Open mike 19/12/2014

113 comments on “Open mike 19/12/2014 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. millsy 1

   19 December 2014 at 7:43 am

   Just letting you all know, if I dont post before then, that I wish you all a merry Christmas and a happy 2015.

   2014 was a disaster for the left, but from here, we can only go up.

   Its not over. Not yet anyway…
2. vto 2

   19 December 2014 at 7:53 am

   So there has been a vicious water row in the Hurunui, the river/s and catchment in North Canterbury already over-choked with farm run-off pollutant. The ground is mostly bony stony with too easy drainage. Ngai Tahu have (locally) famously applied to intensify this bony land immediately adjacent to the Hurunui River with more cows and cow shit and urine and fake-green barren grasses – the river is already over-loaded yet still they and most other farmers in them parts try it on…

   …why do they try it on? Money.

   Well it seems there has been some local warring going on http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/64301780/Vicious-campaign-in-Hurunui-water-row Local people with more environment-friendly views have been intimidated into silence and farmers use their local economic power to shut people with such views out.

   …why do they do it? Money. And a particular manner.

   I often express pretty strong views about farmers and their practices, for which no apology is made, though clarification in detail is often required… One of those views expressed is that farmers can be pig-headed and live in such a particular world that it is difficult for them to believe there can be other ways of life on the planet (this is of course a human trait and not limited to farmers).

   They are also very difficult to discuss things with as in my very long experience they will simply grump, dismiss the views with personal abuse as some loony greenie hippy thing, and storm off in a huff. It should be borne in mind that they vote for National and a comparison to that National support blog Kiwiblog shows similar behavioural traits, most recently evidenced in the Sydney Siege threads. Also evidenced in recent comment by mr waghorn http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-17122014/#comment-941388 around opinion pieces in rural publications.

   Imo, this article about the warring in Hurunui is further evidence of this poor approach to issues. Little debating in good faith and a great deal of shouting and personal abuse. They need to change.

   ..

   And as to the particular issue in Hurunui – if farmers think that the public should butt out of their business then the farmers need to first butt out of the public estate. For as long as they keep ruining the public estate the public will be quite rightly on their case.

   Here endeth (for the moment)
   • Draco T Bastard 2.1

     19 December 2014 at 8:26 am

     if farmers think that the public should butt out of their business then the farmers need to first butt out of the public estate.

     Which is physically impossible as the land can’t be removed from the commons and so the farmers need to shut and listen.
   • ianmac 2.2

     19 December 2014 at 9:18 am

     Ecan has not done the job that it was supposed to do. Supposed to monitor and care for water purity and set river flow limits which are affected by water/irrigation. Income trumps Environmental welfare. Sad.
     • tc 2.2.1

       19 December 2014 at 9:49 am

       It’s done exactly as the NACT wanted, couldn’t risk it with an elected board so they sacked them and installed their sock puppets with no sign of returning it to a vote.

       McGlashan should redo the blams song as ‘there is no suppression in NZ…’
       • vto 2.2.1.1

         19 December 2014 at 9:58 am

         Yep, and the same bunch of farmers and National Party people rail against dictators and lack of democracy, and even send our people to war over it, in other countries…..

         hypocrites extraordinaire
   • Murray Rawshark 2.3

     19 December 2014 at 6:41 pm

     Most of the farmers I’ve known were up in Te Tai Tokerau. Although there were a few like Titford, most of them did want to look after the land to some extent. I think some of that has changed, particularly as outsiders have opened up land around the Hikurangi swamp and wrecked the Northern Wairoa. Their farms were probably much smaller than what you get down Hurunui way.
3. Paul 3

   19 December 2014 at 8:17 am

   Perhaps the most fawning, nauseating article of the year.
   ‘Journalism in NZ 2014.’

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11376479
   • aj 3.1

     19 December 2014 at 11:47 am

     “He listed his most admired player as Tiger Woods; his favourite current player as US up-and-comer Jordan Spieth; his most loved tournament as the Masters; and the best course he’s played as the Bel-Air Country Club in Los Angeles – “It’s full of history and I shot an 81 there.”

     So he most admires Woods who is a miserable excuse for a human being, a serial cheater on his pregnant wife, a narcissistic sociopath, so that shouldn’t surprise anyone.
     Key shows his roots in that sentence, there is no homage to the origins of the game. He is American.
     • Paul 3.1.1

       19 December 2014 at 11:49 am

       A totally sycophantic article.
       Dirty Politics continues…..
   • tc 3.2

     19 December 2014 at 12:31 pm

     Yes and pitched so that anyone who raises issues about it will be portrayed as ‘envious’ ‘tall poppy syndrome’ etc

     A graph of parliamentary attendance across the this and the last 3 PM’s ( 3 nat and one labour) would make for interesting reading.

     Takes alot of work to go from around 20 handicap to about half that so can’t be too busy running the country can he as each actual game takes up to 4hrs before you factor in the travel etc.
   • Murray Rawshark 3.3

     19 December 2014 at 6:45 pm

     Yuck. Reminds me of the old joke.

     An old bloke went to the doctor complaining of a sore back. It was affecting his golf handicap and he asked how he could get it down as low as FJK’s.

     “Lie” said the doctor.
4. Colonial Rawshark 4

   19 December 2014 at 8:36 am

   Hitler wanted to destroy Russia. Everyone needs to remember how that ended

   And other Putinisms from his annual mega pressor.

   ““Our US friends, whether directly or from behind the scenes always affect our relations with our neighbors. Sometimes it’s unclear whether to talk to the authorities of the country, or to their US patrons.”

   http://rt.com/news/211411-putin-state-address-top10/
   • nadis 4.1

     19 December 2014 at 9:51 am

     and yet last night, overnight rates in moscow rose from 19.8% to 27.3%…….

     Putin’s address was aimed entirely at his populist basis. Nothing concrete or thoughtful about how to wriggle through the crisis. With Rosneft asking for a $49 billion bailout, and the banking/corporate sector demanding the same, he is in something of a conundrum.
     • Colonial Rawshark 4.1.1

       19 December 2014 at 11:25 am

       That’s just the bullshit spreadsheet games.The west used low oil prices as a weapon to collapse the Soviet economy and the Soviet rouble in the 1980s. You really think they are going to be lucky a second time doing the same thing? Russia and Putin is playing the real economy game – maintaining the supply of food, critical services and energy to its citizens.
   • Draco T Bastard 4.2

     19 December 2014 at 1:09 pm

     Nations have been trying to invade/destroy Russia for centuries – none have succeeded.
     • Ovid 4.2.1

       19 December 2014 at 1:25 pm

       Well, the Mongols did.
     • Gosman 4.2.2

       19 December 2014 at 1:43 pm

       Those sorts of historical comparisons are meaningless. The same could be stated about England since the time of the Norman’s. No nation has conquered it despite many trying. Or you could equally argue that the US has never lost a war in which it was actively involved in.
     • McFlock 4.2.3

       19 December 2014 at 1:59 pm

       Germany and the AHE didn’t do too badly in 1917.
5. Rosie 5

   19 December 2014 at 9:46 am

   On the theme of the woman’s placard in the Open Mike header I’m reposting this atmospheric piece of electronica written for Eric Garner, the man killed by police, for the suspicion that he was selling tax free fags.

   It’s an evocative piece of music. Sinister and beautiful at the same time.

   http://blogs.villagevoice.com/music/2014/12/listen_to_i_cant_breathe_the_song_about_eric_garner.php
6. Tony Parker 6

   19 December 2014 at 10:14 am

   Thank you Dita De Boni. At last some sensible media commentary about education in NZ.
   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11376389
   • RedLogix 6.1

     19 December 2014 at 10:49 am

     Thanks Tony. Dita deBoni has impressed over the years. Her articles are nicely written, interesting and have a fine compass.

     We keep hearing that the New Zealand education system is excellent, except for the “tail” of underachievers. What our current Government could have done is look to countries in which the “tail” has been reduced – Finland, Canada, Estonia, South Korea – and emulate some of the ideas that make those systems great (great in the sense not just that students test well, but they achieve, regardless of their socio-economic background).

     In these systems, the public system is well funded and prioritised; collaboration is actively encouraged between colleagues, and there is not the focus on relentless testing of a few national standards. In Finland, considered the best system in the world, kids are subject to only one standardised test in 12 years – the one they sit before graduating.

     Now exactly why is so hard to understand?
     • KJS0ne 6.1.1

       19 December 2014 at 11:14 am

       This is something we need to lobby Andrew Little and Hipkins about.
     • greywarshark 6.1.2

       19 December 2014 at 6:55 pm

       @ Red Logix
       That’s great reporting about other countries’ achievements. I listen to the drones in NZ education with scepticism. It’s demented to pull something apart and rebuild it for no good reason or vision.
7. mac1 7

   19 December 2014 at 10:39 am

   Nicky Hager is on National Radio talking about Dirty Politics. He said that he would never write anything on the topic of Cameron Slater.

   Is such a non-book to be known as a “Hagerography”?
8. Bill 8

   19 December 2014 at 10:41 am

   Does Kathryn Ryan [r0b – deleted – to be cautious] or has she already received one resulting in a lobotomy?

   Having real difficulties listening to this so-called interview of Nicky Hager. I keep seeing her with her fingers poked deep inside her ears going ‘LALALALA!’ while running an irrelevant, skew whiff line of questioning.
   • KJS0ne 8.1

     19 December 2014 at 11:04 am

     Interesting that in the States, NPR is this juggernaut of high quality left journalism, and yet here in NZ our state radio is full of trite National pups suckling at the tit.
   • Colonial Rawshark 8.2

     19 December 2014 at 11:20 am

     I’m going to suggest that the first line of your comment be edited/deleted, Bill
   • Bill 8.3

     19 December 2014 at 11:34 am

     (thinks that’s being over cautious, but hey)

     How’s about an absent question as to whether she has been studying ancient Egyptian embalming techniques? And exploring their practical applicability? And if she hasn’t, whether she should?

     This is a reply to 8, which I mention because the reply box has positioned itself down the bottom of comments.
   • batweka 8.4

     19 December 2014 at 11:49 am

     “Having real difficulties listening to this so-called interview of Nicky Hager. I keep seeing her with her fingers poked deep inside her ears going ‘LALALALA!’ while running an irrelevant, skew whiff line of questioning.”

     Not surprised given her immediate and consistent response to Hager’s book the morning after it was released was to say that hasn’t politics always been dirty?, leaving the lasting impression that she had read the title and no further. God knows what her producers were doing.
   • saveNZ 8.5

     28 December 2014 at 8:58 am

     Totally agree. listened to the interview but it was so painful. Kept thinking are we ever going to get to the content of the book? Nope. Just again and again the same questions – but how were those emails obtained? Do you know Rawshark? Did Dotcom Hack it? Is there a double standard? Is this Aprils Fools Day?

     Boring Boring Boring. Those questions should have taken 2 minutes to be put to bed. I bet on the BBC they wouldn’t conduct an interview about an expose scandal but never actually get to the scandal as soo interested in a police style interrogation about how the information was obtained.

     More interested in the content of the book and about the dirty politics. But she never really got there. She probably did not read the book (or maybe couldn’t understand it), so just went with a right wing discourse question sheet probably emailed from the National Party.

     So postmodern. Have a non interview that appears to be an interview about dirty politics but the content of the book was never really discussed. Just used up the interview time so they can say – we interviewed Nicky Hager – we are being fair.

     Nope.
9. Ashoka's Hell 9

   19 December 2014 at 10:42 am

   Listening to nine to noon Kathryn Ryan interview Nicky Hager about dirty politics.

   Nicky came across balanced, calm and smart under some hard questioning.

   Well done you Nicky.

   Keep up the GOOD work.
   • Paul 9.1

     19 December 2014 at 11:38 am

     Kathryn Ryan running Slater’s lines for him.
     RNZ …another let down.
   • ianmac 9.2

     19 December 2014 at 12:36 pm

     Ashokas Hell@9. Listened to that interview. Thought it was very good. The questions that had to be asked were. Nicky’s answers were concise and credible. If Kathryn had just asked patsy questions, then Nicky’s non-supporters would be disgusted.
     I was drawn into those tricky elements about the morality of leaked/hacked emails v Public Interest. I am glad of that interview though the Key lot would rather that he had no voice at all. A good interview.
     http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player/20161721
     • batweka 9.2.1

       19 December 2014 at 2:05 pm

       It wasn’t the questions so much as her pushing her agenda. She obviously feels really uncomfortable with the hacking aspect but instead of asking the questions that would bring out more in depth understanding of what Hager thinks, she kept harping back to the bit she had a problem with. She looked like she was letting her personal feelings control where the interview went instead of using the questions to take us deeper.

       I thought Hager’s answers about how professional people all the time have to make decisions about where to draw the line in accessing personal information was good, but I would have liked to have seen that explored more esp in the context of where the state and foreign powers are now routinely doing what Rawshark did. Ryan patently didn’t want to go there, my guess is because she’s old school in her thinking that some forms of hacking are legitimate and some aren’t depending on who is doing them rather than why they’re doing it (which is kind of weird given she’s of the Watergate generation).

       Her has this point about being uncomfortable about the idea that non-sanctioned people can hack your personal details because they don’t like what you do, and that that’s scarey. Well welcome to the world outside of the middle classes Kathryn. You obviously trust the state (because you are part of the privileged part of society), the rest of us don’t. Try reading DP from that perspective and see how it changes your thinking.
       • Ashoka's Hell 9.2.1.1

         19 December 2014 at 3:13 pm

         Paul, Inmac and Batweka

         I am going to fence sit here.

         Yes I agree with Paul to a point, Kathryn (just before the election) also seems to be running someones lines ( CS though? probably just old boys/girls right wing network “talking to her”)

         Inmac, yes she did need to ask some curly questions, Nicky stood up to them well. If the facts are there, the interviewee should be able to combat any question articulately (which Nicky did). The problem happens when you don’t have someone of Nicky’s class on to do this.

         Batweka, you said

         “she kept harping back to the bit she had a problem with. She looked like she was letting her personal feelings control where the interview went instead of using the questions to take us deeper”

         Just before the election and up until now Kathryn has been showing similar behavior.

         Kathryn’s first comment that attracted my attention, has been the standard line on RNZ news and MSM, i.e. dirty politics is just normal, everyone does it. Cool, I’m glad we’ve cleared that one up. No questions about how do you keep the light shining on such dirty dealings and are there better ways of tidying up politics etc.

         Her second comment I found most strange, it was something like:

         “Why do people need to know that this dirty politics is going on, your just patronizing them?”

         Ok, so if Nicky is patronizing us with News about events that we can supposedly easily find out about (because we are all genius hackers with lots of time to spare), what the hell is the MSM and RNZ doing. Maybe we should dispense with the news altogether and put reruns of the magic roundabout on instead (same BS… spinning)

         It brings to mind a catch phrase from one of our beloved MSM outfits: The News You Need To Know.

         Patronizing?

         Go well (oh and you to Kathryn)
         • batweka 9.2.1.1.1

           19 December 2014 at 8:29 pm

           Ryan’s behaviour after the release of the book was cringeworthy. She came across as someone who had completely missed the point and couldn’t be bothered. I picked up a similar feeling in today’s interview where it’s almost like the whole thing is too draining for her to cope with and she just wants the whole thing to go away. Maybe I am misreading that, but she used to be a reasonable interviewer and her grasp of the DP issues is just appallingly bad.
           • philj 9.2.1.1.1.1

             20 December 2014 at 10:32 pm

             The Kathryn Ryan interview of Nicky Hagar on NZ’s only state, non commercial broadcaster was disappointing as Kathryn seemed to have prejudged DP and largely missed the point. Her opinion is sounding increasingly like those expressed in the biased Tory commercial media. Is this willful distraction or simply poor quality journalism?
     • Rodel 9.2.2

       20 December 2014 at 11:23 pm

       I agree with Ianmac- quite a good interview in which she asked some challenging question to which he provided good logical answers without slippery spin which is quite refreshing.
       Where she failed I thought was the way she tried to overtalk him, starting to sound more like the dick jocks on talk-back radio ritalin and radio retard who like only the sound of their own voices and attempt to sound superior to the listeners who phone in- not a difficult task usually.

       I guess she’s used to political types who don’t normally give straight answers and felt as though the content of her interview was getting out of her control.

       Hager (and Little) are good straight talking interviewees.
10. Clemgeopin 10

    19 December 2014 at 10:51 am

    “Hi Mars One supporter,

    In 2018, we will send our first unmanned mission to Mars. One of the payloads on board will be a university payload selected from universities world wide. We are now down to the final ten potential payload projects!

    The best part of all? Your vote will help decide which payload receives this extraordinary opportunity. Find summaries of the ten proposed payloads and voting details below. ”

    http://us5.campaign-archive2.com/?u=24d8ce153d9cbd2546aca36de&id=ee2f6926ab&e=d2915e610c
    • KJS0ne 10.1

      19 December 2014 at 11:11 am

      There is a really big problem with Mars One that students at MIT uncovered, they don’t have the technology to separate nitrogen from oxygen and pump it out, leaving the o2 and regulating the atmosphere within the living quarters at the prospective base. Essentially, the people there would die within a year of suffocation.

      Mars One’s response? Technology will be there by 2020, don’t worry, human ingenuity will save the day! Are they doing anything about it? That remains to be seen…

      http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/191862-the-first-mars-one-colonists-will-suffocate-starve-and-be-incinerated-according-to-mit
      • batweka 10.1.1

        19 December 2014 at 11:53 am

        Then there’s the really really big problem that this huge amount of scientific endeavour is being done at a time when we can’t find an adequate response to the impending catastrophe that is AGW.
        • Colonial Rawshark 10.1.1.1

          19 December 2014 at 12:33 pm

          As Greer has remarked, the credibility of scientific and technological endeavour is declining steadily as more people see that corporate/vanity projects are consistently put ahead of science for the public good.
          • batweka 10.1.1.1.1

            19 December 2014 at 1:30 pm

            But without the space program we wouldn’t have velcro!!!
          • Draco T Bastard 10.1.1.1.2

            19 December 2014 at 2:13 pm

            No, the credibility of science isn’t declining. It still works.

            The real problem is that we pushed too far too fast causing problems with our ignorance. Those problems were, IMO, more a result of commercialisation than science.
            • greywarshark 10.1.1.1.2.1

              19 December 2014 at 3:09 pm

              The problems we have with science are that we are too reluctant to accept new thoughts and ideas and they are coming thick and fast. We are like the proverbial donkeys stamping our little feet on the ground and refusing to budge from our convenient and known positions, so we can’t prepare properly for already known and unknown outcomes.
              • batweka …

                19 December 2014 at 8:39 pm

                Not sure if you meant to imply this but that sounds as if you mean that we should be accepting all the shiney new things and aren’t because we have a problem with change. I haven’t read the Greer article but the comments that CV has made suggested to me that too many mistakes have been made by science and public trust is diminishing as a result. While rate of change will be a factor in that, there are many changes happening that just shouldn’t be, and science is not being responsible in that when it should be. ie the criticisms of science are largely sound.
                • Draco T Bastard …

                  19 December 2014 at 9:54 pm

                  I haven’t read the Greer article but the comments that CV has made suggested to me that too many mistakes have been made by science and public trust is diminishing as a result.

                  IMO, that’s more someone’s personal perception than actual reality.

                  While rate of change will be a factor in that, there are many changes happening that just shouldn’t be, and science is not being responsible in that when it should be. ie the criticisms of science are largely sound.

                  Actually, the majority of criticisms of science are unsound usually because the people criticising it don’t have a friggen clue WTF they’re talking about.
                  • batweka …

                    19 December 2014 at 10:12 pm

                    “IMO, that’s more someone’s personal perception than actual reality.”

                    I think it’s both. Pretty easy to make a very long objective list of science fuck ups and where science has created problems.

                    “Actually, the majority of criticisms of science are unsound usually because the people criticising it don’t have a friggen clue WTF they’re talking about.”

                    It’s exactly that condescension that people of sick of. Yes, there are many people who aren’t scientifically literate enough to put a scientifically rational argument to their views, but that doesn’t mean their views are invalid.

                    eg many people had a very intuitve negative response to genetic engineering when the issue first came to attention, both because of the inherent problems with it and because of how science was unlikely to use the precautionary principle (there’s the contamination with commercialisation too). I went to a public meeting once where a science head got up and sneered at the largely anti-GE crowd and said that most people in the room wouldn’t know what DNA was. Irrespective of whether that was true or not, it was missing the point. People don’t need a science degree to have an opinion about science and its role in the world. They can see when things go wrong and they can see the things that are ethically wrong.

                    When scienceheads tell those people to stfu because they’re stupid, the divide gets bigger. Yes we need more science literacy, but we need scienceheads with more social literacy too.

                    One thing that drives me nuts is when scientifically illiterate people try and use science to bolster their argument. But there is a reason why that happens so much, it’s because science has been presented as the only valid way of knowing something.

                    btw, just for clarity’s sake, I think it’s useful to differentiate between the practice of science/the scientific method, and what most people think of as science (how it plays out overall). I think you tend to talk about the former (hence you believe that science’s credibility is still intact, because the scientific method still works), whereas myself and CV talk about the latter (science in its bigger sense has overreached and lots of people aren’t buying the science is god thing anymore).
                • greywarshark …

                  19 December 2014 at 10:47 pm

                  My feeling is that we need to be looking at what science is coming up with, examining it, getting it explained, comprehending it, then discussing it. I think we put off discussing it and all the previous steps. We are too lazy, or it’s going to mean money required, different actions, different outlooks. And we’re she’ll be right here, which leads us to some right cock-ups, which we don’t draw conclusions from and make necessary changes. And so on.

                  Think of fluoride and the time and money in combatting and explaining it. And I understand that the opposition comes from results from a flawed study anyway.
                  Meanwhile dentists are seeing too many decayed teeth in small children. Getting mothers to change their habits is a good step, with education and enthusiasm and ideas from them as to how they can replace the sweets habit.

                  But fluoride as well would make a huge difference to children’s teeth, and properly measured, is non-toxic. And mouths with healthy teeth and gums could mean less sickness, as it seems that mouth health and body health are more in sync than we knew before science told us different!
                  • batweka …

                    19 December 2014 at 10:55 pm

                    I think fluoridation, like homeopathy, is almost impossible to talk about in this context. They’re too polarising and the conversations get sidetracked into the details rather than the meta discussion about science. Better to pick something that is still common but not so controversial.
                    • Draco T Bastard …

                      19 December 2014 at 11:12 pm

                      That’s just it, fluoridation shouldn’t be controversial. I’d really like to know where all the BS is coming from and who benefits from it.
                    • batweka …

                      19 December 2014 at 11:26 pm

                      you can pursue that line of enquiry but I doubt it will shed much light on why people are increasingly critical of science.

                      (and if you want to really understand why people are anti-fluroidation, you will need to look at things from their perspective)
                    • McFlock …

                      19 December 2014 at 11:31 pm

                      Are people increasingly critical of science?

                      Or is it just that there are more media and mechanisms for people to oppose facts they don’t like?
                    • greywarshark …

                      19 December 2014 at 11:36 pm

                      @ batweka
                      I take your point about fluoridisation but think like DTB that it is explainable if one looks at th facts. It may be the very good example of the need for people to look at science in a thoughtful way that we think is needed.

                      Homeopathy is different. I feel there must be a strong placebo effect, which science has examined also.
                    • greywarshark …

                      19 December 2014 at 11:54 pm

                      @ McFlock
                      I feel that arguments about science and people feeling critical about it may have been there for some time and come from people being a bit frightened about innovations that seem likely to be introduced in a rush.

                      There have been notable things such as the electric shock treatment of patients with depression, and its use at high effect, and also its use as a punishment and behavioural tool. There has been agricultural playing around with rice, corn, terminator seed. There has been the legal bulldozer effect of seed companies polluting crops with their seed and then charging farmers so affected, with having possession of their seed genes.

                      And lastly there is the cherrypicking of bits of science that suit the religious fanatics who can persuade their congregation that they are wise and know that the earth was formed 6.000 years ago. Or was it man developed then. They misuse science till you don’t know whether you are Adam or Eve. Science is what they say it is, and they will be its master or mistress.
                    • batweka …

                      20 December 2014 at 12:09 am

                      @McFlock, compare people’s attitudes towards their GP even 20 years ago compared to now, that will show you some of the shift. People don’t accept science at face value anymore, they want to know detail and they want to have their own opinions valued. They’re not going to accept something just because a scientist says it. Following on from that there is a much higher awareness of the problems associated with science and how science has either made mistakes, or been coopted, or taken us down paths that are ultimately harmful.

                      (note, there is nothing in what I have just said that negates the good or useful things that science has done).

                      “Or is it just that there are more media and mechanisms for people to oppose facts they don’t like?”

                      This is also patronising. What’s wrong with opposing things you don’t like? (and how is that not being more critical anyway?). I don’t like nuclear power generation and I don’t need science to tell me why that’s valid. I also don’t need science to tell me why nuclear power is good, but it does, which is one of the reasons I am critical. We got brought up with the idea that science is supposed to be value free, but it’s not and it’s time it got to grips with that and started by being honest.

                      @grey, science, esp medical science, is never solely about facts. It’s also about ethics, and where we are going as a society. With medicine, facts are only part of the picture, there are loads of other very important things like agency, informed consent, family and societal context, cultural views etc. Facts are not always as cut and dried either. Medical research has often promoted things that later turn out to not be as presented. Some of that is mistake, some of it’s commercialisation, political agenda, some of it is differences in world view.

                      For instance, in the 90s one of the big Hormone Replacement Therpay trials made health promotion claims that resulted in drug companies and then GPs majorly pushing the medicalisation of menopause. Women’s health advocates spoke out against this at the time, not just on grounds of the research, but on the social issues of the problems with medicalising natural life events (eg Sandra Coney argued in NZ that to prevent age related fractures it was better to do things like work with the elderly in their homes to make them more safe from falls than to put all women on HRT).

                      Eventually further research showed increased cancer risks, which led to a change in prescribing practices as well as an acknowledgement that the original idea to get as many women on to HRT was mistaken. All this happened on a large scale globally (within the overdeveloped world).

                      So what you have there is (a) science making a mistake (although it’s actually the practice of science that is the problem with the drug companies having too much control and being driven by profit motives), and (b) one world view being promoted over another (menopause as pathology vs menopause as natural event), and (c) this being done in ways that muddied informed consent. I remember the arguments on all sides, and watched women who were less inclined to trust drug companies find other ways of managing menopause, but many women brought the wonder idea that they could avoid menopause and some of those women paid dearly for it.

                      As an aside, medicine is now so contaminated by special interests that even medicine itself recognises the problem eg a high proportion of journal articles are considered to not meet the standards required, but they still get published as if they do. It’s illustrative of why science needs to stop being so precious about itself, and why people should apply critical thinking to science esp when it says trust us, we know what we are talking about and you don’t.

                      And of course there is much that is good and magical and incredibly helpful about science.
                    • McFlock …

                      20 December 2014 at 12:28 am

                      @weka
                      1: I only know my own attitudes to doctors. And maybe a few people I know. Extrapolating from that anecdata to assume a societal shift (or lack thereof) seems a touch unscientific.

                      2: I didn’t say oppose things. I said oppose facts. Like the existence of AGW, or the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation or vaccination. This is not a value judgement, or a “polarising” issue. It’s overwhelming real-world, repeatable evidence being ignored in favour of magic books or nutters on the interwebs. Sometimes being “patronising” is actually a pretty reasonable attitude to take.

                      Yes, there are short-term issues with scientific accuracy and special interests, and intellectual property and a whole pile of other shit. But we’re a shitload better off today in damned near every measure than we were 300 years ago, and I dont think that can be said of any other time in human history to anywhere near the same degree.
                    • Colonial Rawshark …

                      20 December 2014 at 8:19 am

                      1: I only know my own attitudes to doctors. And maybe a few people I know. Extrapolating from that anecdata to assume a societal shift (or lack thereof) seems a touch unscientific..

                      More and more patients are using “complementary and alternative medicine”.

                      Most do not tell their medical doctors.

                      Calling Weka’s position seemingly a touch unscientific is actually a touch unscientific in of itself. Which is typical with the scientific attitude nowadays.

                      Greer pointed this out recently. A suspected phenomenon gets brought to the attention of science. But it goes against current accept scientific knowledge or at least is not explainable by current scientific knowledge.

                      Instead of being inquisitive and asking questions about what has been raised (i.e. in the manner of science), the act of raising is immediately rubbished (by those claiming to be the champions of science) as being “unscientific.”

                      It’s very funny to watch in action.
                    • batweka …

                      20 December 2014 at 11:10 am

                      McFLock,

                      1: I only know my own attitudes to doctors. And maybe a few people I know. Extrapolating from that anecdata to assume a societal shift (or lack thereof) seems a touch unscientific.

                      I on the otherhand have many years experience in patient’s rights and working with practitioners and clients in different capacities, so am very familier with the dynamics and shifts. Did you miss the patient’s rights movement, the Unfortunate Experiment, the establishment of the Health and Disability Commission and patient advocacy etc?

                      As for unscientific, what is wrong with that? Science isn’t the only valid way of knowing. Anecdata is very useful if you know what to do with it. Institutional memory is an example of how anecdata can be very important.

                      As CV alluded to, you missed an opportunity to learn something. If instead of minimising my comment as unscientific you had asked what are the societal shifts around attitidues towards GPs (or medicine) and why do I think that? then we might have had an open and progressive conversation and learned something.

                      2: I didn’t say oppose things. I said oppose facts. Like the existence of AGW, or the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation or vaccination. This is not a value judgement, or a “polarising” issue. It’s overwhelming real-world, repeatable evidence being ignored in favour of magic books or nutters on the interwebs. Sometimes being “patronising” is actually a pretty reasonable attitude to take.

                      And yet you conviently ignore the fact that some people are opposed to vaccinations for reasons you don’t understand or care about. You write them off as unscientific, but I am willing to bet that you would be unable to summarise the reasons why people are opposed to vaccination that are beyond the hard science. I’m not talking about the scientifically challenged on the internet (what you call nutters).

                      This is why CV finds you funny. You claim scientific rigour but are unwilling to apply it evenly across the board, you pick and choose. You write off my anecdata, but then want your own to be taken seriously. You want everyone to adopt your science is god belief system and then you ridicule other people with diverging belief systems. While that’s understandable (lots of fundamentalists do this), it’s unscientific

                      Yes, there are short-term issues with scientific accuracy and special interests, and intellectual property and a whole pile of other shit. But we’re a shitload better off today in damned near every measure than we were 300 years ago, and I dont think that can be said of any other time in human history to anywhere near the same degree.

                      Ah, that old chestnut. It’s ok that science fucks up because look at all the good things it does.

                      “shitload better off today”. How scientific*. Got a meta-analysis that proves that?

                      *not. Just incredibly loaded with ethnocentric and modernist prejudice.

                      btw, AGW isn’t a short term accuracy issue. Neither are the ways in which the patriarchy have been controlling women’s bodies and psyches via medicine (let’s say at least 300 years with a long handover from religion). The monumental fuck up that is the fat hypothesis is also not particularly short term, given we’re now going to see intergenerational issues.
                    • Ergo Robertina …

                      20 December 2014 at 11:37 am

                      ‘I take your point about fluoridisation but think like DTB that it is explainable if one looks at th facts.’

                      Grey – The problem with the debate is both sides are extreme. And it deters moderates from becoming involved – both sensible academics and lay people.
                      Thus, it is heartening to see a report in the ODT this morning (can’t find it online) of a letter from academics to the New Zealand Medical Journal which says both sides of the fluoride debate are cherry-picking evidence to suit their argument.
                      The academics, including a research psychiatrist, point out fundamental design flaws in a recent Otago University IQ study that said fluoride was safe.
                      The academics are saying the neurotoxin/brain development question is not settled.
                      I’d rather take advice on that matter from a brain researcher than an oral health researcher.
                      But more importantly, it is good to see the debate, in this case, conducted on a rational sceptical level, rather than the patronising public health bullying level that has characterised the fluoride argument.
                    • greywarshark …

                      20 December 2014 at 1:55 pm

                      Thanks ergo robertina – your perspective is helpful.

                      Colonial Rawshark thinking about your –
                      Instead of being inquisitive and asking questions about what has been raised (i.e. in the manner of science), the act of raising is immediately rubbished (by those claiming to be the champions of science) as being “unscientific.”

                      The Semmelweis ‘gambit’
                      http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis#The_Semmelweis_gambit
                      and
                      Semmelweiss’ ideas and reaction to them examined.
                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_reaction_to_Ignaz_Semmelweis
                      Semmelweis and his place in history.
                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
                      Other sites about scientists and their findings
                      http://www.cracked.com/article_18822_5-famous-scientists-dismissed-as-morons-in-their-time.html
                      Somebody has named disdain of his idea the Semmelweis reflex. People linking autism with vaccinations have latched onto this with their own argument.
                      http://www.ageofautism.com/2007/10/the-semmelweis-.html
                      An interesting collection of scientific breakthroughs that couldn’t get through to others.
                      http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html
                    • McFlock …

                      20 December 2014 at 9:38 pm

                      I on the otherhand have many years experience in patient’s rights and working with practitioners and clients in different capacities, so am very familier with the dynamics and shifts. Did you miss the patient’s rights movement, the Unfortunate Experiment, the establishment of the Health and Disability Commission and patient advocacy etc?

                      Nope.
                      Really, all I know is that about the same number of my social group have about the same attitudes about their doctor – good or bad – as they did 20 years ago. Some were pill-happy, some weren’t. And about 20 years ago I had to tell my doctor to debride a wound that wouldn’t heal rather than dicking around with creams that were obviously ineffective.

                      As for unscientific, what is wrong with that? Science isn’t the only valid way of knowing. Anecdata is very useful if you know what to do with it. Institutional memory is an example of how anecdata can be very important.

                      And reliance on institutional memory is a sign that the institution is on the brink of dysfunction, imo.

                      As CV alluded to, you missed an opportunity to learn something. If instead of minimising my comment as unscientific you had asked what are the societal shifts around attitidues towards GPs (or medicine) and why do I think that? then we might have had an open and progressive conversation and learned something.

                      But you itemised the societal shifts you think occurred: “People don’t accept science at face value anymore, they want to know detail and they want to have their own opinions valued. They’re not going to accept something just because a scientist says it. Following on from that there is a much higher awareness of the problems associated with science and how science has either made mistakes, or been coopted, or taken us down paths that are ultimately harmful.” You merely provided no evidence for it.

                      And yet you conviently ignore the fact that some people are opposed to vaccinations for reasons you don’t understand or care about. You write them off as unscientific, but I am willing to bet that you would be unable to summarise the reasons why people are opposed to vaccination that are beyond the hard science. I’m not talking about the scientifically challenged on the internet (what you call nutters).

                      Who says I don’t understand? They’re idiots. Idiots believe random shit. Why would I even want to know why some moron refuses to accept reality, sorry ‘opposes scientific fact for reasons that are “beyond the hard science”‘? Some days I feel like dealing with idiots patiently. Those days are rare.

                      You claim scientific rigour but are unwilling to apply it evenly across the board, you pick and choose. You write off my anecdata, but then want your own to be taken seriously.

                      [citation needed]

                      You want everyone to adopt your science is god belief system

                      [citation needed]

                      and then you ridicule other people with diverging belief systems.

                      Yes. Because by definition their belief systems are not verifiable in the real world.

                      While that’s understandable (lots of fundamentalists do this), it’s unscientific

                      No, it simply doesn’t give credibility to assertions about “knowledge” that are comepletely unverifiable.

                      “shitload better off today”. How scientific*. Got a meta-analysis that proves that?

                      Shit. It’s almost as if you expect me to be a robot simply because I expect that someone who claims to be a healer is able to demonstrate that what they do actually heals people.

                      Name a measure that’s verifiable in the real world.
                      Hell, pick 20 or 30.
                      What percentage of measures a thousand years ago do you think will be even roughly equivalent to, let alone better than, those measures today? Life expectancy? Health? Nutrition? Quality of housing? GINI? GDP? Recovery times? Literacy? Fuel poverty? Water supplies? Variety of goods?

                      btw, AGW isn’t a short term accuracy issue. Neither are the ways in which the patriarchy have been controlling women’s bodies and psyches via medicine (let’s say at least 300 years with a long handover from religion). The monumental fuck up that is the fat hypothesis is also not particularly short term, given we’re now going to see intergenerational issues.

                      Intergenerational is a blink of an eye when you look at human progress – things like expansion into the Americas by Europe took decades or centuries.

                      BTW, an argument about science vs idiots is not a scientific argument. I do not expect any of my opinions here to be published in BMJ. They are merely my honest reaction to people who think that idiots should be treated with respect.

                      @greyshark – your wikipedia thing on the Semmelweis gambit made me giggle here:

                      However, this comparison is flawed because Semmelweis had statistical evidence,[2] which was rejected because of the establishment’s close-mindedness, while most of CAM has only anecdotal evidence, which is rejected because anecdotes aren’t good evidence.
                    • Ergo Robertina …

                      20 December 2014 at 11:33 pm

                      You claim scientific rigour but are unwilling to apply it evenly across the board, you pick and choose. You write off my anecdata, but then want your own to be taken seriously.

                      [citation needed]

                      If the search machine was working it would be possible to find examples of your superstitious and unscientific view of animals, by searching McFlock + sentience + meatbots
                    • Poission …

                      20 December 2014 at 11:50 pm

                      If the search machine was working it would be possible to find examples of your superstitious and unscientific view of animals

                      Skinners superstitious pigeons are well known

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner#Superstition_in_the_pigeon
                    • McFlock …

                      21 December 2014 at 12:06 am

                      @ergo
                      You mean this (ever hear of a search engine called “google”)?

                      My full ‘meatbot’ comment:

                      Personally, I’d be against eating meat if I thought they could tell us what they did on their holidays. Hence whales and gorillas would be doubtful, ethics-wise.

                      But I think a lot of folks simply anthropomorphise human feelings onto meatbots.

                      I fully agree, philosophical discussions about sentience and ethics are not scientific discussions.

                      lol: the phrase that comes to mind is “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s”.
                    • Ergo Robertina …

                      21 December 2014 at 12:55 am

                      ‘I fully agree, philosophical discussions about sentience and ethics are not scientific discussions.’

                      You were denying the physical reality of something.
                      You demand your own eccentric notions be considered in a different paradigm, but extend nothing but reactionary intolerance to the ”idiots” whose views do not align with your (rather narrow) understanding of the evidence-based paradigm.
                    • McFlock …

                      21 December 2014 at 1:01 am

                      “Something”?
                      What physically-real thing was I denying, specifically, in the meatbot comment?
                    • Ergo Robertina …

                      21 December 2014 at 1:20 am

                      The physical reality is sentience, and that does involve what you characterise as ‘human feelings’; like pain, and empathy.
                    • Colonial Rawshark …

                      21 December 2014 at 1:43 am

                      In the 1890’s chiropractors had already conceptualised a systematic intelligence in the operation of all material, energetic, and living systems i.e. intrinsic to all aspects of the observable universe and in the expression of life itself.

                      Of course, they had sourced this perspective from more ancient philosophies.

                      Materialists who posit that only physically measurable matter based phenomena are worthy of rational consideration are badly stuck in a Newtonian age. And only 100 years or so behind new ideas that physicists started toying with.
                    • McFlock …

                      21 December 2014 at 4:36 pm

                      @ergo:
                      The physical reality I have apparently denied in the meatbot comment:

                      The physical reality is sentience, and that does involve what you characterise as ‘human feelings’; like pain, and empathy.

                      If you reread the meatbot comment, I think you’ll find that I acknowledged sentience existed in humans, and even said that I have seen enough evidence to suggest that some animals are sentient to the point that I have ethical qualms about killing them for food.

                      If you have evidence that a slug or beetle has empathy, I might need to rearrange my gardening policies.

                      @cv:
                      You know what, even if physicists prove the existence of something like midichlorians, any relationship between them and what you describe will be as coincidental as any similarity between George Lucas’ imagination and that reality.

                      But when they are demonstrated to exist and maybe even treatments based on them are demonstrated to be effective (as opposed to a hundred and twenty years of unverified claims) then that knowledge will be part of “medicine” rather than “alternative medicine”.
                    • Ergo Robertina …

                      21 December 2014 at 5:38 pm

                      The meatbot term referred to sheep and cows and the like. Animals farmed for their meat. Not protected species or garden slugs.
                      I eat meat, albeit very little these days; I don’t rationalise away the fact they are sentient sensitive creatures in order to do so.
                    • McFlock …

                      21 December 2014 at 5:57 pm

                      God forbid I should go to Japan.

                      So your assertions are:
                      1)that it is a fact that cows are sentient; and
                      2)that in the meatbot comment I stated that they categorically are not?

                      The first has no evidence that persuades me to make an ethical distinction in the case of cows, which is what I actually wrote rather than your second assertion.
                    • Ergo Robertina …

                      21 December 2014 at 6:14 pm

                      ‘The first has no evidence that persuades me to make an ethical distinction in the case of cows, which is what I actually wrote rather than your second assertion.’

                      Your statements are inconsistent. You say you would need evidence to persuade you on this matter, but earlier you said the animal sentience argument was a philosophical question that was by its nature not a scientific discussion.
                    • Colonial Rawshark …

                      21 December 2014 at 6:17 pm

                      But when they are demonstrated to exist and maybe even treatments based on them are demonstrated to be effective (as opposed to a hundred and twenty years of unverified claims) then that knowledge will be part of “medicine” rather than “alternative medicine”.

                      It’s this weird world where you think everyone wants to be a card carrying member of a particular privileged club in society, but really, it’s not the case.

                      “Medicine” as you call it has many practical and important uses, but at the same time as an applied science and commercial enterprise it doesn’t have any monopoly on human health, healing or knowledge.
                    • McFlock …

                      21 December 2014 at 6:26 pm

                      The nature of sentience is philosophical.

                      Whether a particular organism displays evidence of characteristics that (we might agree for the sake of argument) philosophically imply sentience is a matter that can be observed and verified.

                      Do you believe snails are sentient? They are farmed and eaten in some localities. Or are only some animals sentient, in your opinion? If so, how do you make that distinction?
                    • McFlock …

                      21 December 2014 at 6:32 pm

                      “Medicine” as you call it has many practical and important uses, but at the same time as an applied science and commercial enterprise it doesn’t have any monopoly on human health, healing or knowledge.

                      Well, it does on the bits that can be demonstrated to work.
                    • Ergo Robertina …

                      21 December 2014 at 7:29 pm

                      I’m not getting into a sliding scale thing.
                      Scientific arguments tend to have a philosophical element, e.g community water fluoridation, genetic testing, vaccination, stem cell therapy, pillow angels, GMOs, etc.
                      In this respect the animal sentience question is no different, but you deploy it as a quibble and divert tactic.
                      It is your prerogative to adhere to an 18th century notion of animals as machines if you wish. Just as a person might also hold the philosophical view that the sun will not rise tomorrow, or that women are inferior.
                    • McFlock …

                      21 December 2014 at 7:58 pm

                      So you want me to explain my opinions to you, but you refuse to reciprocate.

                      🙄

                      But feel free to keep making shit up about what I wrote, anyway.
                    • Ergo Robertina …

                      21 December 2014 at 9:21 pm

                      No need to throw your toys out.
                      If the only device you have is a sliding scale argument leading to the moot point of whether rocks/plants/microbes or whatever are sentient, then your case is weak.
                      And yes, the onus is on the person holding the unusual or anachronistic view to persuade of its merit.
                    • McFlock …

                      21 December 2014 at 9:52 pm

                      sorry, I didn’t realise that your previous comment was intended to continue the debate.

                      And the prevalence of beef eating in this country suggests that yours is the unusual or anachronistic view, according to the debating rule that you just made up.
            • batweka 10.1.1.1.2.2

              19 December 2014 at 8:35 pm

              “Those problems were, IMO, more a result of commercialisation than science.”

              Agreed that commercialisation has had a very negative impact on both science and the perception of science. There’s also the fact that the science has been repeatedly presented as value free when it’s patently not. Commericialisation is a big part of it, but not the cause IMO.
            • Colonial Rawshark 10.1.1.1.2.3

              19 December 2014 at 10:28 pm

              No, the credibility of science isn’t declining. It still works.

              Yeah of course it works, mainly against the poor, low skilled and indigenous populations not aligned with western power. And it mainly works for the wealthy, the professional and the power elite.

              That’s why it’s losing credibility.
              • McFlock …

                19 December 2014 at 10:52 pm

                🙄
                • Draco T Bastard …

                  19 December 2014 at 11:10 pm

                  +1
              • Colonial Rawshark …

                20 December 2014 at 8:05 am

                Really, you guys?

                You both need to, as a parallel, identify the difference between Christ’s vision of how one worships, the actual modern day core beliefs/tenets/practices, and the organisational/political/power/economic infrastructure of the Church.

                At least in religion one has words to help distinguish between those facets; in “science” all those things tend to get rolled into one.

                FWIW I think many aspects of the scientific approach and methodology is valuable and will hopefully last into the future. I think the majority of the current day scientific endeavour and infrastructure will collapse and go away when the modern fossil fuelled economy collapses and goes away.
      • Murray Rawshark 10.1.2

        19 December 2014 at 7:14 pm

        Um, no. According to the article, they will actually have a problem with excess oxygen from their crops. They need to separate this and get rid of it somehow, or risk spontaneous combustion. They can make oxygen from the Martian CO2, but it seems that they don’t have a source of new nitrogen. Hence the partial pressure of oxygen will keep rising. Too much oxygen is extremely dangerous.

        It could be the best reality tv ever. Or the worst.
        • McFlock 10.1.2.1

          19 December 2014 at 11:02 pm

          That makes a bit more sense.

          I suppose they could always burn candles and scrub the required amount of CO2. Or maybe condense the resulting water and tip it outside but that would probably require huge amounts of fuel to burn.
          • Colonial Rawshark 10.1.2.1.1

            20 December 2014 at 8:10 am

            Exactly. I had no idea why it said they didn’t have the technology to remove oxygen from a nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere.

            Get a wood burner and have it venting outside, for starters.

            Although one would lilkely need an additional source of burnable biomass…
    • joe90 10.2

      19 December 2014 at 11:40 am

      Another planet to consider visiting before a trip to Mars – NASA is studying how to send people to Venus.

      http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/space-flight/nasa-study-proposes-airships-cloud-cities-for-venus-exploration
11. Molly 11

    19 December 2014 at 1:37 pm

    I know we were busy at the time, but did anyone else notice this ruling from a federal judge in Detroit – from September this year? A US judge declares Detroit residents have no right to water

    I was looking up the IMDB for the film, Even the Rain about the Cochabamba water protests in Bolivia in 2000, and noticed the reference in the reviews.

    “In a ruling on Monday, the federal judge overseeing the bankruptcy of Detroit declared that workers, youth and retirees have no “fundamental right” to water, as he threw out a lawsuit challenging the city’s policy of shutting off tens of thousands of residents from one of the most fundamental necessities of life.

    The cruel decision by judge Steven Rhodes is an object lesson for the entire working class. Rhodes exposed the logic of the capitalist system, the ruthlessness of the corporate and financial aristocracy that oversees it and the class character of all the institutions of the state.

    Attorneys for the plaintiffs, which included victims of the water shutoffs, argued that irreparable harm had been inflicted on their clients and residents of Detroit. If the policy continued, they contended, it could lead to the outbreak of disease and death.

    Rhodes acknowledged that such harm had occurred and that “water is a necessary ingredient for sustaining life.” Nevertheless, he insisted, a finding of irreparable harm “does not suggest that there is a fundamental enforceable right to free or affordable water. There is no such right in law. Just as there is no such affordable right to other necessities of life such as shelter, food and medical care.”

    Halting the water shutoffs was unacceptable, Rhodes asserted, because it would interrupt the flow of revenue to the banks and big bondholders, which get 50 cents out of every dollar the municipally owned water department collects. “Detroit cannot afford any revenue slippage, and its obligations to its creditors require it to take all reasonable and business-like measures to collect the debt that is owed to it,” Rhodes insisted.”
    • Ovid 11.1

      19 December 2014 at 1:40 pm

      There was a great episode of Planet Money a few months cback called Detroit’s water bill. The economy is incredibly dire in the city.
    • greywarshark 11.2

      19 December 2014 at 2:53 pm

      I’ve been looking at the background to this judge Rhodes, who would deny water to Detroit USA citizens at the drop of a gavel. His photo shows a neat, smiling man looking the perfect picture of a smug-arse middle-class general out of his depth in his powers. Sort of like getting Brownlee, to pontificate on Christchurch, who should have been poured away if he was where his namesake is found, at the bottom of a red wine bottle.

      Rhodes got a BS in mechanical engineering then something in the law and then went to the bankruptcy appellate panel where he has remained ever since. He has heard the case of Detroit since it filed for a Chapter 9 bankruptcy.

      As a result of the filing, Detroit had the power to avoid paying some debts and petitioned Judge Rhodes to approve canceling contracts, notably those with public employees.[…
      In early December 2013, Judge Rhodes agreed that public employee pensions should be treated like the other debt of the municipality. This allowed the City of Detroit to cut benefits to retirees as a course of bankruptcy,…

      Judge Rhodes approved Detroit’s bankruptcy plan on November 7, 2014, describing it as a “grand bargain.” It was the largest bankruptcy case in the United States as of that date. The plan removed $7 billion of the city’s estimated long-term debt….
      

      It seems as if he should not be making fundamental moral decisions such as deciding that the governance of any place can withdraw from serving the people’s needs at will if there is money debt involved. I would have thought an appeal to the most high courts of poobahs in the USA would have put this shamus to shame.
      edited
      • greywarshark 11.2.1

        19 December 2014 at 3:05 pm

        Meant to put link for Detroit bankruptcy and water disaster case – this refers mainly to cutting off the pensions. http://judgepedia.org/Steven_W._Rhodes
        • Murray Rawshark 11.2.1.1

          19 December 2014 at 7:36 pm

          Yuck. He looks like the sort of smug prick that would wash his hands of the consequences of his decisions. A modern Pontius PIlate.
          • greywarshark 11.2.1.1.1

            20 December 2014 at 12:02 pm

            @ Murray Rawshark
            Lol. My thoughts exactly. Simpering little twerp. He reminds me of Alfred E Neuman of Mad fame.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_E._Neuman
12. Robert Glennie 12

    19 December 2014 at 1:58 pm

    Kia Ora

    The Commissioners were never going to be good news for Environment Canterbury, and to a large extent that has been entirely true.

    Only the Government and their supporters think the Commissioners were ever going to be good. There are quite a few good examples of the bad they have done:

    1) The Waimakariri River Regional Park, set up to promote sustainable uses of the Waimakariri River and the land corridor on either side of the river had extensive trails in and around Poynters Reserve where one could go for a picnic, go for a walk, go fishing, observe the local flora and fauna. When I last went to the reserve in 2013, it was overgrown, the tracks had fallen into disrepair, the signage was vandalized and vehicle access was not being very well maintained.

    2) The Commissioners have been cold and aloof to democratic processes with one going so far as to say he did not see what the purpose of it was.

    3) They lied about so many things in the Creech Report. One was that there was no management plan for the Waitaki River – one was prepared, but the Council of the day killed it. Another was that the Natural Resources Regional Plan was not going t be completed – it would have been made largely operative in 2010 without the Commissioners.

    4) Environment Canterbury was nearly invisible to the media after 04 September 2010 earthquake, even though it was the first to have its C.D. centre activated.

    5) The consents section might have been slow processing resource consents in June 2009 when Nick Smith slammed Environment Canterbury, but they were one of the better performing councils by the time the Commissioners arrived.
    • Draco T Bastard 12.1

      19 December 2014 at 6:41 pm

      2) The Commissioners have been cold and aloof to democratic processes with one going so far as to say he did not see what the purpose of it was.

      Get any ‘leader’ in National in a darkened room and they’ll tell you the same thing. It’s why they tried to get rid of MMP and replace it with something far less democratic.
13. Paul 13

    19 December 2014 at 6:26 pm

    Wonder who has got more leverage? The government or Sky City?
    Not a good look if even more sweeteners handed out to the gambling industry.
    Yet the government is over a barrel on this.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11376916
    • Draco T Bastard 13.1

      19 December 2014 at 6:50 pm

      The government will cave. That’s basically what Joyce said here:

      Economic Development Minister Steven Joyce said he expects the cost difference to be bridged through cost-cutting and in the procurement process, though would consider other funding options if needed.
      • Paul 13.1.1

        19 December 2014 at 6:55 pm

        So we hand out extra pokies to Sky City and pay for the convention centre.
        Great deal.
        • Murray Rawshark 13.1.1.1

          19 December 2014 at 7:43 pm

          Business done the NAct way.
          I’d tell them to either build it or bugger off. The casino is just a bloody centre for money laundering anyway.
          • Paul 13.1.1.1.1

            19 December 2014 at 7:49 pm

            Nats too fatally compromised by political donations.
14. Paul 14

    19 December 2014 at 8:18 pm

    Another snivelling example of the state of the media in NZ. Radio Sport.

    And if you look at the caption contest, the Edge also had a love in with Key.
    This is what happens when all the media is owned by the same people.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/video.cfm?c_id=1503077&gal_cid=1503077&gallery_id=147363
    • Paul 14.1

      19 December 2014 at 8:22 pm

      Key name drapes throughout…Gone Fishing, I was in the changing room with Brendan McCullum etc
    • Murray Rawshark 14.2

      19 December 2014 at 8:27 pm

      I always suspected Graeme Sinclair was a bloody Tory. I hated the way he used to go out on boats and keep all the fish he caught, but make other people throw theirs back. I was fishing with my boy off the wharf in Niue once. Sinclair turned up, not filming, and tried to order us out of the road so he’d have room to cast a fly. I suggested he participate in an activity involving travel and sex, to the delight of my Niuean mates.

      I am not at all surprised that he took FJK fishing.
      • Paul 14.2.1

        19 December 2014 at 8:37 pm

        I wouldn’t recommend listening to Key on the Edge or Radio Sport if you’ve just eaten, but the two episodes really do show how owned and compromised the media are.
        They are simply cheerleaders for the Key cult.
15. newsense 15

    19 December 2014 at 11:03 pm

    Surprise!

    Josie Pagani on Paul Henry.

    First two questions all about Josie Pagani and how the left is going the wrong way. Repeat yourself and repeat yourself.

    How does one become a ‘left wing commentator’?

    Appropriate she appears with David Seymour.

    I wonder if anyone has done any media analysis overseas to see if this sort of concern trolling of commentary comes out of a particular play book?
    • McFlock 15.1

      19 December 2014 at 11:11 pm

      I only saw the ad where he said “the last paul henry show ever”.

      Cheered me right up.
      • greywarshark 15.1.1

        19 December 2014 at 11:32 pm

        But did it finish “in 2014”? It could have been a big teaser by Henry just to get everyone hoping. Taking the approach of an annoying little child who annoys to get some attention.
        • McFlock 15.1.1.1

          19 December 2014 at 11:39 pm

          lol

          Even if he’s out of the 2230hrs slot, I’m sure the obnoxious little scrote will be back in some form – someone at mediaworks loves him, no matter how much he fails to live up to expectations.

          But I have a dream to hold on to over the xmas break 🙂
          • newsense 15.1.1.1.1

            20 December 2014 at 7:20 am

            prefer him as a late night TV host than a morning host.

            Rather have him trying to be funny with licence, than trying to be John Laws
          • greywarshark 15.1.1.1.2

            20 December 2014 at 1:03 pm

            @ McFlock
            Hold onto that dream tightly McFlock. And have a happy Christmas even a merry one if it can be stretched that far. And to everyone else I so enjoy being here with, all you minds and bodies have a good holiday or an enjoyable break in between work when you can. Cheers, jingle bells and sea shells and cooking smells and happy yells.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS