Daily Review 06/09/2018

38 comments on “Daily Review 06/09/2018 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. RedLogix 1

   6 September 2018 at 6:11 pm

   An interesting essay on the nature of denialism:

   It is a very modern predicament. Denialism is a post‑enlightenment phenomenon, a reaction to the “inconvenience” of many of the findings of modern scholarship. The discovery of evolution, for example, is inconvenient to those committed to a literalist biblical account of creation. Denialism is also a reaction to the inconvenience of the moral consensus that emerged in the post-enlightenment world. In the ancient world, you could erect a monument proudly proclaiming the genocide you committed to the world. In the modern world, mass killing, mass starvation, mass environmental catastrophe can no longer be publicly legitimated.

   Yet many humans still want to do the same things humans always did. We are still desiring beings. We want to murder, to steal, to destroy and to despoil. We want to preserve our ignorance and unquestioned faith. So when our desires are rendered unspeakable in the modern world, we are forced to pretend that we do not yearn for things we desire.

   https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/aug/03/denialism-what-drives-people-to-reject-the-truth
   • Ed 1.1

     6 September 2018 at 6:13 pm

     The Guardian is in denial of its sell out to neoliberalism.
     • corodale 1.1.1

       8 September 2018 at 8:32 am

       Or an enlightened entity pretending they don’t long for enlightenment? May they surprise us next week with evidence of evolution, and give us an essay on how to obtain the sufferings of post-denialism.
   • McFlock 1.2

     6 September 2018 at 6:30 pm

     Oh no it’s not! (couldn’t resist 😛 )

     I liked this bit:

     Denialism is not a barrier to acknowledging a common moral foundation; it is a barrier to acknowledging moral differences. An end to denialism is therefore a disturbing prospect, as it would involve these moral differences revealing themselves directly.

     The essay then meanders through Irving-style traditional denialism (lots of research that supports bunk) into post-denialism (“Whereas denialism explains – at great length – post-denialism asserts. Whereas denialism is painstakingly thought-through, post-denialism is instinctive. Whereas denialism is disciplined, post-denialism is anarchic”).

     The possibility of an epochal shift away from denialism means that there is now no avoiding a reckoning with some discomfiting issues: how do we respond to people who have radically different desires and morals from our own? How do we respond to people who delight in or are indifferent to genocide, to the suffering of millions, to venality and greed?

     Denialism, and the multitude of other ways that modern humans have obfuscated their desires, prevent a true reckoning with the unsettling fact that some of us might desire things that most of us regard as morally reprehensible. I say “might” because while denialism is an attempt to covertly legitimise an unspeakable desire, the nature of the denialist’s understanding of the consequences of enacting that desire is usually unknowable.

     It is hard to tell whether global warming denialists are secretly longing for the chaos and pain that global warming will bring, are simply indifferent to it, or would desperately like it not to be the case but are overwhelmed with the desire to keep things as they are. It is hard to tell whether Holocaust deniers are preparing the ground for another genocide, or want to keep a pristine image of the goodness of the Nazis and the evil of the Jews. It is hard to tell whether an Aids denialist who works to prevent Africans from having access to anti-retrovirals is getting a kick out of their power over life and death, or is on a mission to save them from the evils of the west.

     If the new realm of unrestrained online discourse, and the example set by Trump, tempts more and more denialists to transition towards post-denialism and beyond, we will finally know where we stand. Instead of chasing shadows, we will be able to contemplate the stark moral choices we humans face.

     Something to mull over.
     • Ad 1.2.1

       6 September 2018 at 9:44 pm

       If it’s better for counter-revolution to incite revolution, then Trump is a really effective Trotskyist.

       Once the mid-terms are over I am definitely going to write the Hillary Clinton Presidency counterfactual history, together with all the epistemic reverses.
2. Kat 2

   6 September 2018 at 6:17 pm

   The National opposition obviously believes in tedious repetition….. woof woof woof….bark bark bark…..”oh look another passing car, quick”…… woof woof woof…..bark bark bark………
   • Alan 2.1

     6 September 2018 at 6:44 pm

     Claire might object to being called a passing car, she is very important you know
     • Fireblade 2.1.1

       6 September 2018 at 7:01 pm

       Clare
     • Ad 2.1.2

       6 September 2018 at 9:45 pm

       Opleasegod give us a reshuffle by Christmas.
   • ianmac 2.2

     6 September 2018 at 7:44 pm

     Note the fun Winston provides when questioned by the new slim Paula as she labours away at having her tedious questions ridiculed. She thinks that she is going to Wow. Winston thinks that she is just setting herself as a Target. Chuckle. Chuckle.

     Question Time can be entertaining. Q1
     https://www.parliament.nz/en/watch-parliament/ondemand?itemId=202377
     • ianmac 2.2.1

       6 September 2018 at 8:06 pm

       Sorry. Wrong track. Winston V Paula:
       https://www.parliament.nz/en/watch-parliament/ondemand?itemId=202454
       • Kat 2.2.1.1

         6 September 2018 at 8:24 pm

         Its the “gotcha” mentality, Bennett is doomed along with most of the entire Nat front bench. The Nats firmly believe that Jacinda Ardern and the coalition govt can be ousted in 2020 and all they have to do is “get them” as many times as possible. Sadly for the Nats (happily for the rest of us) nine years of neglect in govt means at least nine years of being in opposition.
         • James 2.2.1.1.1

           7 September 2018 at 6:43 am

           Sadly for you not all the “rest of us” Actually agree with you.

           That’s why national poll so high.
           • Doogs 2.2.1.1.1.1

             7 September 2018 at 8:17 am

             Fuck off James, it’s tribal and you know it. It’s like Trump’s core support, unthinking, tub thumping, slogan waving and unwavering allegiance.
       • Stuart Munro 2.2.1.2

         6 September 2018 at 9:58 pm

         Winston really enjoyed that. Not sure who could coach Paula, but Wayne could tell her, and someone needs to.
     • veutoviper 2.2.2

       6 September 2018 at 9:47 pm

       That was great fun. Paula was obviously not expecting Winnie to be back and in top form. I think she thought she was going to walk all over Kelvin Davis, and she just does not have the flexibility to adjust her questions to changing situations. Interesting that Simon was missing yesterday and no news of him today. Seemed to be struggling with a sore throat on Tuesday, though.
       • ianmac 2.2.2.1

         7 September 2018 at 8:51 am

         PMs are never at QT Thursdays.
         Was the forced debate on Clare Curran after QT Tuesday a chance for Bridges to strut his stuff? Yes and what a shouty shambles that was. 15 minutes of incoherant rubbish from Bridges rambling all over and away from the topic. (Wonder if they were not prepared for their own forced debate because they didn’t expect Trevor to approve it?)
         https://www.parliament.nz/en/watch-parliament/ondemand?itemId=202326
         • veutoviper 2.2.2.1.1

           7 September 2018 at 11:17 am

           As you say, I had not expected to see the PM, but I also not expected to see Peters either, as they both left Nauru together (with officials and press people) on the B757 at about midnight Weds for the 5 -6 hour flight back to NZ. (NZ and Nauru time/dates are the same.) Peters has also been on the move on overseas trips almost continuously since JA returned from maternity leave.

           Re the urgent debate, it was Bridges who called for it – but as you say, a shambles. LOL. You’re probably right that they thought Mallard would not allow it.

           Re Paula, I am beginning to think that she really thinks she has a chance at replacing Bridges. She did have a reasonable run in QT on Wednesday with Davis, but not all onesided.

           https://www.parliament.nz/en/watch-parliament/ondemand?itemId=202377

           She was also in full flight in opening the General Debate on Weds.
           https://www.parliament.nz/en/watch-parliament/ondemand?itemId=202388
   • greywarshark 2.3

     7 September 2018 at 5:14 pm

     This is what passes for thinking in the National Party; repetitive and narrow.
     Thanks Hale and Pace for the example.
     
3. OnceWasTim 3

   6 September 2018 at 6:55 pm

   Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything.

   No better example than Penny.

   We should all admire, feel shame and hope her spirit will live on.

   And if not (like me) we should prepare ourselves to fuck off somewhere where the social always trumps the economic. (I’ve got a nice little nestle in mind – and its equipped with fibre connectivity and an endless supply of veges and the purest of water – (going forward) – kind of like an American Wanker’s bolt hole
   • Rosemary McDonald 3.1

     6 September 2018 at 7:53 pm

     “-kind of like an American Wanker’s bolt hole”

     Gulp! What an image that conjures.

     Got to go and scrub my brain…
4. joe90 4

   6 September 2018 at 8:19 pm

   Boom.

   Harris: Can you think of any decisions that give the government the power to make a decision about a man's body?Kavanaugh: Uh, (asks for clarification), no I'm not aware of any.— Lisa Desjardins (@LisaDNews) September 6, 2018
   • Macro 4.1

     6 September 2018 at 9:03 pm

     and!
     https://abovethelaw.com/2018/09/and-now-marc-kasowitz-shows-up-in-these-hearings-on-to-day-3/

     As the Kavanaugh hearings dragged into the night, Kamala Harris delivered another one of those withering prosecutorial beatdowns just like the one she dropped on Neil Gorsuch that catapulted her into the 2020 frontrunner discussion. But this time she kicked it off with a curious interlude.

     Right off the bat, Harris dropped an entirely general inquiry: had Kavanaugh ever discussed the Mueller investigation with anyone. Obviously, he had generally discussed it… he lives in the real world, not a bubble as he’d quipped earlier in the day. Was this another line of questions, like those Senator Blumenthal asked earlier, trying to pin Kavanaugh into recusing himself from a future Mueller-related case?

     Then… this all happened:
     Harris didn’t confront him with a document, so whatever this is, her sources for this conversation are outside of the paltry email dump the committee got. She continues to press him on whether or not he’s spoken with anyone at Kasowitz about the Mueller investigation and he keeps asking her to identify who she’s thinking of. She delivers a remarkably cold: “I think you’re thinking of someone and you don’t want to tell us.”

     What in the hell was all that?!? Was Kavanaugh covertly counseling Kasowitz on Trump’s defense? It would seem as though she could have dropped the hammer and gotten more specific. Not for nothing, but my immediate reaction was this may have had nothing to do with Mueller at all. Harris seemed less interested in building a case for recusal than making sure Kavanaugh knew that she knew that he knew someone at Kasowitz and that she could introduce that fact into the record at any given moment between now and the final vote on the floor.
     • joe90 4.1.1

       6 September 2018 at 9:36 pm

       Harris replaced Barbara Boxer. Perhaps Feinstein should take the hint.
       • Macro 4.1.1.1

         6 September 2018 at 9:53 pm

         Yep – She really has some excellent probing questions:
         CSPAN has posted the entire nearly 8-minute exchange between Kamala Harris and Kavanaugh on the Mueller probe. It is worth your time.
         https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1037531080402919424
   • Ad 4.2

     6 September 2018 at 9:47 pm

     He has all the needed votes locked.
     This is just sad theatre.
     • Macro 4.2.1

       6 September 2018 at 9:56 pm

       No Ad that is where you are wrong. Harris may have something on Kavanaugh whereby he either has to withdraw, or at least recuse himself from from any case involving Mueller.
       • Ad 4.2.1.1

         6 September 2018 at 10:02 pm

         … he’ll be in without so much as a hair out of place.

         Trump may well get three, or even four slots within the one term.
         • Macro 4.2.1.1.1

           6 September 2018 at 10:08 pm

           You might like to watch the video of the hearings and questions I linked to above. Kavanaugh is caught like a deer in headlights – he’s sweating on this one. Of course the repugnants will vote him in if he does not withdraw his nomination – but the Harris has something on him, and if he is caught in a lie here – it wont go well for him past the mid terms.
           • joe90 4.2.1.1.1.1

             7 September 2018 at 1:37 pm

             Oh.

             Spox for Kasowitz law firm Mike Geller on Kamala Harris questions:"There have been no discussions regarding Robert Mueller’s investigation between Judge Kavanaugh and anyone at our firm.”(per the great @CarolLeonnig)— Aaron Blake (@AaronBlake) September 6, 2018

             Still waiting on Kasowitz firm to answer this question:How do they know — in less than 24 hours — that none of their staff in 9 offices across the country spoke to Brett Kavanaugh? https://t.co/DziodeiMKt— Carol Leonnig (@CarolLeonnig) September 6, 2018

             Update: – Kavanaugh acknowledges close friendship with Kasowitz atty Ed McNally- White House and Kasowitz firm say McNally neither helped prep Kavaugh nor discussed Mueller probe with him. https://t.co/o41jnTDhoQ— Carol Leonnig (@CarolLeonnig) September 6, 2018
5. Exkiwiforces 5

   6 September 2018 at 8:59 pm

   I was going to post this question tomorrow along with an Antarctic Treaty one while this mornings Oz paper, I’ll leave the Antarctic one for tomorrow.

   I just received my birthday present a book called “Mad on Radium, New Zealand in the Atom Age”.

   Page 95, mentions the USA 9 Jul 1962 conducted a bomb test at Johnston Atoll, where the US lanuch a rocket fitted with 1.2 Mt H Bomb which the USA exploded above Johnston Atoll at a height of 320km, which was designed to test the effects of a nuclear explosion on radio- and radar- communication, it also disrupted NZ’s telecommunications systems and created an artificial aurora across the northern hemisphere.

   Did anyone here witness the aurora or experience issues with their radios etc and would to share their experience, thoughts or feelings on what they saw that night.
6. Pat 6

   6 September 2018 at 9:46 pm

   “One-planet living means not only seeking to reduce our own consumption, but also mobilising against the system that promotes the great tide of junk. This means fighting corporate power, changing political outcomes and challenging the growth-based, world-consuming system we call capitalism.

   As last month’s Hothouse Earth paper, which warned of the danger of flipping the planet into a new, irreversible climatic state, concluded: “Incremental linear changes … are not enough to stabilise the Earth system. Widespread, rapid and fundamental transformations will likely be required to reduce the risk of crossing the threshold.”

   Disposable coffee cups made from new materials are not just a non-solution: they are a perpetuation of the problem. Defending the planet means changing the world.”

   https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/06/save-earth-disposable-coffee-cup-green
   • corodale 6.1

     7 September 2018 at 6:03 am

     Could this be the answer? 35years of satellite images show climate change is causing net global reforestation, driven by regrowth in the extratropics.

     More trees is a surprise to me. Also surprised to learn there is a region called the extratropics.

     Published in that Nature rag though, probably just more dodgy science.

     https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0411-9

     More trees, sort that global financial debt shit and go organic. No worries mate.
     • Pat 6.1.1

       7 September 2018 at 8:22 am

       “However all the tree cover data comes with an important caveat: tree cover is not necessarily forest cover. Industrial timber plantations, mature oil palm estates, and other non-natural “planted forests” quality as tree cover. For example, cutting down a 100-hectare tract of primary forest and replacing it with a 100-hectare palm plantation will show up in the data as no net change in forest cover: the 100-hectare loss is perfectly offset by the 100-hectare gain in tree cover. Yet, that activity would be counted as “deforestation” by FAO. Therefore tree cover loss does not directly translate to “deforestation” in all cases.”

       https://news.mongabay.com/2018/08/earth-has-more-trees-now-than-35-years-ago/
7. Ed 7

   7 September 2018 at 5:18 pm

   Charlie Mitchell on Twitter.

   https://twitter.com/comingupcharlie

   “This is currently the splash on a major New Zealand website. It is dangerous and utterly dishonest.
   This guy is one of the most gullible, uncurious people I’ve ever encountered. He’s going but the damage has been done.”

   https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/leighton-smith-show/opinion/leighton-smith-we-need-to-push-back-on-climate-change-hoax/
8. joe90 8

   8 September 2018 at 12:32 am

   Monbiot, huh.

   /

   The frantic hunt for any clue, however weak, that might exonerate the Russian government continues … https://t.co/5Klhph0y7g— GeorgeMonbiot (@GeorgeMonbiot) September 5, 2018

   One of the great mysteries of life is why people who claim to be on the left go to such lengths to defend Vladimir Putin's hard-right, authoritarian, corrupt, homophobic, misogynistic, fascist-supporting government.— GeorgeMonbiot (@GeorgeMonbiot) September 5, 2018
   • corodale 8.1

     8 September 2018 at 7:33 am

     Monbiot keeping on track for a Knighthood. He’ll be able to do dinner with the likes of John Key, Mick Jagger and all those other British patriots.
9. joe90 9

   8 September 2018 at 12:45 am

   Yeah, give us a sign, please?

   @wekatweets you ok? You've been MIA way too long— LouieTheRed (@LouieTheRed1) September 3, 2018

   https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS