Open Forum Sunday

This post is open to anyone to comment on any topic that isn’t spam, illegal or offensive. All Your NZ posts are open but this one is for you to raise topics that interest you, or you think may interest others.. 

If providing opinions on or summaries of other information also provide a link to that information. Bloggers are welcome to summarise and link to their posts. Comments worth more exposure may be repeated as posts. Comments from other forums can be repeated here, cut and paste is fine.

Your NZ is a mostly political and social issues blog but not limited to that, and views from anywhere on the political spectrum are welcome. Some ground rules:

  • If possible support arguments, news, points or opinions with links to sources and facts.
  • Please don’t post anything illegal, potentially defamatory or abusive.

FIRST TIME COMMENTERS: Due to abuse by a few, first comments under any ID will park in moderation until released (as soon as possible but it can sometimes take a while).

Sometimes comments will go into moderation or spam automatically due to mistyped ID, too many links (>4), or trigger text or other at risk criteria. If they pass muster they will be released as soon as possible (it can sometimes take hours).

Leave a comment

123 Comments

  1. Alan Wilkinson

     /  23rd August 2020

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/08/22/new-zealands-lust-lockdown-latest-example-vapid-political-virtue/

    Tells it like it is. As pouncing cops stop people going fishing and tell Aucklanders they are pleased with their behaviour:
    https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/122534292/coronavirus-two-fishermen-prevented-from-travelling-to-waiheke

    Treating the population like the infantile dimwits they are.

    Reply
    • Griff.

       /  23rd August 2020

      Treating the population like the infantile dimwits they are

      I do so love wingnut projection .

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  23rd August 2020

        À classic self reference, Griff?

        Reply
        • Griff.

           /  23rd August 2020

          À classic self reference, Griff?

          Nanana you are too .
          Q,E,D.

          Reply
          • Patzcuaro

             /  23rd August 2020

            Wingnut was a new one for me so I headed to Wikipedia.

            “Wingnut” (sometimes wing-nut) is an American political term used as a slur referring to a person who holds extreme, and often irrational, political views, primarily those considered to be right wing.

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingnut_(politics)

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  23rd August 2020

              How far off point can you get?

            • Griff.

               /  23rd August 2020

              Just like not all conservatives are neocons, not all conservatives are wingnuts either. In fact, more often than not, the term is usually used interchangeably with “reactionary” or “radical right”.

              Being a wingnut requires a particularly paranoid worldview, teetering on the edge of or falling wholesale into tinfoil hat territory, as wingnuttery causes the victim to refuse to accept any source of information that doesn’t back up their prejudices (essentially, wingnuts are almost always authoritarian as well as being politically right-wing). Constant gibbering about the “liberal media” as well as a slavish devotion to cognitive dissonance, conspiracy theories, global warming denialism, psychological projection, and crackpot theories of economics (e.g. Austrian school, Social Credit) are also, if not required, at the very least nearly universal symptoms. This is all usually accompanied by a side dish of a severe persecution complex. Not all wingnuts are racists, misogynists, homophobes, or transphobes, though many racists, misogynists, homophobes, and transphobes are also wingnuts.

              https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Wingnut

            • Jack

               /  23rd August 2020

              So wingnut is a derogatory word. Cult isn’t.

          • Griff.

             /  23rd August 2020

            Links to another wingnut who makes up stories for infantile dimwits to dumb to check facts for them self’s .

            San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station was shut down because it was an unsafe piece of shite .
            Its closure has nothing at all to do with your sources imaginary shifting away from nuclear energy policy.

            The plant’s first unit, Unit 1, operated from 1968 to 1992.[6] Unit 2 was started in 1983 and Unit 3 started in 1984. Upgrades designed to last 20 years were made to the reactor units in 2009 and 2010; however, both reactors were shut down in January 2012 after premature wear was found on more than 3,000 tubes in replacement steam generators that had been installed in 2010 and 2011. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is currently investigating the events that led to the closure. In May 2013, Senator Barbara Boxer, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said the modifications had proved to be “unsafe and posed a danger to the eight million people living within 50 miles of the plant,” and she called for a criminal investigation.[7]

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_Station
            Nuclear is a dead industry in the devolved world .
            The nuclear industry can only run on socialism.
            It can only be built were governments pick up the cost of insurance .
            In the USA the maxim liability of nuclear plants is to limited to an unfunded 12.5 billion dollars with the government absorbing the rest . To give an idea of the scale of the insurance costs absorbed by governments by this commie industry.
            The cost of Fukuyama’s little accident is heading towards ONE TRILLION dollars.
            I do so love confused right wing socialists.

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  23rd August 2020

              Lefty wingnuts shutting things down is the new normal.

            • Pink David

               /  23rd August 2020

              The future is nuclear. If you have not realised this, you are not paying attention.

    • Fight4nz

       /  23rd August 2020

      The people of Waiheke have been saying they don’t want Aucklanders travelling there. You believe their wishes should be ignored?
      It is outside Alert 3 restrictions and has been clearly communicated on multiple occasions. To simply flout the rules is as stupid as the breaking out of quarantine.
      Or half as stupid as blaming the government for self centred idiot’s behaviour.

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  23rd August 2020

        The people of Waiheke have been saying they don’t want Aucklanders travelling there. You believe their wishes should be ignored?

        Yes. Their lives certainly depend on goods, services and people from Auckland. There is no conceivable infectious risk in outdoor activities on the island even if undertaken by an Aucklander with an 0.01% probability of being infected.

        Irrational fear is not a justification for trampling freedom.

        Reply
        • Fight4nz

           /  23rd August 2020

          The annual road toll is under 500 per year. A less than 0.01% chance of being killed on the roads. The road rules have to go in the name of freedom (the AW definition that is)

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  23rd August 2020

            That risk stops you from using the roads, then?

            Reply
            • Fight4nz

               /  23rd August 2020

              No, the rules and the community adherence to them underpins the freedom for everyone to share the privilege of road use. Including obeying the Stop-Go signaller.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  23rd August 2020

              So if you can use the roads at that risk level fishermen should be allowed to fish at their much lower risk level?

            • Fight4nz

               /  23rd August 2020

              No. The inference is if there are rules imposed that imposes on “freedom”, so they must be inherently wrong and can be flouted.
              The greater benefit derived from rules is never more important than the personal “freedom “ of AW.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  23rd August 2020

              What you are trying to claim is that rules that bear no relationship to risk must be obeyed – because you are a Lefty and love rules.

            • Fight4nz

               /  23rd August 2020

              Wrong again.
              But more to the point you are trying to be the self appointed arbiter of what are good and not good rules. Typical rabid righty arrogance.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  23rd August 2020

              Of course, I do it every day deciding which rules should be followed and which ignored. It’s called living. You should try it sometime.

          • Pink David

             /  23rd August 2020

            “A less than 0.01% chance of being killed on the roads.”

            This is higher than any chance you have being killed by Covid if you are under 44 by an order of magnitude.

            Reply
            • Fight4nz

               /  23rd August 2020

              Thanks to the successful protection of health through the strategy adopted here.

            • Kimbo

               /  23rd August 2020

              Yep, on the money F4nz, hence risk of death on the road was a poor analogy.

              Can I suggest that there is a way for you all to stop talking past one another? After all, none of you is saying that Covid is harmless, and none of you is saying there will be no economic and social cost from lockdown. So all of you, while choosing to use different words like “caring”, “stupid” and “selfish” to various actions along the continuum, acknowledge that at some point the economic and social harm from lockdown could outweigh the health benefits.

              Ok, so put aside debates about whether the data gathering and analysis is accurate and valid, and that means there is…a specific amount at which lockdown is no longer sustainable.

              So what in your opinion is that amount in total, and per capita?

            • Kimbo

               /  23rd August 2020

              For example, at present the government has talked about borrowing $180bn in the years ahead to cover this. Which in a population of 5mill is approximately $36,000/person.

              And that’s just public debt, which is a quarter of private debt. Although the later is backed in many cases by property, but another “although” the value of those assets could plummet in the on-going downturn of undetermined length, and another “although” there is an economic cost to letting a pandemic run its “natural” course as per Sweden, and that won’t bring the same number of tourists back.

              But ok, say you could know accurately the private losses and you placed that as, say, another $500bn/$100,000 per person on top of the above public amount

              …so is the current back-of-an-envelope figure of $640bn/$136,000 per per person value for money?

              And if the answer is “yes”, at what point, in the event of future potential lockdowns and waiting for a vaccine or the pandemic ceases…hat is the amount when you say, “too much?”

              Watched a thing on the Great War the other day and you look at it and ask, “how come these guys, especially Russia, Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire (but Britain and France were irreparably damaged too) didn’t tell them selves by the end of 1916, ‘the cost is too high, we have to end this and accept whatever it takes for a peace treaty’.”

              And the answer was human nature which hasn’t changed. They were in too deep, too many had, for the necessity of national unity and sacrifice bought into the idea that the previous death of their 1,000,000 loved ones was worth it, and it becomes a lot easier to accept a further death toll of 50,000/month because THIS might be the month when it all ends.

              And instead, their nations crumbled and disintegrated, in many cases adopted extremist ideologies that condemned them to fight another round in 20 years.

              Maybe I’ve pushed the analogy too far, but there comes a point where any “win” is Pyrrhic.

              So what’s the $ value?

    • Gerrit

       /  23rd August 2020

      AW, perhaps a warning that a references article is pay walled might be worth considering? Not many will read a paywalled article so reference to it is basically pointless?

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  23rd August 2020

        Sorry, I checked it didn’t show a premium tag but obviously that isn’t enough. Not sure what else is easy to do.

        Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  23rd August 2020

      Telegraph article is too good not to share:

      Progressive mythology always demands a socialist valhalla; a nation to be idealised and held as up an inspiration. For years, Scandinavia, and particularly Sweden, played this role. The stereotype was never entirely accurate; Scandinavian social democracy is a far cry from full-throated socialism, yet it remained influential.

      In the face of the pandemic, however, the tables have turned; now it is the libertarian Right who are lining up to applaud Swedish exceptionalism, while progressives liken their controversial strategy to a form of eugenics. With Sweden consigned to the naughty step, the Left needs a new country to fetishise, and they have alighted on New Zealand.

      This was underway long before the virus arrived, thanks to NZ’s intoxicating combination of centre-left politics and a charismatic, young and importantly, female, leader: Jacinda Ardern. Her decisive leadership following the mass shooting in Christchurch propelled the New Zealand PM to global prominence, and she has since enjoyed fawning media coverage surpassing even the high water-mark of Trudeau-mania.

      The Left applauded NZ’s “wellbeing budget”, emphasising citizens’ happiness over GDP growth, and cheered when Ardern brought her baby into the UN assembly hall. Their zero-tolerance approach to Covid-19 has been especially influential. A group of weak-minded MPs and peers are currently urging our own Government to pursue a similar aim of total eradication.

      We should be under no illusion – this is no model for New Zealand to follow, let alone a sophisticated global economy like ours. NZ may have contained the virus, for now at least, registering the lowest mortality rates in the OECD, but it has taken genuinely draconian policies and great economic pain to get there. The Ardern administration is eliminating rights on a scale more reminiscent of authoritarian China than a Western liberal democracy.

      Last week, the whole of Auckland was sent into lockdown after the government announced a grand total of four new cases in the city. GDP has taken its biggest slide in three decades. A total ban on foreign arrivals has endured for months, with catastrophic results for tourism, directly employing 8.4 per cent of the workforce. New Zealanders returning from abroad must pay for the privilege of isolating in military-guarded facilities, to the tune of more than £1,500 per head. One man recently received a six-week jail sentence for hugging a friend quarantining in a detention centre.

      The NZ experience should serve as a cautionary tale about the normalisation of overreach. Though the country has not recorded a single covid death since May, the government decided to postpone the Autumn elections following the small-scale outbreak this month. Progressives, so alert to the subversion of democracy in the USA, had little to say about this extraordinary over-reaction.

      An elimination strategy has made them hostages to fortune; with precedence established, it will be politically toxic to change course. Ardern has ridden high in the polls so far, but if such disruption continues, public appetite for keeping the country virus-free at any cost will surely wane, and the recent outbreak, despite NZ’s geographic isolation and its draconian policy response, suggests no country can postpone the inevitable.

      The implications of New Zealand’s autarchy go beyond its shores as well. Tourism accounts for a third of jobs in Fiji, Palau and Vanuatu; and two thirds of their visitors come from Australia and New Zealand. Yet amid mounting poverty and unemployment, island leaders’ pleadings for air bridges seem barely to have registered with an administration myopically focused on elimination. In seeking to be kind, the Ardern administration has ended up being very cruel indeed.

      Enthusiasts for this model imply that elimination, like the happiness budget, and like Ardern herself, puts people above the callous vicissitudes of the balance sheet. As we are increasingly finding, the two cannot be so easily disentangled. Excessively harsh lockdowns have become a form of international virtue-signalling; something only wealthy nations can afford, but which promises catastrophe for the world’s poorest.

      Before the recent spike, commentators lauded Ardern as being “on course to eradicate the virus completely.” The ambition was childish and hubristic in the extreme. Until the planet reaches a state of elimination, New Zealand will have to stay in indefinite isolation, with domestic lock-downs a likely fixture of life, perhaps for years to come. The economy cannot bear this for long. Nor can the people.

      Reply
      • Kimbo

         /  23rd August 2020

        I’m assuming that is a later edition because in the first edition of Madeline Grant’s op-ed (a more accurate description than “article”) she referred to Auckland as the capital, not “largest city”.

        That, along with her implication that it was the Progressive ideological “overreach” of Ardern’s Labour Party, rather than NZ First and National who forced her hand to delay the election, suggests she is…uninformed on a number of matters. But why let the details get in the way when you have a story to tell, but hey, call me a nit-picker if you will.

        Oh, yeah, and personally there is nothing “genuinely draconian” in expecting returning New Zealanders to stump with with $3,000 as a contribution to the costs of (admittedly compulsory) quarantine.

        And as to the crucial question of the right balance between addressing the health risks of Covid, and the resulting economic and social costs of lockdowns, well, ya pays yer money and ya takes yer pick.

        However, I’m not sure Madeline Grant has added any new facts to the matter. But ok, maybe it is a perspective that needs more attention. At present there seems little discussion of the economic and social consequences…

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  23rd August 2020

          You are an industrious nitpicker, Kimbo, tracking down even nits I hid from the less diligent.

          It wasn’t her job to reveal new facts, just to assemble objectively those already known.

          Simply put, the path NZ is on is unsustainable. The only question is when and how it will end. The farce of it being held up as some sort of object for veneration by the world will end with it.

          Reply
          • Kimbo

             /  23rd August 2020

            Sorry, are you implying you edited out the reference to Auckland as the capital? I hope not, because there is no way that is ethical internet practice, or if this was scholarship as you well know. I sure hope it’s not what you mean, and apologies if I’ve misunderstood you.

            Anyway, nit-picking or not (and it’s up to others to decide if that’s what it was, when it could arguably be an insight into Grant’s lack of research and subsequent analysis)

            …if it is an opinion piece then any facts she chooses to include are, by definition, subjectively chosen.

            But that’s fine, when Jacinda and her mob of cheerleaders want to shout, “yes it is”, you are determined to shout back just as loud, “oh no it’s not!”. Hence you’ve cooped “objectively” when it is…the opposite in this case.

            And yes, as per my rather long and verbose (nothing new there!) post below drawing upon the analogy of the losses of the Great War, it is indeed a case of how this thing ends, and the final ongoing and future costs that will be incurred.

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  23rd August 2020

              Of course I corrected an irrelevant error that any competent subeditor should have picked up and would have inevitably been seized upon by professional nitpickers to divert from the important issues. No doubt you can find a reason it would have been ethical for the subeditor to correct it but not me but I couldn’t care less.

            • Kimbo

               /  23rd August 2020

              Well, Al, I realise that you’ve argued elsewhere and rightly so, that we all decide what rules we will and wont follow. In your case I think your decision to alter the original text was wrong because you’re not a sub editor. Instead, you were acting as censor, presuming under the rationale of cutting potential diversions off at the pass, rather than letting readers form their own judgment as to the relevance and credibility or lack thereof of Grant’s research, fact-selection and analysis.

              Indeed I’m amazed that someone who – with good reason in some cases – is highly critical of the government’s withholding and fudging of facts and details, that you don’t perceive that a critic of such actions should endeavour to be beyond reproach when it comes to similar activity. Instead, you presumed to withhold the full facts on the assumption some of us children incapable of deciding for ourselves, and we need to be steered to believe your preferred narrative.

              Sorry, what was your initial criticism about us being treated like “infantile dimwits” when you first posted the link to Grant’s piece?

      • Fight4nz

         /  23rd August 2020

        This is your reference standard for good journalism? Seems I have been overestimating you.

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  23rd August 2020

          You could always attempt to explain why of course.

          Reply
          • Kimbo

             /  23rd August 2020

            I attempted to explain why, including your 180 degree confusion over the meaning of “objectively”, but apparently I’m an industrious nit-picker. 😳😂

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  23rd August 2020

              Your explanation came later. Apologies for not anticipating it, my powers are limited in that respect and anyway my question wasn’t addressed to you. As for lack of factual objectivity, I await your subjectively chosen refutations.

            • Kimbo

               /  23rd August 2020

              No problem.

              Lack of factual objectivity In a general or specific sense? I’ll move between the two as it applies to the current specific re Madeline Grant.

              You’ve actually moved the goal posts by referring to “factual objectivity” (which, like “objective fact” is a redundancy, because something is either fact/factual, or it is not. Even purported facts are still “objective” to the extent that they may be facts)

              …instead of your original “assemble objectively” those facts already known. So you are claiming, or at least your original language is saying that her very choice of what facts to include – and by implication what she has omitted to mention – is in itself “objective”.

              Leaving aside the nit-picky post-positivist insight that no human decision-making process is ever objectively…objective, and going with the practical “sufficient objectivity”

              …there is no way a catalogue of chosen facts is ever sufficiently objective. Or at least IMHO not in a dynamic on-going crisis like Covid with so many unknown variables, and especially when Grant has only told one side of the health vs economic/social/personal liberties cost risk continuum in the play with the Covid lockdown.

              Instead, at best, what Grant has done, and as per what you are really asserting, she has assembled the relevant facts, and analysed the competing risks and costs to a sufficient degree. That’s a big “at best”, btw.

              Either way, even if that is the case, her claim that the economic and civil liberties costs are not worth it remain a value judgement. Which of its very nature is always subjective.

              So the take out – suggest you watch your readiness to use “objective/ly” when, at best, what you mean is “relevant”. Because “objective” when it is not in context is an assertion and claim of truth that unnecessarily shuts down or confuses reasonable examination of your ideas and stifles subsequent debate, rather than encourages it. And judging by your track record you strike me as a guy who favours the latter, rather than the cheap rhetorical tricks of propaganda. If Grant’s assembled facts and subsequent arguments carry sufficient weight, those with the skill, time and inclination will see it.

              She’s certainly reinforced some of what I’ve been thinking. And I hope others too are at least asking the question, when does the cost get too high?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  23rd August 2020

              As you well know, objectivity is a target, not a nirvana, and deploys facts in rational pursuit of it. Those challenging it must produce counter facts and logic.

            • Kimbo

               /  23rd August 2020

              Then ditch the term, especially as you have used it as a rhetorical shill and let the argument stand on its own merits.

            • Jack

               /  23rd August 2020

              Objectivity for a Kiwi with the mind of Christ is to carry his cross for Church. You are behaving dim witted Kimbo. Many church leaders do.
              Subjectivity is what you do with your own mind as you separate your spirit from your natural. The rational pursuit of objectivity is the carrying of your cross with your spirit and your natural self in harmony with your personality. Nirvana is the success (and guaranteed.)

              Sorry Alan, you’re off to bed and Kimbo has been avoiding an objective conversation with me, even though he initiated.

          • Fight4nz

             /  23rd August 2020

            “ Progressive mythology always demands a socialist valhalla; a nation to be idealised ”. First sentence, just make something up and print it. We know what to expect after that I suppose.
            “ A group of weak-minded MPs and peers..”. Arbitrary slur.
            “ We should be under no illusion – this is no model for New Zealand to follow, let alone a sophisticated global economy like ours. ”. Or it might turn out to be the only model that all should have followed.
            “it has taken genuinely draconian policies … eliminating rights on a scale more reminiscent of authoritarian China” Throw in some ludicrously exaggeration.
            “ the government decided to postpone the Autumn elections” Conceded to as you would have it under opposition pressure.
            “ island leaders’ pleadings for air bridges ”. The opposite of reality.
            “ Excessively harsh lockdowns have become a form of international virtue-signalling; something only wealthy nations can afford, but which promises catastrophe for the world’s poorest.” Have they? And what are statements like “which promises catastrophe for the world’s poorest.” if not virtue signalling at its most strident.
            Too much shock jock drivel to obscure any worthwhile point she might have made.

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  23rd August 2020

              Maori women have bourne the majority of NZ tourism job losses. Gig workers have suffered most economically. Poor people in poor countries starve in lockdowns. All of that is factual backing for her comment.

              Rarotonga has been pleading for an airbridge and Fiji for tourism.

              People are being jailed for failing to obey the public health dictatorship and many businesses are being destroyed.

              And she is quite right that the Left’s usual cry of “But Sweden” when their destructive policies are challenged has now found a necessary alternative.

      • Kimbo

         /  23rd August 2020

        Indeed that you are not a subbie of the Telegraph and you instead censored it because it was counterproductive to your purpose, demonstrates that you knew her error detracted from her credibility, if even in an almost irrelevant way.

        But that’s fine, if you want to indulge in the preemptive damage control and gaslighting that it is just nitpicking, knock yourself out.

        Reply
        • Jack

           /  23rd August 2020

          Like you have with our conversation about how a Christian carries his cross, and how you’re not.

          Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  24th August 2020

          B.s. I corrected a trivial error any Kiwi would see instantly, which had no bearing on the content and which was easy for someone on the other side of the world to make. A nitpicker won’t let his pathetic nit go.

          Reply
        • Kimbo

           /  24th August 2020

          The correct way to deal with the trivial error – and yes, I agree it was trivial, yes, it was an easy one for others on the other side of the world to make (indeed lots of Brits think Auckland is our capital) but nonetheless it did have bearing on the content as it alerted a careful reader that Madeline Grant was not as informed or thorough as implied –

          was for you to insert “(sic)” after the mistake. And you know that is the acceptable, indeed ethical practice.

          That you now resort to “bs” and double down that I’m nit picking reinforces your arrogance assuming you can ignore good and ethical practice.

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  24th August 2020

            Of course I can decide what is good and ethical practice. We all do that every day. Your opinion is just that.

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  24th August 2020

              And the appropriate ethical test here is whether the author would approve the correction. The answer to that is obviously yes.

              Of course the real ethical issue here was posting the article at all and that was what gave me real concern and pause. In the end I decided the importance of the issues here outweighed the unlikely net harm caused to the author and publisher but I am not comfortable with that.

            • Kimbo

               /  24th August 2020

              No, the real test is whether readers would approve. And I’ve explained repeatedly why it is as of interest as it was a small indication of Grant’s credibility or otherwise. It should not have been your decision to censor that information, trivial or not.

              And I note you’ve sidestepped the issue of using the accepted practice of “(sic)” which exists precisely for an example such as Grant. Acknowledges and alerts the reader to the error in the original source, indicates it is possibly trivial but leaves the original intact allowing the reader the important task of deciding for themselves concerning credibility, and we all move on with the primary task at hand of considering what they have to say.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  24th August 2020

              Everyone but you already did.

            • Kimbo

               /  24th August 2020

              So still avoiding the issue of why you didn’t use “(sic)” when it fulfilled the required balance of ethical concerns perfectly?

            • Jack

               /  24th August 2020

              Give the world a break and nit pick with me instead.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  24th August 2020

              Answered that long ago. Because it would have indulged even less diligent nitpickers’ distractions.

            • Jack

               /  24th August 2020

              Er, oops, my cheeky comment was for Kimbo, not you.

              It looks like I got two birds with one stone and all I’ve been throwing around is kindness.

              You’re a good teacher Al.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  24th August 2020

              Jack, my reply was also to Kimbo. I didn’t misinterpret yours.

            • Kimbo

               /  24th August 2020

              And yet that’s precisely the purpose for which “sic” exists. So yes, you did censor to control and direct the narrative.

              And look, I know you think throwing “of course” around like confetti to justify your dubious ethical choice makes it self evident in your own mind. Disappointing to see in someone usually more astute in their judgement IMHO.

              But as you rightly point out ya pays yer money and ya takes yer pick. And you’ve made it very clear you’re not concerned so a genuine good luck to you, Alan.

            • Jack

               /  24th August 2020

              Oh, do you mean that you decided a while ago to keep Kimbo’s nitpicking at bay, to give everyone a break? I thought you were calling me a nitpicker!

              If so – does that mean I’m better at it because I carry my cross with joy – as evidenced by Kimbo giving up on his and mine communications regarding Kiwis knowing their crosses to bear, whereas he continued on with you?

              If I’m on the right tack, this reminds me of how I wanted my husband to become the new elder at Pres church instead of the Brethren man who had just jumped ship. I figured that since I knew how difficult are Presbyterians it would be protective of everyone if my family had leadership there instead of that poor hapless less diligent nit picker.
              Frustratingly I lost, and now the distractions of idiots rule like never before in community.
              That’s why I’m here on yournz. I need a tribe from somewhere, anywhere, and like I said – you’re the best teacher hands down. It’s healing.

              I wrote in my last book “F your F” that cross carriers are guilt free.

              Thanks for explaining Al. That was kind of you, although I wouldn’t have cared at all if it was me you referred to. That’s healing.

              Thanks too Kimbo. But you do need to cherish your cross my fellow Christian. I think you’re a naughty boy.

              Over to Blazer …honestly B, it’s easy.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  24th August 2020

              Of course I did it to direct the narrative to the substantial issues instead of nitpicking. I said that from the start. And (sic) would have done the opposite. Enough of your nonsense already.

            • Jack

               /  24th August 2020

              Um..suck thumb for a split second…don’t care.
              The (sic) is the only nonsensical thing I could honour. And it’s not what Kiwis think. Kimbo is proof and I am better evidence. Perhaps I’m repeating myself.

          • Blazer

             /  24th August 2020

            ‘those that preach God….need God’…

            Surprised to learn ,you have a husband Jack!
            These are interesting…times.

            Reply
      • Blazer

         /  24th August 2020

        Education about MMT by S.Hail Adelaide economist….don’t worry about Govt spending…

        ‘countries like NZ and Australia, with high household debt levels, have been at risk of a financial crisis. The latest Reserve Bank of New Zealand figures show household debt as a percentage of nominal disposable income at 163.4%. That’s the highest it has been since the Reserve Bank data series began in 1998. Meanwhile, servicing as a percentage of nominal disposable income is at a record low of 6.8%, thanks to low interest rates, also at their lowest point in the history of the Reserve Bank data series.

        “These [NZ, Australia and Japan], are all monetary sovereign economies. Government debt is never going to trigger a financial crisis in any of these three countries. It’s excessive private sector debt, and especially household debt, that’s the concern. And if you were to push the New Zealand Government’s Budget towards surplus again post-pandemic, you would be weakening private sector balance sheets and either pushing the economy back into a slump once more, or pushing the household sector towards an even higher level of household debt and making the financial system more fragile. And the eventual potential correction more severe,” says Hail.

        Reply
  2. lurcher1948

     /  23rd August 2020

    Another beautiful day in covid free Wellington where I’m free to walk my dogs anywhere under the protective wing of our dear leader PM Jacinda Ardern.😁

    Reply
    • Fight4nz

       /  23rd August 2020

      The current Hoki season is a bust and tuna catch falling fast too. Foreign factory ships plundering the resources.

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  23rd August 2020

        Who is more likely to do something about China, Trump or Biden?

        Reply
        • Fight4nz

           /  23rd August 2020

          Neither. Trump has no commercial interest. Biden does not seem the sort.
          Someone like Japan would have to make the first move?

          Reply
    • Gerrit

       /  23rd August 2020

      Yep with the China Sea now fished out, even the North Koreans are finding it tough. Worth a read;

      “But that does not appear to have deterred some 900 Chinese ships in 2017 and 700 the following year, according to Global Fishing Watch’s report.
      The nonprofit said these Chinese ships likely caught more than 160,000 metric tons of Pacific flying squid, one of the region’s most valuable seafood products, in 2017 and 2018 — more than South Korea and Japan combined during the same period. The estimated catch was worth more than $440 million.”

      https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/23/asia/north-korea-ghost-ships-intl-hnk/index.html

      “Fish stocks there have been declining dramatically in recent years, another major problem that the parties have failed to work out. Pacific flying squid stocks have dropped by 80% in South Korean waters and 82% Japanese waters since 2003, according to Global Fishing Watch.”

      Reply
  3. Jack

     /  23rd August 2020

    https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/health/122528208/new-gp-teams-to-help-more-people-in-southland-with-mental-illnesses

    With an ambiguous first sentence which would be funny if it wasn’t.
    Cult is strong in NZ, esp with church leaders. Many are wingnuts. They hide it well. Very selfish and scared.

    Reply
    • Blazer

       /  23rd August 2020

      Unfortunately you have a cargo cult mentality ,built on extremely weak …foundations.

      Reply
    • duperez

       /  23rd August 2020

      I hope you’re not singling out church leaders for many being wingnuts. Wouldn’t it be fair to spread the affliction through their whole congregations?

      Reply
      • Jack

         /  23rd August 2020

        Well, I was never a wingnut and I would be back in their congregations in a heartbeat if the majority of leaders practised logic aka carrying one’s cross.

        No, the majority in the congregations are not wingnuts. Love tolerates a lot in cult.

        Reply
        • Kimbo

           /  23rd August 2020

          “Carrying one’s cross” is not “practicing logic”. Instead it is means to die to selfishness, self-centredness and personal ambitions and plans that are not in alignment with Christ and his Kingdom, and find new spiritual life through his death and resurrection.

          Perhaps your inability to…practice logic in rightly discerning what “carrying one’s cross” does and doesn’t mean, whil pointing the finger at others (incorrectly it would seem, based on your incorrect interpretation of whatever action they have done to you

          …is part of the reason for your current on-going publicly-aired grievance and predicament. Just a suggestion.

          Oh, yes, and despite cults making continual assurances they practice love and tolerance, the process of initial “love-bombing” to attract new converts, and indeed the one-way bottom-up unquestioning slavish devotion of ordinary members towards their leaders, cults are almost invariably very unloving and intolerant. Especially when it comes to any variation in thought or action from the decreed norm. That is what makes them…cults.

          Reply
          • Jack

             /  23rd August 2020

            “Carrying one’s cross” is not “practicing logic”. Instead it is means to die to selfishness, self-centredness and personal ambitions and plans that are not in alignment with Christ and his Kingdom, and find new spiritual life through his death and resurrection.”

            Case in point. This is waffly and absurd. Carrying one’s cross is different to that. You’re not carrying your cross. I can tell, because it’s obvious you’re trying to carry it outside of Church. Illogical. You can’t carry your cross and simultaneously be dropping it.

            Reply
          • Jack

             /  23rd August 2020

            No, the individual followers in a cult are strong in love and tolerance. That’s Group 1, the largest group. There is the odd exception – the obviously seriously mentally unwell.
            Group 2 comprises of a few pets whom to all appearances are followers. They are the suck ups.
            Group 3 are the cult leaders.
            By your behaviour on YourNZ I think you belong to a cult and are either in group 2 or 3.
            As a Christian you would share your testimony on this secular site (if you were cult free).
            Individual testimonies form the data necessary for Church growth.
            You are not carrying your cross Kimbo. I can tell you have not read my books.

            Reply
        • Kimbo

           /  23rd August 2020

          But for what it is worth (likely not much! 😂),

          https://yournz.org/2019/04/21/a-christian-reconsiders-the-resurrection-of-christ/

          …I concluded that whatever else the Christian church in all its many current manifestations is, it started out as a 1st Century Palestinian Jewish apocalyptic…sect. Not quite the same as “cult”, but sometimes the two overlap. Not that that was the case with the Primitive Church IMHO.

          Reply
          • Kimbo

             /  23rd August 2020

            And “Palestinian” in context refers to the region (as opposed to the Diaspora Jewish alternative) in which the first followers of Jesus originated, Ancient Roman Empire provinces of Judaea and Galilee,

            …and the current predominantly Muslim and Christian Arab inhabitants.

            But, hey, if you consider the whole lot “cult”, ya pays yer money and ya takes yer pick. 😃

            Incidentally, further to your question yesterday about whether “cult” is a derogatory (pejorative) term, yes, it is when referring to a religious or ideological group or organisation. But “cult” also a neural technical meaning to describe the resources, personnel and practices surrounding a religious system of worship:

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_(religious_practice)

            So what happened in the Jewish temple in Jerusalem, the sacrifices that occur in Mecca during Hajj, or the Roman Catholic Mass or Protestant church services are all considered “cult”.

            Reply
            • Jack

               /  23rd August 2020

              There’s a new definition of cult. If Kimbo was willing to carry his cross he would find it.

              The word is not pejorative, except to Kimbo in this one instance (this wee drop in communications here today).

            • Kimbo

               /  23rd August 2020

              As per below, thanks for the emphatic, indeed imperious denial and assertion. But no, it’s no just “to Kimbo”. Call most people the member of a cult and they’ll consider it highly insulting.

              Hence as you don’t seem to have an accurate grasp of relevant facts, I’ll pass on the option to rely on your advice as a guide for my spiritual and/or temporal wellbeing.

              But I will suggest your capacity to insist black is white, and make such pointed and personal criticisms that might sway those of a psychologically susceptible disposition into your orbit of control suggests you have the makings of a prospective cult leader.

              Take my “waffly” response as confirmation I’m not one of them. 😳😂

          • Kimbo

             /  23rd August 2020

            …sorry, NOT the current Arab inhabitants of the region.

            Reply
            • Jack

               /  23rd August 2020

              Proof from Kimbo that he does not carry his cross –
              “Perhaps your inability to…practice logic in rightly discerning what “carrying one’s cross” does and doesn’t mean, whil pointing the finger at others (incorrectly it would seem, based on your incorrect interpretation of whatever action they have done to you”… “Just a suggestion.” In case you’re wrong?

              You are wrong Kimbo, otherwise you wouldn’t need to go on so much.

              You don’t know what is your cross to bear. That’s a sad bad thing for NZ

            • Kimbo

               /  23rd August 2020

              Fair enough, Jack. Despite your inadequate explanation of what mine, or anyone else’s cross to bear actually is, and not wanting to delve into whatever quasi-Gnostic or subjective insights led you to know with such certainty, I’ll resist the temptation to reply, “oh no I’m not”, and well leave it at your emphatic, indeed imperious

              “you are wrong Kimbo”.

            • Jack

               /  23rd August 2020

              I can barely read your talk Kimbo – b/c I am not a black and whiter and b/c of what is going on.

              Just received another vitriolic note from church people.

              I wish you were carrying your cross. It’s times like this we need fellow Kiwis.

              You’re not carrying your cross Kimbo. Have I said that? I did tell you what and how but you didn’t want to know.

              You know your cross but you keep dropping it.

            • Jack

               /  23rd August 2020

              My orbit of control? Bizarre. The victim has no control, except for self control.

              You project Kimbo and prove my point. It may be correct that many feel that ‘cult’ is a nasty word. As many forget their place in the world.

              Any individual who feels upset about getting ‘cult’ applied to them does not know the joy of a belly laugh.

          • Jack

             /  23rd August 2020

            I find this comment very interesting and touched on that in my books. – church “started out as a 1st Century Palestinian Jewish apocalyptic…sect.”
            Yes it did and that’s how Church muddles through victoriously throughout the ages. The important thing is for you as an individual to know when it’s time to move on and up, out of cult.

            What about people saying that “as soon as I join a church it is then imperfect”? It’s a lighthearted ‘humble’ statement. But it’s wrong and there does come a time when that person needs to admit he’s not carrying his cross and to get that issue sorted.

            If the Christian fellowship where you participate in Church is not perfect in your eyes then it’s obvious you are not carrying your cross.

            Reply
            • Blazer

               /  23rd August 2020

              ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……….

            • Jack

               /  23rd August 2020

              People here presumed that I “wanted something” when I first began sharing. I told everyone that my goal was to heal, that’s all. I remember Gezza finding that particularly hard to grasp.
              I’ve also wondered about Gezza’s absence and hope he’s fine. I’ve been looking out for his return too.
              Kimbo accuses me of being emphatic and imperious. No, I’m carrying my cross and it’s healing and easy. The things I show should comfort Kimbo.

            • Jack

               /  23rd August 2020

              ……zzzzzzzzZZZZZZZ….belly laughing at the wasp stinging my wannabe antagonist.

  4. Fight4nz

     /  23rd August 2020

    Speaking of wingnuts!
    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12358727
    I’d put money on him being a vocal whiner about nanny state government at the same time.

    Reply
    • Corky

       /  23rd August 2020

      He’s a business owner, so I would say you are right. If everyone did a week each month without food, doctors would eventually go out of business.

      Reply
      • Duker

         /  23rd August 2020

        “”Returnees must accept some responsibility throughout their stay.”

        Reply
    • Jack

       /  23rd August 2020

      He made some valid points lucidly and takes responsibility for himself.
      Perhaps you fell for media’s hype tricks. It wasn’t a “silent protest”. If it was that, he would have stated so at the beginning. It was an experiment meaningful to him. How is that wingnut?

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  23rd August 2020

        What were the valid points?

        Reply
        • Kimbo

           /  23rd August 2020

          Your reading comprehension skills are particularly bad lately:

          Surely the Government has a duty of care to actively manage and monitor those in isolation…

          Reply
          • He said that if no one noticed that someone hadn’t eaten for 7 days, it was unlikely that other things would be noticed. He said more than that, but Blazer can look it up for himself.

            Reply
            • Kimbo

               /  23rd August 2020

              Judging on past form, Blazer is more likely to expend his energy interrogating others with continual questions that purport to expose their political and ideological deficiencies, while failing to reciprocate with answers when he gets questioned back.

          • Fight4nz

             /  23rd August 2020

            So the Nanny state must feed him his breakfast or it’s their fault? Unmitigated bs.

            Reply
            • Kimbo

               /  23rd August 2020

              No, they have to be diligent in their supervision of people who are in the their compulsory care, especially as the circumstances mean some may be especially vulnerable. As per the dictum of the NZ Prison service (and this situation is practically identical), “safe, secure, humane confinement”.

              But maybe there was someone like you checking on Jeffrey Epstein.

            • Fight4nz

               /  23rd August 2020

              He deliberately didn’t eat. His fault.
              He is just a smartarse and you know it.

            • Kimbo

               /  23rd August 2020

              He may indeed be a smart arse – and yes, I’ll agree he is, and any hunger strike/experiment is always an exercise in wilfulness – but nonetheless that is incidental to the fact he seems to have highlighted a clear lack of due care.

              Put it this way, if it was a prison someone declining to eat their food for that long would have been noted, and remedial or precautionary steps taken. If you are going to deprive someone of their liberties, you had better be very diligent about all aspects of their continued wellbeing on your watch.

            • Kimbo

               /  23rd August 2020

              And further to yesterday’s discussion, I look forward to Blazer turning up to rebut you by asserting that Bobby Sands was a victim of English colonial occupation.

            • Fight4nz

               /  23rd August 2020

              The only valid point he has made is that those that profess the individual responsibility creed will wilfully behave in a manner diametrically opposing this principle for the purposes of petty point scoring.

          • duperez

             /  23rd August 2020

            In none of the lockdown situations have I sensed a duty of care from a government agency actively managing and monitoring me in isolation.

            Reply
            • Nor have I, and I live alone.

              I did have a phone call from a stranger who began by asking how I was coping with lockdown and went into an attempt to convert me to her brand of Christianity.

            • Jack

               /  23rd August 2020

              I had one of those too.
              Christianity is a cult, let alone its branches.

  5. David

     /  23rd August 2020

    Could our outbreak have started with the guy in the cold store catching it off imported frozen goods ?
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/08/22/covid-19-can-survive-frozen-meat-fish-three-weeks-study-finds/

    Seem the Singaporeans think it could have done which is quite remarkable. Ironic if true given Ardern is copping a big hit from something that is maybe not her fault, hopes of governing alone torpedoed by fish fingers,chips and peas.

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  23rd August 2020

      Checked it all. Didnt happen
      A virus has to be able to reproduce to spread. They have tested the Australian coldstore looking for live virus and the origins. have ruled it out.

      Reply
  6. Corky

     /  23rd August 2020

    Sly socialists try their luck… like rust, they never sleep. Of course it was an honest mistake – one of many.

    https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2020/08/act-s-david-seymour-says-labour-acting-like-a-one-party-state-after-video-featuring-shot-of-ashley-bloomfield.html

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  23rd August 2020

      Seymour going full nonsense….their private polls must be grim. Some new public polls over next few weeks, so far hardly any shift from labour to other parties
      Stickybeak Poll for Spinoff

      Reply
      • Corky

         /  23rd August 2020

        Spin..spin, spin again. If Seymour is wrong, why is Labour taking action to remove the offending images? And what has ACTS popularity got to do with the price of fish? Or the gummints for that matter.

        Reply
        • I agree that government departments and civil servants should not be used for party ads. The State Services Commission seems to agree, too.

          If David S was wrong, Labour would rightly ignore him.

          Labour/the PM used the government website for party electioneering, I seem to remember.

          Reply
          • Duker

             /  23rd August 2020

            “its within the rules” ….a well known expression from the 9 years of neglect.
            It wasnt ‘ads’ they were a facebook feed of The PMs ‘outreach to people working to keep us safe’..

            look you once wanted to use publically funded facilties for some grandstanding
            https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1802/S00207/seymour-invites-obama-to-visit-charter-school.htm
            Even Collins used to visit the ‘coalface’ ..(a euphemism.)
            The Minister of Police took along more than chocolate biscuits to Hikurangi Police station during her whistle-stop tour to Northland.
            Judith Collins also okayed a volunteer staff scheme to help out the two-officer Hikurangi Station, and she even headed a brainstorming effort to see how a half-door and counter could be fitted into the minuscule station.
            Ms Collins visited Kerikeri, Kawakawa, Paihia, Hikurangi, Kamo and Whangarei Police Stations yesterday to meet police staff and “listen to them”.
            https://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503450&objectid=11033619
            Facebook means they put these things on their own feed now.. ….in the old days it was a quick bit on TV1.

            Reply
  7. lurcher1948

     /  23rd August 2020

    Iceland 29 deaths per million
    Australia 19 deaths per million
    New Zealand 4 deaths per million
    Darn that Jacinda Ardern is a total failure….NOT ENOUGH DIED, National will fix that

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  23rd August 2020

      Probably won’t have to, Lurch. Just wait a bit for us to rejoin the world.

      Reply
  8. Corky

     /  23rd August 2020

    Just seen Tarrant on One News. He was flown from Auckland to Christchurch on a Air Force Hercules. How fucken ridiculous. All that was needed was a light aircraft with a 4 man detail.
    On arrival, another detail could have meet them and then proceeded to the Christchurch holding cells. Instead there was a procession of vehicles to escort Tarrant from the Christchurch Airport. Talk about watching too many Yankee flicks. How much is this costing the taxpayer?

    Reply
    • lurcher1948

       /  23rd August 2020

      Corky you and Tarrant will get over the expense,I have all ready forgotten…it

      Reply
      • Corky

         /  23rd August 2020

        Said like a true socialist. Other people’s money…what the hell,eh!

        By the way, the espense is ongoing bythe look of it.

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s