web analytics
The Standard
Advertising

More Bullshit

Written By: - Date published: 9:32 pm, March 28th, 2013 - 56 comments
Categories: john key, national, Steven Joyce - Tags: ,

Nick Smith this morning on Nine to Noon, saying mining companies prospecting on Schedule 4 land weren’t interested in mining there – when they say they are.  And losing more than 10% of DoC staff won’t affect the front line’s capability or their ability to meet statutory obligations to defend the environment either apparently…

John Key yesterday saying again the Deputy Auditor-General’s report into Sky City vindicated him and his ministers, when she doesn’t think so.

The 1230 jobs lost from Telecom today – Steven Joyce thought that they’d all be programmers so they’d get new jobs easily – but Telecom think most of them won’t be.

They come up with their excuses… but reality doesn’t measure up apparently.

I call bullshit.

56 comments on “More Bullshit”

  1. QoT 1

    Personally, I often prospect things for no reason whatsoever.

    • In response to Kaikoura mayor Kevin Hayes, Smith’s office once asserted that reports of chemtrails were due to crop dusting. He then didn’t reply to Hayes letter which pointed out that crop dusting doesn’t occur over the ocean. This follows Smith scorning Labout for supporting “conspiracy theories”.

    • georgecom 1.2

      Likewise I often enjoy spending large amounts of money investigating things I have no intention of doing. The mining companies are obviously investigating the areas for fun.

      • handle 1.2.1

        “Hobby mining” the Minister called it.

        • One Tāne Huna 1.2.1.1

          The corrupt Minister said a few things in fact, including that “no decision” has been made. He then didn’t say shit when Catherine Delahunty tabled the full mining permit.

          • karol 1.2.1.1.1

            Brownlee also referred to the Labour government permitting mining on schedule 4 land as “a beach of Green promise.”

  2. Saarbo 2

    They lie because they can…the main stream media should be holding them to account but the NZ Herald acts like National Party’s marketing agent. Paddy Gower is so far up john keys arse he only has his bata bullets sticking out. TV3’s dickheads, Espiner and Garner are only interested in doing current affairs around the edge of political issues (The Vote is crap, it would be better with the expert panel and Linda Clark…get rid of the 2 twits), and when they do they are ditto paddy gower.

    Charles Chauvel hit it on the head in his leaving speech…our main stream media in NZ is shit (ok, I’m paraphrasing, but that’s what he meant)

    National realise that they can say and do anything now.

    • Hami Shearlie 2.1

      Couldn’t have said it better myself!! The Bata Bullets was a nice touch, nicely complementing Jonkey’s flip-flops!!!

      • Saarbo 2.1.1

        I think there are some exceptions to the biased media. The fair ones from my view: Rachel Smalley (I hope she gets paid (AT LEAST) the combined salaries of the Two Ronnies, she certainly seems to do a lot more work, certainly from the consumers (us) point of view!), Corin Dann seems fair. No one from the Herald comes to mind, Armstrong and O Sullivan are extreme National party supporters. Vernon Small and Tracey Watkins are pretty fair. Waikato Times have a new reporter involved with the Maxim Institute, say no more.

    • Saccharomyces 2.2

      I find it perplexing that the left claim that the MSM is the agent of the right, while the right claim the MSM are the left’s propaganda wing….

      Perhaps they’re neither, and just pumping what will get attention to sell advertising $$’s….

      • Ugly Truth 2.2.1

        The battle between left and right is just a puppet show, both conservatives an liberals advance values that a relevant to society. It’s simply a case of finding a balance between them.

        The meaningful political axis is libertarian-statist, and the MSM has has a heavy statist bias.

        • Draco T Bastard 2.2.1.1

          It’s simply a case of finding a balance between them.

          Oh, God, now he’s starting to sound like Pete George…

          The meaningful political axis is libertarian-statist,

          …with a libertarian bent.

          Well, I suppose that explains why he thinks democracy is Mob Rule.

          • Ugly Truth 2.2.1.1.1

            Would you care to explain the difference between democracy and mob rule, Draco?

            • One Tāne Huna 2.2.1.1.1.1

              Ooh, pick me: democracy is what you resent and cry impotently about at night, and mob rule is your preferred option only if you can be the one with the megaphone.

            • Draco T Bastard 2.2.1.1.1.2

              One is discussion of facts and agreement on course of action, the other is impassioned kneejerk action often riled up by a “leader”.

              As I’m feeling nice I’ll also explain to you why your preferred theory is oppressive and not the gateway to nirvana that you think it is.

              Your desire to do anything you want runs up against peoples right not to be affected by others without their say so. As everything you do affects others in some way this would require you to get permission from everyone else before yo do anything. This is impractical and so we need rules and regulations agreed to by everybody (democracy). Some of those rules will be passive and some will be active. Walking to the store the rules are passive and only get applied if you break them. Building a house is active as you have to get permission first and show that you will stick to the rules and they’re enforced as you go.

              In your world you think that the rules don’t apply to you unless you accept them – and you don’t accept them. Now if everybody did this there would be chaos and the strongest, in today’s terms that means richest, would be able to do whatever they liked, whenever they liked and nobody would be able to stop them simply because they wouldn’t be able to stand up to them. This means that those less well off have had their right not to be affected by others without their say so removed unilaterally by the well off. This is oppression and it’s what your beliefs will bring about.

              We used to have a system like this before – it was called feudalism. It’s a system that the capitalists have been trying to go back to for the last few centuries and for the last few decades, since the imposition of neo-liberalism, they’ve been quite successful.

              Freedom: The right to have a say in your own governance

              Libertarians actually seek to remove that right and they’re too stupid to realise it which is why I also say:

              Libertarianism: Dictatorship hiding behind liberal values

              • karol

                +1 and when it involves a protector father in the family, it suggests being king in your own castle.

              • Draco, your description of democracy:

                discussion of facts and agreement on course of action

                … can result in a conspiracy.

                Your assumption of my intent:

                Your desire to do anything you want

                … is wrong, I realize you that I should consider the consequences before acting and not act wrongfully.

                Your remedy:

                we need rules and regulations agreed to by everybody (democracy).

                … fails because you can’t find a lawful solution to the problem of government.

                Your assumption:

                you think that the rules don’t apply to you unless you accept them

                … misses the point that rules and law are quite different things.

                Your prediction:

                This is oppression and it’s what your beliefs will bring about.

                … fails because you have little clue what my beliefs are. It’s also ironic that the democracy that you describe typically results in the oppression of minorities.

                Your definiton:

                Freedom: The right to have a say in your own governance

                Is blatantly wrong.
                http://www.thefreedictionary.com/freedom

                Draco, you have made an ethically free analysis of my position and got it hopelessly wrong. Making assumptions and attempting to redefine words does not advance your argument, it just makes you look stupid.

                The difference between democracy and mob rule is that democracy is a form of lawful government but mob rule is not.

                • Draco T Bastard

                  fails because you have little clue what my beliefs are.

                  I know enough from what you’ve written. Suffice to say that I find them sickening.

                  It’s also ironic that the democracy that you describe typically results in the oppression of minorities.

                  No, actually, it doesn’t. As I’ve said, rights are universal and people don’t vote to oppress themselves. That canard is just put forward by those who are too frightened by the idea that the people will have power instead of them or their chosen representatives.

                  …fails because you can’t find a lawful solution to the problem of government.

                  /facepalm
                  The majority agreeing to it makes it lawful by default. You don’t like this idea which is why I said In your world you think that the rules don’t apply to you unless you accept them – and you don’t accept them.

                  Is blatantly wrong.
                  http://www.thefreedictionary.com/freedom

                  I wasn’t looking for a dictionary definition when I thought about what freedom truly is. If I was I’d be just like you – stuck in the past and whinging about it.

                  The difference between democracy and mob rule is that democracy is a form of lawful government but mob rule is not.

                  That’s what I said.

        • felix 2.2.1.2

          “The battle between left and right is just a puppet show, both conservatives an liberals advance values that a relevant to society.”

          “Left and Right” do not equate to “Conservative and Liberal” in any meaningful sense.

          It’s a bit of an Americanism to describe them this way. From this and some of your other comments, particularly those about legal history, I suspect you read a lot of U.S. oriented material which isn’t always particularly relevant to NZ.

          • Colonial Viper 2.2.1.2.1

            Not only lacking in relevancy to NZ, but when you look at the US, they are lines of thinking which is completely unhelpful for them as well.

        • karol 2.2.1.3

          There’s a big difference between left libertarians (collective organisation in a network of small groups with no overarching state control) and right individualist (individual property-defending) libertarians.

          And there’s a difference between statist governments committed to egalitarian principles, collective organisation and everyone being guaranteed a reasonable standard of living; and right wing statists, committed to creating/preserving inequalities, such that the underpaid labour of the few is required to maintain the wealthy elite.

    • UpandComer 2.3

      You’re completely wrong. The media is, and always has been, very biased towards Labour and all things left. When the media is every so slightly less blatant in it’s left bias you and other wowser kiwis interpret it as the the great right wing conspiracy in action. Espiner and Garner cover the stories that are available.

      • Tony 2.3.1

        Oh dear. Another misinformed comment. I’ve worked in news media in New Zealand and there is a very conservative streak through most of the mainstream offerings. Producers I worked for were openly pro-National and they dictated our bulletins. The interest groups we would take as “experts” were generally right wing fringe groups with strange views – No More Rates.com, Sensible Sentencing and almost every second day the AA would have their message put on the national news. More study needs to be done into media bias in NZ, but there have been some good articles on here about it:

        http://thestandard.org.nz/media-bias-democracy-ii-beyond-2-sides/#comment-577365

        You can make outrageous claims, but we all know you’re way off – notice I’m the only one that bothered to reply to your tatt. Come on Up & Comer, you can do better than that! ;-)

        • Green machine UpandComer 2.3.1.1

          I’m not way off ;)

          Media will report strong views, and sensible sentencing, no more rates etc make some noise, but so do Greenpeace, and the anti-smacking crowd, and the anti-mining groups, so that’s not really an example of ‘pro-national’ bias. Given National is avoiding building more prisons these groups also aren’t necessarily in line with National views.

          No I’m talking about the kind of scope and tolerance that is provided to parties on the left that is not afforded to the right. The kind that was afforded to Helen Clark, the kind that is being afforded to David Shearer right now.

          It’s not an outrageous claim in the least. There are also differing levels of media. If you’re referring to a small town publication, sure. If you’re referring to anyone or anything media that moves in the beltway or on the major networks you are completely wrong.

          let me give you an example that illustrates the challenge for parties like National in Australasia.

          In oz, Gillard got away with labelling the liberal leader a misogynist with violence problems by saying he might have punched a wall somewhere once, but no one actually saw or it or knows what she is talking about. That is actually the story. This was run for weeks, and weeks, and weeks until Tony Abbot’s wife has to come out and say, um…. !?

          At the same time the media wouldn’t run the story that was supported with witnesses and other evidence that Gillard created a secret slush fund for her union boy-friend to buy houses and prostitutes with, until they had to run a little bit of it because it was simply untenable not to.

          Similar scenarios occur in NZ all the time, they were almost weekly under Helen Clark.

          The media right now should be absolutely getting stuck into Labour, the way they got stuck into Bill English for instance. Labour are treated with kid gloves, and even then they are still fucking it up because they are political technocrats now devoid of any intellectual or policy substance. But the media want them to succeed soooooo bad.

          You are simply incorrect, and I haven’t worked directly say for the Otago daily times etc but I know a shitload of people who have worked in those roles, and much more substantive roles.

          • karol 2.3.1.1.1

            Oh, reading that was like stepping into an alternate universe.

            No I’m talking about the kind of scope and tolerance that is provided to parties on the left that is not afforded to the right. The kind that was afforded to Helen Clark, the kind that is being afforded to David Shearer right now.

            OMG, surely you are doing some sort of Onion satire?

            • One Tāne Huna 2.3.1.1.1.1

              He’s been reading Investigate.

              • Tony

                It was an alternate universe alright! Surely it must be satire?? Using an Australian example to summarise New Zealand news media?! And pulling Helen Clark references out five years after the fact? I don’t know how to respond to it seriously but I’ll give it a go…

                First of all, did you read the article that I referenced? Secondly, I worked for one of the major news networks and I speak from experience, so how can I be incorrect? You’re simply seeing this from your (what is quite obvious) right wing perspective – you simply believe that news media should be aligned with your personal ideology. This happens in the industry too, many people find it difficult to remove their personal perspectives from their work and others simply don’t want to.

                You talk about the news media needing to get stuck into David Shearer – what for? He’s not doing much. The news media’s coverage of the Labour conference was all about the leadership challenge and instability within the party, is that tolerance and lenience? He was ripped apart for his housing policy and his memory loss over the UN bank account was given plenty of coverage. In the main however, the press largely ignore Labour, which is the point – they don’t get the coverage of the incumbent.

                We could sit here and take apart individual news articles but it’s pointless – you have your perspective. You’ve merged your own personal feelings towards Labour (political technocrats now devoid of any intellectual or policy substance) whereas I haven’t mentioned my opinions of National at all – I’m addressing your ridiculous claims about a media bias for the left, which is so obviously driven by your disdain for Labour, not based on fact.

                I personally believe that journalists should declare their bias because it’s almost impossible to remove. Those of us that know what we’re reading can pick it up anyway, but the mainstream masses can’t, they just consume. Of course there are whole other issues regarding corporate ownership and media bias, statistical polling with barriers for entry etc, but I’m sure your friends in much more substantive roles (not that you have any idea what my role was) have you up to date regarding that.

                Bye now!

                • xtasy

                  “Secondly, I worked for one of the major news networks and I speak from experience, so how can I be incorrect? ”

                  Working for some major (usually commercial) “news media” these days does give any critical person EVERY right to question your authenticity, integrity, moral compass and so forth, as it will ultimately be the payroll that dictates what is allowed and consented, and what not!

                  So do not show your arrogance by claiming that you must be correct simply for the reason of having worked for such media! You are wrong and imposing!

                  “The news media’s coverage of the Labour conference was all about the leadership challenge and instability within the party, is that tolerance and lenience? He was ripped apart for his housing policy and his memory loss over the UN bank account was given plenty of coverage.”

                  Now you really expose yourself, first you rip into the Labour conference that was supposedly about a “leadership challenge”, which few if any members have any recollection about (apart from Shearer and a few ABCers), and then you even dare to mix in stuff that was not even a topic then, like housing policy and the UN bank account.

                  You are a mischievous trouble stirrer here, you have NO integrity and credit re what you comment on here! You accept that the “masses” just “consume” media, your other comments are condescending and arrogant, as if you try to justify bias or no bias, that you guys working in the media should be excused for even entertaining such behaviour.

                  Sorry, dear, you are discrediting your profession further, and I for myself had the guts full of shit journos, justifying their chosen personal prostitution for a paid job for some corp outfit, or even large TV company, whatever ownership. You are not doing your jobs, not researching, too busy pissing up with the pay you get, and you are mercenaries to the commercial interests that dominate the game these days. Good night!

        • dumrse 2.3.1.2

          I’ve heard about you…. “Decent journalist, trained and skilled”… Nice to meet you Tony, I shall keep an eye out for your unbiased work.

          • felix 2.3.1.2.1

            I’ve heard about you too, dumrse…. “Cloth-eared, dumb as all fuck, no self-awareness whatsoever, entitled arrogant twat to boot” …. I shall keep an eye out for your pointless trooling and subsequent tall tales on the trademe forums.

          • Tony 2.3.1.2.2

            Umm… did I say that?? Well it’s pretty safe, it’s not too arrogant to claim to be a “decent” journalist ;-)

            Nice to meet you too sir! Unfortunately you’ll be disappointed to know that after being told what to say, write and do by senior producers with personal agendas I left the industry after just a few years – completely disillusioned with news media in NZ. You are right, you can’t completely remove bias from journalism so I think it should be declared, through editorial or otherwise.

            I live overseas now (along with 20% of the population) but perhaps I’ll be back one day and maybe I’ll even work in New Zealand journalism again! Though I doubt it…

            • xtasy 2.3.1.2.2.1

              Tony – thanks for your honesty, after all. I posted my firm view above, not seeing your further response. You are doing what many Kiwis have done and are doing, leaving the shores for better opportunities and incomes.

              I have one more for you: Sadly, as much as I understand persons like you, to many you are nothing but GUTLESS TRAITORS, not standing your grounds when it is needed. You were not happy with your job, so you left it and went overseas.

              This is what tens and hundreds of thousands of Kiwis do. They resign and fold up tent, and move off-shore. That to me is NOT a solution.

              I come from Europe, I ran away from some challenges also, here and there, but I learned, there is NO getting away from the ultimate challenges we will ALL face inevitably, be this economic collapse, global climate change with disastrous consequences or whatever, you will NEVER get away from all of this.

              And for NZ, it could have done heaps better, had it more resolute people, that connect, stand their bloody ground, unite and fight the shit challenges that are ruining this country. But no, it is all for selected groups and individual agendas, to jump ship, to get out and fuck the rest. That is NOT PATRIOTISM, mate.

              You better rethink your whole life and philosophy. Che Guevara for instance came from rather well off backgrounds, but he looked for the challenges to take a stand, and he paid for it with his life. Some will say he was idealistic or ideological, but he believed in a better world, like many others. The RESOLUTE ACTION and a personal stand make the difference, not the personal agenda of flight and seeking more comfy alternatives.

            • xtasy 2.3.1.2.2.2

              Thanks Tony, at least you are telling the truth and exposing the “media regime” in NZ, as being nothing but controlled, authoritarian and therefore somehow manipulative and even dictatorial! The bias in NZ media is the most compelling I have seen ANYWHERE!

              And with changes of government it appears to become more obvious.

              So yes, I do not totally blame you for leaving this place, as I long ago realised, this is the most sophisticated smallish dictatorship on this planet, that is The Dictatorship of Aotearoa New Zealand, which is not noticed as such, due to all the successful pretences and brainwashing, but a dictatorship that is not perceived as such surely is the MOST PERFECT dictatorship one can think of.

              • Tony

                Goodness. Ok… Look, I was talking about my personal experiences in the industry – I was not saying that this means I am right, I am saying that this is an account of my experience in the industry so how can someone say that this account is incorrect? (did you even read the comment I was replying to?) Sorry for the misinterpretation, but I am not claiming to be an expert on NZ news media – I know what I saw, heard and experienced on an everyday basis and yes I have opinions which are drawn from those experiences.

                I was saying that the Leadership Conference was painted as a leadership challenge by the media, but I see you’ve missed the point. To be honest though, I really can’t be bothered! I came on here because I do care about Aotearoa and I wanted to see a different perspective to NZ’s inept news media – I’ve been pulled into debates by some absurd comments and now I’m being told that I have no integrity? I’m not excusing any behaviour by the media, I am simply giving an account of my experience and yes, I add a cent or two here or there, because I am human.

                Regarding my old job – I did my best to challenge the status quo but institutions don’t change and they don’t like trouble makers (which according to you, is what I am). I’ll do what’s best for me and my family, if that means our future is overseas so be it. I love my country but staying in NZ to compromise my work and make some middle aged dude richer when there are better opportunities elsewhere is not my idea of patriotism.

                And as for calling me a gutless traitor?? Whatever you say, I’m off to spend my pounds at the pub.

                Time to take a break from The Standard…

                • xtasy

                  Tony – I concede, that I misinterpreted a part in your earlier post further above! So I apologise for that.

                  Otherwise it seems you are doing fairly ok or better in the UK – or is it Australia now?

                  As I stated before, the problem with NZ is, that too many give up and leave. And I agree, it is not easy to stand your ground, when the boss(es) and networks of colleagues and partners at work and in business come from a certain interest background, also having their personal agendas, so they want to keep things as they are.

                  The result is, we have them get away with it, because in present day over individualised, self centred NZ people pack up and go off-shore. This country therefore stays under the control of the same pack of self serving lobbies that have run it for ages, and that stop any progress. Therefore we continue to export milk powder, logs, raw fish and so forth, earning most of the nation’s income. Not enough gets done to develop other activities and industries, and opening the local market to a level that prohibits competing on labour costs, the ground is hard to start something else that can lead to value added exports.

                  Smart people are not wanted, if they do not “fit in” or dare rocking the boat.

                  Hence NZ stays backward in a sense, primarily in the minds of too many. The dumbing down machine called “media” here perpetuates this, and believe you me, since you must have left, things have go a HELL OF A LOT WORSE now.

                  That is why I get so damned angry.

                  I have shared information and views via the Standard, as it is one of the very few blogs and mediums left where this is possible. The rest of the media is largely SHITE. They have not even reported anything of significance at all about draconian welfare reforms in any mainstream or leading media here, which will bring in a regime that will cause the deaths of many, similar to what happened in the UK under new, bizarre and extreme, insane work capacity tests (there under Atos Healthcare – for DWP). Hence my view that this country is in some ways like a dictatorship, and the media only reporting on stuff that will not change and challenge anything and anyone. It is unbelievable what goes on here, and I see almost nobody take a resolute stand.

  3. Draco T Bastard 3

    They have to BS. If they didn’t then they’d have to admit that their beliefs are wrong and some people just won’t do that no matter what the evidence says. National fall into the group that won’t change.

    • TheContrarian 3.1

      “some people just won’t do that no matter what the evidence says.”

      Like you, you mean?

  4. infused 4

    Most of Telecom workers are engineers from Gen-I. This isn’t because of the recession, it’s because Gen-I keep fucking up everything they touch.

    • Draco T Bastard 4.1

      [citation needed]

      • infused 4.1.1

        I don’t need to. I work with them. Take it or leave it.

        You can find some of the info for yourself. They have lost a lot of govt contracts, as they are not the main govt provider anymore.

        They are losing a lot of big business because their departments don’t know how to talk to each other.

        • felix 4.1.1.1

          “I don’t need to. I work with them.”

          Err, you do know that citing and referencing is not for your benefit, eh?

          “Take it or leave it.”

          Leave it thanks, unknown interweb character.

        • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.2

          You can find some of the info for yourself. They have lost a lot of govt contracts, as they are not the main govt provider anymore.

          Who is then? Where was this announced?

          They are losing a lot of big business because their departments don’t know how to talk to each other.

          Awfully simplistic call to make. And if it were true, the fault lies in the hands of executive management. And especially the Telecom Board for not spotting problems with the business unit earlier.

          Funny how its the workers who bear the brunt of senior management failures though.

  5. They have no fear and so they just spill the lies and lies get bigger and more obvious but they don’t care because they have no fear of retribution – in the polls or on election day. People can stop them and we will.

  6. Joe Bloggs 6

    Steven Joyce thought that they’d all be programmers

    I call bullshit on this – there’s nothing in the link provided to support the claim.

    • Draco T Bastard 6.1

      Only a minority of the staff that will be shed by Telecom during its current restructuring will be “skilled IT workers”, whose skills the communications minister says are in demand.

      First paragraph.

      The comments appear to undermine assurances from Employment Minister Steven Joyce that staff let go by Telecom should find it easy to regain employment.

      Fifth paragraph.

      Just another RWNJ that needs to learn to read.

      • Joe Bloggs 6.1.1

        just another LWNJ who doesn’t know the meaning of the word “all” – used to refer to the whole quantity or entire extent of a particular group.

        Just in case you missed the point, Joyce never claimed that every Telecom worker to be made redundant was a programmer. QED, the statement made above is bullshit.

        • Galeandra 6.1.1.1

          No, just overstated. But if it pushes your buttons, feel free to win the battle while losing the war.
          Bonus point if you can explain the Latin phrase the acronym refers to without using wikipedia.

          • Joe Bloggs 6.1.1.1.1

            quod erat demonstrandum, motherfucker. The mathematician’s way of saying “SNAP, bitch!”

            as for overstatements, you’re clearly in a better place than I to comment on that. But thank you for acknowledging my point.

            • felix 6.1.1.1.1.1

              Or in this case the pedant’s way of saying “nyah nyah nyah nyah”

            • One Tāne Huna 6.1.1.1.1.2

              While you’re dancing around on that pinhead, here’s the NBR quoting Joyce on the Telecom layoffs:

              “Development Minister Steven Joyce says the ICT job shortage means the market will take care of things.”

              “Steven Joyce thought that they’d all be programmers” works for me.

              But nice derail. Wanna talk about the topic of the OP, which provides evidence of Ministers of the Crown either telling blatant, easily refuted lies, or perhaps giving evidence of their own delusional bias?

  7. xtasy 7

    I love BULLSHIT!

    I honestly do, it is the best thing in the world, if you only would know how to use it.

    Having grown up on a farm, “bullshit” and “other shit” was common place, common fare, common fertiliser. Of course when farming gets too intensive, the nitrate levels go up, and that is where issues start. So that will need to be addressed, and it is being addressed, but like other countries, NZ is still in the early phase of developing systems to minimise environmental harm.

    What concerns me most is, that any advances will likely be used to design more intensive farming in a “smart” way, so that the same pollution will be allowed by using more cows, cattle, sheep or whatever. It is the argument between minimalisation and maximisation. So the balance between resource, environment and output is likely to be tilted towards more output with the same pollution.

    If that is an achievement, we will have virtually NO achievement. But then again, that is about where this government leads us to.

    AND while I was thinking AGAIN of BULLSHIT, of the other type, really, I was really meaning, hey, that BS is exactly the fertile stuff our government delivers us. You will soon find that any capable opposition will flourish on such BS, as it will be fertile grounds to grow something new and better from. There is a chance, I wonder if somebody will use it.

Important links

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Public service advertisements by The Standard

Current CO2 level in the atmosphere