Open mike 23/01/2010

Written By: - Date published: 8:37 am, January 23rd, 2010 - 21 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

mike

Topics of interest, announcements, general discussion. The usual rules apply (see the link to Policy in the banner).

Step right up to the mike…

21 comments on “Open mike 23/01/2010 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. schrodigers cat 1
    23 January 2010 at 9:15 am

    I heard Key talking about how the MNACT government is trying new things in social interventions.

    to paraphrase he said –
    If you keep doing the same thing you will get the same results

    I am having difficulty reconciling this with the 3 strikes stuff, being second in the west for numbers imprisoned by population obviously has not made crime go away, but it seems that the only direction to go to them is to aim for the top spot.

    The Labour party wears blame for this too, by getting into the tough on crime arms race.

    Why can’t we see the youth intervention and offender treatment and rehab programs fully funded and given a chance?

    • prism 1.1
      23 January 2010 at 12:10 pm

      scat
      I noticed that Key spoke carefully when he repeated the clever phrase about doing the same thing leads to the same result. I think it was written on his palm by his speech writer.

      Just thought of a name for Mr Keys who I feel has the popular mythic public regard of King Arthur, what about King John of Charmalot. Any comments?

      • BLiP 1.1.1
        23 January 2010 at 2:42 pm

        King John of Charmalot – I’m lovin’ it 🙂

        • prism 1.1.1.1
          23 January 2010 at 6:00 pm

          Thanks BliP
          And there is a tune from film Camelot that King J could sing when feeling thoughtful –

          “What do the simple folk do
          To help them escape when they’re blue?….
          ….When they’re beset and besieged
          The folk not noblessly obliged
          However do they manage to shed their weary lot?
          Oh, what do simple folk do we do not?”

          • BLiP 1.1.1.1.1
            23 January 2010 at 7:51 pm

            Heh!! When it comes to Camelot I was thinking more of this song for John Key.

            ñℱÂȘ ùℹ« . . . better keep the critics cheerful
            they’re such a solemn bunch
            hus – tle , bus – tle
            and only an hour for lunch . . . ñℱÂȘ ùℹ«

    • Bill 1.2
      23 January 2010 at 12:19 pm

      The more I look at this stuff, the more I conclude the problem is that ‘the state’ has to look at the various instances of violent crime etc on an individual basis. Today we lock up the individuals concerned because we tried the only other option and to admit to the underlying causes of these expressions of societal breakdown and rectify them would require a revolution.

      Seriously.

      The social democrats have done all the tinkering around the edges with limited results. You can rehab all you want, but all that does if successful is instil a measure of acceptance of unconscionable social disparities in the individual while allowing the systemic effects of capitalisms institutions to slip on by unacknowledged.

      Option a and b are perfect strategies of avoidance.

      Option c is meant to be unthinkable.

    • Draco T Bastard 1.3
      23 January 2010 at 12:22 pm

      An interesting and misleading comment by JK considering the simple fact that he’s leader of a conservative government who’s sole purpose is to keep doing things the same way. Who’s political party believes that all answers lie in the past.

      About the only thing that they’ll change is the phrasing.

  2. Eric C. 2
    23 January 2010 at 9:27 am

    Here’s what I don’t get on the tax debate. John Key and Bill English keep telling us that the only way to stop wealthy tax dodgers who hide income in trusts to avoid tax is to lower the top personal income tax rate to match the top trust tax rate. Media dutifully repeat this as the only option, like they did again in the papers today.

    But, if the purpose of such tax changes is to stop tax avoidance, why not increase the top tax rate on trusts to match that of the top personal tax rate?

    The additional money raised from a higher rate on all of this income John Key tells us people (mostly National members and voters) are hiding in their trusts would mean the top tax rate on both could be lowered to somewhere between the two.

    Wouldn’t that be fairer than asking average Kiwis to pay more tax to help these guys make their tax avoidance look acceptable?

    • prism 2.1
      23 January 2010 at 12:16 pm

      eric c
      Your thinking about taxing trusts more fairly sounds reasonable. When you think about small as well as large businesspeople having to pay provisional tax on future as yet unearned and guessed at revenue, then changing tax structures for such financial safety vehicles doesn’t seem wrong.
      The hard working small businessperson gets slammed with taxes. The high earning professional or successful businessperson can often surf the tax wave while the small traders and tradespeople get dumped.

  3. NickS 3
    23 January 2010 at 10:30 am

    Today’s PhD comic is teh brilliant:
    http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1271

    Not that we’re likely to ever see the media learn, let alone use even basic statistics, particularly when it gets in the way of a story.

  4. felix 4
    23 January 2010 at 11:31 am

    Anyone else been noticing the comments from the kbr around here (and elsewhere) about the Massachusetts result that put the lie to their feigned lack of interest (only afterward, mind you) in the Mt Albert result?

  5. randal 5
    23 January 2010 at 11:47 am

    hey what about Willie A.
    this is another example of the juvenility and puerile attitudes of so called journalists in New Zealand.
    apart from the fact that most of them are basically illiterate they think they can do anything to get a scoop even if it costs someone elses life.
    about time they had their tailfeathers plucked and got a good reminder that all the piffle they teach them at J school aint wortha dime when they have to confront fighting men face to face.
    sign off on that one dudes.

    • Bill 5.1
      23 January 2010 at 12:04 pm

      You talking about that photo op… the ‘Boys Own Adventure’ prop..the be proud of ‘our boys’ pap?

      It’s all deliberate spin randal. There was no irresponsible journalism beyond that required to play the toady.

  6. Draco T Bastard 6
    23 January 2010 at 1:10 pm

    Noticed this article by I/S over at No Right Turn.

    That’s backed up by criminologist Greg Newbold – who having actually served time in prison, could be considered to know what he’s talking about. Unlike the politicians in National and ACT. But there’s a bigger concern: that the new law is an outright incentive for murder:

    Howard League for Penal Reform president Peter Williams, QC, said some criminals with a record may kill in order to avoid being caught by police.

    “If people realise that if they are going to be arrested, they are going to be in there [prison] for their natural life, there may be circumstances where they are going to kill,” Mr Williams said.

    There’s a problem with the 3 strikes law and that is that it’s not going to decrease crime but make the crime worse. In passing such a law the present government should probably be charged with criminal negligence at the very least and, possibly, intent to commit murder. They can’t be ignorant of these findings.

  7. Zorr 7
    23 January 2010 at 3:04 pm

    From Newswipe with Charlie Brooker

    Section by Doug Stanhope that I felt was particularly well structured and very insightful.

  8. prism 8
    23 January 2010 at 4:10 pm

    3 strikes and you’re out – good to get your tongue around.
    Real people making real progress against criminals.
    Naive question – where do criminals come from daddy? Never mind son, we don’t talk about this – just react. That’s what real men do.
    We also look the other way when the violent acts are committed by sports stars and commentators. These are people whose behaviour is affected by a different sort of law.
    But we want to provide clear pathways for career education and the criminal class has places ready and waiting in the university of life haha! We wouldn’t want to give them too many other options and support them and their parents to acquire life skills early, just a waste of time and money boy! Lock them up and throw away the key – that’s what I say. The cost will come out of the public budget, it won’t affect us boy. That’ll teach them to not be like me boy!

  9. BLiP 9
    24 January 2010 at 2:12 am

    Yikes!! Its after 2am and I’m still up reading / commenting on blogs. Shhhh – don’t tell the kids.

  10. Zorr 10
    24 January 2010 at 4:38 am

    Not as bad as me BLiP. Up at 4am with my son because his mum is in hospital (new son) and his sleep is all screwed up.

    Anyway, just a note here for anyone who is posting early today. Take a look at the latest SCOTUS ruling. Corporations now have complete First Amendment rights. United Corporate States of America here we come (thanks to Keith Olbermann for that one) :P.

    • BLiP 10.1
      24 January 2010 at 3:03 pm

      Congratulations on the arrival of the bairn and commiseration on the resulting travails. Nothing too serious, I dope.

      That SCOTUS decision is un-fucking-believable!!! So much for “land of the free and home of the brave” !!!

Links to post