Blog Bits
From around the traps:
- Homepaddock has a photo of the Kurow Hay Family. Cute.
- Bomber at Tumeke actually supports discrimination on the basis of nationality or where someone is born. Someone send him a NZ First membership kit.
- Stephen Franks has another post on the issue of freedom of assocation and why he supports a liberal but not libertarian regime.
- Bill Ralston blogs on what he sees as the demonising of men.
- Paul Walker has a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon explaining corporate welfare. I love Calvin.
- Whale Oil has got himself a blog tattoo. He left the URL off though!
- Greg Mankiw notes that much of the Obama stimulus package will take years to take effect – possibly after it is needed.
- Iain Dale blogs his hopes and fears for Obama.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: Blog Bits
January 21st, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Around the traps? Sounds like a Standard post.
January 21st, 2009 at 1:55 pm
They’re not in favor of discrimination David, only discrimination against Jews. Get it right.
Discriminate against one of their pet groups and watch them go off as always.
January 21st, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Israelis, Murray. Are they calling for Jewish people from any other country to be boycotted?
January 21st, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Ryan – so they would also be for discrimination against Israeli Arabs, Christians, Atheists, Bhuddists etc etc?
January 21st, 2009 at 2:29 pm
2 Bomber at Tumeke actually supports discrimination on the basis of nationality or where someone is born. Someone send him a NZ First membership kit.
Where as of course David you are an apologist for Israeli aggression, we tallied up your comments on the issue…
http://tumeke.blogspot.com/2009/01/gaza-demonstration-in-auckland.html
[DPF: I support Israel's right to strike back against thousand of rocket attacks. I haven't said all their actions were laudable. And I certainly would never support discrimination on the basis of where someone was born. One of those "Israelis" you celebrate being refused service is a NZ citizen living in NZ]
January 21st, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Whaleoil was probably crying before the url got added.
January 21st, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Ha ha, that’s brilliant, an apologist for terrorists and terrorism accusing DPF of being an “apologist for Israeli aggression”
What a fucking idiot.
[DPF: Bomber holds his views sincerely, and there is no need to name call]
January 21st, 2009 at 2:39 pm
“What a fucking idiot.”
Oh dear, BB … didn’t get confused by seeing yourself in a mirror, did you? Happens to my 6 month old all the time…
January 21st, 2009 at 2:43 pm
I don’t think Israelis should be refused service, but how about some perspective? 1300 dead, who knows how many more bodies under the rubble, a massive increase in bitterness and hostility that is almost certainly going to lead to more conflict and everyone is debating the fact that somebody didn’t get a kebab?
[DPF: There is no shortage of space on the Internet that suggests debating one means you can not debate the other. Both the conflict itself and the kebab shop actions have been debated at length.]
January 21st, 2009 at 2:43 pm
AG – Why not tell the little bugger they are adopted – it could help
January 21st, 2009 at 2:48 pm
AG
Not at all, I know who I am and what I stand for, you should really give it a crack some day, once you break free and being to think for yourself life becomes so much clearer.
As for the mirror……..Have I not told you that I am bloody gorgeous? I have mirrors all over my houses so I can bask in my own beauty, chicks love me AG.
January 21st, 2009 at 2:50 pm
If you want to criticise Bomber in any way you’ll have to do it here, he deletes anything that points out the flaws of his argument on his own site, so here goes……
Bomber you are a racist and a dork.
Ahh, that feels better.
January 21st, 2009 at 2:52 pm
DPF
“[DPF: Bomber holds his views sincerely, and there is no need to name call]”
At the risk of earning demerits that is a load of rubbish.
Bomber holds the views of the left, you can guarantee that had Gore been the President for the last eight years Bomber and the rest of the pinko’s would be right behind the war In Iraq and right behind the Israeli’s in their battle with the Palestinians.
For him (and the left) it is all about ideology, left = good, right = bad, its a simple as that.
January 21st, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Just when you think Whale Oil couldn’t be a bigger tool….
January 21st, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Brian,
Yes, by virtue of them being Israeli. Though keep in mind that you listed one ethnicity and a series of religions there. Nationality, religion and ethnicity are all different things. To boycott Israelis, they would be boycotting Israeli Arab Muslims, Israeli Jewish Buddhists, Israeli Polynesian Judaists – anyone who has a vote in Israel and/or pays taxes in Israel.
Personally, I don’t think boycotting Israelis is a particularly practical move. But it disturbs me how unthinkingly and naturally the boycott is being painted as racism without any evidence to support it besides racist assumptions about Turkish people or creedist assumptions about Muslim people.
January 21st, 2009 at 2:58 pm
BB
“chicks love me AG.”
Yes. And so do I. I wish I didn’t, and it feels so wrong … but there it is.
January 21st, 2009 at 3:03 pm
“For him (and the left) it is all about ideology, left = good, right = bad, its a simple as that.”
Whereas Big Bruv’s ideology is far more sophisticated than that!
Oops, wait:
“you can guarantee that had Gore been the President for the last eight years Bomber and the rest of the pinko’s…”etc etc
January 21st, 2009 at 3:13 pm
AG – still bringing nothing to the table
January 21st, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Ryan – you are right. I should have said Israeli Arabs, Israeli Blacks, Israeli Chinese, etc etc. However, I suspect that Bomber really means just Israeli Jews.
January 21st, 2009 at 3:21 pm
dime:
“AG – still bringing nothing to the table”
Pot. Kettle. Black.
January 21st, 2009 at 3:26 pm
i refuse to visit “bombers” site.. i imagine he’s ok for me to refuse an arab service at my bar?
January 21st, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Well, we’d have to ask him. But why do you suspect that?
January 21st, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Dime
Of course AG would not bring anything, he is a socialist.
Its the same when you mistakenly invite the bastards to a BBQ, the bring sausages and eat the steak, they bring cheap wine and drink the expensive stuff and when everybody else has gone you find out that they are the pricks who chundered in your pot plants.
January 21st, 2009 at 3:31 pm
BB,
When you FINALLY get round to inviting me to a BBQ, I promise a Mt Difficulty Pinot Noir. Can’t say fairer than that.
January 21st, 2009 at 3:43 pm
AG – youd be great fun at a bbq.. offer no conversation.. just jump in if someone uses the wrong word.. cool
January 21st, 2009 at 3:46 pm
AG
Do you promise to bring a Mt Difficulty Pinot Noir or is that what you are going to drink?
BTW, bring your own chick, you are not having any of mine and I am sure that you would not want to go anywhere near any of Dimes.
And no stealing the antiques or artwork, and definitely no bloody chundering in the pot plants.
January 21st, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Is that an opinion, Dime? Or are you just criticising for the sake of it?
January 21st, 2009 at 3:49 pm
geez bruv, you know i always delouse my chicks.. (think rambo 1)
January 21st, 2009 at 6:03 pm
After reading the wonderful piece from Bill Ralston on his blog it has rekindled my fight for gender balance and justice for all. I will prepare yet another DV submission for the fob off select committee and complain to the Human rights commission regarding that insidious sisterhood influenced NZ’s biggest morning tea ad. Could National be serious about gender balance?
January 21st, 2009 at 9:56 pm
dad4justice has made a good point. I wonder if the left wing femiNazis at Russell Brown’s Public Address have taken any notice
of facts such as those below by Cathy Young, auther of Ceasefire.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_n9_v29/ai_20417670
January 21st, 2009 at 10:13 pm
I trust bomber will view the latest vid on whales site – and tell us how this is not a threat against the west
http://www.memritv.org/video.html
(Presumably he still considers himself part of the west?)
January 21st, 2009 at 11:40 pm
Patrick, Bomber lives on another planet with a different magnetic field. That means he can’t distinguish East from West, right from wrong, nor up from down. We also used to have padded cells and blokes in white coats who looked after these demented souls.
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:09 am
Tumeke is actually a very good blog, the blog owner tim writes well and researches his posts tirelessly. Bombers contributions are always thought provoking and passionate. It was the only must read left blog on my list until jafa pete popped up. They share some causes with the right (specifically civil liberties and disquiet with our police force) and they publish much that I agree with.
However his support of hamas has gone too far… who knows whether he believes the antisemitic ranting he has been writing? He certainly doesn’t think he is racist, the posts on the gaza over recent weeks certainly seem that way to me though. But hey, he is getting an absolute truckload of comments on the posts..
Maybe he is just dog whistling? That would certainly be a more palatable excuse than just being a bigot?
I tried telling him that at Tumeke.. Got a stream of ranting emails and a ban for my troubles.
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:00 am
Barnsley Bill,
I haven’t been reading Tumeke. Can you give me an example of anti-Semitism in one of Bomber’s posts?
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:29 am
Patrick, that videoclip is very revealing.
They have (Many Radical Islamics) been talking up the control of the World.
The Madrid Bombings were timed to Skew an election. But actually the Islamics are still very bitter about losing Al Andalus, and being drop kicked by Isabel and Ferdinand.
However it did coincide with the zenith of Arab/Muslim learning and discovery.
They have said that they will not rest until the Crescent is affixed over 10 Downing Street, The White House, Canberra, and so on and so forth!
They do actually want to destroy us, and our way of life!
And that is all of us!!
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:42 am
Chuck Bird (363) Vote: 3 2 Says:
January 21st, 2009 at 9:56 pm
“dad4justice has made a good point. I wonder if the left wing femiNazis at Russell Brown’s Public Address have taken any notice”
someone has actually replied to your comment and linked article
Sacha Posted at 10:31PM on 21 Jan 09. Permalink.
“And Chuck, where on earth do those adverts – or any others on New Zealand tv – come close to resembling this passage from that American article:
The battered women’s advocacy movement, which has led the campaign against domestic abuse, is heavily influenced by radical feminist politics and tends to frame the issue in terms of a male “war against women.”
The mission statement of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence links “violence against women and children” to “sexism, racism, classism, anti-semitism, able-bodyism, ageism and other oppressions.”
Booklets funded by government and by charities such as United Way assert that “battering is the extreme expression of the belief in male dominance over women.”
Sounds a bit 90s Backlash from here, although I suppose the perpetual relevance of Palestine gives you points for the anti-semitic reference.”
Perhaps you could reply?
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:43 am
Link for above
http://www.publicaddress.net/system/topic,1622,hard_news_its_not_ok_to_just_make_stuff_up.sm?i=180#forum-replies
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:45 am
Russell has also replied (below is your own quote followed by Russells response):
“Russell, why do you not look at the facts rather than criisise someone competent as Bill Ralston.”
Chuck, that really is a very odd thing to say.
I thought I’d looked at quite a few facts — and for that matter, figures. It was pretty much the point of the blog post.
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:47 am
Max, I am in the process of responding to Russell with a good reference. IMHO Sasha is a flack and not worth replying to. It is great there are some good woman like Cathy Young that see the harm that man hating feminism is doing to society.
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Max, my reply to Russell is at
http://www.publicaddress.net/system/topic,1622.sm?p=89874#post89874
January 22nd, 2009 at 1:23 pm
thanks Chuck
it is good to hear different viewpoints
I personally think the ad that Ralston refers to is a great ad for the same reasons as discussed by others on PA – I just don’t see it as a ‘man-hating’ ad (the aussie equivalent another commenter linked to could be argued that way however). I am also interested in the other discussions about Domestic violence that this has generated. Your article you quote was interesting but the statistics only talk about the gender of the injured person. I think it is important to make this point as the injuries could have been inflicted by someone of the same gender (eg father on son etc, brothers, sisters, same-sex couple etc).
Thanks for taking the time to type out your supporting evidence
January 22nd, 2009 at 1:38 pm
DPF:
The Israeli government has turned itself into a mass child-murderer. There’s never an excuse for an enlightened western government resorting to that.
The militant wing of hammas is obviously full of some very twisted people, but if a psychiatric patient harms you, you don’t put the lives of innocent people at risk just so you can try and get back at them do you?
You have to look at it dispassionately and find a pragmatic, humane solution. That’s the least we can expect from a democratically elected government of a wealthy and powerful country no?
[DPF: I reject your assertion that the Israeli Government murders children. They no more murder children that Churchill murdered German children]
January 22nd, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Oh dear, Woger is in attention seeking mode again.
January 22nd, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Fine DPF, play terminology and avoid the real debate. So yes, the Israeli government is a mass child-killer, not murderer.
January 22nd, 2009 at 2:19 pm
By the same standard, Churchill did murder German children, Dresden being the most famous example. The complaint about Israel here is that innocent deaths, including children, are an obvious predictable consequence of the bombing. Even though children are not the target, the fact that the IDF know this course of action will kill hundreds of children means that this consequence must be taken into consideration when weighing the operation’s moral cost.
Even if the assault was an attempt to stop the rockets (which is absurd in itself), the cost of not invading – several innocent civilians in Sderot will be killed; the cost of invading – hundreds of innocent children will be killed. The only way that math works is if one Israeli civilian’s life is worth 100 Palestinian children’s lives.
January 22nd, 2009 at 2:48 pm
“the cost of not invading – several innocent civilians in Sderot will be killed”,damned if they dont ,damned if they do.
January 22nd, 2009 at 3:53 pm
sbk – really? I would have thought that not invading would mean fewer dead Israelites? Though it’s not the Israeli politicians that have to worry about being killed in the retaliation. They simply externalise the cost of their belligerence on to Palestinian and Israeli civilians.
January 22nd, 2009 at 5:09 pm
“I would have thought that not invading would mean fewer dead Israelites?”
FFS – you’re suggesting turn the other cheek? – How ‘sustainable’ do you really believe that would be for Israel in the long term ?
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:54 pm
Max, below is my response on PA. I will not bother responding any more on that blog. I doubt if these lefties will bebate the issues on Kiwiblog.
http://www.publicaddress.net/system/topic,1622.sm?p=89947#post89947
81stcolumn, Strauss and Gelles and other studies such as the one here in New Zealand Russell referred clearly show that women initiate violence roughly equally. None of you have been able to show a study based on a random sample that shows otherwise.
I believe Cathy like many people have underestimated the damage a woman can do with a hard punch. I have seen a photo of the damage one women did to another. The photo was for a court case. The victim did not look to pretty.
The demonising of men over the last 30 to 40 years has done a lot of damage to society. Very few men will teach young children as a result. If a little girl is lost and looking for help many if not most men will keep walking fear of false accusations.
The not OK campaign that says it is never okay to hit a woman clearly implies it is sometimes okay for a woman to hit a man. This has been reinforced for years in the movies. If man refers to a woman as a slut even if she is one it is justification for a slap in the face and a real man is not meant to respond.
Unfortunately, some women think that domestic violence is okay as long as they are doing the hitting. They get away with it a few times before the man finally snaps. If women were told it is never acceptable for them to respond to verbal abuse with physical violence you would see fewer women getting bashed up.
It would be interesting to see how some of you left wing men respond. I suspect many would be like Tim Shadbolt. He would preach peace and love to others but kicked the crap out if his missus in private. I know this is on the public record.
I am against violence either way in a relationship. If it happened to me I would not respond aside from ending the relationship.
Josh, lesbian violence is greater the heterosexual violence. I cannot be bother looking up a source of which they are many as it would be out of date, done overseas or not peer reviewed or some such nonsense.
If men and women were treated equally before the law this would not be an issue. However, false or greatly exaggerated claims of domestic violence can affect a man’s custody or access.
I will copy this to Kiwiblog. Most lefties are not prepared to debate an issue so I do not think I will get a response there.
January 23rd, 2009 at 8:31 am
“They simply externalise the cost of their belligerence on to Palestinian and Israeli civilians”,..define “simply” for me Roger.Please!.
January 24th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Chuck wrote: “Max, below is my response on PA. I will not bother responding any more on that blog. I doubt if these lefties will bebate the issues on Kiwiblog.”
I’ll have a go, just out of curiosity to see if you’ll actually answer the point that’s been made several times over there.
“The not OK campaign that says it is never okay to hit a woman clearly implies it is sometimes okay for a woman to hit a man.”
Have a look at the ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poRjb4m8RXk&feature=related
Where do they say it is only never okay specifically to hit women, in a way that implies it would sometimes be okay to hit men?