Open mike 30/11/2012

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, November 30th, 2012 - 62 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

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

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

Step right up to the mike…

62 comments on “Open mike 30/11/2012 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  2. muzza 2
    30 November 2012 at 7:31 am

    You know people inside of government are involved in the drug industry when….

    Thinking back, Muldoon was cozy with the gangs, reckon they must have just been talking about “current affairs”

  3. Dv 3
    30 November 2012 at 7:40 am

    From PPTA website

    So what Langstone is saying is that Novopay could cope with 90000 individual contracts.
    BIZARE

    http://www.ppta.org.nz/index.php/resources/media/2504-media-novopay-scapegoat

    Attempts by Lesley Longstone to pin problems in the payroll system – also known by teachers as Novopain, No-pay and Novovirus – on the collective agreement smacked of desperation, particularly since it was the teachers on the agreement who were having the least problems with their pay, he said.

    The secretary is looking to blame the collective agreement rather than face the fact it was blatant cost-cutting that led to the mess the payroll system is in.”

  4. vto 4
    30 November 2012 at 7:50 am

    .
    Christchurch is heading directly for Stalingradesque stature

    • muzza 4.1
      30 November 2012 at 8:05 am

      VTO – Ch Ch will not be rebuilt, not the way it should be at least, the reasons why in my opinion are that its about the mining,/drilling, and Antarctica.

      Agendas have a whole different set of plans for Chch, because if there was an apetite to rebuild it for the locals, and benefit of NZ, it would we well underway by now…

      This is see through even by NZ abysmal record of being run on corruption!

  5. vto 5
    30 November 2012 at 7:53 am

    The government is running out of money.

    GST refunds have been later than usual and without explanation. Government is well behind in its payments for the Chch Stalingrad makeover. Teachers are being underpaid for weeks.

    Is there reality to this reality?

  6. Professor Longhair 6
    30 November 2012 at 7:53 am

    What Really Happened in Gaza
    by NORMAN FINKELSTEIN
    November 29, 2009

    The official storyline is that Israel launched Operation Pillar of Defense on 14 November, 2012 because, in President Barack Obama’s words, it had “every right to defend itself.”

    In this instance, Israel was allegedly defending itself against the 800 projectile attacks emanating from Gaza since January of this past year.

    The facts, however, suggest otherwise.

    From the start of the new year, one Israeli had been killed as a result of the Gazan attacks, while 78 Gazans had been killed by Israeli strikes. The ruling power in Gaza, Hamas, was mostly committed to preventing attacks. Indeed, Ahmed al-Jaabari, the Hamas leader whose assassination by Israel triggered the current round of fighting, was regarded by Israel as the chief enforcer of the periodic ceasefires, and….

    Read more….
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/11/29/what-really-happened-in-gaza/

  7. Tiresias 7
    30 November 2012 at 8:14 am

    Lifted from a comment to a piece on another site concerning Spanish President Mariano Rajoy Brey’s double-cross of the Spanish people (pursuading them to convert their savings deposits in Spanish Banks into ‘preference’ shares in a failed attempt to save the banks from bankruptcy they are now facing a 39% ‘haircut’ just to earn a bail-out loan to the banks from the EEC), this seemed to me a perfect summary of John Key and his acolytes:

    “He hails from what Ljubiša Mitrović calls the “comprador bourgeoisie.”

    Comprador bourgeoisie is the upper layer of the bourgeois class…. It is not national in character and is socially irresponsible. It is a blind servant of foreign capital, ruthless in the exploitation of the domestic workforce and dictatorial in relation to its fellow countrymen. Its homeland is where its interests are. It is the agent of the megacapital in the function of global economy. It is a “Trojan horse” of the foreign TNCs [Transnational Corporations]… Its god is the god Mammon, the capital. Its aim is to amass capital, and it puts profit above individuals. It is a predatory class of the nouveau riche and often bon vivant and parasitic upstarts. It is a peculiar jet-set of bandit economy…..

    If they wish not to be discarded by the citizens and most of the nation, political parties and elites would have to stop deceiving the citizens and articulate their real interests in the struggle for social change.

    Ljubiša Mitrović, “THE NEW BOURGEOISIE AND ITS PSEUDO-ELITE IN THE SOCIETIES OF PERIPHERAL CAPITALISM”
    http://facta.junis.ni.ac.rs/pas/pas2010/pas2010-01.pdf“

  8. vto 8
    30 November 2012 at 9:45 am

    I just love how sexism issues always run in just one gender direction in this country. At least it is consistent in its inconsistency.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/life/8017140/Law-school-magazine-blasted-for-sexist-ad

    • weka 8.1
      30 November 2012 at 10:23 am

      Well I guess when sexism itself stops being a predominantly one way flow against women, others might love whatever it is you are loving too.
       
      btw, the example you give is such glaring example of sexism, and the ground we have lost in recent years, that I’m really at a loss to know why you used it. How about you provide a similarly garing example of sexism running the other way?

      • vto 8.1.1
        30 November 2012 at 11:58 am

        all of the ads that show men as lard arses with fat bellies, unshaven, sloppy and slobbery, lazing on the couch while the women go out and do the right stuff.

        There are countless of them. It is a well acknowledged phenomenon.

        The fact that male complaints don’t run to the level of female complaints about the same issue speaks to perhaps the very nature of men vs women more than to the actual sexism on display.

        But in this region on which i opine the current general society-wide opinion (which you reflect imo) I would suggest reflects a 50s charm in reverse. In the 50s, such a response as your own mr weka, was the norm and the issue considered well overblown and lacking in reality.

        It is like looking through a mirror

        • karol 8.1.1.1
          30 November 2012 at 12:47 pm

          You mean those ones where the guy is portrayed is being very smart in manipulating women to run around after them?

          • vto 8.1.1.1.1
            30 November 2012 at 12:50 pm

            I can’t picture one of them. Which one are you thinking?

            • karol 8.1.1.1.1.1
              1 December 2012 at 7:11 am

              This is the nearest ad to the one of was thinking of – that I could find quickly.  Based on sexist stereotypes with women’s bodies there to be looked at, while the guys are in control (no matter how slobby they are), and are smart-a*ses.

              The one I was thinking of has a guy on a couch phoning a woman in another room to change the TV channel for him. 

          • QoT 8.1.1.1.2
            30 November 2012 at 10:28 pm

            Yep. Sorry, dudes, but an eternity of being portrayed as mere objects for male consumption ain’t actually equivalent to a cultural meme which absolves all men from being competent, compassionate, or active participants in a relationship. Oh noes, it makes men look bad – where “looks bad” = “provides an excuse to be completely self-centred”.

        • weka 8.1.1.2
          30 November 2012 at 1:27 pm

          “There are countless of them. It is a well acknowledged phenomenon.”
           
          I don’t know those, please link to some examples. Make sure they are ones that show a similar level of sexism as the law student example.
           
          “The fact that male complaints don’t run to the level of female complaints about the same issue speaks to perhaps the very nature of men vs women more than to the actual sexism on display.”
           
          Nope, that demonstrates that institutionalised and culturally sanctioned sexism against women is far more prevalent, difficult to combat, and damaging.


           
          yes, men get stereotyped in various ways to their detriment, but the dymanics of how that happens, and why, and how it affects men and society are different than the millenial-old forces of suppression of women.

          • vto 8.1.1.2.1
            30 November 2012 at 1:55 pm

            “yes, men get stereotyped in various ways to their detriment, but the dymanics of how that happens, and why, and how it affects men and society are different than the millenial-old forces of suppression of women.”

            Millenial old? You mean it has been going on forever?

            ” but the dymanics of how that happens, and why, and how it affects men and society are different ”

            Sure it is different. How does that affect the issue raised though? These ads indicate a pervasive and detrimental sexism in the portrayal of men. Like they do for women. But their status as issues are unequal – that was my point.

            As for which is the more damaging, sexism against men or against women, well that is a very good question. I suspect we cannot see the wood for the trees on that issue actually.

            Here is another question mr weka – how exactly is this ad sexist, relative to today’s standards in the advertising world? What singles it out? What makes it so different from so many other countless advertisements that use sex to sell (by both sexes)?

            • weka 8.1.1.2.1.1
              30 November 2012 at 7:46 pm

              “Millenial old? You mean it has been going on forever?”
               
              No, I mean it’s been going on for 5,000 years.
               
              ” These ads indicate a pervasive and detrimental sexism in the portrayal of men”
               
              Which ads? Do you mean the one you linked to? Or the ones that you still haven’t linked to that show an equal degree of sexism against men?
               
              “As for which is the more damaging, sexism against men or against women, well that is a very good question. I suspect we cannot see the wood for the trees on that issue actually.”
               
              Maybe for you. For me and many other people, of all genders, it is very obvious.
               
              “Here is another question mr weka – how exactly is this ad sexist, relative to today’s standards in the advertising world? What singles it out? What makes it so different from so many other countless advertisements that use sex to sell (by both sexes)?”
               
              Interesting questions with interesting answers but sorry mrs vto, it’s Friday night after a long week and I don’t feel like doing anyone’s homework. We might get lucky and someone posts a link to sexism 101. However I am reluctant to provide information for you while I am still waiting for examples of the ads you were talking about. Fairs fair.

  9. Rogue Trooper 9
    30 November 2012 at 10:06 am

    You know, people, that our visit to you was not a failure. We had previously suffered and been insulted,
    in Phillipi, as you know, but with the help of our God we dared to tell you his gospel in spite of strong
    opposition. For the appeal we make does not spring from error or impure motives, nor are we trying to
    trick you. We are not trying to please men but God, who tests our hearts. As apostles of Christ we could have been a burden to you, but we were gentle among you, like a mother caring for her little
    children. We loved you so much that we were delighted to share with you not only the gospel of God,
    but our lives as well, because you had become so dear to us. For you know that we dealt with each of
    you as a father deals with his own children, encouraging, comforting, urging you.We sent Timothy to strengthen and encourage you in your “faith” so that no one would be unsettled by these trials. You
    know quite well that we were destined for them. In fact, when we were with you we kept telling you that we would be persecuted. And it turned out this way, as you well know.
    (this was on a sign-post as I entered Thessalonica).

    “At the present moment we are confronted by a choice: either a mass “civilization”, technological and
    “conformist”-the Brave New World (not!) of Huxley, hell organised upon earth for the bodily comfort
    of everybody-or a different Civilization, which we cannot yet describe because we do not know what it will be; it still has to be created, consciously by people. If we do not know what to choose, or in other
    words, how to “make a revolution”, if we let ourselves drift along in the stream of history, without
    knowing it, we shall have chosen the power of suicide, which is at the heart of the world.”
    (Presence,31) and that concludes Chapter 3

    While Ellul was writing his masterpiece he, also, enjoyed the Brandenburg Concertos which is a more
    uplifting concert than Jim Mora chasing his tail with “How Much is That Doggie in The Window……..
    the one with the rageddy tail, how much is that doggie in the window, I do hope that doggy’s for Sale”

  10. ianmac 10
    30 November 2012 at 10:33 am

    Robin Duff in commenting on that silly piece by Langely on the 28 November, points out that in the days of School Cert 50% of all students failed. Now we are told that only 20% fail. If you believe the constant 20% “fail” call from politicians, then the system must be doing better and better.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10850846

  11. Professor Longhair 11
    30 November 2012 at 11:08 am

    Loud applause as President Abbas addresses the U.N.

    It’s in the bag….

  12. aerobubble 12
    30 November 2012 at 11:52 am

    Is being a shareholder a privilege or a right? After hearing that citizenship is a privilege not a right I was just wondering if the national socialism edict applied also to property.

    • vto 12.1
      30 November 2012 at 12:39 pm

      Privilege, rights, blah blah. There are no such things. There is only an ability, which may be fleeting or long-lasting. People have an ability to be shareholders. People have an ability to become citizens. Some of these things may be considered a privilege afforded to only them and in many ways that is true. But there aint no rights, except those where there is an ability under law or norm, and that qualification would seem to render a right not a right, in the wider existence sense. Make sense?

      As for property – sheesh, good luck. It seems to be not a matter of any such thing but solely a matter of what you can get away with, especially under Key. 2c

    • Draco T Bastard 12.2
      30 November 2012 at 2:08 pm

      Is being a shareholder a privilege or a right?

      It’s an injustice as the shareholders benefit from the work of others without having to work themselves.

      • TheContrarian 12.2.1
        30 November 2012 at 2:52 pm

        Some shareholders do not benefit and in fact lose it all.

        • Draco T Bastard 12.2.1.1
          30 November 2012 at 4:13 pm

          Yeah, just like the SCF investors lost everything… Oh, wait

          Oh, I know, The Pike River shareholders… No, they didn’t lose everything either – the miners did.

          Yes, I’m sure that if we look really hard we will find some shareholders somewhere, some when that have, as a matter of fact, lost everything. I think we’ll find it far less often than the workers losing everything.

          • TheContrarian 12.2.1.1.1
            30 November 2012 at 4:26 pm

            I have lost money in shares before – it happens all the time to people.

            P.S. I am a worker and a shareholder – it isn’t one or the other.

          • McFlock 12.2.1.1.2
            30 November 2012 at 4:29 pm

            Not quite, DTB.
               
            The little shareholders lose everything.
            The director shareholders and “preferred” (read:”already rich”) customers of financial advisors don’t lose.
                   
            I recall a tv documentary about a glasses factory that was on the edge – a new CEO came in, changed it to sunglasses, encouraged workers to invest their pensions in share options, and lost it all. It then turned out that he had been paying himself £30,000p.a. more than the other two shareholder/directors (who were already doing okay). People lost their retirement savings, and he was saying “at least we gave it a go”. Fuckwit. And he was small-time compared to most of the plutocrats.

      • Rogue Trooper 12.2.2
        30 November 2012 at 2:56 pm

        Hey, how ya doin, sorry i couldn’t get through, just leave your name…and your number…and I’ll get
        Back to You.

        I find the discussions on TS the last couple of days very interesting, and sure am glad that I never keep
        copies of the comments the fat cats claw me to write. We’re not gonna be Orphans anymore, We’re not
        gonna take it anymore, more, more…

        -Twisted! 🙂 Sisters

      • aerobubble 12.2.3
        3 December 2012 at 2:02 pm

        some may argue that shareholders who do not work on their holdings are failing in their duty to themselves, i.e. due diligence.

        I would say that share owning is a privilege, just as companies have a duty not to harm their good will when taking decisions that create pollution, destroy communities and degrade the planet. In fact most companies could be said to be brats since they support an economy that needs five planets to support.

        As for citizenship, how can that be a privileged? most are born into it, sure some reject the privileged and change citizenship (unless their current nationality allows for dual citizenships), then maybe they have a privilege???

  13. karol 13
    30 November 2012 at 4:12 pm

    Sand mining is going to be trialed in NZ, with the impacts not as yet known.  Tomorrow, a surfer will finish a protest paddle from Taranaki to Piha.

    Surfer Dave Rastovich is used to paddling into the waves, but tomorrow he’ll finish an epic 350km paddle from Taranaki to Piha.

    The New Zealand born Australian set out from Taranaki on a paddle-board on November 16 in protest against sand mining on the West Coast.
     
    The 35-year-old will be welcomed at the West Auckland beach from 11am by former Waitakere mayor and activist Bob Harvey and local surfers….

    Kiwis Against Seabed Mining and global organisation Surfers for Cetaceans, which Rastovich co-founded, have joined forces for the campaign. Sustainable Coastlines and Greenpeace have also offered their support.

     
    “All would be threatened if the sand flow is interrupted and a coastline littered with flawless waves could be irretrievably altered,” Rastovich said.

    Gotta admire the guy’s stamina. It seems NZ is being used as an international test ground for sand mining.

    • Draco T Bastard 13.1
      30 November 2012 at 4:20 pm

      http://www.mbendi.com/indy/ming/iron/au/nz/p0005.htm

      Ironsand from the Waikato North Head is used for steel-making at BHP New Zealand Steel’s Glenbrook mill, which uses about 1.2 Mt of concentrate per year. About 1.4 Mt per year of titanomagnetite concentrate from Taharoa is exported.

      We’ve been mining the sands in NZ for decades.

      And, no, I’m not supportive of what’s being proposed.

    • joe90 13.2
      30 November 2012 at 4:44 pm

      More details about the proposals and likely impacts of sea bed mining.

      http://kasm.org.nz/

      • karol 13.2.1
        30 November 2012 at 4:54 pm

        Thanks, DTB and joe.  So the problem is the large scale of seabed mining that’s being proposed now?  Plus the fact that they are looking to extract a range of different minerals than have previously been extracted?

        • Draco T Bastard 13.2.1.1
          30 November 2012 at 5:07 pm

          It’s the range and extent without any consideration for what damage it will do. Throw in the fact that it’s typical unsustainable dig it, mine, sell it BS that we don’t seem to be able to get away from under capitalism.

          • TheContrarian 13.2.1.1.1
            30 November 2012 at 5:22 pm

            So on one hand you don’t want to go ahead with underseas mining to any great extent yet on the other you want NZ to be totally self-sufficient and make all it’s own TV’s, Computers, vehicles etc etc.

            Can’t have one without the other Draco my’man

            • Colonial Viper 13.2.1.1.1.1
              30 November 2012 at 6:24 pm

              New TV’s, smart phones and other misc. shit aren’t going to be that important in future, to quality of life.

              • muzza …
                1 December 2012 at 8:47 am

                They aren’t important now, other than that people have been spun into beleiving they are..

                You know, toys, games and entertainment, while the important people get on with the scheming!

  14. Rogue Trooper 14
    30 November 2012 at 5:44 pm

    as I cycled in and leant over Mill (eee, by gum) I lobbed a fellow tradesman half a round of shrapnel
    to complete his purchase; The young men serving (Elderly Woman Behind The Counter in A Small
    Town?) exclaimed! “you don’t see many Good Samaritans these days” (can’t escape those biblical
    foundations, I’m just learning about the sociology of Law as we speak) and I engaged them over
    “current events” (intimating my modest comprehension of them). Their Replies, Unanimous,
    “The world is disintegrating”, well I chose not to weld any defence against those conclusions.

    When will the pseudo-Tory Neoliberal Nightmare Mongers accept that they are on a ………………….
    Hiding to Nothing? Freakin “bad faith” parasites.

    Man, now the children at the feet are getting it…

    On a different, more reassuring note, at the “couch” this morning, Two, not just one, but Two very
    learned consultants reassured me that everything I have concluded about our society’s disease over
    the passing of this year is valid; It is not us, the people who Post and comment on The Standard
    who are “mad”;

    If you are a right-wing greedy capitalist snooping on the wisdom of socialist commentators…
    grab a Hand Mirror, it is You who are Ideologically Impure fools.

  15. Rogue Trooper 15
    30 November 2012 at 5:45 pm

    btw, how those A zaleas smelling down South?

    • McFlock 16.1
      30 November 2012 at 6:05 pm

      synopsis? because every single time I’ve followed a link to wo, it’s been a fucking waste.

        • McFlock 16.1.1.1
          30 November 2012 at 6:13 pm

          Why pay poor people not to breed, rather than simply paying them to get addiction treatment/be drug free?
               
          And yes, it is aimed at poor people because money is only an “incentive” if you don’t have enough of it.
                    

          • Chalupa Batman 16.1.1.1.1
            30 November 2012 at 6:24 pm

            Why pay poor people not to breed, rather than simply paying them to get addiction treatment/be drug free?

            – Addiction treatments take longer, don’t always work and are more expensive whereas sterilization is quick, simple (for the guys) and reversible

            • McFlock 16.1.1.1.1.1
              30 November 2012 at 6:34 pm

              You’re missing the point. Even if sterilization were 100% effective.
                       
              This will not prevent drug-affected babies (and I’d love to know what the prevalence of drug-affected babies is in NZ – why do “we need this here”?).
                       
              Attack the cause, not the symptom. The cause is a failed drug policy. 
                       
              But that would involve considering a public health issue rationally, rather than just succumbing to the regular tory hatred of the poor. 

              • Chalupa Batman …
                30 November 2012 at 6:42 pm

                Its not “hatred of the poor”, its recognizing that some people aren’t fit to be parents. Its a charity set up to stop some people from making make mistakes.

                Shame on you if you can’t (don’t want to) see that

                • TheContrarian …
                  30 November 2012 at 7:29 pm

                  There is absolutely no way I could ever support such a program.

                • McFlock …
                  30 November 2012 at 7:31 pm

                  Why do we need it in NZ?
                  What is the extent of addiction-related harm against children in NZ?
                  Would greater protection be made if such funds were diverted towards education, antenatal care, housing, or benefit levels?

                  This is an ill-considered policy that believes the best way of protecting poor children is to eradicate them using rich-person’s privilege. It therefore suggests to me that eugenics is a real risk. You might not think that, but that’s exactly the reason it is a risk.

                  • Chalupa Batman …
                    30 November 2012 at 8:04 pm

                    Its not policy, its a private charity. Its not about protecting children its making sure people don’t have the children in the first place.

                    Considering the person on the clip actually went out and adopted 4 “crack babies” it says to me she wants to help these people rather then mouth platitudes

                    • McFlock …
                      30 November 2012 at 8:14 pm

                      I wasn’t doubting her commitment.

                      Just the ethical issues of abusing people’s needs to make decisions for them about what they do with their bodies, the benefits of sterilization as opposed to addressing the problems of drug addiction, the apparent obliviousness to risks of that policy (implemented by private charity or not) sliding into old-school eugenics, and most of all I doubt whether we “need” such a programme here.

                      Feel free to provide actual evidence for the extent of the problem in NZ and why this solution” is appropriate for that problem if it exists here. You know, just something to demonstrate that tories don’t just want it because it’s American, therefore bright, shiny and wonderful.

  17. weka 17
    30 November 2012 at 8:02 pm

    Jackal said this in another thread –
     

    It’s not about a me supporting a centre left or left government, it’s about the left halting internal bickering and focusing on what the real problem is. Without the left focusing on National’s destructive agenda, there won’t be a centre left or left government to choose from. In other words, you won’t get a left government by undermining the centre left… It’s as simple as that.
     

    I disagree but it’s an interesting point. How many people are feeling like we can’t afford another centre-left govt and we may as well go for what we really want at this time? Or are people feeling like we cannot afford another 3 years of NACT, so better to support a centre left govt if that’s the only viable option?

    • rosy 17.1
      30 November 2012 at 8:20 pm

      we can’t afford another centre-left govt and we may as well go for what we really want at this time
      ^^ this.

      And the option that says if you fundamentally disagree with the party bureaucracy (not the party principles) you have a right to express dissent. We’re not Nact after all.

    • Colonial Viper 17.2
      30 November 2012 at 8:23 pm

      The time of half measures is almost at an end. You can’t kick the can further down the road if you are just about out of road.

      My prediction: by the time the 2014 elections roll around, peak debt, peak oil, peak unemployment will be breaking upon the world. New Zealanders will be coming back from Australia by the thousands.

      If we aren’t careful what we will presented with after the election is back-breaking knee-capping austerity (from National) or grinding, gut wrenching, nail pulling austerity (from Labour).

      The period from 2014-2017 is not one to be wished on any government, good luck to whoever is in power then.

    • ianmac 17.3
      1 December 2012 at 11:15 am

      Weka: I totally agree with what Jackal writes. It is not that he is commenting on the rights or wrongs of the leadership or the Leftness or not. He is condemning the nit-picking, mean-spirited suicidal behaviour of the so called “supporters of the Left.”
      It seems to me there is far more energy being spent on attacking the Labour leadership, than on the pressing duplicity of the so-called “Right.”