Daily review 06/08/2019

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, August 6th, 2019 - 94 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

 

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

94 comments on “Daily review 06/08/2019”

  1. Robert Guyton 1

     “In other words, simply shutting down those farms is likely to be more beneficial to the local economy than letting them continue to operate. And that's without even considering the value of the carbon stored. 

    Looked at like this, the message is clear: the sooner marginal farms shut down and are converted to trees, the better off we'll all be.”

    Climate Change: The double benefit of forestry conversions

    http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2019/08/climate-change-double-benefit-of.html

    • Pat 1.1

      define marginal?..as stated last night an assessment of where (and what) the forestry needs to occur is the missing piece of the puzzle…what this badly designed policy does is rely on 'the market'…isnt that what has (largely) brought us to this point?

      • Robert Guyton 1.1.1

        Farmers have long demanded the right to do as they please, run whatever they please, sell whenever they please to whom ever they please.

        Why all this anguish now? Forestry isn't forcing farmers to sell. It's the farmers' choice. They are the authors of their own fate, just as they've always professed.

        • Pat 1.1.1.1

          That may or may not be the case but thats not the point…if the purpose of the policy is best possible outcome re climate change and society then it needs redesigning

          • Robert Guyton 1.1.1.1.1

            Rural communities have been gutted by incoming industrial dairying haven't they?

            Was Government policy "redesigned" when country halls and schools closed because dairying supplanted sheep farming and the communities that went with that?

            What's different?

            • Pat 1.1.1.1.1.1

              On the contrary , rural communities have been growing on the back of the dairy conversion boom…as a Southland Councillor you should be well aware of that…for all the problems associated with dairy, jobs isnt one of them.

              • Robert Guyton

                Jobs are only one aspect of community. Ask the sheep farmers if their communities are as good as they were before dairying arrived. Go back even further, to when trees were the dominant feature of the landscape; ask iwi if modern communities are better than those that existed before sheep and cattle, deforestation and river-straightening, when deer, rabbits, stoats and possums were the animals of choice. 

                • Pat

                  I have neighbours who vowed never to convert to 'bloody cows'…guess what?, over the past 2 decades everyone of them have succumbed…because they had no choice…land values and inputs increased to a point where sheep and beef were no longer viable.

                  • Robert Guyton

                    They had no choice?

                    Really?

                    Are we blaming dairying then, in the same way as you're blaming forestry now?

                    I suppose somebody said the same thing about sheep when they started spreading across the land.

                    • Pat

                      No need to be slippery Robert…they had the same control over their lives as the rest of us…bugger all. The 'Market' drives the choices whether we like it or not…and the government is supposed to ensure the best outcomes for society (as a whole) by regulating that market….thats where the billion trees programme falls over

                    • Robert Guyton

                      Regulate the market?

                      Perhaps the imperative to plant trees rather than run livestock is bigger than the market?

                      I do know what you are getting at, Pat, but the details need to be thrashed out, I reckon, as the final result is critical to us all. Pines are the problem here, I reckon, but I have a theory about all this and it doesn't fit anyone else's, involving the short time we have to get trees of any sort into the ground and what might happen if things unravel and large forests are left to mature in their own way. Next, we need to talk about wilding pines smiley

                    • Pat

                      Re the billion trees programme , the details should have been thrashed out before implementation…and they argue they were but if thats the case theyre incompetent as it is patently not fit for purpose

                    • Robert Guyton

                      If farmers had adopted agroforestry practices that have long been promoted, this situation would not have presented; our landscapes would be treed and stocked; the best of both worlds. Why do you think this didn't happen, Pat? Lack of vision? Fear of trees?

                    • Pat

                      I cant tell you why agroforestry wasnt adopted as the standard practice in years past  but might guess it was related to a dearth of clairvoyancy… I can however explain the removal of the multitude of woodlots and sheterbelts that has occurred in tandem with dairy conversions ( compounded by council austerity programmes)….budgets for finance.

            • Poission 1.1.1.1.1.2

              Rural land prices increased when the recent governments allowed foreign ownership.Intensification and industrial farming was a response (to reward the investors of managed farms)

              Policy response would be to prohibit overseas ownership of rural land.(including forestry)

              • Pat

                and that would cause an even larger outcry from the rural community and the banks….theyre all juggling as it is

              • Robert Guyton

                "Policy response would be to prohibit overseas ownership of rural land."

                Farmers oppose that. There's big money overseas and farmers should be able to sell to the highest bidder. Isn't that what farmers have long professed? Weren't they supported by the National Party in that?

                Have they changed their minds now?

                Coz trees?

    • bwaghorn 1.2

      Gee rg you've found an article by a like minded fool to back your bias. 

      They arnt planting marginal land they are planting to quality land thats in range of ports so they can maximize profits while fucking communities.  

      • Robert Guyton 1.2.1

        Who's selling the farms, bwaghorn?

        Isn't it a farmers right to sell whenever to whoever the farmer chooses?

        The market is king, right?

        What's all the complaining about. This is a farmer issue. 

        • Poission 1.2.1.1

          But that would reduce food production,which is a no no under the paris agreement.

          How would that look on JA cv.

          This Agreement, in enhancing the implementation of the Convention, including its objective, aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change, in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty, including by:(a)Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change;(b)Increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a manner that does not threaten food production;

          • Robert Guyton 1.2.1.1.1

            The agreement doesn't demand no change at all to specific farms or regions, it requires the amount of food produced be kept the same. If food production is doubled in one place it can be halved in another. The choice to sell a farm is the farmers; no one is coercing them to sell. I've heard farmers claim repeatedly that they are feeding the world; has that admirable aim changed, just because forestry money arrived on the scene? In any case; food for whom? Does the Agreement aim to sustain the Chinese appetite for powdered milk, or is it requiring that land feeds those who live on it?

            • Poission 1.2.1.1.1.1

              the PA and the IPCC scenario models warn of the need to increase food production to meet raising population growth.

              The chinese consumer may not want to buy wood bark soup recipes from N/korea.

              • Robert Guyton

                Warns of the need?

                Doesn't sound like a binding demand.

                Farmers don't have to sell. If they believe they are morally bound to produce food for the world, they'll stick to farming and tell the rapacious foresters to look elsewhere for land to grow trees. Nobody's forcing them to sell, are they. Nobody's making them go against their ethics, are they?

                • Stuart Munro.

                  Having scored truckloads of compensation over mycoplasma bovis, it may be that they have developed a deep and abiding need for the contemporary equivalent of sheep retention money – "Pay us not to plant trees!" – compensation being a crop that eats no fodder at all.

            • mickysavage 1.2.1.1.1.2

              Less red meat more vegetables.  If the future of humanity requires this then fine by me.

              • Robert Guyton

                And if the future of humanity requires the planting of trees on farms, I'm fine with that. In fact, I'd help plant them.

                • Stuart Munro.

                  It would be nice to see a bit more in the way of integrating trees with other farming, rather than pretending mutually exclusive monocultures are the only options.

                  • Robert Guyton

                    Exactly, Stuart. Once the frothing subsides, your suggestion should come to the fore and be acted upon by those innovative farmers who can famously adapt to any situation.

                • New view

                  But of course it won’t Robert. First of all a few generations down the track they will be asking why this generation let our valuable farming land required for food be planted in trees. Our cities have already poured concrete over the best of it. And secondly every twenty years those trees get milled releasing all that carbon again. Solution,  plant twice as many on a decreasing  land mass to compensate. Doesn’t sound bright to me Robert. But you’re just happy sniping at present day farmers. I guess somewhere in the future we’ll learn how to eat trees   Looking forward to that. 

                  • Ian

                    The court jester can't see the wood for the trees .

                    • In Vino

                      I agree with Ian. New View seems to be ironically limited in vision.

                      The way the climate looks to be going, how can NV assume that there will be any 20-year cycles? We will all be bloody lucky if we can survive one, and by then the second may be but a dream…

                  • Robert Guyton

                    Required for food, or required for export dollars, New view?

                    Cities are not designed to be integral to the land, I agree with you there, but human habitation could be, with designers able to imagine such things creating such habitations. As for 20 years from now, my guess is the situation will be so different from now, the "certainty" of milling will be long overturned and new ways of managing trees capes will be in place. I'm keen to help with that, even at this early stage. As for "sniping at farmers" I'm not doing that at all; farmers have always claimed the right to sell and I'm not criticising them for that, just citing the behaviour.

                    • In Vino

                      Thanks RG – you said it better.

                    • New view

                      Not much of your reply makes sense to me Robert. We need the land for food production. Exports of timber are ok if you’re not importing inferior food. As for farmers selling this land to foresters for a fat profit, that’s only one side Robert. That means that the foresters are out bidding any farmers for land. It’s putting an unsustainable value on land. And means that land won’t be used for farming again. You and your mates might think that’s great but future generations won’t thank you. The steeper country is suitable for trees if they can stop the rubbish clogging our rivers and causing massive damage as happened in the Gisborne area. Multiply that problem thousands of times Robert and don’t tell me they’ll have it sorted in ten years. Bullshit they will. But you know what Robert farmers will have their emissions sorted out in ten years and they won’t be relying on your help that’s for sure. 

                    • Robert Guyton

                      My reply to you, New view, presents a new view and that's why it makes not much sense to you. There is ample land in New Zealand for food production. Some of that is being repurposed for growing trees, a necessary phenomenon globally. You claim that once land is forested, it will never again be used for farming. Kaiangaroa, apparently, shows that to be untrue. All farmland in New Zealand was once forested land, remember. You say, foresters are outbidding farmers as if that's a new phenomenon, but dairying created the same issue; dairy men outbid sheep men, or horticulturalists and sent the price of land rocketing up. Whoever's backed by the banks, favoured by the Government of the day, gets the land. Conventional forestry management is ill-conceived, in my view; there are very effective ways to manage forests and those ways have to become the way forward for humans everywhere. Food comes from forests also, New view; your, "can't eat trees" is petty and simplistic. Ever eaten sago? The fruits and nuts of any trees? Have you ever eaten a leaf? A fungus? You need to let your imagination free, New view, as do we all, in order to see the potential in forests. They're going to be our new home and our hope for the future. There'll still be cows, don't worry, only they'll be creatures of the forest edge, as their ancestors were, feeding on a vast range of vegetation, rather than confined to a paddock and restricted to one or two plants. Farmers might well have their emissions sorted out in 10 years, New view, but farming will have been transformed beyond recognition for that to have happened. That transformation is underway now, driven not by farmers, but by necessity; the approaching collapse of the biological environment and the end of the golden weather. Trees will see us through, if we're smart enough to work with them and learn from their long experience of weathering the storms of change. 

                    • New view []

                      Good rolling sheep and cattle country clogged with low profit pine, which is what is happening at present,  isn’t the idillic ‘pick the nuts and see the cow sitting under a shady tree’ scenario’. It isn’t what this Government is sanctioning Robert. Nice but delusional. 

                    • Robert Guyton

                      I know it's not and I said it's not, New view, but the way ahead is forward into trees, not back into livestock. Pinus radiate and it's brutal management is the worst of choices and doesn't represent the model I'm promoting, but neither foes livestock farming. Foresters have a long way to go to up-grade their practices to something appropriate for the situation we find ourselves in now, but at least they are planting trees; moving them from monocultural thinking to multi-faceted, forest-based thinking will be aided by circumstance, in my view; the climate and the change in thinking resulting from that will force changes rapidly and that's what I'm banking on and that's why I cheer-on the planting of trees. Wilding pines reclaiming high country sheep stations is a good example of marginal land being turned into forestry, wouldn't you say?

                    • New view []

                      I’m not against trees Robert, but miss using the use of them can be as damaging as miss used farm land. Wilding pines sounds great until they spread out of control and take even the best flat land. A few years back I was in the Tekapo basin. That iconic area where there was an uproar over the Dairy farming. Well what was evident there was the wilding pines creeping all over that iconic landscape like thistles. Not what everyone had in mind I’m sure, so no I wouldn’t say that’s a good idea.  

                    • Robert Guyton

                      Trees spreading by their own efforts are challenging alright! The simplistic view sees them as a threat, but utilising their energy and drive to spread would be the wisest approach, in my opinion. Adding to the wilding forests would be the path to take; use the natural force, augment it with seedings of many other trees, have people out there managing those forests, as described before. This is a budding idea, but needs to be explored, given the alternative involves huge cost, enormous use of herbicides (arboricides?) the destruction en mass of trees and the continuation of livestock farming, itself a forest-destroying activity. The iconic Tekapo landscape would surely be a forested one, not a tussock one? I bet there is evidence of forests throughout the area from a time before humans began their landscape modifying burning, bulldozing, grazing and spraying. At what point do we declare something "iconic"?

                    • New view []

                      A natural native forest maybe but certainly not fucking wilding pines. They are about as iconic as the weeds in your garden. As usual we agree on some things and disagree on most. 

                    • Robert Guyton

                      Wilding pines are not useful in the conventional sense; they don't produce straight timber for a start, but we are not thinking deeply or strategically enough about them. If we regard them as an enemy that has to be destroyed, we will lose the battle we've set ourselves. Better to harness the irrepressible force that they are and use them for our benefit, somehow. It's that "somehow" we have to explore. To date, we just try to poison them to death. That's an approach that has too much collateral damage, imo and reflects a mindset that has brought us to the place we are now in, globally. The destructive thinking; kill, burn, destroy, eradicate, that much of humanity has come to adopt has brought us to the brink of self-destruction; we've applied our smash and grab approach to everything bar the few organisms we like and it's ending badly. I'm suggesting taking a different approach and looking at all the "weeds" of the world, not as enemies, but as allies. It's not immediately apparent how this would work, in specific situations such as wilding pines, but that's because we haven't applied our clever minds to the problem using that lens; we've just stuck with the "bash our way through" mentality and that's left much of the world bashed-up. 

                    • New view []

                      I agree. The pine seedlings that were stealthily appearing in the Tekapo basin were having to be chipped out  or cut before they seeded. An onerous task. A fine line indeed between them being servant or master. Why do I not have the faith in any Government monitoring that properly. This Government couldn’t even employ contractors capable of keeping tree seedlings alive before they got them in the ground. You are a true optimist Robert. We need that but we also need realists so we embark on projects that will be successful and not a waste of tax payers money. 

                    • Robert Guyton

                      Those projects you allude to; they need to be conceived in a new light now. There's an imperative, imo, the risk of environmental collapse through species extinction and the risk of  ruinous climatic conditions all round. Preventing and/or preparing for those eventualities should be driving all of our projects from here on in. Conventional ways of looking at things and projects based on that thinking have to be re-evaluated in light of the new conditions, I reckon. If we need to quickly grow forests in order to stave-off destructive conditions, then we'll have to think fast and think outside of the box. I know I'm being provocative with my claims about forests, but now is the time for change in how we think and behave. We're at the pointy end now and better act quick-smart if we are not to end up wallowing in regret.

                  • solkta

                    And secondly every twenty years those trees get milled releasing all that carbon again.

                    How does that work? The trees are made of carbon aren't they?

                    • Robert Guyton

                      In any case, there's as much carbon in the roots, which don't get milled, as there is in the above-ground part of the tree. That doesn't include the massive, extensive fungal nets below ground that carry carbon to and fro between trees in a forest. So, carbon stays in the soil, in a well managed forestry situation (there are very few of these, btw. Our challenge is to master forest management and lead the world in that. The knowledge is there, or mostly, all we have to do is be awake to the potentials.

                    • solkta

                      True, but as the stump rots down over a decade or so some of the carbon will be lost back to the atmosphere. Timber used in soundly designed buildings however can be held for centuries. I can see the day coming when we build houses log cabin style just to use lots of wood. 

                    • Robert Guyton

                      The carbon in roots stays put and it's a significant amount, especially when forests are replanted as trees are cut; coppicing of course, is the best way to manage forests; the roots stay in place and wood is grown for use in construction. If we can fill the soil with roots and their associated carbon-bearing fungal networks, while harvesting wood from the tops, we'll be on the way to success. Grass just doesn't do the trick.

              • Poission

                Less red meat more vegetables.  If the future of humanity requires this then fine by me.

                Sorry mate,you need a bigger lifestyle change,the undercarriage has to go.

                a child (an average for developed countries of 58.6 tonnes CO2-equivalent (tCO2e) emission reductions per year), vs eating a plant-based diet (0.8 tCO2e saved per year)

                https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541

                • Robert Guyton

                  We all need a bigger lifestyle change. This "civilised" lifestyle of ours is wrecking the place. Would you change your lifestyle, Poission, if it meant averting ruin?

    • Matiri 1.3

      In the Tasman District, dairy farms are being converted to hops, three farms this year so far out of 180 farms in the district.

      • Robert Guyton 1.3.1

        "Tararua District mayor Tracey Collis has seen 13 farms in her district sell in the past year."

        Who sold them? Who pocketed the money?

      • marty mars 1.3.2

        yep I drove recently down to murch past Tapawera and was blown away by the hectares of hop posts, mud and development – all along the riverbank for kilometers – hope it doesn't flood

    • Cricklewood 1.4

      Hmm I'm not sure how beneficial to the local rural economy or community this actually is… Family owned sheep and beef farm, they likely spend money in the local town, kids go to the small rural school etc basically a community with Teachers, a Vet etc etc 

      Farm  gets sold and planted in pine likely to a foreign owned entity who collect the credits etc. Only sporadic low paid work in the forest pruning and the like, people leave through lack of work  school closes community dies… 

      Seen it happen and im not convinced that it's a good thing for NZ. 

      We have to find a balance somewhere…

      • Robert Guyton 1.4.1

        That's correct, Cricklewood. The present model is poor. A new way with forests is what's required. People have to be living amongst them. Communities have to be integrated into forests, not sidelined by them. The same is true of farming, yet changing farming trends drove people out of the countryside also. The whole model needs to be changed significantly. Small, thriving communities linked by networks of communication and travel need to be established everywhere, with people living meaningful, engaged lives that benefit the environments they're/we're living in. Presently, farms exclude people, aside from the very few rural people who own farms or work on them. This all must change.

    • bwaghorn 1.5

      Yip farmers can sell to who they like but they are being added and abeted by this government's policy settings subsidising foreign buyers to buy quality land . It would be an easy fix shifting subsidies to class 4 hard hill country or worse.  

      Supposedly big on community but you do give a fuck if its farmers . We cant all live in the trees sucking the rat payers tit.

      • Robert Guyton 1.5.1

        Farmers are being aided by the Government?

        They'll be appreciative of that help then, I suppose.

        I'd like to see forests being planted on all land that's less than ideal for livestock-farming; the rougher stuff that ought never to have been cleared of forest in the first place.

        Agriculture has destroyed much of the planet's forests and the rate of destruction is escalating, taking out vast swathes of what forest remains. There's a need for a re-think. Farmers might like to be part of that review, rather than defending the status quo, particularly because they have dominion over so much land. Townies haven't the same potential to effect change. Then there are those who don't give a rat's tit smiley

        • bwaghorn 1.5.1.1

          We agree then . So you'll be using you considerable skills to get the message out that subsidizing forest owners to purchase good quality farm land so they can blanket  plant is bad policy . A more considered approach is needed. 

  2. Dennis Frank 2

    NZF floating an abortion reform referendum is about as dumb as it gets.  Time for that was during the coalition negotiations after the last election.  Unless their agreement with Labour contains an enabling clause!

    News tonite said they will decide by Thursday whether to go for it.  Wish someone would tell the truth & call the right to lifers closet fascists.  Being polite around that has gone on far too long.  I guess the upside of a referendum is it would flush them out into the open.

  3. Chris T 3

    Seems like Winston has sucker punched Labour again.

    Probably now demanding a referendum on the abortion law to vote for it, after seeming to agree with it.

    Telling them who is actually running the place again.

    Lol

    Not that I think he would actually be needed either way given it is a conscience.

    • marty mars 3.1

      lol you just destroyed your own idiotic comment – nice one 

      • Chris T 3.1.1

        Thought it was more Winston destroying his own posturing tbh.

        • marty mars 3.1.1.1

          he can't be running the show if he isn't needed can he?

          • Chris T 3.1.1.1.1

            In this case.

            He certainly was with not completely ditching 3 strikes or the 90 day law. Or toning down the employment law, or the promised CGT, or etc etc etc

            Unless you can point where he wasn't obviously

            • marty mars 3.1.1.1.1.1

              well you point out how he can be running the show and not be needed then 

              • Chris T

                Because in this particular issue, there will probably be enough Nat MPs who agree with a womens right to abortion to not need his votes.

                It will be the same with the Right to Die bill, but it will be closer, so it is better to have a referendum to not risk it.

                And weed one that isn't really needed, but sounds like it means something.

                • marty mars

                  righto so he didn't sucker punch them and isn't showing them who runs the show – thanks for clarifying your original incorrect remarks

  4. marty mars 4

    shane jones – the wanker from wayback shoots his mouth off

    There is a conflict of values going on, and he sees value in the land being made available for housing.

    https://www.waateanews.com/waateanews/x_news/MjIzNzY/Ihum%C4%81tao-wheatfield-no-w%C4%81hi-tapu—Jones?

    wow did you think of that all by yourself did you lol what a brainpox you are shaneo thank goodness you've said something lol

    • bwaghorn 4.1

      Shit next you'll be calling him an uncle Tom!

      • marty mars 4.1.1

        keep your racist bullshit to yourself – go and make sure your animals aren't being maltreated or abused, in other words do something useful laddie

        • bwaghorn 4.1.1.1

          I spend hours at this time of year looking after 4000  hungry future steak burgers and sausages 

          • marty mars 4.1.1.1.1

            what happens on the farm stays on the farm mate that's the rules just like fight club

            • bwaghorn 4.1.1.1.1.1

              I personally broke ranks a few years back and told the gm on a large outfit I was at was beating stock . So na some of us speak up.

  5. joe90 5

    Ticks all the boxes.

  6. MickeyBoyle 6

    https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/114799572/winston-peters-pulls-rug-out-from-under-andrew-little–again

    Can we please get consensus before announcing policy or before going to the media with ideas. Ffs did no one learn from the CGT debacle.

    • Dennis Frank 6.1

      I hope Winston slaps down his cowboy.  If the cowboy isn't alone in the NZF caucus, W may have to use his lawyer stance to remind the loose cannons that their electability depends on adhering to the coalition agreement through to full term.  I can't see him using this to establish an independent position for NZF this far out from the election.

      • McFlock 6.1.1

        Not so sure about that.

        The abortion thing has been in the wings for a while, and NZ1 is a traditional conservative party.

        One option is that labgrn never talked with NZ1 about the issue. This seems unlikely.

        Another option is that NZ1 bit their tongue, but when it was announced everything came to a head within the party and overflowed into the "referendum" stalling tactic. Possible.

        Another option is that it's NZ1 differentiating itself (and nabbing some of the fundy vote the nats are hoping for with a new party) in a way that won't affect the outcome – they'll go for a referendum, be outraged it doesn't happen, the thing goes to conscience votes and NZ1 gets outflanked by a few progressive nats. Law change still happens, and NZ1 gets to build its base a bit. Possible – they're not as silly as simon.

        • Dennis Frank 6.1.1.1

          Yeah that all seems feasible.  Depends if Winston sees more advantage in being partisan than consolidating his gains via constructive politics.  If the polls are making him paranoid, the former option gets preference.

    • alwyn 6.2

      I imagine all the idiots in the Labour Party who thought they could go into a Government with Winston will be regretting that they didn't take note of what John Key said.

      In 2008, before the election, he said he would not form a Government with Winston's mob because he couldn't trust him. As was always the case Key was a hell of a lot smarter than the fools in the Labour Party. You can't trust Winston. However the Labour Party, at least the sensible ones, preferred to get into the bed with Winston than stay, where they deserved to be, on the Opposition benches. The sillier ones, like the PM, probably believed that Winston really thought she was capable of being PM rather than just be Winston's puppet.

      Regardless of what they thought they have simply been reminded of that old saw. If you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas. Itchy are you Jacinda?

      Key repeated the statement before the 2011 election. Sensible fellow wasn’t he?
      https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10703680

  7. Anne 7

    How did this moronic blogger get included on TS list of blog sites?

    http://www.averagekiwi.com/2019/08/05/dangerous-human-ending-cult-sweeping-through-civilisation/

    Worth reading for a laugh though.

    As for the cartoon……….

    • I feel love 8.1

      He must be worried about his job or something, I hate the "but it's just a joke" excuse, at least GG Allin was unapologetic and believed he was making some kind of art (& did it first). All the GG copycats are pathetic. 

    • Gabby 8.2

      We better keep an eye on that HomeBrew chappy.

  8. joe90 9

    PEPCON with bells.

    Krasnoyarsk Krai (@Liveuamap)

  9. marty mars 10

    Q – Legit question for rural Americans – How do I kill the 30-50 feral hogs that run into my yard within 3-5 mins while my small kids play? 

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/05/feral-hogs-memes-twitter-30-50-running-into-my-yard-small-kids

    A –https://twitter.com/search?q=feral%20hogs&src=typed_query 

Leave a Comment

Use WYSIWYG comments on next comment (inactive new feature)

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Swiss tax agreement tightens net
    Opportunities to dodge tax are shrinking with the completion of a new tax agreement with Switzerland, Revenue Minister Stuart Nash announced today. Mr Nash and the Swiss Ambassador David Vogelsanger have today signed documents to update the double tax agreement (DTA). The previous DTA was signed in 1980. “Double tax ...
    2 weeks ago