This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 29th, 2011 at 8:00 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.
Ian Wishart, on BREAKFAST this morning, gave quite reasonable and logical answers to questions about his book, suggesting it backgrounds how the family became so dysfunctional and also indicates where blame may lie. He says Macsyna approached him after the release of his Crewe Murder book.
New information? – Wishart says he has asked questions the police and lawyers didn’t.
One could also wonder ‘If the father has already been tried and found Not Guilty, what a fucking great embarrassment it could be if new evidence implicates him.’
That Penny Bright should yesterday stir up immense dislike on General Debate by her discovering this a “freedom of expression” issue has not helped, along with her double spacing [inconsiderate moron, as is anyone else who does that] and over-full references in quoting others. She is a standard textbook psychiatric case who does need some sort of help, because she sure as hell can’t see it herself [a typical symptom], but should kiwibloggers throw the book out with the Penny bathwater [sorry image]
A book is just a book. Buy it or not.
It could actually contain some answers.
Who else has talked to Macsyna to a supposed serious degree?
But then it may be the account of a killer mother recorded by a “Christian” fundamentalist author who is yet another conspiracy nut-case, but are we still into libricide.
The libraries of Alexandria, Baghdad to Sarajevo, the Qin Dynasty, Aztec codices, the Nazis and Pinochet to the Qu’ran – I guess book burning has a glowing history
Nookin – “These people take the view that the poor old taxpayer has spent megabucks to find out why two innocent babies were brutalised and killed and so, maybe, they should not have to pay any more to learn a truth that should have been public before now.
That the initial fuck–up by the police in this case [notably the first big hesitant moves Broad made in his 'cultural sensitivity'] wasted time and gave people scope to prepare the silent blockade, and costing megabucks, IS partly why the book now exists.
Some of the small parties try to attract attention with sensation, aggressive tactics or impossible to achieve policies. Amongst all the political hubris there are quiet achievers that work away under the radar.
I did not have much interest in the Alasdair Thompson saga after concluding early on that he was a moronic cock who lacked the information, persuasive ability, and media skills that would normally be expected of a media representative.
However, I noted a lot of the arguments about the various factors causing the male-female pay gap and while I think that the primary driver is the larger proportion of women doing lower-paid jobs, I was also interested by some of the lessor factors – including the possibility that woman don’t negotiate as well as men?
I put a question mark on that because it just does not seem possible in 2011 that this could be the case – Grrrl Power and all that. However, in looking at this link on How To Fail At a Job Interview, I came across this:
The reason [women] don’t keep up, from where I sit, is simple. Often, a woman will enter the salary negotiation phase and I’ll tell them a number will be sent to them in a couple days. Usually we start around $45k for an entry level position. 50% to 60% of the women I interview simply take this offer. It’s insane, I already know I can get authorization for more if you simply refuse. Inversely, almost 90% of the men I interview immediately ask for more upon getting the offer.
It gets worse from there. When women do counter-offer, they ask for lower sums or name no sum at all. “At the end,” the reddit poster says, “most of the women I hire make between 45k and 50k, whereas the men make between 60k and 70k.”
Amazing. I wonder whether that’s also the case in NZ?
So, it is the fault of the police that we have to pay extra to learn facts that those possessing them refused to divulge at a time when they could be accountable? You maybe right about cause and effect. I hope you are not attributing blame, however. Blame is on King and the tight 12.
I do not accept that Wishart asked questions not previously asked. That is his own ego trip.
Please – could someone explain why WhaleOil/Gotcha can be accessed and downloaded on to your screen in a fraction of the time it takes to access KiwiBlog? It’s just as slow to move back and forth between blog-items and comments.
I’ve noticed the situation has been worsening gradually and my 2Gb of RAM just isn’t hacking it.
Is it the adverts – is the site carrying too many unnecessary items – or is it just me?
Whatever, it’d be great if it could be addressed before it gets much worse.
Positan – kiwiblog’s ads take up the time, you will note the delay is while the outside frames of the screen are filling up.
The ads can be disabled by using, for example the FireFox addon Adblock Plus but then the site loses its formatting and all the pictures. There’s bound to be a better way to disable the ads, but I haven’t bothered to look for it.
Also whaleoil is a bit of a geek, he may use faster servers.
I daresay that there are going to be a few MP’s who like to dish shit out that won’t be looking forward to having to debate with an intelligent, articulate Cactus should she get elected.
Positan,
Its probably Penny Bright’s long rants and double spacing which are slowing down the system.
If she had any sense of decorum and consideration to others, she would take the hint and make her points brief with links for anyone out there who is actually interested in her moronic ramblings.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Meant in the nicest possible way.
Thanks for the link, has been sent to the daughters. Who won’t listen to their mother when she tells them to act like a guy in negotiations – I was lucky enough to have a bloke tell me how to negotiate salary when I was in my early 20′s, and it stood me in good stead.
Even so, a lot of male employers don’t like it, they look at you like you smell bad if you try to negotiate a higher starting salary. The bottom line is that you don’t want to work for those employers anyway.
I do not accept that Wishart asked questions not previously asked. That is his own ego trip.
OK, if he is not making much more than a meagre wage out of it, ego may obviously be his thing. Why does Brite post anything?
Wishart’s comment on BREAKFAST was to the effect that Macsyna said You are the first person to ask me that.
He says in Court you can’t volunteer information in response to other questions, which may be a crock, but I am sure reading the book will answer that.
Someone might, even Howard.
I guess the library will get a copy in due course, unless some mad bugger burns it down.
Assuming about five years for construction it can be expected that reactors will be coming online around 2012 at double today’s rate of five per year, with this to rise to one per month around 2015.
The article notes the usual decision lag-time involved here, so a Fukushima effect (e.g. Germany) may still hit. However, I think that sort of short-term reaction is nowhere near as powerful as the 1980′s anti-nuclear movement was, and judging by the actions of places like Sweden and Finland, that movement is dead.
I hope that there will be some similar stealth particles in the future that deliver pro-right-wing philosophies via some drink mix into the cancerous brains of Harawira, all Green MPs, all Labour MPs and most of National MPs (except a few there who are truly right-wing). After they consume such drink mix, they are then expected to become pro-freedom (with personal responsibility is paramount) and anti-state interference in the private lives of the population.
Phillip Morris needs to make up it’s mind. Either the ban on clear cigarrette labeling is ineffective – or will cost it millions. Which is it ?? They say
……. “We estimate the damage will potentially amount to billions of Australian dollars,” a spokeswoman for Philip Morris Asia told Dow Jones Newswires. “Brands are valuable intellectual property and form the basis of consumer goods businesses like ours. If we are banned from using them, our business in Australia will become commoditised and its value will be significantly impacted”. “The Australian government does not have an unfettered right to confiscate [our] valuable intellectual property. Moreover, the government has failed to demonstrate that plain packaging will reduce smoking prevalence.”……….
Phillip Morris needs to make up it’s mind.
“If no mutually agreeable solution is found, then it proceeds to us seeking compensation. We estimate the damage will potentially amount to billions of Australian dollars,” a spokeswoman for Philip Morris Asia told Dow Jones Newswires.
“Brands are valuable intellectual property and form the basis of consumer goods businesses like ours. If we are banned from using them, our business in Australia will become commoditised and its value will be significantly impacted.
“The Australian government does not have an unfettered right to confiscate [our] valuable intellectual property. Moreover, the government has failed to demonstrate that plain packaging will reduce smoking prevalence.”
Student twitter exchanges and John Key air force flights be damned.
This is the real story.
DOC, Wellington Zoo, Wellington Hospital, Massey University, our Antarctic Science Manager, Gareth Morgan and now even Te Papa are all rallying around Happy Feet.
So where the hell is MAF, Forest & Bird and the SPCA? What are the affected Iwi doing about this and who are they anyway?Moreover, why has the guvmint not reacted to set up a Ministery of Penguin Affairs? Where is the summit, the Royal Commission?
KH said… Phillip Morris needs to make up it’s mind
Can you tell me, what rights violation that Phillip Morris had done to smokers? Honest answer please. Who gives the government the rights to dictate to a private company? The primary role of the government is to protect its citizens’ rights and not violate them. To me, the government violates Phillip Morris rights to sell its products to the public by dictating to them of what they can or can’t do.
“What are the affected Iwi doing about this and who are they anyway?”
I think that Iwi are helping Happy Feet establish a left wing blog. It’s what penguins do best.
Tobacco regulation, like any form of regulation, aims to strike a balance between a merchant’s right to sell a product, however harmful, and the consumer’s right to mitigation of some of the worst effects. The government is forced to expend resources to deal with the effects of tobacco-related harm. It seeks to reduce that cost by regulating the harmful product through a combination of restrictions on tobacco sales and advertising, tax, and information campaigns.
Apart from far-out libertarians, most people would see tobacco as a good example of government intervention on behalf of citizens.
@KH – I don’t actually see a contradiction in what Phillip Morris are saying. It’s consistent with the line that the tobacco companies have always run, that their advertising is to compete and differentiate with other brands, not to sell it to non-smokers.
Phillip Morris are arguing that they’ll lose market share because they will be unable to differentiate their brands from anyone else’s product – something that is independent of whether the graphic packaging the Aussies want to bring in will work to cut smoking rates.
Mike said… Tobacco regulation, like any form of regulation, aims to strike a balance between a merchant’s right to sell a product, however harmful, and the consumer’s right to mitigation of some of the worst effects.
#1) Mike what is rights?
You said…
#2) A right to sell?
Please elaborate. What is your definition of the right to sell based on your answer from #1). Warning here. Try to answer without self-contradiction. See if you can avoid that.
If you encounter a contradiction in your answers above, then you know that your way of thinking is twisted.
People often argue that a government is not the same as a business or an individual when it comes to spending, and there is a certain amount of truth to that. Governments can usually borrow money at lower interest rates and if push comes to shove they can just print the stuff as well.
However, there are bounds on such theories, as there are on all such economic ideas. Greece and a few other European countries are finding that out – and the USA will shortly:
At present, the average cost of Treasury borrowing is 2.5%. The average over the last two decades was 5.7%. Should we ramp up to the higher number, annual interest expenses would be roughly $420 billion higher in 2014 and $700 billion higher in 2020.
The 10-year rise in interest expense would be $4.9 trillion higher under “normalized” rates than under the current cost of borrowing. Compare that to the $2 trillion estimate of what the current talks about long-term deficit reduction may produce, and it becomes obvious that the gains from the current deficit-reduction efforts could be wiped out by normalization in the bond market.
No doubt the usual suspects will scream – as they are doing here – that “taxing the rich” will solve the problems. Unfortunately for the Left the situation has gone far beyond that:
There is no way to raise taxes enough to cover these problems. The tax-the-rich proposals of the Obama administration raise about $700 billion, less than a fifth of the budgetary consequences of the excess economic growth projected in their forecast. The whole $700 billion collected over 10 years would not even cover the difference in interest costs in any one year at the end of the decade between current rates and the average cost of Treasury borrowing over the last 20 years.
NZ still has low government debt. But we have huge private debts, mostly to foreign lenders, so the question is how far short of these scenarios are we?
Mike said… as a good example of government intervention on behalf of citizens.
I don’t like fat people and I think the majority of the populations do too. Can we get the government to intervene here to legislate all the known causes that lead to being fat. All rump Stakes from the butcher must be all lean. Chicken in the supermarkets must be sold skinless (the skin is where the fat is), blah, blah, blah. Where do you end?
I’m quite happy to talk about rights. I’ll try not to get my logic twisted. I’ll keep on tobacco as an example, if I may. While I personally have nothing against fat people; that’s another are that is subject to a degree of government intervention.
Rights are a human construct, dependant upon subjective and changing criteria. Humans tend to make use of collective mechanisms, called governments, to define and redefine rights and provide a mechanism for resolving conflicts between conflicting rights.
In the case of tobacco, people, through their government, have accepted that the ‘right’ to sell a harmful product should be mitigated in the interests of public health and public expenditure. While some might take the view that any restriction on a product is an infringement of an inherent right to trade freely, I would argue that so such untrammelled right exists, has existed, or will exist in the future.
same…mind you I dont (usually) drop my guts within a crowd of people ( unless its in a bar and I can get away with it ) but I do object to passive smoking..same sort of deal aint it? Dont exhale your vile substance because I end up inhaling it…dont fart around others as you ingest their gas?
There should be no tax on tobacco, and no regulation other than the standard disclaimer on a packet that if you smoke too much you’ll probably get emphysema or lung cancer. But even that’s probably not necessary, since any fool knows that these days. Manufacturers would probably put it on of their own free will to protect themselves from being sued.
Plain packet cigarettes almost guarantees a black market will spring up. There is already one now as it is.
The passive smoking thing is a bit different. Libertarians would argue that it’s not the state’s role to say whether you can smoke on private property (a bar) and it’s up to you to choose whether you want to be there.
Surely everyone must accept some state intervention with things like tobacco, or are there people who would be happy for tobacco companies – or pushers- to dish out freebies outside school gates to try and addict a few new customers?
I’m not trying to weasel. Let’s talk about the right to life, if you like. I presume you would accept that as a fundamental. Yet many communities abridge that right, most obviously through imposing a death penalty (which NZ should have BTW).
Can you answer the question please? Aren’t you afraid to give an answer, because you know that I’m gonna nail you there? You definitely know that you are going to encounter a contradiction there with my line of questioning (in a series of logical steps).
Again, who decides those criteria?
As I said to you above, if you enter a self-contradiction, then you must realized that your logic is twisted.
“Libertarians would argue that it’s not the state’s role to say whether you can smoke on private property (a bar) and it’s up to you to choose whether you want to be there.”
Is it the role of the State to fund health care necessitated by conscious choice to engage in a health-risk activity? If being a libertarian involves additional cost, should that cost be born by the liberterian or involuntarily inflicted on everyone?
‘Again, who decides those criteria?’ Parliament, as respresentatives of the people in our society. That’s just another way of saying ‘determined collectively, according to the political structure of the community’. Don’t think I can be plainer than that.
Talking about deciding criteria, I know people who have blogs make their own criteria, they can do what they like. And I know I test boundaries at times (that happens when one sits on the fence).
DPF has very a liberal moderation policy (and practice).
The Standard is very touchy about some things but at least keeps reminding people of their policy and hands out plenty of explicit warnings – most of the time.
Dim-Post can be interesting. There’s no obvious moderation policy, but I’ve noticed that some posts just “disappear”. Danyl’s choice how it’s done and what he finds acceptable, but it seems a bit intransparent.
The Standard is very open about it’s “behaviour modification”. It can be difficult to judge how much “message modification” goes on when it’s done by stealth.
I think if blogs want to be out there as seemingly open forums they should be open about how they are moderated. Maybe I just missed the message somewhere.
Ryan said.. Taste in music is subjective, but no one’s asking who’s in charge of what sounds good or bad.
Correct. That sort of subjectivity is self-organized. There is no central authority to direct the all the units in that system to conform to a single taste in music. The different tastes adopted by different units in that system are simply emergent behavior of the system itself.
The subjective that Mike is referring to is the subjective views of the few who are in power. The danger here, is those few can decide anything at will. The individuals in the system will have no say at all. Look no further than Mugabe. He singlehandedly decided that white farmers don’t really own their land and they ought to be confiscated and returns to Blacks with no compensations at all. We have Sue Bradford’s Bill as a local example here. The few in power decided it for all of us, even though a high percentage of the population disagreed.
Mike said… ‘Again, who decides those criteria?’ Parliament, as respresentatives of the people in our society.
Those representatives don’t really represent the views of the people do they? Eg, Sue Bradford’s Bill.
Can you see this as contradiction or not? If not why not? If you don’t see it as contradiction then explain why? Are you advocating for a system that you can represent the views of the people sometimes and dismiss them at other times? Again, the example is Sue Bradford’s Bill. Do you like that? I think that Mugabe is doing exactly the same thing, but I’m sure that you don’t like what Mugabe is doing, do you?
Is it the role of the State to fund health care necessitated by conscious choice to engage in a health-risk activity? If being a libertarian involves additional cost, should that cost be born by the liberterian or involuntarily inflicted on everyone?
The nationalisation of health care does not give government a moral right to dictate lifestyles. They have made a promise to provide healthcare for all, limiting citizens behaviour because they are unwilling to back this promise up, is morally repugnant.
If government, even democratically, wishes to limit my behaviour to avoid its responsibilities of providing healthcare for mel, I would like my tax dollars back and be free to find willing insurance and medical partners to negotiate my own healthcare with.
And in the example of a bar on private property given, the decision to enter the bar and be exposed to second hand smoke is a voluntary one which that libertarian bar goer can pay the cost of themselves.
It is not a libertarian constitution, its for the country. Do you think that the US constitution is a libertarian constitution or simply the constitution of the country? Which one? Your reply is getting stranger and stranger.
Again, your premise that rights is determined by community of political structure is simply whimsical. You’ve encountered a contradiction there Mike. Try again.
One possible reason could be that DPF isn’t using the WP plugin W3 Cache. It’s designed primarily to stop the site refreshing every single element on the web page and just loads the unique content of each page. Everything looks as it should, just much, much quicker.
Mill considered rent an economic charge which was detrimental both to his philosophy of individualism and to the economic process of distribution, for it secured to individuals a return for which they had performed no- labor. The main contention of individualism was that each man should enjoy the benefits of his own production. Rent nullified this aim. Mill held that this extra payment for the use of land was the result of the increasing density of population and should be returned to the state, through a tax upon rent, which would increase as the increase in population further raised the level of rent. Furthermore, Mill took exception ta inheritance because it allowed persons to possess wealth which they had not produced. Mill defended the right of an owner to dispose of his property as he wished. This was merely the right of free people under a rule of individualism. Nevertheless, he held that this right no longer existed at death. He therefore suggested a limitation upon the amount which anyone might inherit. Instead of the state’s curtailing the right of a person to dispose of his property as he saw fit, the state” merely restricted the right of one to receive as a free gift more than a certain sum. http://www.economictheories.org/2008/11/land-taxes-and-john-stuart-mill.html
Well, if we banned everything that may injure us, then quite possibly we will live a long boring life and die miserable. But of course we won’t. We will continue to take risks, push the boundaries, and punish our bodies along the way. We will eat and drink substances that can kill us, but still we will do it.
Human nature is irrepressible.
I am having a bit of trouble discerning the argument you want to present. Maybe I should ask you – who decides whatrights are included in the constitution?
Inheritance taxes, however they are disguised, are vile. If a person is not allowed to receive a gift over a certain amount, why is the alternative recipient entitled to receive it?
The new anti-MMP lobby group, Vote for Change, does not deserve to be taken seriously until it answers this question: change to what, exactly?
It has predictably seized on those aspects of MMP which really annoy the public – most notably MPs who lose their constituency seats being “sneaked” back into Parliament via their party list. This is a myth in terms of numbers. There was just one case of that happening at the last election.
That surprises me, people talk like all list MPs don’t deserve to be there.
There’s also a perception of the list being used for nods to mates and special interest groups, but weak looking lists are probably more a symptom of the difficulty in attracting strong candidates to a party system.
I’ve said before, I think the list should be to cream of party talent.
Vote for Change also argues MMP “doesn’t offer enough accountability”.
That’s a potential problem with any voting system. It’s up to us the voting public to make sure we hold our MPs accountable. That’s what yourdunedin.org is for, get one going in your area or electorate. Assistance happily provided.
By and large, Labour these days is comfortable with MMP. National is not. A truly proportional system combined with a Labour-aligned fast expanding Maori and Pacific Island population spells bad news for National.
Vote for Change looks very much like the National Party Preservation Society in drag.
That’s an odd comment to make about a party that’s polling around 50%, up to nearly twice as much as it’s nearest competitor.
………..Pete George @ 12.56
Good to hear some factual background … eg “only one case of it happening on the last election” I didn’t know that before and it’s useful to know. Thanks.
The argument that the wrong people (eg ex constituency MPs) are on the lists is a little weak anyway. There is no problem with unattractive lists — as the solution to seeing a list you don’t like is……… Don’t vote for that list !!!
Additionally all votes I have ever made included some compromise. Lists or individuals you might decide to vote for will have a flaw you can see. If you thought your preferred candidate was perfect in every way, you will be wrong.
Love this, kind of resonates with NZ Labour:
“LIVE exports of Labor MPs from parliaments across Australia have been suspended following reports that some of the MPs are conscious before being politically slaughtered.”
I do not accept that Wishart asked questions not previously asked. That is his own ego trip.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
errr……. so YOU have actually read Ian Wishart’s book ‘Breaking the Silence’ – so you KNOW ‘Nookin’ that Wishart has NOT ‘asked questions not previously asked’?
ummmm….. how CLEVER are you?
Got ‘ESP’ have you ‘Nookin’?
You must have when apparently YOU don’t need to ‘seek truth from FACTS’ – you somehow just KNOW these things?
You wouldn’t make a hair on a real lawyer’s ass ‘Nookin’.
(Sorry – just had an ex-boilermaker/engineering workshop moment
I do enjoy the argument put forward by those who do not use tobacco, if you smoke you will die, if you are a boring fucking Mormon who has not had sex outside of marriage, does not drink booze or coffee, you will live until you die of fucking boredom without ever getting a blow job on the way.
I like that Sydney bar owners approach, he has a pleasant outdoor area which is for smokers only, do not smoke do not enter, and that applies to non smoking wives.
What the hell has Perigo done to himself, first time I noticed him in fifteen years, jesus what a fat slob he is.
Christ if he needs to get peoples attention all he needs to do is shake his jowls at them.
Didn’t Mikenmild say that any notion of constitution or rights is an arbitrary construct, as is any other societal model you choose to propose. What point are YOU trying to make?
Mike said… who decides what rights are included in the constitution?
You’re asking a questions about rights which is something you haven’t established/defined. Your attempt to define it at your previous messages lead to contradictions. You said that it is just upto those in Parliament (representatives) to decide/define what rights is. The danger here is its arbitrariness. Rights must be based on objective philosophy which cannot allow itself to being attack by whims of politicians (those who you say, that are responsible for defining rights). A previous National government banned smoking in bars as somehow, the potential customers or employees have some rights to clean air on someone else’s property. If you want clean air, stay the fuck out of smoking bars, since you’ve spent zero cent in setting that bar. All the expenses that went into setting up the bar was from the pocket of the owner himself. If he wants it as a smokefree bar, that’s his choice since it is his property .The market will decide and not politician if that bar will be a success or not.
Ok, Mike, do you think that getting access to the internet is a human right? If not, then why not? You know that the UN & Labour Party have recently spouting that bullshit around. According to your logic, it must be a YES, that it is a human right. If you think that it is a human right, then you’re clearly confused. WHY? Anything can be deemed a right to you as long as your so called representatives in Parliament think they are. In that case, you’re an agent in a society that simply playing along to a children Simon says game. Your representatives (Simon) says ‘jump in the air’ then the Mikenmild of this world simply follows/obeys. Simon says ‘stick out your tongue’ then the Mikenmild of this world simply follows/obeys without any resistance. You’re simply an obedient agent in a society that plays children Simon says game.
Milktoast? Trying to drive a wedge between libertarian-leaning rightists and the red meat law and order crowd? You should work for the SIS.
I see that facebook comments between university students is a front page piece in Stuff today.
What riveting journalism.
When you consider the sort of subcretin who usually dominates AUSA like Tania Lim and the kind of career they embark on when they crowbar themselves out of the tertiary sector (politics, do-goodery or journalism), it’s no surprise their friends in the media indulge in a bit of backscratching. “Give us a juicy story to throw on someone no one’s heard of who’s in a youth party in an election year and we’ll give you a junior tea maker job in a few months.”
Now you decided not to answer my question, but make a whole lot of assumptions about what your presume are my beliefs.
Can I presume that you believe humans have some rights? How were they determined? Were they granted to us by a creator? Handed down by a philosopher-king? Agreed by an assembly of the people?
“Presenting the report, the secretary of state for the environment, Caroline Spelman, said that higher temperatures can reduce the range of wireless communications”
Mikemild said… but make a whole lot of assumptions about what your presume are my beliefs.
Ok, Mike I don’t read your mind. Here is what you said in your post above… s a good example of government intervention on behalf of citizens.
That’s what you endorsed. If that is not synonymous with Children’s Simon Says Game, then I don’t know what is.
Mike asked… How were they determined?
It should be determined by our very (human) nature. How about you start with this, then follow on to here. Now, I want you to dig hard there and see if you can find any self-contradiction? I bet you that you won’t find one. If you have a system where its axioms don’t lead to contradiction, then that is the best that can be adopted compared to the alternative. You can’t do any better than that.
mikenmild: there is much wrong with that statement as any knowledgeable engineer in the field of wireless communications will attest to. It’s complete bullshit.
Can I start with the first link from your last comment? Pleasecorrect me if I have anythiung wrong. Humans have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What process gets us to these rights and who defines them? I mentioned the death penalty earlier. Is the death penalty always bad becasue it takes away the right to life? Who adjuduicates the hard questions?
no mikenmild, it doesn’t. Not directly on the RF propagation anyway. Increased humidity could have an affect, as could the equipment overheating, but the actual RF signal is not affected within imaginable temperature variations (e.g. Humans would die of the heat before the signal would degrade).
So today 300 serving military personnel were made redundant, with scarcely a peep. Contrast that to the outcry from teachers who when they were told they would not be getting the pay rise they hoped for.
Maybe we should retrain these 300 ex military personnel to be teachers?
Your haemorrhoids acting up today are they, Penny? Have you got nothing else to contribute to the world apart from gratuitous abuse?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
That the best you can do ‘Nookin’?
The (female) ex-boilermaker kicks your butt AGAIN and you just CAN’T take it?
So today 300 serving military personnel were made redundant, with scarcely a peep. Contrast that to the outcry from teachers who when they were told they would not be getting the pay rise they hoped for.
Maybe we should retrain these 300 ex military personnel to be teachers?
Perhaps one or two of them could become union organisers.
Humans have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
None of those things are a right. We have the right to survive as best we can before we die.
So today 300 serving military personnel were made redundant, with scarcely a peep. Contrast that to the outcry from teachers who when they were told they would not be getting the pay rise they hoped for.
Military personnel are trained to follow orders.
Teachers train by giving orders.
Yeah Kiwiblog slow to load today. I’m on satellite and the dish could just about be used for a radar today, moves heaps in a strong wind, thought that might be the problem. Some pages won’t load.
Mike said… Humans have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What process gets us to these rights and who defines them? I mentioned the death penalty earlier.
There’s only 2 choices. To live or die. To live, then in itself must be the standard, unless you want to commit suicide which there is no standard there.
Mike said… Is the death penalty always bad because it takes away the right to life? Who adjudicates the hard questions?
So, the person receiving the death penalty is just put to death for no reason? Read on.
I occasionally use my cellphone to scan Kiwiblog threads – nothing fucks me off more than having to scroll past longwinded comments from loathsome commentators. I also don’t use Firefox so don’t have RIP functionality when using the home computer.
Yesterday, perhaps with commentators like me in mind, Reid asked one commentator in particular to modify her commenting style. Her response was to claim freedom of speech privileges.
However, DPF has previously told her to make her comments short and snappy. See here for further details:
[DPF: Penny please don't post entire articles here. It is firstly a breach of copyright, but comments should be relatively succinct. In future I suggest you post a link and just extract a couple of paragraphs which you feel are most pertinent to making your point]
So we have a death penalty; that must be applied only proportionately. That implies only in cases of murder. Is death a justifiable penalty for other crimes? Is abortion premeditated murder? Is suicide equivalent to murder? I don’t raise these questions for specious reasons. Rules to govern these circumstances, and the establishment of a court and its rules to adjudicate on those case, must be established. That brings me back to the question of who sets those rules?
Nostradamus
Thanks for that link. I knew DPF had fired a warning shot to no apparent avail but could not find the particular comment. Penny, of course is answerable only to those rules in which she believes.
A woman dies and goes to Heaven. While waiting in line, she hears this terrible screaming and moaning. This disturbs her somewhat, so she tracks down St. Peter to find out what is going on.
“Oh that” he says, “that’s just the woman in front of you. They are drilling holes in her back to attach her wings.”
The woman is still a bit upset by this and is pondering her position when the screaming starts again. This time it was louder and more blood curdling than before. She calls St. Peter again to find out what is happening to the woman now.
“Oh that” he says, “they’re just drilling holes in her head to attach the halo.”
The woman decides that she wants out and tells St. Peter that she has changed her mind and wants to be sent to Hell.
“Are you sure you want to go there?” he says. “It’s a terrible place, you’ll end up getting sodomized and raped and even worse.”
“That’s okay” says the woman, “I already have the holes for that.”
Mike said… That brings me back to the question of who sets those rules?
I thought Peter Creswell’s short article I have pointed you out to explains it all. Our nature should define it which is objective. That eliminates subjectivity. .Don’t leave it to opinions of those who think they know, because as I’ve stated above, they’re open to attack by mob rule mentality. I’m surprised that you’re unwilling to learn or read the link above on the importance of philosophy because it avoids myself having to drip feed you with specific relevant links to that website. Read that website in its entirety then from there you can start to see logic & reason. You can clearly see which bits describe which concepts in the importance of philosophy website. The paper on gender wage gap that I cited you on the other thread yesterday on Al Thomson, is a much harder read (as you pointed out) because of the differential calculus equations involved in model derivations presented in the paper. However, the philosophy website that i’ve linked to (above), is easy reading and very straight forward even though it is philosophically rich. Invest time to read or study it.
The rules are set by our identity/ies. Everything that exist has identities (including humans), and anything that doesn’t have identity, can’t exist. You can pretty much see that universality follows naturally and such objective rules (based on our identity/ies) works the same everywhere, independent if you’re fat, ugly, white, black, yellow, brown, female, male, etc,…. There is no need for anyone setting the rules. It is similar to laws of physics, where those laws are being observed to hold true irrelevant whether you’re an atheist, christian, muslim, tongan, kiwi, aussie, etc… There is universality there. The laws of physics sets the rules for us to conform to because reality is absolute. As it says on that link (which I’ve pasted), reality is not subject to wishes, whims, prayers, or miracles. If you want to change the world, you must act according to reality. Nothing else will affect reality. If you evade this fact, your actions will most likely not have their desired effects. Your failure will be metaphysical justice.
I know that you’re fixated with who sets the rules. Well the bloody rules is right there in front or us. It is our Identity (which I’ve described above).
A girl came skipping home from school one day. “Mommy, Mommy,” she yelled “we were counting today and all the other kids could only count to 4, but I counted to 10.
See? 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10!
“Very good,” said her Mother.
“Is it because I’m blonde?”
“Yes, it’s because your blonde,” said the Mommy.
The next day the girl came skipping home from school. “Mommy, Mommy,” she yelled, “we were saying the alphabet today and all the other kids could only say it to D, but I said it to G.
See? A,B,C,D,E,F,G!”
“Very Good,” said her Mother.
“Is it because I’m blonde, Mommy?”
“Yes it’s because your blond!”
The following day the girl came skipping home from school. “Mommy, Mommy,” she yelled, “we were in Gym class today, and when we showered all the other girls had flat chests, but I have these!”
She lifted her tank top to reveal a pair of 36C’s.
How many deserving people have you, Vince and your buddies forced to take a backseat and wait while you clog up our justice system and leech the resources the collective taxpayers are funding – all for the sake of your own egos?
Or have you all come to your senses and stopped your frivolous appeals?
I’m kind of cottoning on to this metaphysical stuff. I like to look at specific examples though. So back to the death penalty. You maintain, I gather, that there is a right to life (among other rights) that is a universal rule set by one’s identity as a human being. Under what circumstances can that right be curtailed? It may be that taking life in some circumstances is justified and in others it is not. What, or who, decides when it is justified to kill and when it is not? Again, to go to specific examples, how do we justify capital punishment (and for which crimes) or abortion?
A woman called up a doctor’s office and said to the nurse,
“I’m missing my panties. I just wonder if I left them in the
dressing room.”
The nurse said she’d look, but came back and said,
“I’m sorry, madam, but your panties are not here.”
“Oh well then, never mind,” answered the woman.
“I must have left them at the dentist’s.”
Doctor Dave had slept with one of his patients and felt guilty all day long.
No matter how much he tried to forget about it, he couldn’t.
The guilt and sense of betrayal was overwhelming. But every
once in a while he’d hear an internal, reassuring voice in his head that
said: “Dave, don’t worry about it. You’re not the first medical practitioner to sleep
with one of their patients and you won’t be the last. And you’re single. Just let it go..”
But then another voice in his head would bring him back to reality, whispering:……
You’re a vet, you sick bastard..
I don’t think her ladyship has been in court for a while. The withdrawal symptons are really evident today — sarcasm, ridicule, extravagant language — you name it, she is afflicted. She is currently on the Wishart/King hobbyhorse and is salivating at the thought that all will be revealed — the true killer and the fact that Macsyna should absolved of all blame and accountability and is really a mum to be treasured.
A man walks into the toy store to get a Barbie doll for his daughter. So he asks the assistant, as you would, “How much is Barbie?”
“Well,” she says, “we have Barbie Goes to the Gym for $19.95, Barbie Goes to the Ball for $19.95, Barbie Goes Shopping for $19.95, Barbie Goes to the Beach for $19.95, Barbie Goes Nightclubbing for $19.95, and Divorced Barbie for $265.00.”
“Hey, hang on,” the guy asks, “why is Divorced Barbie $265.00 when all the others are only $19.95?”
“Yeah, well, it’s like this….Divorced Barbie comes with Ken’s house, Ken’s car, Ken’s boat, Ken’s furniture…”
Israel spends 4.7 percent of its total GDP on scientific research, which is the highest in the world. However, Arab states are spending 0.2 percent of their total incomes and Asian Arab countries around 0.5 percent of their incomes on research, said
the report.
June 29th, 2011 at 8:02 am
Ian Wishart, on BREAKFAST this morning, gave quite reasonable and logical answers to questions about his book, suggesting it backgrounds how the family became so dysfunctional and also indicates where blame may lie. He says Macsyna approached him after the release of his Crewe Murder book.
New information? – Wishart says he has asked questions the police and lawyers didn’t.
One could also wonder ‘If the father has already been tried and found Not Guilty, what a fucking great embarrassment it could be if new evidence implicates him.’
That Penny Bright should yesterday stir up immense dislike on General Debate by her discovering this a “freedom of expression” issue has not helped, along with her double spacing [inconsiderate moron, as is anyone else who does that] and over-full references in quoting others. She is a standard textbook psychiatric case who does need some sort of help, because she sure as hell can’t see it herself [a typical symptom], but should kiwibloggers throw the book out with the Penny bathwater [sorry image]
A book is just a book. Buy it or not.
It could actually contain some answers.
Who else has talked to Macsyna to a supposed serious degree?
But then it may be the account of a killer mother recorded by a “Christian” fundamentalist author who is yet another conspiracy nut-case, but are we still into libricide.
The libraries of Alexandria, Baghdad to Sarajevo, the Qin Dynasty, Aztec codices, the Nazis and Pinochet to the Qu’ran – I guess book burning has a glowing history
Nookin – “These people take the view that the poor old taxpayer has spent megabucks to find out why two innocent babies were brutalised and killed and so, maybe, they should not have to pay any more to learn a truth that should have been public before now.
That the initial fuck–up by the police in this case [notably the first big hesitant moves Broad made in his 'cultural sensitivity'] wasted time and gave people scope to prepare the silent blockade, and costing megabucks, IS partly why the book now exists.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 8:13 am
Some of the small parties try to attract attention with sensation, aggressive tactics or impossible to achieve policies. Amongst all the political hubris there are quiet achievers that work away under the radar.
Is there a United Future?
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 8:14 am
I did not have much interest in the Alasdair Thompson saga after concluding early on that he was a moronic cock who lacked the information, persuasive ability, and media skills that would normally be expected of a media representative.
However, I noted a lot of the arguments about the various factors causing the male-female pay gap and while I think that the primary driver is the larger proportion of women doing lower-paid jobs, I was also interested by some of the lessor factors – including the possibility that woman don’t negotiate as well as men?
I put a question mark on that because it just does not seem possible in 2011 that this could be the case – Grrrl Power and all that. However, in looking at this link on How To Fail At a Job Interview, I came across this:
Amazing. I wonder whether that’s also the case in NZ?
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 8:20 am
So, it is the fault of the police that we have to pay extra to learn facts that those possessing them refused to divulge at a time when they could be accountable? You maybe right about cause and effect. I hope you are not attributing blame, however. Blame is on King and the tight 12.
Vote:I do not accept that Wishart asked questions not previously asked. That is his own ego trip.
June 29th, 2011 at 8:22 am
I see that facebook comments between university students is a front page piece in Stuff today.
What riveting journalism.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 8:25 am
Please – could someone explain why WhaleOil/Gotcha can be accessed and downloaded on to your screen in a fraction of the time it takes to access KiwiBlog? It’s just as slow to move back and forth between blog-items and comments.
I’ve noticed the situation has been worsening gradually and my 2Gb of RAM just isn’t hacking it.
Is it the adverts – is the site carrying too many unnecessary items – or is it just me?
Whatever, it’d be great if it could be addressed before it gets much worse.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 8:37 am
Positan – kiwiblog’s ads take up the time, you will note the delay is while the outside frames of the screen are filling up.
The ads can be disabled by using, for example the FireFox addon Adblock Plus but then the site loses its formatting and all the pictures. There’s bound to be a better way to disable the ads, but I haven’t bothered to look for it.
Also whaleoil is a bit of a geek, he may use faster servers.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 8:38 am
Revenge is sweet; Cactus Kate hands Bomber Bradbury his arse on a plate, and without the kind of nastiness that he displayed:
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2011/06/revenge-of-cactus.html
I daresay that there are going to be a few MP’s who like to dish shit out that won’t be looking forward to having to debate with an intelligent, articulate Cactus should she get elected.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 8:38 am
Cactus Kate 12 – Bumbler Bradbury Nil. http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2011/06/revenge-of-cactus.html?spref=fb
Actually it was kind of like a lions/christians game really.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 8:38 am
Positan,
Vote:Its probably Penny Bright’s long rants and double spacing which are slowing down the system.
If she had any sense of decorum and consideration to others, she would take the hint and make her points brief with links for anyone out there who is actually interested in her moronic ramblings.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Meant in the nicest possible way.
June 29th, 2011 at 8:43 am
See:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/travel/news/article.cfm?c_id=7&objectid=10735146
He had no excuse – Jetstar has not installed pay toilets – yet.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 8:43 am
Tom Hunter 8:14
Thanks for the link, has been sent to the daughters. Who won’t listen to their mother when she tells them to act like a guy in negotiations – I was lucky enough to have a bloke tell me how to negotiate salary when I was in my early 20′s, and it stood me in good stead.
Even so, a lot of male employers don’t like it, they look at you like you smell bad if you try to negotiate a higher starting salary. The bottom line is that you don’t want to work for those employers anyway.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 8:44 am
I do not accept that Wishart asked questions not previously asked. That is his own ego trip.
OK, if he is not making much more than a meagre wage out of it, ego may obviously be his thing. Why does Brite post anything?
Wishart’s comment on BREAKFAST was to the effect that Macsyna said You are the first person to ask me that.
He says in Court you can’t volunteer information in response to other questions, which may be a crock, but I am sure reading the book will answer that.
Someone might, even Howard.
I guess the library will get a copy in due course, unless some mad bugger burns it down.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 8:58 am
Alright – New Nukes Coming Online To More Than Double
The article notes the usual decision lag-time involved here, so a Fukushima effect (e.g. Germany) may still hit. However, I think that sort of short-term reaction is nowhere near as powerful as the 1980′s anti-nuclear movement was, and judging by the actions of places like Sweden and Finland, that movement is dead.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 9:02 am
Stealth particles deliver anti-cancer drugs
I hope that there will be some similar stealth particles in the future that deliver pro-right-wing philosophies via some drink mix into the cancerous brains of Harawira, all Green MPs, all Labour MPs and most of National MPs (except a few there who are truly right-wing). After they consume such drink mix, they are then expected to become pro-freedom (with personal responsibility is paramount) and anti-state interference in the private lives of the population.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 9:04 am
“Why does Brite post anything?”
I have my theories and have mentioned them. Anything more will require a doctorate in phsychology.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 9:06 am
Phillip Morris needs to make up it’s mind. Either the ban on clear cigarrette labeling is ineffective – or will cost it millions. Which is it ?? They say
……. “We estimate the damage will potentially amount to billions of Australian dollars,” a spokeswoman for Philip Morris Asia told Dow Jones Newswires. “Brands are valuable intellectual property and form the basis of consumer goods businesses like ours. If we are banned from using them, our business in Australia will become commoditised and its value will be significantly impacted”. “The Australian government does not have an unfettered right to confiscate [our] valuable intellectual property. Moreover, the government has failed to demonstrate that plain packaging will reduce smoking prevalence.”……….
Phillip Morris needs to make up it’s mind.
“If no mutually agreeable solution is found, then it proceeds to us seeking compensation. We estimate the damage will potentially amount to billions of Australian dollars,” a spokeswoman for Philip Morris Asia told Dow Jones Newswires.
“Brands are valuable intellectual property and form the basis of consumer goods businesses like ours. If we are banned from using them, our business in Australia will become commoditised and its value will be significantly impacted.
“The Australian government does not have an unfettered right to confiscate [our] valuable intellectual property. Moreover, the government has failed to demonstrate that plain packaging will reduce smoking prevalence.”
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 9:10 am
Student twitter exchanges and John Key air force flights be damned.
This is the real story.
DOC, Wellington Zoo, Wellington Hospital, Massey University, our Antarctic Science Manager, Gareth Morgan and now even Te Papa are all rallying around Happy Feet.
So where the hell is MAF, Forest & Bird and the SPCA? What are the affected Iwi doing about this and who are they anyway?Moreover, why has the guvmint not reacted to set up a Ministery of Penguin Affairs? Where is the summit, the Royal Commission?
Hang your heads in shame.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 9:16 am
KH said…
Phillip Morris needs to make up it’s mind
Can you tell me, what rights violation that Phillip Morris had done to smokers? Honest answer please. Who gives the government the rights to dictate to a private company? The primary role of the government is to protect its citizens’ rights and not violate them. To me, the government violates Phillip Morris rights to sell its products to the public by dictating to them of what they can or can’t do.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 9:24 am
“What are the affected Iwi doing about this and who are they anyway?”
Vote:I think that Iwi are helping Happy Feet establish a left wing blog. It’s what penguins do best.
June 29th, 2011 at 9:26 am
Tobacco regulation, like any form of regulation, aims to strike a balance between a merchant’s right to sell a product, however harmful, and the consumer’s right to mitigation of some of the worst effects. The government is forced to expend resources to deal with the effects of tobacco-related harm. It seeks to reduce that cost by regulating the harmful product through a combination of restrictions on tobacco sales and advertising, tax, and information campaigns.
Apart from far-out libertarians, most people would see tobacco as a good example of government intervention on behalf of citizens.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 9:27 am
@KH – I don’t actually see a contradiction in what Phillip Morris are saying. It’s consistent with the line that the tobacco companies have always run, that their advertising is to compete and differentiate with other brands, not to sell it to non-smokers.
Phillip Morris are arguing that they’ll lose market share because they will be unable to differentiate their brands from anyone else’s product – something that is independent of whether the graphic packaging the Aussies want to bring in will work to cut smoking rates.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 9:35 am
Mike said…
Tobacco regulation, like any form of regulation, aims to strike a balance between a merchant’s right to sell a product, however harmful, and the consumer’s right to mitigation of some of the worst effects.
#1) Mike what is rights?
You said…
#2) A right to sell?
Please elaborate. What is your definition of the right to sell based on your answer from #1). Warning here. Try to answer without self-contradiction. See if you can avoid that.
If you encounter a contradiction in your answers above, then you know that your way of thinking is twisted.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 9:36 am
People often argue that a government is not the same as a business or an individual when it comes to spending, and there is a certain amount of truth to that. Governments can usually borrow money at lower interest rates and if push comes to shove they can just print the stuff as well.
However, there are bounds on such theories, as there are on all such economic ideas. Greece and a few other European countries are finding that out – and the USA will shortly:
No doubt the usual suspects will scream – as they are doing here – that “taxing the rich” will solve the problems. Unfortunately for the Left the situation has gone far beyond that:
NZ still has low government debt. But we have huge private debts, mostly to foreign lenders, so the question is how far short of these scenarios are we?
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 9:41 am
Mike said…
as a good example of government intervention on behalf of citizens.
I don’t like fat people and I think the majority of the populations do too. Can we get the government to intervene here to legislate all the known causes that lead to being fat. All rump Stakes from the butcher must be all lean. Chicken in the supermarkets must be sold skinless (the skin is where the fat is), blah, blah, blah. Where do you end?
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 9:51 am
Consider me a far-out libertarian.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 9:56 am
You can consider me a far our libertarian as well.
I hate smoking but its none of my business that you choose to consume the product provided by the tobacco companies.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 10:03 am
Falafulu
I’m quite happy to talk about rights. I’ll try not to get my logic twisted. I’ll keep on tobacco as an example, if I may. While I personally have nothing against fat people; that’s another are that is subject to a degree of government intervention.
Rights are a human construct, dependant upon subjective and changing criteria. Humans tend to make use of collective mechanisms, called governments, to define and redefine rights and provide a mechanism for resolving conflicts between conflicting rights.
In the case of tobacco, people, through their government, have accepted that the ‘right’ to sell a harmful product should be mitigated in the interests of public health and public expenditure. While some might take the view that any restriction on a product is an infringement of an inherent right to trade freely, I would argue that so such untrammelled right exists, has existed, or will exist in the future.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 10:05 am
same…mind you I dont (usually) drop my guts within a crowd of people ( unless its in a bar and I can get away with it ) but I do object to passive smoking..same sort of deal aint it? Dont exhale your vile substance because I end up inhaling it…dont fart around others as you ingest their gas?
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 10:06 am
There should be no tax on tobacco, and no regulation other than the standard disclaimer on a packet that if you smoke too much you’ll probably get emphysema or lung cancer. But even that’s probably not necessary, since any fool knows that these days. Manufacturers would probably put it on of their own free will to protect themselves from being sued.
Plain packet cigarettes almost guarantees a black market will spring up. There is already one now as it is.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 10:06 am
Ok Mike, lets test your logic.
You said…
Rights are a human construct, dependant upon subjective and changing criteria.
Ok, lets start. If it is subjective as you said, then who decides those criteria?
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 10:07 am
starboard
The passive smoking thing is a bit different. Libertarians would argue that it’s not the state’s role to say whether you can smoke on private property (a bar) and it’s up to you to choose whether you want to be there.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 10:08 am
Surely everyone must accept some state intervention with things like tobacco, or are there people who would be happy for tobacco companies – or pushers- to dish out freebies outside school gates to try and addict a few new customers?
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 10:08 am
Falafulu
Those criteria get determined collectively, according to the political structure of the commnuity.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 10:10 am
Pete
A libertarian would be happy for heroin to be on sale at the school gate.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 10:12 am
Mike said…
Those criteria get determined collectively, according to the political structure of the commnuity.
Stop weaseling & evading. Answer the question I posed to you above. Who decides those criteria? Give a specific example.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 10:14 am
Falafulu
I’m not trying to weasel. Let’s talk about the right to life, if you like. I presume you would accept that as a fundamental. Yet many communities abridge that right, most obviously through imposing a death penalty (which NZ should have BTW).
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 10:19 am
Mike, FFS. I thought you want a debate.
Can you answer the question please? Aren’t you afraid to give an answer, because you know that I’m gonna nail you there? You definitely know that you are going to encounter a contradiction there with my line of questioning (in a series of logical steps).
Again, who decides those criteria?
As I said to you above, if you enter a self-contradiction, then you must realized that your logic is twisted.
I’m awaiting.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 10:22 am
“Libertarians would argue that it’s not the state’s role to say whether you can smoke on private property (a bar) and it’s up to you to choose whether you want to be there.”
Is it the role of the State to fund health care necessitated by conscious choice to engage in a health-risk activity? If being a libertarian involves additional cost, should that cost be born by the liberterian or involuntarily inflicted on everyone?
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 10:23 am
He did answer the question, you just don’t like the answer.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 10:28 am
It is troublesome when people say, “If X is subjective, who decides what it will be?!”
Taste in music is subjective, but no one’s asking who’s in charge of what sounds good or bad.
Taste in food is subjective, but no one’s asking who’s in charge of what tastes good or bad.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 10:45 am
Falafulu
‘Again, who decides those criteria?’ Parliament, as respresentatives of the people in our society. That’s just another way of saying ‘determined collectively, according to the political structure of the community’. Don’t think I can be plainer than that.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 10:48 am
Talking about deciding criteria, I know people who have blogs make their own criteria, they can do what they like. And I know I test boundaries at times (that happens when one sits on the fence).
DPF has very a liberal moderation policy (and practice).
The Standard is very touchy about some things but at least keeps reminding people of their policy and hands out plenty of explicit warnings – most of the time.
Dim-Post can be interesting. There’s no obvious moderation policy, but I’ve noticed that some posts just “disappear”. Danyl’s choice how it’s done and what he finds acceptable, but it seems a bit intransparent.
The Standard is very open about it’s “behaviour modification”. It can be difficult to judge how much “message modification” goes on when it’s done by stealth.
I think if blogs want to be out there as seemingly open forums they should be open about how they are moderated. Maybe I just missed the message somewhere.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 10:50 am
Ryan said..
Taste in music is subjective, but no one’s asking who’s in charge of what sounds good or bad.
Correct. That sort of subjectivity is self-organized. There is no central authority to direct the all the units in that system to conform to a single taste in music. The different tastes adopted by different units in that system are simply emergent behavior of the system itself.
The subjective that Mike is referring to is the subjective views of the few who are in power. The danger here, is those few can decide anything at will. The individuals in the system will have no say at all. Look no further than Mugabe. He singlehandedly decided that white farmers don’t really own their land and they ought to be confiscated and returns to Blacks with no compensations at all. We have Sue Bradford’s Bill as a local example here. The few in power decided it for all of us, even though a high percentage of the population disagreed.
How about read Not PCs take on Vote for “change”?
I think that’s the best system to adopt, since it puts freedoms beyond the voting public altogether.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 10:58 am
re Annie
Thanks for your input – I figured as much.
re Megatron
It’d be impossible not to have some sympathy for your viewpoint.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 11:01 am
Mike said…
‘Again, who decides those criteria?’ Parliament, as respresentatives of the people in our society.
Those representatives don’t really represent the views of the people do they? Eg, Sue Bradford’s Bill.
Can you see this as contradiction or not? If not why not? If you don’t see it as contradiction then explain why? Are you advocating for a system that you can represent the views of the people sometimes and dismiss them at other times? Again, the example is Sue Bradford’s Bill. Do you like that? I think that Mugabe is doing exactly the same thing, but I’m sure that you don’t like what Mugabe is doing, do you?
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 11:02 am
A great short video on economic freedom and quality of life.
Vote:
June 29th, 2011 at 11:03 am
Falafulu
Who decides on the rights to be included or excluded in the libertarian constitution?
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 11:10 am
The nationalisation of health care does not give government a moral right to dictate lifestyles. They have made a promise to provide healthcare for all, limiting citizens behaviour because they are unwilling to back this promise up, is morally repugnant.
If government, even democratically, wishes to limit my behaviour to avoid its responsibilities of providing healthcare for mel, I would like my tax dollars back and be free to find willing insurance and medical partners to negotiate my own healthcare with.
And in the example of a bar on private property given, the decision to enter the bar and be exposed to second hand smoke is a voluntary one which that libertarian bar goer can pay the cost of themselves.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 11:14 am
Mike, are you trolling or engaging in a debate?
Why are you evading?
You said…
libertarian constitution
It is not a libertarian constitution, its for the country. Do you think that the US constitution is a libertarian constitution or simply the constitution of the country? Which one? Your reply is getting stranger and stranger.
Again, your premise that rights is determined by community of political structure is simply whimsical. You’ve encountered a contradiction there Mike. Try again.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 11:22 am
@ Positan
One possible reason could be that DPF isn’t using the WP plugin W3 Cache. It’s designed primarily to stop the site refreshing every single element on the web page and just loads the unique content of each page. Everything looks as it should, just much, much quicker.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 11:30 am
Mill considered rent an economic charge which was detrimental both to his philosophy of individualism and to the economic process of distribution, for it secured to individuals a return for which they had performed no- labor. The main contention of individualism was that each man should enjoy the benefits of his own production. Rent nullified this aim. Mill held that this extra payment for the use of land was the result of the increasing density of population and should be returned to the state, through a tax upon rent, which would increase as the increase in population further raised the level of rent. Furthermore, Mill took exception ta inheritance because it allowed persons to possess wealth which they had not produced. Mill defended the right of an owner to dispose of his property as he wished. This was merely the right of free people under a rule of individualism. Nevertheless, he held that this right no longer existed at death. He therefore suggested a limitation upon the amount which anyone might inherit. Instead of the state’s curtailing the right of a person to dispose of his property as he saw fit, the state” merely restricted the right of one to receive as a free gift more than a certain sum.
Vote:http://www.economictheories.org/2008/11/land-taxes-and-john-stuart-mill.html
June 29th, 2011 at 11:42 am
Well, if we banned everything that may injure us, then quite possibly we will live a long boring life and die miserable. But of course we won’t. We will continue to take risks, push the boundaries, and punish our bodies along the way. We will eat and drink substances that can kill us, but still we will do it.
Vote:Human nature is irrepressible.
June 29th, 2011 at 12:19 pm
Falafulu
I am having a bit of trouble discerning the argument you want to present. Maybe I should ask you – who decides whatrights are included in the constitution?
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 12:45 pm
Hj,
Inheritance taxes, however they are disguised, are vile. If a person is not allowed to receive a gift over a certain amount, why is the alternative recipient entitled to receive it?
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 12:56 pm
John Armstrong with an interesting fact on anti-MMP:
That surprises me, people talk like all list MPs don’t deserve to be there.
There’s also a perception of the list being used for nods to mates and special interest groups, but weak looking lists are probably more a symptom of the difficulty in attracting strong candidates to a party system.
I’ve said before, I think the list should be to cream of party talent.
That’s a potential problem with any voting system. It’s up to us the voting public to make sure we hold our MPs accountable. That’s what yourdunedin.org is for, get one going in your area or electorate. Assistance happily provided.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 1:04 pm
Armstrong closes with:
That’s an odd comment to make about a party that’s polling around 50%, up to nearly twice as much as it’s nearest competitor.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 1:11 pm
………..Pete George @ 12.56
Vote:Good to hear some factual background … eg “only one case of it happening on the last election” I didn’t know that before and it’s useful to know. Thanks.
The argument that the wrong people (eg ex constituency MPs) are on the lists is a little weak anyway. There is no problem with unattractive lists — as the solution to seeing a list you don’t like is……… Don’t vote for that list !!!
Additionally all votes I have ever made included some compromise. Lists or individuals you might decide to vote for will have a flaw you can see. If you thought your preferred candidate was perfect in every way, you will be wrong.
June 29th, 2011 at 1:17 pm
Love this, kind of resonates with NZ Labour:
“LIVE exports of Labor MPs from parliaments across Australia have been suspended following reports that some of the MPs are conscious before being politically slaughtered.”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/labor-mps-are-like-pigs-to-the-slaughter/story-e6frg71o-1226083683588
h/t Andrew Bolt http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 1:27 pm
Nookin (960) Says:
June 29th, 2011 at 8:20 am
I do not accept that Wishart asked questions not previously asked. That is his own ego trip.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
errr……. so YOU have actually read Ian Wishart’s book ‘Breaking the Silence’ – so you KNOW ‘Nookin’ that Wishart has NOT ‘asked questions not previously asked’?
ummmm….. how CLEVER are you?
Got ‘ESP’ have you ‘Nookin’?
You must have when apparently YOU don’t need to ‘seek truth from FACTS’ – you somehow just KNOW these things?
You wouldn’t make a hair on a real lawyer’s ass ‘Nookin’.
(Sorry – just had an ex-boilermaker/engineering workshop moment
Kind regards
Penny Bright
Vote:http://waterpresure.wordpress.com
June 29th, 2011 at 1:40 pm
The kiwiblog website has been awfully slow to load recently. Up to 20 to 30 seconds at times.
I know it is kiwiblog problem because all my other sites load the same as usual.
Anyone noticed this?
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 1:42 pm
I do enjoy the argument put forward by those who do not use tobacco, if you smoke you will die, if you are a boring fucking Mormon who has not had sex outside of marriage, does not drink booze or coffee, you will live until you die of fucking boredom without ever getting a blow job on the way.
I like that Sydney bar owners approach, he has a pleasant outdoor area which is for smokers only, do not smoke do not enter, and that applies to non smoking wives.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 1:50 pm
What the hell has Perigo done to himself, first time I noticed him in fifteen years, jesus what a fat slob he is.
Vote:Christ if he needs to get peoples attention all he needs to do is shake his jowls at them.
June 29th, 2011 at 2:00 pm
Your haemorrhoids acting up today are they, Penny? Have you got nothing else to contribute to the world apart from gratuitous abuse?
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 2:17 pm
Falafulu Fisi (1,026) Says:
June 29th, 2011 at 11:14 am
Didn’t Mikenmild say that any notion of constitution or rights is an arbitrary construct, as is any other societal model you choose to propose. What point are YOU trying to make?
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 2:20 pm
Mike said…
who decides what rights are included in the constitution?
You’re asking a questions about rights which is something you haven’t established/defined. Your attempt to define it at your previous messages lead to contradictions. You said that it is just upto those in Parliament (representatives) to decide/define what rights is. The danger here is its arbitrariness. Rights must be based on objective philosophy which cannot allow itself to being attack by whims of politicians (those who you say, that are responsible for defining rights). A previous National government banned smoking in bars as somehow, the potential customers or employees have some rights to clean air on someone else’s property. If you want clean air, stay the fuck out of smoking bars, since you’ve spent zero cent in setting that bar. All the expenses that went into setting up the bar was from the pocket of the owner himself. If he wants it as a smokefree bar, that’s his choice since it is his property .The market will decide and not politician if that bar will be a success or not.
Ok, Mike, do you think that getting access to the internet is a human right? If not, then why not? You know that the UN & Labour Party have recently spouting that bullshit around. According to your logic, it must be a YES, that it is a human right. If you think that it is a human right, then you’re clearly confused. WHY? Anything can be deemed a right to you as long as your so called representatives in Parliament think they are. In that case, you’re an agent in a society that simply playing along to a children Simon says game. Your representatives (Simon) says ‘jump in the air’ then the Mikenmild of this world simply follows/obeys. Simon says ‘stick out your tongue’ then the Mikenmild of this world simply follows/obeys without any resistance. You’re simply an obedient agent in a society that plays children Simon says game.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 2:33 pm
The madman could be getting the axe: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/how-the-demise-of-a-trusted-adviser-could-bring-down-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-2303671.html
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 3:09 pm
Aagh! The stupid, it burns..
UK Govt to ‘invest’ 670k (UKP) to create ‘climate change resistant’ strawberries
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2009152/UK-Government-invests-670k-strawberries-resistant-climate-change.html
on top of this from May:
“Presenting the report, the secretary of state for the environment, Caroline Spelman, said that higher temperatures can reduce the range of wireless communications”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/09/climate-change-wi-fi-connections
Stupid stupid stupid.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 3:09 pm
Milktoast? Trying to drive a wedge between libertarian-leaning rightists and the red meat law and order crowd? You should work for the SIS.
When you consider the sort of subcretin who usually dominates AUSA like Tania Lim and the kind of career they embark on when they crowbar themselves out of the tertiary sector (politics, do-goodery or journalism), it’s no surprise their friends in the media indulge in a bit of backscratching. “Give us a juicy story to throw on someone no one’s heard of who’s in a youth party in an election year and we’ll give you a junior tea maker job in a few months.”
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 3:11 pm
“junion” Hurf? I like your Palinism.
edit, damn your edit, it was funny
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
Hey, that’s what it’s there for. Don’t hate the player, hate the game
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 3:33 pm
Falafulu
Now you decided not to answer my question, but make a whole lot of assumptions about what your presume are my beliefs.
Can I presume that you believe humans have some rights? How were they determined? Were they granted to us by a creator? Handed down by a philosopher-king? Agreed by an assembly of the people?
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 3:37 pm
Right Now
“Presenting the report, the secretary of state for the environment, Caroline Spelman, said that higher temperatures can reduce the range of wireless communications”
Something wrong with that statement?
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 3:43 pm
How on earth can a measles outbreak happen in Auckland when we have an effective vaccine?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10735238
I blame the hippies who believe measles causes autism in a discredited paper.
Gotta feel sorry for the children, who are now at risk of brain damage and even death because of the selfish views of their parents.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 3:53 pm
Manolo, there might be an opportunity there for Ali bin Aharawira.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 4:00 pm
Mikemild said…
but make a whole lot of assumptions about what your presume are my beliefs.
Ok, Mike I don’t read your mind. Here is what you said in your post above…
s a good example of government intervention on behalf of citizens.
That’s what you endorsed. If that is not synonymous with Children’s Simon Says Game, then I don’t know what is.
Mike asked…
How were they determined?
It should be determined by our very (human) nature. How about you start with this, then follow on to here. Now, I want you to dig hard there and see if you can find any self-contradiction? I bet you that you won’t find one. If you have a system where its axioms don’t lead to contradiction, then that is the best that can be adopted compared to the alternative. You can’t do any better than that.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 4:01 pm
mikenmild: there is much wrong with that statement as any knowledgeable engineer in the field of wireless communications will attest to. It’s complete bullshit.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 4:01 pm
wreck1080
I forget who, but it has recently been raised as an issue: should parents face a sanction for refusing to vaccinate their children?
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
RightNow
Temperature doesn’t affect wireless transmission?
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 4:10 pm
Falafulu
Can I start with the first link from your last comment? Pleasecorrect me if I have anythiung wrong. Humans have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What process gets us to these rights and who defines them? I mentioned the death penalty earlier. Is the death penalty always bad becasue it takes away the right to life? Who adjuduicates the hard questions?
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 4:12 pm
no mikenmild, it doesn’t. Not directly on the RF propagation anyway. Increased humidity could have an affect, as could the equipment overheating, but the actual RF signal is not affected within imaginable temperature variations (e.g. Humans would die of the heat before the signal would degrade).
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
RightNow
Ok, thanks. I was probably thinking of sound waves.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 4:14 pm
So today 300 serving military personnel were made redundant, with scarcely a peep. Contrast that to the outcry from teachers who when they were told they would not be getting the pay rise they hoped for.
Maybe we should retrain these 300 ex military personnel to be teachers?
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 4:19 pm
slightly
Vote:They wouldn’t want to be teachers – the pay is too low and they wouldn’t get free clothes, dental/medical care and subsidised accommodation.
June 29th, 2011 at 4:21 pm
Nookin (962) Says:
June 29th, 2011 at 2:00 pm
Your haemorrhoids acting up today are they, Penny? Have you got nothing else to contribute to the world apart from gratuitous abuse?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
That the best you can do ‘Nookin’?
The (female) ex-boilermaker kicks your butt AGAIN and you just CAN’T take it?
diddums
You poor wee thing………..
Penny Bright
Vote:http://waterpressure.wordpress.com
June 29th, 2011 at 4:27 pm
Perhaps one or two of them could become union organisers.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 4:27 pm
Humans have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
None of those things are a right. We have the right to survive as best we can before we die.
Military personnel are trained to follow orders.
Vote:Teachers train by giving orders.
June 29th, 2011 at 4:50 pm
Yeah Kiwiblog slow to load today. I’m on satellite and the dish could just about be used for a radar today, moves heaps in a strong wind, thought that might be the problem. Some pages won’t load.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 4:54 pm
No way should a government force people to do this.
But a private system would handle this better wherein an insurer is free to offer a lower rate to a vaccinated person.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 5:04 pm
Of course there should be a penalty for not vaccinating children.
Anyone who has looked after a ward full of children brain-damaged due to encephalitis resulting from measles (as I have) would agree.
Encephalitis used to be known as sleeping sickness.
I understand that all australian kids have to be vaccinated before they start school, or kindy or whatever.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 5:26 pm
Mike said…
Humans have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What process gets us to these rights and who defines them? I mentioned the death penalty earlier.
There’s only 2 choices. To live or die. To live, then in itself must be the standard, unless you want to commit suicide which there is no standard there.
Mike said…
Is the death penalty always bad because it takes away the right to life? Who adjudicates the hard questions?
So, the person receiving the death penalty is just put to death for no reason? Read on.
The Death Penalty.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 6:03 pm
I occasionally use my cellphone to scan Kiwiblog threads – nothing fucks me off more than having to scroll past longwinded comments from loathsome commentators. I also don’t use Firefox so don’t have RIP functionality when using the home computer.
Yesterday, perhaps with commentators like me in mind, Reid asked one commentator in particular to modify her commenting style. Her response was to claim freedom of speech privileges.
However, DPF has previously told her to make her comments short and snappy. See here for further details:
I live in hope…
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 6:14 pm
Falafulu
So we have a death penalty; that must be applied only proportionately. That implies only in cases of murder. Is death a justifiable penalty for other crimes? Is abortion premeditated murder? Is suicide equivalent to murder? I don’t raise these questions for specious reasons. Rules to govern these circumstances, and the establishment of a court and its rules to adjudicate on those case, must be established. That brings me back to the question of who sets those rules?
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 6:27 pm
Nostradamus
Vote:Thanks for that link. I knew DPF had fired a warning shot to no apparent avail but could not find the particular comment. Penny, of course is answerable only to those rules in which she believes.
June 29th, 2011 at 6:54 pm
A woman dies and goes to Heaven. While waiting in line, she hears this terrible screaming and moaning. This disturbs her somewhat, so she tracks down St. Peter to find out what is going on.
“Oh that” he says, “that’s just the woman in front of you. They are drilling holes in her back to attach her wings.”
The woman is still a bit upset by this and is pondering her position when the screaming starts again. This time it was louder and more blood curdling than before. She calls St. Peter again to find out what is happening to the woman now.
“Oh that” he says, “they’re just drilling holes in her head to attach the halo.”
The woman decides that she wants out and tells St. Peter that she has changed her mind and wants to be sent to Hell.
“Are you sure you want to go there?” he says. “It’s a terrible place, you’ll end up getting sodomized and raped and even worse.”
“That’s okay” says the woman, “I already have the holes for that.”
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 7:17 pm
Mike said…
That brings me back to the question of who sets those rules?
I thought Peter Creswell’s short article I have pointed you out to explains it all. Our nature should define it which is objective. That eliminates subjectivity. .Don’t leave it to opinions of those who think they know, because as I’ve stated above, they’re open to attack by mob rule mentality. I’m surprised that you’re unwilling to learn or read the link above on the importance of philosophy because it avoids myself having to drip feed you with specific relevant links to that website. Read that website in its entirety then from there you can start to see logic & reason. You can clearly see which bits describe which concepts in the importance of philosophy website. The paper on gender wage gap that I cited you on the other thread yesterday on Al Thomson, is a much harder read (as you pointed out) because of the differential calculus equations involved in model derivations presented in the paper. However, the philosophy website that i’ve linked to (above), is easy reading and very straight forward even though it is philosophically rich. Invest time to read or study it.
The rules are set by our identity/ies. Everything that exist has identities (including humans), and anything that doesn’t have identity, can’t exist. You can pretty much see that universality follows naturally and such objective rules (based on our identity/ies) works the same everywhere, independent if you’re fat, ugly, white, black, yellow, brown, female, male, etc,…. There is no need for anyone setting the rules. It is similar to laws of physics, where those laws are being observed to hold true irrelevant whether you’re an atheist, christian, muslim, tongan, kiwi, aussie, etc… There is universality there. The laws of physics sets the rules for us to conform to because reality is absolute. As it says on that link (which I’ve pasted), reality is not subject to wishes, whims, prayers, or miracles. If you want to change the world, you must act according to reality. Nothing else will affect reality. If you evade this fact, your actions will most likely not have their desired effects. Your failure will be metaphysical justice.
I know that you’re fixated with who sets the rules. Well the bloody rules is right there in front or us. It is our Identity (which I’ve described above).
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 7:19 pm
A girl came skipping home from school one day. “Mommy, Mommy,” she yelled “we were counting today and all the other kids could only count to 4, but I counted to 10.
See? 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10!
“Very good,” said her Mother.
“Is it because I’m blonde?”
“Yes, it’s because your blonde,” said the Mommy.
The next day the girl came skipping home from school. “Mommy, Mommy,” she yelled, “we were saying the alphabet today and all the other kids could only say it to D, but I said it to G.
See? A,B,C,D,E,F,G!”
“Very Good,” said her Mother.
“Is it because I’m blonde, Mommy?”
“Yes it’s because your blond!”
The following day the girl came skipping home from school. “Mommy, Mommy,” she yelled, “we were in Gym class today, and when we showered all the other girls had flat chests, but I have these!”
She lifted her tank top to reveal a pair of 36C’s.
“Very good,” said her embarrassed mother.
“Is it because I’m blonde, Mommy?”
“No Honey, it’s because you’re 24
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 7:20 pm
@Penny,
What is your ‘body count’ today Penny?
How many deserving people have you, Vince and your buddies forced to take a backseat and wait while you clog up our justice system and leech the resources the collective taxpayers are funding – all for the sake of your own egos?
Or have you all come to your senses and stopped your frivolous appeals?
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 7:27 pm
Falafulu
I’m kind of cottoning on to this metaphysical stuff. I like to look at specific examples though. So back to the death penalty. You maintain, I gather, that there is a right to life (among other rights) that is a universal rule set by one’s identity as a human being. Under what circumstances can that right be curtailed? It may be that taking life in some circumstances is justified and in others it is not. What, or who, decides when it is justified to kill and when it is not? Again, to go to specific examples, how do we justify capital punishment (and for which crimes) or abortion?
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 7:32 pm
A woman called up a doctor’s office and said to the nurse,
“I’m missing my panties. I just wonder if I left them in the
dressing room.”
The nurse said she’d look, but came back and said,
Vote:“I’m sorry, madam, but your panties are not here.”
“Oh well then, never mind,” answered the woman.
“I must have left them at the dentist’s.”
June 29th, 2011 at 7:39 pm
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 7:48 pm
There are many other mechanisms when you introduce freedom into the system.
If we had entirely private education, then schools could refuse entry to unvaccinated children.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 8:02 pm
Doctor Dave had slept with one of his patients and felt guilty all day long.
No matter how much he tried to forget about it, he couldn’t.
The guilt and sense of betrayal was overwhelming. But every
once in a while he’d hear an internal, reassuring voice in his head that
said: “Dave, don’t worry about it. You’re not the first medical practitioner to sleep
with one of their patients and you won’t be the last. And you’re single. Just let it go..”
But then another voice in his head would bring him back to reality, whispering:……
Vote:You’re a vet, you sick bastard..
June 29th, 2011 at 8:14 pm
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 8:16 pm
bhudson
I don’t think her ladyship has been in court for a while. The withdrawal symptons are really evident today — sarcasm, ridicule, extravagant language — you name it, she is afflicted. She is currently on the Wishart/King hobbyhorse and is salivating at the thought that all will be revealed — the true killer and the fact that Macsyna should absolved of all blame and accountability and is really a mum to be treasured.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 8:24 pm
A man walks into the toy store to get a Barbie doll for his daughter. So he asks the assistant, as you would, “How much is Barbie?”
“Well,” she says, “we have Barbie Goes to the Gym for $19.95, Barbie Goes to the Ball for $19.95, Barbie Goes Shopping for $19.95, Barbie Goes to the Beach for $19.95, Barbie Goes Nightclubbing for $19.95, and Divorced Barbie for $265.00.”
“Hey, hang on,” the guy asks, “why is Divorced Barbie $265.00 when all the others are only $19.95?”
“Yeah, well, it’s like this….Divorced Barbie comes with Ken’s house, Ken’s car, Ken’s boat, Ken’s furniture…”
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 8:27 pm
@nasska.
Woof woof…..
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 8:48 pm
http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/qatar/156943-israel-trumps-the-arab-world-.html
From an Arab country’s paper no less!
Israel spends 4.7 percent of its total GDP on scientific research, which is the highest in the world. However, Arab states are spending 0.2 percent of their total incomes and Asian Arab countries around 0.5 percent of their incomes on research, said
the report.
delicious.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 9:11 pm
Mick Mac
Vote:And military aid from the US is only about 1.5% of Israeli GDP.
June 30th, 2011 at 7:22 am
What the Messiah and hopeless Goff have in common: both want higher taxes.
Vote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/29/obama-to-hold-press-conference-amid-budget-talks/
June 30th, 2011 at 7:31 am
Well, at seom time the US has to move away from the Bush-era fantasy of tax cuts and military expansion – can’t have both.
Vote:June 30th, 2011 at 1:42 pm
Inventory said
Revenge is sweet; Cactus Kate hands Bomber Bradbury his arse on a plate, and without the kind of nastiness that he displayed:
I hope the plate was thoroughly washed and sterilised afterwards after having something that large and disgusting on it
Regards
Vote:Peter J
see http://www.sensiblesentencing.org.nz