Open mike 27/11/09

60 comments on “Open mike 27/11/09 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. gitmo 1

   27 November 2009 at 8:05 am

   http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2009/11/goff-plays-race-card.html
   • marty mars 1.1

     27 November 2009 at 8:51 am

     yes he has and it will backfire badly, both personally and for the party – guess what your legacy is now goff? – and the more you and your ‘team’ deny it – the worse it will get.
   • Draco T Bastard 1.2

     27 November 2009 at 11:25 am

     Still can’t find the racism in that speech.
2. toad 2

   27 November 2009 at 8:54 am

   Absolutely disgraceful performance by Goff. I had hoped that with the political demise of Don Brash and Winston Peters we had seen the last of politicians cynically exploiting racism and bigoty for political gain.

   I suspect there will be a good number of long-term Labour supporters and activists very unhappy with their party leadership at the moment. If there is an up-side to this sordid exercise in racism by Goff, it may be that the Greens will pick up support at Labour’s expense. But I’d still prefer he hadn’t descended into the sewer.
   • gitmo 2.1

     27 November 2009 at 9:03 am

     “I had hoped that with the political demise of Don Brash and Winston Peters we had seen the last of politicians cynically exploiting racism and bigoty for political gain.”

     I don’t think you’ll see the last of politicians cynically exploiting racism and bigoty for political gain until you see the last of politicians.
     • Ron 2.1.1

       27 November 2009 at 9:21 am

       Let’s talk about cynical for a moment.
       I’m sorry but it seems to me that there is an idea that the Maori Party are somehow apolitical and should be shielded from crticism.

       The reality is that the MP “cynically” support the Tory party in order to further their aims. The MP have cynically chosen to support some appalling pices of destructive legislation that will see this country – all of this country – damaged for years to come. The Maori Party cynically used the ETS (the disguisting, useless, Tory ETS) to leverage some concessions for their mates in the forestry industry and bypass legal processes relating to Treaty settlements. They and their mates are now lying about that process.
       For that they deverve to be pilloried and exposed. Their agenda is now obviously one of a Tory Party. As such they deserve everything they get.

       And actually Goff is right. The sort of backroom deal they’ve done in order to support a piece of shit legislation IS damaging to race relations in this country. Voters WILL be shocked at how cynbical it is. The National Party IS using the Maori Party to further their agenda and the MP are going along with it and by doing so under the guise of furthering Maori aspirations, the Maori Party ARE damaging race relations in this country.
       • toad 2.1.1.1

         27 November 2009 at 9:47 am

         Ron, I’m as angry as anyone about the Maori Party’s sellout in supporting watering down the ETS to something that will be completely ineffective.

         Goff was right to attack them on that (even though Labour’s ETS would itself have been been only minimally effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions), just as the Greens have attacked them on that.

         But he didn’t stop there – he crossed the line by engaging in racist dog-whistling politics:

         We can choose our future based on principle and with the interests of all New Zealanders at heart.

         Or we can have a country where one New Zealander is turned against another, Maori against Pakeha, in a way that Labour strongly rejects.

         Compare Brash at Orewa:

         Is it to be a modern democratic society, embodying the essential notion of one rule for all in a single nation state?

         Or is it the racially divided nation, with two sets of laws, and two standards of citizenship, that the present Labour Government is moving us steadily towards?

         Interestingly, both Brash’s and Goff’s speeches were entitled “Nationhood”.
         • felix 2.1.1.1.1

           27 November 2009 at 10:00 am

           Spot on, Toad. It’s fairly subtle but it’s there all right.

           Goff had the opportunity to quite legitimately take the moral high ground in criticizing the actions of the maori party and he blew it.
         • r0b 2.1.1.1.2

           27 November 2009 at 10:01 am

           Toad, that’s a crap comparison of quotes. I was half way through a post last night comparing the Orewa speech with Goff’s (when I noticed a better post already scheduled for today so I dropped it).

           But go back and look at the two speeches side by side. They are very different beasts, and selectively quoting to make them look the same is not exactly helpful.

           Yes those two quotes are effectively identical [edit: on further reflection they are not, one is a veiled attack on The Treaty and the other isn’t] – but what goes around them and along with them is not…
           • George D 2.1.1.1.2.1

             27 November 2009 at 10:10 am

             Nah r0b, it’s about right.

             They both have the same theme at their heart – this race stuff isn’t useful, Maori should just put their grievance behind them, and that they’re the unreasonable ones. Lew expressed this idea very clearly.

             If people (Goff and his band of merry supporters) can’t understand that, then they really do have their heads in the sand. Hopefully below the water-mark, so when the tide comes in they’ll die politically and we’ll never have to deal with them again.

             Interesting that none of the Standard posters have felt that this major speech is worth blogging about so far. I’m sure we’ll see something soon…
           • r0b 2.1.1.1.2.2

             27 November 2009 at 10:11 am

             Yes George – there”s one in the works (we’re all busy volunteers eh!). I’ll leave further discussion until then…
           • Zorr 2.1.1.1.2.3

             27 November 2009 at 10:26 am

             Personally I agree with r0b and despite seeing the potential dogwhistle in Goffs words, in this situation I actually agree with him with what he is trying to say there.

             The way I interpret his words is that the way this current situation over the ETS will be interpreted by the populace will be that the Maori Party have leveraged their position in support of National to get more money for iwi through Treaty of Waitangi settlements.

             I, personally, am very sensitive to the race issues in this country (as mentioned in other posts, I want to be a teacher and therefore have to be) and know more than well enough what a dogwhistle is. However, I think people are seeing in Goffs words what they want to see there and not what was actually being said.

             “Oh no, he is complaining about the Maori taking advantage of their position to get their snouts further in the trough. Bad bad Phil Goff, how dare he!”
3. Pascal's bookie 3

   27 November 2009 at 9:09 am

   New banking regulations — UK edition.
4. felix 4

   27 November 2009 at 9:23 am

   While it’s valid for those on the left to be critical of Goff’s race-baiting, it’s a bit bloody rich for Nat supporters to do so.

   It’s wrong when the Nats do it and it’s wrong when Labour does it.

   If you’re a Nat supporter, tread very carefully around this.
   • Gosman 4.1

     27 November 2009 at 9:35 am

     So are you claiming the only people who can be critical of someone using race in a political way are left wingers?
     • felix 4.1.1

       27 November 2009 at 9:41 am

       No. Why would you think I said that?
       • Gosman 4.1.1.1

         27 November 2009 at 10:14 am

         Because that is one way of reading your last reply.

         National Party supporters have just as much right to critisise Goff on this issue than anyone else.
         • felix 4.1.1.1.1

           27 November 2009 at 10:46 am

           Whatevs. If you voted for Brash you can shut the feck up about Goff.

           It’s not a complex point I’m making, but it seems to be well over your head for some reason.
           • Gosman 4.1.1.1.1.1

             27 November 2009 at 11:17 am

             Ummmmm….. you can still vote for a political party even though you might not agree with everything the leader of the Party says.

             Or do you think that Labour Party supporters are not entitled to critisise something like the Foreshore and seabed act because it was introduced and, (seemingly), still supported by the Party?
           • felix 4.1.1.1.1.2

             27 November 2009 at 11:51 am

             See blow, Gos. I typed it slowly for you.
     • Pascal's bookie 4.1.2

       27 November 2009 at 9:46 am

       No he’s not. He is saying that anyone that went out and voted for Brash hasn’t got a leg to fucking stand on in criticisng Goff.

       Do you disagree?
       • grumpy 4.1.2.1

         27 November 2009 at 10:09 am

         …and the other side to this is that those who rushed to criticise Brash, now have no choice but to criticise Goff????
         • Nick C 4.1.2.1.1

           27 November 2009 at 10:38 am

           National supporters are well within their rights to critisize Goff for hypocracy. The last Labour government blasted Don Brash and were quite happy to label him a racist, and Goff was a senior part of that government. But when the polls are down Goff shows that he’s willing to do the same thing
           • felix 4.1.2.1.1.1

             27 November 2009 at 11:02 am

             Yep, Nat voters can allege hypocrisy but to do so they’re implicitly saying “Yes I’m a racist but so are you”. Otherwise there are no grounds for the complaint in the first place.

             If you were cool with Brash’s racism, you don’t get to be offended by Goff’s.
           • Gosman 4.1.2.1.1.2

             27 November 2009 at 11:20 am

             Unless you are able to provide evidence that the particular National Party supporter actively supported Brash’s comments then it is nonsensical to try and argue that simply because they support National Party policies generally that means they are not able to critisise Goff.
           • Pascal's bookie 4.1.2.1.1.3

             27 November 2009 at 11:40 am

             Gos, if you voted for Brash you were at the least saying that his race baiting didn’t matter to you as much as tax cuts or whatever else you were voting for.

             You don’t have to agree with everything a pollie says in order to vote for them. You still vote for them though, and that’s a package deal. You are still responsible for the package you voted for. The best you can say is that while I don’t like policy ‘x’, policy ‘y’ makes it a worthwhile trade off.

             In other words, you are saying I’ll support x if you give me y.

             I thought righties weere all about the responsibility for the actions and such. (not really, I’ve always thought they were shitting themselves about that)
           • Gosman 4.1.2.1.1.4

             27 November 2009 at 11:46 am

             To an extent I agree with you PB.

             However just because you make that decision doesn’t men you are not entitled to critisise either your own party leader for making comments you disagree with, or other party leaders who are doing something similar.

             If Don Brash came out and stated Phil Goff’s latest comments were racist then Felix would be correct, it would be hypocritical.
           • felix 4.1.2.1.1.5

             27 November 2009 at 11:49 am

             It’s really simple Gos but I know you’re not the sharpest of pricks so I’ll walk you through it slowly:

             1. National’s “Iwi vs Kiwi” campaign was so prominent, so omnipresent and so widely discussed that it is almost inconceivable that you could have voted in 2005 and not been aware of the publicly expressed, officially promoted views on race issues of the National Party and it’s leader.

             2. If you voted for them you either explicitly or implicitly gave support to those views. (That’s what voting is, Gos). It doesn’t matter if you voted for them primarily because you wanted a tax cut or any other reason – the plain fact is that you voted for a party engaged in a well publicised campaign of racist stirring.

             3. If you think Goff is dogwhistling the racists, then you must accept that Brash was doing so, and much more so as his language went far beyond anything Goff has said.

             4. If you find yourself in the overlap of groups 2 and 3, you are either a hypocrite by definition or you’ve had a road-to-Damascus change of heart in the last few years.

             It’s not a complicated assertion I’m making, Gos.
         • felix 4.1.2.1.2

           27 November 2009 at 10:48 am

           That doesn’t quite follow. You’re comparing an action with a lack of action.
           • toad 4.1.2.1.2.1

             27 November 2009 at 11:57 am

             Wonder if we’ll see John Ansell hired by Labour for their 2011 billboard design.
5. prism 5

   27 November 2009 at 9:40 am

   Air New Zealand is being precious about Mike Pero’s Antarctic plane visit idea! Their criticism of him could apply to their own company’s actions at the time of the Erebus crash which took a determined judge to reveal plainly. I haven’t forgotten this business and many others haven’t either. It was our Lockerbie. Gadaffi was forced to pay big sums to redeem his country, Air NZ has got off lightly. They are being shown up as callous and parsimonious and don’t like it.
   This country on the whole tends to lack integrity in our treatment to visitors who suffer disasters here. The slap on the hand to the pilot of the Mikhail Lermontov is another example of sliding out from the weight of responsibility by those at the top level. Then there are deaths from this poorly regulated adventure tourism, we have to nurture our tourism which involves doing the same to our tourists.
   • grumpy 5.1

     27 November 2009 at 10:10 am

     Spot on the money there Prism. Good post.
     • Deus ex Machina 5.1.1

       27 November 2009 at 10:47 am

       I’d sympathise more with Pero if he was simply trying to arrange a flight for those with connections to the Erebus disaster but from what I believe I heard him say on “PM” last night it’s open to anyone willing to pay, which makes it just a tourist flight.

       Human activity of any kind in the Antarctic adversely affects the environment there and should be limited to essential science only. Even if Pero does give any profit he makes on the flight to charity as he says, he will have established that there is money to be made from tourist flights over the Antarctic which will simply make it a matter of time before the money-grubbers move in on it.
       • prism 5.1.1.1

         27 November 2009 at 11:01 am

         DM Mike Pero is being upfront that there is a cost, and that will have to be borne. Why is it wrong to say that. He mentioned $1 million I think. Calling it commercial shows a confused attitude – someone has to pay the cost even if its not-for-profit. Qantas isn’t going to and is Air NZ? They have taken a select group of relatives down to Antarctica but there are others who haven’t had the chance. Maybe the only way they will ever get to stand and remember and weep and wonder at the terrain there will be to pay and they will be lucky that Mike Pero is offering to organise and administer the trip which they wouldn’t be able to do themselves.
       • prism 5.1.1.2

         27 November 2009 at 11:04 am

         I agree that tourist activities should not be allowed in Antarctica. To have a bunch of wealthy people who want to gawk at it when that puts the delicate ecological balance in danger is disgraceful. No cruise ships, tourist flights etc. It should be something special, kept pristine and viewed from far away and simulations as we have in Christchurch, that can give an idea of conditions.
6. gobsmacked 6

   27 November 2009 at 11:07 am

   Re – Goff

   Tim Watkin (Pundit) and Gordon Campbell (Scoop) are two journalists who do have brains rather than jerking knees, and are often broadly similar in their thoughtful political analysis. But on this issue, they have two quite different perspectives. Worth a read.

   http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/2009/11/27/gordon-campbell-on-phil-goff-and-the-race-card/

   http://pundit.co.nz/content/labours-dangerous-dirty-path
   • gobsmacked 6.1

     27 November 2009 at 11:27 am

     I’ll add my 2 cents on Goff: I’d rather he hadn’t made the speech.

     There are very valid criticisms in there. And we should never get to a stage where liberals/lefties feel constrained in attacking right-wing legislation from a right-wing government with the connivance of Ministers … who are from the Maori Party. The Labour leader should be no more or less trenchant in his criticism of crap like the ETS, just because cuddly Pita and Tariana are supporting the crap.

     But he mixed in the Foreshore & Seabed, which was dumb, and overall he said (in effect): “Let’s talk about this, and get quick headlines … not on the economy or social justice or other social democratic values, not on the longer path, but the easy road instead.”

     Stick to your core values, Phil. ETS bad. Privatising ACC bad. Service cuts bad. Lots of Tory bad. And when the Maori Party vote for them, then Maori Party bad. That’s the message you should be sending.
     • Bored 6.1.1

       27 November 2009 at 12:15 pm

       I too feel very let down by Goff on this, no problem with the message but choose your battles more wisely. What he should be doing is rallying the opposition to the ETS fiasco to a single combined position, regardless of party left right centre etc allegiances. Thats what a statesman would try to do, Goff comes up well short. The ship is sinking, and the fools are dancing on the decks.
   • Draco T Bastard 6.2

     27 November 2009 at 11:36 am

     Gordon Campbell addresses the issues that Goff raised while Tim Watkin cheery picked a couple of lines and got a kneejerk reaction of racism.
   • toad 6.3

     27 November 2009 at 11:36 am

     Yeah, Gordon Campbell seems to be having a dollar each way, which is unusual for him.
7. travellerev 7

   27 November 2009 at 11:47 am

   For those of you intrigued by the open mike discussion about Richarg Gage AIA and bummed out because he was booked to speak in Wellington here is another chance to meet him in person and to listen to his presentation. You will once again have your chance to ask questions or debunk him.

   Richard Gage is speaking in Auckland at the Trades Hall, 147 Great North Rd, Grey Lynn, on Monday, the 30th of November, from 6pm.** To book, please e-mail nz911truth@hotmail.com. While the presentation is free we appreciate gold coin donations to give to Richard for the financing of his journeys. His next stop will be Japan were he will be presenting his case in six cities and were he will be meeting with Yuki Fujita who is now one of the most powerful politicians in Japan since his party won in the last election. He is a full 911 activist and an amazingly courageous man (I met him last year in Sidney)

   So hear it from the horses mouth and ask questions
   • Evidence-Based Practice 7.1

     27 November 2009 at 11:58 am

     Please can you tell Richard Gage’s followers not to send nasty hate mail threatening their children to those who dare to disagree?
     • travellerev 7.1.1

       27 November 2009 at 12:37 pm

       Eh?
   • Gosman 7.2

     27 November 2009 at 12:13 pm

     Travellerev,

     Just wondering if you one of these sad lonely middle-aged women who has only their cat’s for company that require something completely bizarre to grasp on to like a massive earth shattering conspiracy theory to get you through another depressing day?

     BTW Nice arguing from a number of logical fallacies in the Open Mike Thread 22/11/09 😉

     [lprent: Don’t be a dickhead playing with stereotypes. If you want to do that then I’d suggest that you hire some porn and look at the plastic people.

     While I’m sure that you try to wank yourself to sleep at night that is hardly the basis to run an argument on this site. Similarly tev’s lifestyle is also out of bounds unless you can make a point – that is something you singularly failed to do. In fact you sounded as ineffectual as a castration victim in denial.

     Incidentally before you start complaining, read the policy. There is a point to this abuse. You nearly earned a ban but this seemed a more appropriate reprimand. ]
     • travellerev 7.2.1

       27 November 2009 at 12:36 pm

       No Gossie,

       I am happily married. In fact I have been with the same lovely supportive man for over 22 years. I have three cats, fifteen chickens, two kunekune pigs and a never ending stream of young people wwoofing for us (willing workers on organic farms).

       By the way for those of you I have just been notified by another happily married activist that Richard Gage will be on Close up tonight 7.00 pm NZ time 🙂 6 mins plus promo of BFT Trailer!

       You, on the other hand Gossie looked like a highly frustrated young male in need of a good bonk but with your silly ha and that attitude I’m afraid it’s going to take a long time for you to ever get to know about good and fulfilling sex.
     • Gosman 7.2.2

       27 November 2009 at 1:36 pm

       I have one simple word for you Iprent – Consistency.

       I think we both know what is meant by that 😉
     • felix 7.2.3

       27 November 2009 at 1:44 pm

       You’re such a sad little fool, Gosman.

       BTW trav is a nice lady who makes excellent chocolate fudge.
       • travellerev 7.2.3.1

         27 November 2009 at 1:54 pm

         LOL
       • Gosman 7.2.3.2

         27 November 2009 at 1:56 pm

         Why do I not find it strange that someone like you and Travellerev are good mates Felix?

         Let’s remember it was Travellerev who started the personal abuse here I am just carrying on in the same vein.

         Interesting that 9/11 Truthers feel the need to resort to attacking people personally rather than deal with the fact their Science is incredibly dodgy and the implications of their conspiracy theory truly wacky.
         • felix 7.2.3.2.1

           27 November 2009 at 2:01 pm

           And why do I not find it strange that you would take a simple statement like mine and twist and misconstrue it beyond all recognition?
     • BLiP 7.2.4

       27 November 2009 at 7:18 pm

       Fuck up and die Gosman.

       How dare you stroll about The Standard smearing your spite and smirking, unwashed igorance. Are you really so bereft of anything to say about a matter you pretend to know so much about that the best you can come up with is a Simpsons-age-group put down?
       • gitmo 7.2.4.1

         27 November 2009 at 7:42 pm

         How does one fuck up and die ?
         • felix 7.2.4.1.1

           27 November 2009 at 8:33 pm

           I can think of a few ways, most of them quite unpleasant.
       • Gosman 7.2.4.2

         27 November 2009 at 8:46 pm

         Oh Boo hoo hoo BLiP.

         As I stated to lprent it all comes down to consistency 😉

         Nice to see you come out in the open on the side of the wacky conspiracy theorist though.

         LOL!
8. travellerev 8

   27 November 2009 at 11:51 am

   Could not edit my comment any more.
   Just want to say this is not meant as a treat jack and is just an announcement.

   Cheers
9. prism 9

   27 November 2009 at 1:19 pm

   Haven’t read it yet but item on Werewolf by Catriona Maclennan called License to Prey on why government cannot or won’t legislate to rein in loan sharks. This is a major social problem for people on lower incomes. She has been talking about this for some time. Another example of government not doing its regulatory job to safeguard citizens against the more cunning and unscrupulous, with spurious economic arguments against.
10. Armchair Critic 10

    27 November 2009 at 3:48 pm

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10612070
    Pity burt has been banned, I was going to put a bet on how long it would be until he came up with a “Labour did it, too”.
    More importantly, now that the investigation is over there is one less reason to not explain why RW was allowed to resign. How long until JK explains?
    • r0b 10.1

      27 November 2009 at 4:03 pm

      Burt is welcome back on 1st December. But I’m afraid I can’t join you in looking forward to another zillion repetitions of his “Labour did it too” comment.
      • Armchair Critic 10.1.1

        27 November 2009 at 4:25 pm

        I don’t look forward to it either. The number of times I read something and think to myself “Oh no, here comes another “Labour did it, too” from burt” is almost enough to make me stop reading the Standard and actually do some work. The only way to make it fun is to try to guess how quick he can be.
        I watched the interchange where he was banned and thought you were quite tolerant. In a way it was a bit of a pity, only in that I thought he had said some thought-provoking stuff on other, unrelated topics.
        • r0b 10.1.1.1

          27 November 2009 at 4:37 pm

          Yes, Burt sometimes seem to have a clue – which makes his endless repetition of the same nonsense all the more frustrating.

          Since I’ve been feeling terrible for banning, and since you’ve put in a good word for him, I’ll lift the ban now. Burt, if he’s about, can come back now. Only please, FFS Burt, change the record.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS