Open mike 13/07/2013

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, July 13th, 2013 - 61 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 link to Policy in the banner).

Step right up to the mike…

61 comments on “Open mike 13/07/2013 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. rosy 1
    13 July 2013 at 6:10 am

    “On the ninth of October 2012, the Taliban shot me on the left side of my forehead. They shot my friends too. They thought that the bullet would silence us. But they failed. And out of that silence came thousands of voices. The terrorists thought they would change my aims and stop my ambitions. But nothing changed in my life, except this. Weakness, fear and hopelessness died. Strength, power and courage was born. I’m not against anyone, neither am I here to speak in terms of personal revenge against the Taliban or any other terrorist group. I’m here to speak up for the right of education of every child.”

    Part of the speech to the UN by 16 year-old Malala Yousafzei

    • Morrissey 1.1
      13 July 2013 at 8:24 am

      Interestingly, nothing about the American forces who kill more people in Afghanistan than anyone.

      This girl is being used, unfortunately.

      • rosy 1.1.1
        13 July 2013 at 8:56 am

        Whoosh, Morrissey. Talk about missing the point completely.

        To reiterate –

        I’m here to speak up for the right of education of every child.”

        • Morrissey 1.1.1.1
          13 July 2013 at 9:07 am

          If you were in any way serious, you would have published something by Afghan women who actually know what they are talking about. I suggest you Google “Malalai Joya”.

          • rosy 1.1.1.1.1
            13 July 2013 at 9:21 am

            If you were in any way serious I suggest you would have looked at the link and seen the first word was ‘Pakistani’.

            I’m sorry, but to dismiss someone who survived what she has is pretty callous.

            [And yes, I know the Americans in Afghanistan and drone attacks in Pakistan are an outrage].

            • Rogue Trooper 1.1.1.1.1.1
              13 July 2013 at 10:51 am

              it was very moving to watch footage of Pakistani child labourers making mud bricks on the television. Just small children excavating, hauling, forming, trimming bricks all day, everyday to earn the food that sustains them. Their learning- that life is about endurance.

            • Morrissey 1.1.1.1.1.2
              13 July 2013 at 1:07 pm

              And yes, I know the Americans in Afghanistan and drone attacks in Pakistan are an outrage.

              That’s good, because Malala Yousafzei is certainly not allowed to state that truth. If she did, of course, she would be a “terrorist” and certainly not tolerated as a “spokesperson” for anything. It’s telling that one of the other stories on the link you provide is another attack on a democratically elected Arab government, which it calls, obediently, a “ruling faction.”….
              http://www.euronews.com/2013/04/02/hamas-criticised-for-school-separation-of-the-sexes

              • rosy …
                13 July 2013 at 8:08 pm

                She is stating her own truth and has been doing that for years, which is why she was a target in the first place (imo, of course). Whether that matches your ‘experience’ from afar is neither here nor there, Of course it matches the dominant discourse of the west, but that that is incidental, and yes, it does give her a platform that others who criticise western involvement in Pakistan or Afganistan might not so easily get. But that doesn’t detract from her aim of ensuring educational opportunities for girls. Sometimes even the interests of opposites coincide.

                As for Palestine – it’s up to the people and their democratically elected leaders to work out whether separate schools is mainly for recognising cultural and religious norms, or whether it is about marginalising girls’ education. Time will tell, but people who don’t trust the motivations of the elected representatives have a right to voice concern – as in any country (again, imo – I’m strange like that, thinking a electors has a right to disagree with those they elected).

                As for ‘ruling faction’ take how you will, but Hamas doesn’t govern Palestine does it? So it can’t be called a government, unless you have somehow converted the Gaza strip into a fully-fledged nation-state. I would have called them the ‘ruling body’ or ‘ruling council’, but that’s just because it sounds better to my English-as-a-first-language ear.

                • Morrissey …
                  14 July 2013 at 6:59 am

                  She is stating her own truth…

                  She is delivering a partial, carefully monitored narrative. If you are serious, you will watch Malalai Joya, who is not afraid of speaking the whole truth….
                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcZhQLbvgEw
                  I recommend you watch the whole thing, of course, but if you are pressed for time, you should go straight to 17:34 for images of the fine work on behalf of freedom and democracy in Afghanistan carried out by the US “Kill Team” Task Force 373.

                  As for ‘ruling faction’ take how you will, but Hamas doesn’t govern Palestine does it?

                  Your ignorance is astounding. Hamas won the only full and fair democratic election in the whole of the middle east in 2006.

                  • rosy …
                    14 July 2013 at 7:38 am

                    “Your ignorance is astounding. Hamas won the only full and fair democratic election in the whole of the middle east in 2006.”

                    Your reading skills leave something to be desired as well. You might care to try again and look where I said “As for Palestine – it’s up to the people and their democratically elected leaders”… My point was technical – they are not the government of Palestine – the potential homeland that included Gaza and the West Bank – if the world got it’s act together. That was what they elections were for in 2006. Despite winning the election they do not control the Palestinian Legislative Council, they administer only Gaza.

                    You know, sometimes you’re so arrogant, so sure of your knowledge and cynical about other people’s knowledge and keen to ‘correct’ them you can’t even be bothered to do more than skim read, it seems. Hence you miss quite a lot from people who might actually agree with some bits that you may present. And then you’re just straight out rude.

                    • Morrissey …
                      14 July 2013 at 11:11 am

                      ….they administer only Gaza.

                      Gaza is a locked ghetto, controlled, oppressed and harassed daily by the Israeli regime. The Hamas government, elected by free and fair elections in 2006, has about the same power as the Judenrat had in the Warsaw Ghetto.

                      You know, sometimes you’re so arrogant, so sure of your knowledge and cynical about other people’s knowledge and keen to ‘correct’ them you can’t even be bothered to do more than skim read, it seems. Hence you miss quite a lot from people who might actually agree with some bits that you may present. And then you’re just straight out rude.

                      Yes, you’re right, rosy. I recognize you are an intelligent and concerned person, and I do agree with what you say, almost all of the time. There are certainly cynical and nasty people who lurk on this board; I’ll try to save my worst for them, not the good guys.

      • locus 1.1.2
        13 July 2013 at 9:17 am

        http://m.spiegel.de/international/world/a-910587.html

        Malala is a light in a dark world. She inspires and will inspire hope and courage in millions of crushed and misused girls.

        She may only inspire cynicism for you though…

        • Morrissey 1.1.2.1
          13 July 2013 at 1:11 pm

          Malala is a light in a dark world. She inspires and will inspire hope and courage in millions of crushed and misused girls.

          She may only inspire cynicism for you though…

          What a foolish and obtuse post. The cynicism here is the fact this girl, whose country endures daily terror at the hands of the United States, is speaking at the U.N. and is not allowed to state that truth. This girl is only sixteen, and no doubt she is genuine, but she is being used by people who really are cynical—murderously cynical. I note that one of the people smiling vacantly and indulgently behind her is that corpse Ban Ki Moon.

          You need to find out what “cynical” actually means before you spray that word around.

          • muzza 1.1.2.1.1
            13 July 2013 at 1:28 pm

            Have to agree with Mozza – Unfortunately the reaction here, is exactly what the UN speech, was designed to do !

            Cynical, hypocritical propaganda, at its purist, which is terribly sad.

          • locus 1.1.2.1.2
            13 July 2013 at 8:23 pm

            What a foolish and obtuse post

            Your mode of dialogue Morrissey is often denigrating or self-congratulatory.

            However, i get that you want to debate politics, not the message that Malala, this tough independent thinking young woman was bravely and eloquently communicating in one of the world’s great forums.

            You may ‘cynically’ beleive that she is being used, you may ‘cynically’ think that she is ‘not being allowed to speak the truth’ (your opinion of ‘truth’ btw) and you may ‘cynically’ think that others who don’t want to focus on what you are focussing on are foolish or obtuse. That’s your right in a blog. I just don’t like your attitude or style – and that’s my right.

            My comment was to respect Malala the individual, who has been through so much over the past 3 years, and who is clearly an inspiration to so many.

            • Morrissey 1.1.2.1.2.1
              14 July 2013 at 6:26 am

              Your mode of dialogue Morrissey is often denigrating or self-congratulatory.

              There was nothing self-congratulatory in what I wrote; my purpose was to remind you of your profligate and inaccurate use of language.

              You may ‘cynically’ beleive that she is being used, you may ‘cynically’ think that she is ‘not being allowed to speak the truth’ (your opinion of ‘truth’ btw)…

              I see you are still at it. You obviously did not check what “cynical” means. And you are now trying to say that the truth is something we all make up, as if what is being done in Afghanistan and Pakistan every day is merely in our minds.

              My comment was to respect Malala the individual, who has been through so much over the past 3 years, and who is clearly an inspiration to so many.

              Nonsense. If you had any respect for Malala Yousafzei, you would acknowledge the constraints she is under, and acknowledge the political uses she is being put to, with the utmost cynicism. (Look it up.)

              • locus …
                14 July 2013 at 9:42 am

                Morrissey, you really don’t get it do you.

                Your views on how you think Malala is ‘being used’ have crowded out any possible acceptance that Malala deserves respect

                But maybe you do respect her courage and her desire to promote the right of education for girls? If you do then it doesn’t reflect in any of your comments.

                If you don’t respect her as a human being because you believe that she is ‘being used’ or is insincere, then imo …. you are cynical. I could have used the words heartless, or jaded, or disrespectful, but i thought cynical was a better fit.

                Your attempt to impel this discussion towards a debate on what’s going on in Pakistan and Afghanistan is not what this is about.

                • Morrissey …
                  14 July 2013 at 10:59 am

                  Your views on how you think Malala is ‘being used’ have crowded out any possible acceptance that Malala deserves respect

                  Nowhere have I suggested she does not deserve respect. She is a brave girl. But she is being used by brutal and cynical politicians. Either you realize that and are simply pretending to be obtuse, or you approve of their cynical manipulation of her as an exhibit to somehow justify what “our” troops and drones are doing to her country.

                  I note that you sarcastically place the phrase ‘being used’ in quote marks, as if she is not being used.

                  I could have used the words heartless, or jaded, or disrespectful, but i thought cynical was a better fit.

                  You still don’t have a clue about the language you so ineptly use.

                  Your attempt to impel this discussion towards a debate on what’s going on in Pakistan and Afghanistan is not what this is about.

                  So it is MY attempt to impel this discussion towards politics, is it? You really are naïve if you think that the British and U.S. regimes parading this girl as an exhibit is anything other than politics of the most shameful, craven and hypocritical stripe.

                  • locus …
                    14 July 2013 at 8:27 pm

                    well, Morrisey you have well and truly made your point that you think ‘cynicism’ is defined by the way in which Malala is, in your word, “being used” by the UN and “British and U.S. regimes”.

                    furthermore you continue to berate my use of language…. really? Your use of language is imo loaded and emotive – viz: “parading this girl as an exhibit is anything other than politics of the most shameful, craven and hypocritical stripe”

                    But i’m pleased that this little exchange has resulted in your comment: “Nowhere have I suggested she does not deserve respect. She is a brave girl.”

                    And with that in mind i’d like to add that nowehere in all my comments on this thread have a denied that there may be people who have engineered the publicity afforded to Malala in order to ‘cynically’ serve their own ends.

                    • Morrissey …
                      14 July 2013 at 8:35 pm

                      You argue your points very well, locus. I concede that my comments about you were overly harsh and, indeed, even unfair. Your reading of Malala is more nuanced than I gave you credit for—and it appears, on further inspection, that you DO know what “cynical” means.

                      As they say in parliament, I withdraw and apologize.

                    • locus …
                      14 July 2013 at 9:43 pm

                      thanks for your civil apology Morrissey… i recognise we were talking at cross purposes

          • dumrse 1.1.2.1.3
            13 July 2013 at 8:47 pm

            Why don’t you write your own fucking article instead of hijacking somebody else’s then you can say what you like.

            • Morrissey 1.1.2.1.3.1
              14 July 2013 at 5:59 am

              Why don’t you write your own fucking article instead of hijacking somebody else’s then you can say what you like.

              I often do. Have you not noticed?

              • dumrse …
                14 July 2013 at 10:50 am

                Sure have. I’ve also noticed how much is cut paste and copy V’s original work. Keep it up, it gives me something else to read.

                • Morrissey …
                  14 July 2013 at 11:02 am

                  Sure have. I’ve also noticed how much is cut paste and copy V’s original work.

                  There’s a quota, is there? Anyway, a great deal of my stuff on this site is composed by me.

                  Keep it up, it gives me something else to read.

                  I don’t believe you read a great deal.

    • AsleepWhileWalking 1.2
      13 July 2013 at 9:47 am

      Love that girl!

  2. Jenny 2
    13 July 2013 at 6:52 am

    This should be promoted to a guest post.

  3. North 3
    13 July 2013 at 7:25 am

    Who pays this prick Roughan ?

    Conscience ???

    Nought but a cheerleeader for foreigner ShonKey Python’s dream of New Zealand as a global financial outpost for the already obscenely wealthy.

    Mums and Dads ? Kiwis ? Bah !

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10897465

    • Draco T Bastard 3.1
      13 July 2013 at 1:20 pm

      I read the first sentence which was all I needed to know that it was a PR piece for SkyCity. Pure propaganda and nothing else.

    • RedLogix 3.2
      13 July 2013 at 3:42 pm

      I loved this bit:

      When Key came to power, he looked over the various proposals and had a word to SkyCity. I don’t care a jot that this is not exactly how things are supposed to be done in public project tenders. It was just the sort of touch I had hoped he would possess.

      Right wing commentator coming right out and saying that he likes corruption in his political heroes. Nothing plainer. What is worrisome is that the current moral/political environment means that Roughan feels enabled to say it.

      • Draco T Bastard 3.2.1
        13 July 2013 at 4:44 pm

        Yep, MSM commenter coming straight out and saying that they like corruption as if it’s normal. This is how NZ has become corrupt.

  4. North 4
    13 July 2013 at 7:38 am

    The Old Board Room Trout Fran – at it again – with a tone of complaint – distract distract.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10897515

  5. JK 5
    13 July 2013 at 7:49 am

    This is in the Herald this morning – Clare Trevett’s column.

    ” The coverage of the whole “man-ban” issue has exposed the party’s fundamental flaws: its factions, the tensions between the caucus and the party, and the perception that the party is overly concerned with issues of identity.
    Amid the leadership issues, there has been a serious debate internally in Labour this week about the wisdom of Maryan Street promoting her euthanasia private members’ bill.
    Labour is terrified it will be drawn out of the ballot.
    The debate would extend into election year and give the Conservatives another platform to boost its support as a potential partner for a third-term National Government. ”

    My Comment : Labour MPs need to concentrate on issues of real importance to its people – the lack of jobs, housing,
    the decline in the health of rivers, lakes and beaches, whatever Tony Ryall is doing to undermine our public health system …., the list is endless. And maybe if Labour MPs did that, instead of playing with side issues it would start to get some traction in the polls. Maybe !

    • Ad 5.1
      13 July 2013 at 9:05 am

      All is forgiven Shearer/Goff …. please just keep drifting the Labour Party into sustained decline as you are.

      You can always rely on the gloriously loyal Trevett.

      The theme I would encourage them to publicize is basic hope to get a better life … because with this degree of inequality, and in such a cold winter, there sure ain’t much, and people need some.

      • Rogue Trooper 5.1.1
        13 July 2013 at 10:53 am

        optimistic Ad

      • Colonial Viper 5.1.2
        13 July 2013 at 11:22 am

        Hope of as better life? Perhaps the euthanasia bill is what is needed with a third Tory term.

        Which reminds me: just because a Labour MP is pushing for a euthanasia bill, it doesn’t mean that Labour can’t focus on important issues of income, job and benefit inequity. Its not the euthanasia bill’s fault that Labour can’t get its act together on political economy issues which have more public resonance.

        /sarc

        • McFlock 5.1.2.1
          13 July 2013 at 3:19 pm

          I can’t help but think, CV, that somewhere in NZ there’s a university-educated, lesbian, Māori policy analyst with political ambitions and a partner with a terminal illness, who managed to irk you in some way…

        • Alanz 5.1.2.2
          13 July 2013 at 7:40 pm

          Huh? What and where is the clamour for the euthanasia bill?

          This is the euthanasia bill for terminally ill patients, rather than the terminally incompetent current Labour leadership team and their stubborn backers and careerists?

    • Socialist Paddy 5.2
      13 July 2013 at 11:21 am

      Audrey Young has an interesting take on the issue. She says

      “Cunliffe is the candidate that National believes is the greatest threat to John Key. Several ministers have said so privately. By that reasoning he is the candidate that Labour should choose.

      He has behaved well for eight months now, with no undermining of the leader. He is a polished performer.

      According to DigiPoll he would be the preferred replacement by 31.8 per cent of all voters (against 16.6 for Robertson and 13.5 for Little) and 37.7 per cent of Labour voters (19.1 for Robertson and 14 for Little).

      His detractors believe that were he to be elected leader, the wider electorate would tire of him quickly, as many of his colleagues have.

      Robertson is a less polarising figure, not tested as a minister, respected in Parliament and in the party but less known by the public.

      His backers installed Shearer, the complete novice.”

      The article is at http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10897462

      • hush minx 5.2.1
        13 July 2013 at 12:45 pm

        To my mind if there is to be a new leader (and there can there not be?) let’s not try and predict who ahead of time. That’s why there’s a process. Having said that to my way of thinking its Cunliffe’s time. There is no way to predict the electorate’s reaction until it happens. But it can’t be worse than this. And I believe it will be a whole lot better.

      • Olwyn 5.2.2
        13 July 2013 at 1:27 pm

        I do not buy the story that Cunliffe is hard to work with – if the people in his electorate do not find him hard to work with and the people who have had him as a consultant to their businesses did not find him hard to work with, I do not see why the Labour caucus are the exception.

        Instead I think that in choosing David Shearer Labour made an analogous choice to that of the Maori Party when it chose to go into coalition with National, the justification being that “you can make more gains at the table than you can away from it.” In Labour’s case, the table in question most likely includes lobbyists for the NZ elites as well as defenders of US interests. The problem in both cases is that power is so now concentrated and the demands of the powerful so antithetical to the interests of most citizens that the gains from subservience are no more than fig leaves which are not sufficient to cover a “sold out” status. Meanwhile, it is left to the legal fraternity, the HRC and John Campbell to defend the rights of New Zealanders.

        • Anne 5.2.2.1
          13 July 2013 at 4:15 pm

          I do not buy the story that Cunliffe is hard to work with…

          Agreed. It’s a load of bollocks. It should be remembered that the MSM, almost without exception, pushed the ‘Shearer for leader’ line as hard as they could. Like their political counterparts they can’t admit to being wrong (maybe) so they drop in a supposed Cunliffe negative to save face.

      • JK 5.2.3
        13 July 2013 at 3:22 pm

        “His (cunliffe’s) detractors believe that were he to be elected leader, the wider electorate would tire of him quickly, as many of his colleagues have………. Robertson is a less polarising figure, not tested as a minister, respected in Parliament and in the party but less known by the public.”

        Cunliffe’s caucus detractors just don’t get it ! They installed Shearer, they’ve watched him muck up, and they STILL think they know best as to what the electorate wants. Robertson hasn’t had Cabinet experience – how can they possibly think he (or Little for that matter) could become Prime Minister.
        Putting inexperienced people into the leadership position is doing us all a huge disservice.

        ps Don’t know what’s happening with the italics – that’s meant to just be for the quoted bit.

        • Colonial Viper 5.2.3.1
          13 July 2013 at 3:24 pm

          Its also destroying what could be promising Labour political careers early on.

        • Boadicea 5.2.3.2
          13 July 2013 at 8:23 pm

          Those who screwed up TWICE should not be players in the next step of the Leadership selection.
          Shearer is a about to resign. It is weeks away. Goff, King, Mallard and a few more should announce their retirement at the next election at the same time.
          Robertson has to stand down as Deputy at the same time.

      • David H 5.2.4
        13 July 2013 at 6:14 pm

        Naaa Robertson should never be leader. He is one of those people that is destined to stand in the background and work there. Thats where he is good, but if he tried to step up then, Oh dear the Fat Controller has delusions of Grandeur. But who else apart from Cunliffe could lead the party AND unite the voters?
        Cunliffe. Articulate, knows policy inside out, is a little arrogant but hell with his credentials he can afford to be.
        Robertson?? The Fat Controller destined to be in the Background.
        Little?? Has the Personality of an Envelope
        Jones?? Porno anyone
        \and on it goes ad infinitum. The rest are wanna be’s in comparison!

  6. Polish Pride 6
    13 July 2013 at 10:10 am

    This is beautiful
    Make her Prime Minister of Ireland.
    Clare Daly Irish politician calls it out like it is by labeling Obama a hypocrite and a war criminal.

    • Colonial Viper 6.1
      13 July 2013 at 11:24 am

      I suspect embarrassing and politically fatal emails or personal details about that MP would be revealed any time it looked like she might actually succeed.

  7. aerobubble 7
    13 July 2013 at 10:35 am

    Uncle Bain says nephew did it, not brother.
    Nick-picking which family member was the mass
    murderer. Oh wait, Uncle Bain speaks with such
    authority, would rather his brother son be the
    culprit. Something went wrong with that family,
    and he can’t say he’s not part of that family and
    also be so very much a part of the family.

    Sweden to send Judge to London, and will pass
    judgment by holding court over Assauge in Ecuadorean? Embassy,
    if found guilty Sweden will build a cell in the
    embassy for Assuage to serve his sentence.
    oh, wait, Sweden is a pragmatic liberal democracy.

    Atheist say on National Radio we need the God idea.
    oh, wait, like the idea could be ignored and thrown
    into the darkness of historical curiosity, I wish.
    Claiming the distorting, the early mistakes on the road
    to science and morality, ‘God’ was and still is a
    necessity is true, but really, isn’t there much better
    stuff on our rise to self-awareness, self-reflection.

    National party, will grow NZ with gutter capitalism.
    Gambling outlet to fund unethical conference centre.
    Oh, wait, conference cancelled as big corporation
    did not wish to be associated with growth in crime and
    gambling harm. Picture of child left in casino car-park
    dying of thirst causes conference of water bottlers
    to cancel. Oh, wait, CEO of SkyCity, totally aware of
    the connection and need to distance itself from unethical
    immoral practices in case a backlash occurs against gambling
    (harming future profitability). Oops, another Tolkien loving
    unionist cancel family trip to hobbit movies.

    Crusher “Collins” policy saves cyclist life. Oh, wait,
    three injured, one dead die a young driver mows them down
    in Hamilton. Hamilton is now notorious for childracers
    burning up the tarmac, in a car cult of excessive car rage.
    No tolerance for graffiti, massive tolerance for car rage,
    as yet another night of roaring cars is heard across the
    Hmailton night (and day).

  8. yeshe 8
    13 July 2013 at 12:11 pm

    New study on fracking, quoting from Science magazine (can’t find the magazine link just yet) but this needs to be read and understood:

    “‘Dynamic triggering’

    Quakes with a magnitude of 2 or lower, which can hardly be felt, are routinely produced in fracking, said geologist William Ellsworth of the U.S. Geological Survey, an expert on human-induced earthquakes who was not involved in the study.

    The largest fracking-induced earthquake “was magnitude 3.6, which is too small to pose a serious risk,” he wrote in Science.

    But van der Elst and colleagues found evidence that injection wells can set the stage for more dangerous quakes. Because pressure from wastewater wells stresses nearby faults, if seismic waves speeding across Earth’s surface hit the fault it can rupture and, months later, produce an earthquake stronger than magnitude 5.

    What seems to happen is that wastewater injection leaves local faults “critically loaded,” or on the verge of rupture. Even weak seismic waves from faraway quakes are therefore enough to set off a swarm of small quakes in a process called “dynamic triggering.”

    “I have observed remote triggering in Oklahoma,” said seismologist Austin Holland of the Oklahoma Geological Survey, who was not involved in the study. “This has occurred in areas where no injections are going on, but it is more likely to occur in injection areas.”

    Once these triggered quakes stop, the danger is not necessarily over. The swarm of quakes, said Heather Savage of Lamont-Doherty and a co-author of the study, “could indicate that faults are becoming critically stressed and might soon host a larger earthquake.”

    For instance, seismic waves from an 8.8 quake in Maule, Chile, in February 2010 rippled across the planet and triggered a 4.1 quake in Prague, Oklahoma – site of the Wilzetta oil field – some 16 hours later.

    That was followed by months of smaller tremors in Oklahoma, and then the largest quake yet associated with wastewater injection, a 5.7 temblor in Prague on November 6, 2011.

    That quake destroyed 14 homes, buckled a highway and injured two people.

    The Prague quake is “not only one of the largest earthquakes to be associated with wastewater disposal, but also one of the largest linked to a remote triggering event,” said van der Elst.

    The Chile quake also caused a swarm of small temblors in Trinidad, Colorado, near wells where wastewater used to extract methane from coal beds had been injected.

    On August 22, 2011, a magnitude 5.3 quake hit Trinidad, damaging dozens of buildings.

    The 9.1 earthquake in Japan in March 2011, which caused a devastating tsunami, triggered a swarm of small quakes in Snyder, Texas – site of the Cogdell oil field. That autumn, Snyder experienced a 4.5 quake.

    The presence of injection wells does not mean an area is doomed to have a swarm of earthquakes as a result of seismic activity half a world away, and a swarm of induced quakes does not necessarily portend a big one.

    Guy, Arkansas; Jones, Oklahoma; and Youngstown, Ohio, have all experienced moderate induced quakes due to fluid injection from oil or gas drilling. But none has had a quake triggered by a distant temblor.

    Long-distance triggering is most likely where wastewater wells have been operating for decades and where there is little history of earthquake activity, the researchers write.

    “The important thing now is to establish how common this is,” said Oklahoma’s Holland, referring to remotely triggered quakes. “We don’t have a good answer to that question yet.”

    Before the advent of injection wells, triggered earthquakes were a purely natural phenomenon. A 7.3 quake in California’s Mojave Desert in 1992 set off a series of tiny quakes north of Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming, for instance.

    Now, according to the Science paper, triggered quakes can occur where human activity has weakened faults.

    Current federal and state regulations for wastewater disposal wells focus on protecting drinking water sources from contamination, not on earthquake hazards.

    – See more at: http://www.prairiebizmag.com/event/article/id/15229/#sthash.mfbyYJOH.dpuf

    http://www.prairiebizmag.com/event/article/id/15229/

    • Alanz 8.1
      13 July 2013 at 9:18 pm

      This?

      http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6142/1225942.abstract

      “Injection-induced earthquakes, such as those that struck in 2011, clearly contribute to the seismic hazard. Quantifying their contribution presents difficult challenges that will require new research into the physics of induced earthquakes and the potential for inducing large-magnitude events. The petroleum industry needs clear requirements for operation, regulators must have a solid scientific basis for those requirements, and the public needs assurance that the regulations are sufficient and are being followed. The current regulatory frameworks for wastewater disposal wells were designed to protect potable water sources from contamination and do not address seismic safety. One consequence is that both the quantity and timeliness of information on injection volumes and pressures reported to regulatory agencies are far from ideal for managing earthquake risk from injection activities. In addition, seismic monitoring capabilities in many of the areas in which wastewater injection activities have increased are not capable of detecting small earthquake activity that may presage larger seismic events. “

  9. Poission 9
    13 July 2013 at 1:16 pm

    From the truth is stranger then fiction department tampons are more dangerous then guns in Texas.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/12/tampons-confiscated-texas_n_3588177.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

  10. ak 10
    13 July 2013 at 1:20 pm

    Well pickle my tit. Audrey Young header “Key defaults to arrogance…..” Connecting dots at last Auds? Finally dawning how certain things happened and why? Better late than never I spose.

  11. Morrissey 11
    13 July 2013 at 3:16 pm

    The Hatchet Man Speaks
    Alex Gibney interviewed by Kim Hill
    Radio NZ National, Saturday 13 July 2013, 8:10 a.m.

    Fans of Kim Hill’s TV and radio interviews have been treated to some pretty interesting characters over the years. There was JEFFREY ARCHER in 1994, screaming furiously: “I’ve been warned about you!” There have been the slightly sad, unintentionally funny ones, such as
 the witless, under-prepared U.S. ambassador CHARLES SWINDELLS….

    AMBASSADOR SWINDELLS: Errrrrr… Iraq is a terrorist state.
    HILL: [patiently but insistently] What’s the link?

    ….[Long, awkward pause]…

    AMBASSADOR: We are attacking terrorism on all fronts.
    HILL: Well, no you’re not. When are you going to attack Saudi Arabia?

    …[Long, embarrassing pause]…

    AMBASSADOR: Uh…..

    Then there are the more malevolent, sinister ones. For some reason,
 Hill’s most rancorous, rankly hypocritical interviewees have mostly been
 Englishmen. Who could ever forget the thuggish Blair cabinet minister GEOFF HOON nervelessly insisting that “weapons of mass destruction
 will be found in Iraq”? And nobody who heard it will ever forget that 
neo-conservative apologist and pompous blowhard WILLIAM SHAWCROSS 
frothing with anger after Hill confronted him with his own
hypocrisy in 2004….

    KIM HILL: As you eloquently say in your book, a lot of Saddam
Hussein’s atrocities were committed with the sanction of the United
States.
    SHAWCROSS: [erupting] I DID NOT SAY THAT!
    HILL: [coolly] No-o-o-o-o-o?
    SHAWCROSS: [gibbering with fury] This is an ABSURD interview! I did 
NOT say that! I did NOT say that!

    (FACT: He DID say that.)

    She also has interviewed, and generally got the better of the slimy careerist PETER HAIN, the hapless former Australian prime minister JOHN HOWARD and the buffoonish, ignorant, malicious restaurant critic-cum-political commentator A.A. GILL.

    This morning, however, she interviewed someone who for sheer malice and hypocrisy makes Archer look like Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Hain like Nelson Mandela, Hoon like a choir-boy and Shawcross like Albert Schweitzer. Her guest was the unspeakable ALEX GIBNEY, the director of We Steal Secrets, an Obama-friendly Soviet-style hatchet job on dissenter Julian Assange.

    I’ll let Gibney speak for himself now. Unless you are an inveterate worshipper of his heartless documentaries, and a motivated hater of Julian Assange, you will not fail to notice how flippant and cynical–as well as unfunny—so many of his little wisecracks are. Nor will you fail to be shocked by the dark, Swiftian irony of some of his observations—all of it unintended by Gibney, of course….

    ALEX GIBNEY: Ahhhhh, if you have a significant amount of street cred, you ahhhhhhm feel entitled to be bad. It’s like going for a jog and then coming back and having fast food!

    About Father Murphy, who got away with abusing deaf children until they exposed his crimes…..
    GIBNEY: People who do nasty stuff like to find rationalizations for their behavior and then that lets them walk round feeling good about themselves.

    About the deaf children who exposed Father Murphy….
    GIBNEY: What attracted me was their heroism. They showed this was part of a systematic ahhhhhhhhhm…
    KIM HILL: Cover-up?
    GIBNEY: Yeah, cover-up.

    About Pope Benedict XVI….
    GIBNEY: Ratzinger used to be in the Doctrine of the Faith, which used to be the Inquisition. …. A trail of coverups. That is the REAL crime. A systematic program of covering up. The Archbishop turned on the children and told them, “YOU are to blame for bringing shame on the Church!”

    KIM HILL: This Kafkaesque nightmare when nobody believed them.
    GIBNEY: Yes, that’s absolutely true.

    KIM HILL: As you say, “Deny, minimize and blame” has been the modus operandi of the Catholic Church. Has it changed?
    GIBNEY: [gravely, with utmost compassion in voice] I fear not.

    ….[Long, pregnant pause]….

    KIM HILL: Let us turn to Julian Assange. The Assangeists, as you call them, have said it’s a very unfair attack.
    GIBNEY: Well I think it’s religious. Ahhhh, ha ha ha ha ha ha! The Assangeistas’ have this blind faith. What my film does is to look at the way an individual has become corrupt. It’s this noble cause corruption I was talking about….. Assange was mendacious, fundamentally wrong. He was so rigid and ideological as to endanger people’s lives. His original sin was the Swedish case. He purposely conflated it with Wikileaks, said it was a put-up job by the CIA. Now, I admit that there is no evidence that anyone was hurt by the release of the Afghan war logs. I disagree with the U.S. government on this. He was reckless to publish them without redaction. This separated him from the Guardian and the New York Times. Assange was on the moral low ground just to be “pure” to his “ideals”.
    KIM HILL: Is it impossible that there was a conspiracy?
    GIBNEY: Anything is possible! Martians might invade! But it’s quite clear this is a matter between one man and two women. Everybody was saying to him, take care of it. He made a calculated decision.
    KIM HILL: There’s no hero in this story. Certainly you don’t think Julian Assange is a hero but neither do you believe Bradley Manning was a hero either.
    GIBNEY: I think he was a kind of hero. He was naive—he didn’t think through what he was doing. Bradley Manning is an “everyday” hero, not someone like Martin Luther King or Nelson Mandela, but an everyday hero. …. Let’s be honest. …[snicker]… I don’t think we’d like to be in a world where soldiers routinely gave up information they had sworn to keep secret.

    Re Adrian Lamo, who betrayed Bradley Manning….
    GIBNEY: He’s a narcissist, I think that’s clear. Manning had to reach out to someone, and he reached out to someone who turned him in.

    KIM HILL: Assange asked you for a million dollars for an interview.
    GIBNEY: That reveals his character. … He has defiled his own cause… I think the idea of Wikileaks in its purest form is brilliant…. Assange was overcome by narcissism and noble cause corruption. That’s what the U.S. government does: “We stand for democracy and freedom, so shouldn’t we be able to waterboard a few terrorists?” NO! No, we shouldn’t!

    The interview finished, thankfully, soon afterward, and the music of the great Richard Thompson soothed the outraged sensibilities of the listeners.

    Then, straight after the 9 a.m. news, listeners heard this….

    KIM HILL: Lots of responses to the interview with Alex Gibney. Morrissey writes, in an outraged fashion: Alex Gibney called Julian Assange “mendacious, fundamentally wrong”, “rigid” and “ideological.” He sniggered at the “talkshow hosts and senators calling for drone strikes against Assange”; he mocked Assange for thinking “I have terrible enemies and they are coming after me!”, he coldly and calculatedly compared Assange to scientologists.

    If he had any integrity, Gibney would have made a documentary in cooperation with the Catholic Church, pouring scorn and heaping abuse on the deaf children who exposed the crimes of Father Murphy.

    But that would not have got him lionized in Washington, of course.

    Yours in disgust at fawning liberal hypocrites….

    Hmmmm…. interesting logic, Morrissey.

    RESULT!!!!!

    Alex Gibney is the director of Silence in the House of God, a documentary about a priest who abused deaf boys, and We Steal Secrets, a government-approved character assassination of Julian Assange. Both films are showing in New Zealand soon.

  13. Tiresias 13
    13 July 2013 at 5:37 pm

    Wouldn’t it be really, really great if the, ah, ‘inert’ Labour Party signed up to this, and meant it:

    http://econ4.org/statement-on-building-the-new-economy

    But, alas , I fear it is frighten the horses territory.

Links to post