Open mike 25/03/2010

46 comments on “Open mike 25/03/2010 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. logie97 1

   25 March 2010 at 7:44 am

   Social Development Minister Paula Bennett admits that part of her welfare reforms breach the Bill of Rights Act but says it would not bother most people. “I think that is a discrimination that most New Zealanders will see as being fair and reasonable.”

   If she was to go to her local RSA she would be able to get into a multitude of discussions where “most” members felt strongly about issues – discussions that are usually bigoted in some way. Does that make them okay Paula?
   • Zorr 1.1

     25 March 2010 at 5:34 pm

     Well, also, it has to be noted that the people that are being discriminated against are predominantly male. I think she will be surprised. And it has consistently made me wonder as to why the Widows Benefit hasn’t been brought in to line with modern day sensibilities and applied to men as well – we can lose partners too you know!
2. JAS 2

   25 March 2010 at 8:31 am

   Wow, discrimination thats fair and reasonable, just when I thought she had shocked me enough she comes out with another great statement.

   This woman really does think she is all powerful and can do whatever she likes now shes in “power”.
   • Draco T Bastard 2.1

     25 March 2010 at 11:21 am

     That’s the mindset of the authoritarian which includes everyone in National and Act.
3. Olwyn 3

   25 March 2010 at 9:03 am

   As I have said on a previous post, I have little doubt that this is anything more than a ploy to get those two benefits subjected to the same conditions as the others at a later date, once “the people have spoken.” To do so in the same move as the “tough new measures” would be to risk recent widows, or middle-aged mothers who have been traded in for mail order brides, appearing on Campbell Live and evoking public sympathy. There is something fishy about the Bill of Rights being wheeled in after the changes have been made public, rather than being consulted beforehand.
4. Anne 4

   25 March 2010 at 9:29 am

   I am starting to become suspicious over the length of time it is taking the Privacy Commissioner to reach a decision over the releasing of two solo parents’ Winz details. It must be coming up to 8 months since that stoush occurred. I have two questions:

   1. Has someone applied pressure to the commissioner to delay the findings until after Bennett has departed on her American junket so that she doesn’t have to front up to the media?

   2. Has the beneficiary who brought the matter to public attention been interviewed?
   • prism 4.1

     25 March 2010 at 9:39 am

     I thought I heard an interview with one of the beneficiaries. My impression was that the ben. had been spoken to by govt before being spoken to by media. Result a ben. cognisant of the problems and ramifications so sounding relaxed and conciliatory.

     Incidentally did some subconscious stir in Nats minds direct their choice of Paula Bennett – Ben/ett – Ben/ eficiary? Sounds right somehow. What is her whakapapa?
     • Zorr 4.1.1

       25 March 2010 at 5:36 pm

       ummm… Anne…

       I posted in the comments yesterday of leaks that had been revealed in The Press on the front page. If you want to bother looking it was in one of the comment threads to do with the new beneficiary changes.
       • Zorr 4.1.1.1

         25 March 2010 at 5:37 pm

         http://www.thestandard.org.nz/jobs-only-real-benefit-reduction-policy/#comment-200623

         There you go.
   • freedom 4.2

     25 March 2010 at 9:40 am

     in the news yesterday there was a bit about it,
     a judgement has been made and sent to her
     she is allowed time to respond to the ruling then it is reviewed and released

     so a while to wait yet
   • the pinkpostman 4.3

     26 March 2010 at 3:15 pm

     Like you Annie ,I have nearly gone bonkers at the amount of positive news the Nats have been recieving .One would almost think the election was still on.Likewise the negative news directed towards Labour. The Herald has been so one sided its beyond belief.

     I put it down to the Nats association with Crosby/Textor a scary lot who have a lot of power. It is up to people like us to make sure the public hears the truth.I urge the Unions and all Left Wing groups to combine in the efforts to make sure this ghastly lot are not returned. I dread to think what a second term of this government would do
5. prism 5

   25 March 2010 at 9:47 am

   Discussion on radio this morning from Israel observer from group against demolitons – said that USA administration could say what it liked but Israel knows that the Congress supports them all the way. That means that on important matters such as not nurturing these provocative, on-the-edge Israeli war game junkies playing the world there is no room for progress.
6. travellerev 6

   25 March 2010 at 10:00 am

   I have added John Key to the Bubble Barons investigative platform at littlesis blog. This blog is investigating the people involved in the bubble building now threatening our financial system.

   I have added John Key because of his ties with Wall street and his role in the bubble building machinations of Merrill Lynch and his banking career on Wall street where he worked primarily in Foreign Exchange and the Derivatives trade. You are cordially invited to add any corroborative material as this is a group effort.
7. freedom 7

   25 March 2010 at 10:09 am

   the standard is being censored

   [lprent: No it isn’t. You’re just too impatient about a comment that went into the spam queue.

   Remember this site is run on a voluntary basis by people giving it time when they have some. One of my tasks is to rescue or approve items caught in the spam queue. Yesterday I went to work without my iPhone, which meant that I couldn’t tether to the internet, which meant that my abilities to admin the site were quite restricted.

   However I’m now starting to get interested in banning you because you’re getting irritating and wasting too much of my precious time. ]
8. freedom 8

   25 March 2010 at 10:18 am

   all we can do is point people to information, such as the fact that right now one of the most academic and heavily regulated information sites on 9/11 Truth is once again unavailable on the net in NZ. The site which last week presented a new legal challenge to the Official story and was signed by 1,000 members.

   A site that to be a member of, you must be a qualified Architect or an Engineer.
   read that again and let it soak in

   1,000 qualified Architects and Engineers challenging an Official declaration from their Government. A challenge based on questions of the physical events, nothing else. No Politics. No accusations, just the facts people, nothing but the facts. Why would they do that if the Truth was not in question?
   as the ‘spam filter’ is said to not like the link
   the address is ” a e 9 1 1 t r u t h . o r g
9. I dreamed a dream 9

   25 March 2010 at 10:19 am

   Mining is sure getting more and more messy for the government 🙂 Now the iwis may want inclusion of mineral wealth in Treaty negotiations. Check this out — http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10634166

   Maybe someone can write a post on this.
10. freedom 10

    25 March 2010 at 10:19 am

    all this hassle because an globally acknowledged academic information site is on a spam list, mmm interesting no?
    
    [lprent: based on your behaviour over a comment getting caught in the spam filter, I’m beginning to understand why those links are in the spam-filter. Lousy behaviour by the commentators leaving comments with those links in them. ]
    • travellerev 10.1

      25 March 2010 at 11:46 am

      Freedom,

      As I said yesterday the Standardistas, albeit it a tat hesitant in the beginning, have always allowed me a great deal of freedom to engage in 9/11 information.

      Shit happens and Spam filters filter but Iprent has always liberated comments when I commented that I needed help getting out of purgatory (my term of endearment for the Spam filter).

      Please don’t spoil it by commenting in a suggestive, unverifiable and dare I say it somewhat paranoid fashion. It damages our cause and leads to intolerance. And trust me I push the boundaries set here to the point of breaking on occasion so I can only say I have total faith in the integrity of Iprent and the other Standardistas.
11. Anne 11

    25 March 2010 at 10:33 am

    @ prism 9.30am
    I think the “ben” you are talking about is the one from down south – Dunedin or Invercargill way. She was contacted by Bennett at the time of the controversy. Paula did a good buttering-up job on the solo mum and said she would visit her next time she was in the area. She obviously didn’t because we would have heard about it if she had. I wonder if the solo mum in question would be so conciliatory now that she’s had 8 months to reflect…?
    • prism 11.1

      25 March 2010 at 2:19 pm

      I guess she would be very wary now Anne. It looks like a time for beneficiaries to be defensive. The right wing is at it again, talking up the opportunities for people to separate from government support, while from the other side of their mouth they ensure there are obstacles and costs in the way.

      And as for the jobs horizon shining, I am not sure about how unemployment statistics are drawn up now, but they were very loose at one time – counting everyone in paid employment from only one hour. Do you know if this is still so? It is a very wide net of surely theoretical and comparative value only.

      Considering many will be crappy casual jobs with employers uninterested in providing opportunities for part-time workers to join a roster pool and given regular hours, as well as having pay levels near minimum say $14 hourly, it’s not a social situation NZ can be proud of. And Rod Deane now says we need to restructure further, citing how well NZ did after 1980!
12. Pascal's bookie 12

    25 March 2010 at 10:37 am

    Regarding apparent anomalies in the estimated value of minerals in areas earmarked to be taken out of schedule four, (Brownlee) said it was “a bit like two cooks having an argument about how many dates are in the scones”.

    It’s a bit like what? You’ve been throwing around the numbers. They are pretty much your entire argument.

    The bottom line was that the Government considered there were significant mineral deposits in the 7058ha outlined, and wanted those areas explored to get a better idea of what was actually available.

    Oh right, so the numbers you have been spouting are just bullshit, and the ‘stocktake’ was a farce that didn’t involve any reality based things like ‘counting’. Good to have that confirmed.

    “We currently use 0.15 per cent of New Zealand’s land mass for mining. If we doubled it I don’t think it would make a huge difference.”

    Agree completely. Let’s start with cabinet members’ houses and farms, and then move on to areas not protected under s4. If we still haven’t found another 0.15 per cent of nz worth digging up, we’ll call it a day.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10634219
13. B 13

    25 March 2010 at 10:47 am

    Paula Bennet: “I think that is a discrimination that most New Zealanders will see as being fair and reasonable.’

    I couldn’t understand this one either. Bennet hasn’t given any explanation as to WHY it is so fair and reasonable. She seems to think people will just ‘feel’ that it is fair. I would like to see an actual explanation of her grounds for thinking it is fair. How can something be both “discriminatory” and “fair and reasonable” Paula? How did you get your uni degree? These are mutually exclusive terms.
14. felix 14

    25 March 2010 at 10:57 am

    I posted some thoughts about this picture last night but as it was after most good little boys’ and girls’ bedtimes I thought I’d mention it again.

    It’s a lovely bit of photoshooping (which I’m sure someone got really attached to) and it’s very cleverly worded with a cheeky reference to National’s race-baiting ads from 2005 (and perhaps an even cheekier reference to National’s illiterate, grammatically gibberish slogans from 2008), but visually?

    Visually it’s essentially a picture of the National Party fantasy of mining and conservation, side by side and happy ever after. I think it’s a terrible choice of image which sends exactly the wrong message and someone at Labour needs a slap for it. Please rethink this.
    • Killinginthenameof 14.1

      25 March 2010 at 11:09 am

      Yup, needs a digger digging into the tree bit, the dump truck full of native bush doesn’t stand out enough.
    • Draco T Bastard 14.2

      25 March 2010 at 11:35 am

      I think you’ve over analysed it.
      • felix 14.2.1

        25 March 2010 at 12:34 pm

        Maybe, but only after my initial and instantaneous reaction to the imagery.
    • Bill 14.3

      25 March 2010 at 11:38 am

      Agree.

      Makes mining looks innocuous…those nice yellow dumper trucks from our Tonka Trucks childhood floating silently by the nicely demarcated boundary line…. and is that beach and blue sky behind them?
    • ak 14.4

      25 March 2010 at 1:00 pm

      My initial reaction too felix: much prettier and nastier images about (seen some here) to hammer home the contrast. Labour really needs to “me-too” the Marketing Party in this regard – how about some keen thing here showing them how it’s done – (and “Not YOURS to MINE” would fit in better with the already-set “Not yours to sell” message n’est-ce pas?)
    • Pascal's bookie 14.5

      25 March 2010 at 4:05 pm

      I’m gonna dissent. I hear what y’all are saying, and I’m not sayin your wrong. I’m just sayin.

      I like the image because it’s pretty much irrefutable.

      By not using a picture of an open pit, or an iconic piece of scenery it doesn’t allow any of National’s spin to get a foothold, either in response by National (hysteria! no it ain’t) or in the viewers reaction to the image which will already be primed by National’s spin.

      It takes National’s spin, ‘Surgical mining’, ‘less valuable land’, and shows what that still means. And it does it by highlighting the effects away from the mine site itself, which leaves the mine off screen and in the minds eye.

      It’s exactly what Key has been asking for, a rational non-hysterical debate, and it says not one square millimeter of these lands, and here’s why.

      See also, Lew’s take here:

      http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2010/03/yours-not-mines/#comment-21073
15. BLiP 15

    25 March 2010 at 12:41 pm

    Despite international condemnation for knowing next to nothing about the parlous state of the New Zealand fisheries, National Ltdâ„¢ bucks international trends, pours more acid on the 100% Pure brand and increases the bluefin tuna quota!
    • prism 15.1

      25 March 2010 at 2:45 pm

      But isn’t NZ just trying to lock in a slightly higher allowance on what is a low tuna quota compared to everyone else?
      • BLiP 15.1.1

        25 March 2010 at 4:10 pm

        Oh, I get it: there’s so few bluefin tuna around, lets kill some more because other people are. Brilliant.
    • Bored 15.2

      25 March 2010 at 3:23 pm

      All very sad, hell if they could mine the fish they would (do)….did you know the longfin eel is also endangered in lots of catchments from overfishing and environment degradation? Clean green indeed.
16. prism 16

    25 March 2010 at 2:53 pm

    Interesting how different cultures cope with their emotions especially when sex is involved. In the USA seven states have a law that allows wives (and presumably husbands) to sue the other party when a marriage breaks up. A man in a marriage under strain, with three visits to marriage counselling, who formed another relationship now has seen the woman being sued in North Carolina and $US9 million damages awarded.

    In Thailand a jealous wife threw strong acid in her husband’s face. He rushed to the river but too late, is now blind and so scarred that he cannot work in his previous field. A commentator said that it was a practice resorted to by both men and women – quite democratic really he said.
    Sigh.
17. Anne 17

    25 March 2010 at 5:03 pm

    I think Pascal’s bookie (4.05pm) is on the right track. I would describe the photo as pragmatised. It looks real with no exaggeration or emotive element added. The perfect visual platform from which to launch Labour’s attack. I hope.
    • felix 17.1

      25 March 2010 at 5:42 pm

      I hope you’re right. I disagree with it looking “real” though – having visited a few mines I’d say a picture of Mordor would be closer to the truth.
18. Anne 18

    25 March 2010 at 7:19 pm

    Can’t argue with you felix. Never visited a mine. But I thought it was just a representation of the aftermath wasteland ie. when it has been denuded of it’s flora.

    Anti-spam “trashs”
    • mpsaremorons 18.1

      25 March 2010 at 8:45 pm

      Wasn’t there lots of mining down Queenstown way and throughout Otago ?
19. felix 19

    25 March 2010 at 8:05 pm

    I should add that despite my comments about the picture, I am delighted that Labour is jumping on this. Good to hear them speaking loudly and clearly on the correct side of such an important issue. Keep it up.
20. Anne 20

    25 March 2010 at 8:18 pm

    There have been times in the past 12mths when I wondered where Labour was hiding? It was frustrating to see the NAct govt. getting away with murder and almost no opposition in sight. Labour and the Greens have found their voices at last and if they keep it up they just might be in with a chance next year.
    • the pinkpostman 20.1

      26 March 2010 at 3:06 pm

      Like you Annie ,I
21. Anne 21

    26 March 2010 at 3:29 pm

    Thanks Zorr. I missed it. Assuming the article is correct (and I bet it is) then if the P.C. changes her finding of a “breach of privacy etc.” to something less, then we will know Bully Bennett and co. have been at it again!
22. Herodotus 22

    26 March 2010 at 3:50 pm

    If I have missed this then appoligies. As I cannot see anything is there a planned posting regarding the Red takeover of our farms and if such an act is beneficial to NZ in any fashion?
    • lprent 22.1

      26 March 2010 at 4:58 pm

      There is a procedure to deal with it at the OIO. I’ll find it interesting if and when it passes that criteria (much the same as I did with the airports). A lot of potential purchases don’t get past the OIO procedures, usually because they drop out prior to it finishing. That is why I haven’t posted on it.
      • Herodotus 22.1.1

        26 March 2010 at 9:28 pm

        Thansk It would be interesting (At least to me) and to seperate Foreign Investment and Ownership that results in monies being appropiated off shore and senior management being imported so that we can be left with the menial tasks (In this case I am worried that even these maybe filled from overseas). So we are left in a enlarged version of Queenstown whereby the locals cannot live within the community they are servicing and are by necessity left to live in places like Cromwell and the likes. Similar to the likes of the Islands (Fiji and the likes) and ther tourists.

Links to post

1. Labour on mining. Brownlee on bullshit. « The Standard: posted on 26 March 2010 at 8:51 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS