This entry was posted on Friday, May 29th, 2009 at 9:19 am 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.
These posts have been taken from a recent Kiwiblog thread. The names and political labels have been removed.
To my mind they illustrate the real divide in NZ. It’s not one of left or right, brown or white, but one of self worth and lack of self worth. From that point all other ideas – political or not – flow.
There is the argument that we control our fate, then is the counter argument that includes a very important point – personal context. So have a read and then I’ll issue a challenge:
Nearly every problem I face is caused by ME, if it is not caused by me then I am the only one who can fix that problem.
Why is it that my politics should be an issue here?, this is not a left v right issue at all, it is an issue of personal responsibility, I refuse to blame anybody else for my misfortune and I sure as hell do not expect people I do not know to pay for or assist me with those problems.
I do not seek to blame anybody else … I simply get on and make the best of a bad situation, why should it be any different for anybody else?
you are right…its simply everyone’s own fault for every problem that disadvantages them.
You know following your logic…theoretically…I could say get mugged…the police catch the culprit and then when he goes to court, he says its not his fault, its my fault for allowing myself to be at the place he mugged me, and for allowing him to take my stuff.
As you can see, clearly it doesn’t make sense to simply say EVERY PROBLEM FACED BY [PEOPLE] IS SIMPLY THEIR OWN FAULT. Its ridiculous and typical of a[n]… attitude to any minority group who don’t fit their ideal. [Those people] have always been prepared to judge generally without context being taken into account.
“So when you all, stop blaming and beginning looking at solve the root problems ie being proactive rather than reactive.”
I am being proactive, I went to school, got a job, pay taxes, and treat people politely. My only brush with the law has been parking tickets and I haven’t spent a night inside a hospital for 25 years. I have never received any form of social welfare except for a student loan.
What more would you like me to do to help you?
…no-one who thinks they’re a victim ever grows or succeeds in doing anything of significance. No-one.
If you preach your attitude to your own people you’re doing them the greatest dis-service any man could do to another. You give them an excuse to say: I’m helpless. I can’t succeed cause “the man” is keeping me down.
Whether you like it or not, or whether you intend to or not, that’s what you do.
No no, you miss the point again. What I am saying is that just because you dredge up some examples to prove your point, doesn’t actually change the facts. Anyone can show examples of success and can say, “well look this person did it so you should be able to as well” but that simply doesn’t take into account context. Which is vitally important. Each persons circumstances is different. So sure you can say oh well this person succeeded and that group did this, that doesn’t change anything.
If someone does succeed and another doesn’t, it usually depends not on circumstance, but on their attitude. Everyday, millions of people do extraordinary things that sometimes astound even they themselves. Everyday, millions of other people give up and fail. Guess what both sets of people have in common? They think.
The people that think they will win, do. The people that think they won’t, don’t.
The amount of times force majeur enters into this equation is limited to the accidents of fate that physically prevent the person from succeeding. Perhaps they miss the bus to that interview, perhaps they get hit by a bus. In all the rest of the cases, it’s attitude alone that determines the outcome.
So you see, everyone’s fate is in their own hands. [Some] have particular trouble understanding this because they are taught from birth that no-one is ever responsible for their own fate, that rather, it’s circumstances that control people’s destinies. People, according to [them], are helpless automatons swept up by forces beyond their control and tossed hither and yon by circumstance. This is the basis of … social engineering and its poisonous application is responsible for more unhappiness than any other force known to man, including warfare. The fallacy of this proposition is so mind-bogglingly obvious that one would think [people who think like that] would number in only the few hundreds worldwide. Unfortunately there are millions of [them] and since you’re not all completely thick I can only conclude that you’ve been sucked into believing that [the] approach is the only humane way to go and that’s why [they] keep advocating it. Shame really, for while [their] hearts in the right place, [their] mind is elsewhere.
The point… is, don’t treat people as victims. Instead, give them self-belief, from that comes confidence, from confidence comes results, from results comes change in circumstance. That’s the only thing that will pull [people] out of their plight.
So here’s the challenge. Post some motivation, some encouragement, for those who wish to change. For free. Untaxed. Go on… stimulate the economy at its roots!
Tell your story in context, truthfully. Tell what you learned that gave you confidence in yourself. What changed your mind from being oppressed to being aware of your own power? We’ve had the generalities in the above quoted posts, now is the time for useful specifics.
It can be as long or as short as you like.
And if you don’t like encouraging people, you can even post why you think one man cannot teach or help another, as long as it’s in context truthfully and from experience.
But either case must contain the tipping point, that illusive half-step. The moment you stepped into that brave new world, what was happening to you, around you? Looking back, what earlier moment was the catalyst for change?
If you did not recognise a sudden moment or change – maybe you’ve always believed in yourself – show us when you consciously acknowledged some of your important values that make you who you are.
Naturally, leave out details that reveal your identity if you wish. Any conclusions one man finds debateable in another man’s story, please post your own story in reply, not a rebuttal. Let your experience speak, not your logic.
The hope is that these stories, which many of you obviously have, will illuminate a first step towards personal freedom for those who wish to follow.
Sorry, Goodgod, your comment deserves more of a response than that.
I personally find that recognising the way in which my behaviour is shaped by things around me and in my past – that motivates me. Ultimately, everything that anyone does is caused by things outside of their control, but I don’t find that equates to a mentality of victimhood.
“Ultimately, everything that anyone does is caused by things outside of their control”
Not true, not true at all.
I find in my personal experience, I have ambition but not the personality to see it through. It’s something I’m working on, but I tend to have an idea but then stumble as soon as I am forced to confront areas in which I have no knowledge – it seems overwhelming, not knowing where to start. So I tend to let it go and keep on doing what I’m doing (not unhappily, mind). This is all MY problem, every single part. A look around will see a great multitude of people have succeeded in the very areas I am convinced I will never understand or be able to master. So it is up to me to rectify that.
Just been down to the telecom shop to look at the new network upgrade options. It’s going to be a real problem for Telecom. I for one was really disappointed at the plans on offer and the lack of flexibilty.
I walked out in disgust. I also note that Deborah Coddington walked out too and said in a loud voice how ridiculous it was that she came in prepared to spend $1000 and leaves with nothing…
National has failed to pass its main election promise – tax cuts – and succeeded in carrying out Labour’s election promises – Working for Families and student-free loans.
Is there now ANY difference between National and Labour?
I have two major aids in life – LIFE itself and the experiences from it to draw on;
and events that caused two close family members to alter life courses.
Their positive attitude to adversity and the consequent flow on has brightened all our lives.
We now all look forward, and knowing we have “choices” take responsibility for our actions,
hold ourselves accountable, and are aware of consequences of these choices.
We no longer ‘caretake’ other’s problems, but instead offer positive outcomes that, if taken up,
would lead to positive results – very rewarding.
We accept others will have opinions that differ from our own – but try and understand their perspective
without getting upset by it.
The result of this is hugely empowering and has lead to a much less stressful life.
So here’s the challenge. Post some motivation, some encouragement, for those who wish to change. For free. Untaxed. Go on… stimulate the economy at its roots!
Chthoniid – this one takes the breath away – the detail is stunning.
Oh! By the way I have found a barista who really does know a Flat
White from a Latte – he works at Salute in Taupo.
Unfortunately I am not in Taupo so had to make my own today.
It was ‘good’!
I find in my personal experience, I have ambition but not the personality to see it through. It’s something I’m working on, but I tend to have an idea but then stumble as soon as I am forced to confront areas in which I have no knowledge – it seems overwhelming, not knowing where to start. So I tend to let it go and keep on doing what I’m doing (not unhappily, mind). This is all MY problem, every single part. A look around will see a great multitude of people have succeeded in the very areas I am convinced I will never understand or be able to master. So it is up to me to rectify that.
Yes, but you did not choose to want the things you have ambition for.
ref goodgod’s suggestion above… A little formula that I live by:
E + R = O, where E is an event, R is my response to that event, and O is the outcome that I experience.
I have limited control over individual events (shit happens etc), but absolutely total 100% control over how I respond to those events, and therefore over outcome that I experience.
Poor responses tend to be those that appear to be the ‘easy option’ and/or short-term focused, but they lead to poor outcomes which tend to put a person in a place where subsequent events are unpleasant or difficult.
Example: I need some money. Good response is to get the perfect job. If none available, then good response is take any job, dig holes whatever. Bad response is theft. Another bad response is doing nothing and expecting someone else to sort out my need for money. Outcomes range from employment to prison to idleness.. and these tend to scope the types of subsequent events that I will experience.
Lefties simply don’t understand this, believing that everyone is a hapless victim of uncontrolled circumstance, tossed and gored by life and therefore desperate for state support, their type of dependency-creating support.
So in summary, I focus on good ‘R’s, ones that are long-term and will bring good outcomes to me, my family and my community.
No mickey you were promised no such thing. That was for the conservative. The left wing were demanding higher taxes under labour and thats what you voted for… but you don’t get those either.
Thanks fredinthegrass, I was pleased with the weevil but less so with the blown highlights on the toothpick.
Good to find you have a good source for coffee.
One of the hardest things about travelling in China is the dearth of decent coffee. The VIP lounge at Guililn airport served ‘instant’. And in Xi’an there was a special street of coffee shops. I ordered a blue mountain, saw them make it, but the taste was awful. The beans were horribly stale.
Lefties simply don’t understand this, believing that everyone is a hapless victim of uncontrolled circumstance, tossed and gored by life and therefore desperate for state support, their type of dependency-creating support.
Getstaffed,
I’m a leftie, and it was exactly this kind of equivocation I was responding to above.
It’s this idea of being a “hapless victim of uncontrolled circumstance” that people seem to throw up as the only possible alternative to believing the individual to have magical powers to be driven by desires other than the ones provided to the individual by their circumstances.
That’s not the case. Just because your decisions are ultimately caused by factors outside of your control doesn’t mean that you’re not making decisions and doesn’t mean that you don’t have control. It’s just that the nature of control – to choose to do something – is always directed by desire/motivation.
And you don’t get to choose what you desire, what your motivations are. They are entirely formed by your circumstances – biological, societal, religious, familial, etc.
And that includes the desire to bludge off welfare rather than get a job – these things aren’t the consequences of decisions, they are the causes of decisions.
That said, I should note that I know very few lefties who habitually live off state support (three, all up). I know a greater number of self-professed right-wingers who are or have been very happy to bludge (far more luxuriously) off their parents’ support – also a form of dependency habit. Though I’m sure they wouldn’t see it as bludging, but something they’re entitled to – a similar mindset I see in people living off state support.
How on earth can you suggest that those who have rich parents and bludge from them are the same as those who bludge from the state?
I do not care if somebody works or not, I don’t care if they choose to life their life in a fashion that I do not agree with however I should be forced to pay for it.
How on earth can you suggest that those who have rich parents and bludge from them are the same as those who bludge from the state?
They are not identical, but are alike in ways that are relevant. Getstaffed was lamenting attitudes of dependency, I believe.
I do not care if somebody works or not, I don’t care if they choose to life their life in a fashion that I do not agree with however I should be forced to pay for it.
Good god, what a joke! This isn’t about self-worth. To claim that the government is somehow responsible for people’s innate self worth, is simply ridiculous!
Further to this I take severe objection to using comments of people without their permission to push your own agenda. Common courtesy?
… not much comment on Telecom’s much vaunted, over-hyped and under-whelming XT bollocks launch.
Why is it that the 97% of people living, working and playing in Vodafone’s coverage area don’t seem to be the same 97% that Telecom asserts live work and play in its coverage area? Do they keep moving around without telling Telecom? Or are there in fact 194% people? Have Telecom rounded up from 96.55% to 97%, and Vodafone down from 97.45%??
And that includes the desire to bludge off welfare rather than get a job – these things aren’t the consequences of decisions, they are the causes of decisions.
Consequences or causes, all decisions are made upon either future goals or current beliefs, all of which are formed from factors outside of ones control. There is no free will.
“# mickysavage (327) Vote: Add rating 4 Subtract rating 9 Says:
May 29th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
John Key
Where is my tax cut? You promised …”
What’s the purpose of having a tax cut to enjoy if you lose your job because of spiralling economic debt. Yes it is disappointing but it is expected after the economy has been mismanaged for almost a decade.
and what has this government done to protect and create jobs? I’m sorry but claiming that infrastructure is going to create jobs, misses the fact that it is the low skilled and low paid who lose their jobs first and how are these people going to be assisted?
# Kingi (31) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 1 Says:
May 29th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
and what has this government done to protect and create jobs? I’m sorry but claiming that infrastructure is going to create jobs, misses the fact that it is the low skilled and low paid who lose their jobs first and how are these people going to be assisted?
They aren’t.
***************************
Its a sad bad world out there Kingi, if no one, including the government, is going to help the poor (that includes me BTW) then we shall just have to help ourselves eh?
Perhaps if the state didnt have the burden of a particular group believing its their god given right to separate cultures, languages, TV stations, ministries, MP’s, health and education policies and separate society in general we would have enough money for the unimportant things like protecting and creating jobs for everyone?
I’m sorry but claiming that infrastructure is going to create jobs, misses the fact that it is the low skilled and low paid who lose their jobs first and how are these people going to be assisted?”
Firstly the minimum wage was not raised as much as labour wants – remember if you raise the minimum wage above inflation rates, you raise unemployment amongst the low skilled group.
Secondly laying roads (much of nationals infrastructure plan) tends to involve a fair bit of largely unskilled labour.
Thirdly the lack of a credit downgrade means that companies will be able to afford to retain more people. Similarly people on low wages will not suffer increased pressure from higher mortgage repayments
Fourthly government policy will be creating several vacancies in the labour party, generally occupied by unskilled people.
Oops, did i just use your quote to promote a quasi-right wing agenda?
# Stuart Mackey (115) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
May 29th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
# Kingi (31) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 1 Says:
May 29th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
and what has this government done to protect and create jobs? I’m sorry but claiming that infrastructure is going to create jobs, misses the fact that it is the low skilled and low paid who lose their jobs first and how are these people going to be assisted?
They aren’t.
***************************
Its a sad bad world out there Kingi, if no one, including the government, is going to help the poor (that includes me BTW) then we shall just have to help ourselves eh?
Most of those Kingi champions (the majority of Maori people being quite happy to just get on with their lives like the rest of NZers do) are very adept at “helping themselves” –
Simply put people can’t survive if they don’t have a job! This government have allowed the fear of a credit downgrade to dominate their thinking! I quote Herald columinist Fran O’Sullivan “There’s no great stimulus package to create or protect jobs.”
Which is exactly the point! The number of people on the… Read More dole has DOUBLED since National took office. How does it help to maintain credit ratings, when thousands of NZers are being thrown out of employment and are therefore unable to pay tax? Mr. English said the word debt nine times in the first 10 minutes of his speech, and yet his budget did nothing to address the fact that by next year 180,000 NZers will be out of the job! You need a job first, before you can get loans, pay your mortgage, pay your credit card and so on. To argue that infrastructure spending will provide employment to these people is simply ridiculous as it will be the contractors who reap the benefits.
As always National is being REACTIVE instead of being PROACTIVE and CREATING and PROTECTING CURRENT JOBS. In times of recession when businesses are cutting back staff, and it is always the low skilled and low paid who’s livelihoods depend on the pay cheque they get and they don’t have other fall backs, the government should have implemented measures to protect and create jobs! Instead they cut as they always have, cut contributions to super, cut scholarships geared at creating a more skilled workforce for the future, cut back on skills training. National has always been prepared to help those at the top and hope that it trickles down, as opposed to giving the assistance to those who really need it and whose livelihoods are threatened!
We are all complaining about not getting a tax cut, but tonight I found out that I am getting a pay cut from the budget!
Despite putting out a press release saying “In addition, there is $17.1 million in operating funding in 2009/10 to maintain access to justice services through community law centres and legal aid.” it seems that for Simon Power the way he maintains access to justice is to cut legal aid pay rates.
I know this because we got an email this evening from the Law Society President saying
“I am extremely disappointed to report that a reduced Budget allocation for legal aid will see the Legal Services Agency decrease the rates paid to lawyers undertaking legal aid work.
As the Budget was read, the Minister of Justice issued a media release stating that the Legal Services Agency would receive $9.9 million in 2009/10 to help retain its legal aid providers.
I contacted the CEO of the Agency, Tim Bannatyne, for clarification as to what that meant for rates.
He confirmed that the $9.9 million was in addition to the Agency’s permanent legal aid allocation and represented a decrease of $1.274 million on the amount allocated in the 2008 Budget to fund last year’s 10% increase in legal aid rates. Accordingly, he said, that increase would now be reduced.”
So when the Minister puts out another press release saying “The Legal Services Agency will receive $9.9 million in 2009/10 to help retain its legal aid providers who provide legal advice to people charged with offences.” he was either being mendacious or was ignorant of what the LSA had decided to do as a result of the reduction in budget, which is poor form on his part.
I know that for many this will be a popular move, but if Power is going to reduce legal aid pay rates, at least let him admit it and not try to misrepresent it in the media.
Of course, I wouldn’t expect anything less from a Minister of the Crown who accuses an entire sector of his own profession of fraud!
And you don’t get to choose what you desire, what your motivations are. They are entirely formed by your circumstances – biological, societal, religious, familial, etc.
Ah but you can both train yourself to change your desires and you can control yourself to avoid acting upon them, Ryan.
The former is much more valuable than the latter but the latter is much more commonly practiced. The latter is of course called “growing up” and everyone does that to a greater or lessor degree. The less a person does that relative to their peers, the more they tend to fall behind circumstantially speaking. And by that I don’t mean just materially but emotionally as well. The central point is, that it doesn’t have to happen as is evidenced by the fact that the person’s peers have succeeded where they have failed. For example the good mate in school that did exceedingly well in their career relative to the perpetual child or the peer who behaved wisely with respect to money relative to the perpetual child or the peer who became happily engaged, married and now has grandchildren, relative to the perpetual child.
They were all equal at one point with equal opportunity and equal promise but one did well and the other didn’t. That was choice. It wasn’t necessarily consciously directed choice but nevertheless, there was still a choice to be had, if only the person had seen it.
Of course this is just conventional life truth. As I said, training yourself to change your desires is also entirely possible, but until you accept the truth of the first proposition there’s little point in expanding upon the second.
…the government should have implemented measures to protect and create jobs!
So pray tell Kingi, exactly, specifically, precisely, what would you have done. Please, don’t insult us with vague waffle. Be very very specific and say exactly what you would do. And please don’t treat us as if we’re unaware of current and likely future economic conditions as well, so expect that anything naive you mention about la la la land where everyone is selling heaps of stuff and the economy is booming, will be cut down immediately.
Remind us again of the publics ranking of lawyers – was it just above or below used car salespersons.
Remind us again of why lawyers have to pay such huge levies to the Law Society.
Is it because of um fraud??
Pot calling the kettle black me thinks.
How many people in NZ?
How many pay tax?
More important is how many who pay tax are not Civil Servants?
The tax comes from those who produce something, not those who gather tax.
Were are the millions and billions of dollars coming from with our small population?
Variable arithmetic.
I just registered my car, 6 mths, and $68 +gst for ACC, more than half of the fee.
Acc fee plus gst = double take
Ah but you can both train yourself to change your desires and you can control yourself to avoid acting upon them, Ryan.
Quite right, Reid.
But…
Why did you change your desires? What was your motivation for changing your motivations? Which motivations impelled the choice of which motivations to nurture and which to diminish?
And, of course, did you choose to desire those things?
FWIW, a few minor points, given with absolutely no particular political viewpoint attached:
I don’t know if you are aware of it, but Labour actually TIGHTENED-UP the Unemployment Benefit criteria, during 2007, making it as difficult as it possibly could be to actually go on the UB, no matter how deserving the individual or unfortunate the circumstances. The ‘upgrade’ criteria was so designed to make it as difficult as possible (aka impossible) for ANYONE to go on the UB, and also so humiliating as to actively discourage any attempt to actually get some money.. Winz-staff were heard to observe to anyone they came in contact with: ‘we don’t WANT you to go on the Dole’!
In addition, where one spouse was actually in employment, the income level at which the UB was to be granted was held artificially low, to the point where it was actually possible to be in absolute poverty (due to the increase in power, food, and local body rates – as examples), yet not be able to do anything about it. For the unfortunate individuals concerned, defintely not a good situation and guaranteed to cause ‘belt-tightening’ to survive. (It’s a bit tough with small children though)
Yet at the same time, despite having deprived a sizable section of the population of some means to survive, Labour loudly trumpeted its ‘Working for Families’ policy as being the saviour of the Nation.
As I said, FWIW, and it is non-political – merely an observation which you might care to consider. . .
However, in respect of your comment concerning National being ‘always’ Reactive, instead of Proactive. . .
I would seriously suggest that it is very difficult to be ‘Proactive’ when the previous government (Labour, in case you had forgotten) delibrately leaves you with a modern-day representation of Mother Hubbard’s Cupboard, then walks away with a smirk on its face (as Dr. Cullen did very publicly – remember?) and an attitude of ‘see what you can do with THAT you @$%^%$#&^%^’! Political points-scoring to the last minute, and done with very deliberate malice and intent.
Which begs the inevitable question : What would YOU have done Rangi, if you had opened the (metaphorical) financial cupboard and found there was nothing there (not even a fragment of bone), yet you were very aware that somehow you had to feed your ‘family’ (all 4.5 million of them)? (And also aware that things were going to get a lot worse before they ever became better).
Would your reaction be? Reactive? or Proactive?
I for one, would be interested in your reply (and please DO reply, because silence can be edifying as well)
Why doesn’t National come back against Goff by pointing out another billion could have gone into the Super Fund if the Cullen hadn’t splashed out on the train set because thats a income producing asset.
Did anyone else see the graph in the Herald on the breakdown of income and expenditure and notice how we could easily have a huge surplus by getting rid of welfare?
Does it not seem wrong that 50% of Govt expenditure goes on supporting unproductive people?
The nats have settled for a Standard and Poors budget. Ordinary kiwis missed out but a few propellerheads thought they were doing ok. The same propellerheads that thought that Lehman Brothers were a great buy just before they crashed and burned.
And unemployment has skyrocketed. The job summit has created perhaps 100 jobs but tens of thousands have lost theirs at the same time. The summit was no more than a feel good wa*k fest. And what is more important, jobs for ordinary kiwis or pats on the back from right wing think tanks?
Kingi is also right, given a choice between increased debt and increased unemployment we should choose debt every time. The really funny thing is that the debt situation is really good thanks to Michael Cullen. Even English has begrudgingly acknowledged this.
And National is doing nothing. They are more interested in maintaining their positions of privilege than doing something for ordinary kiwis.
Roll on the next election. The Mt Albert byelection is the start of things to come.
I am sure that Labour did not tighten up the Unemployment Benefit criteria during 2007 but certainly they did not make it easier. They had the economy humming at the time and employment rates were damned good and the decision was made to help working families. The unemployed would be incentivised to work. Jobs were so plentiful that signing up for the dole ought to have been a rare occasion.
If one person was in employment then working for families was available and would have made a significant change unless they were earning heaps. Even a right wing MP with 6 kids qualified for WFF.
Labour did not leave the cupboard bare. It paid off the Credit cards and the mortgage and started to invest funds for retirement. Cullen did not smirk, he was happy that he left the books in far better position than he found them in.
Komata, I am interested that you should suddenly appear. I find it unusual that you should comment on a right wing blog. Are your initials DPF by the way?
Unemployment is going up and up. The number of people going onto benefits is going up and up. The tax take for the Government is going down and down. No worries, John Key has a positive outlook. FFS.
The economy has hummed for the last 9 years. The world was doing fine but locally it was doing even better than average.
You **** think that there are too many public servants. Your analysis is wrong. There is a healthy number of public servants, it means that kids get educated, people get medical treatment, law and order is preserved and the justice system functions. Last year we had a healthy number of public servants. Cut those jobs and the system starts to struggle.
“Decade of deficits” is your attempt to blame Labour for the fuck ups that your lot will cause over the next three years. Labour ran surplusses. National will run deficits.
So what was the cause, International economic crisis or Cullen? All the stuff that Cullen did was damned good. Of course you will blame him but all the evidence suggests that our current problems are internationally sourced and exacerbated by the idiot leadership that Key and English are providing.
Anyway, you want some rebuttal, let’s see how we go:
“Remind us again of the publics ranking of lawyers – was it just above or below used car salespersons.”
Public opinion surveys on trusted professions are rubbish and they have no relation to reality. To use that sort of argument is indeed ignorant.
“Remind us again of why lawyers have to pay such huge levies to the Law Society. Is it because of um fraud??”
Actually, it is mostly because of the running costs of the professional body. My fees this year are actually cheaper than last years, and they have been reducing (slowly) for a while. I don’t have my fees schedule to hand but the (formerly called) fidelity fund contribution paid by solicitors is quite small. My own fees don’t contribute at all, if I remember rightly.
That ties neatly in with your next silly comment:
“Remind the bloggers how much in millions your professional associates have taken by fraud from their clients in the last 10 years in NZ.”
Actually, stuff all. Very few lawyers actually steal money. If you go back 10 years I think you won’t find much theft at all. Oh, I know there is some, although usually it is the classic misuse of a trust account by paying expenses out of it than taking for pecuniary gain. I suspect you are thinking of Renshaw Edwards, but that was a long time ago now and came about with the bad luck of having a property speculator and a chronic gambler running a firm together. Most lawyers who are disciplined are not done for stealing, but rather for other breaches of the rules of professional conduct.
In fact, more businessmen go to prison for fraud than lawyers. For the most part, and considering the billions of dollars that go through our trust accounts each year, we do pretty well.
Any profession will have bad eggs, but at least we have a relatively robust system for complaints in order to try and keep standards high.
“Pot calling the kettle black me thinks.”
Not really. You seem to be confusing the public perception of law, tainted as it is by inaccurate media portrayals in both print and on tv, with the actual reality of practice. That is why I said go and correct your ignorance. You obviously have no idea what goes on with the courts or legal practice and just go on your ignorant prejudices.
Come on, give me some actual evidence of fraud on the part of criminal legal aid lawyers in the practice at the defence bar. Otherwise go away, do some research and come back with something more concrete.
Kingi I have followed your posts all afternoon on the Maori City Councillor subject. From that, and the comments you have made on this forum, I conclude that you are suffering from the most severe case of ES (entitlement syndrome) I have ever witnessed. NZ, the government of NZ, and more importantly the NZ taxpayer owes nobody a living. That’s something every individual should strive to provide for themselves, and take the appropriate steps to make it happen.
Komata, I am interested that you should suddenly appear. I find it unusual that you should comment on a right wing blog. Are your initials DPF by the way?
Paranoia?
So what was the cause, International economic crisis or Cullen? All the stuff that Cullen did was damned good. Of course you will blame him but all the evidence suggests that our current problems are internationally sourced and exacerbated by the idiot leadership that Key and English are providing.
*Sigh*
All the evidence?
I posted these links over at The Standard earlier today – for a different purpose, actually, but they’re also relevant in this context:
Closer to home, there is increasing concern about the sovereign rating of New Zealand. In January this year, Standard & Poor’s revised its AA-plus foreign currency rating on New Zealand from stable to negative.
S&P highlighted the country’s current account deficit, which is 8 per cent of GDP, and the country’s high level of external debt.
S&P said that over the past five years net financial sector external debt doubled to about 200 per cent of current account receipts.
The ratings agency forecast that New Zealand’s gross external financing requirement (current account deficit plus short-term external debt by remaining maturity) will rise to about 225 per cent of 2009 current account receipts.
S&P said the negative outlook reflected the likelihood of a rating downgrade if external imbalances begin to pressure the country’s investment, growth and fiscal performance.
A downgrade of New Zealand’s credit rating would raise the cost of funds and draw international attention to its large external imbalance. A downgrade could trigger a knee-jerk reaction and possible current account crisis.
Read that slowly. This is National’s first budget. Which government oversaw the current account deficit?
New Zealand is in deep trouble. Our mates across the ditch are mired in recession with no way out, and it should be ringing very loud alarms bells for Australia’s complacency.
The Kiwis are facing a sovereign downgrade from Standard & Poor’s, as a result of which the Prime Minister, John Key, had to come out yesterday and promise fiscal consolidation in the next budget, rather than stimulus. That means fiscal policy will be straining against an already hopelessly impotent monetary policy.
These are very experienced business commentators, whose opinion I respect, and in this case I think their analysis is fair. So, despite protestations from you and Kingi to the contrary, National really didn’t have much choice.
No MURRAY. We live in a society that helps the weak, the poor and the vulnerable. WHY? Because of the moral obligation we have to our fellow human beings, that we don’t simply sit by and allow people to suffer. Your mentality of the strongest takes all, is so typical of the misogyny that the people who bleat this view that everyone should just survive on their own without assistance from society. Well Murray I for one am happy to pay taxes to help a struggling parent with four kids! Measures such as Working for Families are measures I will gladly pay my taxes to fund.
Micky, that is just wrong. The NZ economy was not doing better than average at all, if that was the case then we would have gone back into the top half of the OECD like Helen promised us. In fact a lot of the world has been doing far better than us, notwithstanding the fact that we have been growing over the last decade.
What you forget or ignore is that growth was a result of National government policy that Labour continued with, rather than any radical changes on Cullen’s part. Cullen was just fortunate that he came to a well managed economy at a time of worldwide growth. In fact, the growth was a bit of a bubble and we are now seeing the correction to that.
All Cullen did was spend the surplus money on his core constituency. What he should have done is cut taxes and shrink the unproductive and unnecessary parts of the public service. That doesn’t mean police, teachers, nurses etc (why is it you lefties always use hyperbolic examples when you want to denigrate the right? Everybody knows that we aren’t going to cut those areas) but it does mean parts of the public service really are not needed. Like the Families Commission. Or half the Legal Services Agency….
Cactus Kate has it right when she points out the real benefits of cutting taxes. We need more tax cuts, not less.
Because I knew that if I didn’t they would lead me to a place I didn’t want to be.
Did you choose not to want to be there?
Which motivations impelled the choice of which motivations to nurture and which to diminish?
Wisdom – seeking of wise counsel and paying heed to it even when it said things I didn’t want to hear.
Best not refer to doing what other people tell you against your own wishes when arguing you’re the captain of your own ship there, but still – did you choose to consider one person’s counsel wise and another’s not?
And, of course, did you choose to desire those things?
Absolutely. Like I choose where I live and what I do and who I talk to and who my friends are.
Anyway, you seem to ignore the fact that your welfarism breeds welfare dependency. I am more than happy for you to spend your own money to assist struggling families. In fact, I will applaud you for it. But don’t use your bleeding heart socialism to take money off me and my family in order to fund the lifestyles of those who will not work and want ‘society’ to pay for it. In fact, most of those people don’t equate the government with ‘society’, they see it simply as a meal ticket. Those who don’t view it that way are usually pretty quick to get off the benefit or, shock horror, never go on it.
We live in a society that helps the weak, the poor and the vulnerable.
Yes, we do Kingi, and that is how it should be.
But the definition of “weak, poor and vulnerable” is the question at issue here.
You seem to imagine it should include a hell of lot more people than others do, on this thread. Why is that? I do hope you’re not going to bleat on about how superior your humanity is. I really hate it when lefties do that.
Ryan, I still don’t understand your point, but even if I did I’m not sure it would shed light on the original issue which is that you can create successes in life without limitation provided you’re disciplined and prepared to work for them.
If you wish to dispute the published advice of great men and women of action who’ve succeeded in every field imaginable and who’ve said that the direct path to their success was exactly what I’ve said above then go ahead.
But forgive me if I tell you that if you dispute that fact in your own mind then you’re bonkers and you’re doing yourself a great dis-service. Forgive me again if I tell you that if you ever indicate your contrary perspective to another who’s likely to take your perspective to heart then you’re doing that person a great dis-service as well, by denying them the opportunity to test their mettle against the world and triumph and win against challenge and adversity.
There’s a reason why some achieve great things and most others don’t and it has nothing to do with any perceived advantage possessed by the former or disadvantage crippling the latter.
There’s a reason why some achieve great things and most others don’t and it has nothing to do with any perceived advantage possessed by the former or disadvantage crippling the latter.
This was my original comment gg took from the other thread:
If someone does succeed and another doesn’t, it usually depends not on circumstance, but on their attitude. Everyday, millions of people do extraordinary things that sometimes astound even they themselves. Everyday, millions of other people give up and fail. Guess what both sets of people have in common? They think.
The people that think they will win, do. The people that think they won’t, don’t.
The amount of times force majeur enters into this equation is limited to the accidents of fate that physically prevent the person from succeeding. Perhaps they miss the bus to that interview, perhaps they get hit by a bus. In all the rest of the cases, it’s attitude alone that determines the outcome.
So you see, everyone’s fate is in their own hands. [Some] have particular trouble understanding this because they are taught from birth that no-one is ever responsible for their own fate, that rather, it’s circumstances that control people’s destinies. People, according to [them], are helpless automatons swept up by forces beyond their control and tossed hither and yon by circumstance. This is the basis of … social engineering and its poisonous application is responsible for more unhappiness than any other force known to man, including warfare. The fallacy of this proposition is so mind-bogglingly obvious that one would think [people who think like that] would number in only the few hundreds worldwide. Unfortunately there are millions of [them] and since you’re not all completely thick I can only conclude that you’ve been sucked into believing that [the] approach is the only humane way to go and that’s why [they] keep advocating it. Shame really, for while [their] hearts in the right place, [their] mind is elsewhere.
The point… is, don’t treat people as victims. Instead, give them self-belief, from that comes confidence, from confidence comes results, from results comes change in circumstance. That’s the only thing that will pull [people] out of their plight.
I wish you would open some more topical posts, after all politics gets boring after a while.
Here is my suggestion for one:
That Chipmunck Rove attacks our beloved Gary on his show.
That little fuck isn’t even remotely funny now, but he gave NZ a scathing rap tonight.
I would be pleased to give him a scathing rap if you opened this thread.
Having met Gary, with Belinda Todd (puke) one drunken night at the Waikato University, I know he is a cool guy and extremely naturally funny. Hey, he surfs, drinks and gambles and he isn’t married. My kind of guy.
Even a very famous yank comedian said he liked him on Rove making the little chipmunk look weak.
Why does one person have one attitude and another person have another attitude?
Keep in mind I’m not arguing against the practical value of people believing they have magical self-determining powers. I’m just saying that they don’t.
“Why does one person have one attitude and another person have another attitude?”
I assume you mean why does one person believe they can and another believe they can’t?
If so, education. Obviously. Not book learning. Life education. How life works. In reality.
It could be taught in schools as easily as budgeting could be taught in schools. It’s not, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be.
And try not to be condescending: “magical…powers.” It’s how life works, Ryan. We’re creative beings, haven’t you noticed?
Everything around us was once dust in the ground. Before it was what it now is, it was an idea. Then it became something. A building, a road, a car. None of those were around until the designer conceived it out of nothing, then built it. That’s the principal and its application is everywhere around us 24/7/365 and it’s in everything that’s not straight out of nature. No reason why you can’t apply it to your own life, as well.
“No reid, it isn’t. The weak, the poor and the vulnerable are determined by their circumstances, their context and by the facts!”
Kingi you’ve already told us that’s what you believe and I’ve told you in great detail just exactly why I believe that’s complete bollocks.
How about you explain to me in equal detail just exactly why you think circumstances, context and “the facts” control the weak, the poor and the vulnerable?
“Public opinion surveys on trusted professions are rubbish and they have no relation to reality.”
So you are saying that the public perception of your profession is rubbish. And you call me ignorant!! Good grief you are arrogant.
I do not know how long you have been in the profession so do not know how long you have been contributing to the “fidelity
fund” I do know that my many lawyer acquaintances have always moaned of the excessive fees they have to pay to cover others fraud (theft).
I cannot give actual cases of criminal fraud by your profession for many reasons but fortunately you agree that it does exist.
To end this , I responded as I did because I believe a member of your profession should not publicly berate a minister of the crown as you did. It belittles you and your profession. Just as you win some cases – you lose some cases – and you take it on the shoulder. Your attitude adds to the public disallusion of an already public disallusioned reality.
You should just comment without the barbed conclusion.
Well good for you Kingi, you are happy to pay for kids you didn’t bring into the world, I respect your choice. Now you respect mine, I am not happy to do so. Tell me do you work in the private or public sector? If you work in the public you effectively pay no net tax at all (excluding GST, etc).
“So if one person’s life education is different from another’s, they’ll have different attitudes – which, as you say, cause or preclude success?”
Not quite mate. I’m saying that if one person understands they can create their own reality and another doesn’t, then that’s probably because education has granted the former that understanding and it’s quite an easy matter to educate others in that knowledge.
Knowledge however is not attitude. And your question appears to allude to attitude and not knowledge. Knowledge is: I can create my own reality and not just hold that as an intellectual proposition but actually know it to the extent you live it and do it and it works and it’s a way of life for you.
Attitudes are the things you hold along that journey as you move through and toward any particular thing you’ve decided to do.
Attitudes are like a moral compass giving you direction and guidance and that knowledge is like the wind in your sails.
Because what leads people to be poor, weak and vulnerable? There isn’t ONE specific thing, there a wide range of factors that lead people to be impoverished. This is about what the definition of the weak, poor and vulnerable IS. Its simply not that simple. It comes down to peoples individual circumstances.
Its not about “control” its about how we go about assisting those in need.
Not quite mate. I’m saying that if one person understands they can create their own reality and another doesn’t, then that’s probably because education has granted the former that understanding and it’s quite an easy matter to educate others in that knowledge.
Knowledge however is not attitude. And your question appears to allude to attitude and not knowledge. Knowledge is: I can create my own reality and not just hold that as an intellectual proposition but actually know it to the extent you live it and do it and it works and it’s a way of life for you.
Attitudes are the things you hold along that journey as you move through and toward any particular thing you’ve decided to do.
Attitudes are like a moral compass giving you direction and guidance and that knowledge is like the wind in your sails.
My question remains, however: why does one person have this thing and another doesn’t?
If it’s about life education – one person learning they can create their own reality and another never being exposed to the idea – then it’s things outside of a person’s control that cause their attitude one way or another.
seriously, what are you smoking? The types of survey you are referring to are unscientific and are based on simple impressions rather than empirical data. They don’t prove anything about the worth, honesty or anything else about a profession. Certainly they bear no relevance to the point I made, so when I ignore such surveys I am not being arrogant at all. If I based my self-worth as a professional on public surveys I would very rapidly change professions! If you are so simple then good for you.
Your lawyer friends are wrong in saying that their fees cover the fraud of others. After Renshaw Edwards cleaned out the fidelity fund the Law Society levied (I think) $10,000 on every principal and partner in law firms in the Country. That was to re-stock the fidelity fund. Lots of us complained about that, and with good reason! However, the actual amount in solicitors annual practising fee is relatively small when compared with the operational component.
Of course fraud occurs from time to time. It is unavoidable, no matter what profession you are in. If money is involved then someone will always be tempted to take it unlawfully. Fortunately the very great majority of my profession don’t stoop to such offending.
It is your last major comment that is just plain dumb, however. Are you seriously saying that no lawyer (and perhaps any other profession) should disagree with or criticise a Minister of the Crown? Are you really suggesting that I should limit my freedom of speech just because I am part of an honourable profession? Does being a lawyer disqualify one from taking robust positions, or even, as you call it, berating a Minister of the Crown in the comments section of a blog?
The great thing about Kiwiblog is that here we can freely and robustly criticise and critique our public figures and/or their policies or actions while participating in a reasoned and knowledgeable discussion. You, sadly, seem not to understand that.
This is about what the definition of the weak, poor and vulnerable IS.
Kingi, with respect, it’s not about defining who is poor, weak etc. It’s about how they got there in the first place and why they stay there for generation after generation.
See, one thing that people of your political view are never able to answer, is this:
Two families, side-by-side. Exactly the same household income, exactly the same number of kids. Exactly the same type of house. Kids go to the same school.
One family is angry, drunken, violent, abusive. The other is peaceful, tee-total, self-disciplined, loving.
Loo and behold. The former family’s children end up repeating this lifestyle for generations. The latter family through rigorous exercise in the aforementioned attitudes manages to send their children to university and move themselves out of that neighbourhood within a generation.
Don’t tell me this doesn’t happen because it does. It doesn’t happen often enough. But it does happen. And what’s the common denominator? Attitude: The moral compass. Knowledge they can change their circumstance: The wind in their sails.
This is a very simple analogy Kingi. It also rings true, both in terms of actually being played out in various poor suburbs numerous times each year and it rings true in terms of what we all understand by virtue of being human. It reflects the reality of human behaviour.
bahahahahaha….what a joke…seriously…the vitriol and crap that seems to fill up the cess pool that some of the comments are on this website, can’t really be considered “reasond and knowledgeable discussion.”
Oh jesus, seeing your post like 2 hours later, spam filter or not, you got the big Robert Black thumbs down.
Speed it up for God’s sake, jesus i drove from Tauranga to Hamilton today, trucks and roadworks, worse than in 2000, seems the old DF blog is about the same speed.
Disappointing.
But generally that goes with something new and exciting in NZ it gets bogged down with its own ego speed.
“If it’s about life education – one person learning they can create their own reality and another never being exposed to the idea – then it’s things outside of a person’s control that cause their attitude one way or another.”
Again Ryan, I’m struggling to understand your point and not really sure that I need to.
It seems to me you’re sniping away at the margins without addressing the central issues which is unlike you since you usually make some penetrating arguments.
Either you agree with it or you don’t. Fine. If you have a logical argument that undermines it completely then go ahead and play that card.
actually, there is some very good reasoning and a ton of knowledge on this blog, Kingi. If you don’t like it then head off to the Lapblog, where I am sure you will feel more at home. Just don’t be surprised if they censor some of your comments…
So why would you not want to implement measures therefore, to give those children born into a situation that is volatile, the opportunities to get out of that situation and succeed themselves? Why should someone, born into a circumstance that isn’t the best, simply have to continue to suffer? Why?
See your analogy is one easy to construct, but what exactly are you trying to say? that because the children in the family that is in your words, “drunk, violent, abusive” so on so on, are born into that situation, they will inevitably just end up like the parents and that’s “not societies problem” ? I don’t care if you claim this is “the reality of human behaviour” quite simply its WRONG! It’s wrong that simply because a child is born into a bad situation, that society has no obligation to help! We do! Everyone has the right to have opportunities to succeed.
I can’t believe that somehow you would think that it is something as simple as a “change in attitude” that will solve societies problems? Do you really have such a simplistic approach, that is inherently flawed, as it doesn’t take into account the wide array of factors that MUST be taken into account when we look at people’s lives in a modern day society.
“Well actually Murray, unless I was somehow in the government over the last nine years, and I can remember that I wasn’t, it wasn’t my choice.”
Too right Kingi, we taxpayers don’t get a choice, we pay and they spend. Who are these weak and vulnerable you keep harping on about. I have spent the last six months in Asia and there they fucking well work or they don’t eat.
Why should anybody in NZ be treated differently. Are NZ’ers so useless they can’t earn their own living.
So murray, happy to see kids starving in the street?
Thanks to the world crash and he governments do nothing policy we are going to have a lot of people soon who want to work but cannot get jobs, what then Murray? (and what if it is you?)
“So why would you not want to implement measures therefore, to give those children born into a situation that is volatile, the opportunities to get out of that situation and succeed themselves? Why should someone, born into a circumstance that isn’t the best, simply have to continue to suffer? Why?”
Because the opportunities are already there. Nothing in this country limits a person’s ability to get educated, to obtain work or to get themselves out of the situations you describe other than the person themselves and the choices they make. If a person wants to achieve to the best of their ability then there is nothing in standing in their way.
Sonic, what about the fuckpigs that won’t work regardless. What do we do with them? I’m OK mate I have enough in reserve to last me at least a year, but thanks for your concern.
I can’t believe that somehow you would think that it is something as simple as a “change in attitude” that will solve societies problems?
Firstly Kingi, thanks for finally responding substantively to one of the points made on this and yesterday’s thread. Keep it up.
Why can’t you believe it? It is simple. It’s precisely that simple. Why else does shit happen? The root cause Kingi of someone getting angry and beating up their missus is not because they’re drunk or poor or dumb. It’s because they’re angry. And why are they angry? Well who knows, but when was the last time you got so drunk and angry that you lost it and beat up your missus? What’s that? Never? Well gee. How come, Kingi? Bet you’ve been just as drunk as those other fullas, eh? And you never did it? Foo man. Wut’s going on?
The difference Kingi, between you and them, is attitude. Pure and simple.
You are obviously educated as well. That helps. That really really helps. But even well educated people have fucked attitudes, don’t they? And even poorly educated people have great attitudes, don’t they? So education is not a root cause but its got a high correlation in the success factor factory.
You talk about a “wide array of factors.” OK, name them. Go ahead. Name them.
“Certainly they bear no relevance to the point I made, so when I ignore such surveys I am not being arrogant at all. If I based my self-worth as a professional on public surveys I would very rapidly change professions! If you are so simple then good for you.” So you agree the the public perceive lawyers to be of low esteem ie in the same league as used car salesman and snake oil venders yet you say it bears no relevance. What the hell are YOU smoking. Once again arrogance.
“However, the actual amount in solicitors annual practising fee is relatively small when compared with the operational component.” In other words – in context to the outrageous fees we charge our clients and what we can screw from the legal aid component.
“It is your last major comment that is just plain dumb, however.” Just to set the record straight I certainly did not call you or your profession honourable.
I am not advocating that you give up your right to freedom of speech at all. In fact I never raised the point. Fortunately in this country everybody has that right and should use it.
What I am saying is that when critisize a minister for his policy and then degrade him that has a negative effect for an already ill perceived occupation. What I am saying is critisize the policy not the man.
But then perhaps you are just pissed off at losing the golden egg us law abiding tax payers have supplied you and you are venting that anger at the minister whom you hold responsible for that lose.
hey pentwig, you wouldn’t happen to be Kevin Cantwell, who has a Twitter account (here http://twitter.com/Pentwig) where you follow all those nice Labour and Green MP’s, are you???
You are an idiot
Pity the poor people who hire you to be their advocate only to find you could not argue yourself out of a primary school debate. As for the parady twitters, they are good humour. Obviously above you to understand.
Oh I am right wing as well.
I am not sorry about your loss of income which judging by your standards shown here would not be all that great anyway.
It seems to me you’re sniping away at the margins without addressing the central issues which is unlike you since you usually make some penetrating arguments.
Either you agree with it or you don’t. Fine. If you have a logical argument that undermines it completely then go ahead and play that card.
Reid, I already have.
It’s simple logical necessity.
People’s actions are driven by motivations. Nothing you’ve said contradicts that.
Good god, what a joke! This isn’t about self-worth. To claim that the government is somehow responsible for people’s innate self worth, is simply ridiculous!
Further to this I take severe objection to using comments of people without their permission to push your own agenda. Common courtesy?
Prove it. Politics is an expression of the experience of many, distilled and projected into logical conclusion in an attempt to ease the anxiety of the unknown future.
Common Courtesy? It’s a public blog on the internet. Sue me.
Tell us your story, Kingi. Stop hiding behind theory and political activism.
Now, not to break up a valid political argument, but to reiterate the point attached to the original challenge which I think may clear up many of these disagreements:
Replies to original challenge need to be in the form of personal experince in context i.e. vignettes of your life story. My experience is that as soon as you try to make conclusions, to bring the event out of context for the construction of a theory, you lose the inherent truths within the event. It matters not one jott who takes what from any particular story. The truths within the story will be self evident. No need for argument, just the truth – the anti-thesis of politics of you like. (Which is unusual for a political blog, but the opportunity is here now.) We all think we are mature adults. Now act like it.
I’ve broken the law many times, faced the blankness that Transmogrifier speaks of, bludged, supported, expressed my courage and my cowardice. In my eyes all political theories are just plain foolishness. I’ve lived within and outside them, been proud of my good points and scared myself to death over my potential for evil. All my actions have been reflections of my attitude to life at any given point. My attitude has changed many times, sometimes through happiness, sometimes through pain. Often I am not even conscious of my attitude – I act before knowing why. Sometimes the why isn’t clear for years.
These are the moments I ask others to post. In context. Not argue about whether I am right or wrong, but what actually happened so that others can follow if they wish, re-interpret ideas for themsleves and move on to greater things.
Kingi (53) Vote: Add rating 2 Subtract rating 8 Says:
May 29th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Simply put people can’t survive if they don’t have a job! This government have allowed the fear of a credit downgrade to dominate their thinking! I quote Herald columinist Fran O’Sullivan “There’s no great stimulus package to create or protect jobs.”
****************************************
I survived without a job, although I was on the dole, then I got a job and did more than survive. Seriously Kingi, you bitch and whine like a spoilt child who cannot get an endless supply of lollies from mummy and daddy.
May 29th, 2009 at 9:23 am
I’ve over-dosed on tigers this month.
So here’s the smallest creature I could find to take a photo of:
http://chthoniid.zenfolio.com/img/v5/p74801176-5.jpg
(That is a toothpick it’s resting on).
Mmm, coffee is good.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 9:29 am
Stimulate the Economy From it’s Roots
These posts have been taken from a recent Kiwiblog thread. The names and political labels have been removed.
To my mind they illustrate the real divide in NZ. It’s not one of left or right, brown or white, but one of self worth and lack of self worth. From that point all other ideas – political or not – flow.
There is the argument that we control our fate, then is the counter argument that includes a very important point – personal context. So have a read and then I’ll issue a challenge:
So here’s the challenge. Post some motivation, some encouragement, for those who wish to change. For free. Untaxed. Go on… stimulate the economy at its roots!
Tell your story in context, truthfully. Tell what you learned that gave you confidence in yourself. What changed your mind from being oppressed to being aware of your own power? We’ve had the generalities in the above quoted posts, now is the time for useful specifics.
It can be as long or as short as you like.
And if you don’t like encouraging people, you can even post why you think one man cannot teach or help another, as long as it’s in context truthfully and from experience.
But either case must contain the tipping point, that illusive half-step. The moment you stepped into that brave new world, what was happening to you, around you? Looking back, what earlier moment was the catalyst for change?
If you did not recognise a sudden moment or change – maybe you’ve always believed in yourself – show us when you consciously acknowledged some of your important values that make you who you are.
Naturally, leave out details that reveal your identity if you wish. Any conclusions one man finds debateable in another man’s story, please post your own story in reply, not a rebuttal. Let your experience speak, not your logic.
The hope is that these stories, which many of you obviously have, will illuminate a first step towards personal freedom for those who wish to follow.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 9:47 am
GG, time to start your own blog.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 11:06 am
Goodgod, you’ve caused me to have self-worth and caused me to realise my own power! Thanks!
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 11:31 am
Sorry, Goodgod, your comment deserves more of a response than that.
I personally find that recognising the way in which my behaviour is shaped by things around me and in my past – that motivates me. Ultimately, everything that anyone does is caused by things outside of their control, but I don’t find that equates to a mentality of victimhood.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 11:45 am
“Ultimately, everything that anyone does is caused by things outside of their control”
Not true, not true at all.
I find in my personal experience, I have ambition but not the personality to see it through. It’s something I’m working on, but I tend to have an idea but then stumble as soon as I am forced to confront areas in which I have no knowledge – it seems overwhelming, not knowing where to start. So I tend to let it go and keep on doing what I’m doing (not unhappily, mind). This is all MY problem, every single part. A look around will see a great multitude of people have succeeded in the very areas I am convinced I will never understand or be able to master. So it is up to me to rectify that.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Just been down to the telecom shop to look at the new network upgrade options. It’s going to be a real problem for Telecom. I for one was really disappointed at the plans on offer and the lack of flexibilty.
I walked out in disgust. I also note that Deborah Coddington walked out too and said in a loud voice how ridiculous it was that she came in prepared to spend $1000 and leaves with nothing…
They may have got this well wrong.
I went straight down to vodafone.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
To all Green party members, when you vote tomorrow please think of the future of the party, please vote for the only logical replacement for Jeanette.
Please vote for Sue Bradford.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
“Deborah Coddington walked out too and said in a loud voice how ridiculous it was that she came in prepared to spend $1000 and leaves with nothing…”
Thats her Herald bit sorted out for Sunday, “why oh why…..”
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
National has failed to pass its main election promise – tax cuts – and succeeded in carrying out Labour’s election promises – Working for Families and student-free loans.
Is there now ANY difference between National and Labour?
Discuss.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Goodgod – an amazing post – thankyou.
I have two major aids in life – LIFE itself and the experiences from it to draw on;
and events that caused two close family members to alter life courses.
Their positive attitude to adversity and the consequent flow on has brightened all our lives.
We now all look forward, and knowing we have “choices” take responsibility for our actions,
hold ourselves accountable, and are aware of consequences of these choices.
We no longer ‘caretake’ other’s problems, but instead offer positive outcomes that, if taken up,
would lead to positive results – very rewarding.
We accept others will have opinions that differ from our own – but try and understand their perspective
without getting upset by it.
The result of this is hugely empowering and has lead to a much less stressful life.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
So here’s the challenge. Post some motivation, some encouragement, for those who wish to change. For free. Untaxed. Go on… stimulate the economy at its roots!
You might enjoy a blog post I wrote on this very issue.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Chthoniid – this one takes the breath away – the detail is stunning.
Oh! By the way I have found a barista who really does know a Flat
Vote:White from a Latte – he works at Salute in Taupo.
Unfortunately I am not in Taupo so had to make my own today.
It was ‘good’!
May 29th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Yes, but you did not choose to want the things you have ambition for.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Is there any difference between Luke H and any generic left wing troll? Discuss.
And Luke the link whoring will be taken into account in the discussion.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
John Key
Where is my tax cut? You promised …
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Personally guaranteed even.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
ref goodgod’s suggestion above… A little formula that I live by:
E + R = O, where E is an event, R is my response to that event, and O is the outcome that I experience.
I have limited control over individual events (shit happens etc), but absolutely total 100% control over how I respond to those events, and therefore over outcome that I experience.
Poor responses tend to be those that appear to be the ‘easy option’ and/or short-term focused, but they lead to poor outcomes which tend to put a person in a place where subsequent events are unpleasant or difficult.
Example: I need some money. Good response is to get the perfect job. If none available, then good response is take any job, dig holes whatever. Bad response is theft. Another bad response is doing nothing and expecting someone else to sort out my need for money. Outcomes range from employment to prison to idleness.. and these tend to scope the types of subsequent events that I will experience.
Lefties simply don’t understand this, believing that everyone is a hapless victim of uncontrolled circumstance, tossed and gored by life and therefore desperate for state support, their type of dependency-creating support.
So in summary, I focus on good ‘R’s, ones that are long-term and will bring good outcomes to me, my family and my community.
There … A little Friday philosophy
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
No mickey you were promised no such thing. That was for the conservative. The left wing were demanding higher taxes under labour and thats what you voted for… but you don’t get those either.
You’re welcome.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Thanks fredinthegrass, I was pleased with the weevil but less so with the blown highlights on the toothpick.
Good to find you have a good source for coffee.
One of the hardest things about travelling in China is the dearth of decent coffee. The VIP lounge at Guililn airport served ‘instant’. And in Xi’an there was a special street of coffee shops. I ordered a blue mountain, saw them make it, but the taste was awful. The beans were horribly stale.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
micky – wouldnt you need to be employed to get a tax cut?
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
The commie weasels said:
“mickysavage (327) Vote: 2 6 Says:
May 29th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
John Key
Where is my tax cut? You promised …
jarbury (248) Vote: 1 3 Says:
May 29th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Personally guaranteed even.”
>>> Helen and Michael pissed them up against the wall alongside ACC, KiwiRail, Govt dept head office bloat, a beneficiary society etc etc.
HTH’s.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
They did that since November last year expat?
Pretty impressive feat as they weren’t even in government.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Getstaffed,
I’m a leftie, and it was exactly this kind of equivocation I was responding to above.
It’s this idea of being a “hapless victim of uncontrolled circumstance” that people seem to throw up as the only possible alternative to believing the individual to have magical powers to be driven by desires other than the ones provided to the individual by their circumstances.
That’s not the case. Just because your decisions are ultimately caused by factors outside of your control doesn’t mean that you’re not making decisions and doesn’t mean that you don’t have control. It’s just that the nature of control – to choose to do something – is always directed by desire/motivation.
And you don’t get to choose what you desire, what your motivations are. They are entirely formed by your circumstances – biological, societal, religious, familial, etc.
And that includes the desire to bludge off welfare rather than get a job – these things aren’t the consequences of decisions, they are the causes of decisions.
That said, I should note that I know very few lefties who habitually live off state support (three, all up). I know a greater number of self-professed right-wingers who are or have been very happy to bludge (far more luxuriously) off their parents’ support – also a form of dependency habit. Though I’m sure they wouldn’t see it as bludging, but something they’re entitled to – a similar mindset I see in people living off state support.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Ryan
How on earth can you suggest that those who have rich parents and bludge from them are the same as those who bludge from the state?
I do not care if somebody works or not, I don’t care if they choose to life their life in a fashion that I do not agree with however I should be forced to pay for it.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
They are not identical, but are alike in ways that are relevant. Getstaffed was lamenting attitudes of dependency, I believe.
I agree. I feel the same way.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Good god, what a joke! This isn’t about self-worth. To claim that the government is somehow responsible for people’s innate self worth, is simply ridiculous!
Further to this I take severe objection to using comments of people without their permission to push your own agenda. Common courtesy?
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
I would like to make a point about common courtesy!
Here is what one unnamed commenter said who will go unnamed and without pointing any fingers.
You all just think about that!
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
One unnamed commenter:
Objection noted and overruled.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Oh nome, if only you HAD the ability to note and overrule. But unfortunately for your ego you don’t!
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
… not much comment on Telecom’s much vaunted, over-hyped and under-whelming XT bollocks launch.
Why is it that the 97% of people living, working and playing in Vodafone’s coverage area don’t seem to be the same 97% that Telecom asserts live work and play in its coverage area? Do they keep moving around without telling Telecom? Or are there in fact 194% people? Have Telecom rounded up from 96.55% to 97%, and Vodafone down from 97.45%??
Will Telecom ever learn? Well, no, of course not.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Kingi:
Are you sure you haven’t used comments of people without their permission to push your own agenda on this thread?
And speaking of ego… haven’t you got a hikoi or something to organise?
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Welcome back all, my ban is up, I’m not quite sure what happened to my old account, so I’ve added a 1 onto the end, I hope you don’t mind DPF.
Murray, since I’m a little late posting on the topic, I was wondering if you could answer my question over here:http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/05/oswald.html#comment-567463
Cheers!
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Ryan Sproull
And that includes the desire to bludge off welfare rather than get a job – these things aren’t the consequences of decisions, they are the causes of decisions.
Consequences or causes, all decisions are made upon either future goals or current beliefs, all of which are formed from factors outside of ones control. There is no free will.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
“# mickysavage (327) Vote: Add rating 4 Subtract rating 9 Says:
May 29th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
John Key
Where is my tax cut? You promised …”
What’s the purpose of having a tax cut to enjoy if you lose your job because of spiralling economic debt. Yes it is disappointing but it is expected after the economy has been mismanaged for almost a decade.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
and what has this government done to protect and create jobs? I’m sorry but claiming that infrastructure is going to create jobs, misses the fact that it is the low skilled and low paid who lose their jobs first and how are these people going to be assisted?
They aren’t.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
# Kingi (31) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 1 Says:
May 29th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
and what has this government done to protect and create jobs? I’m sorry but claiming that infrastructure is going to create jobs, misses the fact that it is the low skilled and low paid who lose their jobs first and how are these people going to be assisted?
They aren’t.
***************************
Its a sad bad world out there Kingi, if no one, including the government, is going to help the poor (that includes me BTW) then we shall just have to help ourselves eh?
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
There’s only so much money to go around Kingi.
Perhaps if the state didnt have the burden of a particular group believing its their god given right to separate cultures, languages, TV stations, ministries, MP’s, health and education policies and separate society in general we would have enough money for the unimportant things like protecting and creating jobs for everyone?
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
‘sup kingi.
Firstly the minimum wage was not raised as much as labour wants – remember if you raise the minimum wage above inflation rates, you raise unemployment amongst the low skilled group.
Secondly laying roads (much of nationals infrastructure plan) tends to involve a fair bit of largely unskilled labour.
Thirdly the lack of a credit downgrade means that companies will be able to afford to retain more people. Similarly people on low wages will not suffer increased pressure from higher mortgage repayments
Fourthly government policy will be creating several vacancies in the labour party, generally occupied by unskilled people.
Oops, did i just use your quote to promote a quasi-right wing agenda?
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Most of those Kingi champions (the majority of Maori people being quite happy to just get on with their lives like the rest of NZers do) are very adept at “helping themselves” –
- then getting caught and blaming everyone else.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Simply put people can’t survive if they don’t have a job! This government have allowed the fear of a credit downgrade to dominate their thinking! I quote Herald columinist Fran O’Sullivan “There’s no great stimulus package to create or protect jobs.”
Which is exactly the point! The number of people on the… Read More dole has DOUBLED since National took office. How does it help to maintain credit ratings, when thousands of NZers are being thrown out of employment and are therefore unable to pay tax? Mr. English said the word debt nine times in the first 10 minutes of his speech, and yet his budget did nothing to address the fact that by next year 180,000 NZers will be out of the job! You need a job first, before you can get loans, pay your mortgage, pay your credit card and so on. To argue that infrastructure spending will provide employment to these people is simply ridiculous as it will be the contractors who reap the benefits.
As always National is being REACTIVE instead of being PROACTIVE and CREATING and PROTECTING CURRENT JOBS. In times of recession when businesses are cutting back staff, and it is always the low skilled and low paid who’s livelihoods depend on the pay cheque they get and they don’t have other fall backs, the government should have implemented measures to protect and create jobs! Instead they cut as they always have, cut contributions to super, cut scholarships geared at creating a more skilled workforce for the future, cut back on skills training. National has always been prepared to help those at the top and hope that it trickles down, as opposed to giving the assistance to those who really need it and whose livelihoods are threatened!
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
We are all complaining about not getting a tax cut, but tonight I found out that I am getting a pay cut from the budget!
Despite putting out a press release saying “In addition, there is $17.1 million in operating funding in 2009/10 to maintain access to justice services through community law centres and legal aid.” it seems that for Simon Power the way he maintains access to justice is to cut legal aid pay rates.
I know this because we got an email this evening from the Law Society President saying
“I am extremely disappointed to report that a reduced Budget allocation for legal aid will see the Legal Services Agency decrease the rates paid to lawyers undertaking legal aid work.
As the Budget was read, the Minister of Justice issued a media release stating that the Legal Services Agency would receive $9.9 million in 2009/10 to help retain its legal aid providers.
I contacted the CEO of the Agency, Tim Bannatyne, for clarification as to what that meant for rates.
He confirmed that the $9.9 million was in addition to the Agency’s permanent legal aid allocation and represented a decrease of $1.274 million on the amount allocated in the 2008 Budget to fund last year’s 10% increase in legal aid rates. Accordingly, he said, that increase would now be reduced.”
So when the Minister puts out another press release saying “The Legal Services Agency will receive $9.9 million in 2009/10 to help retain its legal aid providers who provide legal advice to people charged with offences.” he was either being mendacious or was ignorant of what the LSA had decided to do as a result of the reduction in budget, which is poor form on his part.
I know that for many this will be a popular move, but if Power is going to reduce legal aid pay rates, at least let him admit it and not try to misrepresent it in the media.
Of course, I wouldn’t expect anything less from a Minister of the Crown who accuses an entire sector of his own profession of fraud!
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Ah but you can both train yourself to change your desires and you can control yourself to avoid acting upon them, Ryan.
The former is much more valuable than the latter but the latter is much more commonly practiced. The latter is of course called “growing up” and everyone does that to a greater or lessor degree. The less a person does that relative to their peers, the more they tend to fall behind circumstantially speaking. And by that I don’t mean just materially but emotionally as well. The central point is, that it doesn’t have to happen as is evidenced by the fact that the person’s peers have succeeded where they have failed. For example the good mate in school that did exceedingly well in their career relative to the perpetual child or the peer who behaved wisely with respect to money relative to the perpetual child or the peer who became happily engaged, married and now has grandchildren, relative to the perpetual child.
They were all equal at one point with equal opportunity and equal promise but one did well and the other didn’t. That was choice. It wasn’t necessarily consciously directed choice but nevertheless, there was still a choice to be had, if only the person had seen it.
Of course this is just conventional life truth. As I said, training yourself to change your desires is also entirely possible, but until you accept the truth of the first proposition there’s little point in expanding upon the second.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
So pray tell Kingi, exactly, specifically, precisely, what would you have done. Please, don’t insult us with vague waffle. Be very very specific and say exactly what you would do. And please don’t treat us as if we’re unaware of current and likely future economic conditions as well, so expect that anything naive you mention about la la la land where everyone is selling heaps of stuff and the economy is booming, will be cut down immediately.
Go ahead and enlighten us.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
So Labour chucks money around for 10 years and creates artifical employment during the biggest boom time of the last several decades.
Yet in the middle of one of the biggest recessions since 30′s Kingi accuses National of doubling unemployment.
Kingi what are you smoking because I need an imagination like yours.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
FE Smith
Remind us again of the publics ranking of lawyers – was it just above or below used car salespersons.
Vote:Remind us again of why lawyers have to pay such huge levies to the Law Society.
Is it because of um fraud??
Pot calling the kettle black me thinks.
May 29th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
pentwig, go and correct your ignorance and then come back and say something useful.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
How many people in NZ?
Vote:How many pay tax?
More important is how many who pay tax are not Civil Servants?
The tax comes from those who produce something, not those who gather tax.
Were are the millions and billions of dollars coming from with our small population?
Variable arithmetic.
I just registered my car, 6 mths, and $68 +gst for ACC, more than half of the fee.
Acc fee plus gst = double take
May 29th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Quite right, Reid.
But…
Why did you change your desires? What was your motivation for changing your motivations? Which motivations impelled the choice of which motivations to nurture and which to diminish?
And, of course, did you choose to desire those things?
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Smithy
Don’t just accuse me of ignorance because that is a copout and a typical lawyer action.
Vote:Justify it!!
May 29th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Kingi
FWIW, a few minor points, given with absolutely no particular political viewpoint attached:
I don’t know if you are aware of it, but Labour actually TIGHTENED-UP the Unemployment Benefit criteria, during 2007, making it as difficult as it possibly could be to actually go on the UB, no matter how deserving the individual or unfortunate the circumstances. The ‘upgrade’ criteria was so designed to make it as difficult as possible (aka impossible) for ANYONE to go on the UB, and also so humiliating as to actively discourage any attempt to actually get some money.. Winz-staff were heard to observe to anyone they came in contact with: ‘we don’t WANT you to go on the Dole’!
In addition, where one spouse was actually in employment, the income level at which the UB was to be granted was held artificially low, to the point where it was actually possible to be in absolute poverty (due to the increase in power, food, and local body rates – as examples), yet not be able to do anything about it. For the unfortunate individuals concerned, defintely not a good situation and guaranteed to cause ‘belt-tightening’ to survive. (It’s a bit tough with small children though)
Yet at the same time, despite having deprived a sizable section of the population of some means to survive, Labour loudly trumpeted its ‘Working for Families’ policy as being the saviour of the Nation.
As I said, FWIW, and it is non-political – merely an observation which you might care to consider. . .
However, in respect of your comment concerning National being ‘always’ Reactive, instead of Proactive. . .
I would seriously suggest that it is very difficult to be ‘Proactive’ when the previous government (Labour, in case you had forgotten) delibrately leaves you with a modern-day representation of Mother Hubbard’s Cupboard, then walks away with a smirk on its face (as Dr. Cullen did very publicly – remember?) and an attitude of ‘see what you can do with THAT you @$%^%$#&^%^’! Political points-scoring to the last minute, and done with very deliberate malice and intent.
Which begs the inevitable question : What would YOU have done Rangi, if you had opened the (metaphorical) financial cupboard and found there was nothing there (not even a fragment of bone), yet you were very aware that somehow you had to feed your ‘family’ (all 4.5 million of them)? (And also aware that things were going to get a lot worse before they ever became better).
Would your reaction be? Reactive? or Proactive?
I for one, would be interested in your reply (and please DO reply, because silence can be edifying as well)
Thanks
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Why doesn’t National come back against Goff by pointing out another billion could have gone into the Super Fund if the Cullen hadn’t splashed out on the train set because thats a income producing asset.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Did anyone else see the graph in the Herald on the breakdown of income and expenditure and notice how we could easily have a huge surplus by getting rid of welfare?
Does it not seem wrong that 50% of Govt expenditure goes on supporting unproductive people?
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Kingi is quite right.
The nats have settled for a Standard and Poors budget. Ordinary kiwis missed out but a few propellerheads thought they were doing ok. The same propellerheads that thought that Lehman Brothers were a great buy just before they crashed and burned.
And unemployment has skyrocketed. The job summit has created perhaps 100 jobs but tens of thousands have lost theirs at the same time. The summit was no more than a feel good wa*k fest. And what is more important, jobs for ordinary kiwis or pats on the back from right wing think tanks?
Kingi is also right, given a choice between increased debt and increased unemployment we should choose debt every time. The really funny thing is that the debt situation is really good thanks to Michael Cullen. Even English has begrudgingly acknowledged this.
And National is doing nothing. They are more interested in maintaining their positions of privilege than doing something for ordinary kiwis.
Roll on the next election. The Mt Albert byelection is the start of things to come.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Simple Komata
Invested in protecting and creating jobs. NOT on standard and poor’s ratings who were still giving ENRON AAA ratings right up to when they went bust.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Sad Smithy sad.
Remind the bloggers how much in millions your professional associates have taken by fraud from their clients in the last 10 years in NZ.
Please do not accuse Gov. ministers of fraud when your own profession has the copyright.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
Komata
I am sure that Labour did not tighten up the Unemployment Benefit criteria during 2007 but certainly they did not make it easier. They had the economy humming at the time and employment rates were damned good and the decision was made to help working families. The unemployed would be incentivised to work. Jobs were so plentiful that signing up for the dole ought to have been a rare occasion.
If one person was in employment then working for families was available and would have made a significant change unless they were earning heaps. Even a right wing MP with 6 kids qualified for WFF.
Labour did not leave the cupboard bare. It paid off the Credit cards and the mortgage and started to invest funds for retirement. Cullen did not smirk, he was happy that he left the books in far better position than he found them in.
Komata, I am interested that you should suddenly appear. I find it unusual that you should comment on a right wing blog. Are your initials DPF by the way?
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Unemployment is going up and up. The number of people going onto benefits is going up and up. The tax take for the Government is going down and down. No worries, John Key has a positive outlook. FFS.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Fuck mickey, where to start?
By “they” you mean of course, the world. Nothing to do with anything Liarbore did, in anyway, whatsoever.
And yet civil servants reached record levels and productivity increases in the civil service were nowhere to be seen. Any alarm bells ringing?
Yes it fucking did and it poisoned the well as well. “Decade of deficits” ring any bells?
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Ryan:
Because I knew that if I didn’t they would lead me to a place I didn’t want to be.
Wisdom – seeking of wise counsel and paying heed to it even when it said things I didn’t want to hear.
Absolutely. Like I choose where I live and what I do and who I talk to and who my friends are.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Reid
The economy has hummed for the last 9 years. The world was doing fine but locally it was doing even better than average.
You **** think that there are too many public servants. Your analysis is wrong. There is a healthy number of public servants, it means that kids get educated, people get medical treatment, law and order is preserved and the justice system functions. Last year we had a healthy number of public servants. Cut those jobs and the system starts to struggle.
“Decade of deficits” is your attempt to blame Labour for the fuck ups that your lot will cause over the next three years. Labour ran surplusses. National will run deficits.
So what was the cause, International economic crisis or Cullen? All the stuff that Cullen did was damned good. Of course you will blame him but all the evidence suggests that our current problems are internationally sourced and exacerbated by the idiot leadership that Key and English are providing.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
What is sad, pentwig?
Anyway, you want some rebuttal, let’s see how we go:
“Remind us again of the publics ranking of lawyers – was it just above or below used car salespersons.”
Public opinion surveys on trusted professions are rubbish and they have no relation to reality. To use that sort of argument is indeed ignorant.
“Remind us again of why lawyers have to pay such huge levies to the Law Society. Is it because of um fraud??”
Actually, it is mostly because of the running costs of the professional body. My fees this year are actually cheaper than last years, and they have been reducing (slowly) for a while. I don’t have my fees schedule to hand but the (formerly called) fidelity fund contribution paid by solicitors is quite small. My own fees don’t contribute at all, if I remember rightly.
That ties neatly in with your next silly comment:
“Remind the bloggers how much in millions your professional associates have taken by fraud from their clients in the last 10 years in NZ.”
Actually, stuff all. Very few lawyers actually steal money. If you go back 10 years I think you won’t find much theft at all. Oh, I know there is some, although usually it is the classic misuse of a trust account by paying expenses out of it than taking for pecuniary gain. I suspect you are thinking of Renshaw Edwards, but that was a long time ago now and came about with the bad luck of having a property speculator and a chronic gambler running a firm together. Most lawyers who are disciplined are not done for stealing, but rather for other breaches of the rules of professional conduct.
In fact, more businessmen go to prison for fraud than lawyers. For the most part, and considering the billions of dollars that go through our trust accounts each year, we do pretty well.
Any profession will have bad eggs, but at least we have a relatively robust system for complaints in order to try and keep standards high.
“Pot calling the kettle black me thinks.”
Not really. You seem to be confusing the public perception of law, tainted as it is by inaccurate media portrayals in both print and on tv, with the actual reality of practice. That is why I said go and correct your ignorance. You obviously have no idea what goes on with the courts or legal practice and just go on your ignorant prejudices.
Come on, give me some actual evidence of fraud on the part of criminal legal aid lawyers in the practice at the defence bar. Otherwise go away, do some research and come back with something more concrete.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Micky
“The world was doing fine but locally it was doing even better than average”
That is a blatant lie, the NZ economy was the FIRST in the world to go into recession.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
Idiot
So your answer is to raise taxes is it?
Although I have been highly critical of Neville Key’s budget I shudder to think of what Labour would have produced.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
Kingi I have followed your posts all afternoon on the Maori City Councillor subject. From that, and the comments you have made on this forum, I conclude that you are suffering from the most severe case of ES (entitlement syndrome) I have ever witnessed. NZ, the government of NZ, and more importantly the NZ taxpayer owes nobody a living. That’s something every individual should strive to provide for themselves, and take the appropriate steps to make it happen.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
Micky – you are sounding delusional….. Labour have left NZ up to its neck in thick brown steamy shit…..
This country stuns me at times…..
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
MickySavage:
Paranoia?
*Sigh*
All the evidence?
I posted these links over at The Standard earlier today – for a different purpose, actually, but they’re also relevant in this context:
The first commentary:
Read that slowly. This is National’s first budget. Which government oversaw the current account deficit?
And this commentary:
These are very experienced business commentators, whose opinion I respect, and in this case I think their analysis is fair. So, despite protestations from you and Kingi to the contrary, National really didn’t have much choice.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
No MURRAY. We live in a society that helps the weak, the poor and the vulnerable. WHY? Because of the moral obligation we have to our fellow human beings, that we don’t simply sit by and allow people to suffer. Your mentality of the strongest takes all, is so typical of the misogyny that the people who bleat this view that everyone should just survive on their own without assistance from society. Well Murray I for one am happy to pay taxes to help a struggling parent with four kids! Measures such as Working for Families are measures I will gladly pay my taxes to fund.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Micky, that is just wrong. The NZ economy was not doing better than average at all, if that was the case then we would have gone back into the top half of the OECD like Helen promised us. In fact a lot of the world has been doing far better than us, notwithstanding the fact that we have been growing over the last decade.
What you forget or ignore is that growth was a result of National government policy that Labour continued with, rather than any radical changes on Cullen’s part. Cullen was just fortunate that he came to a well managed economy at a time of worldwide growth. In fact, the growth was a bit of a bubble and we are now seeing the correction to that.
All Cullen did was spend the surplus money on his core constituency. What he should have done is cut taxes and shrink the unproductive and unnecessary parts of the public service. That doesn’t mean police, teachers, nurses etc (why is it you lefties always use hyperbolic examples when you want to denigrate the right? Everybody knows that we aren’t going to cut those areas) but it does mean parts of the public service really are not needed. Like the Families Commission. Or half the Legal Services Agency….
Cactus Kate has it right when she points out the real benefits of cutting taxes. We need more tax cuts, not less.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Did you choose not to want to be there?
Best not refer to doing what other people tell you against your own wishes when arguing you’re the captain of your own ship there, but still – did you choose to consider one person’s counsel wise and another’s not?
And why did you choose to desire those things?
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
kingi, how is strongest take all misogyny?
Anyway, you seem to ignore the fact that your welfarism breeds welfare dependency. I am more than happy for you to spend your own money to assist struggling families. In fact, I will applaud you for it. But don’t use your bleeding heart socialism to take money off me and my family in order to fund the lifestyles of those who will not work and want ‘society’ to pay for it. In fact, most of those people don’t equate the government with ‘society’, they see it simply as a meal ticket. Those who don’t view it that way are usually pretty quick to get off the benefit or, shock horror, never go on it.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Ryan, you’re a bright chap so cut to the chase, please.
Answers to your questions:
Yes
Yes
See my first sentence.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
Reid,
You do see that every time you answer the question “did you choose to Y?” with “yes”, it raises the next, “why did you choose to Y?”
And every time you answer that with a “because X” it raises the next, “did you choose X?”
That’s the chase. I thought I’d already cut to it.
Every choice you make, you make for a reason.
You either chose that reason or you did not.
If you did, that is a choice, which you made for a reason.
Eventually you reach the point where you have to say, logically, regarding your motivations: “I just do.”
And that’s where inquiry into the causes of your motivations begins.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
Yes, we do Kingi, and that is how it should be.
But the definition of “weak, poor and vulnerable” is the question at issue here.
You seem to imagine it should include a hell of lot more people than others do, on this thread. Why is that? I do hope you’re not going to bleat on about how superior your humanity is. I really hate it when lefties do that.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
In other words, and you can quote me on this:
You can choose to do what you want, but you can’t choose what you want to do.
EDIT:
Perhaps it should be… you can only choose to do what you want.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Ryan, I still don’t understand your point, but even if I did I’m not sure it would shed light on the original issue which is that you can create successes in life without limitation provided you’re disciplined and prepared to work for them.
If you wish to dispute the published advice of great men and women of action who’ve succeeded in every field imaginable and who’ve said that the direct path to their success was exactly what I’ve said above then go ahead.
But forgive me if I tell you that if you dispute that fact in your own mind then you’re bonkers and you’re doing yourself a great dis-service. Forgive me again if I tell you that if you ever indicate your contrary perspective to another who’s likely to take your perspective to heart then you’re doing that person a great dis-service as well, by denying them the opportunity to test their mettle against the world and triumph and win against challenge and adversity.
There’s a reason why some achieve great things and most others don’t and it has nothing to do with any perceived advantage possessed by the former or disadvantage crippling the latter.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
What’s the reason?
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
This was my original comment gg took from the other thread:
If someone does succeed and another doesn’t, it usually depends not on circumstance, but on their attitude. Everyday, millions of people do extraordinary things that sometimes astound even they themselves. Everyday, millions of other people give up and fail. Guess what both sets of people have in common? They think.
Vote:The people that think they will win, do. The people that think they won’t, don’t.
The amount of times force majeur enters into this equation is limited to the accidents of fate that physically prevent the person from succeeding. Perhaps they miss the bus to that interview, perhaps they get hit by a bus. In all the rest of the cases, it’s attitude alone that determines the outcome.
So you see, everyone’s fate is in their own hands. [Some] have particular trouble understanding this because they are taught from birth that no-one is ever responsible for their own fate, that rather, it’s circumstances that control people’s destinies. People, according to [them], are helpless automatons swept up by forces beyond their control and tossed hither and yon by circumstance. This is the basis of … social engineering and its poisonous application is responsible for more unhappiness than any other force known to man, including warfare. The fallacy of this proposition is so mind-bogglingly obvious that one would think [people who think like that] would number in only the few hundreds worldwide. Unfortunately there are millions of [them] and since you’re not all completely thick I can only conclude that you’ve been sucked into believing that [the] approach is the only humane way to go and that’s why [they] keep advocating it. Shame really, for while [their] hearts in the right place, [their] mind is elsewhere.
The point… is, don’t treat people as victims. Instead, give them self-belief, from that comes confidence, from confidence comes results, from results comes change in circumstance. That’s the only thing that will pull [people] out of their plight.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
I wish you would open some more topical posts, after all politics gets boring after a while.
Here is my suggestion for one:
That Chipmunck Rove attacks our beloved Gary on his show.
That little fuck isn’t even remotely funny now, but he gave NZ a scathing rap tonight.
I would be pleased to give him a scathing rap if you opened this thread.
Having met Gary, with Belinda Todd (puke) one drunken night at the Waikato University, I know he is a cool guy and extremely naturally funny. Hey, he surfs, drinks and gambles and he isn’t married. My kind of guy.
Even a very famous yank comedian said he liked him on Rove making the little chipmunk look weak.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Reid,
Why does one person have one attitude and another person have another attitude?
Keep in mind I’m not arguing against the practical value of people believing they have magical self-determining powers. I’m just saying that they don’t.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
“Why does one person have one attitude and another person have another attitude?”
I assume you mean why does one person believe they can and another believe they can’t?
If so, education. Obviously. Not book learning. Life education. How life works. In reality.
It could be taught in schools as easily as budgeting could be taught in schools. It’s not, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be.
And try not to be condescending: “magical…powers.” It’s how life works, Ryan. We’re creative beings, haven’t you noticed?
Everything around us was once dust in the ground. Before it was what it now is, it was an idea. Then it became something. A building, a road, a car. None of those were around until the designer conceived it out of nothing, then built it. That’s the principal and its application is everywhere around us 24/7/365 and it’s in everything that’s not straight out of nature. No reason why you can’t apply it to your own life, as well.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
No reid, it isn’t. The weak, the poor and the vulnerable are determined by their circumstances, their context and by the facts!
Not on the basis of some ideological left vs. right tug of war to determine who should get what.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
So if one person’s life education is different from another’s, they’ll have different attitudes – which, as you say, cause or preclude success?
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
“No reid, it isn’t. The weak, the poor and the vulnerable are determined by their circumstances, their context and by the facts!”
Kingi you’ve already told us that’s what you believe and I’ve told you in great detail just exactly why I believe that’s complete bollocks.
How about you explain to me in equal detail just exactly why you think circumstances, context and “the facts” control the weak, the poor and the vulnerable?
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Smithy
“Public opinion surveys on trusted professions are rubbish and they have no relation to reality.”
So you are saying that the public perception of your profession is rubbish. And you call me ignorant!! Good grief you are arrogant.
I do not know how long you have been in the profession so do not know how long you have been contributing to the “fidelity
fund” I do know that my many lawyer acquaintances have always moaned of the excessive fees they have to pay to cover others fraud (theft).
I cannot give actual cases of criminal fraud by your profession for many reasons but fortunately you agree that it does exist.
To end this , I responded as I did because I believe a member of your profession should not publicly berate a minister of the crown as you did. It belittles you and your profession. Just as you win some cases – you lose some cases – and you take it on the shoulder. Your attitude adds to the public disallusion of an already public disallusioned reality.
You should just comment without the barbed conclusion.
Regards
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Well good for you Kingi, you are happy to pay for kids you didn’t bring into the world, I respect your choice. Now you respect mine, I am not happy to do so. Tell me do you work in the private or public sector? If you work in the public you effectively pay no net tax at all (excluding GST, etc).
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
“So if one person’s life education is different from another’s, they’ll have different attitudes – which, as you say, cause or preclude success?”
Not quite mate. I’m saying that if one person understands they can create their own reality and another doesn’t, then that’s probably because education has granted the former that understanding and it’s quite an easy matter to educate others in that knowledge.
Knowledge however is not attitude. And your question appears to allude to attitude and not knowledge. Knowledge is: I can create my own reality and not just hold that as an intellectual proposition but actually know it to the extent you live it and do it and it works and it’s a way of life for you.
Attitudes are the things you hold along that journey as you move through and toward any particular thing you’ve decided to do.
Attitudes are like a moral compass giving you direction and guidance and that knowledge is like the wind in your sails.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
Because what leads people to be poor, weak and vulnerable? There isn’t ONE specific thing, there a wide range of factors that lead people to be impoverished. This is about what the definition of the weak, poor and vulnerable IS. Its simply not that simple. It comes down to peoples individual circumstances.
Its not about “control” its about how we go about assisting those in need.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Well actually Murray, unless I was somehow in the government over the last nine years, and I can remember that I wasn’t, it wasn’t my choice.
And to be frank, I don’t respect the right’s view that only the strong will succeed in society and that the welfare state should be abolished.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
My question remains, however: why does one person have this thing and another doesn’t?
If it’s about life education – one person learning they can create their own reality and another never being exposed to the idea – then it’s things outside of a person’s control that cause their attitude one way or another.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
pentwig,
seriously, what are you smoking? The types of survey you are referring to are unscientific and are based on simple impressions rather than empirical data. They don’t prove anything about the worth, honesty or anything else about a profession. Certainly they bear no relevance to the point I made, so when I ignore such surveys I am not being arrogant at all. If I based my self-worth as a professional on public surveys I would very rapidly change professions! If you are so simple then good for you.
Your lawyer friends are wrong in saying that their fees cover the fraud of others. After Renshaw Edwards cleaned out the fidelity fund the Law Society levied (I think) $10,000 on every principal and partner in law firms in the Country. That was to re-stock the fidelity fund. Lots of us complained about that, and with good reason! However, the actual amount in solicitors annual practising fee is relatively small when compared with the operational component.
Of course fraud occurs from time to time. It is unavoidable, no matter what profession you are in. If money is involved then someone will always be tempted to take it unlawfully. Fortunately the very great majority of my profession don’t stoop to such offending.
It is your last major comment that is just plain dumb, however. Are you seriously saying that no lawyer (and perhaps any other profession) should disagree with or criticise a Minister of the Crown? Are you really suggesting that I should limit my freedom of speech just because I am part of an honourable profession? Does being a lawyer disqualify one from taking robust positions, or even, as you call it, berating a Minister of the Crown in the comments section of a blog?
The great thing about Kiwiblog is that here we can freely and robustly criticise and critique our public figures and/or their policies or actions while participating in a reasoned and knowledgeable discussion. You, sadly, seem not to understand that.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Kingi, with respect, it’s not about defining who is poor, weak etc. It’s about how they got there in the first place and why they stay there for generation after generation.
See, one thing that people of your political view are never able to answer, is this:
Two families, side-by-side. Exactly the same household income, exactly the same number of kids. Exactly the same type of house. Kids go to the same school.
One family is angry, drunken, violent, abusive. The other is peaceful, tee-total, self-disciplined, loving.
Loo and behold. The former family’s children end up repeating this lifestyle for generations. The latter family through rigorous exercise in the aforementioned attitudes manages to send their children to university and move themselves out of that neighbourhood within a generation.
Don’t tell me this doesn’t happen because it does. It doesn’t happen often enough. But it does happen. And what’s the common denominator? Attitude: The moral compass. Knowledge they can change their circumstance: The wind in their sails.
This is a very simple analogy Kingi. It also rings true, both in terms of actually being played out in various poor suburbs numerous times each year and it rings true in terms of what we all understand by virtue of being human. It reflects the reality of human behaviour.
Go ahead and tell me precisely why it doesn’t.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
“reasoned and knowledgeable discussion”
bahahahahaha….what a joke…seriously…the vitriol and crap that seems to fill up the cess pool that some of the comments are on this website, can’t really be considered “reasond and knowledgeable discussion.”
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Oh jesus, seeing your post like 2 hours later, spam filter or not, you got the big Robert Black thumbs down.
Speed it up for God’s sake, jesus i drove from Tauranga to Hamilton today, trucks and roadworks, worse than in 2000, seems the old DF blog is about the same speed.
Disappointing.
But generally that goes with something new and exciting in NZ it gets bogged down with its own ego speed.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
“If it’s about life education – one person learning they can create their own reality and another never being exposed to the idea – then it’s things outside of a person’s control that cause their attitude one way or another.”
Again Ryan, I’m struggling to understand your point and not really sure that I need to.
It seems to me you’re sniping away at the margins without addressing the central issues which is unlike you since you usually make some penetrating arguments.
Either you agree with it or you don’t. Fine. If you have a logical argument that undermines it completely then go ahead and play that card.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
actually, there is some very good reasoning and a ton of knowledge on this blog, Kingi. If you don’t like it then head off to the Lapblog, where I am sure you will feel more at home. Just don’t be surprised if they censor some of your comments…
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
So why would you not want to implement measures therefore, to give those children born into a situation that is volatile, the opportunities to get out of that situation and succeed themselves? Why should someone, born into a circumstance that isn’t the best, simply have to continue to suffer? Why?
See your analogy is one easy to construct, but what exactly are you trying to say? that because the children in the family that is in your words, “drunk, violent, abusive” so on so on, are born into that situation, they will inevitably just end up like the parents and that’s “not societies problem” ? I don’t care if you claim this is “the reality of human behaviour” quite simply its WRONG! It’s wrong that simply because a child is born into a bad situation, that society has no obligation to help! We do! Everyone has the right to have opportunities to succeed.
I can’t believe that somehow you would think that it is something as simple as a “change in attitude” that will solve societies problems? Do you really have such a simplistic approach, that is inherently flawed, as it doesn’t take into account the wide array of factors that MUST be taken into account when we look at people’s lives in a modern day society.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
“Well actually Murray, unless I was somehow in the government over the last nine years, and I can remember that I wasn’t, it wasn’t my choice.”
Too right Kingi, we taxpayers don’t get a choice, we pay and they spend. Who are these weak and vulnerable you keep harping on about. I have spent the last six months in Asia and there they fucking well work or they don’t eat.
Why should anybody in NZ be treated differently. Are NZ’ers so useless they can’t earn their own living.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
So murray, happy to see kids starving in the street?
Thanks to the world crash and he governments do nothing policy we are going to have a lot of people soon who want to work but cannot get jobs, what then Murray? (and what if it is you?)
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
“So why would you not want to implement measures therefore, to give those children born into a situation that is volatile, the opportunities to get out of that situation and succeed themselves? Why should someone, born into a circumstance that isn’t the best, simply have to continue to suffer? Why?”
Because the opportunities are already there. Nothing in this country limits a person’s ability to get educated, to obtain work or to get themselves out of the situations you describe other than the person themselves and the choices they make. If a person wants to achieve to the best of their ability then there is nothing in standing in their way.
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 12:02 am
Sonic, what about the fuckpigs that won’t work regardless. What do we do with them? I’m OK mate I have enough in reserve to last me at least a year, but thanks for your concern.
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 12:03 am
Firstly Kingi, thanks for finally responding substantively to one of the points made on this and yesterday’s thread. Keep it up.
Why can’t you believe it? It is simple. It’s precisely that simple. Why else does shit happen? The root cause Kingi of someone getting angry and beating up their missus is not because they’re drunk or poor or dumb. It’s because they’re angry. And why are they angry? Well who knows, but when was the last time you got so drunk and angry that you lost it and beat up your missus? What’s that? Never? Well gee. How come, Kingi? Bet you’ve been just as drunk as those other fullas, eh? And you never did it? Foo man. Wut’s going on?
The difference Kingi, between you and them, is attitude. Pure and simple.
You are obviously educated as well. That helps. That really really helps. But even well educated people have fucked attitudes, don’t they? And even poorly educated people have great attitudes, don’t they? So education is not a root cause but its got a high correlation in the success factor factory.
You talk about a “wide array of factors.” OK, name them. Go ahead. Name them.
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 12:03 am
Oh my god Smith. You must be stuck in Thomas Moore’s Utopia.
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 12:06 am
no, just know the truth of what I said personally.
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 12:07 am
well said, reid.
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 12:26 am
Smithy
“Certainly they bear no relevance to the point I made, so when I ignore such surveys I am not being arrogant at all. If I based my self-worth as a professional on public surveys I would very rapidly change professions! If you are so simple then good for you.” So you agree the the public perceive lawyers to be of low esteem ie in the same league as used car salesman and snake oil venders yet you say it bears no relevance. What the hell are YOU smoking. Once again arrogance.
“However, the actual amount in solicitors annual practising fee is relatively small when compared with the operational component.” In other words – in context to the outrageous fees we charge our clients and what we can screw from the legal aid component.
“It is your last major comment that is just plain dumb, however.” Just to set the record straight I certainly did not call you or your profession honourable.
I am not advocating that you give up your right to freedom of speech at all. In fact I never raised the point. Fortunately in this country everybody has that right and should use it.
What I am saying is that when critisize a minister for his policy and then degrade him that has a negative effect for an already ill perceived occupation. What I am saying is critisize the policy not the man.
But then perhaps you are just pissed off at losing the golden egg us law abiding tax payers have supplied you and you are venting that anger at the minister whom you hold responsible for that lose.
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 12:32 am
pentwig,
trolling is not nice. Formulate some real arguments or go away.
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 12:41 am
hey pentwig, you wouldn’t happen to be Kevin Cantwell, who has a Twitter account (here http://twitter.com/Pentwig) where you follow all those nice Labour and Green MP’s, are you???
Sheesh, calling you a troll was too nice for you!
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 12:50 am
EDIT: the preceding bit may have been a bit too mean…
here’s a hint- don’t use the same nickname for everything.
unless someone else in NZ is using that name as well, which I suppose is possible…
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 1:30 am
Smithy
You are an idiot
Pity the poor people who hire you to be their advocate only to find you could not argue yourself out of a primary school debate. As for the parady twitters, they are good humour. Obviously above you to understand.
Oh I am right wing as well.
I am not sorry about your loss of income which judging by your standards shown here would not be all that great anyway.
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 1:43 am
Reid, I already have.
It’s simple logical necessity.
People’s actions are driven by motivations. Nothing you’ve said contradicts that.
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 2:23 am
go join your friends at the substandard, Kevin.
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 2:24 am
Jarbury the weasel said:
“jarbury (251) Vote: 1 6 Says:
May 29th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
They did that since November last year expat?
Pretty impressive feat as they weren’t even in government.”
Labour pissed up the economy over the decade they were in power on benes and handouts.
Dont be obtuse you little lickspittle. The substandard is where it has always been, in the gutter, go back where you belong.
HTH’s.
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 7:34 am
Prove it. Politics is an expression of the experience of many, distilled and projected into logical conclusion in an attempt to ease the anxiety of the unknown future.
Common Courtesy? It’s a public blog on the internet. Sue me.
Tell us your story, Kingi. Stop hiding behind theory and political activism.
Now, not to break up a valid political argument, but to reiterate the point attached to the original challenge which I think may clear up many of these disagreements:
Replies to original challenge need to be in the form of personal experince in context i.e. vignettes of your life story. My experience is that as soon as you try to make conclusions, to bring the event out of context for the construction of a theory, you lose the inherent truths within the event. It matters not one jott who takes what from any particular story. The truths within the story will be self evident. No need for argument, just the truth – the anti-thesis of politics of you like. (Which is unusual for a political blog, but the opportunity is here now.) We all think we are mature adults. Now act like it.
I’ve broken the law many times, faced the blankness that Transmogrifier speaks of, bludged, supported, expressed my courage and my cowardice. In my eyes all political theories are just plain foolishness. I’ve lived within and outside them, been proud of my good points and scared myself to death over my potential for evil. All my actions have been reflections of my attitude to life at any given point. My attitude has changed many times, sometimes through happiness, sometimes through pain. Often I am not even conscious of my attitude – I act before knowing why. Sometimes the why isn’t clear for years.
These are the moments I ask others to post. In context. Not argue about whether I am right or wrong, but what actually happened so that others can follow if they wish, re-interpret ideas for themsleves and move on to greater things.
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 10:11 am
DPF must have had a big night last night – past 10am, and he hasn’t surfaced
Vote:May 30th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Kingi (53) Vote: Add rating 2 Subtract rating 8 Says:
May 29th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Simply put people can’t survive if they don’t have a job! This government have allowed the fear of a credit downgrade to dominate their thinking! I quote Herald columinist Fran O’Sullivan “There’s no great stimulus package to create or protect jobs.”
****************************************
I survived without a job, although I was on the dole, then I got a job and did more than survive. Seriously Kingi, you bitch and whine like a spoilt child who cannot get an endless supply of lollies from mummy and daddy.
Vote: