About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

January 16, 2011 1:26pm by David Farrar

General Debate 16 January 2011

Sadly today is the last day of summer holidays for me, so posts will be more regular from tomorrow.

Share this:

Facebook
X
LinkedIn
Reddit
WhatsApp
More

Pinterest
Print
Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading…

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment126

Uncategorized
General Debate

Related Stories

Debate Thread
TVNZ debates
The 1st presidential debate

Comments (126)

Login to comment or vote

reid

Well then Zapper, do you really understand precisely how much and in which ways religion transforms ones life, or if you haven’t ever experienced it, do you just hallucinate that you do?

I’m sorry but there seems no third alternative.

It’s not an IQ thing BTW – duh – it’s just one of those life experiences you’ve either had, are currently having, or have never had. No entrance exam required.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2011 8:17pm
Zapper

Yes I have experienced it, tried it a couple of times at the behest of others. It transforms your life into constantly thinking “how can these people who don’t appear completely retarded believe such nonsense?” Which really answers my own question – brainwashing.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2011 8:20pm
reid

Not sure what dairy is doing Reid.

Once people start consuming animal protein Pete they rarely look back and dairy is a palatable introduction to the Asian palette since the Asian animal protein intake has been almost exclusively fish since forever, and haven’t they done well.

Notwithstanding, aren’t we lucky that this opportunity for us exists, to expand the animal protein markets in the East for that completes the circle of our products around the world. Yay.

China is our oyster.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2011 8:26pm
Lance

Hey Zapper
What IS the rational world?

Like where no-one really knows why sub atomic particles do what they do, why semiconductors turn on before electrons reach the junctions, why particles have mass, what the fuck is time and how come there are at least 10 dimensions.

Yep, science knows it all.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2011 8:34pm
reid

It transforms your life into constantly thinking “how can these people who don’t appear completely retarded believe such nonsense?” Which really answers my own question – brainwashing.

Which means it wasn’t genuine Zapper, or didn’t that occur to you. It might be worth considering that if religion is a complete fantasy reserved only for insecure people then how come great minds throughout history have devoted sometimes their whole lives toward advancing or further understanding it in some way or other.

This possibly indicates to the moderately astute player that it’s possibly not absolute complete crap from start to finish through which you could drive one of these.

Possibly things like the fact a single person living 2010 years ago caused so much change in the world when no other human has ever been as effective ever, might give one pause for thought? Or not. Your mileage may vary.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2011 8:35pm
Hurf Durf

Hahahaha. Left wing nutcase involuntarily committed for making death threats at Town Hall:

A man who was wounded in last week’s shooting rampage in Tucson was apprehended by authorities Saturday after he allegedly threatened a “tea party” activist at a town hall meeting of victims and eyewitnesses of the attack.

James Eric Fuller, a 63-year-old Democratic activist, was arrested after shouting “You’re dead!” at Tucson Tea Party spokesman Trent Humphries, said Pima County Sheriff’s Department spokesman Jason Ogan. Fuller was shot in the knee and back Jan. 8 when a gunman opened fire, killing six and injuring 13, including Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

Fuller, a disabled veteran and former campaign volunteer for Giffords, was charged with making threats, intimidation and disorderly conduct and was involuntarily committed for a psychiatric evaluation, Ogan said.

In an interview with Democracy Now on Thursday, Fuller linked the shooting to conservative leaders associated with the tea party, including Sarah Palin, Fox News commentator Glenn Beck and Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle. “It looks like Palin, Beck, Sharron Angle and the rest got their first target,” Fuller said.

And, of course, the first twitter post about the incident:

Death threat at ABC Town Hall event – KGUN9Tucson News, Weather & Sports // This is where #Palin took our politics.

Le fucking sigh.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2011 8:45pm
Zapper

That’s if you believe that person existed of course. The same fairy story had been told well before 2010 years ago. Not one of the famous writers of the time wrote about this amazing person. They took 300 years to write anything! Forgive me for being sceptical.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2011 8:47pm
Falafulu Fisi

This version of Guide Me, O Thou Great Redeemer is superb by Welsh opera singer Katherine Jenkins at the Sydney Opera house. The men’s tenor voices are much more apparent from this version.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2011 8:48pm
Lance

@ Zapper
Are you professing yourself to be wise?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2011 8:52pm
reid

Forgive me for being skeptical.

By all means be skeptical Zapper. Just don’t be ignorant. It’s not a trivial decision one makes in this arena.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2011 8:52pm
Zapper

Lance, you read the bible when you’re wondering about scientific facts, that is of course your choice.

Absolutely reid, it is not trivial. It took me until the end of my teens to realise both that religion is a fantasy and Labour destroys rather than creates…forgive my youthful naivete.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2011 8:57pm
Lance

@ Zapper
I am not sure what your answer means?
But what I was subtly trying to say (which failed so I will be more blunt). Don’t replace one religion with another. Science is a journey not an absolute and many have looked like complete dicks by drawing absolutes where none existed.

I suggest caution on ALL fronts both religious and scientific.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2011 9:08pm
Zapper

I know exactly what you were trying to say, no need to infer how smart you are – you already showed your intelligence when you called science a religion.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2011 9:13pm
bereal

My name is jackoff
cognitifence dissononence;

Well done . point well made.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2011 9:28pm
thedavincimode

Reid

I understood you to be making a distinction between “religion” and its “practice” which I accept. I can accept that “religion” can affect people profoundly and, that being the case, they will “practice” their religion in a way that reflects their changed core values. But I don’t think that denies my proposition that, human nature being what it is, people will “practice” their religion in a way that reflects their core values – whether they are changed or unchanged.

I’m not sure if you’re drawing a distinction between what you would regard as “true” followers or those of the smorgasbord variety who appear to select the bits that suit their personal values, agendas or prejudices and, that being the case, the latter are the ones that don’t “get it”. But whether they get it or not in your opinion isn’t the point in this context. I’m suggesting that the fact that they don’t get it, or even in fact choose not to get it, reflects their “practice” of religion driving off core values/prejudices. My observation of Christians (no experience to speak of with other faiths) over years in business and in just dealing with people generally is that people tend to compartmentalise their Christianity rather than live it in all facets of their lives. In the blogosphere there are numerous instances of bare-faced hypocrisy by self-professed Christians whose views are clearly at odds with what I understand to be the message attributed to their “lord and saviour”. Same in politics (the US and the middle east notably) or with lobby groups.

You might suggest they haven’t swallowed the right pill or that the “religion” they practice isn’t the same religion you practice. They might say that they do practice your religion and take comfort and reinforcement from a like-minded group – by way of example, nutters such as Westboro Baptist or those plonkers that were going to celebrate 9/11 with a bonfire of the Koran. You might also say, as I do, that in many cases religion is simply used as a tool to clothe values and prejudices with respectibility. Since I’m not qualified to arbitrate on whom is a true believer or not, all I can do is observe the degree of my perceived consistency with the faith that people profess and their behaviour in real life – their “practice” of their religion.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2011 9:33pm
WebWrat

“The basics, food and water, may cause more problems than anything.”

It’s all your fault Pete.

It is estimated that this absolutely stupid, tax payer subsidised, greeny-wank biofuels rort has put an EXTRA 100 million people below the poverty line due to the added cost of grain.

I wonder what it has done for the 100s of millions that were below the poverty line beforehand?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2011 10:18pm
adze

Slingshot continues to reach new lows:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10700000

I am so glad I left them years ago.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2011 10:37pm
Lance

@ Zapper
You are a shallow person uninterested in being challenged. You neither addressed nor accurately relayed what I wrote.
I said science is a journey (and is sometimes) used to foster absolutes by some. This forms religious reasoning and leads errors on BOTH sides

Your insult was equally shallow

Fine.. I have you pegged now.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 17, 2011 1:26am
Viking2

Some serious propositions for John Key and the National Party.

IDEAS SHAPE NATIONS

As we step into election year, it is surely time to take stock of what the National Party said it would do, and what it has actually done.

When the country voted for change, did they just want new faces on the government benches, or did they vote for serious reform?

After nine years of Helen Clark’s Labour Government, voters had had enough. A pall had descended over the country as the oppressive shadow of socialism fell on our land and lives. The introduction of a raft of extremely generous handout policies – such as Working for Families, interest free student loans, and Kiwi Saver – had caused government spending to balloon. This had put upward pressure on inflation and resulted in New Zealand having the highest interest rates in the OECD – penalising householders, small businesses and exporters alike.

People were looking for someone to enable their hopes and aspirations to become a reality, and John Key was the man. At long last someone would take the economy in hand so we could look forward to jobs and growth – and catching up with Australia. In his victory speech, John Key stated that the election result showed people had “voted for hope, they voted for action and they voted for results. They voted for a better life for all New Zealanders.” Indeed they did, but has John Key delivered on his promises?

Election night, we thought, was the beginning of a new phase for New Zealand: where sound economic management would prevail, where the burden of the state would be reduced, and where intractable and devastatingly costly problems like the “underclass” would finally be tackled. “I have no intention of being a Prime Minister who tackles only the easy and convenient issues. I don’t pretend I’ve got all the solutions. But I can tell you that dealing with the problems of our growing underclass is a priority for National, both in opposition and in government.”[1]

Unfortunately the fine words and principle have given way to paranoia as opinion polls have become the main game. In the quest to keep his administration as popular as possible, John Key has shunned reform – even failing to reverse those principles he railed against while in opposition.

But while he might think that failing to instigate reforms that will outrage socialists is the popular thing to do, new research from Harvard University shows that he is almost certainly wrong. They found governments that cut public spending to reduce their deficits do not in general lose voter support. Clearly voters are more intelligent than most politicians think – they understand that governments need to cut spending when times are tough, just as they cut their household budget to live within their means.[2] Our own experiences in 1984, where Labour was re-elected in 1987 with an increased majority – after introducing extensive reforms – shows this to be true.

If National had been truly committed to transforming New Zealand into the prosperous nation it could be, they would have seriously cut government spending – as advised by not only by the 2025 Taskforce, but also the Secretary of the Treasury John Whitehead, who once labelled 65 percent of all government spending as being of ‘poor’ quality! Why not introduce a spending cap like Hong Kong, which doesn’t allow government spending to exceed 29 percent of GDP? If we moved towards such a goal gradually, it would guarantee a future where everyone would be better off.

Since National has been in office, core government spending has increased not decreased – in spite of the tax take being down. That means that National is spending $250 million a week more than it earns, putting the country deeper into debt as each day goes by.

The increase in GST would not have been necessary, if National had cut government spending. Furthermore they could have looked at following the lead of the Canadian Government, which, to give local businesses a strong competitive advantage, has just cut company tax to 16.5 percent. This move matches the rate in Hong Kong (16.5 percent) and Singapore (17 percent), two countries that are regarded as economic powerhouses. Given that our government only collects in the region of $8 billion a year in company tax, following that lead and radically reducing company tax to 16.5 percent could have given this country the sort of economic boost it desperately needs!

If National had been really focussed on getting the country onto a growth path it should have repealed Labour’s 2002 amendments to the Local Government Act that introduced the power of general competence and diverted local government from its core business. Constraining local government and getting it back on track would not only reduce the cost burden on local communities, but would help to remove roadblocks to progress and development.

A really serious commitment to growth would have seen National reintroduce the youth wage. Since youth rates have been abolished (at the behest of arch-socialist Sue Bradford), youth unemployment has almost doubled, with nearly two out of five young Maori now unemployed. The problem is that when young people are forced to compete against older and more experienced workers for jobs at the same wage rate, employers are more likely to choose experience, thus preventing the young worker from even getting their first foot on the employment ladder.

If National had really prioritised growth, they would not have introduced the Emissions Trading Scheme. None of our major trading partners have an equivalent scheme, and Kiwi businesses are being penalised as a result. The ETS is responsible for unaffordable costs increases right across the economy, as higher priced fuel and electricity push up the cost of almost all other goods and services. And all for no gain. The ETS is having no impact at all on the climate, so the sacrifice that National has forced New Zealanders to make, in terms of our falling living standards, is all for nothing – especially as the whole scheme is destined to collapse next year once the Kyoto agreement expires.

And what a slap in the face the ETS has been to the rural sector. Failing to exempt food producers from the scheme at the outset, shows National has really lost touch with its support base.

The reality is that most people just want government to get out of the way as they try to build a decent life for themselves and their families. But instead of removing the roadblocks left by a Labour Government – that didn’t trust individuals to be able to live their lives free from the hand of the state – National has left many in place including the ridiculous ban on smacking.

It’s not as if banning smacking was ever regarded as the best way to tackle child abuse. The smacking ban was part of a radical anti-family campaign being pushed by Sue Bradford. As a result of the ban, serious child abuse continues unabated and innocent parents now face criminal prosecution for trying to discipline their children. Meanwhile, John Key, who promised to change the law if it criminalised innocent parents, resolutely looks the other way.

The disastrous Marine and Coastal Area Bill is another dreadful piece of legislation that is being forced onto the country because John Key wants to forge an enduring relationship with the Maori party. Having agreed with the Maori Party to review the present 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act as part of their confidence and supply agreement, National supported the recommendation from a biased panel – that consulted almost exclusively with the Maori sovereignty movement – that the 2004 Act should be repealed. John Key naively believed that if he told the public there wouldn’t be much change and rushed the whole process, then the new law could be passed by Christmas, ahead of election year.

Fortunately for New Zealand, we – the New Zealand Centre for Political Research – and you – our readers – looked beyond the political platitudes and misrepresentations. You supported the formation of the Coastal Coalition and helped fund our public information campaign and together we were able to explain to New Zealanders that there are many concerns regarding the government’s Marine and Coastal Area Bill. The Bill will open the door to a massive redistribution of wealth as New Zealand’s coastline is privatised to the Maori tribal elite. Corporate iwi are reputed to be overjoyed that they will get their hands on the spoils, and while the hand-over, through a secret political deal-making process introduced in clauses 93-95 of the Bill will start relatively slowly (the Attorney General predicts 10 percent of the coast will go initially), the Maori Party has promised that they will not stop until the whole coast is in Maori title.

And if this preparedness to give away our foreshore and seabed for Maori Party support is not bad enough, John Key does not seem to realise the issue of trust is at stake. He promised the public that if there was not widespread support for his Bill, the present law would be retained. Well, Prime Minister, all of the submissions and opinion polls show that there is no widespread support for your proposed law change – not from Maori nor from non-Maori – so we expect you to honour your promise and withdraw your disastrous Bill!

Then there is welfare. It will take courage to reform the welfare system. But reform is absolutely necessary because the country can no longer afford the burgeoning cost of growing dependency that this broken system is inflicting on the country. Proper reform is needed to eliminate the widespread fraud and abuse that riddles the system and forces taxpayers to pay billions of dollars a year to support people who could and should be working – like former gang leader Daryl Harris from Christchurch, who has just had his benefit cancelled after managing to spend the last 26 years on welfare!

The government’s Welfare Working Group has been doing a good job identifying options for reform. One of the most promising ideas to surface is that being promoted by the OECD to “harmonise” all benefits, saving costs, preventing people from swapping from one benefit to another, and requiring everyone receiving welfare to contribute through work to their own capacity. If New Zealand’s welfare system was re-jigged in such a way as to link income support to a work requirement, welfare dependents would be able to contribute to society in a meaningful way that is simply not possible at the present time. It will be a test for the Prime Minister to see whether he has the courage to put meaningful reform into effect.

Of course there are many other important issues in need of urgent attention – but it is big ideas that shape nations, not political parties that lack the courage to introduce reform when reform is so obviously needed. That’s got this week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator, former MP Gerry Eckhoff, thinking outside the square, looking at whether independent MPs are what the country needs:

“The day of the independent MP may well be on its way back if enough people understand what happened in the Australian election. Consider the benefits of independent MPs. The people actually get to choose their representative rather than being appointed and anointed by their party. The independent MP is not subject to “whipping” – rather they are wooed by the other parties for support. MMP is tailor-made for independent MPs.” To read Gerry’s article “Rattle of a Grumpy Man”, click the sidebar link>>>

After two years of a National government, Labour’s socialist agenda largely remains intact. New Zealand will never get ahead if we are led by leaders paralysed through fear of upsetting vested interest groups. As the Harvard Study shows, the electorate is smart enough to know when parties are standing on sound principle and when they are standing on a self-serving political soapbox.

http://www.nzcpr.com
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 17, 2011 6:51am
kunst5

Great article Viking. I think as a society and voters/ taxpayers we should judge parliamentarians on their performance rather on traditional pattern on parties – party ideologies. Over time this will certainly improve the political system.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 17, 2011 7:08am
Pete George

It’s not as if banning smacking was ever regarded as the best way to tackle child abuse. The smacking ban was part of a radical anti-family campaign being pushed by Sue Bradford.

I’m sure Bradford and many others didn’t see it as anti-family. Some of those who didn’t like it depicted it as anti-family.

As a result of the ban, serious child abuse continues unabated

Continuing serious abuse has nothing to do with the ban, more likely the opposite – the furore over the ban may have sent a signal to some trash parents that they should be able to discipline their kids however they see fit.

and innocent parents now face criminal prosecution for trying to discipline their children.

There is no evidence of this.

Meanwhile, John Key, who promised to change the law if it criminalised innocent parents, resolutely looks the other way.

There’s been no need to change it, the law change has done very little apart from get up some people’s noses – it has been largely inconsequential. It surprises me why it keeps being brought up as a major issue, albeit by a few.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 17, 2011 7:17am
Manolo

Thank you Viking. A good read of the many shortcomings attributable to Key and Labour-lite.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 17, 2011 7:32am
bhudson

Pete,

So people who had the temerity to disagree with the noble, progressive struggle to amend the legislation are to blame for continuing child abuse? Now that is rich! Twisted, self-serving logic at it’s very worst.

You may have conveniently forgotten that it was the group supporting the change trumpeting that the change was to combat child abuse. If, after having got their way, child abuse is still prevalent, then it casts doubt over their arguments, not those who were opposed.

It is fair to say that the opposition doomsday claims of masses of innocent parents charged have not happened, but that alone does not justify the legislative hangs in the first place. It was claimed the change would address child abuse in NZ. There does not seem to be any evidence that it has done so (and that was the primary argument against it – not some god-given right to smack children.)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 17, 2011 8:16am
Pete George

So people who had the temerity to disagree with the noble, progressive struggle to amend the legislation are to blame for continuing child abuse?

I didn’t say that. I accept that many people were just anoyed at the law change – I wasn’t that keen on it myself, it seemed to do not very much not very well.

I suggest the possibility that some of those anti the law change who vocally proclaimed that parents should be able to discipline their kids however they see fit could have sent the wrong sort of signal to the wrong sort of people.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 17, 2011 8:28am
bhudson

Pete,

I contend that those people needed no message at all to continue to do what they do to children
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 17, 2011 8:54am
Zapper

Good for you Lance, you are apparently all knowing. Don’t backtrack, you told me I am replacing one religion with another. You also implied you must be smarter than me (that must be it right???). So yeah, congratulations on demonstrating the Christian attitude.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 17, 2011 1:07pm

More comments:

‹
1
2

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« Labour Party President adds to the muck raking

Caption Contest »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 13K other subscribers

Highlights

Target achieved II
Good progress on attendance
Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments

Top Stories

General Debate 03 June 2026
Another British policing scandal
A win for democracy
General Debate 04 June 2026
Meet the Greens - ACC
Democrat says lock up the Jews
$600k on a website for a building!
General Debate 02 June 2026
Of course GP wait times will skyrocket under Labour
Set housing outcomes not outputs

Recent Posts

General Debate 04 June 2026 4 June 2026
Meet the Greens – ACC 4 June 2026
Democrat says lock up the Jews 3 June 2026
Another British policing scandal 3 June 2026
General Debate 03 June 2026 3 June 2026
A win for democracy 3 June 2026
$600k on a website for a building! 2 June 2026
Set housing outcomes not outputs 2 June 2026
General Debate 02 June 2026 2 June 2026
Of course GP wait times will skyrocket under Labour 2 June 2026
Which language should be used first? 1 June 2026
The SNP thief 1 June 2026

Recent Comments

General Debate 04 June 2026
David Garrett
General Debate 04 June 2026
leoj
General Debate 04 June 2026
Philview
General Debate 04 June 2026
David Garrett
General Debate 04 June 2026
imalwaysright
General Debate 04 June 2026
Southern Raider
General Debate 04 June 2026
MCōs
General Debate 04 June 2026
artemisia
General Debate 04 June 2026
MCōs
Meet the Greens – ACC
gravedodger
General Debate 04 June 2026
Ghost
General Debate 04 June 2026
cmm (semi-retired edition)
General Debate 04 June 2026
imalwaysright
General Debate 04 June 2026
cmm (semi-retired edition)
General Debate 04 June 2026
Yabster

Links

"The principal view of human laws is, or ought always to be, to explain, protect, and enforce such rights as are absolute, which in themselves are few and simple."
Not PC
Michael Laws Exposes A Flaw In The Proposed Council Law Changes.
No Minister
My Opening Statement for the UATX Caplan-Jones Immigration Rematch
Utopia
Woman of the day
Hompaddock
The irony of El Niño peaking over NZ as Government kills Ministry of Environment and does secret deals with Big Polluters
The Daily Blog
Open Mike 04/06/2026
The Standard
Playing with numbers.
Kiwipolitico
A lot of fuss about a simple Bill – its purpose (to make English an official language) is spelled out in 22 words
Point of Order
A crime
No Right Turn
Another non-tariff barrier
Offsetting Behaviour
Rugby Premiership Predictions for Round 18
Stats Chat
Budget 2026
NZCPR
UK Conversion Therapy Ban, Digital ID, Rallies, Elections
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
A central banker’s fiction
Croaking Cassandra
THE WORKING FROM HOME RACKET BY PUBLIC SERVANTS
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Get Vaccinated Tomorrow Or Shut Your Pie Hole
Cactus Kate
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker

[email protected]

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

© 2003-2026 David Farrar

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d

%d