Daily Review 19/09/2016

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, September 19th, 2016 - 68 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

not radical

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 …

68 comments on “Daily Review 19/09/2016 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Richard Rawshark 1
    19 September 2016 at 6:11 pm

    Colin Craig gives us the reason there were monasteries in the old days where we could shuffle weird fellows like him.

    • Draco T Bastard 1.1
      19 September 2016 at 6:30 pm

      Yeah, and look what happened when we did:

      The Crusades
      The Inquisition
      The general denigration of women
      People getting vilified for finding out scientific truth that was contrary to what the church taught

      And the list goes on.

      Much better to keep these people in public view so that we can dis-empower them.

      • Colonial Viper 1.1.1
        19 September 2016 at 7:01 pm

        Monastics also brought Europe back out of the Dark Ages.

        Don’t be so bloody selective and narrow in your perspective. Without their salvaging and protection of the knowledge of antiquity, your precious western enlightenment would have been delayed for maybe 500 years, and you’d be wondering today if the universe really orbited the Earth, let alone all the rest of the liberal lefty dogma.

        • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.1
          19 September 2016 at 8:39 pm

          Monastics also brought Europe back out of the Dark Ages.

          [citation needed]

          Did Christianity cause the Dark Ages?

          It seems that we probably have more to thank the Muslims for rise for maintaining the early base.

          But then, Would humans be more advanced if the Dark Ages never happened?

          So Western Europe was unquestionably more advanced in the 15th Century than it was in the 5th Century. Elsewhere in the world, where progress was continuous and just as rapid, there isn’t even a question. We can safely say that the fall of the Roman Empire had minimal effect on technological progress in China and India.

          It seems that technologically we were advancing across the world whether there was monastics or not.

      • RedLogix 1.1.2
        19 September 2016 at 10:07 pm

        An interesting topic guys.

        I’d argue that there were definitely several major factors all at work:

        1. The Christian monastics can definitely be credited with preserving at least some of the classical heritage, and providing sanctuaries in which some level of literacy and scholastic traditions survived. While it’s probably true to say that much of this traditional knowledge had stagnated, it’s also true that without it any new influences would have fallen on much more barren soil.

        2. The Crusades absolutely exposed Europe far more intimately to influence of Islam. For at least the first 600 yrs after Mohammad there is no question that the Islamic civilisations progressed far more rapidly than anywhere else in the world. For instance the notion of citizenship and equality before the law are all first clearly espoused within Islam, not Europe. These were imported ideas.

        3. The Black Death essentially overturned the feudal economic model in Europe, liberating talent and opportunity in equal measure.

        4. The development of mercantilism in Europe was accelerated by the invention of banking; capitalism at least in it’s infancy was a huge stimulus.

        5. Other aspects such as a temperate climate, ready access to sea lanes, and a solid base of metals and coal also assisted.

        And I’d imagine a real scholar could bang off a far longer list, but these are what come to the top of my mind.

  2. vto 2
    19 September 2016 at 6:22 pm

    I am quite staggered by the number of people today with large wads of capital financing a life of ease, no work, walking the dog, coffee, new range rovers, winter escapes and summer sleeps….

    it kinda matches the number of people today with nothing whatsoever….

    it is all up the boohai

    • Draco T Bastard 2.1
      19 September 2016 at 6:32 pm

      it kinda matches the number of people today with nothing whatsoever….

      Yes, the more a few have the less the majority have.

      • vto 2.1.1
        19 September 2016 at 6:39 pm

        In the olden days I recall in our community most everyone played a role and contributed to its wellbeing. Today there is one huge number of people who actually do not play a role and do not contribute to its wellbeing. This huge number of people are, really, bludgers …

        That is the reality of their daily existence

        keep an eye out for them, they are quite easy to spot ….

        and they aint the unemployed or poor

        • Richard Rawshark 2.1.1.1
          19 September 2016 at 7:12 pm

          But what should people spend their day doing . Bearing in mind you only have one life, and it could end in 1 second.

        • BM 2.1.1.2
          19 September 2016 at 7:18 pm

          You need to get a hobby old boy, spending your retirement worrying about what everyone else is doing.

          Enjoy the time you have left.

          • vto 2.1.1.2.1
            19 September 2016 at 8:05 pm

            heh, I aint that old, and I aint worrying about what everyone else is doing… I am though worrying about our society and its future…

            I don’t think it is that rosy in the short to mid term and the above phenomenon I consider an indicator of our society’s directional movement …

            no more no less

        • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1.3
          19 September 2016 at 8:50 pm

          Today there is one huge number of people who actually do not play a role and do not contribute to its wellbeing. This huge number of people are, really, bludgers …

          They’re not a huge number but they are bludgers.

      • Halfcrown 2.1.2
        19 September 2016 at 6:40 pm

        “Yes, the more a few have the less the majority have.”

        An excellent snippet of wisdom there Draco. Please, can I add it to my list of quotable quotes?

    • Wayne 2.2
      19 September 2016 at 9:49 pm

      Presumably they are mostly retired, and are in their mid 60’s. And probably looking a lot more healthy and active than people who were in their mid 60’s a generation or two ago (1970’s and 1980’s) and who were once known as the blue rinse brigade – the women I guess.

      Lots of retired farmers, professionals, business people and senior civil servants would be able to afford what you have set out, (and pretty much always have) except that travel is now a lot cheaper.

      I would also note a lot of them are very active in their communities in clubs, charities and community activity. For instance people in this group were pretty much the driving force behind saving the Takapuna motor camp, which has become a really big issue on The Shore. In part standing up for “the local” within the big city.

  3. adam 3
    19 September 2016 at 6:25 pm

    I forgot I liked DNews, and have been going on a binge catching up. Here is a cool video explaining the Ozone Layer. Isn’t it great when science wins.

    • Richard Rawshark 3.1
      19 September 2016 at 7:21 pm

      Next we’ll actually find the factor 100 skin lotions they bleated on about, are more harmful and cancer causing than the sun.

      • corokia 3.1.1
        19 September 2016 at 9:25 pm

        On average a New Zealander dies every day from skin cancer.

        IF, as you suggest, skin lotions might be harmful, exactly which fatal conditions are they causing?

        • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1
          19 September 2016 at 9:47 pm

          Most of the ingredients are toxic, or which toxicity is largely unknown. The problems they cause to individuals will depend on what is already going on with the individuals’ health.

        • weka 3.1.1.2
          20 September 2016 at 7:37 am

          As well as any toxicity issues, there’s the fact that sunscreens block the vitamin D production that happens due to UV exposure on the skin. It will take time for the problems with that to show up in populations but low vitamin D levels in the general population (as opposed to people who get no sun like geriatric patients) are increasingly thought to be a factor in the genesis of multiple diseases. There is a trade off going on, we don’t yet know what we swapped skin cancer for.

          Another fuck up brought to us by the reductionist medical model used in public health.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.1.2.1
            20 September 2016 at 8:22 am

            Really?

            Conclusions: No person, including those aged 70 years and over, developed any vitamin D levels outside the normal reference range during the period of the study…

            No, not really…

            Well, maybe sorta kinda…

            …normal usage does not generally result in vitamin D insufficiency.

            I bet stress caused by worrying about phantom sunscreen-related vitamin d deficiency is a health hazard though.

            • weka 3.1.1.2.1.1
              20 September 2016 at 9:47 am

              Those links are research from 1995 and 2009. Most of the work I’ve seen done on Vit D has been more recent. Further, consider that there might be differences in studying say Australians, and Brits or Southlanders, and that there is questioning about the reference range for Vit D serum levels, and that is coming from medical people.

              As with other public health fuck ups (eg the fat hypothesis), it took decades of medical people and research scientists (as well as non-medical activists) raising these issues before they got taken seriously enough to be looked at. Pulling a couple of references off the internet, esp one that is old, doesn’t really address an issue that is as complex as this. RCTs are great, but looking at them in isolation is the precise problem in the mindset that leads to the fuck ups.

    • Colonial Viper 3.2
      19 September 2016 at 7:24 pm

      ” Isn’t it great when science wins.”

      partially solving a global crisis caused by science, by using science, isn’t a “win.”

      At best, it’s a tie. If you’re feeling generous.

      • Draco T Bastard 3.2.1
        19 September 2016 at 8:52 pm

        The problem wasn’t caused by science but by commercialism.

        • Colonial Viper 3.2.1.1
          19 September 2016 at 9:00 pm

          Whatever Draco, whatever.

          Last I looked, CFCs were designed and mass manufactured by chemists.

          • weka 3.2.1.1.1
            20 September 2016 at 7:41 am

            true and scientists do the research and write the reports that industry relies on for both manufacturing and PR.

            Plus the cultural mindset that underpins Western science also supports capitalism. They’re like twins.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 3.2.1.1.1.1
              20 September 2016 at 7:49 am

              “the cultural mindset that underpins Western science”, eh.

              So for example, when I asked for a lay summation of the scientific method at Realclimate, the best answer was “honesty and curiosity”.

              I suppose that isn’t what you meant.

              • Colonial Viper …
                20 September 2016 at 8:26 am

                The “scientific method” isn’t the problem; the problem is science being hired and put to use as a tool for profit by the most powerful corporate and extractive forces driving our economy today.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  20 September 2016 at 8:33 am

                  Knowledge gets put to use by pretty much everyone. Exhibit a: the AK47.

                  I agree that the profit motive has inherent problems. Show me a motive that doesn’t.

                  Baby, meet bathwater.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    20 September 2016 at 8:39 am

                    I agree with you 100%. So it seems obvious why the general public is sometimes unimpressed with the large scale endeavour of science when sometimes it gives to the public good with one hand, and sometimes it takes away from the public good with the other. Eg. CFCs which started this discussion.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      20 September 2016 at 8:46 am

                      Nothing about public opinion “seems obvious” if you ask me: trying to think of a good metaphor has me thinking about the Pamplona bull run. It follows a predictable path and yet changes direction frequently. Don’t be standing in the way.

              • weka …
                20 September 2016 at 9:51 am

                “the cultural mindset that underpins Western science”, eh.

                So for example, when I asked for a lay summation of the scientific method at Realclimate, the best answer was “honesty and curiosity”.

                I suppose that isn’t what you meant.

                Of course it isn’t. The irony here is that if we look at the medical field it is full of dishonesty, by their own admission.

                As for curiosity, instead of dropping a smart arse reactionary comment that basically takes us nowhere, you could actually engage with the idea in the spirit of where curiosity might take us. In the meantime I will assume that you don’t understand what I meant /shrug

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  20 September 2016 at 10:15 am

                  OK: I think the notion of ascribing a single mindset to as diverse and wonderful a field as science is prejudicial, to say the least.

                  And like other forms of prejudice, it is also wrong, and useless.

                  Please be more specific. For example, how does the oft-repeated saw that as individuals, scientists are less motivated by material wealth than the rest of us fit into this mindset?

                  • weka …
                    20 September 2016 at 12:06 pm

                    “OK: I think the notion of ascribing a single mindset to as diverse and wonderful a field as science is prejudicial, to say the least.”

                    Not sure what you mean there exactly. I’m not saying that science has a single mindset, is that what you meant? Or did you mean that I was saying that everyone in science has this particular mindset? (also not what I am saying). What I am saying is that there are particular world views that underpin Western science, both in its evolution and in its current practice. Those world views bring benefits and problems. I was pointing to the problems and comparing them to the problems with capitalism (because in this context I don’t think evil capitalism alone explains the mistakes that science makes).

                    “Please be more specific. For example, how does the oft-repeated saw that as individuals, scientists are less motivated by material wealth than the rest of us fit into this mindset?”

                    I’ve not heard that saw before, and I wouldn’t believe it. Scientists are a group of humans like everyone else. What would make them less motivated by material wealth than others? (if you want to compare them to merchant bankers you might have a point).

                    But even it it were true, it doesn’t inherently negate my contention that there is a worldview underpinning Western science that causes problems. It doesn’t have anything to do with that.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      20 September 2016 at 12:19 pm

                      The saw follows the narrative that they are motivated more by curiosity than wealth.

                      Please would you name or provide an example that illustrates the worldview? Curiosity killed the cat?

  4. Janice 4
    19 September 2016 at 6:32 pm

    Our dear leader has just appeared on Newshub coming out of the UN building with Helen Clark. He looked stupid standing there with both of his hands in his pockets, just like he did when walking with Malcolm Turnball a few weeks ago. Does he feel the need to keep his hands in his pockets because:
    a. He has a Michael Jackson complex and wants to keep his hands clean at all times.
    b. He needs to keep his hands tethered in case of passing temping pony tails.
    c. He is financially insecure and wants to assure himself that he has money in his pocket.
    d. He is playing with himself.
    I can’t recall any other male in the public eye who has this weird habit.

  5. Anne 5
    19 September 2016 at 6:41 pm

    Dirty Politics is alive and well and Cameron Slater is in the thick of it. Wonder what is fee is these days?

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/201816735/dirty-politics-hits-mayoral-candidates-in-nelson-and-marlboroug

    • mac1 5.1
      19 September 2016 at 7:12 pm

      I’d ask another question. Who is paying his fee, and that of his mate Simon Lusk, of dirty politics infamy, as well? Why is Slater interested? Because his mate Lusk is. Why is Lusk so interested that he comes to Marlborough and holds a seminar to aid far right wing candidates. Who is living outside of Marlborough yet wants to use dirty politics tactics to attack a more middle of the road candidate who has the front running? Why is this just come out at the time when council voting papers are mailed out?

      I’d say follow the money. Who is interested in having an ineffective and right wing mayor in a province in which water, fish, mussels, timber, cows and grapes are raw products waiting to be profited from?

      This in a province with low wages and eighty per cent of the grape industry owned outside of the area and the country; where Talley, that family which loathes unions, owns considerable industry; where waterways, the sea-bed and the land are being degraded by primary industries like fishing, forestry and grapes, and water is described as the new white gold.

      Hmmm………..

      • Anne 5.1.1
        19 September 2016 at 7:36 pm

        OK. So the key word is Talley. Well, they’re rolling in the moneyed stuff so I guess these two fine upstanding NZers, Lusk and Slater are merely doing necessary research into the effects the Talley industries (and others?) are having on the local community and how best to manipulate that community in the interests of the market economy – but in particular their own…

        • mac1 5.1.1.1
          19 September 2016 at 7:57 pm

          No, I can’t say it is Talley. But it’s bound to be money, profit, exploitation, behind it. Talleys are one firm among many who profit from what is akin to a third world economy, where profits from primary industry are extracted out of the province as the West does to Third World economies, slave labour and all.

      • Cinny 5.1.2
        20 September 2016 at 5:55 am

        No way PT would have anything to do with whale blubber, js I used to work for him, PT may be many things but I can tell you he is not the type to have dealings with cameron sack of shit slater

    • Richard Rawshark 5.2
      19 September 2016 at 7:23 pm

      I saw a pic on his twitter account of him, in like a black leather waistcoat with” Dirty politics original” patch sewn on it, like he was some hard guy gang member. Trying damn hard to look as mean as he can posing.

      knob.

  6. b waghorn 6
    19 September 2016 at 7:09 pm

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11712679

    Another day another national party failure that the taxpayer has to tidy up

    • Pat 6.1
      19 September 2016 at 7:36 pm

      “It is not fair to describe queries about the Convention Centre as being “palmed off” to DPMC, as ministers and Crown agents have legal, contractual and commercial constraints, which opposition MPs do not have,” he said.

      and are able to hide behind that delightfully useful phrase “commercial sensitivity”

    • Sabine 6.2
      19 September 2016 at 9:39 pm

      it’s a honey pot, innit?