Daily Review 28/07/2017

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, July 28th, 2017 - 37 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 …

37 comments on “Daily Review 28/07/2017 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Peroxide Blonde 1
    28 July 2017 at 6:07 pm

    Willie Jackson’s Orewa Speech is nearly a sell out I see. They only have 10 tickets left.

  2. joe90 2
    28 July 2017 at 6:11 pm

    Preemptive, too?.

    A senior U.S. military official said Thursday that he would launch a nuclear strike against China next week if President Trump ordered it.

    “The answer would be: yes,” said Adm. Scott Swift, commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, in response to a hypothetical question from an academic at an Australian National University security conference in Canberra.

    He also warned against the military ever shifting its allegiance from Trump, its commander in chief.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/07/27/u-s-pacific-fleet-commander-id-launch-nuclear-strike-against-china-if-trump-ordered/515410001/

    • McFlock 2.1
      28 July 2017 at 6:31 pm

      yeah, that’s the problem with the nuclear deterrence.

      Even if they wouldn’t, they have to say they would. Otherwise it’s not much of a deterrent. The idea is to stop people starting wars by threatenening a devastating retaliation.

      But if there’s a moron like trump in charge, saying they would follow his orders increases the risk that there will be a pre-emptive strike by the US. This increases the incentive for an adversary’s pre-emptive attack, because that would lower the strength of the US retaliation compared to a US pre-emptive strike.

      Game theory is fine when all the players are competent and rational. If one decision-maker is neither, then all bets are off.

      • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1
        28 July 2017 at 6:34 pm

        Even if they wouldn’t, they have to say they would. Otherwise it’s not much of a deterrent. The idea is to stop people starting wars by threatenening a devastating retaliation.

        And that’s why missile shields are considered a first strike weapon as they allow countries to attack with apparent impunity.

        Game theory is fine when all the players are competent and rational. If one decision-maker is neither, then all bets are off.

        Especially when the irrational one thinks that nothing bad can ever happen to him.

        • McFlock 2.1.1.1
          28 July 2017 at 10:48 pm

          No, the missile shield doesn’t actually increase the risk of a preemptive strike by the people building the missile shield. Having an incompetent or irrational leader does.

          • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1.1.1
            28 July 2017 at 10:55 pm

            First-strike enabling weapons systems

            Any missile defense system capable of wide-area (e.g. continental) coverage, and especially those enabling destruction of missiles in the boost phase, are first-strike-enabling weapons because they allow for a nuclear strike to be launched with reduced fear of mutual assured destruction.

            Comprende?

            • McFlock 2.1.1.1.1.1
              28 July 2017 at 11:20 pm

              Same section continued without omission:

              Such a system has never been deployed, although a limited continental missile defense capability has been deployed by the U.S., but is capable of defending against only a handful of missiles.

              This does not apply, in general, to terminal missile defense systems, such as the former U.S. Safeguard Program or the Russian A-35/A-135 systems. Limited-area terminal missile defense systems, defending such targets as ICBM fields, or C4ISTAR facilities may, in fact, be stabilizing, because they ensure survivable retaliatory capacity, and/or survivable de-escalation capacity.
              This also might not apply to a “non-discriminatory” space-based missile defense system, even if it is—actually, precisely because it is—of global reach. Such a system would be designed to destroy all weapons launched by any nation in a ballistic trajectory, negating any nation’s capability to launch any strike with ballistic missiles, assuming the system was sufficiently robust to repel attacks from all potential threats, and built to open standards openly agreed upon and adhered to. No such system has yet been seriously proposed.

              “A handful of missiles” does not reduce the fear of MAD.

              ¿Comprende?

              • Draco T Bastard …
                29 July 2017 at 1:15 am

                Yeah, I left that bit out because it doesn’t apply.

                Now, lets go back to what you said and I replied to you and I’ll explain it in little words so that you can understand:

                yeah, that’s the problem with the nuclear deterrence.

                Even if they wouldn’t, they have to say they would. Otherwise it’s not much of a deterrent. The idea is to stop people starting wars by threatenening a devastating retaliation.

                You said that for a nuclear deterrence to work those with the missiles need to say that they would use it else it’s not a deterrence.

                To that I said that’s why a missile shield is considered a first strike weapon as it removes the threat of a retaliatory strike. Being threatened with a nuclear retaliatory strike no longer brings the same devastation. Under such conditions MAD no longer applies and thus we assume that the risk of a first strike does increase especially when a madman is at the helm.

                And that’s actually where I stopped.

                After that you went off on all sorts of weird tangents which had nothing to do with my comment which supported and expanded your original comment.

                • McFlock …
                  29 July 2017 at 1:32 am

                  A specific type of missile shield with a specific level of effectiveness, which I meant to be clear on because of some other discussions on TS about ABM deployments.

                  But any flavour of incompetent and/or irrational leader can start a war that no competent or rational leader would intend, especially if the main doctrine of preventing said war relies on rationality.

                  anyhoo, I’m off to bed

  3. Ad 3
    28 July 2017 at 6:15 pm

    Great illustration.

    Mickey is that one of yours?

  4. adam 4
    28 July 2017 at 6:27 pm

    WooHoo! Wheel you good thing.

  5. Andre 5
    28 July 2017 at 6:31 pm

    Wow. McCain must have been given a few cement pills with the rest of his recent treatment. He hardened right up, found his spine, and shoved Trumpcare back into the grave it was trying to rise from.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/07/28/watch_the_moment_john_mccain_killed_trumpcare.html

    • miravox 5.1
      28 July 2017 at 6:37 pm

      Now for committee to fix and rename the affordable care act so it looks shiny and new.

      Not that healthcare reform will ever work until they accept that universal healthcare is the right objective and that promoting private healthcare simply make that happen.

      • Andre 5.1.1
        28 July 2017 at 6:52 pm

        A very solid majority of Americans think universal healthcare is the right thing and want it in the US. The problem is how to get there from where they are now.

        There’s the health insurance industry, which isn’t going to let itself get massively downsized without a fight.

        There’s the fact that most insured Americans get their insurance as a mostly-employer-paid benefit. So government provided healthcare removes a huge part of the cost to employers to provide the employees “compensation package” and has to increase taxes somewhere to pay for it instead. That tax is likely to appear as a tax deduction on the employee’s payslip, rather than as “employee portion of health insurance premium” right next to the much larger “employer payment of health insurance premium”.

        So it’s a bit like Maine locals say when you ask for directions – “you cain’t get theah from heah”, or “ohhh, if I were goin’ theah I wouldn’t start from heah”

        • miravox 5.1.1.1
          28 July 2017 at 7:37 pm

          I just noted my mangled last sentence (oops, sorry).

          Yeah, ‘they’ – i.e. the lawmakers. I can see that the majority of Americans want universal healthcare – and yeah – the private insurers – promoting private healthcare simply won’t make that happen. Even free marketeers should see that this is the case. There’s not a profit-focused health insurance company in the world that wants to take on low income, high needs people.

        • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1.2
          28 July 2017 at 8:57 pm

          There’s the health insurance industry, which isn’t going to let itself get massively downsized without a fight.

          Which, of course, reinforces this:

          The US government does not represent the interests of the majority of the country’s citizens, but is instead ruled by those of the rich and powerful, a new study from Princeton and Northwestern Universities has concluded.

          Which is how it was designed back at the conclusion of the US Revolution.

  6. Anne 6
    28 July 2017 at 6:59 pm

    Earlier this week I noticed a large bill board had been demolished and was lying face down next to Labour’s bill board (left untouched) in Lake Rd, Devonport. It happened within hours of being erected. Decided to check it out this afternoon and sure enough… it was the Green Party’s bill board. On the other side of the intersection with Seaview Rd (for anyone familiar with the area) was National’s ‘very large’ bill board – also left untouched. My assumption? Cretinous meathead supporters of the National Party were responsible and it was a direct attack on Metiria Turei. Found the plastic coated sign still intact so stood it upright and is now held in place by a remnant of the wooden backing. Temporary measure until the Greens can erect a new bill board.

    Apologies to the Green Party for the actions of some emotionally and intellectually barren NAct arseholes who live in the locality.

    • WILD KATIPO 6.1
      28 July 2017 at 7:50 pm

      Obviously some louts with a thin veneer of social and political understanding ,… either that or some self entitled troughers who don’t want the reign of the autocrats to come to an end… either way , calling a spade a spade. Wankers.

      And btw , thank you for providing those online links to the Campbell Live videos. I promptly posted them on TDB on an article about the GSCB and the illegal spying on Kim Dotcom.

      • Anne 6.1.1
        28 July 2017 at 10:18 pm

        Doubt it was your ordinary run of the mill louts otherwise they would have had a go at the other bill boards but they didn’t. No, this was ‘sending a message’ to Metiria Turei and the Greens.

  7. RedLogix 7
    28 July 2017 at 7:58 pm

    Wish the Greens had the balls to come out and make it clear like this:

    https://www.facebook.com/topnz/videos/689314127925006/

  8. Draco T Bastard 8
    28 July 2017 at 9:12 pm

    The threat of terrorism in Australia is a scam that costs us dearly

    When Malcolm Turnbull was announcing the formation of the mega Home Affairs department last week, which he insisted was all about improving the domestic security response to “the very real threat of home-grown terrorism that has increased with the spread of global Islamist terrorism”, he said that intelligence and law enforcement agencies had successfully interdicted 12 imminent terrorist attacks since September 2014.

    There’s no way of checking that claim, nor guessing how much harm would actually have transpired, but if that figure of 12 impresses you, you’re making my point. Relative to all the other threats we face, it’s chicken feed.

    We see this same type of scaremongering from National and RWNJs in general. they’re always playing the fear card to cut back on human rights and to undermine democracy.

  10. rhinocrates 10
    28 July 2017 at 10:05 pm

    Labour just can’t help themselves, can they? David Farrar has spoken and sure enough, beneficiaries go under bus – AGAIN.

    I’m sure that will get maybe one vote in the easily-winnable Epsom electorate where’ll they’ll be glad to know that Labour supports Law and Order over justice.

    http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/election/2017/07/you-can-t-condone-lawbreaking-jacinda-ardern-to-metiria-turei.html

    • weka 10.1
      28 July 2017 at 10:11 pm

      That’s very disappointing from Ardern. Let’s see if they keep running that same phrasing, or if it was her in the moment. Little was more even handed the other day.

      • Anne 10.1.1
        28 July 2017 at 10:31 pm

        That’s very disappointing from Ardern.

        I agree. She admitted she had never been in the same situation so wasn’t prepared to be judgmental then she proceeded to be judgmental.

        Well, Jacinda how about you go and talk to people who were on the benefit in the 1990s. I think you might start to understand why so many of us were left with no choice but to indulge in a little bit of cloak and dagger income related activity. For starters, it wasn’t until later in that decade that beneficiaries were even allowed to earn any money over and above the drastically reduced benefit rates. That’s how draconian the system was at that time.

        • Incognito 10.1.1.1
          28 July 2017 at 11:01 pm

          It’s trial by media, plain and simple, and it was entirely predictable, of course.

          As always, trial by media fails to recognise and acknowledge that each case is unique, that context is important, and without exception it ends up with a generalised verdict that affects (i.e. sentences) not only the instigating ‘culprit’ but a whole group or class of people in one fell swoop.

          Metiria Turei took a personal risk but she also took a risk for a whole class of people, most of whom have no voice and yet they stand as co-accused in this public media trial.

          I do fear that Metiria Turei may have bitten off more than she can chew and she and her ‘co-accused’ need all the support that she/they can get, not some patronising from up on a high horse. This is not saying that one should condone breaking the Law but somebody with a high EQ will know that there always is more than one possible constructive response to a particular challenge.

          • Draco T Bastard 10.1.1.1.1
            29 July 2017 at 1:20 am

            I do fear that Metiria Turei may have bitten off more than she can chew

            Nope, she didn’t. She seems to handling it well. It’s Labour that aren’t.

            This is not saying that one should condone breaking the Law

            When the law is wrong then it’s the law that needs to be broken to show that the law is wrong and then changed. This is what Metiria has done and is doing.

    • Draco T Bastard 10.2
      28 July 2017 at 10:42 pm

      Time to drop the labour Party. They’re old news and waaaayyy out of their depth.

  11. Draco T Bastard 11
    28 July 2017 at 10:47 pm

    Surpise, surprise:

    The Government has watered down its plans to tighten rules for temporary work visas, but dairy farmers remain unhappy because 60 percent of their migrant workers will still have to leave after three years and can’t bring their families with them, Bernard Hickey reports.

    Yep, farm owners (I won’t call them farmers, their rentiers) are upset that they won’t be able to pay less than the going rate for workers.

    And here’s the thread where the Fed Farmers CEO tries to say that he didn’t say what he said.

  12. Paul Campbell 12
    29 July 2017 at 12:00 am

    Drove past a Blingish “Delivering for NZers” sign in my neighbourhood today … someone had added “rich” over Bill’s face …… came back 30 minutes later to get a photo it was already replaced, I wonder how many they have