Open Mike 06/06/2017

115 comments on “Open Mike 06/06/2017 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Andre 1

   6 June 2017 at 7:18 am

   Some of the reasons the US military consistently and strongly advises the US government to get serious about climate change. And gets ignored, just like any other experts giving advice to those that don’t want to hear it.

   https://www.vox.com/2017/6/5/15729426/paris-agreement-climate-change-military
   • One Two 1.1

     6 June 2017 at 9:16 am

     One of the most destructive industries/businesses in the history of our species, whose essence is to destroy ‘things’ using land, sea and air … offers advice of climate change…

     And you’ve posted the link, in support of that position…

     Didn’t think through this one either, did you!
     • Andre 1.1.1

       6 June 2017 at 9:23 am

       The ego self-interacts with sub-empirical spacetime events.
     • Draco T Bastard 1.1.2

       6 June 2017 at 9:52 am

       It appears that you’re the one who isn’t thinking.

       One of the things that the military is worried about is that Climate Change will cause more wars and they don’t want that.
       • One Two 1.1.2.1

         6 June 2017 at 10:08 am

         ‘They don’t want that’

         Don’t they…really..and how would you know?

         Some of your comments are in the right direction, but this is not one of them…and you have missed the point completely….

         The perverse use of an article in which one of the most polluting industry’s in human history, directly and indirectly responsible for greater environmental damage and destruction than any other…is ‘concerned’ about impacts climate change…

         You’d think the military should be concerned about the contribution they make to ‘climate change’…Andre couldn’t make that association in his desperation to poke sticks at Trump….

         Seems it went right by you, as well

         The levels are dropping, lower!
         • Draco T Bastard 1.1.2.1.1

           6 June 2017 at 10:26 am

           Don’t they…really..and how would you know?

           Because they say so.

           You’d think the military should be concerned about the contribution they make to ‘climate change’

           Interestingly enough, the US military is <a href="http://grist.org/climate-energy/why-the-military-is-trying-to-reduce-its-fossil-fuel-use/"doing quite a bit about reducing their reliance upon fossil fuels.

           The perverse use of an article in which one of the most polluting industry’s in human history, directly and indirectly responsible for greater environmental damage and destruction than any other

           [citation needed]

           The military is one of those ‘necessary evils’ that we need. That said the US uses theirs to maintain control over the rest of the world rather than as simple defence. This makes their reasons for preventing Climate Change immoral as it’s just to help them maintain their global control but at least they’re saying that Climate Change is a major issues and are working to prevent it.
           • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.2.1.1.1

             6 June 2017 at 10:44 am

             [citation needed]

             As is often the case, Wikipedia’s article is a good place to start.

             Whether or not you’ll find comparative data is another matter entirely. Considering the impact of fossil fuels upon foreign policy (and its wars) I don’t think it’s a a particularly bold statement.
             • garibaldi …

               6 June 2017 at 10:53 am

               I think you are right One Too. It strikes me as another example of American Exceptualism. Even they can’t understand they are the biggest polluters , all they care about is Pax Americana, which means perpetual war.
           • marty mars 1.1.2.1.1.2

             6 June 2017 at 10:49 am

             Why would you trust or believe any military even around cc. They are big polluters, liars, uncaring, blissfully ignorant, living in denial even when the noises they make sound plausible – really, the military are EXACTLY like the rest of us.
             • One Anonymous Bloke …

               6 June 2017 at 11:02 am

               Why would you trust them? Wrong question.

               There are other good reasons to at least be aware of their perspective, especially in regards to threat analysis. After all, getting that wrong can mean significant personal cost.
             • RedLogix …

               6 June 2017 at 11:04 am

               Read the linked article marty. While I’m sure no-one here regards the US military as their favourite cuddle bunny, it isn’t reason to so lightly dismiss their strategic thinking.

               WW2 as been described by some as the First Great Petroleum War … so many crucial tactical moments pivoted on access to fuel. If Rommel had won that last crucial battle at Ruweisat Ridge and made it to Cairo, closed the Mediterranean, and captured the Saudi oil fields it’s hard to overstate the impact. Or if the American’s were not able to pump so much oil domestically. Or how the Japanese lost the Pacific because their navy never had enough bunker oil. Any student of the military understands this.

               Unnecessarily high and growing operational fuel demand increases mission risk

               Critical missions at fixed installations are at unacceptable risk from extended power loss

               So, too much liquid fuel needed in the field and too much reliance on unsteady power grids at the bases

               In other documents the US military has clearly signalled cc as a global destabilisation threat.

               So while it’s true they’re very much burdened into a legacy of gross over-dependence on oil, they’re not so stupid (as the rest of us are) to continue to deny how this potentially compromises their mission.
               • marty mars …

                 6 June 2017 at 11:26 am

                 Im saying their thinking is based upon THEIR issues, agenda, objectives etc. So yes if fuel runs out, or a big storm occurs they won’t get to kill as many of the enemy as they want.

                 Amazing to me the ability of some to accept and bow down to authority just cos they are authorities. Humans are definately pack animals.

                 Oh and why do we need more evidence the shit has hit the fan. The military has bought all this up so they can maintain mission ability – the mission is what again?
                 • RedLogix …

                   6 June 2017 at 11:38 am

                   Yes that sums it up. As I said these guys aren’t cuddly bunnies.

                   But the interesting thing here is that when you look at outfits like big insurers and the military whose operations are grounded in very hard reality … all the politicized climate denying bullshit melts away very quickly.
                   • marty mars …

                     6 June 2017 at 11:51 am

                     Yep and I agee we need to keep an eye on what they think and another eye on why they are saying what they are saying in the way that are saying it.
               • Macro …

                 6 June 2017 at 9:13 pm

                 As an ex-military officer I concur with the sentiments expressed above. We have an on-going military situation in Syria which many have indicated is a result of the drought of 2006 onwards. The drought http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/water-and-conflict-in-syr_b_5404774.html (the worst in recorded history) lead to a severe shortage of grain in the region, with a resultant spike in food prices. The failure of the Assard Govt to respond to this crisis ended in the resultant civil conflict. Syria could be said to be one of the first Climate Wars. So to is the continual war in South Sudan. Both these areas are highly succeptable to climate change in a rapidly warming world.
                 That is one reason for military to be concerned wrt to AGW.
                 Another – from a Naval perspective – is Sea Level Rise. Naval ports and harbours (as are all ports world wide), are going to be serverly affected by SLR by the end of this century with the resulting loss of extensive infrastructure and damage caused by storm surges.
             • greywarshark …

               6 June 2017 at 11:38 am

               The military are exactly like the rest of us, only more so – with the worst aspects written larger.
         • McFlock 1.1.2.1.2

           6 June 2017 at 12:17 pm

           The unexplainable fascinates infinite genes
     • Grafton Gully 1.1.3

       6 June 2017 at 7:07 pm

       Yes, wars have encouraged destructive technologies.

       http://science.howstuffworks.com/war-drive-technological-advancement.htm
   • exkiwiforces 1.2

     6 June 2017 at 12:48 pm

     Yes Andre, you are right most western military forces are now factoring climate change in our strategic and tactical planning. I discussed this with Weka sometime ago in one of Weka posts.
2. weka 2

   6 June 2017 at 7:53 am

   Anyone know why most U.K. Election poll reporting leaves out the SNP?
   • Craig H 2.1

     6 June 2017 at 11:48 am

     I think because outside Scotland they have no impact.
     • weka 2.1.1

       6 June 2017 at 11:52 am

       But they’re a potential coalition or C and S partner for Labour, so being able to count all the seats is crucial.
3. 808state 3

   6 June 2017 at 8:01 am

   A lot of that actually applies to the Globalist media machine’s onslaught against Trump.

   [TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]
   
   • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1

     6 June 2017 at 8:11 am

     Nope. In fact it applies to all sources all the time. Thanks for displaying your bias though.
     • 808state 3.1.1

       6 June 2017 at 8:16 am

       Of course you have no bias do you?

       I merely pointed out the Globalist media beat up of a nationalist politician. Why does that make you so angry?
       • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.1.1

         6 June 2017 at 8:31 am

         Of course I have bias, you silly person. Everyone does. That being so, I’m not particularly “angry” about it.

         This “Globalist” (with a capital ‘G’) media you speak of, do they have anything to do with the UN, and its plan to take away your guns? Or is it George Soros? I get so confused. Where do HAARP fit in?
4. Carolyn_nth 4

   6 June 2017 at 8:42 am

   New series of investigations by RNZ journos on (pros and cons of) how Key/Nats’ government has shaped NZ. Today’s installment is on tourism:

   “Brighter Future? Does tourism trump taonga?”

   Basically, the answer is that the industry has increased tourism numbers, brought in more bizniz, but the downside is a threat to, and disregard of the consequences for the environment.
   • saveNZ 4.1

     6 June 2017 at 9:27 am

     In short maximise short term dollars and bring in mostly minimum wages workers to satisfy the tourist demand, while polluting and degrading the environment for local communities and future generations…. and that’s not even touching the other issues of bottling water and selling land that was formerly used as parks, reserves and environmental areas, to put up more houses, more people, more cars, more pollution and higher prices, higher rates to pay for the infrastructure as the ponzi scheme continues….

     I’m for tourism, but tourism designed around preserving the environment and creating satisfying local jobs for local people, sharing the experience of pure nature with tourists… not the other way around…
   • Draco T Bastard 4.2

     6 June 2017 at 10:17 am

     You can see the attraction that tourism holds for National. It’s cheap, easy to understand and the major costs can be put upon the taxpayers all of which makes it a nice earner for the owners who won’t have to do anything such as researching and developing new products.

     Unfortunately, they didn’t really think about what the added numbers meant in terms of infrastructure and so didn’t plan it at all. We’re now seeing what happens when you follow National’s lack of planning and foresight.
     • AB 4.2.1

       6 June 2017 at 11:42 am

       The short-termism is also apparent in the implicit CC denial in the push to expand tourism. If/When tourists have to pay the real cost of their CO2 emissions – would they travel all this way and back?
       CC is likely to create a pincer movement that will greatly damage mass tourism – on one hand the need to reduce CO2 emissions will make discretionary travel very expensive, and on the other, CC itself will wreck some of the scenic landscapes people are coming to see.
       • AB 4.2.1.1

         6 June 2017 at 11:58 am

         A third factor may be that larger, more frequent and more violent storms will produce enough accidents to make people feel that conventional passenger aircraft are not safe enough.
         • saveNZ 4.2.1.1.1

           6 June 2017 at 12:36 pm

           all good points. The problem in NZ that Natz in particular have caused is that much of our economy is based around short term and changing industries…. a quick look in the future would have foreseen having an economy around cows, tourism and construction is not lasting….. diversification was badly needed a decade ago.

           Also tourism is changing about being a unique experience, just as the Natz are trying to commercialise it for short term profit (and not even profit much of the time) and going in the opposite direction.

           If Natz were not so bad, you could laugh at them. Their obsession with oil exploration in the time of peak oil and sustainable energy, giving away water rights when water is predicted to be one of the most precious resources, have a low wage economy when countries like Norway do the opposite and invest in their countries future, importing young people apparently for our aging population crisis, but then allowing the aged parents to come too and get full welfare within a few years, investing in motorways when you have little public transport….
         • Draco T Bastard 4.2.1.1.2

           6 June 2017 at 1:08 pm

           Passenger aircraft already fly well above any storms. Stronger and more violent storms are more likely to affect sea-going luxury passenger liners.
           • McFlock 4.2.1.1.2.1

             6 June 2017 at 10:13 pm

             we don’t expect passengers to parachute in, do we?
             • Draco T Bastard …

               6 June 2017 at 11:38 pm

               No but then planes also have about an hour of spare flight time in case of storms so that they can also land outside of a storm’s radius.
               • McFlock …

                 6 June 2017 at 11:48 pm

                 Which raises the question of just how large storm radii, or how clustered, they can get in a +2degree climate.

                 And of course the risk isn’t really the chances of a divert, it’s the chances of a pilot or controller incorrectly deciding the line of “too tough to land or take off”. Which causes a lot of air accidents.
   • JC 4.3

     6 June 2017 at 9:07 pm

     “Tourists are like dairy”…

     http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/afternoons/audio/201846479/tourism-infrastructure-and-the-environment
5. Tautoko Mangō Mata 5

   6 June 2017 at 8:43 am

   A good long read from Chris Hedges on mass culture and herd mentality.
   https://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/06/05/antonio-gramsci-and-battle-against-fascism
   • Robert Guyton 5.1

     6 June 2017 at 12:57 pm

     Tautoko, Tautoko Manga Mata 🙂
     That’s an excellent article you’ve recommended, thanks. I found this paragraph:

     “As these lies become transparent we are thrown into what Gramsci calls an interregnum—a time when the reigning ideology has lost efficacy but has yet to be replaced by a new one. “The crisis consists,” Gramsci wrote, “precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born, [and] in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.” Hence political mutations such as Donald Trump, or in Gramsci’s time Mussolini.”

     Interregnum. Interesting.
     • Karen 5.1.1

       6 June 2017 at 3:40 pm

       Robert – you may find this book of essays interesting as well. It was edited by the wonderful Morgan Godfrey and published last year.

       http://bwb.co.nz/books/interregnum
       • Robert Guyton 5.1.1.1

         6 June 2017 at 4:16 pm

         Thank you very much, Karen.
     • roadrage 5.1.2

       6 June 2017 at 4:24 pm

       Market forces take effect on an ideology. A use by date exists. Idealogy creates behaviours that amass waste, create reluctance to change, invite entrepreours to game, thus the potancy, force for good, orginial goals of the ideology is undermine. So how ironic that a ideology of pro-market forces should be undermined by market forces. Climate change, debt, social maliase, inevitable really that a creed of ignoring govt would pile up more fiscal, environmental, social waste so quickly and so hard to ignore.

       The neo-libs were right, market forces would ridicule them into oblivion.
   • Draco T Bastard 5.2

     6 June 2017 at 3:53 pm

     Revolutionary policy for Gramsci did not come from above but from below. It was organic. And the failure, in his eyes, of revolutionary elites is that they were often as dictatorial and disconnected from workers as capitalist elites. The masses had to be integrated into the structures of power to create a new form of mass politics—hence his insistence that all people are intellectuals capable of autonomous and independent thought. A democracy is only possible when all of its citizens understand the machinery of power and have a role in the exercising of power.

     And hence my insistence that the policies that parliament work on should be voted upon by the people first, that businesses become cooperatives that aren’t owned by anyone and that all the resources of the national territory are owned by the people.

     The people need to have power and not individuals.
   • Incognito 5.3

     6 June 2017 at 9:49 pm

     An excellent article, thank you.

     It repeats the familiar theme of the absolute requirement for independent autonomic critical thinking and awareness to safeguard society against evil forces (i.e. from our fellow humans). A theme that is also reminiscent of Hannah Arendt who argued that political action must be rooted in proper thinking and judgement.

     What also caught my eye was in one of the comments:

     People act from emotion not intellect, as those who control society have learned so well.

     I’ve heard this assertion many times, often in the context of politics and how people tend to vote and for whom.

     I think it needs a minor ‘adjustment’ to:

     People react from emotion and act from intellect

     To be wholly human means that emotion and intellect work in concert and complement each other. And only then can we accomplish what Gramsci and Arendt envisioned and have a chance of freeing of the shackles imposed upon us by others and ‘normative’ society and thus ultimately by ourselves.
6. saveNZ 6

   6 June 2017 at 9:17 am

   How to counter terrorism…

   Canadians carry out acts of kindness to honor victim of London Bridge attack
   https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/05/london-bridge-attack-christine-archibald-canada
7. greywarshark 7

   6 June 2017 at 9:30 am

   Menstrual bleeding may have to be treated as a disability to get fair treatment for girl pupils with early age onset at 10, perhaps just a suitable receptacle for used product. The cost of the products is also beyond poor students’ parents budgets and some teachers are funding needy students who would otherwise stay home because being blood stained is so noticeable and embarrassing.

   Amazingly this normal bodily process is not accepted by society or schools. Now it has become something public and a talking point instead of something private, the embarrassment needs to be pushed aside and action taken to assist these young girls entering womanhood.

   The trend in western countries I think, is that onset will be at an earlier age than previously. Of course NZ has no information gathering about this, we don’t want to know about things apart from financial matters pertaining to the wealthy, their profit and investments.
   • joe90 7.1

     6 June 2017 at 9:39 am

     Earlier onset of puberty in deprived households.

     http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/201844930/early-puberty-linked-to-growing-up-in-poorer-homes

     http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/92906575/early-puberty-linked-to-the-poverty-trap
   • Draco T Bastard 7.2

     6 June 2017 at 3:55 pm

     Primary school ‘excludes’ girl with period

     Of course NZ has no information gathering about this, we don’t want to know about things apart from financial matters pertaining to the wealthy, their profit and investments.

     And how many people will complain about the government gathering such data as a breach of privacy?
8. One Anonymous Bloke 8

   6 June 2017 at 9:30 am

   It’s official, The Intercept must be working for the fake news media! Bigly!

   Russian military intelligence executed a cyberattack on at least one U.S. voting software supplier and sent spear-phishing emails to more than 100 local election officials just days before last November’s presidential election…
   • joe90 8.1

     6 June 2017 at 9:35 am

     Coincidentally…..

     https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-government-contractor-georgia-charged-removing-and-mailing-classified-materials-news
     • joe90 8.1.1

       6 June 2017 at 10:32 am

       Ms Reality Winner should’ve done an Ed and bolted when she could.

       JUST IN: FBI has arrested and charged the woman they say leaked a Top Secret document to The Intercept, federal official tells NBC News.— NBC News (@NBCNews) June 5, 2017
9. Treetop 9

   6 June 2017 at 10:16 am

   This caught my attention this morning on RNZ. Abe Gray president of the ALCP is resigning to join the Opportunities Party.

   Not sure how many from the ALCP will follow him.

   Were Morgan to get over 5% this could be interesting.

   How many votes from ALCP or current or new voters could vote for Morgan’s party?

   How many votes does Morgan need to get to reach 5%?
   • bwaghorn 9.1

     6 June 2017 at 1:09 pm

     100,000 votes i believe give or take
     • Robert Guyton 9.1.1

       6 June 2017 at 1:12 pm

       Pipe dream
       • bwaghorn 9.1.1.1

         6 June 2017 at 1:18 pm

         whats top polling like? a lot of what he says i get, but with my voting record he probably doesn’t want my vote i seem to back losers every time.
         • weka 9.1.1.1.1

           6 June 2017 at 1:34 pm

           best I’ve seen was 2% but that didn’t take into account margin of error. Myself, I think it’s going to waste important left wing votes. Not that cannabis people haven’t done that before. FFS, the Greens have a good cannabis policy.

           TOP has good ideas, and their policies look good on the surface, but scratch the surface and what I find is an economist’s view of the world. They’re getting too many things wrong in the detail.

           edit, sorry, should have said that I think most polls are showing TOP under 1%
   • Bill 9.2

     6 June 2017 at 2:07 pm

     My understanding was that ‘The Green Party’ originally courted the legalise vote because that was the 5% dealt with.

     TOPs are apparently polling at 2% – which considering there is no campaign underway yet and they have no history…

     As for supposed ‘wasted votes’. If everyone always operated by that yard-stick, nothing new would ever arise in the parliamentary system we have. Ever. However, ‘wasted’ votes pushing a party to 4.8% (say) sends a clear signal to all those who baulked that yes, they did actually have an option – and that they unfortunately chose to forego it “this time around”.
     • DoublePlusGood 9.2.1

       6 June 2017 at 2:45 pm

       It also sends the message that having a 5% threshold is a stupid, undemocratic idea.
       • Draco T Bastard 9.2.1.1

         6 June 2017 at 3:22 pm

         Curtailing democracy is why we have a 5% threshold.

         Politicians and capitalists really don’t like it when the ‘common’ people have a say in their own governance.
         • Bill 9.2.1.1.1

           6 June 2017 at 7:09 pm

           Agree with both comments that the 5% should be dog tucker. Apart from anything else it would end the nonsense of people voting for “a lesser” because they fear that their 1/2 500 000th of a say in matters will be reduced to 1/∞.
         • Treetop 9.2.1.1.2

           8 June 2017 at 9:50 am

           MMP is much better than first past the post, more interesting as well.
           • Draco T Bastard 9.2.1.1.2.1

             8 June 2017 at 10:48 am

             True but our MMP can be improved and become even more democratic simply by removal of the threshold.
             • greywarshark …

               8 June 2017 at 10:59 am

               Threshhold i like, it provides some moderation against rampant democracy just as moderation does here. Everything needs some balance and I want some protection against the tunnel visioned, the narrow obssessives, the nutty dreamers, the ones who never reflect or look for their own faulty thinking and results – keep the threshhold, alter it around the edges perhaps reducing it to 4% only.
               • Draco T Bastard …

                 8 June 2017 at 11:19 am

                 We need to make mistakes to learn from them. The threshold prevents that from happening and it also prevents us from changing a system that doesn’t actually work.

                 We have a system that propagates failure because it prevents us making the mistakes we need to grow and find solutions.
                 • greywarshark …

                   8 June 2017 at 11:50 am

                   DTB
                   I am so impressed with your unshakeable belief in humanity and how well it will manage when it just gets the right system. You are a sentinel of fine human thought and goodwill. And I am sincere and probably embarrass you. But when you talk about threshholds being a barrier to learning, I think that there is a limit to what we want to learn now, and we have heaps we don’t face, so don’t deluge us with more, we’ll collapse and turn away, lose our mojos. Face it we people don’t learn from our mistakes, or the lesson doesn’t last beyond a few generations and then only if it is dished out regularly and rigidly along with the morning porridge.

                   We haven’t time to live through the evolution of any new great idea for humanity that requires us to rely on it and abandon every old sensible practice we have organised for ourselves. The bloody little backstabbers who come along with better ideas to replace existing ones are willing to abandon the work done on building a good-enough system, in favour of some super-duper one they are over-confident about – they give me the shits. Most of them will drift away as it fails to work and provide the needed outcomes, and only one determined old shit will continue, bemoaning that if only something different had been done then… Think of Roger Douglas, perfect example.

                   Work with what we have, tweak it so it flies in a reasonable stable way, and guard it against the revolutionaries who have a better idea that is being formulated as we speak. And watch your back – all workers for society aren’t the same, and don’t assume you know the pretensions of others and they are good, and check your own for practicality and principle. Be ready to control yourself and think around the situation when there might be need to abandon principles in emergencies.

                   There is so much PC talk as people shrink from looking at our present, and want the future to remain hazy where all problems will have been solved. You know, in 2080 when our pollution targets will all have been met and so on.
               • Bill …

                 8 June 2017 at 11:28 am

                 Essentially you’re just saying you don’t trust people to choose decent representatives. Don’t get me wrong, I detest representative ‘democracy’ because it’s a sham.

                 But there are degrees of undemocratic, and the 5% threshold reduces even the small degree of democracy that can be said to exist in a representative system.
     • Treetop 9.2.2

       8 June 2017 at 9:52 am

       Graig nearly got 5% in 2011.
       • Treetop 9.2.2.1

         9 June 2017 at 9:28 am

         Correction 2011 Conservative Party 2.65% of vote, 2014 3.7% of vote.
   • The Chairman 9.3

     7 June 2017 at 7:19 am

     Shame he didn’t opt to support the Greens and urge his members to follow him.
10. greywarshark 10

    6 June 2017 at 10:24 am

    I have concern about the frequent absence of thought about job creation and training and skill education in serving life purpose when discussing need for better social conditions for the future.

    People kept isolated in poverty, with no job to fit themselves into society and fill their days, no wages, having to ask for extra when specially needy but probably denied, or even not able to be heard, never having much, with no future achievable goals, and getting anything mainly through theft – these will become a permanent sub-culture.

    This rash of thefts will be the norm for all except the gated communities.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/92465179/students-restaurant-patrons-and-church-parishioners-hit-by-west-christchurch-breakins
    • bwaghorn 10.1

      6 June 2017 at 1:14 pm

      any one who doesn’t grasp that a government has to actively make work (more now than ever ) is a fool who shouldn’t be in politics.
      • greywarshark 10.1.1

        6 June 2017 at 3:03 pm

        But people who have sucked into their pores the propaganda that business has to be the innovator find it hard to shake that off.
11. 808state 11

    6 June 2017 at 10:43 am

    More propaganda from the Globalists.

    I almost feel embarassed for Hillary when she narrates a story where blame lands everywhere except on her poor performance and the fact everyone hates her.

    The Dems could have run with almost any other candidate and won, but no they had to go with their Globalist political dynasty heiress.

    [TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]
    

    [lprent: I meant to do this earlier, but got distracted by site issues. This comment was in a post that didn’t refer to Hillary Clinton at all. Your comment was the first comment and caused a major diversion away from the topic of the post. As you probably intended.

    Just as you’d done earlier https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-06062017/#comment-1337108

    There is a rule against that and since you ignored my wee warning… Well I really like to train social fucktards (like you) about why that rule is there. Now you have to read instead of writing for a while. Watch the careful social behaviour that doesn’t step past moderators tolerances. And if you don’t like it, well just read the last paragraph of the about.

    Banned for 4 weeks.

    Read the policy about diverting from the author’s topic. ]
    • One Anonymous Bloke 11.1

      6 June 2017 at 10:46 am

      Ok then.

      So The Intercept is working for Hillary? It sounds to me as though she’s controlling the Russians too 🙄
    • dukeofurl 11.2

      6 June 2017 at 11:14 am

      Except Clinton didnt say ‘blame lies elsewhere’- FAKE NEWS ALERT

      ““I take absolute personal responsibility,” Clinton said of her November defeat during a sit-down with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour at an event titled Women for Women International in New York. “I was the candidate, I was the person who was on the ballot. I am very aware of the challenges, the problems, the shortfalls that we had.”
      Did we make mistakes? Oh course we did. Did I make mistakes? Oh my gosh, yes.”

      Everybody hates her? Is that why she got got 3.5 million more primary votes than Sanders and almost 3 mill more votes than Trump ( but not in all the right places)

      Could we just let it go that YOU hate her, not the american voters for whom you speak
      • mauī 11.2.1

        6 June 2017 at 11:41 am

        Yeah total personal responsibility 🙄

        I’m reminded of that sign that comes up during the classic Airplane movie “Unbelievable Bullshit”
        • marty mars 11.2.1.1

          6 June 2017 at 12:05 pm

          Why do you even care what she does or doesn’t say? Seriously what’s the point?
          • adam 11.2.1.1.1

            6 June 2017 at 12:08 pm

            Yeap she’s yesterdays news, move on people.
          • mauī 11.2.1.1.2

            6 June 2017 at 1:52 pm

            Why do I care? No idea why I should care about a major so called good political figure throwing out a big barrel of porkies. If you’re on the good side shouldn’t you be expecting rationality and integrity from your politicians, and from all the good media too? Or do you let it slide by because they’re against the most evil Trump/Russia and anything goes to stop the evil doers.
            • marty mars 11.2.1.1.2.1

              6 June 2017 at 2:19 pm

              When they don’t get elected I forget about them -especially when they don’t deserve mentions.
      • adam 11.2.2

        6 June 2017 at 12:07 pm

        Can we stop with the whole popular vote thing, it’s bloody useless and pointless bringing it up.

        For the last 200 years the Democratic party knows how the election is won, and what it needs to be done to win it via the Electoral College system.

        If you don’t understand how it works – here is an introduction.

        https://www.britannica.com/topic/electoral-college
        • McFlock 11.2.2.1

          6 June 2017 at 12:27 pm

          When people stop saying things like “everyone hates her” despite the objective evidence to the contrary, then I’m sure people will stop bringing up reality.
          • adam 11.2.2.1.1

            6 June 2017 at 2:02 pm

            That is a equally silly statement as well – “everyone hates her”. But the other about the popular vote, is quite daft, and reaks of desperation.

            Lets never forget she lost, and lost to on of the most despise politician in history.
            • McFlock 11.2.2.1.1.1

              6 June 2017 at 2:33 pm

              No, there’s a difference between refuting stupid claims (like calling Trump “one of the most despised politicians in history”) and gnashing one’s teeth in despair. If you want to talk about American democracy, then the example of the Electoral College overruling the popular vote is relevant. If you want to say Clinton was universally hated, then the popular vote is also relevant.

              But it wasn’t even the clintonists who raised her name in this thread. Maybe it’s sanders or trump supporters with buyers’ remorse who should learn to gtf over it.
              • Bill …

                6 June 2017 at 6:59 pm

                How’s about you address the person you’re addressing by the things the person you’re addressing has said or claimed, as opposed to what others aside from the person you’re addressing has said or claimed?

                Because otherwise, it’s just ‘picking fights’ for the hell of it. Which is boring.
                • McFlock …

                  6 June 2017 at 9:55 pm

                  I did. 808 made a claim about Clinton, I pointed out how it was factually incorrect, then Adam came in asking people to stop pointing out reality, so I responded to that request by saying why my comment was relevant rather than any “desperation”.

                  seems logical to me.
          • swordfish 11.2.2.1.2

            6 June 2017 at 7:24 pm

            _____________________________________________________________________________

            McFlock

            “When people stop saying things like “everyone hates her” despite the objective evidence to the contrary, then I’m sure people will stop bringing up reality.”.

            ____________________________________________________________________________

            Not necessarily “hated” but by no means popular – even less so, it seems, than the Trumpet

            Washington Post-ABC News Poll (April 17-20 2017)

            Suggests Hillary Clinton would not win a rematch with Donald Trump.

            Trump leading 43 to 40 percent on the question of who voters would pick if the election were held today.

            96 percent of those who voted for Trump would do so again. Among Clinton voters, 85 percent said they would stand by their decision – with most of those who would not saying they’d either go with a third-party candidate or not vote at all.

            Suffolk University poll (March 2017)

            As Hillary Clinton makes her reemergence with a speech at the Kennedy Center in Washington on Wednesday night, a new poll shows her with her worst image numbers ever. The Suffolk University poll shows that just 35 percent of registered voters have a favorable opinion of Clinton, compared with 55 percent who have an unfavorable one.

            The decline is due to both Democrats and independents apparently souring on Clinton. While 88 percent of Democrats and 32 percent of independents liked Clinton in October, today those numbers are 74 percent and 25 percent, respectively.

            None of which is to say that she can’t right the ship. But for now, Clinton is a uniquely unpopular figure in American politics – more uniquely unpopular, it seems, than the uniquely unpopular figure to whom she lost.
            • McFlock 11.2.2.1.2.1

              6 June 2017 at 9:59 pm

              Is that result really surprising? Trump’s been president with daily coverage for for 5 months – a shitty president, but that still counts for something. Clinton hasn’t been doing a damned thing to raise her profile or defend herself in that time. Do you think trump would be anything more than a half-remembered joke if the outcome were reversed?

              As 808 shows, memories about politics are often fleeting.
      • 808state 11.2.3

        6 June 2017 at 10:57 pm

        Your heroine is delusional:

        “Hillary Clinton: ‘I take responsibility for every decision I made, but that’s not why I lost'”

        http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/31/hillary-clinton-speaks-at-code-conference-on-the-information-war.html

        ” Is that why she got got 3.5 million more primary votes than Sanders ”

        #FAKE CAMPAIGN

        She got more votes because she had her underlings at the DNC sabotaging Sanders – do you not remember the DNC president quitting and slithering over to war hawk Hillary’s campaign when Wikileaks exposed the DNC backstabbing?

        Bernie supporters HATE her. They aren’t stupid.

        “almost 3 mill more votes than Trump ( but not in all the right places)”

        LOL, how does that make her not hated?

        Could we just let it go that YOU just cant see what a failed politician Hillary is, but the US voters can?
        • McFlock 11.2.3.1

          6 June 2017 at 11:00 pm

          Could we just let it go that YOU just cant see what a failed politician Hillary is, but the US voters can?

          Except the majority of US voters, who voted for her.
          • 808state 11.2.3.1.1

            6 June 2017 at 11:19 pm

            Your heroine had the entire state apparatus including the Media Party (#Fake News) trying to haul her rotten carcass across the finish line first. And failed spectacularly because she was such a hated figure.

            You have to remember the US voters are corralled into a #Fake choice between two carefully screened globalist loyalists. Except this time it went terribly terribly wrong, lol.

            So bragging about Hillary’s hollow “popular” vote is as delusional as her own inability to take any responsibility for her catastrophic failure.

            If you believe that your idol has been some how “cheated” of the presidency then maybe you better go brush up on the humanist political philosophy underpinning the concept of democracy – you demonstrate a poor grasp of this subject.
            • McFlock 11.2.3.1.1.1

              6 June 2017 at 11:43 pm

              Dude, I’ve never called her my heroine, I don’t believe that I’ve even gone so far to say she was “cheated” out of the presidency (although I have pointed out an inconsistency in the processes of a supposedly democratic nation, but hey, the UK is FPP, too). Those are your fixations.

              I just point out when your hatred of clinton oversteps reality into comments about how “everyone hates her”. Classic projection. YOU hate her, fine, but tens of millions voted for her, and surely even a zealot like you would concede that it’s likely a chunk of those people liked her.

              Why do I think your delusion is a big deal? Because it is a dodge. It means that people didn’t vote for trump, they just got given a horrible choice between trump and clinton, and bernie would have vanquished the trump dragon because his heart is pure.

              The fact is bernie lost fairly.
              Clinton lost fairly.
              Trump won because he was the loudest voice in the chaotic start to an imperfect system, Fox loved him, and that gave him a certain cache amongst obsessive idiots, and normal people in politics didn’t know how to deal with someone who can insult the grieving parents of a dead US soldier, have multiple sexual assault allegations against him, and still go up in the polls.
      • D'Esterre 11.2.4

        6 June 2017 at 11:08 pm

        Dukeofurl: “Everybody hates her? Is that why she got got 3.5 million more primary votes than Sanders and almost 3 mill more votes than Trump ( but not in all the right places)”

        Oh yeah, lots of Americans just LOVE Clinton, don’t they? It was the blogosphere, and comments thereon, prior to the US election that first alerted me to the possibility that Clinton might just lose.

        Saw this comment online a little while ago: ‘The thinking people in USA KNOW Russia had nothing to do with our elections! We hated Clinton and would have voted for an alligator if that was the only opponent to Clinton!” Ha! Think that alligator coulda been a contender…..

        With regard to the popular vote, that’s not how elections are won in the US. As Clinton ought to have known. It didn’t matter a good goddamn how big a share of the popular vote she got: she needed the EC votes to win.That’s how the system works there; she and her team were evidently too incompetent to figure that out.
        • 808state 11.2.4.1

          6 June 2017 at 11:28 pm

          “It didn’t matter a good goddamn how big a share of the popular vote she got”

          There is a graphic showing where Hillary won the popular vote across the USA. She only secured major urban centers with large populations of blacks, latinos and white hipster/cosmopolitan types. The vast swathe of “fly over country” was lost to Trump.

          And the whole point of the Electoral College is to counter balance the urban population.

          But if you run a campaign relying on Mylie Cyrus and Katie Perry beseeching unemployed Illinois steel workers to vote for you, its going to end badly.
    • dv 11.3

      6 June 2017 at 11:24 am

      So why have the FBI arrested the leaker 808?
12. heman 12

    6 June 2017 at 10:57 am

    @weka

    re point england reserve/development enabling bill
    Can I republish an article that appears in the Te Awa, which appeared in a green party magazine, but not online. The authours have given me their permission and at the very least would like to raise awareness on this issue.

    Or should I just post it all in the comments?

    It would be great if you would allow it as a guest post.tks
    • weka 12.1

      6 June 2017 at 11:02 am

      I’ll email you if that’s ok (I can get your email from the back end).
      • heman 12.1.1

        6 June 2017 at 1:23 pm

        yep tks weka.
13. logie97 13

    6 June 2017 at 11:00 am

    Amongst those receiving public acclaim I see a category … a Queen’s honour (knighthood) for services to my community.
    Apparently opening a “healthy” American Burger chain in my community is a virtue.
14. joe90 14

    6 June 2017 at 11:04 am

    Good.

    Imam Abdullah Hasan
    8 hrs ·

    Over 130 Imams & Religious Leaders from diverse backgrounds refuse to perform the funeral prayer for London attackers in an unprecedented move

    5 June 2017

    Imams and religious leaders from across the country and a range of schools of thought have come together to issue a public statement condemning the recent terror attack in London and conveying their pain at the suffering of the victims and their families.

    In an unprecedented move, they have not only refused to perform the traditional Islamic prayer for the terrorist – a ritual that is normally performed for every Muslim regardless of their actions – but also have called on others to do the same. They said:

    “Consequently, and in light of other such ethical principles which are quintessential to Islam, we will not perform the traditional Islamic funeral prayer over the perpetrators and we also urge fellow imams and religious authorities to withdraw such a privilege. This is because such indefensible actions are completely at odds with the lofty teachings of Islam.”

    For the full statement and list of signatories, see below.
    • Draco T Bastard 14.1

      6 June 2017 at 11:15 am

      An interesting statement. They’ve just declared that terrorists aren’t Islamic.
    • Tautoko Mangō Mata 14.2

      6 June 2017 at 11:22 am

      This is what needs to happen
      plus
      let us see CHRISTIAN leaders denouncing the making and SALE OF ARMS (conveniently called DEFENCE).
      What is Christ-like about this? How can a good Christian reconcile the $110bn arms deal to Saudi Arabia who won’t be using these arms in their own country.
      In UK the police are trying to find the bomb-maker for a terrorist incident.
      USA and UK ARE also Bomb-makers!
15. dukeofurl 15

    6 June 2017 at 11:49 am

    Shouldn’t that be the “Performance artist known as Jonathan Pie”

    Unfortunately some dont see it as only parody/satire

    [TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]
    
16. weka 16

    6 June 2017 at 11:56 am

    Gotta love the British sense of humour,

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/05/london-bridge-attack-brings-out-defiant-british-humour?CMP=share_btn_tw
17. greywarshark 17

    6 June 2017 at 11:57 am

    NZ business and how it is treated by the business-friendly Gnashional government.

    Rod Oram referred to the government undercutting NZ businesses that had been asked to develop forward-thinking plans by going to Amazon which is likely to be setting up a South Pacific office in Australia.

    Tues 6 June Business commentator Rod Oram
    Rod talks to Lynn Freeman about the severe lack of international carbon credits will require a big revamp of our Emissions Trading, the government signs up Amazon for a big cloud computing deal, to the great disappointment of NZ suppliers, and Spark drops plans for a venture capital fund with other major corporates.

    business economy
    about 1 hour ago
    Business commentator Rod Oram
    From Nine To Noon, about 1 hour ago
    Listen duration 14′ :32″
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/201846456/business-commentator-rod-oram
18. joe90 18

    6 June 2017 at 1:23 pm

    The US could well be using their Saudi proxies to undermine a Qatari regime that’s on speaking terms with Iran.

    Note from the author: Events have happened faster than I imagined when I wrote this last week. Six Arab states have now cut diplomatic relations with Qatar. Its land borders with Saudi Arabia are closed and 85 percent of its imports are cut. A full siege is in place. This is no longer​ a “spat”. It is looking as if the object of this pre-planned campaign is regime change in Qatar.

    http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/why-saudi-rulers-need-foreign-approval-621030574
19. JC 19

    6 June 2017 at 1:28 pm

    It would appear that Stephen Joyce is has become Associate Minister of Conservation by default..

    “The Department of Conservation is being accused of failing in its conservation role after it made a neutral submission on a proposed West Coast coal mine.”

    “DOC said both it and MBIE had an interest in the proposal and there was a cabinet directive to submit together when this occurred, which often resulted in a neutral submission.

    Forest and Bird said the department seemed to have abdicated its advocacy role.
    And pointed out the submission suggested minimising the damage to conservation values, yet DOC’s own experts said the site was of high value and was significant.

    “The function of the department is to advocate for the protection, not advocate for the minimisation of the destruction”.

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/332357/doc-issues-ambivalent-coal-mine-submission
20. adam 20

    6 June 2017 at 1:53 pm

    A Stephen Fry, missed his wit on QI. This is nice piece from him, came up again when I opened YouTube – so thought would shear…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QN3riEFwl0Q&ab_channel=BrianGovatos
21. greywarshark 21

    6 June 2017 at 2:23 pm

    Electricity – minigrids – development.
    https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/mini-grids-africa-electrification-by-strive-masiyiwa-and-richard-branson-2017-06

    And remember we are basically a developing country relying on commodity farming, tourism, and overseas companies buying up special resources and anything clever we achieve.
22. greywarshark 22

    6 June 2017 at 2:31 pm

    Prescription to break the economic slowdown – raide the minimum wage. It uses what economic tools are left. What a good idea.

    https://www.project-syndicate.org/onpoint/escaping-the-wage-trap-by-bill-emmott-2017-05

    Japan famously had an “income-doubling” plan in the 1960s. With that successful example in mind, why not introduce a “minimum wage doubling” plan, to be carried out over a period of years, thus giving business the chance to adjust?

    as Keynes famously said, when the facts change, I change my mind.
    The main reason governments are leery of intervening in labor markets is bad memories of failed wage and price controls during the high-inflation 1970s. But a second, more current, reason is that businesses everywhere lobby them to keep out, arguing that competitiveness depends on cheap labor.

    But it’s time to ignore the lobbies and take courage. Sometimes, raising the minimum wage really would risk killing employment. But today that looks unlikely, at least in countries where unemployment rates are now low. And we need more investment in new technology to raise productivity, not less. Raising minimum wages would help stimulate that investment, while boosting consumer demand.
    • Draco T Bastard 22.1

      6 June 2017 at 4:25 pm

      as Keynes famously said, when the facts change, I change my mind.

      Ah, but do facts change?
      Or is it that we find out that what we thought was true was actually wrong?

      And we need more investment in new technology to raise productivity, not less. Raising minimum wages would help stimulate that investment, while boosting consumer demand.

      That’s what penal rates are for. Instead of having the same people work more and more it encourages a) employment of more people and b) investment in new technology to boost productivity. The latter also being helped by depreciation rules.
23. ianmac 23

    6 June 2017 at 3:13 pm

    “Lady Bronagh?” Sorry Bronagh that title is reserved for female members of the British Aristocracy who inherit the title.
    Bronagh will be “Bronagh, Lady Key”
    (Thanks Ruth Gardener, Ch Ch.)
24. Draco T Bastard 24

    6 June 2017 at 3:18 pm

    The tale of the dictator’s daughter and her prince

    Adult children of authoritarians are useful in three ways: first, they tend to be trustworthy confidants in regimes rife with paranoia, as corrupt authoritarian states usually are. Second, they are excellent vessels for laundering money, creating enough distance that assets stolen from the state are harder to track. Third, they tend to have a warmer public profile which offsets the brutality of the dictator by distracting the population with pictures of their happy families or glamorous lifestyle.

    Remind anyone of a particular NZ family?
25. Glenn 25

    6 June 2017 at 5:21 pm

    Tillerson gets the fingers

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/93382262/birdflipping-welcome-for-us-secretary-of-state-rex-tillerson-in-new-zealand
26. greywarshark 26

    6 June 2017 at 9:08 pm

    Something good to hear and see.
    If you like Don McLean singing Vincent watch this youtube which is presented with a
    backdrop of Van Gogh’s paintings – a beautifully presented video which honours the painter and the writer and singer well.
    

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS