About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

October 19, 2009 8:00am by David Farrar

General Debate 19 October 2009

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment48

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (48)

Login to comment or vote

MikeNZ

Is our govt going to sign away some of our sovereignty at Copenhagen as the short vid by Lord Monckton at whaleoil says?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0
http://rightsidenews.com/200910176878/energy-and-environment/what-lord-monckton-said-at-dinner.html
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/un-fccc-copenhagen-2009.pdf

[DPF: Almost every international agreement can be deemed to involve a loss of sovereignity – the left claim the WTO does the same thing]
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 19, 2009 8:09am
TripeWryter

The Timaru Herald tells its readers in 469 words that it is confused about so-called global warming.

“It may not be the only major issue out there, and certainly the global credit crisis helped to shift it from centre stage for a time, but there is no question that climate change has become one of the defining issues of the first decade of the 21st century.
Not that that necessarily means we are any closer to addressing the problem, because it is an issue dogged by lack of consensus, claim and counter-claim, exaggeration and minimisation.
Barely a day goes by without at least one strong opinion appearing on this page about the issue. Most are from readers, including two more today. The opinions expressed are wildly divergent, as is the tone. Some writers, and it’s probably fair to say they are mainly on the skeptical side, forthrightly and confidently state their views, giving the impression that somehow they have the inside track on a topic that has vexed the human race. It’s all a scam, a money-making racket, just part of the earth’s natural cycle, no way man could influence it…
Others acknowledge that there is a problem, to which man has contributed, but even the extent of that acknowledgement varies widely.
Some opinions are expressed through columns, as is the one today. Again, there are different points of view.
On the global stage, the picture is similar, although there is a level of general acknowledgement from many nations that there is a problem, that somehow man has interfered with the planet’s equilibrium, and that steps must be taken to address that.
But even at that level, consensus remains elusive. The commitments that are made by individual countries are often watered down, or loaded with conditions that take into account what other countries are doing.
All of this is, in some way, a function of being part of a community. We are a democratic country and debate is encouraged, opinions are valued. We’re all allowed to have our own.
Globally, we are a planet made up of diverse nations at different stages of development and with different national priorities. So it’s hardly surprising that consensus is difficult to reach.
But let’s just suppose for a moment, whether you’re a climate change skeptic, a believer, or somewhere in between, that somehow there is a strong element of truth to the idea of man-made climate change. Surely the prudent course then is to take action – urgent and intelligent action – to address the problem, even as we struggle to understand and debate the extent of the perceived threat?
If we take action to improve the planet and it turns out the problem is not as great as the biggest alarmists feared, we will surely have done something positive anyway. If we assume it’s all a hoax and it turns out we’re wrong, there’s no coming back from that mistake.”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 19, 2009 8:10am
Grant Michael McKenna

MikeNZ, transposing US politics into New Zealand is always subject to problems- our parliament remains sovereign, even if the as yet undrafted Copenhagen Treaty is signed- we can always repudiate it if we [later] realise that we have screwed the pooch.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 19, 2009 8:21am
dimmocrazy

@Grant and @MikeNZ: while Grant is theoretically correct, he is practically very, very wrong. There are many examples where signing to international treaties has effectively neutered sovereignty, not only in NZ but all over the world. I don’t know where I have the idea from, but I thought Grant was a lawyer, so he should be able to provide the examples himself. If you want a recent example you need not look any further than the smacking debate, where effectively UN politics are running the show in NZ.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 19, 2009 8:28am
MikeNZ

Grant
I sincerely hope so but don’t trust National as they have already said (Power) to the UN that they are amenable to signing the Indiginous Peoples Treaty which goes down the same road (sovereignty).
The short 4 min one is at Whaleoil.
Apologies I’ve put the longer video link up (96mins) and just threw a couple of other links that came with the search just to save time.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 19, 2009 8:29am
MikeNZ

Dimmocrazy
Henry Lamb at http://www.sovereignty.net/ covers a lot of what you state.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 19, 2009 8:32am
Manolo

Interviewed by Larry Williams this morning on 2ZB about Sharples meeting the gangs, Key said “minister of previous Governments have also met gang leaders and he was comfortable with it..”

Comfortable is the word he used. Meeting with organised criminals, drug peddlers and violent rapists, all at taxpayer’s expense. Really?

Is this man fit to be our Prime Minister?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 19, 2009 8:34am
MikeNZ

Manolo
If he knew about it before hand then I don’t have a problem as it would have been part of a planned strategy to collate info and opinions whilst the good doctor/prof was perusing the literature for the P Plan. Before moving ahead with the actions.
However if he didn’t know about it and only found out now after the roll out of the P Plan, that’s iffy.

Dimmocrazy
from my archive – http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=475
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 19, 2009 8:42am
Pete George

Why shouldn’t Key be comfortable with engaging with gangs and trying to deal with gang problems? There is potentially a far greater expense in marginalising, and further alienating a segment of our population.

The police are there to deal with illegal actions of gangs.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 19, 2009 8:43am
malcolm

Pete, they marginalise and alienate *themselves*, by being violent, criminal scum. It’s not our fault.

There’s plenty more the government can do before waving the white flag and declaring that criminal gangs are an unsolvable problem and the best we can do is politely ask them to behave.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 19, 2009 8:52am
MikeNZ

PeteG
Key was not comfortable on breakfast this morning.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 19, 2009 8:52am
Inventory2

I agree Pete – and I also suggest that Sharples would have far more mana with the predominantly Maori gang leaders than any non-Maori politician. We should be grateful that Pita Sharples recognises that gangs are a Maori problem, and that Maori are a crucial part of the solution. Others would call such an approach Maori-bashing.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 19, 2009 8:53am
MikeNZ

Dimmocrazy
This link whilst very much a US thing has good basic principles and points to where Global governance and Environmental people at the UN are ultimately heading.
Slide no 22 is poignant to our land issues as local authorities limit the available land.

http://www.takingliberty.us/Narrations/WhyPropertyRights/propertyrights/player.html
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 19, 2009 8:58am
Pete George

Exactly I2. I thought Clayton Cosgrove’s criticism was just reactionary politics (in Opposition so must oppose), I’m surprised there are some here that back Cosgrove on it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 19, 2009 9:01am
dimmocrazy

It looks like many on this forum have come to accept politician’s (lack of) morals. To me it is inconceivable to say (as a government) on the one hand that you are going to stamp out gangs, while on the other engaging in debate with the very leaders of those entities. These two approaches cannot be reconciled without accepting a substantial reduction of moral fibre, all too common for politicians, but the true source of our problems in many respects.
There is only one way to properly deal with gangs and that is to deny them their oxygen in all ways possible (by decriminalizing the drugs problem) and to eradicate their activities and assets.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 19, 2009 9:01am
Chuck Bird

On page 2 of the Sunday Star Times is a report of Keith Hunter’s presentation about the Sounds Murders.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-time … ds-murders

I attended a presentation by Keith Hunter on Saturday. I have some serious concerns about this case but would be interested to hear the view of other who have followed the case and particularly those who have read Hunter’s book, “Trial by Trickery”.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 19, 2009 9:04am
MikeNZ

I accept Pollies deal in goodwill (leads to votes), perception, deals (power) and money amongst many things so I do understand what Key is saying about Sharples meeting with the gangs.

Personally I see a disconnect between Key stating gangs are bad we must deal to them (talking tough) and then saying we talk to everyone when his Minister’s historical meetings with those same people (whilst govt was formulating a policy) is brought into the open and He doesn’t know anything about said meetings.

Sorta takes the sheen off him being a saviour for the nation a bit doesn’t it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 19, 2009 9:08am
Brian Smaller

dimmocrazy – When you see low life gang members, who exist on the dole and by ripping off the DPB, riding around on $30K + Harleys, I wonder why IRD doesn’t audit them. Oh yeah, middle class people and small business people are easier targets.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 19, 2009 9:25am
MikeNZ

Brian
Good point, USA used IRD equivalent to nail the Mob or I should say Al Capone.
Now that is a data matching I’d love to see made public better than that Outrageous Fortune crap.
Winz and IRD and vehicle registrations/tickets and Police black databases, then audits all round.

That of course is the long way round but would stand up in court if prosecutions came of the audits.
Quick way is through local criminal intelligence lists and just do the audits on gang members/associates and their family members. But of course the lefties will complain we are targeting a minority.

Would National set up a task force to do this?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 19, 2009 9:36am
Whafe

Right or wrong with the gangs and Sharples…

I piss blood more at the pathetic opposition pissing and moaning about things that they were themselves doing in the last 9 years they were in government….

I fail to understand how they can hold their heads high as part of our population……..
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 19, 2009 9:54am
MikeNZ

LUC
I found a page for you!
http://web.archive.org/web/20060529122738/www.envirotruth.org/myth_experts.cfm
Now I can’t vouch for their names or numbers but they must be part of the 18% of climate experts you state exist.

Whilst checking Monckton’s speech in US last week I was trying to save some pages and found this one as well.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/monckton_2009.pdf

Are these people credible to you?
http://www.friendsofscience.org/
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20summary.pdf
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 19, 2009 10:06am
menace

It’s only the un scedualed meetings with gangs that are to be uncomfortable about.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 19, 2009 10:32am
big bruv

I hope that DPF posts a thread about Sharples latest racist outburst.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 19, 2009 10:44am
MikeNZ

LUC
Where are you?
Just when I’m on a roll you’re AWOL !!

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=865dbe39-802a-23ad-4949-ee9098538277

Truly, jokes aside this is a serious issue as you have written before.
I agree if AGW is correct it is a very big deal and if it isn’t then I WANT MY MONEY BACK !!!
(that has been spent for no need and all these poor scientists who’ve been attacked given compensation for grief from the Gaia believers).
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 19, 2009 10:44am
dimmocrazy

“DPF: Almost every international agreement can be deemed to involve a loss of sovereignity – the left claim the WTO does the same thing”

We’ll all pretend you didn’t write that, OK? You do know the difference between an agreement (i.e. exchange value for value) and ceding sovereignty (giving away some part of a state’s right to make decisions for itself).

[DPF: By signing up to the WTO we gave away the right to decide what tariffs we can put on certain products]
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 19, 2009 11:02am
KiwiGreg

“You do know the difference between an agreement (i.e. exchange value for value)”

I think you are thinking of a contract. An agreement can be entirely one sided.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 19, 2009 11:08am
Grant Michael McKenna

dimmocrazy, I am not a lawyer, although I do have a Dip Iuris, a South African basic [2 year] legal qualification, and back in the RSA I did work as a labour law specialist attached to a trade union. As to treaties undermining or neutering sovereignty, I accept that they do limit nations in so far as the nation adopts such law into its internal processes but this is not axiomatic- hence the poor legal record of the human rights law signatories, for example; signing is for ceremonial purposes and actually means very little. What matters is what laws result from the signing.
The best example of a treaty unintentionally limiting sovereignty that I can think of is the Treaty of Waitangi 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 19, 2009 11:19am
MikeNZ

Grant I don’t get that.

When you sign and ratify UN treaty’s as far as I understood you agreed to change your local law to reflect that and could be held to account (at some time) by the body.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 19, 2009 11:26am
Grant Michael McKenna

The UN has no purpose except to host talks; to be criticised by the UN is meaningless. Sure, it could upset the left, but in reality the UN only matters if you let it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 19, 2009 11:34am
MikeNZ

So it’s ok to sign agreements not intending to honour them ?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 19, 2009 12:00pm
Grant Michael McKenna

Oh, they’d oinly be signed if we intended to honour them- but we get to decide what they mean.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 19, 2009 12:25pm
dimmocrazy

@Kiwigreg: No. An agreement always requires at least two parties. A one sided instrument is a deed, something completely different.

@GMM: there are many ways by which international treaties can have effect in a national context. Some countries use the principle that international treaties have direct local effect (I think Belgium is an example), others require that international law must first be transferred into local legislation before it has binding effect (Like NZ). Nevertheless, the ‘principles’ of international instruments can have huge impact locally, and much of the UN stuff operates in that way. The system is simple, the UN is dominated by extreme collectivist forces (mostly left wing) and has an agenda to eventually create a world government. It creates all manner of instruments that espouse nebulous ‘principles’ that can in fact mean anything you want, and which on the surface appear utterly benign and hardly deserving of any scrutiny. They are, however, the thin edge of a wedge, and are used by collectivist forces in the member states to develop and support an agenda of social change and ‘social justice’ (a code word for collectivism, socialism, communism). The whole approach by the children’s commission is a good example, where Cindy Kiro was actively advocating for direct state control of all children through the principles of the UN instrument on children’s rights. For a good quote on how the state can use it’s concern for children to control parents, see this one:
“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”
That’s from Mein Kampf, by a guy called Adolf Hitler.

So you see, what appears to be a small issue, is in fact part of an agenda that you wouldn’t support if you had known it’s objective.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 19, 2009 12:29pm
Tassman

McVicar or whatever his name is who claims to be a victim of crime has a private trust based on his experience as a victim sets out on a vengeful mission to influence justice on punitive sentencing. How can a personal vendetta be seen as ethical when the motive is clearly not independent? In fact his passion is publicised and promoted by politicians, Mr. McVicar not only advices the Minister of Justice, but also directly to the public as if he was elected on the role. The people are obviously powerless under an autocratic right wing gang to do anything about the massive conflict of interest in here.

Let me see, Mr. Key might say any of the following; ‘there’s nothing wrong with that’, or ‘he’s comfortable with that’, or ‘he is seeking advice on that…’ blah blah, but never a plausible explanation or practical action on that!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 19, 2009 12:55pm
Razork

I need to get one of these…

http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/motoring/2976233/Whale-penis-seats-in-Russian-4WD

Might as well be in comfort as I warm up the neighbourhood.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 19, 2009 1:08pm
BlackMoss

MikeNZ,

RE:Myths and envirotruth regarding climate change…

Well, this is one list, to be fair you could include the list of people that disagree with these people. Also, a cursory sleuthing on Wikipedia shows that possibly the views of some could be compromised by monetary gain:

>About Dr. Richard S. Lindzen
“According to Ross Gelbspan in a 1995 article in Harper’s Magazine, Lindzen “… charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,[28] was underwritten by OPEC.”[29][30] However, according to Alex Beam in a 2006 article in the The Boston Globe, Lindzen said that although he had accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from “fossil-fuel types” in the 1990s, he had not received any money from these since.[31] Lindzen has elsewhere described the Gelbspan allegation as a “slander” and as “libelous.”[32][33]

Lindzen has contributed to think tanks including the Cato Institute and the George C. Marshall Institute that have accepted money from ExxonMobil.[30]
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 19, 2009 1:22pm
Manolo

Today’s quote of the day from Not PC is a beauty:

“If you talk to God, that’s called ‘prayer.’ If God talks to you, that’s called ‘schizophrenia.’ ”
Psychiatrist Thomas Szasz
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 19, 2009 1:34pm
Michael M Wilson

I see John Key has joined JFK and Obama as being declared the Antichrist. http://dunedinschool.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/john-key-antichrist/

This will finally put an end to the pesky support from the Exclusive Bretheren.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 19, 2009 1:36pm
nickb

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10566070

Does anyone know if they found the cunts that did this? Was just thinking about it today after reading yet another paper full of violent crime. That the attack was on a victim that went to war to protect democracy makes it all the more disgusting.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 19, 2009 1:42pm
Luc Hansen

I’m here Mike! Gotta wait till baby has her morning sleep.

And I just had to finish off yesterday’s GB 🙂 So many disputes, so little time…

Just to reinforce what I said is my stand, I am not a scientist so I don’t involve myself in technicalities. Although by naure I am somewhat contrarian, I am definitely alarmed at the DEGREE of consensus amongst the experts – 82% is pretty decisive. That’s about the support for whacking our kids, isn’t it? Do you go with the majority on that one?

After all, they are all expert parents, no doubt.

Now it looks like baby is waking up, but I’ll get back to you later.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 19, 2009 2:13pm
big bruv

Another great post from Lindsay Mitchell, National party cheer leaders would do well to read it.

http://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com/2009/10/nationals-broken-promises.html
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 19, 2009 2:43pm
nickb

It was a good post bruv, do note with amusement, s did you, that Adolf jumps in mindlessly straight away to fly the blue flag, for some reason he thinks we should wait while National do nothing for 2 years, and that suddenly following the 2011 election National will unleash free market nirvana bringing prosperity and wealth.

Well Adolf, why th fuck do we have to wait until then?

Good to see you posting at Heine’s blog btw bruv. The NZ blogoshpere needs more anti-cheerleaders.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 19, 2009 3:00pm
MikeNZ

Blackmoss
You’re young aren’t you?
I have accepted money in the past from petrol companies does that now make me a non person in your eyes in regard to AGW?

Luc
Hope they are all well, I fondly remember the first 5 yrs of kiddietime.
I don’t agree with your 82% as who does that come from?
The ratfucks who are doing the shitty on their colleagues who don’t agree with them!

BigBruv
Thanks I shall read her blog again she makes sense.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 19, 2009 4:55pm
LUCY

MikeNZ (305) Vote: 1 0 Says:

October 19th, 2009 at 10:06 am

Thanks for those links they are great.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 19, 2009 5:49pm
Luc Hansen

Mike and LUCY

people are beginning to talk about you too…:-)

Now, I have stated my views and I think my reasoning is pretty sound. I’m not taking a stand on whether warming is occurring or not, or whether it will cause harm or not, etc etc. Surely to properly analyse the science I would need to go back to Uni and do a Climate Science course.

Mike, the myths pointed alleged in the your first link would appear to be rebutted here http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011 and agreed to by 82% of the worlds climate scientists. The University of Chicago mailed out over 10,000 questionnaires to climate scientists belonging to their professional body, and received a little over 3000 replies. I have posted the link twice already, once in direct response to your request.

I am not going to second guess these guys. I suggest you apply your undoubted intelligence to what works best in combating warming. I find the Copenhagen Consensus project organised by Bjorn Lomborg (The Skeptical Environment) informative and challenging.

That’s the best I can do for you guys. If want to wallow in your 18% contrarians, well, have fun but I can’t help but think that like faith addicts, it’s just a colossal waste of human energy.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 19, 2009 6:45pm
Luc Hansen

ACC

I listened to John Judge this afternoon on RNZ. He headed the ACC review panel which recommended the changes under discussion. His recommendations were based in part on his personal belief that leaving a tail for the future is unfair to future taxpayers. It’s the old inter-generational theft argument that has been dormant for a while.

I wonder what is his view on the benefit these future taxpayers receive from past generations in systems, infrastructure etc. Surely we can leave some debt to balance the ledger.

And I wonder whether professed personal beliefs should pre-determine the outcome of a review (understanding that full funding is already in progress, but it still should be analysed beyond mere ideology, surely.

I wonder, too, what would the current acturial deficit of 13 billion be if interest rates were double, for example, what they are now?

And given that actuarial estimates are just that, estimates, I wonder whether we could compromise on a percentage of forward funding, in recognition of the inherent uncertainty and of the benefits accruing to future generations from the cumulative contribution of past generations.

And I wonder if I will die wondering? 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 19, 2009 6:59pm
nickb

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2979551/End-to-provocation-defence-a-step-closer

And the latest “quick, pass a law, lets look like strong leaders!” policy grows closer to realisation…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 19, 2009 7:29pm
Steve

Tui Brewery workers on strike? but it’s only down south.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/stories/2009/10/19/1245ce0fc9ec
The nymphos at Mangatanoka are still there each day I hope
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 19, 2009 8:13pm
NOt1tocommentoften

nickb – tell me what has been super fast about repeal of the provocation defence? More work has been done than you probably think here.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 19, 2009 10:16pm

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« Part Fees

English on GST »

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

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
NZCPR
Stats NZ needs to be more accurate
Point of Order
Poverty and crime
Utopia
Government sabotages its Emissions Reduction Plan
The Standard
Submission on the Treaty Principles Bill
The Daily Blog
Quotes of the week
Hompaddock
The Power of Big Ice Cream
No Minister
"... a broader, decade-long 'crank realignment' in American politics."
Not PC
2024 OIA stats
No Right Turn
SHALLOW THINKING
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
Jacinda’s “Act” of kindness has increased abortions 23%
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
About Syria.
Kiwipolitico
Orr on Q&A – Part II
Croaking Cassandra
United Rugby Championship Predictions for Week 8
Stats Chat
Misuse of land use planning
Offsetting Behaviour
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