This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 25th, 2008 at 8:52 pm and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
191 Responses to “General Debate 25 and 26 June 2008”
When are we going to see some rational, fact based debate on climate change? Most of what I’ve seen (especially on the advocate side) has been sorely lacking in hard facts/data to be able to adequately judge the veracity of the claims put forth.
Why are the scientists so incapable of relating their information in a way that most people can understand?
I’ve seen bits and pieces of An Inconvenient Truth, and it seems to me that Al Gore is to Monbiot what Michael Moore is to Chomsky. (ie., a showman who dumbs things down and exaggerates things for wider public consumption.)
It’s a bit like looking for a rational, fact based discussion of Buddhism. Global warning is a religion rather than a scientific experiment. There are lots of discussions about the evidence for and against, but for the moment it seems the only option is to decide whether you believe or not.
I don’t believe in global warming. I think it is a fairly transparent scam undertaken by environmentalists to get their way in lots of issues they care about, like restricting private transport, cutting energy use and making us all live in a shoebox. Part of my personal evidence for this is that the people behind it are keen on state control, and have long argued for the same outcomes for different reasons. Whenever you see someone who wants the same thing regardless of whether they are fighting pollution, or urban sprawl, irrigation schemes or power schemes you can bet your bottom dollar their latest reason isn’t the real one.
Anyway, I would ask why you care? Do you have the same keen curiosity about Buddhism or capitalism or masochism? Is it because it is topic of the moment? Just practice being a good sceptic and enjoy the ride.
The Optimist: global warming isn’t something you believe in. Temperature change is a fact, so far as I am aware all reputable organisations say that over the last 100 years the globe has warmed substantially, and other than a unusually high peak in 1998, continues to do so.
The areas of question are whether and how much humans are contributing, whether and how much of a problem warming is, and whether it is worth anybody’s while to do anything about it.
So far as I can tell, the reasonable view on all of these is that humans are contributing quite a bit to warming, it does cause problems for wildlife and economic problems in some countries (and benefits in others), and we should do something when the benefits outweigh the costs. There are definitely many things we can do at present that fit that definition, however attempting to manage the earth’s climate to a zero change state is (in my opinion) prohibitively expensive and doesn’t have a large benefit.
The biggest issue is an inability to quantify the costs, or articulate the benefits. And in particular many studies that have very diffuse benefits ($100 for everyone on earth) that I suspect probably have a margin of error of +/-$200. What is needed (and what DPF frequently calls for) are some economic studies of the situation and the potential solutions.
OK, having spent four weeks in Fiji (someone had to do it) it appears Michael Field’s reporting of that country is slightly coloured by his experiences with the government there. Perhaps it’s time Fairfax sent someone else.
In that regard, if we don’t develop a relationship with Bananarama soon (rather than slagging him off), the Chinese or Taiwanese will beat us to it and Fiji will become even more isolated from the Pacific community.
Commodore Frank might have had the right idea, even had the right principles – but now he needs some help because he doesn’t have the brainpower or gravitas to carry it through. If we don’t do it (attempts don’t count), we’re remiss in our foreign policy in the South Pacific.
I could say “Hi, how is everyone?” and end up with a -10 next to my name on the post. Is there any way to disable that rating system? It seems extraordinarily petty.
> Sorry, I’m not quite clear. What’s the environmentalists’ real motivation?
And you think I am clear? I’m not even sure they are. As far as I can tell, it is:
- reduce private transport, get everyone on a bus, ideally a train
- reduce house size, get everyone into apartments with no land/space
- reduce energy use (hand in hand with the above)
- reduce human population (ultimately to zero? not sure about this)
Perhaps ultimately it is just about control: Control of government, control of private lives, control of humanity.
Remember Len Richards, the thug with the megaphone?. He’s apparently busy training up more megaphone mates to help the Service and Food Workers’ Union (SFWU) campaign in support of Labour. He’s all class this guy.
- reduce private transport, get everyone on a bus, ideally a train
- reduce house size, get everyone into apartments with no land/space
- reduce energy use (hand in hand with the above)
- reduce human population (ultimately to zero? not sure about this)
What would compel someone to want these things, if it’s not genuine concern about the environment?
> The Optimist: global warming isn’t something you believe in. Temperature change is a fact, so far as I am aware all reputable organisations say that over the last 100 years the globe has warmed substantially, and other than a unusually high peak in 1998, continues to do so.
God isn’t something you have to believe in. Jesus Christ is an historical fact, and we have records to prove it. He was seen performing miracle by thousands of people. He wandered around and visited people for weeks after his death. All reputable world historians agree on this fact.
Just listen to yourself! There has not been substantial warming in the past 100 years – you are talking about a fraction of a degree, well within any reasons expectation of climate change. It is so like our ‘now’ culture that we get upset and demand action when there is a little change in our environment…get over it.
> The areas of question are whether and how much humans are contributing, whether and how much of a problem warming is, and whether it is worth anybody’s while to do anything about it.
I would suggest a broader question of more interest is whether we can do anything about it. It is the height of conceit to think that we can fiddle with the earth’s climate. We can’t even arrange for democratic governments in Africa. We can’t predict the weather a week out. Get a grip, man.
> The biggest issue is an inability to quantify the costs, or articulate the benefits. And in particular many studies that have very diffuse benefits ($100 for everyone on earth) that I suspect probably have a margin of error of +/-$200. What is needed (and what DPF frequently calls for) are some economic studies of the situation and the potential solutions.
What is needed is for all the environmentalists to go and get a real drop, and stop telling us how to live our lives. I resent paying for all this dropkicks who haven’t a clue about any of this stuff, and yet they worked themselves up into such a towering rage of certainty that they want Oil companies prosecuted because they are not putting across a sufficient sycophantic view.
The amount of newsprint, mind-space, worry and guilt flying around about this global warming scam should give anyone with half a brain a clue as to what is going on. It is a sad reflection on our education systems in the western world, so unable now to teach critical thinking, that these environmentalist have so much power and control.
My apologies if this rant seems a bit intemperate, but I have never met an environmentalist with the slightest interest in HUMAN life, in saving the HUMANs. We have heaps of problems, from war, to communism, to dictatorships to short battery life on our iPods. That should be what it’s all about on the planet. It seems to have been comprehensively forgotten, and it’s not good enough.
Speaking as an environmentalist, my main concern with global warming is its effect on people, primarily people in poorer nations, who will be the worst affected. I agree that critical thinking is an important skill and far too rare, but again, I’ve examined the evidence and I think there is cause for concern.
And, again, I recommend George Monbiot’s book Heat, and I recommend Al Gore’s show be avoided.
Edit: I should add that I really hope that I am wrong.
> What would compel someone to want these things, if it’s not genuine concern about the environment?
> The desire to control people’s lives?
That’s my belief at the moment. Environmentalists think they know best how we should live our lives. They are so utterly sure about this that they want to force us to comply, by softening us up through the media and hijacking our governments. They are not willing to have an honest debate – always declaring that the debate is over.
No the real reason to ban plastic bags is because they make shopping convenient and easy. Shopping is bad, and plastic bags are a way of attacking shopping.
I’m not sure if I still count as young, gander, but after travelling, I absolutely intend to come back here. I love this country, and I don’t need much to be happy here. Perhaps if people were brought up less interested in massive material wealth, they would realise that the things New Zealand has to offer are priceless.
No the real reason to ban plastic bags is because they make shopping convenient and easy. Shopping is bad, and plastic bags are a way of attacking shopping.
So yes, control. Sad, but (it seems) true.
So you think that people campaigning against plastic bags secretly do not believe that they are a problem, but rather are campaigning because they want to tell people how to live – not because they think that way is better somehow, but simply for some kind of buzz out of controlling other people?
> Speaking as an environmentalist, my main concern with global warming is its effect on people, primarily people in poorer nations, who will be the worst affected. I agree that critical thinking is an important skill and far too rare, but again, I’ve examined the evidence and I think there is cause for concern.
If you want to help the world’s poor, support free trade (remove all barriers in USA and Europe for example), stop trying to impose western world labour standard regulations on the 3rd world, get rid of biofuels, eliminate/treat malaria and campaign for democracy and capitalism. These things alone would sort Africa out within 10 short years.
> And, again, I recommend George Monbiot’s book Heat, and I recommend Al Gore’s show be avoided.
Give me a break – this would be the loon that’s trying to arrest people for starting the Iraq war. Anyone else you can recommend that isn’t already completely insane?
Give me a break – this would be the loon that’s trying to arrest people for starting the Iraq war. Anyone else you can recommend that isn’t already completely insane?
If they haven’t broken the law, they have nothing to fear from court, surely. Also, ad hominem.
If you want to help the world’s poor, support free trade (remove all barriers in USA and Europe for example), stop trying to impose western world labour standard regulations on the 3rd world, get rid of biofuels, eliminate/treat malaria and campaign for democracy and capitalism. These things alone would sort Africa out within 10 short years.
> So you think that people campaigning against plastic bags secretly do not believe that they are a problem, but rather are campaigning because they want to tell people how to live – not because they think that way is better somehow, but simply for some kind of buzz out of controlling other people?
Not at all. You can’t preach Christianity if you don’t believe in God. They believe all right. That is in fact the problem – that their minds are so weak that they believe such gibberish.
Quite large numbers of people simply don’t have enough problems in their lives, and need to invent some to feel fulfilled. The plastic bag brigade mostly fit into this category from the few that I have read about (I haven’t met any yet). They have no understanding of where plastic comes from, disregard the convenience and ‘quality of life’ that people get from it, and assume that obviously it must be banned.
Go watch The Simpsons – the woman you are looking for cries out ‘will someone please think of the children’ every now and then.
The Optimist – comparing to religion is not right. There is plenty of evidence that Jesus existed, none that he was son of god, or that he rose from the dead.
The essence of belief is faith PaulL. Faith doesn’t need proof, by definition. That doesn’t mean faith is based on blindness, although some people mistakenly take it as that. Some even interpret from afar that everyone who has faith are suffering from a need borne from indoctrination.
The way of faith is like marriage, a happy childhood, an education. You have to experience it in order to be able to assess its value, and it bears unimagined fruits over time.
Hey Reid
Us at the edge of commerce really have a dilemma with people like you.
“Shit another “christian believer” shall we take his money? – it’s so easy – bloody faithfooll”
You are so lucky that we have a conscience.
And this conscience is not a product of
“elluah” – lest Allah should disapprove
Did anyone watch Close Up with Mark Sainsbury running a story about a vibrating machine that supposedly cure smokers addiction? First of all, there has never been any scientific evidence at all that there is something called smoking vibration that exists in the body of smokers according to the poor lady who owns the anti-vibrating smoking machine & runs that service. This is a similar machine sort of machine that young Liam Holloway’s parents (in the late 1990s) took him for treatment, where they were on the run from the cops & hospital authorities. The owner of the machine that Liam’s parents took him for treatment in Rotorua at the time, told Paul Homes (in which Mr. Holmes was a pathetic supporter of this Quackery back then) at the time that his machine is a quantum vibrator. Its task is to re-align the DNA to rid of all diseases including cancer cells . The poor boy ended up dead in Mexico where his parents pursued treatments for Liam from some similar bullshit alternative medicine clinics over there. Err! The greenies (Sue Kedgley) are strong supporters of Quackery & alternative medicines.
These people are vultures. This includes the lady with the anti-smoking vibrating machine, psychic Deb Webber (TV2 Sensing Bullshit show), psychic Jeanette Wilson (from TV3 “Dare to Believe” bullshit series). They prey on people’s emotions and gain money by conning those people. I am for less interference from the government, but these vultures needed to be legislated out of business, because they prey on the gullibles/suckers and vulnerable elderlies.
BTW, Mark Sainsbury and Close UP producers were pathetic that they didn’t seek opinions from experts at University of Auckland (either the Engineering School & School of Medicine) to confirm that they has never been any scientific proof in the literatures that concluded that a smoker’s body there exist something the fraudsters called smoker’s vibration frequency which can somehow be negated using this machine. Perhaps an expert from the DSP (digital signal processing) division at the Biomedical-Engineering Department or someone from the Physiology Department at the Medical School.
The lady (owner of the machine) interviewed by Close UP must have had her phone ringing non-stop on the following day from smokers seeking treatment in her expensive useless clinic and thanks to Close UP for giving free air time to this vulture to promote her bullshit treatment.
Where is your science editor/advisor Close UP? You had mislead the public by not seeking a balance view from a scientific expert/s from any of our local Universities. Pathetic, Close UP.
Test Tube Tinkering and Democracy
=======================
In the following post I’ve covered a number of topics, but I believe the main issue is the way they all link together towards a diabolical looking conclusion (a strange new world with unpleasant features, run totally by “big brother”).
What do you think?
Bill C
In recent news the Bioethics council recommended the option to gender select babies conceived with medical assistance (eg. IVF).
This will suit the selfish intentions of individuals or government eugenic programs.
I suggest looking further over the horizon when the consequences of a combination of other social change legislations emerge:
1. Legalising the sex perversion of sodomy (homosexuality).
2. Abortion of unwanted children.
3. Affirming same sex relationship equality with marriage (civil union legislation).
4. Removal of parental authority over children (anti-smacking legislation).
5. Legalising the termination of infirm and elderly (voluntary euthanasia).
6. Legalisation of prostitution and promotion of pornography.
7. Replacing national sovereignty with global one world government (eg. forced compliance to United Nations humanistic religious doctrine).
Same sex couples cannot procreate, so they will create their own legal families with medical assistance.
Babies will be created as pets, then sold for body parts when no longer needed.
Removal of parental authority subsequently increases law and order problems and allows the government to take over and indoctrinate all children with state dogma, as communism did.
Sex perversion creates and spreads harmful diseases and conceives psychological malfunctions (sodomised boys think they’re girls, etc.).
Pornography and prostitution are the front edge of a hedonistic culture distracted with self indulgence.
Sex in the city while the country is being dismantled.
Nero fiddled while Rome burned.
What other diabolical scenarios might occur?
One world government will force global rollout of all the abominations and may enforce conception of babies with preferred race, sex and intelligence in factories.
Babies that fail quality tests will be aborted.
It would be Hitlers global domination and master race dream with enhancements, and total rebellion against Gods created design described in the first book of the Bible.
Helen Clark and team have been diligent to make NZ an experiment in forcing United Nations social engineering policies against democratic authorisation of the citizens.
Helen might be rewarded a UN position once her PM leadership is terminated, to further progress undemocratic one world government.
Her criticism of the Zimbabwe dictatorship is hypocrisy because she has been undemocratic in defying strong petitions in NZ.
Individuals in democratic nations should become active to reverse or minimise these follies, and resist intrusion of the United Nations to usurp their democratic constitution.
“a once prosperous country has been bankrupted. A once vibrant country has been intimidated and cowed. In its place is a repressive regime run for the benefit of a few” Helen Clarke in parliament yeterday.
Is she talking about Zimbabwe or the New Zealand Public Service?
To save power ,try Phillip 20 watt WARM WHITE energy bulbs,great light and get a fujitsu heat pump. I have my heat pump going at the moment on 21 c ,and its great
The Optimist – you’re right, the environmentalists ARE trying to control peoples lives, look at the people who are really involved with the movement. Especially in NZ… so many of them used to be in other movements up to around 1989….
I see that Labour are up to their old tricks again, once again they are spending our money to pay off their loyal servants.
“Judith Collins: Is it not true that Ministry of Social Development union members received bonuses in the election years of 2002 and 2005, and that now in 2008 they have been told they will get $750 each; and does this not imply that the bonus is the payback for the Public Service Association yet again campaigning for Labour in an election year?
Hon RUTH DYSON: No, that is not correct. The union negotiation covering the collective agreement by the respective workers does not always fall in an election year. Some years it does-in fact, once every 3 years it falls in an election year. In the other years it is not in an election year.
And it gets worse
“Judith Collins: How can she justify awarding staff election-year bonuses just for being a member of the Public Service Association (PSA), and should not bonuses be related to employment performance rather than union membership?”
Hon RUTH DYSON: That is a matter for the chief executive.
Judith Collins: When is this Minister going to take some responsibility; what is the connection between election-year bonuses to union members and the PSA’s campaign against larger tax cuts on behalf of the Labour Party-is she now going to say there is no connection?”
Labour have lost the plot completely, do they really expect the public to fall for this bullshit?
anyone who believes the planet is actually significantly warming should take a look at http://www.climateaudit.org/.
From what I can tell a pretty objective non-partisan (on the part of the site organisers anyway) look at the way we calculate the temp of the planet from terrestrial weather stations.
There are so many holes in the claims of global warming. Just keep in mind it’s humans doing all of this. We’re really good at making mistakes or worse (think big drug companies or Exxon but worse).
Anyone who programs computers (as do I) should be especially amused by the way that the temp readings are massaged.. er… fabricated. Also interesting to note that in the 1980s (correlating with a large step increase in global temps), the US govt rolled out new temp sensing equipment. Moved from analog to digital readouts. Only problem, digital readouts weren’t weather-proof, so had to be installed indoors. This led to the moving of a whole bunch of sensors to the tops of buildings (so they could be easily cabled by the poor sucker who had to install them on a tight budget). Tops of buildings is a really bad place for these things.
To me it looks like the consensus is becoming that the earth has actually only warmed 0.4C in the last 100 years, and considering the late 19th century was the coldest in 1000 years, we are still well below the noise floor of temp fluctuations. They used to farm Greenland. You can’t tell me the polar bear only evolved into existence in the last 1000 years. The fact that the IPCC doesn’t even acknowledge (actually edited out evidence of) what everyone else calls “the little ice age” and the “medieval optimum” period to create the “hockey stick” doesn’t fill me with faith in their integrity.
Then you start looking at the murmurings of the EU. Drafting laws to allow the EU to force member states to act on climate change. If that isn’t the first teeth of the New World Order showing I don’t know what is. We’ve got a minister for climate change! That’s like having a minister for purple flying elephants! Climate change is the justification they can use to try forcing the entire planet to toe the line. And we are bending over. Then you look at big companies like GE who bought zillions of carbon credits when they were cheap as, and is now lobbying the US government to sign up to emissions trading now that they are worth $60/ton. Money money money.
I think most people are truly honestly concerned, but are being heinously misled and reamed by
a) scientists who want to justify continued billion dollar grants to fund their pretty picture (climate model) systems – which don’t even take into account clouds or a zillion other major climate factors.
b) people with deeply disturbing political agendas.
c) people who stand to make a sh*tload of money
I think solar physicists general consensus is we’re heading into another cooling phase. Given that the Sun is the source of all this energy, I’m inclined to believe them over a bunch of crackpots with political motivations and track records of lying to us for power and/or money. I’ve seen compelling research into cosmic rays (affected by the solar wind) correlating with cloud cover. As we all know from volcanic eruptions, things like filling the air with particles that reflect light can have rapid and marked affect on climate. Low clouds are particularly good at reflecting heat back out… you can even feel it. And clouds are generated as heat rises, due to evaporation. So there’s already a natural negative (stabilising) feedback system there. Although of course the Greenists claim that the water vapour is a positive feedback thing, although if that were truly the case, the oceans would have boiled away millions of years ago. The fact that the oceans still exist is proof positive of a certain stability, which any engineer will tell you is only possible with negative feedback (not positive feedback). But the greenists don’t let small things like reality (e.g. existence of the oceans) deter them.
If you think the war on terror is a war that can’t be won (and will therefore last forever), you should take a look at a war against the climate. Humans trying to affect climate change. We may as well try putting out the sun. I heard some mental midget who masquerades as a Stanford University professor on 9 to noon the other day, talking about suggestions to cool the planet. They are suggesting things like:
a. Dumping particles into the atmosphere to reflect heat. Oh yeah, sounds reasonable… how? By flying thousands of planes 24/7/365 as high as they can go dumping particles out.. for how long? forever. If that isn’t f*cking stupid I don’t know what is.
b. By pumping water into the atmosphere. This is even more stupid. anyone who has done at least 3rd form physics knows that water is HEAVY. Getting it up there will cost a lot of ENERGY, and give off a lot of HEAT let alone consuming our entire energy supply.
Just a couple of examples of how academia in respected universities can be completely divorced from reality.
Aren’t these the same guys as are coming up with the computer models? The ones upon which the entire planet is completely relying on (above all other factors) to believe in global warming? That’s what gets me the most. Being a programmer I know a model is only as good as its programmer and the formulae/theory behind it. Even the guys who write these things all say the models are flawed, and don’t consider a whole raft of factors (because they can’t – they don’t know how). So why do we pay them any notice at all?
One of these guys (http://www.john-daly.com/) predicted the last 2 El ninos (in 1992). something the global warming alarmists say can’t be done. He did it by analysing and identifying regular solar radiation patterns over the long term.
Anyway, the thing I like best is that time will prove one side or another right. I can’t wait to see the repercussions when we all start freezing to death, and we already crippled our economies and prepared for a heat-wave that never comes. when it doesn’t come, the greenists will claim that their efforts were successful.
However it would be nice to be not so distracted with this thing that we lose sight of real issues like energy, pollution, poverty etc etc.
Baygate is in the news again. The Dom-Post reports that Boy Wonder Cunliffe planned all along to sack the HBDHB, and the “consultation period” he gave them was a farce
I suppose the rantings and endless abuse from Phil is really a cry for help, he knows that the end is near for the socialists and the end is near for his shameful lifestyle.
I have just seen that the people of new Zealand have just given $500,000,000 to the Maoris under the ‘Treelords’ settlement. We have, in other words, yet again paid a bunch of backward tribalists for the ‘sin’ of establishing an industry and a civilisation here and supplying them with schools, hospitals etc and a benefit for life if they can’t be bothered getting off the couch.
I, like many New Zealanders, I suspect, am totally against this stupidity, but even if one were to support this wholesale bribery and farce, how many of the actual dollars will ever find their way to any of the Maoris that constitute these so-called ‘Iwis’?
When will this utter madness end? $500 MILLION dollars. F i v e – h u n d r e d – m i l l i o n – d o l l a r s.
Does anybody hear a voice of dissent about this wholesale plundering of our economy from any political party?
Dave Mann, backward tribalists is a little harsh. That said I dispair and the apparently this never-ending process. ‘full and final’ is anything but. There can never be full financial compensation for social wrongs (actual or percieved), and no final while those little issues of inflation and inter-generational squandering persist. This nonsense must end, and it must end without those calling for a prudent use of NZ resources for all New Zealanders to be labled racists.
Listerning to newstalk ZB, cullen rushed this through as fast as possible, is he cleaning the piggy bank out before being thrown out. Does liarbour think its going to suck maori votes back from the maori party, with this generous part settlement , (they ALWAYS want more as there are more claims from these lucky sods) and how many more whitey honkey pakeha voters are they going to loose, HEAPS MORE.I personally think clark and cullen are strip mining the future of our country in the hope they will get another term(NOT LIKELY)
publish for us some of your poetry: I’ll bet anyone 10 karma it will be excellent.
Dave Mann,
That’s a pretty strong entry into what is obviously one of the most hostile prone subjects of New Zealand. At the moment for this election it seems like we are going to be dealing with all of them at the same time. I don’t think the railroad big bruv talks about starts at this point where 1/2 a $billion has been calculated over some considerable period of years. I’m not contesting your view but know certainly that there are more facts to the settlement than come out of one news item. Just like with the smacking issue, there will be documents that can be found in regards to this and other settlements that shed light on the topic and make the discussion that is held far more exciting for its closeness to the internal debates.
My point in openning, is that the amount would be too much for any component that established any expectancy on Maori to perform in a certain way in the future compelled to work as one in the country under a demanded set of rules by the acting sovereignty. I say this because it makes future negotiations on present injustices more complex, writing down overpayments for what should have been negotiated in this round of the discussions. This is to say that Maori are only entitled to compensation for acts of horrendous colonial behaviour that have been enacted. The future that Maori and the rest of New Zealand deserve and should strive for is a country that is built in a unity for its natural diversity. From all conversations I have had so far, I am not aware if this has been achieved. A similar problem exists in the Middle East.
So I agree with you that there is likely a overpayment, but it is unlikely at the moment that that component, which we could debate will be consistent to an equal cause.
Re the ‘Treelords’ settlement, my chief concern is whether the red rose that Cullen has taken to wearing should be classed as an election advertisement.
As it is “designed to encourage or persuade someone to support a party or candidate” surely it should carry an authorisation statement?
Since our government is more intent on keeping the serfs amused with Lotto than actually encouraging any real investment in the future of the nation (of the kind outlined by Robert Winston during his recent visit), I’ve come up with an idea in my blog today that I’d appreciate some comments on.
Could it be that by simplifying investment in hi-tech we might wean Kiwis away from their fixation with brightly coloured balls and get them looking a little further ahead than Saturday night at 8pm?
Is it just possible that we might be able to develop a cross-party consensus on what NZ might do re Zimbabwe?
While we (or anyone except Mbeki) don’t hold any sway with the Mulgabe regime and our options are limited that cannot be seen as an excuse to do nothing. And to argue that any action we might take will impact on the ordinary people of Zimbabwe is equally fatuous. There is nothing but nothing the international community might do that would worsen the plight of ordinary Zimbabweans over the rape, torture and murder and plunder that is a daily part of life in that country under Mulgable and his ZANU PF thugs.
So, for starters, the Zimbabwe Ambassador to Australia is cross-credited to New Zealand. We should now decline to recognise her? has representing the legitimate Government of Zimbabwe and we should argue for other countries to take similar action; we should press for the Zimbabwe to be suspended from the UN and all its agencies pending free and democratic elections; we should argue for Air Zimbabwe (such as it is) to be denied landing rights in those countries it currently flys to and we should initiate action to have Mulgabe brought before the ICJ to face charges of genocide against the people of Zimbabwe.
Well, Political Busker, I couldn’t quite make out what your position is on this one (sorry, you lost me with the ‘component’ and ‘consistent to an equal cause’ stuff), but I heartily agree with you on the fact that this kind of question is “one of the most hostile (sic) prone subjects of (sic) New Zealand”.
The fact is that if anybody dares to put their head up above the parapet and say that Maoris (I am writing in english, so I’ll use the plural form with an ‘s’) don’t deserve to be given extortionate sums of OUR money to either pay them off or buy their votes, then that person is open to the label of ‘racist’.
Yes, of course there must have been some times in the settlement of New Zealand when some Maoris were screwed (financially that is) and weren’t too happy. Sure. When cultures meet and merge its not always totally free of some friction; but for any indigenous New Zealander to claim that their forbears generally were brutally opressed, dominated, killed and downtrodden in the process of making a workable nation in these islands is absolute bullcrap. And, even if they were, then the benefits (literally in many cases) accruing out of European settlement far outweigh the benefits of living in a constant state of war with each other and fear with no law to speak of and no security of land tenure beyong what they could gain from bashing each other with stone and wooden clubs. The trouble is, it’s politically unacceptable to just tell these useless parasites to just get a fucking life and stop whining, isn’t it?
—–
Getstaffed, this money is being given to tribes. Tribes form the organisational basis of their claims and they are looking into the past and inventing bullshit about historical ‘grievances’ in order to extort money out of the hard work of New Zealanders in astronomical amounts. I would say that ‘backward looking tribalists’ is actually entirely accurate.
There is an item running now on nine to noon Radio National New Zaland that is well worth listening to. I cannot provide the link as it is running.
The term of equal cause describes your comments as I thought they would be returned. And the component is the financial package that could be calculated into each side of an (yours against mine) argument. I didn’t anticipate that your position would be to completely exclude: an evidence that brutal behaviour of one civilisation over another, as indigenous, should conclude that a justification to own the word ‘civil’ demands no requirement for violent land consuming laws as retribution, resulting from as you suggest a natural clash of those cultures. So please further if you would, (advise me if I am wrong) that no money should be paid out for a/this past of colonisation.
1) If the last sentence is correct, then can you tell me if your opinion is calculated through reading or more grounded to your own set of beliefs and principles?
Political Busker, sorry mate, I honestly can’t understand a word of what you are writing. Are you an academic of some sort, or maybe a government researcher or adviser?
Do we live in a ‘sham-ocracy’?
Pop over to http://www.nominister.blogspot.com to find out.
Much government corruptions and dodgy works are afoot in Helengrad.
aaargh no. I’m the Political Busker. Don’t try it in your own home the pay is lousy.
I would redo the sentences but I would take awy from what I have asked you. What I wanted from your reply is to put a capital value on the size of our discussion. As far as I’m aware you said that no money should be paid in compensation for anything – tough nuts. But if I said that you wouldn’t know my argument.
Ross Miller:
Great suggestions re Zimbabwe. Having some official statement from Parliament that we don’t like them doesn’t mean a thing. Doing something serious does, refusing to recognise the regime and the ambassador is an ideal first step, expulsion from the UN would be the next step, and the Air Zimbabwe suggestion is great (unfortunately we can’t do that one ourselves).
What about also refusing to recognise Zimbabwe passports for all except genuine refugees looking for one-way passage into the country? If a few countries did this it would stop officials travelling, but wouldn’t impact on any of the ordinary citizens as they couldn’t afford to travel anyway.
“I think it is a fairly transparent scam undertaken by environmentalists to get their way in lots of issues they care about, like restricting private transport, cutting energy use and making us all live in a shoebox.”
Well, I think it’s sad that people jump to the conclusion that an environmentalist’s goal is to ruin your life, and any excuse will do. It shows a pretty petty way of looking at life.
They couldn’t possibly ACTUALLY BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT now, could they? No, it must be all about keeping hardworking people down. Damn socialists…
I see both Graeme Edgeler and Russell Brown have posts on Public Address about “The anti-smacking referendum”…
For the benefit of those here who would never stoop to reading Public Address, both seem to point out that the referendum question:
Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?
is stupid because it reeks of all the emotional rhetoric of the last few months, but it does not actually ask if you want “the anti-smacking law” to be repealed or not. As such the referendum itself is a waste of time, and contrary to what Mr DPF would say it is the petition organisers rather than Helen Clark that are responsible for any wasted $10 million…
Ah… Climate Change, and I remember before that (in no particular order) Bird Flu, Y2K, Nuclear War, and I’m sure there are a few more scary things I’ve totally missed. Anyone remember back in primary school seeing that movie (on a reel too) of what a nuclear blast would do to a pumpkin???? Ah nostalgia. And how many people panicked about what the computers of the world would do as we approached the dreaded Y2K only for all of us to wake up the next day to ……… nothing.
I wonder if there is some little committee of Marketing geniuses who come up with this stuff – I have to say 10 out of 10 for taking some reasonable concerns about things we should all be trying to change and creating a “grand panic”
Let start the betting on what will superscede climate change as the next great “terrify the plebs into doing crazy things, using a little fact and a lot of crap” idea. Its time for a new one…….. any guesses?
a3catlady, these things seem to go in cycles merging the themes of heath & disease and technology with the occasional mix of aliens to make them really frightening, don’t they? So how about a really potent mix next time around? How about ‘intellibots’ which have gained control of the world’s computer systems and are replicating themselves in the internet in order take over as the next dominant species on Earth? These intellibots are using disease-cloning and mis-information against us and there’s nothing we can do about it because our systems are all under their control….. They are using our own technology to cause our downfall and its all our fault for having computers in the first place. Ooohhhh! Now THATS a scary thought….!
“Perhaps if people were brought up less interested in massive material wealth, they would realise that the things New Zealand has to offer are priceless.”
If only “MASSIVE material wealth” WAS the extent of the problem.
I couldn’t say it better than Professor David Round in his latest column in “The Press”:
“……..a loss of moral sense inherent in our ugly new society.
That society has been deliberately created, as our old one has been dismantled, by the high-minded and politically correct. These are usually not politicians, but the powerful caste of liberal bureaucrats and intelligentsia who can and do frustrate any political programme they dislike.
They have abolished accepted community standards, which are oppressive. Monoculturalism is oppressive. There is no morality, only a diversity of moralities, none better than another. Religion is discredited.
Consequently, meaning can be found only in material possessions. People become angry when they lack them, and when they discover that possessions do not bring happiness……..”
Why I Left Greenpeace
By PATRICK MOORE
April 22, 2008; Page A23 WALL STREET JOURNAL
“In 1971 an environmental and antiwar ethic was taking root in Canada, and I chose to participate. As I completed a Ph.D. in ecology, I combined my science background with the strong media skills of my colleagues. In keeping with our pacifist views, we started Greenpeace.
But I later learned that the environmental movement is not always guided by science. As we celebrate Earth Day today, this is a good lesson to keep in mind.
At first, many of the causes we championed, such as opposition to nuclear testing and protection of whales, stemmed from our scientific knowledge of nuclear physics and marine biology. But after six years as one of five directors of Greenpeace International, I observed that none of my fellow directors had any formal science education. They were either political activists or environmental entrepreneurs. Ultimately, a trend toward abandoning scientific objectivity in favor of political agendas forced me to leave Greenpeace in 1986.
The breaking point was a Greenpeace decision to support a world-wide ban on chlorine. Science shows that adding chlorine to drinking water was the biggest advance in the history of public health, virtually eradicating water-borne diseases such as cholera. And the majority of our pharmaceuticals are based on chlorine chemistry. Simply put, chlorine is essential for our health.
My former colleagues ignored science and supported the ban, forcing my departure. Despite science concluding no known health risks – and ample benefits – from chlorine in drinking water, Greenpeace and other environmental groups have opposed its use for more than 20 years.
Opposition to the use of chemicals such as chlorine is part of a broader hostility to the use of industrial chemicals. Rachel Carson’s 1962 book, “Silent Spring,” had a significant impact on many pioneers of the green movement. The book raised concerns, many rooted in science, about the risks and negative environmental impact associated with the overuse of chemicals. But the initial healthy skepticism hardened into a mindset that treats virtually all industrial use of chemicals with suspicion.
Sadly, Greenpeace has evolved into an organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas……”
Chuck Bird: Thanks, have replied. Thanks for pointing it out, so many posts there I probably wouldn’t have found it before my scrolling finger gave out if I hadn’t known it was there…!
Phil – that column just lacks coherence. Look at the religious right in the states. Possibly the most rapacious, materialistic, profit-seekers in human history. Also don’t you know that hyper materialism in large part sprung from protestantism?
i.e – see “the Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism” by Max Weber. Probably one of the finest sociological works ever written.
He defines spirit of capitalism as the ideas and esprit that favour the rational pursuit of economic gain. Weber points out that such a spirit is not limited to Western culture if one considers it as the attitude of individuals, but that such individuals — heroic entrepreneurs, as he calls them — could not by themselves establish a new economic order (capitalism).
The first, and probably most vital, feature of the spirit of capitalism was that it invested “economizing” with high moral significance. The individual engages in capitalistic economizing not only for the expediency of making a living, but in the expectation that such activity would test his inner resources and thus affirm his moral worth. In this regard, the American novelist Walker Percy observed, “As long as I am getting rich, I feel well. It is my Presbyterian blood.”
So protestantism taught capital accumulation as good in and of itself. This is the ethos that now dominates society. Thanks religion!
Dave mann said
“I have just seen that the people of new Zealand have just given $500,000,000 to the Maoris under the ‘Treelords’ settlement. We have, in other words, yet again paid a bunch of backward tribalists for the ’sin’ of establishing an industry and a civilisation here and supplying them with schools, hospitals etc and a benefit for life if they can’t be bothered getting off the couch.”
you forgot to mention Dave that not only did we supply them with schools we punished them for speaking Maori and tried so hard to assimulate them into our superior culture
but you know, some people, they are just so unappreciative
seriously DPF, arent you just a little embarrassed to have some of these people associated with you?
Phil – 19th century protestantism taught that wealth accumulation is morally good in and of itself (see “the Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism – by Max Weber). This gave rise to conspicuous consumption – i.e. buying flash things to show god’s approval of you). With this form of religion prevailing in the West for over two centuries is it any wonder that other types of ascetic morality went out the window? Is it any wonder that people generally favor growing their own personal finances than nurturing the community and family bonds that hold society together?
No, it isn’t about secularism. It’s the political-economy that’s underpinned by this set of originally spiritual values, which have now spilled into the secular sphere as well.
We are told that we should all seek to attain financial independence (no doubt you whole heartedly push this idea), which leads to social atomization/individualization (we each become individual economic and therefore “moral units”). We leave behind the communal economic ties which bind us to a feeling of collective morality and collective responsibility. The further right you go, the more extremely this ethos is pushed, and the further morality is degraded. It’s people like you who are to blame for the corruption of morality phil – not the liberals and socialists.
RRM:
The referendum question does not ask for a repeal of this law. But if it did, the latest law could be repealed then a different one introduced that imposed similar restrictions without contradicting the referendum question. The question asks instead whether a smack should be illegal. A “no” to this is a request to repeal the latest law change OR implement something different, whatever politicians feel is best, provided it remains legal to smack as part of parental correction. This is a far more wide-reaching result and can affect future law, as it is asking what people want the result to be not what should be done about a particular act.
The only problem I have is that it is a negative question, where if you want to smack your children the answer is “no”. This could be confusing and result in a few people voting opposite to how they intended if they don’t read it carefully.
PhilBest(?): “I couldn’t say it better than Professor David Round in his latest column in “The Press”:
“……..a loss of moral sense inherent in our ugly new society.
So, you’ve promoted Mr Round, Lecturer, on account of his views?
Shortie, He’s just trying to provoke. Nobody could possibly believe that. Best ignored.
The common availability of the automobile was the real beginning of the end of traditional family units, I think. That’s when courting was replaced by dating, and when people could far more easily pack up and move from one place to another.
Seen John Key’s latest on the beaters charter vote?
“the National Party is calling for any referendum on restoring the right of parents to smack their children to be held at the election, leader John Key said yesterday that a National government would not necessarily overturn the law if a majority voted in favour
“We are not going to change the law on the rights and wrongs of the referendum. What would change the law is if our test wasn’t met.”
oh and wouldn’t go around parading the fact that you’re into world of warcraft. Not exactly going to make the impression on Phil Best that you want
I’m not overly concerned with making a good impression.
Besides, it’s taking forever to level this shaman, and people keep softing out halfway through Wailing Cavern, making it fucking difficult to finish all the quests I’ve got in there.
1. Climate Change Like other I see a religious ferver creeping into the debate that will lead to anyone raising an alternative view point being dealt to severly its already happening with the emotive ‘denier’ tag used by the red necks to shut down debate.
2. TOW settlements The next gen of Maoris will be back for another helping of whiteys cash mark my words. They will argue quite correctly that there was no trickle down from this round of payouts and only the top Bros got the money. Evidence. No change in the circumstances of the ordinary bros after over a decade since the first payouts.
3. Zim Gordon Browns gotta be one of the most cynical arsehole pollies on the globe. He knows the Chinese are financing Mugabe and so any embargoes etc will have zero effect and only further harm the good citizens.
Mugabe is getting all he needs and will continue to do so. Only direct action will stop him. Meanwhile the people suffer.
It should be a lesson to NZ and every other countries good people that if they get a government that goes feral then forget the UN etc etc. You are on your own. Noone will come to your aid.
And it only serves to encourage pollies in feral governments that they can get away with it because there is no counter to them.
Does anyone else get absolutely piss poor service from Sky TV over technical difficulties?
I lost Sky reception on Monday and 6 phone calls later am still waiting.
Yeah, I always thought that DPF was a liberal, but when you see shit like that coming from someone who’s a pretty close friend of his, you do start to wonder.
welcome back roger – seems as though you’re planning a short stay. For one who has berated WhaleOil for “photoshopping a 15 year old’s face onto gay porn”, it’s a bit rich that you are now linkwhoring for Robinsod (permanently banned from Kiwiblog) for a post which is,at best, grossly defamatory. Then again, ethics has never been your strong suit has it?
I’d be careful of linking to him though Roger, his blog is clearly dying and the only thing that can save it is whipping up some controversy. Don’t forget Cammy is in blogging (like everything else) for the money. The more page hits he gets the more cash he makes.
Sonic, you claim Whale Oil’s blog is dying.
But he’s in it for the money by accepting advertising.
So which is it?
If Cam did not have a thriving blog, he would not be making money.
Anyway, last time I looked Whale Oil was closing in on Kiwiblog, at least on the Alexa rankins which have him ahead of Public Address.
What will roger nome and sonic do after the election? I do hope John Key when Prime Minister does not tolerate paying blogger’s to stir shit ? Russell at Public Address has done nicely from the Aunty Helen club.
I’ve reworded my previous entry in response to your previous post for your benefit.
Your position excludes: an evidence of brutal behaviour. That behaviour is of one ‘civilisation’ dominating an indigenous and you allege savage people. Your argument concludes a justification for the coloniser to own the word ‘civil’. Yet your argument set no limit against the vicious and violent land consuming laws set as retribution from what you imply is merely a natural clash of culture.
The Optimist:God isn’t something you have to believe in. Jesus Christ is an historical fact, and we have records to prove it. He was seen performing miracle by thousands of people. He wandered around and visited people for weeks after his death. All reputable world historians agree on this fact
PaulL:The Optimist – comparing to religion is not right. There is plenty of evidence that Jesus existed, none that he was son of god, or that he rose from the dead
Good grief will this nonsense ever die out? There is NO independent evidence for Jesus whatsoever. Why is it so difficult for the churches to tell their flocks the truth?
a3catlady: And how many people panicked about what the computers of the world would do as we approached the dreaded Y2K only for all of us to wake up the next day to ……… nothing.
Actually the concern about the Y2k bug was valid – there were a few problems as a result of it and would have been more if no one had checked – but the problem was the overhyping of it by the media and some of the loonier fringes of society that made it sound as though the Y2k problem was going to make the planet explode.
To all those moaning about the Treelord settlement.
One of my best mates did a lot of work/research for that deal. He and many others (and there is plenty more evidence around) will inform I’m sure anyone who wants to know about how badly us whities REAMED the tribes down there over and over and over. Stealing (yes stealing) land was about the least of it.
Sure it’s frustrating to feel the pain of compensation. But we are paying for the sins of our forbears. It’s the only right thing to do. To know about then ignore these atrocious past wrongs would make us just as bad as the people who committed them. It’s rich for us to sit back and say they should just get over it, but would you? If someone came in and stole your land, made promises to you and broke them repeatedly, would you just roll over and forget it? I don’t think so. Just because it’s taken decades and decades to get anywhere sorting this mess out doesn’t mean that maori should just forgive us all those past sins.
So, yep, sure it’s painful, and costly, but they have been bearing the cost and pain of the past governments crimes in the meantime. How can they get that back?
What an amazing beat up over at the Standard, No Right Turn, TV1 and Tv3.
John Key is roasted over what is touted as an almighty gaffe over New Zealand history.
But Michael Cullen said pretty much the same.
Meanwhile, the economy continues tanking.
But now Liarbour has delivered recession in election year, the left no longer want to talk about the economy.
Instead, they reaffirm their Key Derangement Sydrome by attacking Key for what Michael Cullen has said himself!
About something that happened, or didn’t happen, over 100 years ago. Priorities! Priorities!
It just confirms Liabour’s inability to empathise with householders over the pain we face thanks to Liarbour’s failed economic policies, especially when it seems recession will be confirmed tomorrow! The row just confirms what truly interests the left, and it ain’t the voters! http://www.nominister.blogspot.com
Given that you look at it that way can I assume the following will happen once all the “sins of our forbears” are righted.
1. The appalling rates of child abuse and child murders among Maori will stop
2. The shocking Maori crime rate will fall
3. The end of sickly white liberals kowtowing to everything Maori out of some misguided guilt
4. Maori start to take ownership of their problems
5. And end to gang violence and anti social behaviour from Maori
6. The end of the obesity and diabetes epidemic that afflicts Maori
7. The end of the bullshit “colonisation” excuse
8. And the end of us “whiteys” being blamed for all the ills in Maoridom
9. And most of all the end of all race based funding and privilege.
Or will you and all the other “guilty whiteys” simply find another reason to make excuses for Maori failure?
If I was a betting man I know where my money will be, make no mistake your and my grandkids will still be handing out money to Maori when they are middle aged, as long as the likes of you are prepared to accept these piss arse excuses from Maori then NOTHING will change.
I am also appalled at the bigoted coverage of John Keys on TV1 news tonight. We got zero context with onlt the hint there might be some from a reporter right at the end. For ‘expert commentary’ there was an academic from Waikato University!!! No position could be too far to the left for her.
I don’t understand why the good bloggers at Kiwiblog allow a mentally disturbed sad individual with paranoid delusions to rark them up.
Sonic needs help. He isn’t going to get it here, in fact you people make his condition worse.
It’s actually quite cruel. In Victorian times people used to go on the weekend to see the loonies at Bedlam Hospital.
Please stop teasing sonic. If you ignore him there is a better chance he will seek help.
Unfortunately KKKlarKKK closed the asylums at places like Carrington Hospital so sonic has no where to go. His mother is unable to ensure he takes his medication. It is not impossible that sonics condition is genetic and mom of sonic needs compassion too.
It is also possible that his mental health is caused by a disease such as syphilis.
John Key’s little mistake on its own is no big deal and will be forgotten about by breakfast.
However what it does show and this is far more worrying is that the scum bag wankers in the left wing media have already started their dirty work on behalf of dear leader.
Watch the likes of Espiner, Campbell, and Barry Soper ignore the worsening economy, ignore the endless cases of corruption that spews out of the Labour party, ignore the fuck up that is the EFA and ignore the way dear corrupt maggot leader has swept aside the opinion of the people over the smacking petition/referendum, the bastards are after Key and the Nat’s.
As usual when you deal with these left wing cunts the truth will have no bearing on the way they report anything, they are in attack mode and things are going to get rough.
a3catlady wrote at 1:31 pm
“Climate Change, Bird Flu, Y2K, Nuclear War, and I’m sure there are a few more scary things I’ve totally missed.”
You did miss a very big one that has been strangely lacking in media attention.
That is the fact that the World Health Organisation has recently announced that HIV / AIDS is confined to high risk groups (in the West) and that there is in fact no threat of a global Aids pandemic among heterosexuals after all.
That’s lucky because for the last thirty years, until they changed their minds, humanity was doomed – doomed I tell you – by HIV.
1. The appalling rates of child abuse and child murders among Maori will stop
2. The shocking Maori crime rate will fall
3. The end of sickly white liberals kowtowing to everything Maori out of some misguided guilt
4. Maori start to take ownership of their problems
5. And end to gang violence and anti social behaviour from Maori
6. The end of the obesity and diabetes epidemic that afflicts Maori
7. The end of the bullshit “colonisation” excuse
8. And the end of us “whiteys” being blamed for all the ills in Maoridom
9. And most of all the end of all race based funding and privilege.
Or will you and all the other “guilty whiteys” simply find another reason to make excuses for Maori failure?
Big bruv,
I see almost all of those as results of generational poverty that, yes, originated in colonisation. I believe disproportionate representation of Maori in the various things you listed would indeed become proportionate if those cycles of poverty and lack of education were rectified, and I think that race-based iniatives are an acceptable short-term unfairness to rectify an open-ended unfairness.
But this confuses me:
Or will you and all the other “guilty whiteys” simply find another reason to make excuses for Maori failure?
I believe in cause and effect. I believe the cause of the effects you call Maori failure are strongly rooted in generational poverty and, to a lesser degree, institutional racism in the past in New Zealand.
That’s my explanation. What is your explanation for those disproportionate representations?
big bruv. I’m only talking about what we actually did to them. The stuff they definitely don’t teach in school.
I don’t feel any personal guilt about what past administrations did. But I don’t think we should ignore them either just because they happened before we were born.
A lot of the major rorts were to do with governments reneging on agreed deals. Well post-treaty too I might add. So no excuse. And not just in any one year either, but time and again over decades, even well into the 20th C.
For specifics, I’d have to research – it’s not my field, I’m only relaying the fragments and sentiment that I learned from many discussions with my friend (researcher for CRFT). However if you heard what I’d heard about what successive administrations have done, you’d be disgusted. You wouldn’t be looking for reasons to justify them, or to avoid making amends.
As for affirmative action programmes, I think they are unjustified, and discriminatory. Any sort of decisions based on race to me are by definition prejudicial.
But as for your list. Well I admit I probably would have been sympathetic to it as a teenager from the waikato, but now I think it’s just a demonstration of the sort of ignorance that really compounds these problems.
I don’t think we’ll be paying out forever. Take a look at the groups that have already received major settlements. They aren’t pissing it up against a wall, and we aren’t still paying them either. These people have by and large been waiting patiently an incredibly long time for justice.
If the left wing hand wringers and “guilty whiteys” stop making excuses for Maori and stopped letting them milk the whole intergenerational grievance and colonisation bullshit then things could change relatively quickly.
When you think about it the lefts fawning attitude to things Maori is actually racism of the worst kind, the white trendy lefties rush into help Maori in the racist and mistaken belief that they need the help of the white man, stop treating them as second class citizens and you will see an almost immediate improvement, stop making excuses for them based on the colour of their skin and you will see and almost immediate improvement.
>> “I think it is a fairly transparent scam undertaken by environmentalists to get their way in lots of issues they care about, like restricting private transport, cutting energy use and making us all live in a shoebox.”
> Well, I think it’s sad that people jump to the conclusion that an environmentalist’s goal is to ruin your life, and any excuse will do. It shows a pretty petty way of looking at life.
On whose part?
> They couldn’t possibly ACTUALLY BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT now, could they? No, it must be all about keeping hardworking people down. Damn socialists.
I have no argument about that, just the way it interferes with us humans. Can’t environmentalists care about the environment with their own money and time, and leave the rest of us in peace?
“But as for your list. Well I admit I probably would have been sympathetic to it as a teenager from the waikato, but now I think it’s just a demonstration of the sort of ignorance that really compounds these problems.”
Oh really?, so tell me what is false about my little (and it could have been a LOT longer) list?
“I don’t think we’ll be paying out forever. Take a look at the groups that have already received major settlements. They aren’t pissing it up against a wall, and we aren’t still paying them either. These people have by and large been waiting patiently an incredibly long time for justice.”
Here you show that despite the claims you make you do not really know as much about the settlement process as you claim, the agreements reached some time ago with other tribes all have a “top up” clause in them, as a direct result of the tree lords deal those tribes who apparently received full and final settlements will receive more of our money.
This WILL keep going for generations to come.
Oh and one more thing adc, please do not speak for me, when you say you are talking about what “we” did you are including me in that and I can assure you it had absolutely nothing to do with me, I am just the poor bastard who has to pay for it.
If the left wing hand wringers and “guilty whiteys” stop making excuses for Maori and stopped letting them milk the whole intergenerational grievance and colonisation bullshit then things could change relatively quickly.
How would things change?
When you think about it the lefts fawning attitude to things Maori is actually racism of the worst kind, the white trendy lefties rush into help Maori in the racist and mistaken belief that they need the help of the white man, stop treating them as second class citizens and you will see an almost immediate improvement, stop making excuses for them based on the colour of their skin and you will see and almost immediate improvement.
Can you do that Ryan?
Wasn’t there a time in the past when there was no left-wing fawning attitudes? Did things improve then?
Why do you think there’s a treaty? Surely if the brits had conquered the maori, there wouldn’t be need for one?
The reason there is a treaty, is because the Brits were finding it too expensive (so far away) to fight an ongoing war that they weren’t actually doing that crash hot at. The Maori were pretty damn good fighters, even before they got hold of guns. The british didn’t conquer the maori. It’s not like the rest of the world. The Maori LET them do a treaty because the treaty promised benefits that they considered were worth the trade.
Part of the treaty terms related to agreements to sell enough land for colonies, partnership arrangements etc. The crown has since then breached this treaty so many times. why do you think they say “honour the treaty”!
Do you honour your promises? I think everyone should.
Later on, land started getting confiscated and stolen. Deals for places like Auckland by Governor Grey were broken (ending up in problems like Bastion Point, which to their enormous credit, once they won it back, they gifted it to NZ). Then the repression of maori culture (getting caned if caught speaking your own language in school etc). Are these all supposed to be things we should be proud of?
I think there may be a lot of people who go to far in pandering to things, but I don’t think that means nothing wrong was done. I’m certainly not left-wing, and totally believe in personal responsibility for actions, but I believe maori have had many genuine terrible greivances, and various governments have perpetrated all sorts of misinformation campaigns and myths to steel our resolve against them. It’s pretty disgusting.
So as far as I’m concerned, we’re just being justly done for major breach of contract. These people don’t want to spend their whole lives fighting for this, once they get it, they want to get on with their lives. Wouldn’t you?
So the Maori’s now own thousands of hectares of trees. I would hope that all things been fair in this country that when these two bobs bring in their Carbon trading con the Maoris will have the unbridled joy of giving the government millions of dollars for cutting the fucking things down. I bet that will put a dent in half a billion. Whats the bet the slimy socialist bastards flogged of the trees because they had dollar signs in their eyes, they knew they were going to get it back with interest. I have not heard the government state they will hand back the Carbon credits to the forest owners so as far as I see it the government are just Indian givers.
what is wrong with your list is that you put it down.
The facts may not be unjustifiable, but they are irrelevant. Why should we put conditions on redressing wrongs?
That’s like me stealing your house, and saying I’ll give it back to you if you lose some weight. Its damn rude man. And it’s morally an indefensible position.
Noone has a perfect track record in any of the areas in your list.
Point taken re speaking for you. I didn’t do anything either. But that’s no excuse either.
As for top-ups. The Crown Forestry Rental Trust has been accumulating rental income (from forestry operators) for decades on Crown Land subject to disputes. It’s only right that this money get distributed along with the land it was earned on. If I stole 100 dollars from you, kept it for 10 years, you would be justified in getting 100 dollars back plus interest. If I stole land from you and rented it out, you’d expect the land back and the rent as an absolute minimum.
An interesting question as to what will come after global warming – what will environmentalists come up with next?
I agree that ‘intellibots’ sounds like a plan. In anticipation of the global warming scam falling apart, environmentalists can bone up on Terminator 1, 2 and 3. (What night is Sarah Connor files on?) That way we can ban computers, which will really put some sand in the works. If that doesn’t get us back to the stone age, nothing will.
If anything, they’re an incredibly low-impact form of entertainment, in terms of power consumption, and they’re insanely efficient uses of power compared to other means of communication.
“I don’t understand why the good bloggers at Kiwiblog allow a mentally disturbed sad individual with paranoid delusions to rark them up.”
Im sorry LaS
its just that, well, sometimes your collective ignorance is soul destroying
# dad4justice (3850) June 26th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
What will roger nome and sonic do after the election? I do hope John Key when Prime Minister does not tolerate paying blogger’s to stir shit ? Russell at Public Address has done nicely from the Aunty Helen club.
What will YOU and all your kind do after the election? Once the evil Clark is gone, you’ll have nothing to bitch about, and then you’ll have to find a new outlet for all your hatred. For everyone’s sake I can only hope you find another relatively safe and benign environment like this to do it in…
So if we ignore the problems they will go away will they?
BRILLIANT!!!
In the mean time everything that is wrong continues and can be put down to colonisation, perhaps that is the next gravy train once the land settlements have been reached, I can see it now, record settlements for the damages caused by colonisation.
You’re sounding a bit socialistic there mate. Proposing that we start imposing constraints on people’s diets, activities, child-rearing etc… you sure you’re not Sue Bradford under there?
The first question in any debate of this nature is whether the argument is to be objective or subjective.
If it is objective under New Zealand law it will be sovereignty controlled. If it is subjective it exists entirely in the realm of ‘lore’. Lore encases objectivity as subjective. That is to say that there is nothing written about that which is tangible, or of the object. The object is built into the subjective. The subjective is about the subject and how we ‘feel’. What is subjective is about our emotions.
In New Zealand law and sovereignty we obey the law and the law is objective. In the arguments above, as far as I can see the body of the discussion is subjective. This is to say it is emotional and not constructed to facts.
If the facts are engaged as if they are important we must investigate the value of the Treaty. New Zealand has extraordinary laws. In 1986 there was a revolution. That revolution was called the Constitution Act. It was built from a disengagement from a responsibility to the Crown. Additionally it removed any responsibility to any established Maori authority. Or at least that is what the Crown wanted it to do. The fact is that Sovereignty were never legal in this country. The document legitimising the English Laws Act 1852 (as I remember the year) was not constituted effectively or properly into the jurisdiction of the Declaration of Independence in 1835. The Declaration of Independence gave Maori authority in the country no matter their tribal or political differences.
The last paragraph does not fully disclose the objective principles relative to New Zealand’s ability to fully intergrate two culture to work in unity as two people’s side by side. It does however provide sufficient information to engage a different set of rules when considering the common question, already established clearly in this thread of ‘where to from here’. So the primary question remains. Is the debate going to be objective or subjective? The history of the country, as is likely in this thread is that the subjective will rage on regardless and the body of the most vocal will carry on bellowing whether or not they are right, but more simply because they feel most passionately about what they are saying and how they feel. Fair enough.
Yet such a concession does not solve the problem. If the second question is ‘is the problem solvable”‘ then the answer is of course. The instrument globally on this is how those people who are most passionate in the debate that they figure is most important is how they conduct themselves.
Big Bruv,
if you take out points 7 & 8 of your list you open remove the most direct aggitators. There after you are left with point 3 as the aggressor. That’s the point that secures your argument. You don’t need points 7 or 8. If you have the ability to take out points 7 & 8, then you are not the direct pakeha opposite of the sickly white liberal about who you complain and you can concentrate on the second part of that point. When you get to the part on ‘misguided guilt’, then you arrive at the instrument to fix the whole problem. In fact not just that problem but nearly every problem.
uuum, no. Sorry I don’t have any brochures. Don’t have any cards either. But if I had a brochure I doubt I would put the misguided guilt statement on it. It doesn’t belong to me it belongs to big bruv. He figured it out not me.
Misguided guilt though as I see it, is something that big bruv suggests is fed. Force fed, obviously. Fear is force fed. I think there is a pretty close connection. The comment that big bruv made though, about the cultural relationship between the indigenous people and the coloniser is the secondary argument that I challenge. The primary argument is about dads and men. Men these days live off misguided guilt. It sort of goes like this: be ashamed of who you are. Your always going to be wrong.
If you should feel ashamed for who you are then it isn’t my job to instruct on who you should be and what you fear. I try not to force fear although it is pretty east to do being a protester who organises protests outside people’s houses who eat lots of chocolate and then kick the shit out of the rest of the public when they get to work.
Optimist — I currently own five green and grey bags and they are very useful, taking books to and from the library etc, and reduce my consumption of plastic bags but I am not a supporter of ‘ban the plastic bag’ as they have useful purposes, wrapping chicken bones so the local cats don’t smell them and rip my rubbish bag hangiung in the outhouse, but like everything use in moderation.
I think the supermarket checkout girls are the leaders in mis-use, the way they use and use bags when goods could be carried in just a single bag. This pre-occupation in packing meat etc in it’s own bag when it is already wrapped …. separate for strong smelling items like soap makes sense but wrapped meat … no way.
I know this is many comments after the raging debate earlier..
But are we seriously being told there is NO global warming, temperatures are being read wrong… WTF
Those silly old glaciers aren’t really melting, the north pole really isn’t breaking up in summer and Antarctica isn’t really breaking off huge chunks of ice. Fuck me!
We aren’t even in the man vs nature causation debate here.. it just isn’t happening?
I know.. faked photo’s, bought off officials and evil scientists are behind it all… just like the faked moon landings. Moonbat alert “Fly my lovelies, fly”
Love the Intellbots and Computers, yes artifical intelligence is a good pick for the next global panic based on a few facts and well overblown by media hype (Sorry yes I did forget HIV/AIDS – how careless/callous or just damn up PC of me). Just imagine the senarios all those strange pale faced hackers (actually they are aliens living among us) working on global domination by taking over our computers, that could cause major panic as financial institutions discover multiple, multi billion dollar corruption, Health agencies discover previously unknown viral threats that are transmitted by computers, causing serious fatal illness that kills swiftly and leaves victims prostrate across their computer keyboards, children using computers have whole programs of highly secret information loaded into their brains while playing computer games, causing them to apply their now superior knowledge to the domination of any adult in eye scanning distance of them.
Actually this fantasy creation is a damn sight more fun than worrying about what Helen is up to………. ah see she is a superior alien, disenfranchising us from one another by clever use of our money and manipulation of the truth……..someone call the media…………. opps thats right they are responsible for hyping up her exaltedness to create panic among the masses so they see only Helen as the saviour of there sorry state.
I realise that the referendum debate may be seen as done and dusted but there remains this question in my mind for you pro-National folk that I think requires an answer. Hasn’t the Personal Assistant to John Key made some kind of ridiculous mistake?
Isn’t she doing a flop flop in a flip flip where a flip flops into a flap? Hasn’t she just made a policy statement that might cost New Zealander’s $4.9 Million. Isn’t she arguing against the postal vote yet arguing for it?
Come on folk?
getstaffed (1604) +3 Says:
June 26th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Thank you for your email regarding the petition in support of a referendum on the anti-smacking laws.
National’s view is that a referendum should take place at the 2008 general election.
National’s position is quite clear on section 59, but the issue for us in this case is about democracy – the right of the people of New Zealand to be heard whether or not politicians like what they are being told.
Helen Clark has again demonstrated arrogance with her use of a technicality to not let New Zealanders’ have a say on this matter.
It is a waste of taxpayers’ money to hold a referendum separately. As an example of the potential cost, the 1995 firefighter referendum cost about $10million, and the 1997 retirement savings referendum cost about $5.1million for a postal ballot.
Thank you for your views.
Thanks
Emma Holmes
Personal Assistant to John Key MP
Leader of the Opposition
World Net Daily June 18, 2008
Parents beware. You may be losing the right to discipline your children. A father in Canada had grounded his daughter from going on a school trip because she disobeyed his orders to stay off the Internet. But a court has now overturned the punishment. According to Agence France-Presse, Justice Suzanne Tessier in Quebec Superior Court ordered the grounding for the 12-year-old girl lifted, prompting the father’s lawyer, Kim Beaudoin, to warn, “Parents are going to be walking on egg shells from now on.”
The father had ordered the daughter, who was not identified by the report, to remain off the Internet. She didn’t, chatting on websites her father had tried to block and then posting “inappropriate” pictures of herself online using a friend’s Internet portal. As punishment, the father refused to let her go on a scheduled school trip, so the 12-year-old went to Canada’s judicial system to get her way.
Beaudoin told AFP the punishment was for her own protection, and he is pursuing an appeal.
“She’s a child,” Beaudoin said. “At her age, children test their limits and it’s up to their parents to set boundaries.” The lawyer said she’ll try to “re-establish” parental authority and to make sure the judge’s opinion doesn’t set a precedent.
“I think most children respect their parents and would never go so far as to take them to court, but it’s clear that some would and we have to ask ourselves how far this will go,” Beaudoin said.
Court records indicated the 12-year-old’s violation of her home’s Internet rules was just one in a list of instructions that she had violated. But Tessier said the punishment was just too much. The girl reportedly had access to the courts using a court-appointed attorney who represented her in her parents’ custody dispute.
That sucks. A society is rooted when we see good parents hauled before the courts like this.
It goes a long way to show that not only is NZ besieged by an PC mentality that overrules commonsense (and not Annette Kings version of “commonsense” either).
“useless fucking parasites” “backward tribalists” and “when will it all end” ????????????
Indeed, Mr Mann, if that’s your real name. My name is Jodi – I’m a researcher on Eye to Eye with Willie Jackson (TV1) and I’d like to invite you onto the programme. In print you look like the perfect talent for our show. We discuss issues from a politically right and left perspective. It is a robust and fiery television debate and you are obviously not shy in expressing your opinions. Next Friday we’re talking Treaty settlements and we’re asking when will it all end? You can put your questions to the Minister of Maori Affairs. What do you think – you Mann enough?
I wasn’t going to bother much more with this, but since the left and some of the media are still wetting themselves over it, here are a few points about Key’s so called gaffe.
1- Michael Cullen said as much a few years back.
2- Michael Cullen, as a former history lecturer, should have a better grasp of NZ history too. But maybe that is why he said what he said in 2005.
3- Michael Cullen is Treaty negotiations minister so should’t he also be accounted for his views on history? Where is Pita Sharples now? I saw him on TV3 having a go at John Key.
4- The governor general also echoed Keys comments on history.
5- Other historians, as the Herald notes, also back Key’s account.
6- And we have Cullen attacking Key, forgetting what he said a few years back, until a reminder forced his silence.
Hip, hip, hipocracy!
Furthermore, If the left say we can’t have Key because of his lack of history knowledge, then the USA can’t have Obama as president because he thinks Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and he claims to have visited 56 US states!
PS I see Cullen has left a fine economic legacy for National to clear up too.
And yet more corruption and incompetence today from government as well.
How does Liarbour manage it all?
Badly!
I would be interested to read the comments that Cullen made as weel, there was some reference in the House to a comment the Governor General made???
…So let’s call it even. Labour and National don’t know their/our history. Let’s even say that the newly elected Governor General is trying to swamp the every day public that it was all rosy. Now what? The three top representative bodies of New Zealand all agree that we will command the word ‘civil’. There was no disquiet. After all look how uncivil these Maori gangs are… Is that what they are/slowly collectively trying to paint; as the savages begin to get restless, and then in the future our most esteemed leaders can all say, well it was them who were nasty back then, here’s the proof just look at them now.
This domestic violence campaign is the same at the moment. Tarnish men as hard and as black as you can and by doing that then only men will get the blame and women’s violence as it may be real, and not how it is directly associated with the male’s violence, can stay quitely removed.
Sometimes in this household, one parent will discipline a child when the other parent doesn’t see that the discipline is necessary. When that happens it’s still important that the punishment stands or else one parent is undermining the other in front of the children.
Nanny state in the home is a parent with all the power and no responsibility.
And I would allege it is the principal cause of most domestic violence arguments in regards to the discipline of children. There is no cohesion between the adults. The interpretation of domestic violecne below from the Domestic Violence Act 1995 describes nothing but a race to see who gets to the telephone first. Obviously women are quicker to get to the phone to make a complaint. So if the argument gets to a shout, and one parent complains that that shout is domestic violence then the parent who makes the complaint is free from investigation:
3 Meaning of domestic violence
(1) In this Act, domestic violence, in relation to any person, means violence against that person by any other person with whom that person is, or has been, in a domestic relationship.
(c) Psychological abuse, including, but not limited to,—
(v) In relation to a child, abuse of the kind set out in subsection (3) of this section.
(3) Without limiting subsection (2)(c) of this section, a person psychologically abuses a child if that person—
(a) Causes or allows the child to see or hear the physical, sexual, or psychological abuse of a person with whom the child has a domestic relationship; or
(b) Puts the child, or allows the child to be put, at real risk of seeing or hearing that abuse occurring;—
but the person who suffers that abuse is not regarded, for the purposes of this subsection, as having caused or allowed the child to see or hear the abuse, or, as the case may be, as having put the child, or allowed the child to be put, at risk of seeing or hearing the abuse.
yep – a lot of people are saying the measurements are all wrong. I’m inclined to believe them given that
a) the source code (posted at that first site) for the algorithm that “combines” nearby temp station data with each other (to try and counter for known Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect) would be a source of utter shame for even a novice programmer. There are identified issues with it. This is the program that massages the raw data from which we derive a gridded globally-extrapolated temperature profile – this is supposed to be the source of the “proof” that the planet is actually warming up. It’s completely dodgy.
b) they don’t agree with data from the satellites over the last couplea decades.
c) people (lots of them) have been “auditing” temp measuring stations. Highlighting many many problems with the sites which invariably cause them to read higher. E.g.
– moving sensors to rooves of buildings, next to aircon ducts etc.
– putting sensors over tarmac
– wrong classification of sites (i.e. site originally rural, becomes urban with urban sprawl, then subject to UHI)
– or generally NOT installing them according to the strict guidelines (which exist).
d) rounding. Most US sites take a rounded average of the min and max temp (in F) for the day. This introduces a +/- 0.5 degree F error immediately. This is a significant proportion of the changes in temps being claimed ( depending on the claim anything from 20% to over 100% of claimed temp change is right there).
So, there are problems with the raw data going in due to problems at the source, improper placement of sensors, rounding errors, questionable combinational processing. Doesn’t fill me with faith in the numbers that come out, but we are using these numbers to justify spending trillions of dollars to wage war on carbon.
As for other things you mention. Well, one thing that has changed is that we sure as hell LOOK at the poles a lot more than we used to. I think there have always been bits coming off. The key is how much water remains locked up in the poles. From what I understand, the sea level hasn’t really risen (nowhere near what the IPCC claim), and that although for instance at Antarctica there are chunks breaking off at the edges all the time, the buildup in the centre is outstripping that, and it is accumulating water not losing it. Don’t know about the north pole. As for glaciers, I understand there are many in the northern hemisphere that are advancing not retreating.
There are 1700-odd scientists on the IPCC. There were about 30,000 who signed a petition rejecting the hypothesis of the IPCC. A lot of geologists, meteorologists, etc – people who have studied ice-core samples, tree rings etc etc etc who all say the earth is gonna cool down, not heat up.
Even the alarmists have started hedging… note how it’s now called “Climate Change” rather than “Global Warming”. They don’t know which way it’s going, because all their predictions for temp rises have not been borne out.
(Part 2) And then after the police arrive to a complaint of shouting and the Police are not entitled to investigate the complainant (because thats what the law says), and now they have new powers of temporary protection orders: guess what! Enter section 16 of the Domestic Violence Act 1995…
16 Protection of persons other than applicant(1) Where the Court makes a protection order, that order applies for the benefit of any child of the applicant’s family.
So now what you’ve got is some guy finding out his wife just gave his brother oral sex the night before at a family party and he complains. Unfortunately he cannot contain himself and complains as soon as he walks in the door when he gets home. He’s really pissed off and the kids are in the house and he let’s rip all right – but he doesn’t hit her. She’s frightened. She brings out her phone and says she will call the cops he says (probably the most common line used by guys with protection orders) call the cops then I don’t care. So she hits the buttons 111. He still won’t hit her, but he storms out of the house.
It’s a minefield Political Busker, The law is a tool in the hands of those who know how to use it. Those who don’t know the traps get caught. “Justice” doesn’t come into it.
Paul Catton, Vince Siemer myself, Noeleen Irvine, and in recent communication, Anne Hunt are prepared to challenge the corruption. There will be others. The public should be behind us as we force those who have damaged so many countless lives to pay a direct and greater attention to what we are saying, to look at what has happened and what the remedies must be to overcome these gross injustices.
The ice build-up in the centre of the Antarctic is what the IPCC expects – warmer atmosphere carries more water vapour, leads to more polar precipitation.
You’re comparing scientific research with a petition, that’s lame.
Observed Sea level rise is in line with expectations, recent corrections to historical data by an Australian team now has SLR and sea temperature (ie the thermal expansion component) in agreement.
At the moment my ex and I are fighting for custody of 4 kids, I’ve got them at the moment (she moved towns a year and a half ago and I got a prevent removal order) one day, one day, the courts will finally find the time to hear our case. It’ll be interesting to see if I find the anti-man bias D4J sees in the system.
Andrew W as a 7 year vet caught up in the fire fight insane litigation world of the family court I do hope the children involved are not used as weapons of war. Damaged children is not justice.
Andrew W. I’ve been through a few now (probably not to the extent of D4J) but what the FC do really focus on these days is what the kids want. There used to be a blatant bias but it is not so obvious now
Is LFC appointed yet?
LFC has been on the case for over a year, as far as what the kids want, the two oldest (11 & 9) aren’t choosing, the two youngest (7 & 5) have a preference for mum, but that could be the Hansel & Gretel effect.
“It would be fascinating to see what one of these frothing racist tools from Kiwiblog looks like in captivity…”
Like he’d ever get a fair go on any TV One show. Anyway, interesting to see you’d find Dave “fascinating”. I’d be surprised if he regarded you as anything more than loathsome.
My name is Jodi – I’m a researcher on Eye to Eye with Willie Jackson (TV1) and I’d like to invite you onto the programme.
Jodi, forget about picking or trying to challenge people randomly on the internet who make comments in blogosphere. If you are really really a researcher, then look no further than Peter Cresswell from the Libertarianz who holds the same view as Dave Mann , although he doesn’t use Dave’s offensive language in his argument on his blog post on : Privatising the forests. He had appeared once in one of the Eye to Eye show before.
BTW, are you also involved as a researcher for the Close UP current affair with Mark Sainsbury?
The emphasis isn’t as much on the views of the child as empowering the child. The recent models and the laws being developed are developing with the child’s state of mind as a primary criteria. The rules are being dropped although you wouldn’t think it when you concentrate on the views and directions of Principal Family Court Judge, Judge Boshier.
(I’m going to digress here deliberately). JB has an intention to retain the FC as the model for use. I think he is drunk. He wants bigger courtrooms and gowns. He wants to retain the emphasis of authority when any push turns into a shove. Individually I think he has got it wrong. A court is a court is a court. The FC is more limited with DC powers as against the stronger abilities of the higher Courts (not the DC) The Justices are able to do what they want in regards to the situation as they balance it to evidence, so they get caught on the weight of evidence and its closeness to law. Yet adversley the FC have an extraordinary power. They can simply ignore evidence. So instead of being bound to the evidence they simply waive what they do not want to know. And it shows!!!!!!! Additionally as I have now uncovered the lawyers have been free to act in comprehensively rougish behaviour (but I won’t digress that far at present).
So Andrew, when you get into the Court your dealing with an unusual beast. If the beast doesn’t like you it has no obligation tobe bound in law to like you. It can pick and you and push you, prick you prod you, steal your property and literally steal your children. In the case I am dealing with in Feilding the house has been stolen and the Court (on this rule of evidence) want to pretend that they haven’t infact ‘stolen’ the evidence (and I shouldn’t digress this far either)! The point is is that it is a personality game. It’s a game. It is an unpleasant game with a horrendous cost when it goes bottom up and when it gets to Court it always goes bottom up for someone. At present as the rule in regards to protecting the child’s state of mind is being developed – you – have options/instruments that others have not been so fortunate to use.
My suggestion, without making any statement that interferes with your relationship with you lawyer, is inquire generally whetehr your sons and daughters require any assistance with how life is at the moment. Check it out with then first. Be very discreet and do not ruffle them into thinking that anything is unusual. Make an assesment of their condition from your own experiences and then make a decision if it would be benficial for them to have (I am sure it has advanced to this at the moment) court funded counselling.
Ordinarily I am sceptical about any counselling from a regime that has no idea what the interests of the child can be and think that men are all child abusers and the child ‘must’ be protected from the real beast. But I know a little about the programme that government is putting into place and I have high respect for a part of its NZ craftmansship. YET: besides whether or not any like counselling, I am pointing at the fact. This is the focus. Lots of Karma that has been untested and if you want the Court onside as you establish what for you is an aweful period better to have a bit of kalma than not.
My main areas of concern are that the court will be faced with two versions of events and have limited solid information on which to base its decision. In such a situation, as you allude, a judges own personal biases may ultimately be pivotal ie. I hope the judge isn’t sucked in by he lies.
Are the changes advocated by JB perhaps designed to greater formalised the process and so intimidate people out of lying?
Andrew W I have found (to my benefit) that the following provisions seem to override everything else;
Care of Children Act 2004 No 90 (as at 20 September 2007), Public Act
4. Child’s welfare and best interests to be paramount
(1) The welfare and best interests of the child must be the first and paramount consideration—
o (a) in the administration and application of this Act, for example, in proceedings under this Act; and
o (b) in any other proceedings involving the guardianship of, or the role of providing day-to-day care for, or contact with, a child.
(2) The welfare and best interests of the particular child in his or her particular circumstances must be considered.
(3) A parent’s conduct may be considered only to the extent (if any) that it is relevant to the child’s welfare and best interests.
(4) For the purposes of this section, and regardless of a child’s age, it must not be presumed that placing the child in the day-to-day care of a particular person will, because of that person’s sex, best serve the welfare and best interests of the child.
(5) In determining what best serves the child’s welfare and best interests, a Court or a person must take into account—
o (a) the principle that decisions affecting the child should be made and implemented within a time frame that is appropriate to the child’s sense of time; and
o (b) any of the principles specified in section 5 that are relevant to the welfare and best interests of the particular child in his or her particular circumstances.
(6) Subsection (5) does not limit section 6 (child’s views) or prevent the Court or person from taking into account other matters relevant to the child’s welfare and best interests.
(7) This section does not limit section 83 or subpart 4 of Part 2.
Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 No 24 (as at 01 October 2007), Public Act
6. Welfare and interests of child or young person paramount
In all matters relating to the administration or application of this Act (other than Parts 4 and 5 and sections 351 to 360), the welfare and interests of the child or young person shall be the first and paramount consideration, having regard to the principles set out in sections 5 and 13 of this Act.
A Christian group promoting intelligent design theory over evolution has sent teaching material to schools that critics say is religious propaganda and sloppy pseudoscience.
I thought that evolution was still a theory, or has it been conclusively proven? And I guess that if science has conclusively proven that God doesn’t exist that it’s fine to call intelligent design religious propaganda.
PM forces disabled man to walk
By CHARLIE GATES – The Dominion Post | Saturday, 28 June 2008
A partially sighted Christchurch man with Parkinson’s disease was forced to struggle down the street to his car after Prime Minister Helen Clark’s security commandeered parking spaces.
Clark was “very shocked” by the incident, (utter bullshit) and police have apologised.
Clark’s security meant Elizabeth Winkworth was unable to park outside the Christchurch Town Hall to pick up her husband, Marshall Leaf, 81, after a performance by the Christchurch Symphony Orchestra on Friday night last week.
The pick-up area outside the Town Hall was cordoned and two cars were waiting for Clark. When Winkworth tried to park nearby she was twice moved on by police (on the orders of Clark)
She had to park about 200m away and help her husband to the car.
Winkworth said the walk was a struggle for her husband. “It was horrible,” she said. “I thought it was absolutely unacceptable.
“The 200m walk took about 10 minutes and was about his limit. The streets were wet and I was very worried about him slipping.”
Winkworth was frustrated that the pick-up area was cordoned long before Clark emerged from the Town Hall.
“That was one of the things that annoyed me the most. The cars were sitting there with no-one around. We could have used that area.”
Leaf said: “I personally felt a little bit upset about it. I thought, `Good heavens, is she increasing her bureaucracy?”‘
Winkworth wanted to thank the Town Hall ushers for helping her husband back to the car.
“The ushers are the most caring and helpful band of women I have ever come across,” she said.
A spokesman for Clark said she would seek an explanation from police over the incident. (meaning that some poor bastard acting on Clark’s orders is going to have to take the blame)
“The Prime Minister was very shocked to hear about what happened. She had not been aware of the incident until The Press contacted her office. (another blatant lie from Clark)
“She will be seeking an explanation from police and also requesting that such a thing does not happen again,” the spokesman said.
Canterbury police district commander Dave Cliff apologised.
“I am sorry (they) were inconvenienced by the security provided for the Prime Minister. We endeavour to minimise any difficulties to the public and I am sorry she became caught up in the security arrangements,” he said.
Clark’s security is provided by the Diplomatic Protection Squad, with assistance from local police.
Look for a massive swing from traditional geeks who vote Liarbour in the Christchurch seats as LieAnn , B Burns and Dykeson look set too get a hammering !!! The BATTLE has started.
will scientists weave in water or will they only think through wine?
Good on you Andrew W, Patrick Starr and I are saying the same thing, that it is child focused, that means if you think that your focus in on the child then your playing on the same page as the Court has to play. And you’re right it is on personality. Once you know which Judge you’ve got spend a bit of time trawling through the press releases etc on the net. See if you can build a profile – not for your lawyer but for you. When you get into Court test the impressions you have made formed from the statements the Judge has made and see if the views expressed are consistent in part to what you have read. Stay calm – always. If you have an overt character type and you are pretty confident try and dampen it a bit for the proceedings. The Judge is sitting on a power that can cripple you emotionally and financially for life and the Judge has no capacity for remorse when delivering such a vicious blow to another human.
You ask me to make a public statement on the philisophical direction of the Court? Wow, what a dangerous question.
Implicitly, I believe as the law is physically constructed that every human is paramountly good. That’s what I believe as well as how we are all obliged to function. Yet the Court is no different from any other beast. Its primary purpose is one of self survival. The FC is the most widely used and accessed of all of the Courts. On August 1st of this year for the first time in the southern hemisphere, (I imagine) lawyers will be bound to accountability. Its been a long time since litigation guardians – lawyers – have been made fully accountable to the degree that anyone these days who has the brass to call themselves a litigation guardian is the only type of lawyer who would ever be accountable for the privilege (its been a very sick system for aver long time). The new legislation is another positive move in the direction of citizen focused protections from ordinary life and market highways. So the answer to your question is twofold: Yes (to the second part) because telling lies shouldn’t be allowed in a Court and lawyers now as well are responsible to protect against such lies and; Yes to the first part, on intimidation, because they must manufacture every resource in order to stay alive.
I’ve just read the most amusing dummy spit in the Herald by John Roughan over Michael Bassett’s book. He goes to many pages to disprove the theory he is the old socialist Bassett paints him as, but instead constructs a portrait of an old socialist. All the mannerisms, sneering, emotional hyperbole, general whining, it’s all there. He begins his essay by defining the label he applies to the book, the phrase Straw Man, a favorite strategy of socialists everywhere – when they’re beat. Roughan probably knows this because he chose the definition over the word itself. I guess he thought he’d fool some of the people some of the time instead. You can’t hide what you are Mr. Roughan, especially in print. Take consolation that no one with any brain power would treat a book written by politician as anything but fiction.
Jodi, thanks for the invitation. I am flattererd (I guess…? hahaha), but I don’t think I have a ‘television’ personality and I wouldn’t present my case well as I would be a bag of nerves being on the telly. I have to admit to not being a good public speaker and I’d probably sit in the corner nervously and it wouldn’t be worth your while.
But I will watch with interest. I wonder if anybody on the show will liken the established Maori grievance industry to ‘parasitism’ or the Treaty of Waitangi gravy train as ‘backward looking’? I doubt it. Mainly I am expecting earnest questions of intricate detail which will nicely mask the big question of why this country continues to focus negatively on the past.
getstaffed:
Interesting quote at the bottom of that article:
“Education Ministry senior manager Mary Chamberlain said parents had a right to withdraw children from religious instruction.”
Both Creation scientists and Evolutionary scientists look at the same evidence, but both draw different conclusions. Evolutionists draw their conclusions as they base their beliefs on atheism, which says that God doesn’t exist (or sometimes agnosticism, which says that he doesn’t do anything much). As a result, life must have arisen through natural processes. Creationists base their conclusions on a belief in the existence of God.
Belief in the existence or non-existence of God is a religious position and cannot be proved scientifically. You can never prove either Evolution or Creation, it all happened in the past & can’t be tested. Both theories are ultimately religious positions. You can only choose to believe which one best seems to fit the evidence in your view, but can never prove your view.
So on that basis, can a parent withdraw their child from “religious instruction” in atheism? I’d like to see someone try this one.
While I think you’re right that a lot of people’s “belief” in Darwinian Evolution is probably a fairly non-understanding, non-tested kind of belief similar to religious faith, there is a big difference: For the educated **there really is** a large body of independent scientific evidence supporting Darwin’s evolution, whereas the bible has, well… the bible says so, and everyone else says the bible says so.
This doesn’t stop at least a couple of the most highly-qualified biological research type people I know from still believing in God, so I can only assume the two beliefs don’t have to be mutually exclusive!
RPM and Andrew W:
I am quite familiar with the scientific evidence on both sides of the debate. It is a common misconception that all science completely supports evolution (a view caused by one-sided coverage in school textbooks), however the reality is quite different. Usually the evidence can be seen to support either theory based on which way you look at it, and what your presuppositions are. There is also a lot of scientific evidence people (not all Christians) bring out to claim evolution is false.
In my experience at university, the lecturers that were strongest in support of evolution were the ones that didn’t know much of the science when you talked to them about it. Those that knew the science well were far more willing to accept that there was doubt. In fact, my university genetics lecturer felt evolution was a load of rubbish based purely on his knowledge of genetics (he is an atheist by the way, so disbelieved it based on the science not on religion), and kept hassling evolutionary scientists throughout the course! I generally found that scientists were ready to accept that there was no evidence for evolution in their particular field of study, but often believed that another field of study that they were unfamiliar with had proved it. The geologists think the biologists have proved it and the biologists think the geologists have…
The scientific method works on things that are repeatable and testable. You can study stuff today scientifically. You cannot study the past scientifically, as you cannot experiment and test your theories. You can decide what you feel is most likely to have happened in the past, based on evidence today, but this is closer to forensics and philosophy than traditional physical science. You can never prove it one way or the other.
I am not trying to persuade you to change your views, I am just showing that there is debate, despite many people claiming “consensus”. Do you see the similarity to the global warming debate? Some people argue the temperature was high in the past and others disagree. The fact is that you can never prove either viewpoint, just work out which is most likely. So, just like evolution, people will be debating global warming forever.
In both these fields, dissent and debate is good. It forces people to examine the evidence more carefully and learn more. Once debate is shut down, knowledge stagnates. It doesn’t matter which side you personally believe, debate is good in science.
Andrew W:
There are many Christians today who believe evolution. They can if they like. Others disbelieve it, and they have good reason to as well. You cannot prove it either way, but can only believe what you feel is most consistent with the science and (for a Christian) the Bible. However, evolution allows origins without God. Although it is not atheism per se, it is the only feasible theory of origins that is consistent with atheism, therefore a belief in evolution is strongly held by most atheists.
Mr Dennis, I label myself agnostic rather than atheist because, as you point out, outside of mathematical proofs, science rarely has certainties. I would put the both AGW and Evolution at better than 90% certain, Pasteur’s germ theory (1865) I would put at better than 99.9% certain, Evolution and AGW, in my view, just need a bit more time and study for science to remove most of the legitimate doubt (for or against) that remains.
I’ll add that little of the uncertainty in the wider community that exists over evolution and AGW has a scientific foundation, but rather is based in theology and political dogma.
Andrew W: And your opinion as stated is just as valid as any other opinion, provided you recognise that it is an opinion of course. I could also add that quite a lot of the certainty over evolution and AGW also lacks a scientific foundation, but rather is based in theology and political dogma…
“… quite a lot of the certainty over evolution and AGW also lacks a scientific foundation”. Within the wider community perhaps, scientists however don’t arrive at degrees of confidence by throwing darts at a board, confidence intervals are products of the data.
June 25th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
When are we going to see some rational, fact based debate on climate change? Most of what I’ve seen (especially on the advocate side) has been sorely lacking in hard facts/data to be able to adequately judge the veracity of the claims put forth.
Why are the scientists so incapable of relating their information in a way that most people can understand?
Vote:June 25th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Strutta,
I’d recommend the book Heat by George Monbiot.
I’ve seen bits and pieces of An Inconvenient Truth, and it seems to me that Al Gore is to Monbiot what Michael Moore is to Chomsky. (ie., a showman who dumbs things down and exaggerates things for wider public consumption.)
Vote:June 25th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
It’s a bit like looking for a rational, fact based discussion of Buddhism. Global warning is a religion rather than a scientific experiment. There are lots of discussions about the evidence for and against, but for the moment it seems the only option is to decide whether you believe or not.
I don’t believe in global warming. I think it is a fairly transparent scam undertaken by environmentalists to get their way in lots of issues they care about, like restricting private transport, cutting energy use and making us all live in a shoebox. Part of my personal evidence for this is that the people behind it are keen on state control, and have long argued for the same outcomes for different reasons. Whenever you see someone who wants the same thing regardless of whether they are fighting pollution, or urban sprawl, irrigation schemes or power schemes you can bet your bottom dollar their latest reason isn’t the real one.
Anyway, I would ask why you care? Do you have the same keen curiosity about Buddhism or capitalism or masochism? Is it because it is topic of the moment? Just practice being a good sceptic and enjoy the ride.
Vote:June 25th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
What have you looked at Strutta? What sources?
Vote:June 25th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Optimist,
Sorry, I’m not quite clear. What’s the environmentalists’ real motivation?
Vote:June 25th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
The Optimist: global warming isn’t something you believe in. Temperature change is a fact, so far as I am aware all reputable organisations say that over the last 100 years the globe has warmed substantially, and other than a unusually high peak in 1998, continues to do so.
The areas of question are whether and how much humans are contributing, whether and how much of a problem warming is, and whether it is worth anybody’s while to do anything about it.
So far as I can tell, the reasonable view on all of these is that humans are contributing quite a bit to warming, it does cause problems for wildlife and economic problems in some countries (and benefits in others), and we should do something when the benefits outweigh the costs. There are definitely many things we can do at present that fit that definition, however attempting to manage the earth’s climate to a zero change state is (in my opinion) prohibitively expensive and doesn’t have a large benefit.
The biggest issue is an inability to quantify the costs, or articulate the benefits. And in particular many studies that have very diffuse benefits ($100 for everyone on earth) that I suspect probably have a margin of error of +/-$200. What is needed (and what DPF frequently calls for) are some economic studies of the situation and the potential solutions.
Vote:June 25th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
OK, having spent four weeks in Fiji (someone had to do it) it appears Michael Field’s reporting of that country is slightly coloured by his experiences with the government there. Perhaps it’s time Fairfax sent someone else.
In that regard, if we don’t develop a relationship with Bananarama soon (rather than slagging him off), the Chinese or Taiwanese will beat us to it and Fiji will become even more isolated from the Pacific community.
Commodore Frank might have had the right idea, even had the right principles – but now he needs some help because he doesn’t have the brainpower or gravitas to carry it through. If we don’t do it (attempts don’t count), we’re remiss in our foreign policy in the South Pacific.
Vote:June 25th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
PS I think Liam Messam should replace Richie McCaw (and I detest the Chiefs)
Vote:June 25th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Watch Maori TV
Vote:June 25th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
I could say “Hi, how is everyone?” and end up with a -10 next to my name on the post. Is there any way to disable that rating system? It seems extraordinarily petty.
Vote:June 25th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
> Sorry, I’m not quite clear. What’s the environmentalists’ real motivation?
And you think I am clear? I’m not even sure they are. As far as I can tell, it is:
- reduce private transport, get everyone on a bus, ideally a train
- reduce house size, get everyone into apartments with no land/space
- reduce energy use (hand in hand with the above)
- reduce human population (ultimately to zero? not sure about this)
Perhaps ultimately it is just about control: Control of government, control of private lives, control of humanity.
Vote:June 25th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Hah – cricket’s on SKY – England 48-2 off 10 overs – Pietersen out for a duck!
Vote:June 25th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Remember Len Richards, the thug with the megaphone?. He’s apparently busy training up more megaphone mates to help the Service and Food Workers’ Union (SFWU) campaign in support of Labour. He’s all class this guy.
Vote:June 25th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
- reduce private transport, get everyone on a bus, ideally a train
- reduce house size, get everyone into apartments with no land/space
- reduce energy use (hand in hand with the above)
- reduce human population (ultimately to zero? not sure about this)
What would compel someone to want these things, if it’s not genuine concern about the environment?
The desire to control people’s lives?
Vote:June 25th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
> The Optimist: global warming isn’t something you believe in. Temperature change is a fact, so far as I am aware all reputable organisations say that over the last 100 years the globe has warmed substantially, and other than a unusually high peak in 1998, continues to do so.
God isn’t something you have to believe in. Jesus Christ is an historical fact, and we have records to prove it. He was seen performing miracle by thousands of people. He wandered around and visited people for weeks after his death. All reputable world historians agree on this fact.
Just listen to yourself! There has not been substantial warming in the past 100 years – you are talking about a fraction of a degree, well within any reasons expectation of climate change. It is so like our ‘now’ culture that we get upset and demand action when there is a little change in our environment…get over it.
> The areas of question are whether and how much humans are contributing, whether and how much of a problem warming is, and whether it is worth anybody’s while to do anything about it.
I would suggest a broader question of more interest is whether we can do anything about it. It is the height of conceit to think that we can fiddle with the earth’s climate. We can’t even arrange for democratic governments in Africa. We can’t predict the weather a week out. Get a grip, man.
> The biggest issue is an inability to quantify the costs, or articulate the benefits. And in particular many studies that have very diffuse benefits ($100 for everyone on earth) that I suspect probably have a margin of error of +/-$200. What is needed (and what DPF frequently calls for) are some economic studies of the situation and the potential solutions.
What is needed is for all the environmentalists to go and get a real drop, and stop telling us how to live our lives. I resent paying for all this dropkicks who haven’t a clue about any of this stuff, and yet they worked themselves up into such a towering rage of certainty that they want Oil companies prosecuted because they are not putting across a sufficient sycophantic view.
The amount of newsprint, mind-space, worry and guilt flying around about this global warming scam should give anyone with half a brain a clue as to what is going on. It is a sad reflection on our education systems in the western world, so unable now to teach critical thinking, that these environmentalist have so much power and control.
My apologies if this rant seems a bit intemperate, but I have never met an environmentalist with the slightest interest in HUMAN life, in saving the HUMANs. We have heaps of problems, from war, to communism, to dictatorships to short battery life on our iPods. That should be what it’s all about on the planet. It seems to have been comprehensively forgotten, and it’s not good enough.
We should demand our planet back.
Vote:June 25th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Speaking as an environmentalist, my main concern with global warming is its effect on people, primarily people in poorer nations, who will be the worst affected. I agree that critical thinking is an important skill and far too rare, but again, I’ve examined the evidence and I think there is cause for concern.
And, again, I recommend George Monbiot’s book Heat, and I recommend Al Gore’s show be avoided.
Edit: I should add that I really hope that I am wrong.
Vote:June 25th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Did anyone else bother to read “No Country For Young Folk” in last weekend’s Dominion Post?
NZ doesn’t seem to have enough to offer talented young people to lure them back, at least not the ones interviewed.
But there was one shining exception who’s returned home.
She’s an “equity and diversity project officer”.
Anyone else think this is not necessarily a good thing?
Vote:June 25th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
> What would compel someone to want these things, if it’s not genuine concern about the environment?
> The desire to control people’s lives?
That’s my belief at the moment. Environmentalists think they know best how we should live our lives. They are so utterly sure about this that they want to force us to comply, by softening us up through the media and hijacking our governments. They are not willing to have an honest debate – always declaring that the debate is over.
Just look for example at the plastic bag scam. What possible interest does the planet have in plastic bags? They make up a tiny fraction of landfill volume, they are made from polyethylene gas which would otherwise just be burnt off anyway (see here: http://www.3news.co.nz/Enoughgastopoweracitywastedeveryday/tabid/422/articleID/58979/Default.aspx?ArticleID=58979
No the real reason to ban plastic bags is because they make shopping convenient and easy. Shopping is bad, and plastic bags are a way of attacking shopping.
So yes, control. Sad, but (it seems) true.
Vote:June 25th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
I’m not sure if I still count as young, gander, but after travelling, I absolutely intend to come back here. I love this country, and I don’t need much to be happy here. Perhaps if people were brought up less interested in massive material wealth, they would realise that the things New Zealand has to offer are priceless.
Vote:June 25th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
No the real reason to ban plastic bags is because they make shopping convenient and easy. Shopping is bad, and plastic bags are a way of attacking shopping.
So yes, control. Sad, but (it seems) true.
So you think that people campaigning against plastic bags secretly do not believe that they are a problem, but rather are campaigning because they want to tell people how to live – not because they think that way is better somehow, but simply for some kind of buzz out of controlling other people?
Vote:June 25th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
> Speaking as an environmentalist, my main concern with global warming is its effect on people, primarily people in poorer nations, who will be the worst affected. I agree that critical thinking is an important skill and far too rare, but again, I’ve examined the evidence and I think there is cause for concern.
If you want to help the world’s poor, support free trade (remove all barriers in USA and Europe for example), stop trying to impose western world labour standard regulations on the 3rd world, get rid of biofuels, eliminate/treat malaria and campaign for democracy and capitalism. These things alone would sort Africa out within 10 short years.
> And, again, I recommend George Monbiot’s book Heat, and I recommend Al Gore’s show be avoided.
Give me a break – this would be the loon that’s trying to arrest people for starting the Iraq war. Anyone else you can recommend that isn’t already completely insane?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/7424785.stm
> Edit: I should add that I really hope that I am wrong.
It’s your lucky day. Good night
Vote:June 25th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Give me a break – this would be the loon that’s trying to arrest people for starting the Iraq war. Anyone else you can recommend that isn’t already completely insane?
If they haven’t broken the law, they have nothing to fear from court, surely. Also, ad hominem.
If you want to help the world’s poor, support free trade (remove all barriers in USA and Europe for example), stop trying to impose western world labour standard regulations on the 3rd world, get rid of biofuels, eliminate/treat malaria and campaign for democracy and capitalism. These things alone would sort Africa out within 10 short years.
If I believed that, I would absolutely do so.
(Also, yes, goodnight! My shift is finally over.)
Vote:June 25th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
> So you think that people campaigning against plastic bags secretly do not believe that they are a problem, but rather are campaigning because they want to tell people how to live – not because they think that way is better somehow, but simply for some kind of buzz out of controlling other people?
Not at all. You can’t preach Christianity if you don’t believe in God. They believe all right. That is in fact the problem – that their minds are so weak that they believe such gibberish.
Quite large numbers of people simply don’t have enough problems in their lives, and need to invent some to feel fulfilled. The plastic bag brigade mostly fit into this category from the few that I have read about (I haven’t met any yet). They have no understanding of where plastic comes from, disregard the convenience and ‘quality of life’ that people get from it, and assume that obviously it must be banned.
Go watch The Simpsons – the woman you are looking for cries out ‘will someone please think of the children’ every now and then.
Vote:June 25th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
The Optimist – comparing to religion is not right. There is plenty of evidence that Jesus existed, none that he was son of god, or that he rose from the dead.
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 12:15 am
The essence of belief is faith PaulL. Faith doesn’t need proof, by definition. That doesn’t mean faith is based on blindness, although some people mistakenly take it as that. Some even interpret from afar that everyone who has faith are suffering from a need borne from indoctrination.
The way of faith is like marriage, a happy childhood, an education. You have to experience it in order to be able to assess its value, and it bears unimagined fruits over time.
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 1:08 am
Reid
Vote:Wow – just like the polls – “we believe in National – their yet to be released policy will affirm my faith!”
June 26th, 2008 at 1:14 am
Hey Reid
Vote:Us at the edge of commerce really have a dilemma with people like you.
“Shit another “christian believer” shall we take his money? – it’s so easy – bloody faithfooll”
You are so lucky that we have a conscience.
And this conscience is not a product of
“elluah” – lest Allah should disapprove
June 26th, 2008 at 1:30 am
Of my friends
Vote:Those that are most vulnerable in Commerce
Are remonstrably christian!
And I love them, and I aver!
June 26th, 2008 at 1:49 am
Did anyone watch Close Up with Mark Sainsbury running a story about a vibrating machine that supposedly cure smokers addiction? First of all, there has never been any scientific evidence at all that there is something called smoking vibration that exists in the body of smokers according to the poor lady who owns the anti-vibrating smoking machine & runs that service. This is a similar machine sort of machine that young Liam Holloway’s parents (in the late 1990s) took him for treatment, where they were on the run from the cops & hospital authorities. The owner of the machine that Liam’s parents took him for treatment in Rotorua at the time, told Paul Homes (in which Mr. Holmes was a pathetic supporter of this Quackery back then) at the time that his machine is a quantum vibrator. Its task is to re-align the DNA to rid of all diseases including cancer cells . The poor boy ended up dead in Mexico where his parents pursued treatments for Liam from some similar bullshit alternative medicine clinics over there. Err! The greenies (Sue Kedgley) are strong supporters of Quackery & alternative medicines.
These people are vultures. This includes the lady with the anti-smoking vibrating machine, psychic Deb Webber (TV2 Sensing Bullshit show), psychic Jeanette Wilson (from TV3 “Dare to Believe” bullshit series). They prey on people’s emotions and gain money by conning those people. I am for less interference from the government, but these vultures needed to be legislated out of business, because they prey on the gullibles/suckers and vulnerable elderlies.
BTW, Mark Sainsbury and Close UP producers were pathetic that they didn’t seek opinions from experts at University of Auckland (either the Engineering School & School of Medicine) to confirm that they has never been any scientific proof in the literatures that concluded that a smoker’s body there exist something the fraudsters called smoker’s vibration frequency which can somehow be negated using this machine. Perhaps an expert from the DSP (digital signal processing) division at the Biomedical-Engineering Department or someone from the Physiology Department at the Medical School.
The lady (owner of the machine) interviewed by Close UP must have had her phone ringing non-stop on the following day from smokers seeking treatment in her expensive useless clinic and thanks to Close UP for giving free air time to this vulture to promote her bullshit treatment.
Where is your science editor/advisor Close UP? You had mislead the public by not seeking a balance view from a scientific expert/s from any of our local Universities. Pathetic, Close UP.
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 2:27 am
Test Tube Tinkering and Democracy
=======================
In the following post I’ve covered a number of topics, but I believe the main issue is the way they all link together towards a diabolical looking conclusion (a strange new world with unpleasant features, run totally by “big brother”).
What do you think?
Bill C
In recent news the Bioethics council recommended the option to gender select babies conceived with medical assistance (eg. IVF).
This will suit the selfish intentions of individuals or government eugenic programs.
I suggest looking further over the horizon when the consequences of a combination of other social change legislations emerge:
1. Legalising the sex perversion of sodomy (homosexuality).
2. Abortion of unwanted children.
3. Affirming same sex relationship equality with marriage (civil union legislation).
4. Removal of parental authority over children (anti-smacking legislation).
5. Legalising the termination of infirm and elderly (voluntary euthanasia).
6. Legalisation of prostitution and promotion of pornography.
7. Replacing national sovereignty with global one world government (eg. forced compliance to United Nations humanistic religious doctrine).
Same sex couples cannot procreate, so they will create their own legal families with medical assistance.
Babies will be created as pets, then sold for body parts when no longer needed.
Removal of parental authority subsequently increases law and order problems and allows the government to take over and indoctrinate all children with state dogma, as communism did.
Sex perversion creates and spreads harmful diseases and conceives psychological malfunctions (sodomised boys think they’re girls, etc.).
Pornography and prostitution are the front edge of a hedonistic culture distracted with self indulgence.
Sex in the city while the country is being dismantled.
Nero fiddled while Rome burned.
What other diabolical scenarios might occur?
One world government will force global rollout of all the abominations and may enforce conception of babies with preferred race, sex and intelligence in factories.
Babies that fail quality tests will be aborted.
It would be Hitlers global domination and master race dream with enhancements, and total rebellion against Gods created design described in the first book of the Bible.
Helen Clark and team have been diligent to make NZ an experiment in forcing United Nations social engineering policies against democratic authorisation of the citizens.
Helen might be rewarded a UN position once her PM leadership is terminated, to further progress undemocratic one world government.
Her criticism of the Zimbabwe dictatorship is hypocrisy because she has been undemocratic in defying strong petitions in NZ.
Individuals in democratic nations should become active to reverse or minimise these follies, and resist intrusion of the United Nations to usurp their democratic constitution.
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 6:42 am
She doesn’t see the irony
“a once prosperous country has been bankrupted. A once vibrant country has been intimidated and cowed. In its place is a repressive regime run for the benefit of a few” Helen Clarke in parliament yeterday.
Is she talking about Zimbabwe or the New Zealand Public Service?
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 7:11 am
To save power ,try Phillip 20 watt WARM WHITE energy bulbs,great light and get a fujitsu heat pump. I have my heat pump going at the moment on 21 c ,and its great
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 7:14 am
The Optimist – you’re right, the environmentalists ARE trying to control peoples lives, look at the people who are really involved with the movement. Especially in NZ… so many of them used to be in other movements up to around 1989….
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 8:27 am
I see that Labour are up to their old tricks again, once again they are spending our money to pay off their loyal servants.
“Judith Collins: Is it not true that Ministry of Social Development union members received bonuses in the election years of 2002 and 2005, and that now in 2008 they have been told they will get $750 each; and does this not imply that the bonus is the payback for the Public Service Association yet again campaigning for Labour in an election year?
Hon RUTH DYSON: No, that is not correct. The union negotiation covering the collective agreement by the respective workers does not always fall in an election year. Some years it does-in fact, once every 3 years it falls in an election year. In the other years it is not in an election year.
And it gets worse
“Judith Collins: How can she justify awarding staff election-year bonuses just for being a member of the Public Service Association (PSA), and should not bonuses be related to employment performance rather than union membership?”
Hon RUTH DYSON: That is a matter for the chief executive.
Judith Collins: When is this Minister going to take some responsibility; what is the connection between election-year bonuses to union members and the PSA’s campaign against larger tax cuts on behalf of the Labour Party-is she now going to say there is no connection?”
Labour have lost the plot completely, do they really expect the public to fall for this bullshit?
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 8:34 am
optimist..you are an unreconstructed idiot..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 8:40 am
anyone who believes the planet is actually significantly warming should take a look at http://www.climateaudit.org/.
From what I can tell a pretty objective non-partisan (on the part of the site organisers anyway) look at the way we calculate the temp of the planet from terrestrial weather stations.
There are so many holes in the claims of global warming. Just keep in mind it’s humans doing all of this. We’re really good at making mistakes or worse (think big drug companies or Exxon but worse).
Anyone who programs computers (as do I) should be especially amused by the way that the temp readings are massaged.. er… fabricated. Also interesting to note that in the 1980s (correlating with a large step increase in global temps), the US govt rolled out new temp sensing equipment. Moved from analog to digital readouts. Only problem, digital readouts weren’t weather-proof, so had to be installed indoors. This led to the moving of a whole bunch of sensors to the tops of buildings (so they could be easily cabled by the poor sucker who had to install them on a tight budget). Tops of buildings is a really bad place for these things.
To me it looks like the consensus is becoming that the earth has actually only warmed 0.4C in the last 100 years, and considering the late 19th century was the coldest in 1000 years, we are still well below the noise floor of temp fluctuations. They used to farm Greenland. You can’t tell me the polar bear only evolved into existence in the last 1000 years. The fact that the IPCC doesn’t even acknowledge (actually edited out evidence of) what everyone else calls “the little ice age” and the “medieval optimum” period to create the “hockey stick” doesn’t fill me with faith in their integrity.
Then you start looking at the murmurings of the EU. Drafting laws to allow the EU to force member states to act on climate change. If that isn’t the first teeth of the New World Order showing I don’t know what is. We’ve got a minister for climate change! That’s like having a minister for purple flying elephants! Climate change is the justification they can use to try forcing the entire planet to toe the line. And we are bending over. Then you look at big companies like GE who bought zillions of carbon credits when they were cheap as, and is now lobbying the US government to sign up to emissions trading now that they are worth $60/ton. Money money money.
I think most people are truly honestly concerned, but are being heinously misled and reamed by
a) scientists who want to justify continued billion dollar grants to fund their pretty picture (climate model) systems – which don’t even take into account clouds or a zillion other major climate factors.
b) people with deeply disturbing political agendas.
c) people who stand to make a sh*tload of money
I think solar physicists general consensus is we’re heading into another cooling phase. Given that the Sun is the source of all this energy, I’m inclined to believe them over a bunch of crackpots with political motivations and track records of lying to us for power and/or money. I’ve seen compelling research into cosmic rays (affected by the solar wind) correlating with cloud cover. As we all know from volcanic eruptions, things like filling the air with particles that reflect light can have rapid and marked affect on climate. Low clouds are particularly good at reflecting heat back out… you can even feel it. And clouds are generated as heat rises, due to evaporation. So there’s already a natural negative (stabilising) feedback system there. Although of course the Greenists claim that the water vapour is a positive feedback thing, although if that were truly the case, the oceans would have boiled away millions of years ago. The fact that the oceans still exist is proof positive of a certain stability, which any engineer will tell you is only possible with negative feedback (not positive feedback). But the greenists don’t let small things like reality (e.g. existence of the oceans) deter them.
If you think the war on terror is a war that can’t be won (and will therefore last forever), you should take a look at a war against the climate. Humans trying to affect climate change. We may as well try putting out the sun. I heard some mental midget who masquerades as a Stanford University professor on 9 to noon the other day, talking about suggestions to cool the planet. They are suggesting things like:
a. Dumping particles into the atmosphere to reflect heat. Oh yeah, sounds reasonable… how? By flying thousands of planes 24/7/365 as high as they can go dumping particles out.. for how long? forever. If that isn’t f*cking stupid I don’t know what is.
b. By pumping water into the atmosphere. This is even more stupid. anyone who has done at least 3rd form physics knows that water is HEAVY. Getting it up there will cost a lot of ENERGY, and give off a lot of HEAT let alone consuming our entire energy supply.
Just a couple of examples of how academia in respected universities can be completely divorced from reality.
Aren’t these the same guys as are coming up with the computer models? The ones upon which the entire planet is completely relying on (above all other factors) to believe in global warming? That’s what gets me the most. Being a programmer I know a model is only as good as its programmer and the formulae/theory behind it. Even the guys who write these things all say the models are flawed, and don’t consider a whole raft of factors (because they can’t – they don’t know how). So why do we pay them any notice at all?
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Cosmic_rays_and_climate.html
One of these guys (http://www.john-daly.com/) predicted the last 2 El ninos (in 1992). something the global warming alarmists say can’t be done. He did it by analysing and identifying regular solar radiation patterns over the long term.
Anyway, the thing I like best is that time will prove one side or another right. I can’t wait to see the repercussions when we all start freezing to death, and we already crippled our economies and prepared for a heat-wave that never comes. when it doesn’t come, the greenists will claim that their efforts were successful.
However it would be nice to be not so distracted with this thing that we lose sight of real issues like energy, pollution, poverty etc etc.
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 8:42 am
DPF
philu (1922) +0 Says:
June 26th, 2008 at 8:34 am
optimist..you are an unreconstructed idiot..
phil(bludger.co.nz)
“50 points – For grossly inflammatory comments with no redeeming quality”
Do we really have to put up with this crap from Phil?
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 8:59 am
That infantile clown PilU needs to take his medication (3 times a day).
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 9:01 am
btw big bruv..
who came ‘first’..?
big bro..or big bruv..?
who is ‘the real thing’..and who is ‘the cheap imposter’..?
do you ‘talk’..?
or is there ‘animosity’..?
i reckin you’re the ‘cheap imposter’..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 9:03 am
thanks for reminding me..grubby..
back soon..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 9:04 am
what are the moderation rules here? It keeps not showing my post, saying “your comment is awaiting moderation”.
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 9:05 am
c’mon you guys, Phil adds colour.
I especially like the creative use of punctuation.
(..|..)
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 9:05 am
Baygate is in the news again. The Dom-Post reports that Boy Wonder Cunliffe planned all along to sack the HBDHB, and the “consultation period” he gave them was a farce
http://stuff.co.nz/4596984a6160.html
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 9:12 am
aahh..!!
that’s better..!
now..where were we..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 9:37 am
I suppose the rantings and endless abuse from Phil is really a cry for help, he knows that the end is near for the socialists and the end is near for his shameful lifestyle.
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 9:50 am
big bruv..
who came first..?..you..?..or big bro..?
your silence/ignoring of the question just strengthens my call of you being ‘the pretender’..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 9:59 am
I have just seen that the people of new Zealand have just given $500,000,000 to the Maoris under the ‘Treelords’ settlement. We have, in other words, yet again paid a bunch of backward tribalists for the ‘sin’ of establishing an industry and a civilisation here and supplying them with schools, hospitals etc and a benefit for life if they can’t be bothered getting off the couch.
I, like many New Zealanders, I suspect, am totally against this stupidity, but even if one were to support this wholesale bribery and farce, how many of the actual dollars will ever find their way to any of the Maoris that constitute these so-called ‘Iwis’?
When will this utter madness end? $500 MILLION dollars. F i v e – h u n d r e d – m i l l i o n – d o l l a r s.
Does anybody hear a voice of dissent about this wholesale plundering of our economy from any political party?
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Dave
And for all of us who were stupid enough to think that the term “full and final” meant what is said have been lied to again by the government.
It seems that the Maori gravy train will continue to chug along for some time yet.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10518432
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Dave Mann, backward tribalists is a little harsh. That said I dispair and the apparently this never-ending process. ‘full and final’ is anything but. There can never be full financial compensation for social wrongs (actual or percieved), and no final while those little issues of inflation and inter-generational squandering persist. This nonsense must end, and it must end without those calling for a prudent use of NZ resources for all New Zealanders to be labled racists.
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 10:09 am
bruv, snap
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Listerning to newstalk ZB, cullen rushed this through as fast as possible, is he cleaning the piggy bank out before being thrown out. Does liarbour think its going to suck maori votes back from the maori party, with this generous part settlement , (they ALWAYS want more as there are more claims from these lucky sods) and how many more whitey honkey pakeha voters are they going to loose, HEAPS MORE.I personally think clark and cullen are strip mining the future of our country in the hope they will get another term(NOT LIKELY)
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Philu,
publish for us some of your poetry: I’ll bet anyone 10 karma it will be excellent.
Dave Mann,
That’s a pretty strong entry into what is obviously one of the most hostile prone subjects of New Zealand. At the moment for this election it seems like we are going to be dealing with all of them at the same time. I don’t think the railroad big bruv talks about starts at this point where 1/2 a $billion has been calculated over some considerable period of years. I’m not contesting your view but know certainly that there are more facts to the settlement than come out of one news item. Just like with the smacking issue, there will be documents that can be found in regards to this and other settlements that shed light on the topic and make the discussion that is held far more exciting for its closeness to the internal debates.
My point in openning, is that the amount would be too much for any component that established any expectancy on Maori to perform in a certain way in the future compelled to work as one in the country under a demanded set of rules by the acting sovereignty. I say this because it makes future negotiations on present injustices more complex, writing down overpayments for what should have been negotiated in this round of the discussions. This is to say that Maori are only entitled to compensation for acts of horrendous colonial behaviour that have been enacted. The future that Maori and the rest of New Zealand deserve and should strive for is a country that is built in a unity for its natural diversity. From all conversations I have had so far, I am not aware if this has been achieved. A similar problem exists in the Middle East.
So I agree with you that there is likely a overpayment, but it is unlikely at the moment that that component, which we could debate will be consistent to an equal cause.
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Re the ‘Treelords’ settlement, my chief concern is whether the red rose that Cullen has taken to wearing should be classed as an election advertisement.
As it is “designed to encourage or persuade someone to support a party or candidate” surely it should carry an authorisation statement?
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Since our government is more intent on keeping the serfs amused with Lotto than actually encouraging any real investment in the future of the nation (of the kind outlined by Robert Winston during his recent visit), I’ve come up with an idea in my blog today that I’d appreciate some comments on.
Could it be that by simplifying investment in hi-tech we might wean Kiwis away from their fixation with brightly coloured balls and get them looking a little further ahead than Saturday night at 8pm?
Check it out and tell me what you think.
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Is it just possible that we might be able to develop a cross-party consensus on what NZ might do re Zimbabwe?
While we (or anyone except Mbeki) don’t hold any sway with the Mulgabe regime and our options are limited that cannot be seen as an excuse to do nothing. And to argue that any action we might take will impact on the ordinary people of Zimbabwe is equally fatuous. There is nothing but nothing the international community might do that would worsen the plight of ordinary Zimbabweans over the rape, torture and murder and plunder that is a daily part of life in that country under Mulgable and his ZANU PF thugs.
So, for starters, the Zimbabwe Ambassador to Australia is cross-credited to New Zealand. We should now decline to recognise her? has representing the legitimate Government of Zimbabwe and we should argue for other countries to take similar action; we should press for the Zimbabwe to be suspended from the UN and all its agencies pending free and democratic elections; we should argue for Air Zimbabwe (such as it is) to be denied landing rights in those countries it currently flys to and we should initiate action to have Mulgabe brought before the ICJ to face charges of genocide against the people of Zimbabwe.
Like to see some debate on this
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Well, Political Busker, I couldn’t quite make out what your position is on this one (sorry, you lost me with the ‘component’ and ‘consistent to an equal cause’ stuff), but I heartily agree with you on the fact that this kind of question is “one of the most hostile (sic) prone subjects of (sic) New Zealand”.
The fact is that if anybody dares to put their head up above the parapet and say that Maoris (I am writing in english, so I’ll use the plural form with an ‘s’) don’t deserve to be given extortionate sums of OUR money to either pay them off or buy their votes, then that person is open to the label of ‘racist’.
Yes, of course there must have been some times in the settlement of New Zealand when some Maoris were screwed (financially that is) and weren’t too happy. Sure. When cultures meet and merge its not always totally free of some friction; but for any indigenous New Zealander to claim that their forbears generally were brutally opressed, dominated, killed and downtrodden in the process of making a workable nation in these islands is absolute bullcrap. And, even if they were, then the benefits (literally in many cases) accruing out of European settlement far outweigh the benefits of living in a constant state of war with each other and fear with no law to speak of and no security of land tenure beyong what they could gain from bashing each other with stone and wooden clubs. The trouble is, it’s politically unacceptable to just tell these useless parasites to just get a fucking life and stop whining, isn’t it?
—–
Getstaffed, this money is being given to tribes. Tribes form the organisational basis of their claims and they are looking into the past and inventing bullshit about historical ‘grievances’ in order to extort money out of the hard work of New Zealanders in astronomical amounts. I would say that ‘backward looking tribalists’ is actually entirely accurate.
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Whilst driving last night National radio was playing “My sweet embraceable you”
My Aussie passenger said “I like that song about the sheep.”
Nearly left the road laughing.
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Dave Mann,
There is an item running now on nine to noon Radio National New Zaland that is well worth listening to. I cannot provide the link as it is running.
The term of equal cause describes your comments as I thought they would be returned. And the component is the financial package that could be calculated into each side of an (yours against mine) argument. I didn’t anticipate that your position would be to completely exclude: an evidence that brutal behaviour of one civilisation over another, as indigenous, should conclude that a justification to own the word ‘civil’ demands no requirement for violent land consuming laws as retribution, resulting from as you suggest a natural clash of those cultures. So please further if you would, (advise me if I am wrong) that no money should be paid out for a/this past of colonisation.
1) If the last sentence is correct, then can you tell me if your opinion is calculated through reading or more grounded to your own set of beliefs and principles?
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Political Busker, sorry mate, I honestly can’t understand a word of what you are writing. Are you an academic of some sort, or maybe a government researcher or adviser?
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Do we live in a ‘sham-ocracy’?
Vote:Pop over to http://www.nominister.blogspot.com to find out.
Much government corruptions and dodgy works are afoot in Helengrad.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Dave Mann,
aaargh no. I’m the Political Busker. Don’t try it in your own home the pay is lousy.
I would redo the sentences but I would take awy from what I have asked you. What I wanted from your reply is to put a capital value on the size of our discussion. As far as I’m aware you said that no money should be paid in compensation for anything – tough nuts. But if I said that you wouldn’t know my argument.
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
No Minister also has a thread open on the Treelords deal under ‘lovers knots’
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Phil, when are you going to get a job and set a good example to you son?
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Ross Miller:
Great suggestions re Zimbabwe. Having some official statement from Parliament that we don’t like them doesn’t mean a thing. Doing something serious does, refusing to recognise the regime and the ambassador is an ideal first step, expulsion from the UN would be the next step, and the Air Zimbabwe suggestion is great (unfortunately we can’t do that one ourselves).
What about also refusing to recognise Zimbabwe passports for all except genuine refugees looking for one-way passage into the country? If a few countries did this it would stop officials travelling, but wouldn’t impact on any of the ordinary citizens as they couldn’t afford to travel anyway.
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
“I think it is a fairly transparent scam undertaken by environmentalists to get their way in lots of issues they care about, like restricting private transport, cutting energy use and making us all live in a shoebox.”
Well, I think it’s sad that people jump to the conclusion that an environmentalist’s goal is to ruin your life, and any excuse will do. It shows a pretty petty way of looking at life.
They couldn’t possibly ACTUALLY BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT now, could they? No, it must be all about keeping hardworking people down. Damn socialists…
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Mr Dennis, I commented on your post on the “$10 million to be wasted by Helen” thread re which party to vote for.
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
I see both Graeme Edgeler and Russell Brown have posts on Public Address about “The anti-smacking referendum”…
For the benefit of those here who would never stoop to reading Public Address, both seem to point out that the referendum question:
Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?
is stupid because it reeks of all the emotional rhetoric of the last few months, but it does not actually ask if you want “the anti-smacking law” to be repealed or not. As such the referendum itself is a waste of time, and contrary to what Mr DPF would say it is the petition organisers rather than Helen Clark that are responsible for any wasted $10 million…
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Ah… Climate Change, and I remember before that (in no particular order) Bird Flu, Y2K, Nuclear War, and I’m sure there are a few more scary things I’ve totally missed. Anyone remember back in primary school seeing that movie (on a reel too) of what a nuclear blast would do to a pumpkin???? Ah nostalgia. And how many people panicked about what the computers of the world would do as we approached the dreaded Y2K only for all of us to wake up the next day to ……… nothing.
I wonder if there is some little committee of Marketing geniuses who come up with this stuff – I have to say 10 out of 10 for taking some reasonable concerns about things we should all be trying to change and creating a “grand panic”
Let start the betting on what will superscede climate change as the next great “terrify the plebs into doing crazy things, using a little fact and a lot of crap” idea. Its time for a new one…….. any guesses?
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
“Chancellor Hitler’s aspirations in Czechoslovakia should not give us any cause for alarm…”
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
a3catlady, these things seem to go in cycles merging the themes of heath & disease and technology with the occasional mix of aliens to make them really frightening, don’t they? So how about a really potent mix next time around? How about ‘intellibots’ which have gained control of the world’s computer systems and are replicating themselves in the internet in order take over as the next dominant species on Earth? These intellibots are using disease-cloning and mis-information against us and there’s nothing we can do about it because our systems are all under their control….. They are using our own technology to cause our downfall and its all our fault for having computers in the first place. Ooohhhh! Now THATS a scary thought….!
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Ryan Sproull:
“Perhaps if people were brought up less interested in massive material wealth, they would realise that the things New Zealand has to offer are priceless.”
If only “MASSIVE material wealth” WAS the extent of the problem.
I couldn’t say it better than Professor David Round in his latest column in “The Press”:
“……..a loss of moral sense inherent in our ugly new society.
That society has been deliberately created, as our old one has been dismantled, by the high-minded and politically correct. These are usually not politicians, but the powerful caste of liberal bureaucrats and intelligentsia who can and do frustrate any political programme they dislike.
They have abolished accepted community standards, which are oppressive. Monoculturalism is oppressive. There is no morality, only a diversity of moralities, none better than another. Religion is discredited.
Consequently, meaning can be found only in material possessions. People become angry when they lack them, and when they discover that possessions do not bring happiness……..”
The whole column is well worth reading.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/thepress/4594800a22215.html
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Why I Left Greenpeace
By PATRICK MOORE
April 22, 2008; Page A23 WALL STREET JOURNAL
“In 1971 an environmental and antiwar ethic was taking root in Canada, and I chose to participate. As I completed a Ph.D. in ecology, I combined my science background with the strong media skills of my colleagues. In keeping with our pacifist views, we started Greenpeace.
But I later learned that the environmental movement is not always guided by science. As we celebrate Earth Day today, this is a good lesson to keep in mind.
At first, many of the causes we championed, such as opposition to nuclear testing and protection of whales, stemmed from our scientific knowledge of nuclear physics and marine biology. But after six years as one of five directors of Greenpeace International, I observed that none of my fellow directors had any formal science education. They were either political activists or environmental entrepreneurs. Ultimately, a trend toward abandoning scientific objectivity in favor of political agendas forced me to leave Greenpeace in 1986.
The breaking point was a Greenpeace decision to support a world-wide ban on chlorine. Science shows that adding chlorine to drinking water was the biggest advance in the history of public health, virtually eradicating water-borne diseases such as cholera. And the majority of our pharmaceuticals are based on chlorine chemistry. Simply put, chlorine is essential for our health.
My former colleagues ignored science and supported the ban, forcing my departure. Despite science concluding no known health risks – and ample benefits – from chlorine in drinking water, Greenpeace and other environmental groups have opposed its use for more than 20 years.
Opposition to the use of chemicals such as chlorine is part of a broader hostility to the use of industrial chemicals. Rachel Carson’s 1962 book, “Silent Spring,” had a significant impact on many pioneers of the green movement. The book raised concerns, many rooted in science, about the risks and negative environmental impact associated with the overuse of chemicals. But the initial healthy skepticism hardened into a mindset that treats virtually all industrial use of chemicals with suspicion.
Sadly, Greenpeace has evolved into an organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas……”
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Chuck Bird: Thanks, have replied. Thanks for pointing it out, so many posts there I probably wouldn’t have found it before my scrolling finger gave out if I hadn’t known it was there…!
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Phil – that column just lacks coherence. Look at the religious right in the states. Possibly the most rapacious, materialistic, profit-seekers in human history. Also don’t you know that hyper materialism in large part sprung from protestantism?
i.e – see “the Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism” by Max Weber. Probably one of the finest sociological works ever written.
So protestantism taught capital accumulation as good in and of itself. This is the ethos that now dominates society. Thanks religion!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_Spirit_of_Capitalism
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Philbest,
Religion hasn’t been abolished. It’s just not so popular any more.
There is no morality, only a diversity of moralities.
Which is it? Is there no morality? Or is there a diversity of moralities?
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Dave mann said
“I have just seen that the people of new Zealand have just given $500,000,000 to the Maoris under the ‘Treelords’ settlement. We have, in other words, yet again paid a bunch of backward tribalists for the ’sin’ of establishing an industry and a civilisation here and supplying them with schools, hospitals etc and a benefit for life if they can’t be bothered getting off the couch.”
you forgot to mention Dave that not only did we supply them with schools we punished them for speaking Maori and tried so hard to assimulate them into our superior culture
but you know, some people, they are just so unappreciative
seriously DPF, arent you just a little embarrassed to have some of these people associated with you?
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Phil – 19th century protestantism taught that wealth accumulation is morally good in and of itself (see “the Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism – by Max Weber). This gave rise to conspicuous consumption – i.e. buying flash things to show god’s approval of you). With this form of religion prevailing in the West for over two centuries is it any wonder that other types of ascetic morality went out the window? Is it any wonder that people generally favor growing their own personal finances than nurturing the community and family bonds that hold society together?
No, it isn’t about secularism. It’s the political-economy that’s underpinned by this set of originally spiritual values, which have now spilled into the secular sphere as well.
We are told that we should all seek to attain financial independence (no doubt you whole heartedly push this idea), which leads to social atomization/individualization (we each become individual economic and therefore “moral units”). We leave behind the communal economic ties which bind us to a feeling of collective morality and collective responsibility. The further right you go, the more extremely this ethos is pushed, and the further morality is degraded. It’s people like you who are to blame for the corruption of morality phil – not the liberals and socialists.
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
RRM:
The referendum question does not ask for a repeal of this law. But if it did, the latest law could be repealed then a different one introduced that imposed similar restrictions without contradicting the referendum question. The question asks instead whether a smack should be illegal. A “no” to this is a request to repeal the latest law change OR implement something different, whatever politicians feel is best, provided it remains legal to smack as part of parental correction. This is a far more wide-reaching result and can affect future law, as it is asking what people want the result to be not what should be done about a particular act.
The only problem I have is that it is a negative question, where if you want to smack your children the answer is “no”. This could be confusing and result in a few people voting opposite to how they intended if they don’t read it carefully.
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
ryan..ryan..don’t ask phil-the-inferior to explain anything..!
he just cuts and pastes/hasn’t had an original thought in his life..
(you’ll just ‘show him up’..by asking awkward questions..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
PhilBest(?): “I couldn’t say it better than Professor David Round in his latest column in “The Press”:
“……..a loss of moral sense inherent in our ugly new society.
So, you’ve promoted Mr Round, Lecturer, on account of his views?
Shortie, He’s just trying to provoke. Nobody could possibly believe that. Best ignored.
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Roger Nome,
“Who needs family when I have World of Warcraft”?
The common availability of the automobile was the real beginning of the end of traditional family units, I think. That’s when courting was replaced by dating, and when people could far more easily pack up and move from one place to another.
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
philu,
I’ve had plenty of interesting conversations with PhilBest in the past. I believe he feels the same way about me.
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
really..!
with such a high degree of mutual ‘pleasuring’..
..have you discussed ‘getting a room’..?
phil(whoar.co.nz
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Ryan-
Your “motor car” example can been seen as an extension of my original argument.
oh and wouldn’t go around parading the fact that you’re into world of warcraft. Not exactly going to make the impression on Phil Best that you want
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Seen John Key’s latest on the beaters charter vote?
“the National Party is calling for any referendum on restoring the right of parents to smack their children to be held at the election, leader John Key said yesterday that a National government would not necessarily overturn the law if a majority voted in favour
“We are not going to change the law on the rights and wrongs of the referendum. What would change the law is if our test wasn’t met.”
So Key demands a vote, but plans to ignore it.
Truly the man is an inspiration to us all!
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
oh and wouldn’t go around parading the fact that you’re into world of warcraft. Not exactly going to make the impression on Phil Best that you want
I’m not overly concerned with making a good impression.
Besides, it’s taking forever to level this shaman, and people keep softing out halfway through Wailing Cavern, making it fucking difficult to finish all the quests I’ve got in there.
…What?
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
1. Climate Change Like other I see a religious ferver creeping into the debate that will lead to anyone raising an alternative view point being dealt to severly its already happening with the emotive ‘denier’ tag used by the red necks to shut down debate.
2. TOW settlements The next gen of Maoris will be back for another helping of whiteys cash mark my words. They will argue quite correctly that there was no trickle down from this round of payouts and only the top Bros got the money. Evidence. No change in the circumstances of the ordinary bros after over a decade since the first payouts.
3. Zim Gordon Browns gotta be one of the most cynical arsehole pollies on the globe. He knows the Chinese are financing Mugabe and so any embargoes etc will have zero effect and only further harm the good citizens.
Mugabe is getting all he needs and will continue to do so. Only direct action will stop him. Meanwhile the people suffer.
It should be a lesson to NZ and every other countries good people that if they get a government that goes feral then forget the UN etc etc. You are on your own. Noone will come to your aid.
And it only serves to encourage pollies in feral governments that they can get away with it because there is no counter to them.
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Oh and has anyone seen this post about David Farrar’s friend, Cameron Slater (aka whaleoil)? Truly, the man keeps some very strange company.
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Roger,
Whoa.
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
SKY TV
Does anyone else get absolutely piss poor service from Sky TV over technical difficulties?
Vote:I lost Sky reception on Monday and 6 phone calls later am still waiting.
June 26th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Yeah, I always thought that DPF was a liberal, but when you see shit like that coming from someone who’s a pretty close friend of his, you do start to wonder.
BTW – nice photoshop job hey?
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
A must read in the Telegraph: “History will say that we misunderestimated George W Bush”
telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/22/do2201.xml&DCMP=EMC-new_22062008
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
welcome back roger – seems as though you’re planning a short stay. For one who has berated WhaleOil for “photoshopping a 15 year old’s face onto gay porn”, it’s a bit rich that you are now linkwhoring for Robinsod (permanently banned from Kiwiblog) for a post which is,at best, grossly defamatory. Then again, ethics has never been your strong suit has it?
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Wait. So who made the racist photoshopped badges that say “in jail by 19″ or whatever?
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
“ethics has never been your strong suit has it”
Unlike Cameron, NZ’s second worst blogger?
I’d be careful of linking to him though Roger, his blog is clearly dying and the only thing that can save it is whipping up some controversy. Don’t forget Cammy is in blogging (like everything else) for the money. The more page hits he gets the more cash he makes.
Just ignore the fool, you know it makes sense.
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Sonic, you claim Whale Oil’s blog is dying.
Vote:But he’s in it for the money by accepting advertising.
So which is it?
If Cam did not have a thriving blog, he would not be making money.
Anyway, last time I looked Whale Oil was closing in on Kiwiblog, at least on the Alexa rankins which have him ahead of Public Address.
June 26th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
What will roger nome and sonic do after the election? I do hope John Key when Prime Minister does not tolerate paying blogger’s to stir shit ? Russell at Public Address has done nicely from the Aunty Helen club.
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Dave Mann,
I’ve reworded my previous entry in response to your previous post for your benefit.
Your position excludes: an evidence of brutal behaviour. That behaviour is of one ‘civilisation’ dominating an indigenous and you allege savage people. Your argument concludes a justification for the coloniser to own the word ‘civil’. Yet your argument set no limit against the vicious and violent land consuming laws set as retribution from what you imply is merely a natural clash of culture.
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
The Optimist:God isn’t something you have to believe in. Jesus Christ is an historical fact, and we have records to prove it. He was seen performing miracle by thousands of people. He wandered around and visited people for weeks after his death. All reputable world historians agree on this fact
PaulL:The Optimist – comparing to religion is not right. There is plenty of evidence that Jesus existed, none that he was son of god, or that he rose from the dead
Good grief will this nonsense ever die out? There is NO independent evidence for Jesus whatsoever. Why is it so difficult for the churches to tell their flocks the truth?
a3catlady: And how many people panicked about what the computers of the world would do as we approached the dreaded Y2K only for all of us to wake up the next day to ……… nothing.
Actually the concern about the Y2k bug was valid – there were a few problems as a result of it and would have been more if no one had checked – but the problem was the overhyping of it by the media and some of the loonier fringes of society that made it sound as though the Y2k problem was going to make the planet explode.
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
To all those moaning about the Treelord settlement.
One of my best mates did a lot of work/research for that deal. He and many others (and there is plenty more evidence around) will inform I’m sure anyone who wants to know about how badly us whities REAMED the tribes down there over and over and over. Stealing (yes stealing) land was about the least of it.
Sure it’s frustrating to feel the pain of compensation. But we are paying for the sins of our forbears. It’s the only right thing to do. To know about then ignore these atrocious past wrongs would make us just as bad as the people who committed them. It’s rich for us to sit back and say they should just get over it, but would you? If someone came in and stole your land, made promises to you and broke them repeatedly, would you just roll over and forget it? I don’t think so. Just because it’s taken decades and decades to get anywhere sorting this mess out doesn’t mean that maori should just forgive us all those past sins.
So, yep, sure it’s painful, and costly, but they have been bearing the cost and pain of the past governments crimes in the meantime. How can they get that back?
I think the attitude displayed is appalling.
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
What an amazing beat up over at the Standard, No Right Turn, TV1 and Tv3.
John Key is roasted over what is touted as an almighty gaffe over New Zealand history.
But Michael Cullen said pretty much the same.
Meanwhile, the economy continues tanking.
But now Liarbour has delivered recession in election year, the left no longer want to talk about the economy.
Instead, they reaffirm their Key Derangement Sydrome by attacking Key for what Michael Cullen has said himself!
About something that happened, or didn’t happen, over 100 years ago. Priorities! Priorities!
It just confirms Liabour’s inability to empathise with householders over the pain we face thanks to Liarbour’s failed economic policies, especially when it seems recession will be confirmed tomorrow! The row just confirms what truly interests the left, and it ain’t the voters!
Vote:http://www.nominister.blogspot.com
June 26th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
adc
Given that you look at it that way can I assume the following will happen once all the “sins of our forbears” are righted.
1. The appalling rates of child abuse and child murders among Maori will stop
2. The shocking Maori crime rate will fall
3. The end of sickly white liberals kowtowing to everything Maori out of some misguided guilt
4. Maori start to take ownership of their problems
5. And end to gang violence and anti social behaviour from Maori
6. The end of the obesity and diabetes epidemic that afflicts Maori
7. The end of the bullshit “colonisation” excuse
8. And the end of us “whiteys” being blamed for all the ills in Maoridom
9. And most of all the end of all race based funding and privilege.
Or will you and all the other “guilty whiteys” simply find another reason to make excuses for Maori failure?
If I was a betting man I know where my money will be, make no mistake your and my grandkids will still be handing out money to Maori when they are middle aged, as long as the likes of you are prepared to accept these piss arse excuses from Maori then NOTHING will change.
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Ok adc. tell me what year did that happen?
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
I am also appalled at the bigoted coverage of John Keys on TV1 news tonight. We got zero context with onlt the hint there might be some from a reporter right at the end. For ‘expert commentary’ there was an academic from Waikato University!!! No position could be too far to the left for her.
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
I don’t understand why the good bloggers at Kiwiblog allow a mentally disturbed sad individual with paranoid delusions to rark them up.
Sonic needs help. He isn’t going to get it here, in fact you people make his condition worse.
It’s actually quite cruel. In Victorian times people used to go on the weekend to see the loonies at Bedlam Hospital.
Please stop teasing sonic. If you ignore him there is a better chance he will seek help.
Unfortunately KKKlarKKK closed the asylums at places like Carrington Hospital so sonic has no where to go. His mother is unable to ensure he takes his medication. It is not impossible that sonics condition is genetic and mom of sonic needs compassion too.
It is also possible that his mental health is caused by a disease such as syphilis.
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
John Key’s little mistake on its own is no big deal and will be forgotten about by breakfast.
However what it does show and this is far more worrying is that the scum bag wankers in the left wing media have already started their dirty work on behalf of dear leader.
Watch the likes of Espiner, Campbell, and Barry Soper ignore the worsening economy, ignore the endless cases of corruption that spews out of the Labour party, ignore the fuck up that is the EFA and ignore the way dear corrupt maggot leader has swept aside the opinion of the people over the smacking petition/referendum, the bastards are after Key and the Nat’s.
Vote:As usual when you deal with these left wing cunts the truth will have no bearing on the way they report anything, they are in attack mode and things are going to get rough.
June 26th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
a3catlady wrote at 1:31 pm
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
a3catlady wrote at 1:31 pm
Vote:“Climate Change, Bird Flu, Y2K, Nuclear War, and I’m sure there are a few more scary things I’ve totally missed.”
You did miss a very big one that has been strangely lacking in media attention.
That is the fact that the World Health Organisation has recently announced that HIV / AIDS is confined to high risk groups (in the West) and that there is in fact no threat of a global Aids pandemic among heterosexuals after all.
That’s lucky because for the last thirty years, until they changed their minds, humanity was doomed – doomed I tell you – by HIV.
June 26th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
The media are all on the absolute power Klarkula gravy train. Hey bro, got a spare billion for race 8?
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
1. The appalling rates of child abuse and child murders among Maori will stop
2. The shocking Maori crime rate will fall
3. The end of sickly white liberals kowtowing to everything Maori out of some misguided guilt
4. Maori start to take ownership of their problems
5. And end to gang violence and anti social behaviour from Maori
6. The end of the obesity and diabetes epidemic that afflicts Maori
7. The end of the bullshit “colonisation” excuse
8. And the end of us “whiteys” being blamed for all the ills in Maoridom
9. And most of all the end of all race based funding and privilege.
Or will you and all the other “guilty whiteys” simply find another reason to make excuses for Maori failure?
Big bruv,
I see almost all of those as results of generational poverty that, yes, originated in colonisation. I believe disproportionate representation of Maori in the various things you listed would indeed become proportionate if those cycles of poverty and lack of education were rectified, and I think that race-based iniatives are an acceptable short-term unfairness to rectify an open-ended unfairness.
But this confuses me:
Or will you and all the other “guilty whiteys” simply find another reason to make excuses for Maori failure?
I believe in cause and effect. I believe the cause of the effects you call Maori failure are strongly rooted in generational poverty and, to a lesser degree, institutional racism in the past in New Zealand.
That’s my explanation. What is your explanation for those disproportionate representations?
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
big bruv. I’m only talking about what we actually did to them. The stuff they definitely don’t teach in school.
I don’t feel any personal guilt about what past administrations did. But I don’t think we should ignore them either just because they happened before we were born.
A lot of the major rorts were to do with governments reneging on agreed deals. Well post-treaty too I might add. So no excuse. And not just in any one year either, but time and again over decades, even well into the 20th C.
For specifics, I’d have to research – it’s not my field, I’m only relaying the fragments and sentiment that I learned from many discussions with my friend (researcher for CRFT). However if you heard what I’d heard about what successive administrations have done, you’d be disgusted. You wouldn’t be looking for reasons to justify them, or to avoid making amends.
As for affirmative action programmes, I think they are unjustified, and discriminatory. Any sort of decisions based on race to me are by definition prejudicial.
But as for your list. Well I admit I probably would have been sympathetic to it as a teenager from the waikato, but now I think it’s just a demonstration of the sort of ignorance that really compounds these problems.
I don’t think we’ll be paying out forever. Take a look at the groups that have already received major settlements. They aren’t pissing it up against a wall, and we aren’t still paying them either. These people have by and large been waiting patiently an incredibly long time for justice.
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Ryan
My explanation is blindingly bloody simple,
If the left wing hand wringers and “guilty whiteys” stop making excuses for Maori and stopped letting them milk the whole intergenerational grievance and colonisation bullshit then things could change relatively quickly.
When you think about it the lefts fawning attitude to things Maori is actually racism of the worst kind, the white trendy lefties rush into help Maori in the racist and mistaken belief that they need the help of the white man, stop treating them as second class citizens and you will see an almost immediate improvement, stop making excuses for them based on the colour of their skin and you will see and almost immediate improvement.
Can you do that Ryan?
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
>> “I think it is a fairly transparent scam undertaken by environmentalists to get their way in lots of issues they care about, like restricting private transport, cutting energy use and making us all live in a shoebox.”
> Well, I think it’s sad that people jump to the conclusion that an environmentalist’s goal is to ruin your life, and any excuse will do. It shows a pretty petty way of looking at life.
On whose part?
> They couldn’t possibly ACTUALLY BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT now, could they? No, it must be all about keeping hardworking people down. Damn socialists.
I have no argument about that, just the way it interferes with us humans. Can’t environmentalists care about the environment with their own money and time, and leave the rest of us in peace?
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
adc
“But as for your list. Well I admit I probably would have been sympathetic to it as a teenager from the waikato, but now I think it’s just a demonstration of the sort of ignorance that really compounds these problems.”
Oh really?, so tell me what is false about my little (and it could have been a LOT longer) list?
“I don’t think we’ll be paying out forever. Take a look at the groups that have already received major settlements. They aren’t pissing it up against a wall, and we aren’t still paying them either. These people have by and large been waiting patiently an incredibly long time for justice.”
Here you show that despite the claims you make you do not really know as much about the settlement process as you claim, the agreements reached some time ago with other tribes all have a “top up” clause in them, as a direct result of the tree lords deal those tribes who apparently received full and final settlements will receive more of our money.
This WILL keep going for generations to come.
Oh and one more thing adc, please do not speak for me, when you say you are talking about what “we” did you are including me in that and I can assure you it had absolutely nothing to do with me, I am just the poor bastard who has to pay for it.
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Did we eat each other? No. Burn the treaty and move on FFS!
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Ryan
My explanation is blindingly bloody simple,
If the left wing hand wringers and “guilty whiteys” stop making excuses for Maori and stopped letting them milk the whole intergenerational grievance and colonisation bullshit then things could change relatively quickly.
How would things change?
When you think about it the lefts fawning attitude to things Maori is actually racism of the worst kind, the white trendy lefties rush into help Maori in the racist and mistaken belief that they need the help of the white man, stop treating them as second class citizens and you will see an almost immediate improvement, stop making excuses for them based on the colour of their skin and you will see and almost immediate improvement.
Can you do that Ryan?
Wasn’t there a time in the past when there was no left-wing fawning attitudes? Did things improve then?
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
big bruv.
Why do you think there’s a treaty? Surely if the brits had conquered the maori, there wouldn’t be need for one?
The reason there is a treaty, is because the Brits were finding it too expensive (so far away) to fight an ongoing war that they weren’t actually doing that crash hot at. The Maori were pretty damn good fighters, even before they got hold of guns. The british didn’t conquer the maori. It’s not like the rest of the world. The Maori LET them do a treaty because the treaty promised benefits that they considered were worth the trade.
Part of the treaty terms related to agreements to sell enough land for colonies, partnership arrangements etc. The crown has since then breached this treaty so many times. why do you think they say “honour the treaty”!
Do you honour your promises? I think everyone should.
Later on, land started getting confiscated and stolen. Deals for places like Auckland by Governor Grey were broken (ending up in problems like Bastion Point, which to their enormous credit, once they won it back, they gifted it to NZ). Then the repression of maori culture (getting caned if caught speaking your own language in school etc). Are these all supposed to be things we should be proud of?
I think there may be a lot of people who go to far in pandering to things, but I don’t think that means nothing wrong was done. I’m certainly not left-wing, and totally believe in personal responsibility for actions, but I believe maori have had many genuine terrible greivances, and various governments have perpetrated all sorts of misinformation campaigns and myths to steel our resolve against them. It’s pretty disgusting.
So as far as I’m concerned, we’re just being justly done for major breach of contract. These people don’t want to spend their whole lives fighting for this, once they get it, they want to get on with their lives. Wouldn’t you?
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
So the Maori’s now own thousands of hectares of trees. I would hope that all things been fair in this country that when these two bobs bring in their Carbon trading con the Maoris will have the unbridled joy of giving the government millions of dollars for cutting the fucking things down. I bet that will put a dent in half a billion. Whats the bet the slimy socialist bastards flogged of the trees because they had dollar signs in their eyes, they knew they were going to get it back with interest. I have not heard the government state they will hand back the Carbon credits to the forest owners so as far as I see it the government are just Indian givers.
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
hey big bruv
what is wrong with your list is that you put it down.
The facts may not be unjustifiable, but they are irrelevant. Why should we put conditions on redressing wrongs?
That’s like me stealing your house, and saying I’ll give it back to you if you lose some weight. Its damn rude man. And it’s morally an indefensible position.
Noone has a perfect track record in any of the areas in your list.
Point taken re speaking for you. I didn’t do anything either. But that’s no excuse either.
As for top-ups. The Crown Forestry Rental Trust has been accumulating rental income (from forestry operators) for decades on Crown Land subject to disputes. It’s only right that this money get distributed along with the land it was earned on. If I stole 100 dollars from you, kept it for 10 years, you would be justified in getting 100 dollars back plus interest. If I stole land from you and rented it out, you’d expect the land back and the rent as an absolute minimum.
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
An interesting question as to what will come after global warming – what will environmentalists come up with next?
I agree that ‘intellibots’ sounds like a plan. In anticipation of the global warming scam falling apart, environmentalists can bone up on Terminator 1, 2 and 3. (What night is Sarah Connor files on?) That way we can ban computers, which will really put some sand in the works. If that doesn’t get us back to the stone age, nothing will.
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
“when there was no left-wing fawning attitudes? ” Oh, you mean Doug Graham? hahaha -good one
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
The Optimist,
I am an environmentalist, and I do not want to ban computers.
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
If anything, they’re an incredibly low-impact form of entertainment, in terms of power consumption, and they’re insanely efficient uses of power compared to other means of communication.
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
“I don’t understand why the good bloggers at Kiwiblog allow a mentally disturbed sad individual with paranoid delusions to rark them up.”
Vote:Im sorry LaS
its just that, well, sometimes your collective ignorance is soul destroying
June 26th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
# dad4justice (3850) June 26th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
What will roger nome and sonic do after the election? I do hope John Key when Prime Minister does not tolerate paying blogger’s to stir shit ? Russell at Public Address has done nicely from the Aunty Helen club.
What will YOU and all your kind do after the election? Once the evil Clark is gone, you’ll have nothing to bitch about, and then you’ll have to find a new outlet for all your hatred. For everyone’s sake I can only hope you find another relatively safe and benign environment like this to do it in…
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Hi Ryan,
> I am an environmentalist, and I do not want to ban computers.
I would send you along to an environmentalists anoymous meeting if I knew of one, but for the moment you can going to have to suffer, sorry…
What about AI computers that argue against environmentalists (am I human?)
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
adc
So if we ignore the problems they will go away will they?
BRILLIANT!!!
In the mean time everything that is wrong continues and can be put down to colonisation, perhaps that is the next gravy train once the land settlements have been reached, I can see it now, record settlements for the damages caused by colonisation.
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
big bruv
eh?
You’re sounding a bit socialistic there mate. Proposing that we start imposing constraints on people’s diets, activities, child-rearing etc… you sure you’re not Sue Bradford under there?
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
What about AI computers that argue against environmentalists (am I human?)
Shall we play a game?
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
The first question in any debate of this nature is whether the argument is to be objective or subjective.
If it is objective under New Zealand law it will be sovereignty controlled. If it is subjective it exists entirely in the realm of ‘lore’. Lore encases objectivity as subjective. That is to say that there is nothing written about that which is tangible, or of the object. The object is built into the subjective. The subjective is about the subject and how we ‘feel’. What is subjective is about our emotions.
In New Zealand law and sovereignty we obey the law and the law is objective. In the arguments above, as far as I can see the body of the discussion is subjective. This is to say it is emotional and not constructed to facts.
If the facts are engaged as if they are important we must investigate the value of the Treaty. New Zealand has extraordinary laws. In 1986 there was a revolution. That revolution was called the Constitution Act. It was built from a disengagement from a responsibility to the Crown. Additionally it removed any responsibility to any established Maori authority. Or at least that is what the Crown wanted it to do. The fact is that Sovereignty were never legal in this country. The document legitimising the English Laws Act 1852 (as I remember the year) was not constituted effectively or properly into the jurisdiction of the Declaration of Independence in 1835. The Declaration of Independence gave Maori authority in the country no matter their tribal or political differences.
The last paragraph does not fully disclose the objective principles relative to New Zealand’s ability to fully intergrate two culture to work in unity as two people’s side by side. It does however provide sufficient information to engage a different set of rules when considering the common question, already established clearly in this thread of ‘where to from here’. So the primary question remains. Is the debate going to be objective or subjective? The history of the country, as is likely in this thread is that the subjective will rage on regardless and the body of the most vocal will carry on bellowing whether or not they are right, but more simply because they feel most passionately about what they are saying and how they feel. Fair enough.
Yet such a concession does not solve the problem. If the second question is ‘is the problem solvable”‘ then the answer is of course. The instrument globally on this is how those people who are most passionate in the debate that they figure is most important is how they conduct themselves.
Big Bruv,
if you take out points 7 & 8 of your list you open remove the most direct aggitators. There after you are left with point 3 as the aggressor. That’s the point that secures your argument. You don’t need points 7 or 8. If you have the ability to take out points 7 & 8, then you are not the direct pakeha opposite of the sickly white liberal about who you complain and you can concentrate on the second part of that point. When you get to the part on ‘misguided guilt’, then you arrive at the instrument to fix the whole problem. In fact not just that problem but nearly every problem.
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
… blinks dumbly as a tumbleweed rolls across the scene…
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
RRM 551 = comment of the year to date
Mr Busker, I’m interested in your thesis about ‘misguided guilt’ being pretty durn terrific. Do you have any brochures?
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
reid,
uuum, no. Sorry I don’t have any brochures. Don’t have any cards either. But if I had a brochure I doubt I would put the misguided guilt statement on it. It doesn’t belong to me it belongs to big bruv. He figured it out not me.
Misguided guilt though as I see it, is something that big bruv suggests is fed. Force fed, obviously. Fear is force fed. I think there is a pretty close connection. The comment that big bruv made though, about the cultural relationship between the indigenous people and the coloniser is the secondary argument that I challenge. The primary argument is about dads and men. Men these days live off misguided guilt. It sort of goes like this: be ashamed of who you are. Your always going to be wrong.
cheers.
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Thanks for that PB, I am ashamed of who I am. Can I just ask for a few clarifications?
Can you please clarify the connection between being wrong and being force-fed fear?
What is the exact procedure for force feeding fear? For example, does it involve a dangerous amount of delicious chocolate deserts?
Vote:June 26th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
I don’t know who you are Reid.
If you should feel ashamed for who you are then it isn’t my job to instruct on who you should be and what you fear. I try not to force fear although it is pretty east to do being a protester who organises protests outside people’s houses who eat lots of chocolate and then kick the shit out of the rest of the public when they get to work.
Cheers.
Vote:June 27th, 2008 at 5:49 am
Labour’s pathetic attack on John Key over his comments about colonial history has backfired on the government. Labour just gets lamer and lamer.
Once again Cullen is shown to be a silly old man.
Time to retire the fool!
Vote:June 27th, 2008 at 7:42 am
Optimist — I suggest that God is a belief and Jesus Christ is a fact.
Vote:Global warming is both depending on what aspect of it you are considering.
June 27th, 2008 at 7:51 am
Optimist — I currently own five green and grey bags and they are very useful, taking books to and from the library etc, and reduce my consumption of plastic bags but I am not a supporter of ‘ban the plastic bag’ as they have useful purposes, wrapping chicken bones so the local cats don’t smell them and rip my rubbish bag hangiung in the outhouse, but like everything use in moderation.
Vote:I think the supermarket checkout girls are the leaders in mis-use, the way they use and use bags when goods could be carried in just a single bag. This pre-occupation in packing meat etc in it’s own bag when it is already wrapped …. separate for strong smelling items like soap makes sense but wrapped meat … no way.
June 27th, 2008 at 8:06 am
jcuknz
Vote:maybe if the meat was wrapped properly
me, I still want my meat seperate from other foods but you can pack all the meat in one bag
June 27th, 2008 at 9:17 am
look..!..i think we should just leave busker alone..
..to his burblings/meanderings..
..he’s ‘too easy’..
sorta like going to one of those game-park enclosures..to shoot ‘game’….
(and kinda amazing tho’..how any traces of any s.o.h. seem to have been wrung out of him..eh..?
(and doncha luv the overt/mannered’politeness’..barely covering the seething rage..?..
whoar..!..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 27th, 2008 at 9:35 am
I know this is many comments after the raging debate earlier..
But are we seriously being told there is NO global warming, temperatures are being read wrong… WTF
Those silly old glaciers aren’t really melting, the north pole really isn’t breaking up in summer and Antarctica isn’t really breaking off huge chunks of ice. Fuck me!
We aren’t even in the man vs nature causation debate here.. it just isn’t happening?
I know.. faked photo’s, bought off officials and evil scientists are behind it all… just like the faked moon landings. Moonbat alert “Fly my lovelies, fly”
Vote:June 27th, 2008 at 9:54 am
I’m better now,
I don’t know quite what came over me. Must have been a chocolate rush? Maybe I’m pregnant?
…much better..now..
thank you.
Vote:June 27th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Love the Intellbots and Computers, yes artifical intelligence is a good pick for the next global panic based on a few facts and well overblown by media hype (Sorry yes I did forget HIV/AIDS – how careless/callous or just damn up PC of me). Just imagine the senarios all those strange pale faced hackers (actually they are aliens living among us) working on global domination by taking over our computers, that could cause major panic as financial institutions discover multiple, multi billion dollar corruption, Health agencies discover previously unknown viral threats that are transmitted by computers, causing serious fatal illness that kills swiftly and leaves victims prostrate across their computer keyboards, children using computers have whole programs of highly secret information loaded into their brains while playing computer games, causing them to apply their now superior knowledge to the domination of any adult in eye scanning distance of them.
Actually this fantasy creation is a damn sight more fun than worrying about what Helen is up to………. ah see she is a superior alien, disenfranchising us from one another by clever use of our money and manipulation of the truth……..someone call the media…………. opps thats right they are responsible for hyping up her exaltedness to create panic among the masses so they see only Helen as the saviour of there sorry state.
Vote:June 27th, 2008 at 10:23 am
catlady..can i suggest a cuppa tea..?..and a wee lie-down..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 27th, 2008 at 11:29 am
I realise that the referendum debate may be seen as done and dusted but there remains this question in my mind for you pro-National folk that I think requires an answer. Hasn’t the Personal Assistant to John Key made some kind of ridiculous mistake?
Isn’t she doing a flop flop in a flip flip where a flip flops into a flap? Hasn’t she just made a policy statement that might cost New Zealander’s $4.9 Million. Isn’t she arguing against the postal vote yet arguing for it?
Come on folk?
getstaffed (1604) +3 Says:
June 26th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Thank you for your email regarding the petition in support of a referendum on the anti-smacking laws.
National’s view is that a referendum should take place at the 2008 general election.
National’s position is quite clear on section 59, but the issue for us in this case is about democracy – the right of the people of New Zealand to be heard whether or not politicians like what they are being told.
Helen Clark has again demonstrated arrogance with her use of a technicality to not let New Zealanders’ have a say on this matter.
It is a waste of taxpayers’ money to hold a referendum separately. As an example of the potential cost, the 1995 firefighter referendum cost about $10million, and the 1997 retirement savings referendum cost about $5.1million for a postal ballot.
Thank you for your views.
Thanks
Vote:Emma Holmes
Personal Assistant to John Key MP
Leader of the Opposition
June 27th, 2008 at 11:57 am
New Zealand general election, 1996
Got that one wrong. Wasn’t around then sorry.
Vote:June 27th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Dad grounds daughter, but court ungrounds her
That sucks. A society is rooted when we see good parents hauled before the courts like this.
Vote:June 27th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Nice post, getstaffed.
It goes a long way to show that not only is NZ besieged by an PC mentality that overrules commonsense (and not Annette Kings version of “commonsense” either).
Vote:June 27th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Dave Mann – are you for real?
“useless fucking parasites” “backward tribalists” and “when will it all end” ????????????
Indeed, Mr Mann, if that’s your real name. My name is Jodi – I’m a researcher on Eye to Eye with Willie Jackson (TV1) and I’d like to invite you onto the programme. In print you look like the perfect talent for our show. We discuss issues from a politically right and left perspective. It is a robust and fiery television debate and you are obviously not shy in expressing your opinions. Next Friday we’re talking Treaty settlements and we’re asking when will it all end? You can put your questions to the Minister of Maori Affairs. What do you think – you Mann enough?
Vote:June 27th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
“I think the supermarket checkout girls are the leaders in mis-use”
Are you suggesting that supermarket cherckout boys have their plastic bag use under control?
Vote:June 27th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
I wasn’t going to bother much more with this, but since the left and some of the media are still wetting themselves over it, here are a few points about Key’s so called gaffe.
1- Michael Cullen said as much a few years back.
2- Michael Cullen, as a former history lecturer, should have a better grasp of NZ history too. But maybe that is why he said what he said in 2005.
3- Michael Cullen is Treaty negotiations minister so should’t he also be accounted for his views on history? Where is Pita Sharples now? I saw him on TV3 having a go at John Key.
4- The governor general also echoed Keys comments on history.
5- Other historians, as the Herald notes, also back Key’s account.
6- And we have Cullen attacking Key, forgetting what he said a few years back, until a reminder forced his silence.
Hip, hip, hipocracy!
Furthermore, If the left say we can’t have Key because of his lack of history knowledge, then the USA can’t have Obama as president because he thinks Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and he claims to have visited 56 US states!
PS I see Cullen has left a fine economic legacy for National to clear up too.
And yet more corruption and incompetence today from government as well.
How does Liarbour manage it all?
Badly!
http://www.nominister.blogspot.com
Vote:June 27th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Fairfacts Media
I would be interested to read the comments that Cullen made as weel, there was some reference in the House to a comment the Governor General made???
…So let’s call it even. Labour and National don’t know their/our history. Let’s even say that the newly elected Governor General is trying to swamp the every day public that it was all rosy. Now what? The three top representative bodies of New Zealand all agree that we will command the word ‘civil’. There was no disquiet. After all look how uncivil these Maori gangs are… Is that what they are/slowly collectively trying to paint; as the savages begin to get restless, and then in the future our most esteemed leaders can all say, well it was them who were nasty back then, here’s the proof just look at them now.
This domestic violence campaign is the same at the moment. Tarnish men as hard and as black as you can and by doing that then only men will get the blame and women’s violence as it may be real, and not how it is directly associated with the male’s violence, can stay quitely removed.
Vote:June 27th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Hi All Check this out:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4598289a6160.html
What a dick that Winston is. Obviously Immigration is just not the vote winner it used to be
Vote:June 27th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Re getstaffed’s comment 12:06
Sometimes in this household, one parent will discipline a child when the other parent doesn’t see that the discipline is necessary. When that happens it’s still important that the punishment stands or else one parent is undermining the other in front of the children.
Nanny state in the home is a parent with all the power and no responsibility.
Vote:June 27th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
I had no idea that Barry Soper is such a pinko, does anybody here know just how “close” his relationship is with dear corrupt leader?
Vote:June 27th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
The pinko inner circle are very secretive bb.
Vote:June 27th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Absolutely Andrew W,
And I would allege it is the principal cause of most domestic violence arguments in regards to the discipline of children. There is no cohesion between the adults. The interpretation of domestic violecne below from the Domestic Violence Act 1995 describes nothing but a race to see who gets to the telephone first. Obviously women are quicker to get to the phone to make a complaint. So if the argument gets to a shout, and one parent complains that that shout is domestic violence then the parent who makes the complaint is free from investigation:
3 Meaning of domestic violence
(1) In this Act, domestic violence, in relation to any person, means violence against that person by any other person with whom that person is, or has been, in a domestic relationship.
(c) Psychological abuse, including, but not limited to,—
(v) In relation to a child, abuse of the kind set out in subsection (3) of this section.
(3) Without limiting subsection (2)(c) of this section, a person psychologically abuses a child if that person—
(a) Causes or allows the child to see or hear the physical, sexual, or psychological abuse of a person with whom the child has a domestic relationship; or
(b) Puts the child, or allows the child to be put, at real risk of seeing or hearing that abuse occurring;—
but the person who suffers that abuse is not regarded, for the purposes of this subsection, as having caused or allowed the child to see or hear the abuse, or, as the case may be, as having put the child, or allowed the child to be put, at risk of seeing or hearing the abuse.
Vote:June 27th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
lance
yep – a lot of people are saying the measurements are all wrong. I’m inclined to believe them given that
a) the source code (posted at that first site) for the algorithm that “combines” nearby temp station data with each other (to try and counter for known Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect) would be a source of utter shame for even a novice programmer. There are identified issues with it. This is the program that massages the raw data from which we derive a gridded globally-extrapolated temperature profile – this is supposed to be the source of the “proof” that the planet is actually warming up. It’s completely dodgy.
b) they don’t agree with data from the satellites over the last couplea decades.
c) people (lots of them) have been “auditing” temp measuring stations. Highlighting many many problems with the sites which invariably cause them to read higher. E.g.
– moving sensors to rooves of buildings, next to aircon ducts etc.
– putting sensors over tarmac
– wrong classification of sites (i.e. site originally rural, becomes urban with urban sprawl, then subject to UHI)
– or generally NOT installing them according to the strict guidelines (which exist).
d) rounding. Most US sites take a rounded average of the min and max temp (in F) for the day. This introduces a +/- 0.5 degree F error immediately. This is a significant proportion of the changes in temps being claimed ( depending on the claim anything from 20% to over 100% of claimed temp change is right there).
So, there are problems with the raw data going in due to problems at the source, improper placement of sensors, rounding errors, questionable combinational processing. Doesn’t fill me with faith in the numbers that come out, but we are using these numbers to justify spending trillions of dollars to wage war on carbon.
As for other things you mention. Well, one thing that has changed is that we sure as hell LOOK at the poles a lot more than we used to. I think there have always been bits coming off. The key is how much water remains locked up in the poles. From what I understand, the sea level hasn’t really risen (nowhere near what the IPCC claim), and that although for instance at Antarctica there are chunks breaking off at the edges all the time, the buildup in the centre is outstripping that, and it is accumulating water not losing it. Don’t know about the north pole. As for glaciers, I understand there are many in the northern hemisphere that are advancing not retreating.
There are 1700-odd scientists on the IPCC. There were about 30,000 who signed a petition rejecting the hypothesis of the IPCC. A lot of geologists, meteorologists, etc – people who have studied ice-core samples, tree rings etc etc etc who all say the earth is gonna cool down, not heat up.
Even the alarmists have started hedging… note how it’s now called “Climate Change” rather than “Global Warming”. They don’t know which way it’s going, because all their predictions for temp rises have not been borne out.
Vote:June 27th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Andrew W,
(Part 2) And then after the police arrive to a complaint of shouting and the Police are not entitled to investigate the complainant (because thats what the law says), and now they have new powers of temporary protection orders: guess what! Enter section 16 of the Domestic Violence Act 1995…
16 Protection of persons other than applicant(1) Where the Court makes a protection order, that order applies for the benefit of any child of the applicant’s family.
So now what you’ve got is some guy finding out his wife just gave his brother oral sex the night before at a family party and he complains. Unfortunately he cannot contain himself and complains as soon as he walks in the door when he gets home. He’s really pissed off and the kids are in the house and he let’s rip all right – but he doesn’t hit her. She’s frightened. She brings out her phone and says she will call the cops he says (probably the most common line used by guys with protection orders) call the cops then I don’t care. So she hits the buttons 111. He still won’t hit her, but he storms out of the house.
It’s all over. His life just got blown away.
Vote:June 27th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
It’s a minefield Political Busker, The law is a tool in the hands of those who know how to use it. Those who don’t know the traps get caught. “Justice” doesn’t come into it.
Vote:June 27th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
So we will get justice.
Paul Catton, Vince Siemer myself, Noeleen Irvine, and in recent communication, Anne Hunt are prepared to challenge the corruption. There will be others. The public should be behind us as we force those who have damaged so many countless lives to pay a direct and greater attention to what we are saying, to look at what has happened and what the remedies must be to overcome these gross injustices.
Vote:June 27th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
adc,
Satellite and ground data are in agreement.
The ice build-up in the centre of the Antarctic is what the IPCC expects – warmer atmosphere carries more water vapour, leads to more polar precipitation.
You’re comparing scientific research with a petition, that’s lame.
Observed Sea level rise is in line with expectations, recent corrections to historical data by an Australian team now has SLR and sea temperature (ie the thermal expansion component) in agreement.
Vote:June 27th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
At the moment my ex and I are fighting for custody of 4 kids, I’ve got them at the moment (she moved towns a year and a half ago and I got a prevent removal order) one day, one day, the courts will finally find the time to hear our case. It’ll be interesting to see if I find the anti-man bias D4J sees in the system.
Vote:June 27th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Andrew W as a 7 year vet caught up in the fire fight insane litigation world of the family court I do hope the children involved are not used as weapons of war. Damaged children is not justice.
Vote:June 27th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Andrew W. I’ve been through a few now (probably not to the extent of D4J) but what the FC do really focus on these days is what the kids want. There used to be a blatant bias but it is not so obvious now
Vote:Is LFC appointed yet?
June 27th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Where did Dave ‘Mann’ get to? I want to see how he responds to Jodi’s invitation… Go on, Dave. Do it… Go on the telly. It is your destiny…
It would be fascinating to see what one of these frothing racist tools from Kiwiblog looks like in captivity…
Vote:June 27th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
LFC has been on the case for over a year, as far as what the kids want, the two oldest (11 & 9) aren’t choosing, the two youngest (7 & 5) have a preference for mum, but that could be the Hansel & Gretel effect.
Vote:June 27th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
“It would be fascinating to see what one of these frothing racist tools from Kiwiblog looks like in captivity…”
Like he’d ever get a fair go on any TV One show. Anyway, interesting to see you’d find Dave “fascinating”. I’d be surprised if he regarded you as anything more than loathsome.
Vote:June 27th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Jodi Ihaka said..
My name is Jodi – I’m a researcher on Eye to Eye with Willie Jackson (TV1) and I’d like to invite you onto the programme.
Jodi, forget about picking or trying to challenge people randomly on the internet who make comments in blogosphere. If you are really really a researcher, then look no further than Peter Cresswell from the Libertarianz who holds the same view as Dave Mann , although he doesn’t use Dave’s offensive language in his argument on his blog post on : Privatising the forests. He had appeared once in one of the Eye to Eye show before.
BTW, are you also involved as a researcher for the Close UP current affair with Mark Sainsbury?
Vote:June 27th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Andrew W,
cheers bro:
The emphasis isn’t as much on the views of the child as empowering the child. The recent models and the laws being developed are developing with the child’s state of mind as a primary criteria. The rules are being dropped although you wouldn’t think it when you concentrate on the views and directions of Principal Family Court Judge, Judge Boshier.
(I’m going to digress here deliberately). JB has an intention to retain the FC as the model for use. I think he is drunk. He wants bigger courtrooms and gowns. He wants to retain the emphasis of authority when any push turns into a shove. Individually I think he has got it wrong. A court is a court is a court. The FC is more limited with DC powers as against the stronger abilities of the higher Courts (not the DC) The Justices are able to do what they want in regards to the situation as they balance it to evidence, so they get caught on the weight of evidence and its closeness to law. Yet adversley the FC have an extraordinary power. They can simply ignore evidence. So instead of being bound to the evidence they simply waive what they do not want to know. And it shows!!!!!!! Additionally as I have now uncovered the lawyers have been free to act in comprehensively rougish behaviour (but I won’t digress that far at present).
So Andrew, when you get into the Court your dealing with an unusual beast. If the beast doesn’t like you it has no obligation tobe bound in law to like you. It can pick and you and push you, prick you prod you, steal your property and literally steal your children. In the case I am dealing with in Feilding the house has been stolen and the Court (on this rule of evidence) want to pretend that they haven’t infact ‘stolen’ the evidence (and I shouldn’t digress this far either)! The point is is that it is a personality game. It’s a game. It is an unpleasant game with a horrendous cost when it goes bottom up and when it gets to Court it always goes bottom up for someone. At present as the rule in regards to protecting the child’s state of mind is being developed – you – have options/instruments that others have not been so fortunate to use.
My suggestion, without making any statement that interferes with your relationship with you lawyer, is inquire generally whetehr your sons and daughters require any assistance with how life is at the moment. Check it out with then first. Be very discreet and do not ruffle them into thinking that anything is unusual. Make an assesment of their condition from your own experiences and then make a decision if it would be benficial for them to have (I am sure it has advanced to this at the moment) court funded counselling.
Ordinarily I am sceptical about any counselling from a regime that has no idea what the interests of the child can be and think that men are all child abusers and the child ‘must’ be protected from the real beast. But I know a little about the programme that government is putting into place and I have high respect for a part of its NZ craftmansship. YET: besides whether or not any like counselling, I am pointing at the fact. This is the focus. Lots of Karma that has been untested and if you want the Court onside as you establish what for you is an aweful period better to have a bit of kalma than not.
All the best. If you want support from any fathers I know let me know on laos_newzealand@yahoo.co.nz
Vote:June 28th, 2008 at 8:33 am
Thanks for that Political Busker,
My main areas of concern are that the court will be faced with two versions of events and have limited solid information on which to base its decision. In such a situation, as you allude, a judges own personal biases may ultimately be pivotal ie. I hope the judge isn’t sucked in by he lies.
Are the changes advocated by JB perhaps designed to greater formalised the process and so intimidate people out of lying?
Vote:June 28th, 2008 at 8:52 am
Andrew W I have found (to my benefit) that the following provisions seem to override everything else;
Care of Children Act 2004 No 90 (as at 20 September 2007), Public Act
4. Child’s welfare and best interests to be paramount
(1) The welfare and best interests of the child must be the first and paramount consideration—
o (a) in the administration and application of this Act, for example, in proceedings under this Act; and
o (b) in any other proceedings involving the guardianship of, or the role of providing day-to-day care for, or contact with, a child.
(2) The welfare and best interests of the particular child in his or her particular circumstances must be considered.
(3) A parent’s conduct may be considered only to the extent (if any) that it is relevant to the child’s welfare and best interests.
(4) For the purposes of this section, and regardless of a child’s age, it must not be presumed that placing the child in the day-to-day care of a particular person will, because of that person’s sex, best serve the welfare and best interests of the child.
(5) In determining what best serves the child’s welfare and best interests, a Court or a person must take into account—
o (a) the principle that decisions affecting the child should be made and implemented within a time frame that is appropriate to the child’s sense of time; and
o (b) any of the principles specified in section 5 that are relevant to the welfare and best interests of the particular child in his or her particular circumstances.
(6) Subsection (5) does not limit section 6 (child’s views) or prevent the Court or person from taking into account other matters relevant to the child’s welfare and best interests.
(7) This section does not limit section 83 or subpart 4 of Part 2.
Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 No 24 (as at 01 October 2007), Public Act
Vote:6. Welfare and interests of child or young person paramount
In all matters relating to the administration or application of this Act (other than Parts 4 and 5 and sections 351 to 360), the welfare and interests of the child or young person shall be the first and paramount consideration, having regard to the principles set out in sections 5 and 13 of this Act.
June 28th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Christians challenge teaching of evolution
I thought that evolution was still a theory, or has it been conclusively proven? And I guess that if science has conclusively proven that God doesn’t exist that it’s fine to call intelligent design religious propaganda.
Vote:June 28th, 2008 at 9:39 am
I see dear corrupt leader has sunk to new depths.
PM forces disabled man to walk
By CHARLIE GATES – The Dominion Post | Saturday, 28 June 2008
A partially sighted Christchurch man with Parkinson’s disease was forced to struggle down the street to his car after Prime Minister Helen Clark’s security commandeered parking spaces.
Clark was “very shocked” by the incident, (utter bullshit) and police have apologised.
Clark’s security meant Elizabeth Winkworth was unable to park outside the Christchurch Town Hall to pick up her husband, Marshall Leaf, 81, after a performance by the Christchurch Symphony Orchestra on Friday night last week.
The pick-up area outside the Town Hall was cordoned and two cars were waiting for Clark. When Winkworth tried to park nearby she was twice moved on by police (on the orders of Clark)
She had to park about 200m away and help her husband to the car.
Winkworth said the walk was a struggle for her husband. “It was horrible,” she said. “I thought it was absolutely unacceptable.
“The 200m walk took about 10 minutes and was about his limit. The streets were wet and I was very worried about him slipping.”
Winkworth was frustrated that the pick-up area was cordoned long before Clark emerged from the Town Hall.
“That was one of the things that annoyed me the most. The cars were sitting there with no-one around. We could have used that area.”
Leaf said: “I personally felt a little bit upset about it. I thought, `Good heavens, is she increasing her bureaucracy?”‘
Winkworth wanted to thank the Town Hall ushers for helping her husband back to the car.
“The ushers are the most caring and helpful band of women I have ever come across,” she said.
A spokesman for Clark said she would seek an explanation from police over the incident. (meaning that some poor bastard acting on Clark’s orders is going to have to take the blame)
“The Prime Minister was very shocked to hear about what happened. She had not been aware of the incident until The Press contacted her office. (another blatant lie from Clark)
“She will be seeking an explanation from police and also requesting that such a thing does not happen again,” the spokesman said.
Canterbury police district commander Dave Cliff apologised.
“I am sorry (they) were inconvenienced by the security provided for the Prime Minister. We endeavour to minimise any difficulties to the public and I am sorry she became caught up in the security arrangements,” he said.
Clark’s security is provided by the Diplomatic Protection Squad, with assistance from local police.
Vote:June 28th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Look for a massive swing from traditional geeks who vote Liarbour in the Christchurch seats as LieAnn , B Burns and Dykeson look set too get a hammering !!! The BATTLE has started.
Vote:June 28th, 2008 at 10:06 am
getstaffed,
will scientists weave in water or will they only think through wine?
Good on you Andrew W, Patrick Starr and I are saying the same thing, that it is child focused, that means if you think that your focus in on the child then your playing on the same page as the Court has to play. And you’re right it is on personality. Once you know which Judge you’ve got spend a bit of time trawling through the press releases etc on the net. See if you can build a profile – not for your lawyer but for you. When you get into Court test the impressions you have made formed from the statements the Judge has made and see if the views expressed are consistent in part to what you have read. Stay calm – always. If you have an overt character type and you are pretty confident try and dampen it a bit for the proceedings. The Judge is sitting on a power that can cripple you emotionally and financially for life and the Judge has no capacity for remorse when delivering such a vicious blow to another human.
You ask me to make a public statement on the philisophical direction of the Court? Wow, what a dangerous question.
Implicitly, I believe as the law is physically constructed that every human is paramountly good. That’s what I believe as well as how we are all obliged to function. Yet the Court is no different from any other beast. Its primary purpose is one of self survival. The FC is the most widely used and accessed of all of the Courts. On August 1st of this year for the first time in the southern hemisphere, (I imagine) lawyers will be bound to accountability. Its been a long time since litigation guardians – lawyers – have been made fully accountable to the degree that anyone these days who has the brass to call themselves a litigation guardian is the only type of lawyer who would ever be accountable for the privilege (its been a very sick system for aver long time). The new legislation is another positive move in the direction of citizen focused protections from ordinary life and market highways. So the answer to your question is twofold: Yes (to the second part) because telling lies shouldn’t be allowed in a Court and lawyers now as well are responsible to protect against such lies and; Yes to the first part, on intimidation, because they must manufacture every resource in order to stay alive.
Vote:June 28th, 2008 at 10:18 am
gee ..!..bb..i called that as ‘bullshit headline of the month’
http://whoar.co.nz/2008/here-is-this-months-bullshit-headline-of-the-month-awardpm-forces-disabled-man-to-walk/
but then..you suck up/disseminate bullshit..the way other people do oxygen..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 28th, 2008 at 10:25 am
philu, you are the best advertisement for the National Party this century.
Vote:June 28th, 2008 at 10:31 am
I’ve just read the most amusing dummy spit in the Herald by John Roughan over Michael Bassett’s book. He goes to many pages to disprove the theory he is the old socialist Bassett paints him as, but instead constructs a portrait of an old socialist. All the mannerisms, sneering, emotional hyperbole, general whining, it’s all there. He begins his essay by defining the label he applies to the book, the phrase Straw Man, a favorite strategy of socialists everywhere – when they’re beat. Roughan probably knows this because he chose the definition over the word itself. I guess he thought he’d fool some of the people some of the time instead. You can’t hide what you are Mr. Roughan, especially in print. Take consolation that no one with any brain power would treat a book written by politician as anything but fiction.
Vote:June 28th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Philu,
give me a chance to breath man, I was writing. I don’t do it very often. Where’ your poetry?
Vote:June 28th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Jodi, thanks for the invitation. I am flattererd (I guess…? hahaha), but I don’t think I have a ‘television’ personality and I wouldn’t present my case well as I would be a bag of nerves being on the telly. I have to admit to not being a good public speaker and I’d probably sit in the corner nervously and it wouldn’t be worth your while.
But I will watch with interest. I wonder if anybody on the show will liken the established Maori grievance industry to ‘parasitism’ or the Treaty of Waitangi gravy train as ‘backward looking’? I doubt it. Mainly I am expecting earnest questions of intricate detail which will nicely mask the big question of why this country continues to focus negatively on the past.
Vote:June 28th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Can I burn the treaty on your programme Jodi? Just a thought on a cold day.
Vote:June 28th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Philu.. e..
I’m not sure. Who used the whistle least, do you think, the DPS or the media?
Vote:June 30th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
getstaffed:
Interesting quote at the bottom of that article:
“Education Ministry senior manager Mary Chamberlain said parents had a right to withdraw children from religious instruction.”
Both Creation scientists and Evolutionary scientists look at the same evidence, but both draw different conclusions. Evolutionists draw their conclusions as they base their beliefs on atheism, which says that God doesn’t exist (or sometimes agnosticism, which says that he doesn’t do anything much). As a result, life must have arisen through natural processes. Creationists base their conclusions on a belief in the existence of God.
Belief in the existence or non-existence of God is a religious position and cannot be proved scientifically. You can never prove either Evolution or Creation, it all happened in the past & can’t be tested. Both theories are ultimately religious positions. You can only choose to believe which one best seems to fit the evidence in your view, but can never prove your view.
So on that basis, can a parent withdraw their child from “religious instruction” in atheism? I’d like to see someone try this one.
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 12:02 am
Mr Dennis;
While I think you’re right that a lot of people’s “belief” in Darwinian Evolution is probably a fairly non-understanding, non-tested kind of belief similar to religious faith, there is a big difference: For the educated **there really is** a large body of independent scientific evidence supporting Darwin’s evolution, whereas the bible has, well… the bible says so, and everyone else says the bible says so.
This doesn’t stop at least a couple of the most highly-qualified biological research type people I know from still believing in God, so I can only assume the two beliefs don’t have to be mutually exclusive!
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 8:27 am
Mr Dennis, evolution is not atheism, Darwin was a devout Christian, (though it’s claimed that his faith was shaken by the death of his daughter)
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 11:13 am
RPM and Andrew W:
I am quite familiar with the scientific evidence on both sides of the debate. It is a common misconception that all science completely supports evolution (a view caused by one-sided coverage in school textbooks), however the reality is quite different. Usually the evidence can be seen to support either theory based on which way you look at it, and what your presuppositions are. There is also a lot of scientific evidence people (not all Christians) bring out to claim evolution is false.
In my experience at university, the lecturers that were strongest in support of evolution were the ones that didn’t know much of the science when you talked to them about it. Those that knew the science well were far more willing to accept that there was doubt. In fact, my university genetics lecturer felt evolution was a load of rubbish based purely on his knowledge of genetics (he is an atheist by the way, so disbelieved it based on the science not on religion), and kept hassling evolutionary scientists throughout the course! I generally found that scientists were ready to accept that there was no evidence for evolution in their particular field of study, but often believed that another field of study that they were unfamiliar with had proved it. The geologists think the biologists have proved it and the biologists think the geologists have…
The scientific method works on things that are repeatable and testable. You can study stuff today scientifically. You cannot study the past scientifically, as you cannot experiment and test your theories. You can decide what you feel is most likely to have happened in the past, based on evidence today, but this is closer to forensics and philosophy than traditional physical science. You can never prove it one way or the other.
I am not trying to persuade you to change your views, I am just showing that there is debate, despite many people claiming “consensus”. Do you see the similarity to the global warming debate? Some people argue the temperature was high in the past and others disagree. The fact is that you can never prove either viewpoint, just work out which is most likely. So, just like evolution, people will be debating global warming forever.
In both these fields, dissent and debate is good. It forces people to examine the evidence more carefully and learn more. Once debate is shut down, knowledge stagnates. It doesn’t matter which side you personally believe, debate is good in science.
Andrew W:
Vote:There are many Christians today who believe evolution. They can if they like. Others disbelieve it, and they have good reason to as well. You cannot prove it either way, but can only believe what you feel is most consistent with the science and (for a Christian) the Bible. However, evolution allows origins without God. Although it is not atheism per se, it is the only feasible theory of origins that is consistent with atheism, therefore a belief in evolution is strongly held by most atheists.
July 1st, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Mr Dennis, I label myself agnostic rather than atheist because, as you point out, outside of mathematical proofs, science rarely has certainties. I would put the both AGW and Evolution at better than 90% certain, Pasteur’s germ theory (1865) I would put at better than 99.9% certain, Evolution and AGW, in my view, just need a bit more time and study for science to remove most of the legitimate doubt (for or against) that remains.
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 5:15 pm
I’ll add that little of the uncertainty in the wider community that exists over evolution and AGW has a scientific foundation, but rather is based in theology and political dogma.
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Andrew W: And your opinion as stated is just as valid as any other opinion, provided you recognise that it is an opinion of course. I could also add that quite a lot of the certainty over evolution and AGW also lacks a scientific foundation, but rather is based in theology and political dogma…
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 6:34 pm
“… quite a lot of the certainty over evolution and AGW also lacks a scientific foundation”. Within the wider community perhaps, scientists however don’t arrive at degrees of confidence by throwing darts at a board, confidence intervals are products of the data.
Vote: