Monday, December 26, 2016

Dark Red in Aussie Greens

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/hardleft-faction-forms-inside-greens-aiming-to-end-capitalism-20161222-gtghf9.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=nc&eid=socialn%3Atwi-13omn1677-edtrl-other%3Annn-17%2F02%2F2014-edtrs_socialshare-all-nnn-nnn-vars-o%26sa%3DD%26usg%3DALhdy28zsr6qiq
 Left Renewal issued a statement of principles that includes the "rejection of the state's legitimacy".
"We believe . . . that capitalism is a violent and antagonistic relation between workers, and those who exploit them. As workers, whether or not we are waged, we experience perpetual violence and that this violence must be brought to an end. We therefore fight to bring about the end of capitalism," it states.
"Capitalism depends upon violent and authoritarian divisions within the working class, such as elitism, sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, religious sectarianism, and ableism (among others). It is only with the abolition of these authoritarian relations that we will be able to create a thriving movement capable of transforming society and so must challenge these wherever we encounter it." Left Renewal claims "Australia is based upon an act of genocide which exists within a broader framework of global imperialism".
Despite the party's position against factionalism, members of Left Renewal will be bound to factional discipline.
"As advocates of grassroots democracy, we believe in . . . a degree of tactical unity in order to have real collective influence in the society that we live in. Once a decision has been taken by our organisation in a participatory democratic fashion, it is required by members that they respect, implement and where necessary, bind on the organisation's democratic decisions. In unity is strength," the statement of principles says.

Saturday, December 17, 2016

Cologne and few prosecutions?

So the police and prosecutors for whatever reason just close the case.
Die Staatsanwaltschaft Oldenburg stellte die Ermittlungen ein, schrieb dem Opfer: „Es ist durchaus denkbar, dass der junge Mann Ihnen auf diese Weise sein Interesse an Ihnen mitteilen wollte.”
The Oldenburg prosecutor discontinued the investigation, wrote the victim: “It is quite possible that the young man wanted to be notified in this way be interested in you.” 
http://www.bild.de/regional/bremen/sexueller-missbrauch/staatsanwalt-verhoehnt-grabsch-opfer-49300650.bild.html
One may have to use google translate.
And another reason why these crimes are not investigated, by the head of police.
Holger Munch, president of Germany’s Federal Police, said: “There is a connection between the emergence of this phenomenon and the rapid migration in 2015.”
He added many of those responsible for the sex attacks would probably escape justice because of limited CCTV footage and the fact many were masked.
He said: “We have to presume that many of these crimes will never be fully investigated.”
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/688767/German-police-revise-up-number-of-victims-of-Cologne-migrant-sex-attacks
The prosecutor Ulrich Bremer says you are wrong
Cologne’s public prosecutor Ulrich Bremer said only three of the suspects had recently arrived in Germany. The rest were of Algerian, Tunisian or Moroccan origin, while three were German citizens. According to the report, he also said that of 1,054 complaints received 600 were connected to theft rather than a sexual offence.
However, Bremen denied the reports the following day as “total nonsense,” telling Associated Press that “the overwhelming majority of persons fall into the general category of refugees.” According to AP, Bremer said 73 suspects have been identified so far that include 30 Moroccan nationals, 27 Algerians, four Iraqis, three Germans, three Syrians, three Tunisians, and one each from Libya, Iran, and Montenegro. A total of 1,075 criminal complaints have been filed, including 467 alleging crimes of a sexual nature ranging from harassment to rape. Twelve of the 73 suspects are linked to sexual crimes, though only one of those—a Moroccan asylum-seeker who entered Germany in November—is in custody, he said.
https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/rape-was-a-problem-in-germany-long-before-the-refugees-arrived
Doubtlessly there is an example of a “native” German raping, but the sheer numbers are totally opposite in fact on the Cologne situation, besides the politicized police, and keeping things quiet.

Tuesday, December 13, 2016

Retaining Culture & Definition?

Thursday, October 20, 2016

USA Media and politics interweaving

about the US Media and political culture I found this comment, which concisely (and sadly) sums up what Washington D.C. has become:
In this world, there are Bill and Hillary, the Podesta brothers, Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner, Christiane Amanpour and Jamie Rubin, Samantha Power and Cass Sunstein, Andrea Mitchell and Alan Greenspan, and on and on. Jorge Ramos goes after Trump; his daughter works for Hillary; and his boss at Univision badgers the Clinton campaign to stay lax on open borders — the lifeblood that nourishes his non-English-speaking money machine.
George Stephanopoulos, who helped run the Clinton campaign and White House, and who as a debate moderator obsessed over Mitt Romney’s answers to abortion hypotheticals, is the disinterested ABC News chief anchor.
CNN vice president Virginia Moseley is married to Hillary Clinton’s former deputy secretary at the State Department Tom Nides (now of Morgan Stanley) — suggesting “The Clinton News Network” is not really a right-wing joke.
Former ABC News executive producer Ian Cameron is married to Susan Rice, a — pre-Benghazi — regular on the Sunday talk shows.
CBS president David Rhodes is the sibling of aspiring novelist Ben Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security adviser for “strategic communications and Speechwriting,” whatever that fictive title means.
ABC News correspondent Claire Shipman married former White House press secretary Jay Carney (now senior vice president for “worldwide corporate affairs” at Amazon: not just “corporate affairs” or “worldwide affairs” but “worldwide corporate affairs”). And on and on.
These nice people report on each other. They praise each other, award each other, make money together, and bristle with each other when they are collectively and pejoratively dubbed the “elites.”
[I would figure there is a republican version too]

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

Religious Authority or just Man's law?

SPC

Sure Fletch there are black men and white women who happily subordinate their world view to the inheritance of the Christian regime.
And those who do not are the ruin of that civilisation, due to their secular tolerance for immorality – end of enforcement of godly morality in law.
One problem, the sermon on the mount was an appeal to end religious authority in law, and let faith guide the personal behaviour/ethical standard.

Fletch

One problem, the sermon on the mount was an appeal to end religious authority in law, and let faith guide the personal behaviour/ethical standard.
I don’t think so. If we each have our own personal faith and ethical standards and yours differs from mine then whose should we appeal to? The law is already faith-based in a way (the law against murder is based on the sixth commandment). I once read an ex-atheist Christian challenging some people on an atheist forum, and an atheist questioned why murder should be wrong. The Christian replied that there really isn’t a reason, apart from God saying that it is wrong.
Here is the interesting exchange (Christian ex-atheist answers in bold) –
Can I ask a really silly question?
You state that divine authority is needed in order to provide a logical basis for morality. That’s fine, many other people have made this claim, too.
So, why do we need morals?
We don’t.
I’m completely serious here. For example, can you provide a single reason why murder is wrong other than “God said so”?
No, I can’t.
The reason I ask is that your statement seems to imply that you consider a logical moral value system to be a good thing – but you also seem to think that the definition of “good” relies completely and solely on the existance of God. This leaves me wondering what actually is your logical and rational basis for deciding that a logical moral system would be a good thing.
I never make the claim that a logical moral value system is a good thing. I simply state that without divine authority, we have no logical basis for the promotion of any value system, no matter what we think of that system. I’m not so much concerned with the definition of ‘good’ as I am with an objective standard. The standard of morality cannot have an objective reality without divine authority.
As an example, many people consider “thou shalt not kill” to be a good commandment, but are completely unable to rationalise why they think that. Can you answer this question? “God said so” may be a valid reason why you should obey – at least assuming God is real – but is there any other reason at all why this should considered to be a good commandment?
There is no other reason why this should be considered to be a good commandment. None. Zilch. Try to logical prove that killing is morally wrong. You will fail. Other than the reality of a god who declares killing to be morally wrong, there is no logically compelling reason for us to believe it is wrong.
Oddly, if you do answer this question, you’ll have to do so by justifying a moral value without reference to God, which you’ve claimed you can’t do. (Before you get offended, I actually suspect you can answer this question – which is pretty much my point. If you have to, prove me wrong by saying you still don’t know why murder is wrong, but I do hope you’re a better person than that.)
Oh my! No, you have certainly mistaken me for someone else. I really have no other reason to logically believe that murder is wrong. I could be honest and say that it emotionally upsets me, but I always choose reason over my emotions. If our lives have no inherent purpose or value, we are only kidding ourselves when we establish the facade of morality.
Go ahead. Logically prove to me that murder is wrong..
Why (assuming you do) do you now believe people are different to termites? is there any reason other than “the Bible says so” or “God says so” ?
If we are designed and loved by a god, we have inherent purpose and value as opposed to self-assigned, imaginary purpose and value.

Griff

That is total crap .
We dont murder because we dont want to be murdered .
The golden rule and the basis for morality.
do unto others as you have them do unto you.
No that rule is not Christendoms possession it is found in many different cultures .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
[except there is one major religion that does not follow  the "golden rule"]

SPC

“If we each have our own personal faith and ethical standards and yours differs from mine then whose should we appeal to?”
No one, simply delineate personal morality from law – personal morality where there is consent, law where there is no consent. Where there is no consent then there is law.
Placing law into areas where there is consent is interference, imposed morality one on another.
What motivates personal morality, whether Godfaith code or mutual respect citizenship (in our dominion) is besides the point or should be.

Fletch

SPC, yes but what about if you run across a culture where killing is very much acceptable and their law allows it. Your personal morality accounts for nothing in that case. What is law, then, if not the legislation of moral opinions? Every time a law is made, it becomes an imposition of one group’s opinion upon another’s.
When we throw a person in jail because he has robbed a house, he is being imprisoned because of another man’s opinion that stealing is wrong. Once again, the opinion in question concerns a subjective reality and is, therefore, purely subjective and a matter of preference. Our entire justice system becomes illusory. In order for our justice system to have credibility, it has to be based on an authority that exceeds the mere opinion of men. But with a God who establishes morality as an objective reality, we are no longer dealing with the opinions of man’s preference, but the opinions of men concerning God’s preference.


SPC

No one consents to being murdered or stolen from.
Your refusal to acknowledge the role of consent in modern state law making, is simply because of a preference to (and habit of apology for this) impose God morality in law, in that you apologise for those Jews and those Moslems who (would) do the same.

Friday, October 7, 2016

Heaven Hell versions and where is desire? Justice?

Dialogues With The Devil, Taylor Caldwell, 1967, there seem to a series of Dialogues
Written by Lucifer to his brother, Michael:

Certainly, in hell there is no free will, for the damned relinquished it on their worlds. This torment has been denied them by me. Therefore, they cannot will to climb to Heaven by self-denial, by contemplation, by worship, by dedication, by acts of faith and charity. These attributes shriveled in them during their lives, or were rejected scornfully by them in moods of risible sophistications. They can desire to possess them now, but I would keep them safe and warm, as Our Father never kept them so! So, they can will nothing. They can only accept the pleasures -and the pains – I bestow on them.

In Heaven, however, free will is fully released. The ability to reject, to deny, remains with archangels, angels and the souls of the saved. The gift of repudiation is still with them and the possibility of disobedience. Is that not most frightful? What insecurity! What danger! My damned remain with me in eternal slavery because in life they desired only safety, and lacked the fire of adventure, though, God knows, they protested enough on their worlds! But what did they protest? Inequality, which is the variety of God. Instability, which is the light of the universes. Uneasiness of mind, which is the soul of philosophy. Apparent injustices, which are the goad of the spirit. Vulnerability to life and other men, which is a charge to become invulnerable through Faith in God. The presence of suffering or misfortune – but these are a call for the soul to put on armor and serenity. They demanded of their rulers that they remain in constant cocoons, silky and guarded by earthly authority. They did not ask for wings to soar into the sunlight, and the ominous threats of full existence. They rejected freedom for hell. Certainly, they cried for freedom on their worlds, but it was freedom only to live happily without the freedom to be divinely unhappy.

I have satisfied all these lusts of men. Strange, is it not, that my hells, though the ultimate success of the dreams of men, are filled with weeping? And strange, is it not, that they still do not believe in the existence of God? But then, they never did; they believed only in me. They cannot will to believe in God. They see absolute reality about them now, which was their will in life. I will not pretend that I do not understand them, for was it not I who promised them all without work and without striving?

But lately I asked of a newly descended soul which had much acclaim on Terra: “What was your greatest desire on your world, you who were applauded by rulers and admired by your fellowmen?”

He replied, “Justice for all,” and put on a very righteous expression.

That was admirable, for who does not admire justice, even I? But I probed him. He declared that in his earthly view all men deserved what all other men possessed, whether worthy or not. “They are men, so they are equal, and being born they have a right to the fruits of the world, no matter the condition of their birth or the content of their minds, or their capacities.” I conducted him through the pleasures of my hell and he was delighted that no soul was lesser in riches than another, and that every soul had access to my banquets and my palaces, no soul was distinguishable from another, none possessed what another did not possess. Every desire was immediately gratified, he discovered. He smiled about him joyfully. He said, “Here, justice is attained!”

Then he saw that no face was joyful, however mean or lofty its features. He remarked, wonderingly, on the listlessness of my damned, and how they strolled emptily through thoroughfares filled with music and through streets wherein there was not a single humble habituation. He heard the cries of pleasure over my laden tables, and then heard them silenced, for there was no need now for food and where there is no need there is no desire and no enjoyment. He saw that the poorest on earth were clothed in magnificence and jewels, yet they wept the loudest. He was no fool. He said, “Satiety.” True, I answered him, but satiety can only live in the presence of total equality. He pondered on this while I led him to the seat of thousands of philosophers, and he sat down among them. But, as there is no challenge in hell, and no mystery, there can be no philosophy. That night he came to me on his knees and begged for death. I struck him with my foot, and said, “O man, this was the hell you made, and this was the desire of your heart, so eat, drink, and be merry.”
He attempted to hang himself in the manner of Judas, and I laughed at his futility. I meditated that above all futility is the climate of hell.

He said to me, in tears, “Then, if you are, then God exists.”

“That does not follow,” I replied to him. “But, did you not deny Him on Terra? Did you not speak of supra-man and man-becoming, and the ultimate glorification of man on earth, without God?”

“I did not see God among men,” he said, wringing his hands.

“You did not look,” I said. “You were too dull in your human arrogance and too enamored of humanity. You never denounced your fellows for their lusts and their cruelties. You told them they were only ‘victims.’ You refused to look upon their nature, for you denied the infinite variety and capacities of nature. To you, one man was as good as any other man, and equally endowed, for the foolish reason that he had been born. You saw no saints, and no sinners. It was only a matter of environment, though the proof was all about you that environment is but a mere shading or tint on the soul, and is not destiny. You denied that men have gifts of the spirit, often above those of other men. In truth, you denigrated those gifts of striving and wonder. You denied free will. Everything evil that happened to a man was only the result of his fellowmen’s lack of justice. You denied the reality of good and evil, the ability to make a choice. In short, you denied life, itself.”

“Then God in truth does exist?” he asked, after a moment’s miserable thought.

“That you will never know,” I said. “But rejoice! All your dreams are fulfilled here. Delight yourself. Behold, there are beautiful female demons here, and banquets and sports and pleasures and soft beds and lovely scenes and all whom you had wished, in life, you had known. Converse with them.”

“There is no desire in me,” he said. “I want nothing.”

“You are surely in hell,” I replied, and I left him weeping.

Dialogues With The Devil, Taylor Caldwell, 1967

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

The Revolt Against the Masses: How Liberalism Has Undermined the Middle Class

https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1594037957/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1594037957&linkCode=am2&tag=gatofvie-20&linkId=015889bdc0eb6ef598d059c16af091e8

Would that Europeanizing elitism concept into America also include Couldenhove Kalergi panEuropean, then join MiddleEast, Africa, open  borders?

The Revolt Against the Masses: How Liberalism Has Undermined the Middle Class

Look at the reviews. Here’s a long comment but it explains the importance of this book. Here’s one reviewer, but bear in mind he made his case well before the advent of Donald Trump, the quintessential billionaire middle-class American. (Eltitist, Trump is not):
The Revolt Against the Masses: How Liberalism has Undermined the Middle Class is one of the most important books written about American politics in the past fifty years.
The author, Fred Siegel, is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a think tank that focuses on urban policy and politics. He also serves as a professor of history and the humanities at Cooper Union and is a contributor to numerous publications…
The Revolt Against the Masses tells the story of how what some think of as liberalism is, in fact, a form of arrogant elitism modeled on an American form of aristocracy long associated with European statism.
“Today’s brand of liberalism, led by Barack Obama, has displaced the old Main Street private-sector middle class with a new middle class composed of public-sector workers allied with crony capitalists and the country’s arbiters of elite style and taste,” the book reveals.
Siegel describes how the American left turned away from its progressive roots between WWI and WWII, espousing a cynical and anti-American attitude that embraced experts and despised democracy and the average man. Siegel writes that the liberalism that emerged from 1919, taking its cue from H.L. Mencken, who sided with Germany in WWI and labeled Americans who supported “Wilson’s War” as “boobs” and “peasants” was “contemptuous of American culture and politics.” He added:
For the liberals, the war years had revealed that American society and democracy were themselves agents of repression. These sentiments deepened during the 1920s and have been an ongoing undercurrent in liberalism ever since. … For liberals, the great revelation of 1919 that they carried into the 1920s was that middle-class society at large, and not just the Bible Belters with their restrictive mores, was to blame for their subjugation. Their disdain for Main Street was matched by their contempt for the detritus of urban popular culture.
The Revolt Against the Masses tells the story of the leaders of modern American liberalism–Herbert Croly, Randolph Bourne, H.G. Wells, Sinclair Lewis, and Mencken–who sought to discard America’s most sacred principles of democracy and the rule of law for a bastardized version of European elitism, with decisions made by experts and social scientists.
The Revolt Against the Masses also identifies modern exponents of the new liberal elitism, influential figures such as John Kenneth Galbraith, who, “more than any other liberal, was able to meld the two central strands of 1920s liberalism: a Menkenesque contempt for the burghers and an undue regard for technocrats who cloaked their prejudices in the language of social science.”
[…]
The notion of free-market capitalism driving the growth of the US economy and the American dream after WWII was a convenient fiction. Behind this facade, generations of liberal political operatives worked to realize the dreams of a society led by an enlightened elite with heroic overtones that bear close resemblance to the fascist era of 1920s Europe. Men like Herbert Crowley, editor and co-founder of “The New Republic”, advanced the ideal of a secular priesthood that would Europeanize America. He envisioned an elite vanguard of intellectuals, writers and scientists who would not be swayed by outmoded ideas of popular democracy and individual freedom. And the mechanism for advancing the new liberal agenda was government.
Both liberals and conservatives alike need to read The Revolt Against the Masses. For conservatives, this book provides ample ammunition to use it, characterizing and countering the attacks of the liberal elite against people of faith, small business, and civil libertarians–the three pillars of a future conservative majority. Every conservative in Congress and across America needs to read  The Revolt Against the Masses.
For liberals and those who call themselves “progressives,” however, The Revolt Against the Masses is an equally important resource. Siegel describes how the ideals of 19th Century Progressivism were hijacked a century ago by an arrogant elite who despise working people and enrich themselves at public expense. Barack Obama is the ultimate example of this elitist tendency in American politics.
The majority of Americans who call themselves conservatives–and liberals–will be shocked and outraged by many of the revelations in this concise and well-written book.
It is concise. Requires no particular expertise to grasp his theses. You will come away with a changed view of how things have operated for several generations now…

Monday, September 19, 2016

Mathematical Modernisation

Brigitte

Teaching Math in 1950:
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit?
-------------------
Teaching Math in 1960:
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?
-------------------
Teaching Math in 1970:
A logger exchanges a set “L” of lumber for a set “M” of money. The cardinality of set “M” is 100. Each element is worth one dollar. Make 100 dots representing the elements of the set “M.” The set “C,” the cost of production contains 20 fewer points than set “M.” Represent the set “C” as subset of set “M” and answer the following question: What is the cardinality of the set “P” of profits?
-----------------
Teaching Math in 1980:
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20.
------------------
Teaching Math in 1990:
By cutting down beautiful forest trees, the logger makes $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the forest birds and squirrels “feel” as the logger cut down the trees? There are no wrong answers.
---------------------
Teaching Math in 2002:
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $120. How does Arthur Andersen determine that his profit margin is $60?
---------------------
Teaching Math in 2010:
Hokona te logger he truckload o rakau mo $ 100….

Thursday, August 18, 2016

? dependant upon the whims and market?

the long-desired Left-wing dream of a 100% Government health care system across the USA. In doing so he re-stated a core belief of Left-wingers everywhere,.
In my view, the provision of health care cannot continue to be dependent upon the whims and market projections of large private insurance companies whose only goal is to make as much profit as possible
The horror. The horror. One commentator had some fun with this stupidity:
In my view, the provision of gasoline cannot continue to be dependent upon the whims and market projections of large private energy companies whose only goal is to make as much profit as possible.
In my view, the provision of housing cannot continue to be dependent upon the whims and market projections of large private realty companies whose only goal is to make as much profit as possible.
In my view, the provision of bread cannot continue to be dependent upon the whims and market projections of large private food companies whose only goal is to make as much profit as possible.
 tom hunter (7,956 comments) says: 
Griff (13,957 comments) says:
August 18th, 2016 at 9:18 am

You could instead point to the different costs and outcomes around the globe and think about what is best
Or you could try and answer the question that lies at the core: why is healthcare different that profit screws it up?
The USA has a system very much closer to free market profit based system than us.
Their healthcare public/private spend is about 50:50 – whereas NZ’s is about 80:20. This is a huge difference to you? Having half of a market place occupied by government is “close” to a free-market or worse, Dikensian laissez faire?
That means they have a more efficient cheaper system that result in better outcomes right ?
Nobody would describe the US system as “efficient” – but according to you the degree of government involvement in that market, from almost endlessly prescriptive regulations that try to tell doctors, hospitals and insurers exactly what they can and cannot do, to all that government spending that screws any price signals trying to get through the fog. BTW – all insurer’s premium prices have to approved by state boards – something not heard about when those premiums jump by double digits in one year.
And actually – on actual healthcare outcomes like cancer, surgeries and other stuff that makes people’s lives better – the US has better outcomes than the NZ system, let along the godforsaken NHS in Britain.
Don’t tell me – life expectancy and infant mortality?
wrong….
Most first world nations have mostly public systems and spend around 10 % of gdp in health care .
We spend 11% in NZ
The USA spends around 17% of its much higher gdp.
Their measurable outcomes are not significantly higher than ours.
In fact in a lot of them they are very much lower
life expectancy
infant mortality…
Ding, ding, ding, ding……. You’re not a Lefty but you repeat classic Lefty talking points rather than thoughtful analysis.
Life expectancy is vastly more impacted by such “public healthcare” as water treatment, sewerage systems and clean food than the healthcare of hospitals and clinics, which is why there was such a jump in life expectancy when the former were developed. Besides which we’re talking about tiny differences between the US and other parts of the West. Margin of error stuff.
As far as infant mortality is concerned there are huge fudge factors involved because of the definition of a “live birth”, which in the US is far more tightly measured than in say – Cuba! Moreover, infant mortality appears to be more affected by demographics, which is why Utah – operating under the same horrible “private” US healthcare system – has infant mortality rates every bit as good as the likes of Western Europe.
Yes the rich in the usa can afford lots of expensive testing and better cancer care in old age.
The non-rich can “afford” this too because they have private healthcare insurance.
The poor rely on charity for even basic service if it is available.
Crap – and has been crap at least since the start of Medicaid by good old LBJ in 1965: a government-funded healthcare system for the poor. If it does not cover them then it can be expanded – and has been. Charity is been a minor and shrinking component of healthcare for the poor ever since 1965.
I will point out that a huge study completed just a few years ago, that tracked a large sample of US poor over many years (almost a decade I think) who used Medicaid compared to those who did not and had no healthcare insurance,revealed the counter-intuitive truth that the latter had better health outcomes. The authors of the study did not expect this and have since been involved in trying to figure out how to tweak Medicaid to avoid this rather terrible result.
The number one cause of bankruptcy in the USA is medical bills.
Another Left-wing talking point based upon a study that failed to track healthcare insurance coverage timing and failed to consider the other factors that had led to bankruptcy. It “chose” healthcare expenses because it was less a study than a narrative.

 tom hunter (7,956 comments) says: 

And if anybody wants to see what government healthcare in action in the US you have four to look at:
1. Medicare:
For the elderly who no longer have employer health insurance coverage and/or cannot afford private. The system works but is effectively out of control on budgets. The government cannot cut because the oldies will kill them: the system cannot keep going as it is without chewing up almost every dollar the government has within a decade. A third rail created by LBJ.
2. Medicaid:
For the poor who can’t jobs with healthcare insurance and cannot buy it themselves. See above. This one can have spending cut by the government. Unfortunately the doctors who provide services then drop out. Another growing healthcare crisis.
3. Veterans Health Administration:
Pimped by Jon Stewart and other lefties endlessly during the Obamacare debate: “Should we not provide the same level of superb healthcare to everybody that we provide to our veterans?” (cure huge, liquid eyes). This system is the closest the USA has to NZ or the UK: government-owned hospitals and clinics with government-employed doctors and nurses, funded by government tax.
It’s fucking awful. So awful that even the Democrats finally yielded on ideology and offered the poor bastards using the system, actual cash they can use to avoid and evade if they’re not getting the medical care they need. Like every such system it’s rationed by command and control rather than price – which is why hundreds of vets have died waiting for treatment and why there have been resignations at the highest levels over lies being told about the queues, as well as punishment of whistle blowers. But many doctors and aministrators who connived in this are still on the job, since the VHS cannot afford to fire them.
4. Obamacare:
A pathetic attempt to screw the private sector system into doing what the government thinks is right via almost endless, prescriptive regulation and rigging the price outcomes. The result has been a small increase in the number of poor covered by health insurance, but with tens of millions still not covered – and at the cost of vast increases in medical costs, premiums, excess (your average struggling family has to spend thousands before the insurance kicks in, even on the lowest “Bronze” plan).
Almost every criticism of Obamacare is turning out to be correct, and if the remaining boast is that more poor people have been covered than before – well that could have been done with vastly less pain, screaming and government idiocy by just expanding the program that already existed for the purpose: Medicaid.
The reason it was not, the reason Obamacare never even tried to attack the problem of employer insurance capture or reduced competition leading to screwed prices and service, is that it was never meant to – since the Left don’t think that “Profit”, or the private sector, should be a major part of the system.
That was an ideological choice, not one based on “real world data to drive policy”.

multiculturalism is inverse of racism and so is intolerant,diversity "favouring" working class

Jack5 (9,428 comments) says: 

Odakyu-Sen at 7.49….
Interesting comments. Tolerance, IMHO, is a good quality.
Multiculturalism, which is intolerant of non-multiculturalism, as in Japan and China, is the inverse of racism, which is also intolerant. 

Both want to dictate racial composition.
Odakyu-sen (3,281 comments) says: 
Jack5,
Is it wrong for a society to dictate its racial composition?
Is it more acceptable for some societies to dictate their racial composition than for others to do so?
If so, then which societies would get a “free pass” from the MSM for doing so? And which societies would be ridiculed?
Jack5 (9,428 comments) says: 
Odaky-sen at 8.04
I think societies have the right to decide the racial composition of their societies, but provided they do this in a civilised, humane, and tolerant way – not in the way the Nazis or for example, the Bhutanese, set out to do.
I think further that societies which don’t rationally, coolly, and unemotionally discuss the racial composition they would prefer have the composition set for them by folreigners or by an activist minority, some of whom benefit from change. In NZ’s case this is the small group of real estate agents, immigration consultants, and the liberal-pacifist-religious fanatic minority.
construction building industry, educational language institutions, parties seeking more voters.
Do  other sectors of society get to discuss and have and input?
Inandout (2,513 comments) says: 
Odakyu-sen 7.49: You will note ‘diversity’ in city suburbs almost invariably favours the more working class areas, because working class residents are relatively powerless to fight against their suburbs being overwhelmed by alien cultures. Look toward Parnell, Takapuna, Devonport, Remuera and there will be a sprinkling of multiculturalism, but I can’t imagine those suburbs turning into Mt Roskill type shitholes. The city planners need their escape routes to the leafy streets, whilst the rest of Auckland can bask in the joys of diversity. Ponsonby does have a mosque, but then some rather strange people reside there.