Daily Review 28/07/2016

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 pm, July 28th, 2016 - 31 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

Black lives matter

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 …

31 comments on “Daily Review 28/07/2016 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. adam 1
    28 July 2016 at 6:19 pm

    Weka as per the story about wikileaks on the Huffington post website – it seems the the established media have not picked it up. As of today, only a couple of small outlets have picked it up.

    One did a hit job on wikileaks about the DNC dump, along with the story itself. Which I think does the base story about the womens details being exposed, no favours.

    http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/07/why-did-wikileaks-help-dox-most-of-turkeys-adult-female-population.html

    Time will tell on this one, I’ll keep watching.

    • weka 1.1
      28 July 2016 at 6:55 pm

      thanks adam, that’s a good article (easier to follow than the original). I have a few things to comment on but first need to clarify,


      Mostly, WikiLeaks’ complaints about Tufekci hinged on a technicality: In her article and her tweeting, she initially used the term “dump” to describe WikiLeaks’ actions, referring to both the emails the site hosted and the databases it linked to on its social accounts. WikiLeaks has latched onto the fact that while it hosted the (not actually) “Erdogan emails,” it merely linked to the doxing databases, providing easy access to them to millions of people. (Tufekci said her vague wording was intentional — she didn’t want to make it too easy for her followers to find the databases.) The site tweeted out “WikiLeaks did not publish the databases in question at any time. Please correct” to Tufekci and various other various people. WikiLeaks blocked Tufekci on Twitter, she said, after she started tweeting into the organization’s feed tweets from anti-censorship activists who were openly wishing the dump had never happened.

      So if Wikileaks didn’t publish the database and just linked to it, who did publish it? Or is that irrelevant to the story?

      • adam 1.1.1
        28 July 2016 at 7:14 pm

        I think wikileaks are being a bit disingenuous with the whole linking verser publishing thing. They represent themselves as the goto place for this sort of stuff, leaks I mean.

        The link that Draco T Bastard put up about policy – should have meant they did not link and/or post any personal details. At the very least they broke policy, were lazy, and really should have done some reading before linking.

        Lot of respect for Zeynep Tufekci, brave, brave women. I have to say that twitter war – made wikileaks look like a bunch of prats.

        • weka 1.1.1.1
          28 July 2016 at 7:31 pm

          I still don’t quite get it (and it might not be gettable). Were the doxxing documents completely separate from Wikileaks and they just linked (after the email thing came out)? Or were the doxxing documents part of the same leak, just that someone else published them not Wikileaks (eg the source gave WL one part and the rest to someone else)? I’m guessing the former, but it does seem weird that it’s not clear where they came from. Tufekci did say she tried to make the trail obscure to protect the information.

          I thought WL looked like amateur hour. It made me think that the account isn’t being run very well. Maybe the whole organisation.

          There is a whole thing around this about geek culture and politics. I haven’t quite got it sorted in my thinking yet but it goes something like this. Geeks who in some places were in previous decades of low social status or marginalised, now have high degrees of power due to the IT age. But that’s been a fast change and they haven’t developped ethics within the culture very well. Because of the whole cultural dynamic (internal as well as the overarching culture), there tends to be a concentration of men who value heroism and ego and tend to dismiss the politics of people that they don’t consider important. In other words there is little or no ethos or principle of allowing other people rights to autonomy politically unless it aligns with the dominant geek culture. Hence the whole Social Justice Warrior thing, and hence Wikileaks being heroes but problematic as well. There is no in built feedback system that keeps them honest.

          Obviously I’m talking in broad generalities here (eg there are plenty of geek culture that do have ethics), and it might be useful to place all that in a political axis (is there a large libertarian influence?). But that’s the gist of it. I see it in other spheres as well eg the way that FB is run, allowing images that women object to but removing pictures of women breastfeeding. I find a lot of the practices of those very large geek based organisaitons (google too) have a range of not just values but culture that is probably more dangerous than we are realising.

  2. weka 2
    28 July 2016 at 8:13 pm

    NRT’s take on Labour and the Greens various housing policies,

    “Irresponsible”

    This morning, Green co-leader Metiria Turei said what everyone knows is true: that house prices need to drop if we want to avoid a catastrophic crash and/or a fundamental change away from being a home-owning society. Somewhat predictably, Labour has denounced this as “irresponsible”. Pretty obviously, its not – its what we need to do. So why are they doing this?

    Simple: like National, Labour is in thrall to the landed Boomer vote, and they don’t want to piss off these entitled arseholes before the election. So, they’d rather have a house price crash than tell people that prices can’t go on rising forever.

    But its worse than that, because while seemingly advocating for an eternal bubble and calling any mention of it having to end “irresponsible”, Labour is pursuing exactly the same policies the Greens are to deflate it. Capital gains taxes. A mass affordable home building program. Eliminating tax breaks for landlords. This is exactly what the Greens want to do. Its just that, unlike the Greens, Labour doesn’t want to be open about their policy goal.

    That’s not just irresponsible, it is actively deceitful. And that is simply not acceptable from a political party.

    http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2016/07/irresponsible.html

    • Pat 2.1
      28 July 2016 at 8:17 pm

      shit …could have written it myself…in fact i think I did

    • Colonial Viper 2.2
      28 July 2016 at 8:26 pm

      National will exploit this gap between Greens and Labour all through 2017.

      • tc 2.2.1
        29 July 2016 at 7:48 am

        Labour seemed to be incapable of playing to the conditions.

        • DoublePlusGood 2.2.1.1
          29 July 2016 at 1:13 pm

          Yep, always trying to play off the back foot on a sticky wicket. They need to start attacking the spinners and use good footwork against the slippery quicks.
          After all, they need some quick runs so they can make a bold declaration in time to exploit the pitch as it breaks up. If they play for a draw, well then they’ve lost the series as a whole.
          Crucial to this is that they need to build strong partnerships.

    • marty mars 2.3
      28 July 2016 at 8:28 pm

      Hard hitting indeed and difficult to refute the accusations – if anyone could be bothered to

    • b waghorn 2.4
      28 July 2016 at 8:32 pm

      “Labour is pursuing exactly the same policies the Greens are to deflate it. Capital gains taxes. A mass affordable home building program.”

      And labour have been around long enough to know that sometimes keeping your mouth shut is a good thing, i see the greens getting a hiding over this, all those wealthy voters of theirs won’t like talk of bursting their bubble. (and yes i know the greens don’t want a burst they want a deflate, but i’ll be one of the few punters that does)

      oh and key was tying labour to the greens on tv this morning so they’re fucked to.

      • weka 2.4.1
        28 July 2016 at 8:50 pm

        You’ll be one of the few punters that does what?

        • b waghorn 2.4.1.1
          29 July 2016 at 7:50 am

          Knows that the greens want a slow deflation ,most will decide the greens want a pop.

          • weka 2.4.1.1.1
            29 July 2016 at 2:35 pm

            ah ok.

            Out of curiosity, are you concerned about the policy personally (rather than politically)?

            • b waghorn 2.4.1.1.1.1
              29 July 2016 at 3:21 pm

              I don’t own a house in auckland so no.
              If i did and had a big mortgage you bet i would.

    • Wayne 2.5
      29 July 2016 at 8:39 am

      I think you that find most home owners will not been be keen on a 50% reduction in house prices. Most especially most new home owners who are heavily geared.

      Andrew Little will be more than a little sensitive to that, hence his reaction.

      So sure, support Metiria if you want , but it is hardly fair to accuse Andrew Little of being irresponsible.

      I would note that I think Auckland prices are close to a peak. The slowdown in price increases show that. If there is a significant increase in house supply, would expect the top of the current price to fall maybe up to 20%.

      But a 50% reduction is typically associated with a severe recession and depopulation as in Ireland. Who would want that, expect perhaps the Greens, who on so many occasions have said they don’t like economic growth and want the population to reduce.

      Normally these policies are associated with recession, unless the economy is fundamentally restructured. Some societies are already in slow population decline (France, Japan and Italy). All have problems of economic malaise, which whatever you might say about New Zealand is not a problem we currently face.

      • Pat 2.5.1
        29 July 2016 at 8:49 am

        “I would note that I think Auckland prices are close to a peak. The slowdown in price increases show that. If there is a significant increase in house supply, would expect the top of the current price to fall maybe up to 20%.”

        Assuming there’s any basis to those numbers are you suggesting both National and Labour now advocate a 20% reduction in Auckland house values?

        • Wayne 2.5.1.1
          29 July 2016 at 9:17 am

          It is simply my observation, I could be wrong. But both Labour and National must be anticipating the result of the market peaking.

          Nick Smith for instance was interviewed on TV (Q&A I think) about a soft landing that is occurring in Christchurch now that supply has caught up with demand. He seemed to think that was a good outcome for home buyers, and for the economy.

          He was hoping that some of the Christchurch builders would shift to Auckland to accelerate the build rate up here.

          • DoublePlusGood 2.5.1.1.1
            29 July 2016 at 1:23 pm

            Basic economics: There’s no significant increase in supply, and no signs of a reduction in demand with places like Ray White heavily advertising overseas.
            That means that prices won’t drop in the short term unless one of those changes. Your observation is hopeful, but not realistic.

      • weka 2.5.2
        29 July 2016 at 7:15 pm

        @Wayne,

        “I think you that find most home owners will not been be keen on a 50% reduction in house prices. Most especially most new home owners who are heavily geared.”

        Turei specifically said that new home owners would be protected. How many home owners in Auckland would end up with upside down mortagages? (people who live in the single house they own).

        Someone else has pointed out that there is no solution to the housing crisis that doesn’t negatively affect some people. What’s up for debate now is what is fair.

        “Andrew Little will be more than a little sensitive to that, hence his reaction.

        So sure, support Metiria if you want , but it is hardly fair to accuse Andrew Little of being irresponsible.”

        I have no problem with Labour disagreeing with the Greens. It was how it did it that was a problem. He needs to learn how to disagree without undermining the relationship in the public eye. The Greens made a mistake in not giving him advance warning.

        “I would note that I think Auckland prices are close to a peak. The slowdown in price increases show that. If there is a significant increase in house supply, would expect the top of the current price to fall maybe up to 20%.”

        Yeah, but others disagree, and what the Greens are suggesting is a wide range of policies to address many different aspects of the housing crisis. It’s not just Auckland or Chch either.

        “But a 50% reduction is typically associated with a severe recession and depopulation as in Ireland. Who would want that, expect perhaps the Greens, who on so many occasions have said they don’t like economic growth and want the population to reduce.”

        Citation please for that last sentence. Seriously, you’re not just some random punter making that claim, so please link to 3 substantial examples from the past 5 years.

        “Normally these policies are associated with recession, unless the economy is fundamentally restructured. Some societies are already in slow population decline (France, Japan and Italy). All have problems of economic malaise, which whatever you might say about New Zealand is not a problem we currently face.”

        We’re going to have to fundamentally restructure the economy anyway because of climate change and resource depletion. Brilliant opportunity to refocus on what really matters and it’s not property investment at the expense of others. We have huge economic malaise. Our illness is just of a different kind, but hungry kids and people living in cars IS economic malaise. I assume you are too insulated from it to notice.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 2.5.2.1
          29 July 2016 at 7:26 pm

          He can hardly bite the hands that paid for his appointment.

          • weka 2.5.2.1.1
            29 July 2016 at 7:50 pm

            That being what?

            • One Anonymous Bloke 2.5.2.1.1.1
              30 July 2016 at 8:48 am

              You mentioned property speculators, for example. What good are tables at Cabinet Club (and “charity” golf games) if all the money you spend doesn’t even influence political appointments?

              • weka …
                30 July 2016 at 9:25 am

                Ok, I thought you were being more specific about him having been appointed to something (which I’m unaware of).

    • One Two 4.1
      29 July 2016 at 12:17 am

      Only the roads your mind wants you to take…

      Confirmation bias and all that

      Neither you, me nor anyone else on this site knows what actually went on or who did what

      What is known is that Hillary got a free pass from the FBI for her offline email system, and that the spy services have complete access to whatever info they want anywhere anytime

      Just add it to the list of ‘favours’ owed by Clinton, I’m sure it’s all perfectly above board

      But oh look, A Bear

  5. UncookedSelachimorpha 5
    28 July 2016 at 11:46 pm

    Sickening coverage of today’s “Rich List” announcement on TVNZ 1. No analysis or thought, just propaganda for the lie that the rich give so much back by way of philanthropy. Soundbites from our 1%er PM saying the same. No discussion of how they extract wealth from those around them, distort politics and pay far less than their share of tax.

    Presumably the homeless and impoverished will enjoy the art galleries the rich occasionally deign to fund. The rich choose to contribute (or not) as they please – everyone else just goes to work and pays tax.

    • Nck 5.1
      28 July 2016 at 11:51 pm

      Totally agree, a pr piece for the Uber rich. Ridiculous trash. Key was gross.

    • Ch-ch Chiquita 5.2
      29 July 2016 at 7:46 am

      And no one even mention that if workers were paid at least a living wage, and the rich have paid their fair share of tax there will be less need for philanthropy.