to take a little bit more personal responsibility ensuring that they are sending their children to school, well rested, well fed, suitably attired and in the right frame of mind to learn.

    It would appear that at the moment it’s the schools’ responsibility to attend to this and also deliver the curriculum to meet the standards.

  25. Herodotus 25
    21 November 2011 at 5:33 pm

    As it is unlawful not to be enrolled to vote? What is the penalty and has anyone ever been convicted? Therer was reported 240k not currently enrolled for this election

  26. Jackal 26
    21 November 2011 at 5:33 pm

    Personal gain from privatisation?

    Well there is one reason why John Key might undertake such an exercise… to ensure that New Zealand has to undertake asset sales to service the huge amounts of debt that National has mismanaged us into…

  27. Joanne Perkins 27
    21 November 2011 at 7:25 pm

    WTF, is John Key drunk? certainly looks like it

  28. kriswgtn 28
    21 November 2011 at 7:26 pm

    http://www.times-age.co.nz/news/key-drops-in-on-school-unit-and-visits-jnl-mill/982641/

    What a fucking hypocrite Key is

    This unit set up to catch these kids that fall through the cracks,has a 85 % pass rate is being closed by this government

    Shame on you bastards

    This has really pissed me off

    Key lied to get into power by using this as a example, among many others

    Absolutely disgusting

  29. Joanne Perkins 29
    21 November 2011 at 7:56 pm

    Act has apparently been a Stolid partner

  30. AAMC 30
    21 November 2011 at 8:54 pm

    Anonymous steps it up with the first release of their newly acquired database in response to Pepper spray incident..

  31. lprent 31
    21 November 2011 at 9:15 pm

    Sorry to those of you using the WSIWYG editor, I’m going to have to disable it so it doesn’t interfere with the caching system I just turned on.

    Bit of a load tonight.

    • lprent 31.1
      21 November 2011 at 9:27 pm

      Ok. That eased the situation considerably… The main server is now handling the load. I have to find some time to get that wee editor working nicely with the cache.

      Now it is spiking to very high CPU, not locking on 95+% CPU. Cache makes a lot of difference.

  34. austrialien 34
    21 November 2011 at 10:02 pm

    Is it not often noted that different ethic groups have defining body language ?

    The striking similarities in our PM’s physical gestures to some of the history footage of the 1930’s&40’s of another politician known for lying and debasing the truth to gain political power .

    Just an observation and a guide to the validity of the rhetoric being charged to the taxpayer

  35. Red Baron 35
    21 November 2011 at 10:14 pm

    Like Ben what I’d really like to understand is how UF can use the tagline of “Family Friendly ”, want to have the Families Commission, try to split tax for the stay at home partner in the middle/ upper income brackets whilst cuddling up to the Nact party that spends it’s time slagging off the parent who takes the huge financial and emotional hit involved in bringing up the kids by themselves.(and this is all too often the parent protecting the kids from family violence.)

    Some parents are more equal than others ……

  36. lprent 36
    21 November 2011 at 11:42 pm

    Another day, another record day. It hasn’t happened since Thursday last week. According to statcounter.
    Top page views in a day
    Top unique visits in a day.

    Much of it in the hour after the debate when I’m sure we hit our highest page views per hour. Looked like 5000pv in a bit over n hour.

    Comment load looks pretty high as well.

  • Comments are now closed

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Older posts

Older posts

Older posts