Open Mike 23/03/2017

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, March 23rd, 2017 - 52 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 Policy).

Step up to the mike …

52 comments on “Open Mike 23/03/2017 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. lprent 1
    23 March 2017 at 2:28 am

    Partial reinstall of the search mechanism.

    Still to do…
    1. It doesn’t remember your advanced settings
    2. The @author isn’t working well.
    3. Nor is the multiple selections

    Could probably do with an update to the search form to allow more advanced searches.

    But it is FAST. Try the topical search for “Wayne Mapp” or “robinsod”

    Incidentally for mods. I know the easy way to leave message son a post before publication… It is a weird trick…

    …. and now I’m sounding like one of those come-on net ads

    • Bearded Git 1.1
      23 March 2017 at 9:06 am

      @lprent “Replies” is working well and I love it.

      Using “Replies” is really the only way a debate can develop on a posting over a period of a few days or longer.

    • weka 1.2
      23 March 2017 at 2:05 pm

      wow, that is fast. Looks better than google by site too, I’d forgotten what it does.

  2. ianmac 2
    23 March 2017 at 9:07 am

    Wayne Mapp says that the attack was justified because the NZers were under attack. They were entitled to defend themselves. Seems a bit odd as on the night, apart from some bullets there is no mention of weapons found or being fired at the NZers.

      • weka 2.1.1
        23 March 2017 at 2:13 pm

        He says that the soldiers were under constant attack from the village, and that bomb makers lived there. Was that confirmed in the book?

    • Cinny 2.2
      23 March 2017 at 1:06 pm

      I currently don’t believe their excuse, that NZer’s were under attack as the reason to their behaviour, and I won’t believe it until I see the video footage, because there will be video of it.

      • ianmac 2.2.1
        23 March 2017 at 2:57 pm

        On the night in question there was no report of “coming under fire.” Only some bullets were found
        Therefore the justification must be that 2 weeks previously their patrol had been attacked. Therefore this would form the “self-defence” response. The attack had been from the direction of the valley and those two villages.
        Seems to be a tenuous excuse to me, but maybe that is what happens in a messy war. If so, let it be part of the Terms of Engagement.

        • Cinny 2.2.1.1
          23 March 2017 at 4:00 pm

          ‘coming under fire’ would only be believable as an excuse if it happened in the immediate moments prior to their attack.

          Revenge takes time to plan, maybe two weeks? Someone has stoked a fire, in times of ‘war’ it is easy to do, a good solider follows orders. Only some bullets were found, i wonder whose bullets and when they were fired? (i’m still reading the book, digesting it)

          No wonder so many SAS have spoken to the authors, the decision of a few affecting the lives of many, not only deaths and casualties of innocents, but the PTSD and burden of guilt on those whom were good soldiers, following orders.

          “Naturally the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood.

          But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.

          Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy.

          All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
          – Hermann Göring (Nazi and Hitler Successor, death by suicide in 1946)

          • Red Hand 2.2.1.1.1
            23 March 2017 at 7:02 pm

            Goering was not Hitler’s appointed successor.

            “Hitler appointed the following as the new Cabinet and as leaders of the nation:
            President of the Reich (Reichspräsident), Minister of War (Kriegsminister) and Commander-in-Chief of the Navy (Oberbefehlshaber der Kriegsmarine): Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz
            Chancellor of the Reich (Reichskanzler): Dr. Joseph Goebbels
            Party Minister (Parteiminister): Martin Bormann
            Foreign Minister (Aussenminister): Arthur Seyss-Inquart
            Interior Minister (Innenminister): Gauleiter Paul Giesler
            Commander-in-Chief of the Army (Oberbefehlshaber des Heeres): Field Marshal Ferdinand Schörner
            Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force (Oberbefehlshaber der Luftwaffe): Field Marshal Robert Ritter von Greim
            Reichsführer-SS and Chief of Police (Reichsführer-SS und Chef der Deutschen Polizei): Gauleiter Karl Hanke
            Minister of Economy (Wirtschaft): Walther Funk
            Minister of Agriculture (Landwirtschaft): Herbert Backe
            Minister of Justice (Justiz): Otto Thierack
            Minister of Culture (Kultur): Dr. Gustav Adolf Scheel
            Minister of Propaganda (Propaganda): Dr. Werner Naumann
            Minister of Finance (Finanzen): Johann Ludwig Graf Schwerin von Krosigk
            Minister of Labour (Arbeit): Dr. Theo Hupfauer
            Minister of Munitions (Rüstung): Karl-Otto Saur
            Director of the German Labour Front and member of the Cabinet (Leiter der Deutschen Arbeitsfront und Mitglied des Reichskabinetts: Reichsminister) Dr. Robert Ley”

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_will_and_testament_of_Adolf_Hitler

          • Cinny 2.2.1.1.2
            23 March 2017 at 8:07 pm

            EDIT… Words spoken by Herman Goring (Nazi, in 1941 Hitler designated him as his successor and deputy in all his offices. However… When Goring was informed on 22 April 1945 that Hitler intended to commit suicide, Göring sent a telegram to Hitler requesting permission to assume control of the Reich. Considering it an act of treason, Hitler removed Göring from all his positions, expelled him from the party, and ordered his arrest.) to Gustave Gilbert.

            Part of a conversation Gilbert held with a dejected Hermann Goering in his cell on the evening of 18 April 1946, as the trials were halted for a three-day Easter recess:

            Is that better red hand?

            “Do you train for passing tests or do you train for creative inquiry?,” Noam Chomsky

    • Morrissey 2.3
      23 March 2017 at 4:47 pm

      Ian, you’re just causing trouble. When our friend Wayne told his lies to his colleagues in the National caucus, they accepted what he said without demur, as did our leading journalists, such as Duncan Garner, Mark Richardson and Mike Hosking.

      • Johan 2.3.1
        23 March 2017 at 5:04 pm

        All MSM personalities are falling over themselves to be apologists for our military blunders.

      • tc 2.3.2
        23 March 2017 at 5:12 pm

        None of those are journalists. You have referenced an egotist, a sports jock/egotist and a self centered tosser/egotist.

  3. saveNZ 3
    23 March 2017 at 9:18 am

    Apple paid no tax in New Zealand for at least a decade, reports say
    Investigation says company paid nothing to Inland Revenue Department because parent company registered in Australia

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/23/apple-paid-no-tax-in-new-zealand-for-at-least-a-decade-reports-say

  5. saveNZ 5
    23 March 2017 at 9:39 am

    contrast with….

    Stressed homeless mother’s desperate plea: ‘It’s too much for me’

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rotorua-daily-post/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503438&objectid=11821826

    ….So the National party immigration and foreign ownership policy mostly helps businesses, businesses only contribute about 15% of NZ taxes and some like Apple earning billions in NZ and paying no tax at all.

    so those actually living here probably middle NZ, have to pay most of the taxes, local businesses compete against billion dollar companies who pay nothing and now many Kiwis don’t even have a home to rent, let alone own.

    Does not make sense!

    No wonder NZ is going backwards!! The global economic experiment has failed and it’s not just NZ – it is all around the world. Inequality has risen with neoliberalism.

      • dv 5.1.1
        23 March 2017 at 10:04 am

        From the article

        The New Zealand Housing Foundation’s Affordable Rental scheme

        • Helps low-income Kiwis buy homes under a shared-ownership model
        • Must be a first time home buyer
        • Must have minimum deposit of $10,000
        • Have a regular combined household income, (in Auckland, between $55 000 and $95,000)
        • Have a good credit record
        • Currently looking for applicants for housing devolopment in Waimahia Inlet, Weymouth, Flat Bush, Hobsonville, Awatea, Christchurch and Hornby, Christchurch

        There is no indication of the price of the house OR the on going mortgage payments.
        The saving effort was/is impressive

        • McFlock 5.1.1.1
          23 March 2017 at 4:01 pm

          She and her partner were able to buy the home, valued at $580,000 at the time, thanks to two things – the acceptance of their application for support from the New Zealand Housing Foundation, and their knuckled-down efforts to save $13,000 in five months.

          What’s this scheme and how can I get in on it? Servicing a $567,000 mortgage on $55k a year? That’s tight, even for a singleton/no kids.

      • saveNZ 5.1.2
        23 March 2017 at 3:46 pm

        yep, good on the family for getting their own home and the sacrifices they made but when you are homeless and on the benefit how realistic is it to save $250 a week?

        It seems like it is legal for Apple and many other corporations to pay no tax – so you have to wonder why do the NZ government and other governments allow it and discriminate against their own people paying tax and big companies can pay nothing?

        Likewise if NZ is opened up to global housing trade and have to compete against real wages overseas and god knows how many tax advantages off shore people have and the massive amount of people in the world, not only is it not moral, it is not fair.

  6. weka 6
    23 March 2017 at 2:18 pm

    “We know that the Maori Party is using its negotiating position to demand concessions that National would never usually give,” says Mr Seymour.

    “Today ACT and UnitedFuture are offering the Prime Minister another option in order to pass the bill without undermining the rights of property owners and local communities.”

    http://act.org.nz/act-and-unitedfuture-offer-national-a-way-out-of-rma-quagmire/

    Super eyerolling at that.

  7. Xanthe 7
    23 March 2017 at 3:11 pm

    Lest we forget the mass hysteria that pervaded this site recently and in fond memory of CV

    1 the russians have not been shown to have engaged in anything more than the usual “intellegence” that is ongoing.
    ( i do not cite to prove a negative , that would violate logic!)

    2 trumps communications were “Surveiled”
    https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/844632137072623616/video/1

    I am disapointed that so many here seem to welcome gladly being misled

    • McFlock 7.1
      23 March 2017 at 3:25 pm

      lol

      1: trump specifically said that his phones in trump tower had been “tapped”. Even Nunes rejects that in his statement

      2: it says ” incidentally collected information about U.S. citizens involved in the Trump transition.”. Not Trump personally, and not that the “US citizens involved in the Trump transition” were the targets of that surveillance. A farcical example of that would be if Ivanka was photographed buying a hot dog from a vendor who was under surveillance for being a message hub for an international criminal cartel.

      4: did Nunes say any damned thing about the Russians? I must have missed it.

      5: to recap: Trump is still a paranoid wee oompah-loompah who mashes words together.

      better than wikileaks

      • Xanthe 7.1.1
        23 March 2017 at 3:48 pm

        So you are suggesting a report on what he said “really means” somehow trumps (pun intended) the actual video of him saying it?

        I do agree with your point 5 ! (Yes i really do!) but would add that he is also Is cunning as a rattlesnake and has honed his skills in media manipulation over many series of the apprentice . I am not fooled for a minute that the “obama tapped my phones” tweet was unintended or unproveable he is playing the media at their own game and winning. In the end i am convinced that 1. everyone with any profile had their phones tapped. 2. Obama knew this . Yes that is only my uncited conviction but notwithstanding the atlantic’s spin, That has to be the most likely truth (to set along side “fake truth” and “alternative truth”)

        • McFlock 7.1.1.1
          23 March 2017 at 4:16 pm

          OK, where in the 1m15s video wikileaks have taken out of context does Nunes say trump’s phone was tapped, that trump himself was under surveillance, or the individuals close to trump’s campaign were targets of surveillance (as opposed to being seen connected with legitimate targets of surveillance)?

          Because what I said and the Atlantic article says are consistent with the wikileaks video. They are all irrelevant to the claim that trump’s phones were tapped by obama, or even that trump himself came under any surveillance whatsoever.

          I would suggest that:
          Any communications across the US border were monitored automatically; and
          anyone in the Trump campaign who made contact with an actual target of surveillance (either from spying or international crime) would have been logged as having that contact.

          But then we know all that everyone is under those conditions, because Snowden and Flynn.

          What I think is [insert word “odd” here] is the idea that Obama ordered any intelligence agency to make trump a surveillance target. For what – Democrats to lose the presidency and […], enabling world domination?

          • Xanthe 7.1.1.1.1
            23 March 2017 at 5:05 pm

            He states very clearly that having identified members of trump team as incidental to the target of survellance , these names and details were then disseminated thru the intelligence community ie they became targets themselves.

            Let me put this another way (dramatic reconstruction, actual facts may differ!)

            Scene one (combined intellegence headquarters)
            “how can we get trump?” “I know say the russians helped him to win” this while not true can be proven (heh heh) , of course the russians can be shown to have tried to infuence the us election just as they always do and we always do. And trump won, “brilliant lets do it”

            scene two (trump in his regal slendour of trump towers surrounded by cheap gold plated bathroomware)

            “Hmm how about this” i accuse obama of ordering the tapping of my phones this can be proven even tho its not true (“heh heh”) everyone knows the cia taps everyones phone and because the cia reports to the president he technically has ordered all that they do.

            Scene three (news room of theatlantic.com)
            (ChIef editor)
            “Ha ha trump has accused obama of tapping his phones we can shoot this down easily by showing that it was all just normal activity and the president had nothing personally to do with it,”
            (Junior copywrtier) ” but dosn’t that approach rather undermine the russians helped trump line”

            Trump “heh heh”

            • McFlock 7.1.1.1.1.1
              23 March 2017 at 5:31 pm

              🙄

              First of all, “i.e.” does not mean “I’ve just said A, now I will pretend B is A”. Having your name go through the intelligence cycle does not mean you are a target of surveillance. It just means you have been associated with one.

              Secondly, the US intelligence services do not tap everyone’s phone. They monitor international calls, and those domestic calls for which they have a court order. That is not “everyone’s phone”. It is nowhere close.

              Thirdly, the president cannot legally order phones to be tapped. If the president were dumb enough to interfere in an investigation, the tap would still need a court order. That is why the allegation Trump made is a big deal: he was accusing Obama of breaking a multitude of laws, for which Obama had no motive. That is not business as usual by intelligence services, it is a highly unusual and illegal act.

              Either Obama goes to jail, or Trump is full of shit.

              • xanthe …
                23 March 2017 at 6:13 pm

                gosh you are an expert on the internals of the CIA, who wouda thunk it.

                well thats a great relief to everyone . carry on

                • McFlock …
                  23 March 2017 at 6:19 pm

                  Well, either you have read a fair chunk of what Snowden and others released and matched it against what Nunes actually said, or you have no idea what you’re talking about when you use sentences like “target of survellance” and your comments are the product of wishful thinking and orange fantasies.

                  • xanthe …
                    23 March 2017 at 6:29 pm

                    yes but the thing is my (dramatic reconstruction actual facts may differ) still offers a more plausable and believable scenario (that both stories are bullshit and one is designed to head off the other) than your uncited certainties. why is that?

                    • McFlock …
                      23 March 2017 at 7:54 pm

                      well, your scenario revolves around the logical impossibility of something that is untrue being “proven”, so I guess you have an alternative definition of “plausible”.

                      BTW, pretty much everything in this discussion is “uncited”, including trump’s claim that obama ordered him to be wiretapped. Your comments included.

                    • Xanthe …
                      24 March 2017 at 3:52 am

                      I can tell you that many things that are untrue can be “proven” particularly when they are reputational attacks. The whole point is that you need to have a healthy scepticism …. especially if you dont like the person being inpugned … or their politics

                    • McFlock …
                      24 March 2017 at 11:53 am

                      The other point is that you have a pretty weird idea of what “proven” means.

                      Trump made a massive claim. He has a history of making claims that turned out to be bullshit. He just says whatever is convenient at the time. There is no reason to think that his massive claim about Obama ordering trump tower to be wiretapped is any different.

                      He might be a genius masquerading as an oaf. It might be an amazing act. But so far the signs point to him being a privileged, stupid bully who got richer and powerful because capitalism rewards privileged, stupid bullies.

    • saveNZ 7.2
      23 March 2017 at 3:47 pm

      Where is CV? Is he banned again?

      • McFlock 7.2.1
        23 March 2017 at 4:24 pm

        managed to come back from a ban and get another one within hours. It was pretty funny – he got back from a ban that was for making up unsubstantiated shit, then got another ban for making up unsubstantiated (and incorrect) shit about his previous ban.

        I think this one was for until october.

        Ooooo – [uses reactivated search function] here’s the episode in glorious Panavision.

      • Xanthe 7.3.1
        24 March 2017 at 3:55 am

        I prefer source documents to editorialising personally

        • Andre 7.3.1.1
          24 March 2017 at 6:46 am

          Worthy aspiration. So why show us a clip of a deeply partisan political hack disseminated by an outlet that seems to have developed a penchant for manipulative partisan political games?

          • Xanthe 7.3.1.1.1
            24 March 2017 at 8:24 am

            Because it was raw source , not someone elses opinion about what It means , who published it is not relevant

            • Andre 7.3.1.1.1.1
              24 March 2017 at 8:40 am

              Nunes has made clear by his actions he’s more interested in protecting Trump than finding and publicising what actually happened. So his credibility is on the same level as Trump’s. There’s no discernible relationship between his words and reality. That wikileaks choose to spread this fertilizer in an apparent attempt to defend their past actions further trashes their credibility.

              • joe90 …
                24 March 2017 at 9:10 am

                Digby reckons it’s just another coincidence in a big fat series of coincidences.

                Then on March 15, in the wake of the president’s manic early-morning tweetstorm accusing former President Barack Obama of arranging for him to be wiretapped, Trump demonstrated his own awe-inspiring clairvoyance. Trump told Fox News’ Tucker Carlson that despite all the denials from every institution and person in a position to know, “You’re going to find some very interesting items coming to the forefront over the next two weeks.”

                Wouldn’t you know it? On Wednesday House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., was shown some documents by a “source” that had him so up in arms he couldn’t even take the time to alert the other committee members before he ran to the White House to show the president. When asked if he felt vindicated by this alleged bombshell, Trump replied:

                I somewhat do. I must tell you I somewhat do. I very much appreciated the fact that they found what they found, I somewhat do.

                It’s amazing how Trump and his people are able to see into the future this way, isn’t it?

                http://digbysblog.blogspot.co.nz/2017/03/yes-it-almost-certainly-came-from-white.html

              • xanthe …
                24 March 2017 at 9:52 am

                Andre
                I am unable to discern any actual content in your last post. Apart from attacks on the credibility of sources based on attacks on their credibility…….. nothing!
                WTF ? ?? is this what substituts for discorse here?

  8. ianmac 8
    23 March 2017 at 3:58 pm

    A hoot yet a good point:
    “A conservation trust manager angry at Environment Minister Nick Smith’s swimmable river stance has challenged him to a boxing match – with the loser to “frolic” in one of Christchurch’s most polluted swimming holes.”
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11824103

  9. Cinny 9
    23 March 2017 at 4:11 pm

    Jacinda totally OWNED Paula in Parliament today.

    Feeling very proud of Labours Deputy 😀

    • tc 9.1
      23 March 2017 at 5:15 pm

      Yes pullya is going to be fun to watch as karma cycles back to run over her dogma

    • ianmac 9.2
      23 March 2017 at 7:05 pm

      Just watched it thanks Cinny. Jacinda calm measured questions well ordered.
      Paula discomfited, unable to answer for the PM, lacking her usual spite/arrogance.
      Well done Jacinda.