2 storms and a rocket

42 comments on “2 storms and a rocket ”

• Comments are now closed

1. vto 1

   14 December 2012 at 10:43 am

   How should people respond?

   I think the age old wisdom of responding in the manner in which we would like to be responded to ourselves in similar circumstances would be appropriate.

   It is the only way forward.
2. Anne 2

   14 December 2012 at 11:00 am

   Posted this on Open Mike:

   14 December 2012 at 10:17 am

   Better keep a close watch on this next week folks.
   (hit the button and move to other end (Monday)

   http://www.metservice.com/national/maps-rain-radar/maps/sw-pacific-recent-latest

   It looks like it will affect our weather towards the end of next week. It will no longer be the same intensity (as it is predicted to become over the next 72 hours) but could still pack one hell of a punch. After hitting Fiji, these things usually turn south to south-east as they approach the mid-latitudes, so that would see it slide down to the east of NZ. If that happens it could be the East Coast of the N.I. that gets the main battering.

   Yes, I’m a little ray of sunshine 🙂
3. asp viper 3

   14 December 2012 at 11:33 am

   I love it when lefties mix up weather and politics…..
   • Draco T Bastard 3.1

     14 December 2012 at 12:31 pm

     Climate Change is very much a political issue and the fact that we heard more about Sandy than Bopha is also a political issue.
     • rosy viper 3.1.1

       14 December 2012 at 8:44 pm

       I watched 121212 Concert for New York – put on for Hurricane Sandy relief. It was great to see a whole lot of hometown heroes and international (once were) great old rockers getting together to do this.

       What disturbed be though was the ticker at the bottom of the tv screen had phone numbers for countries all over the world. You could phone in from, say, the Philippines and donate for disaster relief. In New York.

       The rich and powerful eh? I wonder what justification they might have dreamed up that it’s o.k. to ask people living in Greece for money? How hard would it have been to say if you phone internationally your donation can go to local climate/disaster recovery events? That would be a people-powered understanding of political and economic dimensions of disaster relief.

       An opportunity to show the U.S. cared about more than just itself and an opportunity to raise the profile of climate change discussion completely missed. I sort of felt ashamed for them. How could they ask for money from people in countries with less ability to recover than them… just how could they?
   • karol 3.2

     14 December 2012 at 12:36 pm

     And many righties like to ignore political realities.  Sometimes weather is political, as Naomi Klein will tell you.

     For her part, Klein “came of age politically,” she told me, with the 1999 protests against the World Trade Organization in Seattle, when she was 29, shortly after which her international best-seller No Logo made her an intellectual star of the anti-globalization movement. The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, her 2007 magnum opus, exposed the ways neoliberal free-market profiteers have exploited chaos and catastrophe in disaster zones, from hurricane-shocked New Orleans to “shock-and-awe”-shocked Iraq….

     It also says something about the direction the climate movement may be taking — or, rather, the direction McKibben and Klein argue it should be taking, as they seek to merge climate and economic justice in a way that goes beyond both traditional environmentalism and the old-school, climate-clueless left….

     “Climate change lends urgency to our fights for social justice, like nothing else before,” Klein said. “We have to win these battles against free trade, we have to win these battles to re-localize our economies. This isn’t just some little hobby. …
      
     “So it’s not about abandoning all of those fights, it’s actually about supercharging those fights, and weaving them all into a common narrative. That’s the story we need to tell.

     And what DTB said above.
     • Poission 3.2.1

       15 December 2012 at 1:43 pm

       wiki leaks has dumped the forthcoming AR5 (Ipcc) report.The conclusiosns are that the so called enhancement of extreme events is non existant in the data be it flloods drought or tropical cyclones.
       i Insufficient evidence and thus low confidence for consistent trends in the magnitude or frequency of floods on a global scale
       iiRecent re-assessments of tropical cyclone data do not support the AR4 conclusions of an increase in the most intense tropical cyclones or an upward trend in the potential destructiveness of all storms since the 1970s
       iii New results indicate that AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in droughts since 1970s are no longer supported
       This is a reversal of the previous report understanding and is more consitent with the literature.
4. Draco T Bastard 4

   14 December 2012 at 12:29 pm

   UN condemns North Korea rocket launch

   And yet they say nothing when the US, UK, EU, Russia, Japan etc etc all do the same.

   Fucken hypocrites.
   • vto 4.1

     14 December 2012 at 12:33 pm

     Exactly. Just the day before this North Korean rocket was in te news there was news of a new rocket launch in the US.

     The US was overtly military in nature.

     Why was that launch not commented on by anyone?

     The US government has no credibility. And neither does our.
   • King Kong 4.2

     14 December 2012 at 12:44 pm

     I can understand why, from a purely selfish view, you would support the right of unhinged mentals to have weapons but North Korea and longer range nukes…really?
     • karol 4.2.1

       14 December 2012 at 12:54 pm

       I don’t read that as support for North Korea having long range weapons of mass destruction.  It’s more a condemnation of the US et al’s hypocrisy in wanting to have such weapons themselves, while condemning others.
     • Draco T Bastard 4.2.2

       14 December 2012 at 2:19 pm

       The US is a bunch of unhinged mentals and they have long range nukes and I certainly don’t support them having them. I don’t support anybody having them. That said, I do support all countries being able to defend themselves from agression of other countries.

       Also, this was a satellite launch which all the countries complaining about it do quite often themselves. What it really comes across as is the major power centres being upset that other countries may not be dependent upon them.
       • TheContrarian 4.2.2.1

         14 December 2012 at 2:36 pm

         “this was a satellite launch”
         You trust what North Korea says?
         • lprent 4.2.2.1.1

           14 December 2012 at 2:45 pm

           There is little difference between launching a satellite and launching a FOBS. There is effectively no difference between them.
           • Pascal's bookie 4.2.2.1.1.1

             14 December 2012 at 2:55 pm

             It demonstartes capability for and ICBM bar targetting and warhead.

             But it’s still ‘so what’ as afras NK is concerned. An ICBM doesn;t give them anything they don’t already have. They can already deter attack via their conventional forces.

             So really, it’s advertising goods for sale, which is less than ideal, but not worth anyone wetting the bed over I reckon.
             • TheContrarian …

               14 December 2012 at 3:04 pm

               It is just posturing IMO.

               New leader gotta show his might, etc. but it seems little naive to say “it’s just a satellite”.

               Shit even if it it was a completely peaceful launch of a comms satellite you’d think there would be better things to spend money on. Like, you know, food.
               • lprent …

                 14 December 2012 at 5:06 pm

                 Regardless there is absolutely little difference between a missile and satellite launch.

                 you’d think there would be better things to spend money on. Like, you know, food. 

                 Ah yes. And we should heartily condemn the USA, the USSR, and China, not to mention France, UK, and for that matter the European Union who all had people going hungry while their posing leaders wasted money on satellite programs…..

                 In other words; don’t be an idiot using odd standards without thinking through what it means in the same context through history. Quite simply you’re trying to draw some arbitrary line that doesn’t exist in the continuum and your criteria as stated has never been met ever in the development of space/weapons programs… 
                 • TheContrarian …

                   14 December 2012 at 5:12 pm

                   So you think it is a-ok that North Korea is focusing its efforts on grand goals of satelitte/missle technology despite its poor record of food production, mechanicisation, farming and feeding their own population. With one the worlds worst human rights records and many of the population live in abject poverty under a tyrannical system of personailty worship.

                   What the fuck Lynn? I am not ‘drawing an arbitrary line’ I am drawing attention to the fact that while the population is oppressed it’s leaders care more about missile technology than their own people.
                   • Pascal's bookie …

                     14 December 2012 at 5:42 pm

                     “I am drawing attention to the fact that while the population is oppressed it’s leaders care more about missile technology than their own people.”

                     Thanks captain obvious!

                     NKs got 99 problems but rocket launches are a stupid one to highlight. It’s not like if they weren’t building a rocket, the money would be put to use feeding people.
                   • McFliper …

                     14 December 2012 at 7:07 pm

                     don’t recall you posting similar concerns about the cost of an F22.
                   • lprent …

                     14 December 2012 at 8:07 pm

                     I am not ‘drawing an arbitrary line’

                     Ah – you are. There were literally millions of people going hungry in the USA when it developed it’s missile and space programs in the 1950’s and 60’s. Especially in the south, in the hill country and on the reservations. Each contained oppressed hungry populations where the national leaders cared more about missile technology than their own people.

                     The French developed most of their missile technology whilst they were in control of Algeria and running brutal oppression against the population there including what were considered to be deliberate starvation campaigns.

                     etc etc….

                     Quite simply there hasn’t been a major space/rocket development program that I know about that hasn’t been done against a background where it wasn’t possible to argue that “…leaders care more about missile technology than their own people…”.

                     I’m not saying it is a good thing. I’m merely stating the contrary view that you look like an idiot for cherry picking which governments you choose to denigrate, when really they are ALL doing it. Quite simply you are picking a line where you choose to regard one side of it as being ‘bad’ whilst ignoring everything else that probably just as bad. It appears completely hypocritical – unless of course you can provide rationalisation to say why NK is ‘bad’ when the US of the 50’s and 60’s was not…. (and then look at the others I mentioned)
                   • the pigman …

                     14 December 2012 at 9:09 pm

                     Ever been to the DPRK, Contrarian?

                     I haven’t but I met an elderly Japanese couple (in their late-80s, had lived through WW2, and both inherently racist towards Chinese/Koreans) on a boat from Tianjin to Kobe who had been a couple of years ago during the summer. They described driving through the countryside with their chaperone/translator and commented to me on the people leading relatively normal lives, teenagers going on camping trips, and a complete absence of the starving poverty that the MSM likes to portray. The only way to create this impoverished, starving country is to play at the economic sanctions that the Western world use to crush their appointed axis of evil.

                     Now, you will say “well that has to do with the chaperone/where they were allowed to go”, but for how long is that line sustainable?
                 • higherstandard …

                   14 December 2012 at 5:43 pm

                   Have you been drinking again or have you just had a TIA ?
         • Draco T Bastard 4.2.2.1.2

           14 December 2012 at 4:09 pm

           You trust what North Korea says?

           Somewhat less than my trust of what the US says.

           Shit even if it it was a completely peaceful launch of a comms satellite you’d think there would be better things to spend money on. Like, you know, food.

           Food and rockets use a different set of resources and money isn’t a resource.
           • TheContrarian 4.2.2.1.2.1

             14 December 2012 at 4:15 pm

             Yes Draco but focusing on building rockets and military might which, regardless of your feeling towards it, involves money instead of feeding your population and providing an adequate standard of living is a bit silly, no?
             • bad12 …

               14 December 2012 at 5:37 pm

               Yeah i agree with the sentiment you express, the numbers in the US who now rely upon the charity of ‘soup kitchens’ as their main means of sustenance is now in the MILLIONS, with the number of homes foreclosed upon and lost to their owners is said to be around 30 million since 2007,

               Meanwhile the US military budget is the biggest it’s ever been…
             • Draco T Bastard …

               14 December 2012 at 6:00 pm

               regardless of your feeling towards it,

               It’s not a feeling – it’s a simple fact. I know it’s not one that most people accept but there you go. It’s not my fault that people have come to believe that the financial system is actually the economy.

               but focusing on building rockets and military might…instead of feeding your population and providing an adequate standard of living is a bit silly.

               That would depend on if doing so is actually taking significant resources away from feeding the people.
               • TheContrarian …

                 14 December 2012 at 6:40 pm

                 The simple fact is when assessing the NK situation it needs to be assessed as it stands under the current paradigm. Not Dracos idea of what should be but what actually is. So regardless of what you believe should be (no matter how right or wrong you are) we need to look at what is. Which is that things cost money.

                 Secondly do you really think that state with appalling human rights, mass poverty which can barely feed itself should focus on missles? Don’t be daft, Draco. While they fiddle with their toys people die.
                 • Pascal's bookie …

                   14 December 2012 at 7:08 pm

                   “The simple fact is when assessing the NK situation it needs to be assessed as it stands under the current paradigm. Not Dracos idea of what should be but what actually is. So regardless of what you believe should be (no matter how right or wrong you are) we need to look at what is. Which is that …” … NK is a totalitarian state which doesn’t give a shit about its citizens. So whinging about the cost of a rocket program misses the point by quite some space.

                   Would you rather they spend the money on death camps? What a wanker.
                 • Draco T Bastard …

                   14 December 2012 at 8:48 pm

                   It doesn’t matter how much money that NK has – it won’t do anything for their economy. Same as having more money in NZ isn’t doing anything for the economy. We have thousands starving in NZ and yet this government is spending billions building useless roads solely to boost the “economy” (read, have more money).

                   As long as people fail to understand what the economy is and what it’s for then we will have these failures that you seem to be so concerned with and yet do nothing to address only saying no, we must stay with the way things are because that’s the way things are.
5. vto 5

   14 December 2012 at 2:38 pm

   Who can name the one nation in the history of the world to use nukes to kill people?
   • King Kong 5.1

     14 December 2012 at 2:57 pm

     Right on. Al Qaeda never killed anyone with nukes. down with the USA.
     • karol 5.1.1

       14 December 2012 at 3:05 pm

       Ummm…. has Al Qaeda launched a satellite too?  Struggling to see the relevance.
       • lprent 5.1.1.1

         14 December 2012 at 3:39 pm

         He probably thinks that dangerous Islamic terrorists from the secular state of Iraq flew planes into the world trade centre, so the US invading them was a good idea.

         In other words, KK isn’t the brightest person around. Reminds me a lot of George Bush…
         • Pascal's bookie 5.1.1.1.1

           14 December 2012 at 4:31 pm

           To be fair, I think his argument is that AQ is worse than the US, (in terms of intent at least), so therefore “USA! USA!”, and anyone who suggests otherwise is objectively pro-Al Qaeda.

           Now that’s a spectacularly shit argument by any reckoning, but it’s a popular one on the right. I blame a combination of evil and stupid.
           • lprent 5.1.1.1.1.1

             14 December 2012 at 5:12 pm

             AQ has managed to kill a handful of people compared to (to take an example) the number of civilians that the US coalition killed by pure accident in any arbitrary month during their mistaken occupation of Iraq (that was sold to the US public using the bit of illogical stupidity I referred to above).
6. Wayne 6

   14 December 2012 at 3:44 pm

   Karol, your question is what should a Left/labour movement do.

   Well, a Labour led Govt would condemn the launch.

   A Labour led Govt would also continue the negotiation of TPP, and rely on the Nats for the votes in Parliament. After all the Greens, and their advisor Jane Kelsey, will not get the Overseas Trade portfolio, and will have only limited influence in this area. In particular they will not be able to stop ratification of TPP. If the 11 TPP nations agree on a deal, NZ is hardly going to back out of it.

   The Greens, or at least some of them, would get a reality check of what it means to be in Govt. But I am sure Dr Norman has already thought of the compromises the Greens will have to make, if they want to be in Govt. Presumably they will focus on local issues, like water quality, transport, social housing, rather than destroy themselves (or their Govt) on foreign policy issues.

   That is what the Alliance did after Sept 11, and look where that got them. It really was inconceivable that any NZ Govt would simply ignore a US request made in the few weeks after Sept 11, but that is what some parts of the Alliance wanted. I appreciate the Greens would be more internally united, but they will essentially have to put up with the Labour view on foreign and trade policy, if they want to stay in Govt. Even an “agree to disagree” provision in a coalition still requires any criticism to be quite moderated. Look to the Maori Party and Hone as the example. Hone had a fundamentally different world view and had to leave. So someone like Catherine Delahunty would have to be careful in how she would criticise Prime Minister Shearer, or Overseas Trade Minister Goff on these kinds of issues

   Chris Trotter has a good article on what happened to the German Greens.
   • karol 6.1

     14 December 2012 at 4:12 pm

     Yes, i don’t see a Shearer-led government, especially still with Goff in a senior role, backing off from TPP.  However, there’s still a way to go before the TPP is finalised, and then there’s negotiations with ASEAN countries, especially China to deal with.

     For flax-roots labour/left people, the issues still require some thinking through.   And I think we should be aiming to build alliances with low income people throughout the region.

     I would continue to put pressure on a Labour-led government not to sell-out NZ on any trade deals – more transparency before any agreements are made.

     But for the US, TPP is more than a trade deal.  And they oppose any WMDs being owned by anyone who is not their allies.  I would expect them to put pressure on NZ to apply new sanctions to Nth Korea. 
     • Neoleftie 6.1.1

       14 December 2012 at 7:33 pm

       A few years bak I read “closing the gaps” which was basically about pax America expansion policy saving the world bring peace and prosperity to all in time…this trade deal is simple an extension of big businebig expanding the market and letting nothing stop or get in its way even regional govts, we have the rise of than national business now bigger than countries, more powerful more resources and connected, the rise and rise of pax elite.
       Be scare people be scared as our fought for right aslide eroded taken and or sold by our very own.
       Time to challenge the paradigm of created money and wealth creation before we are two late.
       Time for the left block to get connected, to unite to find a champion and start to organise.
       We in dinners town have had enoght and starting to organise now.
       Bring back CV .
       • Neoleftie 6.1.1.1

         14 December 2012 at 7:34 pm

         From my iPad which does odd things with spell checker….my bad.
7. karol 7

   14 December 2012 at 5:34 pm

   I’ll see if I can upload this here:  blooper headline currently showing on Stuff’s main page about a Twister in Otago this afternoon:

   11 min ago TVNZ has announced the show to replace Close Up will be called Seven Sharp.
   Twitters hits Otago
   0 min ago Two houses lost their roofs after a small twister struck in Cromwell, Central Otago

   the story is actually headlined:

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/8082115/Roofs-ripped-off-by-twister-in-Otago 
8. kiwi_prometheus 8

   15 December 2012 at 1:49 am

   The nuclear countries were suppose to dismantle their arsenals according to that non poliferation treaty everyone signed up to.

   But they haven’t, and they still insist that no other country be allowed into the exclusive nuclear club. Hypocrites! Of course they just want the power it gives them over the non nuclear states.

   But slowly they are any way – India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran…

   Of course Israel gets away with it because it is a USA pet.

   If every country got nuclear weapons the risk of nuclear war would be extreme. But if only a few have them, they can bully and manipulate the non nuclear states.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS