Open mike 24/07/2011

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, July 24th, 2011 - 120 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…

120 comments on “Open mike 24/07/2011 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Carol 1
    24 July 2011 at 6:50 am

    Watching Al Jazeera again this morning. Curious how the narrative has shifted now it is known that the (alleged) killer is a blond right wing, “libertarian” (he quoted John Stuart Mill), fundamentalist Christian Norwegian. So yesterday I got too quickly sucked into accepting that the bombing and shooting was probably the work of Al Qaeda. So today I’m a little sceptical of how the narrative has shifted to explain the killings as the work of a lone,madman, who is not associated with any right wing groups.

    Part of the reason for this narrative is that Norway, so far, hasn’t had as well-organised radical right wing groups as in some other parts of northern Europe. However, it seems to me there is a rush to dissociate Anders Behring Breivik from right wing political groups and philosophies (at least as it has been reported this morning by journalists and commentators on Al Jazeera).

    But he does seem to have being interacting with radical right wing groups, and in its blogosphere.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/23/anders-behring-breivik-norway-attacks

    As journalists and police trawled through what Breivik had written, the first glimpses began to emerge that he had corresponded with far-right groups in several countries, including the UK, both to discuss ideological issues and also political strategies, including the creation of a Norwegian far-right nationalist party.

    In 2009 he wrote about the need to set up a counter to what he described as “the violent Norwegian Marxist organisations” that he believed terrorised the “politically conservative”.

    Breivik is also reported to have said:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/23/norway-attacks-utoya-gunman

    Breivik had talked admiringly about conversations he had had with unnamed English Defence League members and the organisation Stop the Islamification of Europe over the success of provocative street actions leading to violence.

    “I have on some occasions had discussions with SIOE and EDL and recommended them to use certain strategies,” he wrote two years ago.

    “The tactics of the EDL are now to ‘lure’ an overreaction from the Jihad Youth/Extreme-Marxists, something they have succeeded in doing several times already.” Contacted about the allegation by email by last night the EDL had not answered.

    And I did hear one report that Norwegian police are investigating the possibility there was a second shooter at the Labour youth camp.

  2. Pete George 2
    24 July 2011 at 7:33 am

    In a post yesterday John Key was misquoted in a sick attempt to use the Norway tragedy to launch a political attack.

    I expressed my strong opinion on the post, and was attacked by the usual suspects who either jumped to conclusions or made things up, again, about my thoughts and my connections.

    I then thought it inappropriate to add any more to that post.

    Since then I have actually seen TV news of John Key speaking at the press conference with Obama, and I have read transcripts of what he actually said, which is different to how he was quoted on the post mentioned above.

    Key’s comments were off the cuff , I and believe were before the full extent of the tragedy was known, and before the identity and description of the gunman was known.

    “If it is an act of global terrorism then I think what it shows is that no country, large or small, is immune from that risk,”

    I have no problem with that part.

    “And that’s why New Zealand plays its part in Afghanistan as we try and join others like the United States to make the world a safer place.”

    I cringed a bit at this, it sounded like he was sucking up to Obama and the US, even if it had been an international terrorist attack this sounded out of synch with the tragedy being discussed.

    But I think the comment was fairly minor fawning, and not an appropriate excuse for using a tragedy as an excuse for an onslaught of vitriol directed at Key.

    Despite accusations based on zero facts I criticise Key when I see fit, and have criticised him here, albeit more mildly than some. That’s how I see it.

    For the record, I have also openly criticised Key for other comments that I don’t agree with. I think his off the cuff openness and “normalness” can sometimes result in poor comments.

    See John Key pledges not to listen.

    I linked to this post from the Trade Me message board, which technically is against their rules. Someone reported me, I suspect more for political reasons, and I was sent an official warning by Trade Me support.

    • idlegus 2.1
      24 July 2011 at 7:54 am

      again with this peteg? john key was trying to score politcial points with this comment, both nz tv news repeated the quote (did you see garner on tv3?), even though they spun it to sound better, just get over it, what key said was embarrassing & utterly stupid & callous, & yes i have seen the full interveiw & it still sounds bad.

      • Pete George 2.1.1
        24 July 2011 at 8:10 am

        Trying to score brownie points with Obama – for sure, that’s how it sounded to me. But no excuse for the opportunistic onslaught of abuse on yesterday’s post. The tragedy in Norway highlights to me one of the dangers or continual stoking of political abuse and intolerance of opposing views.

        I hope we can find ways to debate politics robustly without the levels of attack and abuse that are too easy to get caught up in. Antagonising, talking up differences out of proportion to reality risks helping incite nutters to take awful action.

        • mickysavage 2.1.1.1
          24 July 2011 at 8:33 am

          PeteG

          Key was not misquoted. He should have not expressed that opinion especially as he did not know what he was talking about.

          Trying to start a flamewar?

          • Pete George 2.1.1.1.1
            24 July 2011 at 8:53 am

            Micky, I said “I hope we can find ways to debate politics robustly without the levels of attack and abuse that are too easy to get caught up in.”

            Do you disagree with that?

            • felix 2.1.1.1.1.1
              24 July 2011 at 9:27 am

              If that sentiment was in any way sincere, you wouldn’t have begun your post by falsely accusing someone of misquoting.

              Full. Of. Shit.

              • Pete George …
                24 July 2011 at 9:37 am

                From what I’ve seen Key was misquoted.

                Since first posting here today I’ve found out it may have been from a report by Connie Lawn that misquoted him, it’s still a repeat of a misquote and could easily be corrected or acknowledged as incorrect.

                • felix …
                  24 July 2011 at 9:43 am

                  He wasn’t quoted in full, but the full context changed nothing of the meaning of his words.

                  You’re trying to redefine “misquote” to suit your political agenda.

                  If you disagree, then please show how the full quote differs in meaning from the selection quoted by Z yesterday.

                • chris73 …
                  24 July 2011 at 9:54 am

                  Basically Labour are worried (as they should be) and hurting from headlines like this:

                  http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5331702/National-10pc-ahead-in-poll

                  and in situations like this lefties go with what they know and that is to throw enough mud and hope it sticks

                  • Joel Walsham …
                    24 July 2011 at 12:37 pm

                    How dare you. This has nothing to do with the polls in New Zealand. It is about respect for the 92 young, idealistic, passionate, politically active lefties who were the victim of a tragic attack.

                    This very well could have been people that I know, it could have been the chldren of people who post on this blog, it could have been our young, idealistic, passionate, politically active lefties.

                    So get over yourself, for a lot of people this is very close to home. It has NOTHING to do with something as trivial as a poll.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    24 July 2011 at 1:25 pm

                    and in situations like this lefties go with what they know and that is to throw enough mud and hope it sticks

                    Its always fascinating to see the Right Wing describe exactly how they think and what they would do and then project it on to others.

                • Morrissey …
                  24 July 2011 at 10:27 am

                  From what I’ve seen Key was misquoted.

                  His foolish, ignorant comments have been repeated many times on the radio and television. He was not misquoted. He is simply ignorant, obsequious and craven in his behaviour.

                  It appears that you are too stupid and/or dishonest to see that.

                  • Pete George …
                    24 July 2011 at 10:37 am

                    As quoted by Zetetic, and still uncorrected:

                    “I think what it shows is no country large or small is immune from risk [of ‘global’ terrorism] and that’s why New Zealand plays its part in Afghanistan.”

                    The correct quote:

                    “If it is an act of global terrorism then I think what it shows is that no country, large or small, is immune from that risk. And that’s why New Zealand plays its part in Afghanistan as we try and join others like the United States to make the world a safer place.”

                    I don’t think the difference in wording matters very much anyway. I don’t care if people see fit to criticise Key for what he said, but it’s pretty trivial, and I think a poor excuse in the circumstances to launch an attack, spinning off the Norway tragedies.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      24 July 2011 at 1:06 pm

                      When transcribing spoken speech one has to form sentences. It’s an art not a science, and transcriptions will have slight variations. That’s all your ‘misquoting’ comes down to.

                      Fact is, Key sought to use this as an example of ‘international terrorism’. He qualified that with an ‘if’, but that is what shows the oppurtunism.

                      On the merits, it’s ridiculous. How would this attack even if it was ‘international terrorism’ demonstrate why we should be in Afghanistan? We are not fighting international terrorists there, we are fighting a Taliban insurgency. His comments were nonsense on his own terms.

                      As it turns out, the killer is who he is. What lessons does Key think we should take from that, from what actually happened? He was ready to teach lessons when he didn’t know the facts, what about now that he does?

                      I see you were in KBs general debate thread yesterday. Did you see the comments from Reid et al saying that Labour in NZ is a party of traitors? that Clark should have been shot, or Cullen hung? Do you see all the dark mutterings nearly everyday about the dangers of ‘multiculturalism’?

                      That sort of eliminationist rhetoric is par for the course on the most popular blog in the country. We won’t even talk about what goes on at Crusader rabbit or NZ Conservative.

                      John Key won’t talk about lessons Farrar might learn about rhetoric and its consequences. I’ll bet you that much.

                      And now you’ll have a big cry about how outrageous I’m being, and how heated my talk is. And yet, I’m not the one calling people traitors and talking about killing people.

                    • felix …
                      24 July 2011 at 1:21 pm

                      “I don’t think the difference in wording matters very much anyway.”

                      Thanks Pete, I’ll take that as “No, I can’t show how the full quote differs in meaning from the selection quoted by Z yesterday, so I’ll just fuck off.”

                      If you were as civil and respectful as you like to pretend, you’d apologise to Zetetic for your smears and lies this morning too, but I wouldn’t recommend anyone hold their breath waiting for that.

                      Twat.

                    • Pete George …
                      24 July 2011 at 1:40 pm

                      Strange how you keep accusing of lying and smearing, that’s what you continue to specialise in.

                      Prove I’ve lied and smeared Zetetic and I’ll consider apologising.

                      Will you apologise for any lies and smears directed at me?

                    • Pete George …
                      24 July 2011 at 1:49 pm

                      Pascal’s bookie – I’ve seen some of the comments on KB, yesterday and other times, on CR and TB, and elsewhere. See what I’ve posted here:

                      http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/07/norway_mourns.html#comment-855585
                      http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2011/07/23/horror-and-sorrow/comment-page-1/#comment-187114

                      I’ve frequently spoken up against crap in KB as I do here. And often had to stand concerted blasts for it, just like here.

                    • felix …
                      24 July 2011 at 2:08 pm

                      Right here Pete:

                      “John Key was misquoted in a sick attempt to use the Norway tragedy to launch a political attack.”

                      As I said above, and as you acknowledged, Z’s selected quote carries the same meaning as the full quote.

                      You can’t have this both ways Pete. If you can’t show a difference in meaning between the two quotes then you were lying and smearing when you said that Z “…misquoted in a sick attempt…”

                      And to date you haven’t been able to do so.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      24 July 2011 at 2:20 pm

                      Pete, I’ll just note that your comments about the rights rhetoric are pretty generalised, sort of ‘we should all try and do better and reflect’.

                      In comparison to your multi-comment demands for apologies and withdrawals from specific people on the left, made on several blogs.

                      The equivalent would be asking DPF to do something about the insanity that goes on his threads, calling out individuals etc.

                      It seems that Zet’s post offended you much more than what goes on at KB every single day.

                    • Pete George …
                      24 July 2011 at 2:23 pm

                      felix: As I said above, and as you acknowledged, Z’s selected quote carries the same meaning as the full quote.

                      I didn’t do that. I said :
                      “I don’t think the difference in wording matters very much anyway.”

                      There’s an obvious difference between the quotes, it proves itself, but I don’t think that’s what’s important here, that’s why it doesn’t matter very much.

                      You didn’t answer my question – if I can show you have lied about me and haved tried to smear me will you apologise? Or are you just a petty hypocrite?

                    • Pete George …
                      24 July 2011 at 2:30 pm

                      Pascal’s bookie – you’re comparing a day on both blogs? I’m not going to make sure I’ve done equal and opposite stand on a daily basis just to satisfy your demand for some sort of balance.

                      Try looking back through the last two years on KB before you make trite judgements like this. Even elsewhere today if you want to build a case for my supposed imbalance.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      24 July 2011 at 2:36 pm

                      Prove I’ve lied and smeared Zetetic and I’ll consider apologising.

                      🙄

                    • felix …
                      24 July 2011 at 2:53 pm

                      “There’s an obvious difference between the quotes”

                      Then show it. Words have meanings.

                      Tell me what the full quote means, then tell me what the part that Z quoted means.

                      If they have different meanings, this should pose no problem for you. It should be the simplest imaginable task.

                      If you can’t (or won’t) show the difference in meaning, then your accusation this morning fails.

                      ps this is back to where we were five hours ago. Perhaps you’d be so kind as to make an honest attempt this time Pete.

                    • felix …
                      24 July 2011 at 2:56 pm

                      “Try looking back through the last two years on KB before you make trite judgements like this.”

                      Careful what you wish for Pete.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      24 July 2011 at 3:00 pm

                      I’m just looking at what you’ve said Pete. Ranting and wailing over all sorts of blogs, being very ‘upset’ about zets post. It’s not my fault you chose to do that, when you could have been calling out the people talking about killing. Instead, you choose not to call out those people on that day.

                      Seemed a bit opportunistic is all.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      24 July 2011 at 3:07 pm

                      Oh, and I’ll thank you not to lie about what I say. I never made any sort of demand for balance. I just pointed out that you are not balanced. That’s a good thing in my view. Work out where you stand, fight your corner, and be open to change.

                      Pretending to be balanced when you are not though, that’s a fuckwits move on every level.

                    • mickysavage …
                      24 July 2011 at 3:10 pm

                      Feck PeteG

                      Across the world a huge number of young leftie idealists have been shot by a crazed right wing nutjob.  Over here you are taking umbrage because others are not apologizing for something that they did not do.

                      You are also perhaps deliberately sabotaging another thread.

                    • Pete George …
                      24 July 2011 at 3:48 pm

                      “If it is an act of global terrorism then”, in one quote and absent in the other, is a significant difference. It’s obvious to anyone with half a clue.

                      And I expect you’ll keep avoiding fronting up on your lies.

                      micky – if the stalkers found something useful to do this would have been over with long ago.

                    • felix …
                      24 July 2011 at 4:18 pm

                      Pete, you fail me yet again.

                      It’s obvious which words are missing. It’s a few from the start and a few from the end.

                      For your claim to be valid you need to show how the meaning is different from one set of words to the next. And just saying “it’s obvious” doesn’t cut it Pete. If it’s obvious then it will be easy to say how.

                      Would you like to have another go? I think you’re up to three tries now, or is it four?

                      Or you could just admit, after several dismal attempts at changing the subject, what everyone else can plainly see by now: that you can’t show a difference because there is no difference.

                  • andy (the other one) …
                    24 July 2011 at 10:40 am

                    Fran O’Sullivan called his comments ‘A mistake’ on Q & A this morning.

                    Key has even backed away from his own comments.

                    Is that enough for your faux outrage PeteG, does it boil your blood that people on a lefty blog are not being polite to Nice Mr Key.

                • Deadly_NZ …
                  24 July 2011 at 7:15 pm

                  Look, it does not matter who is right and who is wrong. What the problem is John Key fawning like a 14 year old (teen on her first crush) over Obama, John Key wants to stop acting like a star struck schoolboy and start acting like a PM. And on this trip it’s been open mouth, insert both feet,walk on elbows.

        • El Mutante 2.1.1.2
          24 July 2011 at 12:49 pm

          I for one am horrified to have courted Pete’s disappointment.

    • Lazy Susan 2.2
      24 July 2011 at 8:41 am

      As is so often the case with your posts Pete you find it difficult to identify the difference between the “cart” and the “horse”. The posts yesterday were in response to Key’s inappropriate comments not the other way around.

      In the context of what had happened and the limited information available at the time it was both opportunistic and stupid of Key to make those comments.

    • Colonial Viper 2.3
      24 July 2011 at 9:54 am

      Key’s comments were off the cuff , I and believe were before the full extent of the tragedy was known, and before the identity and description of the gunman was known.

      We don’t need a PM who runs his mouth off in front of the global media before he has the facts. He should have STFU and not make our country look like idiots.

      By the way you really are a piece of insincere dishonest self-deceiving work.

    • Morrissey 2.4
      24 July 2011 at 10:21 am

      Poor old Pete George is just a tad bewildered…

      Right wing European terrorist kills more than 90 people in Europe. John Key, the New Zealand prime minister, states in a tone of deadly high seriousness that that is the reason New Zealand troops are helping to kill people in Afghanistan.

      After admitting that he “cringed” at this, Pete George dismisses this craven behaviour as “fairly minor fawning”.

      There’s only one word for such partisan, uncritical support for a politician: idiotic.

    • weka 2.5
      24 July 2011 at 10:39 am

      Key’s comments were off the cuff , I and believe were before the full extent of the tragedy was known, and before the identity and description of the gunman was known.
      “If it is an act of global terrorism then I think what it shows is that no country, large or small, is immune from that risk,”
      I have no problem with that part.
       

      I do. What he should have said is “this is a terrible tragedy for Norway, our thoughts are with them” and not said anything more until he knew the facts.
       
      The other problem with what he said is the implications of risk: if it wasn’t an act of global terrorism, but something else, does it still show that no country large or small is immune from that something? Like a far rightwinger mass murdering left wing politicos? This is why his comment was opportunism. He wasn’t making a considered neutral statement about vulnerability, he was making a political point. Dickhead.
       
       
       
       
       

  3. idlegus 3
    24 July 2011 at 8:17 am

    but i absolutely hate john key & right wing politics, so whats your point? that i shouldnt be allowed to criticise (sorry spelling, cold fingers/brain in wintry early morning dunedin) stupid comments made by key? key made an uniformed comment & should be chastised for it, not have apologists trying to say he said something else or meant something else or spin it like he said something positive.

    i actually have no idea what you are even talking about peteg, you say some rubbish dont you. i usually just skip your comments but im up early with my little 3 year old & wanted to add my 2c. keep warm everyone.

    • Pete George 3.1
      24 July 2011 at 8:27 am

      I don’t see anyone saying you shouldn’t criticise anyone.

      Sad to see “i absolutely hate john key & right wing politics”, very strong language. I don’t feel hatred for any politician here, I disagree with some a lot, and all at least a little, that’s normal, but to hear talk of absolute hatred is awful. I could imagine that’s the sort of feelings that could have provoke the Norwegian gunman.

      If you met John Key would you express your absolute hatred to him?

      • idlegus 3.1.1
        24 July 2011 at 9:00 am

        id give him a finger f’sure, dont you realise he hates me? dont you realise he hates workers, he hates new zealand? (me being a wff low wage paid worker that likes to spend most of my productive time with my child instead of walking over everyone & selling out to get the biggest pile of cash so i can lord it over my inferiors). ok?

      • KJT 3.1.2
        24 July 2011 at 11:12 am

        Yes. He is a traitor, a puppet for US financiers and a front for thieves.

  4. Salsy 4
    24 July 2011 at 9:11 am

    Id give him the finger too – Looks like the horizon poll is out…
    http://www.horizonpoll.co.nz/page/141/less-than-1-

    • Pete George 4.1
      24 July 2011 at 9:23 am

      A Labour, Green, New Zealand First, Jim Anderton’s Progressives coalition 44.3%, with 7.6% remaining undecided.

      That shows that it’s a hypothetical current scenario, Jim Anderton’s Progressives won’t be a part of the next government.

      • felix 4.1.1
        24 July 2011 at 9:38 am

        “That shows that it’s a hypothetical current scenario”

        A poll result is a hypothetical scenario? Well gag me with a spoon.

      • mik e 4.1.2
        24 July 2011 at 9:32 pm

        PG thats only if the Maori party goes with National the arrogance of the right will be their undoing

    • The Voice of Reason 4.2
      24 July 2011 at 9:24 am

      Dumb headline (National 10% in Poll), when the article itself shows National are in trouble with the Left/Right camps being neck and neck at 44.3 and 44.4% support respectively. The gap continues to close and the need to prop up Dunne and ACT becomes more obvious.

      • Sookie 4.2.1
        24 July 2011 at 9:48 am

        It still says that. They’re not even trying to be impartial, that was disgustingly blatant. All signs point to the Nact rats being screwed if lefties do some strategic voting in Ohariu and Epsom. I’m boycotting Epsom if they vote for that prick Banks. I will never spend a cent in their electorate again. I will go on an all night bender and start a conga line through the streets if we can get rid of ACT and pathetic little patsy Dunne.

      • weka 4.2.2
        24 July 2011 at 10:44 am

        What headline are you looking at? The one in the link reads ”
        Less than 1% separates potential coalitions”

      • Deadly_NZ 4.2.3
        24 July 2011 at 9:42 pm

        And the props are out already The deals have been dunne. But if the voters in these electorates start to feel like pawns (which they are Nat Act UF) They don’t give a toss about us, it’s just that The piggies want another 3 years sucking at the public teat. So a real push by Labour, and yes the Greens, and see how many of these ‘pawns’ will vote differently if they realise that they are not important apart from making up NACT numbers.

    • weka 4.3
      24 July 2011 at 10:47 am

      Good to see a poll being framed in MMP coalition terms rather then FPP which major party has the most points. It’s all about the coalitions and the media need to get their shit together on this.
       

    • higherstandard 4.4
      24 July 2011 at 11:08 am

      Amongst a plethora of crappy polls and polsters, Horizon win the golden tard award.

  5. Peter 5
    24 July 2011 at 9:43 am

    Brat-Kids

    What do bankers, fishing businesses, politicians and bankers have in common?

    A NZ businessman scathing of the consequences of the profit motive.

    http://www.baybuzz.co.nz/archives/5131/

    • uke 5.1
      24 July 2011 at 9:52 am

      Thanks for that – he seems like an enlightened bloke. This line was interesting:
       
      “…my catch phrase is that the business does not exist to make money – it makes money to exist . . . and it exists to provide a fulfilling and meaningful lifestyle for all of us, while at the same time producing what we like to call culturally nourishing products.”

  6. Colonial Viper 6
    24 July 2011 at 10:10 am

    US views NZ as promoting human trafficking and indentured labour in Pacific

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5331742/US-raises-red-flag-over-Pacific-Island-workers

    Wellington sees the recognised seasonal employer scheme as charity, but Washington views it as verging on human trafficking and debt-bonded labour.

    This comes as the US State Department’s latest international report on human trafficking condemned the use of forced labour on foreign charter fishing boats, exposed by the Sunday Star-Times.

    Last week US Human Trafficking Ambassador Luis CdeBaca came with a delegation to talk with government officials, unions and lobby groups.

    No statement followed, but sources say the Americans were alarmed at a lack of recognition of trafficking in New Zealand.

    Another thing – don’t we have youth unemployment around 30% on this country? What is wrong with these bloody employers?

    • chris73 6.1
      24 July 2011 at 10:20 am

      Maybe if we had youth rates there’d be less youth unemployment

      and as much as I admire the usa (and I do) in this instance they really should look at their own issues with illegal aliens and sexs trafficking first

      • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1
        24 July 2011 at 10:48 am

        Maybe if we had youth rates there’d be less youth unemployment

        Nope, the problem is free-market policies.

        • chris73 6.1.1.1
          24 July 2011 at 10:55 am

          Glad its that simple

        • mik e 6.1.1.2
          24 July 2011 at 3:12 pm

          If we had Youth rates we would have less money going into the economy and more unemployment The problem is lack of education connection with employers ,trade and tech training has been disbanded at schools under neo liberal Rogernomics policy,look at countries that have low youth unemployment , read BBC reports this week on countries with high youth unemployment C73.The right seems to have one solution to any problem cut cut & cut no wonder National can only get the economy to grow at less than 1% in 5years under Bill English. oh no i forgot the borrow and hope policy !

      • Colonial Viper 6.1.2
        24 July 2011 at 1:00 pm

        Maybe if we had youth rates there’d be less youth unemployment

        You want to pay young NZ’ers less than what you would pay imported indentured labour from the Pacific Islands?

        BTW any marginal business which cannot afford to pay decent wage rates should cease trading and make room in the marketplace for one which can.

    • joe90 6.2
      24 July 2011 at 10:35 am

      More hypocrisy from a nation that routinely exploits it’s labour and kills it’s citizens. Land of the free my arse.

      Additionally, Texas has by far the largest number of employees working at or below the federal minimum wage ($7.25 per hour in 2010) compared to any state, according to a BLS report. In 2010, about 550,000 Texans were working at or below minimum wage, or about 9.5 percent of all workers paid by the hour in the state. Texas tied with Mississippi for the greatest percentage of minimum wage workers…From 2007 to 2010, the number of minimum wage workers in Texas rose from 221,000 to 550,000, an increase of nearly 150 percent.

  7. Adrian 7
    24 July 2011 at 10:23 am

    The arrogant, hypocritical, lying bastards. What are “turn a blind eye” Mexican illegals working 16 hour days for bugger all without whom the US wouldn’t have any horticultural crops or Asian kids in sweatshops making all their comsumer shit. Aw, yeah, right, they’re part of the “Free Market”. This is all part of US pressure about the free trade deal. Tell them to fuck off.

    • Morrissey 7.1
      24 July 2011 at 10:29 am

      The U.S. also has the gall to lecture selected countries (China, Burma, Zimbabwe) about human rights.

  8. prism 8
    24 July 2011 at 12:21 pm

    On radionz this morning on Chris Laidlaw there are interviews about youth and employment etc. There has been a NZ Institute report recently which has presented, again, the bad statistics for youth which we seem to specialise in.

    Some points – a motivated young Porirua councillor saying that in five years at school there was no talk with a careers guidance. She had decided when she was 12 years that she would like to be a marine biologist. But ended up getting interested in politics. Atypical I would think.
    SHOULD BE – Well there used to be regular opportunities to get career guidance.. There were leaflets and books tostart the process, two of which I have a copy, helping young people work out their mind profile ie outdoor physical preference, information gathererer, etc. Then there was a list of jobs and the extent of education required, ranged from outer rings to an inner core with the highest pay and education needed.

    Another male speaker who is a Wanganui councillor who referred to youth education and job training program they were using. It seems that these may not be automatically available to all.. SHOULD BE – There used to be good programs helping transition to work and giving work education and preparation. I know it works from observation, one anecdote but I have seen the process which could help many to find their way and make a success of their lives. There is still Career Rapuara? for those who have left school I think but getting alongside secondary school pupils can help to motivate and choose the most suitable as well as interesting subjects to study.

    SHOULD BE – Set up a watching brief on government policies that deliver important services to people especially youth (apart from health which is a large sector itself and tends to have much publicity and has outspoken advocates)..

    When any program that is needed by a vulnerable group is dropped, that group of watching advocates make this known. It would cover all sectors and areas and be bipartisan. It is
    essential to ensure that basic and practical policies are not dropped on some puerile ground remaining universally available. Often though they are meanly or partly funded, not assessed, dropped as soon as there is some overexpenditure somewhere etc. Think hip hop trip. One scandal and the necessary funding for initiatives is withdrawn.

    So we need career guidance in life planning classes every year at secondary school as well as at the end, and a recognition that an opportunity to work and gain a taste and experience of that job.

    Also needed is to raise the desire for education and ability to study, which is hard work, which would be encouraged by recognising the dissing of peer pressure, the undercurrent of disrespect for the swot and the geek and also the only one of a group who has a goal and will to work to reach it.

    Then the role of the parent. The parents are likely not to have had a good education. Very probably they are semi-skilled with little written theoretical education. They don’t treasure education and remembering only their own scanty input, they just don’t have an understanding of it and how it can be chosen and used beneficially.
    SHOULD BE – Parents should be paid an honorarium to be homework helps, parent education facilitators. Call those involved PEPs Pupil Education Parents. Help them with basic resources, give them basic guidance and check outcomes. Keep in touch, how are things going, any questions, problems? Offer more training opportunities that are accredited in the NCEA system. The parents lift their own game together with their children’s.

    Some of the middle class are self-centred and being selfish, hate the idea of paying people to work within their own family as they don’t like the idea of assisting a family financially to do the family things that the superior classes take for granted or can delegate, unlike poor or disadvantaged people. The input of this sort of interest will result in exponential growth I believe. And I am talking about the rise in positive statistics for youth and downward crime, not the money. It would definitely cost but by keeping it simple, keeping the personal monitoring and having career guidance available many would reach their goals and there would be parents feeling good not the opposite. The education would include discussion of the psychological burdens on parents especially new ones. Young single parents would have education offered universally. The Maori new funding could do much of this but everything shouldn’t be lumped on their shoulders and from their funding.

    • prism 8.1
      24 July 2011 at 9:04 pm

      This is long but its about important things for improving social policy and people’s wellbeing in NZ. Not as sexy as guns though, or the latest political goss.

  9. Peter Bains 9
    24 July 2011 at 12:36 pm

    Ask the gangs about need to gun access, why do they need access to these?
    Farmers need them, so do the cops.

    • clandestino 9.1
      24 July 2011 at 1:01 pm

      Same old lies. Name one thing a farmer needs a gun for that couldn’t be done by a registered and closely fucking monitored specialist. Gangs only get guns because some ‘justified’ gun-holder sold it to them somewhere along the line.

      • Pundit X 9.1.1
        24 July 2011 at 1:53 pm

        The NRA in US have a saying its not guns that kill people its people. A fascile truism but true nonetheless. The gunman in Norway used an automatic weapon with large capacity magazines. and a Glock pistol and he was licenced to own the guns in his posession. these weapons are not allowed here, after Aramoana they were banned. New Zealand gun owners are mostly hunters, farmers and target shooters. The guns that are available here and used by sportsman are bolt action rifles with 3 – 5 shot magazines, hardly the weapon of choice for a good massacre. The vetting here for a firearms licence is also very thorough. Moreover you have a tradition of hunting in NZ that goes back to the first settlers. There would also be an enormous backlash from Maori who enjoy hunting fresh kai.

        After the Dunblane Massacre in the UK done with a rifle. Blair grandstanded the Labour conference with some of the victims families and promised a ban on handguns. Which he subsequently enacted although no licenced pistol owner had ever been found guilty of a firearms offence, They were all target shooters who belonged to clubs. It made no difference and gun crime with illegaly held weapons in London and Manchester went through the roof. I watched a young West Indian gunned down outside my West London home in broad daylight with a supposedly banned handgun. The incident in Norway was a terible tragedy but not a justification for a ban on firearms in New Zealand – the situation here is very different.

        • Max 9.1.1.1
          24 July 2011 at 2:06 pm

          Factually incorrect comments. Just about any type of firearm is able to be owned in NZ. Subject to strict conditions.

          • Pundit X 9.1.1.1.1
            24 July 2011 at 2:46 pm

            Your splitting hairs Max Firearms licences fall into two groups most are for Cat A single shot bolt action rifles or semi automatic with restricted magazine sizes. Handguns are a different category and you have to a good reason for owning one such as a prop company in the film industry. No individual can own an asault rifle period.

            • Max 9.1.1.1.1.1
              24 July 2011 at 3:08 pm

              From Police website;

              Types of firearms licences

              If you are 16 years or over and have or use a firearm (except under immediate supervision of a licence holder) you need a firearms licence.

              A standard firearms licence allows you to have and use sporting type shotguns and rifles. You also need this licence if you are aged 16 and 17 years and wish to buy or use an airgun. Standard licences are valid for 10 years. A licence holder will require an endorsement to:

              Own pistols (B endorsement)
              Collect firearms, or stage theatrical performances involving firearms (C endorsement)
              Own or possess military style semi-automatic rifles or shot guns (E endorsement)

              A visitor’s licence is for a person visiting New Zealand and is valid for 12 months, or when the person leaves (which ever is shorter). Applicants must show they are a bona fide shooter in their own country. People intending to stay in New Zealand for more than 12 months must apply for a standard licence.

              A dealer’s Licence is for arms dealers who buy, sell or make firearms by way of business. This licence is valid for one year. People who hire out firearms also require a licence.
              $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

              I have a Glock 19 (amounst others). I also have several AR15’s, AK variants plus others not as well known. I have collector friends with many fully automatic rifles & heavy machinguns. We are all vetted & found fit & proper to own said firearms by the police.

              • Pundit X …
                24 July 2011 at 3:16 pm

                I think you’ve just horrified Clandestino Max..

              • Colonial Viper …
                24 July 2011 at 3:26 pm

                Well you seem to know first hand where things are at.

                Firearms held or in circulation outside of the legal framework is what needs to be heavily stamped on IMO. What is your opinion?

                Could you roughly estimate how many assault style weapons (braod category I know) civvies actually own in this country?

                • Max …
                  24 July 2011 at 3:44 pm

                  Absoulutly its the “off ticket” firearm owners that need attention. But how to do that? The cops deal with them as they come across them but otherwise they & govt just try to make life harder for those of us that play by the rules, we are easy as they know who we are. Dosen’t solve anything, just makes it look like to joe public that they are doing something.

                  There is a figure & I can’t remember off hand of how many registered Military Style Semi Automatics (E cat) there are but I can’t remember it. In the region of 7 to 8 thousand I think. Plus full auto collector items, perhaps another 2 or 3 K.

                  As for unregistered its anybodies guess. 10’s of thousands. Many were modified to meet new requirements to remain on a basic firearms license in 1992 when the current laws were bought in post David Grey. Many others disapeared…

                  Guns are not like cars. Cars are driven around openly in public. Easy to register & keep track of. Firearms can be owned out of sight forever if thats what people choose to do. Make the rules too tough & thats what happens.

        • clandestino 9.1.1.2
          24 July 2011 at 2:21 pm

          “The guns that are available here and used by sportsman are bolt action rifles with 3 – 5 shot magazines, hardly the weapon of choice for a good massacre.”

          Didn’t know there were ‘good’ and ‘bad’ massacres. Thanks.

          “Moreover you have a tradition of hunting in NZ that goes back to the first settlers. There would also be an enormous backlash from Maori who enjoy hunting fresh kai.”

          Couldn’t care less. Not into this ‘tradition’.

          “The incident in Norway was a terible tragedy but not a justification for a ban on firearms in New Zealand – the situation here is very different.”

          It is. The difference being that importing guns into NZ is as hard or harder as importing drugs, which is why imported drugs in NZ are expensive and rare. Not so hard in the UK for obvious reasons (I believe Glocks come from Austria and could be transported much easier). As far as I’m concerned we should be restricting all supply as much as possible. Remember, all guns were ‘legal’ once.

          • Jake Barnes 9.1.1.2.1
            24 July 2011 at 2:33 pm

            “Couldn’t care less. Not into this ‘tradition’.”

            If you have no interest in hunting or shooting sports, what right or knowledge do you have to decide that others cannot participate in these sports?

            I think the fact that this gentleman had access to firearms is quite irrelevant to the resulting death toll. Had he not been able to shoot anyone, it’s more than likely he would have simply detonated the bombs he bought with him to the island. The result: similar deathtolls, if not larger because it’s harder to run from an explosion which already happened than a gunman.

            I think this incident raises a time old question of “How do you protect the innocent lives, whilst equally preserving the innocent’s rights”

            It also demonstrates failures in Norway’s firearms vetting process to detect someone with extreme values and beliefs and stop them from gaining legal access to firearms.

            • Vicky32 9.1.1.2.1.1
              24 July 2011 at 4:54 pm

              If you have no interest in hunting or shooting sports, what right or knowledge do you have to decide that others cannot participate in these sports?

              How is shooting and killing anything a ‘sport’? My immigrant father used to go and shoot deer with some Kiwi friends in the 60s, until he lost interest – not for sport at all… but for food. ‘Never shoot anything you’re not going to eat’ was his rule – and as none of us actually liked venison, that was that. Sport in New Zealand is an excuse for all sorts of idiocy – time we stopped making sport some kind of god.

              I think the fact that this gentleman

              Gentleman? WTF?

          • Pundit X 9.1.1.2.2
            24 July 2011 at 3:11 pm

            It is. The difference being that importing guns into NZ is as hard or harder as importing drugs, which is why imported drugs in NZ are expensive and rare. Not so hard in the UK for obvious reasons (I believe Glocks come from Austria and could be transported much easier). As far as I’m concerned we should be restricting all supply as much as possible. Remember, all guns were ‘legal’ once.

            There is another difference I didn’t mention and that is the view I hold that if someone wants commit these kinds of actions of violence in an open society such as ours there is little to stop them. Banning guns would be completely ineffectual you just take them out of the hands of legitimate hunters etc. It wouldn’t be any more effective than banning canabis or P has been. Your just a leftie (I assume) who doesn’t like guns or hunting. I do but I don’t fantasize about taking out the youth wing of Act any more than my colleagues in the Deerstalkers Association fantasize about taking out Hone or the Mana Party. Some times you just have to trust people to do the right thing and they usually do. Save you outrage at what has happened in Norway for the man who perpetrated the act not your fellow Kiwis..

            • clandestino 9.1.1.2.2.1
              24 July 2011 at 4:18 pm

              Banning guns would stop legal importation which would decrease the volumes available and thus the chances (through the price mechanism) of them falling into the hands of killers, or potential killers. Those who have them already will hide them, so be it. That doesn’t mean we should add more to the national stockpile.

              I’m sorry if some think this inappropriate, though I hope some semblance of healthy debate on the rationality of guns will come out of it.

              • Zorr …
                24 July 2011 at 5:37 pm

                Just throwing a quick thought out there… if you ban all gun use in New Zealand, then the only people holding guns will be unmonitored individuals or groups with personal agendas (that are less than desirable) for wanting guns enough to go outside the law.

                I am not saying that having responsible gun owners will prevent criminals and crazies getting guns. But neither will prohibition…

                • clandestino …
                  24 July 2011 at 6:08 pm

                  That conflicts with the point they make about the majority of gun owners being harmless. They own guns illegally, but they’re still harmless, right? Like they say, the gangs get guns now. But how do they get them? When those guns were imported, they were legally held by someone. I don’t know how they get out, but surely having less around in the first place means less chance of someone who goes off the handle getting their hands on one. Or am I the only one who’s taken Econ 101.

    • felix 9.2
      24 July 2011 at 1:10 pm

      Cameron Slater doesn’t.

    • mik e 9.3
      24 July 2011 at 1:39 pm

      So did David Peter

    • Colonial Viper 9.4
      24 July 2011 at 1:48 pm

      Ask the gangs about need to gun access, why do they need access to these?
      Farmers need them, so do the cops.

      Cripes man, it looks to me from the news services as if the killer is a farmer.

      Just find out before you post eh.

    • Vicky32 9.5
      24 July 2011 at 4:41 pm

      Farmers need them, so do the cops.

      Absolutely not! For what conceivable reason do farmers need guns, much less cops? Two words : Steven Wallace.

  10. Shooter 10
    24 July 2011 at 3:22 pm

    Should we ban ammoniam nitrate while we’re at it? I can get hundreds of KG’s of the stuff from work. Mix it with diesel, aluminium powder and add a blasting cap, and you have an explosive with a higher detonation velocity than C4 (maybe this is what this douche bag did). But of course A-N won’t be banned. It’s the corner stone of agricultural and horticultural fertilizer. But it poses a dire threat to public safety in the wrong hands. The same with firearms. None of my firearms are owned for the purpose of killing human beings. Virtually any firearm can be obtained in New Zealand with the correct license endorsement. Virtually all of the active shooter incidents in modern times in this country are the fault of a broken mental health system and the police failing to enforce current firearm laws. The Aramoana and Napier incidents could have been prevented if action had been taken about people known to be unfit to possess firearms. Banning guns is just an emotional, knee-jerk cop out. A huge number will just end up underground in bits of down pipe – like all the semi auto’s that dropped off the radar when Australia banned them. People need to take responsibility for their own security – the police can’t save you when they are minutes or hours away.

    • Colonial Viper 10.1
      24 July 2011 at 3:39 pm

      Virtually all of the active shooter incidents in modern times in this country are the fault of a broken mental health system and the police failing to enforce current firearm laws.

      With the proviso that the vast majority of people with mental health issues are completely non-violent, it does seem to me that a lot of work and resources needs to go into our mental health system.

      We’ve got to get away from our fascination with the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.

    • Pascal's bookie 10.2
      24 July 2011 at 3:40 pm

      Fair enough mate, but if you could clarify:

      “None of my firearms are owned for the purpose of killing human beings.”

      could be interpreted to be in conflict with this:

      “People need to take responsibility for their own security – the police can’t save you when they are minutes or hours away.”

      • Shooter 10.2.1
        24 July 2011 at 4:47 pm

        Good point. You will more than likely be denied a firearms license in New Zealand if you list “self defense” as a reason for obtaining one. I believe that society and authorities need to recognize that the best way to stop an armed murderer is from intervention by a properly trained and vetted armed citizen. The police will always respond with firearms, but usually by the time they get there the damage is done.

        • Vicky32 10.2.1.1
          24 July 2011 at 5:02 pm

          I believe that society and authorities need to recognize that the best way to stop an armed murderer is from intervention by a properly trained and vetted armed citizen.

          Do you watch a lot of American cop TV? Armed murderers are always randomly trotting up to isolated farm houses and raping the women, killing the girls, kidnapping the boys and then being seen off by the brave Daddy with his arsenal…
          I’ve yet to hear of it happening here!

          • Shooter 10.2.1.1.1
            24 July 2011 at 5:10 pm

            TV’s shit I barely watch it at all. What would you rather have if cornered by a rapist? A gun or a Phone?

            • Colonial Viper 10.2.1.1.1.1
              24 July 2011 at 5:27 pm

              Jeeeeezus

              This is a thread to honour those killed in Norway

              Please for pitys sake STFU and take it over to Open Mike.

            • Vicky32 10.2.1.1.1.2
              24 July 2011 at 5:29 pm

              TV’s shit I barely watch it at all. What would you rather have if cornered by a rapist? A gun or a Phone?

              First, and this is for the benefit of almost everyone here under 25 years old – plurals don’t take apostrophes! (When I was being flamed on a Facebook thread about the Kahui thing, a dimwit busty girl included in her attack that I was a moron because I had left the “comma’s out of the word ‘illiterate’s”).
              However I do agree that what TVs posess is indeed shit! 🙂
              Right, now that’s off my chest, I will point out that if I was to be confronted by a rapist, I would have to be outside of my home. If I had a gun (and I would rather die than have one) it would be at home. If I was to be confronted by a rapist in my home, and I had a gun, I would be at far greater risk of harm because my truly bad eyesight means that I would absolutely not hit what I was firing at.
              So, the IPhone for me, thanks!

              • felix …
                24 July 2011 at 7:01 pm

                I think it might be some sort of contraction rather than a plural.

                • R …
                  24 July 2011 at 9:44 pm

                  yep. Apostrophes are used for possession and omission and indeed, plurals don’t attract the former but since when has ‘television is’ been a plural noun? Vicky I thought from some of your previous posts that you teach others English: if so, it’s somewhat alarming to see you misunderstand Shooter’s [possession] use of TV’s [omission] to mean ‘TV is shit’.

                  on-topic (guns vs. phones) I’m with you. No way would I want a gun involved.

                  • Vicky32 …
                    24 July 2011 at 11:49 pm

                    plurals don’t attract the former but since when has ‘television is’ been a plural noun?

                    I was trying to be funny, and having a wee pop at him! I assumed he meant “TVs, shit I don’t I barely watch it at all”, and so I was saying to him that he’d actually said “The shit that is on TVs”…  but now you’ve misunderstood me, I have no idea what he actually meant! In his previous post, he’d used an apostrophe with a plural, as too mahy people here are doing lately!
                    Also, he says “self-defense”… what is that about? I read an article in the Listener in 1986, from some supercilious little ****wit that said and I quote – “Your kids now speak American”… this man then went on to say that only the nasty old people, and the nastier British could conceivably object. (My only child at the time was 10 years old and he didn’t speak American, though he does now, after decades of exposure to American TV. The ancient (such as Don Brash) speak American – I heard the old fossil say “different than” on Close Up recently – and now Shooter (I assume he’s very young) writes ‘self defense”. Microsoft spell check, fashion, or is it that we now do speak American in NZ, and I didn’t get the memo?

                    • R …
                      25 July 2011 at 5:30 pm

                      fair enough Vicky and I apologise for being so snarky. I didn’t see the other meaning. I also loathe the misuse of apostrophes, as well as the Americanisation of NZ English (two different things, but equally irritating to old-school pedants like ourselves).

            • Daveosaurus 10.2.1.1.1.3
              24 July 2011 at 6:57 pm

              False dichotomy.

              I’d rather the rapist be out of society.

    • mik e 10.3
      24 July 2011 at 9:46 pm

      Australias gun shootings went down after an amnesty and buy back. I,m not agains,t recreational shooting but we need to have gun registrations, check people who own them,make sure they are locked properly on a regular basis. and make it user pays as I don,t own a gun . It would help if police didn,t have to waste1/2 of their time cleaning up the mess the alcohol industry leaves in its wake .It would free up police time to crack down on illegal guns and i,ll bet at lot the carnage and irresponsible gun use is because of alcohol!

  11. Treetop 11
    24 July 2011 at 3:46 pm

    A relative who is a keen tramper (30 years) said this to me one day. When she is in the bush and someone has a firearm she always likes to say hello, she reckons she is assurred by the sound and context of their voice.

  12. Colonial Viper 12
    24 July 2011 at 5:14 pm

    US Fed shown to have given $16T in unapproved loans to big banks to bail them out

    Bet you a tonne of those loans were charged at less than 1% interest.

    http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9e2a4ea8-6e73-4be2-a753-62060dcbb3c3

    Too bad if you’re not a big bank though, and you’re the people of Ireland, Greece or Italy. You get screwed coz you’re not one of our money mates. We always got plenty of money to help out our money mates.

  13. Colonial Viper 13
    24 July 2011 at 5:41 pm

    You’re angry about National? Get over it, this poll shows that everyone else already has and you are a weird minority group who shouldn’t bother to turn out

    And other criticisms of what the MSM is doing (a US piece but the relevance to NZ is obvious)

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/10/msm-reporting-as-propaganda-no-one-minds-our-new-financial-lords-and-masters-edition.html

  14. clandestino 14
    24 July 2011 at 6:11 pm

    Did anyone see this post at Kiwiblog:

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/07/mair_v_laws.html

    That man is truly despicable, can’t believe I worked for him once.

    • uke 14.1
      24 July 2011 at 6:20 pm

      Yeah – someone should send that thread to Mora.

    • prism 14.2
      24 July 2011 at 9:02 pm

      I like this quote from Kiwiblog – shows sober reasoning.
      “I guess in the end, I should look on it [a boxing match between Lhaws and Gair] like I did the Iran-Iraq war – you just want it to go on for ever, with maximum causalities.”

      • Tigger 14.2.1
        24 July 2011 at 9:51 pm

        I expect nothing better from that odious little turd. See his explanation to ‘paul henry’? He’s oblivious.

  15. uke 15
    24 July 2011 at 6:16 pm

    Profits soar amid mass layoffs
     
    “US corporations have combined cash reserves of $2 trillion. That is enough money to put all the unemployed people in the United States to work for four years, even without any profit generated from their labor.
    But fresh off of what is for many a record-breaking second quarter, the companies are refusing to use their newly accumulated cash to hire. In fact, planned mass layoffs have only accelerated.”

    • Colonial Viper 15.1
      24 July 2011 at 6:37 pm

      You know the piss poor wages Apple contractors in China pay their workers? And the Chinese workers who have suicided because of it and inhumane long hours at minimal pay?

      You know what all that human misery is in aid of?

      Apple is now sitting on over US$60B of cash reserves. They could run NZ for a year and no one would have to pay a cent of tax. Read and weep. If Apple didn’t make another single sale, it could still run itself until 2018 based just on what it has in the kitty

      This is a perfect example of the economic surplus generated by labour being exploited by capitalist shareholders.

      http://www.myapplespace.com/photo/apple-cash-reserve-20110426?xg_source=activity

      “US corporations have combined cash reserves of $2 trillion.

      A 25% levy on that and the US could afford to renew and rebuild infrastructure throughout the nation, employing millions as it did so.

      But nah, there’s more fast money to be made by breaking a nation down and dismantling it, than by building it up over generations.

      Such a shame, the US risen and fallen in under 250 years.

    • marsman 15.2
      24 July 2011 at 7:23 pm

      US corporations have combined cash reserves of $2 trillion. Are these the same US corporations that pay no income tax? Total exploitation without a quarter given is the name of the game.

    • MrSmith 15.3
      24 July 2011 at 8:18 pm

      Is that US dollars uke? we may be lighting our fires with those soon.

      • Colonial Viper 15.3.1
        24 July 2011 at 8:34 pm

        If they print the next batch of FRNs on a thicker, softer paper at least they’ll have some lasting intrinsic value.

  16. Colonial Viper 16
    24 July 2011 at 9:14 pm

    Holy Crap US Government planning a new, less accountable, 12 person “Super Congress”

    Crossing over to the Dark Side is almost complete. What is it that TPTB say? Never waste a good crisis?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/23/super-congress-debt-ceiling_n_907887.html

    Legislation approved by the Super Congress — which some on Capitol Hill are calling the “super committee” — would then be fast-tracked through both chambers, where it couldn’t be amended by simple, regular lawmakers, who’d have the ability only to cast an up or down vote. With the weight of both leaderships behind it, a product originated by the Super Congress would have a strong chance of moving through the little Congress and quickly becoming law. A Super Congress would be less accountable than the system that exists today, and would find it easier to strip the public of popular benefits. Negotiators are currently considering cutting the mortgage deduction and tax credits for retirement savings, for instance, extremely popular policies that would be difficult to slice up using the traditional legislative process.

    So the US is going to reduce the democratic accountability of its government even more.

  17. prism 17
    24 July 2011 at 9:47 pm

    I just checked my bank current account and have 19c interest being paid on it less 3c tax. It hardly encourages saving or is a good look for the government to be scooping up tax on every little payment. I guess somebody has to pay for the SFC bailout and Petricevic’s legal costs.

    Incidentally on Jim Sullivan Historical program on radionz tonight was the first of four items on the 1951 wharf lockout.

  18. Gosman 18
    25 July 2011 at 2:07 pm

    lprent, you might be able to help your fellow left wing blogger, Martyn Bradbury, and also cause that nasty man Cameron Slater alittle emarassment.

    Mr Slater has challenged Mr Bradbury to back up his landline usage in Auckland. Mr Bradbury has responded by claiming he got the figures from you.

    All you need to do is provide Mr Bradbury with where you got these figures and Mr Slater will be donating the equivalent of 5 years of membership of the NRA to the newly launched Mana party.

    So where did you get the figures that Mr Bradbury is using?