tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post2484523518902835750..comments2024-03-22T11:55:50.335+13:00Comments on Not PC: Murder? It's not OK.Peter Cresswellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-61884730416477239512008-10-03T10:15:00.000+13:002008-10-03T10:15:00.000+13:00OECD,It is fair to point out that RB is working fo...OECD,<BR/><BR/>It is fair to point out that RB is working for the state. It is also fair to point out that his 7 show lacks serious analysis.<BR/><BR/>However, I think it is unhelpfull to speculate about his psyhcological motivations. Only RB (and perhaps someone extremely close to him) truely knows them.<BR/><BR/>Sean.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-38541906905765510982008-10-03T06:07:00.000+13:002008-10-03T06:07:00.000+13:00It is curious why Russell has got himself into qui...It is curious why Russell has got himself into quite a spin over this... it must be election time!Just my opinionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16614554113040355062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-208097748247478182008-10-03T02:49:00.000+13:002008-10-03T02:49:00.000+13:00No Minister passes judgement on whether New Zealan...No Minister passes judgement on whether New Zealand has a serious crime problem:<BR/><A HREF="http://nominister.blogspot.com/2008/10/time-to-make-some-political-capital-on.html" REL="nofollow">Time to make some political capital on crime and punishment?</A><BR/><BR/>ACT once again provides the practical solutions while National tamely follows. At least both parties approaches are better than Labour’s “deny the problem exists” strategy.OECD rank 22 kiwihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00221031703154055521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-76803595018964882862008-10-03T02:38:00.000+13:002008-10-03T02:38:00.000+13:00What do we have here? Look at what Chris Trotter h...What do we have here? Look at what Chris Trotter has to say in a Stuff article:<BR/><A HREF="http://www.stuff.co.nz/4706548a1861.html" REL="nofollow">Turning the clock Right back</A><BR/><BR/>Another Labour apologist making excuses for criminals. Why am I not surprised?OECD rank 22 kiwihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00221031703154055521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-24569371454098830062008-10-03T02:17:00.000+13:002008-10-03T02:17:00.000+13:00Speculation or do you mean facts without specifics...Speculation or do you mean facts without specifics?<BR/><BR/>Russell has some kind of criminal record. It’s the kind of criminal record that requires you to make mention of it to insurers or potential employers. What the criminal record actually is would be speculation which is why I don’t make random guesses.<BR/><BR/>TVNZ 6 and 7 are funded by government throwing $70 million plus of taxpayer’s money at it. Media7 is part of TVNZ7 therefore funded by taxpayers. Russell derives a salary from “working” on Media7 therefore it is not unreasonable to point out that his main source of income is derived from the state, a state currently controlled by a Labour Government.OECD rank 22 kiwihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00221031703154055521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-13709128629885741232008-10-02T22:52:00.000+13:002008-10-02T22:52:00.000+13:00I think you're going several speculations too far ...I think you're going several speculations too far there, OECD.Peter Cresswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-59147967933869021342008-10-02T22:45:00.000+13:002008-10-02T22:45:00.000+13:00Reflecting on the issue I was thinking that perhap...Reflecting on the issue I was thinking that perhaps the motivation for why Russell Brown is so keen to support criminals is that he has had a brush with the law himself. So if Russell Brown is a criminal it stands to reason that he wants to shape society in such a way that he avoids responsibility for his own actions. It's a disgrace that TVNZ has given him a medium via which to peddle this agenda. <BR/><BR/>It’s sad that taxpayer funds go to support such a person of such low character. It’s also interesting to note that the amount of taxpayer funds he personally “games” from the system must be substantially more than that of a DPB beneficiary. He pleads poverty for DPB beneficiaries and then goes out and buys a large flat screen TV courtesy of the taxpayer without a blush of embarrassment at the contradictions of his own socialist beliefs that the money he bludges off the state would be better allocated to the DPB beneficiary he claims to represent. Nothing new there with the hypocrisy and sense of self entitlement that the socialist left possesses. Helen Clark claims to represent the poor and down trodden while her main achieve in her political career has been to accumulate six houses for her ever growing property portfolio, all courtesy of the New Zealand taxpayer. Just as well a stop will be put to all of that on 8 November.OECD rank 22 kiwihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00221031703154055521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-40705865072021432752008-10-02T22:25:00.000+13:002008-10-02T22:25:00.000+13:00A National/ACT coalition might make a difference L...A National/ACT coalition might make a difference LGM. <BR/><BR/>ACT is serious when it comes to the issue of crime. It’s true a lot of damage has been done to the country courtesy of the 5th Labour government. <BR/><BR/>It might also be true that New Zealand is beyond saving. Just as well most decent, hardworking New Zealanders can bail out to Australia or some other destination where Salaries are higher and taxes are lower.OECD rank 22 kiwihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00221031703154055521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-30296275183492931222008-10-02T07:08:00.000+13:002008-10-02T07:08:00.000+13:00"How are they going to handle the change that is c..."How are they going to handle the change that is coming on 8 November?"<BR/><BR/>What will change? The Labour/National coalition will continue as previously. Does anyone really believe in the fairey tails these guys excrete? It's taken years to create the present culture and conditions. The ideology (premise and principles) of the politicians, bureaucrats, consultants, special interests, enforcers, cronies, lobbiests, professional guilds and welfarists is supreme. It aint going to alter any time soon. Prepare for conditions to get much, much, much more difficult.<BR/><BR/>Always remember, "Democracy is when the people get what they want; good and hard." Best prepare for it!<BR/><BR/>LGMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-9467421991109014442008-10-01T22:28:00.000+13:002008-10-01T22:28:00.000+13:00PC, looks like David over at Kiwiblog is fighting ...PC, looks like David over at Kiwiblog is fighting the same fight regarding Labour apologists making excuses in the face of reality.<BR/><A HREF="http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/10/typical_smears.html" REL="nofollow">Typical smears</A><BR/>The just have to smear the messengers of truth because they can’t cope with what a failure the Labour government has been.<BR/><BR/>How are they going to handle the change that is coming on 8 November?OECD rank 22 kiwihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00221031703154055521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-14297692990618571112008-10-01T22:19:00.000+13:002008-10-01T22:19:00.000+13:00Sean said at 05:59:00 PM:“Is it just me, or does a...Sean said at 05:59:00 PM:<BR/><I>“Is it just me, or does anyone else find it weird that PC has to point out, to a media analyst, the most blatant of spin?!?”</I><BR/><BR/>Come on Sean, we both know that Russell Brown wasn’t appointed to his taxpayer funded role at TVNZ for his media analyst "skills" but instead for the specific skills a Labour apologist can provide in an EFA environment.OECD rank 22 kiwihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00221031703154055521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-85859859214415926682008-10-01T17:59:00.000+13:002008-10-01T17:59:00.000+13:00Is it just me, or does anyone else find it weird t...Is it just me, or does anyone else find it weird that PC has to point out, to a media analyst, the most blatant of spin?!?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-7737108734248580422008-10-01T16:55:00.000+13:002008-10-01T16:55:00.000+13:00When I heard Annette King explain the increase in ...When I heard Annette King explain the increase in violent crime by an increased reporting of domestic abuse, I shook my head. <BR/><BR/>1. It's 2008. Does she think we came out of the kitchen last month? That we only found our tongues last week? <BR/><BR/>2. If domestic abuse stats have indeed risen out of sight (as per her implication), it doesn't speak much for the large sums of public money spent on the nauseating Nanny State ads, does it. You know, the ones that only the truly stupid can't see merely preach to the converted.<BR/><BR/>It was a pretty pathetic attempt to colour over the fact that the streets are more dangerous. Untimely, too, after yet another liquor store was attacked in Sth Auckland yesterday, and a man attacked in Wanganui.<BR/><BR/>"Since 1999, NZ's violent crime rate has increased over 43%. (NZ Crime Statistics Police National Headquarters, April 2008)."<BR/><BR/>Franklin e-local, Oct 08<BR/><BR/>A 43% increase during Labour's tenure.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-21865474542900214892008-10-01T16:20:00.000+13:002008-10-01T16:20:00.000+13:00Russell, this is spin. You demand empirical facts...Russell, this is spin. You demand empirical facts, yet you cite blatant spin as if were unarguable.<BR/><BR/>In fact, there's no evidence at all that the rise in recorded crimes is due to "an increase in reporting, rather than incidence" -- apart from the police, Annette King and yourself saying that it is.<BR/><BR/>Further, if the rise in recorded crimes is largely due to "an increase in reporting, rather than incidence," then that means<BR/>a) the number of people hitting other people has been bloody high for a long time; and<BR/>b) violent crime is not going down, it's staying stable.<BR/><BR/>Neither of which is very good.<BR/><BR/>and this means too that the chief result of the "It's Not Okay" campaign is that people are telling on people who hit people more, not that they're hitting them less.<BR/><BR/>Now surely we can all agree that none of that is good, can't we?Peter Cresswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-9571673906463219822008-10-01T15:16:00.000+13:002008-10-01T15:16:00.000+13:00PC, although I think it's pretty clear Russell doe...<I>PC, although I think it's pretty clear Russell doesn't fully understand your position</I><BR/><BR/>I think I do, but it just seems to me to be yet more argument by proclamation. <BR/><BR/>Ditto for when he has Callum "pointing out" that "political correctness" is to blame for the sorry state of things.<BR/><BR/>You "point out" empirical facts, things like statistics; this is not one of those. It's an ideological belief.<BR/><BR/>The increase in recorded violent offences announced today is, according to the police, entirely composed of an increase in recorded family violence offences. They further say it is an increase in reporting, rather than incidence, as a consequence of the "It's Not Okay" campaign, and new police practices, which require reporting of even minor incidents.<BR/><BR/>Although you will doubtless regard the various policies at play here as yet more "political correctness", they are in fact an example of the zero tolerance you claim to espouse.Russell Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06272870489640380269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-90850768703566226562008-10-01T09:22:00.000+13:002008-10-01T09:22:00.000+13:00What would Trevor Mallard do?What would Trevor Mallard do?OECD rank 22 kiwihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00221031703154055521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-90956454070972035642008-09-30T15:34:00.000+13:002008-09-30T15:34:00.000+13:00Perhaps the solution is to legalize murder :)Perhaps the solution is to <A HREF="http://www.gene-callahan.org/blog/2008/08/legalize-murder.html" REL="nofollow">legalize murder</A> :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-20341162526512901422008-09-30T09:04:00.000+13:002008-09-30T09:04:00.000+13:00"Peter was demanding that the government protect "...<I>"Peter was demanding that the government protect "you and me from every nutter who'd like to raise a hand against us in violence".<BR/><BR/>I'm genuinely still none the wiser as to how the government would do so under Peter's masterplan, given that the violence he mentions was committed in people's homes. It is not a matter of the bad people running around stabbing "you and me", it is violence between people known to each other."</I><BR/><BR/>No, the police can't necessarily be in everybody's homes to prevent domestic violence as it occurs. However, the problem's roots are exactly the same as violence out on the street: a culture of welfare and warriors that exists today, due to political correctness and moral equivalency. <BR/><BR/>As government can only hand out so many resources at one time, what goes to welfare (which is the government's priorty; after all, people on welfare tend to vote for the government that's giving it to them) gets diverted from policing, and other sectors. This has also led to an increase in violence.<BR/><BR/>But, on the subject of violence which <I>is</I> out on the street, the police's job is to be out on the beat, walking around neighbourhoods, making sure everything's in order and dealing to the problems. Having police locked up in police stations all day unless a 111 call comes through is not the police's proper job.Callumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11029093534159739006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-10798581918067508622008-09-30T08:52:00.000+13:002008-09-30T08:52:00.000+13:00"Everybody sits in their respective corners pattin...<I>"Everybody sits in their respective corners patting themselves on the back for being 'right' whist the real world continues to go to hell in a hand cart."</I><BR/><BR/>You may wish to ask <I>why</I> the world is going to hell.Callumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11029093534159739006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-28386709191998106612008-09-30T08:40:00.000+13:002008-09-30T08:40:00.000+13:00BBFB,You state the world is going to hell. By what...BBFB,<BR/><BR/>You state the world is going to hell. By what atandard? That is, by what idea? That is, by what set of ideas that make up your set of values? That is, by what ideology?<BR/><BR/>Look, ideas matter. Even to you. Stop pretending they don't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-30851047962327749682008-09-30T08:22:00.000+13:002008-09-30T08:22:00.000+13:00This 'debate' is a crystallization of how ideologi...This 'debate' is a crystallization of how ideological positions actually prevent anything from getting done. Everybody sits in their respective corners patting themselves on the back for being 'right' whist the real world continues to go to hell in a hand cart. Zzzzz... One ideologue is as bad as another.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-10151423547218517422008-09-30T07:56:00.000+13:002008-09-30T07:56:00.000+13:00As I understand the situation PC's position is tha...As I understand the situation PC's position is that the sole legitimate activity of government is to ban the initiation of force from human affairs. For that purpose (and that purpose alone) he accepts that the government should be granted a monopoly over the use of non-emergancy retributive force. He's written on this topic on several occasions, over several years. He's also provided numerous links and cited books, websites, authors and so forth. He has gone to considerable effort providing material for readers and contributors to this site, so those who are serious and interested are able to obtain a detailed understanding of what he writes about and how he came to those conclusions. How many of you have even bothered to look at any of the material he cites? Be honest for a change. Ask yourself that question. Answer it honestly. Don't deceive yourself. <BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, what do we see here in response to PC's recent posts regarding the murders and violence blighting what was once known to be a peaceful and safe place? Certainly there are some uninformed turd-heads whining and hand-wringing about a topic they know little or nothing about. Worse is when these same turds start whining about the solution to the problem of the murders (a solution which requires the abandonment of the most cherished ideas of those same hand-wringers; ideas that have been shown to contribute to the violence if not actually cause much of it). <BR/><BR/>In essence the argument against PC boils down to a plea that domestic murder is not all that bad since it happens behind closed doors and drawn curtains. It's not all that bad as the streets are not yet awash with blood. Pathetic.<BR/><BR/>There has been an alternative line taken by apologists for all the violence and murdering. This variety of turd retreats to the position that PC is an Objectivist. Objectivism is bad somehow. It's a "rant." Thus the apologist kids himself PC's position can be disposed of and PC's argument conveniently ignored. Notice how the substance of what PC wrote is completely avoided. Pathetic indeed.<BR/><BR/>Don't be fooled by the likes of such vacuous people. They have nothing to offer but a weak helplessness in the face of any serious problem. They are the vermin of hollow excuses. They have no credibility.<BR/><BR/> <BR/>LGMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-9636629087784858512008-09-30T06:46:00.000+13:002008-09-30T06:46:00.000+13:00David S,You assert that ideology is bad. Yet you p...David S,<BR/><BR/>You assert that ideology is bad. Yet you provide no evidence. Just the assertions you are so critical of.<BR/><BR/>You assert that PC's particular ideology is a bunch of assertions. Yet you provide no evidence.<BR/><BR/>You assert that PC's ideology is a collection of subjectivist assertions. Yet you provide no arguments.<BR/><BR/>You claim PC is quilty of being "uncritical". Yet you ignore the numerous posts PC makes defending his ideology.<BR/><BR/>You claim PC is a fine critic, yet all his criticism of other positions is based explicitly on his ideology. If his ideology is so bad, then his criticism should be declared as meaningless drivel. Yet you wish to use his ideology in one breath and condem it in the next.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-9301175850361834142008-09-29T23:20:00.000+13:002008-09-29T23:20:00.000+13:00Peter was demanding that the government protect "y...<I>Peter was demanding that the government protect "you and me from every nutter who'd like to raise a hand against us in violence".</I><BR/><BR/>Well, yes; I don't know why someone who thinks the government should protect them shouldn't also think that the government should feed and clothe them, etc. Ojectivists are minarchists, and minarchism, objectively, doesn't make sense :)<BR/>But the government certainly shouldn't be protecting the criminals-outside-parliament and treating their victims as criminals.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-4123120530996561102008-09-29T22:17:00.000+13:002008-09-29T22:17:00.000+13:00PC, although I think it's pretty clear Russell doe...PC, although I think it's pretty clear Russell doesn't fully understand your position, his sentiment that you advocate the implimentation of a radically different system based on ideological assertions is quite correct. This reply of yours is just an objectivist rant in reply to a criticism about yet another objectivist rant. Objectivism is mostly just a bunch of Ayn Rand's subjectively based opinions. <BR/><BR/>Your an engaging author when you decide to examine opposing view points, but like most people who hold a "belief", you fail to critically examine, or justify, your own point of view beyond the context of that belief.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com