Open mike 09/12/2012

56 comments on “Open mike 09/12/2012 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Descendant Of Sssmith 1

   9 December 2012 at 8:19 am

   Question: I notice changing my name means posts go into moderation. I’d like the mods to enjoy their Sunday. Is this a prob for them or is there some guidance on the best way to do this without dropping into moderation?

   [lprent: It is the best defense against trolls. They have to write a coherent comment and have it accepted by a moderator before they can write comments freely. It also makes it difficult fo astroturfers to construct a range of identities. The alternative route is the kiwiblog one where a login is required. ]
2. Morrissey 2

   9 December 2012 at 8:21 am

   Head of Jewish Defence League UK supports Anders Breivik, says victims “not innocent”
   Written by Brit Dee Thursday, 19 April 2012 14:16

   Roberta Moore, who was intimately connected to the anti-Muslim English Defence League (EDL) and continues to run their Jewish Division’s Facebook page, has expressed her support for Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik – and described his teenage victims as being “not innocent”.

   In a post made on April 17th to the Jewish Defence League UK Blogger site, believed to be run by Moore and supported by comments posted in her name on Facebook, she describes the Norwegian court as a “kangaroo court”, asks whether a “man like Breivik in a case such as this surely deserves a better trial than that?”, refers to the “Leftist slander constantly being thrown to undermine him and his views”, and defends him against charges of child murder by parroting Breivik’s defence that his victims were young adults, attending an “indoctrination camp”, who were “not innocent”. A comment attributed to Moore states

   I hold the same amount of sympathy for the [sic] those on Utoya as I would if somebody committed this act on a Hitler Youth camp in the 1940’s, or were they just “children” as well?

   Such offensive comments will no doubt prove awkward for the EDL, who have recently been attempting to change their image as a group of thuggish racists, by repeatedly stating that they stand firmly against violence and extremism.

   Whilst Moore claimed to have left the EDL in June last year, she was until then closely connected to the group’s leadership and inner circle, with whom she apparently maintained contact after her departure. She even reportedly helped EDL leader Stephen Lennon (a.k.a. “Tommy Robinson”) attend an EDL demonstration in September last year – from which he had been banned, resulting in his arrest for breach of bail conditions – by smuggling him in dressed as a rabbi.

   Moore is also said to be friends with shadowy EDL financier and strategist Alan Ayling (a.k.a. “Alan Lake”), a wealthy businessman who was recently suspended from his management post at a major international development bank, after the discovery of his real identity. A disaffected founding member of the EDL named Paul Ray has confirmed that Ayling was present at the first 2009 meeting of the group, which actually took place in Ayling’s expensive London flat.

   Ayling has admitted funding the EDL, and whilst he publically condemned Breivik’s attack he also described it as “chickens come home to roost”. Other disturbing comments made by Ayling on his “4Freedoms” website include his suggestion in July last year that David Cameron, Nick Clegg, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, be executed.

   If Moore is no longer connected to the EDL, then it is surprising that the Facebook page she operates still carries their….

   To find out more about these loons, click here….
   http://www.resistradio.com/updates/head-of-jewish-defence-league-supports-anders-breivik-says-victims-not-innocent
   • Populuxe1 2.1

     9 December 2012 at 8:59 pm

     Is there a point to this other than your rabid Antisemitism?
     • Murray Olsen 2.1.1

       10 December 2012 at 3:25 pm

       Why is it anti-semitic to note the irony of far right Zionists and neofascists making common cause against Muslims? I’ve seen many examples of it, especially on Facebook groups about Palestine/Israel, where it is possible to see who someone’s friends are and which causes someone has liked. When fascism reappears wrapped in the Star of David, as it is with much of the Israeli fascist right, I for one will not ignore it because of the danger of being called anti-semitic.
   • joe90 2.2

     9 December 2012 at 9:36 pm

     To be fair P the JDL is regarded as a hate group by both the Anti Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center
3. AsleepWhileBiting 3

   9 December 2012 at 8:26 am

   If censorship is this heavy handed against their own MP, what will happen when they are actually in government? Seeming more like National every day.
4. Draco T Bastard 4

   9 December 2012 at 9:05 am

   Long article on just how much tracking the private sector does. It truly does make what the government knows about people seem inconsequential in comparison.
   • tc 4.1

     9 December 2012 at 9:22 am

     And some bright sparks in Birmingham, as part of a doctoral thesis I think, have created an algorithm that takes all such data and predicts where you’ll be next.

     With the growth in mobile apps and GPS tagged events it’s a stalkers best friend.
   • xtasy 4.2

     9 December 2012 at 3:39 pm

     WSJ quote:
     “In the past, tracking companies and retailers had a tougher time identifying online users. Today, a single Web page can contain computer code from dozens of different ad companies or tracking firms. These separate chunks of code often share information with each other.”

     You are onto it! And that is only “some” of what goes on!

     Those that love Facebook and use that social media are largely blind and ignorant of what happens with their information.

     And Google (incl. “google ads”) is virtually EVERYWHERE!

     I have been checking some browsing history again and again, and also observing what scripts are instantly activated in the background on websites is truly very, very worrying.

     But how do you know, what the government’s or rather state’s agencies are already doing? They may be up to more than so many think.

     1984 was once “fiction”, but give it a few more years, and we will be right in the midst of such scenarios.
5. rosy viper 5

   9 December 2012 at 10:38 am

   How petty

   Tetraplegic Semisi Ma’afu Samiu, injured here in 2006, has been declined New Zealand residency and is being deported to Tonga. It’s expected that his life span will be diminished because the care available in New Zealand is not available in Tonga. But that’s no enough for our officialdom:

   [ACC] provided a motorised wheelchair, the bed and a hoist to move between the two. If he left New Zealand, that equipment would remain here.
   —-
   Last month, Samiu agreed to obey a directive from Immigration NZ and return to Tonga, but when he discovered ACC’s equipment would have to stay he called it off.

   So not just his life expectancy, but the things that make his life, and the tasks of his carers, bearable in his remaining years. Surely this is a case for a bit of consideration.
   • Jenny 5.1

     9 December 2012 at 11:32 am

     Rosey, this is outrageous, and IMO, far from petty, instead vicious and callous, if not racist as well.

     And this under a National Government that without any hesitation generously paid out $100,000,000 dollars to the rich and white Roger Kerr to cover his losses after he blew his $70 million investment in South Canturbury Finance.

     Is this justice? Is this fair? Does this sort of ammoral iniquitous double standard make any sort of economic or moral sense?

     War against the poor, more like.

     A campaign of appeals and protest on behalf of this man and his family needs to be directed to the Minister.

     A complaint against the miserable and heartless bureaucrat that has effectively sentenced Semisi Samiu to a degrading and cruel death should also be actioned.

     Failing all that, I for one would be happy to put my body between any police contigent sent by Terri Bentley to drag this wounded man from his bed and dump him into on airplane.

     What has happened to this country?
     • Drakula 5.1.1

       9 December 2012 at 11:19 pm

       Hi Jenny; You mean the Business Round Table, Rodger Kerr? and his $70 million of Hubbard’s South Canterbury Finance? and of course Rodger helped to set up Local Government New Zealand. And of course their buddies in the Nat Govt. are selling off our sovereignty in the TPPA negotiations. I’m joining the dots here.

       And I don’t think a mere dysmocratic election will solve this!!!!!
   • Bill 5.2

     9 December 2012 at 12:35 pm

     Questions, questions, questions!

     How the hell is it that somebody can be in NZ for at least six years and not have residency? And if his daughter has residency, then why doesn’t he qualify on the basis of his daughters’ status? And what is his wifes status? Meanwhile, isn’t deliberately putting somebody in harms way contrary to some aspect of human rights legislation? Lost for words really…
     • Drakula 5.2.1

       9 December 2012 at 11:24 pm

       Yes your right Bill it’s in contravention to the NZ Bill of Human Rights, our constitution.
6. VindowViper(RL) 6

   9 December 2012 at 11:35 am

   In the meantime it seems like the slaves are slacking off and the beatings will continue until productivity rises:

   If so, you’re one of New Zealand’s “lost souls”, the people identified in a workplace productivity survey as our biggest time-wasters – losing 21 per cent of the day.

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10852830

   It never occurs to the nit-wit who wrote this bit of puffery that 100% ‘on-task’ productivity is impossible and dangerous, nor does the research quoted seem to track how much these people actually get done; that personal productivity and patterns of work are highly variable.

   After all if one person gets twice as much done in a week as another, who cares if they spend more ‘downtime’ in anyone day?
   • muzza 6.1

     9 December 2012 at 7:04 pm

     That was a well balanced article wasn;t it! /sarc

     These types of articles are all to frequently posted without a second thought put into giving the worker any credit at all…

     NZH – The more you know, the better!
7. Morrissey 7

   9 December 2012 at 11:35 am

   Oh the irony!
   “Embrace of a killer: Former IRA terrorist Martin McGuinness greets Hillary Clinton”

   Just who deserves the title of “Butcher” and “Terrorist” more? McGuinness or Clinton?
   There’s nothing “Former” about Clinton’s terrorism or butchery.

   Embrace of a killer: Former IRA terrorist Martin McGuinness greets Hillary Clinton…

   If Hillary Clinton had any misgivings about exchanging a kiss and a handshake with a man who used to be known as the Butcher of Bogside, she did a very good job of hiding them.
   The US Secretary of State was all smiles as she met former IRA terrorist and Ulster’s deputy first minister Martin McGuinness when she arrived in Belfast for her eighth visit to the province.
   Her visit comes as rioting broke out across Belfast tonight after hundreds of loyalists took to the streets to protest over flags…

   …Mrs Clinton said: ‘There will always be disagreement in democratic societies, but violence is never an acceptable response. All need to confront the remaining challenge of sectarian divisions, peacefully together.’…

   http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2244514/Former-IRA-terrorist-Martin-McGuinness-greets-Hillary-Clinton-arrives-Ulster.html

   (Orig. posted by Ed on Media Lens)
   http://www.medialens.org/
8. xtasy 8

   9 December 2012 at 12:15 pm

   NZ Herald Online edition – “gutter journalism” at its best, I suppose:

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10852783

   This passes as “journalism” by a Mr Little writing for NZ’s largest print media!?

   More beneficiary bashing, based on anything else but facts. Look and read for yourselves!
   • Morrissey 8.1

     9 December 2012 at 12:29 pm

     Look at who wrote it. Paul Little is one of the lickspittle regulars who used to appear on Paul Holmes’s pisspoor radio show on Saturday mornings. He delivered anodyne reviews of books, which Holmes had usually read himself anyway, and far more perceptively.

     On one infamous occasion, Little attempted to ingratiate himself by calling Holmes “Sir Paul”.

     Holmes, contemptuous of the display of self-debasement by his underling, sneered: “Oh yes, ha ha ha, you know what to say, don’t you.”

     So Paul Little’s byline on any article is a virtual guarantee that it’s going to be shoddy and third-rate.

     Why don’t you put your opinion onto the comments section below the article?
     • Morrissey 8.1.1

       9 December 2012 at 1:56 pm

       ERRATUM

       Eagle-eyed readers will have spotted the grievous error committed by this writer (i.e., moi) in comment number 8.1, in which I wrote….

       Holmes, contemptuous of the display of self-debasement by his underling, sneered: “Oh yes, ha ha ha, you know what to say, don’t you.”

       Of course, the compound word “self-debasement” is not what I meant to write. The word I should have used was “self-abasement”.

       So that sentence now reads…

       Holmes, contemptuous of the display of self-abasement by his underling, sneered: “Oh yes, ha ha ha, you know what to say, don’t you.”

       – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

       Self-abasement: voluntary self-punishment or humiliation in order to atone for some real or imagined wrongdoing, or to curry favour with someone who holds you in contempt.
9. Northshoreguynz 9

   9 December 2012 at 12:41 pm

   Go back to RSRU Morrissey, Casper is waiting.
   • Morrissey 9.1

     9 December 2012 at 1:47 pm

     Thanks for the heads up, my friend. Always have time for Monsieur Milquetoast.

     Meanwhile, you might like to say something critical in the comment’s section to Grovellor Little’s fourth-rate article?
10. Draco T Bastard 10

    9 December 2012 at 1:55 pm

    A Computer for Your Car’s Windshield

    Using a technology known as augmented reality, which overlays real world images with digital ones, these windshields could display driving directions, text messages or impending hazards, all without requiring drivers to take their eyes off the road.

    Although it would a neat technology one does wonder why they’d even bother considering that we already have self-drive cars that will be much safer.
11. Jenny 11

    9 December 2012 at 4:00 pm

    ‘

    What is behind Green Party CCI?

    A year on from a stonking election result (which gave them an extra four MPs) the latest Fairfax Media/Ipsos poll shows the Greens have dropped from 11.9 per cent to 10.5 per cent.

    Disappointing, for sure. But what should worry them more are shifting attitudes to the environment. Just 5 per cent rated the environment or climate change as the number one issue facing the country. Even among Green supporters, the economy and rising jobless rates are more important above saving the planet.

    Just 16 per cent of those who vote Green talked to our pollsters about the environment. Mining figured even less – just 2 per cent brought it up – and only one person raised fracking. Even more telling is that more than half (55.8 per cent) of our respondents agreed with the statement: “For the sake of the economy, we should focus less on climate change – we’re too small to make much difference anyway.”

    Fairfax NZ News

    But why would Green supporters and voters talk about climate change when the Green Party itself is playing it down?

    Alongside Labour, the Greens’ strategy for 2013 is to turn up the heat on job creation. They’ll start it with a cross-party manufacturing inquiry in the new year and a focus on monetary policy which will play to concern about the high dollar.

    Fairfax NZ News

    Green Party members I have spoken to, argue that it is the party’s job to follow public opinion, others including myself argue that it is a political party’s job to lead it.

    National and Labour have no trouble leading on matters they feel strongly about, even when the vast majority of the public are not just disinterested but even hostile.

    To lead the Green Party needs to turn up the heat on the government over Climate Change. After all isn’t this where the government’s performance is weakest and where the Green Party could land some very heavy blows.

    I have asked Green supporters, why when the Green Party can host, with Labour, a cross-party manufacturing inquiry focusing on monetary policy and the concern over the high dollar why can’t they call a cross-party inquiry into climate change?

    This would put Climate Change, (which, is an existential issue) back in the public spotlight.

    If the Green Party cannot raise climate change as an issue in opposition, then they are even less likely to do so as a minority partner in government.
    • Colonial Weka 11.1

      9 December 2012 at 4:37 pm

      “Green Party members I have spoken to, argue that it is the party’s job to follow public opinion”
       
      Oh yeah, who was that then?
      • Jenny 11.1.1

        9 December 2012 at 7:11 pm

        Why do you want to know, do you want to conduct a purge of your own?

        “Whatever you guys do, don’t talk to Jenny.”
        • Pascal's bookie 11.1.1.1

          9 December 2012 at 7:26 pm

          I think it’s more likely that the greens you were talking to were trying to explain political reality to you. the fact that you just dismiss what they had to say is by the by really.

          But the fact remains that the Green party is getting around 10 % and is in opposition. They can and do lead policy on a number of issues; it’s a slow and laborious process. You seem to want them to become a single issue party and doom themselves to irrelevance, and won’t be happy until they do so, but that isn’t the party they are, and that is a good thing.
          • Jenny 11.1.1.1.1

            9 December 2012 at 8:25 pm

            I am very aware of “political reality”. The world is heating up dangerously. That is a reality.

            A reality that every political party including the Green Party has to prioritise if millions are not to die and whole eco-systems are not to be wiped out.

            If the Greens are not prepared to prioritise this ‘existential’ threat then they are not really a Green Party, they are just another mainstream social democratic party. (Maybe a little further left than Labour).

            Of course I know that is not what you meant, by use of the term “political reality”. What you meant, is the so called “Pragmatic” decision every third party is called to make. Whether or not to compromise principle to get a place at the table.

            Look, usually this doesn’t end up well. Lib Dems and Conservatives in the UK, Maori Party and National, the Alliance and Labour. And so it will be for the Green Party.

            All the evidence is that a Shearer led administration is committed to carry on with opening up the Denniston Plateau to strip mine it of coal for export to China, to deep sea oil drilling to fracking, and more motorway expansion. All of which will exponentially increase this country’s CO2 emissions. The Green Party will never recover if they a part of a government committed to these “realities”.

            Political reality may allow Green Party compromise, but reality, reality won’t.
            • Pascal's bookie 11.1.1.1.1.1

              9 December 2012 at 9:36 pm

              No, you don’t understand what I meant.

              You sneer at pragmatism, as if sticking to a purist line is a political possibility. It isn’t. At the moment the greens are getting about 10 % support.

              There is a window within which political parties can operate in a democracy. The boundaries of that window are determined by the electorate. If a political party steps out of that window, they cease to have any influence.

              You seem to think that not having any influence is better than having some.

              That is not a serious position. It’s childish.

              The task of a political party is to effect policy change. That must be done within the window of what people will accept. Because democracy. It is the task of NGOs and activists and academics and others to move the window. Political parties can’t do it.

              That’s not ‘pragmatism’ it’s reality.

              If the people shift, the politicians will be forced to follow.
        • Colonial Weka 11.1.1.2

          9 December 2012 at 8:07 pm

          “Why do you want to know, do you want to conduct a purge of your own?”
           
          That was nasty. I asked because I suspected that you were referring to GP members who comment here and I thought you might be misrepresenting their views.  Your repeated equivocation furthers my suspicion that you are skewing the GP policies and actions because of your obsession about CC.
           
           
          • Jenny 11.1.1.2.1

            9 December 2012 at 9:04 pm

            You may call it obsession but it may be what is required.

            Better to be obsessed than deliberately decide to ignore it.

            With the climate disintegrating. Our political leaders arguing about the arrangement of the deck chairs. IMO pathalogical. Bordering on obsessive compulsive disorder.
            • Colonial Weka 11.1.1.2.1.1

              9 December 2012 at 10:06 pm

              Neither I nor the GP have decided to deliberately ignore CC. That’s been proven to you in recent days. You insist on repeatedly distorting the truth. I think that is a highly flawed strategy. You  could still lobby for action on CC without doing that.
               
              Politicians may be rearranging the deck chairs, but you are arguing for changing course once we’ve already hit the iceberg. Just as crazy.
    • Lefty 11.2

      9 December 2012 at 6:49 pm

      The Green Party can’t look at climate change too closely because that would involve asking whether capitalism is ecologically sustainable.

      That is a question they have avoided since they were formed, in fact it could be argued they exist to muddy the waters and make sure it is not asked.
      • muzza 11.2.1

        9 December 2012 at 7:46 pm

        That is a question they have avoided since they were formed, in fact it could be argued they exist to muddy the waters and make sure it is not asked.

        Thats almost dead center!
      • Colonial Weka 11.2.2

        9 December 2012 at 8:04 pm

        “That is a question they have avoided since they were formed,”

        More likely is that many Greens are aware of the inherent incompatibility between capitalism and ecological sustainability, but choose to not focus on it because they want the Greens to be a successful political party.

        The other option is open honesty about the state of the world and zero MPs. How would that help? Serious question. I’d like to know how you see it working for a political party to tell the truth about the world and be effective as a party.
        • Jenny 11.2.2.1

          9 December 2012 at 8:37 pm

          If you have followed my comments you will be aware that I have tried to popularise the example of Winston Churchill. Churchill once convinced of the danger never compromised one bit in his opposition to fascism, despite being a back bench MP, despite getting into parlliament as an independent, with no caucus at all to support him.

          He just never shut up. And kept telling the truth to everyone he met in any forum he was given.

          From a minority position he won over the whole of parliament.

          That is true leadership. This is the historic mission of the Green Party if they chose to accept it.
          • Neoleftie friend in arms of CV 11.2.2.1.1

            9 December 2012 at 8:45 pm

            Jenny one would suggest all green voter and member are climate change acceptors way way ahead of the curve and as thing become obvious then gradually the rest adopt this belief or position. My gentleman farmer granddad knew before you probably that something climatic was up and in his later years took to the Internet read read and went from Tory blue to labour red. He even praised HC.

            He fought for freedom and would have be agasped at any attempt to silent well though out opinion or argument. Freedom is our last bastion.
          • Jenny 11.2.2.1.2

            9 December 2012 at 10:40 pm

            The other example I like to give of winning over the whole of parliament from a minority position is that of the New Zealand Labour Party in 1984. Though in opposition the Labour Party became the centre of organising against nuclear ship visits. LECs mobilised their members and to protests and printed leaflets and distributed bumper stickers. In parliament Labour MPs debated with and condemned the National Party for supporting nuclear ship visits.

            Eventually they moved two National MPs to vote for an opposition bill to ban nuclear ship visits, (put up, by of all people, Richard Prebble). To prevent the vote being put Muldoon called a snap election.

            Strangely when in government things changed, The Labour government achieved what Muldoon couldn’t putting off the vote for another three years, even agreeing a year after getting into office to let a (possibly), nuclear armed warship the USS Buchanan visit New Zealand. A visit that had to be canceled after Nicky Hager met with David Lange in the Beehive and threatened mass protests.

            The lesson here is that sometimes a political party is more powerful in opposition, particularly if they stay close to their grass roots membership and don’t betray their principles.
            • Colonial Weka 11.2.2.1.2.1

              9 December 2012 at 11:13 pm

              Nuclear weapons free is a completely different issue. CC is big and scarey and requires radical changes to society, including alot of personal sacrifice. Nuclear weapons free legislation was relatively easy to support as it didn’t affect people in their day to day lives.
               
              You left the role of the peace movement out of your story.
               
              The other place your example falls down on is that Labour had to form govt to pass the legislation. They didn’t remain a glorified lobby group.
               
              re the Churchill example, I don’t believe you can manufacture such people or circumstances. Do you see any one person in NZ politics who is the equivalent of Churchill?
              • Jenny …

                9 December 2012 at 11:55 pm

                Cunliffe comes closest, he has got the talent, he has got the knowledge, he has got the experience.

                But has he got the bulldog spirit?

                I must admit. He has been a bit quiet of late. Has he been intimidated? Or is he just biding his time? Or is it that no opportunity has presented itself to him to speak out. (I think it would be great if he made a statement of the gagging of Colonial Viper. But that is just my opinion.)

                Maybe the Green Party could invite David Cunliffe to one of their meetings to deliver one of his famous addresses on climate change and the economy.
                • coronial typer …

                  10 December 2012 at 11:11 am

                  He’s “a bit quiet of late” because he is operating under a full gag order from David Shearer.
                  There was a press conference from Shearer a little while ago explaining it.
12. Jenny 12

    9 December 2012 at 6:08 pm

    ‘

    Why won’t the Greens call an all party inquiry into climate change?

    Goodness knows they have got cause to.

    “Katrina, All Over Again”

    Hurricane Sandy, if you are poor, is the Katrina of the North. It has exposed the nation’s fragile, dilapidated and shoddy infrastructure, one that crumbles under minimal stress. It has highlighted the inability of utility companies, as well as state and federal agencies, to cope with the looming environmental disasters that because of the climate crisis will soon come in wave after wave. But, most important, it illustrates the depraved mentality of an oligarchic and corporate elite that, as conditions worsen, retreats into self-contained gated communities, guts basic services and abandons the wider population.

    Chris Hedges Common Dreams

    What are the Greens waiting for, till this happens to us?
    • Colonial Weka 12.1

      9 December 2012 at 6:32 pm

      Jenny, have you asked the GP to call for an all-party inquiry into CC?
      • Jenny 12.1.1

        9 December 2012 at 7:13 pm

        What if I have?
        • Colonial Weka 12.1.1.1

          9 December 2012 at 7:27 pm

          Jenny I’m assuming you haven’t, but was giving you the benefit of the doubt. But if you have, what did they say?
      • viperidae 12.1.2

        9 December 2012 at 7:16 pm

        Currently in a few Green party policy groups.

        Maximising environmental and social sustainability is the overriding principle in all Green party policy. I do not think Green members are going to let the parliamentary team give it up, even if they wanted to, which I doubt.
        .

        And. Unlike the other parties, Greens use membership consensus to set policy.
        • Neoleftie friend in arms of CV 12.1.2.1

          9 December 2012 at 8:17 pm

          Well change is coming to the mighty LP too so we can bind the caucus to solid policy remits from our policy groups…well hopefully.
          • Jenny 12.1.2.1.1

            9 December 2012 at 9:47 pm

            “Reports Warn Europe Is Nearing Irreversible Threat From Catastrophic Climate Change”

            “Time is running out, but the technical means and the policy tools to allow the world to stay below [3.6F of warming] are still available to governments and societies,” said Christiana Figueres, the UN’s top climate official, who will head next week’s climate talks…..

            According to the UNEP report, which has drawn on the research from more than 50 scientists, the widening gap between climate plans and scientific estimates means that governments must step up their commitments to avoid even worse effects from global warming.

            “The transition to a low-carbon, inclusive green economy is happening far too slowly and the opportunity for meeting [scientific advice on emissions targets] is narrowing annually,” said Achim Steiner, executive director of UNEP.
            Lawrence LeBlond redOrbit.com
    • NoseViper (The Nose knows) 12.2

      9 December 2012 at 9:15 pm

      Jenny 12
      That Common Dreams link you put up was very descriptive of the plight of the low income people in USA. I was taken by that piece you quoted about the elite retreating into self-contained gated communities. Devil take the hindmost.

      I have this feeling that the wealthy in NZ are getting all the money possible salted away before everything goes pear-shaped. And our pollies cannot find in their DNA the early Labour commitment to doing something to help the country and people rather than fill their time with personalities which are just ways of passing time.
      • Neoleftie friend in arms of CV 12.2.1

        9 December 2012 at 9:19 pm

        Exactly that’s why we need to win in 2014 but also win with the correct plan.
13. joe90 13

    9 December 2012 at 7:14 pm

    Here’s the trailer for Chasing Ice and a news piece on the movie.
14. GregJ Viper 14

    9 December 2012 at 8:30 pm

    Meanwhile Doha winds down to another last minute agreement which takes us apparently nowhere further on tackling Climate Change – the US runs interference on pretty much everything, China and Eastern Europe grimly hold on to their “developing nation” status and “hot gas” exemptions, “damage aid” is agreed for poorer countries but no liability is accepted by rich countries, no mechanism to collect and pay out is put in place and no agreement on where the money will come from.

    “Our” Government’s meaningless response looks to the long term – presumably when they’ve all retired and taken all the profits and left the mess to someone else.

    I’d have to agree with Greenpeace that Doha “failed to live up to even the historically low expectations”.
    • GregJ Viper 14.1

      9 December 2012 at 8:35 pm

      And here is the take from The Guardian.
15. ColonialContrarian 15

    9 December 2012 at 8:46 pm

    I have a love hate relationship with The Standard. I am pretty middle of the road when it comes to political opinion, I am a pragmatist as opposed to avowed leftist/righty which generally puts me at odds with the status quo (both here and at Kiwiblog).

    That said, I respect the idea that opinion should be broadcast no matter how much it disagrees with your own politics.

    If you have to muzzle your opponent you have already lost. I look forward to the return of CV so we can argue each other again.
    • fender/same sentiment less eloquent Viper 15.1

      9 December 2012 at 10:15 pm

      Oh ColonialContrarian shelve that anger and feel the love. Put your Sgt. Peppers album on and chill when the hate overflows onto your keyboard.

      I’m sure CV is missing you too even though it must get boring for him always winning the debate with you 😉

      You make a good point about the muzzle business.
16. Jenny 16

    9 December 2012 at 11:41 pm

    To fight the war against Climate Change leadership is necessary.

    Where will this leadership come from?

    “So they [the Government] go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent…. Owing to past neglect, in the face of the plainest warnings, we have entered upon a period of danger…. The era of procrastination, of half measures, of soothing and baffling expedience of delays, is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences…. We cannot avoid this period, we are in it now….”

    Winston Churchill, November 12, 1936, House of Commons

    When it comes to Climate Change. Doesn’t this strange paradox of dithering, procrastination, of half measures, of soothing and expedience and delays, describe our present parliament, both government and opposition. Especially when we have entered a period of dangerous consequences.

    Currently now that the apologists and Ignorers of climate change are dominant, one each, in two of the major parties in parliament. And the Greens are busy tailoring their party to fit with this paradigm.

    The big political question is:

    Who will be New Zealand’s Climate Churchill?

    “The Climate Pearl Harbors and Polands are here. The Climate Churchills and FDRs aren’t.”

    Could Russel Norman be this Climate Change Churchill?

    Could anyone else hiding in the Green Party caucus be keeping their light under a bushel?

    In my opinon the closest we have to a Climate Churchill in our parliament is David Cunliffe.

    In my opinion Cunliffe’s treatment at the hands of the Shearer gang could also be seen as a warning shot across the bows of the Green Party…..

    ‘Raise the issue of climate change at your cost.’

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS