Posts
The Oil Rig
The ETS
And for you enjoyment, the original "The Front Fell Off"
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Monday, June 21, 2010
Minister Dr. Nick Smith on the ETS
We had Nick Smith for 90 minutes answering all the questions you could think on the upcoming Emissions Trading Scheme. Below is the interview in full.
Part One
Part Two
Part Three
Part Four
Part Five
Part One
Discover Simple, Private Sharing at Drop.io
Part Two
Discover Simple, Private Sharing at Drop.io
Part Three
Discover Simple, Private Sharing at Drop.io
Part Four
Discover Simple, Private Sharing at Drop.io
Part Five
Discover Simple, Private Sharing at Drop.io
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Colbert Simplifies the Oil Spill
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Obama's Simplified BP Oil Spill Speech | ||||
| ||||
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Monday, June 7, 2010
Thanks to the UK Election, MMP is here to stay.
Next year New Zealanders get the chance to voice their opinion in a binding referendum about our electoral process.
The question is whether we want to keep MMP, or try something else.
The recent election results in the UK have sealed the fate of the upcoming electoral process referendum. It has reminded us all of the unfairness of the FPP system. 29% of Brits voted for Labour which equated to 258 seats, whereas the Liberal Democrats attained a respectable 23% of the vote, however, they only received 67 seats. The Lib Dems got more votes overall that they did in the last election, but lost seats. They are a smaller party today than they were after the previous election.
How is that fair?
Much like the anomalies in the UK election, there are anomalies in New Zealand’s current electoral system. The most obvious is the threshold. New Zealand First placed fourth in number of votes at the 2008 NZ Election, getting more that ACT, the Maori Party, Jim Anderton’s Progressives and United Future, nearly 100,000 New Zealanders wanted NZ First to be a part of the current governing parties, however due to the 5% threshold, they no longer are.
There is also an issue with accountability. A List MP can come in through a confidence and supply agreement and put forward legislation that changes the fabric of New Zealand society. There then seems to be no way that the people of NZ can hold them accountable. An obvious example of this is Sue Bradford.
The problem that faces those in New Zealand who would like to see any other electoral process other than MMP is that we don't understand any other system...STV, CV, SNTV, IRV?!? What the hell are they? They sound like they belong on the back of a car to me (I've always wanted a Commodore STV) and because New Zealanders en masse don't understand the other options we will choose to stay with one of the two we know, MMP or FPP.
People who are nervous of MMP will now look at the UK elections and go with the 'better the devil you know' option. People under 40 who never really used FPP will stay with what they know and the rest will be split - leading to the retention of MMP.
MMP is a satisfactory system. It is fair that the 157,000 people that want to vote for the Greens but don't have enough population density in one area to win a seat, should be represented in parliament. I do think that some changes need to happen though. John Key and Phil Goff have both stated they will vote for MMP and it has been said that if MMP is retained there will be a ‘shake up’.
A shake up is exactly what is needed. I have five suggestions.
The first is that we should either lower the threshold to 2%, or we should make the threshold 5% for everyone, and it shouldn’t matter if you have an electoral seat or not. ACT currently has 5 seats, but only 3.65% of the vote. This is because the equation for list MPs changes if you win an electoral seat ala Rodney ‘perk-buster until I can have them’ Hide.
Secondly, List MPs should not be able to put forward legislation. This wouldn’t stop parties like the Greens from putting forward legislation; it would just require them to have a sponsor MP to put the bill forward. This gives the NZ people a direct line of accountability. If an MP sponsors a bill that the public does not like, that MP can then be held accountable at the next election by their constituents.
This leads straight to my third point which is that an MP can should have to choose whether they will stand as a list MP, or an electoral MP, but not both. Politicians need to be made to understand that the electoral MP has more responsibility and there for is a more valued position to hold.
Following on from this, my fourth idea is that the electoral seats should be weighted more heavily. This could be done easily by giving list MPs one vote in the house, and Electoral MPs two. A List MP gets a vote for their party, and an Electoral MP gets a vote for their constituents and a vote for their party. One would hope that that may mean at times an Electoral MP may vote ‘yay’ and ‘nay’ on the same bill if the feeling in their electorate was contrary to what their party line was…this may be a little unrealistic though. If that idea was in place now there would be 192 ‘votes’ in parliament, and you would need 97 to have a majority. This number would obviously be a little fluid depending on overhangs. Under the current political make up, National would have 101 votes, Labour 62, The Maori Party 10, The Greens 9, ACT 6, JAP 2 and United Future 2. Click here to see the last few elections under this system
Finally my fifth idea is not necessarily tied only to MMP, but just an idea I have always liked. I feel that if a PM is rolled or resigns from his position, then a snap election should be called immediately. New Zealand has voted for a National government under John Key. Would New Zealand have voted as readily for a National Government under, say, Bill English? It would be a very different animal, and not what New Zealanders have endorsed.
Philosopher Joseph de Maistre said in 1811 “Toute nation a le gouvernement qu’elle mérite” – “Every country has the government it deserves.” In New Zealand in the 21st century we will get the government we deserve partly based on how we choose to elect them. It is time New Zealanders not just got the government we deserved, but the government we need.
joe@averagejoe.co.nz
http://twitter.com/patbrittenden
The question is whether we want to keep MMP, or try something else.
The recent election results in the UK have sealed the fate of the upcoming electoral process referendum. It has reminded us all of the unfairness of the FPP system. 29% of Brits voted for Labour which equated to 258 seats, whereas the Liberal Democrats attained a respectable 23% of the vote, however, they only received 67 seats. The Lib Dems got more votes overall that they did in the last election, but lost seats. They are a smaller party today than they were after the previous election.
How is that fair?
Much like the anomalies in the UK election, there are anomalies in New Zealand’s current electoral system. The most obvious is the threshold. New Zealand First placed fourth in number of votes at the 2008 NZ Election, getting more that ACT, the Maori Party, Jim Anderton’s Progressives and United Future, nearly 100,000 New Zealanders wanted NZ First to be a part of the current governing parties, however due to the 5% threshold, they no longer are.
There is also an issue with accountability. A List MP can come in through a confidence and supply agreement and put forward legislation that changes the fabric of New Zealand society. There then seems to be no way that the people of NZ can hold them accountable. An obvious example of this is Sue Bradford.
The problem that faces those in New Zealand who would like to see any other electoral process other than MMP is that we don't understand any other system...STV, CV, SNTV, IRV?!? What the hell are they? They sound like they belong on the back of a car to me (I've always wanted a Commodore STV) and because New Zealanders en masse don't understand the other options we will choose to stay with one of the two we know, MMP or FPP.
People who are nervous of MMP will now look at the UK elections and go with the 'better the devil you know' option. People under 40 who never really used FPP will stay with what they know and the rest will be split - leading to the retention of MMP.
MMP is a satisfactory system. It is fair that the 157,000 people that want to vote for the Greens but don't have enough population density in one area to win a seat, should be represented in parliament. I do think that some changes need to happen though. John Key and Phil Goff have both stated they will vote for MMP and it has been said that if MMP is retained there will be a ‘shake up’.
A shake up is exactly what is needed. I have five suggestions.
The first is that we should either lower the threshold to 2%, or we should make the threshold 5% for everyone, and it shouldn’t matter if you have an electoral seat or not. ACT currently has 5 seats, but only 3.65% of the vote. This is because the equation for list MPs changes if you win an electoral seat ala Rodney ‘perk-buster until I can have them’ Hide.
Secondly, List MPs should not be able to put forward legislation. This wouldn’t stop parties like the Greens from putting forward legislation; it would just require them to have a sponsor MP to put the bill forward. This gives the NZ people a direct line of accountability. If an MP sponsors a bill that the public does not like, that MP can then be held accountable at the next election by their constituents.
This leads straight to my third point which is that an MP can should have to choose whether they will stand as a list MP, or an electoral MP, but not both. Politicians need to be made to understand that the electoral MP has more responsibility and there for is a more valued position to hold.
Following on from this, my fourth idea is that the electoral seats should be weighted more heavily. This could be done easily by giving list MPs one vote in the house, and Electoral MPs two. A List MP gets a vote for their party, and an Electoral MP gets a vote for their constituents and a vote for their party. One would hope that that may mean at times an Electoral MP may vote ‘yay’ and ‘nay’ on the same bill if the feeling in their electorate was contrary to what their party line was…this may be a little unrealistic though. If that idea was in place now there would be 192 ‘votes’ in parliament, and you would need 97 to have a majority. This number would obviously be a little fluid depending on overhangs. Under the current political make up, National would have 101 votes, Labour 62, The Maori Party 10, The Greens 9, ACT 6, JAP 2 and United Future 2. Click here to see the last few elections under this system
Finally my fifth idea is not necessarily tied only to MMP, but just an idea I have always liked. I feel that if a PM is rolled or resigns from his position, then a snap election should be called immediately. New Zealand has voted for a National government under John Key. Would New Zealand have voted as readily for a National Government under, say, Bill English? It would be a very different animal, and not what New Zealanders have endorsed.
Philosopher Joseph de Maistre said in 1811 “Toute nation a le gouvernement qu’elle mérite” – “Every country has the government it deserves.” In New Zealand in the 21st century we will get the government we deserve partly based on how we choose to elect them. It is time New Zealanders not just got the government we deserved, but the government we need.
joe@averagejoe.co.nz
http://twitter.com/patbrittenden
>>
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Jon Stewart on 'Israel v Flotilla' and 'North v South Korea'
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Clusterf#&k to the War House - Korean Peninsula & Middle East | ||||
| ||||
>>
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Genuinely Funny TV
It’s called Tosh.0 and it features on Comedy Central, Mondays at 8pm. It uses viral videos off the internet and contrary to most ‘clip’ shows ala ‘Funniest Home Videos’ or the gawd awful 2Tube this is genuinely funny.
Some clips below
For more you can check out the show on Comedy Central on Sky, Mondays at 8pm, or if you want a quick giggle, there are heaps of clips on youtube.
Some clips below
For more you can check out the show on Comedy Central on Sky, Mondays at 8pm, or if you want a quick giggle, there are heaps of clips on youtube.
>>
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
'Pitch' Invaders
Do you love to laugh when those (normally) drunk miscreants run onto sporting grounds during the game? Television don't show them anymore as they fear it will encourage others to do the same. I've always found it kind of funny.
One 17 year old kid probably won't do it again after he was tasered for running onto the ground during a Philadelphia Phillies baseball game.
Check it out
The crowd didn't seem to like it, they booed. For me, much like the humour I get from someone running on the field...I found this 17 year old getting tasered kind of funny.
One 17 year old kid probably won't do it again after he was tasered for running onto the ground during a Philadelphia Phillies baseball game.
Check it out
The crowd didn't seem to like it, they booed. For me, much like the humour I get from someone running on the field...I found this 17 year old getting tasered kind of funny.
>>
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Letter to Dr. Laura Schlessinger
Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a conservate talkback host in America.
A listener sent me this open letter that was written to Dr. Laura after she aired some views on homosexuality.
In her radio show, Dr Laura Schlessinger said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet:
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law.
I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that
knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to
defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them
that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End
of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other
elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A
friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not
Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a
fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in
her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem
is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it
creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my
neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I
smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus
35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally
obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there
'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I
have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading
glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some
wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the
hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden
by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig
makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing
garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester
blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really
necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town
together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to
death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep
with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy
considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can
help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and
unchanging.
Your adoring fan.
James M. Kauffman,
Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,
Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education
University of Virginia
(It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian :) )
A listener sent me this open letter that was written to Dr. Laura after she aired some views on homosexuality.
In her radio show, Dr Laura Schlessinger said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet:
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law.
I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that
knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to
defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them
that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End
of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other
elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A
friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not
Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a
fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in
her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem
is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it
creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my
neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I
smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus
35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally
obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there
'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I
have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading
glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some
wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the
hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden
by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig
makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing
garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester
blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really
necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town
together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to
death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep
with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy
considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can
help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and
unchanging.
Your adoring fan.
James M. Kauffman,
Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,
Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education
University of Virginia
(It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian :) )
>>
The Book of Eli - Review
The Book of Eli is a story about Eli (Denzel Washington), he was alive before the war, one of the few remaining that remembers what is was like before "the war tore a hole in the sky, the sun came down, burnt everything, everyone". He describes that world, the world you and I live in now as a place where "...people had more than they needed. We had no idea what was precious and what wasn't. We threw away things people kill each other now."Eli is being led by a voice, that first led him to his most precious belonging, then told him to go West. His most precious belonging is a book...the bible...in fact the last bible on the face of the planet...and he reads it everyday.
This bible is the stuff of legends, a local War Lord (Gary Oldman), also a survivor of the war, knows of the books power and has been hunting for the last copy for years. The story of the clash between the protector of the book, and the seeker of it's power is a classic confrontation of good versus evil....except this time the good guy is pretty handy with a sword.
This movie is Mad Max meets The Prince of Egypt, and has some intriguing twists especially towards the end, but isn't for the faint hearted with graphic violence not just smattered...but splattered right the way through. The storyline and themes make for some fascinating conversation over a beer afterwards and I would suggest if you like a good action...then you'll love this one.
And as an aside, Mila Kunis (Jackie from That 70s Show) didn't look that bad in the flick either :o)
>>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)