Open mike 27/03/2025

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, March 27th, 2025 - 93 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 …

93 comments on “Open mike 27/03/2025 ”

  1. Incognito 1

    Anne puts TINA to bed.

    https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/03/24/anne-salmond-the-emperors-clothes/#comment-335517

    If you don’t know what TINA stands for and its origins, then brush up here.

  2. Phillip ure 2

    (sigh..!)

    ..national/coc propose a reactionary/repressive…and most importantly..a deeply illogical/irrational ..roadside drug testing policy …

    ..and labour rush to vote for it..

    F.f.s…!

    • Incognito 2.1

      That’s a load of negative adjectives there. Why don’t you explain why you think these adjectives apply to the Coalition’s Bill that’s now becoming Act. Use as many ellipses as you need but don’t go dotty …

      • Phillip ure 2.1.1

        Ok..

        …cannabis stays in the system..so a previous days use will give a positive reaction..how to deal with that..?

        Those with legal weed will test positive . .so a cop over-rules a doctor..?..since when..? .how to deal with that..?

        Cocaine/meth:…the facts of those drugs mean they do not impair driving…they make the users more alert…and arguably improve their road safety..which is why long distance lorry drivers have traditionally used meth…to stop them from falling asleep at the wheel…

        But the real howler around this one…is all those people whacked off their tits on prescription meds..which most definitely do impair driving skills..

        And so many old people who gobble down their daily dose of multiple uppers/downers/leapers/screamers…

        …and then go hop in their cars…

        ..is that enough irrational/illogical to be getting on with.. ?

        And I would love to hear just why labour voted for this dog’s arse piece of legislation.

        • thinker 2.1.1.1

          Quoting Andy Huggins on YouTube…

          "The cop came over and handed me the bag with the tube on it. My troubles really started when I inhaled, then passed the bag over to the cop. YOLO"

    • gsays 2.2

      Doesn't test impairment.

      How would that be able to be done? I know of folks that can consume quantities of electric puha that would stupify The Wailers, but can still function adequately.

      None of this excuses impaired driving, obviously roads are part of the commons and respect for other road users is paramount.

      That doesn't entitled the state to dispossess a citizen of their property and liberty because a 'spit test' picks up presence of cannabinoids in the system.

      As to Labour, centrists gotta centrist.

      • weka 2.2.1

        I know people who smoke a lot (or even a little) and believe they're not impaired. That's a feature of cannabis culture.

        Have a read of the rules, they kind of make sense. I don't have an opinion on the usefulness of the legislation, still waiting for some good analysis of the actual Bill.

    • Kay 2.3

      I'm of 2 minds about this legislation.

      https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/556311/concerns-new-drug-driving-testing-could-detect-medication

      People who are going to drive drugged (the illegal drugged) are going to drive, the same way some drunk people are going to drive, and laws don't make any difference to them.

      But with regards to medical prescriptions-

      https://www.nzta.govt.nz/safety/driving-safely/medication/#:~:text=Check%20to%20see%20if%20you,feeling%20drowsy%20or%20sleepy

      It's a self-assessment to decide if you're ok to drive or now, and a lot of people can't recognise it, and are also in denial about their limitations. I certainly know that the type of medication I take could affect me driving (moot point because I'm permanently banned anyway). Muscle weakness, slow reaction times for starters. The symptoms they ask you to check aren't always recognisable, so driving seems quite reasonable.

      There's a lot of people out there on the roads who are technically impaired by prescription meds and by rights shouldn't be behind the wheel. They are also the types of meds that are unlikely to show up in drug testing, so what do we do?

      • weka 2.3.1

        People who are going to drive drugged (the illegal drugged) are going to drive, the same way some drunk people are going to drive, and laws don't make any difference to them.

        Lots of social cannabis users drive who now might think twice about it if there are consequences, especially if there are random police stops. It's about lowering overall risk of accidents.

        • Kay 2.3.1.1

          Of course, and I think we can all agree that can only be a good thing. It doesn't help the problem of impairment by prescribed medication.

          https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/safety/Alerts/driving-impairment.asp

          If a qualifying drug is identified, a medical defence is available for the use of prescription medicines for drug driving offences:

          • if the driver can demonstrate that they took the medicine according to a current and valid prescription from health practitioner, and
          • they have followed any instructions from a health practitioner or manufacturer of the medicine.

          Except a lot of people don't read the caution with driving warning that appears on the patient info leaflets, and too many doctors don't even mention it. In my opinion, people who drive medication-impaired, whether or not they crash, deserve some sort of punishment. I acknowledge my driving ban influences my views on this, people have just got to learn that driving is a privelige, not some god-given right.

        • Phillip ure 2.3.1.2

          I think it is more a case of labour giving a textbook example of the incrementalism that has so blighted them…for so long ..

          Being seen to be doing something about something…but not really achieving much at all..

          That..and hipkins ongoing lifting of his skirt/flirting with national…around the idea of a grand coalition between the two…

          • Phillip ure 2.3.1.2.1

            And this legislation is reason number 53 why users should get themselves a script for legal weed ..

            ..and the standard reply to police should be: 'i will test positive..because I used some of my prescribed medicine yesterday'…

            • joe90 2.3.1.2.1.1

              'i will test positive..because I used some of my prescribed medicine yesterday'…

              Yup, that'll work…

              /

              The legislation gives police powers to undertake random roadside saliva tests, similar to drink-driving enforcement.

              Drivers who return a positive result will have their saliva sample sent for further laboratory testing. If that subsequent test finds qualifying drugs and an indication of recent use, the drivers would be issued a fine and demerit points.

              Two positive roadside tests would be required before a driver is prohibited from driving for 12 hours.

              Under changes made at the committee stage, drivers will be able to challenge the result once an infringement notice has been issued following a positive test, by paying a private analyst to test the oral fluid sample.

              https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/547547/drug-driving-testing-legislation-passes-despite-concerns

              • Barfly

                I haven't driven anything since 2010 and frankly that's just as well. Tiredness I found was so damn dangerous – maybe someday they will find an easy way to measure fatigue. Never tried and have no interest in trying meth. I will concede weed affects reaction times but i used to find with the enjoyment of the action of driving the focus on performing the task and absence of aggression to be positives. With alcohol, as well as the physical impairment, the aggression increase and the attacks of leadfoot driving were absolutely the most dangerous.

              • weka

                so long as you have an actual prescription and receipt for purchase.

                • joe90

                  so long as you have an actual prescription and receipt for purchase.

                  And then what, dive on, sir? I don't think so because afaik, the law hasn't changed and returning a positive test will be sanctioned despite any actual prescription and receipt for purchase.

                  • weka

                    dunno, I haven't read the Bill. Have you?

                    • joe90

                      I have and cannabis, actual prescription and receipt for purchase or not, is a qualifying drug.

                      11A Persons not to drive or attempt to drive while blood contains evidence of, or oral fluid indicates, use of qualifying drug

                      (1)

                      A person may not drive or attempt to drive a motor vehicle while—

                      (a)

                      the person’s blood contains evidence of use of a qualifying drug (see sections 57A(1) and (2), 57B(1) and (2), and 57C(1) and (2)); or

                      (b)

                      the person’s oral fluid indicates use of a qualifying drug (see sections 57A(3), 57B(3), and 57C(3) and (4)).

                      (2)

                      A person’s blood contains evidence of use of a qualifying drug if—

                      (a)

                      the blood concentration level of a listed qualifying drug exceeds the tolerance level for the drug; or

                      (b)

                      the blood contains any level of an unlisted qualifying drug.

                      (3)

                      For the purposes of subsection (1)(b), a person’s oral fluid indicates use of a qualifying drug if the results of a first oral fluid test and a second oral fluid test subsequently undergone by the person are positive and indicate the use of the same qualifying drug.

                      https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2022/0005/latest/whole.html

                    • weka []

                      oh good, maybe you can clarify. Does the infringement kick in for any presence of any of the said drugs, or does it have to be a certain level?

                • Phillip ure

                  @ weka..

                  I carry a prescription container in my glove box…at all times..

                  And I urge others to do the same…

                  • joe90

                    It's not going to get you off the hook should you return a positive roadside test.

                    • Phillip ure

                      But it will be the basis to fight it…

                      .. I'm up for that…

                      ..and I would factor in an anecdote told me by a prescribing doctor…

                      One of his patients at one love..smoking a large spliff..

                      ..three cops walking towards him…

                      ..one cop asks him if he has a prescription for that..

                      ..he nods ..and the cops didn't even break stride..

                      ..unsure how that factors into all this…

                    • Joe90

                      But it will be the basis to fight it…

                      Basis to fight what, driving under the influence of a qualifying drug?

                      Good luck with that….

                  • weka

                    a prescription for cannabis? Are you getting high from that?

                    • Phillip ure

                      Nah..!

                      Just proof of my legal use…

                      ..but I felt ' high' when I got my first script…

                      ..a definite/literal feeling ..

                      ..induced by casting off the shackles of prohibition …

                      ..it felt quite liberating..

                      ..(yet another reason for users to go legal..)

      • SPC 2.3.2

        My first response is, do they have they science based research to indicate a sufficiency to prove to the level of driving impairment?

        1.alcohol

        2.THC

        3.amphetamines of various types

        MDMA is prescribed for PTSD, others a form of amphetamine for ADHD. If the level of drug presence is not to the level of impairment, it should pass the test.

        An irony is that some who use meth now, to remain alert, will be less safe, if tired. Tired truckers and speed are both dangerous.

        Some effort to not victimise people, and not make things worse is part of legislative work.

        It's nice that we have a new tech device, but …

        • weka 2.3.2.1

          as far as I can tell it's not a test for impairment, it's a test for recent use,

          The legislation gives police powers to undertake random roadside saliva tests, similar to drink-driving enforcement.

          Drivers who return a positive result will have their saliva sample sent for further laboratory testing. If that subsequent test finds qualifying drugs and an indication of recent use, the drivers would be issued a fine and demerit points.

          Two positive roadside tests would be required before a driver is prohibited from driving for 12 hours.

          Under changes made at the committee stage, drivers will be able to challenge the result once an infringement notice has been issued following a positive test, by paying a private analyst to test the oral fluid sample.

          https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/547547/drug-driving-testing-legislation-passes-despite-concerns

          • SPC 2.3.2.1.1

            There is an impairment level for alcohol, why not for others?

            It's poor legislation on this ground alone.

            Thus those with PTSD and ADHD are going to be messed around with. They do not need this.

            If there is not an impairment level standard, it is just a means to identify and punish drug users under "road safety".

            It reminds one of tests to block those who smoked at the weekend from working. Now from roads on following days.

            This is not road safety legislation, it is a fraud.

            The article indicates sufficient reason – harm to so many New Zealanders who would be driving safely – to question the credibility of all those who voted for it.

            • weka 2.3.2.1.1.1

              There is an impairment level for alcohol, why not for others?

              It's poor legislation on this ground alone.

              Because blood alcohol is an easy measurement that correlates closely with impairment. This is not true of other drugs afaik. So the legislation can't be condemned because other drugs aren't the same as alcohol.

              • Phillip ure

                @ weka..

                But it can be 'condemned' for all the other flaws highlighted in this thread .

                ..surely…?

                • weka

                  you'd have to be more specific.

                  • Phillip ure

                    Comment 2.1.1..

                    Plus what kay…and others have highlighted..

                    • weka

                      from 2.1.1.

                      …cannabis stays in the system..so a previous days use will give a positive reaction..how to deal with that..?

                      Is the law going to catch any use, or just above a certain level?

                    • Joe90

                      Is the law going to catch any use, or just above a certain level?

                      Muck like workplace testing, to an upper limit to account for passive/casual contact.

            • weka 2.3.2.1.1.2

              if your argument is that evidence of recent use isn't sufficient reason to stop someone driving, then I would agree depending on how recent the test is meant to capture. Someone who smoked cannabis yesterday isn't still going to be stoned. So we lack information in this thread.

              • Phillip ure

                What 'information' is lacking..?

                People will test positive for cannabis up to 72 hrs after consumption…

                How in anyone's name is that either logical..or rational…?

          • SPC 2.3.2.1.2

            Pithy version

            It will do more harm than good and is in breach of civil liberties.

            I welcome our Supreme Court indicating its contempt.

  3. Sanctuary 3

    This, just this.

    Ash Sarker's analysis goes a long way to explaining the staggering difference in social attitudes between young men and young women.

    But it got me thinking – if Labour or the Greens really wanted to reconnect with young men, they'd run an ad series on SM where a guy has an emotional journey from living this kind of life to discovering socially useful work, and turns down a lonely night of working at some flash restaurant to go help out with his local scouts group or whatever.

    • gsays 3.1

      Haven't watched the link but I will later.

      One thing, from yr comment resonates. Males, generally enjoy, acknowledge and are drawn to the idea of something bigger than themselves.

      Be that sports teams/ groups, scouting, church etc. All things that have lost value in today's society.

    • AB 3.2

      Sarkar is often pithily on the mark. Though I'm not sure her observation is a new one. I remember from long ago the observation (from someone I've forgotten) that young women are validated simply by who they are, while young men are validated only by what they do. Young women can 'be', young men must 'become'. That may be an age-old dynamic, but in the modern world everything and anything can and must be monetised, with corrupting effects. The idea that 'becoming' can be achieved through something other than self-obsession and personal gain – through socially useful work for example – is something to hang on to and promote.

      • Karolyn_IS 3.2.1

        It seems to be true of young men focusing on what they want to become, but it's also true of many young women. Social pressure from media, social media, fashion industry, etc is strongly focused on how young women present visually: thin, young-looking, conventionally feminine rather than being assertive, and/or more butch looking, etc: ie to be looked at rather than to be appreciated for what they are, to be appropriately submissive on many occasions, and on limited ways on what they do: ie should care for others and be less into striving for their own development and success in society.

        Social pressure does put more stress on the things men do, giving an idea of what young men are to strive for in terms of individual social, political and employment success.

  4. Tiger Mountain 4

    Was the US Houthi Strike chat group using Signal a bungle or intended? Paul Buchanan at Kiwipolitico poses some interesting points…

    https://www.kiwipolitico.com/2025/03/signalling-deliberate-reckless-disregard/

    to quote his para #5
    “5) There are reports that Signal was used to avoid Freedom of Information ACT (FOI) and Official Records Act (ORA) scrutiny. This was recommended by Project 2025 to eliminate information data that might be considered prejudicial or controversial if made public under the FOI or as part of ORA obligations (since apps like Signal permanently delete conversations once they are closed, so no records of them are kept). Deliberately trying to circumvent the ORA is illegal. Think of the historical precedent: Nixon’s Watergate tapes;”

    • Phillip ure 4.1

      Thanks for that…

      Lefties should have a copy of project 2025…

      ..as a reference/explainer asset…

    • SPC 4.2

      White House comms focus on, the invitation to the journalist onto the chat, appears to be the diversion to distract people from noticing.

  5. Obtrectator 5

    It's started already. At this rate they can write off the mid-terms as a means of reining in the Trump gang.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-signs-executive-order-requiring-proof-of-citizenship-in-federal-elections/ar-AA1BEvLK

    • SPC 5.1

      It's birth certificates or passports for ID. Otherwise birth certificates and drivers licenses (state photo ID if they have no drivers license). Or birth certificates, marriage certificate (change of name) and drivers licenses.

      A passport does it all in one, but most Americans do not have one.

      It’s bureaucratic obstructionism.

      I'd be more worried about mail in voting restraint* (subsequent reduction in options for early voting in targeted areas and also fewer voting booths on the day will follow).

      Taking over US Post and mail in votes having to be received by election day*.

      That many Americans have to vote on a day they are required to work is the kicker here.

    • Stephen D 5.2

      Remember, during one election speech, Trump promised the audience, vote for me this time, and you’ll never have to vote again.

      • Phillip ure 5.2.1

        Yep..!

        The coup will be going down before the mid-terms…

        Hence the urgency with which trump is filling all areas of gummint/military with his supporters..

        He already has the supreme court stacked with those who support him…

        So…a bit of civil unrest…a state of emergency declared by trump…then military rule/elections suspended…

        That’s how ya do it…

        • Stan 5.2.1.1

          That is exactly the way I see it happening. Get the (non-MAGA) population angry, to the point of physical violence, and voila martial law.

          I predict mid-2026.

    • tWig 5.3

      Also add ex-prisoners, who have a labrynthine process to re-register, and who have been incorrectly prosecuted for alleged voter fraud.

      With the disproportionately high incarceration rate for african-americans, this is another example of systemic racism via disenfranchisment.

      • Belladonna 5.3.1

        Realistically, most of the people being described as 'disenfranchised' don't actually vote.
        And, the argument about it preventing criminals from voting, is unlikely to be seen as a problem by the vast majority of the population (a crim is a crim, even when they're released from jail.)

        It may go down well with the left-wing intelligensia – but they're already in agreement with you. It will leave the right wing and centre, entirely unmoved.

        The majority of the US voting population (as in the people currently registered to vote, and who regularly do vote) – don't see a problem with turning up with ID. They might grumble a little about the 'bureaucracy' – but it's not even a significant inconvenience for them. Especially if its presented as a patriotic duty to prevent criminal non-citizens voting [Yes, yes I know, the numbers who've actually done so are minuscule, but it's the message which is being sold]

        You might have greater success by attacking the law on patriotic grounds. 'No government can tell me that I have to have a stinkin' piece of paper to vote in this man's America'

        But, even if they won on this issue, would the Democrats actually be better off at the polls? I seriously doubt it. And they'll have used up a lot of political capital to get there.

        It's a political distraction.

        • SPC 5.3.1.1

          That

          1.democrats can only win the House with a majority of the popular vote is down to gerrymandering.

          2.exploiting the movement of those who rent (within areas) to remove people from rolls has more impact on those registered as democrats

          3.limiting booths in some areas with more registered democrats

          4.limiting early voting

          5.obstructing mail in voting

          6.requiring people to vote on a working day

          it is not to distract democrats, but to let them know that the GOP prefer a system that is deliberately unfair to their opponents.

          Like blocking an Obama nomination to SCOTUS for a year.

          • Belladonna 5.3.1.1.1

            None of that is changed by this new legislation.

            And, clearly, it wasn't sufficiently important to the Dems when they were in government during the last several administrations, to fix. So it can't be a major concern for them.

            • SPC 5.3.1.1.1.1

              The executive order includes restrictive rules for mail in voting.

              Democrats at federal level cannot change state practice, without GOP buy in.

              • Belladonna

                Democrats at federal level cannot change state practice, without GOP buy in.

                I don't see what your argument is. Are you complaining that some states have Republican leadership, and therefore wouldn't (in the future) follow a Democratic federal lead?

                Surely the same would hold true for the current situation, where Democratic states can choose not to follow a Republican federal lead.

                Or is it that it's only Trump who has thought to issue executive orders?

                Of course, now the principle has been established, future Democrat Presidents can follow suit.

                It seems incredibly unlikely that dropping the mail in option, is going to significantly change the voting balance.

                Taking California, for example, a heavy mail-voting state. Over half the registered voters are Democrats, while only 25% (and dropping) are Republicans. It would require heroic levels of voter disenfranchisement to change the Senate/Congress results at mid-terms or full elections.

                • SPC

                  The idea of a POTUS trying to advantage their party keeping control of the House at the half-term in this way, is unique.

                  It is a bit like the McConnell blocking the POTUS 44 nomination of Garland to SCOTUS in 2016.

                  An original corruption.

                  Other can follow it and make it bi-partisan, is that your view?

                  • Belladonna

                    I don't see any serious attempt to leverage the vote.

                    1. The vast majority of the people that *may* be disenfranchised, currently don't vote.

                    2. The States like California, which have large percentages of mail-in votes – are not swing States. Even the most pessimistic view of the outcome of this legislation, doesn't envisage that it will turn California Red!

                    3. If it turns out that 'ordinary' US voters (many of whom are Republicans) are unable to vote (which seems highly unlikely ATM) – the Republican Party would be taking swift action to protect their voting base.

                    It's a storm in a teacup.

                    While I don't think that the changes are necessary (I don't think there has been significant vote fraud in the US for decades) – the changes are relatively harmless to actual voters. And the more frothing outrage that the Democrats engage in over criminals not being able to vote, the more centrists they alienate; and the more bandwidth they consume with issues which don't matter to swing voters.

                    This is not a losing strategy for Trump.

                    Focusing on the economic impacts of things like his tariffs – is a much more effective strategy for the Democrats.

                    And, yes, I think that the door to executive authority that Trump has opened, won't be easily closed. It will be used by Democrats in the future.

  6. Dennis Frank 6

    Bomber rightly criticises the local Zionist org: https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2025/03/27/the-israel-institute-of-nz-and-their-definition-of-anti-semitism-must-be-challenged/

    The Israel Institute of NZ is lying about the true casualty rate and then pretending your concern for the appalling violence the IDF are using makes you an antisemite so you are frightened to speak up.

    Caring folk get to be made fearful by means of a trendy label, so they will end up too scared to adopt an sjw stance in public life. Tedium threatens, you may respond; the syndrome they use as propaganda tool has been effective for years (it destroyed Corbyn).

    I think both left and right politicians are too scared to tell the truth about Israelis & Palestinians both being mostly semitic. Pretending that the commonality doesn't exist keeps everyone safe from reality. Trump used `alternative facts' to invoke this collective imaginal realm but partisan grouping in such mental clouds usually accomplishes little other than solidarity in your favourite part. Common ground works better for progress.

    • SPC 6.1

      The government chose Rainbow as head Commissioner overseeing the HRA, despite or because of his epic rant about McCully over the UNSC Resolution in Dec 2016.

      By the way the other person critical of it was Winston Peters, but on the grounds of not having been formally decided at a Cabinet n meeting.

    • Bearded Git 6.2

      The Greens have called it genocide….. don't they count Dennis?

      • Dennis Frank 6.2.1

        Have they informed the media that its one bunch of semites doing genocide on another bunch of semites? I expect not! It would help folks to reframe on all these spurious claims of one side being antisemitic if they did so. Semites claiming other semites are antisemitic would reduce such behaviour to a farce in the public mind.

        Then we could all move on, because the Israelis would pick up on the ebb tide of sympathy and figure that they'd better get real to earn respect. They've been riding on that holocaust victim thing for too long already.

  7. Dennis Frank 7

    A Venezuelan gang invaded the USA, and now leftists have combined with judges to stop Trump ejecting them: https://www.pahomepage.com/hill-politics/appeals-court-wont-lift-boasbergs-order-blocking-alien-enemies-act/

    A federal appeals court in a 2-1 decision Wednesday refused to lift U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s order blocking the Trump administration from swiftly deporting migrants under the Alien Enemies Act.

    The Alien Enemies Act can only be invoked amid a declared war or an “invasion” by a foreign nation. The law has been leveraged just three previous times, all during wars, but Trump contends he can use it because the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua is effectively invading the US.

    Seems like he didn't call them Maduro agents – a missed pr opportunity. If it goes to the Supreme Court next, I expect the SC will focus on the war thing. Has Trump actually declared war on illegal immigrants? If not, no such war exists. The US govt's war on drugs is analogous: a bipartisan success story now in its 56th year of operation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs

    Skye Perryman, the president of Democracy Forward, a left-leaning organization representing the plaintiffs alongside the ACLU, called Wednesday’s ruling an “important step.” “President Trump is bound by the laws of this nation, and those laws do not permit him to use wartime powers when the United States is not at war and has not been invaded…"

    So the SC would have to decide to support the leftist view that the gang invasion was imaginary or the rightist view that it was real.

  8. tWig 8

    For the circuses section, the Guardian interviews Marlon Williams on his new album in Te Reo Māori. There's a doco due in May on its production, too. Love Marlin's voice, and song writing.

    If you don't know who he is, try his duet with Aldous Harding, in the video list here, where they sing about their breakup.

    • Dennis Frank 9.1

      I can report that my middle-aged daughter & Italian husband (they live in Rome) both switched from averse sceptic to enthusiastic user in recent months. The tool gave them impressive career-facilitating advice (they have different careers) that in each case was specific to their (separate) situations.

      She told me you just log onto their website and use it for free, said I ought to check it out. I admit to coasting into the slow lane when I retired a decade ago but I've been reading multiple books continuously since the late '80s so I'll likely encompass the gizmo sometime soon…

      • Phillip ure 9.1.1

        I am currently working on a daily news bulletin concept…curated by me…assisted by AI…

        • Dennis Frank 9.1.1.1

          As someone who spent a decade making news stories for TVNZ long ago, I have an interest in your operational design. In principle, I reckon leftist entrepreneurs are a sub-species deserving of help due to being so rare. I admit my approval would depend on the interface style & media content selection but I suspect you'll go for younger folk than me so that's irrelevant eh?

          • Phillip ure 9.1.1.1.1

            I will be aiming at all ages… intelligence being the only criteria heh .!

            ..and basically doing an upgrade on what I did for quite awhile @ whoar co.nz…

            A curation of the local/international news of the day..

            ..but also much much more..involving entertainment/music etc etc…

            I see the presenter being voiced by me…but the imagery being the depiction of me when young ..done for me by Chris Knox…bless him..!

            I am seeking software that will enable me to sit to present…but the imagery will be that cartoon…a talking cartoon…. synched to what I am saying..and an image that can live on…(Hat tip to max headroom..)

            1. ..it will be a lean/mean operation…and will be configured as a not for profit..

            ..and will also operate as an open door training option..

            I think the concept will work well on the various options available..and a large viewership will earn a lot of money…but as significantly will be a voice presenting that essential viewpoint ..

            I repeat…this will be a not for profit..I am not doing this for personal wealth..

            ..I want something that has the best chance of carrying on after me..

            ..and it will be configured that the board can toss me out should they choose..

            ..I expect to earn my role ..on an ongoing basis ..

            That's the bare bones of where I am at the moment..

            Hope that clarifies what I intend..

            • Dennis Frank 9.1.1.1.1.1

              Hey that all seems excellent as a vision outline & operational scenario. yes

              Max Headroom was always well-conceived, well-written and presented too. Chris Knox became a close friend of my 2nd wife after Toy Love played a gig at our night-club (The Squeeze) in summer/autumn 1980.

              We watched him do the thing with the broken beer bottle jagged edge down his fore-arm till the blood ran out in various dribbles during a song but I wasn't a fan (older generation chasm). However she's told me enough about him since (they both lived near each other in Grey Lynn for years) that I know he could be a suitable role model for quirky style…

              Nothing wrong with a media op making a profit btw, since the common interest lies in how it gets shared around, and I like your prioritising of continuance as part of the design. Inter-generational sharing is what folks need to develop more nowadays, but it ain't easy.

              • Phillip ure

                Chrs…!

                Heh ..!.. it's developed further over the course of the evening,…

                It's a wonderful thing…the mind…the mind's eye…

  9. SPC 10

    Calls for some commission to investigate fluoride.

    He said the last commission of inquiry into fluoridation was in 1957.

    Councillors voted unanimously to support his request for elected members to consult with the chief executive to write to the Prime Minister requesting an inquiry into the safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of fluoridation in New Zealand.

    No new information would result, just an examination of information from abroad.

    The issue of because of a new policy to have it in water supply nationwide.

    Europe's use is voluntary. Fluoride is naturally present at low levels in most drinking water in England and Wales. Germany for example

    AI

    the German Ministry of Health strongly encourages the use of fluoridated salt, toothpaste, fluoride tablets, and washes for children and adolescents

    Most nations that provide it with drinking water reduced it towards the level to those with the lowest ones historically (Ireland and Singapore) – 0.5.

    The USA is currently at 0.7 (not compulsory 60-70% coverage).

    Our rate is still the historic one, at 0.7 to 1.0, which is high, we should have gone to 0.5-0.7 when making it nationwide.

    https://www.1news.co.nz/2025/03/26/rotorua-water-to-be-fluoridated-by-friday-deadline/

    National will do nothing and let NZF campaign on freedom of councils to decide, to remain in parliament.

    A referenda

    a in all water, or not.

    b in all water at the current rate or 0.5-0.7 or 0.5

    c in water as councils decide.

Leave a Comment