Open mike 29/10/2010

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, October 29th, 2010 - 53 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post.

It’s open for discussing topics of interest, making announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

Comment on whatever takes your fancy.

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

Step right up to the mike…

53 comments on “Open mike 29/10/2010 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. The Chairman 1
    29 October 2010 at 6:28 am

    Maori Party “kowtowing” to iwi elite?

    An “iwi elite caste” system emerging with a right wing economic agenda showing no immediate trickle down benefits for Maori?

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/maori/news/article.cfm?c_id=252&objectid=10683273&ref=rss

    • Colonial Viper 1.1
      29 October 2010 at 8:58 am

      Maori are NZ’s largest exporters of meat. That’s a lot of foreign currency.

    • The Chairman 1.2
      29 October 2010 at 9:23 am

      How will an emerging right wing agenda sit with a possible Labour – Maori coalition?

    • KJT 1.3
      29 October 2010 at 11:28 am

      Is this suddenly news. The Maori party are a good fit with National. Same born to rule exploitative attitudes. I am beginning to have more and more time for Hone.

      Just waiting for Maori to wake up to the Maori Moneyocracy.

      They will hopefully take less time than it takes for Pakeha to wake up NACT.

      • The Chairman 1.3.1
        29 October 2010 at 12:23 pm

        Re: suddenly news

        Hardly.

        However, it’s good to see the party’s principles being questioned

        And it does bring into question any possible coalition deals. How will this emerging right-wing agenda sit with Labour’s new policy shift?

  2. BLiP 2
    29 October 2010 at 6:46 am

    _ _ – – = = F O R S A L E = = = – – – _ _ _

    A sovereign nation’s self-respect and democracy

    . . . are human rights, justice and worker protections, those pesky and pernicious prohibitions to potential profit hampering your avarice . . .

    WE HAVE THE SOLUTION – –ELIMINATE THEM

    at just $US500 million per enactment, you can’t go past this deal

    But wait, there’s more . . .

    Guaranteed 10% C A S H rebate for foreign-owned multinational corporations – just speak to our in-store sales consultant John – do it today and save save save

    ♪ ♫ . . . .the Beehive, the Beehive, where everyone gets a bargain . . . . ♫ ♪

    • Bored 2.1
      29 October 2010 at 7:54 am

      You have made my day, I would encourage everybody to sing along today, so subtle, so catchy, so effective!

    • LynW 2.2
      29 October 2010 at 8:05 am

      Exactly! Now that song will stay in my head all day ….not that I need reminding!

    • prism 2.3
      29 October 2010 at 10:10 am

      Have you been in business Blip? What was/is your trade? There is a term called ‘horse trading’. Sales just don’t happen. People ask for discounts for cash etc. Many considerations come into it.

      I paid more for my second-hand car because I decided it was worth it but got an enhanced guarantee. That might not have been needed because of the Fair Trading Act. But it was the best deal going at the time. I had consulted the AA advice person to check car-make profile and general reliability, also got pre-sale scrutiny at a reliable garage. Seemed a goer, though not perfect. I wanted it, it would probably work out well. The price wasn’t too bad. I bought it. The car still goes well by the way.

      • BLiP 2.3.1
        29 October 2010 at 2:00 pm

        Would you sleep with me for $US500 million?

        Sure.

        Would you sleep with me for five bucks?

        What . . . who do you think you’re talking to?

        Madam, we know what you are, at the moment we’re just haggling.

      • Draco T Bastard 2.3.2
        29 October 2010 at 2:48 pm

        You know, last time I sold a car the potential buyer had the AA guys check it out. They picked up a couple of things wrong one of which was the oil. According to them it hadn’t been changed for at least 10,000km. The last oil change was less 5000km before. I know, I was the one who did it.

    • Jim Nald 2.4
      29 October 2010 at 10:21 am

      Mickey & McCully arrived in Vietnam last night
      East Asian Summit’s delight
      For a price and deals you taxpayers underwrite
      Mickey & McCully are anyone’s tonight

      ♪ ♫ . . . .the Beehive, the Beehive, where everyone gets a bargain . . . . ♫ ♪

      Fanks, BLiP.

    • Draco T Bastard 3.1
      29 October 2010 at 2:57 pm

      Hopefully it’s deep enough to produce real changes in the banking ponzi scheme.

  4. Rodel 4
    29 October 2010 at 8:27 am

    On Momentum.
    Interesting that the media aren’t probing into the momentumgate scandal.Why aren’t the national party owners of momentum, Michelle Boag, Jenny Shipley and co -who recruited John Key and Steven Wilk being interviwed?
    When. oh when will we get some proper journalists?

  5. Carol 5
    29 October 2010 at 9:18 am

    Mallard just held up in the House a print out of an image emailed to him over night from a Kiwi in Japan. It’s an image of the NZ flag with the UK Union flag removed from the top left hand corner and a Warner Brothers’ logo inserted in its place.

    Pure genius.

  6. Quoth the Raven 6
    29 October 2010 at 9:41 am

    In the strange world of American politics recently we’ve seen Log cabin Republicans challenge Don’t ask don’t tell in court. The Judge orders it to abandoned immediately. The Obama administration who supposedly wants to repeal it and have just lost a vote on it is granted a stay on the injunction to prepare their one would have to say embarrassing argument against the injunction of a policy they supposedly want repealed.
    Obama opposes gay marriage instead, like Labour here, he, without a hint of irony regarding the historical significance, takes a separate but equal position. Meawhile a gay judge in California overturns a ban on gay marriage, a judge who was originally nominated by Reagan, but whose nomination was opposed by the Democrats because of his “insensitivity” towards gays.
    Then there is Proposition 19. A lot of “progressives” have come out in support of it. However the Obama administration, who appointed a drug warrior to head the DEA, has vowed to continue to enforce prohibition federally in California. At least Obama has the war mongering and corporatist part of being a “progressive” down.

    • Quoth the Raven 6.1
      29 October 2010 at 1:08 pm

      Just to again highlight the inanity of the factionalism that pervades American politics (and politics in general see our own Labour-Natioal absurdities) Glenn Greenwald has a recent article: Obama finds support from the right

      Let’s hear one more time from the Supremely Crazy Witch Christine O’Donnell on this: “I support Obama’s decision to send troops to Afghanistan. I support Obama’s decision for drones. I support Obama’s decision to treat the American who is recruiting terrorists on American soil, who is hiding in Yemen, I support the decision for our intelligence agencies to do whatever it takes to take him out.”

      And Glenn Greenwald reminds us that the inequity in regards to gay rights which Obama opposes, whilst holding his illiberal “same but equal” position was enshrined in law by Bill Clinton in the form of DOMA and the Obama administration, once again despite Obama’s own ostensible opposition to it actually defended the constitutionality of it.

      In July of this year, a federal judge ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act — the 1996 law enacted with overwhelming bipartisan support and signed into law by President Clinton — was unconstitutional. Among other things, DOMA bars the federal government and all federal agencies from issuing any marriage-based benefits — including immigration rights — to same-sex couples, even if those couples are legally married in the U.S. It effectuates that ban by restricting federal recognition of spousal relationships to “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.” The court ruled that this provision was unconstitutional because it violates the rights of states under the Tenth Amendment to define “marriage” for themselves, and independently violates the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

      As if anyone really needed another reminder of the sheer absurdity of the messianic Obama presidency and the mindless factionalism in politics.

      Another article today: Obama hope was all hype Although why anyone would have hope in a politician in the first place is beyond me.

      “Political action involves mental vulgarity, not merely because it entails the occurrence and support of those who are mentally vulgar, but because of the simplification of human life implied in even the best of it purposes.”
      Michael Oakeshott

  7. just saying 7
    29 October 2010 at 9:53 am

    An outstanding post by Maia at ‘The Hand Mirror’ about the Hobbit: A must-read for even those as Hobbit-weary as I am. Do watch the quick clip at the end if you can too.

    http://thehandmirror.blogspot.com/

    • ianmac 9.1
      29 October 2010 at 2:07 pm

      “Yeah. What that mum needs is a good belt round the ears, and the little monster needs a good thrashing! It worked for me and now I’m a good God-fearing right minded Citizen. Hey! Leave my computer alone you bastards! I didn’t download that stuff. Not mine! Some one else must have…… God help me!”

  10. KJT 10
    29 October 2010 at 11:26 am

    Too late. Should have started disciplining him earlier.

    • Draco T Bastard 10.1
      29 October 2010 at 3:20 pm

      Should have started teaching him self-discipline earlier.

      FIFY

      And I disagree that it’s too late to teach him that discipline. It’ll be harder but not impossible.

  11. Bored 11
    29 October 2010 at 12:06 pm

    I see Trotter has got into Labour and Goff for their feable failure to come to the aid of workers rights etc in the whole St Peter / Warners rip off fiasco. Well done Chris, to Goff please just go!

    Anybody else feel the same?

    • Lazy Susan 11.1
      29 October 2010 at 2:05 pm

      I think this was really a case of falling at the first fence for Goff/Labour although admittedly a very tough call.

      The party conference presented Labour’s new direction as firmly wed to the union movement and the rights of workers and a stark contrast to the neo-liberal anti-worker positioning of NAct. To then allow, in the following week, a full scale assault on the whole of the union movement to go largely unchallenged was a big mistake. It made Labour look weak and insincere.

      It would have taken guts to go up against the scared cow that was PJ but that is what true leadership is all about. As the dust settles around this whole fiasco there is much disquiet about the sell-out this government has enacted and the motivations of Peter Jackson and associates (read today’s Herald edititorial and letters section). Had Labour made loud noises very early on they would have provided a platform for this disquiet and have been seen as defenders of working people and our national sovereignity.

      • Bored 11.1.1
        29 October 2010 at 3:05 pm

        I take your points as well considered BUT if I was sitting on a Board of Directors (as I do) and had this type of scenario explained to me by incompetent management at every other meeting I would probably fire the CEO. Its a case of once is a mistake, twice unfortunate, three times unforgivable.

    • The Voice of Reason 11.2
      29 October 2010 at 3:12 pm

      You’re kidding, right? Why on earth would Phil Goff want to climb aboard a sinking ship? If he’d said anything about the merits of the AE case, he’d be copping similar misinformed crap as has been thrown at Helen Kelly for the last two weeks and there would be every chance of a snap election next month where the main point of discussion wouldn’t be policy platforms on the economy, unemployment, health or education, it’d be be who loves hobbits more.

      Sometimes the best thing to say is nothing at all. I wish Chris Trotter would take the hint, too.

      • Jim Nald 11.2.1
        29 October 2010 at 3:33 pm

        King John seeks PR advice: Snap election for NZ? What campaign slogan to run? How about “A hobbit, a hobbit, my kingdom for a hobbit” ?

      • Bored 11.2.2
        29 October 2010 at 4:07 pm

        Your Reasonable Voice is right that Goff should not climb onto a sinking ship: his “crime” is that he (and whoever his staff are) never gave himself a chance to get in before the whole thing was sinking. Never there in time, never before the event, never in a safe position to be heard, never driving. Never there or heard, never never never to ever be PM.

      • Anne 11.2.3
        29 October 2010 at 4:45 pm

        Phil Goff did the sensible thing. He waited for the story to play out, and the facts to emerge before he climbed on board. I agree with you TVoR. I get the feeling that sometimes Chris Trotter wades in before thinking through the consequences properly. So easy to criticise with the benefit of hindsight.

        • Colonial Viper 11.2.3.1
          29 October 2010 at 5:01 pm

          Phil could have waded in much earlier to help the unions get airtime for the points they were desperately, but essentially failing to make, without going into the specifics of the dispute between SPADA/AE/Jackson/Warner e.g.

          The fact that people expected to perform as employees should have employee protections. The fact that successful film making countries like Australia, Canada, US, UK and Ireland have heavily unionised film workforces and as our industry develops we should fall into line with best practice. The fact that asking for a meeting to discuss issues is really a simple demand for any good employer to meet. And the fact that NZ workers deserve certainty on minimum terms and conditions of work and that minimum working conditions must be sacrosanct.

          • Anne 11.2.3.1.1
            29 October 2010 at 6:07 pm

            Okay CV take your point. Goff could have waded in a bit sooner – like 4 or 5 days. On the other hand, for all we know someone from the union movement (won’t name names because I don’t know) told him to stay out of it until after Key’s meeting with WB. After all, it wasn’t until that point that some of the murk surrounding this affair started to clear.

          • The Voice of Reason 11.2.3.1.2
            29 October 2010 at 6:11 pm

            No argument with your second para, but I maintain that Goff was best advised to stay schtumm. The ERA is still, for the time being, Labour’s law. He’d have been hit with ‘you had nine years to fix this, blah, blah blah’. It was obvious pretty early on that it was not a winner and I’d have to think his advisers would have said leave it to the CTU to sort it out. Which they did, actually, but based on the assumption that the rules of good faith behaviour applied outside of the ERA. Apparently Warners and Jackson knew better.

            If Goff had said a word, Key would have had his second term sown up.

            • Carol 11.2.3.1.2.1
              29 October 2010 at 7:46 pm

              I waver on this issue, but timing is important, and it’s hard to know what the short & long term impact would have been, with the hysteria & the anti-union line taken by the press. It could have solidified attitudes and slowed down the responses against Key’s selling of our soul’s to Warners.

              Mallard said something about this in the House today, but I’m not totally clear of what sort of (non) comments and when he was referring to. I also don’t remember his exact wording. It was during (near the begiining of?) the last stage of the discussion about the change of employment law, just after the bill had finished the committee stage and was returned to the whole parliament.

              Mallard said he had told other Labour MPs to stay silent on the issue. His explanation had something to do with it being an international issue, and when the government is still dealing with such issues, the rest of parliament should present some sort of unity and not provide opposition. i’m also not sure why he would be dishing out that sort of advice & not Goff.

              Maybe someone has a record of what he actuallly said?

              • Anne …
                29 October 2010 at 8:15 pm

                @ Carol
                I’ve followed the arguments for and against whether Goff should have spoken sooner but, on balance, I think TVoR has got it in a nutshell. If Goff had spoken before the WB meeting, he would have been on a hiding to nothing. The media would have misrepresented what he said, and given the emotive hysteria surrounding this debate he would have been a goner. Much better to stay quiet until the MSM (and others) started to figure the truth out for themselves. It’s happening albeit slowly. A good example is today’s NZ Herald editorial.

                • Anne …
                  29 October 2010 at 8:26 pm

                  I forgot to add… it’s something we’re never going to know for sure. 😉

                  • Carol …
                    29 October 2010 at 8:35 pm

                    yes, I guess. Though I just thought Mallard’s comment added an extra dimension to the discussion. The other thing is that it’s not just a question of when a party leader (or any MP) should take a stand, but how it’s done.

                    I see that Mallard’s visual aid of the WB version of the NZ flag, made it to both TV One & TV3 news. That is something people will remember, and it has a clear point/message.

    • The Voice of Reason 11.3
      29 October 2010 at 4:02 pm

      Spookily, the weekly roundup email just popped into my inbox from Phil Goff and it includes this:

      THE HOBBIT DISPUTE COSTS NZ DEARLY
      The resolution of The Hobbit dispute is good news.

      The original threat of a boycott, resolved and gone before Warner Bros arrived, was nevertheless the pretext for demanding more money, but the Government hadn’t anticipated it. National hadn’t maintained the relationship and was faced with crisis management and no preparation. John Key simply gave in to the demands.

      His panicked response has cost New Zealand taxpayers more than it should with the Government handing over an extra $33m in subsidies on top of the $60m already promised to the movie giant.

      It’s crystal clear now that money was the main motivation behind Warner Bros’ threat to move The Hobbit film to another country.

      But the Government also caved in to demands from the film company that changes be made to our employment laws. These changes were essentially rammed through at the behest of a foreign-owned, multi-billion dollar movie giant without any chance for kiwis to comment on whether it was necessary. That is a move that sets a very dangerous precedent.

      We have been used as pawns in a game that’s all about profit for Warner Bros not what is best for New Zealand.

      • Bored 11.3.1
        29 October 2010 at 4:29 pm

        Never ever in time, never ever before the event and able to make an impression in a timely manner, always after the event when the horse has bolted, always a spook, invisible and unheard…..

  12. joe90 12
    29 October 2010 at 5:49 pm

    Private prisons writing their own laws.

    That’s because prison companies like this one had a plan — a new business model to lock up illegal immigrants. And the plan became Arizona’s immigration law

    • Quoth the Raven 12.1
      29 October 2010 at 6:07 pm

      In relation: Public sector unions making the system work for them:

      Throughout the 1980s and ’90s, the CCPOA lobbied the state government to increase California’s prison facilities—since more prisons would obviously mean more jobs for corrections officers. And between 1980 and 2000, the Golden State constructed 22 new prisons for adults (before 1980, California had only 12 such facilities). The CCPOA also pushed for the 1994 “three strikes” sentencing law, which imposed stiff penalties on repeat offenders. The prison population exploded—and, as intended, the new prisoners required more guards. The CCPOA has been no less successful in increasing members’ compensation: In 2006, the average union member made $70,000 a year, and more than $100,000 with overtime. Corrections officers can also retire with 90% of their salaries as early as age 50. Today, an amazing 11% of the state budget—more than what is spent on higher education—goes to the penal system. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger now proposes privatizing portions of the prison system to escape the unions’ grip—though his proposal has so far met with predictable (union supported) political opposition.

  13. Pascal's bookie 13
    29 October 2010 at 8:11 pm

    Yeah baby.

    http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=11974168

    How Rove is working that Supreme court decision that corporations are people too:

    In the bitter U.S. Senate race in Kentucky, a local millionaire has helped launch a barrage of ads attacking the Democratic candidate  a candidate who, as the state’s attorney general, is prosecuting the businessman’s nursing home for allegedly covering up sexual abuse, records show.

    The businessman’s name is Terry Forcht. And like many super-wealthy conservative donors who are quietly stoking the GOP’s mid-term election surge around the nation, the extent of his investment in the 2010 campaign is both vast and, for now at least, largely unknown.

    In addition to donating personally to Republican Rand Paul’s upstart campaign, Forcht is the banker handling funds for American Crossroads. The conservative group was founded by Republican strategist Karl Rove and has, through its non-profit arm, American Crossroads GPS, channeled millions into this year’s campaigns without identifying its donors.

    American Crossroads GPS and other outside groups that shield the identity of their donors have emerged as a fixture of the 2010 campaign season, thanks to a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that loosened restrictions on political giving. The case of Forcht’s opaque role in the Kentucky contest offers a glimpse at why some election reform groups believe anonymous donations are so problematic.

Links to post