About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

November 25, 2008 8:22am by David Farrar

General Debate 25 November 2008

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment134

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (134)

Login to comment or vote

llew

Dude, anything with “2008 Election Results” in the title is causing a rupture in the space/time continuum.

[DPF: I think it is the MS crap from copy and paste of tables. However on my connections the front page looks okay]
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 25, 2008 4:05pm
kiwi in america

Grumpyoldhori
You’ve been hoist by your own petard. By your own admission, marriage is an ancient institution that for many many years the state was never involved with. Some chose to marry outside churches, some inside. Marriage has been easily defined by all cultures across the globe for thousands of years as a union between one man and one woman. A small number of gay activists sought to redefine this long held tradition. Prop 8 would never have appeared on the ballot in CA had the CA Supreme Court not overruled the democratic will of the people who voted 62/38 in 2000 on Prop 22 to define marriage in law as that which it had always been for centuries. The Propositions voted and passed in 40 US states now do nothing more than codify in law that which has been the practice globally since time immemorial. It is light years away from “pocking their noses in other people’s business”.

Marriage is not a “moral value” nor is it a doctrine or belief. If a particular religion was trying to get the state to define and legalise their particular practice or belief via the ballot box then it would and should never be law particularly under constitutionally designed sepraration of church and state in the US. Christian churches support marriage for the same reason why pagan religions in Africa support and practice it – it is the most stable institution in which to raise children. You can be an athiest and still agree that many many studies have defined the clear benefits to children of being raised in a traditional marriage. Are some marriages bad – absolutely but still the institution of marriage has endured for so long and across so many cultures precisely because it is the best family unit combination.

How are you ‘funding’ any church? There is no state religion in NZ or the US that gets a taxpayers subsidy certainly not the Mormons who it is reported donate $100 millions each year and provide thousands of volunteers for all the global natural disasters and do so apparently out of their own pockets.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 25, 2008 4:13pm
Nookin

llew: I experience the same problem when logging in using Internet Explorer. However, if I login using Mozilla Firefox, I do not have any difficulty.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 25, 2008 4:14pm
Redbaiter

“The targetting of Mormons over the passage of Prop 8 is scandalous.”

Yeah, wonder why the queers don’t go after the Muslims??
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 25, 2008 4:17pm
Lee

Ryan,

“They’re certainly different issues, but that doesn’t change the fact that your response to gay marriage – “everyone already has equal rights to marry the opposite sex” – is identical in form to that response to interracial marriage – “everyone already has equal rights to marry the same race”. If you have a problem with the latter, you shouldn’t find the former convincing.”

Not at all. They are two entirely different arguments that your conflating based solely on the wording. Marriage is between a man and a women. We can debate the exact nature of that (such as racial issues) but it does not change the fact that we are are talking about marriage. The issue of same sex unions is not the same as old racial arguments because we are talking about something entirely different.

“Science can say all it likes about the events and processes that occur during and after conception, but it remains silent – and cannot say anything at all – on the moral question of when a process or a collection of matter is to be considered a human life with all of the moral rights and duties that implies.”

Of course it can. Science cannot tell me that a rock is a human being. Science cannot tell me that a sperm is a human being. Science CAN and does tell me that a human being is a human being, and science can and does tell me (based on scientific observation) that once conception has taken place we are dealing with a human being. Inconvenient I know, but true.

“Just because the lines are arbitrary, doesn’t mean they’re not lines.”

Yes it does. An arbitrary line based merely on opinion is not a line, but shifting sand.

“Whatever the disagreements in our society about where the line between pre-human life and human life are drawn, there is unanimity that Nia Glassie was alive.”

Thats because we could not deny the truth before our eyes and in our hearts. The unborn are largely unseen, and therefore easy to dismiss. Human beings have a remarkable talent for convenient self-deception and hypocrisy. But as ultrasound and other imaging technology brings the truth before more and more eyes, support for abortion is beginning to erode, especially among younger generations.

“Laws are not objective facts about the world.”

Some are, and all should be. The law against murder is based on the objective fact that murdering people is wrong. And we KNOW it. Deep down inside most people know the objective truth about the eternal moral Law that is written in our hearts, but we try to hide from it. Thats why most people, when confronted with Nia Glassie’s torture and murder did not say to themselves “Oh well, thats wrong because we arbitrarily chose to make it illegal”. No. They reacted with horror and disgust, because they knew in the hearts that it was not simply wrong for arbitrary legal reasons, it was evil.

When confronted with pictures of Jews in the death camps most sane people do not say to themselves “Oh well, thats wrong because we passed a law against it”, they react with deep emotional horror at the evil.

“I’m not in the habit of allowing horrifying consequences of truth to persuade me into falsehood.”

No, your in the habit of ignoring the horrifying consequences of your falsehood.

“There is never any objective reason to criticise anything. Criticism is a moral issue, and morality is not a fact about the world”

Yes, true morality is about facts concerning the world. Question, was the Holocaust objectively wrong, or is that just a matter of opinion?

“There have been societies”

C.S Lewis deals with this myth in ‘The Abolition Of Man’. Suffice it to say, that despite differences there has in fact been a remarkable degree of uniformity in what most societies have considered right and wrong. Human societies do not always get it right, but that does not prove that therefore there IS no objective right.

“Just because you find it terrifying to consider that our current society may not be based on access to some fundamental laws”

I don’t find it terrifying, I find it rationally untenable, logically contradictory, and totally at odds with human experience.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 25, 2008 4:22pm
wikiriwhis business

“Tapu Misa must be some type of socialist if she’s advocating forced sterilisations.”

The only thing Tapu is guilty of is being an alarmist.

If she’s waving a red flag its not a political one. She never endorses political opinion on her column.

she’s not saying what she’s saying for no reason. children are being murdered and more will happen.

she’s basically just jumping the trend when the public get fed up with murdering youth mocking the system and laughing at judges. The bleeding heart air head liberals have held far too much sway over the years and respected journalists need to speak up because childrens cowardly neighbours won’t.

In business when you want to make a deal, you aim high and unrealistically to get to the level you’re happy with.

Besides, Tapu sounds more right wing than left

she seems to have passed the acid test with Redbaiter, that’s good enough for me.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 25, 2008 4:23pm
Grant S

“Yeah, wonder why the queers don’t go after the Muslims??”

And furthermore, why aren’t the queers going after the black churches ?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 25, 2008 4:24pm
Lee

“Hmm, it seems that some believe marriage started with the Christian churches.”

No, it started with God.

And I’ll say it again as you very conveniently ignored it, The Mormons were only ONE amongst dozens of churches and organizations that supported Prop 8.

So why are you picking on them alone?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 25, 2008 4:25pm
grumpyoldhori

kiwi in america, funding churches, places of so called worship in NZ pay no local body rates, so it falls on we the majority, who do not got to those places of so called worship to pay for them.
Same as NZ Mormons on a benefit if they can afford to give 10% to a sect, they are getting far too much.

And there are a lot of Mormons on a benefit, hmm, the money the Mormon church gives away I wonder how much of it comes from taxpayer.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 25, 2008 4:31pm
Redbaiter

Deleted
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 25, 2008 4:36pm
grumpyoldhori

Lee, because those gays are cunning, if they can split the Mormons away others churches will not be so damn keen in future to get involved in others moral issues.
Do you believe in separation of church and state ?
Or should we be a theocracy like Utah ?
Should Mormons baptise jews who were killed in concentration camps ?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 25, 2008 4:38pm
oranjemakker

Interesting wikipedia summary on prop 8 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)
Seems that the Episcopal bishops opposed it, but as Lee suggests most relgious organisations supported it.

The article seems to suggest that there is no legal difference being proposed in terms of the rights that they can enjoy in a civil union vs a marriage. Is this purely a symbolicy debate therefore around the actual word “marriage”?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 25, 2008 4:38pm
Rex Widerstrom

DPF:

It is the crap from Word’s shitty idea of what constitutes HTML (as I pointed out in a comment yesterday) and it’s causing havoc for a number of us who’ve been whining like babies for days. Please fix it… it makes KB virtually unusable till it drops off the front page behind new postings. I’d suggest running it through Dreamweaver’s “clean up Word HTML” function. Or hand delete the wonky tags.

big bruv et al:

Never mind what the scumbag pictured has done, look at what the judge has done:

Judge Gary MacAskill … asked for a report on his suitability for home detention, even though Dey has no home address

So this waste of skin goes to a school, threatens a teacher and, by implication, children, by saying he has a gun. The judge then bends over backwards to see if he can be allowed to sit at home watching TV and smoking cannabis as a “punishment”. (Like that will be a big lifestyle change).

In comparison, I know of a young girl (early 20s) who was stupid enough to get herself addicted to much stronger drugs. Spiralling downwards (as you do) she went up to another girl on the street and said “give me your money and your cellphone or I’ll cut you” (note that, while I’m not making excuses, this was on a busy street in broad daylight, she didn’t make any physical contact with the victim, and the victim was probably therefore a lot less terrified than a teacher in an enclosed environment faced with a menacing tattooed male, who I bet has a record that reads like a Raymond Chandler novel).

It was her second offence (the first was for shoplifting). She got five years in maximum security, eligible for parole only after three. In her first six months in jail she’s been seriously attacked twice, including having a knife held to her throat by a convicted murderer.

Not only is the law an ass, our judges are assholes.

(Sorry about the language DPF, but sometimes there’s no other word for it).

[DPF: I don’t have dream weaver. I must relearn HTML so I can manually edit the tables]
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 25, 2008 4:41pm
oranjemakker

In reference to Rex Widerstrom’s post, the sentence does seem unreasonable on the face of it. Excuse my ignorance of NZ law, but can one appeal a sentence (if you accept your guilt but feel punishment is unreasonable), rather than the conviction itself, or do you have to go the whole hog and appeal the whole lot?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 25, 2008 4:48pm
Turpin

Did any of you see the TV program, last night on progressive Enterprises stopping Pak n Save from opening a store for 17 yrs?

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/foodstuffs-and-progressive-court-over-wairau-pak-nsave-36022
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/2329612

Progressives said
“He said the company welcomes competition provided it is on a level playing field”.

it seems an abuse of the RMA to me.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 25, 2008 4:50pm
PhilBest

# Nookin (32) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 4:14 pm

“llew: I experience the same problem when logging in using Internet Explorer. However, if I login using Mozilla Firefox, I do not have any difficulty.”

Same here, Nookin, thanks for pointing that out.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 25, 2008 5:02pm
Rex Widerstrom

oranjemakker asks:

…one appeal a sentence (if you accept your guilt but feel punishment is unreasonable), rather than the conviction itself, or do you have to go the whole hog and appeal the whole lot?

yes, you can appeal just the unreasonableness of the sentence. And in this case the girl’s family are doing so. The girl plead guilty, by the way (as well as writing to the victim to apologise), and the sentencing judge said five years included a “discount” for her guilty plea and remorse.

Knowing what some judges can be like I advised them to hire a good barrister to do the mitigation plea regardless. They did, at a cost of almost $4,000 for 30 minutes court time and by all accounts he did an excellent job. But since His Honour’s piles were giving him problems that morning, or perhaps he’d been turned down by a particularly attractive stenographer at a Chambers dinner the previous weekend, she copped his bad temper.

Now the family – who aren’t rich – are scrambling to find another almost $7000 for a barrister to do the appeal.

And what’s the bet the guy in the newspaper gets Legal Aid?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 25, 2008 5:03pm
kiwi in america

grumpyoldhori
Yes on 8 won by 570,000 votes. Mormons comprise 2% of the total population so around 700,000. Many of those will be under 18 since they have larger than average families so lets assume 60% are registered voters. Now not all Mormons are practising and the non-practising ones I know are decidedly liberal. Lets assume 50% are practising and 90% of them voted Yes – thats approx 190,000 practising Mormons who likely voted for Prop 8. If every single one of them stayed home, Prop 8 would’ve still passed you idiot.

You are outing yourself as anti Mormon bigot. Evidence please of your claim that “many Mormons are on benefits”. Don’t tell us – oh yea heaps of my rellies. Many evangelical churches pay the tithe – are you going to accuse the Elim Church and Assemblies of God of receiving pseudo government subsidies via their tithe paying beneficiaries? In my experience in NZ and the US fundamentalist church goers tend not be as reliant on government assistance.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 25, 2008 5:07pm
Rex Widerstrom

DPF: Email me the text of the offending posts and I’ll run them through Dreamweaver and email them back. Can’t promise it’ll work but it’s worth a shot. I don’t have time to do it by hand alas… last time I tried that for someone there was so much crap in a single blog post it took almost 2 hours.

It’s garbage like:

How ironic that this breaks Microsoft’s browser and not the oppositions!!!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 25, 2008 5:07pm
grumpyoldhori

kiwi in america, nope you have it wrong, I believe ALL religions are an utter joke
but the worst are those fundy types in NZ including Mormons, Elim, Destiny, etc etc.
And yes the bloody Catholics having nothing to be proud of with their long term protection of kiddy fiddlers.
Yep, far to many Maori Mormons, but I do notice those so called missionaries tend to target the poor areas of NZ cities.
I live in the country in Central Otago and have never seen a pair of them on their bikes in my area, of course there is damn all state housing around here.

So yes, the Mormon church gets too much of it’s money in NZ from the taxpayer via benefits.
So what do I owe any church that takes 10% of it’s members income ?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 25, 2008 5:48pm
wikiriwhis business

Kiwi in america is an elitist who hasn’t lived in NZ for years.

She doesn’t contribute to NZ and as an employee of the US IRS has no solutions to offer.

If that’s the Kiwi in America blogger.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 25, 2008 5:55pm
oranjemakker

curious that here the Mormon Church targets poor sections of society (if grumpyoldhori is correct) . In the US my impression was that it was quite a wealthy (even somewhat elitist) church with a lot of business owners etc. As an example, quite a few of the senior faculty, including the Dean, at Harvard Business School, were mormon as were quite a few of the students, definitely more than 2%.
I will qualify that this is purely a personal observation from my experiences!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 25, 2008 6:00pm
kiwi in america

grumpy – I asked for evidence of your outlandish claim re Mormons and benefits and, as expected, you gave none.

wikiriwhis business
You know nothing about me or my situation or what businesses and charitable interests I retain in NZ or how long Ive not lived in NZ. I am not an employee of anyone in the US – I own a business here. I guess all the taxes Ive paid in NZ and the US make me an elitist in your pathetic socialist eyes. Don’t you understand – all the taxes your left leaning leaders love to spend come from the productive sector you love to burden and deride. Get it through your thick pinko skull – YOU CANT TAX LOSSES. Oh and I am a HE!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 25, 2008 6:18pm
kiwi in america

wikiriwhis
Your blog should be sub titled “A tree hugging greenies’ view of business”. Aside from the total dearth of comments, it yielded this little gem in your “About” section – “Don’t expect deep and thorough analysis but please add your own educated inputs and help me learn. Perhaps your input will teach me some financial wisdom”. Here’s hoping time at kiwiblog will do just that.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 25, 2008 6:26pm
grumpyoldhori

kiwi in america , Oh I could get the information of the number of mormons who get the income from we taxpayers.
But since a lot of Polynesians are Mormon it stands to reason that a lot of them are paying their so called tiths out of charity money taken from hard working taxpayers.
Same as that Destiny mob, far too many horis with far too many of them on benefits.
So do we heathens owe those who live by fairy tales anything at all from our taxes that they can hand over to a Utah based sect ?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 25, 2008 7:07pm
grumpyoldhori

oranjemakker, from my rellies in Boston I am lead to understand that the church of choice among the so called elite, daughters of the revolution etc , is the Episcopalian church
Could the elite really believe in a so called faith that has a living prophet in Utah who can change the rules as he goes along ?
Like blacks becoming honourary whites ? 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 25, 2008 7:15pm
wikiriwhis business

I did say the Kiwi in america blogger who is a female, does work for the IRS and has not been in NZ for many years.

All you had to say was I’m not that person

and ma blog has been getting fine comments and I know you haven’t read all 300 posts.

also got an ‘A’ from ma degree tutors and is consistently read.

I loath the Green Party and am enlightenly anti socialist.

I also knew what ‘Fabian Socialism’ meant before I joined this blog which beats a lot of talk back hosts.

I also hold great hope because of Kiwi’s like you and David Farrar who are making a difference.

But your hysterical ‘tax talk’ had nothing to do whatsoever with anything I said.

Make your own bloke and be master of your domain

thats the whole idea of them.

Go hard!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 25, 2008 7:16pm
kiwi in america

grumpy
“But since a lot of Polynesians are Mormon it stands to reason that a lot of them are paying their so called tiths out of charity money taken from hard working taxpayers.” OK – so I skyped a Maori Mormon I know who is in a position of leadership in the church so is up with the play on the stats. He says approx 30% of Maori are technically Mormon but only 30% of them are actively practising the religion. Of those who do practice, only about 22% pay the tithe he says.

A brief visit to the MSD website unearthed the following re benefits paid to Maori. The big 3 are Unemployment, DPB and Sickness. Various Fact Sheets on their website give current (or recent as in last year) stats of the numbers on the DPB at 106,000 with 40% of them being Maori, Sickness beneficiaries are 46,000 with 26% Maori and the numbers of Maori paid the unemployment benefit being 15,000. Work these figures out and add them up and add 10% to cover benefits like Independent Youth and Invalids (much smaller numbers) and you come up with approx 77,000 Maori on benefits. So if 30% are nominally Mormon that makes 23,000. Winnow that down to those who actually practice the faith and that number becomes 6,900. Multiply that by the percentage of practising Mormons who pay the tithe and we are left with the grand total of 1,500!

Now I am relying on a third party’s figures here but he would know as he told me he has spent years working with the ‘flock’ and had access to the internal records. Its getting late here and I’d love to do a similar analysis on evangelicals as I have a pastor contact in NZ but I hope I’ve made the point of fisking your outlandish and exaggerated claims that smack of an anti-religious bias. By all means hate religions but just try and make factual points when you argue against them in future.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 25, 2008 7:52pm
Turpin

Phil best
http://www.greenspirit.com/printable.cfm?msid=29
Thank you for the note about Patrick Moore at Greenspirit.com

i’ve just read the article about environmentalism in the 21st century all 15 pages of it.
very interesting.
Thanks
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 25, 2008 8:15pm
Lee

Grumpy,

“Do you believe in separation of church and state ?”

No.

“Or should we be a theocracy like Utah ?”

Utah is not a theocracy.

“Should Mormons baptise jews who were killed in concentration camps ?”

Not in my opinion, but that issue is totally irrelevant to the issue under discussion, which is Prop 8. Your just using Prop 8 as an excuse to indulge in your anti-Moprmon ignorant bigotry.

And I bet I know a damn site more about Mormons than you. I grew up with Mormon friends and still know many, unlike your mythical American rellies.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2008 5:06pm
Lee

“kiwi in america, nope you have it wrong, I believe ALL religions are an utter joke”

Except your own of course.

“but the worst are those fundy types in NZ including Mormons, Elim, Destiny, etc etc.”

First, The Mormons are not Christian fundies. Mormonism is a separate and different religion, like Islam or Hinduism.

Second, the term “fundie” or “fundamentalist” is meaningless and intellectually lazy drivel. So-called “fundies” are just Christians who refuse to sell out to secular liberalism.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2008 5:32pm
Lee

“Same as that Destiny mob, far too many horis with far too many of them on benefits.”

Destiny does a very good job of getting people off benefits. In fact it does a good job of getting people off welfare, off drugs, out of gangs, and out of lives of crime. Churches like Destiny actually save taxpayers money.

Kiwi in America has exposed your lies about Mormons and Christians on welfare. Try another argument. One based on actual facts would be a nice change.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2008 5:40pm
Ryan Sproull

Not at all. They are two entirely different arguments that your conflating based solely on the wording. Marriage is between a man and a women. We can debate the exact nature of that (such as racial issues) but it does not change the fact that we are are talking about marriage. The issue of same sex unions is not the same as old racial arguments because we are talking about something entirely different.

I agree that we are talking about something different. But in a hypothetical world where interracial marriages were banned, an argument with a form identical to yours would be saying, to people who want to marry interracially: “You already have equal rights. You have an equal right to marry someone of the same race as you.”

Of course it can. Science cannot tell me that a rock is a human being. Science cannot tell me that a sperm is a human being. Science CAN and does tell me that a human being is a human being, and science can and does tell me (based on scientific observation) that once conception has taken place we are dealing with a human being. Inconvenient I know, but true.

If you think about it, you’ll find that it doesn’t. Whether or not a fertilised egg (which is what science actually calls it) is a human being for the purposes of moral consideration is not a question science does, or can, deal with. Similarly, there is no scientific observation of when death occurs. The heart stops beating, the brain loses oxygen, the brain cells start to decay, the whole body loses oxygen, the hair and nails keep growing for days afterwards, the digestive system continues for days afterwards, etc. We have drawn lines when a person is legally dead, and we have drawn lines when a person is morally dead, but there is no such thing as scientifically dead for the purposes of law or for morality.

Yes it does. An arbitrary line based merely on opinion is not a line, but shifting sand.

Still a line. There’s nothing mere about opinion. Our world consists greatly of opinion. Try crossing a border without a passport sometime and explain to whoever stops you that arbitrary lines aren’t really lines at all.

“There is never any objective reason to criticise anything. Criticism is a moral issue, and morality is not a fact about the world”

Yes, true morality is about facts concerning the world. Question, was the Holocaust objectively wrong, or is that just a matter of opinion?

The Holocaust can no more be objectively wrong than it can be a square circle. It was subjectively wrong to just about everyone alive, including me.

C.S Lewis deals with this myth in ‘The Abolition Of Man’.

He really, really doesn’t.

Suffice it to say, that despite differences there has in fact been a remarkable degree of uniformity in what most societies have considered right and wrong. Human societies do not always get it right, but that does not prove that therefore there IS no objective right.

Human societies remain human societies. They wouldn’t survive long if murder was socially encouraged. That explains the similarities without having to resort to logical impossibilities.

This is mostly digression. The point is:

You are simply incorrect that science tells us when something is morally or legally a human life.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2008 9:13am
Lee

“I agree that we are talking about something different.”

Good. My point is made then.

“But in a hypothetical world”

We are living in this one.

“Whether or not a fertilised egg (which is what science actually calls it) is a human being for the purposes of moral consideration is not a question science does, or can, deal with.”

Of course it can. For example science can tell me that a 3 month old post-born baby is a human being. Science can tell me that a 5 year old child is a human being. Science can tell me that a 70 year old is a human being. Therefore science can, and does tell me that once conception has taken place a growing human being exists. Once we have established that observable fact, the moral issues follow as night follows day.

“The Holocaust can no more be objectively wrong than it can be a square circle. It was subjectively wrong to just about everyone alive, including me.”

Then according to your argument it was not wrong at all. Subjective right and wrong is not right and wrong, its opinion. According to your argument here, opinion is what makes right and wrong. Therefore the Germans under the Nazi’s were NOT wrong because majority opinion in Germany at the time supported dealing harshly with the Jews. There was therefore nothing morally right about defeating the Nazis, we were just expressing a meaningless and empty opinion. Nice world you want to live in.

Your self-contradiction here blows your own case out of the water.

“He really, really doesn’t.”

Thats an argument? Prove that he doesn’t.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2008 10:25am

More comments:

‹
1
2

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« A&E Waiting Time Limits

2008 Election Results – Green Party Vote »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 37.4K other subscribers

Highlights

Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments
Health Target 3 – Emergency Dept Waiting Times
Health Target 2 – Immunisations

Links

Sowell says
Hompaddock
Resolving the infrastructure deficit
Utopia
Pete And The Pentagon
No Minister
ACT launched a bad faith attack on the Treaty and now cry like snowflakes because of a Haka
The Daily Blog
A great grift against taxpayers
Point of Order
More lawlessness from National
No Right Turn
Open mike 16/11/2024
The Standard
Shock & Surprise: Lawyers oppose removal of lawyers' gravy train
Not PC
Thankfully we said nope to dope
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
A NEW DEGREE COURSE FOR MASSEY
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
A Day of Reckoning
NZCPR
Media Link: “A View from Afar” on the US elections.
Kiwipolitico
This will not end well
Offsetting Behaviour
Top 14 Predictions for Round 10
Stats Chat
Pretty (il)legal
Croaking Cassandra
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
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d