“I act on research and evidence! That’s what I do!” Sue Moroney’s dismal, delusional anti-fluoridation rave
Backbenchers, Prime TV, Wednesday 12 June 2013, 10:30 p.m. Hosts: Wallace Chapman, Damian Christie Politicians: Sue Moroney (Labour), Simon O’Connor (National), Richard Prosser (New Zealand First)
If you can bear the unedifying spectacle of “wretchedness o’ercharg’d”, then please watch as Labour List lightweight Sue Moroney, in an incredible display of sheer purblind obstinacy, incites the crowd to outraged jeering, and drives the normally unflappable Wallace Chapman to completely lose his rag.
First topic for tonight is the Edward Snowden story…
WALLACE CHAPMAN: Here’s a simple question for you Sue Moroney. If the U.S. whistleblower sought asylum in New Zealand, would you support him? SUE MORONEY:[face frozen in rictus grin] Ahhhhhhhhhhh. [extended pause] No. I don’t think so. Ask me something that matters. WALLACE CHAPMAN:[shrugs shoulders, raises eyebrows in disbelief] Okay then. Do you feel sorry for Peter Dunne? SUE MORONEY: Ohhhhh, look, he’s a minister. There are expectations we have of a minister, and he failed. WALLACE CHAPMAN: Does the spy scandal worry you? SUE MORONEY: No! Not at all!
For a moment, a stunned and ominous silence fills the Backbenchers Tavern; then the slight titter of derisive laughter, and also a slight percussive sound: the Labour Party supporters gnashing their teeth in mortification. Wallace Chapman licks his lips, shakes his head in disbelief, then he decides to see if he can get someone to talk sense….
WALLACE CHAPMAN: All right, I’ll ask all three of our politicians: Edward Snowden, hero or villain? RICHARD PROSSER: Ooooh…depends where you stand. One man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist. WALLACE CHAPMAN: Okay. Short and sweet. Sue Moroney? SUE MORONEY:[significant pause] I’d like a lot more information. But I guess he’s a hero. SIMON O’CONNOR: He’s a young man who made a rash decision. He hasn’t thought it through.
Next topic is FLUORIDATION. Rational people are still reeling at the almost unbelievable news this week that the Hamilton City Council has been bullied by a small cabal of fanatics into abandoning its water fluoridation program. It surely makes sense, therefore, that a parliamentary backbencher from Hamilton should be on Backbenchers tonight. Surely. Unfortunately, as we have already seen by her confused and contradictory statements about the Edward Snowden case, this particular backbencher makes little or no sense at all….
WALLACE CHAPMAN: What do you think of that decision, Sue Moroney? SUE MORONEY:[significant pause] I stand with Labour. We need a proper government inqu—- SIMON O’CONNOR: No, no, no, no, no! That’s not good enough, Sue! I ask you to give me an answer and you say nothing that makes sense. This is a bit of a shocker, Sue! SUE MORONEY: Research and evidence! I act on research and evidence! That’s what I do! SIMON O’CONNOR: The evidence is beyond doubt. There are SCORES of peer-reviewed studies in academic journals. WALLACE CHAPMAN: Richard Prosser, what do you think about fluoride in the water supply? RICHARD PROSSER: I have to say I would be personally against it. SIMON O’CONNOR:[drily, to Prosser] I’ll send you the articles in Nature and by the government’s Chief Science Advisor Sir Peter Gluckman tomorrow.
Chapman has obviously prepared seriously for this, to the extent of bringing on Doctor JONATHAN BROADBENT, an expert in dental epidemiology from Otago University. Dr Broadbent explains that there is no rational debate about it, and that there has already been a major inquiry on the matter: the major New Zealand study on the effects of fluoridation was completed in 1971. He speaks for a considerable time, and then it’s time to confront the List MP from Hamilton with a cold dose of reality….
WALLACE CHAPMAN: He makes sense, Sue Moroney, you don’t. SUE MORONEY: Well if you base your decision on forty-year-old science—-
At this point, there is sustained jeering from the audience. Cries of “Shame!” and “Ignorant!” can be heard.
WALLACE CHAPMAN: We know where you stand. You stand with Richard Prosser. SUE MORONEY:[nonplussed expression on face] Ummmm….We need an inquiry!
More angry, contemptuous hooting and jeering.
SIMON O’CONNOR: Here we are again, Labour asking for another inquiry. SUE MORONEY:[rictus grin now replaced by angry scowl] Well, FORTY-YEAR-OLD SCIENCE! Do you want to put your faith in forty-year-old science?
Hooting and jeering and derisive laughter continues….
The rest of the show consists of poor, awkward Damian Christie circulating round groups of drinkers, poking a microphone into their midst and trying to get them to answer his extraordinarily inane questions. As usual, this is an excruciatingly painful watch.
Earlier, in the interview in which he revealed his identity to the world, Snowden explained that he had sought refuge in Hong Kong because it “has a strong tradition of free speech” and “a long tradition of protesting in the streets”.
Local activists plan to take to the streets on Saturday in support of Snowden. Groups including the Civil Human Rights Front and international human rights groups will march from Chater Gardens in Central to the US consulate on Garden Road, starting at 3pm.
The march is being organised by In-media, a website supporting freelance journalists.
“We call on Hong Kong to respect international legal standards and procedures relating to the protection of Snowden; we condemn the US government for violating our rights and privacy; and we call on the US not to prosecute Snowden,” the group said in a statement.
Good on Snowden. And what a compliment he has paid to the people of Hong Kong. I am jealous. On the other hand in an unedifying mirror image of Sue Maroney’s sick comments, a Beijing Communist Party toady calls for Snowden’s deportation:
While many Hong Kong lawmakers, legal experts, activists and members of the public have called on the city’s courts to protect Snowden’s rights, others such as Beijing loyalist lawmaker and former security chief Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee said he should leave.
WALLACE CHAPMAN: Here’s a simple question for you Sue Moroney. If the U.S. whistleblower sought asylum in New Zealand, would you support him?
SUE MORONEY: No. I don’t think so. Ask me something that matters.
Maroney. You suck. You are a disgrace to your party.
Fortunately for us. As in New Zealand, in Hong Kong, mainstream politicians are not the only ones who get to have a say. (Marking Hong Kong out as a democratic stand out. And also as a good choice by Snowden as a safe haven.)
Any politician that makes a statement in direct opposition to Edward Snowden’s brave act of conscience, as Maroney has done, does not belong in any political party that claims it stands for democracy.
But not according to “Ask me something that matters” Maroney.
Is Maroney parroting the Labour Party line, here?
Is Maroney speaking for the Labour Party, or for herself?
Why is David Shearer so silent on the spying scandals that have rocked New Zealand and the world?
Can Shearer be trusted to take over John Key’s role as minister for the SIS and GCSB?
When it comes to spying on us: Will an incoming Labour administration under the Shearer gang be a seamless continuation of Business As Usual?
Will a Labour administration repeal the Act that has legalised criminal behavior by the GCSB?
Will law breaking by the SIS the GCSB and the police, continue to be covered up and excused, under a Labour administration as they have been under a National one?
Who are the 88?
Are they really a danger to us?
Will David Shearer as head of the SIS honour OIA requests and release the names of the 88New Zealanders illegally spied on? So that we, and they, can decide if the illegal intrusion on their privacy was justified?
Will New Zealand be a safe haven for prisoners of conscience under a Labour administration, no matter which country they hale from?
Maybe some Labour Party insiders might like to enlighten us?
That would be Hong Kong, territory of that bastion of free speech and democracy, the People’s Republic of China? Why yes, that’s exactly where I’d flee to. Mind you, given he’s only revealed to the world that, quelle surprise, the NSA does exactly the same data mining as Google does, I’m not sure he’s at all that great a risk.
however, Google does not have powers to incarcerate you in Guantanamo Bay without trial, for no stated reason. That seems to be an important difference.
Sycophants and ideologically trustworthy servants of state power are not the ones who ever have to worry about having to flee state vengeance. You are safe, my friend.
…he’s only revealed to the world that, quelle surprise, the NSA does exactly the same data mining as Google does
In view of your extensive form, it’s difficult to call this one, but I think that statement could be just about the stupidest thing you have ever written on this mostly excellent forum.
I’m not sure he’s at all that great a risk.
Yes, the treatment of Julian Assange and Bradley Manning must have given comfort to all those who value liberty, human rights and justice. Oh yes.
100% right Jenny.Under Key NZ is little more than a vassal state of the U$. Why? Since Rogernomics we’ve bought into the Washington Consensus which is neoliberalism and privatisation and a horror of anything which is Socialist, even a simple mixed economy. Defence wise we’re locked in with Australia, the U$’s sheriff in the southern pacific, our subservience to the U$ is shown by having soldiers in Afghanistan. The greatest figure of South American politics the anti neoliberal Hugo Chavez, Key did not attend his funeral though he visited ex Pinochet Chile. To give asylum to Snowden would be a direct slap in the face to the U$ military hegemony, and our defence agreements with them, no politician in Labour or National would do that. Without U$ military might in the Pacific there would be a huge power vacuum almost certainly filled by China. The Japanese would almost certainly have to develop nuclear weapons against North Korea and China as a deterrent. That said we should still give Snowden asylum showing we’re not total toady bastards to U$ military and security dominance
I don’t think you need worry. The US is greatly expanding its presence in the Pacific and nothing we do will change that. Having said that we also want to keep both China and the US on side, while ensuring we do what is best for NZ.
True. The ones we’re experiencing ATM are financial but I was speaking of direct invasion. To stop the financial invasion we’d also have to declare neutrality and then drop the Washington Consensus.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 12 Universal Declaration of Human Rights
How about our own government spying on New Zealanders?
Moroney tho has a point, how reliable is 40 year old ‘science’, i should imagine even tho it doesn’t seem a topic to fire the imagination that there would have been ‘opposition’ to the mass uptake of fluoridation in the 70’s,
i have no strong view either way but would suggest that in the ‘stuffed shirt’ days of the 70’s the prevailing view of ‘science’ would have and has lead to a really nice little earner for chemical companies over many generations,
i havn’t heard of farming communities suffering any worse dental outcomes than ‘towny’ communities do they stuff their water tanks with fluoride…
DoS does ignore one factor. While the fact that the Earth is round hasn’t changed in 40 years, our understanding of medicine, biochemistry, physiology and human health has radically changed.
The harms caused by something like smoking or by pestcides like 245T for example…we know things now about detailed mechanisms that they barely suspected back then.
Shit if 40 year old science is a problem what about those idiots that decided the earth was round, or that gravity caused things to fall.
Descendant Of Sssmith
Or indeed, the hundred year old science of heavier than air flight.
What nonsensical rationalisations these are. And from an Labour MP who by refusing to support safe haven for Edward Snowden, is supporting the crude and cruel hounding of this brave individual who courageously and at great personal cost has exposed to the public view, a level of intrusive state surveilence into US and other countries citizens engaged in by the US government that would make the East German Stasi blush.
WALLACE CHAPMAN: Does the spy scandal worry you?
SUE MORONEY: No! Not at all!
What Chapman could have asked her was; Do you have any brains? To which this tory could have given the same answer.
With these sort of statements Sue Maroney shows she properly belongs in the National Party caucus, or the even more whacky ACT caucus. (If there ever was such a thing again).
This is the sort of smug dismissal I would normally expect to come from John Key. And not a Labour Party MP. How on earth did Sue Maroney get on the Labour list?
Jenny, your complaint about Moroney is based on what Moz claims she said. You need to take into account that previous experience of his ‘transcipts’ suggests that there is a huge gap between what is said and what Moz claims was said.
Moroney, and Labour, want an independent enquiry to see whether fluoride is needed or not. That seems sensible given that the opposition to it seems to be reduced to ‘but, nazis!’
You need to take into account that previous experience of his ‘transcipts’ suggests that there is a huge gap between what is said and what Moz claims was said.
You have already been exposed several times for your pettifogging and quibbling, but I see you are back at it. Since this was a hastily scribbled freehand/shorthand transcript, it’s not absolutely verbatim as it would be if I had laboriously transcribed from a tape recording. But I got the key parts of that horrifyingly substandard performance absolutely right, and you know it.
I did not make up any of it—even in my most extravagantly satirical mood, I could not imagine anything as stupid and irresponsible as Sue Moroney came out with on Wednesday night.
Point not so well made is my view, you are comparing the ‘science of nature’ with the ‘chemical science of man’,
The two are as different as chalk and cheese, the Earth is spherical because it is!!! that’s hardly based upon science and it was hardly science that someone at some point gained the means to sail out past the horizon and discover that it ain’t flat,
Ugly Truth in comment 2 links to some large scientific studies that debunk the fluoride myth…
On the contrary, what changes in population health & chemical science is the degree of accuracy, not the facts.
Hence the research about going for 0.7ppm rather than 0.75, as opposed to the range 40 years ag which was say 0.6-1.2ppm.
But the clear benefits of fluoridation were evident 60 years ago, no matter what UT thinks. His link in comment two was incorrect at point one and went downhill from there.
For example: “According to the NIDR’s statisticians, the study found an average difference of only 0.6 DMFS (Decayed Missing and Filled Surfaces) in the permanent teeth of children aged 5-17 residing in either fluoridated or unfluoridated areas (Brunelle and Carlos, 1990). This difference is less than one tooth surface! There are 128 tooth surfaces in a child’s mouth.“. Let’s say 200,000 children: that’s 120,000 teeth that require additional treatment such as fillings, capping or extraction before the age of 17 (not to mention the next 60 years).
Farming families are generally issued fluoride tabs, we were. Also did not have much access to soft drink and lollies :-), made up for it when we left home.
Nor had i until i got onto the link in comment 2, which shows that there is a fairly large amount of study by reputable scientists which paint the depositing of fluoride into the water system in a not very favorable light,
i may be wrong but i see Sue Moroney as part of the well meaning middle class who may not have too many clues but are (slightly) left leaning,
The Labour Party is chocka with such people it’s why they can come up with such a grand idea as shoe-horning the children of the middle class onto the ‘property ownership ladder’ whilst remaining eerily SILENT on the economic fate of the Mene Mene’s of this world…
I agree RT – I frequently find myself asking (myself): Who the fuck ARE these people?, and how the hell did this happen? I know the answer, but I also wonder WHY we keep empowering them. The Labour Party’s worst enemy (enema even) has always been apathy. But the buggers just KEEP subscribing to the doctor’s prescription – even when it’s giving them the runs. Who the hell is advising them (I’ll send the boys around – half of them a mates of Mallard anyway)?
An hour or so on, and after a sesh with the proctologist, I’m more the wiser and in no need now of a dainty little dinner party anyway. The difference between National and Labour is that Nat members strut around asking anyone that will listen “Don’t you know who I am?”, whilst members of Labour ask themselves and anyone that will listen – “who the fuck are “WE”?’
Well I’ve just struck her off my dinner party list! Or maybe not. I’ll discuss my proctologist with her, instead of my psychiatrist – I’m sure she’ll be able to give me some deep and meaningful advice. She’ll probably advise I need a second (perhaps even 3rd) opinion.
“Rational people are still reeling at the almost unbelievable news this week that the Hamilton City Council has been bullied by a small cabal of fanatics into abandoning its water fluoridation program”
Don’t beat around the bush, Morrisey. Tell us what you really think.
50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation Dr. Paul Connett, Professor of Chemistry, St. Lawrence University
Having you oppose fluoridation seems one of the best reasons to support it (I guess those strip-club girls don’t care too much about the state of your teeth if you’re bulging at the wallet area).
However, I think it would be fair if councils were to provide a tank of rain water for those who want to avoid the fluoridated town supply. I doubt there would be that many (a similar, or lesser, proportion than those who signed Hamilton’s failed referendum against it). Plus it could be used as an emergency back-up for the scientifically literate if there was a disruption to the normal water works.
Crap. A handful of obsessive rebels without a cause and chickenship councilors in election year have condemned thousands of high-deprivation children to the misery of excrutiatingly bad oral health and the downstream effects that will last all their lives. And if those same heroes get crook tomorrow, they’ll accept – in fact demand – without the tiniest murmur, every other advance of modern medical science. Selfish, hypocritical, cretins.
regular brushing, morning and night, plenty of ‘sterilization’ over the years, and fluoridated water; only one extraction at 45. (though a few ‘knocked about’; wrong place, wrong time).
Sue Moroney’s dismal, delusional anti-fluoridation rave
Hosts: Wallace Chapman, Damian Christie
Politicians: Sue Moroney (Labour), Simon O’Connor (National), Richard Prosser (New Zealand First)
SUE MORONEY: [face frozen in rictus grin] Ahhhhhhhhhhh. [extended pause] No. I don’t think so. Ask me something that matters.
WALLACE CHAPMAN: [shrugs shoulders, raises eyebrows in disbelief] Okay then. Do you feel sorry for Peter Dunne?
SUE MORONEY: Ohhhhh, look, he’s a minister. There are expectations we have of a minister, and he failed.
WALLACE CHAPMAN: Does the spy scandal worry you?
SUE MORONEY: No! Not at all!
RICHARD PROSSER: Ooooh…depends where you stand. One man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist.
WALLACE CHAPMAN: Okay. Short and sweet. Sue Moroney?
SUE MORONEY: [significant pause] I’d like a lot more information. But I guess he’s a hero.
SIMON O’CONNOR: He’s a young man who made a rash decision. He hasn’t thought it through.
SUE MORONEY: [significant pause] I stand with Labour. We need a proper government inqu—-
SIMON O’CONNOR: No, no, no, no, no! That’s not good enough, Sue! I ask you to give me an answer and you say nothing that makes sense. This is a bit of a shocker, Sue!
SUE MORONEY: Research and evidence! I act on research and evidence! That’s what I do!
SIMON O’CONNOR: The evidence is beyond doubt. There are SCORES of peer-reviewed studies in academic journals.
WALLACE CHAPMAN: Richard Prosser, what do you think about fluoride in the water supply?
RICHARD PROSSER: I have to say I would be personally against it.
SIMON O’CONNOR: [drily, to Prosser] I’ll send you the articles in Nature and by the government’s Chief Science Advisor Sir Peter Gluckman tomorrow.
SUE MORONEY: Well if you base your decision on forty-year-old science—-
SUE MORONEY: [nonplussed expression on face] Ummmm….We need an inquiry!
SUE MORONEY: [rictus grin now replaced by angry scowl] Well, FORTY-YEAR-OLD SCIENCE! Do you want to put your faith in forty-year-old science?
On the other hand in an unedifying mirror image of Sue Maroney’s sick comments, a Beijing Communist Party toady calls for Snowden’s deportation:
Without U$ military might in the Pacific there would be a huge power vacuum almost certainly filled by China. The Japanese would almost certainly have to develop nuclear weapons against North Korea and China as a deterrent.
That said we should still give Snowden asylum showing we’re not total toady bastards to U$ military and security dominance
‘Arrest Obama, free Snowden’ protesters chant ”
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/thousands-of-companies-have-been-handing-over-your-personal-data-to-the-nsa
I know the answer, but I also wonder WHY we keep empowering them.
The Labour Party’s worst enemy (enema even) has always been apathy. But the buggers just KEEP subscribing to the doctor’s prescription – even when it’s giving them the runs.
Who the hell is advising them (I’ll send the boys around – half of them a mates of Mallard anyway)?
The difference between National and Labour is that Nat members strut around asking anyone that will listen “Don’t you know who I am?”, whilst members of Labour ask themselves and anyone that will listen – “who the fuck are “WE”?’
Dr. Paul Connett, Professor of Chemistry, St. Lawrence University