Thursday, 28 July 2016

Fox News version of history proven stupid.





Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly has doubled down on his comments that enslaved Africans who built the White House were "well-fed." He made the comments on Tuesday, in response to first lady Michelle Obama’s speech at the DNC Monday night.


Michelle Obama: "I wake up every morning in a house that was built by slaves, and I watch my daughters, two beautiful, intelligent, black young women, playing with their dogs on the White House lawn."

That was Michelle Obama speaking Monday night at the DNC. This was Bill O’Reilly’s response.


Bill O’Reilly: "Slaves that worked there were well fed and had decent lodgings provided by the government, which stopped hiring slave labor in 1802. However, the feds did not forbid subcontractors from using slave labor. So Michelle Obama is essentially correct in citing slaves as builders of the White House, but there were others working, as well."


Bill O’Reilly’s comments sparked widespread outrage and were seen as a defence of slavery. But on Wednesday, O’Reilly claimed the statements were "just a fact."

 Actually, primary sources contradict his claims. In a letter from November 28, 1800, first lady Abigail Adams described enslaved Africans forced to labour on the White House’s construction as being "half fed, and destitute of clothing."

O'Reilly is typical of the nut cases that prevail in Fox Media...absolute idiots have captured the main stream media...not only are they sexist, racist and generally idiotic but they are fat overweight, over paid  non-journalists posing as opinion makers. Its bad enough that Bill Clinton taught Americans that oral sex is not a sexual act but now days we have news readers telling us that slavery was good for African Americans. 


Fox News version of history proven stupid.





Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly has doubled down on his comments that enslaved Africans who built the White House were "well-fed." He made the comments on Tuesday, in response to first lady Michelle Obama’s speech at the DNC Monday night.


Michelle Obama: "I wake up every morning in a house that was built by slaves, and I watch my daughters, two beautiful, intelligent, black young women, playing with their dogs on the White House lawn."

That was Michelle Obama speaking Monday night at the DNC. This was Bill O’Reilly’s response.


Bill O’Reilly: "Slaves that worked there were well fed and had decent lodgings provided by the government, which stopped hiring slave labor in 1802. However, the feds did not forbid subcontractors from using slave labor. So Michelle Obama is essentially correct in citing slaves as builders of the White House, but there were others working, as well."


Bill O’Reilly’s comments sparked widespread outrage and were seen as a defence of slavery. But on Wednesday, O’Reilly claimed the statements were "just a fact."

 Actually, primary sources contradict his claims. In a letter from November 28, 1800, first lady Abigail Adams described enslaved Africans forced to labour on the White House’s construction as being "half fed, and destitute of clothing."

O'Reilly is typical of the nut cases that prevail in Fox Media...absolute idiots have captured the main stream media...not only are they sexist, racist and generally idiotic but they are fat overweight, over paid  non-journalists posing as opinion makers. Its bad enough that Bill Clinton taught Americans that oral sex is not a sexual act but now days we have news readers telling us that slavery was good for African Americans. 


Tuesday, 26 July 2016

Democrats turn in the limelight.



Debbie Wasserman Schultz sacked Chairperson.


Democrat party fails to represent democracy

It’s not just men who play dirty politics, Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a example of dirty politic personified in the US. She did everything she could to create an unlevel playing field for the campaign of Bernie Sanders to be the nominated Democrat party nomination for president of the United States.

She cooked the books, allowed false information to be fed to the media so as to negate the overwhelming support for Hillary Clinton’s rival during the nomination campaign. Her job as chairperson was to ensure fairness.
Put simply and in language easily understood she rigged the nomination campaign to suit Hillary Campaign at the expense of Burnie Sanders. Her efforts were without doubt boosted by funding from Clinton's Wall Street banksters and manipulator friends.

We here in NZ have seen the outcomes of a dirty politics campaign; we’ve seen the rise and fall of Cameron Slater, Jason Ede or Simon Lusk and others like Paul Henry, Mike Hosking and many others who fed off the black arts that create fear and division amongst communities.
Michelle Obama saved at least in part the human aspect of US politics by referring back to family in her speech to the Democrat convention. You can listen to it here:

Compare that effort by Michelle Obama to that made by Donald Trump’s wife…who ironically used Michelle Obama’s speech from 2008 as the mainstay of her effort.

The US election is still months away and the US electorate still has to be convinced by either of the two major parties. There appears to be a massive number of Americans who detest both candidates. Many see Donald Trump as a real risk and see Hillary Clinton as a lackey of Wall Street and a trigger happy creator of wars. Neither has actually discussed new policy both have been in many respects creations of the corrupt America media.

We should be glad that we have at least some control over money spent on election campaigns. But money rules the world these days yet people still believe that democracy can prevail. Well shall see if we are strong enough prevail, revolutions take time and anger and depression but often social revolution is the only path forward.

Saturday, 23 July 2016

PNG Students stand for freedom...would our students do the same.




I spent five years in Papua New Guinea, two representing the NZ Foreign Affairs and Trade organisation as a training adviser and later as a Training Adviser to the PNG Harbours Board. So when I read and listened to Dr David Robie’s presentation at an AUT Fourth World Journalism Education Congress (WJEC) conference in Auckland I was captured by the report given by Emily Matasororo, leader of the Journalism Strand at the University of Papua New Guinea, who was on campus that fateful day last month (June 8) when heavily armed PNG police in camouflage fatigues opened fire with tear gas and live rounds on the peaceful students. She was actually in the crowd fired on.

Her report reminded me of my time there.  

 Dr David Robie is professor of journalism and director of AUT University’s Pacific Media Centre. He is a strong advocate of independent media at the country’s journalism schools. David has published the media transparency blog Café Pacific since 2006.
 Picture below is University of Papua New Guinea’s Emily Matasororo … in the background, images of heavily armed police shortly before they opened fire on peaceful students. Image:” Del Abcede/PMC 
Emily Matasororo of PNG.

David Robie wrote “It was surprising that a conference involving some of the brightest minds in journalism education from around the world should be ignored by New Zealand’s local media.
Some 220 people from 43 countries were at the Fourth World Journalism Education Congress (WJEC) conference in Auckland.
The range of diversity alone at the Auckland University of Technology hosted event was appealing, but it was the heady mix of ideas and contributions that offered an inspiring backdrop, he said.

Topics included strategies for teaching journalism for mobile platforms – the latest techniques; “de-westernising” journalism education in an era of new media genres; transmedia storytelling; teaching hospitals; twittering, facebooking and snapchat — digital media under the periscope; new views on distance learning, and 21st century ethical issues in journalism are just a representative sample of what was on offer.
Keynote speakers included Divina Frau-Meigs (Université Sorbonne Nouvelle) with a riveting account on how “powerful journalism” makes “prime ministers jump”, the Center of Public Integrity’s Peter Bale (a New Zealander) on the need to defend press freedom, and Tongan newspaper publisher and broadcaster who turned “inclusivity” on its head with an inspiring “include us” appeal from the Pacific, ”where we live in the biggest continent on planet Earth”.
But for me, the most moving message of all came not from those who spoke about “reporting dangerously” (such as Simon Cottle) or the very future of journalism, but from a young quietly spoken Papua New Guinean woman who has “lived” through a freedom of speech and the press struggle while facing live bullets.

Emily Matasororo, leader of the Journalism Strand at the University of Papua New Guinea, was on campus that fateful day last month (June 8) when heavily armed PNG police in camouflage fatigues opened fire with tear gas and live rounds on the peaceful students. She was actually in the crowd fired on.
Emily’s testimony
Matasororo gave her testimony at a WJEC16 panel on journalism education in the Pacific chaired by me, with the presence of the panel members being sponsored by the NZ Institute of Pacific Research.
Explaining how the two months on student unrest began across Papua New Guinea’s six universities – but mostly centred on UPNG in the capital of Port Moresby, and the University of Technology in the second city Lae – she said it was an irony that protests were triggered on World Press Freedom Day (May 3).
“The Journalism Strand was preparing to celebrate freedom of the press that day. However, this did not eventuate because the academic space was taken up by a student forum.
“This was the beginning of an eight-week stand-off by the students who demanded that the Prime Minister, Peter O’Neill, step down from office and face police over allegations of fraud. However, the prime minister said: ‘I will not step down.’”
Matasororo said O’Neill had challenged the issue of an arrest warrant against him, saying this case was now before the courts. Under the Papua New Guinea Constitution, O’Neill could be removed by a no-confidence vote, or on criminal charges. But the former option was shut down this week when O’Neill survived a no-confidence vote by 85 to 21 votes.
Among other issues that spurred the students into organising class boycotts and protests was the O’Neill government’s actions in dismantling the police fraud squad [National Fraud and Anti-Corruption directorate] – the very office that would investigate the prime minister. But, as Matasororo pointed out, the squad was later reinstated.
Another O’Neill move was adjourning Parliament until November to stave off the possibility of the no-confidence vote. (A Supreme Court ruling forced the reconvening of Parliament and the vote).
Violating the Constitution
Students became convinced that Prime Minister O’Neill was acting in violation of the Constitution and they saw themselves as defending the rule of law on behalf of all Papua New Guineans.
Earlier in the protests students at UPNG had set on fire 800 copies of the two national dailies being sold at the Waigani campus front gates in frustration over what they perceived to be the news media taking sides and promoting the O’Neill government’s agenda.
“The burning was an indication that they disliked the papers’ coverage of events leading up the [first] protest. Why should the Student Representative Council go as far as preferring certain media outlets over others?” Matasororo asked the forum which was syndicated globally on livestream.
The Post-Courier, The National and television station EM TV were banned covering student activities on campus. The UPNG is a public and government-run institution and is a public space open to everyone, including the media. If students reacted that way, it brought up issues of credibility and integrity of the freedom of the press in Papua New Guinea.
“Which brings to light the question of ethics.”
Matasororo quoted from a Loop PNG report bylined Carmella Gware, who talked to a student leader in spite of the ban on local media:
“We saw the newspapers and saw that the reports were very shallow and biased.
“They were not actual reports of what we students are portraying at the university. That’s why, to show our frustration, we went out to the bus stop and burnt those papers.
“What we displayed in the morning shows that we have no trust in the media,” the student leader stated (sic) said.
Investigation needed
“While I acknowledge and appreciate the tireless efforts of the media’s coverage of the student protests,’ said Matasororo, “for me this is a very strong statement that needs to be investigated.
“This needs to be done by all stakeholders concerned to promote fair and just reporting and the essence of good ethics and good journalism.
“The stakeholders must include, but not be limited to he following: the publisher and managements of the papers, the Media Council of PNG, Transparency International, Ombudsman Commission and the journalism educators of the UPNG and the Catholic-run Divine Word University.
“For the publishers, credibility is questioned; for the Media Council it is a threat against the profession; and for the educators – where are we going wrong in teaching ethics, are we giving enough prominence that it deserves?
“These are questions that need to be answered, in order to promote a robust and conducive environment in which journalists should operate in.”
On June 8, said Matasororo, the protests – until then peaceful – “took an ugly turn”. Several students were wounded, some news reports saying as many as 30. But there were no deaths.
“Social media was running hot with images and comments uploaded in real time. Some of what was coming from social media was emotional reporting.
“Information was distorted with some news stations reporting casualties.
“An Australian-based media outlet reported four deaths and isolated reports on radio, television and social media that day created a new level of fear, confusion and anxiety among residents.
“For me that day, I saw how powerful the media was, and when it is not applied correctly, it can be tragic.” Go to the site below and click on the video of the event chaired by Dr David Robie at the bottom of the blog. Its well worth the effort.

Here in New Zealand our own students have since the introduction of users pays in university education become almost voiceless. Laws have been passed that limit the activities of students and press coverage of our universities has dropped dramatically.
Universities spend most of their time and money on advertising and competing for students because of the neoliberal [business] model. Salaries for University mangers have gone through the roof, here in Palmerston North the VC is the highest paid public servant in the city…while student fees have climbed to meet these outrageous salary increases.
While I doubt if the government would call in the armed offender squad to stop a revolution amongst students, they have threatened to call in the police to break strike action by Airport Custom Officers. As our higher education system is now completely money based it may not be too long before students see the need for stronger action relating to how their universities are being run. Our students like those in PNG need a media which cares about students as it does about advertising revenues from universities. A bit of investigative journalism around the billions now owed by students wouldn’t go amiss…but don’t hold your breath…     

Wednesday, 20 July 2016

Housing an Alliance view.




1. How can the Left Wing Alliance Party agree with one time National and then Act leader Don Brash?
The simple answer; because the Alliance is democratic and will listen to sound advice even if it comes from a strange weird racist like Donald Brash.
Below is an Alliance view of the housing situation, one created by the Act / National and Labour neoliberal political nut cases…each of these three neoliberalist dominated parties feel they still need to ensure that they must keep the middle class voters on board their particular ship [in the case of Act their rowboat] by pandering to their self-taught sense of greed which for the most part over rides and destroys what could be called community spirit.
Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson destroyed what was once NZ’s strength its collectiveness, its understanding the difference between greed and need. 

 2. 
“There is a shortage of affordable (and habitable) housing in New Zealand, particularly in popular areas like Auckland, Wellington, and Central Otago. And it is reaching crisis point.
There is consensus now that “something needs to be done” and that the government has a role to play. There are three issues:
Houses are too expensive generally relative to most people’s income; to rent or to buy.
There are not enough houses available, in some places, for people to make their permanent home.
And there are too many people and/or companies wanting to buy houses as investment properties.
Some think building more houses is the answer, either the state or private developers. Some think making more land available to build on is the answer. Some think high-density housing development is the answer.
All are part of the solution. But all focus on one part of the problem – increasing the supply of housing. All will only work if the demand for housing does not increase faster than the supply of new housing.
Unfortunately, demand for property is no longer relative to the number of people wanting to somewhere to live. As long as property is seen as a safe and lucrative investment and we allow investors from all over the globe to buy our property, the demand will not go away. Building new houses is only likely to increase demand. Capital gains can still be made even if no one ever lives on a property.
Former National Party Leader Don Brash says house prices must fall by 40%. He’s right. This must happen. Perhaps 40% is too conservative for Auckland and Central Otago. But the fall in house prices will need to be carefully managed so that it doesn’t impact on the average New Zealander.
It is vital to avoid a repeat of the 2008 financial crash in the US where people on low and middle incomes handed their houses over to the banks and walked away because they couldn’t afford the mortgage payments. Selling wasn’t an option because the mortgage payments were far more than the house was worth.
So the government will need two plans. One to reduce demand and one to soften the blow of the resulting drop in house prices for people on low and middle incomes.
The first plan could involve building more houses. But it should also involve restricting who can buy houses (and land) to people who actually want to live here – permanent residents. And it should involve introducing measures to deter anyone from buying property solely for speculation. A fairly substantial capital gains tax on everything but the family home would do the trick.
The second plan should be a way to deal with the fall in property prices so that people on low and middle incomes mortgaged to the hilt do not find themselves saddled with a crippling debt that is now out of all proportion to the value of their home.
The government must be prepared to step in where there is genuine hardship and buy mortgages from the commercial banks so that they can be renegotiated to a level commensurate with property values. Kiwibank could be a vehicle for this. It would be expensive, but so are building houses and subsidizing rents to private landlords. And those expenses, along with a whole lot of others, such as health costs and increased demand for social services, will keep on rising if nothing is done to make houses more affordable.
The government may also need to be prepared top up some of the Kiwisaver schemes so that people’s work-based savings are not unduly affected. Or reimburse savers individually for their losses. There will undoubtedly be work-based pension funds with investments in property in New Zealand.
This is scary stuff. But the alternative is many more people, even working people, living in poverty in cars and on the streets. New Zealanders have, thankfully, given a strong message that they are not prepared to tolerate that. The ball is now in the politicians’ court.
Who has the courage to incur the wrath of local and international property investors by taking the necessary steps to make sure every New Zealander has a warm dry affordable home to call their own?

Kate Murray Alliance Co-Leader.
The above was written by Kate Murray the Alliance Co-Leader, if you’d like more info about the Alliance you can contact them via:


This from No Right Turn on the subject of Auckland housing:

“The cost of Auckland's housing bubble”  Teachers can no longer afford to live there:
A primary school teacher says he has been driven out of Auckland by the high cost of housing, and the city's principals are worried he's not alone.
Joe Carey has been teaching at Kohia Terrace School in Epsom for the last 18 months but is set to start teaching at Highlands Intermediate School in New Plymouth next week when Term 3 begins.

He and his fiancée Vanessa wanted to start a family but could not afford to continue living in Auckland, he said.
"You get paid the same if you work in Auckland as you get paid anywhere else, but the cost of housing [elsewhere] is a lot cheaper."

And they're not alone. Schools in Auckland are increasingly having trouble filling positions because people just can't afford to live there.
 
And it won't just be teachers - it will also be affecting nurses, caregivers, retail workers, pretty much everyone the entitled landed Boomers rely on to lead their lives. So either they'll need to start paying a lot more for everything, or see vital services become unavailable. quote ends.

Paula Bennetts latest rant is to build work-camp style housing for the poor, most likely close to rubbish dumps so that people can go through the trash in the hope of finding something of value...mind you they will have to pay tax on any money gained...