Open mike 25/05/2013

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, May 25th, 2013 - 100 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…

100 comments on “Open mike 25/05/2013 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Alanz 1
    25 May 2013 at 6:43 am

    Fantastic to see our new Race Relations Commissioner articulately condemning Winston Peter’s comments and she should get a pay increase:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10886045

    /sarc

    • Jenny 1.1
      25 May 2013 at 7:36 am

      ‘

      Following the deafening silence from the Race Relations Commissioner over revelations from the IPCA, that several of the police actions taken against Tuhoe were illegal.
      Plus the following statement from the Commissioner of Police Peter Marshall, that no disciplinary actions of any sort will be taken against those responsible for these illegal acts. You might think that as most of these illegal police acts were perpetrated against Maori. And that the police are not interested in disciplining those responsible. The Race Relations Commissioner might have an opinion.

      But no. Nothing at all from the office of the Race Relations Commissioner, either for, or against Peter Marshall’s decision not to act on admitted police wrong doing against Maori.

      And now another wondrous tale from the log of the amazing Race Relations Commissioner, who isn’t.

      Winston Peters has again resumed mining the rich vein of anti-Asian racism that has served his so well. The Race Relations Commissioner says she “doesn’t want to get involved”.

      ….Susan Devoy has refrained from joining critics of NZ First Leader Winston Peters’ latest attack on China’s growing influence in New Zealand, saying she doesn’t want to get involved.

      Adam Bennett New Zealand Herald

      The clock must be ticking on our Squash Relations Commissioner.

      Things have got so bad, that Judith Collins who appointed Devoy to the role. Had to personally issue a statement to fill the vacuum left by Devoy. Collins statement labelled Mr Peters’ comments “confrontational” and “insulting”.

      When the Minister has to step in, this farcical appointment must be nearing its end,

      • Alanz 1.1.1
        25 May 2013 at 7:49 am

        Our dearest dame doing her darndest not to fking get involved, nor even fronting up to say that, but getting her ‘spokeswoman’ to say that !?!

        . . . . .

        But Dame Susan was not willing to comment last night.
        “It’s just not a discussion she wants to get involved with,” a spokeswoman said.

        . . . . .

        “Not a discussion she wants to get involved with”!

        Huh?? Wot?

        In the famous two-word question from Pauline Hanson (yes, one needs to resort to quoting that thing): “Please explain?”

        Wtf, darn de Void, wtf-ing wtf.

        • Jenny 1.1.1.1
          25 May 2013 at 9:34 pm

          Maybe Collins should make the spokeswoman Commissioner.

          While apparently the current RRC is AWOL, At least she fronts up.

          She couldn’t be worse than the current office holder.

    • Murray Olsen 1.2
      25 May 2013 at 8:15 pm

      I think Dame Susan is waiting for Ansell or Brash to complain about the racism of Mowree places at Medical School before she’ll have an opinion. Or the racism and apartheid of Mowree seats in Parliament. She probably has views on that too.

    • infused 1.3
      26 May 2013 at 12:05 am

      Why would anyone give a shit about Peters? Waste of fucking oxygen he is.

      • McFlock 1.3.1
        26 May 2013 at 12:17 am

        5%-6% of parliament is why.
        Possible kingmaker in the next parliament is why.

  2. karol 2
    25 May 2013 at 7:00 am

    Just saw a report on AL Jazeera’s NewsHour about a Waikato Treaty settlement. It portrayed it as part of a reconciliation process and ended with the line:

    A country facing up to its painful past

    If only more of the country were interested in such settlements and the history leading up to them!

    The report included a speech from Finlayson and critical comments by Winston Peters.

    It’s probably this settlement.

  3. Morrissey 3
    25 May 2013 at 7:45 am

    ‘It is definitely a fit-up.’
    GCHQ employees on Assange rape allegations

    Authorities at GCHQ, the government eavesdropping agency, are facing embarrassing revelations about internal correspondence in which Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is discussed, apparently including speculation that he is being framed by Swedish authorities seeking his extradition on rape allegations. The records were revealed by Assange himself in a Sunday night interview with Spanish television programme Salvados in which he explained that an official request for information gave him access to instant messages that remained unclassified by GCHQ.

    A message from September 2012, read out by Assange, apparently says: “They are trying to arrest him on suspicion of XYZ … It is definitely a fit-up… Their timings are too convenient right after Cablegate.”‘

    Read more….
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/may/20/julian-assange-gchq-messages-extradition

    • weka 3.1
      25 May 2013 at 10:07 am

      A message from September 2012, read out by Assange, apparently says: “They are trying to arrest him on suspicion of XYZ … It is definitely a fit-up… Their timings are too convenient right after Cablegate.”‘

      This makes me trust Assange even less.

      If he had released the whole of the information received from GCHQ then it would give people the chance to judge for themselves and it would demonstrate an openness about the information. As it is, he is selectively quoting. It looks like in an attempt to make out he is innocent of the rape allegations and that he is the victim of a conspiracy, but his actions now are the actions of someone with something to hide.

      Likewise Morrisey, your highlighting of “it is definitely a fit up” as the headline in your comment, misleads as it implies that GCHQ think that. Instead, when you read the Guardian article, it looks more like the anonymous speculation of a single GCHQ employee taken out of context with no analysis or conclusion.

      It would help if you used the html tags to make it clear that the words in your post are quote from the Guardian rather than your own thoughts.

      • Te Reo Putake 3.1.1
        25 May 2013 at 10:34 am

        The other alleged text message Julian Assange read out, and Moz forgot to quote, is far more apt:

        “He reckons he will stay in the Ecuadorian embassy for six to 12 months when the charges against him will be dropped, but that is not really how it works now is it? He’s a fool… Yeah … A highly optimistic fool.”

        • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1
          25 May 2013 at 11:23 am

          Come now TRP, either the GCHQ staffer has good judgement on how these things work or doesn’t. You don’t get to cherry pick which messages are credible according to your own preselection bias.

          • weka 3.1.1.1.1
            25 May 2013 at 12:00 pm

            Spies are always good at what they do or always bad at what they do? What I took from the article is that these were messages being sent as part of ongoing communications. Until we have context and see what was done with the information in those communications it’s hard to know the value ot place on them.

            We also don’t know how many people are being quoted (did Assange choose that?).

          • Pascal's bookie 3.1.1.1.2
            25 May 2013 at 12:03 pm

            Pretty sure it was Morrissey who did that.

            What reason do we have to think the fit up line shows good judgement?

            If this was a serious discussion, it would be classified. The fact it was released suggests it’s just idiots blathering.

            • Morrissey 3.1.1.1.2.1
              25 May 2013 at 1:13 pm

              If this was a serious discussion, it would be classified. The fact it was released suggests it’s just idiots blathering.

              Fool, you know as well as the rest of us that this was a statement of truth by someone required to carry out wicked deeds for the state. And what the hell do you know about the protocols involved in classifying internal communications?

              The only idiots blathering here are the likes of your good, albeit bewildered, self.

              • Pascal's bookie …
                25 May 2013 at 1:34 pm

                lol.

                So there is a grand conspiracy to trump up charges against the guy, but it’s not classified because why on earth would you do that?

                • Morrissey …
                  25 May 2013 at 1:44 pm

                  It looks like you are trying to suggest that there are not people conspiring to get this dissenter, whom you dismissively refer to as “the guy”.

                  If you are trying to suggest that, you have even less integrity than the egregious Paul Holmes (R.I.P.) who at least had the honesty to admit that the U.S. and U.K. regimes “will have to kill him.”

                  • Pascal's bookie …
                    25 May 2013 at 2:52 pm

                    Maybe you should read it again, and try and address the point that if the charges are a fit up, then discussing the fit up would be classified.

                    Given that the discussion is not classified, that suggests that it was a casual communication between people speculating, rather than official records of actual events and official conclusions.

                    • Morrissey …
                      25 May 2013 at 4:19 pm

                      Maybe you should read it again, and try and address the point that if the charges are a fit up, then discussing the fit up would be classified.

                      That is not the point, of course. The point is: GCHQ operatives have been caught acknowledging that the charges against this dissenter—who you dismissively refer to as “the guy”—-are fraudulent. That they probably broke some protocol designed to protect their criminal behaviour from public scrutiny is a matter for the ethically void mandarins who run that thoroughly discredited department.

                      Given that the discussion is not classified, that suggests that it was a casual communication between people speculating, rather than official records of actual events and official conclusions.

                      “Speculating”? They were stating the truth—not a good career move in a branch of government dedicated to the precise opposite. But it is the truth, nonetheless.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      25 May 2013 at 4:45 pm

                      Morrissey, you are not thinking clearly about this.

                      The communication that was released was determined not to be sensitive enough to classify.

                      There was no ‘protocol’ broken here. There is a communication, of some sort, that was deemed to be ok to release. That’s what you haven’t explained. If the people speaking actually know what they are talking about, and reaching official conclusions, then it would have been deemed highly sensitive, especially if Assange is in fact being stiched up.

                      But it wasn’t deemed sensitive at all. These are the only actual facts we have: Snippets of what was said, and the fact it wasn’t classified.

                      You very much want to believe that this is some sort of official finding. If it was, it would have been classified. We don’t know for certain what it is, because the details and context are not things that Assange has chosen to disclose as yet.

                      If they were ‘stating the truth’, why wasn’t it deemed sensitive enough to classify?

                      Are you going to address this at all?

        • Morrissey 3.1.1.2
          25 May 2013 at 1:04 pm

          “He’s a fool… Yeah … A highly optimistic fool.”

          So they don’t particularly admire the dissenter—after all, they ARE working for the government’s notoriously unreliable and corrupt secret service.

          But, to the evident consternation and embarrassment of the likes of you and poor old weka, the key words here are “It is definitely a fit-up.”

          You know it is, too, but I don’t think you have the moral courage to actually admit you were foolishly taken in by these folk.

      • Colonial Viper 3.1.2
        25 May 2013 at 11:25 am

        Weka, has it occurred to you that its the reporter (or their editor) selectively quoting that passage, not Assange?

        • weka 3.1.2.1
          25 May 2013 at 12:04 pm

          Yep, fair enough. But does Assange still have access the internet? Why not publish what he was given? (or leak it if he can’t publish it himself). That was really my point – Assange has this information and he is manipulating us by how it gets fed into the public domain.

          I also think that Morrissey is manipulating the information, so by the time it gets to the Standard, it’s hard to know what is going on 🙂 If I was in Morrissey’s position, I’d look further to see where else Assange has permitted this information to be used. Unless of course that would make Assange look bad 😉

          • Morrissey 3.1.2.1.1
            25 May 2013 at 1:08 pm

            If I was [sic] in Morrissey’s position, I’d look further to see where else Assange has permitted this information to be used.

            If I were in YOUR position, i.e., embarrassed and floundering, I would try to divert the discussion away from the key admission, which is “It is definitely a fit-up.”

            Which is what you are doing, badly. Be advised that you should desist from this, because you will be called on it, as you are being called on it right now.

            Have a good day, my feathered friend, and try not to let the bile levels affect your functioning as a human being.

            • weka 3.1.2.1.1.1
              25 May 2013 at 1:53 pm

              Wow, so many words to say, well, bugger all. I already addressed the point that you think is key (“it’s definitely a fitup”). It looks like one comment, from one staffer, in a casual communication, and devoid of any context or official conclusion.

              Go ahead and see if you can call me on the actual points I raise instead of spending three parapgraphs correcting my grammar, trying to put me down and marginalising my comments by attributing nasty qualities that you’ve made up.

              • Morrissey …
                25 May 2013 at 2:20 pm

                Wow, so many words to say, well, bugger all.

                “So many words”? Fool, I edit my writing very carefully, and I don’t mess around with empty verbiage. I pulled you down, dispatched you, roasted you and served you up as an example of hapless bewilderment in a few well executed words.

                Not a word too many, not a word too few. (I know you’re protected and all, but it had to be done.)

                I already addressed the point that you think is key (“it’s definitely a fitup”).

                “The point I think is key”? That is the whole point of the release; it’s not very often that these frightening people let their guards down and tell the truth like that. People who care about ethical standards and justice—not you, obviously—will be heartened to see that even GCHQ spooks have a conscience.

                And here YOU are, trying to diminish, even deny, the massive significance of that rare moment of honesty. You’re not clever enough to get away with such brazen tactics, buddy.

                Go ahead and see if you can call me on the actual points I raise instead of spending three parapgraphs correcting my grammar, trying to put me down and marginalising my comments by attributing nasty qualities that you’ve made up.

                You are the one who waded out of your comfort zone. Your self-pitying reproaches cut no ice with me.

                • McFlock …
                  25 May 2013 at 4:33 pm

                  I edit my writing very carefully, and I don’t mess around with empty verbiage. I pulled you down, dispatched you, roasted you and served you up as an example of hapless bewilderment in a few well executed words.

                  That should be:

                  I edit my writing very carefully. My concise comments made you an example of hapless bewilderment.

                  If you wanted to avoid your claim to outstanding prose contradicting itself. Christ knows the rest of your claims only reflect reality by occasional happenstance.

                  • Morrissey …
                    25 May 2013 at 4:42 pm

                    If you wanted to avoid your claim to outstanding prose contradicting itself.

                    Since I’m in a magnanimous frame of mind today, I would have liked to correct and tidy up that sentence before critiquing it. However, it is utterly incomprehensible, and I feel unable to help you out at this stage.

                    Please resubmit it, this time with the words you have so clearly forgotten to put in.

                    Christ knows the rest of your claims only reflect reality by occasional happenstance.

                    At least that one internally coheres, even though it is an utterly vacuous and untrue assertion.

                    I thought you were better than this, McFlock.

                    https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/1677672704/h4A6096A1/

                    • McFlock …
                      25 May 2013 at 5:01 pm

                      Lol.

                      That should be “I edit my writing very carefully. My concise comments made you an example of hapless bewilderment” if you wanted to avoid your claim to outstanding prose contradicting itself.

                      Funny how a wee bit of non-standard punctuation and formatting made you as stupid as a ZX81 attempting the Turing Test.

          • Colonial Viper 3.1.2.1.2
            25 May 2013 at 1:09 pm

            Well, anyone can OIA the exact same information if they wanted too…or even just do an OIA on his OIA.

            • Pascal's bookie 3.1.2.1.2.1
              25 May 2013 at 1:40 pm

              From the piece it seems that the request is for info regarding the person making the request. More like our privacy act than our OIA

            • weka 3.1.2.1.2.2
              25 May 2013 at 2:06 pm

              Maybe CV, but my point was about why Assange wouldn’t just make the whole bundle public. What do you think?

              • red rattler …
                25 May 2013 at 2:56 pm

                If you read the article Weka you will see Assange says
                “We have just received this. It is not public yet,”
                Don’t you think that the founder of Wikileaks knows about the importance of public disclosure. It seems here he managed to get GCHQ to blow their own whistle.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  25 May 2013 at 3:02 pm

                  Indeed – and Assange knows the importance of not just timing information releases for maximum coverage, but also co-ordinating it with other events and documents.

                • weka …
                  25 May 2013 at 6:13 pm

                  I did read that red rattler, and of course I know what Assange is capable of re information disclosure. Did you read my comments, as that was one of the points I was making.

                  • weka …
                    25 May 2013 at 6:20 pm

                    Or to put it another way. Why let the Guardian selectively quote, so that it looks like ‘idiots blathering’, when you could make the whole thing public, in context, and make things transparent rather than appearing to be manipulated (by the Guardian, by Assange, by whoever)?

      • Morrissey 3.1.3
        25 May 2013 at 12:59 pm

        This makes me trust Assange even less.

        Let me guess: your “distrust” of Assange is matched by your faith in the people who are targeting him. I hope you get some sort of civic recognition for your faithful devotion to state propaganda—if you’re doing this for free, you’re an even more hapless fool than you seem.

        Likewise Morrisey, your highlighting of “it is definitely a fit up” as the headline in your comment, misleads as it implies that GCHQ think that. Instead, when you read the Guardian article, it looks more like the anonymous speculation of a single GCHQ employee taken out of context with no analysis or conclusion.

        Like the internal state documents exposed by the likes of Ellsberg, Chomsky and many other dissenters, this is damning evidence because it shows what the people hired to carry out these lethal state duties actually think about what they are doing. You can shout and scream abuse at them if you like, but truth will out in the end. As it most certainly has in this case.

        • weka 3.1.3.1
          25 May 2013 at 2:01 pm

          Oh the irony. You do realise you just had a go at me for believing state propaganda, and then ended by attempting to use state evidence to support your cause.

          I don’t particularly trust Assange, nor the State. But in either case I judge on a case by case basis, rather than assigning prejudice like you do. In case you don’t remember, (but I am sure you do, and are just being a deceptive shit head), I’m quite prepared to believe that various states in the world are trying to undermine Assange in various ways. I just don’t think that makes Assange an angel or the Great Hero you profess him to be.

          I’m sorry you live in a such a black and white world where any criticism of Assange = non-belief in his persecution. The world I live in is more complex.

          As is often the case your debate technique is poor. Not sure if that is because you just can’t put the arguments together more coherently, or if it’s because you understand that asserting opinion as Truth serves your cause better.

          • Morrissey 3.1.3.1.1
            25 May 2013 at 2:34 pm

            Oh the irony.

            WHAT? Clearly, you have about as much understanding of the concept of irony as Alanis Morissette.

            You do realise you just had a go at me for believing state propaganda, and then ended by attempting to use state evidence to support your cause.

            No I didn’t.

            I’m sorry you live in a such a black and white world where any criticism of Assange = non-belief in his persecution.

            “Criticism” of Assange? What you and the other unwitting dupes of the British secret service are doing is not criticising Assange, it is simply adding to the blackening of his name and adding to the climate of fear and loathing against this dissenter. If this was Soviet Russia in 1937, you would have been blithely repeating Stalinist rhetoric against those dastardly doctors.

            I don’t particularly trust Assange, nor the State.

            Rubbish. Your posting history is all over this mostly excellent forum. Do you want me to embarrass you by digging up some of your more credulous posts?

            The world I live in is more complex.

            Obviously. Maybe that explains the bewilderment.

            As is often the case your debate technique is poor. Not sure if that is because you just can’t put the arguments together more coherently, or if it’s because you understand that asserting opinion as Truth serves your cause better.

            I didn’t assert my opinion, I posted up EVIDENCE—irrefutable evidence—that even the people charged with persecuting this dissenter openly acknowledge the allegations against him are utterly spurious.

            • weka 3.1.3.1.1.1
              25 May 2013 at 6:15 pm

              Boring. Can’t even be bothered answering if you are going on with the character maligning every time you can’t address a point properly.

              • Morrissey …
                25 May 2013 at 7:41 pm

                Boring.

                Congratulations. You have succeeded in posting up a response even more abjectly limp than Descendant of Smith’s moronic “whatever” during a football debate the other day.

                Can’t even be bothered answering if you are going on with the character maligning every time you can’t address a point properly.

                Translation: I got nuthin’.

            • McFlock 3.1.3.1.1.2
              25 May 2013 at 8:01 pm

              I posted up EVIDENCE—irrefutable evidence—that even the people charged with persecuting this dissenter openly acknowledge the allegations against him are utterly spurious.

              Lol

              Nope. You posted private comments attributed to professional conspiracy theorists in which they apparently speculate that a conspiracy occurred.

              • Morrissey …
                25 May 2013 at 8:40 pm

                Lol

                “Lol”?

                “LOL”?!?

                Sacré bleu! First there was Descendant of Smith with his “Whatever”; then there was poor bewildered weka with his abject “Boring”, and now here YOU are with the most witless signifier of inadequacy of them all! I’d like to put it down to the likelihood that you’ve had (another) bad day, but I’m sadly aware that I’m probably clutching at straws. I’m concerned about your lack of performance, my friend, I really am.

                Nope. You posted private comments attributed to professional conspiracy theorists in which they apparently speculate that a conspiracy occurred.

                Two GCHQ people dare to speak the truth about the frightful business they are being employed to carry out, and they are immediately transformed into “professional conspiracy theorists”!

                As shown by your witty reply on this thread, written at 5:01 p.m., you do possess a sense of humour. For your sake, I hope the mad and desperate rhetoric you’re now engaging in is just some kind of barren exercise in intellectual jousting. I’m still inclined to the view that you’re just having a laugh; the alternative is just too depressing.

                • McFlock …
                  25 May 2013 at 8:52 pm

                  Just goes to show you shouldn’t spend bullshitting emails to your workmates, which is what the guardian quotes look like.

                  Intelligence work is largely about constructing theories and assessments about human networks and plans from the available data. Gchq employees are paid to do this.

                  So yeah, lolz.

                  • Morrissey …
                    25 May 2013 at 9:16 pm

                    Gchq employees are paid to do this.

                    And they’re not paid to speak plainly about unhelpful matters like morality and human rights. The damned fools broke all the rules.

                    • McFlock …
                      25 May 2013 at 9:33 pm

                      Oh for fuck’s sake, try to stick to the point.

                      They weren’t transformed into professional conspiracy theorists, that’s their actual job.

                      Your “irrefutable evidence” is simply at least two people speculating about what happened based purely on timing. Nothing we haven’t seen here.

                      Now, if they’d said that they had direct knowledge that the complainants were part of a plan by an intelligence service, you might merely be overstating a point (“irrefutable” my arse). As it is, you’re in Fantasy Land again.

                    • Morrissey …
                      26 May 2013 at 7:31 am

                      Your “irrefutable evidence” is simply at least two people speculating about what happened based purely on timing. Nothing we haven’t seen here.

                      Two spooks speak frankly about the craven dishonesty of their mission. This is a rare and (for those souls who support this official attempt at lynching) devastating revelation. You can, for whatever reason, try to trivialize and scoff at it, but it only has consequences for your credibility, I’m afraid.

                      Now, if they’d said that they had direct knowledge that the complainants were part of a plan by an intelligence service,

                      They did say that, and they do have direct knowledge of it. They are involved in this crime up to their elbows.

                      … you might merely be overstating a point (“irrefutable” my arse).

                      Two spooks calling it as it is. speaking plainly about a man their organization is trying to “fit up”, i.e. frame him on entirely bogus charges; you know and everyone else with an IQ above room temperature knows that they were speaking plainly and honestly. Still, let’s be philosophers for a moment and consider the other possibility, the one to which (for whatever reason) you are subscribing: these spooks are so brilliantly deceptive that they are speaking in some weird code which renders their private correspondence as contrary to truth as their official lying.

                      As it is, you’re in Fantasy Land again.

                      That’s not any sort of argument. You’re the one who actually buys in to (or pretends to buy in to) this squalid official fantasy.

                      Many people have noted the disquieting similarity of the persecution of Assange to what happened to official enemies in Moscow in the 1930s; trying to discuss this rationally with you puts me in mind of what Noam Chomsky said about trying to engage in debate with the darling of the extreme right Christopher Hitchens: it’s like trying to argue with a Soviet commissar.

                    • McFlock …
                      26 May 2013 at 3:19 pm

                      Two spooks speak frankly about the craven dishonesty of their mission.

                      Um, no. The clue is that the emails used the words “they” rather than “we”. Referring to intelligence services of another nation.


                      Now, if they’d said that they had direct knowledge that the complainants were part of a plan by an intelligence service,

                      They did say that, and they do have direct knowledge of it. They are involved in this crime up to their elbows.

                      They say neither. You are reading shit that is not there. Just fyi.

  4. farmboy 4
    25 May 2013 at 7:47 am

    Seen juila gilards speech on muslems fuckn nailed it ,tho many on here will know doubt have a promblem,but the majority of assies’s and n zs would agree

    • mickysavage 4.1
      25 May 2013 at 8:00 am

      de di ding ding ding ding ding ding ding …

    • Morrissey 4.2
      25 May 2013 at 8:04 am

      Seen juila gilards speech on muslems fuckn

      Lyn, just a couple of weeks ago, this hapless fool was banned for posting nothing but idiotic, illiterate provocations. I see he is still at it.

      What gives?

      • dumrse 4.2.1
        25 May 2013 at 10:05 am

        “That’s nice”.

      • prism 4.2.2
        25 May 2013 at 10:29 am

        This f..boy doesn’t smell right, I don’t think he is of the agricultural persuasion. No lovely whiff of sheep nuts or cow pats at all. More like an overflowing septic tank.

        • farmboy 4.2.2.1
          25 May 2013 at 10:54 am

          nice to no you love smelling sheeps nuts prism,and i thought you were a lessy

          • Suitably Clueless 4.2.2.1.1
            25 May 2013 at 11:11 am

            you are a straight up nutbar farmboy, have you anything to say that is at least based in reality?

          • Pascal's bookie 4.2.2.1.2
            25 May 2013 at 12:04 pm

            Where’d you ‘see’ this speech farmboy?

            link plz.

          • fender 4.2.2.1.3
            25 May 2013 at 2:29 pm

            Farmboy illustrates ‘lessy’ is not more(y).

    • Alanz 4.3
      25 May 2013 at 8:05 am

      What has Gillard said? She is not anti-Muslim. What is the problem?

      Is this about the hoax email that was doing the rounds:

      http://www.hoax-slayer.com/gillard-muslims-leave.shtml

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 4.4
      25 May 2013 at 1:07 pm

      Poor Farmboy, so easily duped into believing such an obvious hoax.

      Here’s the even sadder part: he’ll be angrier at us for pointing it out than he will be at the manipulative wretch that lied to him.

      We need better wingnuts.

  5. Morrissey 5
    25 May 2013 at 8:02 am

    LIARS OF OUR TIME
    No. 11: Brendan O’Connor

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    “Australia’s approach to refugees is compassionate and generous.”

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    —Australian Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Brendan O’Connor, after a damning Amnesty International report.

    http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1769562/Australia-‘going-backwards’-on-asylum-policy

    See also….
    No. 10: Boris Johnson: “Londoners have… the best police in the world to keep us safe.”
    No. 9: NewstalkZB PR dept: “News you NEED! Fast, fair, accurate!” No. 8: Simon Bridges: “I don’t mean to duck the question” No. 7: Nigel Morrison: “Quite frankly, they’ve been VERY tough.”

    No. 6: NZ Herald PR dept: “Congratulations—you’re reading New Zealand’s best newspaper.”

    
No. 5: Rawdon Christie: “…a FORMIDABLE replacement, it seems, is Claudette Hauiti.”

    
No. 4: Willie and J.T.: “The X-Factor. Nah, nah, there’s some GREAT talent there!”

    
No. 3: John Key: “Yeah we hold MPs to a higher standard.”
    
No. 2: Colin Craig: “Oh, I have a GREAT sense of humour.” (TV3 News, 24 April 2013) 
No. 1: Barack Obama: “Margaret Thatcher was one of the great champions of freedom and liberty.”

  6. AsleepWhileWalking 6
    25 May 2013 at 8:04 am

    Richmond not doing their job AGAIN. When is it that those who care for disabled and mentally ill will be held to account?

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/8715951/No-place-left-to-feel-safe

    In other news, abuse is apparently “normal” for patients in residential care. So much for human rights. What else is happening that isn’t in the news?

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/8712369/Abuse-claims-at-seriously-dysfunctional-care-home

    • AsleepWhileWalking 6.1
      25 May 2013 at 8:16 am

      I notice what isn’t included…no allegations of sexual abuse. Is that because they never occurred, or because any complaints were shut down? And only ONE reported incident of client self harm (for example) – isn’t that a suspiciously low number for this type of facility?

      Reported incidents at Te Roopu Taurima O Manukau Trust 2010-2012

      17 escapes
      14 alleged assaults of clients
      3 alleged client assaults/threatens staff
      2 alleged abuse
      2 clients charged by police
      2 inappropriate behaviour by client
      1 medication error
      1 client hospitalisation (medical condition)
      1 fire
      1 car accident
      1 inappropriate restraint of client
      1 property damage by client
      1 client self harm

      47: TOTAL

      • just saying 6.1.1
        25 May 2013 at 10:24 am

        Well said in both comments.

        With knowledge of the atrocious treatment of marginalised individuals in every kind of institutional care, I think many thought we couldn’t do much worse by those in need of care and support, if such services were taken out of the hands of the state.

        So now we sell off the care of the most powerless to the lowest bidder in a race to the bottom free-market of neglect and abuse. That, or offer no help at all.

        • Tim 6.1.1.1
          25 May 2013 at 3:38 pm

          I know! put ’em in the Army, or the Police! and show ’em some discipline. We might even be able to get them to do our dirty work, and when things turn sour – we’ve got the perfik scuse.

  7. David H 7
    25 May 2013 at 8:59 am

    Now this is shaping up to be quite a fight, in one corner the Brewing barons, and in the other the Fracking barons. And in the middle Angela Merkel.

    Now it gets serious: Fracking could RUIN BEER
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/24/german_brewers_warn_that_frackng_could_contaminate_beer/

  8. prism 8
    25 May 2013 at 10:24 am

    Kim Hill interviewing NZs of note that we should all know about. These should be our stars so we hear lots about them and less sports trivia, including from overseas now such as the Boston Red Sox and that sort of thing. Note I said LESS sport only.

    9:05 David Skegg
    Professor Sir David Skegg is a New Zealand epidemiologist, and the President of the Royal Society of New Zealand. He is a former Vice-Chancellor of the University of Otago, and Professor of Preventive and Social Medicine.
    http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/
    http://www.otago.ac.nz/

    9:45 Phoebe Hayman
    Phoebe Hayman is the CEO of toy craft-kit design company Seedling NZ. The company’s gnomes are being showcased in London this week at the centenary celebrations of the world’s most famous gardening event, the Royal Horticultural Society Chelsea Flower Show, overturning the Show’s long-standing prohibition on gnomes to raise funds for the Show’s school gardening campaign.

    10:05 Playing Favourites with Gifford Jackson
    New Zealand industrial design pioneer Gifford Jackson spent 37 years as a design consultant here after working in New York for 17 years. His life and work is celebrated in the new book, Gifford Jackson: New Zealand Industrial Design Pathfinder by Michael Smyth (Creationz, ISBN: 978-0-473-23882-7).

    And Joan Baez interview preparation for her coming here in August I think.

  9. Oscar 9
    25 May 2013 at 11:03 am

    Re the TPPA. I assume that like most of the other agreements we have such as with Australia and China, that the TPPA will be signed on behalf of the crown for Aotearoa?

    What wouls happen then, in the instance that Aotearoa becomes a Republic? Does that mean the agreements signed on behalf of the crown become null and void?

    • Colonial Viper 9.1
      25 May 2013 at 11:29 am

      Only if the way we become a republic includes abrogating every single agreement and contract the Government has been involved with for 150 years. All those people sentnced to preventative detention by the Crown just gonna go walk? Not likely.

  10. freedom 10
    25 May 2013 at 12:02 pm

    I suppose it is slightly comforting to know that NZ isn’t the only place with nutbars in control
    http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/fema-plans-clear-cutting-85000-berkeley-and-oakland-trees

  11. prism 11
    25 May 2013 at 12:26 pm

    Cars in the USA had a terrifying plunge into freezing waters from a broken bridge. A beam had been hit by an over-sized load of drilling equipment. There are calls now for the old bridges in the USA to receive much needed attention.

    The ability of business to externalise their costs there is the same here. Longer trucks, heavier trucks here are causing problems on the public roads.
    Drilling equipment will be a growing blockage on our roads. The USA isn’t up to the problems that their pursuit of business cause. Neither are we.

  12. Randle 12
    25 May 2013 at 12:30 pm

    I’ll just put this here for the next time John Key gets in deep shit

    http://i41.tinypic.com/1yx374.jpg

    • ianmac 12.1
      25 May 2013 at 4:59 pm

      He will smell a little better in cowshit than in dogshit.

    • freedom 12.2
      25 May 2013 at 7:48 pm

      Randle, I really hope you don’t mind but the way he was out of sync with the field of view was bugging me so I took the liberty of giving him a back, to sit him in the picture better.
      (I couldn’t do anything about his lack of spine)
      http://postimg.org/image/rd2ctavur/

  13. Draco T Bastard 13
    25 May 2013 at 1:04 pm

    The poverty of austerity exposed

    There are problems with all this, to be sure – that’s the whole point of Blyth’s book. But the story austerians like to tell is considerably simpler than the messy details of how it all falls apart time after time after time after time. What’s more, there’s a rather compelling moral overtone involved: You’ve got debts? Pay them! It’s what individuals, households and businesses must do, why not governments as well?

    Why not? The anti-austerity case is two-fold: First, as Blyth repeatedly points out, there’s the fallacy of composition: what’s true for any one individual isn’t always true for the whole, and in the case of cutting spending in a recession, it’s exactly the opposite of what’s needed, since one person’s spending cut is another’s drop in income, which only increases the need to cut spending more, creating a vicious downward spiral. Second, governments alone have the ability to resist this self-defeating logic. Governments sovereign in their own currencies – like the US and Britain, and most of Europe before the creation of the eurozone – have the power to borrow as much money as necessary to break the downward cycle of deflationary fear (moreover, Keynes specifically said that governments should pay down debt once the economy recovered, and the US consistently didreduce its debt burden [debt/GDP ratio] throughout the post-World War II period when Keynesian policies dominated. That’s what ensures their long-term ability to keep intervening with expansionary spending when everyone else is cutting back).

    It seems that the book missed the most important part about countries being sovereign – they can print their own money and thus have no need to borrow.

    The bit that seems to have been missed is that that fallacy of composition is the entire basis of our economic system. The economists take a single actor Homo economicus and expands it out to every single person and company in the world and is precisely what the fallacy of composition is.

    The entire neo-liberal economic theory starts with a fallacy and goes downhill from there.

    Indeed, one of the evident subtexts of Blyth’s book which cries out for futher systematic study is the ways in which socio-political power relations are first mystified, and then magically transformed into psuedo-natural laws, which in turn leads directly to TINA-style arguments. Or, more simply: how the golden rule works out in metaphysical practice: those with the gold make all the rules, not just about how the world does work, but about how it possibly can work.

    Hits the nail on the head there though. The problem we have is that it’s the rich making the rules.

    • karol 13.1
      25 May 2013 at 6:45 pm

      Thanks for that link to a very interesting review. Also this weekend, I read this that relates to your last sentence, DTB, about the rich making the rules. Paul Krugman on The Smith/Klein/Kalecki Theory of Austerity.

      Noah Smith recently offered an interesting take on the real reasons austerity garners so much support from elites, no matter hw badly it fails in practice. Elites, he argues, see economic distress as an opportunity to push through “reforms” — which basically means changes they want, which may or may not actually serve the interest of promoting economic growth — and oppose any policies that might mitigate crisis without the need for these changes:…

      What Smith didn’t note, somewhat surprisingly, is that his argument is very close to Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine, with its argument that elites systematically exploit disasters to push through neoliberal policies even if these policies are essentially irrelevant to the sources of disaster.

      And I also read this book review, on David Stuckler’s latest book: review title ‘Recessions can hurt, but austerity kills’. Stuckler’s book is about the impact on health, and the related increase in homelessness that has resulted from “austerity”.

      In a powerful new book, The Body Economic, Stuckler and his colleague Sanjay Basu, an assistant professor of medicine and epidemiologist at Stanford University, show that austerity is now having a “devastating effect” on public health in Europe and North America.

      The review focuses on the impact of austerity, and compares that with countries, like Germany and Iceland, that have included policies to lessen the impact of the recession on people’s health and levels of poverty. From the review, it seems to me the book has only looked to compare with less austere policies, and doesn’t look to a totally different alternative. Though comparisons are also made with US and UK policies of the Great Depression, and the post WWII investment in the UK welfare state.

  14. KJT 14
    25 May 2013 at 1:47 pm

    I’ve sent a few contributions in lately and they seem to disappear into a black hole.

    If it is a fault with the email you may want to fix it.

    If, on the other hand, the Standard dosn’t want to publish them, fine. That is your right. But please let me know so I know not to bother.

    [r0b: Hi KJT – I’m not sure who reads that email, probably Eddie or Lprent – I’ll ask lprent to take a look…]

    • weka 14.1
      25 May 2013 at 2:04 pm

      What email address are you using? I think it’s better to email someone direct rather than use the submission function on the site.

      • KJT 14.1.1
        25 May 2013 at 3:38 pm

        The gmail one on the submissions page.

        The submission function has never worked on firefox for me.

    • lprent 14.2
      25 May 2013 at 4:39 pm

      Me I am afraid. No time. I will email you…

  15. ghostrider888 15
    25 May 2013 at 2:29 pm

    The Book of Amos.
    Amos, not a man of court like Isaiah, or a priest like Jeremiah. Earned his living from tending the flock and the sycamore-fig grove. Skilled with words. Great range of general and historical knowledge (not an ignorant peasant). Went from Judah to announce God’s judgement on the Northern Kingdom (Israel). Few, if any, clues to the chronological order of his spoken messages-he may have repeated them often to reach everyone. Prophesied during the reigns of Uzziah over Judah, 792-740, and Jereboam II over Israel, 793-753.

    Both kingdoms enjoyed great prosperity and had reached new political and military heights, yet they were spiritually smug; prosperity had increased Israel’s religious and moral corruption. Israel had a worldly view of even the ritual that the Lord himself had prescribed. They thought performance of the rites was all God required, and with that done they could do what they pleased.Also a time of idolatry, extravagant indulgence in luxurious living, immorality, corruption of judicial procedures and oppression of the poor. As a consequence, God would soon bring about the Assyrian captivity of the Northern Kingdom.

    5:42 But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never failing stream.

    Amos condemned all those who make themselves powerful and rich at the expense of others. Those who had acquired two splendid houses, expensive furniture and richly furnished tables by cheating, perverting justice and crushing the poor would lose everything they had. God’s imminent judgement on Israel would not be a mere punitive blow to warn, but an almost total destruction. The unthinkable was about to happen.

    The God for whom Amos speaks is God of more than merely Israel. He uses nations against each other to carry out his purposes. He is the great King who rules the whole universe. All sovereign, the God of Israel holds the history and destiny of all peoples and of the world in his hands. Israel must know not only that he is the Lord of her future, but also that he is Lord over all, and that he has purposes and concerns that reach far beyond her borders. Israel had a unique, but not exclusive, claim on God.

    3:17 Surely the Sovereign Lord does nothing without revealing his plans to his servants, the prophets.

    Revelation 11:18 That you should destroy those who would destroy the earth.

    …for much is determined. 😉

    • Morrissey 15.1
      25 May 2013 at 2:40 pm

      Nice work, ghostrider. A brave and principled modern prophet, Noam Chomsky, is often cited as the modern equivalent of Amos.

      • ghostrider888 15.1.1
        25 May 2013 at 2:49 pm

        you are very kind.All is clear to see for those who have eyes.

      • Populuxe1 15.1.2
        26 May 2013 at 9:34 pm

        I trust that unlike Chomsky, Amos wasn’t taking a hefty paycheck from an organisation he professes to despise as an instrument of oppression.

  16. Rogue Trooper 16
    25 May 2013 at 2:47 pm

    from The Nation
    -if councils don’t sign the accords, they (Central Government) intend to come in over the top.”
    -Len Brown.(accord, if ratified, doesn’t come into effect until the Unitary Plan is notified, in September.)

    some interesting observations from the Parata article;
    Boag- (Parata is ) “warm, articulate, engaging and very bright”.???

    Jones-(charged with) “reigning in teacher unions political power”.

    Peters- “eat a dead rat everyday under National’s leadership”.
    (Govts education policy is deficient and the communication of said policy, is deficient).

    and Parata’s educational ethos? “that individuals excel”.read INDIVIDUALS! despite her background, no better than Paula Bennett.

  17. ghostrider888 17
    25 May 2013 at 3:01 pm

    forgot this. Not! 😉
    “Why are our rivers so polluted?
    Ask Steven Joyce.”
    http://www.3news.co.nz/Campaign-blames-Joyce-for-river-pollution/tabid/1160/articleID/299039/Default.aspx

    • weka 17.1
      25 May 2013 at 6:26 pm

      Heh, good for Snowdon.

      But the minister says he’s no puppeteer.
      “I have no idea what he’s talking about in that regard, but I will do my job, which is to try and encourage job and growth for New Zealanders and investment in the economy,”

      “I have no idea what he’s talking about in that regard, but I will do my job, which is to try and encourage job and growth for New Zealanders and investment in the economy, irrespective of the effect on the environment”

      FIFY Mr Joyce.

      • weka 17.1.1
        25 May 2013 at 6:28 pm

        http://www.askstevenjoyce.org.nz/


        May 25, 2013
        Awesome effort!
        Category: Media
        Posted by: admin

        A huge thanks to everyone who has contributed ideas, time and submissions. What an outstanding effort – we have already called out Steven Joyce on 3 News Friday 24th May, and the website has only been up 3 days.

        Mr Joyce told 3 big lies in the interview and as soon as the news clip is posted here we will show you what they were. He also made one thing abundantly clear – he is in charge. So for any of you who had doubts about where the buck stops, you just had it confirmed that he is the man.

        Now is the time to get the word out and ramp up the submissions. Please tell anyone you know that we are on a roll, and that if they help by submitting in the box above we have a lot better chance of saving our clean water. Get the message out though email, facebook and twitter.

  19. North 19
    25 May 2013 at 7:29 pm

    Haven’t read all of the above comments so this may have been discussed already – that covered – who wrote this shit editorial in the Herald ? Sounds like something from that facile and unaccomplished trougher, the flibbitigibbert Hekia Potato Parata:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/employment/news/article.cfm?c_id=11&objectid=10885737

    And on what authority does the writer float this business about the people who speak for legal aid lawyers not enjoying the confidence of those they speak for ? Complete and unadulterated bullshit to the point of being a wilful fabrication. Examples of any such lack of confidence please, liar.

    What a piece of shit the Herald is !

    • xtasy 20.1
      26 May 2013 at 2:50 am

      Own goal CV, this is in reference to ones, who have enough savings they can live off, comfortably. So the argument of poverty becomes a bit obsolete then. If the argument is about too low interest rates, so that interest does not cover living costs, how can you justify this to people that have not even any savings, no interest earned and so forth? I am sorry, I feel you did not view and listen to the whole story there. No, this is BS.

      People that are so wealthy, that they can live off interest are NOT Poor!

  21. xtasy 21
    26 May 2013 at 2:32 am

    A cop car featured heavily, once again, on the front page of the Herald Online last night, all about “hostage taking” and inguries and so forth. There was also a mention about “teen porn”, about other “scandalous” stories, and the list goes on. NZ media is now gutter media, for sure, as headlines are competed for, such “news” needing to be “enhanced” or “hyped up”.

    Nothing is normal anymore, nor do the shit consumers bother to demand it. It is the new game for the new generation, full of trivia, and contempt for anything that should be taken seriously and be treated with due respect.
    Generation X is followed by Gen Y, the most ruthless, selfish and jerkish lot I ever met.

    That is supposed to be our “future”. If I as an ageing person, NOT having been able to provide for retirement savings, having to “depend” on such bastarts of a mentality, I rather take my life before I hit the retirement age.

    Yes, we have no more solidarity and not a caring society anymore, unless perhaps as baby boomer parents you managed to tie your kids into some commitment.

    No, I have no such family, and I will die, I will die a lonely death, a life will be concluded in despiccable conditions, by the fucked, shit arsed selfish generation I see every day. I am contemplating about how to deal them a blow before they fucking retire, the selfishly rotten brats. They deserve to be taken apart, and punished, for not caring, and I see and hear it every day. Paula Bennett, Key and crims love them, as they are their voter base.

    The left do not get it, yet! Many of you should damned bloody worry, we have a rotten next generation that is semi fascist and capitalist, your damned traitor kids!!!

    • phillip ure 21.1
      26 May 2013 at 8:20 am

      bloody hell..!..xstasy..!

      ..i think you need some xstasy..eh..?..

      ..and..not met many idealistic-millenials then..?

      ..and you seem to be discounting the greed-is-good! /there-is-no-alternative! those ‘y’s were force-fed with all their lives..

      ..they are just a product of that conditioning/brainwashing..

      ..conditioning/brainwashing done by your generation..and an unthinking/craven/self-serving mainstream media..(and craven/self-serving/self-muzzling politicians – of all stripes..)

      ..and the good/cheering news is that i think that many of those ‘y’s are waking up to the poisoned-package they were sold..

      ..after all..the evidence is all around them..

      ..phillip ure..

      • xtasy 21.1.1
        26 May 2013 at 10:59 pm

        “..they are just a product of that conditioning/brainwashing..

        ..conditioning/brainwashing done by your generation..and an unthinking/craven/self-serving mainstream media..(and craven/self-serving/self-muzzling politicians – of all stripes..)

        ..and the good/cheering news is that i think that many of those ‘y’s are waking up to the poisoned-package they were sold..

        ..after all..the evidence is all around them..”

        Of course my comment was well over the top, as I must admit, but it is frustrating and angering, to see so much indifference and apathy out there, except where it comes to serve selected own interests and chasing opportunities and exciting perks.

        While you raise valid points, I must say though, that much that is said in defence by many of the younger generation, is just a cop-out. The internet makes available sufficient information and offers alternative choices, and there are also other ways to find out the truth about most things.

        Yet it is not taken advantage of by so many, and I notice and have heard and seen, that most cannot be bothered to make much effort in seeking true, factual information, in taking a stand on issues, or to even bother voting.

        They rather escape into personal distraction, little bits of private indulgence, and leave the rest to others more senior, to do the work and thinking for them. That is luckily not all, but sadly too many. Willing consumers of products and services (brainwashing included) offered by corporate ruled capitalism, that seems to fit the description of most.

        As for “xtasy”, I choose to stay away from drugs, believe it or not.

    • Populuxe1 21.2
      26 May 2013 at 9:38 pm

      “Generation X is followed by Gen Y, the most ruthless, selfish and jerkish lot I ever met.”

      Would this be because we’re getting on with it and have no particular use for you and your entitled hysterical, paranoid blatherings?