Open mike 07/06/2010

43 comments on “Open mike 07/06/2010 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Tigger 1

   7 June 2010 at 9:05 am

   Looking at all these ‘oh gee, I’m really ordinary even though now I have this obsolete ‘sir’ thing in front of my name and don’t call me ‘sir’ anyway, I’m still Joe Bloggs even though I’m not’ lines from people getting knighthoods makes me wonder if Crosby Stills and Trextor are doing spin for everybody now. If you’re determined not to use the title then why accept it in the first place?
   • felix 1.1

     7 June 2010 at 10:33 am

     “If you’re determined not to use the title then why accept it in the first place?”

     Just in case you’re ever in a situation where you’re head to head with someone who would win on merit alone, it may be comforting to know you have a title up your sleeve which still carries a bit of weight with a lot of people.
2. True Blue 2

   7 June 2010 at 9:15 am

   I see Len Brown has been caught with his hand in th till. Great advert for Super City mayor…..
   • Herodotus 2.1

     7 June 2010 at 11:14 am

     http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10650246
     He has a lead that Jonhbanks needs help to recover from. Interesting, this is getting dirty, just as well that most who are passive I think will vote for anyone but Johnboy as long as they get out to vote. This is where the effort should be placed to get voters to vote. There should be a follow up to this attach as a specific post
     How about johnboys water promise “…Water has got to be used for water. We cannot take any cash from water profits to use for general council spending. That bad behaviour must stop. We shouldn’t be taking profits from stormwater. We should be using profits for [wastewater] separation so we can clean up the beaches.” link to full article below
     http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10469846
     sorry IPrent had to comment !!!!!!!
3. jcuknz 3

   7 June 2010 at 10:16 am

   They probably are sensible people who know it makes sense to not use two words when one will do?
4. Bill 4

   7 June 2010 at 11:05 am

   Anybody remember Koresh and Waco? Or any of the other 1001 cults that have run up against the relative sanity of the wider world? Such as Jonestown? And how it all tends to wind up?

   After reading this piece by an Israeli who tries to explain the depth of the conditioning that he, as an Israeli citizen was subjected to; and how he extracted himself by being abroad and exposed to other world views. And further reflecting on what he says about how ‘normal’ and uncontroversial opinions or views he encountered would be considered insane in Israel…and further reflecting on friends I’ve met who have escaped from cults and how at variance the view of the cult always seems to be when compared to a broad range of views in ‘the real world’ and how adversarial, paranoid and secretive cults tend to be…well, you can see where this is going. Is Zionism simply a cult that escaped the compound and that now expresses itself on the world’s international stage through the state of Israel?

   I know that every culture…every political or religious entity or whatever can be broken down and explained in erms of dynamics of conditioning and so on. But the paranoia…the victim hood of Israel and its citizens seems to be of a different order.

   Whereas the leaders of N. Korea might be said to be this or that, claims that the mentality of the leadership extends to the populace at large appear to be absent. Same with Iran. And the mentality of the Kremlin did not extend down through the population either who tended, as far as I can discern, towards cynicism and resignation rather than compliance with preferred Kremlin orthodoxies. And the same can be said of the US where the population seems to stand way to the left of Washington…and so it goes in country after country.

   But in Israel, something else is happening in that space between state and citizenry. There is a confluence that isn’t generally present in nations.

   Which means isolating the leadership is not an option if one is seeking to rehabilitate Israel. And it means that a boycott would only strengthen the resolve of Zionists to stand firm against the world. And it means that if Iran or Turkey provide a military escort to any aid convoy then all hell will probably be breaking loose just like with any cult in the past. Just this time, the scale will be bigger.
   • Name 4.1

     7 June 2010 at 12:11 pm

     I believe many Israeli citizens are aghast at what is happening in Gaza and elsewhere, and are quite aware of the stupidity of their leadership: eg see:

     http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-navy-reserves-officers-allow-external-gaza-flotilla-probe-1.294536

     Maybe, like Peter, Netanyahu has cried wolf once too often.
   • prism 4.2

     7 June 2010 at 8:30 pm

     Blip wrote this in the CCD thread but it struck me as being appropriate to the Israeli situation.

     Personally, I’ve given up arguing with the denialists. Its like seeking to apply logic and reason to cult members who have had their cognitive functions disabled by the fervour of their belief and the brainwashing tactics of those who would control them.
     • Bill 4.2.1

       7 June 2010 at 8:52 pm

       If my Grandmother had experienced some dreadful trauma ( say a rape which resulted in the birth of my mother), it may well have impacted on how she related to or treated my mother. My mother’s behaviour towards me would then likewise have been affected by the treatment she received from her mother….a kind of intergenerational ripple effect coming from the original event.

       The dynamics would be multifarious and sometimes subtle. In time, over a number of generations, the disturbance of the ‘ripples’ would be lost in the general noise of the environment at large.

       But what if everyone in your environment has or had grandparents that experienced the same trauma? How persistent are the ripple effects then? Where is the general noise that will over time nullify or render invisible the effects of the initial trauma? What if the general environment is one where original traumas are held on to, gnawed at and chewed over?
       • prism 4.2.1.1

         7 June 2010 at 9:38 pm

         There have been attempts at circuit breaking with Jews to allay the crushing feeling of victimhood. The admittance of guilt under the Nazi regime, the land that was made available for the Israeli state, the building of a museum, the camps being maintained etc. And there is the desire to not forget, to prevent a repeat of those horrors. The Nuremburg trials – were they to look into this?

         I don’t know if there has been a truth and reconciliation approach to try and lessen the feelings of grief and betrayal of the fine community which could be identified as Jewish. It seems that the nation needs to go through grief counselling. It would be useful to include gypsies, and other groups reviled and despatched, to attempt to mend wounds still felt by many, though not matching the enormity of the attack on Jewish people.
         • Bill 4.2.1.1.1

           7 June 2010 at 11:34 pm

           Jews who went through the trauma of the camps and didn’t go to Israel after the war were subjected to a wholly different environment….a healthier more varied one than were the Zionists. Their ( the Zionist’s) environment was strictly limited and seems to have kept those intergenerational ripples of trauma running as quite high waves affecting generation after generation.

           Know what I mean? There are no waves from other sources to disrupt or cancel that singular dynamic of being the world’s most hard done by set of people.

           I’m suggesting that the difference might be the environment that surrounded the survivors of the trauma of the camps. Zionists swaddled themselves in victim hood and that justified what they did short term ( Palestine) and continues to be the basis of propaganda and conditioning that justifies the continuing wrongs they perpetrate on others. They really do have a cult psychology.

           But Jews or Gypsies don’t exhibit cult mentalities and neither do the other identifiable sections of society that suffered the camps. Some might have a sense of being discriminated against and some are discriminated against by the wider society/environment they live within. But Zionists reckon the whole world is against them and have constructed a nation that appears to nurture attitudes more usually associated with cults. Unhealthy and not so open to reason.
           • prism 4.2.1.1.1.1

             8 June 2010 at 9:13 pm

             just a last thought bill. (i’m pecking while i eat pizza with one hand.)
             i thought that a reconciliation offer would force a fronting up by the israeli regime and that including gypsies and particular others, weren’t the slavs targets as well, would mean a mingling and a defusing of some of the singularity factor.

             What psychological ways can Israel be approached? They are so righteous, so aggrieved, so innocent, so paranoid, so delicate and damaged, so misunderstood, so determined to be in a state of high dudgeon – every reproach or retribution seems to start them off in a fresh wave. High dudgeon to virtual dungeon – they have locked themselves away from their chronic problem. Bit like a teenager throwing a murderous hissy fit – I hate you! You don’t care about me!! You never loved me!!! You aren’t fair!!! etc The tears and tantrums have to stop sometime, with some quieter means of finding peace. Just saying…
             • Bill …

               8 June 2010 at 9:43 pm

               Crosses my mind that the US and not the neighbouring Arab states are Israel’s worst enemy. It is the US that has cynically armed and aided Israel. Without the US input, Israel would have been forced to come to some type of accommodation with the Arab world and the hard core Zionism would have been somewhat marginalised…an effective dampening of those intergenerational waves or ripple effects?

               Maybe?

               Anyway, is pecking while eating pizza with one hand similar to having your cake and eating it, or some form of foreplay I’m not familiar with? Just asking…
               • prism …

                 8 June 2010 at 9:57 pm

                 I couldn’t possibly comment. Your imagination is in good/bad order.
5. ianmac 5

   7 June 2010 at 11:22 am

   “The UN has proposed to Israel that former New Zealand Prime Minster Geoffrey Palmer lead an inquiry into the flotilla raid. ”
   How is it that two ex Labour PMs, Helen and Geoff, are the calibre to be sought for such high office? Is there an intellectual rigour and high level of integrity in the Labour movement?
   But wait. Tighty and Ginge and their mates will sing the praises of the intellectual giant, John Key! Such a successful wealthy intellectual with undoubted integrity, must be a sitter for high international office especially after getting his knighthood and after appearing on the Letterman Show. Wow! 🙂
6. Badger 6

   7 June 2010 at 11:40 am

   http://vuemondiale.wordpress.com/2010/06/07/special-feature-a-speculative-piece-on-the-future-of-the-new-zealand-first-party/

   I know I’ve already posted this on kiwiblogh but I thought it was worth a re-post here.

   Interesting thought exercise – “What if New Zealand First had an Asian Co-Leader?”
   • I dreamed a dream 6.1

     7 June 2010 at 7:31 pm

     In politics, anything is possible.
7. The Voice of Reason 7

   7 June 2010 at 11:45 am

   Yet another reason to like The Pixies (and Elvis Costello):

   http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment_and_arts/10250452.stm
8. seth 8

   7 June 2010 at 1:16 pm

   Do you not realise that microphone abbreviated is “mic”?
   • Dave 8.1

     7 June 2010 at 1:47 pm

     Do you not realise that comment means absolutely nothing? who cares?

     captcha: ‘contributions’ something seth doesn’t bother doing constructively, get a tissue to wipe the excrement that surely flows from your mouth
   • Daveosaurus 8.2

     7 June 2010 at 1:47 pm

     Both variants are acceptable as colloquial abbreviations of the word.

     In addition, from Merriam Webster: “Main Entry: open mike.
     Function: noun
     Date: 1978
     : an event in which amateurs may perform (as at a coffeehouse) usually without auditioning first”
9. RedLogix 9

   7 June 2010 at 3:03 pm

   Booming School 101

   You will love this video…total passion and exasperation at righteous finest.
   • ianmac 9.1

     7 June 2010 at 4:04 pm

     Terrifying thanks Red Logix! But it will be OK in NZ waters won’t it ’cause Jerry said it would. It couldn’t happen here because there is world wide drilling expertise amongst the Oil companies who have our best interests at heart. And our seas never get higher than 200mm.
   • Bill 9.2

     7 June 2010 at 4:23 pm

     In case you are considering going out there and popping one of those culpable bastards who’ll probably… and I mention this totally incidentally… be in Queenstown sometime soon for some R&R, here’s the original text used in that vid for the sake of some mulling over while you wait it out in them there picturesque surroundings…wherever those picturesque surroundings may be…. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/5/11/11558/1890?detail=f
10. DeeDub 10

    7 June 2010 at 3:21 pm

    An interesting read (and watch) about the IDFs recent behaviour in light of history over at Adam Curtis’ blog.

    Boots on other feet etc . . . .
    • Zorr 10.1

      7 June 2010 at 3:44 pm

      Nice read DeeDub and it is sometimes disturbing to read those comment sections and see how far some people are willing to go to justify the Zionist policy. I watch “Real Time with Bill Maher” on a weekly basis atm because I find him somewhat amusing and he does manage to get some excellent guests but I cannot stomach some of his boldfaced assertions on two things: 1) religion and 2) Israel. The statement that Hamas will never consider a “two state” policy is correct, but where is the Israeli two state policy? When it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict all I can really see is Israel and some land they have converted in to holding pens.
11. Name 11

    7 June 2010 at 4:15 pm

    Here’s an interesting pointer to the future prospects of NZ Ltd.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet
    • Bill 11.1

      7 June 2010 at 4:48 pm

      More brainless fucking bullshit.

      Now that we are done blaming the poor, lets move on to blaming the fucking animals. You do know all this does is add up to a bullshit position that looks to keep on keeping on with business as usual by claiming that nature is at least as damaging as industrial processes..or, on the flip side that industrial processes hold up as reasonably benign when compared to more ‘natural’ processes..such as animals living and dying?

      Think about that for a second. Nothing to do with industrialists and corporations and all the rest of Capitalism, oh no, the poor are fucking each other and the beasts are fucking the climate. So if the poor stop fucking and those that don’t are denied everything we take for granted including anything over and above a fucking starvation diet then we’ll be sweet.

      Couldn’t possibly point a finger of accusation at the super rich or suggest shutting down the whole oil and greed driven capitalist shebang? Fuck no. Extinction is good because animals are bad and so the more species we wipe the more we will have done to protect the world from climate change. And the poor are fucking poor and lessen the full impact of enjoying being a resource guzzling twat. So we need to put more resources into removing them from existence too. Preferably by ensuring they never come into existence in the first place.

      Professor Edgar Hertwich, the lead author of the report, said: “Animal products cause more damage than [producing] construction minerals such as sand or cement, plastics or metals. Biomass and crops for animals are as damaging as [burning] fossil fuels.”
      • Zorr 11.1.1

        7 June 2010 at 6:13 pm

        “More brainless fucking bullshit.” <– couldn't sum up your rant more accurately

        The report is on the damage done by resource intensive farming where the concentrated raising of herds of animals in artificially created spaces (fenced paddocks included here) is damaging to the environment and also means that we aren't producing food in the most sustainable and successful manner possible and ensure that everyone gets more to eat.

        "Couldn’t possibly point a finger of accusation at the super rich or suggest shutting down the whole oil and greed driven capitalist shebang? Fuck no. Extinction is good because animals are bad and so the more species we wipe the more we will have done to protect the world from climate change." This is possibly the most idiotic piece of drivel ever written. Farming, of the nature discussed, is probably more responsible for the extinction of species than any single other force as it leads to clearing of habitats. Also, we are all responsible for this as part of the developed world – this doesn't just rest on the shoulders of the super rich, it is on those of us who would still prefer a nice juicy steak over a more sustainable vegetable sandwich.
        • Bill 11.1.1.1

          7 June 2010 at 7:32 pm

          Zorr, the report equates the damage caused by animal husbandry to that caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Do you buy that comparison? What about the assertion that ‘animal products’ cause more damage than producing construction materials such as sand, cement, plastic or metals? You buy that one too?

          Now, if you do buy into those comparisons then you can quite logically conclude that if all the animals were slaughtered then the world’s greenhouse problem would be halved. But why stop there? Go wild. Get all the little critters and make real inroads into averting global warming!

          See, that’s where the logic of the report leads. It’s not my absurdity. It’s the report’s. But you think the report is fine and so it is me, not the report that wins your ‘Most Idiotic Piece of Drivel Ever Written Award’? Whatever.

          Finally, I’m much relieved by your conclusion that I need not worry or take any responsibility for all the crap coming down seeing as how I do not ‘still prefer juicy steak’ over a vegan sandwich. That’s good. Now if all the world were to turn vegan we could really crank up those industrial processes. We could really let them rip ’cause what with being vegan and all the animals being dead as per the logic of the report and apparently you as well we’ll have cut ourselves a huge amount of slack on the climate change front.
          • The Voice of Reason 11.1.1.1.1

            7 June 2010 at 8:20 pm

            Crikey, Bill, you couldn’t have misread this report more thoroughly if you tried. What the UN is saying is that it takes a shitload more energy to produce meat than it does vegetables.

            Meat is fundamentally wasteful; it follows that a vegan diet is more ecologically sound than a meat eating diet. It’s really not that hard to work out the economics of locally sourced, low impact food versus high polluting, much travelled food. Have a look here:

            http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/26/palm-oil-initiative-carbon-emissions

            You might find some interesting debate here, too:

            http://www.thestandard.org.nz/world-vegetarian-day-october-1st/
            • Bill 11.1.1.1.1.1

              7 June 2010 at 8:32 pm

              No VoR. That is not what the report was saying. Pasted yet again, the quotes from the Guardian article.

              Professor Edgar Hertwich, the lead author of the report, said: “Animal products cause more damage than [producing] construction minerals such as sand or cement, plastics or metals. Biomass and crops for animals are as damaging as [burning] fossil fuels.’

              Nothing to do with meat v vegetables there. It’s a straight comparison between animal farming and industrial processes

              And no mention of vegetables here either. Just a call to deny others those things we want to continue to enjoy.

              Prof Hertwich, who is also the director of the industrial ecology programme at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, said that developing countries where much of this population growth will take place must not follow the western world’s pattern of increasing consumption: “Developing countries should not follow our model. But it’s up to us to develop the technologies in, say, renewable energy or irrigation methods.”

              And when you link off the Guardian piece and find that the stakeholders include biofuel lobbyists….

              It’s crap. It’s about blaming everyone and everything (consumers to animals) while pretending that production is a benign reaction to external stimulii.
        • Bill 11.1.1.2

          7 June 2010 at 8:16 pm

          Having just delved into the report itself, it took all of two minutes to get to the central doozie of the whole affair. Economic activity is pursued to satisfy consumption. (p5 of preface).

          So, economic activity is not driven by the seeking of profit. And advertising, contrary to popular misconception, must be all about consumers making production demands on industry when it\’s activities are not satisfying consumer demand.

          The whole report is yet another attempt to save the theory of capitalism in the face of real climate and ecological melt down.

          Which is why it concludes that consumers have the solutions. They, not industry, create the demand and therefore the problem in the first place.

          So don\’t eat meat for one day a week. And \’we\’ can carry on as we are…which actually means that industry can carry on as it does. but that\’s just a wee detail that we are not meant to pay any attention to.

          Our attention has to be on the poor. We must work to ensure that the majority of the world\’s population never eat meat and never make the insatiable consumer demands that we have made. And since they breed faster than us (and we accept without question that population growth is a major problem, don\’t we?) then they, the poor are the problem. And if they become not poor, then they will still be the problem because they will make the demands we make and industry will have no option but to respond because industry exists to satisfy consumer demand (p3 preface).

          Do you see it yet Zorr?

          That industry and our systems of production are never subjected to the spotlight. In the Guardian piece, there was no challenge to industrial farming. There was just the assertion that it must not be extended beyond its current service to \’us\’…that it must not be extended to anyone else because that would be bad. At the moment it is thumbs up doable and that can be preserved by denying others
          • Zorr 11.1.1.2.1

            8 June 2010 at 12:06 am

            You say: That industry and our systems of production are never subjected to the spotlight. In the Guardian piece, there was no challenge to industrial farming.”

            In the Guardian piece there is: “The panel, which drew on numerous studies including the Millennium ecosystem assessment, cites the following pressures on the environment as priorities for governments around the world: climate change, habitat change, wasteful use of nitrogen and phosphorus in fertilisers, over-exploitation of fisheries, forests and other resources, invasive species, unsafe drinking water and sanitation, lead exposure, urban air pollution and occupational exposure to particulate matter.”

            Funny how when you read something objectively as opposed to subjectively you can pick up all these strange nuances that fill entire paragraphs where there is a real challenge to what is current practice in industrial farming. To just go ahead and quote TVoR again as he was right the first time “Crikey, Bill, you couldn’t have misread this report more thoroughly if you tried.”
            • Bill 11.1.1.2.1.1

              8 June 2010 at 10:17 am

              Descriptive lists of the effect of this or that industrial process ( farming or other) is not challenging said industry or industrial process.

              Modern agriculture uses resources and produces pollution. Modern industry tends to exhaust resources (mineral, flora and fauna) and produce pollution.

              What didn’t we know?

              Does the report call for an end to intensive or industrial farming practices? No.

              It calls for a limit to their spread. It calls for so called developing nations to find another way of doing industrial capitalism because if they do what we do then (the report fears) everything will fall over.

              It calls for, among other things, developing nations to ‘decouple agriculture’ from growth…whatever that might mean. What is implied is that if the ‘developing’ world doesn’t do what ‘we’ do then we (ie our industry) can carry on doing what we do (it does). Meanwhile the onus is on the poor to be responsible and continue to fuck off and die in poverty…for the good of the planet you understand, not so that western industrial capitalism can blithely carry on as is.

              Read the report, not the interpretation offered by the Guardian. The main focus is comparing this sector of production with that sector of production and weighing it all up against the demands of big baddie of the whole affair; the consumer.

              Page 5. “(This report) describes pressures as resulting from economic activities. These activities are pursued for a purpose, to satisfy consumption.”

              That second sentence is all you need to know that the report throws open the doors for asinine ‘Buy a Lightbulb and Save the Planet’ type prescriptions….Alongside the utterly predictable, ‘Don’t let those pesky poor over populating fuckers ever develop infrastructure that will allow them access to lightbulbs ( or any other technological convenience) ’cause we can’t sustain that kind of shit.’

              In other words. Blame the consumer (but allow them to feel empowered by suggesting they ‘buy/eat ethically’ or whatever…). And blame the poor, because that stops the wealthy in ‘the West’ feeling so bad and leaves the actual culprit in the clear. Describe the ‘unfortunate and unintentional’ downsides of industrial capitalism but remember that it merely responds to consumer demands and is therefore essentially beyond reproach.
12. theseeker 12

    7 June 2010 at 6:18 pm

    the question i would like phil goff to answer is do they support jim anderton for his mayoral bid here in chch.
    • I dreamed a dream 12.1

      7 June 2010 at 7:29 pm

      What is your point? I thought that Phil and the Labour Party would be supportive of Jim as Mayor of Christchurch. Maybe I am missing something.
13. Draco T Bastard 13

    7 June 2010 at 8:50 pm

    
    One thousand billion worlds
    Just thought I’d share.

    PS, if you’re not on broadband then don’t click the link.
    • I dreamed a dream 13.1

      7 June 2010 at 9:54 pm

      Blast! I can’t find the Southern Cross!
      • jc 13.1.1

        7 June 2010 at 10:20 pm

        that is so cool.
      • Marty G 13.1.2

        7 June 2010 at 11:06 pm

        It’s not directly to the top bottom of the image. See the image it aligned to the galactic plane, but the Earth’s axis is not. That’s not very helpful on where to find it 🙂

        Actually, I find if you look at the night sky far from artificial light, without a moon preferably, a lot more dim stars become visible and picking out constellations becomes harder.

        That brightest star to Galactic South is presumably Sirius.
        • Draco T Bastard 13.1.2.1

          7 June 2010 at 11:59 pm

          Actually, I find if you look at the night sky far from artificial light, without a moon preferably, a lot more dim stars become visible and picking out constellations becomes harder.

          One of the things that I noticed when I moved down to Dunedin from Auckland a few years ago (I’ve moved back since :() was that not only could I see more stars I could see their colours more readily as well.
    • ianmac 13.2

      7 June 2010 at 11:21 pm

      We are pretty insignificant but pretty lucky to have such a world as ours even if there is so much being done to destroy it. ThanksDraco.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS