Daily review 08/08/2019

Written By: - Date published: 5:52 pm, August 8th, 2019 - 71 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 …

71 comments on “Daily review 08/08/2019 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Cinny 1
    8 August 2019 at 6:19 pm

    Tracey Martin heart you are an incredible human being. Mad respect for your speech today.
    https://www.parliament.nz/en/WatchParliament/PlayVideo/OnDemand/208232

    The names not crossed out on this list are the ones who voted against the first reading of the Abortion Law Reform Bill. Those with a ‘P’ next to their name voted by proxy, those crossed out voted in favour.

    https://stuff.liveblog.pro/stuff/2019080808080/5b49f7cb44034ced24ea1e7c278934c99ffb0f956e8ee45815924dcb0516764d.png

    • weka 1.1
      8 August 2019 at 6:41 pm

      Total mad respect for her today. Incredible.

      • Anne 1.1.1
        8 August 2019 at 6:54 pm

        Have held her in the utmost respect for around five years. I hope NZ First members recognise what a gem they have in her.

        • weka 1.1.1.1
          8 August 2019 at 7:29 pm

          I've often thought she was in the wrong party. She wasn't. But I don't think they will ever let her have more power than she has.

          • gsays 1.1.1.1.1
            8 August 2019 at 7:50 pm

            Hey weka, welcome back.

            In Tracey Martin I see the next leader of NZ1st.

            I only caught limited snippets and was impressed with what I heard.

            • weka 1.1.1.1.1.1
              8 August 2019 at 8:38 pm

              Hi gsays 🙂

              I'd love to see Martin as leader of NZF, but hard in that culture I think.

          • Jilly Bee 1.1.1.1.2
            8 August 2019 at 8:01 pm

            Agree Weka, Tracey used to be the Deputy Leader until Ron Mark was elected on the party list (again) in 2017 – I'm furiously trying to get a time line on when she was unceremoniously dumped as Deputy Leader and Ron Mark was made DL, who has in turn, if my memory serves me correctly been replaced by Fletcher Tabitau. I'm mightily impressed by Tracey and follow her on her Facebook page. I hope Winston doesn't have a hissy fit and demote her even further.

        • mary_a 1.1.1.2
          8 August 2019 at 8:03 pm

          Anne (1.1.1) … Agree.

          Much respect for Tracey for the way she conducted herself in Parliament today. She's a jewel in the thorny old crown that is prickly NZ First. However I doubt the party sees her as an asset. For NZ First there is only one star allowed in their show and we all know who that is!

    • Rosemary McDonald 1.2
      8 August 2019 at 7:21 pm

      Total agreement Cinny…has me wondering how we can persuade Martin to choose a different waka.

      That list you posted is a great help btw. I'm making it my mission to listen to all the female Members who spoke today, especially the ones who voted against this significant change. This is a women's issue and on this men do not have a voice.

      This legislation will pass without Winston's referendum, but I personally feel it is important that the issues raised by the women who are voting against this legislation are heard and treated with respect.

      I'm half way through Hayes' speech and she makes some good points. There needs to be better support for women whatever choice they make. There needs to be acknowledgement of tikanga and the importance of whakapapa.

      https://www.parliament.nz/en/watch-parliament/ondemand?itemId=208228

      Louise 'I'm not a feminist' Upston speaks from her own personal experience, and I respect her for that. It very much needs to be put out there that this is not simply a matter of chanting 'My body, my choice!'.

      • Cinny 1.2.1
        8 August 2019 at 8:20 pm

        For sures, that list spoke volumes, found it via stuff's live feed of the reading. Kudos to them for posting it.

        So pleased re the large majority.

    • weka 1.3
      8 August 2019 at 7:28 pm

      @AnnaGConnell:

      "The blindsiding and undermining of Tracey Martin, one of two female MPs in NZ First, by the men in her party, men to whom the abortion law reform does not apply, is one of the grossest things I’ve seen in politics in a while."

      https://twitter.com/AnnaGConnell/status/1159325763075633153

      • Anne 1.3.1
        8 August 2019 at 7:48 pm

        Of course it doesn't just apply to NZ First men. I have been cynically amused by the fact more men than women seem to have expressed their views to the media on the proposed abortion law reform. They apparently believe they are the experts in the field. Their arrogance and ignorance never fails to astound me.

      • Cinny 1.3.2
        8 August 2019 at 8:22 pm

        Welcome back Weka smileyyes

  2. Robert Guyton 2
    8 August 2019 at 6:20 pm

    Big turnout, turned down as Hamilton councillors reject climate emergency

    "A reporter said they'd never seen a council turn out like this before. It was positively electric.

    But that's where it ended.

    When it happened, it wasn't sudden but it spread through the room like a bad smell."

    "

    The divide was clear. And it was male. And it looked over 45-year-old.

    Praise for the speakers washed meaninglessly across the audience as they desperately waited for their will to be realised.

    Some sought a rejection of a climate change being considered an emergency, others a declaration. Some wanted climate change rejected altogether, others a plan for the future.

    Ultimately, eight aging councillors ignored the voices of 300 of Hamilton's youth protesters. Climate change was decidedly not an emergency, for now."

    8 ageing councillors – love it!

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/114850557/big-turnout-turned-down-as-hamilton-councillors-reject-climate-emergency

    • greywarshark 2.1
      8 August 2019 at 6:26 pm

      Good to get that clear before the elections end of Sept-ish. Now is the time for all good young people to come to the aid of the country!!

      • Robert Guyton 2.1.1
        8 August 2019 at 6:27 pm

        But will they, can they, vote?

        • greywarshark 2.1.1.1
          8 August 2019 at 6:36 pm

          Stands and declaims – 'To be or not to be that is the question.'

          The answer probably is resolved in the rest of the speech from Shakespeare? In other words, I am clueless.

          To be, or not to be, that is the question:
          Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
          The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
          Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_be,_or_not_to_be

  3. Robert Guyton 3
    8 August 2019 at 6:22 pm

    "Doctors have hit back at Fonterra's claim that cow's milk is better for the environment.

    They said that not only was the dairy industry more damaging to the environment, it also contributed to a number of human diseases, including a raised risk of cancer and allergies."

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/114850186/doctors-refute-fonterras-claim-that-cows-milk-more-environment-friendly

    • weka 3.1
      8 August 2019 at 6:42 pm

      maybe there's a connection there. Produce milk in shitty ways and you get health problems in the people drinking it.

    • Psycho Milt 3.2
      8 August 2019 at 6:52 pm

      Might be better to say "Activists have hit back at Fonterra's claim…"

      The article features a number of signs that activists are talking:

      1. They belong to a lobby group.

      2. They make the irrelevant complaint that "the Swedish researchers worked for the dairy industry and the findings were published in a little read journal."

      3. This one's awesome: "…the nutrition provided by cow's milk was unnecessary…" because "None of the nutrients contained in cow's milk are unique, they are all found in whole plant foods with the exception of vitamin B12, which is found in other animal products or can be supplemented." To see why this is an activist argument, consider that Fonterra might well say the nutrients contained in whole plant foods is unnecessary because none of it's unique and can be found in richer quantities in cow's milk, including vitamin B12. These guys seriously want you to eat plants.

      4. "He said the protein found in cow's milk increased insulin-like growth factor levels, which raised the risk of breast and prostate cancer. There was also a link with type 1 diabetes." Well, maybe. Studies show all kinds of things, and even the "evidence" they cite says "the preponderance of data suggests a slight increased risk of some cancers due to higher activity of the IGF system," which isn't exactly a chilling warning about a clear and present danger, just the usual "we did our best to torture the results into confessing, but it remains pretty inconclusive."

      5. They even drag lactose intolerance into it. Yes, some people are lactose intolerant and should avoid dairy – that's no argument that people who aren't lactose intolerant should avoid it. Also, they ignore the fact that the reason the genes for lactose tolerance spread so rapidly in herding populations was the high nutritional value of dairy products – natural selection meant the people who could eat dairy were more likely to survive. Lactose tolerance remains a poster boy for how fast an evolutionary advantage can spread in a human population.

      6. Right at the end, the activism is made clear: "The group advocates the use of whole-food plant-based eating to treat a large number of lifestyle illnesses such as heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer's and several cancers." Well, as someone with diabetes I can tell these activists that what diabetics need is low-carb food, for which animal products are great and plant foods generally aren't. When I stopped listening to bullshit like this from doctors and went low-carb I cut my insulin dosage in half. It's fallen even further since.

      • Robert Guyton 3.2.1
        8 August 2019 at 7:24 pm

        Were they doctors..or not?

      • weka 3.2.2
        8 August 2019 at 7:47 pm

        I hate that vegan misinformation about nutrition. There's nothing wrong with being vegan for ethical reasons, no need to mislead people. I wouldn't call this activism so much as proselytising.

        This one's awesome: "…the nutrition provided by cow's milk was unnecessary…" because "None of the nutrients contained in cow's milk are unique, they are all found in whole plant foods with the exception of vitamin B12, which is found in other animal products or can be supplemented." To see why this is an activist argument, consider that Fonterra might well say the nutrients contained in whole plant foods is unnecessary because none of it's unique and can be found in richer quantities in cow's milk, including vitamin B12. These guys seriously want you to eat plants.

        It gets worse. Nutrients like omega 3 are different in plants than animals foods, and easier to get from animals. Omegas are already a significant issue for humans, especially with the pressures on fish stocks. That's going to get worse. Industrial milk has less optimal omega ratios, so we're screwed there too. I see Fonterra and EBENZ as cut from the same cloth, both causing problems driven by ideology.

    • Jilly Bee 3.3
      8 August 2019 at 8:05 pm

      I love Oat Milk on my porridge or whatever cereal I eat, it's yummmmm. I refuse to purchase Sanitarium products though and buy Vita Soy. Hope they pay their share of company tax to the Australian tax system.

    • Ian 3.4
      8 August 2019 at 8:26 pm

      3 doctors on the end of the bell curve.As likely to make you sick as make you well.

  4. Robert Guyton 4
    8 August 2019 at 6:37 pm

    Julie Anne Genter dealt with questions in the House today with verve and aplomb.

    • Psycho Milt 4.1
      8 August 2019 at 9:24 pm

      She was noticeably more confident than yesterday. Chris Bishop and whoever-that-was might as well have read out their grocery shopping lists, for all the good it did them. Very nice to see.

  5. Fireblade 5
    8 August 2019 at 6:44 pm

    Where was the part-time leader of the opposition today? Did he have another Women's Weekly photoshoot with his kids?

  6. Exkiwiforces 6
    8 August 2019 at 6:51 pm

    For those who love industrial history and Shipbuilding weather it’s Naval or MN ships, might want to know that Harland and Wolff has gone into administration and the prospects of it being kept as a going concern are pretty grim as H&W has been on some sort of life support for a years or a decade now.

    https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/what-does-the-closure-of-harland-and-wolff-shipyard-mean-for-the-royal-navy/

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harland_and_Wolff

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_built_by_Harland_and_Wolff

    I’m not sure what’s going to happen to the local Football (FA) team called the Harland and Wolff Wielders Team which was formed in 1965 by the Wielders at H&W.

    • McFlock 6.1
      8 August 2019 at 9:43 pm

      Yeah, saw that – end of an era. My grandad captained one of their ships.

      [clears throat, adjusts tie]

      He drove it onto rocks.

      • Pat 6.1.1
        8 August 2019 at 11:12 pm

        not an iceberg?

      • Anne 6.1.2
        8 August 2019 at 11:14 pm

        I can equal that. My father was in the Royal Navy back in the day. His job when arriving in port was to lower the gangplank for Queen Mary to board the ship. He badly misjudged and came within inches of decapitating her. Spent 24 hrs in the brig for that misdemeanour.

    • Andre 7.1
      8 August 2019 at 7:21 pm

      Nah, vodka's boring. I might be curious enough to give it a shot if it were something like mezcal with a two-headed worm.

  9. joe90 9
    8 August 2019 at 7:34 pm

    When comedy does a better job than the media.

    https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/1159139809597767682

  10. Infused 10
    8 August 2019 at 7:52 pm

    No one talking about bennets claim?

    • Robert Guyton 10.1
      8 August 2019 at 8:47 pm

      Which was?

    • Rosemary McDonald 10.2
      8 August 2019 at 8:54 pm

      No one talking about bennets claim?

      https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/396271/paula-bennett-claims-staffer-approached-her-over-harassment

      Stupid ploy. Of all people to have as the fearless defender of women. The universe must have flexed when that one awoke one day, reincarnated as a woman who gives a shit about women. I was open minded about this latest scandal, but I'm fast turning doubter.

      I just can't envisage any woman seeing that woman as an ally, much less one having a shoulder conducive for crying upon.

      • Psycho Milt 10.4.1
        8 August 2019 at 9:20 pm

        You can only assume that if Bennett's claim is true, the Labour person either mistook her for someone else or has been living in a cave for the last 12 years.

        • ianmac 10.4.1.1
          8 August 2019 at 9:33 pm

          Maybe the "complainant" is really a plant to make trouble for Labour. If so would it be a "dirty trick?" Nah. Surely not!

        • Rosemary McDonald 10.4.1.2
          8 August 2019 at 9:45 pm

          Or, and this is a reach, the Labour person is in fact not a 'Labour person' at all. She is someone who works/worked for someone who is "Labour" but has no actual affiliation to Labour per se. When complaints to Labour fell on unsympathetic ground she, having no particular loyalty to Labour, complained to the person who she felt would make the loudest noise.

          Silly.

          • McFlock 10.4.1.2.1
            8 August 2019 at 10:14 pm

            To be fair, back whenever I'd encounter someone being screwed by WINZ, they'd have the best results going to the local opposition MP.
            One flatmate had winz calling with an apology and almost immediate funds in the time between going to the electorate office and getting home.

            But – going to Paula Bennett? That's desperation…

            • Rosemary McDonald 10.4.1.2.1.1
              8 August 2019 at 10:38 pm

              But – going to Paula Bennett? That's desperation…

              I know, right? The more you think about it the less sense it makes.

              Maybe Psycho Milt is right and the complainant has been living in a cave for the past 12 years and had no sense of her reputation for…misogyny.

              • Muttonbird …
                8 August 2019 at 10:49 pm

                It's pretty obvious Paula Bennett went to the complainant rather than the other way around.

                The Nats have form for this strategy where they seek out people unhappy with the government the Labour Party and offer them money ‘support’. The Meka Whaitiri incident, Karol Sroubek's ex-wife, and the Kraatskows are examples.

                Mitchell is the other one who busies himself with this behaviour.

                • Rapunzel …
                  9 August 2019 at 6:24 am

                  This makes sense in regard to a lot of things and of course certain media feed off it.

                  Comments in this "objective" (nothing is ever fully that but I believe it is honest opinion) observation in regard to the current government and the speaker's performance are, in as many of the ways as you could hope, about as good as government can in reality be. They are people and the Governents intention and goals in important ways are very different to the Opposition's.

                  https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12256910

          • Anne 10.4.1.2.2
            8 August 2019 at 10:56 pm

            Well, if it is silly then I'm silly too. I began to suspect it yesterday when I discovered that despite the claimed level of seriousness… no-one saw fit to go to the police. There are numerous parliamentary staff members who are not affiliated to the party of their political bosses.

            I once knew a journalist who was a member of the Labour Party, yet he became a press secretary to a National minister

            Edit: Yes Muttonbird… considerations pertaining to financial transactions crossed my mind too.

            • McFlock 10.4.1.2.2.1
              8 August 2019 at 11:12 pm

              I think the reported complaints likely have a foundation that needs investigating – not everyone wants to go to police, even if it's serious enough.

              But the thought does occur that Paula Bennett wouldn't be above inventing this "complainant" coming to her. She doesn't have to prove anything or give any information, and nobody can prove her wrong. And she's got a history of playing fast and loose with the lives and personal information of individuals if there's political advantage in it for her – this keeps whatever happened in Labour in the news, and improves her visibility as the nats' foundering polls drag its leader into the wine-dark sea.

            • Psycho Milt 10.4.1.2.2.2
              9 August 2019 at 5:10 am

              Lack of complaints to the Police doesn't necessarily mean anything. For example, one of the complaints was that he told a woman she'd had her position in the party because she was sexually attractive – that's a complaint for the party leadership to deal with, not the Police. The other complaints could be of a similarly non-criminal nature.

              • Anne …
                9 August 2019 at 10:27 am

                Perhaps I should clarify more but am always mindful of the fact it's better to keep comments as brief as possible.

                I was referring to the complaints of a sexual nature and in particular the rape claim. That is a matter for the police and while I understand the fear of reporting such cases (I went through it years ago over a severe case of harassment and came out the other end badly scathed) it seems to me since there was a group of them able to support one another that if the rape claim was correct then the police should have been informed.

  11. Robert Guyton 11
    8 August 2019 at 8:46 pm

    "Unless greenhouse gas emissions are reduced in the immediate future, the report warns of "irreversible loss in land ecosystem functions and services required for food, health, habitable settlements and production".

    That will lead to significant economic impacts on many countries around the world.

    However, the report also indicates that far more efficient farming methods could dramatically increase food output while keeping emissions in check.

    More people eating plant-based food, including grains, beans, nuts and seeds produced in efficient systems, could open up millions of square kilometres of productive land, as could more efficient forms of animal farming.

    "We still need to produce food obviously, but sustainable production is really key to ensuring that we produce food but don't damage our environment in the process," Wreford said.

    More advanced farming technologies, which are less intensive on the soil and make better use of resources are one area where New Zealand is leading the game. "

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/114864986/the-land-below-us-is-withering-away-food-water-and-lands-at-risk-due-to-climate-change-says-ipcc-report