Saturday General Debate

And today’s General Debate is brought to you by:

imagesIn spite of what the critics say, Cam Slater, Travis, I nor anyone else gets a single cent from anyone for spending the time creating this blog for you every day.  We all have full time jobs “on the side”.  No, we aren’t funded by the National Party.  No we don’t get funded by Trusts, unions or secret donations.  (Damn!)

Running a blog costs real  money though.  So, there are adverts on the blog to defray some of the running costs.  In a good month, I’m sure Cam gets to keep a few dollars for his trouble.   But let us be clear:  this is essentially pocket money.  He couldn’t live on the proceeds, make it a full time job, or pay anyone else.  (Damn!)

The blog is attractive to companies.  Our audience is well educated and informed.  Sponsors would love to be able to put their goods or services in front of you through this medium.  And as you may have noticed over the last few months, we’ve invited companies to approach us to do just that.

Just as you trust Whaleoil to bring you the political news with the spin unspun, companies that would like to advertise on this blog will also need to be honest with you.  One of the ways we can achieve this is by not letting them write the content.  Instead we will do it for them.

In the near future, you will see the odd post that will be clearly labelled at the top as sponsored content.  In the post, there will be a product or service review that was written by one of us, and not the sponsor.   Not everything will be of interest to you personally, but one thing you can count on:  you will hear our real, actual, personal experiences – not something a PR person would have created.

We have plans to make this blog even better, but we can’t do it all without spending money.  So some of the money will be coming from sponsored posts.  To start with, they will happen every so often, not even one a day.

There is a difference between bringing you a blog that is free to read, and a blog that costs nothing to run.

If you have any questions about this, feel free to use today’s General Debate for that.  I’ll be popping in later this morning once I’ve returned from Mr 10’s soccer game.

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Ronnie Chow

    Will you include businesses outside Auckland ?

    • Anywhere in the universe.

  • cows4me

    “No we don’t get funded by trusts, unions or secret donations”, oh come on, there must be a few American bagmen.

    • Mediaan

      Uncharitable of you. I believe WO is so good he attracts good help.

      Don’t forget he also becomes a national mover and celebrity, through this display of his skills.

      • You are absolutely right. Cameron enjoys many intangible benefits from being a leading light.

        • Meg

          Pass me a bucket.

          • Here.

          • Steve (North Shore)

            Wow, it has it’s own stirrer Meg

    • If there are, they must be the most stingy ones of their type.

    • cows4me

      I see some are biting well today.

      • Mediaan

        Oops.

  • Troy

    Gilmoregate will be a hot topic over the weekend and it appears that Gilmore is intent on staying as an MP. Key has said there is no way he can remove Gilmore from parliament, but I was wondering… if an MP is deemed to be unstable (mentally) is there provision in law for him/her to be removed. I’ve scoured thru Standing Orders and Speakers Rulings but can’t find anything specific. There must be something on the statutes about this. The other option is if a private citizen decided to petition parliament for the removal of Gilmore, if accepted it is referred to a Select Committee.
    Bottom line is, I think Gilmore is unstable and not fit to represent due to mental incapacity (habitual liar, narcissist etc)- anyone have any ideas on this?

      • Troy

        Thanks Cam for the quick response! Gilmore’s behaviour will be observed with even more vigour!

    • williamabong

      It looks like it was legislation writen in haste by people who didn’t know what the fuck they were doing.
      It presents us with the reason we need to repeal MMP, make ALL thr list scum redundant and get on with the business of running a country.
      We don’t seem to get elected MPs causing the problems list scum does, imagine a parliament without the airhead Greens, without racist Hone, without Fenton and all the union flunkies, without Winstons hanger-ons, what a breathof fresh air, and a masive financial savings because when all these dullboots fuck of they take their legions of state paid followers as well, win win win.

      • Polish Pride

        yes its called a dictatorship

        • Gazzaw

          No PP, it’s called first past the post.

          • Polish Pride

            Not if you have removed all of the opposition from parliament it is not

          • Gazzaw

            I don’t recall William’s post saying anything abbout limiting the removal of list MPs to the opposition PP in fact he specifically mentioned Gilmore.

          • Polish Pride

            imagine a parliament without the airhead Greens, without racist Hone, without Fenton and all the union flunkies, without Winstons hanger-ons
            I think I misread the intention of Williams post being directed at removing List MPS only as Hone (not a list MP) was included and then I figured that you might consider all Labour MPs to be Union flunkies. That doesn’t really leave anyone in opposition if that was the case.
            But as I probably misread the intention you have my apologies

        • williamabong

          Well your system doesn’t seem to work that well, it’s because of bell ends like you this mess exists.
          Go back to your colouring in books and let the big kids get on with sorting out the mess you’ve made.

          • Bunswalla

            He would, but the only colour is red.

          • Polish Pride

            Then you have failed dismally to understand the system and probably struggle to think in terms of anything other than two poles. North, South. Left, Right, Capitalism, Communism.
            Then again perhaps you are so brainwashed you are unable to see the flaws in the current system and truly believe it to be perfect.

          • Bunswalla

            Or maybe you’re a single-issue (albeit the most complicated, asinine, idiotic issue ever conceived) nutter and it’s easy to pigeon-hole you.

            Yeah, I think that’s it.

          • Polish Pride

            If that’s what you have picked up you are either a simpleton of the highest order or you haven’t been paying attention. Or you simply don’t have the intelligence to counter with anything of substance.
            I think its the latter.

          • Bunswalla

            Hmm, simpleton of the highest order aye? Bit of an oxymoron there wouldn’t you say, genius?

            And speaking of morons, your faux argument of being more intelligent than everyone else would be slightly more compelling if you could master basic grammar.

            The term “latter” can only apply if there are but two options, but you posited three. Oh, dear – bit of a rookie mistake there.

          • Polish Pride

            have never ever said that I was more intelligent than anyone else and Wow that’s the best you can do ‘Grammer’ are you freaken serious!?! don’t know if you know einstein but you’re posting on a blog…what, couldn’t you find any spelling mistakes!?! bahaha your just too awesome

          • Ronnie Chow

            Bunswalla is neither . Bunswalla is clever .

            Polish , if explaining is losing , and you have done the most explaining of anyone on this blog , then you could have a world record here . Bonus ; because you are such a good sport , you automatically qualify for name suppression .

          • Polish Pride

            Your on fire tonight ;)

          • Polish Pride

            feel free to keep it coming buns, I’m more than happy to make you look stupid all day long…

          • Bunswalla

            Yes, well, perhaps you should read your own posts a bit more closely before demonstrating what a cock you are.

          • Polish Pride

            Really there was nothing in my comments untoward at all until you and Williamabong decided to little fucktards.

          • Kimbo

            Ho hum, andother quasi-religious ideological zealot seeking to open the eyes of the blind with an esoteric and apocalyptic take on life. Greenpeace, Jehovah’s Witnesses, the 99% movement, same boring message and sales techniques with a few pieces switched around.

            Stop jerking around and tell us what a proper understanding of teh system is, and, more to the point, what you would replace it with.

            I despise the Greens and Mana, and all the other flotsam and jetsam that washes up in Parliament, but, despite that, I vote to retain MMP in the 2011 referendum. I figured as much as I despise them, it is their democracy too, and they desrved to have their views represented in Parliament. Plus I get the amusement of listening to their representatives speak.

            Now, PP, you seem to have appointed yourself a respresentative spokesperson and critic of the status quo. OK, you got my attention – stop jerking around criticising others and kindly tell us, PRECISELY, and HOW you would change the present “system” if given the chance?

          • Polish Pride

            It’s pretty simple – the vast majority want simply to be happy. They don’t want war, They don’t want poverty. They don’t want many of the other byproducts of the current system (human trafficking etc. etc.) The system would need to be changed to put the highest priority enabling what makes people happy.
            Any good system worth its salt will first and foremost ensure that the needs of those that the system is for are met. The current one doesn’t and isn’t able to do that.
            Once that is sorted then mechanisms to satisfy wants can be looked at. These wouldn’t change much from what we have today, with the exception of one of the main goals of the system to bet o use technology to automate wherever possible. We would get rid of the false notion of needing to have low unemployment and would instead have the objective of freeing as many as possible from having to work.
            This approach frees people to spend time following and doing things that they are passionate about whilst making resources freely available to them. It is the availability of resources combined with passion for a subject which have historically given mankind the majority of its greatest advancements.
            The System does this without having to take from one to give to another, unlike the current system which only survives by taking from one to give to another no matter what side of the political spectrum you fall on.
            In short the rather than ‘Man’ working for The System in order to survive. The System is redesigned in order to work for Man.
            We are the only species that effectively has to pay to survive to live on this planet. This in itself is ludicrous.
            My goal is not to convince you It is to give you an opportunity to find its weaknesses, even to destroy it completely.
            But it is the solution that one comes to when directly solving the question of what should a system designed for man look like.

          • Kimbo

            OK, so why didn’t you save us all some time, and simply say,…

            you have no idea PRECISELY and HOW to change the current system.

            Instead, you am confused about the difference between “system” and “human nature and existence”,…

            and you throwing around a whole lot of bunch of false bravado (“It’s pretty simple”),…

            generalisations (“The system would need to be changed to put the highest priority enabling what makes people happy”),…

            over-simplifications (“These wouldn’t change much from what we have today, with the exception
            of one of the main goals of the system to bet o use technology to
            automate wherever possible”),…

            false dichotomies (“We would get rid of the false notion of needing to have low unemployment
            and would instead have the objective of freeing as many as possible
            from having to work”),…

            obfuscations (“But it is the solution that one comes to when directly solving the question of what should a system designed for man look like”),…

            and confusions (“We are the only species that effectively has to pay to survive to live on this planet. This in itself is ludicrous”)…

            to distract and try and bullshit my way out of the fact I have no idea what you am talking about.

            I gave you your chance to make your case, and you have nothing. Instead, Bunswalla had you pegged right: –

            “a single-issue (albeit the most complicated, asinine, idiotic issue ever conceived) nutter and it’s easy to pigeon-hole you”.

          • Polish Pride

            Actually I know how to change the current system but first need to know people understand what it would be changed to and give them an opportunity to ask questions, identify flaws, what they see as working well or not well and why. Something like this should be a discussion rather than a dictatorship. Was your original question wanting to know how the system works and what is different to now. Or were you wanting to know the details of how to transition or something else….. bearing in mind this is a blog.

          • Kimbo

            Nope, was giving you your 15 minutes to make you case to see if you had anything worth considering.

            You failed dismally.

            I now have two ears for you – one is closed, and the other is made of tin.

            Jerk people around and you get that reaction.

            So much for your attempt at “first people need to understand…”

          • Polish Pride

            Lets be real you never intended to even attempt to understand. Not that that matters that’s not why I am here, but thank you, you have helped me a great deal more than you know. ;)

          • Kimbo

            “Lets be real you never intended to even attempt to understand”

            Not true. However, your presumptuousness, and nauseating pious sanctimony soon made me realise I was wasting my time.

            Two ears: deaf, and tin

          • Polish Pride

            So please point out what doesn’t work – that is the whole reason I have been putting it in front of you but I was beginning to think you didn’t have the intelligence required to articulate any problems that exist with it.

          • Bunswalla

            Hint: nobody gives a flying fuck what you think.

          • Polish Pride

            How long have I been here. Do you really think that I care about that if I did I would have been gone long ago.

          • Kimbo

            “Even intelligent Capitalists such as Dick Smith understand you cannot continue with the premise of an infinite system operating in a world with finite resources”.

            OK, I’ll have a go at initially treating your opinions more seriously than what Buns considers they merit.

            Your argument above is a straw man. Capitalism doesn’t operate on the “premise of an infinite system operating in a world with finite resources”. It seeks to utilise those that are available. Often resources that are considered “waste” are, through the shortage of prior resources and the development of science and attendant technology, later made (and note the key point, PP) economically viable, as per the verdict delivered by the impartial juidge that is the market.

            For example, whale oil (no, not Cam Slater!), which was replaced by petroleum, which should be (but isn’t, due to ideology) replaced with nuclear power.

            Now, no more responding to your agenda-setting discussion points (“So still nothing then”), until you write out 100 times: –

            I will not play the troll by arguing straw men.

          • Polish Pride

            Sometimes you need to play the strawman card in order to get others to think.

          • Kimbo

            “I actually agree the market has proved useful and certain aspects should be carried forward. Supply and Demand. Certain other aspects should be eliminated and left behind. The Profit Motive…”

            You are a moron. Saying you are in favour of supply and demand but against the profit motive is akin to saying, “I acknowledge the necessity and desirability of water, but I don’t like rain, rivers, or springs”

            Don’t believe me? Adam Smith – the guy who first identified the workings of collective human nature that we summarise as ‘supply and demand’ (that’s right – no one “planned” a system – it simply happens unless some idiot like, say,…Marx for example tries to stop rain falling/force people to act in a way contrary to nature):

            “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest”.

            not from benevolence = not by charity or socialism

            brewer or baker = suppliers

            we = demanders

            our dinner = the meeting of supply and demand

            their own interest = the profit motive

            Oh yes – and “money” still remains ultimately what it has always been – a means of exchange to speed up the transaction of supply and demand. The only thing Utopian tinkering over the means of exchange will do is slow down and make more inefficient the supply-demand process – thus causing more misery. Which Utopian meddlers who don’t pay attention to the workings of human nature, and instead place all the ills of the world on the “system”, invariably do.

            The only reason you are putting up straw men is because you are too foolish to recognise your ‘ideas’ (and I use that term in the broadest sense of the word, not wanting to dignify your meandering ravings with an association with worthwhile though) are worthy of almost immediate dismissal.

            In the sense that the identification of falsehood makes truth more identifiably evident, yes, you have (unintentionally) assisted “others to think”.

          • Bunswalla

            Well said.

          • Kimbo

            Actually, if I was in a charitable mood I could have phrased it to so that I was assigning PP the important role of…court jester.

            But jesters are at least intentionaly funny

          • Polish Pride

            You are a moron. Saying you are in favor of supply and demand but against the profit motive is akin to saying, “I acknowledge the necessity and desirability of water, but I don’t like rain, rivers, or springs”

            This statement has nothing to do with the profit motive or planned obsolescence. I am sure this will astound the hell out of you but demand still exists without money, without the profit motive and without planned obsolescence. And guess what …so can supply.

            What you are failing to appreciate is that we are at a unique time in human evolution where never before have we been technologically advanced enough that we could if we choose eliminate a significant number of jobs through automation.

            Money – as for this remaining a means of exchange to speed up the transaction….

            Not for many in this world where it has become a barrier in obtaining basic needs.
            Not for Governments who don’t have enough to build badly needed infrastructure

            For those into human trafficking and child pornography it has become a mechanism by which to pay someone to conduct such activities and make them available.

            It can even be argued that it is a reason for war when war has become a trillion dollar industry and you have a failing economy.

            So in many areas of our world it is no longer just a simple mechanism for exchange.

            As for Utopian – this is not Utopian. There will still be many roles to perform and it may be that everyone still works, but probably much less than today, and again less over time. But this would be up to society as a whole to determine. If anything rather than slow down the supply and demand process this system would actually speed it up as there is no financial processing required. Just manufacture (ideally automated) order, dispatch, delivery and manufacture again.

            There is no point in pointing this out as straw man, It could be argued as all straw man we are talking about concepts which are new and have never been tried before. It is all conceptual. It is therefore arguably all straw man

            I think what you are trying to say is that a man will not work for free. This is not entirely correct as a man will perform a task if he is passionate about it (i.e. enjoys it). It will help others (being reward in and of itself. Where that is not enough their are other alternatives to money such as time banking which results in an hours labor being worth an hours labor. Add to this most of the greatest advancements throughout history have come about because a man (or woman) was passionate about what they were doing. It was not for monetary gain but for wanting to contribute to and better civilization. Nikola Tesla was a great example and there are many more.

            I wonder are you intelligent enough to be able to put forward an argument without having to resort to attacking the individual to get your point across?

          • Kimbo

            “I wonder are you intelligent enough to be able to put forward an
            argument without having to resort to attacking the individual to get
            your point across?”

            Yes, but you’ve long-since forfeited that courtesy.

          • Polish Pride

            Good to know the best you could come up with was ad hominem Is that seriously al you’ve got. I put the concept up you have the opportunity to show how the current system is better and you can’t!?! seriously. That’s pretty disappointing, wouldn’t be holding out much hope for your precious capitalism long term if that’s the case. I thought from all the pomp and bravado with your entrance you were about to tear holes in it all over the place ..but seriously, nothing? really? very disappointing effort on your part there. Oh well kimmy, Better luck next time eh?, Next! .

          • Kimbo

            Not true.

            You are a dishonest troll, whom I’ve given far too much opportunity to,

            For example:

            “There is no point in pointing this out as straw man, It could be argued
            as all straw man we are talking about concepts which are new and have
            never been tried before. It is all conceptual. It is therefore arguably
            all straw man”

            Fatuous mental self-indulgence.

            “I think what you are trying to say is that a man will not work for free.”

            Nope, I never said people won’t work, for a season, for charitable reasons. Obviously they can and will. But, as is typical of your intellectual dishonesty, there is a massive leap from that self-evident fact, to arguing, as you are, that all people can always and and all times be made to work in all circumstances excusively for the good of others, forsaking all claim to monetary profit.

            The reason you get abused, and again Bunswalla had you pegged right from the beginning, is because you are a dishonest self-indulgent, self-deceiving c*&t in your argument of concepts.

          • Polish Pride

            So more ad hominem then

            I am simply trying to put forward a better alternative. You have at very turn simply attacked me personally rather than the idea and have put forward no evidence to show that any of it will not work.

            You say that the Straw man is “fatuous mental self indulgence”. when I have said it is all conceptual and has never been tried before and could therefore be considered all Straw man. How is any of what I have said there untrue. I have simply stated exactly what it is. You have simply come back with more ad hominem.

            “Nope, I never said people won’t work, for a season, for charitable reasons. Obviously they can and will. But, as is typical of your intellectual dishonesty, there is a massive leap from that self-evident fact, to arguing, as you are, that all people can always and all times be made to work in all circumstances exclusively for the good of others, forsaking all claim to monetary profit.”

            One point of the system is that people will no longer have to work at all times and in all circumstances. The use of technology wherever possible to eliminate this means people will have far more free time to spend on doing things that are important to them. There will be no doubt some resources, services etc. like today that are scarce. Access to those resources can be for those that do work in order to help society. Many would be more than happy to work 2-3 days a week to keep a system going that enables them to obtain their needs and wants and leaves them 4 days of the week (this is just one scenario) to spend doing the things they want to and to spend quality time with their loved ones vs what we have today.

            Yesterday you took exception when I said “its pretty simple” I id not say that to intimate that anyone was stupid, or to be a dick, or anything else for that matter. I simply said it because at a high level which I then went on to try and outline for you… it is pretty simple.

            I mean seriously – “you are a dishonest self-indulgent, self-deceiving c*&t in your argument of concepts”

            their is no self indulgence or self deceit. This system if implemented would not even likely benefit me or even us so one could then question what are my motives for doing this. Well it is simply to leave a better world for those that follow. Lets say for a moment that these concepts were picked up and through a series of events a massive change of thinking took place and the entire world changed to this. I will still just be some anonymous guy on a blog The world will not know who I am or anything about me. I am not even the first guy to have come up with these concepts. So where is the self indulgence, where is the self deceit. This is neither it is putting some concepts out into an arena. An arena that is of all arenas the most likely to reject and tear down the concepts. What better place to try and test them.
            I would not have cared had you torn it to shreds as you would have shown it not to be a good option. But you haven’t been able to do that.

            Perhaps the reason I get abused is because it challenges the idea of the status quo and takes people from their comfort zone. These are concepts that many cannot even consider objectively. Buns has shown a good example of that.

          • Kimbo

            “One point of the system is that people will no longer have to work at all times and in all circumstances…”.

            And that comment above is a typical example of your self-deceit, and self-indulgent circular reasoning posing as wise and thought-provoking comentary.

            It obviously hasn’t occurred to you (beccause it doesn’t fit your preconceptions or prejudices – pot, kettle, black) that under the current system people no longer have to work at all times and in all circumstances.

            Over and out

          • Polish Pride

            And again ad hominem is all you’ve got.

          • Kimbo

            Actually in the case you accuse me of ad hominem, I deliberately criticised your action, and you ideas – not you personally.

            So, no. Not ad hominem.

            The meaning of which, like ‘straw man argument’, you obviously don’t realise.

            So instead of actualy responding to the critique – “It obviously hasn’t occurred to you (beccause it doesn’t fit your
            preconceptions or prejudices – pot, kettle, black) that under the
            current system people no longer have to work at all times and in all circumstances” – you grizzled and moaned, and played the victim

            Have you worked out why you aren’t taken seriously around here, and are treated as a waste of space?

            Just saying…

          • Polish Pride

            Actually what you did was make up something that I never said was part of the system. Then when I respond to it you attack the response ……when you made the concept up in the first place and then try to cry that you have attacked the idea and I can’t call ad hominem. Nice try but like I said you don’t have the intellectual capacity to have this conversation. You’ve had several attempts and have come up empty every time.
            Like I said you had your shot and you failed.
            There’s no point in you continuing to try.

          • Kimbo

            No, not when the person you are seeking to dialogue with adheres to the principles of

            1. the rhetorical shell-game
            2. persistence beats resistance, and
            3. bullshit beats substance.

          • Polish Pride

            and again he comes up empty -this has gotta be a record.
            I love the way that I am supposedly according to you, treated as a waste of space yet you just keep on replying and with nothing to boot.
            You’ve had about 10 posts thus far in response – ALL bullshit, no substance and plenty of ad hominem …don’t believe go and read them and yet you still just keep on trying. I guess as the saying goes God loves a tryer. But you’re trying so hard. In fact this is the hardest anyone has tried ever. Thanks kimmy you’re awesome! Keep on tryin there fella :)

          • Polish Pride

            One more thing for you. Was I a dick or a cunt or whatever label you want to insert. Hell yes!!
            Would you have bothered to take the time to respond in manner you have if I hadn’t been. Very unlikely!
            Unfortunately I needed to be in order to elicit the desired response from someone. That someone just happened to be you. In doing so you have been immeasurably helpful too.

          • Kimbo

            …as trolls do.

            Yep, Bunswalla had you pegged.

          • Polish Pride

            Ad hominem again – you might as well give up. You’ve got nothing.

          • Polish Pride

            So still nothing then. So basically the so called ‘big kids’ still don’t know shit about shit on this topic. Even JB has at least had a crack at defending Capitalism vs this albeit a very flawed attempt and all you’ve got is some bs about crayons…seriously!?! That’s the best you can do? You have shown from some of your other comments you have the ability to think critically. I expected better..

          • williamabong

            No sorry, the big kids a probably do the sort of shit big kids do on a Saturday arvo, troll baiting, a new national sport, is done later in the day, after rugby.

      • Meg

        MMP= better than what we had, and better than the alternatives.

      • AnonWgtn

        All list seats should have people who were constituency elected.
        i.e. all should stand in a seat and the top votes get the seats.

  • sheppy

    Not even a secret offshore bank account????

    • Nope. Not even a known onshore one. Or a bulging mattress.

      Cameron Slater has managed to take out the top blog spot without the sorts of financial sponsorship that keeps others afloat. For example, The Daily Blog pays a substantial salary to Martyn Bradbury through the union sponsors that have their logos prominently on the front page.

      • JeffDaRef

        Hmm, thats good value for money…(snigger)

  • Mediaan

    Staff-written, content-friendly, ads. Brilliant.

  • Mediaan

    Here is what the Green Party agenda really is.

    A financial analyst in the UK, Peter Atherton, says the Greens policy on building sustainable energy facilities over there is going to lead to extreme shortages of power. This will be followed by power bills rising 30% and then 100% within just a few years.

    With the population really angry, government will be forced into a panic reaction. Nuclear power stations will then be thrown up everywhere. A future government facing huge public discontent will have been obliged to build them.

    Nuclear power stations will be the only fast way to fix the mess.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/may/05/nothing-wrong-low-carbon-strong-government

    QUOTE:
    “Atherton is convinced that successive UK governments have grossly underestimated the engineering, financial and economic challenges posed by the planned move from a high-carbon electricity sector to a low-carbon one.

    He believes that the cost of switching from largely coal- and gas-fired power stations to a mix of gas-, wind- and nuclear-generated electricity will cost more than £160bn by 2020 and more than £375bn 10 years later. He warns that it means “electricity bills rising by at least 30% by 2020 and 100% by 2030 in real terms.””

    (My comment:) This is the real Green Party agenda.

  • Pete George

    I hate children and want them to starve…

    The rhetoric and accusations in the Mana “Feed the Kids” campaign are getting crazy. Like:

    “As a nation, it is almost as if we have embarked on a deliberate course
    of increasing poverty and ensuring the advent of the next generation of
    impoverished New Zealanders.”

    “Why is there money to subsidise irrigation in the South Island or
    grants to businesses – but not put a bloody bowl of fucking weetbix and
    milk in front of a starving kid???”

    “So what’s up with Peter Dunne and his awful, cold-hearted response to the crisis of child poverty afflicting this country?”

    “So what you’re really saying is that we have to let children starve, in order to teach parents a lesson?”

    “If you allow your self sanctimonious and astounding
    self-rightousness that blames the parents for hungry children as your
    justification of not supporting feeding the kids – you do hate
    children.”

    “The very people who sing the ‘blame the parents’ right wing song and
    dance routine are the exact same fucking people who have NO IDEA that
    the mother of all budgets set the benefits just below the nutritional
    minimums so that those on welfare are hungry enough to not want to stay
    on welfare.”

    Not a very sensible way to try and win support for a bill. Frank Macskasy and Martyn Bradbury are probably going over the top because they know it’s a lost cause.

    • The right needs to find an antidote to this “Child poverty” meme. Child poverty doesn’t exist. Same with Child hunger. That’s not the problem either. It’s bad parents.

      Politically, this is a tricky one. I hope smart people are figuring out what to do because it keeps beating us around the ears in the lead-up to the election.

      I’ve seen rumours there are going to be provisions to feed children in schools in the next budgets. Although politically expedient by taking the sting out of the debate, it would be the wrong thing to do.

      • Pete George

        The over the top approach does go some way to self-discredit the campaigners.

        But yes, a reasoned response is necessary, but that won’t stop the Mana-iacal rhetoric. The above comments are a result of Peter Dunne trying a reasonable response – see http://yournz.org/2013/05/07/dunne-wont-feed-the-kids/

      • williamabong

        Slash welfare, remove the reason the underclass want to breed, one generation of pain, then easy street,
        If it’s a problem for the current spoon-fed freeloading, great unwashed, simple there is no shortage of childless employed people out wanting to adopt, hell of a lot better for the kids as well.

        • Polish Pride

          Good in theory but never going to fly in practice.

          • williamabong

            Why, perhaps because the nuts now run the crazy house.

          • Polish Pride

            its the (as it will be countered) ripping families apart to give to single couples to adopt. It has been done in the past and just wouldn’t fly in this day and age even though as you have said the kids would arguably be better off.
            Hell I’m adopted and am very thankful I was. We didn’t have much by some standards but I never went hungry. Never.

          • williamabong

            Ripping families apart is a bit of an overstatement, in many cases those “families” were created as an income stream, something we should not lose sight of

          • Polish Pride

            Don’t get me wrong I know its an overstatement and agree with you completely. Those families were indeed created as a revenue stream. The sad thing is that that is the terminology that will be used against it.

      • blokeintakapuna

        National just need to announce they will be initiating a FFF programme… Food For Families, so no child or family goes hungry.
        Those in need will be easily identified by their hungry children. Those who have to send hungry children to school win government sponsored and tax payer funded education on budget skills, vege garden growing skills, make own bread /baking skills, make cheaper milk -milk powder etc – and those families can be properly identified and supported.

        National could front-foot the initiative as a means for people to increase their Mana by getting off welfare and not being dependant on the State for their sense of worth – because they can do it themselves.

        Then, those parents that elect to spend limited welfare funds on things like booze, ciggies, TAB, lotto, iPad etc before feeding their dependants can be helped, or named and shamed into being responsible for their dependants. Those parents that still elect to neglect their dependants, can then be charged with wilful child abuse… With resulting consequences as a result…

        • williamabong

          There is no poverty, just useless parents.

        • Polish Pride

          Best solution I have seen yet.

        • Patrick

          Nah, a more likely policy will be free internet, free sky tv, vouchers for macca’s & an allowance for the booze, fags & TAB.
          Where is Ruth Richardson when she is needed?

      • Good point. Poverty is what needs to be addressed – not child poverty. Parents need to be taught that purchase of ‘luxury’ items when children go without basics is child neglect.

      • I want to add here that I spent 10 years working with true poverty overseas among the homeless(squattors). The language being used by people over our ‘hungry’ children in NZ is silly. They are not as far as I have been made aware , ‘starving’. They go to school without eating breakfast. They are being fed the wrong diet. My children did not eat breakfast before going to school. They are at university now and still choose not to eat what I would consider a proper breakfast, but then I was brought up on a farm where there were chores to be done before breakfast everyday. We enjoyed our breakfast.
        As much as I do not want to put more work on teachers, I do think that identifying children who are hindered in their learning because of being hungry is/should be part of successful teaching practise. Having a social worker attached to each school to follow up with the identified families would be much more helpful than blanket feeding programs. If the families of these kids still continue their neglect, the social workers could have a budget to provide lunchbags to the said kids on arriving at school, until such time as the parents of said kids could be convinced one way or another to provide better for their children. I can’t see why this is so difficult.

        • blokeintakapuna

          Too true… It’s not rocket science.
          But I’ve heard, whether true or not, that schools and Govt. Depts can’t “collaborate” and share info on these struggling families and all because of the Privacy Act, which effectively stops them sharing info… And thereby being able to then design solutions to the problem.

          Putting on my tin hat, the cynic in me can’t help but wonder if this situation helps with Labour’s overall agenda of keeping people reliant on the State, so as to increase their sphere of influence on those who are reliant?

          • Phill

            Exactly…good point….they dont want to solve the problem…because then they would have nothing to moan about.

            “Why is there money to subsidise irrigation in the South Island or grants to businesses – but not put a bloody bowl of fucking weetbix and milk in front of a starving kid???”

            I beg your pardon?…How much does the DPB and WFF cost us?. I’m pretty sure thats a large pool of money that is supposed to be used for weetbix and milk for the kids.

            I guess thats what happens when you have political parties and blogs run by profesional haters and wreckers….

          • Ronnie Chow

            The born again Soviets , you will notice , are not visiting schools with free sandwiches . Their twisted rhetoric is repeated by the underclass as a mantra , which in turn becomes ‘fact’.
            The commie wreckers , the ones with a voice in the media , cannot face the reality of their own inadequacy . They invariably live the lifestyle that they decry , comfortable in their delusion .
            If they REALLY cared , they would do the feeding . Alas , all they care about is power and purse-strings .

      • Polish Pride

        “Child poverty doesn’t exist. Same with Child hunger.” I think you’d have a hard time convincing many children in low decile schools around the country of that.

        The problem clearly exists. It is the solutions that are in question.

        Solution 1 – Pay the parents a benefit if they don’t have a job so that they can feed their kids.

        This solution isn’t working as well as it should. If it were you wouldn’t have hungry kids. You first need to determine if the money given is enough to feed the family. If it isn’t you have a problem politically that needs an answer or you will continue to be beaten around the ears in the lead up to the election with it.

        If it is which is probably the case you have two choices:

        1: point out that it is with evidence the blame goes on the parents and leave it be. Although the easiest option and most likely, there is risk because the children are still hungry and the issue can still be used against you. It will be a hard sell to many as it is not the childrens fault and they are the ones impacted.

        2: Come up with a new policy that solves the problem, examples

        A: feeds the kids, penalizes the parents and so on. This solves the problem but creates many more.

        Parents no longer being responsible for feeding their kids and at what point is the line drawn. Up to a certain decile? only in certain areas? or all kids?

        B: Come up with a mechanism (benefit card??) that only allows append in certain places and for certain items Yes their will be a backlash from certain corners of the state trying to control what people spend their money on, but with a backdrop of kids starving because parents are not spending their benefit on what they should be then you will have the moral high ground and probably win out.

        The problem is that this is not just a problem limited to beneficiaries so you may need a combination of solutions.

        We used to have milk in schools in this country perhaps part of the solution would be to provide a Sanitarium up and go or similar to all kids and leave the rest to the parents with the beneficiary card control solution.
        But this is probably the best you can do under the current solution.
        By providing something but not enough for kids not to be hungry it might not be a bad thing especially if you have schools have the most important classes earlier on so students are able to pay the most attention and get the most out of them. You will have many that will grow up that will remember what it was like to feel hungry and will want to ensure that their kids are not in the same situation.

        • williamabong

          The instant you start mentioning controlling how the great unwashed spend the money I give them to breed you will have every tub thumping do gooder screaming about their rights, and how we’re beating up on the unfortunate, and if they want to spend the money intended to feed their offspring on dak, TAB, smokes, piss, P, or any other esentials it’s their choice

          • Polish Pride

            Yes you are right, you will get that but against a backdrop of starving kids the environment might be just right for such a move to get political traction and support from the masses.

        • Bunswalla

          * yawn * TL;DR

          • Polish Pride

            Its ok buns – I know you have a short attention span.

          • blokeintakapuna

            Hey guys – PP & Buns… Save it for the trolls eh, not each other. Your squabbling and sniping lowers the tone to almost similar to the Standard… And you’re kinda on the same team…
            Just sayin’
            Ps. Have a great weekend both of you…

          • Bunswalla

            Bloke, we’re not even on the same planet. I don’t know anyone else that inhabits planet PP, but as long as the laws of the land and this blog allow me to, I’ll comment on whatever I please.

            You have a lovely weekend too.

        • Kimbo

          “B: Come up with a mechanism (benefit card??) that only allows append in certain places and for certain items Yes their will be a backlash from certain corners of the state trying to control what people spend their money on, but with a backdrop of kids starving because parents are not spending their benefit on what they should be then you will have the moral high ground and probably win out”.

          No, you won’t win out. You may have noted the attempts in the last 30 years in this country to introduce voucher systems (which is what you are essentially arguing) for education and health services. Logic, reason, and fatuous redundant arguments like the “moral high ground” will never beat

          1. Prejudice
          2. Patch protection by the poverty industry, which would lose their power and privilege. Don’t fool yourself that these groups really want to see poverty, and more importantly uits real causes eliminated. So they martial their forces, throw out phrases like “Rogernomics”, and “neo-liberal agenda”, which results in…
          3. the baying of Pavlov’s dogs to silence the necessary political consensus to effect change.

          “The problem is that this is not just a problem limited to beneficiaries so you may need a combination of solutions.

          We used to have milk in schools in this country perhaps part of the solution would be to provide a Sanitarium up and go or similar to all kids and leave the rest to the parents with the beneficiary card control solution”.

          Yeah, milk in schools – a good idea in 1937, but it created a unweildy bureacratic monster – which is the inevitable outcome when activist governments meddle in areas where they don’t belong – i.e., where parents have responsibility.

        • Kimbo

          “By providing something but not enough for kids not to be hungry it might not be a bad thing especially if you have schools have the most important classes earlier on so students are able to pay the most attention and get the most out of them. You will have many that will grow up that will remember what it was like to feel hungry and will want to ensure that their kids are not in the same situation”.

          So let me get this straight, PP: You lecture us poor dupes of the system,

          …supposedly unable to think and comprehend of anything better,

          …and your solution to the problem of child poverty

          (which according to you “clearly” exists in distinction to simply “poverty” – segue: has anyone every pointed out to you that people throw around adverbs like, “clearly”, “undoubtedly”, and “most assuredly” usually do so to disguise a premise that is anything but?)

          …is to throw money at it

          …in the knowledge that it wont solve the problem?!

          Has it occurred to you that your solution will actually make things worse, be creating ingrates with a sense of entitlement, a lack of initiative, and a sense of grievance because they didn’t get what the “system” purported it would give to them?!

          Which is arguably (note the use of an adverb that allows for nuance, rather than declarative absolutes) the primary reason we have “poverty”, be it “child” or otherwise.

          • Polish Pride

            So let me get this straight, PP: You lecture us poor dupes of the system,

            No just try to get you to think beyond the constraints of the current system and see the failings and hypocrisy of it.

            This is not my solution to poverty – this is merely an observation I put forward staying within the constraints of the current system, both political and economic.

            Under my solution poverty would cease to exist as resources are made available and not constrained by a barrier as they are today – money. Even then this is not my solution as Jacque Fresco came to the conclusion long before I did although through different paths.

            Has it occurred to you that your solution will actually make things worse, be creating ingrates with a sense of entitlement, a lack of initiative, and a sense of grievance because they didn’t get what the “system” purported it would give to them?!

            Yes it did and therefore would not be my preferred option.
            The point was not necessarily to solve poverty but to come up with alternatives to stop the left being able to beat the Right around the ears with the issue as Petal (I think it was) put it.
            The problem may in fact resolve itself in a generation by affected kids growing up and wanting better for their kids (i.e. for them not to go hungry). Then again it may not as if we continue on the same wealth redistribution paths, there will be a number of other problems including this one by that stage.

        • Patrick

          There is enough money being paid in benefits to ensure kids are not starving, it is how that money is spent by the recipients that is part of the issue. Your “B” suggestion has some merit but only if there is a requirement for parents to attend some sort of classes to help them understand how they control their finances. Unfortunately in NZ any attempt to dictate how welfare is spent by the recipients will result in uproar from the lefties. I am convinced that the Left never actually want to fix the problems, they would rather have ’em poor & keep ’em poor. Otherwise they are eroding their support base. The only solution from the Left is throw more money at the problem, bigger Government, more bureaucracy. History shows that clearly doesn’t work.

          • Polish Pride

            I am convinced that the Left never actually want to fix the problems, they would rather have ’em poor & keep ’em poor. Otherwise they are eroding their support base.
            I have wondered the same thing myself….

        • Ronnie Chow

          But , do you feed fat kids who are hungry ?

          • Polish Pride

            LOL – nice

    • Bunswalla

      I don’t see why Bumber wants to combine nutrition and sex education. Why do the weetbix have to be fucking?

      Couldn’t they just be lying side by side, holding hands? Seems far too early to me to be introducing them to different sexual positions – what’s next, gay weetbix marriage?

      Why won’t somebody think of the children?!?!?

      • blokeintakapuna

        He’s a cerial sex offender?

      • Ronnie Chow

        The cops give weetbix . How do I know that ?

  • Shazza

    Prisoners dilemma? You are incentivized to sell out as readers become increasingly cynical and distrustful of media and journalism, their belief that nobody uses intelligent and well rounded reporting means you may as well just give up because they already think you’re sell outs anyway…

    In seriousness, you keeping posting interesting shit. I’ll keep reading it. Anyone who reads blogs regularly subconsciously skims ads anyway.

    • Ronnie Chow

      Only change is permanent , Shazza .

  • williamabong

    Interesting to see Fairfax, the organization Whale continually beats up on, scooped the media awards, there are three possible reasons for this
    1.Whale is wrong (most likely)
    2.The talent pool is so shallow, the law of averages made it so easy to win. (less likely)
    3.They control the voting process, and therefore can influence the decisions. (highly unlikely)

    • Travis Poulson

      2.
      And please elaborate, what is WO “wrong” about?

      • williamabong

        Sorry I must have mixed up my cut and paste for the brackets,lol

        • blokeintakapuna

          Edit is your friend…

    • Polish Pride

      Yep I’d say 2 also it’d be interesting to see who judges it, what their background is and what the criteria is to be eligible for these awards. Is it like the Academy Awards where it is just back slapping fest for those in the industry by those in the industry.

    • Teletubby

      4. Fairfax control so much of the market it is inevitable they would win ( most probable)
      It’s kind of like saying the NZRFU awards were dominated by rugby players.

      • williamabong

        5 The whole thing is a complete circle jerk, and Fairfax have yet again hoodwinked the nation into believing they have some credibility.

    • Ian

      They may be able to influence judges, or make sure they are from the left-side of politics, but they can’t fool advertisers who are abandoning them in droves.

  • unitedtribes

    I was in discussion with someone Saturday night who suggested that a new “Auckland Party” stand in Epson. Their idea was for it to fix Aucklands traffic problems. Could be partner for Key. I thought it could go further and add something attractive to Islanders and also win Sth Auckland. A straight out Auckland issues party would fit well with MMP and could get plenty support. What do you think?

    • Bunswalla

      No.

    • I live in Epsom and while I would entertain any serious political movement that would help and support National, I think Auckland Citys’ politics are best served by Auckland City.

    • Why would a political party want to stand on a printer?

      • williamabong

        Dry but very subtle, 8.5 /10

      • unitedtribes

        Well I guess that sorts that out then. Back to the lawns

    • Mediaan

      Might it fall apart with internal disagreements over what Auckland needs?

  • Pissedoffyouth

    This ain’t so bad, but please, can you allow inline expansion of posts? It’d drop a few views but would mean a lazy bastard like me doesn’t have to open up 20 tabs and keep track of whats going on every day

    • Not being considered, not likely to happen in the foreseeable future.

      • Ronnie Chow

        Not while Polish is around . Please !

  • LinkinHawk

    3 more young people dead overnight after speeding off from police, I say good riddance that will teach you for not stopping, no doubt in a lot of peoples eyes it will be the police who are to blame.

    • Bunswalla

      it’s a tragedy that the support services have to deal with the results of the carnage, but on the plus side it has removed a number of shit-box cars from the road, and shit-head drivers from the gene pool.

      • Ronnie Chow

        True . Less accidents means unemployment in the crash-related support sector .

  • Bunswalla

    I would like to buy some of those stockings. You do have size XXL Mens I take it?

  • Pingback: There’s poverty and there’s NZ ‘poverty’ | Your NZ()

  • RightOfGenghis

    I hope you can make some good coin from this one but please don’t sell your soul to the dark side. On further thought I think you guys could run up some entertaining paid political advertising for the labour party ;)

    • Do they have the coin for it? ;)

      • Ronnie Chow

        Nope , they are spending heavily of food for starving children .

        Soon .

        Maybe .

        Maybe not .

        Maybe not out of their own pocket , then .

  • LesleyNZ

    This will be great bit like “consumer” testing for us.

    • Bunswalla

      Goody! Free samples?

  • cows4me

    You have to feel for the Obummer administration, when you are sinking in shit it doesn’t pay to jump around. In the end it’s the cover up that will get them and good fucking job to, commie bastards.

  • Timboh

    This blog delivers what a lot of people like. Nothing wrong with sponsorship or any other way of making money out of it. Go for it

  • 4077th

    I bet it won’t be Orcon advertising here unless they have balls the size of a planet…They could advertise themselves as the worst ISP in history with the runner up being telecom and xtra.

29%