Written By:
notices and features - Date published:
6:00 am, November 17th, 2022 - 44 comments
Categories: open mike -
Tags:
The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.
Everyone having a lie in this morning?
Only the TS ram raiders
Every Democrat who voted in New Hampshire for State representative can each consider themselves the single vote that took out the Republican.
Recount flips New Hampshire seat from Republican to Democrat — by one vote | Salon.com
Interesting how when Russia sent a missile into Poland it's a deliberate strike on NATO and the start of WW3, but when Ukraine sends a missile into Poland, it's a stray.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2022/11/escalation-fears-ease-after-nato-warsaw-say-missile-that-hit-poland-was-ukrainian-stray.html
And not just one missile but 2???
Yes that is exactly right, the fairness and balance in reporting by western MSM has almost completely disappeared…and the sad thing is that the most vocal and staunchest cheerleaders for this relentless western propaganda fuelled warmongering is no longer the Right, it now comes from the Liberal class, as anyone who even occasionally reads comments here on TS can plainly see..
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/eKYI3LtQbYs
..on most days I could put up this stadium full of Ukrainian soccer fans giving the Nazi salute, and you can be sure at least one of those war mongering liberal imperialists would come on here and run defence for them…just take a moment to think about that, imagine running defence for actual Nazi’s….crazy.
Nothing to see here…..as I am sure they will tell you..
According to an admittedly pro-Ukrainian source: 11 minutes
the s-300 missiles that Ukraine possesses are ground to air only and are designed to explode harmlessly if they miss their air target.
Also, some of the debris shown in the video of Russian missiles looks suspiciously like that shown to be found at the Polish site.
While I don't think for a minute that the Russian's targeted Polish territory, I have deep reservations about the accuracy of Russia's missiles.
I think Biden et al quite rightly decided to shut the discussion down, but I'll bet by back-channels they've delivered a very stern message to the Kremlin.
Well, well, well!
It appear is you put in the co-ordinates of Lviv and Kiev (one latitude and one longitude) you end up on a farm just across the border in Poland!
As explained in this video – admittedly, again, pro-Ukrainian:
Human error in some Russian command post?
I haven't seen anyone here dispute that their are Nazi's in Ukraine, that there are strong right wing elements in Ukraine, etc. People have pointed out that there are right wing and Nazi elements in Russia, Poland, Germany, etc.
The Nazi influence in Ukraine has been getting reported on for years. There's weird religious shit as well such as tying people to lamp posts with their pants down so people can whip them going past but that is true of Russia as well.
Putin has over the years tested the boundaries – killing people overseas who oppose him, etc. I don't profess to know his motivations. He's been an ass for quite a while now and invading Ukraine is an intensification of the sort of shit he has been doing for a while.
And just cause I think he's a dick to do this shit doesn't impact at all on my view that the bullshit about weapons of mass destruction was clearly false and Bush was as much of a dick then as Putin is being now.
You keep presenting an argument that it is one or the other with no nuances or shades of grey.
Biden was the first world leader to state that the missile likely did not come from Russia.
Yeah I guess that was because he was given the job of tamping down the war hungry maniacs in Washington who are pulling at the leash for NATO intervention in the Ukraine….
like this one…
U.S. official says Russian missiles hit Poland, killing two
And that just proves the point…western MSM flex is to immediately just print whatever shit fed is to them without checking the facts.. but only when it follows the narrative they are so obviously pushing themselves.
It shows Biden's State Department can also successfully do its job against the Pentagon, because they simultaneously stopped the bullshit and also pushed through the near-unanimous statement from the G20 condemning Russia's war against the Ukrainian people … and achieved both things on the same day.
A dumbass Republican in the White House could easily jumped to go from NATO Article 4 to Article 5. Also didn't occur.
For now at least the checks and balances – under the Biden administration – are working as intended.
Another theory that has been mentioned is that it was fired by Russia but deflected by one of Ukraine's defensive missiles. So I guess both countries would be guilty in that case. Perhaps it’s time for peace talks.
"Perhaps it’s time for peace talks."
After Russia removes its military from all Ukrainian territory and stops mercilessly bombing it – sure. Only needs one order from Putin and it all ends. Peace talks at the moment would not give lasting peace but instead would just rubberstamp and reward aggression and warcrimes.
Most commentary yesterday was about how unlikely it would be that this was a deliberate strike on a third country. And when it was established that this was an errant air defense missile fired to save civilian lives from a terrorising Russian bombardment, Ukraine and their allies put their hand up.
Transparency, another marked difference with how Russia behaves.
Really? Not yet.
https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/872588.html
It's hard to believe Russia would attack a NATO country when they can't even defeat Ukraine. Ultimately, it's up to Poland to tell the world what happened.
But it's a nice distraction form what should be the real story, the brutality of Russia's objective of freezing millions of civilians to death by destroying critical electrical and heating infrastructure.
Even if it was fired from inside Ukraine it could have been fired by Russian backed separatists, maybe the same ones who killed a few hundred people shooting down a civilian airplane for fun a decade ago.
This town, Prewodów, borders the most western part of Ukraine. I'm no expert, but I'd be surprised if there were any Russian backed separatists in the area.
Funny (not really) that Sanctuary commented to be only two days ago… "Before you decide to die on a hill for Putin's Dirlewanger Brigade"…that this should pop up…
https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAnon/comments/ytebdj/how_does_this_keep_happening/
No no no Adrian, you can see the guy is just a teenager and this is harmless transgressive youthful posturing.He's just being anti authoritarian
Everyone there is dying on hills.
"Everyone there is dying on hills"…yes that is the tragedy of this whole avoidable disaster…it is heart breaking to see the human lives from all sides being slaughtered so pointlessly.
More interesting polling.
”A new poll has Te Pāti Māori in the driver’s seat and a likely Labour-Green government, while NZ First is on the cusp of the 5 per cent threshold to make it back into Parliament”
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/labour-just-behind-nats-nz-first-on-the-cusp-in-new-poll/6HHJTEBYYZGD7KID6N5AWW5SPE/
Not Winston again? Have we learned nothing?
If Winston will stop the wholesale selling of productive farmland to grifting carbon farmers hell get my vote.
Why would land prone to flooding be considered suitable for residential housing in the first place?
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/plan-to-build-houses-on-flood-prone-napier-land-not-viable-councillor-says/P5FLAVVRBFGCZOWJJG6RCG2RBI/
Possibly because all the easy land is already developed. What is left is either "brownfield" sites which have been industrial and bring with them requirements for remediation from pollutants etc and noise from adjacent sites, "greyfield" sites which already have residential developments on them which need to be torn down which brings other community problems, or "greenfield" sites which are either agricultural or remote from services, or both. Add to that the land which has not been developed for very good reasons, too wet, or too steep (and occasionally both). The last site I sent back to the surveyor with a note that this decision was going to be made by engineers not planners, was too steep at the top and too wet at the bottom.
I understand the supply and financial reasons, just not the possible impacts on future residents. Happy to learn if you have the time.
What's the weighting you would give in reference to flood plains, as opposed to regeneration of brownfields sites? Especially as incidence of flooding is likely to increase as climate change contributes to changing weather patterns.
Looking at the photo, the adjoining surrounds seem low-lying as well. How do they mitigate the expected high water levels, if it appears draining will send the problem elsewhere?
Or are there design measures that can be taken?
Anything that diverts flood waters, or reduces the capacity of the flood plain has to be supported by very extensive (and not cheap) hydrological surveys. Same with things like overland flow paths. I have an overland flow path on my moderately steep site and had to have an engineer's report to accompany my Land Use application for additions and alterations. That showed that the flow path was a sheet flow and could be managed with normal building practice.
In regard to brownfield sites and neighbours – you get into the whole question of existing use rights of the surrounding users to continue with their industrial or commercial activities. This may involve noise, late night traffic movements, odours etc which are fine when the subject site was a warehouse or whatever, but turn that site into an apartment block, and unless you have sale conditions saying that the new residents cannot complain about the surrounding uses, there can be problems.
As a Planner – I would rather deal with a brownfield site than a flood plain. With ground levels sinking and seal level rising there are limits on use.
I processed a Consent once for a residential development on a site that was subject to a storm surge of up to 1.5m in height. Consequently, the whole lower level of the dwelling could not be habitable space. No bedrooms, living rooms etc, just garage, storage, laundry etc. All electrical wiring had to be at least 1.5m above the ground level. It took 2 designers to get something acceptable.
I know of a brownfields site where the whole thing was contaminated with mercury, and the developer had to take out the top 3 or 4m of soil from underneath where the buildings were. And the top metre of so of the surrounding soil. They did get underground garaging out of it.
Thanks, visubversa
I had a tendency towards thinking brownfields development would be less risky in general, but it's good to hear your thoughts on this.
Back a few years, when I was interested in planning, I came across (IIRC) a New York development on a heavily contaminated industrial site that they were using planting (willow?) to draw out contaminants before development. I also seem to recall a local woman doing the same thing here in NZ. Are you aware of any successful methods of doing this instead of relocating soil?
I think the NZ decontamination using planting might have been related to either this documentary, or contaminated sites similar to those mentioned here:
Green Chain (2012) documentary
https://www.nzonscreen.com/title/the-green-chain-2011
that's one of the more stupid things I've read lately.
I guess that's the system kind of working, but how much money is being wasted on the planning and assessments for a clearly unsuitable site?
The issue is that once those assessments are completed, and the mitigation measures are accepted by council, and consents issued it is not the developer, consultants, planners, bankers or contractors that will have to deal with any failures.
They will get paid, and move on.
It's the people who live there that shoulder the risks and consequences of failure.
One of the obvious problems of fast-tracking shovel ready projects is that they are often at that stage because a fundamental flaw or problem would remain after completion. So they stalled.
would be interesting to see what the LIMs say, and insurance companies. At this point in history I think buyer beware is an imperative with housing.
Another big hole appears in Government debt hole,noted but unquantified in the Budget.
Along with the Housing corp debt blowout,and inability to fund,the revenue decrease in the Transport agency, CTL, the Government looks like they are facing a budget hole by christmas of at least 1 Goldsmith.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/478910/holidays-act-fix-cost-of-backpay-for-health-workers-balloons-to-2b
Apparently the state has enough readies to buy back a bank that honestly pretty much sucks in its returns, but not enough to buy the 49% back of a gentailer who could make the state some serious bank.
kiwibank was more about propping up ACC ( for its new job tax project) after its investment losses,and NZSF for its poor investment decisions. ( 9 billion in losses between them on investments)
That is so depressing.
The political on-ground fights we have in so many departments, but when state plutocrats need a bailout…
Like asking for $500k loan from a bank you're a worm,
Ask for $500m they buy you lunch.
All about leverage and debt creation,and adding costs and liabilities to NZ.
What were the good options with shares and bonds (and bit coin) going down together – throw it all into gold?
Bonds still retain the coupon value ( interest paid till expiry) moving from value to growth investments (some with p/e greater then 50) was a poor investment decision,
With Kiwi Saver there was government direction from conservative to balanced fund portfolios as the default option. And the encouragement of growth (stock investment) funds for younger investors (greater returns over time).
My own provider suggested back to conservative straight away.
When did ACC and NZSF move (relatively I presume) from value to growth investments?
I would have presumed a move back to value stocks/property/gold as soon as QE was over and interest rates rose. Then back to growth stocks after the price correction.
That switch for the default savers,cost users a lot of money.The other problem was the use of Kiwisaver for first home buyers,where withdrawls made the funds sell for losses on semi liquid assets (the with drawls for FHB exceeded those cashing out on retirement effectively doubling the withdrawl rates.)
Acc and NZSF changed the funds types they invested in selling out of some very high yield funds.There was also margin calls on leveraged assets ( still hedged against forex losses on most assets till next year)
The Government cannot remove the opportunity for offshore money to make an acceptable return from NZ…..and Kiwibank in its current form is no threat, but the 'gentailers' are a real opportunity.
It may suck but when you rely on necessities from offshore you have little choice