Open mike 26/05/2019

Written By: - Date published: 7:00 am, May 26th, 2019 - 238 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 …

238 comments on “Open mike 26/05/2019”

  1. Jenny - How to get there? 1

    As part of the coalition government, the Green MPs have delivered us up the Zero Carbon Act. A reading of the Act reveals that it has not one single measure to cut GHG emissions, nor any measures at all to keep to the targets set out in it.

    I defy anyone to say that it does.

    Setting out targets is good, but with no measures to achieve them targets are meaningless.

    I could set a target to be a millionaire in ten years.

    I could even set down intermediate targets, that to reach my goal I will need to meet a target of a $100,000 a year.

    Sorted.

    To give myself further excuse not to implement any measures to achieve my target, I could push my millionaire target out to thirty years from now, so that no one can really check whether I achieve it or not.

    I defy anyone, who after reading the Zero Carbon Act was to conclude, other than that, the Zero Carbon Act is a corrupt attempt to put off doing anything about climate change in the here and now.

    • francesca 1.1

      I don't think so Jenny at all. 

      The political system has limits, no use putting up a bill that doesn't have support, from the electorate or coalition members

      The zero carbon bill, and I agree with you , its severely limited, is an illustration of whats possible at the moment (in a time when benign dictators aren't a thing)

      James did his best for cross party consensus. Don't blame him, blame the incremental nature of politics, and the resistance of dinosaurs

      Get out on the street, encourage and join the kids on climate strike Fridays, build the movement for change,change your own life.

      • RedLogix 1.1.1

        James did his best for cross party consensus. 

        Indeed he has done. This is how politics should be done and kudos for him for achieving this. It would not have been easy.

        Don't blame him, blame the incremental nature of politics, and the resistance of dinosaurs

        Human social groups, at whatever scale, have a fundamental problem to solve; how to respond to the unknown, the novel and to change. When faced with strangers, or new information and ideas, we have two possible responses. One is to open up and embrace them, the other is to close off and resist them. Crucially both strategies serve a purpose.

        Being open means that you get first mover advantage with fresh ideas and can react to changing circumstances more rapidly. The downside is that not all strangers are benign, some will be dangerous and threatening. And not all new ideas are good ones, most in fact will fail … some fatally.

        Being closed means that you avoid these risks, and by trusting the 'tried and true' it is more likely you will survive in the short term. This is important, there is no value to investing in a better future decades in the future, if you die this winter because the crops failed. But conversely resisting all innovation and novelty also ensures failure in the long-run; failure to adapt and being out-competed by more agile neighbours.

        Obviously the correct solution is some balance between the two; but how? The same person cannot easily be both open and closed at the same time. Humans appear to have evolved a fascinating way to deal with it; some of us are open, some are closed. When faced with something new, we each respond according to our temperament and then we talk about it. We socially argue the case for and against and arrive at some consensus. We try the plan out, see what works and what didn't and repeat. It's quite a smart solution.

        With climate change the process got subverted when the big fossil carbon players borrowed a strategy originally devised by the tobacco companies. The basic idea was not to win the argument, but to prevent consensus from being formed by provoking the resistance of the naturally cautious among us. And us more open types attacking them only makes them more cautious and more reactionary. (This too was part of the plan.)

        It was only after we went for the tobacco companies themselves, the source of the disinformation, that we reached a consensus and took effective action. The same applies here, but on a larger scale.

        • francesca 1.1.1.1

          But we are both open and closed aren't we?

          We can be closed to social change yet open  to economic change and vice versa

          We are generally a mixture of fears and conservatism, optimism ,altruism and the whole bleeding mess

          The time frame, the imminence of tipping point and collapse probably means that striving for consensus in a democracy just loses us more time .

          I still think, lets shift our consciousness first, away from anthrocentrism at all costs, then whatever comes after(technological fixes, new strategies )is coming from an inclusive, sustainable and happier place

          • Robert Guyton 1.1.1.1.1

            “I still think, lets shift our consciousness first, away from anthrocentrism at all costs, then whatever comes after(technological fixes, new strategies )is coming from an inclusive, sustainable and happier place"”

            Well put.

          • RedLogix 1.1.1.1.2

            But we are both open and closed aren't we?

            True, but on any given issue we generally take one position at a time. Otherwise you run the risk of being perceived as 'talking out both sides of your mouth'.

            The openness personality trait is highly predictive of holding to progressive or left wing political views and I'd wager most of the regulars here at TS are very open types. We have lots of different ideas and we debate them vigorously, but more closed conservative people are either rare or simply don't come here.

            Yet in political terms they constitute roughly half the population, and in terms of my outline above … they serve a vital and useful purpose in the debate. Conservatives may frustrate the hell out of us, but in collective terms they usefully keep a society grounded and functioning on a day to day basis.

            It's my view that progressives would achieve more if we approached them with this broader understanding and worked with their natures rather than against them. This would be inclusiveness at work, would it not?

            • francesca 1.1.1.1.2.1

              Yes, I'm totally with you there.

              actually it seems to be similar to what Jonathan Haidt argues in The Righteous Mind

            • swordfish 1.1.1.1.2.2

              Ha haaa ! … I recognise the Big Five Psychometrics when I see them.

      • McFlock 1.1.2

        Agreed.

        The other thing is that putting up a bill destined to fail reminds me of a time I was writing a provisional report on a project, and drafted it "Some _____ refused to participate…". My boss pointed out that this essentially committed those non-participants to their position, and suggested the redraft "Some _____ were reluctant to participate". I learnt a lot from that boss.

      • Jenny - How to get there? 1.1.3

        francesca1.1

        26 May 2019 at 7:58 am

        I don't think so Jenny at all. 

        The political system has limits, no use putting up a bill that doesn't have support, from the electorate or coalition members

        The zero carbon bill, and I agree with you , its severely limited, is an illustration of whats possible at the moment (in a time when benign dictators aren't a thing)

        James did his best for cross party consensus….

        Why Consensus Stinks!

        The Australian term white-anting comes from the action of termites that hollow out and empty something that looks fine on the surface.

        The Zero Carbon Bill is an example, white-anting any real action on climate change, looking substantial, but completely hollowed out of any real action.

        The argument made for the Zero Carbon Bill by its supporters, is that we have to seek 'Consensus' with the National Party, otherwise when they get back into power they will repeal any concrete legislation we put in place.

        Apart from being a weak defeatist position, this argument is actually not proven.

        The Nats never repealed the Nuclear Free Legislation. Labour have never repealed the Anadarko Amendment. Phil Goff traveled the Country in a big red bus with "Kill The Bill" (the National Government Bill to increase GST to 15%) before admitting that if he was elected he wouldn't repeal it.

        Consensus is not democracy it is an attack on democracy.

        As Winston Churchill famously said, Democracy is the worst of all possible systems, except for all those others that have been tried.

        Democracy has been described by its detractors as the dictatorship of the majority over the minority.

        This is the sound of ideologies crashing, sang Billy Bragg

        Consensus is an effort to paper over these differences between ideologies.

        And it fits into one of those 'worst ways' Churchill spoke of.

        Consensus is not democracy.

        Consensus is going for the lowest possible denominator to achieve unanimity.

        Consensus is an effort to silence and stifle political debate. To suffocate the sound of ideologies clashing.

        The tragedy of Consensus politics is that it robs the electorate of making a clear choice between one way forward and another.

        Consensus politics prevents us hearing the arguments between both ways forward, and for making an informed decision with our vote.

        Consensus politics murders democracy in back room deals between politicians.

        At its core what consensus politics displays, is a lack of faith in the people.

        Consensus politics is an abrogation of leadership.

         

    • James 1.2

      This government hates targets. 

      They keep showing them up as useless – needing a reset (kiwibuild anyone) 

      what they say is all fairy dust and aspirations – most of the time I’m sure they know they can’t deliver  

       

       

    • I defy anyone, who after reading the Zero Carbon Act was to conclude, other than that, the Zero Carbon Act is a corrupt attempt to put off doing anything about climate change in the here and now.

      Oh, fuck off.  We went through this yesterday.  If you don't understand why Labour/Green don't have either the numbers in Parliament or the electoral mandate to implement the policies you want to see, read up on the subject or just don't comment on it.  Alleging corruption (even scummier than yesterday's accusation of cynicism) is a grotesque insult to people who had to fight hard to get even this level of legislation on the table and have shown a far greater commitment to doing something about it than you have.  

      If you want to see your preferred policies implemented, join one of those two parties and put in the hours and the money to help them get more MPs in Parliament.  Insulting them from your armchair will just get you more "Fuck off"s.

      • sumsuch 1.3.1

        It's a step, which I hope they follow up on soon. This government's actions for the poor are more indictable.

    • Pat 1.4

      The art of the possible…..and why we fail.

    • solkta 1.5

      So now Shaw is "corrupt". There is again only one reasonable response to your bile, fuck off.

      • Rosemary McDonald 1.5.1

        So now Shaw is "corrupt".

        I wonder if Shaw, Davidson and Ardern would prefer 'useless leaders' rather than 'corrupt'?

        One description is acquired by simply failing to do what was promised (i.e. dealing to climate change with the same vigour and commitment as was afforded the nuclear free policy) while the other requires some forethought, planning and cooperation. One is simply passively muddling along while the other is deliberate and active.

        The way I see it (from someone who bought the whole Green thing and voted accordingly, in a household where the rest largely voted Labour for the same reasons.) is that none of the above named party leaders have the heft of Winston.

        A truly committed and charismatic leader would have been able to  bring others along in such numbers that Winston's own caucus would have been putting pressure on him to at least meet L/G more than halfway, and the three could have all contributed to a Bill that we could have been proud of. As it is, we're left with a lilly livered and truly pathetic piece of legislation that condemns our children to a bleak future.

        A pox on all their houses.

        I'll fuck off now.

        • One Two 1.5.1.1

          As it is, we're left with a lilly livered and truly pathetic piece of legislation that condemns our children to a bleak future.

          Breakfast in schools could have been implemented almost immediately, as one example of something useful this government could have done for children.

          But they haven’t.

          • gsays 1.5.1.1.1

            Yep, there are a few other of Hone Harawira's policies they could enact too.

            A teacher aid in every class room was another I liked.

            • One Two 1.5.1.1.1.1

              Yes, absolutely that too…

              Restoring support services  which were defunded and cut completely by the NACT government…support which was provided to many of the most at risk groups in NZ…

              Support which is literally priceless…but for which proverbial pennies of funding per year (few millions)…in monetary cost to retain, restore and fund those same priceless services into the future…

        • solkta 1.5.1.2

          Winston First is courting the rural vote and was always going to be a problem. If he can't hold those votes his party is gone. Letting the coalition fold would be a better option for him if the cost of maintaining it was to lose those votes. Where is all the criticism of NZF? 

           

           

          • Rosemary McDonald 1.5.1.2.1

            Where is all the criticism of NZF? 

            I take it as read that we all know that 'the problem' is Winston….I suspect there are NZF Members who would dearly like to participate more positively in climate change mitigation…but there's Winston….and he doesn't give a shit.

            He just gets to sit at the table again, play kingmaker again, handicap real transformative policy implementation again.

            His voter base are dying out.

            And none too soon.

            The leaders of the other two coalition parties need to do much, much better.

            • solkta 1.5.1.2.1.1

              The leaders of the other two coalition parties need to do much, much better.

              I still have no idea what it is that you would have them do.

              His voter base are dying out.

              Winston's old people constituency is starting to die out, that is why he has so much invested in the rural vote. 

               

              • Rosemary McDonald

                I still have no idea what it is that you would have them do.

                Let's see now….how about…./the-green-party-policy-manifesto-full-costed-and-seriously-progressive/

                and….https://www.labour.org.nz/climatechange

                As for the 'rural vote', again, the generation of farmers with callous disregard for the environment are a dying breed.  Many farmers now see that SSDD (literally)  practices are not sustainable and change needs to be sped up. Shaw near breathlessly reassuring us that there is 'no need to reduce stock numbers' when even many farmers know there are plenty of good reasons to was just sad.

                I'm not claiming to have the answers, I'm just telling it as I see it. The Zero Carbon Act is a joke if its purpose is to mitigate the effects of climate change. Only true and decisive leaders with definitive policies and messaging will effect change.

                We're told repeatedly we are approaching climate change crisis…you'd never believe that going on the response from our government.

                 

                 

                • solkta

                  I still have no idea what it is that you would have them do. It is irrelevant what Green and Labour policy is if Winston is better off to end the coalition than support it.

                  Farmers are still the biggest sector opposing meaningful Climate policy. Have you not been paying attention? 

                  • Molly

                    Public disagreement that outlines the stumbling blocks would be a good start.  Then the discourse is out in the open, and the general public get to decide for themselves who is looking out for future interests and who are looking to protect their positions.

                    It seems that at the moment, even those who voted for this coalition government are not permitted to critique their performance.  And unfortunately criticisms are often valid, and if they are not even acknowledged and used to improve then we have a coalition government that is trending towards the arrogance and disregard of the previous.

                    The consequences of climate change, insecure housing, appalling child poverty, our health system and inequality do not lie in suspended animation until the next electoral term, they impact on us all now – some much more than others.  My impetus as a voter for addressing these issues is not to maintain the employment status of my limited choice of politicians, but to continue to ask for change in these matters. 

                    Politicians should not be so concerned with polling and reelection, that they don't use the opportunity they possess to start public awareness and discussion.  This coalition government is not even progressing in that department.

                     

                    • solkta

                      If you don't think that Shaw has been promoting public awareness and facilitating discussion then you are not worthy of a reply.

                    • Molly

                      @ solkta.  This kind of dismissal is what I am talking about.

                      The deference shown by Shaw for the farmers concern about methane limits, is not based on science or acknowledgement of what needs to be done.  If I was not aware of the issues of climate change, and was not yet informed of the immediacy of need for transition, then seeing James Shaw – leader of the Green Party – on television, downplaying these issues and congratulating this coalition government on coming to an agreement – would have a negative impact, along the lines of:

                      "Even the Green Party leader is not concerned about methane, or feels that a carbon-zero bill that aspires without consequence to a carbon-free 2050 goal is worth pursuing."

                      For those in New Zealand whose current knowledge of the issues of climate change are non-existent or slight, this will be one of their main news items on this topic.  Disturbingly, it will reassure many that if even the Greens are not concerned, the status quo can continue for the foreseeable future.

                      Does this explain the disquiet that I share with others on this forum?

                • Let's see now….how about…./the-green-party-policy-manifesto-full-costed-and-seriously-progressive/

                  and….https://www.labour.org.nz/climatechange

                  OK, how about them?  The parties with those policies have 43% of the vote, ie 53 out of 120 MPs in Parliament.  Please explain why you believe it would be possible for that minority of MPs to enact those policies as legislation in their entirety. And not just why it would be possible, but why it's so obviously possible that you feel free to berate the parties' leadership for failing to do it.

                   

                  • Jenny - How to get there?
                    • Psycho Milt

                      26 May 2019 at 1:58 pm

                      ….Please explain why you believe it would be possible for that minority of MPs to enact those policies as legislation in their entirety. And not just why it would be possible, but why it's so obviously possible that you feel free to berate the parties' leadership for failing to do it.

                    Hi Psycho,

                    I could name half a dozen green policies that the Green MPs have refused to champion in government. 

                    The iniquitous Anadarko Amendment to the RMA that makes it illegal to protest deep sea oil drilling. Is one of the things that the Green Party have refused to try and repeal, The law that makes it illegal to raise climate change in consent hearings for new fossil fuel projects is another piece of iniquitous piece of legislation that the Greens are happy to leave in place, for the sake of 'consensus'.

                    At a time when many voters have trouble telling the political parties apart, the last thing we need is more consensus between them.

                    Consensus muffles the sound of 'ideologies clashing' making it harder to differentiate between the parties vying for our vote.

                    Let's have the arguments out, let us hear them.

                    Consensus turns the political spectrum into one whole amorphous mass.

                    If all the parties have consensus on climate change why vote for the Greens? Indeed what is the need for a Green Party? We are all in agreement. We have achieved consensus. 

                    One of the key demands of XR is for 'politicians to tell the truth about climate change'  papering over the differences between political parties on this issue, is not telling the truth about climate change, it is covering up the truth about climate change.

                     

            • JanM 1.5.1.2.1.2

              Do you not realise that many NZF voters are National defectors who can't cope with voting Labour or Green and that if it collapses they will probably go back to National? And then we would have a National government again. This coalition government has to make many compromises, but half a loaf is better than no bread.

              • swordfish

                Don't think so.

                The various iterations of the New Zealand Election Study (2008-2014) suggest those swinging to NZF have disproportionately been former Labour voters (& – as with most smaller parties – switchers comprise a significant segment of NZF support).

                What's more, NZF voters have chosen Labour as their preferred Coalition partner in 3 out of the last 4 General Elections (including overwhelmingly in 2017).

          • swordfish 1.5.1.2.2

             

            solkta

            Winston First is courting the rural vote and was always going to be a problem. If he can't hold those votes his party is gone.

            I'd estimate NZF received a little over 60% of its 2017 vote from both Metro & Provincial City seats. So, all things being equal, he probably only needs to hold around a third of his Rural / Small Town vote to be sure of returning.

            • solkta 1.5.1.2.2.1

              Your estimate is meaningless until you back it up with some stats. Even if you are right that doesn't mean Winston is prepared to take the risk or have a smaller presence and say no thanks to those votes. As he straddles the centre he needs to appear to both his left and right flanks that he is protecting their interests.

              • swordfish

                 

                (1)

                that doesn't mean Winston is prepared to take the risk or have a smaller presence and say no thanks to those votes.

                No, it certainly wouldn't be his aim … but I do take issue with the idea that holding / expanding his rural vote is an absolute necessity.

                 

                (2)

                Your estimate is meaningless until you back it up with some stats. Your estimate is meaningless until you back it up with some stats.

                Started by adding the NZF Party-Vote in all Metro (Akld / Wgtn / Chch) & Provincial City seats (ranging in city size from Gisborne (East Coast) up to the two Dunedin & two Hamilton seats).

                Then (based on a rough estimation), I subtracted the likely Rural / Small Town NZF vote in those Provincial City seats that weren't entirely urban … then added the likely Urban NZF vote from the Maori seats (as with the General Roll Provincial Centres, this was according to a broad estimation of what proportion of Maori seats were urban / rural).

                Made some allowance for error within my estimation.

                Then simply calculated the final result as a proportion of the entire Nationwide NZF Party-Vote in 2017.

                Hence, I'd estimate NZF received somewhere between 59%-62% of its 2017 Party-Vote from both Metro & Provincial City seats.

                It is possible to be very precise … but that would involve going through every single booth in the Provincial Cities … but, you know, benefits considerably less than the enormous energy invested … law of diminishing returns

                 

                (3)

                As he straddles the centre he needs to appear to both his left and right flanks that he is protecting their interests.

                The various iterations of the New Zealand Election Study (2008-2014) suggest:

                – those swinging to NZF have disproportionately been former Labour voters (& – as with most smaller parties – switchers comprise a significant segment of NZF support). Over those 3 consecutive Elections, around two-thirds of switchers to Winston's Party came courtesy of the Left (overwhelmingly former Labour supporters … but also a small segment of former Greens) / one-third from the Right (overwhelmingly former National voters … but also a sizeable minority from ACT / Cons / Maori Party). (my calculations from raw Flow-of-the-Vote stats from the 08-14 NZES).

                – NZF voting-base can best be seen as a segment of the morally-conservative Left. Most of the latter group still vote Labour, but a section swung to NZF back in the 90s, while even more have moved in Winston's direction over the last two decades. (Although they haven’t always remained particularly Loyal).

                – Which, in turn, explains why (as I pointed out to JanM) NZF voters have chosen Labour as their preferred Coalition partner in 3 out of the last 4 General Elections (including overwhelmingly in 2017).

                • swordfish

                  So what I'm suggesting at (3), just to be clear, is that the Right-leaning component of NZF's support-base is relatively small.

                  Yes … Winston's voters do tend toward moral conservatism on the Liberal / Libertarian vs Conservative / Authoritarian Moral spectrum.

                  But on the other key axis – the classic one – the Left vs Right Economic spectrum … a very large majority of them are on the Left.

        • Pat 1.5.1.3

          It is too easy (and convenient) to apportion the lack with Winston, as you note there must also be a willingness to prevaricate on the part of the other parties….and expressions of anger and disappointment are to be expected just as they are frequently on other topics, and rightly so otherwise everyone would have fucked off long ago

        • Psycho Milt 1.5.1.4

          The nuclear-free legislation was enacted without any negotian needed, by a Labour government that held 56 of the 95 seats in Parliament.  If the Green Party currently held 55% of the seats in Parliament, I expect the Zero Carbon Act would look very different – wouldn't you agree?  But they don't hold 55% of the seats in Parliament, they hold 7%.  Can you see how that might make a very big difference to their legislative ability?

          Re "charismatic leadership," NZ First is a party of provincial conservatism and its fundamental principles are in some respects completely opposed to those of Labour and the Greens.  Environmental policy is one of those areas.  How do you picture "charismatic leadership" getting a party to go against its fundamental principles?  For instance, can you picture a charismatic National leader getting the Green Party to cooperate with it on an extensive programme of privatisation?

        • The Al1en 1.5.1.5

          “I’ll fuck off now.”

          Perhaps you should, because that's a terrible summary of events and an unrealistic belief a party not even in a coalition government can set such an agenda.

          The only way to get hard green policy is to vote for more green mps.

           

          • Rosemary McDonald 1.5.1.5.1

            The only way to get hard green policy is to vote for more green mps.

            If by Green you mean more of what we have in parliament now claiming such…then maybe not.

             

            • Sam 1.5.1.5.1.1

              Hard Green Policy would compromise New Zealand's national security posture. It's standard Green Party Defence policy to cut tier 1 defence assets, frigate, P8 and anything over 50cal. That these defence assets is vital in securing not only New Zealand's natural resources but that of the South Pacific as well means the Greens will not be able to pull the majority to their side.

            • The Al1en 1.5.1.5.1.2

              Yeah, them, the ones you claim to have voted for.

            • gsays 1.5.1.5.1.3

              I hear your frustration and disappointment Rosemary.

              Being the eternal optimist, I reckon voting for more Green MPs emboldens the other MPs, provides leadership for the public and direction for business.

          • The Chairman 1.5.1.5.2

            The only way to get hard green policy is to vote for more green mps

            But would it really make a difference?

            They still wouldn't have king maker leverage.

            They've shown they'd prefer to be in the tent than out. So no leverage there. 

            Thus, they would still end up being the smaller partner of Labour that prefers not to rock the boat.

             

            • The Al1en 1.5.1.5.2.1

              If there were 30 green mps, they'd have plenty of leverage, and plenty of green policy. You just have to vote for them instead of whining about how useless they are.

               

              • The Chairman

                And where do you think those extra votes would come from?

                The reason being. Last election when Labour dropped to 24% and the Greens were polling at 15% Labour claimed they wouldn't look at forming a Government with Little stating Labour would need a considerably greater share of the vote to form a government. Despite (at 24%) still potentially having the numbers to form a Government.  

                Therefore, it seems Labour would have rather let National win than be forced to work with a stronger Green party. 

                 

                • The Al1en

                  Less of the goal post moving and more substance to the point.

                  If you want more green policy there has to be more green mps. That must be a given. Knowing this, bashing the greens for not doing enough when they don't have the numbers to force legislation is an admission of not understanding how parliament works, or an excuse to put the boot in to suit an agenda… Or both.

                  • The Chairman

                    Wasn't moving the goal posts, just pointing out Labour's preference when it comes to working with a stronger Greens.

                    Therefore, even with greater numbers they'd still end up being the smaller partner of Labour that prefers not to rock the boat.

                    Having leverage without the backbone to use it means little. And the one thing the Greens have shown is they have no spine.

                     

                      

                    • The Al1en

                      Once you admit there needs to be many more green mps in the house, in government, to push through green policy, then we can talk about where they come from.

                      Over to you.

                  • The Chairman

                    I'm not bashing the Greens for not having the numbers. I'm bashing them for not using their nous and showing us what work they are actually doing to help achieve more.

                    • The Al1en

                      Your bashing them for not getting radical green policy through the house which is because, again, they don't have the numbers to do so.
                       

                      Do you accept the greens need more mps, and actually in government to enact their preferred legislation?

                  • The Chairman

                    I admit if the Greens had the numbers to win an election that (more green policy) would be what one would expect. However, that is highly unlikely on their current and past polling. Moreover, very unlikely on their current performance in this term.

                    • The Al1en

                      That's a start, which kind of puts your unreal expectations of what a minor party can achieve, in some sort of context.

                      Now lets expand a little and say nz1st weren’t in the picture. You’d expect the greens to get a little more through, right?

                  • The Chairman

                    Your bashing them for not getting radical green policy through the house which is because, again, they don't have the numbers to do so.

                    No. And now I'm going to call you on your bullshit. Prove it. Where have I bashed them for not not getting radical green policy through the house? 

                     

                    • The Al1en

                      Taking their policy is in general 'radical' for NZ, you've consistently bashed them for watering down or not getting what they sought. No cites needed, it's archived. Even in these exchanges you've bemoaned them for not achieving and doing enough to get elected in greater numbers.

                      You’re fifth column.

                  • The Chairman

                    No cites needed

                    That's incorrect. You've been called out. Therefore, cites are indeed needed. 

                    Furthermore, you initially stated radical Green policy now you are shifting the goal posts by claiming that all their policy is radical. In which case you should have initially stated all Green policy. Therefore, best you stick to cites that reflect your initial assertion which is radical Green policy and not all Green policy which you are now attempting to reach for.

                    Additionally, me bemoaning them for not doing enough to get elected in greater numbers also doesn't prove your initial assertion.

                    • The Al1en

                      Nope, no cites needed, as all your anti green comments are archived, as will your efforts from today will be.

                      If there's a mod call to find posts where you have criticised the greens for not getting that policy through unfettered, then sure I'll list some, but prepared as I am, as they are numerous and no doubt fresh in the minds of most green voters here to gain consensus for my statement, I'm sure that call won't come.

                    • Incognito []

                      Not from me, it won’t.

                • solkta

                  It wasn't that Labour could not work with a stronger Green Party, they had an MOU and lots of policy in common, it was more that Winston wouldn't have been able to deal with the Greens being a bigger partner.

                  You are as transparent as a transparent thing. A really crap troll.

                  • The Chairman

                    Labour weren't even prepared to find that out. Therefore, their unwillingness to even have a crack at strongly it suggests it was Labour putting the kibosh on it (working with a stronger Greens). 

                    • The Al1en

                      On those numbers you gave above 24% and 15%, of course there was no way to form a government. How on 39% do you propose they had a chance?

                      But guaranteed, if that were even remotely possible, with that ratio, you'd have many green ministers and much more real green policy getting legislated. Fact. And you’d still moan about it.

                    • The Chairman

                      On those numbers you gave above 24% and 15%, of course there was no way to form a government.

                      But of course you know under MMP there was a potential to if they were willing to talk to NZF, which Labour wasn't prepared to do.

                      In fact, Little wasn't even prepared to give a number/percentage on where they would actually consider it (forming a Government).

                    • The Al1en

                      At the time, even with nz1st, it wasn't doable on the numbers, and then if it were, what Solkta wrote above.

                  • The Chairman

                    At the time, even with nz1st, it wasn't doable on the numbers, and then if it were, what Solkta wrote above.

                    Yes, it was. Even Guyon was taken back at Little's/Labour's poisition.

                    As I said to solkta, Labour weren't even prepared to find that out.

                    And it was this unwillingness to even have a crack at it that strongly suggests it was Labour putting the kibosh on it (working with a stronger Greens). 

                     

                    • The Al1en

                      It's speculative at best to assume winston would have gone with labour and the greens at that level of support for the green party and accepting a minor position as last cab off the rank, and in playing for more votes, to rule out dealing with nz1st, I can see why Little could have backtracked, but solkta's scenario seems far more plausible. 

                      Your interpretation seems way off by comparison.

                    • The Chairman

                      It's speculative at best to assume winston would have gone with labour and the greens at that level of support for the green party… 

                      Yes, which is why I said potentially could form a Government.

                      Nevertheless, you clearly or is that purposely missed the point?

                      Being, Labour ruled it out from the get go.  Therefore, it was never going to get to the negotiation stage.

                      Which is the point. Labour shut this potential down before even giving it a chance.

                      You can't blame that on Winston.

                    • The Al1en

                      I don't blame anyone for hypothetical postulations, just question the motive of those raising them.

                    • The Chairman

                      I question the notion the Greens are going to get more support on the grounds of their current performance.

                      And they are quickly running out of time to up their game.  

              • The Chairman

                You just have to vote for them instead of whining about how useless they are.

                I did vote for them. Which helped them into power only for us to find out how useless they really are.

                Therefore, if they continue to remain useless they can't really expect more people to vote for them.  

                • The Al1en

                  So you clearly don't know how mmp works in government, and choose to blame the small number of green mps, not even part of the formal coalition, for having to compromise and not being able to effect radical change they want to.

                  • The Chairman

                    No. That is a strawman. My position is stated above.

                    • The Al1en

                      But your position is crap and based on a total bollocks understanding of how much a very small number of green mps can achieve under a confidence and supply arrangement.

                  • The Chairman

                    My position is based on their dreadful performance to date. And is shared by many. Even within the Greens, they know they have been lacking the fight, made many mistakes, and have swallowed too many dead rats. 

                    You trying to blame this on my misunderstanding is a joke.

                    • The Al1en

                      See that's where you fall down. You don't accept that in this government they are bit players having to compromise to get anything, and the only way to change that is to have more green mps and get them in a proper coalition.

                      And I don’t think your misunderstanding is a joke, I think it’s quite deliberate.

                  • The Chairman

                    See that's where you fall down.

                    Not at all. Those failures mentioned are admitted by the Greens themselves.

                    Without addressing their weaknesses, achieving more MPs is very unlikely. And merely securing more without addressing their weaknesses is unlikely to improve their performance.

                    What seems to be deliberate is your failure to see and understand this.

                    • The Al1en

                      The weakness is they don't have the numbers to roll out their ideas without compromise 🙄

                      No genuine green voter is going to turn on the party because they aren't pumping out their policies ten to the dozen. They know, just like I do, that you can only do what you can with what you have.

                      Most greens will be encouraged to push harder in the run up to 2020 and work for the party and it’s ideals, not sit on the sidelines and cry crocodile tear laments.
                       

                       

                  • The Chairman

                    I'm not denying I go the Greens. Almost everyone knows that. But I have a go at them on valid grounds. Which is why most rebuttals end up being directed at me and not the valid points I've raised. 

                    The weakness is they don't have the numbers to roll out their ideas without compromise 

                    Yes, most understand that. However, that's not the weaknesses I just alluded to above, which the Greens themselves largely admit. And it is these weaknesses that they require to correct to better perform, which will help grow their support and performance going forward.

                    You can't expect them to substantially grow their vote on their current performance – and their polling largely reflects that.

                    I don't expect them to be pumping out policies ten to the dozen, that's just you trying to suggest I'm some kind of extremist expecting them to perform beyond reality.

                    The reality is, they've made a number of costly mistakes, they lack backbone, and failed to gain fair compensation for the dead rats swallowed. Furthermore, they talk a lot about pushing hard for certain issues but show little if anything on the work being done in regards to those issues and the progress being made or setbacks faced.   

                    • The Al1en

                      And it is these weaknesses that they require to correct to better perform, which will help grow their support and performance going forward.

                      Go on then, what are their self confessed weaknesses they need to correct to better perform and grow their support going forward?

                    • Jenny - How to get there?

                      yes

                      @The Chairman …
                      26 May 2019 at 3:

      • James 1.5.2

        speaking if bile – you seem to be full of it of late. 

         

        Perhaps you you should try fucking off yourself and come back when you are a little more cherry. 

        [Hi James, why don’t you try your own recipe? – Incognito]

        • Incognito 1.5.2.1

          See my Moderation note @ 12:57 PM.

        • James 1.5.2.2

          noted (and taken on board) – but please note that this is in reply to A poster who seems to have lernt a new term “fuck off” and is quite happy to tell people to do so should they dare to say something he/she didn’t like. 

          • Incognito 1.5.2.2.1

            I know, James, I’m reading the same comments as you are. Inflaming is not helpful, and you know this full well, so I shouldn’t have had to warn you.

      • Jenny - How to get there? 1.5.3

        Putting words in my mouth again Solkta?

        I never said that James Shaw was corrupt. I said,  (and I quote), "the Zero Carbon Act is a corrupt attempt to put off doing anything about climate change in the here and now."

        Possibly a bad choice of word, I could have said is a 'corrupted attempt'. It is corrupted by the very nature of the process.

        James Shaw is trying to solve a political problem, by bureaucratic means. A political problem cannot be solved with bureaucratic means. This just cannot work.

        The problem; National Party’s intransigence over climate change. This political problem cannot be solved by pandering to National. In my opinion National's intransigence over climate change must be confronted openly and publicly denounced and demolished, it’s called politics.

        History shows that a leader convinced of the rightness of their cause and with the confidence to get up and openly and courageously fight for it, can win over a majority from a minority position.

        It's called leadership.
        And it does not depend on the size of your majority (or lack of) in the house.

        In prewar England the wealthy class and their political representatives, the Conservative Party were riddled with fascist appeasers and fifth columnists and even open fascist sympathisers. Churchill who had been elected into the house as a sole 'independent' MP for his Constitutionalist Party, (You couldn't get a more minority position), did not try to make peace with these appeasers, from his seat in the back benches, he denounced them at every opportunity.

        The rest is history.

        Another example is over the debate over nuclear ship visits. The Labour Party from the opposition benches through the strength of their argument was able to win over the majority of parliament to support a minority private members bill to ban nuclear ships. Which two National MPs crossed the floor to support.

        Again, the rest is history.

        This is how political differences are fought out.

        In my opinion, in trying to seek common ground with the National Party, James Shaw has not just given up on politics, he has given up on leadership.

    • I watched the introduction of the Zero Carbon bill on Tuesday and observed the Children's strike later that same week.

      The kids have got it right – this catastrophe is beyond tinkering.

      But I've commented more fully on 'How to get there.'

      • Bewildered 1.6.1

        Problem is your “How you get there antidote”  is about as deep as a puddle on practicality and as a  workable solution Are you a secondary school student 

        • greywarshark 1.6.1.1

          Bewildered doesn't attempt a practical answer to anything because '"Everything may be done, but nothing should be done for the first time'.    Yes Minister.   e&oe

  2. Andre 2

    Randomised controlled trials – comparing one action to a different action – are the obvious and proven way to work out how to do things better. Yet somehow, when it comes to some fields, large numbers apparently believe it's immoral to conduct RCTs. WTF?

    https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/5/25/18637156/randomized-trials-immoral-study

    This makes me curious enough to want to do a small study on how The Standard community interprets data from studies.

    Imagine tribbles escape from the South England Spaceport, and their expanding population is nearing womble habitats. The Society for Womble Protection are concerned that wombles sharing their habitat with tribbles will adversely affect them, so they run a trial putting wombles and tribbles together sharing the same spaces.

    Wombles are well studied, there are 80 independent tests, measurements etc that are done to measure womble well-being. As is common, p<0.05 is adopted as the significance level for reporting a result suggesting adverse effects (less than 1/20 probability of the observed result happening by chance).

    The SWP study checked all 80 markers, and reported they observed the test wombles had more nugs on their nagunoids than normal, and elevated miasmia levels.

    These results were of concern to three other groups, who then repeated the study as closely as possible. None observed increased numbers of nugs or increased miasmia, but one group found depressed motivon levels, the second group observed increased hyperchitinism, the third group observed increased thyromia activity and decreased collaberism.

    So all up, four groups each studied studied the 80 possible indicators of decreased womble well-being, and there were 6 results suggesting adverse effects outside the normal range.

    I'm curious what first impressions The Standard participants get from these results, and what next steps readers think should be taken. Such as, OMG, six demonstrated risks, tribbles must be immediately contained then eradicated to protect wombles. Or, meh, the data looks all good for the wombles to me. Or, the four studies show conflicting results, we need to do more studies. Or, whatever else you come up with.

     

    • RedLogix 2.1

      My first instinctive reaction is that our old friend Bayes is lurking within this data somewhere, but I lacked a justifiable prior to make a case.

      Assuming that each of the four studies reported their adverse findings at a p<0.05 level, then the next obvious question is why did all four find significant adverse outcomes, but all found different ones? Clearly like many sociological results we're suffering from a bad lack of replicability here.

      On this basis I would conclude that our four studies suggest there something going on, after all none of them found no adverse effect, so they don't support the null hypothesis (ie no adverse effect at all) … but neither do they prove one. We're really no better off than if the studies had not been done at all.

      But because we have only one population of wombles, and apparently isolating one randomised, unbiased sample of them from trimbles is not possible … then the gold standard of RCT's looks impossible to implement.

      I'm curious to know if there is a way around this problem.

      • Andre 2.1.1

        I tried really hard to set it up so that if Bayes came sniffing around I could tell him to fuck right off, it's none of his business.

        As far as the randomised controlled trials part of it goes, imagine it has been previously established that wombles suffer no ill-effects from being confined to enclosures by themselves. And that it has been previously established that there are some other critters that wombles can co-exist with in enclosures without suffering ill-effects, while there's some other critters that do cause ill-effects when enclosed with wombles.

        • Robert Guyton 2.1.1.1

          I would be very suspicious of the findings that purport to show that wobbles,

          "suffer no ill-effects from being confined to enclosures by themselves."

          For which of God's creatures is that true?

          Models for considering should have real "players" as their subjects or you'll end up with findings that don't mirror reality.

          • Andre 2.1.1.1.1

            I'm getting the impression your base position is that natural systems are so complex that trials inherently oversimplify things and can therefore never produce reliable data. Is that close to being a fair interpretation of your view?

            • Robert Guyton 2.1.1.1.1.1

              In the case of mammals the size of wobbles, yes. If your scenario revolved around say, bacteria, then there's more chance of a valid result. Wombles are sentient beings, so they may conspire to mislead you; have you taken that into account smiley

              • Andre

                Thanks, that covers the question I had in mind at the start of this thread.

                But given your position as a councillor that may be called on to make some kind of call on whether to accept or reject something new and how to regulate it, I'm still curious about how you view the numbers. Imagine it was something simple and controlled enough you were comfortable that controlled trials produced useful valid results.

                Say, allowing autonomous delivery vehicles to replace posties and couriers.

                So of 80 factors examining previous areas where autonomous deliveries were allowed, the first study found increased unemployment, and more cats getting scared away from their homes (p<0.05). The subsequent three studies did not find increased unemployment or more cats going missing. One study found more complaints of residents' driveways getting blocked by the new autonomous vehicles than used to be blocked by human drivers, one study found more problems with junk mail littering the streets, one study found more complaints of misdelivered mail and more complaints of bored dogs barking because posties didn't stop and play with them anymore (ok, I'm reaching).

                Do you think these four studies show allowing autonomous delivery vehicles will cause increased problems? What next steps would you want to take?

                 

                • Sam

                  Really, really sorry for butting in but no way do we want to take humans totally out of the loop. Eisenhower when he coined the term Militray Industrial Complex was warning of the profit motive of war.

                  Ron Mark Minster of Defence dosnt want full autonomous war fighting. Could you imagine a war fought with all drones. War between drones dosnt have to stop. 

                  So these guys pushing drone technology are flooding the private sector and making up the worlds boardrooms and it's them pushing full autonomous networks for profit and well, we have to be conscious of the military applications at the same time.

                  At the same time Weaponising drones isn't something that's in New Zealand's control. We've got China and America vying for technological supremacy and apart of that will eventually spill over into robot wars. So there's this double wade sword again of progress and innovation or not being able to keep pace with innovation. 

                  Perhaps we we should be asking whether or not an autonomous network should be privately owned or publicly owned.

                  • One Two

                    Perhaps we we should be asking whether or not an autonomous network should be privately owned or publicly owned.

                    Actually the question is…

                    Will autonomous networks be controllable by human beings…

                    And the answer is already out there.

                    No. They won't be. That point, has been passed.

                    • Sam

                      It's not just ownership that would be an issue. Companies have personhood. So these robots wouldn't just have the same rights as humans they would have extra rights, for one they don't pay taxes. We can't eat robots so can't hunt them. They will be competing for the same resources and jobs as humans but we won't be able to attack them like an animal because they will have the same rights as a company would have. So no, I don't think auto networks should be privately owned. Whether or not it is a mature technology does not preclude a future government from regulating the industry. Laws lag notoriously far behind tech innovations anyway.

                    • One Two []

                      personhood.

                      Yes quite. And that is also relevant to the discussion…

                      Robots however are only one component of a discussion around automation

                      Private automation co-exists with public automation…

                      Public or private as a legal construct won't alter that human beings are not in control of present day automation…

                      And therefore…can't  be in control of future automation…

                      I get you were referencing <em>warfare…</em>

                      I'm referencing the entirity of automation…which includes human beings as a component of the processes…processes which are rendering our speicies…irrelevant.

                    • Sam

                      Yeah, we killed God when she gave birth to us and AI will kill us when we birth AI. My only hope is transcendencing by uploading my consciousness into a computer. It's the closest humans can possibly get to God like, all knowing and that.

                      We are just entering the 4th industrial revolution of AI. We don't even know what technologies are installed for humanity but if competition for resources can be controlled by making technology so cheap, technology doesn’t have to be free, just so cheap every one can participate.

                    • And the answer is already out there.

                      It is?  I haven't heard of an autonomous network that actually exists. Which one are you referring to, and what's the basis for your belief that it's no longer controllable by humans?

                    • …AI will kill us when we birth AI. My only hope is transcendencing by uploading my consciousness into a computer.

                      If the computers intend your death, it hardly seems likely they'd volunteer to host your consciousness.

                    • Sam

                      Well I understood what onesies said. To mean a technological paradigm shift. Arguably paradigm shifts are out of the control of humans. 

                      While this may be the inevitable long-term future of society, I see this as nothing but an extremely bad idea.

                      Then again, I have objections to anything even remotely like Pornhub meets Startrek holodedks the PG version (to hell with centralization), so I'm unfairly biased.

                • greywarshark

                  When considering the scientific approach to everything and putting rationality and practicality (apparent) as first and foremost in decision making, I recall the opinion of Aldous Huxley expressed to George Orwell on his book '1984', that the demand for efficiency will ruin our civilisation.

                  http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/03/1984-v-brave-new-world.html

                  Aldous Huxley –
                  …May I speak instead of the thing with which the book deals — the ultimate revolution? The first hints of a philosophy of the ultimate revolution — the revolution which lies beyond politics and economics, and which aims at total subversion of the individual's psychology and physiology…

                  My own belief is that the ruling oligarchy will find less arduous and wasteful ways of governing and of satisfying its lust for power…can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience. In other words, I feel that the nightmare of Nineteen Eighty-Four is destined to modulate into the nightmare of a world having more resemblance to that which I imagined in Brave New World.

                  The change will be brought about as a result of a felt need for increased efficiency. 

                  So while Random Controlled Trials and other scientific methods are useful in making decisions, the question remains as to which decisions, and who or what do they serve?  Is it 'good and cost-efficient government, respectful of the wellbeing of all people and thinking of all sentient and other living things of the earth – now realised as so important ie fungi in the soil?    Or is it serving some obsessive need of a group who have divorced themselves from everyday simple living which is all that is needed by human society?

                • Robert Guyton

                  "Do you think these four studies show allowing autonomous delivery vehicles will cause increased problems? "

                  Each of them shows an increased problem. None were supported by any other study. Overall, no valid statement about increased problems can be made based on those studies, imo.

                  What next steps would you want to take?"

                  Introduce the vehicles. Field complaints, compiling data until causation is established, adjust their use until a happy medium, agreed to by most, is reached. It's rough, but hey, why not take a puntsmiley

                  Actually, I'd want to debate the issue with my fellow councillors, hear from our expert staff , hear from the promoters/designers of the technology, invite comment from other councils using the vehicles, then petition the public for their views. 

                  How's that?

                  • Andre

                    Thanks. FWIW, it's at the better end of what I might hope for from an elected official.

                    I'm curious, is that response informed by any further education in formal statistics beyond what you had to do in high school, or is it the outcome of a lifetime of trying different things to see what happens?

                    • Robert Guyton

                      Well, as a councillor, I follow process when it comes to such decisions but as well I try to influence what gets considered in less formal forums involving councillors and staff. 

                  • greywarshark

                    Is this what they call empirical study, trying and seeing?

                    Dougal and Father Ted calmly cope with some aggrieved bomb planting.

                • Robert Guyton

                  Sorry about the distance of my response from your question.

        • RedLogix 2.1.1.2

          My first thought when faced with ambiguous data is to ask if Mr Bayes is at work here, but I'll take it as read that this isn't the case here.

          The core problem is the lack of replicability. All four studies found statistically significant adverse effects but not the same ones. Not even an overlap.

          The next place to look is given there are 80 possible adverse effects we could find, and our definition of 'statistical significant' is a 1/20 probability on each one … what is the probability that we will find at least some adverse effects just by random chance? 

          At the risk of embarrassing my rusty stats, my first wild arse guess that it could be 20/80 or 1 in 4. Or another way of putting it, any given study will find on average 4 different adverse effects purely by chance.

          • Andre 2.1.1.2.1

            Ok, since we're both engineers and our reasoning heads down similar paths, can I ask you to pause it here for a while to see what other people's reactions are, untainted by what we've got to say?

    • Robert Guyton 2.2

      "so they run a trial putting wombles and tribbles together sharing the same spaces."

      I need to know more about these trials; how closely do the conditions reflect the real-world situation; laboratory conditions need to be very carefully set and results looked at cautiously. Wombles in particular act quite differently when removed from the commons.

      • Andre 2.2.1

        See my response to RL at 2.1.1. In short, imagine it has already been established that results from putting wombles in enclosures produces valid results.

    • My initial reaction would be that, if different people are repeating the same study as closely as possible and each getting a different result, the study isn't telling us anything useful.  The method would need some pretty serious review at that point.

      • Robert Guyton 2.3.1

        I reckon the wombles are pulling Andre's chainsmiley

      • Andre 2.3.2

        Well, where I'm going with this is trying to show that a claimed statistically significant result is actually much less reliable than you might think from the claimed p value. For this example, I'm trying to show that six reported statistically significant results doesn't show there's likely problems, and in fact is more likely to show the opposite on further analysis.

        After all, even if the researchers act with perfect integrity using sound methods, publish all their results including all the negative and neutral results, if what's considered statistically significant is p<0.05, then 1 in 20 of all results are just plain wrong.

        But when you add in publication bias (negative and neutral results are boring so nobody tries to publish them), and the way it's so very tempting to indulge in data-dredging and p-hacking when you've got a massive pile of data, it's no wonder there's a replication crisis.

        • Psycho Milt 2.3.2.1

          Noting your question of Robert Guyton above, "is that response informed by any further education in formal statistics beyond what you had to do in high school," I can boast a C+ achieved in a remedial intro stats course aimed at first-year students who were going to need to understand stats but hadn't done well at it in school (at which point I decided the arts and humanities were going to be a more appropriate arena for my clearly limited talents).  So yes, definitely not qualified to be making confident assertions about anything involving statistics. 

          That said, the ordinary old arts and humanities have given me enough of an education to figure out that it's completely dishonest to comb academic journals for that one line or bad result that supports your irrational beliefs and trumpet the cherry-picked fruits of your search as compelling evidence that irrationalism rules – which I think is where you were also going with this.

          • Andre 2.3.2.1.1

            That question wasn't intended as an assertion of superiority accruing to those with paper quals; a bullshit detector developed from a lifetime of observation is often more useful in arriving at a sensible position when faced with unclear or even contradictory data. Then there's the problem of paper quals getting pressed into the service of baffling with bullshit, rather than trying to aid understanding.

            Looking at the responses, common themes are questioning the methodology of the studies, and raising potential external factors not considered by the studies. Here I'm trying to raise awareness that a lot of what are presented as meaningful results are in fact just cherry-picked instances of random noise that are going to happen even in well-designed honestly conducted studies.

             

            • Robert Guyton 2.3.2.1.1.1

              I knew it!

              smiley

            • Psycho Milt 2.3.2.1.1.2

              That question wasn't intended as an assertion of superiority accruing to those with paper quals…

              I certainly didn't take it that way, just as an opportunity to make clear that any comments I make on social science studies are definitely not based on my expertise in the field of statistics.

              These days I kind of wish I'd paid more attention back then because it would come in handy very often, given all the news stories about "new study shows X" that make my bullshit detector clang away but I don't have enough knowledge to go look at the actual study to see where the grift is.  

    • Editractor 2.4

      My first impression was why did you link to the pop vox article and not the original one?

      Original article: "morally problematic"

      Vox: "We even use A/B tests here at Vox. If I have two headlines I really love for a story, I can arrange for different viewers to see different ones — and then I can settle on the one that’s engaging more readers."

      Ta daaaa!

      Vox headline: "A shocking share of the public thinks randomized trials are immoral"

      As for the scenario you present, and being rubbish at stats, my first impression is that we may need to go back to basics and do some RCTs on Womble well-being measurements if four different groups can get very different results. An RCT based on suspect methodology is going to be suspect.

       

      • Andre 2.4.1

        Sorry I'm a bit slow addressing why I linked the Vox piece rather than the original study. The original study report is a bit dry and tl;dr-ish; the Vox piece is quite a lot more readable and links to the original report for anyone that wants. The Vox piece also usefully points to further implications and questions to ponder.

    • mpledger 2.5

      There are two important things straight off

      1) What were the size of the RCT?  Which gives the related question – what were the power of the hypothesis tests? 

      2) There needs to be context here.  What is the value of the wombles and tribbles?    Are wombles native so deserving greater protection? What are the possible unintended consequences?  Is the eco-balance between wombles and shelats destroyed as the sehlat population explodes because of the extra tribble food?

      • greywarshark 2.5.1

        Just to add extra factors.  What about a different type of thinking?  Are the automated vehicles needed?    Are they better from APOV than at present?   Is capital expenditure on them justified whether public or private – being that they will likely have to be imported?

        Is it justified for us to have a permissive society of the type that says that society has to definitely opt out if business or whoever,can just opt in?    Will Uber try and take over this initiative and muck it up for any former investors, start-ups?   

        Say compare the rules of the sex- controlled society to the society that is entirely permissive of new innovations of machines and technology?    Would it be better to swap so that we are controlling of this new innovative acceptance of machines, and more permissive of sexuality?   I think of the raunchy, rude meaning behind the Beatles song "Why don't we do it in the road"?   Sex in the road is regarded as bad because society says so, and it is impractical anyway.  But new technology on the road is accepted whether it has entirely practical uses without question, and of course it is now being forced on us on the footpath.

        These perspectives would never be considered by engineers.   And it indicates how slow we are to understand the great changes being forced on us. These will affect our human lives to becoming subservient to the machines that business corporates, a machine-like management system itself, forces on us.   And that we people embrace, because – new, because it is 'better', because they are ubiquitous – better lie down and let machines and machine-thinking roll over you.

        Douglas Adams looked at that inevitably approach – the  taking of personal assets and commons by authority – when he had Arthur Dent lie in front of roadmaking machines that were going to bulldoze his house so a Council-endorsed road go pass over the land.   And slyly, he introduced the method of substitution that is at the base of using derivatives in  financial transactions.   But that is another matter.

         

        (Share and enjoy says the automated teamaker.(

    • Andre 2.6

      Thank you to everybody that engaged with the actual topic. But I gotta say I'm disappointed that there are some commenters active today that are in the habit of opining definitively and loudly on topics where an understanding of data and statistics is crucial, who have chosen not to engage.

      Personally when I need to understand data sets, one of the first things I look for is the underlying natural background incidence of what I'm interested in. Together with some kind of expectation (cue Tommy Bayes asking why I told him to fuck off) of how genuinely significant results might be distinguished from random noise.

      In the specific case of examining 80 independent distributions of samples for comparison to controls or a baseline at p<0.05 considered significant, I would actually expect an average of 4 "false positive" results, or 16 "false positives" on average from running 4 lots of 80. The fact that none of the positives from any one of the trials were repeated in any of other trials suggests they are all false positives.

      That there were far fewer "positive" results than would be expected from purely random statistical considerations immediately raises the question of whether there is an effect going in the opposite direction to what was originally expected. Might the data actually show that cohabiting with tribbles actually improves wombles' well-being? That would be an immediate quick bit of number-crunching to run, and on the numbers I've used for this made-up scenario, I'd strongly expect that answer to be yes, it certainly appears cohabiting with tribbles is in fact beneficial to wombles.

      Then there's the question of doing some kind of meta-analysis, where you combine the results from different studies to try to firm up any conclusions. In this fictional scenario it should be easy, there were four trials, three of them attempting to replicate the first as closely as possible. With any luck, the trial conditions would turn out to be close enough that the data from the different trials could just be combined together to just make a much larger sample size. If that's not feasible, there's all kinds of statistical tests (a lot of them Bayesian) comparing the results of the different trials against each other.

      • Incognito 2.6.1

        Sorry, Andre, I got a little side-tracked elsewhere …

        A very interesting topic. At no stage did you mention effect-size!?

        As you are aware, P<0.05 has become somewhat of a curse, especially in biomedical science. For one, it says absolutely nothing about clinical relevance.

        • Andre 2.6.1.1

          TBH, I kinda figured you and some others likely to have significant statistics knowledge saw where I was likely trying to go with this and deliberately stayed out to let it run its course.

      • McFlock 2.6.2

        The only tweak on that would be if there were some underlying common cause in several of those observations – e.g. motivon, miasma, and nug incidence were all part of the womble's precosian system and might point to a assininus deficiency. Then it might be worth a closer look.

        But the main priority would be to 1080 the heck out of southern England to stop the invasive species outbreak.

      • RedLogix 2.6.3

        In the meantime I've had some fun digging around for the correct answer myself. yes

        Thanks for the thought provoking post.

        • Andre 2.6.3.1

          Phew, I wouldn't want to be boring.

          I get nervous about ideas like "the correct answer" when looking for statistical signals in noisy data. To me there's only stronger and weaker suggestions and probabilities and interpretations. All to be monitored on an ongoing basis and subject to revision on receipt of new data.

  3. spikeysgirl 3

    The US military has opened a twitter post to let sevicepeople express their positive service experience. Only most talk of depression, lost limbs and other serious health issues and los and lots of suicide. The overwhelming trend is heartbreaking loss and anger and violence…

    View at Medium.com

  4. Andre 4

    We in New Zealand are shamefully slow in electrifying transport. We could and should be matching China's example, where many cities have a 100% electric urban bus fleet. Rubbish trucks, concrete trucks, delivery vans, basically anything with a stop-start urban work cycle is an absolute natural for electrification.

    https://thinkprogress.org/electric-buses-outsell-diesel-china/

    When it comes to smaller electric vehicles, China is yet again waaay ahead of the rest of the world. Last time I saw a breakdown of the global EV market, more than half the EVs sold worldwide were in China.

    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/02/china-is-winning-the-electric-vehicle-race/

    https://cleantechnica.com/2019/02/24/china-electric-vehicle-sales-jump-175-up-to-4-8-of-auto-market-in-january/

     

    • RedLogix 4.1

      Those LTO cells I've been using have worked incredibly well. We've yet to get anywhere near their limits. 

      Interestingly their primary market is in fact the electric buses mentioned in your first link.

      • Andre 4.1.1

        I'd guess it's that tolerance of very high charging rates that make them attractive to bus applications.

        Which kinda makes me curious how really high power charging stations and their power connections work together – whether they just have a super grunty network connection and rely on the grid to absorb the massive rapid fluctuations in demand or whether the charging stations themselves incorporate batteries and/or supercapacitors to smooth their demand.

        • Sam 4.1.1.1

          Tesla new battery is really just another new design for a solid-state lithium battery that several different places have worked on. The solid state lithium battery is coming one way or another, at the moment we're just trying to figure out who has the best design for the industry to go with, and which one will be the easiest to transition to from lithium ion. Electric powertrain designs are coming to trucks and buses. Question is will people stop buying electric cars. 

    • WeTheBleeple 4.2

      I've been contemplating reforming a touring company… Electric vehicles, in NZ at least, are a bit naff. Unless I have 100k for a Tesla I can't get anything with decent range, not even to cover only the top half of the North Island. The recharge times are prohibitive for taking others on the road too, the fast charge stations…? It seems the cars here can't charge so well as the charging stations aren't very good? There was nothing to suggest I'd get < several hours to wait to recharge and extend range past 200 miles. 

      All in all it was a discouraging experience trying to build a green touring model. Trains etc are hopeless I have sound gear to cart around.

      Back in the day the government bought rolling stock for trains that could only go half as fast as the engines – making trucks look faster. Is the same trick of light being used on chargers to make EV's unattractive, or are they shit?

  5. Morrissey 5

    "I want to talk to you about Julian Assange….Judicial process though, yah?"

    Evan Davis smoothly transforms from nice-but-dim to ideological assassin at the 20:44 mark….

    • RedLogix 5.1

      Chomsky is very reliable; this was well worth the time to listen to it.  Thanks for this.

  6. joe90 7

    A bad penny always turns up.

    […]

    Nolan was arrested along with someone who was then reported as a minor. Court documents now reveal it was his then 17-year old wife, Kiyomi, who spent a lot of time in Discord. I wonder what her Discord name was.

    […]

    HOLY SHIT.

    The defense names BEN SHAPIRO as a motivation for Kiyomi's radical right wing views.

    I'm losing track of how many violent white supremacists @benshapiro has helped radicalize.

    https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1132210962889678848.html

     

    • Sam 7.1

      Joe90. Were you aware before posting that tweet and its content that Ben Shapiro is a practising Jew?

        • Sam 7.1.1.1

          There needs to be some acknowledgment that Jew + right wing does not equal rascist attacks on Jews.

          It's  classic woke victimhood that illustrates why it's so dangerous unopposed.

          • arkie 7.1.1.1.1

            Referring to the left-wing voting habits of "Bad Jews" is a-ok though?

            • Sam 7.1.1.1.1.1

              Thats just a stupid way to communicate. You and Joe90 are debating in bad faith, half truths and fallacious arguments to prove that Jew+RWNJ=Auschwitz.

              Its not just stupid calling normal people racist against there own people its villainous. All you are doing is claiming victim status so you can control people and I won't play that bullshit game. Villains use subterfuge and lie to control and I'm not trying to be like that.

              • arkie

                Who called Shapiro racist? You sound awfully defensive. Also how am I claiming to be a victim? I’m merely pointing out the type of things Shapiro says. It is the racists that say they’re inspired by him. You’re misrepresenting what’s being said with half-truths and imaginary “fallacious arguments”.

                All you are doing is claiming victim status so you can control people and I won’t play that bullshit game. Villains use subterfuge and lie to control and I’m not trying to be like that

                You’re not trying to express yourself clearly either.

                • Sam

                  Are you functionally illiterate? 

                  You are not only playing the victim, youre shit at communicating, you're blaming me for your stupid arguments and again, making out like I'm deficient.

                  So if you can please provide quotes that Shapiro is rascist against Jews.  

                  • arkie

                    Who claimed Shapiro is racist against Jews?

                    I don't have to "make out" your deficiencies.

                    • Sam

                      Joe90 has left you idiots holding a shit sandwich and you can't tast it. 

                    • arkie

                      You can't point out where anyone (other than you) has said this thread is about Shapiro being racist against Jews.

                    • Sam

                      I am convinced that you are a professional liar.

                    • arkie

                      And I'm convinced your invective is almost entirely projection

                    • Sam

                      Now see if you can follow the bouncy ball.

                      Joe90 produced this quote "The defense names BEN SHAPIRO as a motivation for Kiyomi's radical right wing views.

                      I'm losing track of how many violent white supremacists @benshapiro has helped radicalize."

                      To which I ask if Joe90 was aware Shapiro is Jewish. It's idiotic to imply that Shapiro is in anyway way involved in rascist attacks against Jews. And Joe90 just shat all over you and took off.

                       

                    • Robert Guyton

                      Arkie. I'm finding it difficult to believe that Sam is a sincere person. He expresses himself (herself/itself) in a manner that "sounds" more like an algorithm that a person's genuine views. The modus operandi Sam uses is to make a claim, then lace further replies with insults, cryptically delivered, in order to mask the insincerity of his position and making it impossible to hold him to account for his claims. It feels more like an experiment in creating a "debating programme" than a discussion with a flesh and bone human, in my opinion.

                    • Incognito []

                      I also wondered whether TS is sometimes being used as a ‘field trial’ for AI-bots. Lynn may have some insights on this.

                    • arkie

                      …Shapiro is Jewish. It’s idiotic to imply that Shapiro is in anyway way involved in rascist attacks against Jews

                      Who said (or implied) he was involved? You’re continuing to make shit up.

                      The wife of the perpetrator of the racist vandalism said they were radicalised by Shapiro.

                      You understand what radicalisation is, don’t you Sammy?

                    • Sam

                      Muh broz. Y'all need saving from your fathers. Let me be your father. I'll take care of you. Just kiss the ring finger.

              • Robert Guyton

                Sam said: "You and Joe90 are debating in bad faith".

                Yesterday, he claimed he debates with people with the objective of showing that their argument is "low IQ" and "dog-shit".

                Ya gotta wonder at that.

                • Sam

                  Appeals to the audience doesn't influence the strength of your argument or position. It just goes to show how insecure and weak your ideological reasoning is. We are discussing whether or not it's cool to claim Ben Shapiro is rascist against Jews, got anything to add? 

                  • arkie

                    Who claimed Ben Shapiro is racist against Jews Sammy?

                  • Robert Guyton

                    I'm noting your hypocrisy, Sam. If your claims about engaging in debate are inconsistent, your other arguments might well be also. 

                    • Sam

                      It's likely that your debating skills consists of avoiding the original point being made and slandering when you realise you're in the wrong.

                    • Robert Guyton

                      It's likely that my observations about your hypocrisy and inconsistency are accurate and you are employing your trademark caustic strategy in an attempt to dis-hearten your perceived adversary.

                    • Sam

                      I reserve the right to disrespect anyone who can not have a simple conversation. As I keep saying  my position is that Jew+RWNJ does not equal Aushwitz. What’s your position Rob?

                    • Robert Guyton

                      You may be debating the issue, " that Jew+RWNJ does not equal Aushwitz." but I am not. As I clearly expressed, I'm making comment on your incongruous claims around debating, a discussion that began on another thread, yesterday. This is Open Mike, where a range of topics can be addressed. You have declined to address my claims while at the same times lacing your responses with a variety of put-downs. Regarding your claimed " right to disrespect anyone who can not have a simple conversation.", I presume you are referring to me, and if that's the case, cannot agree that I am unable "to have a simple conversation", in fact, I'm confident that having simple conversations is something I regularly and successfully do. Your "conversations" as evidenced here on TS, are so convoluted, infolded and obscure and caustic that it seems to me you should disrespect yourself, based on your performance so far. Kindly meant and simple expressed of course.

                    • Sam

                      Yeah, I don't just reserve the right to call you a whingy little puss bag, I'll talk smack to any one who try's to act a fool. You, mods, anyone. 

                      Once I feel that my arguments are as strong as and people begin to take the bitch route around instead of taking on my arguments directly I'll just let fire. Sorry not sorry.

                    • Incognito []

                      Hi all, may I briefly butt in and ask to not resort to pointless personal attacks and insults?

                      Maybe it’s time to agree to disagree and walk away without the spray while you still can?

                    • Sam

                      appeal to authority is a logical falsay as well eh, incognito.

                    • Incognito []

                      If you can read, you can take heed.

                    • Robert Guyton

                      So where is your argument addressing my claim re your hypocrisy, as described in my first comment

                      "Sam said: "You and Joe90 are debating in bad faith".

                      Yesterday, he claimed he debates with people with the objective of showing that their argument is "low IQ" and "dog-shit"."?

                       
                      “I’m noting your hypocrisy, Sam. If your claims about engaging in debate are inconsistent, your other arguments might well be also. “

                    • Sam

                      TBH Iv got very little idea what you're on about talking about something I said a couple days ago.

                      Besides that if I do argue the flaws of IQ it would be that IQ tests are frequently used to test army recruits to see if they can gain a few extra meters than Vietnam vets.

                      On the other hand if I was to argue for IQ testing then I'd argue that testing is best used for high achieving Uni students rather than soilders. 

                      Still dosnt improve my impression of rob.  

                    • Robert Guyton

                      Unable to understand my simple conversation, Sam?

                      Let's see, there was a quote about that just recently…here it is:

                      Sam said:

                      26 May 2019 at 2:56 pm

                      "I reserve the right to disrespect anyone who can not have a simple conversation."

                       

                    • Sam

                      again, so what. All you've done is prove that you can quote me. 

                    • Robert Guyton

                      And that you're still to respond to my claim that your claim is hypocritical. So, worthwhile persisting, despite your determined avoidance strategy. At this point, I've lost interest and have more useful things to do, so, see you in the soup, or, in the likely case that  Incognito sends you to Coventry, see ya, Sam.

                    • Sam

                      Yeah. Now get lost.

      • Morrissey 7.1.2

        So is Alan Dershowitz. So is Binyamin Netanyahu. 

         

        What is your point, exactly?

        • Sam 7.1.2.1

          My point is you, Joe and arkie have a problem with Ben Shapiro because he is a conservative and you are biased against him and seek to unjustly smear him as a rascist.

          And my problem is you make me and the rest of the left look like fucken chumps.

          • arkie 7.1.2.1.1

            Israelis like to build. Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage. This is not a difficult issue. #settlementsrock

            -Ben Shapiro

            I reckon you do you stand up job of looking like a fucken chump without any assistance.

            • Sam 7.1.2.1.1.1

              Are you senile? My position is Shapiro isn't rascist towards Jews so can't be held responsible for attacks against Jews. What is your position?

              • arkie

                How convenient for Shapiro that you have absolved him of inspiring racists.

                It is my position that a self-identifying racist vandal says they were radicalised by Shapiro. That's less of a position, more a response to your defense of Shapiro based on his religious identity.

                • Sam

                  Its not convenient at all. In fact it's inconvenient that I am forced to defend Shapiro from a bunch of morons masquerading as lefties trying to smear Shapiro. 

                  • arkie

                    Where's the smear Sammy? No-one has made any claims about Shapiro's racism except you. The smear is in your head.

                    Does make me wonder who really is the "moron masquerading as a leftie"

                    • Sam

                      Yeah. You are acting like a fool that dosnt know you are in the wrong and I blame Joe99 for being low cunning 

                    • arkie

                      Yeah. I think you're a big-brain Alpha and a pretty cool guy. You can definitely read and doesn't afraid of anything.

              • Morrissey

                Shapiro is one of the filthier critics of liberal Jews. How can you say he is not racist against Jews? You are ignorant.

                • Sam

                  I couldn't prove that Shapiro is rascist towards Jews because I believe that Shapiro is a practitioner  of the faith. It's also covered in freedom of religion legislation so unless your can prove Shapiro has committed an act of violence or supported an act of violence then you're just a (insert what ever hurts your feelings the most here)

    • millsy 7.2

      Back in 2007-08 I watched an episode of Law and Order (the courtroom drama) that had a man who murdered a black girl defending himself by saying that the rants of a right wing shock jock whipped him into such a frenzy that he ended up killing her.

      Looks like life is imitating art.

    • One Two 7.3

      So as to be clear joe, because you seem to get yourself confused…

      Del Bigtree expressed open support for the persecution of jewish communities in NY…

      You called Bigtree, scum.

       

      Now, you are performing the exact same cut n paste routine, this time against Ben Shapiro…

       

      Simultaneously for and against those who express support for the jews…

       

      Which is it ?

      • joe90 7.3.1

        Bigtree wore a universal symbol of oppression, hate, and suffering, in an effort to portray himself and his halfwitted followers as victims. Fucking scum.

        • One Two 7.3.1.1

          I don't think you understood what was and still is going on , around that specific issue…do you?

          You should be able to explain what you reckon was, and still is going on there…and therefore you understand why you are absolutely wrong to call Bigtree, scum

          …but you don’t understand…do you?

          Which says you are using the jewish faith to peddle your own ignorance… and I’ll request that you either stop propagating such ignorant and warped views…or at least spend some time learning what is actually going on…before you USE the jewish communities once again…

          Because that is what you appear to be doing…using the jewish community …

          Are you jewish or direct descendant ?

          I'll get you started….fill in the blanks…

          Orthodox jewish communities in NY were and are being discriminated against through use of  [                 ]  and/or [          ] for adhering to their right to religion….

           

          Bigtree was illustrating his distain for those who are repeating the past by persecuting those same orthodox jewish communities…

          Over to you for your version of the events…

          • joe90 7.3.1.1.1

            Do take your relentlessly determined dishonesty and shove it.

             

            https://www.adl.org/blog/anti-vaccine-protesters-misappropriate-holocaust-era-symbol-to-promote-their-cause

            • One Two 7.3.1.1.1.1

              From someone who is part of those communities…

              You need to desist from using such material…because you are ignorantly propagating and endorsing further persecution in doing so…

              You are so very wrong, and you are extremely misinformed…

              That you then used the adl as some sort of protective cover for your repeated attacks on the jewish communities is  perverse…

              But you wouldn't understand why it is perverse…because you do not know what is actually going on there…

              And you need to stop.

               

              • joe90

                You've got yourself some of that special sauce discernment and insight, haven't you?

                • One Two

                  Nothing special about it, joe…

                  Leaving the inbuilt and ingrained prejudice aside, gives best opportunity to obtain objectivity…

                  Then it is simply a question of investing the necessary time to explore all available angles of a subject…not superficially…. as well as seek out the intersections where there is cross over into related topical pathways…

  7. mosa 8

    Assange Is Indicted for Exposing War Crimes While Trump Considers Pardons for War Criminals

    https://www.democracynow.org/2019/5/24/assange_is_indicted_for_exposing_war

  8. mosa 9

    Democratic Candidates Speak Out Against Trump’s Moves in the Middle East

    https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/05/democratic-candidates-trump-iran-saudi-arabia/

  9. Morrissey 10

    Victor Meldrew knew how to handle Tory voters

  10. Morrissey 11

    "There was pain on both sides." Noelle McCarthy displays her ignorance of New Zealand history

    RNZ National, Saturday 25 May 2019

    Anybody who cares about the terrible state of our public broadcasting service will be able to point to one or more really sickening or substandard performances by the people entrusted—and paid good money—to ask intelligent questions on our behalf. I have over more than a decade recorded dozens of disastrous performances, but here are three of the worst interviews that have polluted our airwaves in this century: an under-prepared Kim Hill foolishly reading out Pentagon talking points to, of all people, John Pilger in 2003 [1]; Noelle McCarthy in 2013 allowing a right wing ideologue to excuse the use of torture by U.S. troops [2]; a baffled Jesse Mulligan opining learnedly in 2016 that Russia is "L-L-L-L-LOOKIN' for trouble" [3].  

    Yesterday morning, we were treated to—actually, inflicted with—not just one, but two really terrible interviews. Both of them were carried out by one Noelle McCarthy

    After the 9 o'clock news, McCarthy's guest was historian Vincent O'Malley. This was well worth listening to when he was speaking; unfortunately, however, McCarthy felt compelled to interpose her own complacent, prejudiced and slanted views. Her comments, as usual, were callow, ill thought out and deeply reactionary, the sort of thing you'd expect from some drooling old Pakeha farmer ranting in the lounge bar in a south Taranaki pub. 

    "There was pain on both sides…. Can we learn from the way the Americans do it with their Civil War sites?…. politicization of history…. In Ireland the IRA glommed on to various commemorations."

    After the 11 o'clock news, she moved from complacent and ignorant to plain nasty. The topic, ominously for anyone who has heard her laughing about the plight of the Palestinians, was Gaza.

    End of Part 1 (of 2)

    [1] https://www.nzonscreen.com/title/face-to-face-with-kim-hill-john-pilger-2003
     

    [2] https://morrisseybreen.blogspot.com/2018/01/noelle-mccarthys-patsy-interview-with.html

    [3] https://morrisseybreen.blogspot.com/2018/01/more-evidence-of-jesse-mulligans.html

     

  11. Morrissey 12

    The good Noelle

    She can be really intelligent, and compassionate, as she shows in this interview with a reprobate.
    https://morrisseybreen.blogspot.com/2018/01/noelle-mccarthy-swallowed-vomit-for-15.html

    • Incognito 12.1

      Double comment? Takes up space so I might delete one.

      • Morrissey 12.1.1

        Sorry about that, Incognito. I've already deleted the second one, and replaced it with something to show that I do appreciate Ms McCarthy when she is on form.

  12. alwyn 13

    I wonder how many people bother to check the accuracy of the numbers they use in a debate before making claims that depend on the accuracy of their quotes?

    There was a brief letter in the "To the point" section in yesterday's Dom/Post. I can't locate it on-line but it was on page C6 for anyone who wants to see it. It was from someone named Carole who was complaining that teachers were not happy with their pay claim and then she made a claim that is simply in the realm of fantasy. The sentence read "What is even surer is that with the Prime Minister's salary more than tripling in the past few years, the Government will never be disappointed". I take this to be a claim that the Government has paid much larger pay increases to itself than they have offered the teachers.

    It seemed rather unlikely to me so I looked at the numbers. Exactly what she means by a "few" is not stated but I will allow it to be 9 years. It can't really be more than that can it?

    On today's date in 2010 the PM was paid $393,000. Today the PM is paid $471,049.

    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2009/0340/latest/DLM2508203.html#DLM2508203

    https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2019/04/where-jacinda-ardern-ranks-among-highest-paid-world-leaders.html

    And Carole seems to think that this increase, which is in fact 19.86% over what I would regard is somewhat more than a "few" years, is a 300% rise? How can she possibly come to that conclusion? It might be a very large pay packet but it hardly means that MPs cash in while Teachers miss out. does it?

  13. greywarshark 14

    Housing problems in an unfair and shrinking world.

    Pakistani slums – https://borgenproject.org/tag/slums/page/2/

  14. joe90 15

    Milkshake truthiness, false flags, and dodgy AF go fund me appeals for milkshake victims. More fuckwittery to come, I'm sure.

    https://www.truthorfiction.com/was-a-milkshake-thrown-at-an-elderly-brexit-party-volunteer/

  15. greywarshark 16

    I can see that Sam is being allowed to run free.   If the dog is not going to be put on a leash, and be sent to puppy school and so absent for a while, then I Postman Pat will not be delivering any more missives.    I apparently am not appreciated so will attend to important personal requirements.

  16. joe90 17

      Of course they're going to war. The armageddon-obsessed theocrats are determined to fulfill their end times fantasy.

    West Point, N.Y. — Vice President Mike Pence told the most diverse graduating class in the history of the U.S. Military Academy on Saturday that the world is "a dangerous place" and they should expect to see combat. "Some of you will join the fight against radical Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq," he said.

    Pence congratulated the West Point graduates on behalf of President Trump, and told them, "As you accept the mantle of leadership I promise you, your commander in chief will always have your back. Mr. Trump is the best friend the men and women of our armed forces will ever have."

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mike-pence-west-point-graduation-vice-president-says-they-should-expect-to-see-combat-today-2019-05-25/

    • Poission 17.1

      The week prior the French assembled for the  two soldiers killed in Burksina Faso.

      Very moving ceremony with the historical music Marche des soldats de Robert Bruce (which was played by Joan of Arcs scottish soldiers on entering Orleans)

       

  17. joe90 18

    Rape promoting PUA boards the tax exempt flock fleecing Yeshua train.

    However, even that branch of the PUA tree is wilting away. Many "self-help" style PUA forums like Nextasf and RSDnation are shutting down or have already shut down. In March, Chateau Heartiste, a batshit crazy PUA turned White Nationalist/Alt-Right blog was shut down by WordPress. This week, rape advocate Roosh V (whom you may recall once called yours truly a "Wonkette typist/clown face, would not bang") announced that he was renouncing his PUA ways and devoting himself to Jesus. He explained to the forum he manages that he would no longer be allowing anyone to discuss premarital "fornication."

        NEW RULES: Casual sex and hooking up can no longer be discussed on the forum
        Due to my recent turn to faith, my sense of morality is becoming based on the Bible. I've stopped a lot of behaviors that I've used to do and am in the process of making other changes. I've also realized that the majority of my published materials and online platforms lead men into sin or enable them to partake in sin. I no longer want this to occur, so I am implementing two new rules on the forum that are effective on June 1, 2019
    .

    https://www.wonkette.com/the-week-in-garbage-men-no-country-for-old-pick-up-artists

  18. joe90 19

    Forty years ago.

    • Kevin 19.1

      Thanks for that Joe.

      Stands the test of time and still scares the shit out of me today. All time great.

  19. Rosemary McDonald 20

    If this scheme is half of what it is cracked up to be then well done this government.

    This might even count as Good News.

    Bugger me.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/390605/150m-package-to-help-youth-transition-from-state-care

    Young people transitioning from state care to independence will no longer be cut off from Government support when they turn 18.

    "Teenagers leaving care should have the right to expect what any young person would want – knowing there is someone to turn to if they need help; a warm bed to sleep in; some help and encouragement when it is needed.

    "This service will provide that, both by allowing young people to stay longer with their caregivers and providing specialised transitions support workers whose job is to help this group."

    Oranga Tamariki has been tasked with building the service, which will employ 175 new specialist staff employed and make 60 supported accommodation facilities available by year four.

     

  20. sumsuch 21

    Trawling my way down here to the bottom of your comment section for 26 I find you footnoters/ idea investigators but nowt as sharp as an arrow point. I recognise youse but when I call I'm not in the mood for milling about. More my fault. 

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Swiss tax agreement tightens net
    Opportunities to dodge tax are shrinking with the completion of a new tax agreement with Switzerland, Revenue Minister Stuart Nash announced today. Mr Nash and the Swiss Ambassador David Vogelsanger have today signed documents to update the double tax agreement (DTA). The previous DTA was signed in 1980. “Double tax ...
    2 weeks ago