Open mike 02/05/2015

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, May 2nd, 2015 - 117 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmikeOpen mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose. The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

117 comments on “Open mike 02/05/2015 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. phillip ure 1
    2 May 2015 at 7:17 am

    i watched this film last nite..(and give it the highest recommendations..must see!..really..)

    ..and it is one that the likes of greenpeace (and other ‘green’ organisations) will not want you to see..

    ..it lifts the lid on the ‘sustainability’-myths so many believe/peddle..

    ..and the false story/story with big holes in it – that is being pushed by the likes of greenpeace..and most other enviro-groups..

    ..i would urge anyone with even the slightest interest in these issues – to watch this flick..

    http://www.cowspiracy.com/

    • satty 1.1
      2 May 2015 at 9:00 am

      Thanks.

      The facts-site for this movie looked familiar to me (for people that don’t have the time or the money to watch it, this is a good starting point):

      http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/

      Some of it is mentioned in this article:

      Saving the planet – One meal at a time

      • Paul 1.1.1
        2 May 2015 at 9:03 am

        Just hope a film like this doesn’t give the fossil fuel industries an out.

        • phillip ure 1.1.1.1
          2 May 2015 at 9:30 am

          @ paul..

          i don’t think it does..

          ..but it does focus on the follies/madness of continuing with just concentrating on those fossil-fuel industries..

          ..and ignoring the/this very large pachyderm looming over them/us..

          (as greenpeace/green party/most enviro-groups currently do..)

          ..that way lies environmental-disaster/a cooked planet..

          ..how can it not..?

          (and could i urge people to spread the word about this important visual-document..to their networks/friends..

          ..i think it has import exceeding al gores’ initial alarm-sounding effort..

          ..it get’s much closer to the real nub of the problem..and the solution..)

      • weka 1.1.2
        2 May 2015 at 9:29 am

        looks like an argument to change farming and eating practices, which doesn’t necessarily mean going vegan.

        The figures on that facts page will be based on US industrial agriculture which includes feedlots, and monocropping monsanto soy, all of which destroy soil and ecoystems (which we desparately need intact for many environmental reasons including CC). There are far better ways of growing food and ones that reduce GHG emissions in a sustainable way rather than a BAU way. By all means promote eating less meat and more plants, but please don’t promote swapping one insane food system for another.

        • phillip ure 1.1.2.1
          2 May 2015 at 9:36 am

          “..which doesn’t necessarily mean going vegan…”

          it actually does..

          ..and you are just repeating some of the myths so effectively demolished/disproven in the film..

          (that grass-fed-better group-delusion we labour under..is well and truly demolished..)

          ..and rather than a ‘looks like’ opinion..can i suggest you actually watch the film..(only 1hr 30 min..)..

          ..and then opine..?

          ..it would make yr opinion so much more informed in nature..

          ..wouldn’t you agree..?

          • weka 1.1.2.1.1
            2 May 2015 at 9:47 am

            Nah, I’ve seen it all before, over a very long period of time. Try addressing my actual points phil instead of just asserting I am wrong with no backup. Bet you can’t.

            • phillip ure 1.1.2.1.1.1
              2 May 2015 at 9:52 am

              you haven’t ‘seen it all before’..

              i hadn’t ‘seen it all before’..

              ..i am not overselling the import of this film..

              …and the clarity of the undeniable (science-based) message it imparts..

              ..but continue braying from yr position of ignorance..

              ..if you must..

              ..you wear it well..

              • weka …
                2 May 2015 at 9:57 am

                I tell you what, if you address my points in a clear and logical way without the slurs, I’ll watch the film and then comment on it.

                • phillip ure …
                  2 May 2015 at 10:03 am

                  the point is the points you raise are addressed far more coherently in the film..

                  ..than i could in this forum..

                  and re ‘slurs’..calling a plant/ethics-based diet ‘insane’ isn’t a ‘slur’..?

                  ..really..?

                  (b.t.w..that anti-vegan soy-myth you regularly trot out..is also addressed/answered/unpacked in the film..

                  ..i urge you to open yr mind..)

            • McFlock 1.1.2.1.1.2
              2 May 2015 at 7:22 pm

              well, that was an easy bet 🙂

              • weka …
                2 May 2015 at 7:40 pm

                True, but I did learn some interesting things despite the odds. The farmer who wrote the film review had some good stuff to say.

          • b waghorn 1.1.2.1.2
            2 May 2015 at 9:51 am

            Two questions
            What was the total emissions from the vast heards of ruminants pre mans ability to slaughter them and replace them with monoculture s. And how does it compare to today’s emissions.
            And on a local scale if we all went vegan and stopped hunting how would you stop deer , pigs and other introduced animals over running and degrading nz to a desert.
            I’m not taking the piss with these questions .

            • phillip ure 1.1.2.1.2.1
              2 May 2015 at 9:59 am

              @ waghorn..

              ..those (quite valid) questions are addressed in the film..

              i repeat..i have been a vegan for about 15 yrs..

              ..and vegetarian for 15 yrs before that..

              ..i’ve liberated animals etc etc..

              ..and consider(ed) myself reasonably up to speed on these issues..

              ..this film taught me much more than i already knew..

              ..it brings everything very clearly into focus..

            • weka 1.1.2.1.2.2
              2 May 2015 at 10:07 am

              Interestings questions.

              1. no idea, but I would love to know. I do know that there is some exceptional work being done by the regenag and associated people on mimicking those old herd systems, and what they are finding is that those herds were crucial for building soil and thus sequestering carbon. That soil and carbon gets released into the wider world when you plough. It is possible to grow grain and legume crops without plowing but I doubt it can be done on the scale that that film is talking about. Which leads us to the problem of human population. Stabilise the population and we have many more options.

              2. if hunting as well as farming were stopped we would lose native species fairly rapidly, both animal and plant. There might be some interesting adjustments eg if sheep were taken off the land, and short pasture were converted to either forest or cropping, the rabbit population would probably drop (rabbits do well on short grazed pasture). But overall, if we don’t contain certain species, others will be lost.

              The other interesting things about this question is that one obvious solution in NZ is to eat feral meat. That’s where the vegan argument ultimately fails. Would be interesting to see if the hardcore vegans would accept hunting if it meant the end to commerical stock farming. Mostly I just see hardcore vegans arguing that nature would sort out the balance or they don’t believe the situation would occur.

              • phillip ure …
                2 May 2015 at 10:16 am

                “..1. no idea, but I would love to know…”

                watch the film..

                ‘2’..

                ..watch the film..

                • weka …
                  2 May 2015 at 10:32 am

                  Are you saying that the film specifically looks at the old pre-agricultural herd systems, including what emissions were from them?

                  And that it addresses issues of pest control?

                  I suspect you are implying porkies there phil.

                  • phillip ure …
                    2 May 2015 at 10:56 am

                    yr ability to opine on subjects you know nothing about (in this case..this film)..

                    ..is really pretty much boundless..isn’t it..?

                    • weka …
                      2 May 2015 at 11:00 am

                      It’s alright phil, we know you’ve got nothing other than ‘watch this film about my belief system and it’s all true because I say so’.

            • weka 1.1.2.1.2.3
              2 May 2015 at 10:46 am

              b waghorn,

              a review from a US grass-fed stock farmer with an eye for ecological (and logical) sensibility.

              Here’s another way to look at it. There are about 88 million beef cows in America and just over 9 million dairy cows. In 1800 there were 60 million buffalo, and though the film claims that grassfed beef is more damaging than feedlot beef, I’m confident those buffalo weren’t routinely wandering into CAFOs in an effort to reduce their methane emissions. But I doubt Anderson would accept a target of 60 million grassfed cows as ecologically sustainable, even though keeping them on pasture, besides making them healthier and happier, would mostly eliminate the 5% of methane emission that are a result of manure fermenting in lagoons and piles.

              http://cairncrestfarm.blogspot.co.nz/2014/10/cowspiracy-movie-review.html

              • phillip ure …
                2 May 2015 at 11:00 am

                another chimera from you – that is addressed/unpacked in the film.

                ..that..the organic..grass-fed…’sustainable’..

                ..they are all focused on..in their turn..

                ..in the film..

                • weka …
                  2 May 2015 at 11:08 am

                  and yet you’ve watched the film and still can’t address a single point. All you are doing here is propganda promo.

                  • phillip ure …
                    2 May 2015 at 11:22 am

                    do you often argue over/about two flies crawling up a wall..?

                    ..you have spent twice the time it wd take to watch the film..

                    ..to attack the film – that you haven’t seen..

                    ..do you see anything awry/amiss with that picture..?

                    • The lost sheep …
                      2 May 2015 at 12:19 pm

                      Don’t panic just yet folks…..
                      Greenhouse emissions from animals are about to reduce significantly.
                      And no, not because the world is listening to Phil.

                      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11439795

                    • weka …
                      2 May 2015 at 12:33 pm

                      Hey sheep, do you know if the type of feed affects the amount of methane produced by ruminants? eg grain vs conventional pasture vs organic perennial etc.

                    • weka …
                      2 May 2015 at 12:35 pm

                      phil, I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t want me to watch the film and critique it 😈

                    • The lost sheep …
                      2 May 2015 at 3:24 pm

                      Hey sheep, do you know if the type of feed affects the amount of methane produced by ruminants? eg grain vs conventional pasture vs organic perennial etc.

                      Not an expert on that.

                      This story suggests that it is specific micro – organisms within the rumen “which utilise the hydrogen and carbon dioxide and make methane. This natural process has been occurring in ruminants for millions of years.
                      (The new discoveries) basically stop the activity of the micro-organisms that are converting the carbon dioxide and hydrogen to methane. It’s very simple – it kills them or severely suppresses their activity.”

                      Listening to it on National Radio the scientists stated that these organisms are not actually useful to the animal or the process – “they were just along for the ride”.
                      So reducing them was potentially a win for the animal and the environment.

                    • weka …
                      2 May 2015 at 7:50 pm

                      I will probably take some convincing that messing with gut microbia is safe. We get this stuff wrong so often, esp to do with the microbial world (eg antibiotic overuse). Plus those silver bullet remedies rarely pan out. I’ll be interested to see how the research develops but at this stage it looks more like wishful thinking. We have to change how we farm instead of relying on isolated remedies.

            • Murray Rawshark 1.1.2.1.2.4
              2 May 2015 at 2:53 pm

              “The great bison herds that swarmed across the US prairies before white settlement, along with other native ruminants like elk and deer, are estimated to have produced 86 per cent of the methane of the current US cattle herd.”

              http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/wahlquistmethane.html

              • b waghorn …
                2 May 2015 at 8:29 pm

                Thanks obviously you are better at the Google machine than me.
                ”Fossil fuels consist of carbon, sequestered using the energy of the sun, hundreds of millions of years ago. Just four litres of petrol uses what was 90 tonnes of ancient life. In the space of one year, the world is using over 400 years of stored ancient energy and carbon. The carbon dioxide produced will remain in the atmosphere for a century. It is a one way street.

                But the carbon released by cattle in methane was sequestered just last week, last month, maybe even last year. And within 9 to 15 years, the carbon in that methane will be sequestered again in a plant, perhaps in grass, to go again through the same cycle. Cattle are part of a natural biological cycle. In it, carbon is sequestered, used, released in a gas and sequestered again. I fail to see how this is the moral equivalent of putting tens of tonnes of fossil life into your petrol tank.”
                Mans the problem not the cow’s!!

        • greywarshark 1.1.2.2
          2 May 2015 at 8:44 pm

          The use of technology in food production seems to take us away from what were natural practices in farming methods.

          I listened to a talk on Country Life on Radionz this morning and felt this was so. It seemed that the ideal was for a farm owner to have technical feedback from every aspect of the farm from his office. Then if the cow in bale 5 has dropped production then he contacts the farm manager to question him about it. Big boss is watching you. How much job satisfaction there would be I don’t know. I’m not sure what the cows think. I suppose any dissatisfaction would show up in a reduced milk yield.

          http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player/201752682
          Demo Dairy Farm in Colombia
          Dairy Solutionz, a Hamilton based company, has worked in Colombia since 2012. In the past 18 months they’ve developed a demonstration dairy farm to show how a low cost dairy model could help small herd owners to stay in business as more European dairy imports threaten their livelihoods. Colombia’s President opened the farm at the end of April.

      • weka 1.1.3
        2 May 2015 at 10:55 am

        Satty, “The facts-site for this movie looked familiar to me (for people that don’t have the time or the money to watch it, this is a good starting point):”

        And here’s a thoughtful and critically competent review of the film that critiques some of its basic premises. Some snippets,

        Responding to a polemic that plays as fast and loose with facts as this film could easily devolve into a line by line response, which would be even more boring to read than it would be to write. Instead, I’ll focus on a few of the main topics, beginning with how cows drink, burp, fart, and most of all poop, which – not to brag – I have some experience with.


        Methane is a more vexed question, since cows indisputably belch and fart. In the film Anderson implies that cows are the main source of methane and that reducing their numbers is the fastest way to reverse global warming. After too much time poking around in search of definitive numbers on methane emissions, I decided to use those provided on a NASA website, even though a number of reputable sources arrive at different conclusions, particularly concerning the amount of methane released by wetlands, listed at 22% in the data I am quoting. By these numbers, ruminant livestock directly account for 16% of global methane emissions, and the (mis)management of all livestock manure accounts for another 5%. Human sewage treatment is 5%, biomass burning is 8%, fossil fuels production is 19%, and, surprisingly, rice cultivation is 12%. Various other manmade and natural sources fill out the remainder. While 21% of total methane is certainly significant, the idea that the elimination of livestock would clearly lead to a reversal of global warming trends is both an overstatement and an oversimplification, without getting into matters of methane’s half-life relative to carbon’s.


        The great weakness of Cowspiracy, other than its title, is its single minded determination to prove that veganism is the only reasonable approach to feeding people, a proof it pursues without regard for facts or nuance. That’s not to say it’s worthless, for there are ideas for several good films within it. I would love to watch a truly investigative examination of any links between the industrial agriculture sector and large environmental non-profits, rather than one that infers connections from the vague responses of uncomfortable PR people. A devastating documentary could be made about the insanity of beef and dairy production in California, and I am all for consumers voting against them and other parts of the industrial food system with their dietary choices. I even think a fair examination of the ways small farms are not inherently better for land and livestock would be wonderful. Instead of any of these there is a failed effort to prove that one lifestyle choice can solve every environmental and agricultural problem.

        This failure is not just a result of misleading and erroneous data, but even more so of superficiality. Though I watched carefully and took copious notes, I do not have a clear idea what Anderson’s vegan world would look like. Would excess land be converted to wilderness? Should the hills and fields of my farm return to forest and scrub like so much of the nearby land that used to be grass? Why is a monoculture of wheat preferable to a polyculture of pasture? Should we humans be connected to and reliant on the land around us and should these connections take different forms in response to local conditions? Yesterday, while out hunting turkey, I came across the remains of a deer, one of ten or so my brother and I have found this year. All of them starved or froze to death in the clutches of last winter. Now they are piles of mossy bones marking where living things curled up and never stood again. Why is this preferable to raising cows as I do, particularly when there’s room here for both?

        http://cairncrestfarm.blogspot.co.nz/2014/10/cowspiracy-movie-review.html

        On the basis of that, I will save my money, and assume that the film is an ideologically driven polemic that’s most likely not worth critiquing because it lacks basic logic and factual analysis.

        • phillip ure 1.1.3.1
          2 May 2015 at 11:26 am

          good that you have presented the hunter/farmer p.o.v..

          ..one you clearly share..?

          • greywarshark 1.1.3.1.1
            4 May 2015 at 9:55 am

            Thanks weka for putting up that thoughtful and well expressed review of Cowspiracy. It is good to follow the thinking of people’s minds as they extensively consider a topic, to find if rationality covers all, but also reflects the necessary emotional input to give the full human response.

            • phillip ure 1.1.3.1.1.1
              4 May 2015 at 10:06 am

              ah yes..the ‘humane’ animal-farmer’..(that oxymoron..)

              ..one of the funniest scenes in the movie is a ‘grass-fed-only’ couple sitting in a grassy meadow..

              ..(with elbow/shoulder issues from patting themselves on the back – so full of self-regard/rightousness they are..)

              ..who say they do it ‘because they love the animals’…

              ..(does that love swell to a chorus as they wave goodbye to the slaughterhouse trucks full of those animals they ‘love’..?..

              ..are the cheques they receive for selling these animals guilt-tear-stained by the time they reach the bank..?..

              ..so much bullshit you could blow up balloons with it..)

              as i said above – that is the view presented by that review – the p.ov. of the animal-farmer/hunter/killer of animals for fun..

              ..meh..!

        • Psycho Milt 1.1.3.2
          2 May 2015 at 11:32 am

          Why is a monoculture of wheat preferable to a polyculture of pasture?

          Hey, that’s unfair. Vegans would like to see a lot of areas have a monoculture of soy rather than wheat. But this would be great because then we wouldn’t actually see the vast numbers of animals we’d be destroying in order to eat, and even better, we’d all be eating the way sanctimonious hippies think is best for us.

          • phillip ure 1.1.3.2.1
            2 May 2015 at 11:43 am

            climbing up for a bray from that rock of ignorance..?..there..eh..?

            ..you’ll have to ask weka to shuffle over/make room..

            ..and ‘hippie’ as a form of insult..eh..?

            ..you ‘retro’ old man you..eh..?

            ..and a little fact for you to digest..

            ..the earth has 7 billion people..

            ..a planet eating a plant-based diet..

            ..could support a population of 13 billion..

            ..whereas this is the point of the movie – that animal-flesh based diet/farming are in no way sustainable..

            ..not even with the population we have now..

            ..it is all those ‘sustainabilty’-myths peddled by greenpeace/green party etc..

            ..that are so successfully shown for the chimera they are..

            • Psycho Milt 1.1.3.2.1.1
              2 May 2015 at 1:37 pm

              Being vegan is a top risk factor for being a hippie, right up there with envangelistic paeans to smoking dope and not having a job. Whether ‘hippie’ is an insult or not depends what you think of hippies.

              Anyway, if I understand this correctly, you believe it would be a great idea to turn the planet’s arable land into crop monocultures for shit foods like soy and wheat so it can support 13 million soy-fed humans. This sounds more like a horrendous dystopia than anything else. And the film’s propaganda assertions regarding normal diets are no more than that.

              • phillip ure …
                2 May 2015 at 4:08 pm

                p.m. said:..”..And the film’s propaganda assertions regarding normal diets are no more than that…”

                ..and is that opinion derived from watching the film..?

                ..or is a weka-style opinion..?

                (..just an orifice-pluck..and evidence-be-damned..!)

          • Once was Tim 1.1.3.2.2
            2 May 2015 at 1:17 pm

            @ PM ….. I’m not sure you could accuse PU of ever having been a ‘hippie’

          • weka 1.1.3.3.1
            23 May 2015 at 10:28 am

            Yeah, but you’re preaching to the converted there Robert.

            I would like to pull out this bit

            “It takes 500 years to replace 1 inch of topsoil”

            That’s natural cycles. Regenerative agriculture is replacing soil at inches per decade (and sequestering carbon in the process). That’s already happening, and could easily be scaled up for whole countries. It does of course require shifting to a steady state economy/degrowth, and limiting population to what can be sustained by any given land mass (ie the end of industrial agriculture).

        • Robert Atack 1.1.3.4
          23 May 2015 at 8:59 pm

          Again – nothing will slow what is in motion.

          But this TED talk covers similar stuff as Cow.

          Uploaded on Sep 2, 2011
          The Other Inconvenient Truth: How Agriculture is Changing the Face of Our Planet

          We typically think of climate change as the biggest environmental issue we face today. But maybe it’s not? In this presentation, Jonathan Foley shows how agriculture and land use are maybe a bigger culprit in the global environment, and could grow even larger as we look to feed over 9 billion people in the future.

          This is a 30 min interview with Co-director of ‘Cowspiracy’ Kip Andersen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcFzJfhyRdY I think he come across as more believable than say the PPP ?

  2. Paul 2
    2 May 2015 at 7:56 am

    Sharon Murdoch’s cartoons are superb.
    Work on several levels.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/cartoons/

  3. logie97 3
    2 May 2015 at 8:04 am

    RNZ – Brent Edwards summary yesterday.
    Amongst other things Key was talking about trade prospects in the Emirates and was particularly enthusiastic about the prospects for wine sales – wonder why?
    Key also appeared, from his comments, to be using Bronagh in a diplomatic role to spread the “human rights” message in the area.
    First time she has been mentioned in a political context?

    Actually the summary wasn’t particularly favourable towards Key, produced a couple of bordering-on-sarcastic comments from Edwards, which from him is unusual …

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/focusonpolitics/audio/201752729/focus-on-politics-for-1-may-2015

  4. Paul 4
    2 May 2015 at 8:44 am

    The MSM in NZ doesn’t use journalists anymore.
    It just watches people’s Facebook pages.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/68176582/robbed-family-go-undercover-to-catch-burglars

  5. jenny kirk 5
    2 May 2015 at 9:09 am

    Scoop NZ has today announced it will be going behind a paywall for everyone except the general public. Will this mean those of us in the general public who share links from Scoop to others in the general public or on Facebook will no longer be able to do so ?
    And are the Herald and other newspapers likely to follow suit ?

      • weka 5.1.1
        2 May 2015 at 9:44 am

        Ok, I haven’t read the whole thing, but it looks pretty clear to me that from now on commercial and professional use needs a licence. The site is still free to the public, including the public linking to Scoop in non-commercial/professional ways.

        The following criteria are all for commercial/professional use, not general public,

        These adverts direct readers to pages which explain our new “Invisible Paywall” – including its legal basis- and information on who is expected to pay and why we need to do this.

        If you:

        Routinely read work related material on Scoop.co.nz;

        Send links to – or extracts from – Scoop.co.nz material to work colleagues or clients;

        Search the web and find Scoop.co.nz results a reliable source of information about matters of professional interest to you;

        Send Scoop press releases and then check to see if those press releases have been published and/or send links to those press releases to clients or colleagues;

        Then you or your organisation probably needs to have a Scoop organisation licence to access Scoop.

        http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1504/S00198/why-scoopconz-can-no-longer-be-free-chrysalis-update-5.htm

        Scoop are answering questions on loomio,

        https://scoop.loomio.org/

    • ianmac 5.2
      2 May 2015 at 9:46 am

      I have emailed Alastair re shared links. Having read the Scoop page it does seem that they are targeting commercial operations like the Herald or TV for quoting Scoop stories rather than we public people. We will see.

      • jenny kirk 5.2.1
        2 May 2015 at 9:58 am

        Be interesting to have that reply, IanMac – when I was copying something yesterday to pass onto FB I received a sort-of “warning” pop-up re copying without a licence in the future.

        • weka 5.2.1.1
          2 May 2015 at 10:11 am

          was that from the copy on Scoop? Or when you went to FB?

          • jenny kirk 5.2.1.1.1
            2 May 2015 at 5:52 pm

            Finally getting back to the computer again, Weka. The warning pop-up was while I was copying a piece on Scoop.

        • ianmac 5.2.1.2
          2 May 2015 at 6:40 pm

          I emailed Alastair : “I read blogs and in particular The Standard. Can I link to a Scoop story on the Standard without incurring a fee?”
          Alastair replied: “Of course you can. Linking is fine…..”
          That sorted then. 🙂

          • jenny kirk 5.2.1.2.1
            2 May 2015 at 9:12 pm

            Ok – thanks. Linking in future, not straight-out copying. Ta ianmac.

    • weka 6.1
      2 May 2015 at 10:16 am

      Love the ‘Not to be Operated by Fuckwits’ one.

      “Australia is Nothing without its Blak Soul”

      Amazing to see such big protests on this, and them shutting down the centre of two big cities. Do you know how did they managed that second bit? eg was that permitted action or did they just do it? I suspect the bonfire in the Block wasn’t permitted 😀

    • Rosie 6.2
      2 May 2015 at 12:02 pm

      Thanks yeshe. Great to see such a huge action, that really is fantastic.

      I agree with Hone, it’s really important that we stand beside Aboriginal Australians in their fight to retain the right to live on their own land, in their own communities. They need the support of their neighbours in this part of the woods.

      Here is footage of the speeches at the May Day rally held in Wellington for the Aboriginal communities of W.A, all well worth a listen. Metiria repeats the chant used in the rallies from your link below:

      http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1505/S00003/harawira-turei-address-aboriginal-rights-mayday-protests.htm

      Its quite amazing that this form of oppression still exists. Aboriginal people’s have had to fight colonial powers and anti aboriginal Government Act’s since day one, and it still continues.
      For those interested in this history there is a Doco called First Australians that you might find interesting. It was aired on Maori TV about four years ago. I can’t seem to find any full length versions to post (they come up with a message about not being available) but here are some clips from that doco. They include an interview with Wurandjeri elder, Margaret Gardiner who was mentioned in the age article.

      http://aso.gov.au/titles/documentaries/first-australians-episode-1/clip1/

      We have much to be ashamed of with our PM but so do the Aussies with Abbott.

  7. Philip Ferguson 7
    2 May 2015 at 10:17 am

    Last night TV news here finally started to talk about what Freddie Gray was subject to on the police ride that brought his young life to an end.

    We’ve had the story up on Redline for five days, that outlines what happened to him and his injuries, We got it from people in Baltimore.

    We’re half a dozen people with no money, no resources. Yet major NZ news companies are days behind us, on an important international story. When you read about what happened to Freddie gray it makes the anger being expressed on the streets of Baltimore and other US cities not only understandable but you wonder why there isn’t even more of it.
    https://rdln.wordpress.com/2015/04/27/us-the-states-systematic-violence-kills-another-young-black-man/

    Phil

    • Clemgeopin 7.1
      2 May 2015 at 5:51 pm

      That is so terrible!

      Here in New Zealand this National government uses ‘war on terror’, ‘war on drugs’, ‘war on welfare’, ‘war on state housing’ etc when all these initiatives directly affect the poor, the unemployed and the marginalised.

      You don’t hear them fighting ‘war on capitalists’, ‘war on profiteers’, ‘war on corruption’, ‘war on rich crooks’, ‘war on tax dodgers’, ‘war on exploiters’, ‘war on dirty politics’ or even ‘war on poverty’.

      And the people strangely, selfishly or ignorantly keep voting in this disgraceful cunning lying RW government again and again!

      • jenny kirk 7.1.1
        2 May 2015 at 9:16 pm

        “” And the people strangely, selfishly or ignorantly keep voting in this disgraceful cunning lying RW government again and again! “”

        Two reasons that I can think of, Clemgeopin:

        1. They (we the people) are brainwashed by the MSM and/or
        2. They (we the people) don’t really want to know about these nasty things.

        Otherwise, I’m as puzzled as you are. I just don’t understand why the people all around us cannot see what we can see.

        • Clemgeopin 7.1.1.1
          2 May 2015 at 11:59 pm

          I think the Key and his RW spin machine is very good at fooling the people by their propaganda and another reason is that most people are only either uninterested or only marginally interested in in depth political news as evidenced by the fact for example that less than 100,000 in total out of 5,000,000 people actually watch the news even at peak news time of 6 pm!
          I suspect only a much smaller number watch political programmes such as The Nation or Q and A. Sad for freedom and democracy!

  8. John Shears 8
    2 May 2015 at 11:24 am

    PORTS OF AUCKLAND PROPAGANDA
    Today on RNZ news , an item claiming that because only one extension to wharf will proceed a new cruise ship will not be able to berth in Auckland and therefore it will not visit New Zealand at all in 2016 and we will miss out on millions of $$$$$

    The vessel is Ovation of the Seas and is similar in size to the Queen Mary II. which has visited Auckland without any apparent problem?

    What is behind this news release and who?

    • Tracey 8.1
      2 May 2015 at 1:26 pm

      Really interesting was the claim by the Chair of POA that they weren’t permitted to talk to councillors as a group so they invited them individually to POA to “explain” the situation…

      Divide and conquer my friend, divide and conquer (it is waht they tried with their industrial dispute.

      Ironically some who didn’t give a shit about how those workers were treated now care about the behaviour of POA executive and Board, you know, cos the bullying and manipulation is impacting their yachting space 🙂

      Arthur Anae spoke on RNZ the day after his special one en masse education from POA (notwithstanding councillors were told not to speak to the media until a final decision was made) , he just couldn’t get past the obligation of Auckland councillors to make economically good decisions and to keep the rates down. Given that Arthur thinks that is his only obligation, may I suggest he stand down on the basis that he is incapable fo meeting the requirements of a councillor?

      http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player/201751770

      Alfred is toward the end as I recall.

      He did suggest a good solution was to merge POA, Tauranga and Nothland but doesn’t actually appear to want to work toward that from what I can see from my basic google searches on the idea.

      • RedBaronCV 8.1.1
        2 May 2015 at 2:26 pm

        I heard someone from POA stating that it was unwise/ unsuitable for there to be any political intervention and they should not get involved in commercial decisions which should be left to directors. Some how I felt that it missed the point completely as who does he thinks owns the place. Arthur seems to similarly blind.

        What price is there for the non tradeable public good of a sparkling harbour wide enough to actually sail down? The value of this is established by the community hence politicians.

        And its not too hard to see the long game- the wharf is just about at Devonport already – next they will want to build a toll bridge over the last gap.

        • rawshark-yeshe 8.1.1.1
          2 May 2015 at 8:23 pm

          and fill in the harbour all the way back east up to Hobsonville ? Nick Smith and English might see it as a way of fixing Auckland’s housing crisis !!! roflmao

  9. The Murphey 9
    2 May 2015 at 12:19 pm

    http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/super-rich-and-us/ZW0292A001S00

    ‘The Super rich and us’

    Worth a look IMO

  10. Clemgeopin 10
    2 May 2015 at 12:28 pm

    @CampbellLiveNZ 4th most watched show on tv last night. First time! Thanks for the continued support of our team X pic.twitter.com/TzRdyHC2nH— Pip Keane (@pipkeane) May 1, 2015

    TV Ratings: 1 May 2015 By regan Most watched

    One News: 636,040 (TV ONE, 6:00pm – 7:00pm)
    Seven Sharp: 426,870 (TV ONE, 7:00pm – 7:30pm)
    Location Location Location: 403,730 (TV ONE, 7:30pm – 8:35pm)
    Campbell Live: 324,740 (TV3, 7:00pm – 7:35pm)
    Millionaire Hot Seat: 321,340 (TV ONE, 5:25pm – 6:00pm)

    ————–

    If you missed it, here is the video from last night:
    http://www.tv3.co.nz/tabid/3692/MCat/2908/Default.aspx

  11. felix 11
    2 May 2015 at 12:51 pm

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/68157864/chris-bishop-votes-but-not-my-cat

    So Chris Bishop thinks it’s unrealistic for schoolkids to have a say on the flag, but apparently has no problem with Julie Christie sitting on the panel that picks the options.

    Seriously, how does that work? How is Julie Christie’s opinion on flags more relevant than the opinions of a few hundred thousand children?

    • felix 11.1
      2 May 2015 at 1:04 pm

      Or for that matter, more relevant than the opinion of a dead dog and a small pile of rocks?

      • Charles 11.1.1
        2 May 2015 at 2:02 pm

        In an evolutionary way, she may be related to Paul the Octopus.

        If 1x Julie Christie = 1 x octopus,
        and 1x dead dog + pile of stones = 100k children,
        then 100k children =

        You know, I think you’re right.

    • Tracey 11.2
      2 May 2015 at 1:18 pm

      Hasn’t she made her millions getting children to text in a vote?????

    • Bill 12.1
      2 May 2015 at 2:23 pm

      Love the format 🙂

    • Clemgeopin 12.2
      2 May 2015 at 2:36 pm

      Thanks Tracey.
      I was trying to link to a smaller graph on a secondary website and it gave me heaps of problems with https, file etc! Finally at the end of the day, I awkshully went to the Nate Silver’s website like you did. Psssstttt!

  13. ianmac 13
    2 May 2015 at 1:42 pm

    oops. The link doesn’t link Clem.
    Edit. Yes to Tracey’s link.

  14. The Murphey 14
    2 May 2015 at 2:03 pm

    Thursday, March 26, 2015, TV2 one of Denmark’s national television stations aired a documentary on HPV vaccines entitled, The Vaccinated Girls – Sick and Betrayed. It focused on the condition of 3 girls suffering from serious new medical conditions after being vaccinated against HPV with Gardasil. The one thing they have in common with thousands of other girls around the world is they were healthy before they got the vaccine – now, they are seriously ill

    http://sanevax.org/hpv-vaccines-a-danish-documentary/

    Scandinavian nations have much which the world can study and learn from including balanced discussion illustrated through this documentary

    • jenny kirk 14.1
      2 May 2015 at 6:01 pm

      Its an unnecessary vaccination. It is something being promoted heavily by the drug companies. Goodness knows what else they’ll come up with in the future to vaccinate everyone against.

      • The Murphey 14.1.1
        2 May 2015 at 7:58 pm

        What is certain is that a profit driven corporate business model drives the ‘drug industry’ which ensures an ‘expanding market’ and ‘new products’ must continue to keep up the ‘growth’

        The positive I take from the Scandinavian documentary is that there are parts of the world where opportunity exists for the appropriate level of involved discussion required to unravel and expose the sham can occur

        The cult of vaccination can be witnessed deeply ingrained in the anglo west where discussion is effectively banished because the ‘science is proven’ and can’t be challenged

        That the vaccine and wider drug industry divorced itself from ‘science’ and is no longer related appears to be unobserved by large numbers but those who have been following are rapidly expanding

        Importantly there will be large numbers who are pro vaccination but against compulsion because they understand the seriousness of where compulsion will lead to

        The drug industry is being challenged (exposed) and it is my sense that the push in the USA and Australia towards compulsory vaccination is due to an awareness that the industry is heading for a bust

        Any state which attempts to enforce compulsion will experience a form of revolt such is the combustiveness of the matter

  15. Clemgeopin 15
    2 May 2015 at 2:21 pm

    A mathematical prediction of Thursday’s UK election result by Nate Silver:

    If the polls directly translated into seats, then UKIP would be a power broker in parliament. The fact is that UK elections come down to a small number of constituencies. Vast swathes of the country will always be Labour and vast swathes will always be Tory. The key is what is likely to happen in the key undecided or ‘marginal’ seats.

    Political polling is a highly sophisticated affair nowadays, but one person to listen to is Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com who gained a huge following after correctly calling the last two US elections. This stats genius has partnered with a number of UK academics to produce what is likely to be the most accurate prediction of the general election.

    FiveThirtyEight’s Election Prediction in the link below:

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/uk-general-election-predictions/

    FiveThirtyEight’s Election Prediction takes into account everything from marginal polling from the Likes of Lord Ashcroft to historical voting patterns. In one graph you have what is likely to be a highly accurate prediction of the 2015 election.

    • Clemgeopin 15.1
      2 May 2015 at 2:48 pm

      Please Note :

      This is NOT the final prediction because he updates/revises the prediction daily. So, if you are interested, you will need to watch it everyday, until Friday our time the day of the election. (Thursday their time).

      Would be interesting to see how close his prediction is in UK. I read that he had stunning accuracy in US for the last two elections.

      • Clemgeopin 15.1.1
        2 May 2015 at 3:22 pm

        One other point :

        In my original post above, the statement which I copied from the secondary site that ‘UKIP will be the power broker’ is obviously incorrect going by the prediction graph where it is only expected to win 1 seat! So, I am not sure if that secondary site made an inadvertent error or were playing ‘dirty politics’ trying to influence their readers!

  16. aj 16
    2 May 2015 at 5:34 pm

    Again the Maori channel excels with a great documentary last week.

    The futility and injustices of the so-called ‘war on drugs’

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_House_I_Live_In_(2012_film)

  18. b waghorn 18
    2 May 2015 at 6:51 pm

    Aagh after spending 6 weeks working my way through the ‘luminaries’ I know who did what to who and were the gold started and finished and have a fare idea who killed crosbie and carver but I’m buggered if I kept a good enough eye on the gold to be confident about all its moves.

  19. The Chairman 19
    2 May 2015 at 9:21 pm

    It has been suggested Serco can improve performance, save taxpayers $180 million and still turn a profit.

    http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/corrections-minister-doesnt-know-how-much-inmates-are-being-paid-private-prisons-172188

    Thoughts?

    • McFlock 19.1
      2 May 2015 at 10:28 pm

      Slave labour has always been able to produce products at a competitive price.

      When the government pays for the housing and feeding of your slaves, this is doubly so.

      • The Chairman 19.1.1
        3 May 2015 at 3:39 pm

        Modern day slavery or a public good?

        According to Corrections Minister Sam Lotu-Iiga, PlaceMakers see the public good in making an investment into the prison system.

        • McFlock 19.1.1.1
          3 May 2015 at 5:50 pm

          What public good? Lower demand for full-wage workers on the outside?

          Paying less than minimum wage and punishing them if they don’t “volunteer” / “refuse rehabilitation opportunities” (as happens in the US) forces prisoners into doing work for which they don’t receive even the pretence of fair reward. Whether one wishes to get into a semantic debate about if this meets the precise definition of “slavery”, it’s still close enough to being ethically fucked up. Forced labour should never be used for profit.

          • The Chairman 19.1.1.1.1
            3 May 2015 at 10:58 pm

            The public good the Corrections Minister alluded too. Assisting inmates to gain skills (catering to an industry shortfall aiding the rebuild/housing shortage) while improving future employment opportunities and incomes, thus rehabilitation numbers.

            Forced participation would be a concern.

            Not being privy to the contract between Serco and PlaceMakers nor what inmates will be paid, one can only assume wages will be low, thus also a concern.

            Additionally, a point overlooked is the impact on commercial competitors. Will wage savings be split between Serco and PlaceMakers giving PlaceMakers a labour cost advantage over their competitors?

            • McFlock 19.1.1.1.1.1
              3 May 2015 at 11:05 pm

              A decent government wouldn’t wait until people are in prison before giving them employment skills.

              I think the entire thing stinks, and that’s even if it lives up to the bumper sticker portrayed in ministry press releases as opposed to the reality wherever it’s been actually implemented.

              • The Chairman …
                3 May 2015 at 11:51 pm

                One could ask if PlaceMakers also approached or plan to work with WINZ?

                • McFlock …
                  4 May 2015 at 12:31 pm

                  One could, but it would be irrelevant to the issue of whether placemakers is paying fair wages for genuinely voluntary work by a literally captive workforce.

                  • The Chairman …
                    4 May 2015 at 12:46 pm

                    Not at all. If WINZ haven’t been approached, it would re-enforce speculation savings in labour costs were driving the investment.

                    • McFlock …
                      4 May 2015 at 1:34 pm

                      As opposed to the speculation that this is the first time in history that a corporation does something solely for the public good? Without leveraging it to advertise ad nauseum how awesome they’re being?

                      Yeah, right…

                    • The Chairman …
                      4 May 2015 at 7:53 pm

                      If the speculation is the general consensus, one has to ask why the public good argument continues to be so successful in allowing the private sector into the public sector?

                    • McFlock …
                      5 May 2015 at 11:35 am

                      Personally, I don’t think it is particularly successful as an argument. It is a thin excuse that tories use to degrade and privatise the public sector.

                      Think of it as the tassles that strippers used to wear on their nipples so as to not run foul of indecency laws. They didn’t really cover all that much up, either, and one could argue that having them twirl like propellors lent more to the imagination than not having them at all. But they were a technicality that the club owner could argue made the performance a 100% legal enterprise.

                    • The Chairman …
                      5 May 2015 at 4:20 pm

                      The argument is often used, seldom challenged with the resulting privatization underlining its effectiveness.

                    • McFlock …
                      5 May 2015 at 4:29 pm

                      Don’t agree with “seldom challenged”. “Public good” is also fairly rare when it comes to privatisation arguments beyond an ethereal appeal to “efficiency”.

                      You seem to think that the public good argument and other privatisation excuses are used to gain popular consent. They aren’t. I believe that such arguments are used to reduce resistance by implying that the outcome is unavoidable, that the act is rational, and resistance is futile. But the tories don’t care whether we like privatisation, and they’d think us fools if we did. They just want us to think that it’s inevitable so that we don’t fight it.

                    • The Chairman …
                      5 May 2015 at 4:40 pm

                      Gaining consent and reducing resistance is exactly the intention.

                      It is tied to the efficiency argument, that is also often used and seldom challenged.

                      And when I say seldom challenged, I’m referring to the MSM.

                    • McFlock …
                      5 May 2015 at 4:47 pm

                      I think that “reducing resistance” is a significantly different goal from “gaining consent”.

                      Browbeating someone to the point that they no longer fight is different to inspiring them to support you.

                      As for the MSM… well, enough said. They don’t bite the hand that feeds them, generally

                    • The Chairman …
                      5 May 2015 at 5:25 pm

                      As resistance is reduced, acceptance tends to gain.

                      Browbeating someone to the point that they no longer fight is different to swaying them with the public good argument that we’re discussing.

                    • McFlock …
                      5 May 2015 at 5:34 pm

                      Browbeating someone to the point that they no longer fight is different to swaying them with the public good argument that we’re discussing.

                      Really? Thirty years of being fucked while they insist that it’s for our own good, that the electricity network is much better even though the power bills were through the roof, that we didn’t really need rail anyway, that it’s better to contract to China for substandard railcars than to build them right in Dunedin, that yet another round of taxcuts will make everything alright, that unemployment will fall soon because of the latest gdp figures. And almost every time there’s been a protest or someone else has been voted in nothing really changes or stops the rot. And if you argue then there’s always some fucking economist willing to tell you to your face that black is white and you’re much better off than when you owned your own home.

                      That’s browbeating with a farcical public good argument. They no longer bother to “sway” us, they just fucking screw us and demand thanks for the privilege.

                    • The Chairman …
                      5 May 2015 at 5:54 pm

                      The argument is used, the public are generally swayed and then it’s put away till the next privatization, thus it’s not a continuous browbeating.

                      The Minster was attempting to sway us with the argument on the Nation just the other day.

                    • McFlock …
                      5 May 2015 at 11:20 pm

                      If you think the public are swayed by such a flimsy iteration of the argument, your opinion of the NZ public is worse than my opinion of National party mps. But your opinion of The Nation’s ratings is wildly optimistic.

                    • The Chairman …
                      6 May 2015 at 7:23 am

                      Thirty odd years of privatization would suggest they generally are. If the majority weren’t swayed by such arguments they would have put an end to privatization long ago.

                      Moreover, politicians would be far to wary to continue to use the argument or even suggest such a thing (let alone campaign on asset sales) yet they still do.

                    • McFlock …
                      6 May 2015 at 10:47 am

                      oh, but the asset sales weren’t asset sales, don’t you recall? We still own half of them… fooling some of the people, some of the time.

                      The fact is that people did vote to stop asset sales. Can’t recall what the nats sales policies were in 1990, but lockwood definitely pledged to get rid of student fees. Then fucked us.
                      So in 93 we had a choice between rogernomes and nats, so chose MMP when faced with two evils. Then in 96 anderton fucked the coalition prospects to get rid of the nats. In 99 we went labour again, but the renationalization process was too slow (but at least anderton got some advances out of it before fucking the alliance. Bit of a rollercoaster, that man). And in 08 labour was dead in the water, and key seemed so nice. 2011 he was our man in a crisis pledging “whatever it takes”. 2014, see above.

  21. Clemgeopin 21
    3 May 2015 at 12:05 am

    On Q and A at 9 pm on TV1 two people will be interviewed:

    * Andrew Little, hopefully the next Prime Minister
    and
    * Judith Collins, possibly the next Nat. party leader.