OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

Random Rants 10

Entry 1032, on 2009-06-12 at 21:57:54 (Rating 4, News)

This "random rants" entry will discuss a few interesting little items I spotted in the news media today. Most of these subjects present interesting potential issues which I need to rant about briefly, so here goes...

Rant the first.

Retirement experts have warned that the New Zealand government doesn't have the ability to fund a superannuation scheme based on the current retirement age of 65. They say that our GST rate would need to be increased to at least 15% to cover the increased government contributions to a scheme based on that age. Both major parties have given a strong assurance that GST will not be increased and that's an easy thing to do because they wouldn't last long if they did it.

Like most of the changes made in the 1980s, GST is a great idea in theory but not so good in practice. And typically we seem to have implemented the purest form of it anywhere - again an example of ideology being placed before practicality.

People are living longer and are healthier at an older age than in the past so increasing the retirement age seems like a good option. Many people don't want to retire until they are a lot older anyway and many older people have just as much a contribution to make as younger ones. Of course, there is the side effect that this makes less new jobs available but there will always be some negative side effects to any policy.

The second rant.

The Mt Albert byelection is really of only passing interest because Labour will win it without even trying. Everyone knows this and maybe that's why the National candidate, Melissa Lee, hasn't made a serious effort to win. Or at least I hope she wasn't trying because if this series of bungles was a serious attempt you have to wonder whether she should be in politics at all!

A National spokesman was on the radio this morning trying to put a positive spin on it and divert the pressure back on to Labour by saying that unless Labour win by a huge margin they should consider it a failure.

So it really seems that the honeymoon for National is well and truly over. The debacle over the sleazy behaviour of Worth. The debate regarding lack of consultation over the Auckland "super city". And the resentment over the ill considered statements made by Lee make this fairly clear.

Rant number 3.

I always thought this government (and most others) were against the ideas of subsidies and artificially assisting one business at the expense of another. It seems to me that the government's promise to subsidise tourism advertising, possibly by up to $60 million, is an example of this which they wouldn't support in many other cases.

In fact I think that its a good idea but I am also in favour of trade barriers, subsidies, and other forms of intervention so I suppose we shouldn't be surprised by that. Obviously a pure competitive environment where NZ tourism companies have to compete with those in other destinations isn't necessarily an aim of this government either.

The fourth and final rant.

Occasionally a court case captures the imagination of people to such at extent that everyone seems to think they suddenly became an expert on the law, the details of the case, or the finer points of justice in general.

If you live in New Zealand you will no doubt recognise this reference to the David Bain re-trial. Most people have a strong opinion on this case and most people know very little about it. I said in a blog entry titled "Trust Justice?" from 2009-06-07 that I only knew the basics but I also said I hadn't formed a clear conclusion.

The latest news on this involves an alleged voice at the start of the emergency call Bain made to police when he reported the murders. Many people think they can hear the words "I shot the prick" in what seems to be just some random noise.

There's a well known phenomenon known as "pareidolia" which all skeptics are aware of. Its the tendency of the human brain to find patterns in a situation where there is none. Its most famous for visual illusions such as the face on Mars, the figure of Mary on the taco, etc.

The same applies to sound. I heard an interesting podcast once where a researcher created randomly generated sounds and then asked subjects to say what they heard in them. If the subjects were told what they should hear, either directly or through more subtle means, they would hear it in the sound even when it wasn't there. I have no doubt that's what happened in this case because I can hear several different messages if I listen for them. Another point might be, why would Bain confess then go on to hide his alleged crime?

So there's my rants for the day. In hindsight they weren't actually that controversial. Maybe I should go back to bashing managers or abusing creationists. That's far more entertaining!

Comment 1 (2102) by SBFL on 2009-06-13 at 09:31:20: (view recent only)

Rant 1 - I agree. Taxation is bad. Choice is good.
Rant 2 - Also agree. Re Nat spokesperson - such is politics but he has a point if as you say "Labour will win it without even trying"...which also makes the honeymoon independent of the Mt Albert by-election. Though I would say that Melissa has dampened any perceived honeymoon. I probably agree with your sentiments over Worth (and I say 'probably' as you haven't spoken about it at length). He had to go. And isn't it refreshing to see him axed from the cabinet in quick time, and then today we learnt he has done the honourable thing and also resigned as a MP? I don't need to go into the many examples of similar scenarios with the previous govt. Did anyone mention Philip Taito Field? Anyway good to see the Key govt throw out the trash early.
Rant 3 - eh? Seems from your example they are supporting a market, not one business at the expense of another.
Rant 4 - no opinion.
Re conclusion - no, not far more entertaining, but to the contrary, tired and boring. Some new topics are refreshing.

Comment 2 (2103) by SBFL on 2009-06-13 at 13:08:00:

Rant 4 - the jury should hear all evidence. Full stop.

Comment 3 (2104) by OJB on 2009-06-13 at 15:01:52:

Rant 1. All other things being equal you are right: taxation is bad and choice is good. I this case though I was suggesting that GST is a bad form of taxation.

Rant 2. Yes the honeymoon is over for several reasons. Try to put a positive spin on the Worth thing if you wish, it is an indication that National MPs aren't really any better than those form other parties.

Rant 3. Supporting the NZ tourism industry against those form other countries which possibly aren't being subsidised by the taxpayer (but probably are).

Rant 4. Fair enough. No opinion is the best option as far as the overall outcome of the trial is concerned. Regarding that particular piece of evidence: clearly nonsense.

Comment 4 (2105) by OJB on 2009-06-13 at 15:04:04:

Comment 2 on rant 4. Agreed. I have said I think the jury should be trusted with all the evidence in a previous blog entry.

Comment 5 (2106) by SBFL on 2009-06-13 at 15:18:36:

Rant 2 - I WASN'T putting a spin on it. The spokesman was. Richard Worth is down there with the Labour MP's. The rest seem to be performing well above their petty opponents if the last govt was anything to go by. Trevor Mallard continues to think he's a tough guy. Fool. Since Nov-08 he should realise we have moved into an era of professionalism (Worth being the exception hence why he should go).
Rant 3 - so? Seems a desperate effort at a whinge.
Rant 4 - clearly? What makes you the expert? Bit of a contradiction really.

Comment 6 (2107) by SBFL on 2009-06-13 at 15:23:41:

Tell me OJB, why would you say "Try to put a positive spin on the Worth thing if you wish," in response to my comment "I probably agree with your sentiments over Worth...He had to go."

Please explain how you come to your conclusion that I am putting a positive spin on this Worth saga? I am INTRIGUED to understand your logic!

Comment 7 (2108) by SBFL on 2009-06-13 at 15:26:56:

Oh and I forgot to mention this other bit of "spin": "Anyway good to see the Key govt throw out the trash early."

So I just described Worth as trash. How is that "Try to put a positive spin on the Worth thing if you wish" in your book? Please tell me!

Comment 8 (2110) by OJB on 2009-06-13 at 16:13:19:

The positive spin was that he was eventually removed as a minister and then resigned and that it was good to throw out the trash. If another party had a sleazy scumbag like that I don't think that you would be emphasising that aspect of the situation. And if he got through the selection process and into government how many more might there be waiting to be discovered?

Comment 9 (2113) by SBFL on 2009-06-16 at 08:34:19:

No, those were facts not spin. I think that the left just can't stand the fact that the right are calling for Worth's head, instead of defending him as they would expect.
The trash was thrown out pretty quickly by political standards, especially by Labour's standards, wouldn't you agree?

Comment 10 (2117) by OJB on 2009-06-16 at 10:58:38:

Well I heard the interview and it was a clear case of spin, but that's just politics - no big deal. Worth was tossed out fairly promptly but maybe not as promptly as he should have been. Also, should he have been sacrificed like that without a trial? Is there no loyalty on the right?

Comment 11 (2122) by SBFL on 2009-06-17 at 07:25:23:

You said "Try to put a positive spin on the Worth thing if you wish," - I thought this reference to spin was on my comments, not the interview which I already commented on. Possibly you got confused? Can be hard to keep track of the threads.

Funny how now it is too fast. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. As for loyalty - that has to come from Worth and I suppose he showed by resigning as an MP (as his press release would back this up in my view). That is the loyalty I would expect from someone who has embarrassed the party with his ridiculous behaviour. What is your idea of loyalty? Closing ranks and sticking by the scum and letting everyone else suffer while having to spends all sorts of needless effort defending a ratbag? I prefer my interpretation. It means the government can get on with its governing. There were too many distraction in the last term and Labour paid the price at the polling booths.

Comment 12 (2125) by OJB on 2009-06-17 at 08:39:16:

I was talking about supporters of the right in general but I can see how my wording could have been misleading. My idea of loyalty would be supporting your colleague until it was fairly shown he had behaved inappropriately or he admitted guilt by resigning. I accept your point that its possible to criticise Key for being too slow or too quick to toss Worth out, but I wonder if that would have happened at all if Goff hadn't brought it to out attention.

Comment 13 (2127) by SBFL on 2009-06-17 at 08:54:02:

I think the grammar backs my interpretation on that.

Goff didn't start blabbing about it until after Worth resigned as minister - which was for something different than Goff's "honey trap". I would say your criteria has been clearly met - "it was fairly shown he had behaved inappropriately or he admitted guilt by resigning."

Comment 14 (2132) by OJB on 2009-06-18 at 09:50:07:

From the Herald...

November 1999 -- Elected MP for Epsom in general election, retains the seat in 2002. [Well there's no accounting for taste in the voting public]

October 2002 -- On an official trip to Egypt, skips a Maori Battalion service to instead go to Cairo, visit the pyramids and take a camel ride. [Not a good look is it?]

September 2005 -- Loses Epsom to ACT leader Rodney Hide, returns to Parliament as a list MP. [Great! Not only did the idiot lose but he let an even bigger menace in!]

November 2008 -- National gains power, Worth again returned as a list MP. [I usually support MMP, but this...]

November 2008 -- Appointed a minister outside cabinet holding portfolios of internal affairs and land information. Also associate minister of justice. Ranked 22nd in executive list of 23 ministers. [Wow, the 23rd must be really bad!]

March 2009 -- Reports published about private visit to India during which he promoted aviation training in New Zealand while having an interest in an air training academy in Invercargill. [That's what I love about the Nats, do what I say not what I do]

March 2009 -- Prime Minister John Key tells press conference he gave Worth "a bollocking" over conflict of interest and failing to tell him about business interests. [But much worse is to come!]

April 2009 -- Worth apologises to Key but says he has done nothing wrong. [If he did nothing wrong why apologise?]

April 2009 -- Labour attacks Worth in Parliament, demands resignation. Worth continues to insist he has done nothing wrong. [So Labour only attacked him because he denied responsibility]

April 2009 -- More problems when Worth visits taxi driver allegedly attacked by members of a group that included the son of an acquaintance, Labour again calls for resignation on the grounds of conflict of interest. [I wasn't aware of this one]

May 2009 -- Worth refuses to answer questions from Labour MP Chris Hipkins about his activities, saying they are a waste of time. Key says he will consider the situation. [A waste of time is a good excuse for a multitude of sins!]

June 3 2009 -- Worth announces his resignation as a minister, citing personal reasons. Key accepts resignation, says "private matters" are involved. [In this context "private matters" meaning public matters that they don't want to tell us about!]

Police issue statement saying an allegation has been made against an MP and a preliminary investigation has started. [Its going to get worse]

Comment 15 (2133) by SBFL on 2009-06-18 at 10:35:11:

I would say that the Herald's comments (not your takes obviously) are probably fact. BUT WHAT IS YOUR POINT? How does this argue against anything I mentioned in my comment #13?

Comment 16 (2136) by OJB on 2009-06-18 at 21:01:34:

Just to show that you were wrong about Labour starting "babbling" until after he resigned.

Comment 17 (2138) by SBFL on 2009-06-19 at 18:45:43:

Ahhh, no. Where? And you would be wise to read carefully what I wrote in point 13. Already you have started to twist it.

Comment 18 (2139) by OJB on 2009-06-19 at 19:19:54:

April 2009 -- Labour attacks Worth in Parliament...
June 3 2009 -- Worth announces his resignation...

Seems clear enough.

Comment 19 (2140) by SBFL on 2009-06-19 at 20:40:26:

Now I warned you to read carefully my comment 13, didn't I? In it I said "Goff didn't start blabbing about it until after Worth resigned as minister". Firstly, Goff does not necessarily = Labour, and secondly (and more importantly) when I said "it" I am referring to the current text message scandal. Is this what Labour were attacking Worth about in April? If it was I think it would have been mentioned in some of the hundreds of articles on the saga.

So let's recap:
You said (12): "I accept your point that its possible to criticise Key for being too slow or too quick to toss Worth out, but I wonder if that would have happened at all if Goff hadn't brought it to out attention."

I said (13): "Goff didn't start blabbing about it until after Worth resigned as minister - which was for something different than Goff's "honey trap"."

You said (18&16): "April 2009 -- Labour attacks Worth in Parliament...
June 3 2009 -- Worth announces his resignation...
Just to show that you were wrong about Labour starting "babbling" until after he resigned."

And I have responded at the beginning of this comment that this "evidence" of yours doesn't mean anything.

So, if you are going to find some evidence to show I am wrong, then that's fine (I have been known to be wrong before), but please make it relevant.

Comment 20 (2141) by OJB on 2009-06-20 at 19:30:26:

Looking back you could be right. I could only find public comments form Goff on or after June 3 but I can't see why that is important in the greater scheme of things. It seems that the National supporters are trying to disguise a substandard performance of the party by picking on trivial points and trying to shift the blame.

Comment 21 (2142) by SBFL on 2009-06-23 at 09:30:16:

On "the greater scheme of things" takes us full circle. It was clear Worth's colleagues in the National Party caucus gave him the hint to resign also as an MP. He did resign and I don't think this could be interpreted as "trying to shift the blame". We don't know much about the Korean woman episode and this is the one that Worth had to fall on his sword over. As for the Choudary episode well there is too much Labour wiff on this to consider it trivial. So much so that the Worth issue has been dropped by Labour already in Parliament, as mentioned early in this article:
Mockery lasts as long as the joke about the Trojan Horse and unsubtly implied here:
Ain't that the truth.

Comment 22 (2143) by OJB on 2009-06-23 at 20:47:44:

OK, I've really moved on regarding this. Can we agree on: Worth was an embarrassment and a liability that National were probably happy to get rid of eventually. Labour indulged in some political machinations regarding Worth and maybe went too far. National would have done the same thing if the positions had been reversed.

Comment 23 (2144) by SBFL on 2009-06-24 at 06:39:06:

I was about to say yes, but find it difficult to agree to partisan speculation regarding the last sentence. Mudslinging only seems to be coming from one direction. One word: H-Fee.

Comment 24 (2145) by OJB on 2009-06-24 at 08:50:40:

Are you for real? Are you saying that National never indulges in "mud-slinging". Come on, this is politics we are talking about here! Mud-slinging tends to come from the opposition and is directed at the government. We would expect Labour to be attacking National now surely. That's just politics.

Comment 25 (2146) by SBFL on 2009-06-25 at 06:20:37:

Of course politicians will be politicians, but no party has come close to Labour's (often futile and backfiring) mudslinging. They never learn. And of course I expect all politicians to grill their opposition in the house, but rarely is this as low as the mudslinging that gets uncovered from behind the scenes. Anyway my main objection was your idle speculation that the Nats would react in the same way as Labour (on this Worth affair should the roles be reversed). Is there a similar case that comes close?

Comment 26 (2149) by OJB on 2009-06-25 at 20:22:44:

Why is this mud slinging? Is it not a legitimate part of the opposition's job to point out deficiencies in the performance and character of the government? I know that if the roles were reversed most National supporters would tell anyone who complained about "mud slinging" to toughen up!

Comment 27 (2151) by SBFl on 2009-06-28 at 10:04:56:

It's "mudslinging" because it's getting down and dirty (and I'm not talking about hard house dancing!). Maybe you missed the MSM commentary. Goff swam in the sewers and I just can't see Key doing the same (some may say politically a bad move but I prefer integrity, whichever side).

Heh, I don't disagree with your 'harden up' comment, but it's one thing to through some mud and let it go, another thing to throw it and claim some high moral ground as Goff so mistakenly did (and got burned in the media).

Comment 28 (2153) by OJB on 2009-06-28 at 16:14:35:

Well I guess what's "down and dirty" is very much a matter of opinion. I didn't think anything Goff did was beyond what I would expect from the average politician.

Comment 29 (2163) by SBFL on 2009-07-03 at 10:30:25:

"Well I guess what's "down and dirty" is very much a matter of opinion."
- Fair enough

"I didn't think anything Goff did was beyond what I would expect from the average politician."
- you should raise your expectations otherwise they will all have low acceptance levels!

Comment 30 (2168) by OJB on 2009-07-03 at 11:14:38:

OK, so we agree that what's dirty politics and what's fair criticism is a matter of opinion, at least to a large extent. I actually quite enjoy the sort of thing which might be verging on dirty. It makes politics more interesting. If everyone just kept to the facts and what was relevant we might have a more efficient political system but it wouldn't be as much fun!

Comment 31 (2171) by SBFL on 2009-07-03 at 12:19:34:

I don't know if I referred to "fair criticism" but re "dirty politics" haha, indeed. A bit of gutter is always interesting stuff. How else would women's magazines exist!?

Comment 32 (2174) by OJB on 2009-07-03 at 13:24:35: Excellent! So we agree again!

Comment 33 (2177) by SBFL on 2009-07-06 at 09:48:03:

Only took 31 comments to converge...probably a record (where we started off on opposite sides)!

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.