Written By:
notices and features - Date published:
6:00 am, January 3rd, 2025 - 32 comments
Categories: open mike -
Tags:
Open 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 …
Open 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 …
Open 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 …
Open 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 …
The Harold broke with tradition by doing something useful! It recycled this report from WaPo on the first AI war: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/ai-driven-idf-operations-in-gaza-spark-debate-over-civilian-impact/G4J7PXUUMJFRTPHOJTK3GNLE2Q/
The report confirms the role of AI in Israel's spectacular success this past year. The morality of the SA case is too one-sided to take seriously though – everyone knows Hamas did genocide against Israeli civilians to start the war. Tit-for-tat reciprocity has always been normal in warfare so any prosecution selectively ignoring this reality will look like a bullshit scheme to neutral observers.
So the Gospel truth is what produced the shock & awe of Israel's response – which Putinists will inevitable refer to as a special military operation (not a war).
So Hamas is stopping the GHM from telling the truth. Pretending that terrorists are civilians helps make them invisible, they think – yet AI eliminates them regardless. Still, non-uniformed combatants does help others believe it ain't a war.
Buckle up your seat belts – we're in for a rough ride!
Richard Murphy outlines Trump's "economic" plan – and it ain't pretty (for us bottom feeders). 7.30 long.
[lprent: link fixed ]
Thom Hartmann (another commentator I rate) reinforces the idea that Trump, and his billionaire backers, will crash the US economy to benefit themselves! 7.00 mins long.
The links that come up
In retrospect his comments seem a bit dumb, from inconsistent to plain wrong.
More recently
At least this is based on what economists expect from Trump's polices
The economy was sound before the election, but had some matters to address to improve things for Americans
But Musk favoured the Trump programme
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/economy-if-trump-wins-second-term-could-mean-hardship-for-americans-rcna177807
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=musk+calls+for+a+recession
Whoops! The first link goes back to my emails! Could a moderator please delete?
Here is the correct link!
[deleted]
Thanks
The genocide in Gaza picks up its pace, after bombing and starvation, cold and exposure is the new weapon of war.
System was offline briefly because of some aggressive dusting dislodging a network cable. Now I have to find out why the routing failed to the other network cable.
This 'associate health minister' is a pawn….or just plain stupid…….
Tried to resize above image with no luck…
fixed
Is 'The Standard' an echo chamber of generally consistent viewpoints?
Or is "The Standard' a forum of wide ranging and inconsistent, often divergent viewpoints?.
This is an important question:
Personally I consider 'The Standard' generally to be representative of a broad range of New Zealand public opinion.
Bear with me;
For a while now, I have noticed that the evidence being presented in these columns of genocide being committed in Gaza by the IDF is no longer being challenged, in the comments section.
Comments denying the genocide in Gaza have dropped away, to zero. What does this mean?
That the genocide in Gaza is widely accepted as fact by New Zealanders, and even overseas commenters who write here?
Is this now the mainstream view?
What does that mean?
That most New Zealanders would agree with the statement that NZDF participation in biannual military training exercises with the IDF is an outrage?
That most New Zealanders if polled would agree with the statement that this country is not abiding with our international legal obligations to act to prevent and punish the crime of genocide?
That most New Zealanders if polled would agree with the statement that our country, which is a signatory to the International Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, does not respect the international rule of law, or the international conventions and treaties we are signatory to?
That most New Zealanders if polled would agree with the statement that this country, by not taking even the most minimal legal and diplomatic action to prevent the crime of genocide, is committing by our inaction, a betrayal of the principles that they believe our country stands for?
Since the release of the Amnesty International investigation that concluded that genocide is being committed in Gaza, there have been no polls taken, on whether or not New Zealanders agree or disagree with Amnesty International that a genocide is being committed in Gaza.
In lieu of this polling, a pretty sketchy way to divine public opinion, is the comments section of the country's leading Centre-Left blogsite. I admit that.
But if I am correct in my assessment that the lack of genocide denial in the comments section of 'The Standard' is a reflection of where New Zealand public opinion is presently at, then I have to ask, why are our lawmakers not picking up on it?
Or people just can't be bothered engaging with those that bring it up ad nauseum.
Yes, I had considered that possibility.
It is possible that while commenters here, and New Zealanders generally. do accept that a genocide is being committed in Gaza, they couldn't care less. And would rather other people didn't keep bringing it up, otherwise we might actually have to do something to live up to our commitments to the international community and international law and convention of the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide. (the Genocide Convention). To which we are legally bound to act on as a signatory.
Better to just ignore the genocide in Gaza so we don't have to act on our commitments.
Ignoring the the genocide in Gaza is probably the same reason no polls are being conducted on this issue. Any sort of official, or even unofficial public confirmation that a genocide is occurring, would make it harder for officialdom to continue doing nothing about it.
Well the reason I put a few critical comments about Israel's excessive collateral damage (re Palestinian civilian casualities) onsite here last year was because it did seem like genocide to me. However the murk of war gives folks good reason to avoid jumping decisively to that conclusion. Thus moderates will defer to due process – which, for international law, is a long & winding road.
Your point re our state obligation to the Genocide Convention seems worthy – perhaps MS will address the issue, but that depends on whether Hipkins has asked the govt to take a moral stand on that basis. If he hasn't, the ball's in his court.
Thing is with lawyers though, a legal case is viable on the basis of evidence. I'm not confident they would deem media reporting as sufficient evidence. It creates a sufficient impression of genocide happening in our minds, but we ain't judiciary.
For you, whingeing and criticising has always been the preferred option over doing some due diligence, which, BTW, is not reserved to lawyers.
https://www.labour.org.nz/search_results?q=gaza#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=gaza&gsc.page=1
The philosopher Plutarch is credited with the original Greek proverb, "The wheel of justice may grind slowly, but it grinds fine"
Meaning that sometimes justice may take a long time coming.
The Rev. Martin Luther King touched on the same concept. "The arc of history may be long, but it bends towards justice".
Unfortunately for the men women and children of Gaza being killed at an average of 250 a day this long grinding arc of justice is of no help to them, if they never live to receive that justice.
https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/daily-death-rate-gaza-higher-any-other-major-21st-century-conflict-oxfam
It is for this very reason that the Genocide Convention was created.
The Genocide Convention gives signatory nation states the mandate to act to prevent and punish the crime of genocide.
According to the convention;
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/Genocide%20Convention-FactSheet-ENG.pdf
'
I wonder if during the Holocaust, did anyone in Germany ever say something similar about the extermination of the Jewish people along the lines of; 'people just can't be bothered engaging with those that bring it up ad nauseum.'?
But he ain’t judiciary.
The government appointed Rainbow to the Human Rights Commission (the person whose attack on McCully over UNSC Res 2334 Dec 23 2016 was one the most unhinged in our political history) and is seeking to make foreign investors sovereign by making governments liable to compensation for decisions that impact negatively on them.
The Opposition would consider
if genocide has happened. The process involves:
Otherwise it is a matter of prevention (noting incitement to genocide).
The convention defines genocide as any act committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group. This includes killing members of the group, causing serious harm to members, and imposing conditions of life that would lead to the group's destruction.
Punishment
So far
it has been the ICC issuing warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant – for crimes against humanity and war crimes (note there has been no determination of genocide). How some members of the Israeli Cabinet have not been added, because of their incitement to extreme actions/genocide, is as yet, an unresolved mystery.
https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-pre-trial-chamber-i-rejects-state-israels-challenges
The Holocaust took place between the years 1941 and 1945, four years.
The Nuremberg war crimes trials took place between November 20, 1945 and October 1, 1946, eleven months.
The Bosnia genocide took place between the years 1992 and 1995, three years.
The ICJ genocide case Bosnia vs. Yugoslavia took place between the years 1993 and 2007, fourteen years.
If the ICJ had been in existence at the time of the Holocaust, the Holocaust would have been fully completed by the time the ICJ ruled on it.
It is quite clear that by the time the ICJ issues its final ruling on the genocide in Gaza it is likely that it will have been over for some time.
Luckily nations don't have to await on the ICJ's decision to take action to prevent and punish the crime of genocide.
The Genocide Convention makes no mention of the ICJ having to come to a decision before nations and governments are obligated to act to prevent and punish the crime of genocide.
A reading of the Genocide Convention makes it clear that the nations signatory to the convention are legally obligated to act to prevent and punish the crime of genocide as soon as they have information of even just the risk of a genocide being committed.
In line with our obligations under the international Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide;
The NZDF would not be allowed to attend the next biannual RIMPAC military training exercise in 2026, if the IDF are involved.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350307737/why-nz-navy-training-israel-and-what-could-mean
NZ diplomats would not be allowed by our government to boycot international commemorations if Israel was not invited.
https://asiapacificreport.nz/2024/08/09/advocate-slams-nz-snub-of-nagasaki-peace-tribute-as-outrageous/
To abide by our international legal obligations to the Genocide Convention, all trading links, and all diplomatic ties with the state of Israel, would have to be suspended, and all Israeli visitors to this country would have to be vetted to ensure that they have not been involved in committing war crimes, something Australia already does.
https://asiapacificreport.nz/2024/12/15/australia-denies-some-israeli-soldiers-visas-over-war-crimes-psna-urges-nz-to-do-same/
These are minimum peaceful measures this nation would have to undertake to comply with our legal obligations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide to which we are a signatory.
If the Luxon administration are reluctant to officially rule that a genocide is being committed. Then the opposition parties are obligated to put a private members bill in the ballot that this country officially rule that a genocide is being committed in Gaza.
It is possible that Prime Minister Luxon might be able to muster enough genocide deniers within his administration prepared to go on the public record to vote down such an opposition bill. But at the very least the genocide deniers will be on the public parliamentary record. And history will not be kind to them.
Also all the information and evidence that has been compiled and presented to the ICJ can be entered into the Parliamentary record, so that none of these deniers can claim that, ‘We didn’t know.’
It is not up to international judiciary to make their slow determination of genocide, it is up to governments. States don't have to wait for the long slow legal grinding arc of history to conclude before taking action against genocide.
Nation states already have a mandate to act to prevent and punish the crime of genocide.
The International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of genocide, gives nation states that are signatories to the convention, the mandate to preemptively act to prevent and punish the crime of genocide.
On a side note; It is this very mandate that the Russian Federation falsely used as their legal figleaf to invade Ukraine. A legal figleaf that the government of Ukraine took a case to the ICJ legally challenging Russia’s claim of genocide made against them.
In the case of Gaza there is a trove of evidence that Israel intend and are conducting a genocide in Gaza.
There is zero evidence that Ukraine were conducting or was intending to conduct a genocide against ethnic Russians or Russian speakers in the Donbas.
Back to the case of Gaza, it is the responsibility of governments to determine if a genocide is being committed and then act on that determination.
This is still a legal and constitutional process. New Zealand parliament is considered to be the highest court in the land.
If a members bill is brought to the floor of parliament calling on parliament to officially recognise that a genocide is being committed in Gaza, and that bill is passed, then this country is legally obliged to take action to prevent and punish the crime of genocide.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon who identifies himself as a committed Christian might find it hard to justify it to the members of his faith if he personally voted against such a bill. For this reason, it is possible that the Prime Minister may allow a conscience vote, permitting MPs to individually decide whether or not there is enough evidence for this country to officially determine that genocide is being committed in Gaza.
Will the parliamentary opposition put a members bill in the ballot calling for a vote on whether or not this country determines and acts against the crime of genocide?
yep, pretty much.
Musk is now openly pandering to the populist right worldwide. From AFD to Reform UK.
Not content to just support the GOP in American politics, this is indicative of personal sentiment rather than political opportunism.
It casts his purchase of X into a new light. Not so much for free speech as right wing propaganda unleashed.
His place in the white race identitarian movement is now obvious.
His willingness to use his wealth in that cause, will make the defence of democracy better than that, more difficult.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/1/2/musk-calls-for-jailed-uk-far-right-activist-tommy-robinson-to-be-released
Look at who backed him to buy twitter……tech billionaires, banks and the saudies amongst others.
One of his first acts was to reinstate Trump's account so pretty obvious why he wanted control.
He had no issues finding the cash when the acquisition was forced on him to make good with his offer.
X is now a more useful tool for some and an open sewer to many.
sure the Saudis, Qatar and UAE funds, Fidelity, Sequoia Capital, Binance (crypto currency exchange), 8VC (Lonsdale co-founder of Palantir Technologies, with Thiel and also Addepar and OpenGov) and also Sean Combs Capital …
https://www.jacobsilverman.com/p/we-got-a-judge-to-unseal-a-list-of?ref=disconnect.blog
Why don’t people vote with their feet? Why do they still have, use, and link tweets?
Drain the morass/sewer by cutting off the water supply – take the megaphone away and unplug.
Consider how you can use the internet and social media in ways that fit your own ethical values and principles and then act accordingly and appropriately.
People are voting with their feet, bluesky seems to be the place. Wouldn't know have never had a SM account on any platform.
Damage done and the jobs a good un with X from Elon, he delivered.
How much of their traffic is human these days I wonder. X is a great place for the dead internet theory.
Yeah, you’re probably right, plus an unhealthy dose of FOMO plus old habits die hard.
Never had a Twitter account either.
Not really possible. All the big SM companies are unethical.
People use SM because it's part of life and not using it creates disconnect from things that matter to them. It's a double edged sword, but voting with our feet doesn't change how Musk, Zuckerberg etc are manipulating society. Society gave too much power to the geekboys and neoliberal capitalism is not inclined to take it off them again.
As for Twitter, I do have a bluesky and mastodon accounts, but they function somewhat differently. Twitter is still a good place to talk politics and I'm not sure bsky has replaced that yet despite the exodus. I suspect what is happening is that politic social networks are fracturing, and being replace with something else.
Dame Tariana Turia has died and is currently lying in state at Moutua Gardens in Whanganui where Turia first burst onto the national political scene as the leader of a protest to reclaim the reserve known to Maori as Pākaitore.