Open mike 07/08/2016

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, August 7th, 2016 - 88 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmikeOpen mike is your post.

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

Step up to the mike …

88 comments on “Open mike 07/08/2016”

  1. Super-heavy frost in the south of the South; Jack’s iced us up good and proper!

    • b waghorn 1.1

      And all the morons will use it to confirm that climate change isn’t real.
      #here’s looking at you hyde

      • stunned mullet 1.1.1

        Not surprising, there’s plenty of morons who look at isolated weather events to argue from their corner rather than relying on longer term data.

      • weka 1.1.2

        Pretty sure Hyde would have been one of the colder places in NZ this morning 😉

        http://www.davidwallphoto.com/detail/34904-Hoar-Frost-on-Hay-Bales,-near-Hyde,-Central-Otago,-South-Island,-New-Zealand.html

        The reply to the deniers is to point how it might be affecting food growing in NZ (warm/harsh winter pattern we’re not used to).

      • Murray Simmonds 1.1.3

        Spot on b waghorn.

        What the “deniers” fail to acknowledge is that part and parcel of climate change is that climatic events will be “more extreme” from here on.

        Something to do with more energy in the system, as I understand it. (“Heat” is approximately equivalent to “energy”, I suppose, in this context).

        But, as usual, the “deniers” won’t let FACTS get in the way of their self-propagating delusions.

        • KJT 1.1.3.1

          It was very accurately described by an elderly lady some time ago.
          “Boil a kettle on high heat it is much more tumultuous than boiling on low heat”.

          Hence more extremes and more intense weather as the atmosphere warms.

    • yep nice frost in Mohua too. I’m loving the mountains with their snow on – making me be in the moment and also be mindful and also appreciative of the beauty. Hmm – might get into a cascade of appreciation…

    • joe90 1.3

      According to my weather station* it’s a balmy 4c out here in the Cliff.

      lotsa firewood in, nope, not going outside*

    • weston 2.1

      What dickheads the fur councll are .The govnments idea of killing all the possoms is a good one !! Bit like federated farmers saying they going to make a killing while the goings good then they all gonna become vegans ..victims of doc propaganda i guess .

  2. Looking out of the window at the quince in my garden,
    a sparrow lands on one of the tree’s rimed branches in a puff of fine ice crystals. The sky is blue, the air perfectly still, the sun is up but the temperature is sitting unmoved, on frigid!

  3. James 4

    I see the “stripper” has now been fired for offering sexual “extras” to clients.

    • North 4.1

      So that snippet deals with the question of consent does it James ? If so, how ?

    • Colonial Viper 4.2

      i see an unsafe work environment lawsuit coming.

      • Lanthanide 4.2.1

        She said she’d never do group events again because she felt threatened.

        • Colonial Viper 4.2.1.1

          A feral group of 100kg guys pissed as would be enough to make a police officer armed with telescopic baton and pepper spray feel threatened.

  4. joe90 5

    Bernie Sanders’ op-ed –

    The conventions are over and the general election has officially begun. In the primaries, I received 1,846 pledged delegates, 46% of the total. Hillary Clinton received 2,205 pledged delegates, 54%. She received 602 superdelegates. I received 48 superdelegates. Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee and I will vigorously support her.

    Donald Trump would be a disaster and an embarrassment for our country if he were elected president. His campaign is not based on anything of substance — improving the economy, our education system, healthcare or the environment. It is based on bigotry. He is attempting to win this election by fomenting hatred against Mexicans and Muslims. He has crudely insulted women. And as a leader of the “birther movement,” he tried to undermine the legitimacy of our first African American president. That is not just my point of view. That’s the perspective of a number of conservative Republicans.

    In these difficult times, we need a president who will bring our nation together, not someone who will divide us by race or religion, not someone who lacks an understanding of what our Constitution is about.

    On virtually every major issue facing this country and the needs of working families, Clinton’s positions are far superior to Trump’s. Our campaigns worked together to produce the most progressive platform in the history of American politics. Trump’s campaign wrote one of the most reactionary documents.

    Clinton understands that Citizens United has undermined our democracy. She will nominate justices who are prepared to overturn that Supreme Court decision, which made it possible for billionaires to buy elections. Her court appointees also would protect a woman’s right to choose, workers’ rights, the rights of the LGBT community, the needs of minorities and immigrants and the government’s ability to protect the environment.

    Trump, on the other hand, has made it clear that his Supreme Court appointees would preserve the court’s right-wing majority.

    Clinton understands that in a competitive global economy we need the best-educated workforce in the world. She and I worked together on a proposal that will revolutionize higher education in America. It will guarantee that the children of any family in this country with an annual income of $125,000 a year or less – 83% of our population – will be able to go to a public college or university tuition free. This proposal also substantially reduces student debt.

    Trump, on the other hand, has barely said a word about higher education.

    Clinton understands that at a time of massive income and wealth inequality, it is absurd to provide huge tax breaks to the very rich.

    Trump, on the other hand, wants billionaire families like his to enjoy hundreds of billions of dollars in new tax breaks.

    Clinton understands that climate change is real, is caused by human activity and is one of the great environmental crises facing our planet. She knows that we must transform our energy system away from fossil fuels and move aggressively to energy efficiency and sustainable energy.

    Trump, on the other hand, like most Republicans, rejects science and the conclusions of almost all major researchers in the field. He believes that climate change is a “hoax,” and that there’s no need to address it.

    Clinton understands that this country must move toward universal healthcare. She wants to see that all Americans have the right to choose a public option in their healthcare exchange, that anyone 55 or older should be able to opt in to Medicare, and that we must greatly improve primary healthcare through a major expansion of community health centers. She also wants to lower the outrageously high cost of prescription drugs.

    And what is Donald Trump’s position on healthcare? He wants to abolish the Affordable Care Act, throw 20 million people off the health insurance they currently have and cut Medicaid for lower-income Americans.

    During the primaries, my supporters and I began a political revolution to transform America. That revolution continues as Hillary Clinton seeks the White House. It will continue after the election. It will continue until we create a government which represents all of us and not just the 1 percent – a government based on the principle of economic, social, racial and environmental justice.

    I understand that many of my supporters are disappointed by the final results of the nominating process, but being despondent and inactive is not going to improve anything. Going forward and continuing the struggle is what matters. And, in that struggle, the most immediate task we face is to defeat Donald Trump.

    http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-sanders-message-20160805-snap-story.html

    • ianmac 5.1

      Thanks Joe. Puts the Clinton plan in perspective – as long as she actions them. I guess she needs a Democrat Senate?

    • Garibaldi 5.2

      Is anyone out there gullible enough to think that Hillary will implement Bernie’s policies? It is my bet that any concessions to him will be overridden by her “masters”.

      • Colonial Viper 5.2.1

        spot on. Clinton is a neocon and supporter of regime change and soft coup programmes.

        • swordfish 5.2.1.1

          I and others here have no idea what you’re talking about !

          Proof that you’re wrong, CV:

          (1) Hillary’s a woman
          (2) She’s a Democrat and everyone knows the Democrats – particularly the Democratic National Committee elites – are dovish, peace-loving liberals and progressives, committed to swift social justice, international Law and the benevolent selfless nurturing of Third World countries wherever they may be. Surely ?
          (3) Hillary’s a woman
          (4) Bill was cool when he put on those shades and played the sax.
          (5) Hillary’s a woman
          (6) Trump’s a nasty bogeyman who attacks Muslims and Mexicans, so Hillary must be OK and will make a mighty fine President.
          (7) Hillary is very polite on a personal level and pleasant company to have a cuppa with, so she must advocate a benign foreign policy, focussed on the greater good. To suggest otherwise is pure misogyny !
          (8) Hillary’s a woman and (as Sabine has so rightly pointed out) possesses a uterus.
          (9) Let’s just forget all that yucky stuff about Iraq and Libya.

          • Colonial Viper 5.2.1.1.1

            I do love her suit pants. Thrilling!

          • Sabine 5.2.1.1.2

            actually lets not forget all that yucky stuff about Iraq and Libya and lets mention

            Bush the elder
            Bush the second
            Dick Cheyney
            Will Powell
            Condoleaza Rice
            Donald Rumsfeld
            Wolfowitz
            Perle
            Friedman
            Mr Blair
            Sarkozy
            Howard
            and any other of the coalition of the willing and bribed
            all the bubbleheads at Fox News, CNN, NBC, ABC, MSNBC NPR and so on and so on that all went like Ohhhhh shock n awe.

            all the us american public that needed to kill Sadam cause he insulted Poppy Bush

            and then lets mention that Hilary has a uterus and that maybe some women choose to vote for the uterus cause they would like some fake religious republicans out of their uteri so that they don’t have to be incubators every time they would like to enjoy a romp, or because they don’t want to have their uterus fall out after the 19 th birth, or want to die of child birth, or want to have to give birth to a still born cause no medical care is provided.

            Ahh just once i would like to be a man and pretend that these issues don’t exist, that women should not consider voting for their best interest.

            lets also not mention that there are many in the US that have absolutely no issue with Lybia and Iraq or Afghanistan or Syria, or Iran or or or or and that will only vote on domestic issues.

            and then lets all vote for donald trump and sing kumbaya 🙂 cause he is gonna safe the world.

            And do wish for Donald Trump to loose 50 pounds, wear better pant suits and maybe even get a decent hair cut. also his hands, so small, no wonder meliana looks so peeved all the time 🙂

            and above all lets not speak of the presnit of the last eight years, a geezer called Obama. Who of course did not start the wars in Lybia, Lebanon, Syria, nor did he escalate any situations, nor did he apprehend the evil doer of all Osama bin laden and such….nah t’was all Hilary, since at least the eighties this women has taken all the decision in the US…..twas all her.

            • swordfish 5.2.1.1.2.1

              See my comment from a few weeks ago:

              Latest primaries – Rubio gone

              Very much immersed in the highly sanitised abstractions of the Washington Consensus, Clinton was the leading proponent in the Obama Administration of the hawkish doctrine of “liberal interventionism” and “humanitarian war” promoted by Susan Rice and, in particular, the influential Samantha Power. These three pushed hard for the Libyan debacle and then extended the same rationale to Syria …

              Also: A few articles and opinion pieces on Clinton’s Aggressively Hawkish Foreign Policy:

              “Hillary Clinton Promises a More Muscular Foreign Policy as President … From Iran to Syria to Ukraine, Clinton wants the US to be more aggressive … While the speech focussed on Iran, Clinton also addressed foreign policy elsewhere, highlighting areas in which she thought Obama was too hesitant to use military might to exert American influence abroad …”

              And:

              Are GOP Neo-Cons getting ready to ally with Clinton ? “Neocon elites are probably the likeliest faction to defect to Clinton, and what they want is blood-curdling aggressiveness”

              Open mike 11/05/2016

              Not to mention:

              … This proposed change of policy by a Clinton administration is all too likely, going by her past record of choosing military solutions to complex problems even when it means fighting more than one war at a time and when the outcome is unclear. As a Senator, she voted for the Iraq war in 2003 and, as Secretary of State in 2011, she was the driving force behind the Nato military intervention in Libya that overthrew Muammar Gaddafi and handed over the country to criminalised warlords. Her opinions normally coincide with those on the hawkish end of the US foreign policy establishment …

              Open mike 16/07/2016

          • weka 5.2.1.1.3

            “(1) Hillary’s a woman”

            Try doing that kind of run through about Obama and see how it plays.

            If you want to criticise Clinton, you don’t have to have a go at women voters to do it. Or women’s politics. Roe vs Wade every time leftie dudes, there’s no way round it (except for CV who is anti-abortion anyway).

            • Colonial Viper 5.2.1.1.3.1

              I’m not anti-abortion. I’m against people like yourself dehumanising viable healthy pregnancies, then acting all caring about the babies four or five months later.

              • weka

                Good to know CV, I had assumed from previous comments that you didn’t support women’s right to choose what do about unplanned pregnancies.

                I’d like a link to anything that supports your asserion that I dehumanise viable healthy pregnancies, then acting all caring about the babies four or five months later. Because I think you just made that up.

                • Colonial Viper

                  I think today’s abortion laws are 95% right.

                  And you are welcome to state what your actual position on what the human worth of an unborn fetus is.

              • McFlock

                I’m against people like yourself dehumanising viable healthy pregnancies, then acting all caring about the babies four or five months later.

                Let’s assume that this isn’t an oversimplification of a conglomeration of several complex issues dealing with humanity, agency, and so on. Why are you against that? Do you not see any difference between a fertilised egg and a baby that’s just beginning its path to get a personality?

            • swordfish 5.2.1.1.3.2

              “Try doing that kind of run through about Obama and see how it plays”

              Ok, let’s try it:

              (1) Barak’s Black

              That’s actually pretty much my point. Back in 2008, more than a few liberals and progressives were blind to Obama’s Establishment DNC credentials. Some of the more astute Left-leaning commentators in the US had been pretty sceptical about his capacity for real change right from the early stages of his Primary campaign. And certainly the moment he did his 2008 pre-Convention deal with the Clintons – all hope flew swiftly out the window.

              But, of course, he was going to be the first ever Black President !!!, just as Hillary may be the first ever Female President – so everything’s OK.

              For a certain type of affluent white liberal luvvie Democrat, electing a Black man to Office was the height of their progressive ambition … and they’ve been loudly congratulating themselves ever since. And It’ll be the same with Hillary.

              As Counterpunch recently put it:

              Part of what made the deeply conservative Barack Obama attractive to the U.S. corporate and imperial establishment during the long run up to the 2008 presidential election was the American power elite’s reasonable, born-out expectation that Obama’s skin color and status as a First Black President (FBP) would help make progressives, leftists, and serious liberals reluctant to forthrightly protest his coming service to the nation’s unelected and interrelated dictatorships of money, class, empire, and (curiously and stealthily enough) white privilege.

              Smart power brokers calculated correctly that political correctness around race – and the related fear of being considered racist because one dared to criticize a FBP – would help keep the left in check on Obama’s corporatist, Wall Street-pleasing, and imperial policies.

              With Hillary Clinton in the White House, … we’ll have some of the same problem around gender. Numerous progressives, liberals, and even leftists will be unduly reluctant to criticize an arch-militarist, super-corporatist Clinton White House because of Hillary’s status (should she win) as a First Female President (FFP).

              You see, at least half (probably more) of the “collateral damage” in wars started by Hillary (in order to cement her reputation in the history books as a tough-as-nails Pres) will possess a uterus. But, of course, they’re not affluent white American women, so what do they matter ?

              • Colonial Viper

                Obama won Ad Age’s “marketer of the year” award for his highly manipulative and effective 2008 corporate branding and PR exercise.

              • weka

                Nevertheless, women have legitimate reasons to vote for Clinton without that being reduced to sarcastic ‘Hillary’s a woman’ comments. It’s patronising as fuck. As I said, it’s pretty easy to critique Clinton without doing that. Hell, it’s pretty easy to critique voting for Clinton without doing that.

                “Ok, let’s try it:” [Obama]

                How about you try it again, this time with the full patronising effect?

                “But, of course, he was going to be the first ever Black President !!!, just as Hillary may be the first ever Female President – so everything’s OK.”

                Who said everything’s ok?

                “But, of course, they’re not affluent white American women, so what do they matter ?”

                Specious argument unless you are suggesting they either don’t vote for vote for Trump (I don’t buy the Trump will blow up less foreign women argument). But beyond that, let’s break this down a bit. If Trump wins and appoints an anti-abortion judge and that leads to rollbacks on abortion law, we’re not just talking about affluent white women. We’re talking disproportionately about poor women and non-white women. Who end up further in poverty or risking their bodies and lives. Not to mention what then happens to those kids that are born, and on and on it goes.

                And if Trump wins that battle it won’t end there. Roe vs Wade holds the line on a whole culture’s worth of safety for women. So when I hear left wing men making the argument against Clinton voters because of the lives of women in other countries, it just sounds a tad too convenient. Like women in the US should just suck it up because leftie men know what’s best for them and if they were real feminists and really cared about women they would be voting to protect women everywhere and stop being so selfish. Which of course is a complete and utter nonense, because Trump.

                If I was seeing some decent analysis of the issues for women and why they might be voting Clinton it might be different. But I’m not, I’m hearing the same old class trumps gender tropes and women should wait their turn. Class is a significant issue and it won’t be solved by hierarchising it.

                • Colonial Viper

                  What’s “patronising as fuck” is assuming Hillary somehow automatically deserves the votes of women.

                  40% to 45% of College educated women do not back Hillary.

                  Good on them for their independent thinking, ability to see Hillary for the crappy kind of two faced woman she really is, and their smart discounting of liberal scaremongering about this election.

                  • weka

                    “What’s “patronising as fuck” is assuming Hillary somehow automatically deserves the votes of women.”

                    perhaps you should direct your comments at the people that believe that instead of at me.

                    • Colonial Viper

                      just making a point that 40% to 45% of College educated women think that if the choice they are given is Hillary Clinton, then they’d prefer that women wait another turn for the Oval Office.

            • swordfish 5.2.1.1.3.3

              “If you want to criticise Clinton, you don’t have to have a go at women voters to do it.”

              No. I was gently chiding the handful of posters here who seem unable to articulate precisely why (against all the accumulated evidence) they think Pres Hillary will be a force for good in foreign policy.

              • weka

                “I was gently chiding the handful of posters here who seem unable to articulate precisely why (against all the accumulated evidence) they think Pres Hillary will be a force for good in foreign policy.”

                Who is that? And what does it have to do with her gender?

                • swordfish

                  See some of my links (in my reply to Sabine above) on Clinton’s Aggressively Hawkish Foreign Policy.

                  When challenged on this, one or two posters here (can’t be bothered tracking them down at this late hour) either downplay her uber-militaristic proclivities in a mubbley-incoherent sort of way or (more often) go deadly quiet and change the subject to Trump.

                  So, in my tongue-in-cheek reply – let me just repeat that for you because it’s something you may not be familiar with: tongue-in-cheek reply – to CV’s point about Clinton being, in effect, a neocon, … I tried to envisage how some of those same posters might deal with his critique based on their defence of Hillary over recent weeks. One aspect of which appears to be that she possesses a uterus.

                  • weka

                    Yes, I get all that Swordfish. What I’m pointing out is that there is a problem with misusing gender in that way. Politically.

    • Trump believes climate change is a hoax. In that fact alone no one should support him.

      • joe90 5.3.1

        That, and his team of economic advisors – five Steves, vulture capitalists and supply-side loons.

        So the Trump economic plan and advisors are just the same "tax cuts for the rich and deregulation for big business" Calvin Coolidge fans…— Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) August 6, 2016

        Just listened to the Carls Jr. CEO/Trump adviser on @CNN. No to minimum wage hikes, all the Larry Kudlow 1% tax cuts/supply side stuff…— Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) August 6, 2016

        http://www.vox.com/2016/8/5/12387698/trump-billionaires-economists

        • Colonial Viper 5.3.1.1

          And yet, Wall St gives over 95% of its donations to Hillary Clinton and the White House under Obama (and Bush) staffed key positions with former (and future) JP Morgan Goldman Sachs types.

          • marty mars 5.3.1.1.1

            You want to elect a climate change denier.

            • Colonial Viper 5.3.1.1.1.1

              As I’ve said before. There ain’t 5ppm CO2 difference between Trump and Clinton.

              • Is Clinton a denier?

                • Colonial Viper

                  There isn’t 5ppm difference between Trump and Clinton. And Clinton will say anything which is the flavour of the day. In the end, for Hillary, whoever donates enough to the Clinton foundation is what matters, as time has already proven.

                  • Surely if lots donate all expecting favours, many will be disappointed – as compared to one big loner.

                    • Chooky

                      re Clinton friends and donations ( with friends like this…?):

                      ‘Julian Assange special: Do Wikileaks have the email that will put Hillary Clinton in prison? (E376)’

                      https://www.rt.com/shows/going-underground/354847-wikileaks-dnc-leaks-russia/

                      “Afshin Rattansi goes underground with Julian Assange. We talk to the founder of Wikileaks about how the recent DNC leaks have no connection to Russia. Plus what are Hillary Clinton’s connections to Islamic State, Saudi Arabia and Russia?”

                      …”“The US government at the times when Hillary Clinton was in charge of the foreign policy did use Libya as a conduit to get arms to jihadists in Syria. That is well-established not just by a range of raw materials but also by … investigative reporters in the US, some of which were even published in The New York Times.”

                      “La Farge, which is … giant transnational concrete company was involved in Syria. There are more than 350 La Farge related emails in our Syria emails release. The investigations by Le Monde reveals that they paid ISIS money, taxes for their operations in certain areas, were engaged in a variety of business deals with ISIS.”

                      “Money from La Farge in 2015 and 2016 went to Hillary Clinton foundation. There is actually a long-term relationship between La Farge and Clinton; she was a member of the board.”

                      “There is also an extensive relationship between Hillary Clinton and Saudi Arabia , between the Clinton Foundation and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is probably the largest single donor to the Clinton Foundation and you can see Clinton’s arms export policies when she was a secretary of state favoring extensively Saudi Arabia.”…

                • One Two

                  Clintons past and present are so vile, it makes no difference what her position might be…

                  Subject to change for $$$

  5. ianmac 6

    Read somewhere yesterday that the McCulley/sheep report by the Auditor General was complete and/but the lawyers have had it for a while. I guess the lawyers are scrambling to get McCulley off the hook and thus Key protected.
    It is said that the report release is imminent. (Got all that from Twitter I think, and Hooton has a paywalled article about it.)

    • Anne 6.1

      Mentioned by Fran O’Sullivan on Q&A this morning. They were discussing OIA’s and some of the current problems being encountered. She mentioned that press gallery editors will already have some information re-the Saudi report and will be meeting to decide how to handle it – or something along those lines. I didn’t like the sound of it. The public might only end up with a ‘revised’ version of the report?

      I recommend listening to the panel discussion when it comes online. That is, if you don’t mind putting up with Josie Pagani as well.

  6. adam 7

    Cheri Honkala, what a star. Great interview.

  7. Chooky 8

    ‘Beijing sends bombers, fighter jets on combat patrols over contested S. China Sea’

    https://www.rt.com/news/354863-bombers-south-china-sea/

    …”On Friday, roughly 230 Chinese fishing vessels and Coast Guard ships passed by the Japanese-controlled islands of Senkaku in the East China Sea. The islands are called Diaoyu in China.

    Japan’s Foreign Ministry said the action was a unilateral escalation of tensions and demanded the Chinese Coast Guard vessels leave the area immediately.

    “This is a unilateral act that raises tensions … and it is unacceptable to us,” Kenji Kanasugi, from the Japanese foreign ministry said, according to the Kyodo news agency.

    The remote islets in the East China Sea are administered by Japan, but also claimed by Taiwan.

    Tensions between China and neighboring countries are running high in the region. China, Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam all have territorial claims in the South China Sea, with the US insisting on what it calls freedom of navigation patrols close to Chinese-controlled islands.

    Beijing previously refused to recognize an international arbitration ruling – initiated by the Philippines – in The Hague that declared null and void China’s claims over the group of islands which are 230km (143 miles) northwest of the Philippines mainland…

    and

    ‘India watches anxiously as Chinese influence grows –
    A $46bn economic corridor through disputed territories in Kashmir is causing most concern’

    https://next.ft.com/content/e9baebee-0bd8-11e6-9456-444ab5211a2f?utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=referral#axzz49UmwBedB

    “Talk of a new Silk Road may be intended to evoke romantic, non-threatening images of desert caravans, ancient ships and trade in exotic commodities. But China’s grand plan for a network of railways, highways, pipelines and ports across central Asia, and around Southeast Asia is generating anxiety in New Delhi…

    • Draco T Bastard 8.1

      Beijing previously refused to recognize an international arbitration ruling – initiated by the Philippines – in The Hague that declared null and void China’s claims over the group of islands which are 230km (143 miles) northwest of the Philippines mainland…

      Dammit, why can’t they actually just name the islands?
      The directions they give shows no islands at all in the area.

      Now, I’m pretty sure that they’re talking about the Spratleys which are between 100km and 500km away from the Philippines and ~1000+ km away from China.

      There’s also the Blue Ridge Seamount which is 230km West of the Philippines.

      Obviously didn’t get out a bloody map.

  8. Rosemary McDonald 9

    Andrew Becroft, new Children’s Commissioner, throws down the gauntlet to the Government on the restructuring of CYF.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/82895107/whats-in-a-name-its-just-the-beginning

    ” Isn’t it encouraging and reassuring that so many New Zealanders want to be involved in choosing the name for the agency to replace CYFs?

    Everyone has a view. Clearly the public wants the new agency to get off to the best possible start. And the new name will send a powerful signal.

    Of course, the decision is entirely and properly for the Cabinet. But, thanks to the Fairfax poll, the Cabinet is not stuck for choices. It is surely healthy for the Cabinet to know the public’s views.

    Fairfax will ensure the results of the poll are passed onto the Cabinet. So will I.

    Whatever the name chosen, we need to remember this is no simple (and expensive) re-branding exercise.”

    Polite and respectful…but oh, so….emphatic.

    Onya, Andrew Becroft. Great start!

  9. joe90 10

    Sounds about right….

  10. Jenz 11

    Livid about Salisbury School. Parata is a cold cold women for wanting those girls to go to a co-ed school, some of the girls have been victims of sexual abuse.

    How dare they bully them into closure again, with their wrap around service, parents don’t even know about Salisbury School anymore, no one tells them, and the ones that do have a devil of a time even trying to access it, because of the wrap around service.

    Again Parata attempts to bully them in to closure, sick of it. Having much to do with the school over my life time, i understand how valuable this resource is, especially in this day and age, this school kept and keeps young girls SAFE, safe from family violence, alcohol abusive parents, safe from sexual abuse, safe from the bullying that so many children with learning disabilities experience.

    Nick Smith will lose votes for endorsing this idea of closure, the nasty man just wants to grab the land there, after all it is prime real estate.

    Parata is coming to town tomorrow.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/82872764/community-rallies-for-salisbury-ahead-of-ministers-visit

    • Rosemary McDonald 11.1

      “…the nasty man just wants to grab the land there, after all it is prime real estate.”

      Aha! So that’s why. Who actually owns the land Jenz? The MOE?

      Is there a plan for the land in the pipeline?

      Despite the constant call for ‘mainstreaming’, specialist schools such as Salisbury, with such an outstanding reputation, are still very much needed.

      Obvious that those making these decisions haven’t got the first clue. I’m impressed by the calibre of the supporters.

      petition signed….https://www.change.org/p/david-wales-education-govt-nz-keep-salisbury-school-open-to-give-girls-with-the-most-needs-the-choice-they-deserve

      • Gangnam Style 11.1.1

        & wheres the defenders of Charter Schools about this? Here is a public school specialising in an area where other public schools might be lacking, parents have a choice of sending their kids there, the school works & is successful, is it because they not run for profit & has unionised teachers? Defend this great school!

      • Jenz 11.1.2

        Will ask my folks about who owns the land both of whom have been involved with the school for years.

        I did ask Parata via talkback radio if she was bullying the school into closure via wraparound service, that was a year ago, she said she wasnt, I feel she lied to me.

        Another article was posted on stuff this morning. Thanks so much for your support and for posting the link to the petition Rosemary. Our community will fight tooth and nail top keep it open. CLosing it will not solve the housing crisis Nick Smith.

        http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/82907792/exstudents-back-fight-to-save-salisbury-school-at-rally-in-richmond

        • Rosemary McDonald 11.1.2.1

          And a brilliant interview on Natrad this morning, in the prime spot too!

          http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/201811227/battle-to-keep-salisbury-school-open

          ” However since that time the government changed the enrollment system for special residential schools, meaning potential students can’t enroll directly, and have to be referred by the Ministry’s Intensive Wraparound Service. Phil Treweek is the father of a 15 year old girl – Ellen – who has been at Salisbury for two weeks.It took five applications over the last two years to finally get her into the school and the family is gutted to think it will close. He says the enrolment model is ridiculous – requiring a girl to have severe behavioural issues as well as intellectual disabilities to get into the school and because Ellen was well behaved at school, they could not get her into the school until her behaviour deteriorated.”

          And this is absolutely bloody typical…you can’t access a service before crisis point is reached.

          So, you have to wait until the wheels are actually falling off before fixing the problem, rather than getting in when the wobbles first start.

  11. Pat 12

    “It means that by 2025 we will have to have closed down all coal-fired power stations across the planet,” said John Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. “And by 2030 you will have to get rid of the combustion engine entirely. That decarbonisation will not guarantee a rise of no more than 1.5C but it will give us a chance. But even that is a tremendous task.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/aug/06/global-warming-target-miss-scientists-warn

    • weka 12.1

      Good to see that being stated explicitly. Pity about the CCS nonsense though.

      • Pat 12.1.1

        “It could do the trick,” said Cambridge University climate expert Professor Peter Wadhams. “The trouble is that you would need to cover so much land with plants for combustion you would not have enough space to grow food or provide homes for Earth’s wildlife. In the end, I think we just have to hope that some kind of extraction technology, as yet unimagined by scientists, is developed in the next couple of decades. If not, we are in real trouble.”

        nonsense….or desperate hope?

        • weka 12.1.1.1

          I suppose it depends on what one means by real trouble. Someone in that article says we could shut down coal plants quickly but people would suffer. These things get said but often not quantified. For me personally, I think we should powerdown now as quickly as possible and take the reduction in standard of living in our stride. There is so much the developped countries could give up and still live meaningful lives. While that might be unlikely to happen politically (at this point), at least it is a real possiblity, more real than keeping our heated towel rails, two car families and overseas holidays and hoping for a tech solution that isn’t even on the horizon yet.

          If we want to look at sequestration we should be looking at regenag, but even there we will need to conserve energy and shift to steady state economies.

          • Pat 12.1.1.1.1

            “There would be insufficient power for the planet. There is an upper limit to the rate at which we can move to a carbon-free future.”

            I don’t think he’s concerned about people not having warm towels or a second SUV.

            • weka 12.1.1.1.1.1

              I’m betting he’s worried about Western lifestyle decline though. There is ample power on the planet. Just not enought for capitalism as well as the people.

              • Pat

                or perhaps he’s worried we can maintain a coherent society to provide the wherewithal to discover that as yet undiscovered carbon sequestration technique.

                • weka

                  Perhaps, although I think that unless people have actively gone through a de-civ process of their world view most people are very scared of the idea of the powerdown (unnecessarily so IMO), and it’s hard to separate that out from other more rational concerns.

                  And if we did a relatively fast power down, would we need high tech CCS anyway?

                  • Pat

                    “And if we did a relatively fast power down, would we need high tech CCS anyway?”

                    apparently so according to those involved

                    • weka

                      They’re not talking about a relatively fast power down though.

                    • Pat

                      “People would have to make sacrifices, but if we are talking about having to endure something like war rationing vs catastrophic impacts on multiple human societies (including mass deaths and permanent disruption to communities and lives), then it’s not really a choice.”

                      many may not be as sanguine as yourself about such a proposition

                    • weka

                      Yes, and I did say above that it thought it unlikely at the moment. But it’s still more real than CCS tech saving the day 😉

                      As for being sanguine, I just find it a more useful strategy. Easier on the psyche too.

                  • Pat

                    don’t know about you but i think the end of IC engines by 2030 could be considered relatively fast (and coal generation by 2025)…..consider how much the internal combustion engine features in almost every aspect of our lives….it will be very difficult to replace such a mobile source of energy …yes electricity can in many instances (not all) but often it comes with many limitations that will need to be adapted to and the subsequent reduction in efficiency will also be a very significant factor

                    • weka

                      True, yet that framing is about replacing tech while not having to change too much in terms of lifestyle or economy, and it still relies on us developping CCS tech that we don’t even know is possible.

                      Fast transition would be changing in a few years to prevent the worst of AGW and not relying on sequestration tech we don’t have. Would that cause disruptions to lifestyle and the economy? Yes, but it doesn’t have to be harsh (I’m not suggesting a forced collapse) and we have the leeway to do it now using the tech, infrastructure and systems supported by fossil fuels. If the choice is a fast transition and a much better chance of averting runaway CC, or a 30 year transition with a much lower chance, then I’d choose the former, no brainer.

                      People would have to make sacrifices, but if we are talking about having to endure something like war rationing vs catastrophic impacts on multiple human societies (including mass deaths and permanent disruption to communities and lives), then it’s not really a choice.

                      (this btw is why I find it weird when some on ts accuse me of being in denial about the seriousness of AGW or having rose tinted glasses. My own position is relatively radical).

    • Colonial Viper 12.2

      That decarbonisation will not guarantee a rise of no more than 1.5C but it will give us a chance.

      Someone tell this imminent person that we are already up to 1.3 deg C in the first 6 months of this year, that we’ve only seen half the warming from 1980s emissions, and that’ we’ve seen basically none of the warming from the emissions of the last 10 years.

      That includes the warming from the ~30 gigatonnes of coal that China has burnt in the last decade.

      • Pat 12.2.1

        think its safe to say the scientists quoted in the article know considerably more about this than anyone commenting on here.

        “However, figures – based on Met Office data – prepared by meteorologist Ed Hawkins of Reading University show that average global temperatures were already more than 1C above pre-industrial levels for every month except one over the past year and peaked at +1.38C in February and March. Keeping within the 1.5C limit will be extremely difficult, say scientists, given these rises.”

        • Colonial Viper 12.2.1.1

          think its safe to say the scientists quoted in the article know considerably more about this than anyone commenting on here.

          Of course they know more, but their pay is also dependent on the political expectations of their funders, which directly affects what they will say and state in public.

          BTW keeping to 1.5 deg C is IMPOSSIBLE.

          • Pat 12.2.1.1.1

            “Someone tell this imminent (sic) person that we are already up to 1.3 deg C in the first 6 months of this year”….I have a sneaking suspicion he may already know.

        • Macro 12.2.1.2

          The current peak in surface temperatures has been “fuelled” by a whopping El Nino which is now in decline. The last such event was the El Nino of 1998. I’m not saying that Surface Temperatures won’t increase in the future – they will. But the likelihood in the near future is that they will plateau before increasing again towards the next ENSO cycle.
          We can’t predict the future climate from one or two years climate – the trend needs at least 30 years of data to give any accurate extrapolation into the future. This is what makes forecasting climatic trends so very difficult. Never the less the models have given fairly accurate predictions over the recent past and the modelling would indicate that we are certainly on track for a 2 – 4 degree rise above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century if we continue with BAU

          • Pat 12.2.1.2.1

            “We can’t predict the future climate from one or two years climate – the trend needs at least 30 years of data to give any accurate extrapolation into the future.”

            No I don’t imagine one or two years would be of much use but we have more than that and by all accounts we are already trending above expectations and that 2-4%average for BAU I believe is now considered somewhat conservative.

            • Macro 12.2.1.2.1.1

              Essentially I am replying to the comment of CV where he uses the recent rapid warming of the last 14 months to indicate that that will continue on into the future. It won’t. Nor should we talk it up – because those who seek to deny will immediately start in on the “no more warming” mantra that climate realists have been subjected to over the past 15 + years when there is another pause or “Hiatus” caused by a strong La Nina. The trend is certainly upwards, but we should not think that it is heading into the stratosphere just yet. Yes 1.5 is most likely in the rear vision mirror – but we are not there yet – and there is recent evidence that CCS has worked in Norway.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts