General Debate 15 February 2010

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment65

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (65)

Login to comment or vote

Kris K

Me Me Me
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 8:17am
dad4justice

The sexist attitude is prevalent in all aspects of kiwi society and mentality. Gone are the days where real women looked up to a real bloke.A stinking thinking hateful feminist mandate and political correctness ideology has changed life styles and the traditional family unit. The media are feminist propaganda robots that enjoy portraying men as wimpish girly men walking on egg shells always frightened that they might upset their numerous female colleagues. No wonder male teenage suicide rates, drug addiction and self esteem issues are a major factor in this sad society. One has to only look at our girlyman Prime Minister John Key at the big gay out to understand why this tiny Nation is plagued by so many social problems. Modern society thinks men are a throw away disposable product that has little use once taken to the cleaners by a sexist judicial system.Government does not agree with equality and fairness. They make me sick.Wonder how many men comitt suicide this year John Key you timid creep!

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/3327611/Sexist-stance-hurts-men
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 8:22am
MikeNZ

well done Kris
I hope the rest of the week is as successful 😉
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 8:30am
eszett

Oh dear, D4J is due for another prostate check to calm him down.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 8:40am
dad4justice

eszitt – did John Key get his ” prostate” checked out at the big gay out?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 8:42am
Pete George

It’s good to see you posting some views for a change D4J.

I don’t think it’s so much the media, but rather the advertising agency part of the media that is often “portraying men as wimpish girly men walking on egg shells always frightened that they might upset their numerous female colleagues.” I presume it’s a view that must sell.

“Gone are the days where real women looked up to a real bloke.”
Not sure what you mean by this. I don’t think women should have to look up to men. We may not always see eye to eye but our eyes are of equal value.

Government does not agree with equality and fairness.
Examples of this?

Linking Key to male suicide rates (if that is what you are trying to do) is a nasty bastard thing to do.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 8:43am
MikeNZ

Victor Hansen opions on USA getting into $18 trillion in debt so I suppose Key’s $250million a week for a period isn’t that bad is it?
Comparing 1st with GDP of $14 trillion and 300 million people into $18 trillion USD debt vs 52nd with GDP of $130 billion and 4 million people into $12 billion NZD debt?

Nothing to worry about ehh?

http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson020610.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 8:44am
Pete George

From the Sexist-stance-hurts-men Stuff article:

Men were more likely to have high cholesterol and heart disease and have higher rates of many common cancers than women.

Much of that could be self inflicted.

Young Canterbury men were more likely to be hospitalised with mental-health issues and abuse of substances such as drugs and alcohol.

Much of that is self inflicted.

They were also more likely to die or be injured in an accident.

In the past five years, 1693 Canterbury men aged 15 to 24 were involved in serious-injury crashes compared with 1221 females.

More than 70 per cent of drowning victims are male.

And who is responsible for all that?

“It would appear that this is due to the `untouchable’ or `bulletproof’ attitude a lot of young men tend to possess,” the report said.

Whose stance is hurting who?

Has the government/s created this male attitude?

Should the government make men go on “Stop the macho bullshit” courses?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 8:52am
dime

not a bad post by D4J, agree with it until we get to the comment about Key at the BGO!??! whats the problem there?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 8:57am
Kris K

MikeNZ [GD February 12th, 2010 at 2:27 pm],

KrisK
Just for you.
http://victorhanson.com/articles/scambray012410.html

Thanks, Mike; very interesting and perhaps something others here may wish to ponder on.
[Ryan, Chthoniid, et al]

From your link:

January 24, 2010
God and the Godless
by Terry Scambray
New Oxford Review

Review of The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions by David Berlinski (Crown Forum, 2008. 225 pp).

David Berlinski is a skeptical man. He doesn’t believe in Darwinian evolution as well as certain other dogmas of so-called science. Equally skeptical of religion, he writes, “I am a secular Jew. My religious education did not take.” Even his spare, unadorned style reflects his reluctance to use his penetrating wit and his assorted literary gifts to go beyond the plain and the provable.

Yet Berlinski also realizes that skepticism is selective: deep down everyone is soft on something. Or as he puts it: “What a man rejects as distasteful must always be measured against what he is prepared eagerly to swallow.”

And “the new atheists,” his targets in this book, do swallow a lot of strange, “scientific” concoctions, in order to eliminate God.

In the first place, physicists, like evolutionary biologists, need a lot of wiggle room for their theories to make sense. One such is string theory which seeks to replace Democritus’ atoms with gyrating strings as the fundamental particles of matter.

Apparently some versions of string theory require more than the mere three or four dimensions of our, apparently, too parsimonious universe. So one must imagine a universe of many dimensions, say up to twenty-six, to accommodate string theory. As Berlinski writes: “. . . the conflict between the demands of the theory [Get me those extra dimensions] and the constraints of common sense [No extra dimensions here, Boss, and we looked] was not easily resolved.”

Apparently our universe, a mere 10 billion years old and 10 billion light years across, is too picayunish to accommodate such boundless ideas. Berlinski quotes the respected physicist, Leonard Susskind, to the effect that our universe “is giving away to something far bigger and pregnant with new possibilities.” As Berlinski mockingly responds, “Far bigger? And pregnant too?”

The answer is, yes. And on both counts. For Susskind has written that “physicists and cosmologists are coming to see our ten billion light years as an infinitesimal pocket of a stupendous megaverse.”

Realizing the de classe associations with the suffix ‘mega” as in “mega-blockbuster or “mega-mall”, Susskind rechristened the megaverse, “the Landscape.”

But if everything is so vast and we humans are so insignificant and unlikely, why are we here to read all about it?

Well, as the answer goes: In an infinite sea of possibilities, we are inevitable, me writing this and you reading it. Besides, as Berlinski puts it, if you weren’t here, you would be nowhere. “And yet here you are. What did you expect?”

See, it’s all pretty obvious, isn’t it?

But, despite all the scientific savvy that has gone into preparing these rarified intellectual delicacies, do they make sense?

Think about it: If everything that could ever happen has happened along with all the variations on the variations, then we are talking about infinity. To take one infinitesimal example, this very sentence will have to have been written with all possible sloppiness as well as with all possible elegance, countless different ways. And you would have to have read this sentence in an endless variety of ways in an endless variety of circumstances. This is Twilight Zone stuff, incomprehensible and unreal.

Additionally in order for this scheme to get cooking, there has to be an assumed set of laws. So everything is possible and wildly unexpected when one is committed to the Landscape. Except when one wishes to explain the existence of constants like forces and chemicals, and of human observers, like cosmologists, which are needed to give some intelligibility to “such stuff as dreams are made of” to cite Shakespeare from another but dreamily applicable context.

But is the preparation of such victuals energized less by “the desire to discover a new idea than to avoid an old one . . . that it is better to have many worlds than to have one God”?

A more comprehensible way to approach cosmology is to begin with something supported by the preponderance of evidence — which is to say, the Big Bang, two words which suggest “the most ancient of human intuitions . . . the connection between sexual and cosmic energies.”

The Big Bang also “suggests an old idea in thought: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Arnold Penzias, Nobel laureate, says that the Big Bang is “exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of the Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.”

Though Darwinism is a fossil of 19th-century progressive thought, it is eagerly embraced by the neo-atheists in their quest to appear scientific. But Darwin’s mechanism of progress, natural selection, has never been shown to create anything close to the improvements in organisms necessary to get us where we are right now, such improvements as wings in birds or brains in humans.

Thus, the Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins argues that such changes must, therefore, be the work of covert critters called, “selfish genes”. These Ayn Rand like rascals relentlessly compete for survival, the implacable goal of all organisms according to Darwin. So Dawkins hopes that when we observe people behaving, say, altruistically we will believe that the selfish gene fable explains their behavior and not what our own eyes and common sense tell us.

Like the many worlds hypothesis, such explanatory gimmicks cannot be disproven, they can only be parodied. Berlinski joins the fun by remarking: “The thesis that we are all nothing more than vehicles for a number of ‘selfish genes’ has accordingly entered deeply into the simian gabble of academic life, where together with materialism and moral relativism it now seems as self-evident as the law of affirmative action.”

Steven Pinker, the Harvard evolutionary psychologist, is another prominent exponent of the death of God, and man, by scientific strangulation. His work is devoted to showing that, “Every aspect of thought and emotion is rooted in brain structure and function.” Indeed, as an American geneticist has written, “a person’s capacity to believe in God is linked to his brain chemicals.” Berlinski’s riposte: “Of all things ! Why not to his urine? . . . And since the door is open, why not believe that a person’s capacity to believe in molecular genetics is linked to a brain chemical?”

Not surprisingly, Pinker, like other determinists, exempts himself from the imperatives of his own reductionist explanation when he avers, “. . . nature does not dictate what we should accept or how we should live our lives.” Apparently, some pigs are more equal than other pigs. Or, as Berlinski notes: “If evolutionary psychology is true, some form of genetic determinism must be true as well. . . No slippage is rationally possible.”

But if we cannot explain the human mind by a series of mechanical devices, what then is left? Berlinski responds: “There is the ordinary, very rich, infinitely moving account of mental life that without hesitation we apply to ourselves. It is an account frankly magical in its nature. The human mind registers, reacts, and responds; it forms intentions, conceives problems, and then, as Aristotle dryly noted, it acts.”

Because it is clear that Berlinski deeply admires the great edifice of science, he has it in for those who blithely or arrogantly create concepts like “the Landscape” and “selfish genes,” which resemble Rorschach more than they do Einstein and Edison.

And, furthermore, as one who knows science from the inside, Berlinski sympathizes with a great many people “who have an angry sense of being oppressed by . . . [the] endless scientific boasting” of smart alecks like Dawkins and Pinker who insist that science has obliterated religion.

Berlinski’s defense of religion is engagingly straightforward: “While science has nothing of value to say on the great and aching questions of life, death, love and meaning, what the religious traditions of mankind have said forms a coherent body of thought. . . . There is recompense for suffering. A principle beyond selfishness is at work in the cosmos. . . I do not know whether any of this is true. I am certain that the scientific community does not know that it is false.”

For Berlinski, there are only four truly scientific theories: Newtonian mechanics, Maxwell’s theory of the electromagnetic field, special and general relativity and quantum mechanics. None of these mentions anything about God. As Berlinski wryly insists: “I have checked this carefully.”

As with other achievements in science, however, these four monumental theories have served to make “the world more mysterious than it ever was.” For one thing, no one has been able to unify such disparate peaks of achievement into a single unifying principle. Assorted other questions also remain: How did the universe begin? What is time? We do not know how a baby acquires so much language so quickly. “We can say nothing of interest about the human soul. We do not know what impels us to right conduct or where the form of the good is found.”

Berlinski concludes with a sobering parody of contemporary science. He describes a confused Cardinal Bellarmine, famed as Galileo’s opponent, directing the construction of a great cathedral. Berlinski, however, reverses the situation and has the brilliant and ruthless Cardinal supervising the construction of a church to science that is now our church.

The spire, however, has not been built. “And in the clear moonlight, the cathedral looks unbalanced, almost as if it were a cripple defiantly waving a stump against the sky.” At this uncertain juncture, the cardinal is asked if the cathedral supports the faith placed in it.

“Does any cathedral?” Berlinski responds to end the book.

©2009 Victor Davis Hanson

Once again, we observe those that adhere to New Atheism (dressup up Evolutionary thought) as exhibiting every bit, if not more, of the faith of which they accuse those that believe in a Creator of being guilty. The article/review makes its own points and conclusions, so I will not add further here.
Suffice to say, though, those points and conclusions are worth the thinking man’s attention; and I encourage each one here to think on the implications of the issues raised therein: Is there in fact a Creator God?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 8:58am
dime

Holmes made a valid point during his 7:15 rant this morning. The new mining policy is going to give the Greens something to campaign on at the next election.

it will get them back over 5% me thinks.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 8:59am
Grendel

the key issue Pete is that funding is completly out of whack. if you ignore the self inflicted stuff (and women get a lot more funding for mental health than men do), the stuff like cancer is completly in favour of women.

Breat cancer is funded by multiples to what Prostate cancer is; not just in treatement but awareness etc. and from the last batch of stats i had it was 1:10 for breat cancer and 1:13 for prostate cancer.

whats the cause? no idea but i suspect many years of people not questioning the assumption that women are the minority and need special treatement does not help. you only have to look at university where most of the policy analysts come from to see where they might get the idea that men are second class. the constant badgering that all men are part of some “patriarch” keeping the minority (but 52% population and higher at university) down, and the special women only spaces plus the myriad womens events helps foster the kind of attitude that would lead to deliberate skewing of funding and the creation of womens only health courses in the general public.

i can only imagine the outrage if course was developed to help people get healther and it was for men only. but we see in that article mention of a womens only course, and not a word in condemnation spoken.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 9:03am
Manolo

Is Nick Smith also advising Obama?

“Global warming skeptics are agog that President Obama is seeking to dramatically increase federal funding for global warming research in the wake of the Climate-gate scandals that have emerged during the last three months.

The federal budget for 2011 proposes $2.6 billion for the Global Change Research Program, a 21 percent boost over 2010. It will bring funding to a level higher than under any administration dating back to 1989 — when global warming first attracted federal budget funds.”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 9:11am
Kris K

MikeNZ [GD February 12th, 2010 at 2:27 pm],

KrisK
Just for you.
http://victorhanson.com/articles/scambray012410.html

Thanks, Mike; very interesting and perhaps something others here may wish to ponder on.
[Ryan, Chthoniid, et al]

From your link:

[Part 1]

January 24, 2010
God and the Godless
by Terry Scambray
New Oxford Review

Review of The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions by David Berlinski (Crown Forum, 2008. 225 pp).

David Berlinski is a skeptical man. He doesn’t believe in Darwinian evolution as well as certain other dogmas of so-called science. Equally skeptical of religion, he writes, “I am a secular Jew. My religious education did not take.” Even his spare, unadorned style reflects his reluctance to use his penetrating wit and his assorted literary gifts to go beyond the plain and the provable.

Yet Berlinski also realizes that skepticism is selective: deep down everyone is soft on something. Or as he puts it: “What a man rejects as distasteful must always be measured against what he is prepared eagerly to swallow.”

And “the new atheists,” his targets in this book, do swallow a lot of strange, “scientific” concoctions, in order to eliminate God.

In the first place, physicists, like evolutionary biologists, need a lot of wiggle room for their theories to make sense. One such is string theory which seeks to replace Democritus’ atoms with gyrating strings as the fundamental particles of matter.

Apparently some versions of string theory require more than the mere three or four dimensions of our, apparently, too parsimonious universe. So one must imagine a universe of many dimensions, say up to twenty-six, to accommodate string theory. As Berlinski writes: “. . . the conflict between the demands of the theory [Get me those extra dimensions] and the constraints of common sense [No extra dimensions here, Boss, and we looked] was not easily resolved.”

Apparently our universe, a mere 10 billion years old and 10 billion light years across, is too picayunish to accommodate such boundless ideas. Berlinski quotes the respected physicist, Leonard Susskind, to the effect that our universe “is giving away to something far bigger and pregnant with new possibilities.” As Berlinski mockingly responds, “Far bigger? And pregnant too?”

The answer is, yes. And on both counts. For Susskind has written that “physicists and cosmologists are coming to see our ten billion light years as an infinitesimal pocket of a stupendous megaverse.”

Realizing the de classe associations with the suffix ‘mega” as in “mega-blockbuster or “mega-mall”, Susskind rechristened the megaverse, “the Landscape.”

But if everything is so vast and we humans are so insignificant and unlikely, why are we here to read all about it?

Well, as the answer goes: In an infinite sea of possibilities, we are inevitable, me writing this and you reading it. Besides, as Berlinski puts it, if you weren’t here, you would be nowhere. “And yet here you are. What did you expect?”

See, it’s all pretty obvious, isn’t it?

But, despite all the scientific savvy that has gone into preparing these rarified intellectual delicacies, do they make sense?

Think about it: If everything that could ever happen has happened along with all the variations on the variations, then we are talking about infinity. To take one infinitesimal example, this very sentence will have to have been written with all possible sloppiness as well as with all possible elegance, countless different ways. And you would have to have read this sentence in an endless variety of ways in an endless variety of circumstances. This is Twilight Zone stuff, incomprehensible and unreal.

Additionally in order for this scheme to get cooking, there has to be an assumed set of laws. So everything is possible and wildly unexpected when one is committed to the Landscape. Except when one wishes to explain the existence of constants like forces and chemicals, and of human observers, like cosmologists, which are needed to give some intelligibility to “such stuff as dreams are made of” to cite Shakespeare from another but dreamily applicable context.

But is the preparation of such victuals energized less by “the desire to discover a new idea than to avoid an old one . . . that it is better to have many worlds than to have one God”?

A more comprehensible way to approach cosmology is to begin with something supported by the preponderance of evidence — which is to say, the Big Bang, two words which suggest “the most ancient of human intuitions . . . the connection between sexual and cosmic energies.”

The Big Bang also “suggests an old idea in thought: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Arnold Penzias, Nobel laureate, says that the Big Bang is “exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of the Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 9:12am
Kris K

[Part 2]

Though Darwinism is a fossil of 19th-century progressive thought, it is eagerly embraced by the neo-atheists in their quest to appear scientific. But Darwin’s mechanism of progress, natural selection, has never been shown to create anything close to the improvements in organisms necessary to get us where we are right now, such improvements as wings in birds or brains in humans.

Thus, the Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins argues that such changes must, therefore, be the work of covert critters called, “selfish genes”. These Ayn Rand like rascals relentlessly compete for survival, the implacable goal of all organisms according to Darwin. So Dawkins hopes that when we observe people behaving, say, altruistically we will believe that the selfish gene fable explains their behavior and not what our own eyes and common sense tell us.

Like the many worlds hypothesis, such explanatory gimmicks cannot be disproven, they can only be parodied. Berlinski joins the fun by remarking: “The thesis that we are all nothing more than vehicles for a number of ‘selfish genes’ has accordingly entered deeply into the simian gabble of academic life, where together with materialism and moral relativism it now seems as self-evident as the law of affirmative action.”

Steven Pinker, the Harvard evolutionary psychologist, is another prominent exponent of the death of God, and man, by scientific strangulation. His work is devoted to showing that, “Every aspect of thought and emotion is rooted in brain structure and function.” Indeed, as an American geneticist has written, “a person’s capacity to believe in God is linked to his brain chemicals.” Berlinski’s riposte: “Of all things ! Why not to his urine? . . . And since the door is open, why not believe that a person’s capacity to believe in molecular genetics is linked to a brain chemical?”

Not surprisingly, Pinker, like other determinists, exempts himself from the imperatives of his own reductionist explanation when he avers, “. . . nature does not dictate what we should accept or how we should live our lives.” Apparently, some pigs are more equal than other pigs. Or, as Berlinski notes: “If evolutionary psychology is true, some form of genetic determinism must be true as well. . . No slippage is rationally possible.”

But if we cannot explain the human mind by a series of mechanical devices, what then is left? Berlinski responds: “There is the ordinary, very rich, infinitely moving account of mental life that without hesitation we apply to ourselves. It is an account frankly magical in its nature. The human mind registers, reacts, and responds; it forms intentions, conceives problems, and then, as Aristotle dryly noted, it acts.”

Because it is clear that Berlinski deeply admires the great edifice of science, he has it in for those who blithely or arrogantly create concepts like “the Landscape” and “selfish genes,” which resemble Rorschach more than they do Einstein and Edison.

And, furthermore, as one who knows science from the inside, Berlinski sympathizes with a great many people “who have an angry sense of being oppressed by . . . [the] endless scientific boasting” of smart alecks like Dawkins and Pinker who insist that science has obliterated religion.

Berlinski’s defense of religion is engagingly straightforward: “While science has nothing of value to say on the great and aching questions of life, death, love and meaning, what the religious traditions of mankind have said forms a coherent body of thought. . . . There is recompense for suffering. A principle beyond selfishness is at work in the cosmos. . . I do not know whether any of this is true. I am certain that the scientific community does not know that it is false.”

For Berlinski, there are only four truly scientific theories: Newtonian mechanics, Maxwell’s theory of the electromagnetic field, special and general relativity and quantum mechanics. None of these mentions anything about God. As Berlinski wryly insists: “I have checked this carefully.”

As with other achievements in science, however, these four monumental theories have served to make “the world more mysterious than it ever was.” For one thing, no one has been able to unify such disparate peaks of achievement into a single unifying principle. Assorted other questions also remain: How did the universe begin? What is time? We do not know how a baby acquires so much language so quickly. “We can say nothing of interest about the human soul. We do not know what impels us to right conduct or where the form of the good is found.”

Berlinski concludes with a sobering parody of contemporary science. He describes a confused Cardinal Bellarmine, famed as Galileo’s opponent, directing the construction of a great cathedral. Berlinski, however, reverses the situation and has the brilliant and ruthless Cardinal supervising the construction of a church to science that is now our church.

The spire, however, has not been built. “And in the clear moonlight, the cathedral looks unbalanced, almost as if it were a cripple defiantly waving a stump against the sky.” At this uncertain juncture, the cardinal is asked if the cathedral supports the faith placed in it.

“Does any cathedral?” Berlinski responds to end the book.

©2009 Victor Davis Hanson

Once again, we observe those that adhere to New Atheism (dressup up Evolutionary thought) as exhibiting every bit, if not more, of the faith of which they accuse those that believe in a Creator of being guilty. The article/review makes its own points and conclusions, so I will not add further here.
Suffice to say, though, those points and conclusions are worth the thinking man’s attention; and I encourage each one here to think on the implications of the issues raised therein: Is there in fact a Creator God?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 9:13am
Pita

I see Prof. Phil Jones has acknowledged in a BBC interview that there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995 and that the middle age warming period was warmer than today.

Also a very interesting paper by Hebrew University scientists published in Nature magazine (remarkable in itself) refuting AGW and that “claims that carbon emissions permanently increase gloabal temperature are false”

Who said the science was settled?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 9:15am
LeftRightOut

Kris. WOW! A great C&P effort. But what does it mean, where is the science.

How about having a go at this from the Religious debate thread last week.

LeftRightOut (97) Says:

February 10th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Kris K (1533) Says:

For instance; I have a Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical) and yet also believe the Genesis account, and that the creation was of the order of 6,000 years ago (and that the science backs up this view). Similarly, that science supports Intelligent Design. Funny how we come to different conclusions when presented with the same evidence, but there you go.

We are most obviously NOT looking at the same evidence as there is absolutly NO evidence the earth, let alone the entire universe was created 6000 years ago. I’d be very interested in this evidence, but please remember, quoting scripture to prove scripture is not evidence.

As to ID being science, please list

5 scientific theories proposed by ID.
5 scientific predictions made by ID.
5 scientific discoveries made by ID.

And again, please rembember, “We don’t know / understand, so god duunit” will not qualify as theory, prediction or discovery.

Thanks
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 9:21am
Pete George

I believe that I can go and have a prostrate check any time I like. I choose not to, partly because there is a lot of doubt about the effectiveness of it.

I think men should take responsibility for their own actions and for their own health. If I thought I was significantly disadvantaged I would either moan about it or try and do something about it, but I don’t see it.

I regularly take part if health research and studies (I’m involved in two at the moment) – they are interesting, they contribute towards better knowledge about health issues (for men and women), and they keep me aware of personnel health at the same time.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 9:23am
Kris K

dad4justice 8:22 am,

The sexist attitude is prevalent in all aspects of kiwi society and mentality. Gone are the days where real women looked up to a real bloke.A stinking thinking hateful feminist mandate and political correctness ideology has changed life styles and the traditional family unit. …

Indeed, Dad.
We often comment here (well I do) that if you’re white and middle class you have no voice in society – we pander to minority interest groups (Maori, Sodomites, Feminists, et al). But add into that list the term ‘male’ (and that’s all males) and you realise that men in general are treated as second class citizens in many sectors of society – as Dad4J has highlighted in regards to health, the courts, etc.

Seeing Key pandering to these interest groups makes me sick; and is nothing short of betrayal of his own sex by prioritising and supporting those groups within society which attack the traditional male role as ‘head of the family’, and by default the family itself.
And we wonder why society is ‘going to hell in a handbasket’?

[And Pete, if you can’t see this then you really do live in la la land.]
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 9:29am
andrei

I believe that I can go and have a prostrate check any time I like. I choose not to, partly because there is a lot of doubt about the effectiveness of it.

Come on we both know the real reason you don’t Pete, is that you don’t like a finger up the keister
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 9:31am
Kris K

LeftRightOut 9:21 am,

Kris. WOW! A great C&P effort. But what does it mean, where is the science.

I think that’s part of the point of the article/review; much of what is touted as ‘science’ today is more a statement of faith than anything one might recognise as genuine science.
Did you actually read the article/review?

How about having a go at this from the Religious debate thread last week.

Don’t worry, I will be preparing something that supports Intelligent Design versus Darwin’s little treatise – but I will decide the terms of what I present, not you or others.
Patience is a virtue, so they tell me.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 9:41am
david

Pete, Do you have to lie down for a prostrate check ??????
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 9:47am
LeftRightOut

OK, so you have no answer to a few very basic questions.

No, I began to read the C&P job, but I give up as soon as I see anyone using scare quotes around words such as science and and new atheists, although new atheists are simply a figment of the imagination of the scientifically illiterate religous. And it seems you have placed yourself firmly in that camp.

So, prove you are more than hot air, how about I make it easy and you just provide 1 example from each of three topics? can you do it, Kris? ID is counting on you.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 9:49am
Manolo

Is this more back-pedaling from Key? He sounded almost apologetic this morning on NewstalkZB.
http://www.3news.co.nz/Key-expected-to-sell-shares-in-uranium-mining-company/tabid/419/articleID/141736/Default.aspx

Why can’t the PM stand up to the Luddites and tell them to get lost? What’s wrong with investing in uranium mining?

Stop grinning and grow some balls, John Key.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 9:51am
Angus

Manolo, Richard Prebble made an interesting comment about Mr Key in last months Gauntlet magazine:

“2010 is going to be a difficult year for John Key. As a parent he should know that if you never say no to your children they just keep on demanding. Lobby groups know all to well that to roll this government over all you have to do is move public opinion and the government folds.”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 9:57am
LeftRightOut

Don’t worry, I will be preparing something that supports Intelligent Design versus Darwin’s little treatise …

Kris, hate to tell you, but evolutionary science has moved on quite a lot from Darwin. He laid the foundation, but many others have improved on the work, and will continue to do so as new discoveries are made. This does not invalidate darwin’s original work, but maybe you need to address current evolutionary theory, rather than darwin.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 10:01am
Chthoniid

Kris K- it’s pretty much a disgusting, intellectually dishonest, willfully misrepresentation of modern biology, cosmology and atheism. The author cherry-picks a plethora of disconnected ideas, revels in his ignorance of Dawkin’s contribution to evolutionary biology, and constructs a strawman completely at odds with reality.

Nothing else needs to be said.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 10:01am
big bruv

Why does Neville Key feel that he needs to attend the big Homosexual & Lesbian day out?

We know that Neville has a finally tuned antenna when it comes to public opinion but does he really think that his poll rating would plummet if he stayed home with the wife and kids for the day?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 10:02am
Kris K

Once again Crusader Rabbit hits the nail on the head.

http://crusader-rabbit.blogspot.com/2010/02/first-destroy-history-then-build-utopia.html

first destroy history–then build utopia
‘Nearly half of a sample of immigrants spoken to by the Herald want the New Zealand flag changed.

The new Kiwis say the current design does not represent them or the ethnic diversity of New Zealand today.’

The NZ Herald is really scraping the bottom of the barrel in their desperate–and dishonest–campaign to get the NZ flag changed. “migrants spoken to by the “Herald” ffs? Spoken to by whom? And who chose the particular migrants to speak to? Some new-graduate “journalism” bimbo hanging out in a Turkish kebab house?
In any case, my reply to any new Kiwi who says the flag doesn’t represent them is a question: what the fuck did you come to this country for? The flag isn’t supposed to represent either you or your tribal shithole/country/refugeee camp. It represents a history of this country and largely shared values.
You know, VALUES. The things the murderous poverty-stricken crap-hole you left doesn’t have.
Leave the flag alone.

I would imagine that even if 50% of recent immigrants did want to change OUR flag, then that would be reason enough not to.
I can just see all the revisionist historians rubbing their hands with glee in anticipation.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 10:05am
Kris K

Chthoniid 10:01 am,

Nothing else needs to be said.

Well, at least if nothing else, we can see it’s settled in your mind.
One gets the impression, Chthoniid, that even if irrefutable evidence were to be presented to you, you would still stick to your ‘settled’ position.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 10:13am
Kris K

LeftRightOut 10:01 am,

Kris, hate to tell you, but evolutionary science has moved on quite a lot from Darwin. He laid the foundation, but many others have improved on the work, and will continue to do so as new discoveries are made. This does not invalidate darwin’s original work, but maybe you need to address current evolutionary theory, rather than darwin.

So what you’re REALLY trying to say is that evolution is a fluid and dynamic faith based belief system?
I think many of us have already come to that conclusion.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 10:18am
LeftRightOut

Kris, I am sure that rational people, such as Chthoniid and myself, would accept irrefutable evidence. But you C&P job isn’t, it is balderdash.

You, on the other hand, turn a blind eye to the irrefutable evidence around you. Young earth crationism is sooo disproved. Why do you cling to it, long after the irrefuteable evidence is in? How do you reconcile “Apparently our universe, a mere 10 billion years old and 10 billion light years across…” with “… yet also believe the Genesis account, and that the creation was of the order of 6,000 years ago (and that the science backs up this view).”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 10:19am
LeftRightOut

“So what you’re REALLY trying to say is that evolution is a fluid and dynamic faith based belief system?”

Where did I say that? i am sure you wish I would, but I didn’t, because it isn’t. No faith is required to understand evolution, just a willingness to read and understand the texts. I commend Dawkins latest, “The Greatest Show on Earth” as a well written, but not difficult to understand, summation of current science.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 10:24am
Chthoniid

Hmm, perhaps if the author had presented a genuine argument with evidence?

So, out of curiousity Kris, you think humans were created 6-7000 years ago correct?

Does this mean that all the mutations in the human genome are recent- only from 6-7000 years ago?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 10:26am
dime

bruv – whats wrong with acknowledging the gay community?

do you get upset when he attends the a pacific island festival? or any of the other crap duties a PM in this country has to do.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 10:26am
dime

ah crap! what happened to the religion general thread????
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 10:27am
Swiftman the infidel

When, oh when, will the internet FINALLY render Tapu Misa unemployable?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 10:30am
stephen

…big Homosexual & Lesbian day out?

Tuesdays & weekdays. Towers & buildings. Doctors and medical professionals.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 10:45am
LeftRightOut

dime (1820) Says:

February 15th, 2010 at 10:27 am
ah crap! what happened to the religion general thread????

this is it, get over it. 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 10:47am
dime

im building a bridge as we speak.

looks like the Euro may collapse. guess that helps save obamas ass. the US dollar will continue to be the standard.

will a push for a global currency be the next leftist push? now that the climate change thing is history
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 10:51am
big bruv

Dime

First of all, I do not get “upset” when Neville attends the big homosexual and lesbian day out, the issue I have with it is that it seems almost compulsory for our PM to go to this event, you raise the issue of the PI festival, again the question is if he does go why is it news?

[DPF: BB – 12,000 people attended BGO. That is heaps. Most events the PM gets invited to are a few hundred. Of course he’ll be at at event with 12,000 if they invite him.]
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 10:51am
grumpyoldhori

LOL no shame at all this bloke, a European team, what a load of bullshit, I’m damn sure they did not speak Swiss German on the boat.
(Bertarelli says the team’s greatest achievement was “being the first European team to win the America’s Cup.” He added that he knew it was no contest from “the first beat.)
What did Coutts get a knighthood for ? was it selling out to the highest bidder ?
Do professionals put money before country ?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 11:04am
LeftRightOut

DPF – so its quantity before quality? In which case he should be at every Super 14 match this year.

[DPF: I think he likes to attend those anyway, but there is a difference between attending, and being asked to speak]
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 11:14am
Chthoniid

@Kris K

I think many of us have already come to that conclusion.

Mmm, see, I think given your inability to attract other young-earth creationists to the evolution-threads you start, you likely represent a very small minority on KB.

I’d still like your view on the time-period the mutations in the human genome accumulated.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 11:39am
stephen

LeftRightOut, would be a good way to piss a lot of people off if he went down the aisles introducing himself. Festivals lend themselves to pressing the flesh a lot better, for more relaxed.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 11:59am
Chthoniid

Aah, learned some very sad news.

Noted WCS conservationist John Thorbjarnarson died suddenly in New Delhi (yesterday). John was a tireless advocate for the scaly creatures- crocodilians, turtles etc- and played a very important role in the recovery of the Chinese alligator. This was one of the most remarkable turn-arounds in conservation in the last decade.

From John Robinson –
It is with real sadness that I must tell you that John Thorbjarnarson
tragically passed away early this morning. John was in New Delhi, India
after giving a course at the Wildlife Institute of India. He collapsed
yesterday and was taken to hospital. We got him into the best hospital and
he was given the best possible care, but by then it was too late. The
initial diagnosis is that he was suffering from advanced falciparum malaria.
We are in touch with the family and all relevant authorities. John was a
very special person and a great friend, who put his life and soul into
conservation. He will be widely missed and remembered.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 12:05pm
kaya

LwftRightOut – re DPF comment, “Of course he’ll be at at event with 12,000 if they invite him.” Just in case you needed anymore evidence that Key is a populist.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 12:17pm
kaya

MikeNZ @ 8.44 – good post, it’s tragic that most people have no clue as to the potential damage the borrowing will do to NZ.

Instead of tackling the problem directly and making the required cuts, particularly to the public service, National are deferring it as someone else problem.

The two big ones that should have been done haven’t. The over investment/speculation in property encouraged by the tax evading LAQC has been treated with kid gloves. Key didn’t have the balls to do the right thing. Bernard Hickey said it well in the Herald:

“A land tax or a capital gains tax would have captured that part of the economy that is effectively untaxed at the moment.

A land tax that included a tax-free threshold of say $50,000 and the ability to defer payment until the property is sold would have hurdled the political problems of grumpy grannies in Remuera and shirty farmers.

Instead, the tax system will be focused on extracting more income from those PAYE taxpayers who are unable, unwilling or ignorant enough not to have bought rental investment properties.

It will have failed the Tax Working Group’s drive for a fairer, broader and flatter tax system to cope with an impending increase in government spending needed to pay the health care and baby boomer pension costs.

Little will have changed. We will continue to leak our best and brightest, leaving in their wake a hollowed out economy filled with retiree landlords, beneficiaries and immigrants.

Second, the excessive public service has been left relatively untouched. If both these had been dealt with as they should we wouldn’t be borrowing 250 million every week.

Neo survivalism here we come.

“In 2010, survivalism will go mainstream. Unemployed or fearing it, foreclosed or nearing it, pensions lost and savings gone … all sorts of folk who once believed in the system, having witnessed its battering, have lost their faith.

The realities of failing financial institutions, degrading infrastructure, manipulated marketplaces, soaring energy costs, widening wars, and terror consequences have created a new breed of survivalist. Motivated not by worst-case scenario fears but by do-or-die necessity, the new non-believers, unwilling to go under or live on the streets, will devise ingenious stratagems to beat the system, get off the grid (as much as possible), and stay under the radar.”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 12:36pm
Pete George

It is ironic that one of the problems with the climate data record is that urbanisation and other man-made local warmings may be distorting the overall warming predictions.

“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.
Related Links

The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years.

These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece

But there are still conflicting opinions:

Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of the chapter of the IPCC report that deals with the observed temperature changes, said he accepted there were problems with the global thermometer record but these had been accounted for in the final report.

“It’s not just temperature rises that tell us the world is warming,” he said. “We also have physical changes like the fact that sea levels have risen around five inches since 1972, the Arctic icecap has declined by 40% and snow cover in the northern hemisphere has declined.”

The European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts has recently issued a new set of global temperature readings covering the past 30 years, with thermometer readings augmented by satellite data.

Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said: “This new set of data confirms the trend towards rising global temperatures and suggest that, if anything, the world is warming even more quickly than we had thought.”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 12:44pm
stephen

Just in case you needed anymore evidence that Key is a populist.

If he’s not afraid of explaining himself to people, why would he pass up an opportunity like that?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 12:46pm
Manolo

“[DPF: BB – 12,000 people attended BGO. That is heaps. Most events the PM gets invited to are a few hundred. Of course he’ll be at at event with 12,000 if they invite him.]”

On the other hand, the PM did not listen to the large number of New Zealanders, well over 12,000, who voiced their opinion on the S59 referendum.

Is empty-suit Key consistent? Of course, not. But the spin is.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 1:05pm
Hurf Durf

Brainsleftout, take that shit to the religion thread. No one’s interested.

Why does the AA feel the need to have two training mornings in a row? What possible things could there be to learn in a call centre that would take so long?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 2:01pm
kaya

stephen – “If he’s not afraid of explaining himself to people, why would he pass up an opportunity like that?”

Key is looking more and more like a classic “baby kisser.” Of course he will take every opportunity to smile and wave and generally show everyone what a nice guy he is, but none of that is dealing to the problems facing NZ. Too much Government spending and borrowing.
He had the opportunity to do something with the recommendations of the Tax Working Group but has swerved to miss the ball. It’s in the too hard basket. Same with the public service, the Nats told us all through the election campaign that it was too big and implied they were going to deal to it – they haven’t.

I still hold out a faint hope that they will do something worthwhile come budget time but I wouldn’t risk betting much on it. Here’s hoping.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 2:31pm
RightNow

I see Pete Bethune has apparently boarded a whaling ship under cover of darkness (http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/3330225/Sea-Shepherd-skipper-boards-whaling-ship) to attempt a ‘citizen’s arrest’ of the captain.
So clearly Bethune is trespassing on the ship, and possibly this can be considered an act of piracy. Also I don’t know about the law in international waters but I am aware the notion of a ‘citizen’s arrest’ is BS at least in NZ.
“The power to make a citizen’s arrest under the Crimes Act 1961 is not as wide as people assume. In fact there is no power at all but there may be justification or protection from criminal responsibility” from http://www.ns.org.nz/39.html

I have a feeling these people are more interested in the sport of whaler baiting than ‘saving the whales’. I guess they are suffering a bit of a ‘what now’ problem, given that minke whale populations are plentiful again. Perhaps they should contract the UAE CRU to do a new whale population survey for them to make the numbers fit the problem.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 3:40pm
RightNow

Found an updated story on the Herald http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10626353
Their version makes it even more black and white that he’s trespassing, even breaking and entering.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 3:47pm
Pete George

Scaremongering with expert help?

‘Enormous’ bill for GST software changes

Computer Society president Paul Matthews says updating systems will be a costly exercise, as many software programs have not been designed to allow for changes to GST.

Each situation is different, but the costs for businesses could be anywhere between $100 to hire a software developer for an hour and the cost of purchasing a new accounting system.

Any system that creates an invoice or manages accounting functions is going to need to be modified, he says. Most small businesses would be using systems designed for them and would have the GST rate hard-coded into the software.

“That’s very difficult to change. You’d have to go back to the developer.”

Firms using software developed for New Zealand and Australia, which have different GST rates, cannot just enter in a new rate, as this will upset invoicing data generated before the change.

Only a small number of systems would allow the rates to be changed without affecting previous invoicing.

He estimates as many as one-fifth of businesses will have to shell out for new systems.

My first reaction to this is Bullshit! Or it should be.

I would be surprised if any NZ software has the GST rate hard-coded, poor design if it does. Any general market package surely must allow for easy changes to rates, and that will be what the vast majority of businesses use.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 3:56pm
Rufus

These days, pretty much everything is covered by ACC.

The “Accident” part of ACC is a bit of a joke really.

I just learned that insect bites/stings are covered by ACC.

Absolutely ridiculous.

So you get stung by a bee – happens all the time in summer.

You can now go in to the lovely folks at your local medical center, and go see a doctor to make you feel better.

I’ve heard of people going in asking the good doctor to give them something for the pain – !

What’s he going to do – offer them morphine? A bit of local anaesthetic?

It’s a bee sting. Bees sting to defend themselves. It’s meant to hurt. It’ll resolve itself in a day or so.

(Ok, fair enough if you are sensitive to insect bites and swell up some, but other than that, what a ridiculous waste of money.)

/ grump over.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 5:26pm
Thrash Cardiom

Ok, fair enough if you are sensitive to insect bites and swell up some, but other than that, what a ridiculous waste of money.

Of course that may be the only situation that is actually covered but don't let that stop you venting.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 7:46pm
Viking2

Kaya, The Tax task force work failed at most elementary levels. Most importantly they failed to turn the magnifying glass on their own i.e. those that use trusts to minify their own incomes. More taxable income lost through this and plenty of WFF and other Govt. assistance handed out on the results than any other source. The problem is that they all make use of them and no one wants to attack them BUT its coming to a court house near you before long.
Take for example the current case reported this morning.

Tax case a threat to many firms
By JAMES WEIR – The Dominion Post
Last updated 05:00 15/02/2010

An un-named property developer is facing a multi-million dollar tax bill after paying almost no tax for 12 years, despite getting millions of dollars in loans from his company for a lavish lifestyle.

A Taxation Review Authority decision on the case did not name the developer and entrepreneur, but said he was involved in a large number of property developments during the 1990s and projects worth “hundreds of millions of dollars”.

more@ http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/3327540/Tax-case-a-threat-to-many-firms

and a few days ago;
IRD to appeal surgeon tax case
09/02/2010

Quote:
the IRD will today appeal a high court decision in favour of two Christchurch surgeons it had accused of underpaying themselves in order to save on tax.

Orthopedic surgeons Ian Penny and Gary Hooper both formed companies for their private practices and employed themselves, paying out some company profits as their own salaries.

It meant they paid less tax, as the companies’ profits had a tax rate of 33c, compared to the personal top tax rate of 39c.

Ird said the structure was a tax avoidance arrangement, but the surgeons took the department to court, arguing that income tax legislation had no notion of commercially realistic salaries.

Justice Alan Mackenzie agreed with the surgeons, saying the proprietor of a “one-man” business had the choice to run their business as a sole trader or through a company.

The IRD would appeal the high court decision in the court of appeal in wellington today.

The case is seen as an important test case, with implications for how family and small businesses are structured for tax purposes.

more @; http://www.propertytalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24643

You get the drift. The IRD are about attacking the basis of income privilege and Trusts must come close to the next step.
Better to tax them at 39% and lower personal to 30. Then we won’t need to attack landlords for carrying out a legitimate business and propping up the state by assisting it with the desire to house people in a decent manner.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 8:28pm
Robert Black

Just watched the Walrus doing a protection job on Ali Mau on TV1.

I mean for Christ sake, I am not certain but I guess Ali has been paid before for putting her and her ex’s face in Woman’s Day.

I have never read any but I can guess, The Perfect Couple was one title.

The fact is if you put your mug up there and your name and they sell your good image you are fair game.

Especially in NZ.

As Whale said, there are two degrees of separation.

So why should journalists be protected?

Ali wouldn’t think twice I bet about entering someone’s property say on a Fair Go type exercise to get the truth to the people.

TWO FACED PEOPLE!

Why should journalists be protected from journalists?

It is a ridiculous concept!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 10:48pm
Robert Black

I think Whale is on a good mission because in New Zealand the people in the media not only think they are Gods they are in many ways told that not only by the media but by the laws.

If she was busted for something, there is no doubt she would get name suppression.

Big fish in a little pond.

So why shouldn’t the big fish be seen and watched?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 15, 2010 10:55pm
Robert Black

Honestly watch the Close-up item stoned, it is hilarious.

“Theezze shotzz, were taken…”

Who does she think she is, a blonde Oprah?

Hello, you are a separated washed up Kiwi news journalist.

Get OVER yourself.

Now she will be on Breakfast tomorrow saying Robert Black is a prick.

There’s no business like show business!

The funniest part is Pippa’s face.

Crash and burn baby!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 16, 2010 3:33am
LeftRightOut

Is Robert Black dad4justice’s real name? So few posts, so much anger.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 16, 2010 6:53am
dad4justice

Get a life you twisted mongrel.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 16, 2010 7:57am
LeftRightOut

Question. Answered.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
February 16, 2010 8:49am

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« Herald on Sunday on Herald on Sunday

Blunt on America’s Cup »

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

Justice in Brazil
No Right Turn
"Seymour is only doing openly what M?ori nationalists and their Pakeha allies have been doing, quietly for the past 50 years."
Not PC
A Written New Zealand Constitution?
No Minister
Daily review 22/11/2024
The Standard
Do the KCs believe in democracy
Utopia
More young offenders will get boot camp, bus drivers will get some protection – and there’s relief for southern farmers
Point of Order
Sowell says
Hompaddock
New Zealand government urged to back ICC arrest warrants for Israeli leaders without equivocation
The Daily Blog
The transgender agenda sunk Kamala
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
What does “reciprocity” mean in New Zealand laws?
Croaking Cassandra
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
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