Open mike 28/10/2012

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, October 28th, 2012 - 154 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post. For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the link to Policy in the banner).

Step right up to the mike…

154 comments on “Open mike 28/10/2012 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Jenny 1
    28 October 2012 at 7:30 am

    Afghan package decried as too little

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7873308/Afghan-package-decried-as-too-little

    The Government last week announced a resettlement package offer would be made to 23 Afghan interpreters currently workingwith the Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) in Bamiyan….

    Former interpreters have been excluded from the offer but will be looked upon “sympathetically” by the Government if they apply hrough the normal channels, Prime Minister John Key said….

    So what are these normal channels?

    Having little funds and no support, first they have to get out of the country. Diamond Kazimi reports that two of his relatives have done this. A cousin got to Germany and his brother managed to reach Canada. Applying for refugee status, he was told by the Canadian authorities told that the New Zealand government should be dealing with this. Diamond Kazimi himself was only able to reach New Zealand after a serving New Zealand soldier sponsored his travel here. Without this sponsorship he would never have made it. He then had to enter the country posing as a temporary visitor, the only way he could legally get entry into New Zealand.

    What could be called “normal” about this?

    Normal channels for refugees are a series of difficult hurdles especially placed in their path by the border authorities of the countries they wish to enter. For those with meagre funds, or lacking sponsorship, these hurdles more times than not are insurmountable.

    A disgrace. Diamond Kazimi has appealed to the NZ media to take up the cause of the interpretors and other support workers left in Afghanistan to face the wrath of Taliban for working for us.

    • AsleepWhileWalking 1.1
      28 October 2012 at 8:44 am

      Does anyone else see the comments made by Key as American in style? (We got what we wanted from you so screw you). Perhaps I’m biased. I do sound a little bitter when I read that back.

      These people should be given priority to at the very least have their cases looked at, and frankly I don’t see why we shouldn’t bump the quota for a year to accommodate them and their families. Where is the compassion? Key REALLY hates beneficiaries of any kind huh.

      • Dr Terry 1.1.1
        28 October 2012 at 9:34 am

        Key (like so many from the Right) knows nothing of “compassion”, just don’t expect it from him. Key hates people, full stop – human beings are an impediment to getting on with making money and being an ego-driven hedonist. All of those overseas holidays must make him very “rusty”, by the way!

    • PlanetOrphan 1.2
      28 October 2012 at 10:11 am

      This should have been thought of when we started with the coaltion in Afghanistan.

      Why can’t those people continue as interpeters, 3 months on in Afghanistan, 9 months off in Aoteoroa ?

      We talk about reconstruction, surely helping them and their families get a good education and experience of a more evolved society would be one of the best reconstructive things we could do?
      (No offense to the people on the ground in Afghanistan but Soldiers are not University Lecturers)

      How about Dual NZ / Afghan citizenship for instance ?

      To apply a “Letter of the Law” approach to this is not “Good Civilised Behaviour” on Johny Sparkles behalf.

      Yet another strike on the ledger of Gnats’ policy M8’s!

  2. mickysavage 2
    28 October 2012 at 7:59 am

    And so it appears New Zealand is readying itself to leave the Kyoto Protocol.

    Not satisfied with weakening it to the point of its demise, plans are now to take it out back and drown it in a bath tub.

    Shame on them.

    • karol 2.1
      28 October 2012 at 8:10 am

      Thanks, Micky.  I will add the link to my post that is scheduled to publish here in about an hour.

      • Jim Nald 2.1.1
        28 October 2012 at 8:15 am

        Is it possible the Natz are deliberately being idiotic about this?
        Which Administration signed (rather than ratified) the Kyoto Protocol?

        • mickysavage 2.1.1.1
          28 October 2012 at 9:00 am

          Aye they did.  I have the utmost respect for Simon Upton for driving it through.

          I can recall having some fun at an election meeting where a Nat MP was trying to criticize the decision to ratify the Kyoto Treaty by pointing out that they were the ones to actually negotiate NZ’s involvement. 

          • Jim Nald 2.1.1.1.1
            28 October 2012 at 9:08 am

            Upton and Shipley should be exhumed and a seance held on Campbell Live, with their mortal remains on display and interrogated, to divine what they make out of this Administration’s nonsense.

    • tc 2.2
      28 October 2012 at 8:31 am

      This lot would be in good company with the likes of Tex Slampacker in Ben elton’s ‘stark’ ordering endangered species like baked swan whilst obliterating another piece of wilderness.

    • Chalupa Batman 2.3
      28 October 2012 at 8:38 am

      Finally Nationals starting to do what it needs to do. Now it needs to keep going and do what needs to be done (as long as it avoids a coalition deal with winstonfirst)

      • One Tāne Huna 2.3.1
        28 October 2012 at 10:00 am

        A word of advice: the fuckwit of the year prize will not be won by a climate change denier: you will need to find something more original to demonstrate your idiocy.

        • muzza 2.3.1.1
          28 October 2012 at 10:24 am

          Word of advice – f-wit of the year award will not be won by anyone who denies that weather modification (control) exists…Lets take a look..

          http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/08/geo-engineering-john-holdren (Holdren is Obamas appointment as chief science advisor)

          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1343470/Have-scientists-discovered-create-downpours-desert.html

          http://my.telegraph.co.uk/expat/annabelkantaria/10139764/dubai%E2%80%99s-designer-weather/

          http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/research/2008-02-29-china-weather_N.htm

          http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18817945

          Looks like the “100 year storm” due to interrupt the US elections is well timed for Obama, innit!

          I’m sure its just down to “climate change, and/or good old fashioned bad weather”!

        • Foreign Waka 2.3.1.2
          28 October 2012 at 10:31 am

          OTH wonder whether there is a misunderstanding of terms of reference. There is no denying of a global climate change going on, however even the scientific community is split about absolute cause.(don’t forget the sun!) Yes, we all can do our bit to lessen the effect and NZ has done well. And yes, National should not sell the power stations which give us an edge.
          But also to consider is the issue of commercialization of carbon credits via Kyoto protocol. Just another vehicle to make money? A way of distorting measures by manipulation value vs cost? Once measures of cause/effects are outside the rigorous scrutiny of the scientific community, it will be difficult to know what is true and what is false. We have had too many of those examples of corporate greed in the last 2 decades. Secondly, the biggest polluters do not participate. So that will distort the “value” straight away. Just saying….

          • One Tāne Huna 2.3.1.2.1
            28 October 2012 at 10:56 am

            Oh, you mean there’ll be issues to work through like any policy? Well I never!

            “…the scientific community is split about absolute cause…” Oh yeah? Says who? What part of Quantum Mechanics are you calling into question?

            • muzza 2.3.1.2.1.1
              28 October 2012 at 11:05 am

              Bill Gates Hurricane Tamer?

              I’d say playing about with, and controlling the weather patterns would be a cause for contention.

              It’s been going on for a long time already, but as you can’t wrap your head around that, you flap around stuck on the same old track….

              Maybe go speak with Bill Gates, Im’ sure he can explain it all to you!

              • One Tāne Huna …
                28 October 2012 at 3:26 pm

                Did you read the article? Familiar with Intellectual Ventures at all?

                Hint: the reason I don’t take you seriously has nothing to do with your little tanty lower down.

                • muzza …
                  28 October 2012 at 3:49 pm

                  Did you read the article? Familiar with Intellectual Ventures at all?

                  Yup, and so what! – But wait on, the insurance industry will sort out “climate change”..

                  Hint: the reason I don’t take you seriously has nothing to do with your little tanty lower down.

                  Trying to trivialise/divert/avoid, with cutesy little words such as “tanty”, only serve you highlight what a tweezer you must be, even online you transfer via your words!

                  Appreciate the compliment BTW – Hint , Its not about being taken seriously, if thats something your narcissistic side craves, perhaps you need to get back on those meds again!

                  • One Tāne Huna …
                    28 October 2012 at 3:56 pm

                    “So what” – do the words “patent troll” mean anything to you?

                    Still trying to spin what I said about insurance companies? Let’s recap: “…of all the responses to climate change to date, insurance companies refusing to cover certain areas is perhaps the strongest…”

                    Do you see why I don’t take your comments seriously?

            • Foreign Waka 2.3.1.2.1.2
              28 October 2012 at 11:24 am

              I just wonder whether you have read my comment. By all intend and purposes you are the one making the world a meaner place (see your own comment below) with you inability to discuss an issue without being offensive when you encounter deviating opinions.
              Get a grip and grow up. Yes and here is a list of scientist who have some serious questions:

              Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

              Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

              Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [9]
              Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[10][11][12]
              Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003), and author of books supporting the validity of dowsing[13]
              Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU[14]
              Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[15]
              Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [16]

              Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

              Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

              Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[17]
              Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[18][19]
              Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[20]
              Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[21]
              David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[22]
              Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[23]
              William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[24]
              William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[25]
              William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[26]
              David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[27]
              Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[28]
              Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[29][30]
              Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[31]
              Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[32][33]
              Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo[34]
              Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[35][36][37]
              Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[38]
              Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[39]
              Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center[40]
              Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[41]

              • One Tāne Huna …
                28 October 2012 at 11:39 am

                Oh look, a list of deniers. Do you know how funny it is that you cite Lindzen, Soon, Baliunas, Christie, Svensmark and Spencer? Do you know why?

                Have you registered the fact that these people all have their own unique version of what they say is wrong with established Climatology?

                You haven’t even got a coherent narrative.

                L(1-α) = εσT^4

                Where L = solar luminosity
                α = albedo
                ε = emissivity
                σ = Stefan-Boltzmann constant and
                T = surface temperature in degrees Kelvin.

                Remind me how “L” has changed over the last century. That’ll be good for a laugh.

                • Foreign Waka …
                  28 October 2012 at 11:55 am

                  I am no scientist but I do have an open mind to ALL opinions and even more so if these are from recognized scientists of international reputation. And lets not forget astute academic organizations. Have a good look before you start getting into your next tantrum.
                  I get the feeling somehow you work here for a particular interest? Democratic exchange of comments seem to be not in your forte either.

                  • One Tāne Huna …
                    28 October 2012 at 12:05 pm

                    “International reputation” for incompetence and downright lying. FIFY.

                    “I’m no scientist” – no shit, Sherlock – is that how you managed to drop that howler about the Sun in your first comment?

                    Get as many feelings as you like, they won’t entitle you to your own facts.

                    • muzza …
                      28 October 2012 at 12:24 pm

                      So no word from you the weather control , or Gates’s procurement of the hurricane control patents???

                      Yeah thats altruism right there eh, its as obvious as your self esteem issues!

                    • Foreign Waka …
                      28 October 2012 at 12:29 pm

                      You are just plain rude and as I see it, you discriminated yourself from being taken seriously.
                      You are not an academic of any stature by what I gather from your comments because the ones I have met have had open minds to other peoples opinions without reacting in the way you do.
                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_and_celestial_effects_on_climate

                    • One Tāne Huna …
                      28 October 2012 at 1:49 pm

                      FW: “Just plain rude” – but swallowing destructive and transparent lies and then parroting them as some sort of “honest opinion” is just fine and dandy and oh so democratic?

                      Hypocrite.

                      PS: yes, Muzza, I decline to pick up your Tar Baby, and raise you a tin foil hat.

                    • muzza …
                      28 October 2012 at 3:03 pm

                      Actually free-speech, an open mind, questioning everything and searching for understanding, regardless of whether you agree or not, are some of the cornerstones of so called democracy!

                      As such your use of the work hypocrite towards FW, is wrong!

                      Destructive, is what attitudes such as yours are, not FW, so you are projecting wildly again. I’ve explained that to you before, whose ideas are more dangerous, the open or the closed mind!

                      You understand so little, and jump down others so hard, that the mind boggles just how scared you must be of anything which might challenge your self righteous view of life, and may lead you to have to ask hard questions yourself!

              • Draco T Bastard …
                28 October 2012 at 11:58 am

                Hey, look at that, a list scientists and not a single one a climatologist. BTW, do any of them know that they’re on the list? And did you also know that there are about 30,000 climatologists in the world, 99.9% of which agree that climate change is being caused by human action?

                • Foreign Waka …
                  28 October 2012 at 12:35 pm

                  Climatology is itself a branch of physics, but it is often highly dependent upon other sciences.

                  Thus if one is to understand various aspects of of the science of climatology, one will oftentimes need to understand the results and methods of various various other sciences. For example, climatology is highly dependent upon the study of radiation and how it interacts with matter: this is afterall a large part of the basis for our understanding of the greenhouse effect. Climatology depends upon chemistry insofar as it must understand the formation of ozone – one of the greenhouse gases. Climatology depends upon geology insofar as it attempts to identify the principles governing climates by learning lessons from deep geologic time. Climatology depends upon meteorology insofar as its results will be dependent upon the variation of precipitation or the dependence of various aspects of the climate upon temperature.

                  http://climate-change.wikidot.com/science:branches

          • Draco T Bastard 2.3.1.2.2
            28 October 2012 at 11:53 am

            however even the scientific community is split about absolute cause.(don’t forget the sun!)

            No, they’re not and the sun has been ruled out as a cause.

            But also to consider is the issue of commercialization of carbon credits via Kyoto protocol. Just another vehicle to make money?

            Yep, a market system isn’t the best way to account for the cost of CO2e emissions. A flat tax would be far better.

            • Foreign Waka 2.3.1.2.2.1
              28 October 2012 at 12:18 pm

              I am no denier that something is wrong. I have been growing up in the northern hemisphere with lots of snow during the winter and seasons to recognize. This is not happening anymore and has a huge impact on the farming community because the lack of freezing of the ground which causes an increase of infestations of bugs that weren’t there before. Health issues coupled to that are on the increase. Not to mention the catastrophic thinning of the permafrost in the arctic circle. There is no doubt that deforestation does play a big part as does CO2 emissions. The list goes on. However, there are other voices that point to an cycle of worming and cooling of the planet too. What I question is the apparent certainty coupled with an almost immediate commercial solution. This makes me suspicious whether we are being made ready to be fleeced once more under a different pretext.
              I personally do not belief in a commercial solution but in a technological. So the scientists who currently put themselves out there to hurry through the money wagon are the ones I am particular wary about.

              • One Tāne Huna …
                28 October 2012 at 1:57 pm

                “…the scientists who currently put themselves out there to hurry through the money wagon…”

                Transparent and destructive lies. Did you make them up or are you just repeating what you’ve read without thinking or fact checking? The arrogance to call people who have fact checked and taken the time to learn the difference “rude” – because your wickle feelings got hurt.

                “Technological solutions” – let’s hear about them. Oh, oops, you didn’t fact check that little howler either.

                Forty seven joules per kilogram. Join the dots.

                • Foreign Waka …
                  28 October 2012 at 3:07 pm

                  Solar energy, tidal energy, electrical cars, etc….. The possibilities are endless and most likely the horizon is brighter for the younger generation rather then the older who can be (not all though) stuck in their paradigm.
                  Rude is your behavior, even in this online facility and I am surprised that this is actually OK.
                  As to fact finding missions, I think you have a very selective way of presenting them and thus my observations.
                  I will regard this issue as closed. As so many things in NZ no point of persevering.

                  • One Tāne Huna …
                    28 October 2012 at 3:18 pm

                    Hey Precious, obviously you don’t like my tone. Well I don’t like your implied weasel accusations of scientific and financial malpractice (“…the money wagon…”), especially when scientists and their families receive death threats.

                    Or have you got a specific allegation of actual malpractice? If so name names, or drop the hypocritical pretence that you’re Snow White.

              • Murray Olsen …
                29 October 2012 at 1:15 am

                What exactly is this “money wagon” that reputable climate scientists are said to be on while a denier like Plimer believes the Sun is a ball of iron and is on the board of mining companies? Or Monckton who is flown around the world to spew his tripe, all paid for by foundations with words like liberty and free enterprise in their names? I suspect I know which are the climate prostitutes here, and I suspect many of them are on your list.

              • Populuxe1 …
                29 October 2012 at 1:30 am

                Money wagon? I was unaware there was much money to be made in supporting the international scientific consensus. The only people who make money out of climate change are the deniers who get handouts from big business to push their bullshit uphill

            • muzza 2.3.1.2.2.2
              28 October 2012 at 12:28 pm

              Yep, a market system isn’t the best way to account for the cost of CO2e emissions. A flat tax would be far better.

              Who will the global flat tax target?

              Who will handle this global tax?

              How will this global tax “save the planet” – woops I mean save the humans?

              • Draco T Bastard …
                28 October 2012 at 2:21 pm

                Who will the global flat tax target?

                It’s not who but what.

                Who will handle this global tax?

                The local governments.

                How will this global tax “save the planet” – woops I mean save the humans?

                By decreasing GHG emissions.

                • muzza …
                  28 October 2012 at 3:17 pm

                  It’s not who but what.

                  What its going to target the owners/controllers of the biggest polluters – Nah it wont!

                  The local governments.

                  You are in dreamland Draco, like your comment about cashless society, you are so deluded about the results that will come from these, and given your comments are usually sensible, I am a little surprised at your naievity over this!

                  By decreasing GHG emissions.

                  Ok, and how many people do you think will be saved by the altuism of those currently ruling this planet of ours ?

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    28 October 2012 at 4:45 pm

                    What its going to target the owners/controllers of the biggest polluters – Nah it wont!

                    It’s not supposed to – for that we need other regulations. What it’s supposed to do is decrease GHG emissions.

                    You are in dreamland Draco, like your comment about cashless society, you are so deluded about the results that will come from these, and given your comments are usually sensible, I am a little surprised at your naievity over this!

                    It would require the move to a more democratic and accountable system than we have now but it could be done. People saying that it can’t be done because of the PTB are just as much in the way of the needed changes as the PTB.

                    Ok, and how many people do you think will be saved by the altuism of those currently ruling this planet of ours ?

                    The people presently ruling this planet don’t have an altruism – that’s why they need to be removed from those positions of power.

            • Vicky32 2.3.1.2.2.3
              28 October 2012 at 7:47 pm

              No, they’re not and the sun has been ruled out as a cause.

              Really? Absolutely, completely 100%? When did that happen?

    • PlanetOrphan 2.4
      28 October 2012 at 10:36 am

      No one owns the “Air”, but no one has worked out the real cost of Air pollution.

      If land for instance can be valued at say $100/m2 then how bout the same for Air?

      $100/m3 say ?

      So your average 2litre car eminates 2m3 of air for every 16 revolutions ……

      That’s 500m3 of polluted air for every minute of cruising at 4000rpm.

      1 hour trip = 30,000m3 of polluted air.

      I know “Air” is a huge resource, that cleans itself, but …..

      Yearly Average hours per Domestic car in Aoteoroa = 2 * 365 = 730hrs
      730 * 30,000 = 21,900,000m3 per car per year.

      Yearly Average hours per (2litre) Business vehicle in Aoteoroa = 8 * 350 = 2800hrs
      2800 * 30,000 = 84,000,000m3 per car per year.
      (Even at .001 cent per m3 that’s a lot of money per vehicle)

      Then you add all the industry …..

      The currenly accepted rate of carbon produced per kilowatt hour of power is 1.5 pounds of carbon/KWh.
      The average city uses 3,000KW(Lowish Estimate) per capita per hour ( 😮 )

      We really need to stop producing so much Carbon methinks.

      Scientific Fact No One : “You can’t breath exhaust fumes M8!”

      • PlanetOrphan 2.4.1
        28 October 2012 at 10:59 am

        Sorry correction …
        3,000KW(Lowish Estimate) should be …
        3KW(Lowish Estimate)

        • alwyn 2.4.1.1
          28 October 2012 at 3:09 pm

          I would suggest the whole thing needs correction. I started reading it but decided you had no idea what you were talking about when I hit the line “so your average 2litre car eminates 2m3 of air for every 16 revolutions”
          For your information there is one turnover of “air” every 2 revolutions, at least in a four-stroke engine which I would think 99.9% of petrol powered cars are.
          Thus 16 revolutions would mean 16 litres of air.
          There are 1000 litres in a cubic metre. You wouldn’t get 2m3 but 0.016 cubic metres.
          I glanced at the rest but decided that if you go so badly wrong so quickly why bother reading it.
          I did note however that you appear to think a business car is driven 8 hours per day, 7 days a week and 50 weeks per year.
          When I was working. and visiting customer sites I would have received a rap on the hand if I had been driving more that about an hour per day. The only cars that would do anything like your times would be taxis.

    • tinfoilhat 2.5
      28 October 2012 at 11:39 am

      Treasonous wretches.

      So NZ and it’s farmers carry on as climate change criminals while the rest of the world does there bit to address global warming. why would anyone buy our dairy products and meat when they can buy climate friendly produce.

      Key and his band of thugs should be strung up.

      • OneTrack 2.5.1
        28 October 2012 at 6:43 pm

        But the rest of the world arn’t “doing their bit”.

        We can be “leaders” and feel all warm and fuzzy while our economy collapses around our ears because our products become too expensive or even cease to exist (dairy).

        And what also happens is that China just keeps pumping out our annual CO2 output in around two days (and that output is increasing). Please explain again why we should flaggelate ourselves while the rest of he world continues on its merry way. So we can puff out out chests and say look at me, look at me?

    • Draco T Bastard 2.6
      28 October 2012 at 11:45 am

      “I’m surprised people are not filling their boots,” one market participant said. “People seem to be having a tough time believing the market is credible.”

      That would be because the market isn’t credible as the government keeps undermining it. Markets are a social construct and if the rules end regulation needed to maintain them aren’t in place then the market doesn’t exist.

    • BLiP 2.7
      28 October 2012 at 12:52 pm

      .

      Surprise, surprise. National Ltd™ – 100% Pure Bullshit.

  3. Dr Terry 3
    28 October 2012 at 9:37 am

    Chalupa – I wonder exactly what you believe really does “need to be done”? Probably best that you do not tell me.

    • Chalupa Batman 3.1
      28 October 2012 at 10:00 am

      Pushing ahead with the partial asset sales, more mining, shake up of the education sector just for starters

      • One Tāne Huna 3.1.1
        28 October 2012 at 10:02 am

        Yep, that’s pretty good, but a true fuckwit would go the extra mile. Come on, you can do it!

        • Jim Nald 3.1.1.1
          28 October 2012 at 10:14 am

          While looking for another group to kick and to bash, Natz has remembered they should also jail refugees:

          http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7873306/MPs-cool-on-boat-people-jail-plan

        • Te Reo Putake 3.1.1.2
          28 October 2012 at 10:16 am

          Speaking of fuckwits … about ten days from now, this guy is going to really regret this tattoo, whoever wins the US election.
           
          “I want young people to know that it’s O.K. to be young, and it’s O.K. to be a Republican. You don’t have to be rich or elderly to be labeled as a Republican, and I want everyone to know that.”
           

          • One Tāne Huna 3.1.1.2.1
            28 October 2012 at 10:21 am

            Reminds me of the line from the Dead Kennedys: “in a real fourth Reich you’d be the first to go.”

          • Chalupa Batman 3.1.1.2.2
            28 October 2012 at 10:22 am

            Yeah how dare he have a differing view to yourself…the cheek of the guy

            • McFlock 3.1.1.2.2.1
              28 October 2012 at 2:26 pm

              Wow, so that’s what TRP’s comment looks like through blue-tinted spectacles, is it? Fascinating.

            • OneTrack 3.1.1.2.2.2
              28 October 2012 at 6:48 pm

              Dissent will not be tolerated. The party will be advised and you and your family will be transported for re-education.

        • Chalupa Batman 3.1.1.3
          28 October 2012 at 10:20 am

          I’m afraid I couldn’t possibly challenge a true master of fuckwitery like your goodself 🙂

          • One Tāne Huna 3.1.1.3.1
            28 October 2012 at 10:25 am

            Yes, you could, by showing me the evidence that supports the delusional policies you have learned to parrot.

            Everywhere we look, these delusional policy settings destroy lives and make the world a meaner, worse place. That is why I call you a fuckwit: all you’re doing is regurgitating the lies you believe.

            It’s “easy” to show me I’m wrong: all you have to do is show me the evidence. When you can’t, of course, you’ll start clinging to your beliefs even harder.

      • Draco T Bastard 3.1.2
        28 October 2012 at 12:02 pm

        So, you think that National need to continue to make the world a nastier place?

        Okaaaay…

        EDIT:
        Here, have a short bit of reading. It’s about economics and how what most economists say is complete bollocks and not supported by actual historic fact.

  4. One Tāne Huna 4
    28 October 2012 at 9:37 am

    I have one misgiving about philosophy in schools.

    I have heard several people bring up this topic, and express great enthusiasm for the idea.

    They were all victims of Ayn Rand. What better way to peddle her hateful lies than to make them part of the curriculum?

    • Pascal's bookie 4.1
      28 October 2012 at 11:16 am

      pfft.

      Devotees of Amphetamine Aynnie may well blather on about their appreciation for philosophy, but unless we are talking about a charter school, they’re not likely to get a look in. Curricula aren’t just thrown together.

      In any formal study of philosophy you have to start with the basics. After that, Ayn is only really fit as a bit of raw meat for the young pups to tear apart.

      Imean, give anyone a week on epistemology basics, and then start explaining A=A’.

      hahahaha.

      • One Tāne Huna 4.1.1
        28 October 2012 at 11:23 am

        “Curricula aren’t just thrown together.”

        Check your assumptions. In the context of sane and effective education policy and pedagogy, “curricula aren’t just thrown together”.

        You honestly think such sensible arguments have any traction with Anne Tolley or Hekia Parata?

        “Not likely to get a look in” – you can say this with a straight face after the vandalism of National’s Standards?

        • Pascal's bookie 4.1.1.1
          28 October 2012 at 12:04 pm

          I’m not saying this government is going to do it, or of they do it, implement it well. What I am saying is that having it be a Randian indoctrination process is not anything we need to worry about.

          Rand is a cul de sac. You can only get there by taking that one specific turn. If you start from anywhere else; if you start with epistemology, or Phil of language, or metaphysics, or the history of phil, or (as is most likely) syllogisms for dummies; then you won’t take the corner. You’ll stand there at the corner, looking down at the philosophical detritus, and ask only, “Who are these people, and why are they saying these things?”

          • Tim 4.1.1.1.1
            28 October 2012 at 1:40 pm

            I think there might be a Chalupa that took a similar turn

          • One Tāne Huna 4.1.1.1.2
            28 October 2012 at 2:00 pm

            “Not anything we need to worry about” – cf: Alan Greenspan and Glass/Steagel. You were saying?

            • Pascal's bookie 4.1.1.1.2.1
              28 October 2012 at 3:22 pm

              What? Alan Greenspan and Glass/Steagel were the end result of teaching philosophy in schools?

              how does that work?

              • One Tāne Huna …
                28 October 2012 at 3:44 pm

                It doesn’t; it’s a strawman.

                I take your point that Rand is a cul-de-sac, but that is no consolation to Greenspan’s victims. I don’t think you can discount the possibility that Rand in schools isn’t on some twisted agenda, especially now we’re to give tax-payer dollars to faith schools.

                In this circumstance, the schools in question would probably talk about “teaching our philosophy”.

                • Pascal's bookie …
                  28 October 2012 at 5:00 pm

                  If you have an example of them saying that, then sure; but all I can see in that article is them talking about teaching philosophy.

                  the texts in the photo look fine, from the pupils comments it looks like they are getting a 100 level intro into ethics and logic. I’d be surprised if they weren’t doing a bit of metaphysics, simply because those questions are really good for teaching about propositional logic.

                  I don’t see any evidence for concern based on what is being proposed.

                  Honestly, you sound a bit like them thar freaks banging on about how if we teach the kids about evilution it’s actually a plot to make them think they are animals in order to groom them for the gays.

                  Teaching kids philosophy is a good thing. It’s an inoculation against poor thought. Fuck all people bother with it at uni, and even fewer keep their hand in by taking time to read some now and then. We are poorer for that.

                  An exposure to at school, (I’d start em at about age 10 if I had my druthers), would save an awful lot of bother later.

                  By the time kids leave secondary school, they should be able to identify basic logical errors, construct and identify syllogisms, and know the difference between is and ought, and why it matters.

        • Vicky32 4.1.1.2
          28 October 2012 at 7:57 pm

          Check your assumptions

          Isn’t that one of Ayn Rand’s pet catch-phrases? 😀

  5. AsleepWhileWalking 5
    28 October 2012 at 9:46 am

    1) Another example of our current contrarian government:

    Welfare drug testing vs making it easier to be undetected when dealing drugs at school
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/opinion/7871734/Blind-eye-to-school-drugs-most-unusual

    Quote:
    ” Beneficiaries and other strugglers have been informed that the state’s handup will be withdrawn if they do not observe certain rules about what they spend, where they live, what they ingest and when their kids go to school.

    So it was surprising, to say the least, to see that National Education Minister Hekia Parata is promoting a bill that would tie the hands of educators who might want to drug-test school students or introduce drug-sniffing dogs to help weed out the dealers and users. ”

    2) And another example:
    Lindsay Mitchell points out research that shows we are spending a disproportionate amount of money preventing domestic violence when the majority of violence is men on men where very little money is spent.
    http://www.truth.co.nz/index.php/truthsays/667-right-on-october-18

    Quote:
    “His [Prof John Langley] research found the rate of serious assaults increased 50% from 2003 to 2008 and there was “no evidence of recent abatement”. Listening to him interviewed on Breakfast television I was almost relieved. Not because NZ isn’t getting safer but that someone is at least able to paint an accurate picture and convey it to us. He also expressed concern that most of the prevention focus was on domestic abuse, yet over three quarters of the serious assaults were men on men.

    • Chalupa Batman 5.1
      28 October 2012 at 10:14 am

      ” Beneficiaries and other strugglers have been informed that the state’s handup will be withdrawn if they do not observe certain rules about what they spend, where they live, what they ingest and when their kids go to school.”
      – I agree with this, its all part of the social contract but now the recipients have to live upto their end of the bargain

      So it was surprising, to say the least, to see that National Education Minister Hekia Parata is promoting a bill that would tie the hands of educators who might want to drug-test school students or introduce drug-sniffing dogs to help weed out the dealers and users. ”
      – I don’t agree with this at all. I’m the type of right-wing guy that thinks everyone should be subject to the same rules. ie Slam bene fraudsters and slam tax dodgers. We need to get drugs out of schools (well as much as it can be done)

      Lindsay Mitchell points out research that shows we are spending a disproportionate amount of money preventing domestic violence when the majority of violence is men on men where very little money is spent.
      – Good luck championing that

      • One Tāne Huna 5.1.1
        28 October 2012 at 10:18 am

        You flatter yourself that you understand the social contract.

        • Chalupa Batman 5.1.1.1
          28 October 2012 at 10:24 am

          I’m guessing you don’t

          • One Tāne Huna 5.1.1.1.1
            28 October 2012 at 11:13 am

            I’m guessing your “opinion” about it comes from parroting some right wing bullshit that you didn’t even bother to fact check.

            “In political philosophy the social contract or political contract is a theory or model, originating during the Age of Enlightenment, that typically addresses the questions of the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual. Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights.”

            You see how there is precisely zero in there about the obligations of the individual? Can you see how the definition you have been duped by doesn’t gell with reality?

            Or will you just cling to the lies you were told?

            • Chalupa Batman 5.1.1.1.1.1
              28 October 2012 at 11:49 am

              “individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority”

              – like the freedom to decide what they can and can’t spend the money given to them?

              • felix …
                28 October 2012 at 11:54 am

                Just that one particular freedom? Or are you reserving the right to make up any number of others as well?

                • Chalupa Batman …
                  28 October 2012 at 12:02 pm

                  Seems to me the left are picking and choosing what the freedoms are as well

                  • felix …
                    28 October 2012 at 12:07 pm

                    Lame. You made the claim, you defend it.

                    The fact is no one on a benefit is “given” any money, any more than someone who works 50 hours is “given” money.

                    • Chalupa Batman …
                      28 October 2012 at 12:11 pm

                      Thats true, I earn my money through the time, effort, skills and experience I bring to the company I work for.

                    • felix …
                      28 October 2012 at 12:30 pm

                      Sure you do. And, my little hero, you do it all by yourself.

                      So brave. So smart. Such a rugged individual.

                      Thanks for the lolz.

              • One Tāne Huna …
                28 October 2012 at 11:59 am

                On the basis of their employment status? How about they refrain from burning your neighbourhood to the ground and you count yourself lucky?

              • Pascal's bookie …
                28 October 2012 at 12:15 pm

                – like the freedom to decide what they can and can’t spend the money given to them?

                What specific rights we have are always up for negotiation. Look at history. Things that at one time that are considered by a society to be vital for the pursuit of happiness, are at other times, and in other societies, considered anathema.

                What is the same is that in in any stable society, the rights that we have are protected by some overseeing authority, of one form or another. that authority retains its legitimacy as long as it is seen to be protecting the rights that the society, (in aggregate), considers appropriate.

                As to your example, there are very few societies in which you have absolute freedom to do what you will with your money. Otherwise, legitimate Murder Inc companies would be far more common.

                • Chalupa Batman …
                  28 October 2012 at 12:24 pm

                  Really just pointing out that freedoms means different things to different people especially with different political leanings.

                  • Pascal's bookie …
                    28 October 2012 at 12:46 pm

                    +1

                    Stunning insight there. People with different political beliefs, have different ideas about things political.

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    28 October 2012 at 2:26 pm

                    Political freedom comes from having a say in your own governance. Anything else is BS.

      • Te Reo Putake 5.1.2
        28 October 2012 at 10:25 am

        Lindsay Mitchell is a mental midget, but I can see how you would still look up to him, CB.
         
        The number of victims affected directly or indirectly by domestic violence makes it a greater problem than man on man violence. Neither form is acceptable, but while violence in a pub carpark directly affects those involved, violence in the home affects everyone in the home and flows onto the next generation.

        • Chalupa Batman 5.1.2.1
          28 October 2012 at 11:39 am

          I never said I agree or disagree with his comments, what I meant was whether its right or wrong you won’t be changing the attitude any time soon.

          Much like theres less money spent on prostate cancer then breast cancer

        • Dv 5.1.2.2
          28 October 2012 at 11:45 am

          Isnt she a she?

          • Chalupa Batman 5.1.2.2.1
            28 October 2012 at 11:54 am

            Dunno, TRP used “him” so I assumed hes a he

            • felix 5.1.2.2.1.1
              28 October 2012 at 11:58 am

              Because you’re quite new to this whole politics thing, have only been commenting on blogs for about a week and have never heard of Lindsay before.

              Yeah seems legit.

              • Chalupa Batman …
                28 October 2012 at 12:09 pm

                I merely changed my handle from chris73 to Chalupa Batman (The League is the best comedy on TV at the moment)

                Sorry if I don’t know everyone, I’ll preform 10 hail marys and sin no more.

                • felix …
                  28 October 2012 at 12:34 pm

                  I guess changing handles is a constant necessity when you spout as much embarrassingly stupid guff as you do.

                  • Chalupa Batman …
                    28 October 2012 at 12:53 pm

                    If I was worried about changing handles why would I announce it? Kinda make it redundant don’t you think

                  • McFlock …
                    28 October 2012 at 2:37 pm

                    Funny.

                    I hadn’t picked the gravatar thing, and thought CB was a new tory dickhead, all idiocy and arrogance. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet…

          • QoT 5.1.2.2.2
            28 October 2012 at 2:16 pm

            She is indeed a she.

        • just saying 5.1.2.3
          28 October 2012 at 2:36 pm

          getting back to TRP’s comment about Lindsay Mitchell:

          Not to mention the victims of family violence being locked-in with their attackers of an evening. Domestic violence is a completely different animal. If Ms Mitchell doesn’t see a difference she is indeed a vaccuous, moral and intellectual midget.

          • McFlock 5.1.2.3.1
            28 October 2012 at 2:41 pm

            yeah, she is.

            She also fails to realise that different problems require different solutions. And, indeed, the first step to stop males fighting each other might very well be to stop them beating their partners.

            • karol 5.1.2.3.1.1
              28 October 2012 at 5:26 pm

              And one of the big factors involved of the majority of domestic violence incidents, is that someone with more physical (and possibly social) strength/power attacks a weaker one.
               
              Male-on-male violence tends to be between males who choose to be in particular social environments – pubs etc.  Domestic violence, is in the place where people live.

    • millsy 5.2
      28 October 2012 at 10:40 am

      Personally I am uncomfortable with the way that principals want to conduct such invasive measures, ie drug testing, drug dogs, search after search after search and so on. There seems to be a wanton disregard for students civil rights in our school.

      • Stephen Doyle 5.2.1
        28 October 2012 at 11:02 am

        More often than not, it’s about reassuring the school community that there are NOT drugs at school.

      • PlanetOrphan 5.2.2
        28 October 2012 at 12:20 pm

        +1 millsy,

        What’s the difference between a Starbucks or McDonalds on/near campus and some kids trying to be successfull?

        It’s one thing to educate them in the evil aspects of drugs etc.
        It’s another thing to sentence them to prison at the age of 12.

        • millsy 5.2.2.1
          28 October 2012 at 12:45 pm

          Walsh and his mates are better off calling for a comprehensive D and A education program in our schools. In the USA you have the students going through metal detectors when they walk into school in the morning, under the watchful eyes of security guards. I would hate for that to happen here.

          • PlanetOrphan 5.2.2.1.1
            28 October 2012 at 8:19 pm

            So true bud, how can we deal with an “Underground” culture in schools?

            Not easy, but those kids should at least keep it off campus, for their own sake.

            They are getting busted, the Gnats’ wouldn’t know about it otherwise.

      • Murray Olsen 5.2.3
        29 October 2012 at 1:28 am

        I’m actually surprised that principals or teachers would want any part of it. I’m wondering how much of it is just a beat up, maybe to divert attention from hungry kids.

  6. joe90 6
    28 October 2012 at 11:12 am

    Although there’s more to this travesty the underlying crime appears to be smoking weed while brown.

    http://www.wanganuichronicle.co.nz/news/woman-gave-baby-drug-via-breast-milk/1599493/

    • muzza 6.1
      28 October 2012 at 11:20 am

      Seems the guilty plea is what stitched it, but wonder what the catalyst was that lead to the plea!

      This has much more consequence than what it appears at face value, and does the same apply to the medical/mental/parma industries where drugs are issued to children, or is that type of experimentation deemed acceptable?

      • joe90 6.1.1
        28 October 2012 at 11:37 am

        but wonder what the catalyst was that lead to the plea!

        AFAIK, the woman was threatened with having her children taken into permanent care.

    • Chalupa Batman 6.2
      28 October 2012 at 11:55 am

      Or maybe just don’t smoke dope while breastfeeding?

      • PlanetOrphan 6.2.1
        28 October 2012 at 12:22 pm

        Gotta add gettin drunk too that one M8.

        Heard of alcoholic fetal syndrome ?

        Maybe we should punish all those Mothers as well huh?

        Or maybe raise the drinking age so they’ll understand the evils?

    • joe90 6.3
      28 October 2012 at 12:25 pm

      Yeah, mobilise the ski mask boys and go gung ho into a family home but oh noes!, rather than full blown class A production under way you find a brown man cooking up oil out of a heap of cabbage.

      That’ll have a huge impact on class A producers.

    • felix 7.1
      28 October 2012 at 11:36 am

      I reckon it’s the other way round, Brett – dumb people are anti-gay (or anti-whatever).

      How you doing anyway?

    • joe90 7.2
      28 October 2012 at 11:39 am

      Tim Minchin tweeted this.

    • millsy 7.3
      28 October 2012 at 11:45 am

      The ultimate goal of the anti gay-marriage lot is the repeal of the Homosexual Law Reform Act 1986. Louisa Wall’s bill is just an excuse for them to kick up a fuss.

      Interesting that they are also the same people who go on about ‘nanny state’, it seems OK for nanny state to kick down the bedroom doors of consenting adults.

      • Draco T Bastard 7.3.1
        28 October 2012 at 12:14 pm

        Interesting that they are also the same people who go on about ‘nanny state’, it seems OK for nanny state to kick down the bedroom doors of consenting adults.

        No, it’s more like that they’re quite happy about having a nanny state as long as they’re the nanny and so get to force their own beliefs onto others.

      • Chalupa Batman 7.3.2
        28 October 2012 at 12:14 pm

        People who go on about nanny state aren’t necessarily anti-gay or anti-gay marriage.

        Just thought I’d put that out there

        • felix 7.3.2.1
          28 October 2012 at 7:53 pm

          So what? That’s not what millsy said, it’s the inverse of it.

          Your strawman is an idiot.

      • joe90 7.3.3
        28 October 2012 at 12:34 pm

        People who go on about nanny state aren’t necessarily anti-gay or anti-gay marriage.

        Yup, just yesterday the MC reminded everybody that a greenie nanny state would ban the kids shemozzle and all the while his events insurance was provided by nana ACC.

        • Chalupa Batman 7.3.3.1
          28 October 2012 at 12:55 pm

          Sounds like a lot of fun (the shemozzle that is not banning it)

        • millsy 7.3.3.2
          28 October 2012 at 1:18 pm

          Ironically it was the MC’s beloved National Party that brought in all the PC greenie nanny state nonsense with the OSH legislation.

          Last time I looked, the actual greenies were calling for some of that PC nanny state nonsence to be relaxed a little so schools could keep their pools open.

        • joe90 7.3.3.3
          28 October 2012 at 1:32 pm

          We spent a beautiful in day in Hunterville, knee deep in kids, eating $3 spit roasted porky sandwiches, and, come 1pm, drinking beer in the marquee.

          They’ve tidied things up with an alcohol ban outside of the two outlets so I’d highly recommend the event as a family outing and an insight into rural NZ.

    • fatty 7.4
      28 October 2012 at 1:41 pm

      “Why are anti gay people so fuckin dumb?”

      Regarding the people holding those signs…English is probably their second language, and their English is way better than my second language.

    • NickS 7.5
      28 October 2012 at 2:11 pm

      Because they’re fucking ignorant, if they knew their history as well, they’d know the same line of argument was used to attack inter-racial marriages and justify enslaving africans and native americans. Also there’s the environment of the churches they’re members of, which are most likely newer, charismatic evangelical ones that aren’t big on independent thinking and question traditional bullshit.

    • marsman 7.6
      28 October 2012 at 2:41 pm

      Not dumb just fucking fascists.

  8. Fortran 8
    28 October 2012 at 2:04 pm

    Is it apathy that middle New Zealanders do not care about whatever the Nats are doing to the country ?
    Why are there no real demonstrations or marches, other than small bands of malcontents.
    Where are the left leaders (other than Russell Norman) ?
    As summer comes upon us are we to see less and less time given to the machinations of the Government before the summer recess.
    Where is Labour’s visions to enable this to be digested over the summer ?
    No wonder the Greens have taken the left lead – against Labour they are frightening and will do so to the horses unless Labour takes a lead to the middle class voters.
    Or as said, are middle New Zealaders muddling along apathetically waiting for the golden summer -these are the real votes, particularly the women.
    The Greens voters are effectively the latte drinking, white middle class, comfortably off, well educated, chardonnay drinking, mainly women not the real working people of this country.

  11. Herodotus 11
    28 October 2012 at 6:22 pm

    Fix the housing affordability issue and many others ( Improved disposable income and the financial stress that is associated with this) greatly improves. But unfortunately any government is dependent upon maintaining the apathy towards politics, this will be maintained as long as there is the feeling that peoples wealth is increasing (home owners).
    Introduce a CGT will not solve the increasing property and the exclusion of many, all that means is that the govt receives an increase in tax take (unless the bubble explodes )
    http://tvnz.co.nz/q-and-a-news/finance-minister-bill-english-video-5166774
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10843323
    This year’s renewed 10-20 per cent surge in Auckland house prices to record highs has further focused attention.
    http://www.interest.co.nz/property/home-loan-affordability

    • OneTrack 11.1
      28 October 2012 at 7:08 pm

      Opening up more land for subdivision. and reducing council red-tape will generate the greatest reduction in the cost of housing.

      • fatty 11.1.1
        28 October 2012 at 7:16 pm

        My eyes tend to roll when I hear the term ‘red-tape’…can you expend on what you mean? What is the red-tape, what is it preventing and how do we get rid of it.
        Bill English said on Q+A that we need more high density housing…he then said that this is difficult because we can’t just build because people’s right to having a ‘view’ would be compromised. So on the one hand, its get rid of the red-tape, and on the other, English is promoting red-tape.
        What do you mean by red-tape?

        • felix 11.1.1.1
          28 October 2012 at 7:49 pm

          He means freedom from oppressive red tape and regulation in places he doesn’t live where it won’t affect his own views or property values.

        • Herodotus 11.1.1.2
          28 October 2012 at 8:08 pm

          There are current regulations in place that restrict what can be built. To change these would take time, plenty of time. Unless we allow Nanny state to intervene and to override due process, then who pays the cost to retrofit the infrastructure e.g. Road widths, sub base of roads are based on the carrying capacity of the road. Storm & waste water, water pressure, power, phone, gas capacity of an area which are based on no. of users.
          opening more land would take 5-10 year to achieve in the planning then you have how these new areas dove tail into the existing infrastructure. We already have a growth plan being implemented for Auckland
          http://www.arc.govt.nz/albany/fms/main/Documents/Auckland/Aucklands%20growth/Auckland%20regional%20growth%20strategy.pdf
          Many developments have covenants in place that have mim restrictions on size of dwelling, building materials, only one dwelling per lot which is in place to protect other residents.
          One note when comparing historic house affordability one should remember that house sizes have increased, so the cost to build is greater in 1980 it was 150m, 10 years later 200m2. The cost to build this additional 50m2 would be $70-100k
          http://www.qv.co.nz/propertyinformation/KnowledgeCentre/Average+house+size+by+age10052011.htm

      • KJT 11.1.2
        28 October 2012 at 8:15 pm

        Really. Like the reduction in red tape which caused leaky homes.
        That was supposed to push down house prices too, if I remember rightly.

        The best way to reduce house prices is to limit the ability of banks to push up speculative housing investment, AND supply state housing.

        Prohibiting land sales to non residents would help also.

        • Herodotus 11.1.2.1
          28 October 2012 at 8:41 pm

          KJT (tongue in cheek) this aspect has been successful. Just look at the discount that is placed on mono plastered houses as to those “safe” B&T and other safe building materials and both the price and the time it takes to sell.
          Agree with limiting the ability for banks to loan on property.
          Also should property drop the banks will be safe all the lose attributed to would be born by the land owner or insurance company that the mortgage protection is held by.

      • Draco T Bastard 11.1.3
        28 October 2012 at 8:17 pm

        No it won’t – it’ll push the costs up. Slightly cheaper houses, far more running costs.

        Really want to drop house prices? Then do this. I’m sure you’ll find house prices dropping quite rapidly as people figure out that it’s better not owning.

  12. kiwicommie 12
    28 October 2012 at 8:24 pm

    Found this site ( http://votes.wotfun.com/ ) and a few interesting votes by Winston Peters. His reputation as a dick is kind of well deserved, it horrifies me that people plan to [seriously] vote for him next election. 😮

    * Human Rights Act – Votes against
    * Civil Unions Act – Votes against
    * Homosexual Law Reform Act – Votes against
    * Prostitution Reform Act – Votes against
    * Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill (to allow gay marriage) – Votes against
    * New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Act – Votes against
    * Death With Dignity 1995 Bill – Votes against
    * Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment [2nd Reading] Bill – Votes Against
    * Care of Children Amendment Act – Votes against

    • weka 12.1
      28 October 2012 at 8:58 pm

      Interesting site, thanks. And feel free to repost about Peters lots prior to the next election 😉

      • kiwicommie 12.1.1
        28 October 2012 at 11:38 pm

        Well I voted for him last election, mainly because he was such a rabble rouser. Now he has a lot of political power though, I am definitely going to disagree with his party (and vote for another); a quick flick through his party’s website and I am already in disagreement. Winston here ( http://nzfirst.org.nz/what-we-stand-for/constitutional-review ) argues to remove the treaty of Waitangi from legislation i.e. turn back race relations a hundred years.