Open Mike 13/01/2017

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, January 13th, 2017 - 154 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post.

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

Step up to the mike …

154 comments on “Open Mike 13/01/2017”

  1. North 2

    From the Dr David Cumin opinion linked above –

    “…….there are still those who either deny the Holocaust happened or wish for another one. Such sentiments are brought to the fore and amplified whenever there is controversy surrounding Israel. The recent United Nations Security Council resolution that New Zealand co-sponsored is the most recent example.”

    It is Cumin’s opinion that is hate speech. Deviously disseminated to rationalise Zionist apartheid.

    • North 2.1

      Woman pulls tears……..Norman Finkelstein – “I don’t respect that anymore, I really don’t……”

    • Paul 2.2

      And the Herald publicises such propaganda.

      • Morrissey 2.2.1

        Back in October, a woefully unprepared Jesse Mulligan recently provided David Cumin with a free and uncontested platform…..

        Open Mike 08/10/2016

        • Paul 2.2.1.1

          Jus read your transcript again Morrissey.
          It just shows that powerful interests can just pick up the phone and demand that their viewpoint be disseminated unopposed. The Herald and RNZ are just sock puppets, this demonstrates. Malcolm Evans was fired by the Herald for criticising Israel.
          It is amazing a foreign government has sufficient power to do this .

        • North 2.2.1.2

          Looked at your October ’16 Open Mike comment Morrissey. Apparently, strangely, Cumin didn’t once repeat the infamous whine – “Yuk, they [Palestinian children and youths] throw stones at us [and at IDF tanks ] !” Now what sort of propagandist is Cumin passing up the opportunity to demonstrate that Zionist apartheid is just cool ?

          Really, Mark Regev will be calling for his head for such ineptitude.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMd_js_oQAk

          • Morrissey 2.2.1.2.1

            Thanks for reminding me of the existence of Mark Regev, North. You’ve now ruined my whole day.

  2. Paul 3

    Thugby players.
    Overpaid.
    Over protected.
    Mysogynist.
    Oafs.

    http://m.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11781385

    • AsleepWhileWalking 3.1

      Clearly they were too weak to have a good hard look at themselves. Pathetic.

      • Paul 3.1.1

        Again, note no specific players are named. The code of silence over Scarlett continues.

        And note the sense of entitlement. Why should these Demi gods of rugby have to pay for parking?

        We lack a government who would change the laws to deal with this – so the only solution is for people to boycott the sponsors of the Chiefs.

        Boycotting their alcohol sponsors, Waikato Draft, would kill 2 birds with 1 stone.

        • james 3.1.1.1

          Why are the players being picked out for special treatment?

          This happens day in and day out – just because someone is a sportsman dosnt make it more (or less of an issue).

          “And note the sense of entitlement. Why should these Demi gods of rugby have to pay for parking?

          We lack a government who would change the laws to deal with this – so the only solution is for people to boycott the sponsors of the Chiefs.”

          Would you recommend boycotting voting MP’s who get caught parking illegally?

          • Paul 3.1.1.1.1

            Sports players do get treated differently.
            Name suppression because of their celebrity career.

            • james 3.1.1.1.1.1

              You didnt answer my question (there is a surprise).

              Would you recommend boycotting voting MP’s who get caught parking illegally?

              And people get name suppression for a whole range of reasons – job being one of them. But the same goes for police, MP’s, doctors, lawyers etc etc.

              • McFlock

                James, that’s stupid, even for you.

                1: I do seem to recall an incident being reported where blinglish’s govt car was snapped in a disabled parking space while he got a haircut.

                2: the issue in the article is not “parking illegally”. It’s abusing the women who did their job by writing the parking tickets. The fact that you seem to think that yelling verbal abuse at people is not as bad as parking five minutes over time says more about you than it does about the issue at hand.

                3: and in answer to your original question, rugby players are held up as heroes and examples for all NZers to follow. Kids idolise them. So you know what, when their treatment of women becomes public knowledge, then they should be publicly accountable. Not swept under the carpet with patsy reports and no action to change the players’ behaviour.

    • Paul 3.2

      New Zealand has a massive drink problem.

      Alcohol.
      A class 2 drug.
      Causes massive societal damage.
      Violence.
      Sexual abuse.
      Domestic abuse.
      Car crashes.

      Advertised to children.

      http://m.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11781388

      TV sport ‘exposing kids to booze ads’
      Note how quote marks are used by the Herald to undermine the point.
      Clearly TV sport does expose kids to booze ads – a fact, not an opinion.
      The Herald itself relies on far too much liquor money to report this properly.

    • tc 3.3

      Well it is our national sport Paul and it has uphold its tradition of boys club behaviour and doing what it likes as in 81.

  3. Paul 4

    Neo-con McCain resposible for Trump dossier

    ‘I did what any citizen should do’: Sworn Trump enemy John McCain admits HE handed smear dossier to FBI – because he had no idea if it was credible

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4108960/How-Trump-s-nemesis-John-McCain-kicked-Kremlin-memo-scandal-handing-dossier-FBI-sending-emissary-abroad-collect-it.html

    • Neo-con McCain resposible for Trump dossier

      For fuck’s sake, words in the English language do have actual meanings, you know? McCain wasn’t “responsible” for this dossier under any definition of “responsible” that leaves it still with some utility value as a word.

      Unless, of course, it was McCain who actually commissioned the oppo research that resulted in this dossier – but there’s nothing to suggest he did.

    • Gabby 4.2

      Well, he wasn’t to know that Comey had been trumpulated.

  4. Paul 5

    Trump questions the profits of Big Pharma and the military industrial complex.
    No wonder the deep state is trying to oust him.

    Big Pharma

    ‘PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP lashed out at overspending on drugs and fighter jets during his press conference on Wednesday, giving progressives something to hope for but sending stocks in related companies diving.

    First, he took aim at the drug industry, complaining that it is making too many of its products overseas and that the government does not negotiate with the industry for prices for the Medicare program.

    “We have to get our drug industry coming back. Our drug industry has been disastrous, they’ve been leaving left and right,” he said. “The other thing we have to do is create new bidding procedures for the drug industry because they’re getting away with murder. Pharma, Pharma has a lot of lobbyists — a lot of lobbyists — a lot of power, and there’s very little bidding on drugs. We’re the largest buyer of drugs in the world and yet we don’t bid properly and we’re going to start bidding and we’re going to save billions of dollars over time.” ‘

    The military industrial complex

    ‘Trump also took aim at the F-35, a fighter jet whose development and support program has cost over $1 trillion and has been plagued by delays.

    “I’m very much involved with the generals and admirals on the airplane, the F-35 you’ve been reading about it. And it’s way, way behind schedule and many, many billions of dollars behind budget. I don’t like that,” he said. “And the admirals have been fantastic. The generals have been fantastic. I’ve really gotten to know ’em well. And were going to do some big things on the F-35 program and perhaps the F-18 program. And we’re going to get those costs way down, and we’re gonna get the plane to be even better and we’re going to have to competition. And it’s going to be a beautiful thing.”

    The stock price of Lockheed Martin, which produces the plane, did not react favorably.’


    https://theintercept.com/2017/01/11/pharma-and-lockheed-martin-stocks-tumble-after-trump-criticizes-waste-and-sweetheart-deals/

    • Ad 5.1

      The system will get innoculated to his Twitter pokes very quickly.

      Trump has no option but to do the following, like all other Presidents before him:

      – form policy
      – pass legislation
      – pass budgets
      – deliver long term and sustainable results

      He hasn’t shown any capacity for that yet.
      But you never know …..

  5. The Chairman 6

    Are we getting value for money?

    State sector chief executives’ pay details released 
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/87511583/state-sector-chief-executives-pay-details-released–who-makes-the-most

    • Carolyn_nth 7.1

      Apart from the fact NZ public sector CEOs are overpaid across the board – I was just looking at the graphs in the Stuff article on this.

      I am curious about the relative pay as on the bottom graph. Are some of the CEs more highly paid because they have bigger departments? eg Social Development. Why are the environment and Serious Fraud Office so low down on the list? Why is the CE of corrections paid more than the one for Defence?

      I understand the social hierarchy that puts the departments of ERO, Pacific People and women as the lowest paid CEs.

      • The Chairman 7.1.1

        I’m sure having a larger department is taken into consideration.

        “Why are the environment and Serious Fraud Office so low down on the list? Why is the CE of corrections paid more than the one for Defence?”

        I’m sure there will be numerous reasons, but good questions.

    • The Chairman 7.2

      Thanks for the link Paul.

  6. Morrissey 8

    Gordon Campbell on Meryl Streep’s speech
    Scoop, January 10th, 2017

    Primarily, Meryl Streep’s critical speech last night at the Golden Globes – which is the award ceremony hosted by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association – was a defence of journalism and of journalists. Notably, she cited the journalist Serge Kovaleski who was mocked for his disabilities by Donald Trump on the campaign trail last year. Kovaleski had committed the sin of querying the fake news that candidate Trump was disseminating at the time, about US Muslims allegedly celebrating 9/11.
    The foreign-born, as Streep eloquently pointed out, have always made essential contributions to American life and culture. Here’s a key part of what she said….

    Read more…

    http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/2017/01/10/gordon-campbell-on-meryl-streeps-speech/

  7. The lost sheep 10

    @Robert Guyton
    ‘I wonder, lost sheep, if the moa hunters did in fact have a conservation strategy for the moa, but that they miscalculated and the population collapsed in an unexpected cascade. Do you think that’s possible? I do.’

    It’s possible, but if so it was a strategy with some serious flaws, and I struggle to see how those flaws would not have become self evident some time before the Moa was past the point of no return?

    The evidence from the Wairua Bar and other sites is that Moa Hunters were deliberately targeting the Moa breeding season, camping around the breeding sites, and taking enormous numbers of both eggs and chicks.
    During other times of the year they were hunting adults all over the place and burning habitat.

    The time span from vast numbers of Moa to extinction was so short, a mere 150 years, that the rapid decline must have been observable in single human lifetimes, and knowledge of previous abundance would have been directly transmitted across a small number of generations.

    If Maori had a purpose to ‘conserve’ Moa, you would think there would be evidence that a slow down in harvest occurred at some stage when the rapid decline was becoming apparent?
    The record shows no such restraint. It seems to have been full on harvest until everything was gone.

    To me, it is a bog standard case of unsustainable human mismanagement of a resource.
    Tell me Robert, do you find it offensive that I should suggest Maori were capable of such a common type of human cultural behavior?

    • weka 10.1

      You still can’t contextualise this within Māori conservation values and so we have a particular meme being promoted ‘Māori are just as bad as everyone else’, as if Māori and European values, approaches and experiences are the same. No need to bother listening to Māori then, right?.

      • The lost sheep 10.1.1

        ‘No need to bother listening to Māori then, right?.’

        Your logic fails me completely Weka. Your statement seems to derive from your own inner ‘assumptions’ about what you ‘assume’ I must be thinking?
        Please allow me to put in my own words exactly what I am saying, and what I actually mean?

        I am saying that in this one limited context, Maori are the same as almost all other cultures, in that they are capable on some specific occasions of unsustainable exploitation of a resource.

        How on earth do you make the gigantic leap in logic from ‘the same’ in that one context to the conclusion I am implying that across all values, approaches, and experiences there is no need to bother listening to Maori?’
        Say what?

        I would have thought the same implies nothing more or less than equal?, and therefore, when discussing matters within the limited context we have identified, a Maori perspective had as much credibility and value as any other cultural perspective?

        With respect Weka, and ban me if you don’t like what i say, but In my long life, I have spoken on many marae, at many hui, in informal Maori contexts beyond count, and in my opinion the level of sensitivity you show towards any perceived hint of offense to Maori is way beyond anything I ever found in any of those contexts.
        My life experience is that if you maintain your courtesy towards your hosts and their tipuna, speak an honest opinion in good faith, are willing to listen and respond when spoken to in a like manner, and willing to change your views when the progress of a discussion clearly requires it, then Maori are perfectly comfortable with extremely strong and robust debate.

        You often come across as having a perspective that Maori are delicate and fragile souls that need to be protected from the cut and thrust of hard ideas and discussion. In my opinion nothing is further from the truth. If there is a context more searing than a marae in the emotion of a fully heated debate then I’ve yet to find it, and if there are a people more gloriously at home in such a setting than Maori I’ve yet to meet them! (Kia kaha!)

        Pakeha to Pakeha Weka, I think your sensitivity levels to Maori offense are over the top and patronising.
        Ngā mihi.

        • weka 10.1.1.1

          That’s cool, how about you share with us what you have learned from Māori about Māori conservation values?

          I don’t think that Māori are delicate, fragile souls, and you are misunderstanding my actions here. I’m concerned that once again a strong Māori voice was subsumed in the noise of another Pākehā needing to say what they thought. That conversation could have been very interesting if we had looked at different cultural values and how they interplay with the environment, but instead we got a lot of words from you pushing the idea that Māori are just as bad as Pākehā in terms of the environment because they killed all the moa. You seemed to feel very strongly that this was an important point. I’m not offended, I’m bored. I cut my teeth on this stuff and I’d like to see a more nuanced and depth conversation than the one you want to have.

          Not sure where you are going with the whole robust debate thing tbh. It’s TS after all. However you seem to be missing the political context which is that this isn’t a marae, it’s a white dominated space and likely to remain so where Pākehā insist on pushing their agenda. I don’t think Māori avoid TS because they’re delicate, I suspect it’s because politicised Māori feel their time and effort is better spent in places more conducive to their views being respected and heard. Much like with women on TS, there are Māori commenting here but not that often from overtly Māori perspectives e.g. when was the last time you saw something from a Māori author with a login?

          “How on earth do you make the gigantic leap in logic from ‘the same’ in that one context to the conclusion I am implying that across all values, approaches, and experiences there is no need to bother listening to Maori?’
          Say what?”

          I didn’t say that at all, so I suggest that you slow down and take some time to check out what I mean when I comment. I meant that your implication was that Māori and Pākehā conservation values were similar enough to not warrant differentiation, and lo we have all these words from you insisting that Māori are as bad as Pākehā historically and anyone who disagreed was somehow not willing to face up to reality or couldn’t handle the truth. Still not hearing anything there about Māori values though, so yeah, a fair assumption we don’t need to bother listening to them.

          • Pat 10.1.1.1.1

            a question for either/both of you…..what are Maori conservation values and what are Pakeha conservation values? or for that matter, PI, Chinese or any other ethnic group one wishes to define….it appears to me the answer is the same…..they are as many and varied as the number of individuals canvased.

            • weka 10.1.1.1.1.1

              You don’t think NZ has a distinct set of cultural values around conservation? Maybe compare mainstream NZ responses to killing whales with Japanese ones for an obvious example. Then with Māor ones.

              Another classic example in this context is that Pākehā conservation values tend to say that native is good, introduced is bad, whereas Māori are often more pragmatic than that and more valuing of their cultural connection with nature than with absolutes around purity. I’m generalising here, but those are distinct differences.

              • Pat

                ‘ I’m generalising here, but those are distinct differences.’

                Generalising indeed. you are suggesting that there is both a consensus position on either of those examples and that they somehow differ between mainstream(your term) and Maori?

                i see no evidence of either assertion, indeed experience would contradict both statements.

                • The lost sheep

                  Exactly Pat. As discussed yesterday, there are many contemporary Maori perspectives on all things including Conservation. I find these are very distinct from Iwi to Iwi and from Individual to individual within Iwi, and I am not aware of any such thing as a ‘consensus’?

                  Let alone begin to speculate what ‘values’ the early arrivals from Polynesia held?
                  Surely the only glimmering we can get of that is by observing the archaeological evidence of their actions?

                • weka

                  If by consensus you mean that every individual in the culture thinks the same, then no, that would be ridiculous. If by consensus you mean that a value is shared by a large part of the population and then used to create rules, then yes.

                  Most people working in conservation, be that DOC or Forest and Bird or similar are very strongly pro-native and anti-introduced species. This is a very well known phenomena, there is even a term for it (nativists). Contrast that with someone like Robert who takes a different approach to landcare, that incorporates introduced and native species. But that is not mainstream conservation in NZ (although it is starting to change). From what I have seen Māori conservation values encompass both, but the approach is quite different than the very compact approach of DOC etc, and it does include recognising the value of non-natives e.g. the kiore.

                  Likewise with whaling. Do you see the difference between Japanese values and NZ ones? I’m not talking about every individual, I’m talking about how the culture as a whole manages the issue.

                  If NZ doesn’t have a cultural value around conservation as I’ve described above why do all our conservation institutions follow that?

                  • Pat

                    Employees of DOC or F+B members hardly constitutes broad society as Im sure you are aware.I’m also sure you are aware there are members of both groups that identify as Maori…..and whaling?where are the alleged cultural differences from mainstream NZ andMaori?

                    NZ has no shared cultural value around either of these issues,,,it has laws and policies…both of which are flouted, bent or changed if they conflict with other interests…..regardless of ethnicity.

                    A broad society test…..randomly ask people on the street of their views on Sea Shepherd…and try and formulate that into some form of broadly consensual view.

                    • weka

                      If NZ has no distinct values around conservation then why did we end up with DOC and F and B etc? Or the RMA for that matter.

                      “where are the alleged cultural differences from mainstream NZ andMaori?”

                      Maybe first you tell me if you see no differences between NZ and Japan.

                      “A broad society test…..randomly ask people on the street of their views on Sea Shepherd…and try and formulate that into some form of broadly consensual view.”

                      That would be stupid. I’ve already said I’m not talking about individuals. Are you seriously trying to suggest that one can gauge cultural values of a group of people by asking a few people on the street?

                    • Pat

                      “That would be stupid. I’ve already said I’m not talking about individuals. Are you seriously trying to suggest that one can gauge cultural values of a group of people by asking a few people on the street?”

                      Really!? I have a sneaking suspicion that if I conducted a survey on racism at a KKK gathering I may be able to determine a broad view on racism …i equally suspect i would be extremely foolish to attempt to extrapolate that broad view on to society as a whole.

                      “Maybe first you tell me if you see no differences between NZ and Japan.”

                      Is that an admission there arnt any or that you don’t know.?…odd considering it was your example

                      ‘If NZ doesn’t have a cultural value around conservation as I’ve described above why do all our conservation institutions follow that?”

                      Follow what exactly? the bending, flouting and changing?

                    • weka

                      Really!? I have a sneaking suspicion that if I conducted a survey on racism at a KKK gathering I may be able to determine a broad view on racism …i equally suspect i would be extremely foolish to attempt to extrapolate that broad view on to society as a whole.

                      Yes, but that doesn’t mean it works in every situation or group of people or topic. For what I would have thought were obvious reasons.

                      “Maybe first you tell me if you see no differences between NZ and Japan.”

                      Is that an admission there arnt any or that you don’t know.?…odd considering it was your example

                      In other words you refuse to answer the question asked several times now.

                      ‘If NZ doesn’t have a cultural value around conservation as I’ve described above why do all our conservation institutions follow that?”

                      Follow what exactly? the bending, flouting and changing?

                      The example I gave was nativism.

                      And on that note, I can see we are clearly at the disingenuous stage of the conversation and that you have no intention of engaging meaningfully with the points I am raising and instead keep misrepresenting them. I think that’s because you’ve run out of argument, but in any case I’m off out of here.

                  • Pat

                    “in other words you refuse to answer the question asked several times now.”

                    and

                    “And on that note, I can see we are clearly at the disingenuous stage of the conversation and that you have no intention of engaging meaningfully with the points I am raising and instead keep misrepresenting them. I think that’s because you’ve run out of argument, but in any case I’m off out of here.’

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

                  • Pat

                    lol…oh dear

            • Robert Guyton 10.1.1.1.1.2

              Great question, Pat. Is there a universal, that’s what I’m trying to discover. Many and varied, sure, but what’s the commonality? I’m hoping it isn’t the human stomach (but I suspect it is).

              • Pat

                lol…it may well boil down to something as simple as that….and there are too many of them.

                It fits with my own line of thinking around environment and population…..NZ was clean and green by virtue of sparse population, not any inherent desire….increasing density reveals the typical human character.

                • The typical character of some humans, Pat, sure. But not all. Here in NZ were a fairly narrow representation of humanity. What if we were all Inuit? Or Bedouin? Mongolian? Ainu?

                  • Pat

                    Firstly we are not…but the same point remains…how do these groups behave when they abandon their environment governed lifestyles and adopt modern tech?

                    Again I revert to the density issue….their traditional lifestyles don’t allow their call on resources to grossly exceed replenishment rate…at least not in normal circumstance…historically drought, war natural disaster may have disrupted but by and large not population pressures.

                    How many of these groups continue (or are able) to live their traditional lifestyles?…I recall articles where the lure of the bright city lights decimate some traditional communities of their young.

                    • It may be fancy, Pat, but I think many people from the above mentioned cultures do try to hold to their low-tech life-styles as the result of their culture. I know, cellphones and tvs, but I still, there’s something there. Our own culture seems to have abandoned all hope of holding to an earlier, unencumbered time…

                  • Pat

                    Im sure they do, particularly the older members of those societies…after all we all tend to cherish the things we know as we age.

                    Cell phones and TVs are merely recent baubles that will be replaced by something else….but the lifestyle that is surrounded by these toys is the drawcard….unsustainable as it is.

                    You are right that not all are drawn to such a lifestyle…just most, and that is enough to ensure its self destruction.

                  • Pat

                    this may intrigue you…i have little knowledge of the events he describes and therefore can’t vouch for their veracity however his points struck me as pertinent….

                    “Chronocentrism? Why, yes. Most people nowadays are familiar with ethnocentrism, the insistence by members of one ethnic group that the social customs, esthetic notions, moral standards, and so on of that ethnic group are universally applicable, and that anybody who departs from those things is just plain wrong. Chronocentrism is the parallel insistence, on the part of people living in one historical period, that the social customs, esthetic notions, moral standards, and so on of that period are universally applicable, and that people in any other historical period who had different social customs, esthetic notions, moral standards, and so on should have known better.”

                    http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.co.nz

              • weka

                “I’m hoping it isn’t the human stomach (but I suspect it is).”

                DNA I think. We are hardwired to survive and thrive in the wild. Civilisation is but a blip in the timescale. So despite our best intentions there are evolutionary pressures there that need accounting for. I think about how difficult it would be to kill a new born baby because you know that there won’t be enough food to go around this season or year. No wonder agriculture seemed like a good idea at the time (not to mention oil, although by that time I think we also had massive cultural forces at play around colonisation and entitlement).

                • Many cultures had processes for keeping their populations under control, and from our modern point of view, some of those seem awful. But so is mass starvation.

                  • weka

                    Yes, I don’t have a problem with that. I’m suggesting that it is still hard and so given a choice people will probably choose resource overuse. Not deliberately, but I suspect we are hardwired to take advantage of surplus because it never lasts. Until you get grain agriculture, or oil. Then you have this adaption turned on permanently when it was never designed for that.

          • The lost sheep 10.1.1.1.2

            it’s a white dominated space and likely to remain so where Pākehā insist on pushing their agenda.

            It’s not even a ‘white’ dominated space Weka.
            It’s a space dominated by a tiny subset of mainly ‘Whites’ who have a taste for anonymous and brutal interchanges that carry none of the ‘responsibilities’ of civilised discussion.
            It’s far more blood sport and polemic than meaningful social interchange.
            That’s why no group that has any weakness that can be exploited by sadists is represented here to any extent. You know, feminists, LGBT, Politicians and other such vulnerables.

            You would be the contributor that most tries to make things meaningful and respectful, but the blog rules work against you I’m afraid! And you do have a hard edge of your own of course….

            • weka 10.1.1.1.2.1

              Well I would say it’s a white male dominated space, and probably pretty middle class too, but we were talking about ethnicity so I focussed on that. But it sounds like we are in agreement. This space is not conducive to non-white men taking part fully.

              “You would be the contributor that most tries to make things meaningful and respectful, but the blog rules work against you I’m afraid! And you do have a hard edge of your own of course….”

              True, and you have a more trolly edge, each to their own 🙂 TS brings out the best and the worst in me, that’s for sure.

              I agree that the rules work against changing for the better, but I have a better understanding of why the rules exist now that I am an author.

              • People other than us would probably be too bored by the discussion to take part 🙂

              • lprent

                Most of the rules are a trade off between letting people discuss things in a manner that they feel comfortable with, keeping it so that the conversations don’t get too unreadable, and not chewing up too much moderator time.

                There are no really good solutions without hiring people to do the job and training them well. You only have to look at most of the NZ media sites to see what happens when monkeys are hired for the task.

    • AsleepWhileWalking 10.2

      A handful of Maori could have wiped them out. It wouldn’t take an entire race.

      • Robert Guyton 10.2.1

        That’s right, Asleep. Cultures with well established practices will still have “cowboys” who will buck the trend, as the dairy industry claims of its own ne’erdo wells. When it comes to managing a vulnerable resource, even well-intentioned communities can make mistakes, especially where the resource is new to them and their life-cycles fragile by comparison with previous prey; eg, moa, with their one egg a year, compared with say, gulls, with their clutches. Established practices brought over from small Pacific islands to this Southern Pacific string might not have been appropriate. Even today, chicken farmers talk of farming kereru and kiwi, believing their numbers will rapidly rise to jungle-fowl proportions, little realising the wood pigeon’s not suitable for battering.

    • ‘I wonder, lost sheep, if the moa hunters did in fact have a conservation strategy for the moa, but that they miscalculated and the population collapsed in an unexpected cascade. Do you think that’s possible? I do.’

      It’s possible, but highly unlikely. Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs and Steel points to the coincidental disappearance of megafauna around the time of human settlement everywhere that was settled after humans became adept at hunting large animals. It’s possible that Maori were different from everyone else, but really not very likely.

      • weka 10.3.1

        What did they do in response to their impact on the environment?

        • Psycho Milt 10.3.1.1

          I guess they learned to live without moa in their diet, for a start. Otherwise, I have no idea what they did in response to their impact on their environment, but a small population with minimal technology has very little impact on the environment anyway, beyond the ability to wipe out megafauna and set fires.

          • weka 10.3.1.1.1

            Fires have had a huge impact on the NZ landscape, pre and post colonisation.

            At the time of contact Māori had cultural practices in place around resource use that were about protecting the resource. When did that happen?

            • Psycho Milt 10.3.1.1.1.1

              I expect they arose through experience with various “tragedy of the commons” events over the centuries. The original settlers presumably brought with them similar experience relating to their land of origin, but the environment there would have been different. It probably took a while to build up similar experience here.

              • weka

                Tragedy of the commons events? Māori had pretty strong collective cultural practices, I don’t see how that applies. I think it’s more likely that with the moa they were hard on the resource initially due to it’s relative abundance compared to where they had come from, and that they reached an extinction tipping point without realising it. I also think it’s likely there were other factors at play. That seems far more likely than hey, let’s just go eat all the moa and wonder about what to do after that. People without access to industrial food supplies or agriculture relate with their environment differently (no, don’t bother with thinking I just said they were perfect and then arguing against that).

                I agree that learning this environment would have taken time.

                • We become wise after the event?
                  Dammit!

                  • weka

                    If we can use the word ‘we’ more judiciously 😉

                  • NewsFlash

                    Robert

                    Do you really think “we’ve become wise after the event”

                    The abundance of shellfish in NZ is now under threat, and for those of you who can remember the old “Toheroa”, and how in 1967, harvesting was banned, to stop in becoming completely extinct, how m any of your kids know what they are? Toheroa are very rare today, there are pockets in various areas and some do know where they are, 50 years on.

                    The Island I grew up on had massive pipi beds on most beaches in the 60’s and 70’s, you could collect a bag anywhere along the beach, at any time.
                    A recent visit to the same beaches has left me disappointed, there are now NO shellfish what so ever, completely harvested out to the point of non existence.

                    It is the nature of HUMAN beings to exploit easy, accessible resources to the point of extinction, please note, not all human beings will do this, but they’re a minority.

                    • NewsFlash – no, I don’t. “Wise after the event” is too late.
                      Your “minority” is the one I identify with and promote. They are the way forward and need to be nurtured. Who and where are they? I get your pipi-less beaches story. It’s mine also.
                      “Is it the nature of HUMAN beings to exploit…etc.” no. I don’t believe so. A line of humans chose this path and dominated the narrative. We have to wrest it from them and tell a story of abundance, life and continuation. Easy as! 🙂

                • They buggered the resource, weka, no question. They are not alone in doing so.

      • Robert Guyton 10.3.2

        Hi Psycho – do you think there might have been individuals in the moa hunter group that recognised the problem but were unable to influence their peers in time to save the moa from extinction? I’ve a view that in every community there exist such people – fewer than 10% perhaps, and that they have watched all sorts of extinguishments over the millenia, to their great pain. I think that faction exists now, in our various societies.

        • Psycho Milt 10.3.2.1

          I’m sure there would have been. As you say, we’re watching something like that happening now, and there’s no reason to believe the humans of 1000 years ago were radically different from us.

          • Robert Guyton 10.3.2.1.1

            Or 2 million years ago 🙂
            Can we somehow elevate and activate the views of those people for the benefit of all life? It seems to me the only way out of the tailspin we have entered into.

            • Psycho Milt 10.3.2.1.1.1

              That’s where it gets tricky. I’m probably not unusual in having no problem with environmentalism in the sense of “Hang on, why are they spending my ratepayer cash on this when our sewerage and wastewater systems are still rubbish?”, but a big problem with environmentalism in the sense of “OK, I now personally need to start experiencing a much-reduced level of material luxury.”

              EDIT: or “You want to build a coal-fired what?”

              • Compost toilet and roof water collection; it starts at home 🙂
                Environmentalism is not the place where these tohunga hang out. In fact, spending money/energy on kakapo “recovery” strikes some as daft 🙂 Likewise, spraying wilding pines with arborcide.
                Material luxury’s a huge impediment, I grant you.

          • weka 10.3.2.1.2

            “As you say, we’re watching something like that happening now, and there’s no reason to believe the humans of 1000 years ago were radically different from us.”

            I think it’s a mistake to think that because all peoples have had some impact on the environment that all peoples are relatively the same. There are cultural differences, and there is a world of difference between a low tech culture with minimal monitoring and feedback tech that drives a critical species to extinction and then learns from its mistakes and a culture like ours which knows exactly what it is doing and doesn’t give a shit.

            • Robert Guyton 10.3.2.1.2.1

              Except when that “low tech culture” craves high-tech stuff. Every culture, imo, has its cravers. If the culture itself doesn’t emcompass/accomodate/innoculate against that tendency it can’t be a longer-laster, imo. If you can be bought out, you haven’t factored that in to your cultures future – you’ll lack integrity. I’m in mind of the Rekohu Moriori and their peaceable ways – no match for the wider world. It should be possible, with the benefit of hindsight and the likelihood of a short future for mankind, to beat out the best ever format for survival. No?
              EDIT: Yes?

              • Pat

                and without tech population was governed by environment…not the other way round

                • Do you mean “preyed upon by beasts and frozen by climate’, Pat?
                  I reckon that from early times, cultural practices managed populations, as much as anything else. Humans knew not to become too numerous for the food supply and had to factor in neighbours.

                  • Pat

                    not at all…although those would certainly impact…I mean in that population was governed by available resource by and large locally and when that resource failed locally for whatever reason the population was under survival pressure….hence an exceedingly slow population growth rate pre industrial revolution.

                    • I don’t reckon “they” waited for the resource to fail. At least, not once that lesson was learned. Story-telling would keep them on-task and able to predict and prevent. That’s what stories/myths are for. Governing. Outsourcing that role to Governance was a big mistake 🙂

                • weka

                  All human cultures have had tech. At what point in tech development does a people govern the environment instead of being governed by it?

              • weka

                True re the cravers and takers. I don’t think Māori would have been shy about dealing with such as individuals, but are suggesting it more at the hapū or iwi level?

                All cultures also have rules to constrain things that go against the culture too much.

                As for beating out the best ever format for survival, I reckon let’s just hadn’t everything over to the kuia and give that a go.

  8. AsleepWhileWalking 11

    Found a great “FAKE NEWS!” website..(and by fake I of course mean real news).

    Here they are talking about protests in Mexico over the recent 20% in gas price, but this article discusses the other reasons as well

    http://theantimedia.org/protests-mexico-brink-revolution/

  9. Hi, lost sheep. I’ve no issue at all with your charging moa hunting Maori with the same behaviours other cultures have been “guilty’ of. I was surprised to learn about the destruction of megafauna in Australia by the indigenous people there and Tim Flannery’s “future eater” theory is one I regard as reasonable. I think your feeling that I’m a “noble savage” kinda thinker, with my comment about unexpected collapses catching out the moa hunters and despite the suggestions you make (above) I still wonder if there were hunters who recognised the trend and tried to adjust the story in order to save the resource – I’m just saying that those people weren’t able to effect that change in practice, I suspect. It’s only a small percentage of any population that has the “wild” gene, I reckon, and see these things in the way I’m describing.

    [please use the reply button to keep conversations connected, thanks – weka]

    • The lost sheep 12.1

      I’ve no issue at all with your charging moa hunting Maori with the same behaviours other cultures have been “guilty’ of

      Please Robert, don’t exaggerate the terms I used! I did not ‘charge’ anyone, nor find anyone ‘guilty’!

      I think your feeling that I’m a “noble savage” kinda thinker
      You are assuming again, and again you are wrong.
      I think you are extrapolating your own perspective and philosophy onto a part of the situation we have no evidence for. That’s perfectly fine, and I do it all the time too.

      • Robert Guyton 12.1.1

        “I think you are extrapolating your own perspective and philosophy onto a part of the situation we have no evidence for. That’s perfectly fine, and I do it all the time too.”
        Okay then.
        Weka seems to be bridling at what appears to be your “painting with a broad brush” – here’s an example from you comment @ 10.1.1:
        “I am saying that in this one limited context, Maori are the same as almost all other cultures, in that they are capable on some specific occasions of unsustainable exploitation of a resource.”
        Don’t you mean, “those moa hunters involved”, rather than, Maori”?
        Perhaps weka’s reading it one way, and you another.

        • weka 12.1.1.1

          I find the whole noble savage starting point annoying, as if those of us who want more nuance in the conversation have never read Diamond or Flannery or had to work through these issues ourselves. Having read Flannery in particular and then listened to Māori and other indigenous peoples, and then spent a lot of time with the land and in subcultures not just talking about theoretical aspects but working through actual pragmatics of how to live in a pre-industrial or paleo situation, I do get antsy at the insistence that we’re in denial because we don’t agree wholeheartedly with Māori killed all the moa therefore x, y, z.

          Still waiting to hear about Māori conservation values, but in the meantime, re moa, let’s consider that there would have been other factors at play as well as what Māori were doing. e.g. if we look at other species extinction around that time, the way that got presented yesterday was that it was Māori that killed them all with no mention of the impact the kiore would have had.

          • Robert Guyton 12.1.1.1.1

            Tohunga with responsibilities for particular resources would be the authorities on conservation, I’m betting. Mind you, “conservation” is not the be all and end all – I prefer to think and act with “proliferation” and “abundanancing” (not a real word 🙂 in mind. Not just maintaining, making more!

          • Psycho Milt 12.1.1.1.2

            …the way that got presented yesterday was that it was Māori that killed them all with no mention of the impact the kiore would have had.

            It was Maori who killed them. The species that have and will become extinct because Whitey introduced various predator or habitat competitors to the country have been and will be killed by Whitey. We didn’t deliberately introduce rats, mice, wasps etc, but it’s our fault they’re here.

            • Robert Guyton 12.1.1.1.2.1

              There were sailing ships owned and crewed by Maori moving cargo from NZ to Australia in the late 1800’s – could they have introduced some Australian organism or other?

            • weka 12.1.1.1.2.2

              True, but Europeans did deliberately bring in other species so I am suggesting that there is a difference between intentional acts and accidents if we are looking at how cultures can be sustainable.

              • Waka-borne Pacific explorers intentionally introduced a number of plants and animals; the Pacific rat, the chicken, kumara, pandanus, gourds, etc. If we are looking for highly-tuned resource management, we need to look to the experts, I reckon; tohunga of all races, which to my mind, makes it a race-free argument. The threads I see in action are cross cultural, cross time and space. Who’s got it right, now and in the past and what did they say, how did they act; what’s their message? I think we need to know. Also *climbs onto bandwagon, who’s spending their time immersed in the wild world, looking for direction there?

                • weka

                  At the time that Europeans were having their second wave of environmental impacts here (so lets say after the sealers), the cultural mores of the time said to kill specimens of species going extinct so that they could put examples in their museums. True conservationists like Richard Henry who were trying to save species were outliers to the power holders in society. So who were the British Tohunga? The ones trying to do right by nature or the ones trying to colonise for the good of their own people?

                  Nothing to do with race, everything to do with cultural values. Same shit as ooh look, no-one is doing anything useful with this land so let’s chop down all the trees and plant pasture. Yes the Brits were just doing what they knew, but that doesn’t mean there weren’t distinct differences between them and Māori who were already immersed in the wild and working with nature to meet their needs.

        • The lost sheep 12.1.1.2

          ‘Don’t you mean, “those moa hunters involved”, rather than, Maori”?
          Perhaps weka’s reading it one way, and you another.

          The Wairua Bar is one of the very earliest Maori sites known, and one of the very few at which an actual East Polynesian artifact has been found, so at which point do you start calling them Maori Robert?

          At least surely, they are indisputably the tipuna of some part of the contemporary Maori population? How many hairs do we want to split?

          And having read through all the discussion this ‘boring’ topic has generated, I still have to ask..
          What is offensive with a scenario that has the early arrivals meeting a situation of abundance beyond their wildest dreams, pillaging it largely without concern for it’s sustainability, waking up one day and finding the best and easiest resource was gone, adjusting culture to avoid such stuff ups in future?

          • Robert Guyton 12.1.1.2.1

            Nothing. My view exactly.

            • The lost sheep 12.1.1.2.1.1

              Why do you think Weka finds the idea that they may have ‘stuffed up’ with Moa so difficult to accommodate?

              [don’t tell lies about my views. Only warning. I’ve engaged in good faith in this debate for over a day and you still aren’t paying attention to what I am actually saying. I’d like you now to quote and link exactly to where I’m stating that Māori didn’t ‘stuff up’ with the moa. – weka]

              • The lost sheep

                The main reason I am thinking you have difficulty with the idea is that you have made no positive acknowledgement that it was Maori actions that caused the very quick extinction of Moa, The second reason is how angry the topic has made you, and the third reason is that every reference you make to the extinction is supported by a qualifier that can be read as diluting the Maori role. (See below)

                Over my lifetime I have found these signs of non acceptance are pretty clear indicators that the original premise is not being accepted by the party displaying these characteristics!

                The reason I asked Robert why he thought you had that difficulty is that you are so antagonistic to the subject that I really am struggling to understand why you find it so offensive. As yourself and Robert share very similar views on environmental matters I thought Robert might have a point of view that would make that clearer to me.

                leaving aside other factors that may have contributed to both the moa extinctions and other bird extinctions,

                Personally I find that prejudicial in that it doesn’t take into account differences in culture and responses to the environment

                I also think it’s likely there were other factors at play. That seems far more likely than hey, let’s just go eat all the moa and wonder about what to do after that. People without access to industrial food supplies or agriculture relate with their environment

                let’s consider that there would have been other factors at play as well as what Māori were doing. e.g. if we look at other species extinction around that time, the way that got presented yesterday was that it was Māori that killed them all with no mention of the impact the kiore would have had

                [not good enough Sheep. I need you to provide links so people can see comments in context, and separate the comments out so it’s easy to see which ones are in different replies. I’m actually not surprised you don’t understand what I am saying if that’s how you treat my words. If you don’t understand then ask. Making up shit about my comments, or state of mind for that matter, is not ok. I’m putting you in moderation until you satisfy my original request of evidence that I don’t believe that Māori ‘stuffed up’ in regards to moa i.e quotes with links and rationale for your claim. I’d also like you to explain what you mean by “stuffed up with moa” – weka]

                • The lost sheep

                  No thanks Weka.

                  I have discussed the extinction of Moa many times with Maori within Maori contexts and never run into the kind of overt sensitivity to the topic you are displaying.
                  Judging by your recent comments re. the superiority of Maori Women and that Kuia should be running the World, I think you have a bit of a noble savage thing going, and I just can’t be bothered tip toeing around your offense meter.
                  Kill me for it, but I think Maori are normal people with the same blemishes and faults we all have.

                  The most memorable Maori comment I ever heard about Moa was ‘They hoovered them up with as much enthusiasm as the second wave when they ran into KFC’. (Sense of humour – key Maori characteristic?)

                  Without exception, as far as i can remember over 30 years discussion, there has been a consensus that, for what ever reason, the extinction of the Moa was ‘a stuff up’ / mistake / mismanagement’, in that by any standard you apply, as there was no inherent need to destroy the resource, it would have been highly advantageous to future generations to have retained it a a sustainable resource.
                  Whether you are taking the viewpoint of a Mesolithic hunter/gatherer or a Contemporary Climate Change adapter or any human state in between, I find it difficult to see a rational objection to that view.

                  I called around to see a friend this afternoon and vented a bit to him about this discussion, and his answer as usual was concise.
                  ‘Your relationship with Maori is defined by the lifetime of real contact you have had with real Maori, Why are you working yourself up over this tautotohe among anonymous Pakeha on a hakihakiā website? How about another beer?’

                  Kia ora, There are some great posters and commenters here, and I wish you all the best in your genuine endeavours to make the World a better place.
                  To the far too many nutters, sadists, conspiracy theorists, and haters, I have great pleasure in reminding you that ‘As you sow, so shall you reap’.

                  Hei konā rā

                  [“Kill me for it, but I think Maori are normal people with the same blemishes and faults we all have.” I do too. 2 month ban for making shit up about an author’s views – weka]

  10. Carolyn_nth 13

    Julie Anne Genter to stand in Mt Albert by-election.

    Press release.

    “New Zealander’s have a big choice to make in 2017, to stick with the status quo, or to change the Government to get real action on things like affordable housing, public transport, and protecting our rivers,” said Ms Genter.

    “The by-election will be the first opportunity for voters in Mt Albert to see what Labour and the Greens have to offer in a new, progressive government.

    “The Green Party has a reputation for keeping New Zealand politics honest. I think this is an opportunity to show how politics can be done differently – respectfully, positively, and collaboratively.

    “Labour and Greens share a vision for a fairer New Zealand – affordable housing and healthy kids. Whichever of us Mt Albert vote for, they will get a competent, experienced MP committed to a fairer New Zealand.

  11. greywarshark 14

    Here’s a busy little video probably sending up those selling educational establishments wonders to possible students.
    (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Svv5WcLV1TE

  12. greywarshark 15

    Hallo fellow fleshbots, don’t dare kick that dispensing machine when it doesn’t deliver after you have fed your coin in – it might sue you.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-38583360

  13. greywarshark 16

    Further along the robot line here is a link to last year’s production of items as th BBC devoted a week to AI.

    Here is a bit of the bad news with a bit of fake sugar-puff info about creating more jobs, then a bit of slide-away humour about whether they can eat spaghetti or something similar.

    That might sound a depressing picture, but the good news is that the research also indicates that advancing technology will create more jobs than it destroys. And it is worth striking a note of caution about just how clever the machines are.

    Anyone who has watched robots’ hopeless attempts at playing football, or eaten one of the recipes created by IBM’s Watson computer will know that there are many areas where humans are still way out in the lead.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-34225346

  14. Cinny 17

    Is it true that only dairy cows have to be fenced from waterways?

    I think all cattle and stock should not be allowed to wade around in our rivers, no matter if they are being farmed for dairy, or beef or whatever.

    My kids found this news very upsetting. There is a special tapu place 15 minutes away, it is where the water comes out of the great marble mountain and flows to create a little river which joins up with the Motueka river. People come from all over the world to experience this place, to dive in the crystal pool, and see the rocks where the ancient woman would place their feet to birth their children.

    People gather water from ‘the source’, one has to go there to really understand the magick and just how special this place is.

    So imagine going there and finding stock shitting in the river that comes from the source? The river is visible for almost the entire drive up the gravel road to this tapu place.

    There are a few farms up there, but mostly hobby styles or horticulture, a few alternative looking dwellings, a boutique b&b etc, as well some reserves to camp in. I wonder whose stock it is?
    Will be interesting to see what comes of the story, and how locals and visitors feel about it.

    Our population is now to large to let the animals wander down to the river to drink. And it’s not that hard to put in a pump to draw up water and fill animal trough’s especially on a hobby style farm. That river won’t run dry, but it can very easily become a shit hole.

    Law’s need to change IMHO, all rivers and streams feeding into rivers should be fenced from wandering stock, and if it’s too expensive for farmers to do this, they should consider that protecting the environment is rather important to all animals including humans. Greed won’t clean up the water. And clean water is more important than meat/milk and it’s vital for growing health meat. Yup fencing is hard work and animals do challenge fencing, but that’s part of farming., get yer fences up, if you really care about the animals and the land you would be doing this regardless of what the law says.

    • Rosemary McDonald 17.1

      I was idling under the illusion that all stock were barred from waterways….not just dairy…and a huge inconsistency that needs to be rectified NOW…not in another decade or so.

      I think its a brilliant idea to photograph, name and shame these stock owners…especially if a wee word in their ear doesn’t work. This is one of those situations where a little local friendly pro activism just might work.

      (Thanks for the link to the DOC site at the resurgence of the river….when we wander back down south next year it is now on our ‘wheelchair accessible walks’ list.)

      • KJT 17.1.1

        Fonterra, seems to be the only enforcer of waterway fencing rules. And, of course, they can only influence their own suppliers.

        Beef stock is exempt from waterways fencing rules, for one.

        Council prosecutions for stock in waterways are very few and far between.

        • Rosemary McDonald 17.1.1.1

          In my defense….http://www.nrc.govt.nz/Environment/Land/Managing-riparian-margins/fencing-stock-out-of-waterways/

          “Rules about stock access to water
          Coastal marine area

          To help protect our important coastal marine areas, Northland Regional Council rules require farmers to keep their stock out of the tide.

          Under regional council rules, farmers must keep their stock out of Northland’s ‘coastal marine area’. This is the area below the mean high-water spring tide mark – often recognised by the highest line of seaweed and driftwood on the beach – plus certain areas of tidal streams and rivers.

          The stock exclusion rule aims to protect the coastal marine area’s ecological health and water quality from the adverse effects of browsing, pugging and animal effluent.

          In many areas, there are natural obstacles to stop stock from getting into coastal marine areas. If there’s no natural obstacle you will need to put up some form of fencing or other barrier.

          Freshwater

          While there are currently no specific regional council rules prohibiting stock access to fresh waterways, it is an offence under the Resource Management Act (RMA) to discharge contaminants to water. The Northland Regional Council and farming industry bodies are working with landowners to remove stock access to rivers, streams, drains and wetlands. ”

          Bizarre…the rules force stock from marine areas but NOT from freshwater?

          Well, you don’t have to fence them out but they’re not allowed to poo…

          Is this really all about the necessity for stock to access drinking water and the farmers are too lazy/skinflintish to provide an option?

          • KJT 17.1.1.1.1

            Very noticeable when you stand on a Northland dairy farm, where even the drains are fenced.

            And the beef farm across the river has no fencing, at all, on the riverbank!

            • Rosemary McDonald 17.1.1.1.1.1

              And yet….

              and according to Campbell, Ecan rules say no cattle in lakes…even in the backcountry….

              Interview with a boffin from Fedfarmers

              words, words, words,

  15. Rosemary McDonald 19

    In the meantime…have we all signed the Greenpeace petition telling the Amazon Warrior to bugger off?

    Over 70, 000 Kiwis actually give a shit. 🙂 🙂

    http://www.greenpeace.org/new-zealand/en/blog/cease-and-desist-message-delivered-to-seismic/blog/58481/

    Sign here….

    https://act.greenpeace.org/ea-action/action?ea.campaign.id=58837&ea.client.id=1939&__utma=218051913.544046714.1484285100.1484285100.1484285100.1&__utmb=218051913.4.10.1484285100&__utmc=218051913&__utmx=-&__utmz=218051913.1484285100.1.1.utmcsr=google|utmccn=(organic)|utmcmd=organic|utmctr=(not%20provided)&__utmv=-&__utmk=111692231

    Unsurprisingly this has not been picked up by either the Herald or Stuffed…

  16. Penny Bright 20

    Looking forward to at last being interviewed by significant mainstream media on the issue of endemic and entrenched corruption that has been exposed in the ‘Reasons for Verdict of Fitzgerald J’.

    Seen this?

    ___________________________

    Media Man‏ @TheWarRoomNZ

    Solid arguement by @PennyBrightNZ last night on Tony Amos

    @RadioLIVENZ show, #NZ

    Corruption of Officials with toes in Public/Private sector
    _____________________________

    Penny Bright

    2017 Independent candidate Mt Albert by-election.

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

  17. Sacha 21

    This specific instance of corruption uncovered through existing processes (including public records) does not mean anything else awaits discovery. Sorry, conspiracists.

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

    • weka 21.1

      Just trying to keep your comment next to the one it was in response to. I assume I got that right.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts