Open mike 29/06/2014

Written By: - Date published: 7:00 am, June 29th, 2014 - 252 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmike Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

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

Step up to the mike …

252 comments on “Open mike 29/06/2014 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. phillip ure 1
    29 June 2014 at 7:16 am

    “..Parents use cannabis to treat kids..” (ed:..end the madness that is cannabis-prohibition..!..now..!..)

    “..Parents are giving their children cannabis to treat serious diseases –

    • and they’re resorting to growing their own plants –
    • or importing them illegally from overseas.

    At least three New Zealand customers order liquid cannabis products from Mulaways Medicinal Cannabis in Kempsie – about 400km north of Sydney in rural New South Wales.

    The cannabis tincture has been credited with providing relief for children with terminal illnesses –

    • and has sparked renewed debate over clinical trials of medicinal marijuana..”

    (cont..)

    (ed:..this is one of the strongest arguments to end the madness that is cannabis prohibition..

    ..it’s not about being able to spark up a joint..

    ..it’s about denying medicine..(often the only medicine that works)..to children/the sick/the dying..

    ..in fact the most conservative southern state in america introduced laws ending prohibition..with a bill in the name of a girl suffering similarly to the new zealand girl featured in this story..

    ..both sides of that deeply conservative political body voted unanimously to end the madness..

    ..and as the formalities of the vote-checking were happening..

    ..both sides of the house were chanting..in unison..

    ..’pass the bill..!..pass the bill..!’..

    ..and the question i have for our local legislators is:

    ..how can you just ignore such clear-imperatives..?

    ..on so many levels..?..

    ..and do..like judith collins did a matter of days ago..

    ..emphatically state that prohibition must stay..

    ..’because of the harm it does to society’..(!)

    ..collins is not dumb..she knows the realities..

    ..which makes the denial of what she knows..and refusing this what is crucial medicine for so many who are suffering..

    ..here/now/today..to gag-inducing..to hard to understand..

    ..this is deeply-cynical wilfull-ignorance..

    ..and borders on fucken evil..

    ..and collins is also just ignoring polling showing that 45% of national party voters..

    ..support either the decriminalisation or full legalisation..

    ..of cannabis..

    ..as do now..as that same polling showed.. now most new zealanders..

    ..end this suffering..!..and do it fucken now..!..)

    (cont..)

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/10211443/Parents-use-cannabis-to-treat-kids

    • Awww 1.1
      29 June 2014 at 9:07 am

      I don’t get why you would buy this from Australia.
      Just get some leaves, cut them up and soak them in alcohol. Allow to steep for a couple of days (depending on strength) and voila! Perfect kiwi style cannabis spray. No GST and no prescription required.

      • phillip ure 1.1.1
        29 June 2014 at 9:14 am

        i think the main problem is that many of those sick/with sick/fit-ing children..

        ..because of prohibition..

        ..wouldn’t know where/how to ‘Just get some leaves’..

        ..but yes..when the madness ends..

        ..local will be the way to go…

        ..(with an obvious export-market opening up..)

  2. Melb 2
    29 June 2014 at 8:16 am

    A foreign diplomat in Wellington breaks into a young woman’s home and attacks her. He gets off being charged because of diplomatic immunity. Something is broken here.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11283893

    • weka 2.1
      29 June 2014 at 8:28 am

      and the fucking Herald calling it a ‘sex’ case.

      • Lanthanide 2.1.1
        29 June 2014 at 10:14 am

        He was accused of a sex crime, so what’s the problem?

        • Stephanie Rodgers 2.1.1.1
          29 June 2014 at 10:29 am

          Because he’s not accused of having sex, he’s accused of trying to rape someone.

          There is a horrific tendency for our media to use minimising language around sexual assaults, almost invariably describing rape as “sex” or a “sex ordeal”. The usual excuse is “oh, but it hasn’t been proven in court so they can’t call it rape”. Unfortunately this doesn’t hold up when they continue to do it after convictions are entered.

          • Lanthanide 2.1.1.1.1
            29 June 2014 at 10:42 am

            Convictions haven’t been entered in this case. So what’s the problem?

            • Stephanie Rodgers 2.1.1.1.1.1
              29 June 2014 at 10:48 am

              Because the story is not about sex.

              “when the media uses the language of consensual sex … they essentially mislead, misdirect, and diminish the violation. Such accounts also suggest that both parties were willing participants.”

              http://www.projectcensored.org/corporate-news-media-understate-rape-sexual-violence/

              On referring to rape and assault as "sex scandals":
              http://www.salon.com/2012/06/29/stop_calling_it_a_sex_scandal/

              “Similar mischaracterizations happen in the media, where headlines often describe an alleged rapist as facing charges for “having sex” with a child or unconscious person – as if either situation could be anything but rape.

              “Sex” isn’t nonconsensual. Only rape is. Conflating the two gives credence to the myth that rape is just a particular shade of sex, rather than a violent crime.”

              http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/24/rape-game-of-thrones

            • Stephanie Rodgers 2.1.1.1.1.2
              29 June 2014 at 10:51 am

              To put it another way, Newstalk ZB managed to say
              Man uses Diplomatic Immunity to escape sexual assault charge

              And 3 News said
              Diplomat departs NZ following assault charge

              Oh look! It’s almost like we don’t have to make a story of a man following a woman home, breaking into her house and trying to rape her into a “sex case!”

              • Lanthanide …
                29 June 2014 at 12:13 pm

                The headline is:
                “NZ expels sex case diplomat after attack on woman”
                the sub-heading is:
                “Wellington diplomat accused of assaulting a 21-year-old in her own home avoids court”

                Reading the two together, and the fact that having sex isn’t a criminal offence, suggests a sexual assault has occurred.

                • felix …
                  29 June 2014 at 12:21 pm

                  Still, there’s no such thing as a “sex case”. We know this, because as you say it’s not a crime to have sex.

                  It’s an “assault case”

                • Stephanie Rodgers …
                  29 June 2014 at 1:13 pm

                  Except for your comment to hold water there’d have to be no evidence that the media routinely refer to cases of assault and rape as “sex”. And there’s plenty of evidence of that – just google “man convicted after having sex with” and see how many instances of rape, attempted rape, and child abuse you get.

                  (“Woman convicted after having sex with” returns fewer, but equally rape-minimising, results.)

            • weka 2.1.1.1.1.3
              29 June 2014 at 11:29 am

              “Convictions haven’t been entered in this case.”

              What does that have to do with anything? Compare this to say a murder. Are you suggesting that murders shouldn’t be called murders until a conviction?

              What Stephanie said. To which I would add, there are still far too many men in particular who don’t understand the difference between sex and rape. Calling sexual assault* ‘sex’ just reinforces that difficulty for some men.

              *(call it alleged if you like when you are talking about a potential criminal)

              • felix …
                29 June 2014 at 12:01 pm

                “Are you suggesting that murders shouldn’t be called murders until a conviction?”

                That’s pretty much how it’s done. Killings are referred to as killings. Murder refers specifically to a criminal charge or conviction.

                Phraseology in reporting such events is generally along the lines of “So-and-So charged with murder following the killing of…”

                (Not that this means assaults should be referred to as sex of course)

                • Stephanie Rodgers …
                  29 June 2014 at 4:04 pm

                  This isn’t actually accurate, felix – if you google phrases like “Police seek witnesses in murder” you’ll get heaps of headlines, pre-conviction or even pre-arrest, which refer to murders as murders.

                  Like I said to Lanthanide above, the other problem is that many times the media won’t refer to rape as rape even after convictions are entered.

                  The other problem is that being murdered, or being killed, doesn’t have anywhere near the level of myth and stigma that being a victim/survivor of sexual assault does.

    • Awww 2.2
      29 June 2014 at 9:11 am

      Hope this lady got in a few good kicks of her own.
      It would have been nice to know what country he represented. In my biased thought stream I picked Egypt or similar.

  3. North 3
    29 June 2014 at 8:27 am

    Get this disgusting piece of political hatchetry from infamously celebrated hypocrite, Love Perker and rort-artist, Rodney Hide.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11283826

    Fact free analysis, risible false equivalency, all redoubled – and of course Liu DID donate. Let’s not quibble about matters of proof. We can rely on his (or whoever’s) varying accounts. Let’s not smell smear or lies underpinning a sickening dive in journalistic standards. Let’s not ask why. Anyway, it’s all Cunliffe’s fault akshully for (corruptly) ‘advocating’.

    And then this superb, out-of-left-field nonsense – “But it’s quite possible that everyone is telling the truth. The money could have been stolen. That would mean Liu gave the money but Labour never received it.” ???

    Does this foretell – “Labour staffer steals hundreds of thousands of dollars from party fund-raiser” ?

    All in all a reflection of the Herald’s Nixonian darkness as a political affairs medium. Presumably Hide never pauses to wonder why his repute is that of a fecal gargoyle.

    • ianmac 3.1
      29 June 2014 at 9:42 am

      Editor Murphy promised that the Herald’s position would be explained and justified on Sunday’s paper. But of course he has left it to Mr Hide to do it for him. Now we can understand where the Herald is coming from. But for Mr Murphy to rely on a Hide column means he is on a Hideing of nothing.

      • ianmac 3.1.1
        29 June 2014 at 10:20 am

        Update: from the Herald whimper department.”
        Labour and Liu: Businessman clarifies spending
        5:00 AM Sunday Jun 29, 2014
        Cunliffe makes it clear the alleged donations, if they did occur, were 6 years before his leadership began.

        The Herald on Sunday last week reported details from a statement signed by millionaire businessman Donghua Liu ….(repeat of earlier claims)

        He said the figure was the total payments to Labour and its politicians, including for wine, a $2,000 donation to the Hawke’s Bay Rowing Club, a Yangtze River trip by a Cabinet minister and anonymous donations to MPs…..
        …Cunliffe makes it clear the alleged donations, if they did occur, were 6 years before his leadership began.
        http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11283837

  4. fisiani 4
    29 June 2014 at 8:42 am

    fascinating presentation by Nathan Guy on science innovations in primary industry. A great success story for the John Key led National government.

    • phillip ure 4.1
      29 June 2014 at 8:52 am

      i’m looking forward to seeing guy try to explain/excuse the horrendous footage of the pigs..

      ..that are abused/tortured/killed..

      ..just so you can wipe bacon fat from yr lips with the back of yr fucken hand..

      ..as exposed in the sunday show 2nite..

      • phillip ure 4.1.1
        29 June 2014 at 9:28 am

        and this one is for bad..(and any greens reading this..)

        ..and refutes/puts to bed his (repeated) claims in this forum..

        ..that a vegan diet has the same environmental-footprint as that of a flesh-eater..

        “..As the economic, political and personal costs of doing nothing to mitigate climate change skyrocket –

        • there’s one lifestyle change that slashes dietary greenhouse gas emissions in half: Veganism..”

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/27/vegetarian-carbon-footprint_n_5538914.html

        ..have some science..it might help clear yr mind of some of yr oft-parroted-ignorances..eh..?

        • The Al1en 4.1.1.1
          29 June 2014 at 10:01 am

          More one sided, self serving information Philip.

          “In 2012, for example, the UK imported 86,100 tonnes product weight of sheep meat, 73 per cent of which came from New Zealand.
          So far in 2013, the UK is the second largest importer of sheep meat in the world”

          While the huff post article may or may not be truthful, it is relevant only to the UK, where of course, food miles from imports add greatly to the carbon footprint. This will skew the figures.
          You would have to show the amount of meat products imported in to NZ to try and draw the same veg long bow. I’m not sure those figures would support your case, but feel free to research and get back to me.

          • felix 4.1.1.1.1
            29 June 2014 at 12:43 pm

            “73 per cent of which came from New Zealand.”

            🙄

            • The Al1en 4.1.1.1.1.1
              29 June 2014 at 3:15 pm

              It was so easy, I googled meat imports uk.
              Second paragraph.
              No need for an apology.

              http://beefandlambmatters.blogspot.co.nz/2013/07/why-uk-imports-lamb-from-new-zealand.html

              • felix …
                29 June 2014 at 4:39 pm

                I was highlighting your quote, not disputing it dummy.

                You said the transport of all this lamb to the uk was only relevant to the uk. However 73% of it came from NZ.

                • The Al1en …
                  29 June 2014 at 4:48 pm

                  Yerp, silly me for interpreting rolling eyes in such a shoddy fashion.

                  It’s a valid point in reference to the huff post piece, which uses the UK to make the claim veggies have a smaller carbon footprint, as so much meat is imported it is bound to skew the figures.
                  That claim can’t be made for NZ on that data unless there is relevant data to back it up.

                  • felix …
                    29 June 2014 at 4:57 pm

                    Yeah you’re right, we probably don’t export much in the way of animal products.

                    🙄

                    • The Al1en …
                      29 June 2014 at 5:01 pm

                      But it’s not about how much meat NZ exports, which is a lot, but how large/small my carbon footprint as a meat eater is compared to a veggie’s in NZ.
                      As a meat producing country, I assume, without the data to back it up, that meat I eat in NZ has very low food miles attached, like not having to go half way around the world before I consume it, so no way can those huff figures be relevant to us locals.
                      Get it now?

                    • felix …
                      29 June 2014 at 5:16 pm

                      Oh sorry, didn’t realise we were only talking about your specific footprint.

                      How do you reckon NZ’s footprint as a whole is impacted by the relatively large amount of land we allocate to raising sheep and cows?

                    • The Al1en …
                      29 June 2014 at 6:46 pm

                      “Oh sorry, didn’t realise we were only talking about your specific footprint.”

                      Just keeping it relevant to NZ, where as yet, we have no local data to back up the claims in the huffington post.

                      “How do you reckon NZ’s footprint as a whole is impacted by the relatively large amount of land we allocate to raising sheep and cows?”

                      Different argument, but as a guess, probably less than that of those of
                      the bread baskets of the states for example, but let’s see the data and make informed statements.

                    • felix …
                      29 June 2014 at 7:43 pm

                      I don’t think it really is a different argument. Just a broader look at it.

        • bad12 4.1.1.2
          29 June 2014 at 12:37 pm

          Phillip, show me these repeated ”claims” you say i make that the carbon footprint of a vegan is the same as those who choose to eat meats,

          Your are in fact a Liar i have never made such repeated claims,

          The holier than thou preaching of this particular vegan dickhead has lead me to point out to Him that because of the taxation system in this country part or all of the benefit He gains His vegan diet from is ”in fact” gathered by the Government from those who grow and sell animal products as food and thus although He chooses not to dine on those actual foods,(wanking on endlessly about it as if a saint), all or part of everything He consumes has been paid for from the taxation of what He claims to abhor,

          Put up the proof of these ”repeated claims” wont you Phillis, your beginning to read like the NZHerald…

      • The Al1en 4.1.2
        29 June 2014 at 9:44 am

        “just so you can wipe bacon fat from yr lips with the back of yr fucken hand..”

        Mmm, bacon.

        Coincidently, I spread sh!t round my veggies, and you’re a veg spreading sh!t.
        Funny old world. 😉

        • Stephanie Rodgers 4.1.2.1
          29 June 2014 at 10:56 am

          Bacon is delicious. Ever had bacon cupcakes? Life-changing experience.

          • phillip ure 4.1.2.1.1
            29 June 2014 at 11:08 am

            i’ll just let yr uncaring jeers stand..

            ..they say so much more about you..than you can possibly imagine..

          • Chooky 4.1.2.1.2
            29 June 2014 at 11:16 am

            @ Stephanie…yummy…i want one …NOW!

            ( wasnt Hitler a vegetarian or a wanna be vegetarian?)

            • phillip ure 4.1.2.1.2.1
              29 June 2014 at 11:33 am

              no he wasn’t..(that’s going on the autobiography of his personal chef..where he lists hitlers’ favourite dishes..and talks of his dining habits..)

              ..the whole hitler-is-a-vegetarian thing was thought up by goebbels..

              ..as adding to hitlers’ mystique..to his superman-image that was so carefully crafted/built by that pioneer of spin…

              ..and ever since..it has been used by (literally) pig-ignorant flesh-eaters..

              .. to denigrate the idea/concept of vegetarianism..

              ..and to somehow try to associate vegetarians as an equivalent-evil to those monsters..

              ..(as the chook just demonstrated..)

              ..glad to have demolished/cleared-up that myth for you..

              ..now you can show how clever you are..

              .the next time you hear this bullshit being rolled out..

              ..eh..?..feathered-one..?

              • bad12 …
                29 June 2014 at 12:59 pm

                Phillip, your ability to talk shit and spread Lies is growing unabated, according to the Wiki Hitler was a vegetarian,

                Adolf Hitler and Vegetarianism-

                http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/adolf_hitler_and_vegetarianism

                • phillip ure …
                  29 June 2014 at 1:37 pm

                  here ya go..

                  “..Hitler’s memoirs show Hitler admitted he eats Meat: “After midnight [Eva] would order that there should be another light snack for us, of Turtle soup, sandwiches, and Sausages.”

                  https://www.flickr.com/photos/paleo-crossfit-lowcarb-meat-diet/6849370416/

                  ..lies can have very long lives..can’t they..?

                  • bad12 …
                    29 June 2014 at 1:49 pm

                    Mmmmm Turtle soup, the bloke knew what tasted yummy, so ‘a’ book written by someone obviously pushing their personal view V the Wikipedia on whether Hitler was a vegetarian,(i see Hitler pictured sitting at a dinner table that contains a lot of food, meat presumably included, not Him eating the stuff),

                    Becomes a bit of a 50/50 then does it not, a bit like Phillip claiming to not be a Junky any more coz He cant get His hands on the heavy drugs…

                    • felix …
                      29 June 2014 at 1:56 pm

                      “Becomes a bit of a 50/50 then …”

                      Not really, because Hitler’s diet isn’t really relevant to a discussion about vegetarianism.

                    • bad12 …
                      29 June 2014 at 2:13 pm

                      Well no Felix, Hitlers diet is relevant to a side issue brought into the debate by another commenter and is thus now part of the debate,(do you propose it be expunged)…

                    • felix …
                      29 June 2014 at 4:34 pm

                      Ok, I now introduce basketball to the discussion.

                      Doesn’t make it relevant though.

                    • bad12 …
                      29 June 2014 at 4:44 pm

                      About the level of intellect i would expect from you tho felix, introducing basketball to a conversation centered around vegetarianism is far from relevant,

                      Would seem to fit comfortably in a category labeled ”stupid”…

                    • felix …
                      29 June 2014 at 5:29 pm

                      Chooky heard that Hitler was a vege. I heard that some basketball players are vege.

                      Is one of these observations relevant and one not? Why?

                      If Hitler was a vege, is the intended suggestion that vegetables lead to extreme right-wing race-hate?

                      If not, then why even mention that the person was Hitler?

                    • bad12 …
                      29 June 2014 at 5:58 pm

                      felix, you now inflate your original little dance on the head of a pin into something that you made no allusion to with your first little attempt at hair splitting,

                      Sod off back to play school wont you, it doesn’t look as if Chooky is present to continue the pinheads dance with you and i sure as hell aint about to bother…

                    • felix …
                      29 June 2014 at 7:52 pm

                      Instead of trying to insult me (laughable) how about you have a go at saying why you think Hitler’s diet is relevant to anyone else’s.

                      Give it your best go. Do vegetables turn people into evil monsters? Is that what happened to Adolf? Could vegetarianism lead to another holocaust?

                    • bad12 …
                      29 June 2014 at 8:20 pm

                      Why exactly would i bother you dickhead, my inclusion in the conversation was in fact to point out that the Wikipedia says that Hitler was a vegetarian,

                      The only vegetable that might cause a holocaust around here is you felix, said holocaust being a spanking from the Mods in my direction for the language i choose to use in my answers to you,(said language i usually save for the wing-nuts but in your case i see little difference),

                      Point your pathetically pointless questions in the direction of someone who gets their thrills from answering such trivial pursuits,

                      Havn’t you got a personal web-page where you can debate issues that no other’s have an interest in with yourself…

                    • felix …
                      29 June 2014 at 8:49 pm

                      Well you seem to be quite interested.

                      So tell me, of what relevance is Hitler’s vegetarianism? Do you think it was the first step on the road to mass-murder?

                    • bad12 …
                      29 June 2014 at 9:01 pm

                      Oh its 20 questions time now,RE: road to mass murder, NO,

                      RE: relevance of Hitlers vegetarianism, ask Chooky some time, my interest rested solely in the question of whether or not Hitler actually was a vegetarian,(as any idiot with a couple of working neurons would have worked out befor starting this trail of inanities),

                      NOW, there’s this really really fucking dull movie on channnel Four which is actually hurting my head to watch, which i have been doing in between reading comments that are coming up on the Standard,

                      The more of this movie i watch the more my head hurts, but, the series of questions you have so far directed at me tonight have proven to be far far duller than this particular ”the dullest of movies”, so, i think i will opt out of answering your dull questions…

                    • felix …
                      29 June 2014 at 10:12 pm

                      Well it could have been “one question” if you could have brought yourself to answer it. We’re getting closer though.

                      So you don’t think there’s a direct link between vegetarianism and mass murder. That’s great, we’re on the same page. Is there some other sense in which you think Hitler’s diet had any particular bearing on his politics? And if not, why is it relevant to this discussion that he’s Hitler?

                      I mean, if there’s no link being drawn between nazism and vegetarianism, then it would be just as useful to say “Apparently a random man who died half a century ago may or may not have been a vegetarian”.

                      Wouldn’t it?

                      ps If you’re going to watch a movie you should stop typing and close this tab. You’ll find it too distracting.

                    • Clemgeopin …
                      29 June 2014 at 10:27 pm

                      @Bad12:
                      “Havn’t you got a personal web-page where you can debate issues that no other’s have an interest in with yourself…”

                      That would be like arguing in the bathroom front of a mirror. I saw that in a movie when I was much younger!

                    • bad12 …
                      30 June 2014 at 7:41 am

                      Lolz felix seems to have already conducted the in depth interview with felix in the mirror and then made a decision about whether or not it is ”politically correct” for Hitlers supposed vegetarianism to be brought into a discussion about vegetarianism,

                      It then looks like it has decided to attempt to impose that view upon me through a series of quisling queries,(instead of just stating a debatable position),

                      i would suggest, as LPrent suggested to me a week or two ago that felix have a good read of the Wikipedia page on ‘Godwin’s Law’ and while felix is there the codicils, in the form of citations, a number of them penned by Godwin Himself should be studied intently,(with a view to actually taking notice of them),

                      What the series of questions asked of me seems to encompass is in fact a reverse Godwin,

                      In Godwin’s Law Hitler or Nazism is said to be brought into the conversation in an attempt to in effect kill the debate,or, as a statement that does kill the debate,

                      A reverse Godwin is in effect an attempt to kill the debate from the opposite of the above,ie bringing into the conversation Nazism based around a mention of Hitler where Nazism has not been specifically stated nor
                      inferred,

                      As has been seen by the thread of this debate where the name of Hitler was invoked, it did not in fact kill the debate,(as in Godwin’s theory), it simply provoked a small side debate,(as happens in a lot of discussions here),

                      The attitude then taken by felix that Hitler should not have featured in any way in a discussion about vegetarianism is then in my opinion a reverse Godwin, an attempt to stifle debate on the basis of Hitlers Nazism…

                    • felix …
                      30 June 2014 at 8:18 am

                      It’s far simpler than that bad12. Either Hitlerism and vegetarianism are linked or they aren’t.

                      I’m saying they’re not.

                      You’re saying fdaljhfrjwoifnsdpndjsnajlnljdsnlakjsnjvnb.

                    • bad12 …
                      30 June 2014 at 8:42 am

                      i see your still debating in front of the mirror felix, firstly felix, what’s Hitlerism???,

                      Secondly, Hitler being an infamous or famous person makes the question of His vegetarianism or not a legitimate question in the vein/context in which Chooky asked that question,

                      The following small side discussion between Phillip and myself then becomes a legitimate discussion of fact concerning whether or not Hitler did adhere to that ism,

                      Neither of us are attempting to stifle the debate and are in fact doing the opposite,

                      In that vein, Hitler has more legitimacy as a famous/infamous person to be cited as a vegetarian than your anonymous basketball player X…

                  • Chooky …
                    29 June 2014 at 7:43 pm

                    ate meat only “after mid-night”…so that makes him a wanna be vegetarian or vampire

              • Chooky …
                29 June 2014 at 7:46 pm

                @phillip ure..”pig-ignorant”?!…..dont insult pigs…they are very intelligent

                • phillip ure …
                  29 June 2014 at 9:36 pm

                  does that ‘intelligence’ make them taste better..?

                • marty mars …
                  29 June 2014 at 9:44 pm

                  Yes they are and sensitive too – and while we tut tut about the horrible capacity for humans to be violent and destructive we might consider how our collective treatment of animals for food mirrors imo those violence and destructive tendencies – look at what we have done to this world – the way we treat food animals is a subset of the terrible attitude humans display towards the environment and the world in general – such smart stupid little jumped up bipeds are we!

            • Stephanie Rodgers 4.1.2.1.2.2
              29 June 2014 at 1:15 pm

              I’ve had two varieties: maple-bacon cupcakes with a maple syrup frosting tastes basically like French toast in cupcake form, but the best would have to be dark chocolate/bacon cupcakes with peanut butter frosting. That sweet/savoury combo is so good.

              And phillip? This isn’t an “uncaring jeer”. This is me refusing to engage with your endless, unfounded, personal attacks on people who dare to eat differently to you and dare to understand that the food/health/environment debate is far more complex that “tofu good, dairy bad”.

              • phillip ure …
                29 June 2014 at 1:42 pm

                gee..!..and there’s me thinking i am just talking/speaking up for the animals/the environment/those desiring to avoid bowel cancer…

                ..trying in some small way to influence/effect an end to those horrors..

                ..that you unthinkingly chew-over..

                ..and really it’s just ‘personal-attacks’ on people who choose to be ‘different’..eh..?

                ..and all of it ‘unfounded’..to boot..eh..?

                ..do you really believe yr own bullshit..?

                ..and do watch sunday 2nite..eh..?

                ..maybe a bacon-butty to munch on as you watch..?

                • bad12 …
                  29 June 2014 at 1:59 pm

                  More ”holier than thou” rubbish Phillip, you are simply one step removed from the actual consumption of all these meat/dairy products you so abhor,

                  The Fact is that what funds your vegan diet is derived in part or in whole from Government taxation gathered from those who produce those meat/dairy products for consumption and are then redistributed directly to you as a benefit by Government,

                  What you preach is akin to saying that prostitution is bad, but living off of the monies generated from prostitution is good,

                  You come across as a Pimp, as you did in our discussion on Marijuana yesterday with your offer to take the products of my labour and turn them into profits for yourself…

                  • phillip ure …
                    29 June 2014 at 2:08 pm

                    i am actually getting more than a bit bored with you..

                    ..so you can just fuck off to the ignore-corner..

                    ..with yr mindless-mate allen..eh..?

                    ..see ya..!

                    ..and yes..you are clearly one of those greedy arsewipe growers..

                    ..who feel they can charge eye-watering prices for often crap-product..

                    ..good luck with carrying on with that after the end of prohibition..eh..?

                    ..it’s nearing sunset-time in yr day in the sun..eh..?

                    ..careful..!

                    ..the winds of change might blow you over..

                    ..’till then..

                    • bad12 …
                      29 June 2014 at 2:25 pm

                      Laughable, when challenged upon what is basically a ”fact”, that fact being that Part or All of your income Phillip is derived from the taxation of the consumption of meat and dairy products the ”best” argument you can muster is an elongated spray of abuse akin to that of a fear filled puppy pissing repeatedly on the carpet in the presence of a more aggressive dog,

                      Other’s have pointed out this ugly little disability of yours to you on occasion as has been done here today but you simply refuse to Debate your position thus you Devalue that position in the eyes of readers along with further ”positions” you may propose as the moot surrounding other issues,

                      Carry on the ”spray” tho Phillip, it does contain a certain quota of ”Laugh out Loud” moments,(said quota being 90 odd %)

                • phillip ure …
                  29 June 2014 at 2:01 pm

                  and that clear evidence that we have the highest rates of bowel cancer..

                  ..and also at high end of consumption of the flesh/dairy being more and more linked with bowel cancer..

                  ..you are able to just ‘pshaw!’ that away..eh..?

                  ..we’re just ‘different’..are we..?

                  • bad12 …
                    29 June 2014 at 2:29 pm

                    PS Phillip, what makes you think that i am so stupid as to be involved in a ‘growing operation’ where that industry is in any way traceable in any way back to me,

                    To sit here on a public website and discuss the product in question while having any material link in any way to that product be that its use or production would have me being pretty fucking thick,

                    i would also assign such ”thickness” to anyone that would think as you do…

                • Stephanie Rodgers …
                  29 June 2014 at 4:08 pm

                  It is a personal attack when you say I (and other people who choose to eat meat) are “unthinking” contributors to “horrors” and my comments are “bullshit”.

                  The number 1 thing which has always put me off vegetarianism and veganism? Is sanctimonious comments like yours from people who assume I have no idea where meat comes from.

                  But at the end of the day, I honestly assume your principal aim is to show off how much “better” you are than everyone else. If we all did go vegan you’d have to find another “moral” issue to spam the Open Mike about every day.

                  • phillip ure …
                    29 June 2014 at 4:13 pm

                    “..It is a personal attack when you say I (and other people who choose to eat meat) are “unthinking” contributors to “horrors”..”

                    it is a statement of fact..you are clear that you don’t think/care about the monstrosities done to animals..in yr name..just so you can eat them..

                    ..how the hell cd that not be ‘unthinking’..?

                    ..and are you really denying the ‘horrors’ those animals suffer..

                    ..before you get to eat their flesh..?

                    ..once again..sunday..7pm..tvone..

                    ..watch the rats crawling all over yr ‘bacon’..

                    ..and the heartbreaking tortures/miseries those animals suffer…

                    ..and maybe start to ‘think’..

                    ..it’s not ‘all about you’..eh..?

                    • bad12 …
                      29 June 2014 at 4:53 pm

                      Mmmm, cured rat, rat-bacon, sounds a treat…

                    • bad12 …
                      29 June 2014 at 5:03 pm

                      By the way Phillip, are you suggesting here that the vegetables you choose to dine on via the income derived from the slaughter of all those cuddly animals were befor they were ripped from the ground not ”as much alive” as the furry animals you express such concern for,

                      All ‘things’ have Mauri, the onions and tomatoes that will be part of my dinner tonight were once as alive as a cute little lamb in the farmers paddock,

                      Whats the difference except you ”choosing” to believe that the vegetable does not feel terror, shed liquid akin to blood, or express pain as it is ripped from the ground that nurtures it…

                    • Stephanie Rodgers …
                      29 June 2014 at 5:15 pm

                      Stop making up shit I haven’t said, phillip. I don’t actually have to justify my personal ethical decisions to anyone, especially someone like you who is more than happy to make vicious assumptions based on nothing more than your own prejudices.

                    • phillip ure …
                      29 June 2014 at 6:11 pm

                      um.!…i quoted you..(!)

                      ..how is that making up stuff you haven’t said..?..(heh..!..)

              • Chooky …
                29 June 2014 at 2:26 pm

                lol… Steffanie ..”I’ve had two varieties: maple-bacon cupcakes”….

                …and piggies eat meat …and I heard of a farmer who got eaten by a pig…only his gumboots were left

                …my piggie would love to eat maple-bacon cupcakes

          • felix 4.1.2.1.3
            29 June 2014 at 12:04 pm

            Used to like bacon. Now it just tastes of suffering and misery.

            • The Al1en 4.1.2.1.3.1
              29 June 2014 at 12:25 pm

              Put more brown sauce on

            • Chooky 4.1.2.1.3.2
              29 June 2014 at 12:28 pm

              try NZ South Island free range bacon…the piggies are very happy running around in the paddocks and then home to a lovely personal family hut with straw bales

            • srylands 4.1.2.1.3.3
              29 June 2014 at 12:50 pm

              So buy organic free range bacon from Freedom Farms

              • bad12 …
                29 June 2014 at 1:39 pm

                And this organic free range bacon is ”cured” using traditional methods as opposed to the chemical curing that destroys most of the bacon that is mass produced these days,

                Bacon is yum as in big time,(off the menu here at the moment while i head down to my target weight), but, it is the industrial methods of curing the stuff that has bacon mostly these days being a weak comparison of its former glorious self…

              • felix …
                29 June 2014 at 1:51 pm

                “So buy organic free range bacon from Freedom Farms”

                Meh. If I really thought I couldn’t have a good breakfast without a pig being killed, maybe I would.

                • Stephanie Rodgers …
                  29 June 2014 at 4:12 pm

                  No one is saying “omg I literally would die if I never had bacon, only bacon can ever satisfy me.” But maybe we are a little bit tired of being constantly patronised and insulted by people (mostly phillip) who’ve chosen not to eat meat.

                  • felix …
                    29 June 2014 at 4:35 pm

                    Good thing I didn’t suggest or even imply anything like that then, eh Steph?

                    • Stephanie Rodgers …
                      29 June 2014 at 5:18 pm

                      You reduced people’s decision to eat meat down to “thinking they can’t have a good breakfast without a pig being killed”. Sounds pretty patronising to me.

                    • felix …
                      29 June 2014 at 5:36 pm

                      Really? Where did I do that, Steph?

                      Pretty sure someone told me I should try eating something and I told them why I probably won’t.

                      I don’t remember even commenting on what anyone else eats, let alone reducing their decision down to whatever the fuck you made up.

            • Ergo Robertina 4.1.2.1.3.4
              29 June 2014 at 2:14 pm

              ‘Used to like bacon. Now it just tastes of suffering and misery.’

              +1

            • Populuxe1 4.1.2.1.3.5
              29 June 2014 at 7:26 pm

              Is that what makes it so delicious?

          • The Al1en 4.1.2.1.4
            29 June 2014 at 12:27 pm

            “Ever had bacon cupcakes?”

            Never tried one, but the concept is interesting. Maple syrup goes surprisingly well with a rasher or two.

            • Belladonna 4.1.2.1.4.1
              29 June 2014 at 2:56 pm

              You could buy vegetarian bacon from your supermarket, it is very good. Also many recipes online for vegan bacon. Why would you want to be part of the suffering of pigs when you can have a very similar tasting product that doesnt involve any cruelty. Cant understand why anyone would want to even try and justify it.

    • Te Reo Putake 4.2
      29 June 2014 at 9:27 am

      I heard John Key promised that Fisiani had an IQ of somewhere south of 40. Chris Trotter disagrees, saying a comparison of the election results in North Korea in 1984 divided by the amount the PM actually donates to charity shows that by connecting the dots, fisiani is clinically brain dead. National Party rules show that this makes him eligible, though slightly overqualified, to be either party president or a fact checker at the NZ Herald.

    • dimebag russell 4.3
      29 June 2014 at 11:06 am

      selfies at the trough huh?

  5. wyndham 5
    29 June 2014 at 8:51 am

    Martyn Bradbury over at The Daily Blog does have a way with words . . . .

    “John Key is a smile looking for a murder. His easy going dad routine is as manufactured as the downplaying of his actual wealth. He is a ruthless political foe whose interests are innately his own and have nothing to do with the wider welfare and prosperity of ordinary NZers.”

  6. North 6
    29 June 2014 at 9:01 am

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/10211490/Violent-offender-free-after-death

    This calls for nothing less than another written-to-order report from respected senior civil servant (fabulously remunerated paid hack consultant), Dame Margaret Bazley. To match her written-to-order ‘anecdotal’ report on legal aid of a few years ago. The monstrous damage flowing from which is well evident – ask any District Court judge.

    You might even ask a Supreme Court judge –

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/7549237/Longest-serving-judge-hits-out-at-legal-aid

    • North 6.1
      29 June 2014 at 9:42 am

      More on Dame Margaret Bazley’s “small but significant” proportion of crook legal aid lawyers –

      “Bazley’s 2009 review slammed a ‘small but significant proportion of very bad lawyers’.
      In the course of her review she heard of ‘appalling’ behaviour by lawyers, she said, including delaying progress to accumulate fees, not turning up at court, and asking for clients to “top-up” legal aid payments even though legal aid covered the full cost.”

      “Temm [Law Society] said an extensive audit of 3100 legal aid lawyers resulted in disciplinary proceedings against 20. ”

      “You have torn the whole system to pieces for this.”

      20 out of 3100 = 0.00645 %. Significant ? Sledghammer to crack a nut certainly. As Justice Tipping observed.

      • srylands 6.1.1
        29 June 2014 at 9:56 am

        You are missing the point. The previous system was not fiscally sustainable.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 6.1.1.1
          29 June 2014 at 10:06 am

          You are missing the point: right wing populist stupidity is more expensive than even half-way competent penal policy.

        • North 6.1.1.2
          29 June 2014 at 11:01 am

          Yes yes yes I apologise for missing the point SSLands. Your point being – “The previous system was not fiscally sustainable.” Really ?

          From the Justice Tipping article – http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/7549237/Longest-serving-judge-hits-out-at-legal-aid – According to Judith Collins – “…….costs that have ballooned from $111 million in 2006-7 to $169 million in 2010-11”.

          A ‘blowout’ of $58 million over four years. Just four mill’ short, get that, $4 million short of TWO days of the government’s present DAILY borrowing rate of $27 MILLION
          http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9380846/Public-debt-climbs-by-27m-a-day

          The blowout is from your arse SSLands !

          • North 6.1.1.2.1
            29 June 2014 at 11:33 am

            Apologies SSLands – for “short” read “more” – a perfect reflection of you – ‘short’ of functioning brain leaving reliance on ‘more’ desperate mantra. From famed Gold Coaster, self-vaunted diplomat, economist, law clerk, pump attendant and general ever-so-sage Everyman…….SSLands.

            ANNUAL blowout in 2010/11 – $58 million. Wow ! 0.0058 % of ShonKey Python’s DAILY borrowing. Fiscally unsustainable ???

        • phillip ure 6.1.1.3
          29 June 2014 at 11:17 am

          yeah..srylands..

          ..yr hang-em-high!-policies which have lead to us having the second highest rates of imprisonment in the oecd..only america beating us..

          ..and at about a hundred grand a year to lock up..for each individual prisoner..

          ..that’s way-to-go..!..in the ‘fiscally-sustainable’-stakes…eh..?

        • Colonial Viper 6.1.1.4
          29 June 2014 at 11:57 am

          You are missing the point. The previous system was not fiscally sustainable.

          $212M in new roads for fossil fuel vehicles is what’s not sustainable, buddy.,

        • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1.5
          29 June 2014 at 2:00 pm

          Yes it was. It’s the lack of taxes on the rich that is unsustainable.

  7. Penny Bright 7
    29 June 2014 at 9:25 am

    Who can help get this important message out to NZ Prime Minister John Key?

    A call out to the ‘poodle of Wall St’ / MP for Merrill Lynch (sorry – Bank of America) John Key – please don’t just stand for the National Party list – because I want to stand against you in Helensville and beat you fair and square!

    Come on – don’t be scared – just because you don’t like losing.

    Unlike you – I fight hard – but I fight clean.

    ( I don’t have your Wall St ways 🙂

    The ‘Tradie’ vs the ‘Trader’!

    The proven representative of the 99% vs the proven representative of the 1%)
    Come on John Key!

    I DARE you to stand against me in Helensville!

    Kind regards,

    Penny Bright

    • Lanthanide 7.1
      29 June 2014 at 10:45 am

      If he is standing on the list, it’s so that when they lose the election he can quit without needing a by-election.

      So he’s doing the country a service.

    • Chooky 7.2
      29 June 2014 at 3:08 pm

      GO Penny!…you wee Gem

    • Kevin Welsh 7.3
      29 June 2014 at 3:41 pm

      Wow!
      No sentences in caps 🙂
      Great!

      Best comment so far Penny.

  8. Clemgeopin 8
    29 June 2014 at 9:38 am

    Isn’t he? If the PM does not STAND in an electorate, he should be made to SIT in the opposition for a few days before his inevitable RUN out to Hawaii, USA.

    Good luck with your candidacy, Penny. Wish I lived there.

  9. phillip ure 9
    29 June 2014 at 9:41 am

    (this from the daily blog is also worth a/the read..

    ..and it has graph/infographic..i do like a good graph/infographic..)

    http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/06/29/why-fighting-for-a-labour-green-internet-mana-majority-is-worth-it-and-how-easy-it-is-to-win/

  10. Once was Tim 10
    29 June 2014 at 9:54 am

    And the award for the best description of The NZ Herald’s journalism goes to ……..
    Tim Selwyn of TDB

    “So, the deranged, bewlidered, ranting, reeking Granny Herald looks like she has finally popped her colostomy bag from her antics. And everyone in her neighbourhood can smell it. People have drawn damaging conclusions about Granny’s institutionalisation, her competency and her motivations. Her own convoluted and contradictory explanations suggest it is time she was cared for by better guardians.”
    – See more at: http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/06/29/granny-needs-a-new-bag/#sthash.YqxJEuGB.dpuf

    Not only should there be complaints to the Press Council, but perhaps also to its owners – if they’re smart, they should be thinking about the future of various of its staff.

    • ianmac 10.1
      29 June 2014 at 10:27 am

      I have complained to the Herald. No response so far. If none by the 4 July I will send my complaint to the Press Council (10 days.)

      • Once was Tim 10.1.1
        29 June 2014 at 11:38 am

        +1
        This might actually be a bit of a “News of the World” moment for Granny. Even its most ardent followers seem to be waking up to the fact that it has an agenda dressed up in drag as responsible journalism.

  11. Molly 11
    29 June 2014 at 10:02 am

    Glad to see The Jackalman back up and posting.

    Missed the combination of information and good laughs. The Standard is home but always nice to have places to visit in the left neighbourhood.

  12. North 12
    29 June 2014 at 10:14 am

    Corin Dann to the scion of journalistic brilliance Susan Wood……..Q+A just now – ‘Nah……I think it [the Liu business] will slip away…….it’ll be focus on policy from now on……’

    Wow ! They got stoned and they missed it obviously……..Key’s wilful militating against his vaunted ‘higher standards’ that is.

    N’er mind. He’s been to some knees-ups at the White House. Ooooh ! Brilliant ! Exciting !

  13. Tom Bradford 13
    29 June 2014 at 10:23 am

    “…, Andrew Harrop, general secretary of the Fabian Society, said the [Labour] party had “lots of detailed policies to deploy in 2015, but lacks a clear story of how Britain will be different by 2020 after five years of Labour in power”.

    He added: “Eyecatching but small-scale promises are not enough – the party needs to adopt radical long-term reforms. This is the only way Labour can reconnect with voters and prove that the political parties are not all the same.””

    Read the above in a piece in today’s ‘Guardian’ on-line and thought how well that also applies to the New Zealand Labour Party.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/28/yvette-cooper-warns-public-services-crisis-tories-win-2015

    (It’s well worth reading.)

  14. Kiwiri 14
    29 June 2014 at 10:50 am

    Is anyone else getting a sense that the newspapers are a bit negative about Lorde? Anything to do with her encouraging the youth to get out and vote, as well as responding in the negative to the question whether she might be a National supporter?

  15. phillip ure 15
    29 June 2014 at 10:51 am

    nigel latta is talking absolute shite on q&a…

    • Chooky 15.1
      29 June 2014 at 11:23 am

      nigel latta is fabulous!…I love him…he saved my life with his book “Before Your Teenager Drives You Crazy!’…He basically said that they were mad!

      ( are you sure you are not a teenager Phillip ?!…maybe all that smoking and the other…. urr um you know…. other mind altering indulgences have shrunk your mind backwards in time)

      • Once was Pete 15.1.1
        29 June 2014 at 11:41 am

        Thats one thing I can agree with you about. Latta is quite brilliant at distilling concepts and putting them across in simple terms.

        • phillip ure 15.1.1.1
          29 June 2014 at 11:47 am

          or..that could be termed as:..

          ..he is quite good at simplistic-thinking/stating-the bleeding-obvious..

          ..he was briefly fashionable..

          ..and now he is defending this throw-back-to-the-sixties of a school-principal..?

          ..way to go..!..nige..!

          ..garth george is just about done..u cd step up tho’..eh..?

      • North 15.1.2
        29 June 2014 at 12:21 pm

        Nigel Latta is a longtime resident, passively-aggressive narcissist, right-wing fuck for the similarly described media. One of their fabulous on-demand “experts”.

        Mind your own fucking business Nigelly ! It’s not your fucking family. The High Court found that the fucking school broke the law…….not the kid. Whom you with your vain wee construct of erudition now sneer at. Your busybody-ism powered up by your personal assessment of what is ‘reasonable’. You might as well have said – “Cut to the chase. I’m an authoritarian self-promoting Tory. Bad boy ! Bad parents !”

        You wouldn’t have really learned pejorative conclusions about that spoiled boy of decades Sir Bob Jones would you ? You know…….periodic court bullying over fucking parking tickets, late airport check-in or whatever ? Come on…….let’s hear it then.

        Might pay to put the spotlight on the adult kids whose pearl-clutching power freaking instransigence brought this thing to the High Court in the first place, viz. the principal and the formerly hirsute board member who chaired the school’s disciplinary committee.

        “Do as I say……I’m wrong doesn’t matter” – absolutely demands the response given. Yet Nigelly and Susan and all the other talking heads (the muttonous/lambus Hosking included) opine……and opine……and opine. And “TutTutTut”. Fuck off !

        • Karen 15.1.2.1
          29 June 2014 at 1:14 pm

          +1 North

        • One Anonymous Bloke 15.1.2.2
          29 June 2014 at 1:40 pm

          +2

          Nigel Latta, like all Tories, is an assault on children.

        • Once was Pete 15.1.2.3
          29 June 2014 at 9:00 pm

          Wow! What cesspool of anger and bile did you swim up from? Emotion seems to have taken your brain hostage. Most of your rant is unintelligible. If you are going to use big words you might try to put them in a sentence that makes sense. Maybe Nigel could help you with that.
          Just for the record the High Court did not find that the school had broken the law. They found that the school’s rule in this instance was too vague to enforce, and therefore they could not properly exclude the student. There is a difference, but this appears to have escaped you. The Judge made the comment that his ruling was not to be applied to schools and rules in general, just this specific situation.
          Latta, is highly respected amongst his profession. It is quite gutless on your part to label and besmirch someone just because you think he votes differently to you. Schools affect every parent, and all of us who have kids will have watched intently whilst this played out. I don’t know any parent who would want the sort of anarchy that comes with parents deciding to take schools to court over a disagreement about school rules. There is quite a widespread of opinion on this issue, and Latta made some excellent points when he was interviewed.
          All in all a pretty vile comment.

          • North 15.1.2.3.1
            29 June 2014 at 9:27 pm

            Unintelligible to you is not my problem dick, it’s yours. Further, you need to understand what the judge’s words mean. The action of the school was unlawful. They went beyond their legal powers which is unlawful, viz. they broke the law. Can it be made any simpler for you ?

            Seems I’ve brought up a tad of emotion in you. That’s life. Happens. Latta is not a respected individual amongst a number of highly rational qualified people I know. Especially since he went carnival. Tory unfunny twerp. How dare he pontificate about a family he’s never met. Still, you’re a supplicant. OK by me.

      • Stephanie Rodgers 15.1.3
        29 June 2014 at 1:21 pm

        This is precisely why I despise Nigel Latta. Sure, it gets a lot of good laughs from the audience of baby-boomer/Gen X parents who think it’s a good thing not to have empathy for their own children once they hit 13, but as a teenager who had actual mental health issues and got bugger-all support for it because “lol, teenagers are just mad!!!” I find it contemptible.

        • Chooky 15.1.3.1
          29 June 2014 at 2:38 pm

          i am sure he is NOT talking about teenagers with mental health issues..or authoritarian uncaring parents!!!!

          he has a lot of compassion and humour imo

          • Chooky 15.1.3.1.1
            29 June 2014 at 2:41 pm

            …nor is he talking about parents with mental health issues and lack of compassion

            ..he is advocating for the average parent who is struggling with rumbunctious rebellious teenagers…but who nevertheless needs support in bringing up well adjusted teenagers who will become successful well adjusted adults!

            …his whole philosophy is to support both parents and children/teenagers…by giving confidence and helping with strategies for resolving problems/issues

            ….these days it is not easy being a parent or a teenager lets face it!

            • Stephanie Rodgers 15.1.3.1.1.1
              29 June 2014 at 4:17 pm

              Oh, well if he’s just saying ~normal~ teenagers are “mad”, that couldn’t possibly have an effect on how parents react to their teenagers who do have mental health issues. No, they’ll definitely go “oh, my teenager must need mental health support”, and certainly won’t say “lol, Nigel Latta was right!”

              • Chooky …
                29 June 2014 at 5:12 pm

                suggest you read his book…because i think ALL the strategies he suggests and the case studies will be helpful to ALL parents and children….after-all we are all a bit mad and we all have the child or the authoritarian parent in us…some teenagers can be tyrants too!

                ….when he says “mad”…he means that teenagers are going through terrific hormonal and brain changes …(just as middle aged people go through hormonal changes) ….these can propel people into extremes of behaviour/perception and they dont always make the best decisions … also the human brain is not fully developed until the age of 25years …if it is ever fully developed

                ….i think a sensitive parent who loves their child will realise when their child needs specialist help …of course some parents need specialist help themselves…but this is not a fault of the book

                • Stephanie Rodgers …
                  29 June 2014 at 5:20 pm

                  Nope. I have no interesting in paying money to read the words of a man who thinks it’s hilarious to throw around words like “mad” just to get laughs out of people who want an excuse to not take their teenagers seriously.

                  As for “sensitive parents” “realising” when their kids need help? The experience of literally every person I know who had mental health issues in teenagehood says otherwise. (Oh, but I guess all our parents just needed to read Nigel Latta’s book.)

                  • Chooky …
                    29 June 2014 at 5:25 pm

                    well i suggest you broaden your knowledge and acquaintances…not all mental health problems/illnesses can be sheeted back to bad parenting and parental insensitivity …many are biological and genetic in genesis eg. schizophrenia and bi-polar and various drug addictions as well as severe depression

                    • Once was Pete …
                      29 June 2014 at 9:14 pm

                      Good on you Chooky (I mostly disagree with you on most things) but your persistence on this matter is admirable. But sometimes it is hard to reason with bigots. They just don’t understand that Latta speaks to the parent who is feeling overwhelmed in concepts and language they can relate to. Humour is an important part of this. He is saying metaphorically, don’t sweat it, its not rocket science, and your kids have got so many hormones zipping around that they are probably a little crazy anyway. He give them permission to not be so stressed, and to realise that they can deal with these issues.
                      Stephanie, you are being too precious! Just love your view, that you would not read what he wrote. Hard to form a view on that basis!

                    • North …
                      29 June 2014 at 9:15 pm

                      The laughter was never real anyway…….it was always fucking canned. We were being TOLD that it was witty and full of intellectual elan. When it was actually dull shit from a guy wickedly pressured by the expectation that he be Billy Bloody Connolly. Then he’d be ‘accepted’ by the glitterati of New Zealand media. And wouldn’t he be a happy little former wannabe then ?

                      Fucking rubbish and now he’s further reduced to meddling in some other bugger’s family. Publicly. Never met them.

                      Piss off you fraudulent little creep !

  16. Chooky 16
    29 June 2014 at 11:10 am

    (I guess Martyn wont be advocating a total boycott of the Herald…but you can still get the Herald online free or from the Daily blog ….and boycott the subscription newsprint Herald , which will hurt the Herald where it hurts most, in the pocket!)

    ‘Guest Herald on Sunday column – David can still stone the National Goliath…

    By Martyn Bradbury / June 29, 2014

    The problem with political journalism in New Zealand is that we have MMP elections covered by a First-Past-the-Post Press Gallery. After a nightmare couple of weeks, one could be forgiven for writing off David Cunliffe’s chances of being the next Prime Minister, but beyond the recent smears and flawed landline opinion polls, Cunliffe has every chance of replacing John Key in September.

    What the Donghua Liu allegations tell Labour is that the threshold for journalism has shifted to the point where breathless reporting of baseless and sourceless insinuations have become the new benchmark for uncritical propaganda.

    When the shrill beige brigade seem to hold one set of standards for Key and another for

    Cunliffe, relying on the mainstream news to give Labour fair coverage is a false hope.

    The solution is Cunliffe speaking over the media directly to the electorate with a barnstorming tour of New Zealand to reconnect with the voters on jobs, education and affordable housing concerns.

    Cunliffe needs to project his vision of the first 100 days of his government. What will he do to make the lives of those who balance the budget weekly and the aspirations of a squeezed middle class measurably better? That’s his challenge.

    The true genius of Matt McCarten’s appointment as chief-of-staff is that he understands the need to use MMP tactically with a specific focus on a handful of lynchpin electorates.

    Epsom, Te Tai Tokerau, Waiariki, Tamaki Makaurau, Ohariu and East Coast Bays are unique battlefields requiring a wider perspective than the personal egos of individual candidates.

    Key’s desperation to consider Colin Craig as a coalition partner will drive much of National’s soft urban vote to the Greens, giving them a realistic shot at 15 per cent, meaning Labour only needs 32 per cent to have a chance of leading the next Government.

    The Left can disapprove of coat-tailing all it likes, but refusing to use the rules and allow Key another three years on “principle” would be an obscenity to the hopes and dreams of the 800,000 New Zealanders living in poverty.

    Cunliffe’s performance in the debates and on the campaign trail will be one of the most convincing components of a Labour-led win.

    David Shearer had to go because of his ability to look confused five seconds into any answer so Cunliffe’s talent to front-foot Key will be crucial. Key beat Helen Clark and Phil Goff in the debates, if Cunliffe beats Key, he finally changes the narrative. It may not be apparent during the current media hype, but National has very few reasons to sleep easy.

    • Martyn Bradbury is a left-wing blogger.

  17. Once was Tim 17
    29 June 2014 at 11:20 am

    …… just watched that Corin Dann/Jonky interview on Q+A.
    Key really fears Cinliffe it seems to me.

    ‘I don’t want to speak for Winston Peters’
    ‘I don’t want to speak for Colon Craig’ etc (potential partners)

    BUT of course he DOES want to speak and spin for David Cunliffe – at every opportunity the media hands him (without challenge)

  18. phillip ure 18
    29 June 2014 at 11:22 am

    key continually whining about labours’ what is a small tax raise on the top-earners..

    ..is getting way past fucken annoying..

    ..and if any rightwing-trout pushes this ‘labour-raising-taxes’ moan at you..

    ..point out to them that the raise means a person on $160,000 a year..

    ..will have to pay an extra $6 per wk..

    ..oh..!..the humanity..!

    ..won’t somebody think of the rich..!

    ..the poor/suffering luvvies..!

    ..labour/the barbarians are at the door..!

  19. phillip ure 19
    29 June 2014 at 11:36 am

    who was the biggest liar on the nation..?

    ..was it key..or ryall/conehead..?

    ..(it’s a close call..)

    • phillip ure 19.1
      29 June 2014 at 11:54 am

      with of course..’hoots’ setting a cracking pace in the liar-liar-pants-on-fire stakes…

      • Ergo Robertina 19.1.1
        29 June 2014 at 2:11 pm

        Yep, and no-one challenged Hooton’s blatant misrepresentation of Cunliffe being an ‘extreme left leader’. This messaging is for the right to inoculate itself against the left in labour, by branding this as the extreme left, with a 36c ‘progressive’ (Parker’s word) top tax rate.

  20. Chooky 20
    29 June 2014 at 12:32 pm

    ‘Why fighting for a Labour-Green-Internet MANA majority is worth it and how easy it is to win’

    By Martyn Bradbury / June 29, 2014 / 9 Comments

    …..We forget just how close the last election was even with National winning 47.31% of the vote. Key only managed to form a one vote majority. This election National are facing more challenges from far more serious contenders and are doing so with ever decreasing coalition prospects.
    Despite the depressing polls – the reality is that NZ could be in for one of the most progressive Governments it has ever had.

    A Labour-Green-Internet MANA majority could offer passage on real reform the like we haven’t seen in 30 years of neoliberalism……

    Watch for the Greens to surge: The Greens have shown an MMP sophistication that deserves to be seen as one of the best played so far in the election. Their carbon tax cut and decriminalisation of abortion policies were a deep raid into National’s soft blue vote who have very little loyalty and will see Key flirting with Colin Craig as a total affront to what all their education has taught them. Greens are on track for 15% because of this clever move into National’s soft blue vote.

    Cunliffe on the campaign trail: Beyond the manufactured smears and sensationalised news headlines, Labour as a Party Machine is a terrifying thing to behold. They are battle hardened and tested. The surge of members Labour has generated has birthed a renaissance in the electorate offices and this is never acknowledge when considering Labour’s chances. Cunliffe will fire the base the way Goff couldn’t last election, and this will in turn generate momentum during the campaign. Getting Labour up to 32% is all David needs to do.

    Where Internet Party are picking up voters: My initial suspicion as to who would be the members and vote seems to have been born out when talking to those inside the Party taking memberships. Asian-NZers are a large part, those who didn’t vote are a next largest and the largest membership increase is from young male urban national voters who voted National by default not design. They saw no room for welcome in the Labour or Green Party’s so have just voted National. They don’t source their income from National’s love affair with Dairy, so see investment into the internet as a major plus they can rally around. They were never particularly ideologically right to begin with and have no problems working with the IMPs broad collection of voices.

    MMP tactics and the role of social media: Tactical voting is only effective if a large number of people do it, the problem is getting the same tactic heard everywhere, that’s why social media changes this immensely. Tactical voting guides can be passed from friend to friend virally online and recommended as the means to change the Government. This could be our first real MMP election where the voters are all actively strategic with both their votes. The Daily Blog will post a progressive voter guide, electorate by electorate for the election.

    So what are the hard numbers here for a change of Government? Greens 15% – Labour 32% that leaves IMP to bring 3.5%…..

  21. joe90 21
    29 June 2014 at 12:54 pm

    Facebook’s mood study – because backlash.

    /

    Institutional review boards, or IRBs, are the entities that review researchers’ conduct in experiments that involve humans. Universities and other institutions that get federal funding are required to have IRBs, which often rely on standards like the Common Rule—one of the main ethical guideposts that says research subjects must give their consent before they’re included in an experiment. “People are supposed to be, under most circumstances, told that they’re going to be participants in research and then agree to it and have the option not to agree to it without penalty,” Fiske said. (I emailed the study’s authors on Saturday afternoon to request interviews. Author Jamie Guillory responded but declined to talk, citing Facebook’s request to handle reporters’ questions directly.)

    But Facebook, as a private company, doesn’t have to agree to the same ethical standards as federal agencies and universities, Fiske said.

    “A lot of the regulation of research ethics hinges on government supported research, and of course Facebook’s research is not government supported, so they’re not obligated by any laws or regulations to abide by the standards,” she said. “But I have to say that many universities and research institutions and even for-profit companies use the Common Rule as a guideline anyway. It’s voluntary. You could imagine if you were a drug company, you’d want to be able to say you’d done the research ethically because the backlash would be just huge otherwise.”

    http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/even-the-editor-of-facebooks-mood-study-thought-it-was-creepy/373649/

  22. Draco T Bastard 22
    29 June 2014 at 2:37 pm

    Three Cheers for Tax and Spend!

    Our Economic Development Minister Steven Joyce cries “tax and spend” like it’s a bad thing. But that makes no sense. What other option does a government have?

    And now Piketty has shown that we need to be taxing the rich at 80% or more just to prevent them from becoming that which we got rid of a few centuries ago – aristocrats. The lack of taxing the rich is resulting in us steadily returning to a feudal state.

    • Ergo Robertina 22.1
      29 June 2014 at 4:46 pm

      +1 thanks for the link, Draco.

      ‘Australia has a top tax rate of 47c in the dollar for income over $180,000. But the first $19,000 is tax free – for everyone.’

      • KJT 22.1.1
        29 June 2014 at 6:19 pm

        Yep. A real centre left Government could simply follow the Australian tax rates.
        Can’t really say that6 people are leaving for lower taxes then.

        Don’t forget they have State taxes as well though.

      • KJT 22.1.2
        29 June 2014 at 6:19 pm

        Yep. A real centre left Government could simply follow the Australian tax rates.
        Can’t really say that people are leaving for lower taxes, then.

        Don’t forget they have State taxes as well.

  23. mickysavage 23
    29 June 2014 at 4:05 pm

    There is a Colmar Brunton poll out tonight. It will have been taken mostly during the negative fallout from the Liu affair with only a bit of the poll taken during the fight back. It will be interesting to see the figures although I am not expecting the news to be good.

    • Stephanie Rodgers 23.1
      29 June 2014 at 4:19 pm

      The only questions we should ask about any poll: “what was the undecided figure? What are the percentages if you include the undecided voters?”

    • big bruv 23.2
      29 June 2014 at 6:15 pm

      Then you will not be disappointed will you Micky.

    • Clemgeopin 23.3
      29 June 2014 at 7:15 pm

      The significant aspect to me were..

      [1] It is NATIONAL that has gone down by 1% while Labour is unchanged and the Greens and Internet MANA have both gone up!

      [2] National is polling LESS than they did at similar period before last election.

      [3] The polls are a little inaccurate and slightly suspect because these days most people and especially the young and the lower income people prefer mobile more than landlines.

      [4] Undecided % is important to know. Not mentioned on the news.

      [5] I am very confidant that as the campaign proper starts and party policies get more traction and exposure, the polls will turn favourably for Labour and the progressives while Nats and its six headed hydra parties will begin to struggle to be able to secure enough support for a possible coalition.

      [6] Still early days and WE are in a good position to move up while Nats are at a peak ready for a fall.

      • Disraeli Gladstone 23.3.1
        29 June 2014 at 10:08 pm

        Both National and Labour went down 1%. Labour was not unchanged. Nobody moved more than a percent.

        Static poll movements. Neither Labour or National was hurt by the whole sorry Liu incident.

        Which doesn’t surprise me.

        • Clemgeopin 23.3.1.1
          29 June 2014 at 11:21 pm

          I heard him say that Labour was STEADY at 29%!

          • Disraeli Gladstone 23.3.1.1.1
            30 June 2014 at 7:11 am

            The report clearly states (-1). Labour was on 30%. In fact One News’s website is not only saying they dropped a percent, it’s Labour lowest score in two years.

            It’s all statistical noise but you spout so much bullshit over your own predictions, it’s hardly fair to now start getting the actual polls wrong as well.

            • Clemgeopin 23.3.1.1.1.1
              30 June 2014 at 3:08 pm

              Sorry, yes, you are correct that Labour has dropped 1 point. I wasn’t being deliberately misleading, but was occupied with other work when watching the news. I got mixed up with the phrase used in the clip when the word, ‘is steady’ was used, but on rechecking, he was referring to Cunliffe being steady in the prefer pm stakes.

              Here is my current armchair predicted calculation of the possible final party vote election result based on PRESENT media polling and political developments. Obviously this will change week by week.

              NATS=44%
              LAB=32%
              GRNS=11%
              NZF=5.5%
              IMP=3%
              CONS=2%
              MAORI=1.5%
              ACT=0.5%
              UFUT=0.0%
              Othrs=0.5%

  24. fisiani 24
    29 June 2014 at 4:25 pm

    Will the Labour poll in 90 minutes start with a 1 or a 2 or a 3 or a 4 I’m guessing 32%

  25. phillip ure 25
    29 June 2014 at 5:57 pm

    re cunnliffe q & a..

    ..it is almost as interesting what wasn’t answered..as what was answered..

    ..or ostensibly answered..but not really..

    • Bearded Git 25.1
      29 June 2014 at 6:17 pm

      I think his answers were clear. Wonderful forum. Give the man a break.

      I was pondering on my constitutional today-I think the Greens need to start coming out subtly in support of Cunliffe as a good leader/potential PM in the MSM. They need him to come over well with the electorate as this is the only way they are going to get into government.

      • Chooky 25.1.1
        29 June 2014 at 8:08 pm

        +100 Bearded Git…Greens need to be seen supporting Cunliffe

      • blue leopard 25.1.2
        29 June 2014 at 8:31 pm

        Yes that is a very good idea Bearded Git.

        Seeing the left-wing parties working together well is far more important to me than desperate attempts at trying to delineate their differences (not that Phil was doing that) – the left wing parties all have differences and people can see that and choose between them on those grounds- but seeing supportive attitudes between the left from a party is far more appealing and is also something that might cause me to vote for one party over another.

  26. phillip ure 26
    29 June 2014 at 6:05 pm

    internet/mana..2.8%..

    ..u little beauty..!

    ..and they haven’t even started yet..!

    ..woo-hoo..!

    ..still think they won’t crack 5%..?

    • Bearded Git 26.1
      29 June 2014 at 6:11 pm

      Yep Phil-Lab 29 Green 12 IMP 3 =44%. It’s all on.

      Interesting that TV1 showed IMP as 2% on their list where 2.8% looks like 3 to me!

      This is not far from my prediction 31+11+7=49=Cunliffe.

      • phillip ure 26.1.1
        29 June 2014 at 6:15 pm

        yeah..and labour wouldn’t be too upset about 29%..after that shitfight they have been subjected to..

        ..this will be their nadir in this campaign..

        ..you’d think..?

        ..tho’ i really think that failing to answer the drone/poverty/spooking(by other five eyes members) questions..

        ..could well see their vote drop more..

        ..as the left in labour would then see that the stronger the internet/mana vote..the more their unanswered aspirations will be answered…

        ..and they now clearly know that an internet/mana vote will not be a wasted vote..

        ..the greens also face this danger..

        ..and national..with their soft-votes..

        ..when the internet/mana machine kicks-off/gets rolling..

        ..it will be like a giant vaccuum-cleaner..

        ..sucking up all those unattended to voters in lab/grns..

        ..plus new voters..

        ..cunnliffe had better break out that red flag again..

        ..if he wants to hold his left-flank..

        • Bearded Git 26.1.1.1
          29 June 2014 at 6:18 pm

          Agreed

          • Bearded Git 26.1.1.1.1
            29 June 2014 at 7:10 pm

            In fact Philllip I would put this more strongly-they have tried to destroy Cunliffe and failed.

            • phillip ure 26.1.1.1.1.1
              29 June 2014 at 10:19 pm

              i agree..

              ..hoots is mounting a rearguard action tho’..

              ..but he is sounding ever more tired/going thru the motions..

              ..(that’s ‘cos.he knows..that baring a miracle..the right are toast..

              ..and the neo-lib experiment could well be all over..)

              ..but seeing as cunnliffe does not want to answer the poverty question..(!)..

              ..and yet was so open/vociforous on those he wd answer..

              ..it becomes even more important for the greens to rediscover their testicles..

              ..and to turn to mana/internet..

              ..and to together demand from labour a universal basic income..

              ..(or as the greens call it..citizens income..)

              ..this would end poverty overnite..

              ..if..conversely..the greens slide into their ministerial limos..without labour doing any poverty-busting..(for both children and adults..)

              ..that will be pretty much ‘it’ for them..

              ..and internet/mana will eat them in ’17..

              ..and should poverty-busting be put on the back burner by the greens..

              ..and we end up pretty much the same as now..

              ..i will personally start that election campaigning..

              ..the day after the greens get their ministerial warrants..

        • Clemgeopin 26.1.1.2
          29 June 2014 at 7:28 pm

          “..tho’ i really think that failing to answer the drone/poverty/spooking(by other five eyes members) questions..”

          Re drones, he has clearly stated his position to the COUNTRY on the Q and A video of last week that I linked for you earlier.

          The question about spooking was by me and this is what he answered:

          Q: What is your policy on the mass secret surveillance of Kiwis by GCSB and the Five Eyes Programme? What changes will you make?

          A: Under Labour there will be a full and substantive review of the security services, early in our term.

          We’ll also repeal the TICS Bill and the new GCSB legislation, and replace them with laws that protect New Zealanders privacy and freedoms.

          There will be no surveillance of a New Zealand citizen, by NZ security services, without a judge’s warrant. End of story.

          • phillip ure 26.1.1.2.1
            29 June 2014 at 9:18 pm

            yes..and that is great..

            ..but as the snowden drop will show..

            ..it is other five eyes members spying on us that is the problem..(namely america..)

            ..stopping our spooks from doing that..while the americans still do it..

            ..and then pass on that information to our spooks..

            ..means that yes..our spooks have been stopped from spying on us..

            ..but we will still be being spied on..

            ..the devil is always in the detail..

            • Clemgeopin 26.1.1.2.1.1
              29 June 2014 at 11:16 pm

              “.it is other five eyes members spying on us that is the problem..(namely america..)
              ..stopping our spooks from doing that..while the americans still do it..
              ..and then pass on that information to our spooks..”

              David did say that within 100 days, a thorough inquiry will be set up. That will be the good time to demand/remind them what we want.

    • Colonial Viper 26.2
      29 June 2014 at 9:16 pm

      ..still think they won’t crack 5%..?

      A final result of between 3.0% and 4.0% I think. Anything over 4% for IMP this time around would be legendary (not discounting the possibility but I don’t think its likely at all).

      • phillip ure 26.2.1
        29 June 2014 at 9:21 pm

        but they are at 3% already..

        ..i’m still calling just below double figures..

        ..(and i think i am being conservative..

        ..if the ducks all line up in a row..(and it won’t be from lack of trying..

        ..they could well crack into the double figures..)

      • bad12 26.2.2
        29 June 2014 at 9:27 pm

        i would consider 4% a huge victory for InternetMana but like you i cannot discount something like the Hairdo’s worm phenomena boosting the InternetMana alliances share of the vote well over the 5%…

  27. big bruv 27
    29 June 2014 at 6:14 pm

    Another rouge poll showing Labour under 30%. The chant of “three more years” is ringing around New Zealand.

    Long may Cunliffe remain leader of the Labour party

    • Bearded Git 27.1
      29 June 2014 at 6:20 pm

      But Big Bruv, how do you feel about Lab/Green/IMP at 44%? Election too close to call now?

      • big bruv 27.1.1
        29 June 2014 at 6:24 pm

        If you really think that the people of NZ are going to vote for that nightmare coalition then you are deluded.

        The Nat’s will win by at least 10%. Cunliffe is the best asset that the Nat’s have, the people of NZ simply do not like Cunliffe, they don’t trust him and find him to be smarmy and arrogant.

        • Colonial Viper 27.1.1.1
          29 June 2014 at 6:35 pm

          If you really think that the people of NZ are going to vote for that nightmare coalition then you are deluded.

          Indeed. Time we go with the chant of CCC. Colin Craig for Cabinet.

        • Bearded Git 27.1.1.2
          29 June 2014 at 8:58 pm

          Big Bruv. I get your point-Key/White/Dunne/Colon/Winston/Flavell. Complete and utter nightmare.

    • KJT 27.2
      29 June 2014 at 6:23 pm

      3 more long years of NACT’s disaster capitalism and economic vandalism.

      I can’t wait.

      • big bruv 27.2.1
        29 June 2014 at 6:30 pm

        Three more years of fantastic economic management. Three more years of forcing the bludgers off benefits. Three more years of enlightened workplace legislation. Three more years of a growing economy. Three more years of having a PM that we can all be proud of.

        Things are indeed looking good for all Kiwis who choose to contribute, those who bludge off the backs of their hard working countrymen might face tougher times and that is always a good thing.

        • Colonial Viper 27.2.1.1
          29 June 2014 at 6:33 pm

          Your comments are all prejudiced nonsense of course. Blaming the poorest and weakest in society for problems caused by those who hold real power and wealth.

          And if National were interested in people actually working, it would create real Kiwi jobs. Not outsource NZ tax payers money to China and Australia.

          • big bruv 27.2.1.1.1
            29 June 2014 at 6:46 pm

            Viper

            Government cannot create jobs, only business can do that. Unless of course you think that the 1970’s fortress NZ economy was a good idea. The same fortress economy that led to the painful but much needed reforms introduced by the saviour of NZ Sir Roger Douglas.

            I did not blame the poorest and weakest at all, we have (quite rightly) protections for those people. What most Kiwis detest are the professional group of bludgers who Labour and the Greens want to hand over more of our money to in a naked election bribe. If bludgers have a tough six years under the next two terms of a National government then hard luck, very few Kiwis will be concerned about them at all.

            • Colonial Viper 27.2.1.1.1.1
              29 June 2014 at 6:55 pm

              Viper

              Government cannot create jobs, only business can do that.

              Well that’s a lie. Don’t teachers have real jobs? Pasture soil scientists? Police? How about our soldiers and aircrew, do they not have real jobs to do? Our hospital nurses and surgeons not real jobs either? How about our diplomats and diplomatic staff, not real jobs? Immigration and customs staff not real jobs? Meat inspectors – not a real job?

              Seriously mate, you’re falsehoods are too much. Especially since we also know that corporates make profits by CUTTING jobs not creating them.

              • big bruv …
                29 June 2014 at 7:03 pm

                Teachers should not be employed by the government, our failing education system is testament to that. Far better to have charter schools right across the country. We would get a far better education system and rid ourselves of the biggest hurdle to educational improvement in the teachers unions.

                The same applies to doctors and nurses, private is far better.

                The rest of your “argument” falls flat, what you are suggesting is for the government to go out and create thousands of jobs in the non government sector. History show that is a recipe for disaster.

                As for the corporate world, well duh!, their job is to make a profit, if that means getting rid of unproductive employees then so be it. The good ones will always be kept on, the slackers, or those who have done nothing to make themselves more employable do not deserve a lot of sympathy.

            • KJT 27.2.1.1.1.2
              29 June 2014 at 7:22 pm

              BB. A satirist to rival Fisiani.

              And another, I bet, whose hardest work has been the walk to the watercooler.

              • big bruv …
                29 June 2014 at 7:43 pm

                That may well be KJT. But I still would have paid more in income tax than you earned in the entire year.

                You really should have worked harder.

                • KJT …
                  29 June 2014 at 8:26 pm

                  I very much doubt that you have paid more than I have, in income tax.

                  I suspect, like most of our pet RWNJ’s you are just another wannabee.

            • Clemgeopin 27.2.1.1.1.3
              29 June 2014 at 8:22 pm

              You unthinking selfish git!

              The businesses and the wealthy cannot get their wealth or create jobs from thin air without input from the rest of the society like workers, consumers and people of the country. The rich can not do all that from their own individual effort just because they have cash or an idea. Without the government or the ‘rest’ in society they create or get nada, zilch. The governments which is voted in by the people gives them the opportunity to earn their wealth and income and create jobs. And these rich greedy louts crib to pay a little back to society like 36c in the dollar for income ABOVE $150,000. Hope you are not one of those narrow minded selfish sickos.

              • big bruv …
                29 June 2014 at 8:35 pm

                You mean the rich, hard working people who create employment and already pay far more than their fare share of tax?

                Yes I am one of them.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  29 June 2014 at 9:02 pm

                  The rich don’t create employment and never have done. Same as they don’t pay for anything.

            • Puddleglum 27.2.1.1.1.4
              29 June 2014 at 8:25 pm

              Hi big bruv,

              Can you tell me the size of this “professional group of bludgers” and how the number was calculated?

              In particular, it would be good to hear the criteria for including people in this group and then how those criteria were applied to the population using available information and data sets to come up with the final figure.

              The number matters especially if you are correct that Labour and the Green Party are bribing this group.

              Thanks.

      • Bluey 27.2.2
        30 June 2014 at 12:34 am

        Hopefully corruption is again recognised for the crime it is and Key, Collins and the rest are duly processed.

    • phillip ure 27.3
      29 June 2014 at 6:25 pm

      u and yr lipstick-smeared polls..

    • North 27.4
      29 June 2014 at 9:49 pm

      Oh you’re such a likeable ‘rouge’ bb. Bright too……which is ‘fare’ (see below) enough.

  28. marty mars 28
    29 June 2014 at 6:46 pm

    I’m not sure how many votes this will bring in for labour but nevertheless it was good to hear

    Mr Cunliffe told about 45 people at a kuia and kaumatua hui at Te Renga Paraoa Marae in Whangarei he thought Labour would today admit it was wrong with its foreshore and seabed laws denying court challenges and as the party came back into power it would take a fresh look at the issue.

    http://m.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503450&objectid=11283071

    This is a good move imo and will help those MP’s in attendance.

    • big bruv 28.1
      29 June 2014 at 6:51 pm

      marty

      I would wait until this time tomorrow if I were you. By that stage Cunliffe will have changed his position again.

  29. Clemgeopin 29
    29 June 2014 at 7:45 pm

    In their National gang conference today, their cabinet ministers were taking cheap shots at Labour! People in glass houses would be idiots to throw stones unless they are stoned first!

    The Nat nitwits can talk and spin as much crap as they wish referring to Labour coalition as the mythical six headed hydra, but the reality is that it is the RWNjob coalition that has SIX parties in their lot including possibly CONS and NZF while a Labour led coalition at most will have FOUR including possibly the Internet Mana and NZF

    NAT LED RETRO COALITION :
    NATIONAL+ACT+UFUT+CONS+MAORI+NZF=The REAL six headed hydra!

    LAB LED PROGRESSIVE COALITION :
    LAB+GREENS+IMP+NZF=Just Four at most!

    Who are these NAT liars fooling? Not you, I hope!

    • srylands 29.1
      29 June 2014 at 10:29 pm

      Except that the minor parties in a National led government have little leverage if National gets 45% of the party vote. (Which is the reality in the current government)

      If Labour lead a coalition from a base of 29% of the Party Vote those minor parties will have significant leverage, especially the Green Party, which in my view has extremely damaging policies for both growth and equity.

      So National might end up leading a multi-headed hydra but most of the heads will be small and ineffectual.

      Conversely, the Labour hydra heads will eat each other. You forgot to mention that bit.

      Your reality is that a Labour win is becoming less and less likely daily. Centrebet closed betting on the election for the last two weeks but have just reopened betting with Labour drifting to $6.00 from $3.80. National is paying $1.12.

      http://centrebet.com/#Sports/7145959

      On ipredict the PM Labour stock has just sunk below 20 cents.

      https://www.ipredict.co.nz/app.php?do=contract_detail&contract=PM.2014.LABOUR

      • McFlock 29.1.1
        29 June 2014 at 10:43 pm

        So National might end up leading a multi-headed hydra but most of the heads will be small and ineffectual.

        Conversely, the Labour hydra heads will eat each other.

        ACT, Maori party and Colin Craig would have far more policies in contradiction than Greens, IP/Mana and whoemever else. The smaller snakes are also often the orevenomous (as you’d know, living in Australia and all).

        Rich fools with money to waste think National will win – trouble for you is that after six years of a “brighter future”, rich fools with money to waste are in the tiny minority.

  30. dimebag russell 30
    29 June 2014 at 7:55 pm

    nat party conference on TV.
    Limp and lame.
    they are mudguards.
    all shiny on top.
    all crap underneath.

    • Clemgeopin 30.1
      29 June 2014 at 9:06 pm

      [Changed to a haiku]

      Nat party gang meet
      Limp and lame on TV one
      All crap underneath

      [Changed to limerick]

      A crafty chap from Hawaii,
      Spoke bull crap to hall of slimy
      With words limp and lame
      Crapful and no shame
      Soon got sent back to Hawaii!

  31. Weepu's beard 31
    29 June 2014 at 7:58 pm

    Andrea Vance announces her retirement from investigative journalism. Declares her love for John Key.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10211832/Nats-future-bright-while-Key-at-helm

    • Bearded Git 31.1
      29 June 2014 at 8:39 pm

      That’s a problem ‘cos he will resign on 21st September

      • Weepu's beard 31.1.1
        29 June 2014 at 8:44 pm

        Here’s hoping. However, there will be several Key/GCSB hit jobs between now and then. The man has unashamedly made this department his own to do with what he pleases. His supporters say “bring it on” because they believe it’s their right to be in power, the ends justifying the means.

    • Clemgeopin 31.2
      29 June 2014 at 9:09 pm

      I put a comment there:
      “Do you have a crush on this slimy old man too/’

  32. Puddleglum 32
    29 June 2014 at 9:00 pm

    The latest Colmar Brunton poll was of 1002 eligible voters with 15% undecided on the party vote.

    You might think that that means that the party vote question was out of 850, making the number of people who opted for National 425 out of 1002.

    But the table on page 7 of the report notes that the base for the party vote question was actually 813 respondents. That makes it ‘only’ 407 people who chose National. (I’m unsure why there’s a difference between the 850 got from subtracting 15% of 1002 from 1002 and the 813 figure in the table.)

    For preferred PM 27% said ‘don’t know’, 3% refused, and 3% said ‘none’. That equals 33% of the 1002 people did not provide a preference – about 333 people. Those who responded to this question were therefore 669. Of those, 47% chose John Key = 314 people out of a sample of 1002, or 31.4 % of the sample.
    Edit: Cancel that – actually the 47% was of the 1002 sample, or 470 people.

    There’s also an interesting note that acknowledges the effect of the ‘undecideds’, etc. on the ‘Methodology’ page of the downloadable report (downloadable from here).

    “The data does not take into account the effects of non-voting and therefore cannot be used to predict the outcome of an election. Undecided voters, non-voters and those who refused to answer are excluded from the data on party support. The results are therefore only indicative of trends in party support, and it would be misleading to report otherwise.“

    • bad12 32.1
      29 June 2014 at 9:14 pm

      The TV channals should be required by law to print that last paragraph every time they use data from one of these polls on the TV…

    • ianmac 32.2
      29 June 2014 at 11:00 pm

      Good on yer’ Puddlegum! Sanity and reality in one post. Thanks. Will save that for reference to go against other polls. I take it that when David Cunliffe gets better hearings that those undecided might shift their support to him. I hope.
      The coverage of the National Conference attended by mostly elderly people seem from the small TV exposure to be lacking in substance or genuine enthusiasm. Must just be my imagination.

  33. Draco T Bastard 33
    29 June 2014 at 9:39 pm

    Quoting The Myth of Choice by Kent Greenfield.

    This book will explore what most of us seem to understand intuitively, namely that choices are constrained, manipulated, and forced upon us. I will fl esh out our intuitions and discuss the eff ects of biology, economics, power, and culture on people’s choices. We will also discover areas where our intuition points us in the wrong direction. Obesity is one example, the Mount Hood climbers another.

    Yep, definitely a good book and I’m barely into the first chapter.

    • Draco T Bastard 33.1
      29 June 2014 at 9:54 pm

      Going to add this bit:

      But there is a deeper reason choice is the preferred frame for so many political battles. In most cases, the rhetoric of choice gives the advantage to those in power. It is the rhetoric of the powerful. Saying that “people should bear responsibility for the choices they make” helps the powerful and hurts the powerless more often than not. Choice is a ready-made frame with which to oppose movements fighting for social justice, civil liberties, or economic rights, because opponents can point to people’s existing behavior as representing a choice—whether to work at Walmart, to
      live on the street, or to live in a country where the government taps one’s phone. In facing such assertions of choice, the person fighting injustice that occurs within the status quo must argue either that people are not really making the choices they seem to be making, that the choices made do not reflect the true preferences of the actors, or that the choices should not be respected. Those are hard arguments to make. This book will help make them, pointing out that people often have much less choice than we (and sometimes they) assume.

      • Draco T Bastard 33.1.1
        29 June 2014 at 10:06 pm

        Oh, and this bit:

        Providing choice is costly. I once dated a woman who was in charge of a line of men’s clothing for Levi Strauss & Co. The difference between profit and loss for her line was often determined by whether she had developed just enough variety of pattern, color, and cut to appeal to most shoppers, but not so much variety that the production costs swamped the profits. Once you have the choices you need, producing more is a dead loss.

        And I’ve been saying that for a long time now as well.

        I better stop now before I end up copy/pasting the whole book

  34. Draco T Bastard 34
    29 June 2014 at 11:48 pm

    Why Europe’s austerity experiment is doomed to fail

    Growing government debt thus appears to be more a symptom of the crisis than a cause. Its rise began after the crisis in both countries, not before; and the one that hasn’t deliberately attempted to reduce government spending by austerity is the one whose public debt ratio is no longer rising.

    More Keen showing that reality happens in the exact opposite of what the RWNJs will tell you.

  35. Draco T Bastard 35
    30 June 2014 at 12:15 am

    And it seems that the World Wide Web was actually invented in 1934:

    In 1934, a little-known Belgian bibliographer named Paul Otlet published his plans for the Mundaneum, a global network that would allow anyone in the world to tap into a vast repository of published information with a device that could send and receive text, display photographs, transcribe speech and auto-translate between languages. Otlet even imagined social networking-like features that would allow anyone to “participate, applaud, give ovations, sing in the chorus.”

    • McFlock 35.1
      30 June 2014 at 12:51 am

      yeah, there were many disparate evolutionary paths that led to WWW. Hypertext is another that was conceived then developed long before the internet.

      But it was Berners-Lee who bunged the existing technology together to create something new.

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.