- Date published:
6:00 am, July 24th, 2022 - 79 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:
Open mike is your post.
For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Step up to the mike …
25% is all it takes to destabilize the party.!!
What damn fool thinks that's a good idea.
(There is a nagging little voice though that thinks Cloe as leader could awaken the slack youth vote, just should have been dolittle Davidson that went)
At least they're not doing it 6 weeks out from an election like last time.
Maybe most Greens prefer to fuck it up again, and just rely on Chloe's seat.
Do the Greens really want to change the country through Parliament?
Yes, just run Auckland Central like a by-election every time with activists from as far away as Invercargill, and pile on the emotional blackmail to Labour voters in that seat that if they don't vote for the Green candidate they won't be in Government, and you don't have to bother with that pesky 5%.
Well unless Greens get a full 10% we're not going to get Labour back in anyway.
2023 is looking such a tactical election I may just have to hold my nose on the Party vote.
I can see the Greens being back to 6% – 7% by next election. The faction seems to have been quite a self-destructive element for the party. However, I do feel that the bulk of those lost votes will go Labour's way. I can't really see them going anywhere else.
Delahunty, Bradford and the other fools should fuck off and generate a little splinter party. Join up with Bishop Brian Tamaki and do a decent protest for once. Maybe they could scrape 3% between them.
Agreed. The problem with democracy is it gives the nutters too much of a voice. The Greens have shown this with their 25% vote in no confidence in the leader.
4% party vote threshold, no lower.
Dissenter ≠ nutter
Sounds like you’d rather cancel
nutterspeople with different opinions and who dare to speak up when and where it is not only their right to do so but also their duty. Have you heard of group-think?
No threshold at all; any party that can obtain 1/120th of the total vote has earned the right (aka a seat) to represent that vote in Parliament. Any other (higher) threshold is deliberately manipulative and distortive.
I'm perfectly happy to say that people who vote for anti-science parties (eg, COVID deniers) are nutters. You might call them dissenters, that's your right, but I disagree.
I also don't think it's a good idea to try and form governments with such unstable coalitions. Just look at what happens in Israel. Nor do I think that giving such fringe groups the respectability of the platform afforded by being an MP is the best thing for society as a whole – again just look at the echo chambers on Facebook, general opinion is that these echo chambers are toxic for society at large, and I don’t think giving them more legitimacy is a good thing.
Huh? The Greens are now anti-science and/or Covid-deniers?? I thought we were talking about a dissenting faction within the Green Party, but obviously you have much bigger axe to grind.
You’ll have to explain with the Green Party NZ and Israel and echo chambers on Facebook because other than you arguing that the Greens are nutters I don’t see the connection, but this could be my lack of imagination.
Or are you, in fact, arguing that a lower electoral threshold would result in unstable coalitions and giving fringe groups respectability that they don’t deserve? If so, please provide some real-life examples, thanks, if you can, which I doubt.
Yesterday I linked to an important Twitter thread and said I thought Jacinda was a Teal leader of an Amber party.
James Shaw is a Teal leader of a Green party.
This century needs Teal leadership and thinking.
Maori Party are Green-Teal.
TOP is Teal but need a rebranding if they are to get into parliament.
Less stress just to lower your expectations.
Outside Norway Sweden and Finland, this is the most left-green democratic country in the world.
Thank you for your reply. I need people to challenge my thoughts (I'm being sincere, just to be clear).
Nice to see one of the leading minds back here , (hers looking at you lanthanide)
Hadn't heard of teal till yesterday, so correct me if I'm wrong please
Teal= evidence based consensus leadership.
It's a lot more than that. I'm not even going to attempt to distill it down any further than this tweet thread does, the concept is too new to me to be able to do that yet: https://twitter.com/RobbSmith/status/1224023377020477440
The Marching Morons? Fuck Wits….
Well they got a bunch more media coverage and discussion than the Greens did even though it's the Green Party national conference. That is a deliberate and effective spike.
Not as dumb as they look.
Well…..its an Alternate World "The Marching Morons" (sadly, our reality right now)…and The Pastor of Muppets and the other (notso) shadowy figures manipulating aforesaid morons…are definitely no dumb fucks. As ever…
Notwithstanding…I dont think (“most” ? ) Green Party members/Supporters would be TOO sad about the distraction effect !
Word for word that's how our rightist Twitter talks of the Greens now.
Peters just needs to find a way to accommodate them inside, and it's all on.
That is a little unfair – the Greens are legitimate political party, which Tamaki's wannabe insurgency is not. Behaving in such a lawless manner that Aucklanders spontaneously subject you to a hail of extemporised missiles isn't how you win power, although Tamaki (who I thought was subject to bail conditions that prevented him reprising his strutting martinet show for the crowd) apparently has some sort of plan to do a "Sri Lanka" next month in Wellington – which I would have thought already has him sailing perilously close to committing treason under sections 73 (e) and 73 (f) of the crimes act:
Treason and other crimes against the Sovereign and the State
Every one owing allegiance to the Sovereign in right of New Zealand commits treason who, within or outside New Zealand,—
(a) kills or wounds or does grievous bodily harm to the Sovereign, or imprisons or restrains her or him; or
(b) levies war against New Zealand; or
(c) assists an enemy at war with New Zealand, or any armed forces against which New Zealand forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between New Zealand and any other country; or
(d) incites or assists any person with force to invade New Zealand; or
(e) uses force for the purpose of overthrowing the Government of New Zealand; or
(f) conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in this section.
I dunno, maybe Tamaki thinks he is a sovereogn citizen who doesn't owe allegiance to the sovereign so that'll save him from a life sentence, but as a certain Mr. G. Fawkes found out when he was torn into four pieces after begun half hung and disembowelled that argument hasn’t worked out so well since the 17th century.
No one was injured, no one took anything, no one was abused, no one was kidnapped, no one called for the overthrow of the state.
We don't have to like what they stand for but they are protesting just like the 1975 Land March, the 1981 anti-apartheid marches, the pro-cylists of 2019, the COVID marchers of 2021, and the many more to come. Plenty on there with criminal records. Except nah Tamaki isn't a liberal so he shouldn't.
Just imagine if the Green Party had dome something useful this weekend instead of kill each other, and generated a decent protest across the motorway system. Actually done proper serious activism again. Nah.
In a reasonable world the Minister of Transport would have done something useful and permanently opened up the Harbour Bridge for at least one walking and cycling lane. But nah.
no one called for the overthrow of the state.
So did I manage to misread: 'GOVERNMENT MUST GO!' flaring forth on last night's news from Wellington's version of impromptu street theatre?
In the second clip:
Around 300 protesters were seen marching through central Wellington chanting for the Government to go.
"We want freedom because our children are suffering, our youth are suffering because of the decisions this Government has made," one protest leader said via loudspeaker.
"We're fighting for freedom from mental health stats, we're fighting for freedom from high cost of living, we're fighting for freedom from everything this Government has put in place that is making us struggle."
Another leader of the Wellington protest compared their movement to that of Indian revolutionary Mahatma Gandhi, whose peaceful protests helped India gain independence from British rule in the 1940s.
"It's amazing what one man could do, to lead peaceful protests right throughout the country and bring about change and that's what we're doing here today," he said.
You did mange to misread it.
But that's not surprising.
Agreed, our Government isn't God-King Tamaki's chief beef. His main ‘concern’ is that a woman is in charge – doesn't she know her place?
Not even real Tories believe in tax cuts.
How long before Luxon flip flops again?
”Chris Patten, Norman Lamont and Malcolm Rifkind all said that the former Tory leader would not have supported the tax-cutting plans. Patten said: “Margaret Thatcher was a fiscal Conservative who did not cut tax until we had reduced inflation. She was honest and did not believe in nonsense.”
How Truss has any support amazes me.Seems to lack any real substance and be gaffe prone.
Although in retrospect they are qualities evident in Bojo,Scomo,Biden….and Luxon.
Good, well reasoned refutation of Luxon's tax cuts to the rich to curb inflation in NZ!
SSDD from the Natz
Thanks, Tony- indeed a clear exposition of the two approaches and the delineation between Labour and National. The article sets out the economic and social aspects in terms available to the economically illiterate to understand.
There is a difference between National and Labour and that difference would make a hugely adverse change to the lives of many, many New Zealanders should National get into power and go down the path of tax cuts, less government, increased corporate greed and restrictions on wages growth, reliance on foreign capital and imported workers.
The divide would widen to chasmic proportions.
Since Foot and Mouth Disease can come in on everything from skin to clothing, maybe it's time for a ban on importing Indonesian Palm Corn Expeller here?
Foot and Mouth Disease strikes Indonesia – Dairy Global
That would be just another supply-chain disruption dairy would need to replace.
Seaweed additive perhaps?
Way past time to ban palm kernel from anywhere. Vile stuff. And if farmers cannot maintain their herds/flocks without it, then they are way overstocked.
A good proportion of salmon feed comes from Indonesia as well. High likelihood the fish base is bulked out with as much land sourced portion as they can get away with.
Was talking to the farm manager the other day about monkey dust, (it's called that because the response to bits of monkey turning up in it was to just grind it really fine), and there's some doubt around National's, especially Luxon's, willingness to take any firm action to prevent FMD arriving here. Banning PKE, or in the case of an outbreak in Australia, closing / restricting the border, not really seen as likely with National, but possible with Labour. Any restrictions would be seen as a kick in the balls to farmers though, and very loudly.
There's serious investment in PKE right now, at $9.75 dairy farmers want every kg they can get this season and those extra kgs come out the back of the palm kernel truck. PKE has become integral to NZ dairy farming, and deer as it has high copper content to promote velvet growth, so a sudden restriction would be very disruptive to stocking rates and cashflow. Big money involved in the trade too, with undoubtedly considerable donations to National Party.
Farming’s likely response is going to be to try and manage the risk with testing and surveillance. But everything would change if FMD got into Australia. If it got into NZ first then we can just sit down and watch the NZ economy implode as Australia closes it's border to us.
"Monkey", or orangutan?
Yours is a very interesting take on the situation, Graeme – thanks for making that. I've shared it with my fellow ES councillors, many of whom are users (I suspect 🙂
One of those 'here and disappeared' headlines in the Herald that I missed yesterday, and had to go searching for this morning after I couldn't access it on my tablet. Login to Herald account only on the laptop.
[Unlinked copy & pasta deleted]
Two issues here that need highlighting.
I was speaking with a chap yesterday whose 20 year old moko has a significant disability and is covered by ACC. As hard as I tried, he simply could not get his head around the fact that Peter is not under ACC and has no entitlement to care. At all.
I just want to draw attention to the fact that there are two very distinct classes of disabled people in New Zealand. Still. After nearly fifty years of empty promises by successive governments to address the disparity.
Labour…pretending to be the Party for the Common Folk…has had ample opportunity over the past five fucking decades to fix this. They haven't. Why?
She does not say…and I'm damned sure the Herald would have quoted her if she had… "If only these carers would get the shot and come back to work all would be fine…"
Just drop the mandates.
The system cannot afford to be short three highly qualified carers (and believe me those with high spinal injuries need carers who know which end is up) . Just like the system cannot afford to be short of nurses and midwives and other trained health professionals that chose not to take the Pfizer product.
Most of us have had Covid in the past six months…Pfizered or not. And unless we were already knocking on the Door…the vast majority of us have survived. And only a small number have ongoing issues.
A significant percentage of two shot 'fully vaccinated' are choosing not to get the first booster and an increasing number of eligible people are not getting the second booster. https://www.health.govt.nz/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-data-and-statistics/covid-19-vaccine-data#total-vaccinations
Because the shots are not preventing infection or symptoms. https://www.1news.co.nz/2022/07/23/white-house-gives-joe-biden-covid-update/
It's way past time. Drop all mandates.
I’ve deleted the unlinked copy & pasta and I may restore it if you provide a link with an indication whether it is behind the f-ing pay-wall or not.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/tauranga-paraplegic-left-without-care-due-to-severe-support-worker-shortage/KW35J6AXB7R6WXTNICPAIR7OEU/ [behind pay-wall]
[now we have a link, here’s the restored copy & pasta – Incognito]
Tauranga paraplegic left without care due to ‘severe’ support worker shortage
A healthcare provider has apologised after a 71-year-old paraplegic was left alone “in a wet bed with blood in it” because her support worker did not show up.
Tauranga woman Kathryn Harland is paralysed from the sternum and requires 24/7 care.
But a HealthCare New Zealand support worker has failed to turn up “multiple” times because, in Harland’s view, there is a “severe” staffing shortage.
Harland lives with her husband, but says, however, “I need to have someone that is trained to look after me 24 hours”.
She was also concerned for her support workers – one of whom she believed worked 130 hours in one week.
“She came to work here … absolutely shattered and in tears because she was so exhausted.”
Harland became a paraplegic in 2017 after surgery.
“In the prime of our retirement years, looking forward to doing things, and now there’s nothing except bed and a wheelchair,” she told the Bay of Plenty Times Weekend.
A few weeks ago, Harland’s husband was out, and she was home alone from 3pm to 6pm because her support worker called in sick and there was no one to cover them.
“This particular time … I was left in a wet bed with blood in it.”
On morning shifts, Harland has two support workers due to it being the “heaviest time” with “transferring, toileting, bathing, showering,” but sometimes only has one.
“It’s making me very irritable and angry and frustrated, and sad for my carers whom I love dearly – they’re pushed to the limit and they can only do so much.”
Harland said her husband was the “unpaid helper” but did not want to be a caregiver.
“He refuses because we’re entitled to care through ACC, and it’s very hard in your marriage, somebody having to do their care.”
Harland had lost three “highly qualified” support workers due to the vaccine mandate who would “come back tomorrow if they could”.
Originally, HealthCare New Zealand was “very good”. Harland’s family has laid a complaint with HealthCare New Zealand, the country’s largest healthcare provider.
These highly skilled workers can come back – tomorrow if they really want to.
All they have to do is get the jab!
This is not the fault of mandates. It is entirely on the workers themselves. Unless of course they have exemptions, and I bow to that possibility. Many more times these people are simply over cautious or just bloody-mindedly anti.
Are you claiming that the Pfizer product prevents infection and transmission of Te Virus?
But it reduces severity and saves lives. But you know that. You just don’t have the guts to concede it.
And vaccines provide a level of protection against long Covid.
And vaccines provide a level of protection against long Covid.
But sweet f/a against nasty outcomes from repeated reinfections.
LOL! The irony of you linking to something written by Dr Siouxsie Wiles to support your comment.
I trust you to find any non-peer reviewed article to suit your narrative and confirmation bias that the Covid-19 vaccine is ineffective (and unsafe). A number of concerns have already been raised with the study (see the comments), but even if the paper had been accepted your conclusion is incorrect and an over-reach; one cannot draw such far-reaching categorical conclusions from just one limited study and extrapolate these to each and all and state that vaccines do “sweet f/a”. Your thinking is way too B&W.
If you had read the article I linked to you’d have seen the same study being mentioned:
When I saw your link to one of Master Lynch's efforts I too guffawed with unrestrained derision. I dubbed him 'Lynch the Self Linker' some time ago now as pretty much all the references in his writings (if that's not too kind a description) had links to either his other writings or other Stuff Whole Truth writings.
I wrote to him and had him on about it…haven't taken much notice of what he has written since. If he has started to link to actual research papers…well done him.
Why wouldn't I link to something that Wiles wrote?
one cannot draw such far-reaching categorical conclusions from just one limited study and extrapolate these to each and all and state that vaccines do “sweet f/a”.
That was said in relation to the study into sequelae of reinfections.
They also found that the more infections a veteran had, the more the risk increased. In other words, the risks are cumulative. Having two infections was riskier than one, and three were riskier than two. Interestingly, the risks were the same regardless of whether the veterans had been vaccinated or not.
In other words…being vaccinated made sweet f/a difference.
But the mandates were not about the severity of illness Anne…and I understand you don't want to admit this.
No one is saying you have to have your personal cares done by an unvaccinated carer. Surely it should be the choice of the person needing the care?
Or do you not think disabled people have the right to choose?
I bet Kathryn would love her three carers back../vaxxed or unvaxxed. Especially since she has already had to have obviously ill carers come to her home to do the necessary.
I'm not sure if you're aware, but the health and disability sector are under enormous strain with high levels of staff absenteeism due to illness. Despite the entire workforce being 'fully' vaxxed.
Actually Rosemary conceded this point the other day. She was explaining how symptoms were reduced by the vaccine and (incorrectly) inferring that this had exacerbated the pandemic.
I modified your link to direct to the actual comment.
If the vaccine doesn't reduce transmission or prevent infection, why is the mandate necessary?
I'm not playing silly games with you weka.
"People who are active on social media about politics are already wedded to their views, he says."
Worth the read thankyou Pat.
The Teals (from Andrea Vance's article on Values vs policy: How a new 'luxury belief class' is changing politics
"There, the ‘teal candidates’ were independents who ran on a strong climate platform in formerly safe Liberal seats. They represented a voting base with conservative fiscal politics combined with green views on climate. (Teal comes from the blend of Liberal blue and green.)"
“But the ones that made the difference were in these new Teal Seats. You have to be in particular social strata – you can't necessarily be feeling the pinch of groceries going three times the original price – for integrity in Canberra to be your number one issue.
“A lot of these people don't necessarily care if they're taxed a little bit more to pay for the things they are concerned about. They are happy to pay for more welfare or healthcare because they believe it's a good thing for society.”
This is the ‘luxury belief class’. Once physical needs are met people become more preoccupied with social status. We used to display our social status with luxury goods. Today, there is an emerging trend towards flaunting ‘luxury beliefs’."
"Affluent and well-educated, this class can prioritise issues like the environment, equality or a decline in faith and trust in democracy over their wallets.
Currently, voters must enter a big political tent with other clans in order to achieve some form of representation. But that leads to tensions over competing priorities. The research suggests political parties must work harder to identify and accommodate these clans, to build better coalitions within their support."
Funny that the only way Vance has to describe altruistic political beliefs is to rationalise them as ultimately self serving social ladder climbing.
Was there ever a time, to which Vance is harking back to when the only really important thing was how politics effected ones wallet? Was this a high point in politics?
It's a categorisation that helps explain the strength of support for the Greens in the richest city seats like Auckland Central and Wellington Central.
And so poorly in electorates like Mangere – where National get double the vote of the Greens.
Not expecting anything but a Labour result in such a stronghold seat (usually around an 18K majority). But, if there was significant appeal from the Green policy platform, I'd expect to see a higher Green Party vote total (it's usually lower than the individual vote for the Green candidate).
I think that many people living a hand-to-mouth existence, simply feel that the GP policies are not affordable.
And, 'it's the economy, stupid' is a pretty safe mantra to predict electoral outcomes most of the time (2020 was an outlier of an exception). Many, many people do vote for policies and/or parties which they feel will make them and/or their families better off.
Also a factor is that the Green policies are complex and interlocking. Even some people interested enough in politics, like TS commenters, often don't read the GP policies or understand them before writing them off. People not following that closely are left with the MSM interpretation.
Not disagreeing with you. But a real challenge for the GP to effectively communicate the policy impacts.
How will you (voter on minimum wage in Mangere) benefit? What does it mean in increased taxes? What does it mean in terms of increased prices or charges? Will you be better or worse off?
I think that many of the GP voters in the wealthy suburbs don't necessarily understand the GP policies either – but are voting with their hearts (and can afford to do so).
agree with that.
The Greens have limited people/hours in the day, so prioritise accordingly and my guess is they have their own sense of where best to put energy.
Marama Davidson was doing a lot of that kind of work in Auckland, don't know which electorates or if she is still doing that.
Sorry for the typo. An 18K majority (not 80!)
Fixed it 👍
Which is ironic given that arguably, the Green Party is the strongest most genuine advocate for those people, who have nothing to lose and much (everything?) to gain from more progressive policies such as from the Green Party.
But it's an irony that's been around for a long time. And doesn't seem to be diminishing.
Practically, the hypothetical Mangere voter sees the GP electric vehicle subsidy as assistance for the rich (or at least the upper middle class) – who can afford an EV. And zero benefit to them – who are likely to be driving a clunker – 20 years old, and in poor repair, with relatively low fuel economy.
The half-price PT subsidy has very effectively been marketed as a Labour policy rather than a GP one. [Yes, the GP were calling for 100% subsidy, but Labour delivered on a 50% one. Bird in the hand…. And, I know it isn't 'fair' – the government are in a position to enact policy, while the GP are not – but perception….]
Policy announcements tend to be heavy on the benefits, and light on the funding mechanisms. TANSTAAFL – 'free' means 'paid for by another method'. The assumption by the public is that taxes go up to fund 'free' services.
It's a big marketing challenge for the GP.
GP policies are paid for by taking the wealthy and the big polluters. They tend to also give money back to lower income people in that process.
I’m sorry but your comments are full of contradictions and misunderstandings.
If voters, particularly lower class voters, don’t understand GP policies why would they conclude that these policies are not affordable? Based on what they read in the MSM, SM, or hear on talk-back?
If an EV policy, for example, has no direct benefit to a particular group of voters why would they conclude that the policy is not affordable?
I’d think that people living a hand-to-mouth existence would be rather agnostic if not ignorant of many if not most GP policies or of any other party for that matter.
Not reaching the hypothetical Mangere voter doesn’t mean this voter would be against GP policies per se; I think you’re projecting.
The Government PT subsidy was a temporary measure, which has now been extended. It was and is not Labour policy AFAIK from this: https://www.labour.org.nz/transport. By implementing this subsidy they have given the GP policy a lot more weight & traction.
The Green Party has proposed many different novel ways of funding their policies by a progressive and redistributive tax system: https://www.greens.org.nz/progressive_tax_reform.
All of the conversations I've had around this policy – and all of the media commentary I've read has been in the context of a Govt roll out (regardless of whether it's in the Labour manifesto or no – which most people TBH would have no idea over). It's not been in the context of a GP policy. And the GP haven't explicitly made this point (which ACT are really good at – regardless of your opinion of their policies, they're pretty effective media operators).
Something along the lines of: "The GP welcomes Labour's belated move towards implementing the GP policy on free PT, and encourages them to continue towards the GP policy 100% free PT. This gives an immediate cash-in-hand benefit to lower income and marginalized groups – as well as being an environmental win – especially in the current cost of living crisis. Check out how to make it work, here…."
Instead of :
Which gave away all of the credit!
I'm no PR expert (clearly), but the emphasis needs to be on differentiating themselves from Labour – otherwise why would people vote for them? And part of that has to be attacking Labour for tardy implementation of GP policy – not giving them the kudos for stealing GP policy.
Yep. More talk-back than newspapers – but even more the smoko conversations.
Most people don't read policy. Most people don't understand policy (even if they've read it). It needs to be interpreted – and part of doing that is provocative press-releases – outlining exactly what the voter-in-Mangere (or any other suburb) will gain from voting Green (and how those policies will be paid for). Getting the discussion on talk-back and through the unions into the workplace. Getting people talking about what's in it for them.
i hardly think regressive policies from the Greens,are the foremost issue on most minds at present,where the economy,inflation,and poor government leadership seem to be at the front of polling.
I see what you did there.
Please use relevant data when discussing national politics such as the Green Party of NZ, e.g. https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/07-06-2022/why-national-is-winning.
All the issues you mention are primarily economic issues that exhibit ups & downs all the time. Not all policies have reflexive aims & objectives. Your poor government leadership is a secondary outcome of and correlate with the aforementioned short-term issues; it’s no better or worse than in other times except in the public perception and media representation (which is neither able to look through short-term events nor impartial). This misconception of what Government can and does control is at the basis of much misinformed media commentary.
Progressive and transformative vision and policies take necessarily a longer-term view than most people and media are willing to consider and contemplate. That’s the Green Party problem in a nutshell, at least one of them.
Here let me put it another way.(remember Robs mob)
In 2000 Schroder done a deal with the The Greens to remove baseline nuclear power for Gas and intermittent energy such as solar and wind to remove coal generation,and here we are 22 years later.
At no point in the cumulative statements from progressives,have we seen alternative economic initiatives that will over time substitute for our present export mix.
We cannot pay our way now (512b$ gross debt) and the interest bill is rising,the alternative in the opposition benches is very ugly,but a very real risk ( sell everything to the receivers)
Yep….the birth of neoliberalism can largely be attributed to high inflation.
As Kalecki foresaw…
yep pretty much sizes it up (with the same arguments we hear today)
Importantly the Teal candidates also ran on an anti-corruption ticket as well as CC, and given that they were all women, they also ran on the gender issue.
These two factors may well have gained them as many votes as CC
anyone else keeping an eye on this?
Someone the other day was tweeting about MPx being worse than covid but over a longer period of time. It was too much at the time to take in and follow up.
I'm now wanting to remember what the scale is that the WHO uses for increasing seriousness of transmittable disease.
I did laugh (dark humour)
Lots of spin in the Great turbine debate,which if unresolved will see Germany cold,hungry and in the dark,or with a little excess rhetoric (quickly pulled back) the German (green) FM said.
his version of events is perhaps a bit understated, but i can understand him not wanting to upset the colonisers of germany, the us.
Stay away, you are not welcome.
That’s the message leaders from Maskwacis have for members of the Freedom Convoy who may plan to protest during Pope Francis’ apology at the central Alberta First Nation community next week.
Pope Francis is set to travel to Alberta, Quebec and Nunavut from July 24 to 29. The papal visit is to include public and private events with an emphasis on Indigenous participation.
So the virus makes it's way along microscopic pathways to infect brain cells. But hey, let's continue allowing ourselves and our kids to be infected time and time again.
Thanks Joe90, the medical response will be interesting – time to up our vaccine game.