This entry was posted
on Wednesday, October 28th, 2009 at 8:01 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.
If you read the article you linked to RB you will find a bit more analysis than you have offered.
The results demonstrate once more the apparent preference of viewers for opinion-oriented shows from the news networks in prime time.
When news events are not being intensely followed, CNN executives acknowledge, viewers seem to be looking for partisan views more than objective coverage.
So they will suffer more in a slow news month. Especially with MSNBC competing in the same space with a more trashy approach, leaving Fox to the right on it’s own.
It also could be an indicator that more intelligent people seek wider news coverage via the internet.
Redbaiter, latest polls in the USS show only 20% self identifying as Republicans. You need to run a fact check.
Anyway, I’m looking forward to the coming enhancement in NZ’s reputation as a cool voice of reason in the international arena when images flood the world’s TV screens of wild-eyed fundamentalists filling our streets with chants like:
Adolf, that didn’t seem savage to me, the Dom seemed fair and reasonable. I thought Labour support might have bottomed out but they seem to be striving to keep on sliding.
I ran a fact check Luc CNN are at the bottom… what are they a republican mouthpiece or something? Seems to be something of disconeect going on in your reasoning process.
The fact that so many more US citizens self-identify as conservative than as Republican in the US could mean that the GOP is seen as being compromised.
I don’t think Sue Bradford will be supportive of a Protest march in favor of democratic rule Luc so no need to worry about wild eyed Protesters assaulting Police.
Bien-pensant conservative elites and establishment-friendly Republican big shots yearn for a more moderate, temperate and sophisticated Republican Party. It’s not likely to happen.
The GOP is going to be pretty unapologetically conservative. And there will be a conservative Republican presidential nominee in 2012.
I think you are mistaken when you try to portray people who protest against the anti-smacking law as “wild-eyed fundamentalists”.
It simply is not true.
My child? Too right. If I have to go through the effort of helping with the conception, being there for the birth, and then being responsible for that young life and bringing it up to be a law-abiding, contributing citizen, feeding it, changing it, getting up to it at 3am when it has vomited all over the bedroom, and all the rest, you bet that I have a right to smack — or not — as a means of guidance, correction, punishment, discipline and without having to explain myself to anyone else.
You want to tell me how to bring up my kids? Well, you might get that right when you repeatedly have to get up to them in the middle of the night because they’re sick, or having a nightmare, have to make the decision about whether they undergo surgery or not, or whatever. Otherwise, keep your nose out of my family.
“Beat! Beat!” Now you’re being silly.
“Kill! Kill!” And being really absurd. The people who beat and kill their children usually don’t love the children, and don’t care about them. If they did, they wouldn’t kill them.
“Praise be to God!” Who are you talking about? I don’t know anyone who carries on like that.
In a recent Rasmussen poll, the only candidates with double-digit support among Republicans were Mike Huckabee (at 29 percent), Mitt Romney (24 percent), Sarah Palin (18 percent) and Newt Gingrich (14 percent).
Palin would likely be a bigger disaster than GW. For the GOP, hopefully not for the US.
CNN international is crap.About as crap as the good morning show on tvnz
the good morning show is worse than crap..its absolutely mind numbing..and 3 hours no less..every day !!!! Dont ya love those adverts coined ” advertorials “…fuck Id rather spend 3 hours talking to philU than have to sit thru 5 minutes of browned down tv every day…
PARIS – The church of Scientology has been branded an “organised fraud” by a French court and fined 600,000 euros ($1.2m) for preying financially on vulnerable believers.
Is our Justice Minister prepared to be as brave as the French and go after this faud? And then all the other fraudulent religions. Tiem for them to prove their claims or piss off.
“CNN international is crap.About as crap as the good morning show on tvnz”
So true. I never watch either.
I enjoy FoxNonNews. It’s fun watching the desperate distortions of the rabid right, their lies, their incitement to murder and to treason.
But the biggest joke is imaging there is some kind of gulf between the mainstream membership of either US party. The fact is they are both to the right or our most trenchantly rightist party in Parliament.
Poor old redbaiter – relies on blogs for his information!
Someone tell him blogs are for entertainment.
I just heard Kathryn Ryan is running some sort of article of FauxNews this morning.
Maybe you guys can tear yourselves away from New Zealands poor imitation of Rush Limbaugh, Michael Laws?
It would be fair to assume that those high profile cases of people who beat their children to death are not representative of a stereotypical National voter.
My pleasure Llama. Important that the real news gets out there, as a counter to the naked left wing propaganda of RNZ and the rest of the mainstream media.
What a fucking joke this is!
This guy is almost killed by these thugs, gets a brain fracture, then a few years later is almost run over by boy racers, and the cops charge him for…wait for it…. kicking the car as it speeds past him.
I used to have much respect for the police in this country (and still do for those brave men and women who put themselves on the front line) but whatever wanker decided ti charge this guy for kicking some cunts trying to run him down are idiots.
Then we have the charging of Greg Carvell, the poor indians who had their shop broken into, etc etc. They just seem like theyre doing it to cover the fact they are losing control, and people are having to resort to self defence.
Grow some fucking brains you cops, stop persecuting innocent law abiding NZers and go after the real scum. Of course only if you have time, there are lots of speeding tickets to be given!
ONE of Nick Griffin’s most trusted lieutenants sparked fresh outrage last night after he warned British Jews to “show respect” or “reap what you sow when we are in power”.
Lee John Barnes, the BNP’s legal director, produced the outburst as he debated Mr Griffin’s appearance on Question Time.
While Mr Griffin tried to claim his party had ditched its anti-Semitic past, his inept sidekick exposed its true colours on an anti-extremist website. Goading opponents that the BNP had won a massive propaganda coup, he aimed his threats at lawyer David Toube who runs Harry’s Place, the website which campaigns against the BNP and Islamic extremism.
When Mr Toube, one of Britain’s most prominent Jews, told Mr Barnes, 43, not to get “too smug”, the BNP man replied: “That’s fine. Just remember though, ‘You will reap what you sow’.
“The way you treat us now is how we shall treat you in the future. The example you set us is the example we will follow when we are in power.
“The many different pressure points are beginning to converge towards a ‘tipping point’, a moment of political equilibrium when revolutionary social and political change occurs.”
He added: “Best you show us some respect, some day you will want us to respect you.”
Luc Hansen – you really are ignorant of american issues. A good percentage of Fox News ‘ viewers self-identify as Democrat and Indpendent. FNX reaches more democrats than CNN does – the ratings alone prove this. This is why the Obama administration is tryign to marginalise Fox. As far as being a mouthpiec eof the republicamn party, I mainly hear people ripping shreds off republican candidates and officials on Fox. There are differences between conservative and republican, and between democrat and progressive. If you learn that you might understand US poltics a little more.
TripeWryter spoke of having to go through the “effort of helping with the conception”. Dude, it isn’t work, it is recreation. If it was work philU wouldn’t have kids.
“Is our Justice Minister prepared to be as brave as the French and go after this faud? And then all the other fraudulent religions. Tiem for them to prove their claims or piss off.”
By all means. Let’s start with the Global Warming religion.
Well now that MNIJ is back doesn’t that mean Lucy Handjob has finished his watch as the nominated ‘tool for the left’?
MNIJ – “And then all the other fraudulent religions.” yes yes yes, that’s a great idea, let’s investigate the Church of AGW. (edit – snap Adolf)
Pete you little happy clapper. Praise the IPCC!!!
So do you believe that Mann’s temperature graph really rose at the end of the 20th century? Even though Mann has been shown up as a fraud, and the data cherry-picked?
Lindsay Mitchell has posted on her blog a letter that was written to a newspaper by a Dr. Martyn Hutt. The letter is in response to the charming couple Brenda and Robert Vale who advocated that we should not have pets because of the cost of there ‘carbon footprint’ and only have annimals to eat.
Dr. Hutt hits the nail on the head when he says that people like the Vales (I prefer to call them econazis) know the cost of everything (the enviromental cost) and the VALUE of nothing.
Go to Lindsays blog it really is an amazing letter.
“The Managing Our Coastal Zone in a Changing Climate report found every state in Australia, and the Northern Territory, will be affected, putting more than 530,000 homes at direct risk” of being “impacted by climate change through a rise in sea levels, more frequent storms, flooding and coastal erosion.”
October 28th, 2009 at 10:05 am
I agree with RedBaiter; I hope Sarah Palin runs in 2012.
So do I, I could do with another good laugh.
Which newspapers and magazines did she read again? How often could she see russia from her front stoop? And how many more jobs will she have and quit because she doesn’t have the ticker?
If it looks like a dead fish and smells like a dead fish, it will never swim up the river.
Yay, MNIJ is back for more. You are aware that Palin never said she could see Russia from her house aren’t you?
You do know that Tina Fey said that when she impersonated Palin? In your defence she did a really good impersonation and I can understand that someone with very little brain could be confused and think it really was Palin.
Disclaimer – I am not a Palin supporter.
philu – I suppose you also believe the Maldives are also under threat because they staged an underwater cabinet meeting? There is ZERO sea level rise, and yet they are milking the Church of AGW for everything they can get. Sounds like you doesn’t it? There is nothing stopping you from working (except yourself) and yet you are milking the taxpayer for all you can get. Bludger.
Jack Kennedy (Democrat US President circa 1960) would not be permitted as a member of the US Republican Party or the NZ National Party today as his views would be considered too right wing.
Even though Mann has been shown up as a fraud, and the data cherry-picked?
Have you proof of this?
MYTH #1: The “Hockey Stick” Reconstruction is based solely on two publications by climate scientist Michael Mann and colleagues.
This is patently false. Nearly a dozen model-based and proxy-based reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature by different groups all suggest that late 20th century warmth is anomalous in a long-term (multi-century to millennial) context.
MYTH #4: Errors in the “Hockey Stick” undermine the conclusion that late 20th century hemispheric warmth is anomalous.
This statement embraces at least two distinct falsehoods. The first falsehood holds that the “Hockey Stick” is the result of one analysis or the analysis of one group of researchers – see myth 1.
The second falsehood holds that there are errors in the Mann et al analyses, and that these putative errors compromise the “hockey stick” shape of hemispheric surface temperature reconstructions. Such claims seem to be based in part on the misunderstanding or misrepresentation by some individuals. False claims of the existence of errors in the Mann reconstruction can also be traced to spurious allegations made by two individuals, McIntyre and McKitrick (McIntyre works in the mining industry, while McKitrick is an economist). http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/
Philu and Pete George (more Pete than phil as phil doesn’t listen anyway)-
There is evidence suggesting that the planet was in a warming phase until 1998. It has been in a cooling phase ever since (that is an 11 year period where there hasn’t been a warming year). There is also plenty of evidence to suggest that it is not the fault of people, that it is caused by sunspot cycles and cycles in the Earth’s orbit. There is even some suggestion that the temperature of the Earth may have driven the level of CO2 in the atmosphere in the past rather than the more conventional view that carbon drives the temperature. There is also a level where more CO2 in the atmosphere will have no effect – we are very close to that point already. That is before anybody takes into account the effect of water vapour, which is a far more efficient greenhouse gas than CO2 and even methane and its concentration in the atmosphere changes on a daily basis.
The reason global warming is considered to be like a religion is that many of its proponents refuse to acknowledge the existence of data that shows that there is considerable doubt about the effects and causes of climate change. The evidence that does support their claims is held up as gospel, including in such studies where it has been shown to be falsified or have been discredited. That is not a scientific approach to the problem, as all scientists should be comfortable when somebody produces a study that proves them wrong. The debate should be centred on data not on egos.
The very existence of terms such as “climate change denier” proves my point – it is the climate change equivalent of the term “unbeliever” or “heretic.” On top of that we have a way to “repent” our sins by signing international treaties and giving millions of dollars to the Russians.
No I don’t believe that anthropogenic climate change is real. On top of all the evidence that shows there is significant doubt, I also think is that it is very arrogant to assume that one species can change the climate that significantly, and it is even more arrogant to assume that we can undo any damage that was done simply by creating a new derivatives market. The carbon derivative market will suck in so much money that will end up in the hands of fat cats (the very people that philu would consider the root of the problems with the capitalist system) and muggins in the working and middle classes will be taken for a ride. Once again.
Pete, all the hockey stick graphs were reproduced by the same people using the same set of data. They were proven to have ignored larger samples of data that showed a flat graph rather than the hockey stick shape that they need to continue to receive their funding. The IPCC was established not to test whether AGW was real, but to support the theory that AGW was real. All the computer models were to try and make the data fit the theory. They have all been wrong since 1998.
Read this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6425269/The-real-climate-change-catastrophe.html
There is evidence suggesting that the planet was in a warming phase until 1998. It has been in a cooling phase ever since
Do you have evidence of this? What about:
The recent Internet chatter about cooling led NOAA’s climate data centre to re-examine its temperature data. It found no cooling trend.
“The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record,” said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. “Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming.”
The AP sent expert statisticians NOAA’s year-to-year ground temperature changes over 130 years and the 30 years of satellite-measured temperatures preferred by skeptics and gathered by scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880.
Statisticians say that in sizing up climate change, it’s important to look at moving averages of about 10 years. They compare the average of 1999-2008 to the average of 2000-2009. In all data sets, 10-year moving averages have been higher in the last five years than in any previous years.
“To talk about global cooling at the end of the hottest decade the planet has experienced in many thousands of years is ridiculous,” said Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution at Stanford.
Ben Santer, a climate scientist at the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Livermore National Lab, called it a “a concerted strategy to obfuscate and generate confusion in the minds of the public and policy-makers” ahead of international climate talks in December in Copenhagen.
Rubbish, RightNow. The Thames Barrier is being raised much more often than when it was first commissioned in the early 80s. This is partly due to more extreme weather (larger storm surges) and sinking land, but the biggest factor is that sea levels are rising at between 1 and 3 mm/year.
Steel yourself for the new reality, because the data needed to verify the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.
Or so it seems. Apparently, they were either lost or purged from some discarded computer. Only a very few people know what really happened, and they aren’t talking much. And what little they are saying makes no sense.
phlu, the real scientists are the ones that analyse data and try to understand it. The alleged scientists you refer to are part of the IPCC circle jerk that are on a global gravy train of funding as long as they keep torturing the data to perpetuate the myth that is AGW theory.
I’m on the side of the real scientists. You’re on the side of the bludgers. It’s so fitting isn’t it?
What do you mean bruv? The guy in the article?
On looking at those links he does seem like a bit of a loose cannon, I wasn’t aware of his previous convictions.
How to more than halve the postings in a very successful blogsite. Let philu camp on the blogsite and watch folks lose interest.
He has worked his Magic on this excellent site. David Farrar continues to give fabulous coverage. And yet the comments, and possibly traffic are falling away.
Well done to the Napoleon of the Troll Farm. Stand forward and take a bow!! Philip Ure.
“TripeWryter spoke of having to go through the “effort of helping with the conception”. Dude, it isn’t work, it is recreation.”
Grant M McK: you are quite correct, and I gave you a thumbs-up. As I was writing my earlier piece I was very much aware that I was there (five times) at the start, but I never had to do the hard work of 9 months pregnancy after that. Hmmm. Perhaps got lost in translation.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:01 am
There is ZERO sea level rise..
Rubbish, RightNow. The Thames Barrier is being raised much more often than when it was first commissioned in the early 80s. This is partly due to more extreme weather (larger storm surges) and sinking land, but the biggest factor is that sea levels are rising at between 1 and 3 mm/year.
So, assuming a sea rise of 2mm a year since 1978, say, sea is now 64mm higher. How high are the rises caused by storms? How far has the land sunk?
It is the same bullshit as tuvalu being inundated by rising seas. t isn’t. it is sinking as too much groundwater is being extracted to keep the atolls afloat.
that would explain the arctic predicted to be ice-fee/open sea..fairly soon..
The Northwest Passage was open during WW2, and the Russians used it extensively. There is also significantly more water heading to the Arctic from Central Asia due to the Russians using it for growing crops.
Pete George – your link leads to a page which says “error on page”
also
They compare the average of 1999-2008 to the average of 2000-2009. In all data sets, 10-year moving averages have been higher in the last five years than in any previous years
All they are doing is actually comparing 1999 to 2009, as all the other years are included in both datasets (and presumably evenly weighted). A 10 year average is only useful to smooth a curve of datasets over several decades, not to compare at either end of a 10 year period.
malcolm said:
The Thames Barrier is being raised much more often than when it was first commissioned in the early 80s. This is partly due to more extreme weather (larger storm surges) and sinking land, but the biggest factor is that sea levels are rising at between 1 and 3 mm/year.
The biggest factor is tectonic activity. The greater London area including the Thames Estuary have been sinking on average 2-3mm per year for much of the Tertiary (ie most of the last 60Ma or so). Excavations show that the Roman port on the Thames was 2-3m lower than the current river level. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/science/nature/6231334.stm
malcolm, in the case of the Maldives the sea level has been stable for at least 30 years.
I’ll take you word on that. Needless to say a few mm per year of vertical plate movement is nothing special so it may be that the Maldives are rising. You’d need to look at measurements from all over the world.
The other way to calculate this to look at the quantities of water not in the oceans (ice on land and sea, water in plants etc).
malcolm – “a few mm of vertical plate movement” is highly significant when it is in the middle of an oceanic tectonic plate and not at a boundary where such movements would be expected. It is particularly significant if this is not an area known for its tectonic uplift and there is no known mechanism to cause such an uplift. That is very basic plate tectonic theory.
RightNow, sure sea levels have moved around a lot. During the last ice-age (ended approx 14,000 years ago) the North Sea (pretty shallow) was a river basin with woolly mammoth.
Showing that sea-levels have moved in the past doesn’t disprove climate change predictions. If average temperatures rise by 2 degrees then a lot of ice will melt and sea-water will expand and the sea-level will rise. Most cities are by the sea or on coastal rivers and there is plenty of land at sea-level. Most could not be easily protected against even a modest 2 metre rise in sea-level.
I think the rising sea is the least of our problems re climate change. Drought and extreme weather affecting crops will be a more immediate problem IMHO.
I think you left out one option gazzmaniac – brain injury sufferer prone to act out of character at times. Personally, I’d cut the guy a bit of slack, having had a bit to do with brain injury sufferers through the years.
Inventory2 – nickb referred to an article about how Mr Kelt is going to court for disruptive behaviour, because he kicked a car, and that the coppers should look for “real” criminals. The point of my post was that this isn’t an isolated incident and that he has been in the media before for such behaviour, which was not in the article he referred to. It also does not state why he was beaten up by “thugs” – I highly doubt they chose him at random. There is obviously more to it than meets the eye, and we are only hearing about half the story from a clearly biased point of view (Mr Kelt is very much against “boy racers” – and I suspect against kids being kids in general).
Wouldn’t an increase in rainfall, temperature and CO2 promote crop growth?
Sure, if you could arrange to get the rainfall and the higher temperatures at the same time and the same place. But it doesn’t usually happen like that. Just look at the on-going drought in Australia.
malcolm –
The climate in Australia runs on a 30 year cycle – just long enough for people to forget the bad times during the good. There are two major climate cycles that affect this – the El Nino Southern Oscillation and the Pacific Oscillation. These affect Eastern Australia (where the “drought” is) and it is a 5-7 year cycle superimposed on the Pacific 30 year cycle.
The ongoing drought in Eastern Australia is characteristic of the continent. It is not induced by global warming.
There was a similar drought in the late 1970s early 1980s. You can also look at the flood records in Queensland and Northern NSW (they had severe floods in the 1970s and have had them recently) and bushfires in Victoria and SA (bushfires last summer and in the early 1980s).
Australia is a continent of extreme weather events. Ask anyone who lives in Queensland. That weather has absolutely nothing to do with global warming.
Just saw the ad in yesterday’s Herald for the child-bashers march.
“John Key has it coming…boots and all.”
What sort of a message does that send, for gawds sake? Today Key gets it with our steel caps, tomorrow our kids!
By the way, I grew up in a pretty tough environment, nearest cops about 20 mins away, and received and saw my mates receiving that sort of “discipline” from doting fathers.
And I understand it’s (hopefully) intended as a humourous pun, but in the land of the free that so many here know so well, you can get locked up for that as a terrorist threat! Guaranteed if you are Muslim – get locked up just for thinking it!
It’s like that Dad’s for Justice mob who destroy their credibility by bullying Family Court Judges and their families.
What’s the world coming too?
If I have my maths right, 87% of a bit under half the adult population means, roughly, 50% of our adults badly need anger management courses.
Maybe another avenue for ACC to explore?
And while on the ACC, why don’t National and Act have the courage of their convictions and privatise the whole damn thing (after removing the tail; it’s the new way – socialise losses, privatise gains) lock, stock and barrel!
That should put a smile on Mr Glum’s( Double Dipton’s)face!
Australia is a continent of extreme weather events. Ask anyone who lives in Queensland. That weather has absolutely nothing to do with global warming.
Not sure. Anyway, I wasn’t saying that. I was just countering your somewhat facetious comment: “Wouldn’t an increase in rainfall, temperature and CO2 promote crop growth”.
Luc –
“that sort of “discipline”" was illegal under the old law. The Burrows amendment would have defined reasonable force, and would have ensured that a light smack was legal and a beating was not. Sadly that was not incorporated in the law, and now we are left with a mess that means it is illegal to use reasonable force against a misbehaving kid in some situations and not others, has created uncertainty and is selectively enforced by the police. Basically a worse result all round.
87.5% of voters did not vote for the right to beat kids. They voted for the right to raise their families the way that they choose, not the way the state says so.
And what does smacking have to do with being Muslim??? There are thousands of peaceful Muslims in New Zealand and very few are in jail for terrorism. In fact, I think the only people arrested under the anti terrorism laws were Tame Iti and his mates in the Ureweras.
malcolm –
There is a large school of thought over here that Australia is a dry continent punctuated with wet periods, rather than the other way round. I do wish people would do two minutes of research before using examples – they could save themselves a lot of embarrassment.
And yes I was being a bit tongue in cheek with that comment, and you took the bait, hook, line and sinker!
Am I the only person to notice that Bill English’s has in fact just completed a trifecta in very short order?
1. The double Dipton. I had some sympathy for him originally given the administrative fog that appears to surround this issue (perhaps intentionally with hindsight). But his total mishandling of this issue meant that my sympathy in the face of the media’s equally ridiculous handling of it soon disappeared.
2. The ridiculous, ambiguous and populist comments regarding tax avoidance. What was the point? He didn’t have a specific proposal to float. So why not just STFU? The similarities in the style of comment between English and Herr Doktor are just plain spooky. I wonder what the reaction of our overly-coiffured Revenue minister has been to this intrusion into his territory. Is this double dipping on portfolios? Why would you want to infer that a good chunk of your voting base and production in the economy was sitting around on its arse plotting tax avoidance all day. How removed from reality is that? Here’s some tips Bill. You don’t have to go out of your way to gratuitously insult people that are critical to the economy and the functioning of its tax system; particularly in these trying times. Business people and entrepeneurs don’t make real money by nickel and diming on tax. And you don’t actually pay tax until you make money. Making the money is the hard bit. Why is your headspace still operating at the tax-free allowance level Bill? How do your credibly criticise the previous Government for encouraging all our high income earners to fuck off overseas, and then turn around and pontificate on the lack of growth of earners in the $1m club? Did you not have something more important to do Bill, or did you just want some attention?
3. And now the ads on the economy. How could he not foresee the inevitable response from Liabore, the so-called media and the public? I’m not suggesting that Government shouldn’t be telling the public what’s going on with the big global thingy and in fact, they should have done a better job in that respect than they have. But not this way – where it raises the spectre of past standards of behaviour. And not in a way that results in me nearly choking and then becoming momentarily suicidal by hearing Cunners on Radio Pinko and agreeing with him. Uugghh.
So I pose the question: what is it about Bill? He is, supposedly, an intelligent man. So why does he do this? Can he just not help himself? Is it because he’s an institutionalised politician? If Dipton was a Liabore refuge, would Bill still be the MP? Would anyone be able to tell the difference? Would you not think that after his embarrassing little expenses fiasco that he might be more sensitive to the negative consequences of what he says and does? Why does he not understand that over time, this is the sort of thing that will result in the public’s perceptions of National’s standards of behaviour eventually merging with its perceptions of Liabore? Like Liabore, English seems unable to work out why they lost. That is perhaps not surprising from the fellow that took National’s polling lower that the silly magpie’s work ethic.
Or was it because Key was away and, as acting PM, Bill was feeling his oats and adopting a “roving” role. Can Key afford to spend this amount out of the country in future? Or, will Key go away more often to give Bill plenty of rope?
… and look here, this whole bloody climate thing. Its taking up too much space
Has anyone read Gareth Morgan’s book on the climate change arguments? He supposedly hired teams of experts with the opposing views and got them to critique the respective counter-arguments. Could someone please just read the bloody thing and tell me WTF happened, in which room, and with which chattel. Maybe you just need to flick to the last page before it starts snowing again (which will be very shortly according to the forecast).
Australia is a continent of extreme weather events. Ask anyone who lives in Queensland. That weather has absolutely nothing to do with global warming.
I think that’s the problem. You can’t ask just anyone. Most people are ignorant of most things technical. How many people know how their computer works? Or an automatic gearbox? Or a refrigerator? Or our brains? Or a TV? Or a power transmission system? Or a how people grow? Or why the sky is blue? Or how a limited-slip differential works?
Amazingly, climate change has done what 100 years of free high-school education could not achieve; it has made scientists out of a large proportion of the population.
Luc (that girl from) Hansen, who are these ‘child-bashers’ you speak of? If they’re all going to gather in one place I suggest you get the cops mate, they can round them all up and arrest them and that will be that.
It may be that you have a tenuous grasp on rationality (and there’s ample evidence going through the Kiwiblog archives) but I don’t know anyone that bashes their child. I have two children myself, and wouldn’t dream of bashing them. I will however smack my son on the legs or bum if I think it is appropriate. And that decision has nothing to do with you, Sue, or any other Dr Quinn Meddling Woman. So bugger off back to Trev Alert and rejoin the circle-jerk, I think they’re a jerk or two short.
malcolm,
People are just as misinformed as ever. What they do note is what is going on around them – you can ask older people from Queensland what the weather was like when they were kids, and it is quite likely you will find that it hasn’t changed all that much. The Bureau of Meteorology also has around 100 years of weather observations, and they identify the 30 year cycle I mentioned previously.
For the record I know three of the things on your list, and have a rough idea about three others. The difference between how a fridge/computer/gearbox works and global warming, is that when you research how a fridge works you can get a definitive answer, whereas if you research climate change you really can’t get a definitive answer. In that respect, the mechanics of the climate is as much a mystery as how the brain works and the beginning of the universe.
Poor old RightNow: Oh dear – hit the sweet spot, have I?
I’m just playing the Kiwiblog game. Sometimes.
If you want rationality, I’m your man. And first off, I suggest you restrain yourself to hitting your kids within the privacy of your own home or you will undoubtedly receive a visit from the police.
Second, I suggest you go and have a look at the sort of abuse our esteemed judges were previously allowing in the way of reasonable force.
Third, any attempt at defining reasonable force gets interpreted by the same judges who necessitated the law change.
Fourth, you should take a good look at the tone of your post and understand why I say so many Kiwis badly need lessons in anger management.
Fifth, you should understand that you smack the kid because you can’t control your anger.
Kids do not have the reasoning capacity of adults so a kid is not asking for a smack. A kid is just asking for a problem to be resolved. If the kid’s solution is not our desired outcome, we need to find a patient, non-violent way to get our message across. It’s not easy, but it’s right.
PS I am pleased to say I am practising what I preach. I would guess I’m a generation, give or take, older than you and I am appreciating a second chance at raising a child.
Sue Bradford is a living treasure. I may not agree much of her politics but the children of this nation owe her a debt of gratitude.
Sure, if you could arrange to get the rainfall and the higher temperatures at the same time and the same place. But it doesn’t usually happen like that. Just look at the on-going drought in Australia.
All three factors contribute to crop yields on their own.
An increase in rainfall with the same temp and co2 will increase yields there.
An increase somewhere else in temp with the same rainfall and co2 will increase yields there.
An increase in another area of co2 with the same rain and temp will increase yields there.
It is ironic that we call it the greenhouse effect when a greenhouse is a technology used in improve food production.
I’m sick of listening to people praise bradford today. Many are saying you must respect her for sticking to her principles and for being an effective politician.
This is like praising Stalin or Hitler for being an effective politician.
Bradford had an evil agenda, thankfully she’s being forced out through old age.
Luc, you are funny and you do make me laugh. It’s a great game you’re playing and I do appreciate the comedic material you provide. To be fair to you, you are tainted by association with philu as far as I am concerned, so I rarely take your comments seriously.
Just FYI, I don’t smack for the purpose of correction (ha ha got you), so I’m not breaking any laws. When little Brutus needs correction we just show him a picture of Sue Bradford and tell him we’re sending him to live with her. My doesn’t he behave like a little angel after that. At least Sue’s good for something, even though she’s a big lying hypocrite who allegedly used to bash her kids.
You mean the ones who would have died anyway BB? The difference being Parliament has enacted something that will eventually reduce these sorts of horrible figures…
In case anyone had any doubts about Bradford the bloodsucker (brought forward from yesterday’s GD):
DC: You’ve said in one of your recent statements that you’re still a radical.
SB: Yes.
DC: Are you still a socialist?
SB: Yes.
DC: Did you find it difficult to retain your radical politics in parliament?
SB: No, I haven’t found it difficult at all.
I’ve found it hard, in recent decades, to identify myself with a label. When I was young it was easy, we all called ourselves labels. As you keep maturing in political life, it’s harder. But if anything I think I’d call myself an ecosocialist and a feminist.
As the Government moves to address huge ACC deficits, new statistics show work-related injury claims have been declining steadily. Statistics NZ figures released today show the number of work-related injury claims to ACC decreased by 4.2 per cent last year, down to 224,900 from 235,000 in 2007.
The figures indicate a steady decline, with the number of claims in 2007 down 4.7 per cent on 2005.
Claims for entitlement payments, which cover the costs of treatment or rehabilitation and compensate for loss of income, fell 10 per cent last year.
RightNow, you would have to argue that your purpose is not correction to a judge. Good luck.
Now what’s this crap about an association with Philu? I hardly ever even read his posts because they are just too hard to read. And I’m not vegetarian!!
I like to think my posts are at least readable, and certainly rational, and if my views did not make you guys spew then there would be no point in being here, would there?
Wreck1080 – very apt handle by the tenor of your post. Poisonous vitriol, indeed.
Why are you reserving your venom for Bradford and not Key? It was Key who got the bill across the line.
Is is because it’s easier to pick on women and kids?
just saw bradford on tv..what a dog..she musta spent 300 bucks on that hair do and she still looks like a dropped pie
sue..ya cant make honey outa dogshit luv…
Phool @ 2.35
“my limited-slip-diff..is doing just fine..”
At least you knew what a limited slip differential is. But your one lost traction both sides ages ago.
Sorry, could not resist making an immature comment. I’m just a lowly engineer.
An IED killed 7 US soldiers in Afghanistan yesterday, reports the MSM.
Just how accurate, powerful and sophisticated do these IED’s have to get before we drop the I? Is the use of the word “Improvised” intended, ever so obliquely, as indicating the US opponents as backward, even sub-human? Just a racist slur?
Rodney Hide suffered a comprehensive defeat today, saved from total humiliation by a little window dressing on councils reporting of financial results.
So I ask again, what does he think he’s doing there? His powerful leverage has come to nought.
Whereas the Free Democrats in Germany wrested major concessions from Merkel’s party.
Why doesn’t he demand tax cuts?
Why doesn’t he demand ACC be sold – how many billions would it be worth, esp, as I said before, if the taxpayer picks up the tab for the current tail.
There is just a strange quiet here over the issue of Rodney’s effectiveness (or lack of, thereof).
Why do you lot insist on trying to reinstate a law that defends parents to smash their children, not discipline them but break their bodies. that is what a part of section 59 did. Its gone grow up and get over it.
I suppose you lot would like to retain laws of provocation as a defence to murder as well?
Because the point of the S59 repeal was to destroy smacking completely, not get rid of it as a defence in court, Will. Bwadford has admitted as such. When are the rest of you totalitarians going to be as honest?
Puke, you cannot call an IED a smart bomb, no matter how “advanced” it is.
“defends parents to smash their children, not discipline them but break their bodies”
You are a fucking numpty. Like the Nia Glassies and Kahui twins of this world that Bradford said her law would protect?
Fuckload of good it did them. But carry on with your ignorance and stupidity, and ignoring the child abuse and baby killings that continue on an almost daily basis.
They are called IEDs because they are not machine tooled and factory made to uniform standards, but instead crafted out of an assortment of available parts. That does not mean that IEDs are unsophisticated or that the people making them are anything but savvy, when not brilliant in their craft. To the contrary, some of the cell-phone detonated shaped charges are the ISAF trooper’s worst nightmare. But the reason for the “I” is not racism or denigration of the opponent, just a technical differentiation when classifying weapons of a general subtype.
“Why do you lot insist on trying to reinstate a law that defends parents to smash their children, not discipline them but break their bodies. that is what a part of section 59 did. Its gone grow up and get over it.”
A new player. Should be fun. Seems to have passed Fuckwit 401 with Hons.
So Willy, just which law was it that legitimised the “smashing” of children and the “breaking” of their bodies. Was it the same law that permitted people to put babies in the washing machine, hang them on the clothes-line or just kill them because they made it hard to concentrate on the TV when pissed?
Or are you just part of the Liarbore/Melon poll brigade?
If anyone said that meaning it would stop all the worst abuse and anyone who thought that’s what it would do would be a bit stupid, wouldn’t they. What’s the context of the full quote?
Thank you Paul. That sorted out that query. I have always been curious about what was behind the designation, and I was just having a bit of fun with the racism bit. Although, to be honest, I do think our western colonialism was and is rooted in racism, and we delude ourselves in thinking otherwise.
William said, “you lot are warped and need medicating.” I think you meant to say their medication dosage should be increased!
phLuc: “RightNow, you would have to argue that your purpose is not correction to a judge.”
Ironically that was exactly how the last version of S59 was, that the defense of reasonable force had to be argued to a judge. Sue apparently didn’t have that much confidence in the judiciary to make the right decisions which is why she proposed her bill in the first place. Given that history I’m in no danger.
Besides, that nice Mr Key said the police aren’t to pursue a prosecution against me because it’s not in the public’s interest. You see the people that actually do bash their kiddies aren’t the ones who are protesting against the new S59, they’re too busy just trying to last from one benefit payment to the next without running out of smokes, booze and drugs. They don’t actually care about their kiddies, they just want the extra benefits that come with popping out more sprogs. They’re in your gang aren’t they? Why don’t you get out amongst them and help them with some child-rearing advice? I’m sure they’d appreciate it, they might not even bash you very hard when you meddle in their business.
I don’t think she was stupid, maybe overly idealistic. I always thought she wanted too much from her PMB, it was diluted through the Key compromise.
But this supposed quote of hers – “now our kids will be safe” – can’t find it with Google, neither “children will be safe” – is it another bruv made up quote? Or can someone verify it?
Paul, interesting to see your comments on IEDs re “That does not mean that IEDs are unsophisticated or that the people making them are anything but savvy, when not brilliant in their craft”.
My understanding is that the IEDs used in Iraq quickly became quite sophisticated, particularly in terms of their shaped charge and their remote actuation. Strong indications that much of this sophistication came via Iranian military assistance.
That quickly led the US military to develop things like radio jammers and clever sensors to both detect IEDs and to neutralise them.
As a result the move in Afghanistan has been back to relatively simple IEDs, particularly a move to detonating them via simple pressure plates or the good old long-wire-back-to-a-switch approach.
to be honest pete, I don’t know if she said it or not (and don’t have the inclination to search for it). There are two primary reasons I though her bill was a crock.
First, the existing law was actually working ok (IMO) but she was apparently grumpy that in the last decade or so a few (like 3 or 4) cases were found not guilty by the judiciary, including one that involved a riding crop or something similar. IMO (again) if these cases were really a wrong decision by the judge then issuing new guidelines (or whatever they do) for the judges would have been a better approach.
Second, this law change seemed as practical as a law against people using marijuana. Those who really want to do it aren’t going to stop just because of the law, they just do it covertly. The new S59 would actually make parents more afraid to do things like take their kids to a doctor if they had a smack mark on their bum for example, or may keep their kids home from school because they’d be worried the teachers might sick Syphs onto them. Basically it makes early detection of a problem more difficult.
RN, I think she was trying to give children the same legal protection against assault that adults and animals have. In theory that seems reasonable to me. But in practice I wouldn’t argue with either of your points here. Child abuse is a bloody hard issue to try and deal with. Her bill has raised the issue, that may or may not do any good. It’s possible bad abusers feel they are justified because there is so much support for parents being able to treat their kids however they like. But I have no idea if the situation is better, worse or no different for kids generally.
What’s your problem? There is little in your post to disagree with, but I think you may be misinformed about exactly what judges permitted as reasonable force. That’s why s59 was removed. Under the current law, even a light smack can be prosecuted by police if they wish. So far, they have not wished to do that, but I don’t expect that to be the case forever. You do realise that this is the same discretion police use in deciding whether or not to prosecute an adult v adult assault allegation. By law, an uninvited chest push is assault. It doesn’t really hit the courts unless something unintended, like a victim falling and hitting his/her head on a gutter.
Children are human beings in their own right. This is the nub of the issue. Kids are entitled to full human rights from the moment of birth, or even earlier. We should be bending over backwards to make our kids feel treasured and safe. I find it perplexing that the many of the same people who rail against abortion demand the right to physically assault their kids. Can you imagine the fuss at work if you, as manager, gave your workers a smack whenever they transgressed some rule that, to them, you have just invented? In my usual work environment, the smack would be returned with interest.
And just to address your extreme view that the law is not working because kids are still being killed, consider this:
1. Current adult behaviour toward our kids today is the result of the former permissiveness of our child assault laws
2. Laws can only act as a signpost to acceptable behaviour and as a deterrent to those who can be deterred by the promise of punishment.
Those who cannot be deterred will still commit the crime.
Let’s give peace a chance and get back to me in 2035.
Yeah, it shows again the dialectic between the offense and the defense in war. An interesting note to your quite correct observation about the full circle aspects of this process is that more sophisticated (i.e cell phone or pager-rigged detonators) triggering devices are considered to be evidence of al-Qaeda links to the Taliban (since learning curves have to be gained first hand). That helps pinpoint their areas of overlap and thereby focus, um, kinetic targeting. Thus, for the insurgents the best option is to “go low on the blow” in order to disguise who is doing what, where. Which means that the learning curves work both ways, for both sides.
Ad hominem and wishful thinking combined – is that the best you can do?
Consider this: no matter how many “loving” parents turn up for this march, can you really see Key backing down? If I was him. I would just smile, praise the democratic principles of free speech and let you rednecks get it out of your system. He’s got you by the short and curlies!
phLuc, you can think what you like, I have presented my points of view previously on this topic, it’s not my fault you were late for the party. Search through the archives if you like. And since you’re here to ‘make us spew’ I don’t believe you deserve engaging in serious debate with. Meanwhile I still raise my kids as I see fit.
Bloodsucker Bwadford’s valedictory was surprisingly only attended by half the house. Maybe the sensible people didn’t want to waste their time hearing an ecosocialist whine about the little people trying to stop her.
RN, you can certainly raise your kids as you see fit, so long as you stay within the law.
That sounds a bit patronising but it’s not meant to be. There are heaps of laws surrounding raising kids, and we are bound by them as law abiding citizens. For example, when I moved into my current abode four years ago, there were three teenagers living here and I automatically became liable for “duty of care.” I wasn’t particularly impressed when I realised that, but that’s the law. And it makes one think, which is a legitimate purpose of statute law.
Now I must address your remark about serious debate: I think you introduced yourself to me with the words “Luc (from that girl) Hansen”. Right? Then you invented some sort of affiliation between philu and myself. Talk about out of left field! Then you reply to an entirely serious and sincere post about why I think the new law is desirable with fatuous sarcasm. In fact, I have yet to see serious, credible debate from you over this issue so I see no reason to waste my time searching archives.
Blogs are a place to hang out. There is room for seriousness, room for humour. Room for testing ideas, room for confirmation. Above all, room for free expression.
Concocting a brutish one liner like Hurf (see above) is very skilled at is fun for him and for us but simply drives away most people who want a genuine debate with differing viewpoints rather than just mixing with those of the same world view. But I’m made of sterner stuff. I’m looking forward to my first thousand posts!
A silly little prick tried to shoplift from my store a while back. He and his partner walked in while I was in the office, so he thought it was a great opportunity to grab a nice expensive bottle of spirits. He didn’t realise I had walked out of the office just after they walked in, and I watched him grab the bottle and slip it in his jacket. The muppet then picks up a 4pk of bourbon premix and “innocently” comes up to the counter.
I smile and say “ok, hand over that bottle you have in your jacket.” He looks at me increduoulsy and says “what you talking about bro?”. I repeat myself. He looks a little sheepish, and pulls the bottle out of his jacket, at which point I suggest he and his friend should depart in a rapid manner, to which the punk has the cheek to reply “what, you’re not going to serve me now?” Sheesh…
October 28th, 2009 at 8:03 am
Loved the news that Fidel Castro’s sister was a CIA agent… http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/26/fidel-castro-sister-cia-agent
October 28th, 2009 at 8:08 am
CNN drops to last place in the ratings-
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/cnn-drops-to-last-place-among-cable-news-networks/
That’s what happens when you target a political demographic (“liberal/ Progressive”) that only represents 20% of the population.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:11 am
perhaps the better headline would have been ‘Silent T cries foul English’
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10605801
October 28th, 2009 at 8:12 am
The Dompost is savage on Labour this morning.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/opinion/editorials/3004075/Editorial-No-shortcuts-for-Labours-sinners
October 28th, 2009 at 8:15 am
Well Patrick if there is a TV channel thats running a series of programs on irrelevant losers I have no objection to Phil Goff being their spokesman.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:17 am
If you read the article you linked to RB you will find a bit more analysis than you have offered.
So they will suffer more in a slow news month. Especially with MSNBC competing in the same space with a more trashy approach, leaving Fox to the right on it’s own.
It also could be an indicator that more intelligent people seek wider news coverage via the internet.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:17 am
Redbaiter, latest polls in the USS show only 20% self identifying as Republicans. You need to run a fact check.
Anyway, I’m looking forward to the coming enhancement in NZ’s reputation as a cool voice of reason in the international arena when images flood the world’s TV screens of wild-eyed fundamentalists filling our streets with chants like:
My child!
My right!
Beat! Beat!
Kill! Kill!
Praise be to God!
October 28th, 2009 at 8:19 am
Adolf, that didn’t seem savage to me, the Dom seemed fair and reasonable. I thought Labour support might have bottomed out but they seem to be striving to keep on sliding.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:21 am
I ran a fact check Luc CNN are at the bottom… what are they a republican mouthpiece or something? Seems to be something of disconeect going on in your reasoning process.
Your facts are not like our earth facts.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:21 am
“Redbaiter, latest polls in the USS show only 20% self identifying as Republicans.”
Who cares about Republicans??
Fact check this you uninformed broken record.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/123854/Conservatives-Maintain-Edge-Top-Ideological-Group.aspx
October 28th, 2009 at 8:31 am
The fact that so many more US citizens self-identify as conservative than as Republican in the US could mean that the GOP is seen as being compromised.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:33 am
CNN international is crap.About as crap as the good morning show on tvnz
October 28th, 2009 at 8:33 am
I don’t think Sue Bradford will be supportive of a Protest march in favor of democratic rule Luc so no need to worry about wild eyed Protesters assaulting Police.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:34 am
A watershed election is taking place in the NY 23rd district. Read about it here-
http://crusader-rabbit.blogspot.com/2009/10/doug-hoffman.html
Read the comments for a fuller appreciation of what is happening. RINOs are at last getting their soft fat treacherous arses kicked out of the party.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:35 am
Kristol seems to think it’s a good thing:
The big question is will there be enough moderates who vote for that.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:36 am
Or more here, with once again, the comments being particularly informative-
http://crusader-rabbit.blogspot.com/2009/10/palin-in-2012.html
October 28th, 2009 at 8:40 am
Why is what is happening in the NY 23rd district important to New Zealand?
Because it is a portent of what has to happen and what will happen here.
Like the US Republicans, the NZ National Party has been infiltrated with Progressives who have to be replaced by people of Principle.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:42 am
To Luc Hansen:
I think you are mistaken when you try to portray people who protest against the anti-smacking law as “wild-eyed fundamentalists”.
It simply is not true.
My child? Too right. If I have to go through the effort of helping with the conception, being there for the birth, and then being responsible for that young life and bringing it up to be a law-abiding, contributing citizen, feeding it, changing it, getting up to it at 3am when it has vomited all over the bedroom, and all the rest, you bet that I have a right to smack — or not — as a means of guidance, correction, punishment, discipline and without having to explain myself to anyone else.
You want to tell me how to bring up my kids? Well, you might get that right when you repeatedly have to get up to them in the middle of the night because they’re sick, or having a nightmare, have to make the decision about whether they undergo surgery or not, or whatever. Otherwise, keep your nose out of my family.
“Beat! Beat!” Now you’re being silly.
“Kill! Kill!” And being really absurd. The people who beat and kill their children usually don’t love the children, and don’t care about them. If they did, they wouldn’t kill them.
“Praise be to God!” Who are you talking about? I don’t know anyone who carries on like that.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:42 am
Kristol again:
Palin would likely be a bigger disaster than GW. For the GOP, hopefully not for the US.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:43 am
CNN international is crap.About as crap as the good morning show on tvnz
the good morning show is worse than crap..its absolutely mind numbing..and 3 hours no less..every day !!!! Dont ya love those adverts coined ” advertorials “…fuck Id rather spend 3 hours talking to philU than have to sit thru 5 minutes of browned down tv every day…
October 28th, 2009 at 8:46 am
My child!
My right!
Beat! Beat!
Kill! Kill!
Praise be to God!
more lunitical ravings from the left…you need help friend if you are thinking like this…
October 28th, 2009 at 8:47 am
“Palin would likely be a bigger disaster than GW.”
Thanks for that bigoted opinion. As worthless as it is, you of course have every right to express it.
Shame for you it isn’t the fact you pretend it to be.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:48 am
“you need help friend if you are thinking like this…”
Just trying desperately to distract from his ignorant blunder above.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:50 am
Moderates governing conservatively are progressive??
To get a party with your sort of Principles you will need to start your own: the Redbaiter Irrational Party
It was an obvious opinion, it’s difficult to quote facts about the future.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:52 am
general debate = nexus of nut bars.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:52 am
PARIS – The church of Scientology has been branded an “organised fraud” by a French court and fined 600,000 euros ($1.2m) for preying financially on vulnerable believers.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10605823
Is our Justice Minister prepared to be as brave as the French and go after this faud? And then all the other fraudulent religions. Tiem for them to prove their claims or piss off.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:54 am
Thanks for the Links Redbaiter.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:54 am
“CNN international is crap.About as crap as the good morning show on tvnz”
So true. I never watch either.
I enjoy FoxNonNews. It’s fun watching the desperate distortions of the rabid right, their lies, their incitement to murder and to treason.
But the biggest joke is imaging there is some kind of gulf between the mainstream membership of either US party. The fact is they are both to the right or our most trenchantly rightist party in Parliament.
Poor old redbaiter – relies on blogs for his information!
Someone tell him blogs are for entertainment.
I just heard Kathryn Ryan is running some sort of article of FauxNews this morning.
Maybe you guys can tear yourselves away from New Zealands poor imitation of Rush Limbaugh, Michael Laws?
October 28th, 2009 at 8:57 am
It would be fair to assume that those high profile cases of people who beat their children to death are not representative of a stereotypical National voter.
Which stereotype do they represent?
October 28th, 2009 at 9:00 am
“Thanks for the Links Redbaiter.”
My pleasure Llama. Important that the real news gets out there, as a counter to the naked left wing propaganda of RNZ and the rest of the mainstream media.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:05 am
and what redbaiter is getting all excited about..
is the fact that the republican party is currently eating itself from the inside..
..the far-right loonies are standing candidates against those republicans they view as ‘soft’..in the upcoming mid-term elections..
and the end result will be..a splitting of that already battered republican vote..(at only 20% in last poll..)
meaning that democrats in seats that were looking marginal..
..will now be a shoo-in..
and i guess if red sees this as a ‘victory’..
it must be in the eye of the beholder..eh..?
(btw..is red a member/supporter of the national front..?
does anyone know..?
i mean..it would ‘fit’..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 28th, 2009 at 9:07 am
Crusader Rabbit is real news?
My guess would be non-voters. But they could be potential tools in an RB type revolt (principled of course).
October 28th, 2009 at 9:13 am
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/3004385/Hawkes-Bay-millionaire-charged-over-boy-racer-incident
What a fucking joke this is!
This guy is almost killed by these thugs, gets a brain fracture, then a few years later is almost run over by boy racers, and the cops charge him for…wait for it…. kicking the car as it speeds past him.
I used to have much respect for the police in this country (and still do for those brave men and women who put themselves on the front line) but whatever wanker decided ti charge this guy for kicking some cunts trying to run him down are idiots.
Then we have the charging of Greg Carvell, the poor indians who had their shop broken into, etc etc. They just seem like theyre doing it to cover the fact they are losing control, and people are having to resort to self defence.
Grow some fucking brains you cops, stop persecuting innocent law abiding NZers and go after the real scum. Of course only if you have time, there are lots of speeding tickets to be given!
October 28th, 2009 at 9:16 am
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10605755
And check out the headline on this!
“Govt axes the right to smoko”.
What a joke, the MSM is utter rubbish
October 28th, 2009 at 9:21 am
The British National Party’s legal director Lee John Barnes;
‘Show respect or reap what you sow when we are in power’
ONE of Nick Griffin’s most trusted lieutenants sparked fresh outrage last night after he warned British Jews to “show respect” or “reap what you sow when we are in power”.
Lee John Barnes, the BNP’s legal director, produced the outburst as he debated Mr Griffin’s appearance on Question Time.
While Mr Griffin tried to claim his party had ditched its anti-Semitic past, his inept sidekick exposed its true colours on an anti-extremist website. Goading opponents that the BNP had won a massive propaganda coup, he aimed his threats at lawyer David Toube who runs Harry’s Place, the website which campaigns against the BNP and Islamic extremism.
When Mr Toube, one of Britain’s most prominent Jews, told Mr Barnes, 43, not to get “too smug”, the BNP man replied: “That’s fine. Just remember though, ‘You will reap what you sow’.
“The way you treat us now is how we shall treat you in the future. The example you set us is the example we will follow when we are in power.
“The many different pressure points are beginning to converge towards a ‘tipping point’, a moment of political equilibrium when revolutionary social and political change occurs.”
He added: “Best you show us some respect, some day you will want us to respect you.”
October 28th, 2009 at 9:30 am
nickb – Sam Kelt has been in the media for his disorderly behaviour before:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/hawkes-bay/2532038/No-assault-conviction-for-Sam-Kelt
And for knocking a kid off his bike while driving an unwarranted and unregistered vehicle (I’m sure he can afford to register his car, he’s a millionaire FFS):
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2964760/Millionaire-fined-for-knocking-boy-off-bike
Innocent victim or hothead?
October 28th, 2009 at 9:31 am
Luc Hansen – you really are ignorant of american issues. A good percentage of Fox News ‘ viewers self-identify as Democrat and Indpendent. FNX reaches more democrats than CNN does – the ratings alone prove this. This is why the Obama administration is tryign to marginalise Fox. As far as being a mouthpiec eof the republicamn party, I mainly hear people ripping shreds off republican candidates and officials on Fox. There are differences between conservative and republican, and between democrat and progressive. If you learn that you might understand US poltics a little more.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:33 am
TripeWryter spoke of having to go through the “effort of helping with the conception”. Dude, it isn’t work, it is recreation. If it was work philU wouldn’t have kids.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:37 am
hey grant..
good call with that ‘yesterdays’ news’ at 8.03..eh..?
recycling..(very ‘green’..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 28th, 2009 at 9:39 am
Anyone doing their chores tonight?
October 28th, 2009 at 9:39 am
and smaller..an ‘expert’ on american poltics..eh..?
heh..!
do tell..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 28th, 2009 at 9:41 am
It’s gritty on here this morning. People finally woken up from the long weekend?
On a different note, I’m in Wellington today and the weather is stunning! True, I swear.
Coffee is cheaper down here than it is in Auckland.
“If it was work philU wouldn’t have kids.”………priceless Mr McKenna
October 28th, 2009 at 9:42 am
“Is our Justice Minister prepared to be as brave as the French and go after this faud? And then all the other fraudulent religions. Tiem for them to prove their claims or piss off.”
By all means. Let’s start with the Global Warming religion.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:46 am
Well now that MNIJ is back doesn’t that mean Lucy Handjob has finished his watch as the nominated ‘tool for the left’?
MNIJ – “And then all the other fraudulent religions.” yes yes yes, that’s a great idea, let’s investigate the Church of AGW. (edit – snap Adolf)
October 28th, 2009 at 9:50 am
Religions have no factual or scientific backing. The greater the education the smaller the support.
Climate change is the opposite.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Pete you little happy clapper. Praise the IPCC!!!
So do you believe that Mann’s temperature graph really rose at the end of the 20th century? Even though Mann has been shown up as a fraud, and the data cherry-picked?
October 28th, 2009 at 9:58 am
“..By all means. Let’s start with the Global Warming religion..”
i thought we;d have a go at the bush-baptists first..
y’know..!..the ‘low-hanging fruit’..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 28th, 2009 at 10:02 am
Lindsay Mitchell has posted on her blog a letter that was written to a newspaper by a Dr. Martyn Hutt. The letter is in response to the charming couple Brenda and Robert Vale who advocated that we should not have pets because of the cost of there ‘carbon footprint’ and only have annimals to eat.
Dr. Hutt hits the nail on the head when he says that people like the Vales (I prefer to call them econazis) know the cost of everything (the enviromental cost) and the VALUE of nothing.
Go to Lindsays blog it really is an amazing letter.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:05 am
I agree with RedBaiter; I hope Sarah Palin runs in 2012.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:10 am
‘hockey-stick alert/warning..!
so adolf..
i understand you have long held this ‘global warming is a hoax’ stance..
and you obviously have not had your ‘oh shit!’-moment yet..eh..?
but really..with the global political/scientific-consensus so strong..
(the australian govt today issuing sea-rise warnings for over 700,000 coastal properties/houses..?
they just ‘made that up’..?..did they..?
or is that just ‘proof’ of their ‘complicity’ in this great leftwing conspiracy..?)
do you think you will be able to ‘hold-out’ fr much longer..?
without veering seriously into tin-foil-hat territory..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 28th, 2009 at 10:17 am
No, what the “report” (not the Govt.) said was
“The Managing Our Coastal Zone in a Changing Climate report found every state in Australia, and the Northern Territory, will be affected, putting more than 530,000 homes at direct risk” of being “impacted by climate change through a rise in sea levels, more frequent storms, flooding and coastal erosion.”
October 28th, 2009 at 10:18 am
malcolm (285) Vote: 1 0 Says:
October 28th, 2009 at 10:05 am
I agree with RedBaiter; I hope Sarah Palin runs in 2012.
So do I, I could do with another good laugh.
Which newspapers and magazines did she read again? How often could she see russia from her front stoop? And how many more jobs will she have and quit because she doesn’t have the ticker?
If it looks like a dead fish and smells like a dead fish, it will never swim up the river.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:19 am
nice ordering of the effects – most shock worthy at the start and finish of the list with the most likely hidden in the middle.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:23 am
I wouldn’t pay heed to any report (or person) that used “impact” as a verb.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Yay, MNIJ is back for more. You are aware that Palin never said she could see Russia from her house aren’t you?
You do know that Tina Fey said that when she impersonated Palin? In your defence she did a really good impersonation and I can understand that someone with very little brain could be confused and think it really was Palin.
Disclaimer – I am not a Palin supporter.
philu – I suppose you also believe the Maldives are also under threat because they staged an underwater cabinet meeting? There is ZERO sea level rise, and yet they are milking the Church of AGW for everything they can get. Sounds like you doesn’t it? There is nothing stopping you from working (except yourself) and yet you are milking the taxpayer for all you can get. Bludger.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:35 am
Jack Kennedy (Democrat US President circa 1960) would not be permitted as a member of the US Republican Party or the NZ National Party today as his views would be considered too right wing.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:37 am
Have you proof of this?
October 28th, 2009 at 10:38 am
Yes, rightnow, I am aware of the excellent send ups of tina fey, and look forward to many nore of them.
But that doesn’t change the fact that Palin is a dipshit
October 28th, 2009 at 10:40 am
Philu and Pete George (more Pete than phil as phil doesn’t listen anyway)-
There is evidence suggesting that the planet was in a warming phase until 1998. It has been in a cooling phase ever since (that is an 11 year period where there hasn’t been a warming year). There is also plenty of evidence to suggest that it is not the fault of people, that it is caused by sunspot cycles and cycles in the Earth’s orbit. There is even some suggestion that the temperature of the Earth may have driven the level of CO2 in the atmosphere in the past rather than the more conventional view that carbon drives the temperature. There is also a level where more CO2 in the atmosphere will have no effect – we are very close to that point already. That is before anybody takes into account the effect of water vapour, which is a far more efficient greenhouse gas than CO2 and even methane and its concentration in the atmosphere changes on a daily basis.
The reason global warming is considered to be like a religion is that many of its proponents refuse to acknowledge the existence of data that shows that there is considerable doubt about the effects and causes of climate change. The evidence that does support their claims is held up as gospel, including in such studies where it has been shown to be falsified or have been discredited. That is not a scientific approach to the problem, as all scientists should be comfortable when somebody produces a study that proves them wrong. The debate should be centred on data not on egos.
The very existence of terms such as “climate change denier” proves my point – it is the climate change equivalent of the term “unbeliever” or “heretic.” On top of that we have a way to “repent” our sins by signing international treaties and giving millions of dollars to the Russians.
No I don’t believe that anthropogenic climate change is real. On top of all the evidence that shows there is significant doubt, I also think is that it is very arrogant to assume that one species can change the climate that significantly, and it is even more arrogant to assume that we can undo any damage that was done simply by creating a new derivatives market. The carbon derivative market will suck in so much money that will end up in the hands of fat cats (the very people that philu would consider the root of the problems with the capitalist system) and muggins in the working and middle classes will be taken for a ride. Once again.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:41 am
When Sarah Palin’s memoir “Going Rogue: An American Life” goes on sale next month it will have a competitor, “Going Rouge: An American Nightmare”
October 28th, 2009 at 10:42 am
“..Yay, MNIJ is back for more. You are aware that Palin never said she could see Russia from her house aren’t you?..”
(sigh..!)..it’s a metaphor..rightnow..
for her claiming wide knowledge..
from a position of obviously/absolute deep ignorance..
got that..?
oh literal-one..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 28th, 2009 at 10:47 am
red..that is largely because he came in at the tail-end of the anti-commie witch-hunts..
and for any hope of ‘success’..had to pay lip-service to those then widely-held beliefs/attitudes..
plus it was before johnson ‘freed the african-americans’..with his civil rights reforms..
so once again..the ethos of the time was very reactionary…
time/space comparisons like that can be amusing..
but rarely mean little..if anything .. beyond that..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 28th, 2009 at 10:51 am
blah..
..blah…
…b…l…a…a…h…
……………………….!
October 28th, 2009 at 10:53 am
yeah gazzmaniac..
that would explain the arctic predicted to be ice-fee/open sea..fairly soon..
eh..?
or do you not let that fact get in yr way..?
or..once again..
is this just ‘proof’ of all those experts/scientists/climatologists..are ‘complicit’..in the ‘conspiracy’..?
woof..!..woof..!
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 28th, 2009 at 10:55 am
Pete, all the hockey stick graphs were reproduced by the same people using the same set of data. They were proven to have ignored larger samples of data that showed a flat graph rather than the hockey stick shape that they need to continue to receive their funding. The IPCC was established not to test whether AGW was real, but to support the theory that AGW was real. All the computer models were to try and make the data fit the theory. They have all been wrong since 1998.
Read this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6425269/The-real-climate-change-catastrophe.html
October 28th, 2009 at 10:56 am
phlu, predictions are cheap, they’re also wrong in your case.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:57 am
whore dont you have some jerbals to feed/fatten up…
October 28th, 2009 at 11:00 am
Do you have evidence of this? What about:
The recent Internet chatter about cooling led NOAA’s climate data centre to re-examine its temperature data. It found no cooling trend.
“The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record,” said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. “Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming.”
The AP sent expert statisticians NOAA’s year-to-year ground temperature changes over 130 years and the 30 years of satellite-measured temperatures preferred by skeptics and gathered by scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880.
Statisticians say that in sizing up climate change, it’s important to look at moving averages of about 10 years. They compare the average of 1999-2008 to the average of 2000-2009. In all data sets, 10-year moving averages have been higher in the last five years than in any previous years.
“To talk about global cooling at the end of the hottest decade the planet has experienced in many thousands of years is ridiculous,” said Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution at Stanford.
Ben Santer, a climate scientist at the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Livermore National Lab, called it a “a concerted strategy to obfuscate and generate confusion in the minds of the public and policy-makers” ahead of international climate talks in December in Copenhagen.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/091026/science/science_us_sci_global_cooling:
October 28th, 2009 at 11:01 am
Rubbish, RightNow. The Thames Barrier is being raised much more often than when it was first commissioned in the early 80s. This is partly due to more extreme weather (larger storm surges) and sinking land, but the biggest factor is that sea levels are rising at between 1 and 3 mm/year.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:04 am
“..# RightNow (346) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
October 28th, 2009 at 10:56 am
phlu, predictions are cheap, they’re also wrong in your case..”
seriously..?
that is your counter-case to that presented by the scientists/climateologists..?
that’s the substance/distillate of your knowledge/arguments on the subject..?
and you expect anyone to take you at all seriously..?
(‘holy pig-ignorance..!..batman..!’..)
over and out..!
eh..?
you’re not fucken worth bothering with..
(and..’all in yr own words’..eh..?..)
whoar..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 28th, 2009 at 11:05 am
The Dog Ate Global Warming
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTBiMTRlMDQxNzEyMmRhZjU3ZmYzODI5MGY4ZWI5OWM=#more
Steel yourself for the new reality, because the data needed to verify the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.
Or so it seems. Apparently, they were either lost or purged from some discarded computer. Only a very few people know what really happened, and they aren’t talking much. And what little they are saying makes no sense.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:06 am
malcolm, in the case of the Maldives the sea level has been stable for at least 30 years.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:07 am
nickb
Be very careful who you go into bat for mate.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:08 am
One simple way to prove climate change – run the computer models backwards and see how they comapre with the records.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:09 am
phlu, the real scientists are the ones that analyse data and try to understand it. The alleged scientists you refer to are part of the IPCC circle jerk that are on a global gravy train of funding as long as they keep torturing the data to perpetuate the myth that is AGW theory.
I’m on the side of the real scientists. You’re on the side of the bludgers. It’s so fitting isn’t it?
October 28th, 2009 at 11:10 am
“nickb
Be very careful who you go into bat for mate.”
What do you mean bruv? The guy in the article?
On looking at those links he does seem like a bit of a loose cannon, I wasn’t aware of his previous convictions.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:11 am
How to more than halve the postings in a very successful blogsite. Let philu camp on the blogsite and watch folks lose interest.
He has worked his Magic on this excellent site. David Farrar continues to give fabulous coverage. And yet the comments, and possibly traffic are falling away.
Well done to the Napoleon of the Troll Farm. Stand forward and take a bow!! Philip Ure.
A one man bludging freak show.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:13 am
“TripeWryter spoke of having to go through the “effort of helping with the conception”. Dude, it isn’t work, it is recreation.”
Grant M McK: you are quite correct, and I gave you a thumbs-up. As I was writing my earlier piece I was very much aware that I was there (five times) at the start, but I never had to do the hard work of 9 months pregnancy after that. Hmmm. Perhaps got lost in translation.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:15 am
malcolm, this may interest you regarding sea level rise http://groups.google.com/group/sci.geo.meteorology/browse_thread/thread/e1d4adf61a131fde
The salient points are:
(1) In the last 2000 years, sea level has
oscillated with 5 peaks reaching 0.6 to 1.2 m
above the present sea level.
(2) From 1790 to 1970 sea level was about 20 cm
higher than today.
(3) In the 1970s, sea level fell by about 20 cm to
its present level.
(4) Sea level has remained stable for the last 30
years, implying that there are no traces of any
alarming on-going sea level rise.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:17 am
malcolm (287) Vote: 0 0 Says:
October 28th, 2009 at 11:01 am
There is ZERO sea level rise..
Rubbish, RightNow. The Thames Barrier is being raised much more often than when it was first commissioned in the early 80s. This is partly due to more extreme weather (larger storm surges) and sinking land, but the biggest factor is that sea levels are rising at between 1 and 3 mm/year.
So, assuming a sea rise of 2mm a year since 1978, say, sea is now 64mm higher. How high are the rises caused by storms? How far has the land sunk?
It is the same bullshit as tuvalu being inundated by rising seas. t isn’t. it is sinking as too much groundwater is being extracted to keep the atolls afloat.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:21 am
The Northwest Passage was open during WW2, and the Russians used it extensively. There is also significantly more water heading to the Arctic from Central Asia due to the Russians using it for growing crops.
Pete George – your link leads to a page which says “error on page”
also
All they are doing is actually comparing 1999 to 2009, as all the other years are included in both datasets (and presumably evenly weighted). A 10 year average is only useful to smooth a curve of datasets over several decades, not to compare at either end of a 10 year period.
malcolm said:
The biggest factor is tectonic activity. The greater London area including the Thames Estuary have been sinking on average 2-3mm per year for much of the Tertiary (ie most of the last 60Ma or so). Excavations show that the Roman port on the Thames was 2-3m lower than the current river level.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/science/nature/6231334.stm
October 28th, 2009 at 11:25 am
yeah..gluty..the debate/conversation here has been a lot more reasonable/measured..
since you and those other knuckle-dragging rightwing trolls left in yr attempt to threaten farrar to ‘life-ban’ me..
or you would all leave..en masse..eh..?
so..how is it going out there..
are you all still talking to each other..?
still ‘staunch’ in yr threat/walkout..?
or have you all splintered/schismed..?
and..why didn’t you take starbored with you..?
it’s been showing signs of separation-anxiety..
over-chewing its’ toys..
and that sort of thing..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 28th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Hey. Hey!
Can’t we all just get a bong?
HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Thank you. Thank you. Just came up with that just then.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:28 am
People still frequent Kiwiblog despite philu, not because of him.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:30 am
I’ll take you word on that. Needless to say a few mm per year of vertical plate movement is nothing special so it may be that the Maldives are rising. You’d need to look at measurements from all over the world.
The other way to calculate this to look at the quantities of water not in the oceans (ice on land and sea, water in plants etc).
October 28th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Colon removed
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/091026/science/science_us_sci_global_cooling
October 28th, 2009 at 11:45 am
malcolm – “a few mm of vertical plate movement” is highly significant when it is in the middle of an oceanic tectonic plate and not at a boundary where such movements would be expected. It is particularly significant if this is not an area known for its tectonic uplift and there is no known mechanism to cause such an uplift. That is very basic plate tectonic theory.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:47 am
sorry whore I meant Gerbils…Gerbils…to feed/fatten up for..well..er..you know what for…heh eh?
October 28th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Scientology ‘organised fraud’, French court says
..same as climate change theory eh whore…eh..?
October 28th, 2009 at 11:50 am
RightNow, sure sea levels have moved around a lot. During the last ice-age (ended approx 14,000 years ago) the North Sea (pretty shallow) was a river basin with woolly mammoth.
Showing that sea-levels have moved in the past doesn’t disprove climate change predictions. If average temperatures rise by 2 degrees then a lot of ice will melt and sea-water will expand and the sea-level will rise. Most cities are by the sea or on coastal rivers and there is plenty of land at sea-level. Most could not be easily protected against even a modest 2 metre rise in sea-level.
I think the rising sea is the least of our problems re climate change. Drought and extreme weather affecting crops will be a more immediate problem IMHO.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:51 am
gazzmaniac said “Innocent victim or hothead?”
I think you left out one option gazzmaniac – brain injury sufferer prone to act out of character at times. Personally, I’d cut the guy a bit of slack, having had a bit to do with brain injury sufferers through the years.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Wouldn’t an increase in rainfall, temperature and CO2 promote crop growth?
October 28th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Inventory2 – nickb referred to an article about how Mr Kelt is going to court for disruptive behaviour, because he kicked a car, and that the coppers should look for “real” criminals. The point of my post was that this isn’t an isolated incident and that he has been in the media before for such behaviour, which was not in the article he referred to. It also does not state why he was beaten up by “thugs” – I highly doubt they chose him at random. There is obviously more to it than meets the eye, and we are only hearing about half the story from a clearly biased point of view (Mr Kelt is very much against “boy racers” – and I suspect against kids being kids in general).
October 28th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Sure, if you could arrange to get the rainfall and the higher temperatures at the same time and the same place. But it doesn’t usually happen like that. Just look at the on-going drought in Australia.
October 28th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Is today the day that Comrade Bradford gives her valedictory speech?
October 28th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Really?
The kids are safe! Good riddance.
Hopefully we dont see her pop up as the deputy mayor of the new supercity
October 28th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Malcolm that is true but is a child of Janus, Australia may end up becoming an Amazon while other areas may turn to desert.
October 28th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
malcolm –
The climate in Australia runs on a 30 year cycle – just long enough for people to forget the bad times during the good. There are two major climate cycles that affect this – the El Nino Southern Oscillation and the Pacific Oscillation. These affect Eastern Australia (where the “drought” is) and it is a 5-7 year cycle superimposed on the Pacific 30 year cycle.
The ongoing drought in Eastern Australia is characteristic of the continent. It is not induced by global warming.
http://www.earthandocean.robertellison.com.au/A%20Decadal%20Regional%20Climate%20Forecasting%20Rules….pdf
There was a similar drought in the late 1970s early 1980s. You can also look at the flood records in Queensland and Northern NSW (they had severe floods in the 1970s and have had them recently) and bushfires in Victoria and SA (bushfires last summer and in the early 1980s).
Australia is a continent of extreme weather events. Ask anyone who lives in Queensland. That weather has absolutely nothing to do with global warming.
October 28th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Why the negative karma on my 12:01?
October 28th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Just saw the ad in yesterday’s Herald for the child-bashers march.
“John Key has it coming…boots and all.”
What sort of a message does that send, for gawds sake? Today Key gets it with our steel caps, tomorrow our kids!
By the way, I grew up in a pretty tough environment, nearest cops about 20 mins away, and received and saw my mates receiving that sort of “discipline” from doting fathers.
And I understand it’s (hopefully) intended as a humourous pun, but in the land of the free that so many here know so well, you can get locked up for that as a terrorist threat! Guaranteed if you are Muslim – get locked up just for thinking it!
It’s like that Dad’s for Justice mob who destroy their credibility by bullying Family Court Judges and their families.
What’s the world coming too?
If I have my maths right, 87% of a bit under half the adult population means, roughly, 50% of our adults badly need anger management courses.
Maybe another avenue for ACC to explore?
And while on the ACC, why don’t National and Act have the courage of their convictions and privatise the whole damn thing (after removing the tail; it’s the new way – socialise losses, privatise gains) lock, stock and barrel!
That should put a smile on Mr Glum’s( Double Dipton’s)face!
October 28th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Not sure. Anyway, I wasn’t saying that. I was just countering your somewhat facetious comment: “Wouldn’t an increase in rainfall, temperature and CO2 promote crop growth”.
October 28th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Luc –
“that sort of “discipline”" was illegal under the old law. The Burrows amendment would have defined reasonable force, and would have ensured that a light smack was legal and a beating was not. Sadly that was not incorporated in the law, and now we are left with a mess that means it is illegal to use reasonable force against a misbehaving kid in some situations and not others, has created uncertainty and is selectively enforced by the police. Basically a worse result all round.
87.5% of voters did not vote for the right to beat kids. They voted for the right to raise their families the way that they choose, not the way the state says so.
And what does smacking have to do with being Muslim??? There are thousands of peaceful Muslims in New Zealand and very few are in jail for terrorism. In fact, I think the only people arrested under the anti terrorism laws were Tame Iti and his mates in the Ureweras.
October 28th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
malcolm –
There is a large school of thought over here that Australia is a dry continent punctuated with wet periods, rather than the other way round. I do wish people would do two minutes of research before using examples – they could save themselves a lot of embarrassment.
And yes I was being a bit tongue in cheek with that comment, and you took the bait, hook, line and sinker!
October 28th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Am I the only person to notice that Bill English’s has in fact just completed a trifecta in very short order?
1. The double Dipton. I had some sympathy for him originally given the administrative fog that appears to surround this issue (perhaps intentionally with hindsight). But his total mishandling of this issue meant that my sympathy in the face of the media’s equally ridiculous handling of it soon disappeared.
2. The ridiculous, ambiguous and populist comments regarding tax avoidance. What was the point? He didn’t have a specific proposal to float. So why not just STFU? The similarities in the style of comment between English and Herr Doktor are just plain spooky. I wonder what the reaction of our overly-coiffured Revenue minister has been to this intrusion into his territory. Is this double dipping on portfolios? Why would you want to infer that a good chunk of your voting base and production in the economy was sitting around on its arse plotting tax avoidance all day. How removed from reality is that? Here’s some tips Bill. You don’t have to go out of your way to gratuitously insult people that are critical to the economy and the functioning of its tax system; particularly in these trying times. Business people and entrepeneurs don’t make real money by nickel and diming on tax. And you don’t actually pay tax until you make money. Making the money is the hard bit. Why is your headspace still operating at the tax-free allowance level Bill? How do your credibly criticise the previous Government for encouraging all our high income earners to fuck off overseas, and then turn around and pontificate on the lack of growth of earners in the $1m club? Did you not have something more important to do Bill, or did you just want some attention?
3. And now the ads on the economy. How could he not foresee the inevitable response from Liabore, the so-called media and the public? I’m not suggesting that Government shouldn’t be telling the public what’s going on with the big global thingy and in fact, they should have done a better job in that respect than they have. But not this way – where it raises the spectre of past standards of behaviour. And not in a way that results in me nearly choking and then becoming momentarily suicidal by hearing Cunners on Radio Pinko and agreeing with him. Uugghh.
So I pose the question: what is it about Bill? He is, supposedly, an intelligent man. So why does he do this? Can he just not help himself? Is it because he’s an institutionalised politician? If Dipton was a Liabore refuge, would Bill still be the MP? Would anyone be able to tell the difference? Would you not think that after his embarrassing little expenses fiasco that he might be more sensitive to the negative consequences of what he says and does? Why does he not understand that over time, this is the sort of thing that will result in the public’s perceptions of National’s standards of behaviour eventually merging with its perceptions of Liabore? Like Liabore, English seems unable to work out why they lost. That is perhaps not surprising from the fellow that took National’s polling lower that the silly magpie’s work ethic.
Or was it because Key was away and, as acting PM, Bill was feeling his oats and adopting a “roving” role. Can Key afford to spend this amount out of the country in future? Or, will Key go away more often to give Bill plenty of rope?
October 28th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
You’re easily amused. I don’t think it counts as a wind-up if you write much more than the windee.
October 28th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
… and look here, this whole bloody climate thing. Its taking up too much space
Has anyone read Gareth Morgan’s book on the climate change arguments? He supposedly hired teams of experts with the opposing views and got them to critique the respective counter-arguments. Could someone please just read the bloody thing and tell me WTF happened, in which room, and with which chattel. Maybe you just need to flick to the last page before it starts snowing again (which will be very shortly according to the forecast).
October 28th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
He came to the conclusion that climate change is a very real problem and it’s caused in part by human activity.
October 28th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
thedavincimode could just read it himself, then he’d get the arguments only second hand not third…
malcolm – yes, I am easily amused.
October 28th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
thedavincimode (467) Vote: 0 0 Says:
October 28th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
… and look here, this whole bloody climate thing. Its taking up too much space
Has anyone read Gareth Morgan’s book on the clim
Why bother? Morgan is an economist, and economists have predicted 32 of the last 3 recessions.
October 28th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
I think that’s the problem. You can’t ask just anyone. Most people are ignorant of most things technical. How many people know how their computer works? Or an automatic gearbox? Or a refrigerator? Or our brains? Or a TV? Or a power transmission system? Or a how people grow? Or why the sky is blue? Or how a limited-slip differential works?
Amazingly, climate change has done what 100 years of free high-school education could not achieve; it has made scientists out of a large proportion of the population.
October 28th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Luc (that girl from) Hansen, who are these ‘child-bashers’ you speak of? If they’re all going to gather in one place I suggest you get the cops mate, they can round them all up and arrest them and that will be that.
It may be that you have a tenuous grasp on rationality (and there’s ample evidence going through the Kiwiblog archives) but I don’t know anyone that bashes their child. I have two children myself, and wouldn’t dream of bashing them. I will however smack my son on the legs or bum if I think it is appropriate. And that decision has nothing to do with you, Sue, or any other Dr Quinn Meddling Woman. So bugger off back to Trev Alert and rejoin the circle-jerk, I think they’re a jerk or two short.
October 28th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Macolm
Thanks. A hot/cold cycle over aeons or now just a hot mode with no long term reversal?
October 28th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
I haven’t read the book – I just heard Gareth interviewed on National Radio when the book came out.
Have a look on his site. He has some very interesting articles on a wide-range of topics: http://www.gmi.co.nz/articles.asp
October 28th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
malcolm,
People are just as misinformed as ever. What they do note is what is going on around them – you can ask older people from Queensland what the weather was like when they were kids, and it is quite likely you will find that it hasn’t changed all that much. The Bureau of Meteorology also has around 100 years of weather observations, and they identify the 30 year cycle I mentioned previously.
For the record I know three of the things on your list, and have a rough idea about three others. The difference between how a fridge/computer/gearbox works and global warming, is that when you research how a fridge works you can get a definitive answer, whereas if you research climate change you really can’t get a definitive answer. In that respect, the mechanics of the climate is as much a mystery as how the brain works and the beginning of the universe.
October 28th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
You know how an LSD works?
October 28th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Just put it under your tongue. But it’s not the LSD working, man. It’s the universe working through the LSD.
October 28th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
I have no idea how an LSD works, however if I really needed to know I can find out if I want.
October 28th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
LSD is not working so well these days, it has been losing value, against the NZ$ anyway.
October 28th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
The LDS are working well in New Zealand, but not as well as they are in Utah.
October 28th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
my limited-slip-diff..is doing just fine..
(i don’t know how it ‘works’..tho’..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 28th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
I am watching question time, Paula Bennett has not missed too many lunches in the last eleven months by the look of it.
October 28th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Poor old RightNow: Oh dear – hit the sweet spot, have I?
I’m just playing the Kiwiblog game. Sometimes.
If you want rationality, I’m your man. And first off, I suggest you restrain yourself to hitting your kids within the privacy of your own home or you will undoubtedly receive a visit from the police.
Second, I suggest you go and have a look at the sort of abuse our esteemed judges were previously allowing in the way of reasonable force.
Third, any attempt at defining reasonable force gets interpreted by the same judges who necessitated the law change.
Fourth, you should take a good look at the tone of your post and understand why I say so many Kiwis badly need lessons in anger management.
Fifth, you should understand that you smack the kid because you can’t control your anger.
Kids do not have the reasoning capacity of adults so a kid is not asking for a smack. A kid is just asking for a problem to be resolved. If the kid’s solution is not our desired outcome, we need to find a patient, non-violent way to get our message across. It’s not easy, but it’s right.
PS I am pleased to say I am practising what I preach. I would guess I’m a generation, give or take, older than you and I am appreciating a second chance at raising a child.
Sue Bradford is a living treasure. I may not agree much of her politics but the children of this nation owe her a debt of gratitude.
October 28th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
All three factors contribute to crop yields on their own.
An increase in rainfall with the same temp and co2 will increase yields there.
An increase somewhere else in temp with the same rainfall and co2 will increase yields there.
An increase in another area of co2 with the same rain and temp will increase yields there.
It is ironic that we call it the greenhouse effect when a greenhouse is a technology used in improve food production.
October 28th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Luc, you are a sick puppy.
I’m sick of listening to people praise bradford today. Many are saying you must respect her for sticking to her principles and for being an effective politician.
This is like praising Stalin or Hitler for being an effective politician.
Bradford had an evil agenda, thankfully she’s being forced out through old age.
October 28th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Luc, you are funny and you do make me laugh. It’s a great game you’re playing and I do appreciate the comedic material you provide. To be fair to you, you are tainted by association with philu as far as I am concerned, so I rarely take your comments seriously.
Just FYI, I don’t smack for the purpose of correction (ha ha got you), so I’m not breaking any laws. When little Brutus needs correction we just show him a picture of Sue Bradford and tell him we’re sending him to live with her. My doesn’t he behave like a little angel after that. At least Sue’s good for something, even though she’s a big lying hypocrite who allegedly used to bash her kids.
October 28th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Luc
“Sue Bradford is a living treasure. I may not agree much of her politics but the children of this nation owe her a debt of gratitude”
Including the twenty who have been killed?
October 28th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
You mean the ones who would have died anyway BB? The difference being Parliament has enacted something that will eventually reduce these sorts of horrible figures…
October 28th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
If twenty one would have been killed without her efforts.
October 28th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
In case anyone had any doubts about Bradford the bloodsucker (brought forward from yesterday’s GD):
DC: You’ve said in one of your recent statements that you’re still a radical.
SB: Yes.
DC: Are you still a socialist?
SB: Yes.
DC: Did you find it difficult to retain your radical politics in parliament?
SB: No, I haven’t found it difficult at all.
I’ve found it hard, in recent decades, to identify myself with a label. When I was young it was easy, we all called ourselves labels. As you keep maturing in political life, it’s harder. But if anything I think I’d call myself an ecosocialist and a feminist.
October 28th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
An evil agenda? She just thinks parents shouldn’t smack their kids. Even if you disagree with her on that, would you really call it evil?
October 28th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
According to Gordon Brown we now have 41 Days until total meltdown (and counting)
October 28th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
@Ryan: Sue Bradfords ultimate goal is anarchy, which will translate into political upheaval.
Removing disciplinary tools from parents is just one of the things she needed to do to achieve her goal.
Her hidden agendas are evil, and she would love to see the political status quo turned on it’s head.
October 28th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Puke, you’re about as rational as a game of Russian Roulette with six rounds in the revolver. Get real.
October 28th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
wreck,
Wait. Her goal is anarchy, and her method is increased state regulation of people’s actions?
October 28th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Bwadford’s goal is ecosocialism and her puckered arsehole of a face on every billboard.
October 28th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Who would have thought?
October 28th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
RightNow, you would have to argue that your purpose is not correction to a judge. Good luck.
Now what’s this crap about an association with Philu? I hardly ever even read his posts because they are just too hard to read. And I’m not vegetarian!!
I like to think my posts are at least readable, and certainly rational, and if my views did not make you guys spew then there would be no point in being here, would there?
Wreck1080 – very apt handle by the tenor of your post. Poisonous vitriol, indeed.
Why are you reserving your venom for Bradford and not Key? It was Key who got the bill across the line.
Is is because it’s easier to pick on women and kids?
October 28th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
just saw bradford on tv..what a dog..she musta spent 300 bucks on that hair do and she still looks like a dropped pie
sue..ya cant make honey outa dogshit luv…
October 28th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Phool @ 2.35
“my limited-slip-diff..is doing just fine..”
At least you knew what a limited slip differential is. But your one lost traction both sides ages ago.
Sorry, could not resist making an immature comment. I’m just a lowly engineer.
October 28th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
How language shapes the narrative.
An IED killed 7 US soldiers in Afghanistan yesterday, reports the MSM.
Just how accurate, powerful and sophisticated do these IED’s have to get before we drop the I? Is the use of the word “Improvised” intended, ever so obliquely, as indicating the US opponents as backward, even sub-human? Just a racist slur?
October 28th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Being able to connect an artillery shell to a crude detonator is not dependent on genetics, Puke, so it’s not.
October 28th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
So is a smart bomb an IED?
October 28th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Rodney Hide suffered a comprehensive defeat today, saved from total humiliation by a little window dressing on councils reporting of financial results.
So I ask again, what does he think he’s doing there? His powerful leverage has come to nought.
Whereas the Free Democrats in Germany wrested major concessions from Merkel’s party.
Why doesn’t he demand tax cuts?
Why doesn’t he demand ACC be sold – how many billions would it be worth, esp, as I said before, if the taxpayer picks up the tab for the current tail.
There is just a strange quiet here over the issue of Rodney’s effectiveness (or lack of, thereof).
October 28th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Why do you lot insist on trying to reinstate a law that defends parents to smash their children, not discipline them but break their bodies. that is what a part of section 59 did. Its gone grow up and get over it.
I suppose you lot would like to retain laws of provocation as a defence to murder as well?
you lot are warped and need medicating.
October 28th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Because the point of the S59 repeal was to destroy smacking completely, not get rid of it as a defence in court, Will. Bwadford has admitted as such. When are the rest of you totalitarians going to be as honest?
Puke, you cannot call an IED a smart bomb, no matter how “advanced” it is.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
“defends parents to smash their children, not discipline them but break their bodies”
You are a fucking numpty. Like the Nia Glassies and Kahui twins of this world that Bradford said her law would protect?
Fuckload of good it did them. But carry on with your ignorance and stupidity, and ignoring the child abuse and baby killings that continue on an almost daily basis.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Where did anyone claim that the s59 tweak would stop the worst child abusers?
October 28th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
“Where did anyone claim that the s59 tweak would stop the worst child abusers?”
The person who made that claim was Comrade Sue Bradford, the actual quote was “now our kids will be safe”
October 28th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
Luc:
They are called IEDs because they are not machine tooled and factory made to uniform standards, but instead crafted out of an assortment of available parts. That does not mean that IEDs are unsophisticated or that the people making them are anything but savvy, when not brilliant in their craft. To the contrary, some of the cell-phone detonated shaped charges are the ISAF trooper’s worst nightmare. But the reason for the “I” is not racism or denigration of the opponent, just a technical differentiation when classifying weapons of a general subtype.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
william blake (11) Vote: 0 6 Says:
October 28th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
” smash ” children !!??…” break their bodies “..!!??..whats your problem nutbar ? You wana get yaself looked at
October 28th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
william blake
“Why do you lot insist on trying to reinstate a law that defends parents to smash their children, not discipline them but break their bodies. that is what a part of section 59 did. Its gone grow up and get over it.”
A new player. Should be fun. Seems to have passed Fuckwit 401 with Hons.
So Willy, just which law was it that legitimised the “smashing” of children and the “breaking” of their bodies. Was it the same law that permitted people to put babies in the washing machine, hang them on the clothes-line or just kill them because they made it hard to concentrate on the TV when pissed?
Or are you just part of the Liarbore/Melon poll brigade?
October 28th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
If anyone said that meaning it would stop all the worst abuse and anyone who thought that’s what it would do would be a bit stupid, wouldn’t they. What’s the context of the full quote?
October 28th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Thank you Paul. That sorted out that query. I have always been curious about what was behind the designation, and I was just having a bit of fun with the racism bit. Although, to be honest, I do think our western colonialism was and is rooted in racism, and we delude ourselves in thinking otherwise.
William said, “you lot are warped and need medicating.” I think you meant to say their medication dosage should be increased!
October 28th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
phLuc: “RightNow, you would have to argue that your purpose is not correction to a judge.”
Ironically that was exactly how the last version of S59 was, that the defense of reasonable force had to be argued to a judge. Sue apparently didn’t have that much confidence in the judiciary to make the right decisions which is why she proposed her bill in the first place. Given that history I’m in no danger.
Besides, that nice Mr Key said the police aren’t to pursue a prosecution against me because it’s not in the public’s interest. You see the people that actually do bash their kiddies aren’t the ones who are protesting against the new S59, they’re too busy just trying to last from one benefit payment to the next without running out of smokes, booze and drugs. They don’t actually care about their kiddies, they just want the extra benefits that come with popping out more sprogs. They’re in your gang aren’t they? Why don’t you get out amongst them and help them with some child-rearing advice? I’m sure they’d appreciate it, they might not even bash you very hard when you meddle in their business.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
pete george, you got it! We all knew she was stupid, what took you so long to get it?
October 28th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
I don’t think she was stupid, maybe overly idealistic. I always thought she wanted too much from her PMB, it was diluted through the Key compromise.
But this supposed quote of hers – “now our kids will be safe” – can’t find it with Google, neither “children will be safe” – is it another bruv made up quote? Or can someone verify it?
October 28th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
Paul, interesting to see your comments on IEDs re “That does not mean that IEDs are unsophisticated or that the people making them are anything but savvy, when not brilliant in their craft”.
My understanding is that the IEDs used in Iraq quickly became quite sophisticated, particularly in terms of their shaped charge and their remote actuation. Strong indications that much of this sophistication came via Iranian military assistance.
That quickly led the US military to develop things like radio jammers and clever sensors to both detect IEDs and to neutralise them.
As a result the move in Afghanistan has been back to relatively simple IEDs, particularly a move to detonating them via simple pressure plates or the good old long-wire-back-to-a-switch approach.
So in many ways the IEDs have come full circle.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
to be honest pete, I don’t know if she said it or not (and don’t have the inclination to search for it). There are two primary reasons I though her bill was a crock.
First, the existing law was actually working ok (IMO) but she was apparently grumpy that in the last decade or so a few (like 3 or 4) cases were found not guilty by the judiciary, including one that involved a riding crop or something similar. IMO (again) if these cases were really a wrong decision by the judge then issuing new guidelines (or whatever they do) for the judges would have been a better approach.
Second, this law change seemed as practical as a law against people using marijuana. Those who really want to do it aren’t going to stop just because of the law, they just do it covertly. The new S59 would actually make parents more afraid to do things like take their kids to a doctor if they had a smack mark on their bum for example, or may keep their kids home from school because they’d be worried the teachers might sick Syphs onto them. Basically it makes early detection of a problem more difficult.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
RN, I think she was trying to give children the same legal protection against assault that adults and animals have. In theory that seems reasonable to me. But in practice I wouldn’t argue with either of your points here. Child abuse is a bloody hard issue to try and deal with. Her bill has raised the issue, that may or may not do any good. It’s possible bad abusers feel they are justified because there is so much support for parents being able to treat their kids however they like. But I have no idea if the situation is better, worse or no different for kids generally.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
RN
What’s your problem? There is little in your post to disagree with, but I think you may be misinformed about exactly what judges permitted as reasonable force. That’s why s59 was removed. Under the current law, even a light smack can be prosecuted by police if they wish. So far, they have not wished to do that, but I don’t expect that to be the case forever. You do realise that this is the same discretion police use in deciding whether or not to prosecute an adult v adult assault allegation. By law, an uninvited chest push is assault. It doesn’t really hit the courts unless something unintended, like a victim falling and hitting his/her head on a gutter.
Children are human beings in their own right. This is the nub of the issue. Kids are entitled to full human rights from the moment of birth, or even earlier. We should be bending over backwards to make our kids feel treasured and safe. I find it perplexing that the many of the same people who rail against abortion demand the right to physically assault their kids. Can you imagine the fuss at work if you, as manager, gave your workers a smack whenever they transgressed some rule that, to them, you have just invented? In my usual work environment, the smack would be returned with interest.
And just to address your extreme view that the law is not working because kids are still being killed, consider this:
1. Current adult behaviour toward our kids today is the result of the former permissiveness of our child assault laws
2. Laws can only act as a signpost to acceptable behaviour and as a deterrent to those who can be deterred by the promise of punishment.
Those who cannot be deterred will still commit the crime.
Let’s give peace a chance and get back to me in 2035.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
phLuc, I’m ever the optimist. Are you saying you’re off and you won’t come back for 26 years? I think I’ll buy a lotto ticket!
October 28th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Virtualmark:
Yeah, it shows again the dialectic between the offense and the defense in war. An interesting note to your quite correct observation about the full circle aspects of this process is that more sophisticated (i.e cell phone or pager-rigged detonators) triggering devices are considered to be evidence of al-Qaeda links to the Taliban (since learning curves have to be gained first hand). That helps pinpoint their areas of overlap and thereby focus, um, kinetic targeting. Thus, for the insurgents the best option is to “go low on the blow” in order to disguise who is doing what, where. Which means that the learning curves work both ways, for both sides.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
I see I have won this one.
Ad hominem and wishful thinking combined – is that the best you can do?
Consider this: no matter how many “loving” parents turn up for this march, can you really see Key backing down? If I was him. I would just smile, praise the democratic principles of free speech and let you rednecks get it out of your system. He’s got you by the short and curlies!
October 28th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
phLuc, you can think what you like, I have presented my points of view previously on this topic, it’s not my fault you were late for the party. Search through the archives if you like. And since you’re here to ‘make us spew’ I don’t believe you deserve engaging in serious debate with. Meanwhile I still raise my kids as I see fit.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Bloodsucker Bwadford’s valedictory was surprisingly only attended by half the house. Maybe the sensible people didn’t want to waste their time hearing an ecosocialist whine about the little people trying to stop her.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
RN, you can certainly raise your kids as you see fit, so long as you stay within the law.
That sounds a bit patronising but it’s not meant to be. There are heaps of laws surrounding raising kids, and we are bound by them as law abiding citizens. For example, when I moved into my current abode four years ago, there were three teenagers living here and I automatically became liable for “duty of care.” I wasn’t particularly impressed when I realised that, but that’s the law. And it makes one think, which is a legitimate purpose of statute law.
Now I must address your remark about serious debate: I think you introduced yourself to me with the words “Luc (from that girl) Hansen”. Right? Then you invented some sort of affiliation between philu and myself. Talk about out of left field! Then you reply to an entirely serious and sincere post about why I think the new law is desirable with fatuous sarcasm. In fact, I have yet to see serious, credible debate from you over this issue so I see no reason to waste my time searching archives.
Blogs are a place to hang out. There is room for seriousness, room for humour. Room for testing ideas, room for confirmation. Above all, room for free expression.
Concocting a brutish one liner like Hurf (see above) is very skilled at is fun for him and for us but simply drives away most people who want a genuine debate with differing viewpoints rather than just mixing with those of the same world view. But I’m made of sterner stuff. I’m looking forward to my first thousand posts!
October 29th, 2009 at 12:50 am
A silly little prick tried to shoplift from my store a while back. He and his partner walked in while I was in the office, so he thought it was a great opportunity to grab a nice expensive bottle of spirits. He didn’t realise I had walked out of the office just after they walked in, and I watched him grab the bottle and slip it in his jacket. The muppet then picks up a 4pk of bourbon premix and “innocently” comes up to the counter.
I smile and say “ok, hand over that bottle you have in your jacket.” He looks at me increduoulsy and says “what you talking about bro?”. I repeat myself. He looks a little sheepish, and pulls the bottle out of his jacket, at which point I suggest he and his friend should depart in a rapid manner, to which the punk has the cheek to reply “what, you’re not going to serve me now?” Sheesh…
October 29th, 2009 at 10:19 am
LUC
You’ve won nothing
People are ignoring you and your negatives have gone up.
Duh!