Open mike 26/12/2014

Written By: - Date published: 7:30 am, December 26th, 2014 - 197 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmikeThe Authors of the Standard are now in holiday mode. Posting will be less regular and dependant on individual author enthusiasm. Open mike will continue every day and prepare yourself for some year in review posts and some recycling of old stuff. And as R0b has said be nice to each other.

Open mike is your post.

The Standard is not a conspiracy – just a welcome outlet for the expression of views. Leaders that command respect will not be undermined by this.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

197 comments on “Open mike 26/12/2014 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Pete George 1
    26 December 2014 at 7:57 am

    An odd time for a poll but NZ Herald/Digipoll (with some false claims about post election polls and too little detail) but some encouraging results for Labour and Andrew Little.

    – National 50.4% (up 2.2 on last Digipoll, election result 47.04%)
    – Labour 28.9% (up 3.0, election 25.13%)
    – Greens 9.5% (down 1.6, election 10.7%)
    – NZ First 5.6% (down 2.8, election 8.66%)
    – Maori Party 1.5% (“up a little”, election 1.32%)
    – Mana Party 0.2% (Internet-Mana election 1.42%)
    – United Future and ACT were not given poll results

    Preferred Prime Minister:
    – John Key 65% (up 0.7%)
    – Andrew Little 13.6% (Goff, Shearer and Cunliffe peaked at 18-19%)

    Rating Andrew Little’s performance:
    – Excellent 5.3%
    – Very good 19.4%
    – Good 24.7%
    – Adequate 23%
    – Poor 7%

    This is an encouraging start by a Little led Labour. It will be important that Andrew Little starts the new year strongly and not too late (Cunliffe stuffed up his start to this year and he and Labour never recovered).

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11379112

    • mickysavage 1.1
      26 December 2014 at 8:12 am

      Let me fix that for you. The media torpedoed Cunliffe’s start of the year by requiring a level of detail in a policy document they never required the Nats to have.

      Have a look at any of the posts here from last January if you need any detail.

      • Pete George 1.1.1
        26 December 2014 at 8:27 am

        Cunliffe was slow to start this year and seemed poorly prepared. His failure to be on top of key details was a recurring problem.

        Yes the media can be over-demanding and at times unfair, but party leaders need to be able to deal with it.

        • tc 1.1.1.1
          26 December 2014 at 8:31 am

          Love that framing about media being unfair at times…..smudging reality again Petey as is your role. Cue the indignant rant

        • Tracey 1.1.1.2
          26 December 2014 at 8:35 am

          As opposed to the PM who has brain fade after brain fade and never gets asked by the media to resign.

        • mickysavage 1.1.1.3
          26 December 2014 at 8:37 am

          OK Pete answer me this. What piece of National policy has the media ever scrutinised to the nth degree the way it did Labour’s fresh start policy?

          As an example you could compare and contrast the scrutiny given to National’s education policy released at the same time which essentially had some money and some slogans and that was it. Details are in this excellent post by Karol http://thestandard.org.nz/opposing-the-pms-statement/ and also in this guest post by Blue http://thestandard.org.nz/opposing-the-pms-statement/

          • Pete George 1.1.1.3.1
            26 December 2014 at 9:23 am

            Nationals Mixed Ownership Model and spy policies had a lot of media scrutiny.

            I agree that Nationals policies announced this year didn’t get much scrutiny. The media was more obsessed with Dotcom, Mana/Internet, “Dirty Politics”, Oravida, Slater, Collins etc.

            The one National aspect that was covered to any extent was their “steady as she goes” without major policy changes. That helped them win the election.

            Labour did a poor job selling themselves as a better alternative. Many within Labour acknowledge this. Didn’t the review (released so far) say this?

            It’s all history now. Best to look at future prospects and things to work on, that was the intent of my comment.

            And despite baseless claims that have been made here I support Andrew Little’s leadership and I hope he and his caucus (and Labour supporters) do what they can to successfully rebuild the party into a credible alternative.

            Learning from the past is important, dwelling on it isn’t helpful.

        • Northsider 1.1.1.4
          26 December 2014 at 6:00 pm

          : roll :

      • tc 1.1.2
        26 December 2014 at 8:29 am

        Dftt, it’s what he wants as part of the track he runs on behalf of his leash holders.

    • philj 1.2
      26 December 2014 at 8:18 am

      You can spin stats any way you like. You mostly do PG. You’d be better off at Cam’s site WO.

    • Bearded Git 1.3
      26 December 2014 at 10:18 am

      John Armstrong should hang his head in shame for the way he treated Cunliffe.

  2. logie97 2
    26 December 2014 at 8:10 am

    Remember the fuss over the “Planet Key” song.
    For those who missed it because of the watchdog’s decision, it is up on youtube.

  3. phillip ure 3
    26 December 2014 at 8:35 am

    (a guaranteed xmas hangover-cure..)

    “..The 11 most joyful viral videos of 2014..

    ..Sit back – watch these – feel happy..”

    (cont..

    http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/the-11-most-joyful-viral-videos-of-2014–g19o_aX8Yg

  4. vto 4
    26 December 2014 at 8:48 am

    So a couple days ago Tracey posted a post called “2014 Man of the Year” and suggested that men bear a larger burden of the responsibility for male domestic violence because of their gender.

    I suggested that was inappropriate but mr redlogix posted a good response outlining why identity groupings should be responsible for sectors of their indentity grouping who are criminals etc. http://thestandard.org.nz/2014-man-of-the-year/#comment-943260 It seemed to make some sense and garnered some support from others….

    …. Yet watching the muslim world at the moment trying to deal with the Isis mob and assorted ‘terrorists’ around the globe (Sydney, france, Canada), they deny and refute absolutely ANY responsibility or shame for that part of their identity grouping. They want nothing to do with Isis and reject completely any suggestion that it is partly their responsibility…. (sorry no links – the main one was on Al Jazeera yesterday, some interview with relevant spokespeople)………..

    So Tracey and Redlogix and OAB and others from the Man of the Year thread, how does that square with the pronouncement by the Muslim world? Are they shirking their responsibility for Isis? Or is that they are right and they have no reason to be responsible for what they termed the Isis ‘criminals’? And if so then I as a male in NZ have no responsibility for male criminals here.

    So what is the go ………..

    I suspect there will be a lurking pinhead that could have a dance attempted on it ….

    • karol 4.1
      26 December 2014 at 9:01 am

      For the Islamic position to be any way comparable to that of men v’s violence against women: Islam would need to be the dominant and most powerful religion internationally; Islamic people would need to be perpetrators of the majority of acts of violence internationally.

      • vto 4.1.1
        26 December 2014 at 9:07 am

        didn’t take long for that pinhead to emerge.

        your posit is not accepted at all karol, and anyway muslim is big enough to be regarded in the way you think it needs to be, being one of the world’s equal largest religions – come on get some reality into your thoughts ……

        …. And anyway, why on earth would it need to be so regarded? That makes no sense. Islam in the middle east and wider is in fact “the dominant and most powerful religion ”

        In the middle east ” Islamic people would need to be perpetrators of the majority of acts of violence” And they are. What does “international” have to do with it? Isis is in the middle east ffs.

        You are dancing on that pinhead in trying to make it some international thing …. rejected.

        • karol 4.1.1.1
          26 December 2014 at 9:16 am

          didn’t take long for that pinhead to emerge.

          So you asked a question to which you had already decided an answer.

          I have said your question makes an assumption of false equivalence. You need to take into account power and who does the majority of acts of violence. You have failed to adequately address this.

          Islam is the second largest religion after Christianity. Nation states in which Christianity is the dominant religion are the most powerful ones.

          Are you going to ask for an apology from leaders of Christian religions for the violence their followers have been responsible for? if not, you question has an inbuilt bias against Islam.

          • The Al1en 4.1.1.1.1
            26 December 2014 at 9:41 am

            With respect, from RL’s post in the other thread about collective shame, there is no mention of power or who does the majority of violence.

            “Whakamaa is word without a simple one to one correspondence into English or indeed our way of thinking. But the one aspect I can identify with is where it maps onto a sense of collective shame for the behaviour of one or some members of a group I belong to.”

            “Are you going to ask for an apology from leaders of Christian religions for the violence their followers have been responsible for? if not, you question has an inbuilt bias against Islam.”

            VTO doesn’t have to ask for an apology from anyone, but by the same token, he doesn’t have to share in the collective shaming of his gender, just like those anti violence muslims he writes of don’t.

            • batweka 4.1.1.1.1.1
              26 December 2014 at 9:45 am

              There is a difference between feeling shame and being shamed. A big difference.

              I took Red’s comment as being about how feeling shame personally had been an important part of his understanding and politics around violence against women. I didn’t see him trying to shame men collectively.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                26 December 2014 at 9:51 am

                +1

              • The Al1en …
                26 December 2014 at 9:53 am

                “There is a difference between feeling shame and being shamed. A big difference.”

                That’s got nothing to do with me or what I wrote.

                The main point is VTO doesn’t agree that as a man he bears a larger burden of the responsibility for male domestic violence because of his gender… Just like those muslims don’t share any responsibility for terrorists.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  26 December 2014 at 10:00 am

                  You wrote:

                  …he doesn’t have to share in the collective shaming of his gender…

                  QED.

                • batweka …
                  26 December 2014 at 10:02 am

                  Ok, I misunderstood what you meant by “he doesn’t have to share in the collective shaming of his gender” (I don’t see anyone here collectively shaming men).

                  But I agree with your general point, vto doesn’t think he has special responsibilities as a man. I think something is being missed here though. There is a difference between taking responsibility personally for actions outside of one’s control and taking responsibility for collective privilege and culture.

                  eg it makes sense that vto isn’t directly responsible for a man he knows beating his wife. And an individual muslim isn’t responsible for the actions of ISIS.

                  But men can take responsibility for actively working to end violence against women by shifting from the place of ‘I’m not violent so it’s not my responsiblity’ to a place of ‘as a man I can influence what men do in ways that women can’t, and I’m going to accept that responsibility and act on it’.

                  I think this is probably true for Muslims.

                  • Tracey …
                    26 December 2014 at 10:34 am

                    Your second to last paragraph..

                    The contrast I made in my post was

                    1. John Key jokes and makes light of sexual crime consequences ( smith and billington). Under his leadership Colins halted a Law Commission project.

                    2. Cunliffe names a problem, says men need to stand up and account. He proposes policy reform and extra funding to address the problem.

                    How men who are NOT committing sexual and domestic crimes speak about it, and women to other men, matters. Stepping in and speaking up when others behave badly toward women is one part of stopping the behaviour. Men look to other men for modelling behaviour far more than they look to women. Men speak to men in different ways and environments to women. This is why Keys behaviour is unhelpful.

                    THAT was the point of my post. Hence in the thread I also referred to programmes for perpetrators needing more funding, the need for extending courses which teach all our children about respect inthe conduct of their personal relationships.

                    VTO just saw me telling all men they are bad people. I neither believe that nor wrote it. VTO clearly has strong sensibilities on this topic. He has a right to express them. But I have a right to not keep engaging or enabling his false belief of my views traversed on many threads before today.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1.1.1.1.2
              26 December 2014 at 9:50 am

              For something he doesn’t have to share he sure spends an awful lot of time concocting false absolutions.

              • batweka …
                26 December 2014 at 9:54 am

                +1

                No-one is saying that all men should feel ashamed. Or all muslims. Or all white people.

                I think there is a misunderstanding here about what Red said the other day. IME shame is a very difficult thing to talk about let alone deal with because feeling shame gets mixed up with shaming, and they’re both some of the most difficult emotions for people to experience and respond to well.

                I thought Red’s comment was sensitive and very important. It’s unfortunate that it’s being misused here to make a political point that’s confused and full of misconception. It’s really going to muddy things.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  26 December 2014 at 9:57 am

                  Well said. Before criticising BIll’s position it helps to understand what it is first.

              • The Al1en …
                26 December 2014 at 9:54 am

                He may have perfectly valid reasons for being pro active in contradicting a falsehood. You could ask him or just make up sh1t to put him down.
                Your call.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  26 December 2014 at 9:58 am

                  Oh, if he were contradicting a falsehood, sure, and he isn’t, he’s knocking down strawmen of his own making.

              • Tracey …
                26 December 2014 at 10:19 am

                Yes he does. He takes this topic very personally at times while saying he wont take personal responsibility, which I have never asked him to do.

                The post of mine he refers to was about many things, especially the lack of effective programmes to assist victims and prevent perpetration. Until we name a problem, while still dancing around the main source of a problem, we never move on to a solution.

                VTO continues his determined mission to unframe sexual and domestic violence perpetrators as being a predominantly male problem. That is his right of course.

                I invire people to visit the thread where he says I

                “..suggested that men bear a larger burden of the responsibility for male domestic violence because of their gender. …”

                The main point I was trying to make was that Cunliffe was framing the problem and proposing solutions.

                Key was making light of a problem and proposing nothing.
                http://thestandard.org.nz/2014-man-of-the-year/

                • vto …
                  26 December 2014 at 12:55 pm

                  “VTO continues his determined mission to unframe sexual and domestic violence perpetrators as being a predominantly male problem.”

                  Why do young men end up doing these things Tracey? What has led them to this point between being an innocent wee baby and reaching young manhood? Any ideas? This is where the predominance of the problem lies surely ….. this is what has caused it ………. so what and who let them develop in this way ….. ? Be interested in your reply

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    26 December 2014 at 1:42 pm

                    Violence is strongly correlated to the GINI coefficient, not your twisted lies about parents.

                    • vto …
                      26 December 2014 at 1:58 pm

                      sure, parents have nothing to do with it

                      it is you who is the lie

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      26 December 2014 at 2:01 pm

                      Macro-economic problems can be fixed by a parenting course. Join the National Party: you’ll feel right at home there.

                    • vto …
                      26 December 2014 at 2:05 pm

                      out
                      right

                      idiocy

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      26 December 2014 at 2:08 pm

                      Seriously: they love blaming people for their own misfortunes, you’ll fit right in.

                    • batweka …
                      26 December 2014 at 2:43 pm

                      Violence against women transcends socioeconomics, so I think it’s more accurate to say that inequality condenses violence and accerbates it and causes it, but that violence against women also has core aspects that are beyond all that, and lie in the structures of domination in our society and where men and women fit into that (in other words, men get socialised and privileged into violence against women)

                      “parents”

                      I suspect vto is talking about mothers.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      26 December 2014 at 3:33 pm

                      inequality condenses violence and accerbates it and causes it,.

                      Violence is strongly correlated to the GINI coefficient.

                      There’s no contradiction between those two statements.

                      I agree though that it’s somewhat of a red herring when considering privilege and gendered violence: it would exacerbate the problem, though clearly there are other dominance issues being played out that are more relevant.

            • karol 4.1.1.1.1.3
              26 December 2014 at 9:50 am

              With respect, from RL’s post in the other thread about collective shame, there is no mention of power or who does the majority of violence.

              Then, on that point, I also disagree with RL on that.

              Power is crucial to understanding the relative position of males and females, and of the position of Islam in the world.

              Women are already collectively shamed (humiliated, subjugated and undermined) in diverse ways. The extent of violence against women is one of the more visible ways this is done.

              One man expressing he is sorry, is an acknowledgement of this very uneven playing field.

              Islamophobia is rampant internationally, while authorities led by people who are either Christian, or represent Christian-derived cultures are the most powerful, and perpetrators of diverse forms of (often) militaristic violence in the mis-appropriated name of “freedom”.

              It IS all about (collective) power – power and/or privilege more readily available to some groups than others.

              • The Al1en …
                26 December 2014 at 10:03 am

                And still none of that justifies why all men today should have to be responsible for crimes committed against women, which they themselves don’t commit, just because men have been the dominant sex since forever.
                I think that’s just scape goating for the sake of liberal feel goodery.

                I look at some men’s actions towards women and say “man, they make me ashamed for being a bloke”. But at no time do I ever share responsibility for their actions.
                Just like white cops and black people in america – I don’t feel any shame for that.
                Or England colonising the world and messing up huge chunks of it – I bear no guilt there.

                • batweka …
                  26 December 2014 at 10:11 am

                  “And still none of that justifies why all men today should have to be responsible for crimes committed against women, which they themselves don’t commit, just because men have been the dominant sex since forever.”

                  Has anyone actually said that? Who?

                • karol …
                  26 December 2014 at 10:12 am

                  I am not advocating individuals taking “responsibility” for the crimes of others in their group. That is different from expressing sorry and regret for the damaging acts perpetrated by others in our group, and from which we have benefited.

                  eg. I am not responsible for the acts of my pakeha ancestors in colonising Aotearoa/NZ. But I have benefited from their past acts (in terms of access to a good education, reasonably good jobs throughout my adult life, cultural capital, etc). I acknowledge the inequalities that have resulted from such things.

                  I am sorry for what some of my ancestors have done – and also commend the ones who have done things to make the lives of others better.

                • marty mars …
                  26 December 2014 at 10:18 am

                  I think it comes down to empathy – not just to the ‘group’ you are saying you belong to but to the others affected by that group.

                • Tracey …
                  26 December 2014 at 10:46 am

                  Do you say something? I get the sense you probably do. And that is what, imo, Cunliffe was saying. Men who are not treating women and children badly need to challenge those who do. Men will listen to men more than to women in many instances.

                • tricledrown …
                  26 December 2014 at 11:57 am

                  Alien redneck excuser.
                  Men haven’t been dominent forever.
                  By doing nothing about inequality you allow it to continue.
                  Its like your a witness to a serious crime but you want nothing to do with it so you allow a criminal activity to go un punished.
                  You have admitted your a white racist dogmatic shallow thinking bigot.
                  With your hear no evil see no evil yada yada!
                  Are you married mostlikely not if you were you would know who was the dominant sex!

                  • The Al1en …
                    26 December 2014 at 12:01 pm

                    “Alien redneck excuser.”

                    😆

                    “Men haven’t been dominent forever.”

                    Ask a feminist if that is true. I think it’s a safe assumption given the power imbalances inherent in most cultures from day one. Of all the things I’ve posted today, not one of them have picked up on it, just the tard with a grudge. Either they’re slipping or it’s not a point of contention because it’s an agreeable truth.

                    “By doing nothing about inequality you allow it to continue.”

                    I totally agree, but what’s that got to do with me?

                    “You have admitted your a white racist dogmatic shallow thinking bigot.”

                    😆 Link or fuck off :tosser: 😆

                    “Are you married mostlikely not if you were you would know who was the dominant sex!”

                    Explain that for me a little more in depth. 😉

                    • batweka …
                      26 December 2014 at 1:05 pm

                      “Men haven’t been dominent forever.”

                      “Ask a feminist if that is true. I think it’s a safe assumption given the power imbalances inherent in most cultures from day one.”

                      There is feminist theory that disputes that patriarchy is the norm for Homo sapiens across all places and all time. There are other bodies of knowledge too eg some indigenous peoples dispute the ‘patriachy has always existed’ myth.

                      a sampling,

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosuo

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Gunn_Allen

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy#History_and_distribution (ignoring the matriarchy as a reverse of patriarchy red herring)

                      http://www.suppressedhistories.net/womenspowerscript2.html

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riane_Eisler#Partnership_and_domination_models

                    • The Al1en …
                      26 December 2014 at 1:14 pm

                      Do you subscribe to the theory that men haven’t been the dominant in society since forever?

                      No doubt there will be examples that disprove male dominance in all and every social grouping, but after millennia of known subjugation, do you really think my statement false or “myth”?

                    • batweka …
                      26 December 2014 at 1:40 pm

                      Do you subscribe to the theory that men haven’t been the dominant in society since forever?

                      yes (theories plural).

                      No doubt there will be examples that disprove male dominance in all and every social grouping,

                      No doubt, but that’s not what I linked about. I linked to sources that decribe whole groups not being predonimantly patriarchal. Not parts of those groups, but the whole groups.

                      but after millennia of known subjugation, do you really think my statement false or “myth”?

                      Patriarchy in the western sense of the term is considered to be around 5,000 years old. That’s not that long when you put it up against how long Homo sapiens has been here around 200,000 years. Or in case that seems to abstract lets compare it to specific existing cultures eg Australian Aboriginal cultures that have been around for 60,000 years.

                      I think your statement applies to specific time and place, but not universally. It’s useful to look at the issues universally because it shows us people who chose or evolved to organise along non-patriarchal lines, and what we can learn from them. It also challenges notions about gender and power that many take as givens. Different solutions to gender problems then become apparent.

                      Conversations tend to go differently when we recognise that the patriarchy isn’t the norm. That’s a good thing IMO.

                    • The Al1en …
                      26 December 2014 at 1:46 pm

                      Since you’re into splitting hairs or just out to prove me wrong, and because “since forever” obviously isn’t really a set figure and more a general time frame of modern human history and male dominance, I’ll amend my original statement to

                      ‘ just because men have been the dominant sex since for 5000 years, according to weka”

                      😉

                    • batweka …
                      26 December 2014 at 2:47 pm

                      If you don’t want a feminist to comment you should probably not bring them up 😛

                      btw, it’s likely that some Māori cultures organised matrilineally, so if we’re talking about NZ it’s several hundred years not 5,000 😉

                    • The Al1en …
                      26 December 2014 at 3:15 pm

                      Re re amendment

                      ‘ just because men have been the dominant sex since for 5000 years, according to weka, and if we’re talking about NZ it’s several hundred years’

                      😆

                      And it’s don’t have a problem with feminists, just the one’s that nit pick over a generalisation like since forever, when she knows full well she’s, sadly, still very much living in a man’s world – The way it’s been, for all intent and purpose, since forever.

                    • True Blue …
                      26 December 2014 at 4:29 pm

                      Growing up I always believed in God intuitively, and because God was always described to me as being male, I always naturally assumed that he was and because men were physically stronger, taller and traditionally took care of the family, and were the heads of the household I thought that God being male made perfect sense. Now with this in mind I never thought that ‘I’ being born a female was inferior in anyway, I loved being female and was glad I was born female. I grew up in the Christian faith (a heavily patriarchal religion), and was exposed to all the usual stories/ beliefs etc… But naturally I never once thought I was the inferior sex, being female. I just thought God being God wouldn’t be so ridiculous to actually create an inferior sex. Like I naturally assumed God was male but because he was God- the all knowing, I didn’t think for one minute he truly was a sexist, it didn’t ever cross my mind, the bible may have made him out to be a sexist, but my innate feeling was that he was not. I just thought he loved me, and loved everyone ‘equally’ this made me feel protected and cared for, therefore it never bothered me that God was male. I couldn’t care less, as long as he loved me and loved everyone equally; God being male was no big deal.
                      When I got older I realised that in all religions God was either male or was the dominant force behind most of the worlds greatest religions or belief systems, I was naturally suspicious of this, but because I grew up believing God was male I dismissed the suspicion but still innately I never thought I was inferior, by being female.
                      When I read that in pagan times and in very early ancient religions woman were the matriarchs, this kind of didn’t feel right as I always assumed God was male.
                      Then when I was exposed to spiritual enlightenment in my 30’s I found out God was actually legitimately real (Yay!!) but this God was actually female, a Mother….I was blown away! Then it dawned on me how in all the greatest religions God was always male, naturally I knew then that religion was man-made, politically motivated and a way of being able to dominate and control woman in the sneakiest of fashions, to make men feel more in-control, manly and superior. But this also baffled me, why on earth would men feel inferior if God was female, like at the end of the day it’s utterly ridiculous to think that men are truly inferior, it doesn’t even make sense that men are inferior. Men and woman are equal, and have always been, they are just different, woman giving birth is the natural core difference. But both men and woman are completely equal. Knowing God is female, it has never made me look at men differently, sexually they still, to me, look as heavenly masculine as ever, and God being female has never changed my utterly feminine innate impulses. I still see men as men and it has never changed my desires towards them. I just can’t understand how men would feel threatened by a female God, all heterosexual woman who believe in a female God, don’t feel in anyway men are inferior because they are not, and all heterosexual woman who believe in a female God still like the man to be the dominant sex, because it is romantic and exiting, men still have the bigger muscles you see, they are taller, dirtier, and have much more baser instincts that completely captivate the female into enchantment, that forever delights. Men may have a more inbuilt animal quality to the female in their DNA but that is what appeals to the feminine. Men and woman are equal they are just different, and woman can’t play rugby like a guy, the All Blacks will always be the All Blacks, so God being female doesn’t make a man any less of a man, if anything She found Her opposite- perfection one would say.

          • dave brown 4.1.1.1.2
            26 December 2014 at 9:56 am

            This debate about men vs women and Islam vs ??? is futile without going deeper into basic causes.
            On the left men have claimed to take responsibility for gender oppression for decades.
            But no change of note.
            Men are not taking a significantly increased load of unpaid domestic work.
            The gains of the 60’s and 70’s have been rolled into a backlash.
            Why?
            No group with historical privilege can be expected to seriously undermine the basis of that privilege.
            This is a true of male privilege as of white privilege.
            Such groups are complicit in the legacy of domestic slavery and plantation slavery that still assigns women and blacks overwhelmingly to the reserve army of labour.
            That’s why Marxist feminists always argued that women have to fight their way to the socialist revolution kicking male resistance out of the way.
            Relying on sorry male comrades to do the job is futile.

            As for Islam taking responsibility for Jihadis.
            I agree with Karol there is no comparison with gender oppression here.
            Islamics are not oppressed on the basis of their religion.
            They are divided by class.
            The Islamics that have fomented radical Islam arise out of the suppressed bourgeoisie of the bazaar; that is the national bourgeoisie held in a state of backwardness by imperialist domination, particularly the partition of Arab countries by Britain, France after WW1, and more recently the US, including the heavy handed role of Israel as the US gendarme in the Middle East.
            By propping up sheikdoms as kingdoms, or conspiring with dictators from Iran to Tunisia, the West suppressed the Arab Revolution and suppressed the petty bourgeois and small bourgeoisies.
            The outcome of this legacy of oppression is the uprising of sections of this frustrated national bourgeoisie, who rally their supporters on the basis of the revival of extreme sectarianism.
            Having caused the problem the Western propaganda them projects radical Islam as the new threat to Western civilisation, back by the chorus of liberal ideologues who turn Western oppression into evil Islam.
            What has happened in Syria since Feb 2011 proves the point.
            We have gone from a completely non-sectarian resistance to a dictatorship, propped up by the imperialist powers, to a bloody civil war manufactured by Assad, to a virtual partition of Syria where the IS is building a Caliphate state based on oil wells and territory in the North, and if the media is to be believed, Israelis are buying land in areas ethnically cleansed by the war!

            • karol 4.1.1.1.2.1
              26 December 2014 at 10:03 am

              Dave, I agree with most of your comment. It is particularly important to understand the history of Islam and how it has been abused and undermined by (allegedly) Christian nation-states.

              No group with historical privilege can be expected to seriously undermine the basis of that privilege.

              As a group, that is true. No group willingly gives up power. But individuals do choose to either opt out of their position of privilege, or at least to challenge the basis of their privilege/power. This can contribute to a wider understanding of the nature of that power and how it is excercised.

              The converse is also true. Some individuals from the least powerful groups, choose to side with the powerful in order to get individual rewards, while the rest of that disempowered group continue to suffer.

              • Murray Rawshark …
                26 December 2014 at 3:14 pm

                “But individuals do choose to either opt out of their position of privilege, or at least to challenge the basis of their privilege/power.”

                I suspect there’d be a few less of us commenting here if that were not the case. However, I don’t see those individuals as the most important drivers of history, but more as allies of those who are.

                “Some individuals from the least powerful groups, choose to side with the powerful in order to get individual rewards, while the rest of that disempowered group continue to suffer.”

                We get one or two of those here as well. Kupapa is a great word.

          • vto 4.1.1.1.3
            26 December 2014 at 12:44 pm

            Go read redlogix’s comment which others so eagerly agreed with. It is a good point yet springs from something which has nothing to do with scales of power or dominance and is more to do with identity groupings pride or shame at the actions / achievements / failures of that identity groupings members.

            You are on a different page here karol. Your false equivalence logic does not apply. Have a read of redlogix’s point in the link.

            Islam needs to accept partial responsibility for the actions of the Isis, if red’s point is to be accepted. And tracey’s same point in that thread / link.

            • karol 4.1.1.1.3.1
              26 December 2014 at 12:57 pm

              I have read red’s comment. His comments are fine as far as they go. But he does not deal with the crucial matter of power differences. It’s kind of something lurking unstated behind what red argues.

              ie he equates the position of women, with that of Māori. For that to make any sense, the implication underlying that is that both women and Māori have a subordinate or secondary position in society. Internationally, Islam is in the same position.

              Red’s comments also don’t provide a response to my false equivalence criticism of you.

              My points still stand. Trying arguing with what I have said rather than falling back on someone else’s earlier statement that omits some of the crucial points I am making.

              • vto …
                26 December 2014 at 1:45 pm

                Even accepting your point about power it still fails within the middle east (see earlier point) where islam does have the power.

                Why is the muslim world rejecting red’s point there?

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  26 December 2014 at 1:49 pm

                  Let’s cut the crap. VTO is favourably comparing himself with people he says are worse than he is.

                  Bravo, VTO, well done, you have finally found a benchmark you can better.

                  • vto …
                    26 December 2014 at 1:53 pm

                    you’re pathetic and stop getting personal – see if you can argue the issue instead of the person

                    there is a clear comparison between the two situations originally raised and the difference in approaches to collective responsibility.

                    One suits the left, the other doesn’t, so the pinheads are brought out to play. All sides in politics do this and it is being done here.

                    Out, to better things ……

          • Murray Rawshark 4.1.1.1.4
            26 December 2014 at 2:58 pm

            Good answer, Karol. False equivalence is often the first resort of someone who only ever looks at things at a superficial level.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 4.2
      26 December 2014 at 9:11 am

      Don’t really give a toss what false characterisation of Muslim ethics you concoct, except to note that you’re scraping the bottom of the barrel.

      What’s your next feeble excuse? Pol Pot?

      • vto 4.2.1
        26 December 2014 at 12:46 pm

        not surprised you cannot accept equal applications of principles – it is part of your m.o.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 4.2.1.1
          26 December 2014 at 1:05 pm

          I’m not surprised that you cannot fathom why someone who is prepared to accept a measure of responsibility for something, might nonetheless be loath to heap blame upon others.

          To put it another way: mote, meet beam.

          • vto 4.2.1.1.1
            26 December 2014 at 1:43 pm

            you are messing up responsibility and blame, keep up

            • One Anonymous Bloke 4.2.1.1.1.1
              26 December 2014 at 1:46 pm

              No, vto, that is what you are doing. Bill talks about responsibility, you translate that into blame. It’s a transparent, and I have no doubt, dishonest pretence.

              • vto …
                26 December 2014 at 1:50 pm

                no you are wrong

                stop being dishonest

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  26 December 2014 at 1:53 pm

                  Then you’ll be able to link to the comment where Bill apportions blame, only you can’t, because it doesn’t exist, and if it did, would make him as wrong as you are.

                  Let’s face it, you want to say that women are responsible for male violence, and you know that doesn’t fly around here, so you hint and allude and your weasel words come dribbling out.

                  • vto …
                    26 December 2014 at 1:55 pm

                    no you are still wrong, and stop getting personal you dweeb

                    but interestingly – do women bear no responsibility for violence within their families? Is it a subject too difficult to broach? Especially for someone like you with such deep-worn trenches around your thinking… you should get out more

                  • Bill …
                    26 December 2014 at 5:57 pm

                    Then you’ll be able to link to the comment where Bill…

                    Hang on! How the fuck did I get dragged into all of this? I don’t believe I left a single comment on the thread that gave rise to VTO’s comment above.

    • RedLogix 4.3
      26 December 2014 at 9:31 am

      Well vto I suspect you hidden this particular pin in plain sight – They want nothing to do with Isis and reject completely any suggestion that it is partly their responsibility.

      For instance I vehemently reject religious fundamentalism and deluded individual nutbars claiming to be co-religionists create a sense of embarrassment to say the least.

      But when they organise into churches and institutions which promote fundamentalist ideas and support people living according to those backward values – then while I may still feel shamed by their actions as individuals – I will condemn the institution itself, I will reject the church and have nothing to do with it.

      One is a matter of personal compassion and responsibility – the other is a matter of politics and social justice. The real world is less tidy than this – but it’s a useful distinction.

    • batweka 4.4
      26 December 2014 at 9:42 am

      …. Yet watching the muslim world at the moment trying to deal with the Isis mob and assorted ‘terrorists’ around the globe (Sydney, france, Canada), they deny and refute absolutely ANY responsibility or shame for that part of their identity grouping. They want nothing to do with Isis and reject completely any suggestion that it is partly their responsibility…. (sorry no links – the main one was on Al Jazeera yesterday, some interview with relevant spokespeople)………..

      Sorry vto, but you’ve done this before. Made an assertion about something you’ve seen/heard, not linked, and then when it’s been checked out it’s actually said something quite different than what you’ve claimed.

      If your assertion is correct (that the majority of Muslims and Muslim organisations deny and refute ANY responsibility or shame for the actions of ISIS), it shouldn’t be too hard to find some examples and post them here so we can look at them and respond in context.

      Myself, I think you are conflating a whole bunch of things, which includes obscuring the difference between peaceful Muslims not wanting to be associate with terrorists who are coopting and corrupting their religion.

      You’ve also made a massive claim that all Muslims think alike (‘the Muslim world’), which is patently not true.

    • Te Reo Putake 4.5
      26 December 2014 at 9:56 am

      I take it the Xmas truce is over, then?

    • Tracey 4.6
      26 December 2014 at 10:22 am

      Are muslims making light of, or making jokes about ISIS, as Mr Key does to victims of sexual abuse (smiths male victim and ms billington)? Usually I read them condemning such behaviour, as in the recent Sydney hostage taking and killings.

    • Bill 4.7
      26 December 2014 at 5:52 pm

      Who meddled in the Middle East (and beyond) to the extent of helping remove democratically elected governments and then aiding the, often successful, ‘disappearance’ of any and all who had an informed political analysis at their finger tips and who could or would have constituted a viable political alternative to dictatorial rule?

      And what kind of ‘philosophy’ takes hold and spreads to fill the vacuum that’s created when all politically informed alternatives are eradicated?

      And who excused, encouraged, funded and used adherents to those various non-political philosophies for their own ends?

      Your question only makes sense if you ignore the external factors at play in a tightly delineated environment. Gender issues on the other hand, transcend most environments that are otherwise bounded by religious or political constraints.

  5. phillip ure 5
    26 December 2014 at 9:02 am

    fans of marvel comics should know there is a doco on marvel..on tv2 @ 11.00am..

  6. batweka 6
    26 December 2014 at 9:09 am

    Why did these people end up in charge of things?

    FB has algorithms that push certain messages, which because they’re made by machines are often inappropriate eg people getting sent ‘year in review’ messages that focuses on their child, but the child died this year. Lots of stories coming out.

    eg “Eric, here’s what your year looked like” with a photo of his dead child surrounded by cartoon people dancing with party balloons.

    This has been called inadvertent, but what I can’t figure out is if FB designers and managers were aware of this and decided it was a good thing to roll out anyway because the numbers of people who had a shit year were less than the people who would enjoy the pushed notice. Or they weren’t aware that this would happen or what the implications were. In either case, they shouldn’t be in charge of social networking (but of course FB is really about manipulating people for income generation, so never mind).

    http://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2014/12/24/inadvertent-algorithmic-cruelty/

    Where the human aspect fell short, at least with Facebook, was in not providing a way to opt out. The Year in Review ad keeps coming up in my feed, rotating through different fun-and-fabulous backgrounds, as if celebrating a death, and there is no obvious way to stop it. Yes, there’s the drop-down that lets me hide it, but knowing that is practically insider knowledge. How many people don’t know about it? Way more than you think.

    This is another aspect of designing for crisis, or maybe a better term is empathetic design. In creating this Year in Review app, there wasn’t enough thought given to cases like mine, or friends of Chloe, or anyone who had a bad year. The design is for the ideal user, the happy, upbeat, good-life user. It doesn’t take other use cases into account.

    • Murray Rawshark 6.1
      26 December 2014 at 3:21 pm

      That’s what you get with an application run by programmers who never have a social life before they make their first billion. I gave up and did mine and some of the photos it chose had nothing to do with my year.

  7. phillip ure 7
    26 December 2014 at 9:23 am

    “..Cancer and cannabis: How I learned to stop worrying and love medical marijuana..

    ..For cancer patients – the ‘medical’ part of marijuana is no joke.

    Cannabis is a magic plant.

    And it helped save my life..”

    (cont..)

    http://boingboing.net/2014/12/23/cancer-and-cannabis-how-i-lea.html

    • tricledrown 7.1
      26 December 2014 at 11:02 am

      Every Drug has side effects so don’t put marajuana on a pedestal.
      Sure their are positive medical uses for marajuana.
      But mentally ill people who use marajuana can have catastrophic episodes.
      Long term high users can end up with lung heart kidney and liver disease.
      If treated like alcohol moderation is what research has shown to be safe.
      And ingesting rather than smoking.
      Marjuana can also cause psychosis for heavy users.
      The Otago University longtitudinal study also showed that those who started using marjuana before the age of 21 were at a very high risk of deveoping anxiety disoders!
      Similarly Alcohol use by young ones caused serious longterm damage.
      So while you point out the positives Phil.
      You won’t win the argument blindly backing ure addiction(psychological) just pushing one side of the story.

      • phillip ure 7.1.1
        26 December 2014 at 11:18 am

        read the fucken link..!

        ..while you dance on the head of a pin..

        ..cancer sufferers here/now/today in nz are denied access to a proven salve to/for their miseries..

        ..and you support that…?

        (and i just can’t be fucked unpacking that parcel of prohibitionist-bullshit/lies u posted..

        ..save to say it is a pile of crap..

        ..and it isn’t fucken about me..

        ..it’s about people here/now/this minute..suffering when they don’t need to..

        ..and during the worst part/time of their lives..

        ..and you would support continuing to deny them that relief..?

        ..fuck you..!..eh..?

        • tricledrown 7.1.1.1
          26 December 2014 at 11:36 am

          I am not disagreeing with you on cannabises positive health benefits.
          So no need to get angry.
          Its a powerful drug wth many uses.
          But over use by hedonistic recreational users has serious negative health outcomes.
          Moderate use and ingesting rather than smoking is much safer.
          Canterbury University’s latest research shows that heavy longterm smokers of Dope have very high rates of lung damage and cardiopulmanery disease equivalent to tobacco smokers!
          Denial is admission!

          • The Al1en 7.1.1.1.1
            26 December 2014 at 11:42 am

            Denial is futile. Welcome to the bong collective.

            With a bit of luck and funding from cancer research UK, that well know scam organisation (sarc), cancer could be heading towards it’s own dying days.

            http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30558112
            NHS DNA scheme to fight cancer and genetic diseases

            • tracey 7.1.1.1.1.1
              26 December 2014 at 11:59 am

              I have been suspicious of the cancer society for over 25 years. I am never sure if I am right to be or not.

              • The Al1en …
                26 December 2014 at 12:10 pm

                Why don’t you have an in depth look and get back to us. Maybe a guest topic subject?
                I know I’d be interested in your findings.

                Here’s their wiki page for starting your research
                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_Research_UK

                • karol …
                  26 December 2014 at 12:21 pm

                  You know the TS policy says not to tell authors what to write. If you are so keen on someone researching a topic and writing on it, why not do it yourself?

                  • The Al1en …
                    26 December 2014 at 12:25 pm

                    I wouldn’t dream of telling anyone what to write about, so no need to use a strict interpretation of the rules. It was a suggestion, hence the word ‘maybe’, in response to a 25 year puzzle.
                    I would still be interested in her findings to see if her quarter of a century conundrum is satiated.

                    Honestly though, that’s a pretty lame ‘get back’, karol, if that’s what is is.*

                    *Do bear in mind I’ve responded to you as just another commenter and not a moderator as I didn’t see bold black text, the recognised symbol of authority and didn’t take your comment as official or authoritative.

                    • karol …
                      26 December 2014 at 12:47 pm

                      No. It wasn’t a moderating comment. But when I get such “suggestions”, it feels like an extra pressure I could do without.

                      I have a long list of things I want to research and write about and never get time for.

                      I reckon if someone is keen for a topic to be researched, just do it yourself.

                    • The Al1en …
                      26 December 2014 at 12:50 pm

                      On the point of the topic subject, I have no issues regarding the legitimacy of Cancer Research UK.

                • tracey …
                  26 December 2014 at 12:32 pm

                  Thanks TA.

                • tracey …
                  26 December 2014 at 12:54 pm

                  If I were to do this, it would be the NZ cancer society, not UK. My suspicion is around their need to perpetuate themselves and the type of research they fund. I dont have ready access to their books or decision making process as far as I am aware they are not publicly available.

                  • The Al1en …
                    26 December 2014 at 1:09 pm

                    Right, I don’t know anything at all about them or their work, so off for a google and wiki.

                    My point, as cancer research uk has been called a money grabbing scam organisation by another frequent poster, probably won’t be of much relevance, but hopefully the work started in the nhs in England will be a genuine positive in the fight against cancer and other diseases.

                    When the cures comes, as they one day will, and they’re readily available to all regardless of ability to pay, I’m sure it’ll be worth having a smoke to, but as smoking weed is a proven carcinogen, not until then.

          • phillip ure 7.1.1.1.2
            26 December 2014 at 12:03 pm

            “..But over use by hedonistic recreational users has serious negative health outcomes…”

            um..!..having been for many decades..an ‘overuser’..a ‘hedonistic recreational user’..and in the past a very heavy one at that..

            ..and knowing many people who have smoked pot for very long times..i am calling bullshit on yr tobacco-equivalence..

            ..and i get ‘angry’..because people here/now/today suffering from cancer/chemo..are going thru heavy/nasty shit..that they don’t have to..

            ..i have seen a tear of gratitude/relief rolling down a cancer-sufferers’ cheek..

            ..as the effects of powerful pot kicked in..and provided them relief from the unimaginable crap they were going thru..

            ..these people are suffering..when they don’t have..

            ..and i get ‘angry’ that not enough people get ‘angry’ at that unnecessary-suffering..

            • tricledrown 7.1.1.1.2.1
              26 December 2014 at 1:14 pm

              Phil Canterbury University research looking at Cronic habitual users of Cannibis have equivalent if not higher rates of lung,throat,heart,liver and Kidney damage.
              I have known a lot of Cronic Cannibis users most of them have got health concerns a lot of them have died.
              You have the same excuse as a tobacco smoker!
              Have you had your lung capacity and heart checked recently.
              Some people have lucky genes like the tobacco smoker who lives till 90 but for every one of those their are 500 who suffer hidious slow early deaths!
              I am not disagreeing with medicenal uses for marajuana!
              I agree 100%.
              Chronic use of marajuana has serious health issues especially smoking,taking hot smoke into the lungs damages the surface of the lungs permanently causing emphysema and cardiopulmanory disease!
              Canniboids build up in chronic users causing the Kidneys and Liver to overload.
              Also longterm high users get cannibis pshycosis and become demotivated as well as having delusional views.
              Moderation is what I am suggesting just like with alcohol we call people who need alcohol all the time alcoholics.
              Stop smoking it ingest instead only ocaisonally.
              Or can’t you live with who you really are,

              • phillip ure …
                26 December 2014 at 1:25 pm

                “..Have you had your lung capacity and heart checked recently…”

                yes..i was told i had ‘the lungs of a young man’..and we laughed at tales of my decades of heavy cannabis use..

                and the only people i know with obvious lung problems who smoke pot..are a couple of people who still smoke tobacco..and pot..

                ..for you to say that pot/tobacco are equivalent in lung/body-damage is a bare-faced falsehood..

                ..and seriously..!..who made you hall monitor..?..to dictate what is or not ‘moderate use’..

                ..and i don’t like eating pot…(that gives you a hangover..whart i like about smoking..is you get high..sleep..wake up ‘hangover’-free..

                ..and c’mon..!..alcohol screws with yr kidneys/liver..

                ..not pot..

                ..you still can’t get past the point/facts that people like to take intoxicants..as part of/relief from..the human condition..

                ..and that cannabis is the safest intoxicant of all..

                ..and its’ use..especially if replacing alcohol..should be encouraged..and certainly should not be criminalised..

                • The Al1en …
                  26 December 2014 at 1:30 pm

                  “Substantial evidence from animal research and a growing number of studies in humans indicate that marijuana exposure during development can cause long-term or possibly permanent adverse changes in the brain. Rats exposed to THC before birth, soon after birth, or during adolescence show notable problems with specific learning and memory tasks later in life.”

                  “Imaging studies in human adolescents show that regular marijuana users display impaired neural connectivity in specific brain regions involved in a broad range of executive functions like memory, learning, and impulse control compared to non-users.”

                  “The latter findings may help explain the results of a large longitudinal study conducted in New Zealand, which found that frequent and persistent marijuana use starting in adolescence was associated with a loss of an average of 8 IQ points measured in midadulthood.26 Significantly, in that study, those who used marijuana heavily as teenagers and quit using as adults did not recover the lost IQ points.”

                  http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/how-does-marijuana-use-affect-your-brain-body

                  -8 phillip, -8 😆

                • The Al1en …
                  26 December 2014 at 1:36 pm

                  “Marijuana smoke can cause many of the same respiratory problems experienced by tobacco smokers, such as increased daily cough and phlegm production, more frequent acute chest illnesses such as bronchitis, and a greater instance of lung infections, according to NIDA”

                  “Marijuana can also raise heart rate by 20 percent to 100 percent shortly after smoking and the effect can last up to three hours”

                  “Several studies indicate that heavy marijuana use can lower the ability to fight infection and have an adverse impact on the immune system. Marijuana also can reduce sperm production in men and disrupts a woman’s menstrual cycle”

                  http://www.livescience.com/24558-marijuana-effects.html

        • tricle up 7.1.1.2
          26 December 2014 at 1:05 pm

          Phillip ..read some nonsense in the new scientist recently suggesting plants might have consciousness or awareness to there environment they do produce hormones and chemical neurotransmitters that act in animal brains as well and of course there is a nervous system if i cannot sink into the essence of this i will have to leave it on the page any thoughts.I would hate to think i am sitting down to eating a semi conscious lettuce.

    • Clemgeopin 7.2
      26 December 2014 at 12:23 pm

      Off topic, and in no way undermining the serious issue you raise here, but I found this in the ‘the funniest intellectual jokes’ category funny and thought of you!
      —
      Knock knock!

      Who’s there?

      Knock knock!

      Who’s there?

      Knock knock!

      Who’s there?

      Philip Glass

  8. batweka 8
    26 December 2014 at 9:36 am

    Thought provoking tweet from Niki Harre

    “The revolutionary’s role is to liberate, and be liberated, with the people – not to win them over.” Paulo Freire

    • phillip ure 8.1
      26 December 2014 at 9:50 am

      i disagree..

      ..hearts and minds in support of revolutionary-change..

      ..are the greatest certainty of success for that revolutionary-change..

      ..if a critical mass of new zealanders decide ‘fuck this!..let’s change/end poverty/gross-inequality..

      ..let’s stop being global environmental-villains..and become trailblazers of/for change..!’..

      ..this will happen..

      ..and arguing for that is a large part of the reason i do what i do..

      ..and we are more fortunate/better-placed than most other countries to achieve this..

      ..ideas + mmp is a potent recipie for real change/advancement here in new zealand..

      ..the cited quote sounds more a subsection of ‘real power only comes thru the barrel of a gun’..

      ..we want revolutionary-ideas..executed thru the ballot-box..

      ..not so much ‘revolutionary'(s)…per se..

      • Murray Rawshark 8.1.1
        26 December 2014 at 4:25 pm

        In that case you have missed what Paulo Freire was saying. He was a very insightful thinker and even the translations of his works are reasonably accurate. Here’s another quote, just for Boxing Day:

        “Leaders who do not act dialogically, but insist on imposing their decisions, do not organize the people–they manipulate them. They do not liberate, nor are they liberated: they oppress.”
        ― Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed

  9. dave brown 9
    26 December 2014 at 10:01 am

    For those wanting to apply their political brain to how the left unites under conditions of extreme austerity in the middle of a global capital economic crisis, Greece is a good case in point.

    How will Syriza deal with the ongoing debt crisis in the context of an EU solution.
    Are the Syriza professors going to make any headway over German austerity?
    Or will the Greek people have to turn Syriza into a party of grass roots socialist revolution?

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/23/syriza-john-milios-greece-eurozone?CMP=twt_gu

    • Tracey 9.1
      26 December 2014 at 10:43 am

      Dave

      There are some very interesting changes going on in Greece. It was karols post on austerity, i think, which sent me off reading about the shifts afoot.

    • Draco T Bastard 9.2
      26 December 2014 at 7:05 pm

      I’m kinda hoping that they:

      1. Fix their tax laws so that everyone is actually paying tax
      2. Simply drop from the EU (As I understand it the people didn’t actually want to join anyway) and default on the loans.
      3. Print their own money to spend into the economy and ban private banks from creating any

  10. phillip ure 10
    26 December 2014 at 10:47 am

    (quite a long op-ed on harawira/mana/cannabis/election-campaign/defeat..)

    the more i have been thinking about it..

    ..the more i think harawiras’ reactionary attitudes to cannabis..

    ..and the tantrum he threw to kill the internet party campaign to drive support for ending prohibition..

    ..and the attendant publicity around that..

    ..would have gone a long way towards causing him to lose his seat..

    ..and i wd submit could be cited as a main reason for that unfortunate outcome..

    (cont..)

    http://whoar.co.nz/2014/commentwhoar-did-wrong-footing-it-on-cannabis-cost-harawira-the-election-and-will-hemana-make-the-same-mistakes-again-in-2017/

  11. Tracey 11
    26 December 2014 at 11:06 am

    Interesting stats coming out in the USA with respect to Black unemployment rates since the recession when compared to White.

    “In fact, the unemployment rate in 2013 was lower among whites who never finished high school (9.7 percent) than it was for blacks with some college education (10.5 percent).”

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/12/25/business/for-recent-black-college-graduates-a-tougher-road-to-employment.html

  12. tricledrown 12
    26 December 2014 at 11:20 am

    Hone Harawira has seen to many stoners and waster’s in the far North to believe cannibis reform will work.
    Another serious side effect of Dope is high use demotivates people.
    So Hone is seeing first hand the wasted potential of young people.
    And the gang related activity of the trade.
    Decriminalization along with quality rehab is the only answer for all drugs alcohol and tobacco being the worst.
    Hone has been right behind getting rid of tobacco.
    For that alone he shoulld get a knighthood !

    • phillip ure 12.1
      26 December 2014 at 11:46 am

      fact:..young-people/people in general..use/like intoxicants..

      (and so what..?..why should they not be allowed to..whose business is it but theirs..?..

      ..the govts role is to regulate/tax..not to prohibit/criminalise victimless-‘crimes’..)

      fact:..cannabis is the safest of all the intoxicants..

      fact:..alcohol is one of the most dangerous of the intoxicants..(esp. in maori communities..?..)

      ..are you seriously trying to equate some stoned teenagers in northland..

      ..with the havoc/violence wreaked by alcohol..?..in that community..?

      • tracey 12.1.1
        26 December 2014 at 12:00 pm

        What is your age range for young?

          • tracey 12.1.1.1.1
            26 December 2014 at 12:22 pm

            Thanks phil.

            I understand the brain is still physiologically developing into tge 20s and in a perfect world its development would be unfettered by alcohol or any drugs, including cigarettes until that time. There is also the issue of the full development of the parts of the brain that contains our ability to understand actions and consequences. For some I understand this can take til mid twenties.

            We are a nation of hypocrites who legalise and in ways encourage alcohol but demonise cannabis.

            • phillip ure 12.1.1.1.1.1
              26 December 2014 at 1:43 pm

              but of course that age is arbitrary..

              ..if they want pot/booze when younger..they will get it..

              ..no matter the set-age..

              ..and it has always been thus..

              • Tracey …
                26 December 2014 at 3:45 pm

                shouldnt stop us from educating them about the irrepairable damage they may do to a particularly useful organ.

      • tricledrown 12.1.2
        26 December 2014 at 12:38 pm

        I work with dysfunctional families and their children.
        While you might be right about cannibis cuasing less violence.
        Thats while persons are high on matajuana only.
        Sadly marajuana causes people to lower their moral choices so leading to drinking more alcohol therefore more violence.
        Not only that the marajuana withdrawl next morning causes irritability and violence..
        Facts from the coal face Phil!

        • phillip ure 12.1.2.1
          26 December 2014 at 12:59 pm

          “..Sadly marajuana causes people to lower their moral choices so leading to drinking more alcohol therefore more violence.
          Not only that the marajuana withdrawl next morning causes irritability and violence..
          Facts from the coal face Phil!..”

          ..bullshit..!

          ..you are claiming pot is a gateway to booze..(!)

          ..and that the booze-caused violence that follows..

          ..is down to pot..?

          ..and that pot withdrawals ‘the next day’..’cause violence’..?

          ..like i said..’bullshit!’..that’s all from the booze..not the pot..

          “..Facts from the coal face Phil!..”..?

          ..nah..!..more an iteration of yr prejudices/preconceived-ideas/biases..eh..?..

          ..and fact-free they are..

          ..and are you trying to claim that $2 a gram pot..grown legally locally..(not to mention the employment created..)

          ..are you really arguing this wd not help northland overall..?

          ..and wd not cause less consumption of the ‘evil’ alcohol..?

          ..and therefore less violence..?

          ..a problem clearly close to yr heart..that you work to compensate for..

          ..can you really not see all this..?

          • tricledrown 12.1.2.1.1
            26 December 2014 at 1:29 pm

            Phil while you are addicted to this substance you can not be objective cherry picking facts to enable your addiction.
            All of the long term stoners I know have health issues at least 50% have mental health issues.
            While it may be safer than alcohol and allow you to function at a much higher level Chronic use has dangerous health consequences.
            To put words in my mouth is being disingenious.
            Marajuana definitely lowers peoples self control.To say othetwise is delusional

            • phillip ure 12.1.2.1.1.1
              26 December 2014 at 1:32 pm

              my discussion with you so has been me responding to what you say..and you not bothering to answer/respond to mine..

              ..and that is/becomes very tiresome..

              ..so i will call an end to it..eh..?

              ..and like a drink yrslf do ya..?..(‘in moderation’..of course..!..eh..?.)

              ..and f.y.i…the amounts of pot i smoke now..(from a v. small-bowled pipe..

              ..are miniscule compared to the heroic amounts i consumed for so long..

              ..and/but..like the doctor said..i have ‘the lungs of a young man’..

              ..how does that not flush yr arguments down where they should go..?

              • TheContrarian …
                26 December 2014 at 4:46 pm

                ..and/but..like the doctor said..i have ‘the lungs of a young man’..

                ..how does that not flush yr arguments down where they should go..?

                Yeah tricledrown, Phil’s unsourcable, unreferenced and unconfirmable personal anecdote totally destroys your argument.

                Phil, I drink heavily and have done for years but my most recent doctors visit showed no damage. Therefore all your arguments against alcohol are now flushed where they belong. Checkmate.

                • The Al1en …
                  26 December 2014 at 4:52 pm

                  As an illustration of poorly thought out logic, I prefer – In recent tests poisonous snake venom has shown some promising results in treating such disorders as high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, Alzheimer’s disease and cancer.

                  Therefore poisonous snake venom is good and should be legalised for recreational users and the parents of sick children.

                • Tracey …
                  26 December 2014 at 5:20 pm

                  lol

                  at least you didn’t talk about your veganfrie sadly died at 22 thus proving veganism kills.

                • phillip ure …
                  26 December 2014 at 6:01 pm

                  how old are you..serious booze effects usually kick in by post-50..

                  ..in good nick..are ya..?

                  ..a fit/fine speciman of a human being..

                  ..with yrs of ‘drinking heavily’..i doubt it..eh..?

                  ..and you..in yr own words..’drink heavily’ of what is unarguably one of the most damaging intoxicants..

                  ..and you preaching/judgemental at me for the safest intoxicant of all..?

                  ..right ho..!

                  ..and it was a medical check..not an ‘anecdote’..

                  • northshoredoc …
                    26 December 2014 at 6:15 pm

                    “Serious booze effects usual kick in by post 50”

                    You really are a fact free zone Phil. What about foetal alcohol syndrome for a start ?

                    From a medical perspective we see huge amounts of preventable illness which can be attributed to alcohol and cannabis the relative harm however could only be worked out if we had reliable figures on amount consumer per head of population failing that we can only advise to treat both substances cautiously and in extreme moderation.

                    • phillip ure …
                      26 December 2014 at 6:41 pm

                      u r full of it too..

                      ..and u a doctor..?..for shame..!

                      ..i was talking about long term effects on the consumer..

                      ..yes..i know of foetal alcohol syndrome..so yr big gotcha! fell flat..eh..?..

                      ..and you conflate pot into booze-damage..?..seriously..?..and equate them..?

                      ..whatareya..?..a 1930’s reefer-madness writ modern..?

                      ..and cd u plse list these ‘preventable-illnesss’ that pot smokers are presenting with..?

                      ..just so we know..eh..?

                      ..mind you..you eat animals..

                      ..so what the fuck do you know about anything..?

                      ..eh..?

                      ..’doc..?’.

                      ..(and don’t get me started on the medical ‘profession’..eh..?..)

                      ..and like a wee tipple yrslf..do ya..?

                      ..i find pot-prohibitionists usually do..

                      ..so you can add hypocrisy to yr ill-founded medical opinion..eh..?

                    • The Al1en …
                      26 December 2014 at 6:54 pm

                      “u r full of it too..”
                      “.and u a doctor..?..for shame..!”
                      “..whatareya..?..a 1930’s reefer-madness writ modern..?”
                      “..mind you..you eat animals..”
                      “.so what the fuck do you know about anything..?”
                      “..(and don’t get me started on the medical ‘profession’..eh..?..)”
                      “.and like a wee tipple yrslf..do ya..?”
                      “..so you can add hypocrisy to yr ill-founded medical opinion..eh..?”
                      “you dont want legal pot..eh..?..’cos people will choose to smoke pot instead of taking the vile/addictive tranks you so assidiously push..”
                      “..it’s all about patch-protection/market-share..eh ‘doc’..?”

                      Quoted just for the fucking funny off it.
                      And I need that doctor, quack as they obviously are, fucken eh? – I’ve just split my sides laughing. Medic, MEDIC 😆

                      😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆

                  • phillip ure …
                    26 December 2014 at 6:54 pm

                    you dont want legal pot..eh..?

                    ..’cos people will choose to smoke pot instead of taking the vile/addictive tranks you so assidiously push..

                    ..eh..?..

                    ..it’s all about patch-protection/market-share..eh ‘doc’..?

                    • The Al1en …
                      26 December 2014 at 7:17 pm

                      For a stoner pot head you appear to be very hate filled and aggressive, which is sort of exactly the opposite that you claim weed whackers are and should be.

                      And me, while accepting the harm alcohol does to the individual and society, I’ve just had a glass of the red wine my new boss gave me for xmas, my first drink since forever, and I love you man. 😆

                    • northshoredoc …
                      26 December 2014 at 8:30 pm

                      i believe a 🙄 is on order.

                    • phillip ure …
                      26 December 2014 at 8:55 pm

                      condescending/avoiding much..?

                      ..not used to being challenged..eh..?

                      ..and retreating to that refuge of the illiterate..the emoticon..eh..?

                      ..and that’s all you’ve got..?

                      ..and you a doctor too..eh..?

                      ..and you claimed pot-smokers were presentng with preventible-diseases..

                      ..and i asked you to list those diseases..

                      ..that wasn’t just a total orifice-pluck was it..?

                      …and you a doctor..eh..?

                      ..if we can’t believe you..who can we believe..?

                      ..eh..?

                    • The Al1en …
                      26 December 2014 at 9:19 pm

                      “condescending/avoiding much..?”
                      “..not used to being challenged..eh..?.”
                      “..that wasn’t just a total orifice-pluck was it..?”
                      “..if we can’t believe you..who can we believe..?”

                      Oh my, now I’ve just laughed my arse off 😆

                      “i believe a 🙄 is on order.”

                      That’s because there isn’t a :whatafuckinloonytunesnumbnut: icon

                    • TheContrarian …
                      26 December 2014 at 10:24 pm

                      For fucks sake Phil.

                      I mean really…..fucking hell.

                      Pot is a drug. A powerful one at that. Yes it has medicinal value, we all agree on that. but your level of “Lets all have a joint and it’ll be sweet”. is dumb and you are dumb for thinking so.

                      People like you put proper research back 20 years.

                      A fucking liability to the cause. Fuck off.

                      ….and bed..

                    • phillip ure …
                      26 December 2014 at 10:37 pm

                      “..Yes it has medicinal value, we all agree on that..”

                      do we..?..so why is it still criminalised..?

                      ..and tell that to that pill-pushing quack from the nth shore..eh..?

                      ..he is saying just the opposite..

                      ,.that it ’causes preventible diseases’..

                      ..(we are still waiting for the name of even one of these pot-diseases this quack has discovered..

                      ..so i think he’s just full of it..)

                    • McFlock …
                      26 December 2014 at 10:59 pm

                      lol

                      Basic English for the monomaniac with memory problems:

                      The opposite of “has medicinal value” is “does not have medicinal value”.

                      Many things can have medicinal value while causing preventable diseases, for example paracetamol or NSAIDs can cause kidney, stomach or liver damage, and some blood pressure pills can cause gout.

                      Correction: dope and veganism: “duomaniac” seems more appropriate.

                    • fender …
                      26 December 2014 at 11:05 pm

                      “…mind you, you eat animals..

                      …so what the fuck do you know about anything…? ”

                      Yeah that’s some trippy shit right there ‘eh’ phil, ‘cos there’s never been any animal eater that knew anything much :won’t give ya the ‘PG’, ‘cos he ain’t ‘smashed’ & should ‘know’ better:

                      I believe you have come up with the chorus for an extremist anthem there and should build on it, good luck, change the bong water.

                    • phillip ure …
                      27 December 2014 at 7:20 am

                      an expression of frustration at this supposed ‘healer’..

                      ..who uses his/her false authority to peddle lies about cannabis..

                      ..(and when called to name the ‘preventible-diseases’ he claimed pot-smokers were presenting with..he can’t name even one..(!)

                      ..and who peddles addictive crap to patients..and is a drug company pawn/marketing-tool…

                      ..my reaction was to him as a ‘healer’..

                      ..of course there are people who are intelligent in other ways..who are still mired in that animal-eating ignorance…

                      ..that was a touchstone declaring the depth/width of his ignorance..

                      ..and on that subject..

                      ..what indeed does he/she fucken ‘know.’..?

                      ..about ‘health’..

                      ..except to peddle addictive pills/tranks to them..

                      ..when cannabis could do the same thing..better…

                      ..a description noting how fucken ignorant he/she is on any level…

                      (but i thought you wd have the brains to see that..you haven’t been smoking pot ..?..have you..?..)

                      ..fuck doctors..!..and their false/self-serving prescriptions..

                      ..it wasn’t that long ago they used to sit at their desks with a full ashtray next to them..

                      ..they haven’t really advanced all that much since those days..

                      ..and an addictive-pills peddling animal-eater…advising on ‘health’..

                      ..is just a sick fucken joke..

        • batweka 12.1.2.2
          26 December 2014 at 1:09 pm

          “Sadly marajuana causes people to lower their moral choices”

          how do you know?

          • emergency mike 12.1.2.2.1
            26 December 2014 at 11:59 pm

            @batweka It says so in the film ‘reefer madness’. Apparently you can spot a guy stoned on da mary jane by the dried semen on his jeans. They get frustrated when they can’t find a rape victim and masterbate uncontrollably.

            Myself I’ve only ever seen two types of drug that facilitated people making moral choices contrary to their normal personality. A) The stimulants, cocaine & meth etc. On these drugs people are more likely to engage in risky, reckless, and promiscuous behaviour. B) Alcohol. Violence, sexual harrasment, drunk driving, etc. No news there. That’s the drug that’s familar to and accepted by our mainstream culture. So it is what it is, or something.

            Cannabis? Nah, sounds like fact free rubbish to me. Unless chosing to rent bad horror films and eat too much chocolate and potato chips is a lower moral choice then yeah, I’ve seen a shitload of that go down.

    • Draco T Bastard 12.2
      26 December 2014 at 7:39 pm

      People who drink lots of alcohol everyday become demotivated as well but we don’t see anyone up in arms ab out that.

      IMO, we need to find out why people prefer to be stoned/drunk everyday and see to that first. And, IMO, a lot of that comes down to people not being able to create because they just don’t have access to the needed resources. Make those resources available and they won’t be reaching for the drugs to cover their boredom.

  13. Paul 13
    26 December 2014 at 12:13 pm

    Mark Mitchell featured prominently in the Dirty Politics book.
    You wouldn’t know this by reading nor would you the full details of what he did in the Mid East.
    Wonder who wanted her to write a puff piece on him. Slater ? Lusk? Ede?
    This article airbrushes a lot of inconvenient stuff out.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11379113

    More detail on Mitchell in this article from 2011.
    The events in Iraq seem very murky.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/features/4810730/In-the-line-of-duty

    • tracey 13.1
      26 December 2014 at 12:30 pm

      Funny she didnt choose Mike Sabin…

      Wikipedia references Mitchell thus

      “…In 2014, Nicky Hager’s book Dirty Politics presented evidence which suggested that Mitchell had hired political strategist Simon Lusk during the National Party selection process for the Rodney electorate. Lusk appeared to have collaborated with blogger Cameron Slater to discredit Mitchell’s opponents, particularly Brent Robinson. Mitchell strongly denies ever paying Lusk or Slater.[5] …”

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11314137

      Mitchell never did sue Hager. Funny that. Probably cos truth is a defence for Hager.

      • Paul 13.1.1
        26 December 2014 at 12:41 pm

        First in the series
        Watch Lusk’s chosen ones being selected for some pr

        • tracey 13.1.1.1
          26 December 2014 at 1:45 pm

          It will be interesting to monitor her choices…

          first one doesnt believe in heroes and then names key and reagan… hard to believe he will the read Gillards book.

    • phillip ure 13.2
      26 December 2014 at 1:14 pm

      audrey young:..putting the puff into political journalism..

  14. Molly 14
    26 December 2014 at 12:53 pm

    FilmsforAction.org is the gift that keeps on giving…

    “Pawel Kuczynski is a Polish artist who specialises in images that make you think hard about the world we live in: 25 Thought-Provoking Pieces From A Prize-Winning Polish Cartoonist”

    Worth a look. (No 3. seems eerily appropriate for this year)

  15. phillip ure 15
    26 December 2014 at 4:08 pm

    i have got six foot high swan-plants in my yard..

    ..(about eight of them..)

    ..the monarch butterflies are swarming…

    • The Al1en 15.1
      26 December 2014 at 4:15 pm

      And when the eggs hatch and too many caterpillars munch all the vegetation on such a small number of plants, they’ll starve to death or not have enough reserves to reach chrysalis stage.

      That’s a horrible thought.
      I hope you are prepared to keep purchasing/growing swan plant seedlings, otherwise the display of butterflies is just a dressed up vanity project hiding animal exploitation and cruelty.

      • phillip ure 15.1.1
        26 December 2014 at 4:35 pm

        (sigh..!..)..the plants are six feet high..and robust with it..

        ..they can gorge..

        ..and hardly a ‘vanity-project..

        ..nobody can see them..

        ..thru judicious planting/trimming i look out the window to a wall of green/red..

        ..i am in a green cave..in suburbia..

        • The Al1en 15.1.1.1
          26 December 2014 at 4:42 pm

          So it’s only your vanity that’s being satisfied, the monarch whisperer, but know this that six plants six foot high won’t keep the caterpillars in food for long. Those stems will soon be picked clean and the portents of doom soon realised.

          I have grown hundreds and hundreds at a time on a commercial scale and it’s never enough to satisfy demand, caterpillar of human, so don’t dismiss like you always do… Go get busy with the seeds or start saving up the pennies for the garden centre or your fragile animal loving heart will be responsible for the deaths of numerous little innocent creatures. No doubt or wriggle room about it.

  16. The Al1en 16
    26 December 2014 at 5:38 pm

    Up against it financially, but still resolute that she did the right thing taking a case.
    Let down badly by her former colleagues and associates, unlike them, she will always have my respect and admiration.

    To cover her costs, I want to set up fund like Hagar’s, but I don’t know how to do it. I asked the solicitor and he said it wasn’t a problem. A goal of 10 -15k would probably cover her up to the appeal I reckon, not to mention the 5k she has to pay the dom boss for calling witnesses who in my opinion lied on oath.

    I’m having to pay a hundred a week to clear my debt for going to mediation and defend myself from the sack at my disciplinary hearing show trial, but on the bright side, in 50 more weeks I’ll have it paid off. 🙂
    He will have the stigma for ever, and will have paid a lot more than I have.

    The price of justice 🙄

  17. Paul 17
    26 December 2014 at 6:02 pm

    Tracy’s post ‘One word away from needing food parcels’ writ large by NZ’s obsession with consumerism on Boxing Day.

    ‘The smug middle class National voter seems oblivious to how close they are to financial hardship. Other than the self employed who face financial precariousness for other reasons, the employed middle class, living close to the edge in pursuit of all things material, are a word away from needing food parcels…’

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/christmas/64473153/boxing-day-madness-trolley-shortage-and-shoppers-fainting

    • Halfcrown 17.1
      26 December 2014 at 6:32 pm

      “‘The smug middle class National voter seems oblivious to how close they are to financial hardship. Other than the self employed who face financial precariousness for other reasons, the employed middle class, living close to the edge in pursuit of all things material, are a word away from needing food parcels…’”

      How bloody true, and the hang over of the credit cards that have to be paid probably monthly with the high interest rate that will wipe out any “bargain” price.

  18. Northsider 18
    26 December 2014 at 6:17 pm

    Information Request:
    Mark Mitchell, NAT MP for Rodney, claims to have been the Founder, Chairman and CEO of a company employing 3,000 people in 14 countries.

    Does anyone know more about this aspect of his life?

    See Audrey Young’s piece on him in today’s Herald.